L
Leela
Guest
Why do you suppose that it is hard for a scholar to maintain his spirituality? What sorts of people have it the easiest with regard to mainting their spirituality?
Best,
Leela
- Status
Best,
Leela
S
Syntax
Guest
I’ll take a shot at that. No one said spirituality is any less difficult for the non-scholar than the scholar. The difficulties each encountered are the same, but one set of difficulties may be more emphasized for one group of persons over the other group of persons. But this is understandable–there are problems that are unique to any vocation or profession.
For both, I think it comes down to where the individual chooses to focus his or her energies. And when the scholar spends all of his or her energy trying to crack the shells of arguments and philosophical postions as a regular profession, you get swamped with your own capabilities and the intellectual powers you find out you have, and you simply lose sight of humility and your own shortcomings and weaknesses. So there is alot of temptation toward pride, and the intellectual will often go too far in presuming he has all the answers. I’ve been in that egotistical place countless times, to the point where I’ve rejected faith and God twice. But the relationship with God does not begin and end in the propositions that we believe about Him. So without that balance of relationship and communion with God, our intellects begin to derive conclusions from premises we didn’t realize we even adopted that happen to be false. So the struggle consists of drawing the line between what I can say I know, and what I can say I don’t know–and neither position gives me full license to draw all the conlusions I want about things. And that’s what we have to keep in mind. Balance.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
An enormous question, perhaps fit for another thread someday?
It’s not immunity from outside criticism, as such, it’s immunity to this deep undermining of what the tradition is all about by someone not even within the tradition (Campbell). I don’t think that he can escape the charge of naive elitism levied here, at least in terms of what you’ve presented.
Dawkins, with all due respect if you’re a fan, in fact doesn’t get it. I heard him on a radio interview recently (maybe 6 weeks ago), and he very clearly said in reply, when asked to define ‘faith,’ “Believing in something without any evidence.” I honestly do not know one theistic theologian of any reputation who would ever allow such a peurile understanding of such a profound concept such as faith as what Dawkins suggests. An equivalent example, to go with my motif of Creationists criticizing evolution, would be for Dawkins to ask the creationist to define evolution, and to get this definition in reply–“Living beings change over time.” Is that what is meant by Dawkins, et al in the entire concept of evolution? Not hardly. But, no more accurate or penetrating or indicative of understanding is Dawkin’s definition of faith.
He doesn’t get it, but why would he? Is he a theologian? Is he even a philosopher? Negative on both counts. I don’t expect Dawkins to understand what Pope John Paul II means when he uses the word faith, necessarily, and neither do I expect Campbell to understand the ins and outs of Christianity, necessarily. But, I do expect anyone who attempts to criticize something so massively important as various religions to make the concerted effort to not sound sophomoric in his criticism. To actually go out of one’s way to learn that which you’re attempting to criticize is a necessary condition of responsible critique.
It is odd, I think, to try to criticize “religion” as if you could ever talk about one monolithic something in so doing. You may as well try to criticize “philosophy.” Just as there is no one major philosophical position, there is no one thing meant by religion–no one referent. It is likely that some religions have no use for incorporating an historical sense within themselves (e.g., Buddhism), but that really has nothing to do with the fact that some religions (e.g., Christianity) have as a part of their own internal traditions a merging of the eternal with the temporal; a transcendent and a historical aspect. To disregard this is to not even criticize the religion in question, really. If Campbell does disregard it, why would any Christian take him seriously? He doesn’t take the positions of Christianity, in these regards, seriously, so the favor is repaid.
There is a certain, very broad sense, I suppose, in which, yes, religious texts can be encountered and appreciated by those not within the religious traditions they sprang out of. But, no, this does not entail that Campbell or you or I get to determine, all by our lonesome, the meaning/significance of religious texts in question. Since those texts are the product of some religious community or other, they must be read within the sphere of that community. I don’t take this to be a controversial, so I’m not going to argue for it for now.
Certainly, Leela. All disciplines, including history, improve over time. But, this doesn’t address my original criticism. The fact remains that the New Testament, if not most of the Bible, was penned within a world which was already doing history on a significant level. I think Campbell’s point here is therefore undermined by this historical (bah-dum-chee) fact.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Yeah, I agree in principle with Syntax’s reply. It’s all a matter of balancing the mind and the heart, and this is true in life just generally, no matter what your profession. But, when your profession happens to be one which makes great and extensive demands and employment of the mind, it is quite easy to get unbalanced and to overemphasize, if not overengage, the mind, to the exclusion of the heart. The opposite, perhaps, may be true of other types of work, like social work, which may run the risk of engaging the heart to the neglect of the mind…
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i find its use in claiming that we are talking about “miracles” or “magic” when discussing events attributed to the actions of G-d.
if we induce from billions of observations that the sun will always rise, then we would be greatly shocked in a few billion years when it doesnt happen.
induction doesnt give conclusive evidence of anything, as useful as it is, investigatorily, throughout the history of science, we have found that previously unexplainable phenomenon are eminently explainable when we gain new knowledge.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
the problem of course is the empirical mindset, that artificial divide between what is material and what is immaterial. only a century ago we were just beginning to understand that there are wavelengths of radiation that we cannot sense. scientific progress has made those wavelengths apparent now. i see no reason therefore to assume that what we currently consider immaterial, will stay that way. we have simply constructed an artificial barrier based on the logical contradiction in empiricism, the same flaw inherent in all verification and falsification schemes. poppers myth so to speak.
im not sure what you mean by objective probabilities, or what they have to do with the probablisitic mechanics, but ive mentioned the search for the grand unified theory to demonstrate that we really have no idea what the fundamental structure of reality actually is.
S
Syntax
Guest
I agree with everything you are saying, warpspeed, I just don’t think you’re understanding what I am saying. You’re right, what we have evidence for now may change in the future and we might find out that alot of things we believe now are actually false. The point is that, given this exact current state of our knowledge however limited, we are more justified in believing the hypothesis that Jonah didn’t get swallowed by a whale than believing the alternative hypothesis that he did. It comes down to adding up the evidence we have now for the competing claims, and then evaluating which claim has the more support given our current state of knowledge and ignorance.i find its use in claiming that we are talking about “miracles” or “magic” when discussing events attributed to the actions of G-d.
if we induce from billions of observations that the sun will always rise, then we would be greatly shocked in a few billion years when it doesnt happen.
induction doesnt give conclusive evidence of anything, as useful as it is, investigatorily, throughout the history of science, we have found that previously unexplainable phenomenon are eminently explainable when we gain new knowledge.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
the problem of course is the empirical mindset, that artificial divide between what is material and what is immaterial. only a century ago we were just beginning to understand that there are wavelengths of radiation that we cannot sense. scientific progress has made those wavelengths apparent now. i see no reason therefore to assume that what we currently consider immaterial, will stay that way. we have simply constructed an artificial barrier based on the logical contradiction in empiricism, the same flaw inherent in all verification and falsification schemes. poppers myth so to speak.
im not sure what you mean by objective probabilities, or what they have to do with the probablisitic mechanics, but ive mentioned the search for the grand unified theory to demonstrate that we really have no idea what the fundamental structure of reality actually is.
That’s right, we don’t know what the fundamental nature of reality is. And it is precisely for this reason that when we are weighing alternative hypotheses that are contrary, the question is, “which is more believable now, given what we know and what we don’t know”? Whichever hypothesis we conclude, we might be wrong. But certainly one them will likely have more evidence to support it than the other, will it not? Truly, how are we supposed to evaluate the believability of the two following contrary claims without also appealing to what we think we already do and do not know about the physical world?:
“Pink Elephants are in the room.”
“Pink Elephants are not in the room.”
I suppose we could leave the answer indeterminate. But if we are going to make any sense of the world, we have to start somewhere. And we start by looking at which claim is better supported by the available evidence and our current back-ground knowledge. Appealing to what we don’t know, which is what you are implying we do, will not help us decide at all which hypothesis is true here. We need to base our decision on something that we already think we know. Does this make anymore sense?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i cant take credit for that.
S
Syntax
Guest
Religious difference is not a difference in “product” or a “brand name.”
In fact, Baptists, Lutherans, and every other Christian are our brothers and sisters. Why are you so viciously 1-dimensional in your simplistic reductions? Talk about ignorantly close-minded! You have it so disgustingly backwards it is offensive to me and every other religion. When a person encounters the Truth itself, it compels one to make decisions **in spite **of his or her own egoism, and when someone goes astray there are factors of original sin in so many forms that impact those decisions to leave or choose something else. It is exactly those alleged “Christians” who decide religion should be reduced to cafeteria kinds of choices that is so repulsive, and THAT is what you are doing, Leela. So take your childish understandings of religion elsewhere!
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i think you are saying that we should use the current state of knowledge for judging the veracity of claims.
i would be fine with that. if i understand you than we simply disagree about what the current state of knowledge is.
from my perspective, the current state of knowledge is that we now know, that we really dont know anything. the fundamentals arent even close to being settled.
your perspective seems to be that the current state of knowledge is the best measure, even in the light of many experience where in the ‘current’ state of knowledge was later found to be false.
i am unwilling to accept that the current state of knowledge is a good measure of veracity, especially as it is used to deny the Truth of Christianity. i see no reason to give that ground over to the disbeliever. their argument that scientific progress will expose “miracles” as natural processes can be used against them in conjunction with the demonstration that empiricism is logically contradictory.
so when a claim is made that something cannot be true because it violates some precept of the current state of knowledge, that should not be left unexamined. it should be attacked with great vigor, because in doing so you eliminate a basic tenet of the disbelievers position.
S
Syntax
Guest
Fair enough. But the process consists of both using our current state of knowledge **and **our reason. So tell me, how would you go about deciding whether there was, or was not, a pink elephant in the room?
The situation is not so simplistic as you are making it out to be. You seem to have an all-out skeptical distaste for any form of knowledge that is proposed, as if it were something that directly threatens Christian faith. I do not sympathize at all. The people who use current knowledge to try to undermine christian tenets, are simply misusing it. There is nothing at all about physics, for instance, that threatens christianity. It is only the less-intelligent morons who think that it does. So don’t abandon science because jack-a** joe thinks he can use it to “disprove” religious belief. There is no such entailment. This is why we must keep our minds open and continue on the path to further discovery so that the “science-worshippers” don’t get out of hand.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
not at all, knowledge is great. im attacking a specific argument, because it is false. i feel adamant about the issue because it is used as a weapon against the Faithful. thats two very different things. what i mean is that i am not rejecting knowledge based solely on criteria of its effect on Christianity.
of course nothing in physics, or science in general undermines Christain tenets. unfortunately there are a great many people who believe that it does, they derisively call it ‘miracles’ and ‘magic’ based on the false ideas i am attacking.
no one, including me, is suggesting that we abandon science. im not even sure what we are arguing about. it seems we are pretty much in agreement, except for the ‘all out skepticism’ part.
S
Syntax
Guest
I think you’re right. Fair enough:thumbsup:
L
Leela
Guest
I’ve read Lewis (unpersuasive) and I’ll check out Chesterton since many others have also recommended him to me.
You’ve continually chided me for reading and referring to sources that aren’t taken seriously in academia. Does it concern you that the arguments made from those above are also not taken seriously by academia? Or do I have that wrong (I’m no academic myself)?
L
Leela
Guest
I find this response surprising. I would have thought that being in the academic world would make one much more humble about one’s own intellectual powers rather than tempted toward pride in such powers since there always seem to be others who are so much more powerful in that way. Also, the standards that such academics hold to one another for justifying assertions make it hard for someone in that world to claim that her belief in her religion is justified. Lastly, I would think that the fact that these others more powerful intellects are usually not Catholic would cause people entering that world to doubt their own Catholicism.
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
I don’t understand your point or the anger here. Can you explain what is backwards about my understanding? Are other Christian denominations something other than choices available to people? What about the available choices offered by other religions? People choose religions. That is a simple fact. I don’t see how you can avoid that fact a claim that you do not participate in this marketplace of ideas.Religious difference is not a difference in “product” or a “brand name.”
S
Syntax
Guest
The human struggle in the search for Truth (which you yourself either fundamentally lack or continue to supress), is not some egoistic choice which your model of “consumerism” presupposes. It is only when people out of weakness reduce their transcendental principles to their egoisistic practices which is consumer-minded. You have a very dim understanding of the existential complexities of the human struggle for Truth because your pragmatic model rejects it from the start making your views incredibly shallow.
S
Syntax
Guest
This shouldn’t surprise you. You didn’t even say anything that was in stark contrast to what I said. The humility and charity that academics continue to display toward another person’s argument is a widely practiced virtue. But the humility is too often driven by a false modesty because everyone still faces the temptation to intellectual pride, and he or she knows it. I continually talk with graduate students about this, both theist and non-theist.
And of course the Christian is faced with doubts, that’s precisely part of the struggle. Ask any believing Christian in academia, and he or she will tell you the same thing I did about the play between humility, pride, doubt, certainty, reason, and faith. Atheists will face very similar struggles (without the faith part, of course). So don’t presume to know what it’s like.
S
Syntax
Guest
That’s right, and I will stick to that accusation. The very accusation against Campbell by other academics is exactly the accusation that he wouldn’t bother trying to gather an insider’s view-point on any particular religion. It is precisely for this reason that if you are going to really gain a firm understanding of ANY religion from the inside, you have to begin approaching its intellectuals who are located in the inside, and avoid people like Campbell. This should be no surprise. It’s the same kind of distinction between studying a new culture from a textbook, and experiencing that new culture first-hand.
L
Leela
Guest
You neglected this part in the above:That’s right, and I will stick to that accusation. It is precisely for this reason that if you are going to really gain a firm understanding of ANY religion from the inside, you have to begin approaching its intellectuals who are located in the inside, and avoid people like Campbell. This should be no surprise. It’s the same kind of distinction between studying a new culture from a textbook, and experiencing that new culture first-hand.
Given that you have a distaste for me citing sources that are not well-respected in the academic community, “Does it concern you that the arguments made from those above are also not taken seriously by academia? Or do I have that wrong (I’m no academic myself)?”
S
Syntax
Guest
You obviously missed my point: The accusation against Campbell by other scholars is that he couldn’t see things from the inside point of view…duh. Who is more of an expert on C.S. Lewis’ understanding of his own religion. C.S Lewis or Campbell? You apparently are not aware of the principles that govern the scholarship in cultural anthropology and comparative religion. You are going to get MORE information and understanding about their symbols and traditions when you JOIN the people and live among them and understand how they relate to the symbols. You’re not going to find this information in a text book!!
- Status