Wyrdsmyth

Often I have noticed how apologists and theologians argue exclusively in the higher, more abstract 'academic' language of philosophy, while steering entirely away from the more legendary (or even banal) aspects of the faith they seek to defend. It is almost like there are god-legends for the common, uneducated folk, but those who are more educated and/or intelligent must somehow reconcile the basic core ideas of the faith with the thoughts in their own overactive brains. For example, if one talks of necessary and contingent being, perfection, absolute versus relative, omniscience and predestination, one is hardly likely to also refer to the talking ass from the Book of Numbers in the same speech.

Thoughts?

rainbow walking

The evolution of language and thought.

Wyrdsmyth

Certainly... But I am talking of the evolution of language and thought in individuals, not as a historical trend. For example, as a child or as an uneducated person, one may be much more willing to accept stories and myths as literally true -- or simply not take the time or effort to analyze them. The stories have meaning, and convey morality, and that is enough. But as a person becomes more learned and critical, the issues become more complicated and abstract. The justifications for the beliefs become much more involved. Entire philosophies are devoted to reconciling the core issues of the faith with reason and logic.

emotional

You've got to talk high philosophy when you're engaging the Epicureans and Stoics of the world...

Ojuice5001

Well, there are four possibilities about the relations of legend and abstract theology:

1. Despite the connections some people try to impose, there is no connection and they come from different sources.
2. Abstract theology is a developed form of legend. For some reason people try to make their legends into abstract theology.
3. Legend is what abstract theology becomes when uneducated, imaginative people make it suit their understanding. A possible view if historical common sense is low in your priority scale.
4. Legend and abstract theology have a common source; probably this common source has characteristics implied by both of the two. That is my view, and it's why I refuse to define mythology as either "made-up stories" or "literal truths about the material world" or "symbolically expressed truths about this world and the next." A myth could be any of these things, but if that's all it is, it's not a myth.

I'm sure someone could think of objections to all four of these alternatives, but one of them has to be true.

Ojuice5001

Yes, Epicureans and Stoics are just like anyone else--you've got to explain things in terms they'll understand. It's an example of the Scholastic saying, "When a gift is received, it is received according to the nature of the receiver."

Wyrdsmyth

Actually, to engage the Epicureans and Stoics, all you need is some gourmet food and a good poker face.

I'm sorry this topic hasn't engendered more discussion. I think it's rich with "deconversion potential."

kctan

Talking asses are definitely better with the uneducated since most of them will more likely believe in supernatural forces of one kind or another due to lack of knowledge on certain subjects.

Talking asses on the other hand sits badly with educated because most of them know what the fish an ass is & many would most likely found having a conversation with one is next to impossible. Applicable to either kind of asses.



On a more serious note, uneducated can be said to have less constraints on their frame of mind therefore certain concepts ain't block off immediately upon hearing it. With persuasion such concepts can be lodged into the frame of mind & take up residence hence the non reaction upon the idea of an imaginery being.

For the educated, the frame of mind is much more constraint baring markers & censors such that when a concept which crashes against these markers & censors are heard, they are automatically rejected thus a talking ass will not find an audience here whereas call for losing the markers & censors first will result in the concept being accepted once they can ply loose such markers & censors.

However if you were to try & slip in concepts which have potential to crash against other markers & censors in place, it may either strengthen the markers & censors & cause them to rebuild previously loosen markers & censors or bring down whatever other markers & censors one may have linked to a particular concept. Eg. once you start believeing in a god, you might find yourself believeing in ghosts, souls, afterlife et al which you previously have reserve in. It's opposite would be once you left the notion of god, you may find belief in ghosts, souls, afterlife et al as absurd.

fishbulb

I believe that religious thinkers have been making this distinction since the middle ages (for example, Averroes and Anselm): revelation (stories) for the common man, reason (metaphysics) for the educated. Both paths lead to the same truth but are suited to different minds.

That's what they say. To me, what it really looks like is this: revelation for everyone, and throw in some metaphysics to reassure people who really want to believe The Truth but whose education and critical proclivities leaves them with nagging doubts about the veracity of the stories.

It seems to me that most people who have attempted to find metaphysical justifications for god have acted as though they went into the exercise completely unbiased and with no personal stake in coming to one particular conclusion or the other. Educated philosophers ought to be aware of confirmation bias and the danger of engaging in a speculative activity that practically begs them to make assumptions which tend to reinforce their existing beliefs. (I am well-aware of the problem, and I still catch myself falling into that trap from time to time--and probably miss it just as often--one reason why I am highly skeptical of metaphysical discourse in general.) The whole exercise of metaphysical justification of spiritual beliefs seems to be strongly rooted in self-deception.

braces_for_impact

/devils' advocate

Couldn't the same case be made for atheism? In my personal experience, most atheists are simply non believers who go about their daily lives without much thought as to why they don't believe. They have various reasons, but they don't seem to dwell on them much, they don't self examine why they have a lack of god belief. They simply just don't seem to buy the hype.

Could it be the more educated, or more introspective atheists are the ones that come up with the counter arguments for apologetics?

/devils's advocate off