Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
My point was that the nature of religious faith includes implications regarding how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity.
Here’s one example of why I think you’re putting too much weight on religious beliefs:
One of the men in my family is a Christian. This came about because he had…a problem…and he genuinely felt that God helped him get straight. So he is forever grateful. However, he is very analytical in how he approaches other areas. He researches ballot issues before he votes. His work is very technical, and he is conscientious about working out details. He takes pains to manage his finances, again researching the options and keeping on top of changes in the market. So I actually see that his religion is more like his commitment to his wife—maybe she’s not the perfect woman for him, but since he’s committed to her, he remains unquestioningly devoted. If he dissected his faith in God or in his wife, he might see things differently. But he’s content to go on faith in some areas and on reason in others.
Now I agree that some people abnegate their own opinions when they join a church. These are the sort of people who are looking for someone to tell them all the answers. But many people are, as I said, inconsistent. They compartmentalize and use different means for making various types of decisions. This is why there are many doctors who are religious. They certainly understand how to reason, but they assign religious thought to a different standard.
And what exactly about any of that do you think indicates my position is mistaken?
You said that “the nature of religious faith includes implications regarding how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity.” I think this person shows an example of someone who thinks differently on religious, emotional, and practical matters. He chooses not to question that Jesus is the son of God, etc., but he questions political claims and researches financial decisions and work-related issues. So I believe he has “intellectual integrity” on the latter issues, but forfeits rational questioning of his emotional religious beliefs. In other words, I would not say that his religious faith indicates that he is likely to take a purely emotional stance in other areas.
You said that “the nature of religious faith includes implications regarding how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity.” I think this person shows an example of someone who thinks differently on religious, emotional, and practical matters. He chooses not to question that Jesus is the son of God, etc., but he questions political claims and researches financial decisions and work-related issues. So I believe he has “intellectual integrity” on the latter issues, but forfeits rational questioning of his emotional religious beliefs. In other words, I would not say that his religious faith indicates that he is likely to take a purely emotional stance in other areas.
You’re rather freely inserting your own interpretation regarding “the nature of religious faith includes implications regarding how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity”, and rather than asking for clarification, you seem to be pretty much going with it. That kind of inclination toward presumption makes me disinclined to engage, quite frankly—it tends to create a persistent obstacle to genuine discussion with which I’m not interested in struggling, particularly regarding a complicated matter like this.
In any case, the point was that a lot more can be extrapolated about character from the nature of a person’s politics and of a believer’s religious beliefs than can be from most other paradigms.
In any case, the point was that a lot more can be extrapolated about character from the nature of a person’s politics and of a believer’s religious beliefs than can be from most other paradigms.
Makes sense to me, given that religion, as well as secular ideologies, grow out of the “social matrix” in which a person is raised and which contributed a great deal to that person’s character. To a fair degree, seems to me that though a man reflects his religion, it is just an true that expressed beliefs reflects the man as well. The cherries picked and offered for sale do represent the selectivity of the picker, and therefore the man.
That does not diminish the power of the experiences, in fact in my own case it significantly enhances it.
Do you know of any or can you think of any influences that would diminish the power of the experience?
A limited/isolationist/exclusionary/provincial world view, it would seem—at least as indicated by my own experience.
As a believer I had a pretty open view about who I could consider “We”, to an extent, but the fact there was still a “True We” was illuminated by this Experience in its limited extent, and the contrast was really quite profound in the Experience I had as an atheist (I think I was considering myself an agnostic at the time, by the way). In fact perhaps because of the previous Experience as a believer, that was the most striking aspect of the second one. The first Experience had tremendously cramped/shrunk the most powerful aspect of the Experience—absolute inclusivity, the elimination of any “Other”. With my first Experience that was limited to a sense of a god’s presence and focus—a powerful sense of being One with God and God’s Peoples. It was God, me, and ours. The second Experience had absolutely no such boundaries ... period. Gone. Absolutely nothing and no one was excluded.
You said that “the nature of religious faith includes implications regarding how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity.” I think this person shows an example of someone who thinks differently on religious, emotional, and practical matters. He chooses not to question that Jesus is the son of God, etc., but he questions political claims and researches financial decisions and work-related issues. So I believe he has “intellectual integrity” on the latter issues, but forfeits rational questioning of his emotional religious beliefs. In other words, I would not say that his religious faith indicates that he is likely to take a purely emotional stance in other areas.
You’re rather freely inserting your own interpretation regarding “the nature of religious faith includes implications regarding how we understand reality and fundamental issues of intellectual integrity”, and rather than asking for clarification, you seem to be pretty much going with it. That kind of inclination toward presumption makes me disinclined to engage, quite frankly—it tends to create a persistent obstacle to genuine discussion with which I’m not interested in struggling, particularly regarding a complicated matter like this.
In any case, the point was that a lot more can be extrapolated about character from the nature of a person’s politics and of a believer’s religious beliefs than can be from most other paradigms.
Well, I didn’t mean to be difficult, I just interpreted the point differently. But now I see what you meant.
I agree with you, and I’d like to add in a point to ponder. That is, people with the same religious label are often distilling very different essences from the creed. These various interpretations tell more about the personality than the specific label.
For example, in the Evangelical Christian Bible study I attended for several years, one man often keyed into the unquestionable authority of the Bible, and he was a very controlling husband (marriage ended later in divorce). One woman keyed into the compassion and love of Christ, and she was a counselor. Another woman keyed into sin and salvation, and she was critical of others. I was interested in apologetics, and over the course of 10 years I gradually reasoned my way out of faith.
One other man in the group was an opthalmologist, of course highly intelligent. He once talked about how Pascal’s wager had helped convince him to pursue the faith. I think this is interesting because he certainly would not use this standard of reason in his medical practice.
[ Edited: 02 November 2011 04:39 AM by hannahfriend ]
I agree with you, and I’d like to add in a point to ponder. That is, people with the same religious label are often distilling very different essences from the creed. These various interpretations tell more about the personality than the specific label.
For example, in the Evangelical Christian Bible study I attended for several years, one man often keyed into the unquestionable authority of the Bible, and he was a very controlling husband (marriage ended later in divorce). One woman keyed into the compassion and love of Christ, and she was a counselor. Another woman keyed into sin and salvation, and she was critical of others. I was interested in apologetics, and over the course of 10 years I gradually reasoned my way out of faith.
One other man in the group was an opthalmologist, of course highly intelligent. He once talked about how Pascal’s wager had helped convince him to pursue the faith. I think this is interesting because he certainly would not use this standard of reason in his medical practice.
Excellent examples of precisely what I’m talking about. Whole churches can offer a generally less precise projection of individual members as well, but unless the church is somewhat extreme in some doctrinal sense, it’s pretty iffy ... and it’s still somewhat iffy even in the more extreme cases. I wouldn’t be too surprised to find an exception to the community norm in a church like Westboro Baptist. But measuring by the community (church) nature/standard isn’t a bad rule of thumb kinda thing as long as you take it very tentatively on an individual level and you’re very prepared to modify your view.
But yeah, this is what I’m saying. The nature of a believer’s expression of faith, properly understood, is a good indication of the believer’s character—who the person actually is. Religions (proper) are just general flavors, or backgrounds over which each individual believer weaves a personal tapestry. The degree of uniformity or variation in a given community says a lot about both the community and the individuals that are its substance, for example, without even looking into any details.
I think X is right about religion, politics and character. I also think the combination of religion and politics, whichever is influencing the other, can be more indicative than either alone, but I think politics is the greater driver of religion. Conservative religious people are more dogmatic and more dangerous because they are less tolerant and attempt to impose their doctrine on society. Liberals are more tolerant and accepting and tend to hold their religious beliefs as personal spirituality. You don’t see religious liberal politicians introducing bills to affirm In God We Trust when bills should be introduced to help citizens who are hurting. That one act of this politician is all you need to know about him. You won’t learn anything else that matters really, except to those who have enough similarities and are willing to get close to him and establish an intimate relationship or through necessary business and social encounters, which etiquette dictates cordiality. So what if he’s a nice guy, plays the banjo, graduated at the top of his class and wears God on his sleeve, he’s nobody that I could give a damn about or respect and need to be wary of - he aims to harm me. His belief is dangerous. On the other hand, I have many close beautiful liberal friends who are religious and know I’m Atheist, yet it’s a totally irrelevant component to our relationship and I know they are good people because they constantly demonstrate it without advertising their belief.
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” H L Mencken.
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” H L Mencken.
That does not diminish the power of the experiences, in fact in my own case it significantly enhances it.
Do you know of any or can you think of any influences that would diminish the power of the experience?
A limited/isolationist/exclusionary/provincial world view, it would seem—at least as indicated by my own experience.
As a believer I had a pretty open view about who I could consider “We”, to an extent, but the fact there was still a “True We” was illuminated by this Experience in its limited extent, and the contrast was really quite profound in the Experience I had as an atheist (I think I was considering myself an agnostic at the time, by the way). In fact perhaps because of the previous Experience as a believer, that was the most striking aspect of the second one. The first Experience had tremendously cramped/shrunk the most powerful aspect of the Experience—absolute inclusivity, the elimination of any “Other”. With my first Experience that was limited to a sense of a god’s presence and focus—a powerful sense of being One with God and God’s Peoples. It was God, me, and ours. The second Experience had absolutely no such boundaries ... period. Gone. Absolutely nothing and no one was excluded.
—
Who’s Ludy?
Strangely enough, I haven’t got a clue how ‘ludy’ became the author of your post . . . not sure how that got there or why?
—
Now as to the nature of your two distinct experiences Skep, I’d first want to get a better description of the first (religious) one . . . you say “absolute inclusivity” and yet there’s the “elimination of any Other” plus “It was God, me, and ours.” You say inclusive, but it seems rather more exclusive to me . . . and in the second (agnostic) experience you admit that “Absolutely nothing and no one was excluded.” I would call that second experience a case of complete inclusivity. What do you think?
It has always seemed to me that religious “transcendence” is in the exclusive domain because while the physical body is not part of the experience there is this “feeling” of being chosen by god as in the act of a human mind making contact with a divine mind. The only sense of community involved here is the peripheral notion that other minds have also had this same kind of experience, but that does not mitigate against the exclusiveness of the religious experience. If it’s “God, me, and ours” then obviously some kind of exclusive group (divinely chosen?) has been assembled.
In a non-religious experience of “oneness” there is the explicit reaquaintence with the intelligence of one’s own body, and through that sort of merging with the natural world, one is brought to understand how physiologically/emotionally all is interconnected. As the limits and distinctions vanish one experiences an inclusiveness that is extremely powerful. In a much smaller way, merely recognizing how apelike one is and that indeed being human is just an extension of being a primate, all of a sudden there’s a deep connectedness to everything that is being explored and experienced.
I think the religious experience is framed primarily on the idea of exclusiveness (think of Brother Mario or even Bruce Burleson) and only in a secondary way is there the inclusion of those who have had a similar “awakening.” But in the non-religious experience it is the very idea of exclusivity that is rejected. The true intersubjectivity of the human experience is made explicit through our own biological nature and “oneness” becomes inclusive rather than exclusive.
That does not diminish the power of the experiences, in fact in my own case it significantly enhances it.
Do you know of any or can you think of any influences that would diminish the power of the experience?
A limited/isolationist/exclusionary/provincial world view, it would seem—at least as indicated by my own experience.
As a believer I had a pretty open view about who I could consider “We”, to an extent, but the fact there was still a “True We” was illuminated by this Experience in its limited extent, and the contrast was really quite profound in the Experience I had as an atheist (I think I was considering myself an agnostic at the time, by the way). In fact perhaps because of the previous Experience as a believer, that was the most striking aspect of the second one. The first Experience had tremendously cramped/shrunk the most powerful aspect of the Experience—absolute inclusivity, the elimination of any “Other”. With my first Experience that was limited to a sense of a god’s presence and focus—a powerful sense of being One with God and God’s Peoples. It was God, me, and ours. The second Experience had absolutely no such boundaries ... period. Gone. Absolutely nothing and no one was excluded.
Now as to the nature of your two distinct experiences Skep, I’d first want to get a better description of the first (religious) one . . . you say “absolute inclusivity” and yet there’s the “elimination of any Other” plus “It was God, me, and ours.” You say inclusive, but it seems rather more exclusive to me . . . and in the second (agnostic) experience you admit that “Absolutely nothing and no one was excluded.” I would call that second experience a case of complete inclusivity. What do you think?
The first description is of the first Experience. That’s where the exclusivity figures prominently. The second description is of the second Experience. Note: “The first Experience had tremendously cramped/shrunk the most powerful aspect of the Experience.”
The first description is of the first Experience. That’s where the exclusivity figures prominently. The second description is of the second Experience. Note: “The first Experience had tremendously cramped/shrunk the most powerful aspect of the Experience.”
Got no time right now to go into any more ...
I hope you didn’t think that I was attacking or questioning your descriptions . . . I was just wondering why you called the first experience one of “absolute inclusivity” and yet as you have indicated above it is where “exclusivity figures prominently” that was what I wanted you to clear up? Well, I guess you did that and I have my answer, thanks.
I hope you didn’t think that I was attacking or questioning your descriptions . . .
Not at all.
can zen - 06 November 2011 07:35 PM
I was just wondering why you called the first experience one of “absolute inclusivity” and yet as you have indicated above it is where “exclusivity figures prominently”
I didn’t:
“The first Experience had tremendously cramped/shrunk the most powerful aspect of the Experience—absolute inclusivity, the elimination of any ‘Other’”.
“Absolute inclusivity, the elimination of any ‘Other’” is “the most powerful aspect of the Experience” that was “tremendously cramped/shrunk” in the first case, and that made the contrast between it and the second so striking. That “absolute inclusivity” was limited to me, God and ours in the first Experience—it was an absolute sense of inclusion, but it was limited to a relatively small population ... well, and one imaginary being we were all into. My second Experience feature the same absolute inclusivity, but it wasn’t limited to a given population, not even just to sentient beings. I don’t think any imaginary beings were included though.
can zen - 06 November 2011 07:35 PM
Well, I guess you did that and I have my answer, thanks.
We’re probably on the same sheet of music but listening to different arrangements of the same tune. I guess when you refer to “absolute inclusivity” in the first case it would translate loosely to “being included with the divine or the absolute” and in that sense one feels the immense inclusion, however from a third party or outside-of-the-group perspective it would look more like “absolute exclusivity” especially given that you explicitly eliminate the “others” from the experience. OR, are you saying that the “oneness” is so complete that even the notion of “Other” is eliminated and thus there is no other left/remaining to include?
Maybe I’m making too much of this “discrepancy” Skep, and I should remember that you are relating each experience from the feeling that you had while it was happening, which can be quite different in retrospect.
What I find interesting is that people in a state of religion-induced ecstacy might think that they are feeling absolute inclusivity but in fact this is very much an illusion. Again I think of Brother Mario here who practically reeks of exclusiveness and is actually rude and demeaning to those who he finds outside of his chosen group, and yet in spite of this obvious limitation to his euphoria he remains devoted to his commitment to god. It must be a powerful hallucination nevertheless to think that you are living with god in every moment of your life?
We’re probably on the same sheet of music but listening to different arrangements of the same tune. I guess when you refer to “absolute inclusivity” in the first case it would translate loosely to “being included with the divine or the absolute” and in that sense one feels the immense inclusion, however from a third party or outside-of-the-group perspective it would look more like “absolute exclusivity” especially given that you explicitly eliminate the “others” from the experience. OR, are you saying that the “oneness” is so complete that even the notion of “Other” is eliminated and thus there is no other left/remaining to include?
That’s exactly how I was going to re-describe it—an absolute sense of “oneness”. That was consistent in both Experiences, but it was limited to God, me and ours in the first, and in no sense limited at all in the second.
can zen - 07 November 2011 02:30 PM
Maybe I’m making too much of this “discrepancy” Skep ...
?
Whatever, man.
can zen - 07 November 2011 02:30 PM
... and I should remember that you are relating each experience from the feeling that you had while it was happening, which can be quite different in retrospect.
Yeah, I’m pretty keenly aware of that too. Converts and apostates both remember their pasts somewhat proactively. It’s the way memory works. It’s also one of the reasons critical thinking imposes humility upon us.
can zen - 07 November 2011 02:30 PM
What I find interesting is that people in a state of religion-induced ecstacy might think that they are feeling absolute inclusivity but in fact this is very much an illusion.
Well, the whole thing can be considered illusory, really. As powerful as it is to the subject, what’s “real” in any external sense about any of it?
can zen - 07 November 2011 02:30 PM
Again I think of Brother Mario here who practically reeks of exclusiveness and is actually rude and demeaning to those who he finds outside of his chosen group, and yet in spite of this obvious limitation to his euphoria he remains devoted to his commitment to god. It must be a powerful hallucination nevertheless to think that you are living with god in every moment of your life?
BroMar, et al, remind me of junkies being strung along by pushers giving them just enough of the goods to keep them hooked and dependent, frantically always coming back for more. They’re getting a taste of the full experience and it’s got them hooked, and they’re insanely loyal to their pushers because that’s the only experience they know, and the only source they know of. But that’s based much more on their behavior than on the extrapolation of my own personal Experiences.
BroMar, et al, remind me of junkies being strung along by pushers giving them just enough of the goods to keep them hooked and dependent, frantically always coming back for more. They’re getting a taste of the full experience and it’s got them hooked, and they’re insanely loyal to their pushers because that’s the only experience they know, and the only source they know of. But that’s based much more on their behavior than on the extrapolation of my own personal Experiences.
Reminded me of Karl Marx’s statement “Religion is the opiate of the people.” but your assessment really captures how the “high” works in order to keep the junkie hooked.
