Why are there so many religions?

[inocente]

Catholicism contains eyewitness testimony.

I don’t understand. Are you saying the word “believe” is wrong in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds?

In Nostra Aetate the Church doesn’t say Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. are wrong and Godless, rather that they could be even more correct:

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

There’s a similar document saying much the same about Protestants but I can’t find it today. My understanding is basically the same with one minor difference, is your view different? Sorry, I’m not getting your argument about faith vs …

 

[Tuno]

Catholicism contains eyewitness testimony.

It would be a good thing to remember that the authors of the Bible had little investment in reportage of history as distinct from creating an image. Otherwise, e.g. among many, we would not be wondering if Jesus was born in 4bce or 6ce or if Mary had a marathon pregnancy. It would be good to take a serious survey of the origins of Christianity well before the third century and understand a bit about the relativity of what appears to be “eyewitnessing” that is really something else. One might then find that the Bible coincides with history as an accident, not as a deliberate record.

 

[colmcille1]

It would be a good thing to remember that the authors of the Bible had little investment in reportage of history as distinct from creating an image. Otherwise, e.g. among many, we would not be wondering if Jesus was born in 4bce or 6ce or if Mary had a marathon pregnancy. It would be good to take a serious survey of the origins of Christianity well before the third century and understand a bit about the relativity of what appears to be “eyewitnessing” that is really something else. One might then find that the Bible coincides with history as an accident, not as a deliberate record.

I feel under no obligation to converse with someone who does not have the decency to respect the Catholic religion as evidenced by your remarks. I know where this disrespect stems from. Don’t display your obvious absence of self-respect on this site.

I see you did not reply to my previous post. Now i know why. If you get off by trolling, you certainly have a sad existence.

 

[Tuno]

Sorry, 1, I never considered that you have any obligation to me. And if my attempt at humor came off to you as disrespect, I apologize for that. But one does have cause to wonder, given the corollary history of the non-biblical and yet still sometimes questionable histoiries of the time.

And I read the thread title to be “Why are there so many religions?” Toneyreys fist two sentences read "It is frequently argued that there are so many religions they cannot all be true and are all likely to be false! I believe the reverse is true because:,’ That can be said as well in this manner: “I believe that there are so many religions they cannot all be false and are all likely to be true!” (As he said, the reverse.) He then states reasons that support his proposition and asks for opinions.

The next poster, a Catholic, claims that our Race may have at one time had one religion, but because of the abandonment by the entire Race of God, there are therefore many religions, excluding the reason of growth in numbers and local. That is implicit in the grammar of the statement. Toneyrey, also a Catholic, jumps back in with “Indeed! When man first recognised the difference between good and evil and acted against his conscience his religion became distorted by false values. He put himself first and began to worship power, pleasure and material things. Materialism is the logical outcome of abandoning the one true God!” That statement also distributes a single act of will over all of mankind and makes all men equally egomaniacal in the pursuit of power, pleasure, and material things, as if there were not and are not kinds and degrees of both spiritual endeavor and egoism. Logical red flags everywhere, no?

Then the following poster, also a Catholic, chimes in with his agreement that all these religions must be true, but follows with some “reasons” that come off as kind of puerile, don’t you think?

Than another poster, also Catholic, calls the OP on the contradiction of his, and I guess the next poster’s, illogic and calls for some reasonable consideration of the matter by including a few necessary factors. For that he gets a lecture on moral relativism and the critic claims that materialism is rampant. Statistics appear to differ with him, as religion is on the rise in many places, and while some religions are being reduced in numbers, people who claim to be deeply spiritual are on the increase. The lecturee then again pleads for some forebearance in judjement of those who, after all, just learned what their folks taught them, just like you and me.

Then another Catholic chimes in claiming that people start other religions because of selfishness and laxity. Has this person ever read anything about other religions in their life??? Some other religions even put los peniitentes of the Church to shame, not to mention the phenomenally beautiful devotional works they produce, which if they were not labeled different as to faith might well be taken for Roman Catholic. In fact, is it not true that many of the depictions of what appears to be the Mass in Roman ruins are uncertain as to their pagan or Christian origins? We need to get real about this.

Then you say a very reasonable piece in reply to the guy who brought up violence, much of which I agree with completely, especially having a strong voice and not bowing to p.c. Good for you. Then follows a whole dogfight with 888 that jumps thoroughout the thread which I don’t want to get in to. Toneyrey then confesses that there are some modifications to his sparse initial presentation, which modifications, had they been rightfully included in al less stark and more inclusive OP, might have saved a lot of misunderstanding, though I still question his grammar as compared to my sense of his actual intent.

Then you say something about True Faith that leave me wondering if you mean Catholicism or ALL people of ANY faith who truly believe even contradictory things from each other. Unclear. Innocente, a Baptist! agrees with my reading of that, it would seem.

Then you bring up the eyewitness thing, a very questionable tactic on the grounds that most of the scholarship I’ve read on the subject tends to agree that historical and literal accuracy was low on the list of literary considerations at the time of the OT writings and even less so going back. Then you and I get into it, and it is my sincere feeling that you are misunderstanding my intent. I even say I admire your stance. (post 32) I clearly understand that you have a committed relationship to your faith and your God as you understand that. That is between you and your God. But in the mean time, if you wish to relate to others who are not of your conviction as to assumptions, you may need to step outside your own way of thinking and at least understand where someone else is coming from, agree or not. Otherwise you are just a head whacking pious zealot. And that may be what you want to convey, but how useful is that in gaining agreement for your position?

To someone not raise in Catholicism or in Christianity, the world looks rather different. Heck, it looks different even if you speak another language. You don’t seem to acknowledge that some of us in all sincerity, honesty, due diligence, and even profound introspection, come up with a different story than yours based on the same facts. Claim that you have the one true and only way if you like, but from a third party disinterested position, it may not seem that way, despite the correctness of much of what you say in a more universal context than your faith. We do agree, don’t we. that “faith” means “belief” as distinct from “knowledge?” Yes, of course you can extrapolate a story if you accept certain things as given. But does your acceptance necessarily constitute reality, especially if you are third partying your beliefs and not arriving at them from within the divine image and likeness you claim yourself to be?

 

[antroji]

I didn’t appreciate the “humor” about the BVM, but the rest is fairly stated. Interesting that your “religion” reads sort of “none of the above.” Doesn’t leave much, does it?

 

[Tuno]

Once again, I’m sorry. The ten year span seems to call for some kind of observation, but I guess that wasn’t it.

As for my “none of the above,” if your mind is absolutely blank and you are impersonally present, what’s left? I don’t know how else to answer that.

 

[fhansen]

It would be a good thing to remember that the authors of the Bible had little investment in reportage of history as distinct from creating an image. Otherwise, e.g. among many, we would not be wondering if Jesus was born in 4bce or 6ce or if Mary had a marathon pregnancy. It would be good to take a serious survey of the origins of Christianity well before the third century and understand a bit about the relativity of what appears to be “eyewitnessing” that is really something else. One might then find that the Bible coincides with history as an accident, not as a deliberate record.

Differences in times and dates actually lend credence to the eyewitness accounts-there certainly wasn’t much collaboration involved. While your mother may or may or may not remember the exact time of your birth she surely remembered the fact that you were born. And likewise the gospels all record the salient events the same-the fact of the miracles, the fact of the resurrection, the fact of Jesus entering Jerusalem, regardless of the time of day He entered it.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey, also a Catholic, jumps back in with “Indeed! When man first recognised the difference between good and evil and acted against his conscience his religion became distorted by false values. He put himself first and began to worship power, pleasure and material things. Materialism is the logical outcome of abandoning the one true God!” That statement also distributes a single act of will over all of mankind and makes all men equally egomaniacal in the pursuit of power, pleasure, and material things, as if there were not and are not kinds and degrees of both spiritual endeavor and egoism. Logical red flags everywhere, no?

Let me venture to disabuse you, if I may. You are drawing wrong conclusions from my statements.

“man” does not refer to all men. How could it when I stated “when man** first** recognised the difference between good and evil…”? My point is that at some point in history our ancestors realised it is morally wrong to act in certain ways. The alternative is to believe our ancestors were created with that knowledge - a view to which I am sure you do not subscribe.

That statement also distributes a single act of will over all of mankind and makes all men equally egomaniacal in the pursuit of power, pleasure, and material things…

This is sheer nonsense derived from your failure to observe the significance of the word “first”. Do you really think I believe the entire human race from the past to the present is equally egomaniacal? What about the saints recognised by the Catholic Church - not to mention many others inside and outside the fold? A moment’s reflection would have made you realise the absurdity of your conclusion. If there is a logical red flag it lies right in front of your deduction!

tonyrey then confesses that there are some modifications to his sparse initial presentation, which modifications, had they been rightfully included in al less stark and more inclusive OP, might have saved a lot of misunderstanding, though I still question his grammar as compared to my sense of his actual intent.

It would be interesting to know what your sense of my “actual intent” is… It is impossible to make sense of such a vague assertion!

 

[Tuno]

I don’t know where to go with this one credibility-wise, fh. My Mom remembers the time and date of my birth to the minute. Even if she was drugged up, the circumstances would have given her the time within a day. So let’s go through the pews and find out how many women have their birth date of any of their children off by a few days? Months?? Years??? Or what are you saying, that the writers of the Gospels, those who were with Jesus and hid Mother, in all their three or whatever years of being on close terms with each other, got such divergent times out of Mary, or were so poor in remembering? If they forgot or got it wrong, what else did they get wrong? And how difficult would it be to miss the timing of a star that everyone would have seen? Was that in the sky for ten years as well? Or how about dead people walking around in Jerusalem on good friday -33 years? It seems pretty simple.

I’m not saying there wasn’t a Jesus, but that is a bit of a stretch to swallow as to any kind of accuracy as far as the Gospel accounts. And I have to wonder why Jesus had to be of David’s line? Joseph was, by two different and incompatible genealogies, but what about Mary? We have to ask about her, because Jesus was not Joseph’s son if we believe that story of the immaculate conception. And if the authors believed it, why trace Joseph? For my part, I have no doubt about the Son of God. But how and why are there such inconsistencies? Are they simply inconsistent in the tradition of trials of faith? But maybe, again, such inconstancies in the allegedly historic record fostered support for schisms, among other factors.

But as to other religions in the non-christian world, why would God put His Son in bitty place on Earth so far after the fall that mankind had already dispersed and, since there are not similar stories to genesis except in the Middle East, forgotten any history of such an event as the “fall?” How do you account for all that ignorance and how can you ascribe blame?

Even if it is all true, I don’t get it, and faith by itself is not a sufficient answer. And maybe that is another reason for many religions: Among many religions that claim to be the one and only True Faith, not just the Catholic-as I cannot single out that one in this regard-most require gymnastics of mind beyond reason. So as to the thread question, where besides faith can one look? imagination, science, and experience are possibilities, and each has brought forth its kind. The favorite here and its evolution over the last 2000 years doesn’t cover all the bases.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t know where to go with this one credibility-wise, fh. My Mom remembers the time and date of my birth to the minute. Even if she was drugged up, the circumstances would have given her the time within a day. So let’s go through the pews and find out how many women have their birth date of any of their children off by a few days? Months?? Years??? Or what are you saying, that the writers of the Gospels, those who were with Jesus and hid Mother, in all their three or whatever years of being on close terms with each other, got such divergent times out of Mary, or were so poor in remembering? If they forgot or got it wrong, what else did they get wrong? And how difficult would it be to miss the timing of a star that everyone would have seen? Was that in the sky for ten years as well? Or how about dead people walking around in Jerusalem on good friday -33 years? It seems pretty simple.

I’m not saying there wasn’t a Jesus, but that is a bit of a stretch to swallow as to any kind of accuracy as far as the Gospel accounts. And I have to wonder why Jesus had to be of David’s line? Joseph was, by two different and incompatible genealogies, but what about Mary? We have to ask about her, because Jesus was not Joseph’s son if we believe that story of the immaculate conception. And if the authors believed it, why trace Joseph? For my part, I have no doubt about the Son of God. But how and why are there such inconsistencies? Are they simply inconsistent in the tradition of trials of faith? But maybe, again, such inconstancies in the allegedly historic record fostered support for schisms, among other factors.

The point is that they were much more concerned about the events-which were claimed to be huge, life-altering, never-before-seen -than the times they took place. I’m sure your mother was much more excited about your entrance into the world than about the time it happened.

 

[Tuno]

Who would argue about that? Of course the event far outweighed the time. But along with the event and its witnesses there was an agreement as to where the big and little hands where and on what day. But you are saying, it sounds to me, that the folks around the most important figure in the Western world and all their comrades did not have a clue within ten years as to when someone they lived with and died for was born, even given an alleged specific astronomical event. Does that in all reasonableness make sense to you?

For all of the wondrous good that is inherent in the story of Jesus, can we not just admit that there may be an element of literary license in the recounting of events not elsewhere recorded?

 

[davidv]

Who would argue about that? Of course the event far outweighed the time. But along with the event and its witnesses there was an agreement as to where the big and little hands where and on what day. But you are saying, it sounds to me, that the folks around the most important figure in the Western world and all their comrades did not have a clue within ten years as to when someone they lived with and died for was born, even given an alleged specific astronomical event. Does that in all reasonableness make sense to you?

For all of the wondrous good that is inherent in the story of Jesus, can we not just admit that there may be an element of literary license in the recounting of events not elsewhere recorded?

Why do you think the date or time is relevant to the events in question? Seems like you are projecting your standards onto a culture 2000 years distant.

 

[Tuno]

Aren’t we, v, doing that if we believe as history what might be indeed be absolutely wonderful, but actually something else, even something perhaps better? What if JD Crossan was right? He said “Once again, my point is not that these ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.” What if we need to look at our own religion, including its claims of exclusivity, as thoroughly and as scrupulously as we look at anything else, an act we are already not too swift at. But the rewards would be great. And if you are right, you are only stronger in your position, or, given a poor job, will at least feel you are.

In other words, if you ask “why are there so many religions?” you automatically include your own in the question, unless you are dishonest. The first dishonesty would be to assume from within your own lens that your religion is the one and only Truth. And nothing is so adamantly intractable as an accustomed faith, because it becomes the lens of self examination. It is as if you are asked to deny your own identity and look at it as if it was someone else’s. Why do you think they call it the dark night of the soul?

And that is what it takes. The possible position of emotional distance and habitual association is nearly impossible to us in our own regard. That coupled with the mind’s propensity to self validate at nearly any cost has us in a trap of unclarity about something that might be more vital than you might ever imagine, or could imagine. Or you could choose to ignore the matter and stand pat. That is why it usually takes a shock to put someone in a neutral position regarding their own belief system. It is not easy. Not at all. But it can be done.

God is God. Nothing is lost in work for self knowledge. Are you the image and likeness of God or not? If yes, the whole story is closer than the nose on your face. It just takes a blessed lot of work to see your self. Or grace. I’d hope for grace. But that won’t stop me from thinking.

 

[tonyrey]

And nothing is so adamantly intractable as an accustomed faith, because it becomes the lens of self examination. It is as if you are asked to deny your own identity and look at it as if it was someone else’s. Why do you think they call it the dark night of the soul?

One can add that nothing is so adamantly intractable as an accustomed scepticism - which is more pernicious because its foundations are so obscure…

And that is what it takes. The possible position of emotional distance and habitual association is nearly impossible to us in our own regard. That coupled with the mind’s propensity to self validate at nearly any cost has us in a trap of unclarity about something that might be more vital than you might ever imagine, or could imagine. Or you could choose to ignore the matter and stand pat. That is why it usually takes a shock to put someone in a neutral position regarding their own belief system. It is not easy. Not at all. But it can be done.

It is impossible to be in a totally neutral position. Some assumptions have to be made before you can get anywhere, e.g. that our power of reason can enable us to reach valid conclusions about reality.

God is God. Nothing is lost in work for self knowledge. Are you the image and likeness of God or not? If yes, the whole story is closer than the nose on your face. It just takes a blessed lot of work to see your self. Or grace. I’d hope for grace. But that won’t stop me from thinking.

No one expects you to! You wouldn’t search unless you had some faith…

 

[Tuno]

Hi Tonyrey,

Thanks for your note. I am not a skeptic.* I’m just aware of inconsistencies. I also don’t believe that God personally acts in special interventions in this less than a speck of dust planet in what may be one of a billion universes, as astonishingly wondrous as is the world we are immersed in. God, gender neutral or inclusive, probably both, doesn’t on whims or “plans” or because of petitions (How utterly arrogant!) pick up pieces in the world like an architect manipulating a model. If we are talking about someone who does that, we are not talking about God, but some other entity who is very likely worthy of admiration and devotion. But that, however many degrees of spiritual distance between us, is not God as the Supreme. Therefore I do not believe that anyone speaking rightly about God is inconsistent, even about allegedly historic events.

Would someone speak allegorically about their experience with God, even about the nature and “life” of Jesus? Yes, because as we know from even our own children, there are stages and kinds of understanding. It makes perfect sense, in the same way we use double and triple entendres, to communicate meaning a la parables which themselves have at least three levels of meaning. This accomplishes protection for the innocent, a challenge for the interested, and an answer for the persistent. At least I have found this to be so in my case.

That sort of schematic fits with the kind of dimensional vision we know we have as can be experienced with so called “magic pictures” that either look like noise or a perfectly comprehensible image until you look at them in a different focus. They then make an entirely different kind of sense, a sense which includes the prior vision but goes beyond it as well. I have had a similar experience with my faith. This is consistent as well with the forms of organizational manifestation in Creation. Particles become atoms which are inclusive of them but transcend them. Atoms assemble into molecules which include them but transcend them. Etc, up the chain, and similarly with awareness, there being progressively fewer members of each ascending/transcending set. And let me assure you that there is most certainly a state comprised of utter neutrality. It just isn’t accessible as long as one is convinced they are only a person with thoughts about.

It took me a long time to become stabilized relative to daily life after the most radical insight that came to me after years of persistent effort to know God. It didn’t help that the Church, in the form of both its clerics and its literature, had neither forewarning nor support for my sort of experience, despite much sincere research on my part for years afterwards. In fact, I had a very bad time of it for a while. But I was either lucky or fortunate. There is a way that explained what I experienced and fit it into a system of understanding that delineates, for me, both the structure of awareness and the limitations of the Church in dealing with such as my case or similar. You might then imagine that I perceived a lacuna in the ordinary catechetical approach with which I was much more than familiar with.

So if anything, I am more of a provocateur or agitator in favor of introspection and effort beyond the ordinary than I am a sceptic. There may very well be someone on here, who like me at that time, is on the edge of darkness. As I said, there is a good reason it is called the dark night of the soul. And the Church as an institution has not dealt well with many who were in this situation. And I do believe that there are many, or some, facing what I did. So you see, I am a believer and not a sceptic.

I neither make any claims for myself nor for my way of understanding as something to be imposed or accepted. I adamantly do not expect agreement from ordinary religionists. I will say my piece and make explanations up to a point if someone wishes. But the purpose of my words is not necessarily to convince. That is an internal matter of self knowledge. But I do not wish others to feel the abandonment I felt. And who knows. I may never find someone on here who resonates with my perceptions, though some seem close. So please don’t understand me as being someone against the Church. I am someone who simply sees it in a larger context than is afforded by simple habitual faith.

*Did you know that a cynic is something that empties into a skeptic tank? :)

Also, re the hypothesis of faith:
"I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true. The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionately strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical examination."
Peter B. Medawar, 
Advice to a Young Scientist, 1979

 

[Moonstruck888]

Honestly, if you can’t explain yourself, what is obviously going on is that you have blindly followed someone else’s philosophy without really thinking about it … just blind acceptance. That’s what many atheists accuse religious people of doing … just following an authority. You have followed the authority of the pragmatists because you obviously haven’t thought through it. Prove me wrong: answer my questions.

Thought is irrelevant. I accept that which can be proven via the scientific method. I dismiss or suspend judgement on that which cannot. It’s absolutely that simple. You and your word games mean precisely nothing to me. Nothing.

You are trying to draw me into a debate on matters that are outside my field, and I’m not playing. End of story. I don’t think anyone should need to explain the definition of every word that they use. Your deliberate obfuscation of the simple statements I’m making is a calculated ploy to distract from a simple argument. Why? What are you trying to prove? If tonyrey knew exactly what I was saying and summed it up in one sentence, why can’t you?

I’ve been trying to be patient with you because I’ve been almost certain you have Asperger’s or something similar, but maybe you’re just plain taking the ****?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Why do people need to reach a consensus on something in order for it to be answerable? That doesn’t make any sense.

If something is objectively true, like Newton’s law, it applies to everyone and no one can question it. If you fall in Earth’s gravity field, you fall at 32 feet per second per second, whether you are sane enough to believe so or not.

In any case, why are you a pragmatist? Many people aren’t pragmatists. There is no consensus on pragmatism. So why are you a pragmatist? In fact, you have said a lot of stuff that people would disagree with … and yet you still said it. So why is answering my questions any different?

I’m not a pragmatist, and never claimed to be. Answering your questions is difficult because your personality is so odious that you are utterly impossible to engage with. You leave a bitter taste in my mouth that makes it impossible for me to feel any friendly or cooperative instincts. Your delivery is humourless, full of deliberate obfuscation and really pedantic, boring and spirit crushing to read.

I find it amazing that out of all the people on the forum, you seem to have latched on to me, a scientist with zero regard for philosophy as an intellectual discipline, like a cat that sits on the lap of the person in the room who dislikes cats the most.

You accuse me of not being genuinely philosophical. That to me is a compliment, and the only thing you’ve said so far that I thank you for. You’ve been hounding me for several posts now to be definitive on what SHOULD happen? Well I’ll tell you. You SHOULD buzz off and leave me in peace since we have nothing in common and nothing to gain from further discourse with each other.

If you don’t know what it means, why did you say “truth is relative?” That would indicate that you think you know something about truth, otherwise you wouldn’t have said it. So … what do you think you know about “truth” and why is it relative?

Everyone perceives truth differently, ergo it is relative to the observer.

And also, I know what “truth” means. It’s the correct relation between reality and the mind. A LOT of people agree on that definition. Do you disagree? If so, explain yourself.

Your definition is meaningless. What’s reality?

 

[tonyrey]

I also don’t believe that God personally acts in special interventions in this less than a speck of dust planet in what may be one of a billion universes, as astonishingly wondrous as is the world we are immersed in.

Hi Tuno. I don’t believe significance is related to size or quantity!

God, gender neutral or inclusive, probably both, doesn’t on whims or “plans” or because of petitions (How utterly arrogant!) pick up pieces in the world like an architect manipulating a model. If we are talking about someone who does that, we are not talking about God, but some other entity who is very likely worthy of admiration and devotion. But that, however many degrees of spiritual distance between us, is not God as the Supreme. Therefore I do not believe that anyone speaking rightly about God is inconsistent, even about allegedly historic events.

If life is immensely valuable the Creator would hardly lack interest in Creation…

Would someone speak allegorically about their experience with God, even about the nature and “life” of Jesus? Yes, because as we know from even our own children, there are stages and kinds of understanding. It makes perfect sense, in the same way we use double and triple entendres, to communicate meaning a la parables which themselves have at least three levels of meaning. This accomplishes protection for the innocent, a challenge for the interested, and an answer for the persistent. At least I have found this to be so in my case.

I agree with you. Human language cannot adequately describe divine reality.

That sort of schematic fits with the kind of dimensional vision we know we have as can be experienced with so called “magic pictures” that either look like noise or a perfectly comprehensible image until you look at them in a different focus. They then make an entirely different kind of sense, a sense which includes the prior vision but goes beyond it as well. I have had a similar experience with my faith. This is consistent as well with the forms of organizational manifestation in Creation. Particles become atoms which are inclusive of them but transcend them. Atoms assemble into molecules which include them but transcend them. Etc, up the chain, and similarly with awareness, there being progressively fewer members of each ascending/transcending set. And let me assure you that there is most certainly a state comprised of utter neutrality. It just isn’t accessible as long as one is convinced they are only a person with thoughts about.

It took me a long time to become stabilized relative to daily life after the most radical insight that came to me after years of persistent effort to know God. It didn’t help that the Church, in the form of both its clerics and its literature, had neither forewarning nor support for my sort of experience, despite much sincere research on my part for years afterwards. In fact, I had a very bad time of it for a while. But I was either lucky or fortunate. There is a way that explained what I experienced and fit it into a system of understanding that delineates, for me, both the structure of awareness and the limitations of the Church in dealing with such as my case or similar. You might then imagine that I perceived a lacuna in the ordinary catechetical approach with which I was much more than familiar with.

There is bound to be a lacuna because the catechetical approach is intended for the majority who have no time or inclination to delve deeper.

So if anything, I am more of a provocateur or agitator in favor of introspection and effort beyond the ordinary than I am a sceptic. There may very well be someone on here, who like me at that time, is on the edge of darkness. As I said, there is a good reason it is called the dark night of the soul. And the Church as an institution has not dealt well with many who were in this situation. And I do believe that there are many, or some, facing what I did. So you see, I am a believer and not a sceptic.

Again I agree with you. Often in my life I have had more appreciation and encouragement of my work from outside the Church than from within.

I neither make any claims for myself nor for my way of understanding as something to be imposed or accepted. I adamantly do not expect agreement from ordinary religionists. I will say my piece and make explanations up to a point if someone wishes. But the purpose of my words is not necessarily to convince. That is an internal matter of self knowledge. But I do not wish others to feel the abandonment I felt. And who knows. I may never find someone on here who resonates with my perceptions, though some seem close. So please don’t understand me as being someone against the Church. I am someone who simply sees it in a larger context than is afforded by simple habitual faith.

Then we are in similar positions. On this forum I have been accused of heresy more than once!

*Did you know that a cynic is something that empties into a skeptic tank?

Also, re the hypothesis of faith:
“I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true. The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionately strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical examination.”
Peter B. Medawar,
Advice to a Young Scientist, 1979

I believe the intensity of a conviction has a definite bearing on its truth if it corresponds to personal experience - like the conviction that unselfish love is not a romantic illusion but a fundamental necessity. If God were devoid of love we would be superior… but of course the fullness of divine love is beyond our comprehension…

 

[Tuno]

All well said, Toneyrey. Thank you.

 

[Areopagite]

Thought is irrelevant. I accept that which can be proven via the scientific method. I dismiss or suspend judgement on that which cannot. It’s absolutely that simple.

Then why do you think thought is irrelevant? Don’t you need thought in order to “accept things” or “dismiss things”? And wouldn’t that make thought relevant to this discussion (and all discussions)? Or do you accept and dismiss things without thinking? That’s one way to do it.

You and your word games mean precisely nothing to me. Nothing.

I’m not playing crossword puzzles here. I’m asking you to explain yourself. Because I don’t think you understand what you’re saying.

You are trying to draw me into a debate on matters that are outside my field, and I’m not playing. End of story.

Then why do you keep on making remarks outside your field? If you’re going to make philosophical arguments, prepare to defend them against philosophical attacks. Otherwise, don’t pick a fight to begin with.

If you change your mind, I’ll be here to pick up where we left off.

I don’t think anyone should need to explain the definition of every word that they use.

I didn’t ask for you to explain every word you used. Please, however, explain what you mean by “practicality.” Save me from the impression that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Your deliberate obfuscation of the simple statements I’m making is a calculated ploy to distract from a simple argument. Why? What are you trying to prove? If tonyrey knew exactly what I was saying and summed it up in one sentence, why can’t you?

You don’t think Tonyrey is on my side here? He’s also waiting for you to answer my questions. That’s what he said in a private message to me. No joke. Go ahead and ask him.

I’ve been trying to be patient with you because I’ve been almost certain you have Asperger’s or something similar, but maybe you’re just plain taking the ****?

Well, that’s very nice of you to treat a poor retard like me with such compassion. It’s about time somebody does.

If something is objectively true, like Newton’s law, it applies to everyone and no one can question it. If you fall in Earth’s gravity field, you fall at 32 feet per second per second, whether you are sane enough to believe so or not.

Oooooh. So there IS objective truth. I was confused because you said truth was relative. So, now I’m really confused. Is truth relative or is it not?

I’m not a pragmatist, and never claimed to be.

Sorry, when you said: “Good and evil are relative concepts to culture, time and place, and are totally malleable to suit whatever pragmatic concerns one has at any given time” that led me to believe you were a pragmatist. My bad.

Answering your questions is difficult because your personality is so odious that you are utterly impossible to engage with. You leave a bitter taste in my mouth that makes it impossible for me to feel any friendly or cooperative instincts. Your delivery is humourless, full of deliberate obfuscation and really pedantic, boring and spirit crushing to read.

And your personality is simply irresistible, charming, and incredibly easy to engage with. You leave a sweet taste in my mouth and a warm feeling of friendliness. Your delivery is witty, clear, and a true inspiration to read.

I find it amazing that out of all the people on the forum, you seem to have latched on to me, a scientist with zero regard for philosophy as an intellectual discipline, like a cat that sits on the lap of the person in the room who dislikes cats the most.

I like cats.

You accuse me of not being genuinely philosophical. That to me is a compliment, and the only thing you’ve said so far that I thank you for.

If you don’t like philosophy, why are you such a regular poster on a philosophy forum? Sounds to me that you’re in denial. There’s a philosopher in you that wants to break out! Let it happen, man! Don’t hold back! Let the beast out!

You’ve been hounding me for several posts now to be definitive on what SHOULD happen? Well I’ll tell you. You SHOULD buzz off and leave me in peace since we have nothing in common and nothing to gain from further discourse with each other.

I’m enjoying this too much. Sorry.

Everyone perceives truth differently, ergo it is relative to the observer.

Everyone perceives reality differently, does that mean reality is relative to the observer? Does that mean science and math is relative to the observer? Does that mean there is no objective truth? I thought you said there WAS objective truth. Could you clear this up for me. I’m not sure what you’re saying.

Your definition is meaningless. What’s reality?

Reality is all that exists outside one’s mind. Good question.

Now, can you answer some of my questions? For example, how can truth be objective and yet relative at the same time? You seemed to have said that such a thing is possible. But doesn’t the objectivity of truth cancel out the belief that truth is simply relative to each person? Explain.