|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Healthy scepticism or ...
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, I've been out all day. Been to the Deep in Hull with the kids to see the fish.
I think, LC, and RE, that all I can say is yes, you've told me the story. And it's proved what someone said upthread - that I'm seeming to want to believe on someone else's faith, and it just won't work. Not your fault, either of you. There are two reactions I can have; two responses. I can take it at face value, and question why God is so absent from my experience, or I can find various "ah yes, but...". And indeed, like a quantum superimposition I can do both at the same time. Neither really helps me; my own experience remains atheistic. My challenge was a mistake, because it resolved nothing. Forgive me.
This is out of place in Purg. I've derailed this thread enough with my own faith crises.
Hey. Don't stop. Something momentous will come out of this.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
ETA: [before crosspost, to Eutychus:]
Why the fuck should I call you to Hell?
I don't in fact expect most of you to believe it. Perhaps any of you, who knows. And I don't expect to be hurt if that's the case, either. My own grandparents who knew us couldn't believe it. What then should I expect of you?
I posted the story because I'm tired of hearing people say or imply "Such things don't happen, witness the fact that nobody I know or trust ever tells such a story." (Yeah, I flatter myself that I might have a smidgen of credibility with some of you. Or once did.)
So I've told the story. That's enough. I've told it, you all have heard it, and you can process it however you want to. I was pissed with Martin, not for doubting me, but for blowing me off. I don't see any of you blowing me off here. Right?
The story is just one more tiny bit of data to push around the chessboard here. Do as you like with it. Just don't blow me off.
Hey, your courage shines. Please persist. We will get to the reconciling metanarrative here.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
hatless, bloody excellent and I don't say that lightly to you who leave me scratching my pate oftimes. Nowt wrong wi' your tone to me, but there again I am tone deaf. What am I missing Eutychus?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Eutychus, death was involved (doctor said so). That's as far as I can go with the details of that particular story, which nobody needs to credit. But it was past the level of "unlikely birth."
Past the level of "he stinketh, for he hath been dead three days"? I doubt it.
Speaking as one who has prayed, faithlessly, over the fast-cooling body of a dead child, and opted not to when it was that child's mum's turn, in the same hospital, with the bereaved father-just-turned-widower in attendance, just a few years later.
[x-post]
Head shaking hot eyes mate. With you, not at you. Both took balls. The latter bigger.
Hallelujah anyway.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well, the first time was in the presence of a sort-of-apostle and medical doctor on record as having allegedly "resurrected" someone, and the father asked us to pray. The sort-of-apostle was a bit sheepish.
The second time it was just the now-widower and me and he said to me "I guess praying for resurrection is no use" or some such, which I suppose was the fruit of experience. I was happy to comply, especially as I had parted company with the sort-of-apostle and restorationism in the meantime.
What I don't like in hatless' post is what I perceive as a patronising tone, which I often find explicitly in yours, Martin, that comes across as implying one can somehow grow out of these things. On the one hand you and he often seem to say everyone's story is legitimate and of equal value, and yet you come across as very dismissive of certain stories that don't fit your views.
On the "Fall" thread I linked to above, Martin, you repented of being "illiberal in your liberality". Time to do so again?
To me the problem is much less with whether these things happen or not as with the attitude of
a) those who present them as normative Christian experience to which others should aspire [which I don't think anyone here on this thread has but these people are the actual target of most of the criticism]
b) those who for lack of having experienced them either i) declare categorically that God did not spontaneously intervene for anyone anywhere as though they had the definitive or at least superior view, as opposed simply to their own "frame story" or ii) relegate themselves to some inferior category as a result (looking at you here Karl).
I don't think extraordinary experiences are either a badge of faith or a sign of immaturity. The maturity or lack of it is in how we respond to them and the degree of importance we ascribe to them.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I'm a healthy sceptic.
Amazing miracles happen every day, all the time. The human body and mind are capable of far more than the best surgeons often expect. Everything we do in science is going with and using what's already there, nothing new is created, all is provided and used by us. The whole of nature is more complex and astounding the more we study it. Our minds are also incredibly susceptible to suggestion, ask the advertising industry - I kid myself it 'doesn't work' on me. I'm wrong, of course.
I think the supernatural is simply the natural 'not yet understood' and our understanding is growing rapidly day by day.
Any claims on miracles by churches or individuals are just that - claiming the coincidence or natural miracle imo.
God? Susan Doris has one answer - there is no God.
I think God is the author, creator and sustainer of all the crazy, wonderful, hopeless lot of it. Whether we praise him, discount him, believe in him or berate him for it depends on our circumstances, make up and mood, I think.
Interventinist on a personal level? No, not at all. With us and loving us - yes. But no special treatment, no singling out, no miracles.
Those claiming them are doing as the advertisers - using our susceptible, needy side to their advantage. Many for the best of motives.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Eutychus said quote:
What I don't like in hatless' post is what I perceive as a patronising tone, which I often find explicitly in yours, Martin, that comes across as implying one can somehow grow out of these things. On the one hand you and he often seem to say everyone's story is legitimate and of equal value, and yet you come across as very dismissive of certain stories that don't fit your views.
I sometimes detect a patronising tone in my posts, and I don't like it.
But how can you affirm someone's right to an opinion whilst explaining why you have rejected it? It may well be an opinion you once held, but have now rejected, something you have yourself grown out of (or degenerated out of?) We can all state our thoughts and receive each other's, but if there is to be discussion, at some point you have to say why my thinking doesn't appeal to you.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Euty, it's not so much relegating myself to a second class status.
It's more that I cannot commit and trust myself to a God who I am not sure exists, and on whom I cannot actually depend, because despite the hype, I can still die by violence or by illness; I can still experience pain and loss, whilst apparently in his hands. Now, you might say that that's abundantly clear anyway and is the problem of theodicy, which is true, but if one is sure that God is real, and personal, one can at least be sure that he knows and cares about what is happening, and that we can trust him that it will sort itself out in the end, for certain values of "the end".
But not if he's not actually there.
Hence my point that my experience is atheistic. I cannot point to anything in my life and say "if God wasn't real, then that couldn't have happened". For all I can tell, my life need not be any different if God were not there.
A careful reader may note my use of the subjunctive there - there are many things, good things, that have happened in my life that I'm glad of. Perhaps God is behind them. But not in a way that I can say "yep, that was God". If I was sure he was there, I daresay I could ascribe those things to him.
So if I look for experiences and signs, it's not to promote my second class relegated position; it's to know that there's actually a firm basis for faith at all, of any status.
Does this make any sense?
[ 19. December 2016, 09:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, the first time was in the presence of a sort-of-apostle and medical doctor on record as having allegedly "resurrected" someone, and the father asked us to pray. The sort-of-apostle was a bit sheepish.
The second time it was just the now-widower and me and he said to me "I guess praying for resurrection is no use" or some such, which I suppose was the fruit of experience. I was happy to comply, especially as I had parted company with the sort-of-apostle and restorationism in the meantime.
What I don't like in hatless' post is what I perceive as a patronising tone, which I often find explicitly in yours, Martin, that comes across as implying one can somehow grow out of these things. On the one hand you and he often seem to say everyone's story is legitimate and of equal value, and yet you come across as very dismissive of certain stories that don't fit your views.
On the "Fall" thread I linked to above, Martin, you repented of being "illiberal in your liberality". Time to do so again?
To me the problem is much less with whether these things happen or not as with the attitude of
a) those who present them as normative Christian experience to which others should aspire [which I don't think anyone here on this thread has but these people are the actual target of most of the criticism]
b) those who for lack of having experienced them either i) declare categorically that God did not spontaneously intervene for anyone anywhere as though they had the definitive or at least superior view, as opposed simply to their own "frame story" or ii) relegate themselves to some inferior category as a result (looking at you here Karl).
I don't think extraordinary experiences are either a badge of faith or a sign of immaturity. The maturity or lack of it is in how we respond to them and the degree of importance we ascribe to them.
Thank you.
I see and feel the immaturity in my response; last night was routinely soul destroying at church, pure name it and claim it health and wealth gospel by the prophet. In an Anglican church. My Anglican church. There was virtually nothing in the sermon I could make work, assent to. And I make it obvious. I look everywhere except at the speaker, less pointedly I felt last night, I do try. Apparently I still sigh audibly. If I can agree with anything I'll look at the speaker and nod from imperceptibly to off my rocker with a smile. Nothing in this case. One speaker in the past seven gets that. A trusted liberal.
Bugger, bugger, bugger Eutychus.
How the hell do I do this? I am NOT mature and know in that that one can NOT grow out of disposition.
How do I healthily, for the benefit of our relationships here, our metanarrative, engage with my utter invincible denial of divine intervention in externals as a given?
Or is such a metanarrative impossible?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Euty, it's not so much relegating myself to a second class status.
It's more that I cannot commit and trust myself to a God who I am not sure exists, and on whom I cannot actually depend, because despite the hype, I can still die by violence or by illness; I can still experience pain and loss, whilst apparently in his hands. Now, you might say that that's abundantly clear anyway and is the problem of theodicy, which is true, but if one is sure that God is real, and personal, one can at least be sure that he knows and cares about what is happening, and that we can trust him that it will sort itself out in the end, for certain values of "the end".
But not if he's not actually there.
Hence my point that my experience is atheistic. I cannot point to anything in my life and say "if God wasn't real, then that couldn't have happened". For all I can tell, my life need not be any different if God were not there.
A careful reader may note my use of the subjunctive there - there are many things, good things, that have happened in my life that I'm glad of. Perhaps God is behind them. But not in a way that I can say "yep, that was God". If I was sure he was there, I daresay I could ascribe those things to him.
So if I look for experiences and signs, it's not to promote my second class relegated position; it's to know that there's actually a firm basis for faith at all, of any status.
Does this make any sense?
YES!!!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But how can you affirm someone's right to an opinion whilst explaining why you have rejected it?
There is a trap, into which I think practitioners of the social sciences fall all the time, of thinking that because they have produced a model to explain something it somehow places them in an ivory tower of objectivity outside the model. That isn't exactly what I feel happens here, but it's something akin to it.
I think I've been fairly roundly rejecting Jamat's dispensationalism over on the Rapture thread in Kerygmania, but if he's felt patronised by me he has yet to say so.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
For all I can tell, my life need not be any different if God were not there.
Aside from interventionist miracles or a lack of them, the difference a belief in God makes to my life comes down to having hope.
I trust this hope is not deluded not because of any dramatic personal experiences, but because of the perserverance of that hope in history; I believe it possible and plausible for this hope to have been passed on from one witness to another back to the Resurrection both through and despite the Church through the ages, and it manages to make some kind of sense of my life.
I would venture that this is accompanied by a sense of the Spirit telling me I'm a child of God, but that's my subjective experience and, I hasten to emphasise, no more dramatic or extravagant than knowing roughly where north lies is dramatic or extravagant for those with a good sense of direction.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How do I healthily, for the benefit of our relationships here, our metanarrative, engage with my utter invincible denial of divine intervention in externals as a given?
If it's untter invincible denial then there's not much hope for mutual relationships. That boils down to you're right, and everyone else is irredeemably wrong, and you've seen where that attitude has got you more than once.
But on careful cross-examination, what you say here doesn't amount to invincible denial, and my personal hunch is that you protesteth too much.
I think you overstate your denial because dealing with the paradoxes entailed by the admission of the possibility you deny is just too much for you, for whatever reason.
Aside from that, my answer as ever remains that we are called to give account of the faith we have been given, not the faith given to our brethren.
The art in discussion is to share our stories and poke at how sound we think each others' reasoning is without putting stumbling-blocks in each others' way. As I said to hatless, a big part of that is posting from a standpoint that doesn't assume we have arrived or got further on or are somehow outside the same process everyone else here is in. In other words, humility.
[ 19. December 2016, 11:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hmmm. I aspire to be humbly in invincible denial, I really do. Is that absurd? Not worth the candle?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. I aspire to be humbly in invincible denial, I really do. Is that absurd? Not worth the candle?
You can be in invincible denial for you. But only if you admit, at least when posting, the possiblity that others might legitimately come to a different conclusion.
[ 19. December 2016, 12:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Hm, a masterclass in how not to patronise by someone who uses himself as an example of excellence, who suggests Martin60, one of the least patronising people around, might be in denial because admitting the truth would be too much for him, and who dismisses social science for always making a mistake they just can't see.
Do you also do lectures on irony? Modesty? Self-awareness?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Hm, a masterclass in how not to patronise by someone who uses himself as an example of excellence, who suggests Martin60, one of the least patronising people around, might be in denial because admitting the truth would be too much for him
Of course this works both ways. And of course I might simply be in denial myself. I haven't been repeatedly called to Hell over my attitude though. I took Martin to Hell and did so complete with examples of patronising, and am willing if not happy for the same to be done to me - there, not here.
This is an exercise in mutual accountability for all of us. quote:
, and who dismisses social science for always making a mistake they just can't see.
By "all the time" I meant "often", not "100% of the time". There are humble social scientists too.
[ 19. December 2016, 13:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. I aspire to be humbly in invincible denial, I really do. Is that absurd? Not worth the candle?
You can be in invincible denial for you. But only if you admit, at least when posting, the possiblity that others might legitimately come to a different conclusion.
I fully admit that. I have no reason to doubt anyone here not coming to legitimate conclusions based on their disposition, beliefs, hermeneutic, epistemology. Is that weaseling? It's not meant to be.
My wife would agree with you, never say never. She can't stand my absolutes. She agrees with me with her head, but not with her heart. I always endorse and encourage her, in my most patronizing manner of course, in her paradoxical belief that God is in some way looking out for her kids because she asks Him to.
I really want this to work.
My wife and I do not understand how we do, but we do.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I have no reason to doubt anyone here not coming to legitimate conclusions based on their disposition, beliefs, hermeneutic, epistemology. Is that weaseling?
No, I don't think so. The challenge is to work on style and content to facilitate people believing that.
quote:
I really want this to work.
![[Cool]](cool.gif) quote:
I always endorse and encourage her, in my most patronizing manner of course
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
This isn't going to work for now, at least not as far as I'm concerned, unless you can bring yourself to edit this kind of remark out before posting. You have to give at least a semblance of serious interaction.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm giving up the will live here. But I'll try another breath.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You're losing the will to live?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I've not lost it yet, but I'm not holding my breath ...
Meanwhile, I've been interested to see the direction this thread has taken, although it's been like watching an impending car crash at times.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Hm, a masterclass in how not to patronise by someone who uses himself as an example of excellence, who suggests Martin60, one of the least patronising people around, might be in denial because admitting the truth would be too much for him, and who dismisses social science for always making a mistake they just can't see.
Do you also do lectures on irony? Modesty? Self-awareness?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
GK, as I said to hatless, you are welcome to engage with me on this accusation. In Hell, where such engagement belongs.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
OK. With a beloved Holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist (Kennedy, Apollo, 911) I have to acknowledge that our truths are different. I have to confess that my epistemology is fixed and I cannot change it even if I wanted to, I don't know how. I will always listen to the arguments and will not argue back and will acknowledge them. I'm not asked to critique them, what do I think, I might ask 'what would you say to those who say ...'. There is always an answer I can nod to and be thankful for. On the libertarianism AKA alt-right that comes with the package I can be a bit feistier, but invariably acknowledge the humour and wit, the 'good' and 'fair' points. I will always look for common ground. And there always is.
But of course I don't believe any of it. I don't think for one moment I could be wrong, I could be mistaken. But I cannot say that in that relationship. Only with trepidation, apology, if pressed. This person has expressed deeply sincerely that they want to save me from my epistemology.
So it is with divine intervention beyond the first rapidly attenuating circles propagated forward centred on Jesus.
I must say it with trepidation and apology. In so doing, here and now, that actually feels like I'm thinking, counting those who erroneously believe otherwise as better, more worthy than myself. Is that possible? Do I deceive myself? As I should with Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. And find that I am able to do.
I need to tread carefully. But this is Purgatory, this is a dialectical crucible and ... I feel the need for it to be known on this thread, that my truth is a universal for me, an absolute, that not for one moment could anyone else's different truth be true for me, be true period. But of course I DO acknowledge that it has to be utterly invincibly true for them. I have to regretfully, regrettably disagree.
Sorry, is this just another iteration of what's been said above in effect? Is there any improvement in how it is said? Can anything more be said? Can the metanarrative be pursued?
And as for this subject, so for others of course. Is this the way?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That's certainly much clearer ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Firstly, I don't think anyone here is contesting anyone else's right to their strongly-held belief.
Nor the fact that some strongly-held beliefs on the part of others make us want to tear our hair out.
The question of form relates to how that is expressed.
Firstly, when it comes to communication (especially in a text-based medium) I think there's a generally-held convention that we moderate the strength with which we express our convictions; this is the price to pay (or, if you prefer, the respect that is owed) to enable back-and-forth discussion to occur as opposed to simply shouting at each other.
Of course just where the cursor is set moves up and down over the course of the conversation but it has to be somewhere on the scale for conversation to continue.
Again, conventionally, I don't think people feel it's hypocritical to express oneself in less absolutist terms than one might feel, and I don't think you should either.
Secondly, and at the risk of repeating myself, spirited debate is welcome; being deliberately obscure is not the same thing at all. It makes a viewpoint harder to understand.
Finally, there is the question of stance. I was taught in counselling training to adopt a stance of belief. In other words, a good listener will at least give the appearance of believing the speaker (as opposed to being scornful or dismissive) - however unlikely the discourse.
I get plenty of practice with this in my prison, where a significant percentage of the inmates also have severe psychiatric problems.
Again, this may seem hypocritical or dishonest, but in fact it is a way of allowing the other person space to express themselves and instilling confidence in the relationship such that over time, the insaner parts of their argument may be gently challenged as appropriate.
Finally, as to the substance, you may not have noticed that in the midst of all this I have been considering your idea of "attenuation", was more drawn to your expression of it as a "half-life", and (no doubt in view of just how long that can be - I've just been translating something on Fukushima) found it quite palatable expressed thus (especially because theoretically at least, "never" never arrives with a half-life ).
I'm reasonably sure that idea will make it into my theological discourse sooner or later, so you see, you can get me to shift my views when you're not being obscure or oxymoronic.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thanks again Eutychus. I cringe that you should have to state the obvious and give such excellent examples from experience.
In the game of rhetoric I'm unable to handle the emotional impact, the pathos of reacting to the logos of others counter to my own and as a result have failed for decades, life, in my ethos.
I hope that's not too obscure. Which admits that it is obscure to start with.
What went on in my potty training I don't know. What infant conditioning. I have my suspicions as the main protagonist is now in my care. And drives me beyond nuts where I am to start with.
From a child I felt surrounded by idiots. Along with everyone else. I seemed to feel it with more frustration than most. Which is, of course, projection at my own failure to express myself.
Eeeeeee. Cringe. At my age, I ask you. There is a lonnnnng, slow, big roller coaster loop of cognitive dissonance going on here.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That was all nice and clear, thank you. Apart from the last sentence, but I think that was directed at yourself rather than me.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I cringe that you should have to state the obvious
Nothing to cringe about. Metacommunication can sound a bit "doh", but in my experience it does actually help!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Eutychus wrote:
quote:
There is a trap, into which I think practitioners of the social sciences fall all the time, of thinking that because they have produced a model to explain something it somehow places them in an ivory tower of objectivity outside the model. That isn't exactly what I feel happens here, but it's something akin to it.
This chimes strongly with an author I'm reading at the moment, who is relevant to this thread since his big thing is comparing religious experience and therefore 'knowledge of God' to what we normally categorise as 'all other' fields of knowledge. His argument is that the kinds of knowledge are the same, and on the way there he maintains that standing 'outside' in objectivity is always impossible.
If you(pl)'re interested, you might look into Roy Clouser, 'Knowing with the heart' (a bit easier / for a bright-enough but general readership / heavily referenced - publ IVP (!!I'm recommending IVP!!)) or 'The myth of religious neutrality' (a bit tough and looks like an academic textbook to a non-philosopher (me); might not look like that to a professional philosopher but contains a mountain of academic references - publ Univ. Notre Dame Press).
ETA: sorry I'm so late. I can't keep up with you all.
[ 22. December 2016, 11:19: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Do 'a mountain of academic references' chime with 'knowing with the heart'?
Surely the heart is a separate realm from the academic?
I know many things with my heart that I could never prove or give references for.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thanks again Eutychus and sorry. I am compulsively whimsical. Drives my common sense wife nuts. And then she does it and I'm mock-shocked.
The loop is back over 60 years and realizing that it's all been since about MY 'failure' to communicate. That couldn't be helped in a working class - underachieving petty bourgeois, slightly too clever boy for his context. Must go off and write the autobiographical Proustian - Knausgaardian novel mustn't I!
Why couldn't I have been Montaigne or Alan Bennett?
[ 22. December 2016, 12:19: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
realizing
Guru Jacques Poujol he say:
quote:
la mémoire est pathogène, la prise de conscience est curative
"Memory is bad for you; realisation helps you get better". Which I observe to be largely true. It's never too late.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
His argument is that the kinds of knowledge are the same, and on the way there he maintains that standing 'outside' in objectivity is always impossible.
Yes!!
Thanks for the book recommendation, but I'm increasingly convinced my working theology is based on little more than a combination of CS Lewis, Douglas Adams, and Os Guinness.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Boogie said:
quote:
Do '1) a mountain of academic references' chime with 'knowing with the heart'? 2) Surely the heart is a separate realm from the academic? 3) I know many things with my heart that I could never prove or give references for.
Oddly, 1) yes, 2) no - the academic relies on the same basic faith-assumptions as religious faith or love (that's his theme - the references are to get there with the reader's trust intact, and therefore without just stating things baldly as I just have), and 3) me too - Clouser's argument is that ultimately this class includes everything...
I think you might enjoy Clouser - he seems to defend your point from an unusual angle.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I think you might enjoy Clouser - he seems to defend your point from an unusual angle.
I've added it to my wish list 🙂
Thank you.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thanks for the book recommendation, but I'm increasingly convinced my working theology is based on little more than a combination of CS Lewis, Douglas Adams, and Os Guinness.
Terry Pratchett is currently my fave theologian, with traces of Anne Lamott, Madeleine L'Engle, Annie Dillard, CS Lewis, and many, many others.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Ian Anderson. Side 2 of Aqualung is my sermon.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ian Anderson. Side 2 of Aqualung is my sermon.
Not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
[tangent]My favourite bit is:
the bloody Church of England, in chains of history
Requests your earthly presence at the vicarage for tea
[/tangent]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'd like to concentrate on this from Karl, which I previously endorsed enthusiastically for its sense to me, whilst valuing everything substantial said by everyone from Lamb Chopped on down in the thread: Raptor Eye, Eutychus, hatless, mark_in_manchester, Boogie.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Euty, it's not so much relegating myself to a second class status.
You would be but for the subjunctive, which you note below. If divine intervention happened to anyone, everyone else would be a second class citizen. So for you and me, it doesn't.
quote:
It's more that I cannot commit and trust myself to a God who I am not sure exists, and on whom I cannot actually depend, because despite the hype, I can still die by violence or by illness; I can still experience pain and loss, whilst apparently in his hands. Now, you might say that that's abundantly clear anyway and is the problem of theodicy, which is true, but if one is sure that God is real, and personal, one can at least be sure that he knows and cares about what is happening, and that we can trust him that it will sort itself out in the end, for certain values of "the end".
For me there is only one surety: the Jesus story. It, He, is actually usually overwhelmingly antithetical to the now initially utterly overwhelming, perfect, complete thesis of material reality. But for His story (sorry ...) history is eternally written in meaningless matter.
quote:
But not if he's not actually there.
The only doubt that He's not actually there, is the Jesus story. Not any other claims. Everything else in reason and experience says He's not.
quote:
Hence my point that my experience is atheistic. I cannot point to anything in my life and say "if God wasn't real, then that couldn't have happened". For all I can tell, my life need not be any different if God were not there.
Superb summation for me: all, everyone's experience is atheistic for me. Except for the Jesus story (including the promise of the Spirit normatively after a couple of half lives): Except for the Jesus story for all I can tell, my life need not be any different if God were not there.
quote:
A careful reader may note my use of the subjunctive there - there are many things, good things, that have happened in my life that I'm glad of. Perhaps God is behind them. But not in a way that I can say "yep, that was God". If I was sure he was there, I daresay I could ascribe those things to him.
I am sure He was, is there ... because of the Jesus story and I cannot ascribe any thing to Him of all my experience, of all that has happened in my life or anyone else's, apart from in His provision.
quote:
So if I look for experiences and signs, it's not to promote my second class relegated position; it's to know that there's actually a firm basis for faith at all, of any status.
Aren't they the same thing? The only firm basis for faith at all is ... the Jesus story. No experience, no sign. You will never have any and neither will anyone else that you know or hear about. And if you do, they are not of faith. They will be completely personal, private, subjective, internal, interior.
quote:
Does this make any sense?
Still!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
