What is the role of credulity in religion and is it useful in promoting the message?

[nmgauss]

Credulity plays a significant role in organized religion. Which is more valuable, philosophy or mysiticism. For many people, just listening to a persuasive emotional sermon can be a powerful experience in forming convictions. For other less credulous people, many persuasive sermons are necessary to form final convictions. Then there are others who must have reason to support their convictions, and no amount of emotional sermons without rational arguments based on provable premises will have any effect.

Is it dishonest to persuade credulous people of the existence of divinities when they cannot be proven?

 

[Warandpeace]

You mean proven, as in the scientific method?

To answer your question, no, Jesus commanded us to share the faith.

 

[R_C]

Is it dishonest to persuade credulous people of the existence of divinities when they cannot be proven?

Is it dishonest to persuade credulous people of the necessity of a vaccine when they do not have the education and knowledge so that the necessity can be proven, or if there isn’t a microscope so that they can be shown that they are not just being injected ordinary water?

We can prove the existence of God, and we have evidence of the existence of God. I do, and many other Catholics do, and we always have for over two thousand years.

 

[nmgauss]

You mean proven, as in the scientific method?

To answer your question, no, Jesus commanded us to share the faith.

What does “share the faith” mean? When you say Jesus commanded it, how does your credulity fit in with this reply? There is no reason expressed here, so your credulity is being reflected.

 

[po18guy]

Rather than worrying about credulity, consider that incredulity is a sin. Incredulity is a violation of the first commandment. Bad. The following is from the catechism of the Catholic Church and is binding upon all Catholics, but remains true:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

As you can see, incredulity leads to a lack of, a corruption of, or a loss of faith.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Credulity plays a significant role in organized religion.

I absolutely disagree. It is usually critical thinking (not complete scepticism, but realism) which roots out the Truth from all the weeds credulous, or worse, apathetic, cretins fall for.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by “credulity”. If you mean “unfaltering acceptance of what anyone teaches”, then I oppose credulity. If credulity simply means “the ability to accept some things as true”, that’s another matter entirely. Without the latter form of credulity, not only theology, but every spectrum of knowledge is barred to us. Society cannot function in incredulity.

Which is more valuable, philosophy or mysiticism[sic].

What is mysticism?

What is philosophy?

Neither is valuable at all if they are untrue.

Is it dishonest to persuade credulous people of the existence of divinities when they cannot be proven?

You cannot persuade anyone of anything. They must make their own choices. If you love God, and therefore know He exists, no matter how unprovable from a scientific standpoint, my question is: why would you not want to share the Lord with others and try to lead them to Him?

If a person is credulous and an emotional, though, it doesn’t necessarily make him easier to convert. Remember, the Christian life is full of pain as well as joy, and it would be dishonest and scandalous not to teach a credulous person the whole truth.

What would you do if you had told a man all the good in the Christian faith, and he wanted baptism right there, and to give himself to God right then? Would you baptise him, or would you expose the entire truth so he could know it?

“God desires all men to come to the knowledge of Truth.”

 

[Abbigaelann]

The church needs credibility as a role model for the world. However, all the dogma, all the citings, all the semantics and battles of theologians can become meaningless…it’s a weird wisdom thing. Let alone they become tiresome, judgmental, and just plain awful and a burden. Let’s face it. It is a matter of the heart, the human knows this in emotion, and it emanates forward and back again in communion of the soul…a thing of beauty…the credulity lies in the experience…I have this warped idea that all the ranting, preaching, dogma, sermonizing, cajoling, etc in the world can be launched at the non believer, but unless they open their heart, soul, and mind, not a thing is going to change…conversion must come from within. (God forgive the opposite type of analogy, but ever known anyone who was adulterous that wasn’t open to it? willing participants). But some, it takes years of seeing positive examples to become open to it. As for atheists…do you believe in love? that you have the ability to love? Then to tell me you do not believe in God is a lie. For we believe that God is love.

 

[nmgauss]

Rather than worrying about credulity, consider that incredulity is a sin. Incredulity is a violation of the first commandment. Bad. The following is from the catechism of the Catholic Church and is binding upon all Catholics, but remains true:

As you can see, incredulity leads to a lack of, a corruption of, or a loss of faith.

The vast majority of research scientists have very low credulity. That is why science has made the astounding progress we have seen over the last 4 centuries. Are they all sinners and therefore not Catholics in good standing. The Jesuits have included modern science in their universities. Is the fact that the professors of science in these universities are not credulous automatically make them not welcome within the Catholic faith?

 

[rossum]

What is the role of credulity in religion and is it useful in promoting the message?

Something like 70% or 80% of people follow the same religion as their parents. Since children are extremely credulous, witness Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, then obviously childhood credulity plays a large role. All babies are born without any religion; religion is learned and usually learned during childhood.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Credulity plays a significant role in organized religion . . .

Quote a source for this outrageous comment.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

There is a difference between willfully deceiving someone and telling them truth wrapped in allegory.

 

[nmgauss]

There is a difference between willfully deceiving someone and telling them truth wrapped in allegory.

How can one tell the difference if there is no proof?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

How can one tell the difference if there is no proof?

Intent.

Although only peripherally relevant the quote by Picasso comes to mind “Art is a lie that reveals the truth.”

You generally aren’t trying to trick people with art but rather have them transcend their everyday lives to see a greater truth that they can bring back to their day to day.

Jesus spoke in parables. I don’t think that’s insignificant.

 

[nmgauss]

Intent.

Although only peripherally relevant the quote by Picasso comes to mind “Art is a lie that reveals the truth.”

You generally aren’t trying to trick people with art but rather have them transcend their everyday lives to see a greater truth that they can bring back to their day to day.

Jesus spoke in parables. I don’t think that’s insignificant.

In other words, if it is subjective, it is true. If one feels it, then it is true.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It’s like being in love.

I can tell you why I’m in love with my wife, but it won’t make you fall in love, but when you do fall in love with someone, you will see the truth of my love, as well as your own.

 

[Abu]

Nmgauss #1 30/5/13 12:02 pm
Is it dishonest to persuade credulous people of the existence of divinities when they cannot be proven?

Science is certified knowledge of reality as such. Empirical science is certified knowledge of observable reality as such. Philosophical science is certified knowledge of natural reality beyond the merely material. Historical science is certified knowledge of past reality as such. And theological science is certified knowledge of revealed reality as such.

So “proof” is not limited to what empirical science can measure or demonstrate.

Any empirical scientist who is a faithful Catholic understands and acknowledges the other sciences as enabling the knowledge and understanding of God, His Creation and mankind and the laws governing human endeavour.

Classical learning did not provide an appropriate model for science, but the rise of science had progressed well by the sixteenth century as nurtured by religiously devout scholastics…. the result of centuries of intellectual progress.

 

[nmgauss]

Is it dishonest to persuade credulous people of the necessity of a vaccine when they do not have the education and knowledge so that the necessity can be proven, or if there isn’t a microscope so that they can be shown that they are not just being injected ordinary water?

We can prove the existence of God, and we have evidence of the existence of God. I do, and many other Catholics do, and we always have for over two thousand years.

If people are curious and want to be shown the research history on the effectiveness of a certain vaccine, the scientific studies are available. An ordinary microscope cannot resolve the image of a virus. It is too small. If the vaccine is certified by the government, we usually accept it as being genuine. If it is not, and is detected as not being what its label says, somebody is criminally liable. If the vaccine has a long track record, then it will probably be effective in an individual case.

Now what kind of scientific evidence can be presented that proves that the Catholic God exists? Or the Mormon God? Or the Hindu Gods Shiva, Brahma, or Shiva? To believe in these entities with out scientific proof amounts to credulity.

 

[nmgauss]

"Whatever the path, as gods began uprooting themselves, population centers acquired multiple “native” deities; hence the creation of pantheons and divine hierarchies. With this development, however, came the effortless acquiescence of foreign gods. Thus, the degradation of hierarchal order, and the accrual of varying beliefs within a single culture. This is exemplified in Rome through the continuous shift in supremacy from one divinity to the next. For instance, one general may have called upon Mars Gradivus, while another called upon Sol Invictus. Whichever of the two generals became more successful correlated to the success of the deity he chose to worship. All of this caused a great deal of confusion. Which god is best to worship, which is most powerful, which did the common soldier most revere?

This lack of efficiency is at the forefront of monotheism’s victory over paganism; most notably, by Constantine I. Constantine reasoned, and reasoned correctly, that one jealous god was sufficient. One god could unite his entire army. All praise, all worship, and every sacrifice could be directed to one omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient being. Here, Constantine decided that polytheism was an “outmoded illusion”, but there were still obstacles he would need to overcome. As we shall see, by integrating older pagan customs into this relatively new version of monotheism, and by unifying its doctrines, Constantine set Christianity upon a path of inexorable success."
rlculpeper.com/2013/01/06/the-evolution-of-religious-thought-cultural-diffusion/

 

[BlaineTog]

Is it dishonest to persuade credulous people of the existence of divinities when they cannot be proven?

Not at all. There’s nothing dishonest about sharing your own honest beliefs.

Now what kind of scientific evidence can be presented that proves that the Catholic God exists? Or the Mormon God? Or the Hindu Gods Shiva, Brahma, or Shiva? To believe in these entities with out scientific proof amounts to credulity.

This places the scientific method as an a priori source of perfect, universal knowledge, but it’s based on beliefs just like the belief in a deity. For example, the belief that the future will tend to resemble the past; while this seems intuitive, it’s actually impossible to prove because we would by necessity have to use examples from the past (making all such proofs circular).

I’m not saying science is bad or wrong or anything, I’m just saying that it’s built on a foundation of beliefs. It’s no more fair for religion to be judged by the edicts of science than the other way around, except insofar as they share common beliefs. And neither can ultimately be proven beyond their first principles.

 

[nmgauss]

Not at all. There’s nothing dishonest about sharing your own honest beliefs.

This places the scientific method as an a priori source of perfect, universal knowledge, but it’s based on beliefs just like the belief in a deity. For example, the belief that the future will tend to resemble the past; while this seems intuitive, it’s actually impossible to prove because we would by necessity have to use examples from the past (making all such proofs circular).

I’m not saying science is bad or wrong or anything, I’m just saying that it’s built on a foundation of beliefs. It’s no more fair for religion to be judged by the edicts of science than the other way around, except insofar as they share common beliefs. And neither can ultimately be proven beyond their first principles.

Evolution is accepted as the theory that fits observations. Evolution has not been proven absolutely, but using it as a basis for thinking about the development of life has worked better than any other theory. If the theory of God’s existence is supported by as much evidence as the huge mass of evidence supporting evolution, it might receive more attention from scientists. Show me a pattern of God’s work that has as much convincing evidence as that for evolution, and I’ll take a look at it.