Is there a hierarchical religious organization with authorities on doctrine who aren't required to be believers?

[PseuTonym]

It should be possible to acquire expert knowledge of a system of ideas without being a believer in that system of ideas. For example, presumably some people are experts on Ptolemy’s system of astronomy. Otherwise nobody is in a position to criticize Ptolemy’s system of astronomy.

The pursuit of truth is a very long-range goal. Tracking down potential flaws in a clearly defined system of ideas is – in the short-term – a goal that can be achieved.

 

[Vonsalza]

The academy is the first thing that jumps out at me.

When you realize that most of them are working toward providing a particular telos, they all become “religious” organizations, whether they like the label or not.

 

[tgGodsway]

Is there a hierarchical religious organization with authorities on doctrine who aren’t required to be believers?

---

Of course there are. And of course they see themselves as the authority on religious matters. but whether or not they actually have authority is another thing.

 

[PseuTonym]

they all become “religious” organizations, whether they like the label or not.

If I were the creator of the organization, then my only concern about being classified as a “religious” organization is that people would assume that an expert in the system of ideas cannot rise in the hierarchy unless the expert is a believer.

The problem is that – perhaps for public relations purposes – the vast majority of organizations (that include an agenda of research and teaching among their functions) claim that they are seeking the truth, that they are unbiased in that search, and that they are seeking to teach their system of ideas without preferring a combination of understanding and agreement over a student’s mere understanding. How is it possible to make it clear to the general public that an organization is actually unbiased in the sense that lack of belief is no impediment to acquiring volunteer experience and even money earnings as a researcher or teacher?

 

[tgGodsway]

Maybe the Bible can be taken seriously rather than literally.

Some parts should be taken literally, other parts allegorically, symbolically, and metaphorically. but all parts should be taken seriously because it is God’s Word.

 

[Vonsalza]

If I were the creator of the organization, then my only concern about being classified as a “religious” organization is that people would assume that an expert in the system of ideas cannot rise in the hierarchy unless the expert is a believer.

To the contrary, my econ professors all held positions on whether they personally were economic classicists, keynesians or neo-classicists. Regardless, they had to teach the approach of all three with expertise.

My philo professors, in the same stripe, tended to be arch-egoists, utilitarians (classic communists) or relativists. Regardless of which they personally leaned toward, they had to teach all three and more.

As such, the assumption that you base your objection on doesn’t work irl, at least not in the academy.

How is it possible to make it clear to the general public that an organization is actually unbiased in the sense that lack of belief is no impediment to acquiring volunteer experience and even money earnings as a researcher or teacher?

As Dr. Jordan Peterson is teaching us within the academic realm of social sciences, this is proving to be quite a problem.

 

[tgGodsway]

You are probably right. It doesn’t work for those in the academy. Saying that scripture is God’s word is a faith-position based on the historical and scientific facts. But even when presented with the facts, does not make others approach it in faith.

 

[GLam8833]

The POPE’S committee on Science and Religion has
Stephen Hawkings as a member, could THAT be an
exception?

 

[PseuTonym]

If I were the creator of the organization, then my only concern about being classified as a “religious” organization is that people would assume that an expert in the system of ideas cannot rise in the hierarchy unless the expert is a believer.

To the contrary, my econ professors all held positions on whether they personally were economic classicists, keynesians or neo-classicists. Regardless, they had to teach the approach of all three with expertise.

My philo professors, in the same stripe, tended to be arch-egoists, utilitarians (classic communists) or relativists. Regardless of which they personally leaned toward, they had to teach all three and more.

As such, the assumption that you base your objection on doesn’t work irl, at least not in the academy.

Were your economics professors teaching at an institution that had received the label “religious organization”? It’s not clear to me why you begin with the words “To the contrary.” What general claim are you responding to with your counter-example?

If we were talking about how economics was approached in academic institutions in the USSR, then almost everybody would acknowledge that a professor who tried to take on a role as critic of Marxist economics would have been in danger of at least dismissal from employment along with blacklisting, and possibly a much greater danger: imprisonment without a trial. Now, using the term “religious” to describe economics departments in the USSR would obviously have been interpreted – by the authorities in the USSR – as pejorative. Perhaps the term “ideological” is somewhat more neutral as a substitute for “religious.”

The following might provide another example of the study of a system of ideas constrained by the proviso that trying to detect and describe defects in the quality of the system of ideas – in other words, any acknowledgement that there is such a thing as truth to be pursued and falsehood to be recognized – is against the rules because the actual goal is to promote a fixed system of ideas, and any defects (in that fixed system of ideas) are to be studiously ignored and proficiently evaded:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14014547&postcount=6
(in the thread having the title:
Jesus’s “Wife” Papyrus)

 

[Vonsalza]

Were your economics professors teaching at an institution that had received the label “religious organization”?

When I posted “When you realize that most of them are working toward providing a particular telos, they all become “religious” organizations, whether they like the label or not.”, was there anything in the text here that indicates the requisite of explicit labeling as such? I thought I was gently arguing “no”.

It’s not clear to me why you begin with the words “To the contrary.” What general claim are you responding to with your counter-example?

Your line of “If I were the creator of the organization, then my only concern about being classified as a “religious” organization is that people would assume that an expert in the system of ideas cannot rise in the hierarchy unless the expert is a believer.”

Perhaps the term “ideological” is somewhat more neutral as a substitute for “religious.”

I agree. But often they’re trying to do the same thing: “think this way, please”.

The following might provide another example of the study of a system of ideas constrained by the proviso that trying to detect and describe defects in the quality of the system of ideas – in other words, any acknowledgement that there is such a thing as truth to be pursued and falsehood to be recognized – is against the rules because the actual goal is to promote a fixed system of ideas, and any defects (in that fixed system of ideas) are to be studiously ignored and proficiently evaded:

Sounds super rational, but objective truth can become rather difficult to recognize and, consequently, so can falsehood.

As a for-instance:
I recall my very first econ professor was a rabidly classical economist. However, the guy that ran the dept. and taught most of the capstone classes was a convinced Keynesian. They both thought they were pursuing the truth. They turned their noses up at each other a bit, given their conflicting views on market theory. Students would often identify their economic philosophy on campus in this way. I wasn’t a “Keynesian”. I was a disciple of Dr. Ramsay.

To the original point:
At the same school, the English dept. was a slightly different story. If you didn’t write in support of post-modernist views of sexuality and gender, you simply weren’t going to achieve very high marks. Second-wave feminism had full-hold on the faculty there and dissenters were passive-aggressively punished via poor grading. As such, that dept. became a “religious” organization that largely generated acolytes of similar stripe. We didn’t discuss the classics or the rules of prose very much in those ENG courses, but patriarchy and its evils were covered quite extensively. :hypno:

I guess your objection is predicated on there being a very clear line between religion and ideology as such we can clearly identify where one stops and the other begins. That, however, is not my experience. It’s more like trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint where the atmosphere stops and space begins…