Love of wisdom and search for truth

[cho_pilo]

Let’s take for example, you read a lot of philosophy books, get involved in related discussions and such, and this is also reflected in how you talk to people in general. For example, you are fascinated by the existentialists and you make Sartrean comments during lunch or at a funeral. A couple of years later, you have a different philosophy and consider your existentialist period to be a mistake.

Generally, it seems to be the most feasible, for yourself and others, to have a stable and set system of beliefs/values/stances that does not change over time. This way, you appear to be a responsible person.
Experimenting with different philosophies, religions and lifestyles usually brings on a heap of problems, and one of them concerns the responsibility for your words and actions during that time of experimenting.

Should seeking the truth warrant protected irresponsibility?

When a person is on a mission to “find the meaning of life”, “searching their soul”, “come to the bottom of things”, what is the status of the statements they make during that time?

Can someone rightfully say “I am on a mission to find the meaning of life, and during this time, I may say and do many things that I may later change my mind about. Therefore, nobody may hold me responsible for my words and actions during this time.” -?

When others call you on how you have changed over time, and how this fills them with doubts about you: who is at fault - you or them?

How can a person integrate their own search for the truth (or for “the meaning of life” or however we wish to formulate it) into their everyday life, without causing too much distress to oneself and others, and without drawing suspicion upon themselves?

 

[fhansen]

We’re born ignorant of where we came from, if anywhere, what reason we’re here, if for any reason, and where we’re going, if anywhere. At the same time we may not even be willing to seek answers to these questions, whether because we’ve presumed there can be no answers or because we’re too proud to admit we don’t know them already.

But if we’re not so presumptuous and if we’re honest and humble enough to admit we don’t know, then we’ll become seekers and may well have to experiment with more than one path to the truth we seek. IMO we all have a tendency-a preference- to believe we already possess all relevant truth regarding the “big questions” and this is called pride, so if a person resists having a change of mind then I’d be suspicious of them-they’ll probably never even begin the journey.

 

[cho_pilo]

if a person resists having a change of mind

Letting one’s mind change “as it will” is a recipe for insanity, you do see this?

 

[fhansen]

Letting one’s mind change “as it will” is a recipe for insanity, you do see this?

That’s not what I said. Assuming one never needs to change ones mind is to remain insane, IMO. Everyone is ignorant to some degree and needs change-sometimes called metanoia in Christian parlance-or else there’d be no need for our faith, let alone the Atonement. The difference is in who we listen to, where the truth we all need is to be found.

 

[cho_pilo]

fhansen,

Thanks for the response. I have another question, though.

DISCLAIMER:
This question is meant primarily for theistic (name removed by moderator)ut.
Atheists are welcome to ask questions, provided those questions are not anti-theistic in nature.

Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.

The theistic discourse is embedded in psychological and social issues, thus effectively becoming a matter of interpersonal politics between the person who seeks God and the person who (presumably) knows God.

This political factor sets the scene for all kinds of abuse.

Is there a way to avoid it?

How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?

For example:

We are told to approach God on God’s terms, just like one would approach the President on his, the President’s, terms.
Allright, seems fair.
But what are those terms? A seeker, per definition, does not know what those terms are.
So he has to turn to someone who declares to have such knowledge. At the same time, the seeker is per definition unable to identify who indeed has knowledge of God and who doesn’t (if the seeker knew that, there would be no quest for him to begin with!).
And this is where the search for God becomes a matter of interpersonal politics.
And this is where I am stuck.
How to move on from here?

 

[fhansen]

fhansen,

Thanks for the response. I have another question, though.

DISCLAIMER:
This question is meant primarily for theistic (name removed by moderator)ut.
Atheists are welcome to ask questions, provided those questions are not anti-theistic in nature.

Given that a person normally learns about God from people, this puts one at the mercy of those people.

The theistic discourse is embedded in psychological and social issues, thus effectively becoming a matter of interpersonal politics between the person who seeks God and the person who (presumably) knows God.

This political factor sets the scene for all kinds of abuse.

Is there a way to avoid it?

How can a person inquire about God, without falling into the machinations of interpersonal politics?

For example:

We are told to approach God on God’s terms, just like one would approach the President on his, the President’s, terms.
Allright, seems fair.
But what are those terms? A seeker, per definition, does not know what those terms are.
So he has to turn to someone who declares to have such knowledge. At the same time, the seeker is per definition unable to identify who indeed has knowledge of God and who doesn’t (if the seeker knew that, there would be no quest for him to begin with!).
And this is where the search for God becomes a matter of interpersonal politics.
And this is where I am stuck.
How to move on from here?

I can only speak for myself, but, in my experience, the following simple concept from scripture is true: “Seek and you shall find.” Somewhere in our seeking there must reside a nascent hope, a hope that an answer may just lie somewhere, an answer to a question we may not even be able to formulate completely, but the answer to the question of what this life is all about.

If there is no God, then I submit that no answers worth having are to be found. But I also submit that the answers do come when we earnestly seek, for no other reason than that there simply* is* a God who can -and desires to- answer them. Keep seeking-it doesn’t matter so much where we seek, but as we seek for truth we’re seeking our own integrity as well, because we’re also acknowledging, at least tacitly, that we’re not already whole-that we’re lost, after a fashion- that we don’t already know.

God’s bigger than all religions and all attempts at describing Him, of course. I just happened-over time -to increasingly recognize the voice of truth-of the true Shepard-in the CC, where the clearest expression of Gods’ nature and will reside in her teachings, but not after straying very far and wide into other, mainly non-Christian religions. Just keep seeking-God will honor it, cuz He’s there and that’s what He wants us to do.

 

[Little_One0307]

I just happened-over time -to increasingly recognize the voice of truth-of the true Shepard-in the CC, where the clearest expression of Gods’ nature and will reside in her teachings, but not after straying very far and wide into other, mainly non-Christian religions. Just keep seeking-God will honor it, cuz He’s there and that’s what He wants us to do.

Hi,

That is succinctly and wonderfully putting things. Thanks for posting.

Little One0307

 

[cho_pilo]

That’s not what I said. Assuming one never needs to change ones mind is to remain insane, IMO. Everyone is ignorant to some degree and needs change-sometimes called metanoia in Christian parlance-or else there’d be no need for our faith, let alone the Atonement. The difference is in who we listen to, where the truth we all need is to be found.

But the problem is that an ignorant person per definition does not know where to look.

So why instruct them to go “to the right source”, when they don’t know what that is?

An ignorant person does not know whether the RCC is the right source or not.
So telling them to go to the RCC is useless.

 

[fhansen]

But the problem is that an ignorant person per definition does not know where to look.

So why instruct them to go “to the right source”, when they don’t know what that is?

An ignorant person does not know whether the RCC is the right source or not.
So telling them to go to the RCC is useless.

Well, we’re not going to get rid of our ignorance by standing still. The hope that I alluded to comes from a dim knowledge-a “measure of faith”. We don’t believe in or worship any Church-we’re to believe in God- and the Church is merely the guide helping get us to Him. But whatever the voice we may be listening to at any point in time, it’s our own internal measuring rod that must make the determination whether or not we’re hearing the voice of truth-or a foreign one.

We, each of us, are “of God”-we’re part of His being, made in His image, and so we’re equipped already to know His voice. We’re also equipped to remain in darkness, to reject that voice. Pope Benedict says that there is “a contradiction in our being”- that we easily fall into egoism and sin rather than pursue the good we know we should. But we’re still the judge-we have to be-we have no choice, in fact. And just because the Church proposes something to be true doesn’t make it true. From our own perspective we believe we’re either navigating to the truth, to the Shepard’s voice, and come to agree with it-or we don’t-but either way we must remain honest-true to our own conscience.

St Augustine, to paraphrase, said that he didn’t find God at first because he was looking on the outside for something which existed within. The Church’s role is really only to lead us to the Father-to that something within. And every which way that we’re willing to seek is another step closer to that end, IMO. I’m only saying that if we continue to look, aggressively so to speak, I believe we’ll end up agreeing with the CC. And what’s her central message? It’s simply that our hope is not in vain after all. It’s the message that God exists-God is!, God is love, and God, the foundation of the universe, has always desired that all live engulfed in this love-in an eternal happiness that only He can bring to realization in us. .

 

[Curious_Seed]

Let’s take for example, you read a lot of philosophy books, get involved in related discussions and such, and this is also reflected in how you talk to people in general. For example, you are fascinated by the existentialists and you make Sartrean comments during lunch or at a funeral. A couple of years later, you have a different philosophy and consider your existentialist period to be a mistake.

Generally, it seems to be the most feasible, for yourself and others, to have a stable and set system of beliefs/values/stances that does not change over time. This way, you appear to be a responsible person.
Experimenting with different philosophies, religions and lifestyles usually brings on a heap of problems, and one of them concerns the responsibility for your words and actions during that time of experimenting.

Should seeking the truth warrant protected irresponsibility?

When a person is on a mission to “find the meaning of life”, “searching their soul”, “come to the bottom of things”, what is the status of the statements they make during that time?

Can someone rightfully say “I am on a mission to find the meaning of life, and during this time, I may say and do many things that I may later change my mind about. Therefore, nobody may hold me responsible for my words and actions during this time.” -?

When others call you on how you have changed over time, and how this fills them with doubts about you: who is at fault - you or them?

How can a person integrate their own search for the truth (or for “the meaning of life” or however we wish to formulate it) into their everyday life, without causing too much distress to oneself and others, and without drawing suspicion upon themselves?

The search for truth, wisdom, meaning, and more is unavoidably distressful for those in pursuit.

The search is lifelong.

Some of our associates may be disturbed by it, and even denunciate us, accordingly.

Should that deter our search?

The more passionate among us may even face persecution.

Should that deter their search?

Should we retard our efforts, in order to placate our detractors?

In case you are wondering, the answer is no.