|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Does religion require self-delusion?
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by humblebumski:
quote:
Originally posted by Glaz:
...and I have faith that God revealed himself in Jesus Christ, historically in the Middle East and universally in creation and wants human beings to celebrate the spirit we gain from seeing God as just and indwelling in the world.
Yes, Glaz, but you're deluding yourself by saying this (as you just established).
Well I said "pretty much everything we know is counterfeit". There's not much we can really rely on and if we can, it's to an extent. I guess I'm saying we HAVE to be deluded to believe there is actually one, uniform answer to this all. Which is why faith is so important.
Of course, people place their different faith in different things. These can be worse or better pragmatically for the world and people.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glaz:
Of course, people place their different faith in different things. These can be worse or better pragmatically for the world and people.
Yes indeed.
But cutting to the chase, Glaz, are you happy enough to admit that the statement:
quote:
...and I have faith that God revealed himself in Jesus Christ, historically in the Middle East and universally in creation and wants human beings to celebrate the spirit we gain from seeing God as just and indwelling in the world.
is self-delusional?
(with the afore-mentioned proviso that belief in this delusion may or may not have some pragmatic benefits)
[ 08. March 2004, 17:42: Message edited by: humblebumski ]
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Yes, of course, in a sense it is. Because I wasn't there and I want the historical facts to fit what I want to be the case. I have faith that they were the case, but I wasn't there.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
Still at it eh SCZ?
So the people who claim a real relationship with the Christ are delusional? Or are the others in denial?
Blind faith? No, not for me thanks, my faith comes from knowledge and experience of the real living God, without experiencing God I would have no faith, I'm not one to believe on the basis of what feels right, maybe mores the pity.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vikki Pollard
Shipmate
# 5548
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & unOrthodox:
If there's a God, and their incontrovertibly, empirically, demonstrably is, only fools like Dawkins can be in denial of that, He is the Christian God SNIP
Um... Why?
Priest, some - in fact many - would base their experience of God on feeelings.
Woo, this is all so complicated!
--------------------
"I don't get all this fuss about global warming, Miss. Why doesn't the Government just knock down all the f**king greenhouses?" (One of my slightly less bright 15 year old pupils)
Posts: 5695 | From: The Far Side | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Glaz;
quote:
Because I wasn't there and I want the historical facts to fit what I want to be the case. I have faith that they were the case,
Priest;
quote:
without experiencing God I would have no faith,
Blessed are those who belive and have not seen, or words to that effect.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glaz:
Yes, of course, in a sense it is. Because I wasn't there and I want the historical facts to fit what I want to be the case. I have faith that they were the case, but I wasn't there.
Hmmm. I would have thought that the word "delusion" usually goes further than meaning "believing something without conclusive evidence".
I was thinking more in terms of:
delude: to make someone believe something that is not true; to deceive.
eg He's deluding himself if he thinks he's going to be promoted this year.
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Sure, all concepts and beliefs are delusions in the (rather Buddhist) sense that they are constructions through which we experience reality. There is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact. But to apply that to religious belief while implicitly exempting other categories of belief renders the proposition trivial if not tautological. You've just defined "delusional" in such a way that there is only one answer to your question (as you more or less acknowledged in your first sentence). Furthermore, you loaded the dice by insisting on "blind faith," when I don't think we would all agree that faith is necessarily blind (I wouldn't).
Bonzo put it very well:
quote:
The only way that different faith positions can be properly explored (IMO), is for us to actually inhabit those faith positions. It's much more than a view from the outside - a cold analysis of data, but it's a testing of 'what works for me' by actually living life as if our faith is true.
( ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) )
This is faith as an experiment--adopt a hypothesis and try it out. Not blindness.
Timothy
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Timotheos the Obscure;
quote:
This is faith as an experiment--adopt a hypothesis and try it out.
And what of people who didn't go looking for a faith but experienced it first? Is faith a choice or a calling? To what extent is it self delusional to be true to what you are, even if this means beliving the unproveable. Is it not more self realising than self deluding?
Adresed to Scz as much as to anyone and everyone.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Because He's the best case God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Allen
Apprentice
# 5539
|
Posted
There is another word(s) for necessary delusion: consensual reality. Any church is a great example of consensual reality. Together a group of people can make something true for themselves by living their lives according to what they profess and practice. “Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I am also there” could also be a way of saying that if two or more believe (create an understanding about me, even if it is just that I exist) then God/Jesus exists. Is it possible that many of the scriptures could be read as a metaphysical guide to creating consensual reality? And is it possible that the Plan is that we come to the objective reality (truth) only through cultivating the art of creating consensual reality that bears a close resemblance to it? “Let’s say” that the objective reality includes Evil vs. Good. Like God, we are also Creators, and we create a consensual reality that fills in the details of the Evil vs. Good scenario. Or “let’s say” that Jesus died and then came back to life, by saying that this has meaning, by defining and practicing rituals around sacraments or ideas at all, we define the truth of it, as the truth exists for us, here and now. It’s not God’s truth, but we are not God. God exists as/in objective reality, we in consensual realities. Maybe our consensual reality can reflect part of God’s objective reality.
God could exist whether we believe or not. But to talk about God, maybe even to experience God, I have to use words and rituals (like prayer). Those words and rituals were, no matter how you look at it, created by man, at least on some level, even if we agree that they were “inspired” by God. Ultimately, this seems like a conversation mostly concerned with semantics. “Truth” is a word that we define, at least as far it concerns us here and now. How we define it and whether or not our definition is close to anything objective (outside our knowledge or opinion) is always going to result in a question rather than a statement, as in: Am I right?
Also, there could be personal reality. That is the calling of faith, the experience of God on a personal level. Again, not God's truth, but ours.
I like consensual reality, b/c it implies that we create and partisipate in a certain truth, with intention and for a purpose, rather than delude/deceive ourselves.
(btw, I like the ship of fools because it doesn’t concern itself with creating a consensual reality, it seems like for the most part it just examines the ones that exist. Of course, all groups of people interacting create some kind of consensual reality, maybe I should start a thread regarding the consensual reality of this ship…)
Posts: 23 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Blind faith is self-delusional, almost by definition. Christianity demands blind faith.
I agree that "blind" faith is probably self-delusional. I will also agree that Christianity can be construed in a way which demands this blind faith, but I won't agree that that is the only way one can approach Christianity.
quote:
Self-delusion isn't an insult - it can be argued it's one of the greatest virtues of humanity. People who are emotionally or morally weak couldn't recover from life traumas if they didn't have the possibility of self-delusion.
Maybe, maybe not. There is a growing body of study which is looking at survivors of trauma and trying to identify why some people come through it more or less intact and others show life-long negative effects. It is called the 'resiliency factor' in some studies. I can't claim to have read anything more than a couple of newspaper articles, so I'm not going to say more. Those who are interested might want to do some net-searching and read that various scholarly articles.
quote:
People convincing themselves that their marriage is OK, or that living with an illness is OK are self-delusional. It's part of our humanity which helps us to survive.
Answered above.
quote:
We define ourselves within our own boxes to make life that bit more bearable.
I have no idea what this means.
quote:
Belief in God makes life more bearable, I have never met a religions person who says it doesn't bring them some form of comfort.
May I suggest that this is because the comfort aspect is what makes them willing to profess a belief in God?
On the other hand, I find that my belief in God complicates my life and hasn't always provided comfort (and there are plenty of Purg and Hell threads to show that I am not alone in this).
And what about all those happy non-believers in the world? I've got a bunch of them in my immediate and extended family.
quote:
At the risk or repeating myself, I'm not taking delusion, or self-delusion, as negative things, but rather I'm interested in whether religion, and in particular Christian belief is compatible with realism,....
(bold emphasis changed by jlg)
This latter bit probably deserves a entire thread of its own.
Why and in what ways does Christianity (or any religion) have to be "compatible with "realism" (and what is your definition of same, scz?).
quote:
....and whether Christianity has anything to offer people who cannot find a way of getting all the answers from a book.
And this is a total non sequitur.
Is "...getting all the answers from a book" what you meant by "self-delusion"?
If not, are you truly totally oblivious to all the various ways in which Christianity can seduce the heathen?
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Is "...getting all the answers from a book" what you meant by "self-delusion"?
If not, are you truly totally oblivious to all the various ways in which Christianity can seduce the heathen?
Is "getting all the answers form a book" what the OP'er means by "Christianity"? If so may I suggest a broadening of horizons about the range of meaning of that venerable and ancient word?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Hosting
Just making the obvious point, having read through this page, that there is a difference between debating delusion and the nature of self-delusion and actually saying that another poster is suffering from either. The latter is not acceptable, as it is a personal attack.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
strathclydezero
# 180
|
Posted
I assume you're wanting a reply to the following Fr.G:
quote:
Originally posted by Pops Gregorios:
quote:
Choosing to belong to an established religion is quite different and removes the "working it out for yourself".
All of this is born out of a radical agnosticism which predicates delusion of anything excluded by its own definition. You try and make the illusion acceptable but the reality is that your aforementioned premise is false. It is false because it is a contention, not a proof. I can take it, therefore, as a personal position ... but it is still misconceived as a definitive statement for all that. However, if you present a personal position as the only dependable outlook on life your presentation has made itself watertight against any counter-proposal.
I can accept that what I have is my own personal position rather than a proof, but I guess what I'm really struggling with is the idea that anyone can make an absolute claim about anything. It may well be radical agnosticism, but where on earth does the idea that all people can and should subscribe to a common set of beliefs come from, be they anglo-catholic, fundamentalist evangelical, or any other?
--------------------
All religions will pass, but this will remain:
simply sitting in a chair and looking in the distance.
V V Rozanov
Posts: 3276 | From: The Near East | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear SCZ
Of course I could turn the tables on that question .... proving that it's not exactly a very helpful question since it's a "how could you?" type question.
quote:
but where on earth does the idea that all people can and should subscribe to a common set of beliefs come from, be they anglo-catholic, fundamentalist evangelical, or any other?
becomes ...
quote:
but where on earth does the idea that no one could or should subscribe to a common set of beliefs come from, be they anglo-catholic, fundamentalist evangelical, or any other?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
[ 09. March 2004, 17:16: Message edited by: Pops Gregorios ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vikki Pollard
Shipmate
# 5548
|
Posted
Martin - surely a best case God would answer all the, "Why doesn't God...?" questions.
So - why doesn't He? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"I don't get all this fuss about global warming, Miss. Why doesn't the Government just knock down all the f**king greenhouses?" (One of my slightly less bright 15 year old pupils)
Posts: 5695 | From: The Far Side | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Scz;
quote:
but where on earth does the idea that all people can and should subscribe to a common set of beliefs come from, be they anglo-catholic, fundamentalist evangelical, or any other?
From the mistaken belife that truth can be reach by common consensus
Fr. G.;
quote:
but where on earth does the idea that no one could or should subscribe to a common set of beliefs come from, be they anglo-catholic, fundamentalist evangelical, or any other?
From the mistaken belife that truth cannot be reached by common consensus.
This whole debate is getting far to postmodern for my taste
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
Martin - surely a best case God would answer all the, "Why doesn't God...?" questions.
Why?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Radical agnosticism disinvents itself for such a non-position cannot help being questionned on its own terms.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vikki Pollard
Shipmate
# 5548
|
Posted
D-O-D
Because a best-case God would have to be a best EVERYBODY's case - and most people want God to provide all the answers...
--------------------
"I don't get all this fuss about global warming, Miss. Why doesn't the Government just knock down all the f**king greenhouses?" (One of my slightly less bright 15 year old pupils)
Posts: 5695 | From: The Far Side | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sea of Tranquility
Shipmate
# 4454
|
Posted
Well, I've been off the boards for a couple of weeks, and having come back I was just about to retire in complete boredom when I came across this thread. Thanks, SCZ, for posting this, you've made my visit worthwhile.
On one level, faith is certainly self-delusional; in fact, all intelligent life is. Reality is really a lot of stuff whirling around according to scientific principles (not the ones we know, just whatever the real ones are), none of which makes any sense in the way we think of sense. So, to survive, as intelligent creatures, we have to make sense of it all. We define certain things as objects, decide where their boundaries are, what things are for, what things mean. There's no reason to believe that anything really means anything. But if you didn't rationalise reality into something your brain could cope with, you'd probably only live a day or two before dying of thirst.
So given that we have delude ourselves every moment in order to survive, is it any surprise that people believe in God as well as household furniture, the sun coming up tomorrow, etc? Yes - because most people have never really entertained the idea that the furniture isn't there - not even heard anyone suggest this. But we cannot go long in the western world without hearing people question the existence of God or other spiritual beliefs. The fact that there is a challenge makes it a special case.
Nevertheless, the same holds true as for furniture. Everyone comes to their conclusion about what their working belief about the world is going to be (though they generally do not do it consciously - but then most of what we sort out is not done consciously). You get bruises if you don't believe in furniture, so that one's easy (even if delusional). Believing that your mother / child / cat loves you is a stretch, but a lot of people believe this sort of thing, reckoning (subconsciously, generally) that it's a belief that seems to work for them. God etc is more of a stretch for most people, since relatively few people report the direct experience of God that they do of their mothers / children / cats. But even so, if the belief works for them (even if not always comfortably), then it makes sense to hold it.
All of this is quite different from the myth thing. With myths, you know it's a story, but you ascribe meaning to it. For instance, a lot of people know about urban myths, and how these doggie-in-the-microwave stories are not real. Yet we repeat them anyway, because they tell us something we think is worth internalising. Some people think that the stuff in the Bible has a large mythical component - others don't, but treat the stories just like myths anyway - repeating them in appropriate contexts to get across some sort of meaning. This is different from history, which is recounted in order to let you know what happened, but not to make a point (at least, not necessarily - and if it is, it may cross the border from history into story-telling / mythologising). It is true that some people get very worked up about the question of whether the Bible is true, because they feel myth lacks legitimacy as a carrier of meaning. But that seems to be fairly specific to our western culture. Personally, I blame the scientists. They should know better than anyone that all this conscious thinking we do is a continual process of self-delusion, but they forget this and keep insisting on the absolute truth of facts, as though these facts somehow carried meaning. They don't. We put lots of facts (and hypotheses and so on) together in a way we find meaningful - these ways are what we "know", but they are not fact in themselves, they are stories. If everyone really understood this, I think they would be a lot less worried about the factualness or otherwise of the Bible.
But then, some people do seem to feel that they need to know the Truth, so they can do the right things to get into God's good books. Given all the above, the insanity of this position (in terms of self-delusion) is pretty obvious. How can you possibly know? There are as many versions of Truth out there as people, and even if you accept some common basis (like the text of the Bible), everyone will interpret it differently. If there is a God, there's no way to know for sure how to get into his good books (unless you're one of the few lucky enough to have had a personal audience - but everyone who says they have seems to come out with a different belief, so this is no help to anyone else).
So where does this leave us? Yes, we delude ourselves when we have faith - and in a lot more ways than we can even begin to comprehend (i.e. the business of faith in God is just dipping your toe into it). It seems odd that people should have faith in God if you don't - untill you realise just how much belief is involved in everything we think, consciously or sub-consciously. When you do think about that - well, belief in God just seems to be another facet of it. It's not just a positive thing - it's absolutely to be expected.
In that case, why doesn't everyone believe in God? I suspect the answer is that it just isn't that helpful to everyone. A lot of people have told me that they believe in God because there must be some explanation for xxx (stars, creation, complexity, differs for each person), and they simply call that explanation God. Others tell me they feel there must be some foundation in which morality is grounded, and that foundation must be some sort of thing, and they call it God. No one has ever told me they believe in God because it's comforting - I suspect that's just an effect of belief, not a cause. Anyway, this still leaves a lot of space for people who don't believe either that there needs to be any explanation for xxx (as above) other than the mass of whirling subatomic stuff discussed earlier, and who also don't believe in the necessity of a universal morality. These are people who feel comfortable just not knowing. Lack of belief causes no metaphorical bumps on tables for them. These are the agnostics.
Of course, there are atheists, who, as everyone has observed, are just the flip side of believers - these are people who do feel a need to know - and who have concluded that their faith is in the non-existence of God. I have spoken with a few such people (true atheists seem a bit thin on the ground, in my experience - most on questioning turn out to be agnostic), and they do seem to experience those metaphorical bumps on tables when faced with the sort of question that induces faith - only they end up going the other direction.
Such, in any case, is the sense I have been able to make of this. It goes without saying that none of this is True - it is the story that I have told myself to make sense of what information my brain has constructed from the input of my senses.
Posts: 93 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
D-O-D
Because a best-case God would have to be a best EVERYBODY's case - and most people want God to provide all the answers...
Doesn't anybody want to be a grown-up anymore?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
strathclydezero
# 180
|
Posted
Sea of Tranquility
Wish I'd posted that in the first place!
--------------------
All religions will pass, but this will remain:
simply sitting in a chair and looking in the distance.
V V Rozanov
Posts: 3276 | From: The Near East | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
By admitting you are self-deluded, Sea of Tranquility, you have opened us all up to accepting the truth of what you have said, and made us want to believe that what you say IS the case.
You shouldn't oughta have done that...
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
OK so Sea of Tranquility and SCZ are perfectly agreed. What does that prove?
So many versions of the Truth. So many interpretations of the Bible? You see, the problem is that we Orthodox (and Catholics as well), say exactly the same thing .... and come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
There is a sure way of knowing and it isn't based on the usual post modernist, post Protestant agnosticism either. However, by definition, it isn't a model of knowing either of you are going to find attractive I fear. Protestantism (classic or otherwise) excludes it by its own self understanding. It is an inoperable condition.
[ 10. March 2004, 13:13: Message edited by: Pops Gregorios ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Pops Gregorious;
quote:
There is a sure way of knowing and it isn't based on the usual post modernist, post Protestant agnosticism either. However, by definition, it isn't a model of knowing either of you are going to find attractive I fear.
And this way of knowing would be....? Dieing to find out, ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Oh no! that wouldn't be it would it?
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sea of Tranquility
Shipmate
# 4454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glaz:
By admitting you are self-deluded, Sea of Tranquility, you have opened us all up to accepting the truth of what you have said, and made us want to believe that what you say IS the case.
Well, what do you know, I have a potential convert.
Of course, I have to defend the position by pointing out that if you think that this philosophy is sound, then you can't possibly argue that anything, much less this philosophy, IS the case. Or was that meant to be obvious? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
PG - by the way, you assume that when we die, we find out what's going on, or at least, whether there's a God. But some people believe in reincarnation of the spirit (as far as I know this does not involve any encounters with God), while of course many people believe there is a God, but that there may be no afterlife.
Oddly enough, I've never known anyone to choose any of these beliefs - those who believe always seem to feel that either the truth of their position is self-evident to the open-minded person, or that it is embedded in them in such a way that they could not believe otherwise. I therefore find it amusing when people ask me questions such as "Have you accepted Christ as your personal saviour?" They seem not to be arguing for self-evident truth, but for choice, as though one to whom this had not already been self-evident could choose the way of righteousness.
Posts: 93 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Sea of Tranquility
quote:
Oddly enough, I've never known anyone to choose any of these beliefs
I did and do. I have no time for that ridiculous phrase in the American Constitution ... "self evident" truths. Much of your argumentation (and that of SCZ) seems to fall under that heading. I don't simply disbelieve in reincarnation because it is not part of the "Christianity package." I disbelieve it because it is incoherent, false according to the alleged evidence and injurious to the notion of the human person. I couldn't care less how popular it is. So is astrology. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
Fr G
I think you're going to fill us in on what your Orthodox approach is here - lapsed heathen was right, we are dying to know. Sea of Tranquility thinks it's finding out after you die, but I'm guessing that he's wrong.
And I'm guessing that I'm going to agree with you (even though I'm a little confused as to why, as a fairly middle of the road protestant, you think I won't!)
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
No one on this thread has "sounded right" so far. That speaks volumes.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
I presume that by "realism", SCZ doesn't mean formal "Platonic realism"?
(Aside - a lot of this is metadiscussion, so apologies for the density of quotation marks. Remember that when I write
quote:
"coffee cup" has nine letters
or
quote:
"coffee cup" includes both china and styrofoam
I mean something about the word or concept, not the actual physical cup in my hand. However, quote:
coffee cup is empty
means this instance here -- and it is.)
Platonic realism is the claim that the Platonic "ideals" have an independent existence. The Rant has an interesting essay on this. I've been known to respond to people who claim to be "realists" with an off-hand "that's too airy-fairy for me."
Realism, in the Platonic sense (PR), is intimately connected to "faith". The sense of the word "faith" that, to me, connects to PR is the claim of the independence of the existence of the "ideal". If "freedom" is a real thing, then that's a kind of faith, which is pretty close to the faith that "Jesus" is real.
[[Fortran joke" God is REAL - unless declared INTEGER]]
One of the many conceptual theologies one could put forth is that "God" is responsible for maintaining the existence of the "real" "ideals". This is pretty close to Bishop Berkeley's famous meditation.
Another would simple put "God" into the class of "ideals".
So, in that sense, Christianity is very compatible with realism.
But, I think SCZ means the common sense of "realism", which is "Nominalism". Nominalism claims that the abstract qualities are only names which we give to things.
While both are old positions - the debate goes back to Plato and Aristole and the Cynics, after all, Nominalism has popped right back up as "post-modernism".
So, time to out myself - I'm pretty much a Nominalist, "early-post-modern", "General Semantics", "Alfred Korzybski" kind of guy.
I'm also a fairly evangelical, somewhat charismatic Christian, with dashes of Buddhism. And, no, I'm not sure that there's no self-delusion involved.
Nearly all Christian theology was born out of the confluence of Christian belief and Greek philosophy. After all these years, the big questions remain much as they were at the beginning.
The map is not the territory and "The Bible" is not my religion.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
I'd say religion-- real religion, God's religion--
quote:
James 1:26,27:
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
That sort of religion is the only safe place where you can take off the blindfold.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I distrust "sounds" Glaz. Too much personal subjectivity. It smacks too much of SCZ's "how could you? who could believe that?" approach. If delusion is in religion it is everywhere. If realism is in life ... it is in religion as well. We mustn't assume our conclusion in our premise.
And no folks. I am not going to tell you how we can know for sure. You know that already. It's time to stop arguing about it and do something with what we KNOW instead.
Hey! You could be wrong. We all could. But, what are you going to lead your life by ... nervousness at the quicksands or a tried, sure and tested path. Was Gollum reliable? You have your answer. Take pity on him. Frodo did.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Dear Gregorios
So you placate us for thinking we're self-deluded then bring the Lord of the Rings into it?! I take your point about knowing though - we have to take things at face value.
However, I do rather like personal subjectivity. I feel much more confident in believing something completely different than the next person along because it is something that I believe.
And before you say anything about that being incredibly self-centred, I would never say there was anything wrong with communitarian ideologies. I just don't like ones that allow the individual no free choice between options, as I feel the churches often do.
It's also not clear to me what the "sure, tried and tested path" actually is.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
quote:
It's also not clear to me what the "sure, tried and tested path" actually is.
It's something we must all discover for ourselves .... which doesn't mean that we wield the machete through the jungle ourselves to get through. The path is already there. We just have to look for it.
PS ... if choosing is construed against constraint ... it is not really choosing at all. It's reacting.
[ 11. March 2004, 22:47: Message edited by: Pops Gregorios ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Allen
Apprentice
# 5539
|
Posted
I'm curious if anyone agrees that we can have internal feelings, beliefs and convictions that are not necessarily reflected in our actions? Can we partisipate in a religious ritual or join a church while internally we are questioning and struggling with self delusion?
I have gone to many jobs as a means to an end while internally questioning the basis for my position or tasks. I still went to work everyday. Is religion a means to an end, while internal, personal beliefs may or may not be delusions?
quote:
However, I do rather like personal subjectivity. I feel much more confident in believing something completely different than the next person along because it is something that I believe.
I think many people feel this way. Does it preclude involvement in church or religion? The original question on the thread has to do with what is required for religion... Is religious practice always assumed to be the result of deeply held "truths"? What if you start partisipating in religion deluded and end up connected to some objective truth? Is that possible?
Posts: 23 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Heh, if I waited for the guy in the next pew and the gal behind me and the ones in pulpit and office and sound booth to all share all my beliefs... whether they're beliefs based in ascertainable facts or in delusion, take your pick... I'd have to wait until the Lord comes back.
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
My problem with this debate is that it is still contextualised by personal subjectivity. Am I deluded or not? Are my religious sentiments reliable? Can I end up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons? etc. Orthodoxy does not discount the importance of such self doubting but it does not construct its epistemology on such shaky foundations. Truth and fantasy are cleaved in two by more objective external criteria .... which then have to be internalised and checked out against our inner motions.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think, assuming I'm not misunderstanding him, that I'm with Fr. Gregory on this one. How can we know anything? Because we can validate our beliefs against reality. Because others have gone before us and carried out the same exercise and therefore we can validate our beliefs and their beliefs against reality. We can live within a tradition and reason critically within it.
Of course, there is the possibility that one day the weight of rationality might cause the tradition to topple, but in a perverse way that possibility means that the tradition bears some relationship to reality and is not merely an arbitrary construct. The chance that a really delusional world view is going to be corrected by reality is pretty close to zero.
I think the problem with the position taken by Glaz, SCZ and Sea of Tranquility is that it is too solipsitic. There is only "my belief". But believing and reasoning are not asocial ahistorical practices. They relate to reality and the beliefs and reasoning of those who have gone before us. I'd add that I think that scepticism is over rated. There's an important philosophical sense in which we don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow but we know, in practice, that we can still make arrangements as if we could. Even if all beliefs are provisional, some of them are a sight less provisional than others.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Callan;
quote:
Even if all beliefs are provisional, some of them are a sight less provisional than others.
And is religious belief one of them? .
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I prefer the word 'illusion' to 'delusion' as delusion has very strong negative connotations.
Illusions of reality can serve a positive purpose. Take for example someone who has trouble with being late. One way to correct this, is to set up an illusion. One can set one's watch or clock 15 minutes ahead of time, so that the deadline is artificially put forward. When at College, I always made my own deadline for an essay, one week before the actual deadline. As a result, I had my drafts completed a week before the actaul deadline.
Of course, if the person who has put his/her watch 15 mins ahead, gets into arguments about what time it is, they've become deluded. If I'd stayed up all night completing the final version of an essay, to meet my own 'one week before deadline', I'd have fallen for my own illusion.
The problem I see with seeing our beliefs as agreeing with reality is this: our beliefs can alter our PERCEPTION of reality.
Suppose you encounter someone you want to help who has trouble because he/she hears voices that condemn them and make their life very difficult.
What is the reality of the voices?
1. A materialist belief would think of the voices as pathological. Something is wrong with the person's brain.
2. A Christian should also consider the materialist intepretation, but may also be open to the possibility that some kind of demonic activity is producing the voices.
3. Someone else may include the possibility that the voices are voices of dead people.
Until 6 months ago I held to position 2. It was backed up by experience because I laid hands on and prayed for 2 people who heard these kind of voices, and the voices went temporarily. My perception of what had happened backed up my belief.
However, a little over 6 months ago, I spoke with 'dead people' who were manifesting themselves in a person. At first thought along the lines of alters produced by stress, ie a materialist view, but after getting their names, years of death, and other details, there was too much evidence that I really was encountering the spirits of dead people. I've now found a therapy on the Internet that acknowledges this phenomenom, and is called Spirit Release Therapy.
I've changed my Christian beliefs about what happens at death. I now believe that a person can remain earthbound, or have a different experience than either heaven or hell.
The point is, if stuck to certain Christian beliefs dogmatically, I wouldn't be able to consider what I am considering now.
As for the 'tried and tested road', well I'm afraid there is FAR more evidence of life after death that goes against the Christian pre-taste of heaven or hell belief out there.
Love
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Lapsed Heathen:
quote:
Callan;
quote:
Even if all beliefs are provisional, some of them are a sight less provisional than others.
And is religious belief one of them?
I don't think that religious belief is any more or less inherently improbable than irrelgious belief, as it were. Theism is as metaphysical as atheism.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hermit
Shipmate
# 1803
|
Posted
quote:
At the risk or repeating myself, I'm not taking delusion, or self-delusion, as negative things, but rather I'm interested in whether religion, and in particular Christian belief is compatible with realism, and whether Christianity has anything to offer people who cannot find a way of getting all the answers from a book.
Forgive me for not addressing the previous excellent posts as usual, but after all I AM a hermit.
When deciding for myself whether there was a God or not, I became quite emotionally worked up over the matter and BEGGED God for a sign, one which had been given to my father years before. It was given me, and some specific prayers also answered then and in the coming years.
Sometimes I tell skeptics to try the same thing, but as I say or write that I know inwardly in a flash that it won't work for them .... because they're not willing to humble themselves, realize their own insignificance, and beg an answer from God. And then wait patiently. They might go so far as to demand a sign from God, but not to beg one.
Now why would God need such humility and worship and longsuffering patience from us, skeptics often laugh, is He insecure? Why not just answer us on demand? I don't really know but I suspect it has to do with learning an important lesson before we can continue with our schooling.
quote:
Belief in God makes life more bearable, I have never met a religions person who says it doesn't bring them some form of comfort.
But why doesn't a belief in Neptune or Alexander the Great offer some similar innate comfort?
--------------------
"You called out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness... You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain that peace which was yours." Confessions, St Augustine
Posts: 812 | From: Seattle | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sea of Tranquility
Shipmate
# 4454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan.:
I think the problem with the position taken by Glaz, SCZ and Sea of Tranquility is that it is too solipsitic. There is only "my belief".
On one level, this observation is correct (for me - I do not speak for Glaz and SCZ). I follow the initial hypothesis of Descartes - "I think therefore I am" - but I disagree with his supposed proof of the existence of everything else based on that premise; his logic unfortunately does not hold water (if it did, then all philosophers would believe in God).
However, as I pointed out earlier, no one actually goes around believing only in themselves, because this leads to suffering and rapid death. We construct reality - we have to. Our brains are designed to do this.
This is one point on which I do agree (I think) with FrG - we all follow our own road. We construct our own realities.
quote:
But believing and reasoning are not asocial ahistorical practices. They relate to reality and the beliefs and reasoning of those who have gone before us.
We (most of us anyway), choose to believe in the existence of the social world and history (at least, the part of it we've chosen to believe in - I know of one Christian who believes that the world is roughly 4000 years old, and whose remark on the question of archaological evidence was "isn't it wonderful that God made the world out of old rocks?").
There has been reasoning in every direction - towards atheism, agnosticism, and theism of probably uncountable varieties. So yes, of course we take advantage of the thinking of those who went before, and of such evidence as we choose to accept. And in doing so WE ARE CONSTRUCTING REALITY. Sorry to belabour the point - but that is exactly what is happening. You say you disagree with this philosopher, but buy the next one's argument. You agree with certain evidence of texts but disagree with others. You accept certain archaological findings but disagree with others (why not? archaeologists do). And in picking and choosing what to believe and what to discard, you create your own way of looking at the world.
Incidentally, thanks, Christina, for your contribution. I've heard many stories relating to the spirit world from highly reliable sources who have no axe to grind, stories that are difficult to explain away.
I think "skepticism" gets an unnecessarily bad press, probably because it is associated with being pig-headed. I think the opposite is true - a skeptic is entirely open-minded. When presented with a point of view and some evidence (whether it be "I have personally seen Jesus", or "I have communicated with my dead Grandmother"), the skeptic says "yes, that's very interesting, and I'd like to know more". A skeptic never really believes unless all the evidence goes in one direction. For precisely this reason they are always open to hearing more - evidence to disprove things they've believed up to now, or evidence to explain apparently opposed evidence of the past, showing how in fact they can be explained by a single theory. As skeptic is really just a curious person who does not feel the need to select a "right" answer from two opposed views that appear to be backed by evidence.
Really, I think the majority of us on this thread are saying essentially the same thing. It's just that most of us are not skeptics, and have therefore presented decided views on things. But it all seems to be part of the same story - which is that yes, belief does seems to involve self-delusion of a sort, but that is a) essentially true by definition, and therefore not very remarkable (because by definition everything we know is a construct), and b) undoubtedly a good thing (because we cannot live without constructing reality).
Posts: 93 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Light relief time ...
Oh dear .... Cartesian mentalism again! Time for some philosophy jokes. (The old one are the best!)
Voltaire: To do is to be.
Jean Paul Sartre: To be is to do.
Frank Sinatra: Ooooh, de-dooby do!
Descartes: "I think, therefore I am."
Drunk: "I drink, therefore I am."
Buddhist: "I think .... "
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Descartes is stting in a bar, finishing his drink. The bartender comes over, says, "Yo, Rene, ready for another round?"
Descartes says, "No--I think not..." and disappears.
Timothy
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Oh well ....
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
