Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wyz_sub10 · 08-11-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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?

It has to do with one's own level of comfort - not with the words and audiences, but with their own beliefs.

One might grow up believing and, despite learning more about the world aournd him, is not ready to abandon those beliefs.

When I was in late high school I was faced with a choice - abandon my beliefs or reconcile them with my observations.

I tried doing the latter and it only made things more complicated - let's call this the Tyco Brahe Theological Model.

Eventually I came back to my choices and selected the former. When your faith gets to the point that nothing means what everyone think it means, but means something else entirely, and you accept that few people within the faith (including those that preach it) really understand this "truth", then you've ventured beyond the pale.

One of our members reminds me of myself during those years. No doubt he'd be flattered to hear that!

callmejay · 08-11-2003, 12:28 PM

I think the religions themselves have changed. Ancient Judaism seemed a lot more literal and less metaphysical than modern Judaism, for example.

Ojuice5001 · 08-11-2003, 12:50 PM

Callmejay,

No, that's not a theological development, that's a sociological one. The uneducated always have a tendency to believe legends, and the educated always have a tendency to believe in philosophy. Basically, the uneducated have too little sense that the supernatural world is separate from the natural, since they don't draw the distinction as sharply. On the other hand, the educated have too little sense that it is connected, because of the influence of a certain (fairly common) intellectual temperament. This kind of person needs a spiritual sense but for whatever reason can't entertain the idea that everyday life is affected by supernature.

So the uneducated person and the educated one have always approached religion similarly. What's different now is that there are a lot more educated, so they have more influence and are more noticeable (especially to an observer in another country). Also, notice that philosophy (e.g., cosmology) and legend (e.g., UFOs) are both becoming secularized, and it may be happening faster with legend.

Godless Wonder · 08-11-2003, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kctan
[...]
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.

Well put, but maybe I would add that you can probably consider "education", above, to be any form of learning whatsoever, without regard to whether the information learned is "correct" or not, and I think all of the above still works out.

Because of the way one's brain has been wired up, by one's (mis)education, certain ideas are not allowed in, because they conflict with how the brain is currently wired up. Similarly, I'm thinking that people's brains literally and physically grow to represent their beliefs, esp. in children. That is beliefs are represented physically in the brain. To change one's ideas about what is true and what is not true, physical changes must take place in the brain. From what I've read, one way to get some traction for an idea which is contrary to a lot of ideas which your brain already contains is practice, in the manner of practicing a musical instrument. If you can practice believing something (means pretend) for long enough, you can actually begin to believe. This is the place faith occupies, and what I think faith really is. Faith is practicing a belief you don't really quite believe, until you've practiced so much that you really and actually do believe. Well anyway that's my current theory. I'm too afraid to try an experiment on myself, practicing believing something absurd, because, if I'm right, well, I'll end up believing something absurd. Once, when a Christian was trying to convince me it was possible for me to believe in God, the analogy was given that it was like someone who had never seen anyone swim claiming that swimming was impossible. Given a little practice, I could probably do it. Yes, given enough practice maybe I could. That doesn't make it right.

There are probably limits to the absurdity that practice will enable one to ignore. I doubt that I could ever practice enough to believe that 2+2=5. Understandably most theists are not very motivated to "practice" at being atheists, and vice versa.

(Hmm, not really sure if I added any new info to this thread. Oh well.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2003, 12:28 PM	#12
callmejay Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 466	I think the religions themselves have changed. Ancient Judaism seemed a lot more literal and less metaphysical than modern Judaism, for example.

08-11-2003, 12:50 PM	#13
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	Callmejay, No, that's not a theological development, that's a sociological one. The uneducated always have a tendency to believe legends, and the educated always have a tendency to believe in philosophy. Basically, the uneducated have too little sense that the supernatural world is separate from the natural, since they don't draw the distinction as sharply. On the other hand, the educated have too little sense that it is connected, because of the influence of a certain (fairly common) intellectual temperament. This kind of person needs a spiritual sense but for whatever reason can't entertain the idea that everyday life is affected by supernature. So the uneducated person and the educated one have always approached religion similarly. What's different now is that there are a lot more educated, so they have more influence and are more noticeable (especially to an observer in another country). Also, notice that philosophy (e.g., cosmology) and legend (e.g., UFOs) are both becoming secularized, and it may be happening faster with legend.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.