In my previous post, I asked you-all to define the term "religion".
To my surprise, you wanted to discuss the difference between religion and spirituality. The consensus seemed to be that nearly everyone defined religion as a human creation, while spirituality is the "heart" of the religious experience. There was a strong sense in the posts that spirituality is a good thing, while religion is less good, possibly even neutral or bad.
The one notable exception was a Christian man who felt true religion was a God-given institution. He also believed only his own religion was true.
As I say, I was surprised by the answers I got, and grateful for them, too.
Here's the question I would like to pose to you, and it's one that matters to me.
How do we find common ground, those of us who value what you have called spirituality? (As a materialist, I gotta say that term would not be my choice, but I'll bow to the consensus usage.) How do we reach out to people whose ideas are really not close to our own, and yet who may have the same kinds of experiences? How do we find common ground with people of goodwill?
And as a further exercise, is it every possible to reach people who view our ideas, or who view us, with hostility?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 207
I haven't had any luck with those who view others with hostility though. I've tried being nice, I've tried giving them a "taste of their own medicine", I've tried being brutally honest, all to no avail. Lately I've been letting them brood in their own hostility.
Though occasionally I do decide to change the topic to cake. I mean, who doesn't like cake?!
Cake has layers! (Suddenly I want to quote from the movie Shrek but only because my kids are watching it right now)
But I think we can find common ground. Most people have that. I mean, how different can we be really?
We may not have the same spiritual beliefs, but we don't have to be hostile.
It's a puzzlement.
The common ground for those who disagree within the same or similar systems of belief is to quickly make amends or retreat from one another. If the belief is fundamental, there is no reconciling it.
Trespass and forgiveness is a common process, but sometimes patience is a virtue and you agree to disagree. There is no denying that.
When you talk about hurt turning to anger, what causes the hurt? I have noticed that sometimes people get defensive way out of proportion to the possibility of hurt. That is, if someone says, "Religion X is a crock because..." do you feel that adherents of religion X really need to defend themselves? Maybe I can put the question another way: is defending one's faith really the same as defending oneself? (I am curious because I've seen several major defensive reactions on some other threads.)
Second question: what kind of differences of belief do you consider fundamental?
And finally, yes, I think agreeing to disagree is often a useful tactic, particularly when you need to work on something you DO agree about.
Our society has been an expression of dualism (+/-) where people gravitate to the extremes and judge their opposite, even condemn them.
That promoted from religious concepts of "Good God Heaven/Bad god/hell" ...
We need to allow that we are all connected spiritually with each other and all of creation via a Neutral GOD ... one that is unconditionally Loving ...
A GOD Spirit that replaces the void and gap (/) between differences (+/-) with the addition of said Spirit as (=) giving (+=-) ... signifying the Basic Equation of Truth as to how our universe really works and how we must understand that to harmonize with it ... which amounts to diversity (differences, opposites) cooperating for common cause and thus creating via synergy.
People of true good will should be able to discuss their differences and find the common ground area that allows them to relate to each other ... the best way of course to relate to another is to be open and friendly, not demanding or challenging ... those things can come, as they do, after everything else fails. :-)
Trinity involves the Spirit of GOD ... thus generic spirituality ... Monism is more about the (whatever one wants to call the guiding principle of the universe).
IMnsHO.
This simply isn't true. . .
-Mark
Exodus 10:21-23
But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.
Exodus 11:7
God is the First Cause. He has all of the second causes at his disposal with which to accomplish His will. . .
-Mark
I have certainly found the same to be true. By learning to listen to myself (in meditation), I seem to have become better at listening to others, especially those with whom I disagree. Metta practice helps, too.
Thanks for teaching me something that could be very useful.
On whose authority do you accept that it is a true statement?
-Mark
When I look back on those experiences, I believe that we are all one.
Chicken Little perceived that the sky was falling but. . . was it?
-Mark
However, it certainly makes me accept Lady Raven Spirit's experience as something more than an eccentric or trivial illusion.
How can you discern that in any kind of ultimate way? Well-meaning people have time and time again inadvertently increased the suffering in the world. Whose idea was it to introduce the toads into the sugarcane fields of Australia or the Malalucca (sp?) tree into the swamps of Florida. They have both become pestilences. . .
Would you make all the rivers and streams run with Orange Crush so everyone could slake their thirst?
-Mark
I don't have much truck with words like "ultimate". I look for suffering in myself, those around me, those I encounter at a distance (with the help of the internet, news, etc.) Where I see a way, I do my best to decrease suffering. If I make something worse, I try to fix that, and then perhaps make the original situation better. If I cannot see a way to reduce suffering I see, I do my best not to forget, not to close my eyes. Sometimes, a way will open up, if I don't put it out of sight and out of mind.
Would you make all the rivers and streams run with Orange Crush so everyone could slake their thirst?
How would that make suffering less, assuming it was possible?
How would that make suffering less, assuming it was possible?
I was just jesting a bit here. I remember an old Orange Crush soda commercial where a character fantasizes, "Wouldn't it be great if all the rivers and streams turned to Orange Crush?" I remember thinking at that tender age that that would indeed be marvelous - but, reflecting on it some more, came to the conclusion that this might not be such a great idea after all. Many of our best schemes, many of our most altruistic intentions, are just as hare-brained after all. . .
I do my best to decrease suffering. . .
Did you ever consider that God uses suffering to accomplish wondrous results in people? Did you ever consider that suffering can be redemptive? Did you ever consider what His Son had to suffer to save His people from their sins and from the curse of death?
-Mark
Not to worry, God can take our misdeeds and still work His glory with them.
As a believer, I have an OnStar Navigation System of sorts in the person of the Holy Spirit who promises to lead me into all truth. I try to follow His leading in my life which often times leads me into paths where I would hesitate to venture on my own. . .
The Bible is simply chock full of accounts where an individual performed a deed at God's prompt that, taken at face value, would seem to increase suffering, either for that person or for others. Through it all, God is glorified. . .
-Mark
This is one place I think we'll have to agree to disagree. There are an awful lot of historical examples of people who said (and probably believed) they were working according to God's will or for the glory of God, whose behavior would be condemned by any reasonable standard.
So while I'm happy if you're happy with your divine OnStar, I much prefer to muddle along using my own moral compass.
"There are an awful lot of historical examples of people who said (and probably believed) they were working according to God's will or for the glory of God, whose behavior would be condemned by any reasonable standard."
Why do you add; (and probably believed) . . ? Does your "own moral compass" include a vast time-spanning, transcontinental, mass heart/mind analyzer too? And . . . did you also scan the folks that didn't profess to believe in the God of Abraham, while you were "navigating" so morally, in search of common ground?
I noticed that over a hundred million human beings, were murdered in cold blood, by NON-religious movements, and the minions that followed along, in the last century ALONE . . . Did you?
Now, you tell me, if it would have been expedient for Mr. Stalin, or Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, to SAY they were acting on behalf of God; Do you really think they would have hesitated? . . . Why on earth would you assume that some people that did terrible things, would not lie about their religious beliefs? People that DON'T believe their is an all-powerful Being, watching their every move, have no particular reason to fear claiming they do believe that, obviously. If you can't get power in a society without making such a claim, immoral people that want power over others, will simply lie about it, don't you think?
I suspect one reason humans have trouble finding "common ground" is because folks so often claim they're looking for it, while in reality, they just wanted to toss a few stones about . .
Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists. SOME of the people Stalin killed were believers, and some were not.
Hitler killed Jews under the umbrella of Christian anti-semitism, and with the consent of most of the Chrsitian establishment of his day.
If people use God as the reason for their behavior, I tend to assume they mean what they say. No, I don't have a vast time-spanning, transcontinental, mass heart/mind analyzer... but neither do you. You however, have a problem I do not have, namely, you have to explain how, despite their professed belief in an all-powerful Being, watching their every move, these people became monsters.
It is very convenient, but not very convincing, to claim that they simply lied.
The fact is, religion has exactly the same record of moral behavior as other human institutions. There have been very good religious people, and religiously-motivated monsters. Just as there have been very good political people, and politically-motivated monsters. And very good patriotically-motivated people, and patriotically-motivated monsters.
"It is very convenient, but not very convincing, to claim that they simply lied."
Well, I didn't say it. I pointed out that you have no rational way to justify this statement;
". . examples of people who said (and probably believed) they were working according to God's will or for the glory of God"
You are clearly using your imagination, as if a little window on ultimate reality . . . Here you do it again;
"The fact is, religion has exactly the same record of moral behavior as other human institutions."
You don't know that, I say, you're just making it up, based on whatever happens to be your personal assessment of your own imagination. That ain't how one finds "common ground", I don't think, to make fanciful declarations about those who do not share your personal beliefs . . There simply is no "record" of a world where religions did not exist, to compare to the world where religion has, nor any real record of what everyone has done, or anything remotely like it. It is entirely possible, in reality-land, that religion has played a very positive role in the "civilizing" of the world, outside your mind.
Naturally, if one wishes to defame religions, or any other movement or development, one can invent the "record" that shows they don't do any good . . . One could do that with regard to farming if one wished, or government, trade, writing, or anything else . . . but so what?
There can be no common ground in your imagination, that's just you in there . . telling those you don't agree with, that what they believe in does no one any good, is a very silly start, I think.
As for the argument that religion has exactly the same record of moral and immoral behavior, go ahead and bring me some facts to back up a different view... without begging the question by redefining religion in such a way that it CANNOT be the source of bad actions. The Inquisition isn't different in effect or in kind, as far as I can see, from the Stalinist purges or the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia.
If you disagree, try bringing some facts to prove me wrong... something I notice you have made no effort to do so far.
"I am pointing out that you have NO evidence for that statement whatsoever."
Evidence? What in the world are you talking about? Simple logic demands that one is not afraid, of a God they do not believe exists. It's what is sometimes called self evident.
It makes no sense to say that immoral people, such as commit heinous acts, would hesitate to lie about believing in God. Why on earth would they? What's the risk?
Maybe you'll see what I'm trying to point out, if we switch in another common claim, that the very same sorts of folks you're alluding to here, virtually always make . . . Say; the claim that they are trying to do good for the people. Would it be reasonable in your eyes, if someone said that trying to do good for people is a useless thing, since many people that said they were trying to do good for the people, have done some very nasty things? Or , since so many of those that did the most horrible of crimes, claimed to be seeking justice and peace, justice and peace have been implicated as an un-worthwhile thing to promote?
It just makes no sense to take the word of a known sadist and deceiver, for much of anything, and certainly not about things that would help conceal malicious intent . .
I've been combing through this thread-let, attempting to figure out what exactly your thesis is, since you keep insisting that I'm not getting at the point of your argument.
Let me try again. You seem to object to my statement that when people SAY they are doing great evil "for the glory of God" or other religious reasons, we have to accept their accounts of their own motivations if there is no evidence to the contrary. For instance, if there was testimony that they had told someone they had other reasons, that would be countervailing evidence that would have to be weighed. But if the only evidence of motivation (which is an internal fact no one outside an individual's mind can know) is a statement of intent, then on what basis do we say it can't be true?
As far as I can tell, that's the gist of what we're discussing, although I can't be sure, because you still haven't actually stated a thesis.
So, let me try another tack. If two ill-kempt men go on killing sprees after running around shouting at people, and one claims God told him to kill and the other one says the CIA beamed thoughts into their heads, what do you think? Unless there is countervailing evidence (see above) I tend to believe they killed for the reasons they say they did -- that they believe what they said. It doesn't follow (of course) that their beliefs represent reality.
Are you with me so far? Now let's take a harder case. In 1486 a couple of Dominican firebrands named Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger wrote a book demonstrating "proofs" (both natural and Biblical) of the existence of witches, along with instructions for forcing witches to confess and a regimen of punishments for various witchly acts. This book spread through Europe like wildfire, at least by the standards of the time. It had the good fortune of being written shortly after the invention of the printing press. But also, it met a cultural situation ripe for an easy explanation of the problems of the day, such as pandemics, invasion by foreign forces, and the rise of various heretical beliefs, some of which ultimately became the Protestant Reformation. Over the course of a couple centuries, this book was used by thousands of people holding religious and secular authority to torture and then burn alive tens of thousands (at a minimum) of mostly poor women.
Now then, do you think Frs. Kramer and Sprenger were "not afraid, of a God they do not believe exists"? On what basis? They preached those beliefs long before they published their book, they joined the Dominican order, which was active in the Inquisitions from an earlier date, and they continued to preach the same message for their entire lives. So on what basis can you say they lied about their beliefs?
Do you believe they are simply crazy men, like our hypothetical killer bums above? If so, they maintained orderly lives, were held in high esteem, and do not show much evidence of madness aside from their obsession with witches and witchcraft.
But even if they were mad as hatters, how do you explain the thousands of other people who took up the book and made it a force for horror? Were they all mad? All atheists?
And what of the Church hierarchy which supported the Inquisitions, even if not everyone actively participated?
I am really curious to hear your explanation of this phenomenon.
"How do we reach out to people whose ideas are really not close to our own, and yet who may have the same kinds of experiences? How do we find common ground with people of goodwill?"
Am I supposed to pretend that what you are doing here is "reaching out to people whose beliefs are not close" to yours? This really appears to be something more akin to an "inquisition", with you in the role of grand inquisitor.
Were those "trials" wrong? Or do you agree with the basic concept of demonizing people for "improper beliefs"? Is whatever pops into your head, about anything and everything that occurred throughout history, the gold standard I must confess to, before we can proceed?
Yes, the trials were wrong. They were, not to put too fine a point on it, abominations. And no, people should never be penalized or even threatened for "improper beliefs." Die Gedanken sind Frei, eh? Actions are one thing; thoughts are not the concern of any human or any institution.
I'll leave the final bit of your message uncommented on and simply suggest that if you want to engage in debate, you might want to go collect some facts and form them into arguments rather than proceeding directly to ad hominem sarcasm.
This is a scam, this article, I say. You are just some know-it-all, convinced that what you imagine is the reality we all share, and must agree to, before we can come to some "common ground". You are just one more person, that can't grasp the notion that they are not looking at actual people or events, when their mind is stimulated to generate thoughts and images by what they have read or heard, but rather, simply assume that their visions are valid, accurate depictions of whatever they appear to be displaying. And those who don't agree with the way they imagine things to be and have been, are blind or fools, that need some waking up ; )
BFD.
Of course I do, in reality-land. Don't you agree that one person, ought not assume that what they imagine, is what is real? Would not believing it was, lead to endless bickering and strife? Aren't our imaginations bound to be conflicting with each others, and biased toward our own interests and self image?
John -- Yes, exactly. It is precisely where someone assumes they already know all about another person simply because they know one thing about them that we see this sort of reflexive opposition. We all have a tendency to assume that if we know a person's religion (or political party affiliation, or neighborhood where they live, etc.) we don't have to know anything else.
And as you say, endless bickering and strife pretty much sums up the results.
I find that spirituality is a very personal state and should be kept so.
The way to teach? Well, lead by example, if people like you and the life you lead, they will try to emulate it to acquire the same.
You can't really train someone to listen. They can hear, but rarely listen, I know, I was married!
So this suggests to me that it's possible to train people to listen.
God separates people, too. . .
-Mark
God separated 8 people from apostasy with the flood. . .
God separated the nations by scrambling the proto-language at Babel. . .
God separated Abram from idolatry by calling him out of Ur of the Chaldees. . .
God separated Isaac, the child of promise from Ishmael, the child of the bondswoman. . .
God separated Joseph from his brothers. . .
God separated Moses from his family to be his instrument. . .
God separated the Israelites from the Egyptians with the exodus. . .
Do you want me to go on?
-Mark
2 Corinthians 6:17
So, in your view, is there any point in finding common ground with people whose religious views are not in accord with yours? Or do you feel it's better to separate yourself from them?
I know what common ground I share with people. . .
What I feel has really no bearing on anything. I go out into the world or withdraw as the Spirit leads me. . . As Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for every purpose under heaven. . .
-Mark
We are human beings, fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of our Creator God. . .
We are made first and foremost to know and glorify Him and to be with Him forever. . .
Like Him, we are creative, we are made to love and be loved, we are endowed with body and soul (spirit), we are language processors. . .
We are fallen and sinful and guilty and in need of reconciliation with God. . .
We are spiritually dead until we do so. . .
We are utterly unable on our own to effect this reconciliation, this redemption. . .
We are called to come home to Him through the mediation of His Son's substitutionary atonement on the cross for our sin. . .
We are morally responsible to do so. . .
That's about a hell's half-acre worth of common ground. . .
-Mark
Yes, that's correct. You can be driving within the confines of the state of Nevada without even realizing you've crossed the border. You'd still be in Nevada despite your being oblivious to the fact. . .
-Mark
I think that's a good thing, too!
Incorrectly yours,
-Mark
For some reason, the American culture seems to focus on differences. However, when discussing our spiritual experiences, I find that if we can ignore the differences for a while, we will find that we have much in common in our relationship with God, as we understand him/her, and in our spiritual journey.
In my experience, many people tell me that they have endured periods when God seems far away and communication through prayer is difficult. There is not necessarily a triggering event, this feeling just happens. Others have shared with me the times that God feels very close, and we experience a joy and a spiritual intimacy that is hard to explain.
Of course, these experiences are mixed with our own life experiences where we turn to God to share our joys and blessings as well as our sorrows and our pain. These experiences are universal, and are not based in a particular religion or culture.
These shared common denominators are building blocks for a dialog about our spiritual experience that have nothing to do with religious beliefs or church activities. Once commonality of experience is established, I have had not problem dealing with religious differences as they affect spirituality.
To answer your second question, if a persons goal is only to debate religious differences and defend his/her beliefs, it is difficult to get them to share experiences so common ground can be found.
I hope my reply sheds some light on my experience in finding common ground.
Anyway, although I'm not a theist, I find your views both understandable and admirable. I can't even think of any questions to pose to you.
Thank you!
I'd be interested in hearing what a materialist's take on goodwill is. . .
Is goodwill some kind of desirable chemical cocktail somewhere in the left hemisphere of the brain?
What is goodwill for those who ascribe to beatitudes such as:
Blessed are the pushy for they will always get their own way.
or
Blessed are the evolutionary for they will triumph in the battle of tooth and nail.
Is there a pill somewhere that I could take to facilitate this feeling (spirit?) of goodwill?
-Mark
I have no idea what the neurobiological underpinnings are. Sorry. It might be positively correlated with seratonin, which seems to have some role in smoothing over relations with others in a group, as the vervet monkey studies indicate. But I'm no specialist, so... if I'm wrong, ya can't sue me, lol!
As for your, uh.... mal-atitudes?. I really don't think you can pin that sort of thinking on materialists. Can you name no pushy televangelists? (If you can't, what country do you live in?) And as for evolution, it has long been a point of curiosity to me that people who detest the notion of natural selection in the world of biology quite routinely embrace the very same systematic in the world of economics. Don't help the poor -- they have failed the test of the invisible hand of the marketplace. (This despite various Gospel admonitions to help the widows and orphans...)
What I'm saying here is, if you want to ascribe all the things you hate to those who hold beliefs you hate, you might first want to scrutinze the behavior of those you admire...
Is this one of your habits, Shira? Are you taking seratonin intravenously? Will you also seek to find common ground with those poor souls who are seratoninacally challenged?
And why is this a habit to be cultivated? Why is this habit any different than smoking three packs a day?
-Mark
You judge a habit by its effects, yes? Goodwill is a habit that in my experience has good effects. People work together and manage to find things to do that all can agree are positive things. Thereby, the world is improved -- specifically, suffering is reduced.
Smoking three packs a day? Not such good effects.
No offense, Shira - but are you qualified to judge good effects?
Consider, once:
OH THAT'S GOOD, NO THAT'S BAD
(DeWayne Blackwell)
Sam The Sham & The Pharaohs - 1966
(Ohhhhh, that's bad!) No, that's good!
Not long ago I was walking down the street
When a woman in a car knocked me off my feet
(Ohhhhh, that's bad!) No, that's good!
My insurance paid me a lot of dough
More money than I'd seen in a year's payroll
(Ohhhhh, that's good!) No, that's bad!
My doctors' bills is where my money went
And all I had left was a very bad limp
(Ohhhhh, that's bad!) No, that's good!
'Cause the way I walked got me a role
As the marshall's partner on a TV show
Pretty young actresses started hanging 'round
And every night we'd do the town
(Ohhhhh, that's good!) No, that's bad!
I ended up back in a hospital bed
'Cause my horse fell on my bad leg
(Ohhhhh, that's bad!) No, that's good!
'Cause just when I was feeling my worst
I fell in love with a beautiful nurse
(Ohhhhh, that's good!) No, that's bad!
'Cause I found out she was the doctor's wife
Now I'll be in a wheelchair the rest of my life
'Cause no matter how I pleaded and begged
He operated on my good leg
(Ohhhhh, that's bad!) No, that's AWFUL!!
-Mark
This may be one major difference between us. I believe humans can make a difference in the world. I believe that, even if we will sometimes get effects much different than we expect, this is true much less than half the time. Most of the time, we end up doing what we intend to do, and what we try to do.
You seem to believe that what we try to do will have very little relationship to what actually occurs. You seem to believe that this has something to do with God's will, though honestly, I find this very puzzling.
Have you ever seen those cariacature maps of your home town? Everything in town is huge and overstated and then there is the rest of the US much smaller and more understated. Chicago is over here and LA is out there on the coast somewhere but neither is near as big as CJ's Drive-In on the edge of town. Do we exaggerate our place - our importance? Are we sovereign or is God?
Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, And are regarded as a speck of dust on the scales; Behold, He lifts up the islands like fine dust.
Even Lebanon is not enough to burn, Nor its beasts enough for a burnt offering.
All the nations are as nothing before Him, They are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless.
To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare with Him?
Isaiah 40:15-18
-Mark
So do I, Shira. Man has his will, to be sure - but what guarantees that his/her will is operative? Nothing other than God's sovereignty guarantees this fact. And, that being said, keep always in mind that, though man rules - God overrules. . .
-Mark
P.S. What raindrop or earthworm hasn't made a difference in the world?
I certainly agree that raindrops and earthworms make a difference, and quite possibly, a greater difference than I do, certainly at a particular moment. But the difference, I get to choose what kind of difference I make. I think that confers an obligation to make an effort to choose wisely.
Do you? What kinds of things coerce your choices?
-Mark
My previous choices also constrain my current choices.
I'm sure there are a thousand things that constrain or coerce my choices, but hey. I still have some ability to choose, and to the best of my knowledge, raindrops don't. And while earthworms may have some small measure of choice, I'm pretty certain my choices are less constrained than its are.
-Mark
Nevertheless, having been born, and born as a human, I have choices to make, so I make them by the best criteria I can find.
Always?
-Mark
-Mark
Why have you chosen to answer my first question and ignore my second?
-Mark
Abandon integrity. Forget truth, and focus on concord.
--------------
"is it ... possible to reach people who view our ideas, or who view us, with hostility?"
Rarely, and only if they are truth seekers.
----------------
I admit that I'm not even trying to do these things you're trying to do. I'm here to help truth seekers and be helped by them. Everybody else is wallpaper.
So, if I understand you, you are saying that you cannot find, and will not seek, common ground with you disagree with? Before I go any further, I just want to make sure I understand your point of view.
Scripture tells us to "love one another". I take that to mean without exception, and I have seen people change instantly in response to an act of kindness or mercy in God's name.
So when you say I have seen people change instantly in response to an act of kindness or mercy in God's name, are you saying that someone (in God's name) does a kind act, and the recipient changes instantly? If so, is it God or the act of kindness that effects the change?
As far as discussion groups are concerned, that is correct. I'm a truth seeker, not an agreement seeker. Truth seekers are all I care about on Gather - and specifically only rational truth seekers. Irrational truth seekers are also wallpaper, because neither of us can help the other.
Isn't it a bit irrational to insist that truth can only be found through a human being's very limited ability to reason?
-Mark
"Isn't it a bit irrational to insist that truth can only be found through a human being's very limited ability to reason?"
I'm not insisting anything. Anyone has the right to be as irrational as they please. I also have the right to ignore anyone being irrational. I'm stating my intent to do so, because I've talked to enough irrational people to know they're not worth my time.
Yes, some truth can be found prior to reason, such as "I exist". But that or any other truth is not likely to be communicated in a discussion group apart from reason. All propositionally expressed truth is expressed rationally - though some irrational statements can communicate certain truths apart from the content of the proposition, just like a barking dog can communicate.
A human being's ability to reason is limited only by his understanding of logic and probability judgment. It is his knowledge of the truth or falsity of his premises in which he is limited.
The question I have is this (and it's a serious question, not meant as either a joke or a challenge): do you ever have to work with other people to get things done that you think are important? If so, do you always have the luxury of working only with fellow rational truth-seekers?
Shira
"how do you decide whether someone is a rational truth seeker?"
I judge their rationality by the degree of logic and common sense in what they say.
Knowing if they are truth seekers is more difficult. I've often been fooled by phonies. I decide that by a subjective probability judgment.
Besides wallpaper I also considered "background noise". Do you have a preference?
"do you ever have to work with other people to get things done that you think are important?"
Yes, but not yet in a discussion group.
"If so, do you always have the luxury of working only with fellow rational truth-seekers?"
Hardly ever.
There are other, more severe limits on what a man can do with three plus pounds of grey matter. . .
He is finite,
he is fallen,
he is biased. . .
-Mark
Finitude and bias are factors that will affect a person's judgment of the truth or falsity of his premises. They will not diminish his comprehension of logic and probability judgment unless he is simply stupid.
"Fallen" is a concept from your dogmatic interpretation of the Bible, which I acknowledge no obligation to address.
Mark offered us an example of an answer to your question about recognizing a truth seeker. Notice that in with his legitimate questions he slipped a dogmatic assertion ("fallen") presupposing that his religious presuppositions are correct. This is not something a truth seeker would do. Only a worldview salesman would pull that sort of thing. Mark is not a truth seeker, but I'm continuing to talk to him for now, because his legitimate questions and my answers are beneficial to any truth seekers who read these comments. As long as that is the case, I will continue to talk to him. Dogmatists have many ways to confuse issues. Perhaps Mark will offer us a few more examples.
The question I'm trying to ask is this: given that everyone must now have contact with people he or she disagrees with, given that there are a lot of problems to be solved in the world, and given that we will have to work with people unlike ourselves in order to work on these problems, how do we do that. That is the point of the thread. It's not about how we act in discussions on gather.
So if I may again ask, how do you find enough common ground to work with those with whom you disagree? I would be very interested to hear your response.
How do you interpret the Bible, Cary?
-Mark
Stupid is a rather careless term for a truth sleuth to use. What do you mean when you say someone is stupid?
-Mark
"How do you interpret the Bible, Cary?"
I do not believe scripture (Bible or otherwise) to be inspired by any deity in the sense that everything in it is true, or that the directives are applicable to all generations following those to whom the books were written. I do, however, believe scripture (at least most of the Bible) to be inspired by the God to whom mankind is accountable in the sense that the directives were applicable to the generation to whom the books were written, and to a limited and/or diminishing sense applicable to succeeding generations. I also believe scripture (at least the Bible) to be inspired in the sense that God inspired men to leave a record of their efforts to understand and communicate with God, so that succeeding generations can learn from the successes and failures of their predecessors. I think this position is not only more philosophically and pragmatically defensible, but also more scripturally defensible.
"What do you mean when you say someone is stupid?"
I usually go by this set of definitions:
ignorance: not having data
unintelligence: not being able to process data
inattention: having data, being able to process it, and failing to
STUPIDITY: having data, processing it, and not acting accordingly
Cary,
Is this a presupposition? Do you hold to it religiously?
-Mark
"You shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy mind."
This is the first and greatest commandment. It was etched by the very finger of God into a tablet of stone to serve as an eternal database. Can you understand these words?
-Mark
Do any of you fail to see why these guys are not worth talking to?
"Notice that in with his legitimate questions he slipped a dogmatic assertion ("fallen") presupposing that his religious presuppositions are correct. This is not something a truth seeker would do. Only a worldview salesman would pull that sort of thing."
Well, not if the truth seeker witnessed strong evidence that there was in fact an Entity that could speak to such matters. You are obviously assuming such strong evidence has not been witnessed by anyone making that sort of assertion. Not being a god yourself, it is blatantly irrational for you to continue to speak as though you did know that has not occurred in reality. You don't, and so must yourself be dogmatically presupposing it hasn't.
The logic is not even tricky, really, one just needs to be honest about one's limitations, and not close their mind reflexively to the possibility one is simply ignorant about something, that not everyone is ignorant of. Basically, stop operating on the assumption that what one is aware of, is all there is for anyone to be aware of. Which is to say; Stop being egocentric in one's reasoning.
"I do not believe scripture (Bible or otherwise) to be inspired by any deity in the sense that everything in it is true, or that the directives are applicable to all generations following those to whom the books were written"
And that personal opinion is something you cannot admit is just a belief? Something it would be presumptive to call "truth", or logical, or anything more than; what you figure?
How can a person have a rational conversation with someone so self important . . . I ask you, truth seekers?
Grow some intergity, or don't expect any courtesy from me.
Re: our comments on post by Walker Bennett - There is a reason why we have freedom from religion, September 26, 2009 08:58 PM EDT
That's all you got, isn't it? Presumptions and insults, dressed up as logic and open mindedness . . . I don't need your courtesy, and I'll expose your weak-ass reasoning and pompous strutting about, as I please.
Read comments of Cary Cook & John Knight on THIS POST.
See who exposes what about whom.
To any truth seekers who may be reading:
Do any of you fail to see why these guys are not worth talking to?
As a TRUTH FINDER ... I now know TRUTH to be FAR MORE than mere rationality ... IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT TRUTH ... you will never understand the BET (+=-) because THAT IS THE TRUTH of this UNIVERSE ... and you Cary Cook, are a pompous AH, and are not worth the time of intelligent beings wanting to discuss the Truth.
The question I would like to ask you, as a truth FINDER, is whether you now feel you no longer need to learn? There is a Buddhist rubric that those we dislike most or find most annoying are the best teachers we can find. Does that find any resonance for you, Jerry?
I stake my very life and eternity on my view of Truth ... I found it the hard way, and once found I can see no reason what-so-ever to be overly humble about it and/or in denial of it, or quiet about it ... it being something so scarce and so much needed in this world.
Besides, if someone does not agree and or has another truth that is relatively right for them, so be it, there is something for everyone in this world. To each their own.
BTW, I am always open for more learning ... it is just that when I do learn something valuable I find it valuable to recognize it ... and spread the word if and when I think it might help others. It may not always seem so to some, but I believe my intentions are good at least. :-)
kinship
rather, just another strategy with which to increase the common pie . . .
let's kill, then, with kindness and congregate like buzzards with kindred spirits, devouring the carcass. . .
-Mark
Libramoon, neat poem. I do think that one of the hacks social evolution has made in biological evolution is to hijack the brain-wired forms of altruism (kin and reciprocal) and find ways to "fool" the brain into making them more universal. For instance, the "all men are brothers" meme piggybacks on kin altruism, I think, and the Buddhist meme that "Each person you meet was, in former lives, your brother, your mother, your child..." does the same.
On the other side, religions (and of course other organizations from political parties to military units to terrorist cells) are able to mobilize other evolutionary programming that leads us to stigmatize members of outgroups and torture or kill those who join our group and then try to defect. (For a full discussion of this, I'd refer you to Pascal Boyer's excellent book, Religion Explained, chapter 8.)
Ultimately, I believe we are going to have to make a serious effort to map out the good and bad parts of our psyches (or brain programming, if you prefer.) That effort is going to require scientific precision, but also the kind of ethical sensitivity that the best religious models have provided.
Thus my comment that the "all men are brothers" meme and the "everyone has been been your kin" meme are piggybacking on the genetic version, which is programmed into our brains.
Reciprocal altruism is another and more selfish matter -- a person or animal sacrifices now in hopes that the partner will sacrifice at a later time. I believe Frans De Waal has just written a book about this, which I have not yet read, but it's on the list somewhere.
Let me know if this is not your understanding and why?
The Gould kinship model on the side of nature; the reciprocity model on the side of nurture; on the side of wholistic system modeling would be a realization (conscious and/or unconscious) that win/win outcomes are facilitated by empathy informed behaviors.
OK, I'm not an expert, but my understanding of kin altruism was formed by an article written by Stephen Jay Gould many years ago in which he showed that kin altruism explains haploid-diploidy in bees. That is, the workers will sacrifice their lives to improve the chances that their genes (carried not by themselves, but by the queen) would survive. So at least in its "pure" form, it is very much tied to actual kinship, which is to say, genetic closeness.
Why one will hardly die for a righteous man – though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
Romans 5:7-8
Can you bear another Gumpian moment? The scene where he is in Vietnam and the jungle is on fire and Bubba is down as are many other of his comrades. Forrest somehow hoists one soldier after another onto his shoulder and carries them out of the inferno to the safety of the choppers. As soon as he dumps one man off, he turns and goes back for more. Who could leave the safety of the clearing and plunge back into the fire and chaos to pluck men like brands from the fire? But Forrest did.
Or would you rather a scene from real life? Consider the firefighters who went back into those burning towers to save imperiled souls on 9/11? Will you ever forget? What kind of grace and courage would one have to have?
And now it’s almost Christmas once more. What kind of love and condescension would cause One to leave vacant a privileged spot in heaven, strap on flesh and come to earth to die so guilty men could live? O Holy Night!
The wonder, the wonder.
-Mark
This goes to the issue (again) of whether we wish to be passive (maybe not the best word... do you have another?) and "let God work things out", or whether we wish to first make sense and then make use of the way things are.
Mine eyes have seen the Glory! May He open your eyes as well, Shira. To have it always winter but never Christmas would be a grey existence. . .
But, if one had never experienced color. . .
-Mark
Mark -- Impasse again. Winter has plenty of satisfaction and beauties without Christmas, methinks... But I wish you joy of it!
Speaking of holidays, do you celebrate Thanksgiving?
-Mark
That's great, Shira. So the next time Marion Weaver makes her dark chocolate almond bark and gives me a box, I can keep my gratitude to myself?
Does a blessing want a blesser?
-Mark
I wonder, do you suppose he was genuinely grateful?
-Mark
Some blessings come directly from a blesser. Some do not.
Your comment about the prodigal son, to me, illustrates another thing I have noticed. A great many people cannot seem to notice the blessings they are given. Not noticing tends to make people shallow and prideful. It's also the source of a great deal of tut-tutting about "those people" whose misfortunes are all of their own making. This comes from lack of awareness, I think.
But to me, recognizing a blessing is a separate dynamic from thanking the giver of that blessing. Sometimes it is natural to do both. Sometimes only one is called for. For instance, what if Marion Weaver made truly awful fruitcake. Would you still feel an obligation to take it and thank her?
Such as. . . ?
-Mark
I may be the wrong person to ask this question. I've never met a fruitcake I don't like - I think I'm one of only four people in the free world who would welcome, with open arms, a fruitcake for Christmas.
That being said, I would certainly try to discern the spirit behind the gift and pay homage to that - if homage was due. . .
-Mark
So I can have my cake and eat it too - all with no obligations? Gee whiz, this is great - thanks for validating my ingratitude, Shira. . .
-Mark
OK, obviously we disagree about blessings without a giver, since you attribute such things as one's birth, the fact that we are human, that we have daylight, etc., etc. to God and I don't. I don't know that there's a lot more to be said about that.
I don't thank people out of a sense of obligation but out of a sense of sharing my own delight or (in the case of an unwanted gift) out of a wish not to cause the giver to suffer.
I'm guessing (putting aside the sarcasm) that you experience this dynamic differently.
Now that I think of it, I do feel a sense of obligation related to my blessings. I feel an obligation to share them with people who could use some of what I have more than enough of.
Let's let Cornelius Van Til say at least this about that:
At least it ought to be plain that he who is not for the God of Christianity is against Him. You see, the world belongs to Him, and that you are His creature, and as such are to own up to that fact by honoring Him whether you eat or drink or do anything else. God says that you live, as it were, on His estate. And His estate has large ownership signs placed everywhere, so that he who goes by even at seventy miles an hour cannot but read them. Every fact in this world, the God of the Bible claims, has His stamp indelibly engraved upon it. How then could you be neutral with respect to such a God? Do you walk about leisurely on a Fourth of July in Washington wondering whether the Lincoln Memorial belongs to anyone? Do you look at "Old Glory" waving from a high flagpole and wonder whether she stands for anything? Does she require anything of you, born an American citizen as you are? You would deserve to suffer the fate of the "man without a country" if as an American you were neutral to America. Well, in a much deeper sense you deserve to live forever without God if you do not own and glorify Him as your Creator.
from his essay Why I Believe in God
-Mark
I think for the most part that a person is raised and becomes culturally a product of his environment, at least and until he or she finds influence from those outside the immediate circle of friends one has.
Also, it is a matter of perception how one sees the world. Even the same event can have totally different impressions on two different people. The above is rather insular and judgemental to me, but it obviously took a toll on the writer's mindset to ground his religion to the detriment of others.
Hi Dano,
I guess you could put it that way, but. . .
A good fruitcake is one of those rare delicacies that makes this side of the grave a lovely adventure. . . I had a good friend who would bake me two, one dark and one light, and mail them to me from Massachusetts to my home in PA each year for Christmas (a Christian holiday which commemorat