| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2011 09:28:02 AM · #1001 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I suspect that, like my old teacher, many Christians have a blindspot insofar as they respect Christian tenets, but they cut their hair and shave, they work on Saturdays, and they eat beef - even though those things are strictly regulated by other religions. They have found the one true faith and other religions are mere superstitions... |
That's the basic problem I have with most religions. To be fair, singling out Christianity in this regard isn't right. The major religions all think they know the "One True Way".
I just think it's awful that they're so willing to condemn the rest of humanity for believing otherwise.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 11:39:53 AM · #1002 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I've been pretty swamped for a while but I have a question that I'd like to hear some views on.
How should a Christian view the sacred obligations of other faiths? Are they truly sacred obligations, or are they superstitions?
I recall very clearly my old (deeply Christian) school teacher trying to explain that other religions' beliefs were superstitions, and that he'd been lucky to have fallen into the one true faith (without having had to try out any others) and that everyone else should convert. He was an otherwise intelligent man (reflecting DrAchoo's earlier comments) - but in this regard he could not see the hypocrisy of his advice.
I suspect that, like my old teacher, many Christians have a blindspot insofar as they respect Christian tenets, but they cut their hair and shave, they work on Saturdays, and they eat beef - even though those things are strictly regulated by other religions. They have found the one true faith and other religions are mere superstitions... |
I'm not the Doc, but I'm a Christian.
I remember growing up in Catholic school, we had a song that used the sacred Hebrew name for God. Now out of respect, all such songs or references are removed. Of course, we could instead sing, "Elohim, I know you are near..."
I cut my hair and shave. I eat meat on most days. I don't work on Saturdays, but if I needed to, I would (and Sundays). If I employed someone who needed Saturdays off, I would respect that. It takes integrity to live your life by religious tenets.
All religions have truths to them, so their obligations can be respected. I just believe we have the fullness of truth in the Catholic faith.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 12:39:57 PM · #1003 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I've been pretty swamped for a while but I have a question that I'd like to hear some views on.
How should a Christian view the sacred obligations of other faiths? Are they truly sacred obligations, or are they superstitions?
I recall very clearly my old (deeply Christian) school teacher trying to explain that other religions' beliefs were superstitions, and that he'd been lucky to have fallen into the one true faith (without having had to try out any others) and that everyone else should convert. He was an otherwise intelligent man (reflecting DrAchoo's earlier comments) - but in this regard he could not see the hypocrisy of his advice.
I suspect that, like my old teacher, many Christians have a blindspot insofar as they respect Christian tenets, but they cut their hair and shave, they work on Saturdays, and they eat beef - even though those things are strictly regulated by other religions. They have found the one true faith and other religions are mere superstitions... |
I think one can view the tenets of other faiths as potentially having truth within them or at their root. I can appreciate a Jew not eating pork for their piety. Piety is something to be cherished and respected. I can appreciate a Mormon's devotion to their family. Such values are also to be cherished and respected. Of course, if a faith's tenets are in contradiction to Christianity, I must side with Christianity. There is no way around that. But that does not mean there cannot be bridges of respect and understanding for the values and tenets that are commonly shared, even if their expression differs.
I do not view the things you mentioned as "superstitions" but Christianity is unique among religions in that such things do not get you closer to God. Your road to Him is not one of works and merit but rather one of grace and faith. So if a Jewish person is not eating pork out of respect and love for God, I can agree with that, but if he is not eating pork in order to earn his salvation and curry favor with God, I think he is misguided.
Is that understandable from the outside? |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 02:22:41 PM · #1004 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can appreciate a Jew not eating pork for their piety. |
Why? |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 02:31:12 PM · #1005 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can appreciate a Jew not eating pork for their piety. |
Why? |
Because I understand they are doing it out of a love for God. It is a sign of respect and I honor that. (it goes back to motives of course, but assuming that's the reason they are doing it.) In my faith the act does not have the same meaning and thus has less (or no) resonance.
So I respect the action for the motive, not in and of itself.
Take someone who wears nice clothes to church. If they are doing it to impress their neighbor, I have little respect for that. If they are doing it because they feel it is a sign of respect to God as they worship him, then I think it's great. There is, however, no requirement to wear nice clothes to church.
Message edited by author 2011-02-01 14:35:42. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 02:42:46 PM · #1006 |
A respect for piety begs Matthew's original question. When one respects the piety displayed by the faithful of other religions, it gets to the root of the matter. Piety is willful submission to the rules of dogma. Respect for piety is respect for playing by those rules -- respect for submission, that is.
Since religion is required to inoculate itself against critical thinking in order to survive, one way it does so is to invent rules that must be followed, uncritically, and to espouse that such uncritical obedience is actually a good thing. The prohibition against pork is a good example. Piety is submission without reason, and its praise is to acknowledge that it's working. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 02:47:30 PM · #1007 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The reality facing you is that there are literally millions of people as intelligent as you and as educated as you, or even moreso who are faithful, strong Christians. They don't go away when you close your eyes. |
Why is this type of fact always only considered a problem for the non-believer? Yes, Doc, I know your point was that you felt Louis was being parsimonious in his regard for "intellectual Christian" thought, but it is just as easy (and correct) to say:
The reality facing you is that there are literally millions of people as intelligent as you and as educated as you, or even moreso who are faithful, strong Muslims. They don't go away when you close your eyes.
The reality facing you is that there are literally millions of people as intelligent as you and as educated as you, or even moreso who are faithful, strong Hindus. They don't go away when you close your eyes.
The reality facing you is that there are literally millions of people as intelligent as you and as educated as you, or even moreso who are faithful, strong Buddists. They don't go away when you close your eyes.
The reality facing you is that there are literally millions of people as intelligent as you and as educated as you, or even moreso who are faithful, strong Jews. They don't go away when you close your eyes.
The reality facing you is that there are literally millions of people as intelligent as you and as educated as you, or even moreso who are faithful, strong Animists. They don't go away when you close your eyes.
And, of course, to flip it on the believers:
The reality facing you is that there are literally millions of people as intelligent as you and as educated as you, or even moreso who are faithful, strong Agnostics. They don't go away when you close your eyes.
The reality facing you is that there are literally millions of people as intelligent as you and as educated as you, or even moreso who are faithful, strong Atheists. They don't go away when you close your eyes.
---------------
This follows on the current discussion where you indicate that while you don't view the sacred obligations of other faiths as "superstitions," you really don't give them full credit either.
My observation has been that, for the most part, believers are unwilling to concede that others not of their faith hold the opposing beliefs in the exact same manner, and with the same weight and sacredness, as they themselves hold their own beliefs. This is because the fact of their belief is often one of the primary reasons for holding the belief - i.e., "my belief is strong and certain, therefore, my belief is true; because my belief is true (because it is strong and certain), that other person's belief is necessarily false; as such, that other person's claim to belief necessarily must not be as strong and certain as my own."
The reality facing {{you}} is that the mere fact of belief holds little value in assessing the truth claim for that belief, especially when you consider that "belief" (in a variety of ever-changing forms) appears to have been the social (and perhaps genetically-inclined) default for the human race for the entirety of its cognitive existence. The modern competition between these historical (and historically unquestioned) beliefs is part of what allows for the space to lift one's head up, stop asking "which?" and start asking "why?".
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 02:51:23 PM · #1008 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Since religion is required to inoculate itself against critical thinking in order to survive... |
I'm not smart enough to follow you Louis. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 02:54:58 PM · #1009 |
| The way out of that SP is to realize EVERYONE is in the same boat. I am at no disadvantage to you as an agnostic/atheist or someone of another faith. Really, for all the years I've jabbered on Rant my main theme has been "we are all in the same boat". I should just have it as my sig maybe. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 03:11:38 PM · #1010 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Since religion is required to inoculate itself against critical thinking in order to survive... |
I'm not smart enough to follow you Louis. |
Sure you are. Your answer to shutterpuppy reveals that you know exactly what is being hinted at here. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 03:23:40 PM · #1011 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Since religion is required to inoculate itself against critical thinking in order to survive... |
I'm not smart enough to follow you Louis. |
Sure you are. Your answer to shutterpuppy reveals that you know exactly what is being hinted at here. |
You're right. I was just joking. The BS meter pegged at the word "required" and it was over after that. Tip of the day, when you show a strong contempt for my ability to critically think, it's generally a conversation non-starter. That'll serve you well in life and I give it for free! :) |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 03:26:36 PM · #1012 |
I'm forever intrigued by what passes for "insult" and "BS" in these discussions. When an honest response is a non-starter for someone with the faith, it seems my point has been made.
Message edited by author 2011-02-01 15:27:28. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 03:34:11 PM · #1013 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm forever intrigued by what passes for "insult" and "BS" in these discussions. When an honest response is a non-starter for someone with the faith, it seems my point has been made. |
It's all in the way it's said. You definitely need to learn this in life because I know from our conversations this isn't the first time a person has reacted the way I have. Hey, lady! Lose some weight! What? It's the truth!!! If you can't take it then that's your problem!
But, interestingly, if you do not believe I have the capacity for critical thought, why are you interested in my answer? Just to make me look foolish?
Message edited by author 2011-02-01 15:34:53. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 03:49:59 PM · #1014 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's all in the way it's said. |
Ah yes, the "Dawkins' opinion is worthless because he's so darn mean" syndrome. Understood.
Your example of boorish behaviour (the fat lady) makes me shudder. Your willingness to attach it to someone who simply has a position that is exactly opposite yours makes me a bit sad.
It's interesting that you accuse me of charging that you have no capacity for critical thought, but I didn't say that at all, and that's the last thing I think of virtually everyone. Reason is a uniquely human trait, one which I'm always inspired by, and I would never dare to suggest someone simply doesn't have the capacity to think critically. Everyone does. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 03:50:40 PM · #1015 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The way out of that SP is to realize EVERYONE is in the same boat. I am at no disadvantage to you as an agnostic/atheist or someone of another faith. Really, for all the years I've jabbered on Rant my main theme has been "we are all in the same boat". I should just have it as my sig maybe. |
And, of course I my jabbering boils down to the fact that I disagree - you appear want to say that there is no objective way to evaluate the various truth claims between believers and non-believers." But your method for putting us "in the same boat" is simply to deny the viability of the other various boats available (methods of evaluating truth claims) or to narrow the "relevant" questions down to those that reside in areas where the alternative boats (scientific method/inquiry/reasoning) don't yet have complete maps and call the unmapped/incomplete areas "proof" of the alternative boats' non-viability.
And to torture this analogy even further, you also have seemed to want to discount the fact that by comparing the maps generated by the various boats' crews to the actual terrain, you can see that the faith-based crews do a (generally) piss-poor job of navigation while the scientific-based crews have an excellent success rate.
In short, "you" are sitting in your well-loved, well-populated, but ultimately leaky, underpowered and increasingly decrepit barge yelling out "we're all in this together" as the modern power-liners pass you by.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 03:53:44 PM · #1016 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But, interestingly, if you do not believe I have the capacity for critical thought, why are you interested in my answer? Just to make me look foolish? |
Can't speak for Louis, but by my conversations with you I can absolutely say that you have a vast capacity for critical thought. You simply exercise it selectively and with a bias toward confirmation of your already deeply held (and assuredly cherished) beliefs.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 03:56:23 PM · #1017 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
In short, "you" are sitting in your well-loved, well-populated, but ultimately leaky, underpowered and increasingly decrepit barge yelling out "we're all in this together" as the modern power-liners pass you by. |
Yeah, but HIS barge will still be piddling around when the full-speed-ahead liners fall off the edge of the world :-)
(Runs for shelter)
R. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 04:17:41 PM · #1018 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The way out of that SP is to realize EVERYONE is in the same boat. I am at no disadvantage to you as an agnostic/atheist or someone of another faith. Really, for all the years I've jabbered on Rant my main theme has been "we are all in the same boat". I should just have it as my sig maybe. |
And, of course I my jabbering boils down to the fact that I disagree - you appear want to say that there is no objective way to evaluate the various truth claims between believers and non-believers." But your method for putting us "in the same boat" is simply to deny the viability of the other various boats available (methods of evaluating truth claims) or to narrow the "relevant" questions down to those that reside in areas where the alternative boats (scientific method/inquiry/reasoning) don't yet have complete maps and call the unmapped/incomplete areas "proof" of the alternative boats' non-viability.
And to torture this analogy even further, you also have seemed to want to discount the fact that by comparing the maps generated by the various boats' crews to the actual terrain, you can see that the faith-based crews do a (generally) piss-poor job of navigation while the scientific-based crews have an excellent success rate.
In short, "you" are sitting in your well-loved, well-populated, but ultimately leaky, underpowered and increasingly decrepit barge yelling out "we're all in this together" as the modern power-liners pass you by. |
I hear you and would think all agnostic/atheist smart people would hold a similar opinion. The rest of the smart people would disagree.
I'll argue with one point though. The scientific-based crews do no better navigating the "uncharted regions" than anybody else. Science isn't even set up to answer the "big" questions of life. So, as you say, if we are to torture the analogy further, the Science boats are on a different ocean and are doing a good job there, but that doesn't mean they have any ability to navigate the other one. You know that though.
Ok, I'll argue with two points. My boat only appears to be decrepit in select populations, and even in those it is rather that some people are getting off while the rest are more resolved. In other populations the boat is outfitting itself with twin hulls and jet turbine engines. ;) |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 04:20:07 PM · #1019 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Can't speak for Louis, but by my conversations with you I can absolutely say that you have a vast capacity for critical thought. You simply exercise it selectively and with a bias toward confirmation of your already deeply held (and assuredly cherished) beliefs. |
Do you think you do the same? I think we're all subject to that and we can fight it as best we can, but in the end we probably lose.
Really, in your worldview my thought processes are a fatalistic product of sub-atomic pool balls banging around. How could I conclude anything else?
Message edited by author 2011-02-01 16:21:43. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 04:28:26 PM · #1020 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Science isn't even set up to answer the "big" questions of life. |
You might be wrong about that. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 04:30:13 PM · #1021 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Can't speak for Louis... |
You can see my response above yours. It's the same answer without the flattery. :P |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 04:30:59 PM · #1022 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Science isn't even set up to answer the "big" questions of life. |
You might be wrong about that. |
Possibly. But after years of critical thought on the subject and having a career in the field, I'll stick with my position. I wish I could make some $$$ selling books though! |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 04:38:49 PM · #1023 |
| Jesus. I have to say your cynicism is really unpalatable. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 04:46:37 PM · #1024 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Can't speak for Louis, but by my conversations with you I can absolutely say that you have a vast capacity for critical thought. You simply exercise it selectively and with a bias toward confirmation of your already deeply held (and assuredly cherished) beliefs. |
Do you think you do the same? I think we're all subject to that and we can fight it as best we can, but in the end we probably lose.
Really, in your worldview my thought processes are a fatalistic product of sub-atomic pool balls banging around. How could I conclude anything else? |
First, I'm not a determinist - at least not in the "fatalistic" sense you want to cast me. I categorically reject contra-causal free will, but that is not the same thing as saying the people are not capable of making choices or that they are genetic automatons or other such nonsense. (Thomas W. Clark articulates a really good description of this type of "naturalist free will" view, the distinctions from contra-causal free will and determinism and the implications that such a view has on various aspects of society. You can listen to a discussion here, and get his book on the subject here (no Kindle version, alas).
Second, I'm sure that to at least some extent I do. I do try stay aware of my own biases, however, and subject my key assumptions to ongoing critical scrutiny lest they calcify.
However, I do think that the typical non-believer is more likely to be able to analyze faith claims than the typical believer. Partly from the simple fact of being an outsider to the belief, but also because, in the case of non-believers that came out of religious traditions, non-believers have already been through the process of evaluating and ultimately having to admit the deficiency of their own key beliefs and assumptions. Once you have had to come to terms with the idea that certain assumptions and beliefs that have been so key to your own self-perception and worldview have been fundamentally flawed and incorrect, I think it becomes easier accept the possibility of further change as new and hopefully better information becomes available.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 04:53:23 PM · #1025 |
That's all reasonable SP. Jokingly, if non-believers are better able to analyze faith claims because they are on the outside, does that mean believers are better able to analyze non-faith claims? Hmmm.
If I have time, I'll check out your links, but I'll tell you my base position is that if you deny a true dualistic "free-will" I cannot fathom any rational possibility other than fatalistic determinism. Is it possible for you to give me a cliff notes on how you could come up with something else without using jargon words? |
|
