Is it mostly psychology?

[mcteague]

The Church itself has a long and distinguished intellectual tradition. There are many people here quite well educated in philosophy and theology. And many of the people expressing differing religious, or non religious views are also equally intelligent and articulate. There are many who can support their views with credible arguments. But isn’t the actuality of the case that the philosophical theories and theological beliefs that we hold are embraced largely because of our own psychology?

Psychology does not mean something abnormal. I mean based on our own personal experience, and what we are comfortable with for various reasons. Do we not also tend to like and agree with those philosophers and theologians that support the beliefs we have.

Sometimes I think some discussions here try to pretend that it is all very abstract, objective and intellectual. And I don’t mean to imply that the discussions are not all those things. I just wonder if sometimes the psychological is ignored because we are trying to make our discussions seem more scientific and rational than they can ever really be.

 

[JohnDamian]

I am afraid I don’t really follow you.

A good philosophical argument should be able to stand on it’s own.

A good theological argument is slightly different; it presupposes certain things; but the argument should still not be of a psychological nature; as what it presupposes is philosophy.

What exactly; do you feel is psychological?

 

[Soulewolf]

I am afraid I don’t really follow you.

A good philosophical argument should be able to stand on it’s own.

A good theological argument is slightly different; it presupposes certain things; but the argument should still not be of a psychological nature; as what it presupposes is philosophy.

What exactly; do you feel is psychological?

I agree. Logic is objective.

 

[Iprobe]

Do we not also tend to like and agree with those philosophers and theologians that support the beliefs we have.

No. For example, I find the doctrine of predestination totally unfair, and the doctrine of perdition utterly gruesome, but! They are both taught by Scripture. (I also think that “Love your enemies” is totally unrealistic: But! That is what Christ teaches.) So, do I ferret out theologians who espouse universalism? No.

I cannot in good conscience or objectivity take refuge in a spiritual pollyannaism.

 

[Maranatha]

I agree. Logic is objective.

I agree with mctaegue. Some people are more psychologically prone to rational thinking and some are more emotional. We are all have a little of both. Apologetics can be done with appeals to logical reasons based on philosophy, history and morality but it is effective when done with love.

 

[The_Exodus]

The Church itself has a long and distinguished intellectual tradition. There are many people here quite well educated in philosophy and theology. And many of the people expressing differing religious, or non religious views are also equally intelligent and articulate. There are many who can support their views with credible arguments. But isn’t the actuality of the case that the philosophical theories and theological beliefs that we hold are embraced largely because of our own psychology?

Psychology does not mean something abnormal. I mean based on our own personal experience, and what we are comfortable with for various reasons. Do we not also tend to like and agree with those philosophers and theologians that support the beliefs we have.

Sometimes I think some discussions here try to pretend that it is all very abstract, objective and intellectual. And I don’t mean to imply that the discussions are not all those things. I just wonder if sometimes the psychological is ignored because we are trying to make our discussions seem more scientific and rational than they can ever really be.

Run from the throws of Modernism and Pragmatism. They lead only to absurdity.

What you are getting at is a good point however; and one in which the Church recognizes well. It can be summed up thusly: although an argument can be sound and point to a truth, that does not therefore mean it must necessarily convince. There is a great gap between truth value and “convincibility” as it were. This is because, in my view and as the Church teaches, the world is inundated by sin.

Now, Pragmatism takes hold of this fact - that many intelligent people disagree - and make it a reason for believing there is no such thing as truth. But such a conclusion simply does not follow. It is like saying that if you have a road map that is difficult to read, the road map itself is false; or that if there is a really tough math problem, it is therefore unsolvable.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The Church itself has a long and distinguished intellectual tradition. There are many people here quite well educated in philosophy and theology. And many of the people expressing differing religious, or non religious views are also equally intelligent and articulate. There are many who can support their views with credible arguments. But isn’t the actuality of the case that the philosophical theories and theological beliefs that we hold are embraced largely because of our own psychology?

Psychology does not mean something abnormal. I mean based on our own personal experience, and what we are comfortable with for various reasons. Do we not also tend to like and agree with those philosophers and theologians that support the beliefs we have.

Sometimes I think some discussions here try to pretend that it is all very abstract, objective and intellectual. And I don’t mean to imply that the discussions are not all those things. I just wonder if sometimes the psychological is ignored because we are trying to make our discussions seem more scientific and rational than they can ever really be.

Recently discussed in other fora:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494287

Could you be more clear about your statements about science and reason?

 

[Cristiano]

The Church itself has a long and distinguished intellectual tradition. There are many people here quite well educated in philosophy and theology. And many of the people expressing differing religious, or non religious views are also equally intelligent and articulate. There are many who can support their views with credible arguments. But isn’t the actuality of the case that the philosophical theories and theological beliefs that we hold are embraced largely because of our own psychology?

Psychology does not mean something abnormal. I mean based on our own personal experience, and what we are comfortable with for various reasons. Do we not also tend to like and agree with those philosophers and theologians that support the beliefs we have.

Sometimes I think some discussions here try to pretend that it is all very abstract, objective and intellectual. And I don’t mean to imply that the discussions are not all those things. I just wonder if sometimes the psychological is ignored because we are trying to make our discussions seem more scientific and rational than they can ever really be.

I think that you are seeing some truth in the picture. However, religion is not about psychology, on the contrary psychology is about religion. Call it will to power, will to greater pleasure, will to logos, it does not matter it is really will to God. Religion (from the Latin word religo, to tie to fasten) is our way to bond or to relate with God. Guess why psychology is mainly about relations?

 

[Leela]

The Church itself has a long and distinguished intellectual tradition. There are many people here quite well educated in philosophy and theology. And many of the people expressing differing religious, or non religious views are also equally intelligent and articulate.

This is an important point. Atheiss who think that believers must be irrational and believers who think that atheists are irrational are both clearly wrong.

There are many who can support their views with credible arguments. But isn’t the actuality of the case that the philosophical theories and theological beliefs that we hold are embraced largely because of our own psychology?

Psychology does not mean something abnormal. I mean based on our own personal experience, and what we are comfortable with for various reasons. Do we not also tend to like and agree with those philosophers and theologians that support the beliefs we have.

Sometimes I think some discussions here try to pretend that it is all very abstract, objective and intellectual. And I don’t mean to imply that the discussions are not all those things. I just wonder if sometimes the psychological is ignored because we are trying to make our discussions seem more scientific and rational than they can ever really be.

I probably wouldn’t put it as a matter of psychology because it is a broader issue than that, but you are correct to say that it boils down to personal experience. We are historically situated culturally contingent finite beings with no abilty to step outside of our contexts. Having different histories means we can be rationally entitled to believe different things.

We have no way to appeal to standards of justifcation and for what ought to count as sufficient evidence to support our beliefs that themselves stand outside of history and culture. Our standards for evidence are for the most part handed to us by our cultures. There is no transcendent faculty of Reason that stands apart from culture. We ask the questions we ask because we have the concerns that humans have, not because these questions are simply given to us by reality. They is no non-human part of reason that can claim independence of human values. Logic is objective in the sense that it is easy to get agreement on it, but not in the sense that Soulewolf wants it to be objective as nonhuman. It is not something value-free, it is a way we have learned to generate good rationales for our actions. Looking to objectivity versus subjectivity as an attempt to get past the human to something non human is like trying to step out of your own skin. There is no view from nowhere. We point out certain facts and not others and favor certain justificatory practices over others because we have the values we have. Objectivity is not a means for getting past values. It is a matter of asserting some values over others.

Best,
Leela