Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

    I've always had an open mind on religion - believe what you will. The line is crossed when someone's faith becomes the law of the land, regardless of your beliefs. The review below of Catholic Spain touches on the marriage of Church and State.

    ‘The Spanish Holocaust,’ by Paul Preston



    Miners captured by General Franco's forces in 1936, before their execution in Seville.

    In “Homage to Catalonia,” his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell remarks that Francisco Franco’s military uprising against Spain’s elected government “was an attempt not so much to impose fascism as to restore feudalism.” Paul Preston’s magisterial account of the bloodshed of that era bears this out. Fascism may belong to the 20th century, but Franco’s grab for power evokes earlier times: the parading soldiers who flourished enemy ears and noses on their bayonets, the mass public executions carried out in bullrings or with band music and onlookers dancing in the victims’ blood. One of Franco’s top aides talked of democratically chosen politicians as “cloven-hoofed beasts,” and anything that smacked of modernity — Rotary Clubs, Montessori schools — seemed to draw the regime’s violent wrath. Echoing the Inquisition, Franco ordered particularly despised foes put to death with the garrote, in which the executioner tightens an iron collar around a person’s neck.

    There’s also something medieval in the fierce class divisions of 1930s Spain, with its great latifundistas, whose estates were worked by landless peasants so hungry they stole acorns from pigs’ troughs. Preston describes the “near racist” loathing Franco’s officials had for the lower classes; one contemptuously referred to unionized farmworkers as being like “Rif tribesmen.” Indeed, Franco’s leading commanders were mostly, like him, Africanistas, veterans of Spain’s bloody colonial wars in North Africa. As a young man, the generalissimo himself led troops on a raid that brought back the severed heads of 12 Moroccan tribesmen.

    With Hitler and Mussolini supplying arms to Franco, and the Soviet Union to the embattled Spanish Republic, the death toll of the 1936-39 war was enormous. Some 200,000 soldiers died in battle, and a further large but unknown number of civilians were killed by Franco’s bombing of Spanish cities and of vast columns of refugees in flight. But Preston’s subject is something else: the approximately 200,000 men and women deliberately executed during the war, the 20,000 supporters of the Republic shot after it ended, and the additional tens of thousands of civilians and refugees who died in concentration camps and prisons.

    “The Spanish Holocaust” is not really a narrative but a comprehensive prosecutor’s brief. With its immense documentation — 120 pages of endnotes to both published and unpublished material in at least five languages, including corrections of errors in these sources — it is bound to be an essential reference for anything written on the subject for years to come.

    In quashing democracy and timid agricultural reform, and in restoring the traditional hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, the army, big landowners and an authoritarian state, the Spanish version of fascism was very much a fundamentalist movement. And like so many political and religious fundamentalisms, it had a particular ferocity toward women. Franco’s troops practiced gang rape to frighten newly captured towns into submission, and until media-savvy superiors silenced them, his officers even boasted about this to American and British correspondents. Tens of thousands of women had their heads shaved and were force-fed castor oil (a powerful laxative), then jeered as they were paraded through the streets soiling themselves. Many had their breasts branded with the Falangist symbol of yoke and arrows. In Toledo, a United Press correspondent reported, Franco’s soldiers shot more than 20 pregnant women from a maternity hospital. Much larger all-female groups were executed elsewhere. Troops marched through one town waving rifles adorned with the underwear of women they had raped and murdered. “It is necessary to spread terror,” one of Franco’s senior generals declared. “We have to create the impression of mastery, eliminating without scruples or hesitation all those who do not think as we do.”

    Although Preston’s sympathies are clearly with the doomed Republic, to his credit he is equally thorough in exposing the killings committed under that government. Many supporters of the Republic had their own version of class hatred, murdering large numbers of captured army officers, other right-wingers and, most notoriously, nearly 7,000 members of the Catholic clergy and religious orders, who were seen as accomplices of the reactionary landowners. Among hundreds of other atrocities on the Republican side, Preston details the evasions of the longtime Communist Party leader Santiago Carrillo regarding his involvement in the massacre of more than 2,200 rightist prisoners in Madrid; the operations of some Soviet “advisers” who, supposedly on hand to aid the Republican Army, devoted themselves to hunting down anti-Stalinists on the Spanish left; and the harshly sadistic prisons operated by the Republic’s military intelligence service. Of the 200,000 estimated civilian wartime executions, more than 49,000 took place in Republican territory — a much smaller toll than that taken by the fascists, but still enormous.

    There were crucial differences, how*ever. Most, though by no means all, Republican killings were by mob violence, not deliberate policy, in the first six months of the war, as popular outrage welled up after air raids and news of fascist atrocities. But — sometimes effectively, sometimes not, and often at great personal risk — certain Republican officials managed to restrain and sometimes even prosecute killers of civilians. Unlike the tightly controlled press in Franco’s territory, some newspapers condemned the killings. And the Republican government saved many lives by evacuating from the country more than 10,000 businessmen, priests and other right-wingers thought to be at particular risk. Nothing similar happened on the Falangist side.

    Franco’s rule became less murderous in later times, but in the early years he ranks morally with Hitler and Stalin. In such a regime, I always wonder, were there any decent people who tried to stop the slaughter? Yes, it turns out. Preston gives one brief but haunting example. Father Fernando Huidobro Polanco was a 34-year-old Jesuit who enthusiastically volunteered as a chaplain for Franco’s troops. But he was dismayed to see them routinely shooting all their prisoners. He sent protests to high-level army officers and finally wrote to Franco himself that “many are dying who do not deserve such a fate and who could mend their ways.” To Franco’s adjutant, he protested in despair that “we are falling back into barbarism. . . . I do not want the new regime to be born with blood on its hands.” He was wounded but then returned to the front, ever more vocal. In 1937, he was killed in battle, supposedly by shrapnel from one of the Republic’s Soviet artillery shells. Ten years later the Jesuits began the lengthy process to have him canonized as a saint. But in the course of the investigation, it came out that he’d been shot in the back by a soldier from his own unit, “tired perhaps of the preaching of his chaplain,” Preston writes. “When it was discovered that Huidobro had been killed by the Francoists and not by the Reds, the Vatican shelved his case.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/bo...html?ref=books

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

      Originally posted by shiny! View Post
      Back to the OT, the article says that analytical thought decreases religious belief. I think that analytical thought can prove the existence of God. Feel free to pick this apart...
      Thank you for your powerfully-written statement, shiny. I have respect for your beliefs (they are as valid as any can be), but am concerned about the assertion that they are reconciled with an analytical process. I will (respectfully) take you up on your invitation to pick apart this assertion.

      Originally posted by shiny! View Post
      Bob Earll once said that God is either all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful, or It doesn't exist. That statement ticked me off.
      Bob Earll was actually simplifying a much older riddle, first (known to have been) espoused by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus:

      Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
      Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
      Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
      Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

      – Epicurus
      The point of the original was not so much that it is hard to know which of the four questions was true, or even whether god existed. His point was instead that no matter which one was true, there was no picture of God that could be left that would be worthy of worship.

      Modern (monotheistic) religions tend to tackle the question of God's goodness by asserting that God is both willing and able to prevent evil, and yet not malevolent for failing to doing so. (Trying to "repair" Epicurus' category 3.) The argument essentially comes down to declaring that evil (at the big-picture level) really cannot exist: that lower-level evil is justified by being part of a divine plan, that is not knowable to the human mind. Thus, while people might look around them and SEE evil, the fact that it exists as part of a bigger, ineffable (good) picture makes it not evil, but on balance, good.

      It is here that the traditional arguments I have encountered tend to rest on a circular argument. God is good (not malevolent) therefore he has an (unknowable) plan that makes that which does not appear good, to in fact be good. This is evidence that God is good. All the evidence given is ultimately the religion's own (the Bible, or other equivalent religious text or divine body).

      So when you wrote:
      Originally posted by shiny! View Post
      All I had to do was look around to see a world full of stupidity, meanness and suffering. God for sure didn't seem all-loving, and I had doubts about the other attributes as well.
      You were in very good company. This problem has been approached by many noted individuals, some more rigorously than others. Mark Twain was perhaps the one who most vociferously voiced dissent.

      Your search for an analytical answer points to an understanding that any self-evidence has questionable value in a reasoned answer. Thus the attempt to find God through an analytical argument. To proceed with such an argument, one must therefore get past Epicurus' dilemma by asserting a measure of God's goodness, to justify the claim that it is, on balance, positive. I, to this date, have found only one that seems to hold: that the objective measure of God's goodness is in his net effect upon the world. If you would prefer a different metric, I would be eager to learn of it.

      Those that reject religion categorically generally take issue with the assertion of goodness at this point. A god who would create such an ineffable construct that categorically places certain parts of the world's history in the category of "on balance, still good" must be, to their mind, malevolent.

      They ask: "Can you really believe that Hitler's causing the death of 21 million people was part of a divine plan? Or the 141 million victims of other brutal dictators?" And other examples stand out not so much for their raw numbers as their absurd tragedy, such as the Children's Crusade. Or for their intense personal pain.

      Thus, one key question of God's credibility rests on one's ability to accept the "ineffable plan" argument, in light of these facts. What greater good offsets these, that could not be achieved, by an omnipotent being, with less suffering? Those who reject religion conclude that in trying to repair Epicurus' question 3, modern religions have instead unwittingly painted themselves into a corner at 4. Those who would justify religion assert that it must be a goodness of vast proportions indeed.

      There are many who assert such goodness. A few have spoken here. There are also those of us who dissent. But it is in any event an important part of any spiritual journey to address this question squarely, and not sidestep it. You are to be commended for doing so.

      You approach it with the following argument:

      Originally posted by shiny! View Post
      Here's where that statement led me:

      To my knowledge, nothing exists that is all-knowing. The smartest thing in the entire universe will have a limit to its knowledge.

      Nothing exists that is all-loving. With enough provokation, the most patient, loving soul can be driven to a state that is less than perfect love. Even Jesus Christ had his moments of anger, self-interest and despair.

      Nothing exists that is all-powerful. The most powerful force can always be topped by something even more powerful.

      And then it hit me. If there is one constant in creation, it is that everything exists in polarity. Without polarity there can be no existence. Objects are defined by the empty space around them. No light without darkness. No coin with only one side. Negative/positive, good/bad, feminine/masculine, hot/cold, happy/sad... I have yet to know of anything that exists without its polarity.
      This is very nearly correct. It is true that many fundamental properties have opposites: positive and negative charge, north and south magnetic poles, and force and anti-force particles of both the weak and strong forces. However, mass exists without opposite. Puzzling but true. (Antimatter and dark matter both still have positive mass.) The only thing that can be said for mass is that in some locations it is absent, but is not the same as it having an opposite. Since only one counterexample is required to disprove a generalized assertion, mass may serve as that counterexample.

      The presence of this "non-opposed" property of gravity is in fact precisely why a "Theory of Everything" has been so elusive in physics: electricity and magnetism and the "weak" force have been reconciled into the electroweak force. The "strong" force has been added to self-consistent models as well. But gravity, which acts on mass, is the tricky one. There has not ever been a single observation of a gravitational "push". And it isn't as though people haven't been looking in both theory and experiments.

      Originally posted by shiny! View Post
      Because nothing can exist without its polarity, the fact that there is nothing that is all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful means that something all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful must exist. Some people call It God.
      Because something CAN exist without an opposite, as mass and gravity do, no universal requirement of polar opposites exists.

      Therefore, the fact that one may see the opposite of knowledge, love, or power, does not imply that somewhere else there must exist an ultimate form of these things.

      This argument makes no claim that such an ultimate form does not exist. But the reasoning given so far does not imply that it does.
      Last edited by astonas; May 15, 2012, 04:21 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

        This is wonderful, Astonas! You're the first person I've encountered who gave me a good argument. I would counter that emptiness is the opposite of mass, but admittedly I know nothing about these things. I'm now adding "study physics" to my bucket list ;-)

        Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

          Who can prove analytical thing is the way to go.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

            Originally posted by cjppjc View Post
            Who can prove analytical thing is the way to go.
            no system which is complex enough to include arithmetic can prove its own consistency.
            the original post was about the effect of analytic thinking on religious belief. no proof was requested.
            if you don't want to go with analytic thinking, that's your choice.
            my own analysis is that belief in god is an additional axiom which can be adjoined to whatever axiomatic system you have which confines its assertions to manifest reality. my own preference is for a minimal axiomatic set. but that's just me.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

              I just want to point out that here we are, having a discussion about a most sensitive topic- religious belief - and 36 posts later there are still no flames. We've expressed differing views and still remain friends. I know I'm learning a lot- not only about beliefs and ideas but about how intelligent, thoughtful, caring and decent you guys are. That impresses me even more than what you may or may not believe. I can't think of any other forum where such a conversation like this could happen and stay so civilized except here at iTulip. I for one am grateful and proud to be part of this company.

              Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

                Originally posted by astonas View Post
                ...Bob Earll was actually simplifying a much older riddle, first (known to have been) espoused by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus:
                Epicurus believed that good and evil could be measured as pleasure and pain. He died almost 300 years before Christ and had no knowledge of monotheistic theology or the progressive revelation of God. In my opinion Epicurus unwittingly built a straw man, then knocked him down.

                C. S. Lewis gives an answer to this dilema:

                "God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but which had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines - would hardly be worth creating....

                The better stuff a creature is made of - the cleverer and stronger and freer it is - then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man still more so; a man of genius still more so..."
                • C S Lewis, Mere Christianity, Collins, Glasgow 1978. p. 48-49.

                • The inherent assumption behind the idea that because evil exists God is not therefore either benevolent or not omnipotent is flawed. The assumption is that we humans know better than God what is right and good. So, as C.S. Lewis states elsewhere God evidently considered the 'risk' of free will worth taking, and so evil can exist in the presence of a God who is both omnipotent and benevolent, without compromise or question to either of these characteristics. It is also presumed that God, although He allows evil, is not grieved by it. This is also false. How much He is grieved by evil was demonstrated in the great flood of judgment at the time of Noah and will be again demonstrated at the end of time. His omnipotence will most certainly be evident in both of these, as it was in the creation in the beginning.
                In summary, the God who is both omnipotent and benevolent allowed the possibility of evil by giving His creatures freedom. The fact that they chose evil is history and does not in any way reflect on God, but it certainly reflects on the perverseness of man, who still turns away, though eternal love stares him in the face.

                The Epicurean postulation puts your question quite well:

                Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent.
                Is God able but not willing? Then is He malevolent.
                Is God both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

                It pretty much boils down to: god likes evil, god is unable to prevent evil, or god does not exist. Take your pick

                Many times this question and the answers to it are put in such a way as to suggest or even prove the prior assumptions of the person asking and answering the question. The assumptions behind this are firstly, that God does not exist. This is by no means proven. Secondly, another assumption is that humans in their reasonings know better than God. Thirdly, (as a further consequence of the previous) it is assumed that since God is allowing evil to exist in the present time that He must therefore Himself be evil and commits evil. The fact that there is no consideration of alternative possibilities indicates that God has already been judged and found wanting, since the various possibilities exclude any alternative understanding and are designed from an anti-God presupposition where the answer has already been determined.

                It could also be possible that God is grieved by evil, including those who, instead of taking personal responsibility wish to blame God. It is also possible that God has provided a way for man to escape from evil. It is also possible that the way which God provided for man to escape from evil was very painful and costly to God. I defy anyone to read the gory details of a crucifixion (since we are hopefully unlikely to see one first hand) and to remain unmoved by the scene. among other things, the nails were driven through the median nerve running through the wrist so as to cause maximum pain.

                It is also possible that humans are in a state of rebellion against God and so will deiliberately refuse any or all of the remedies for evil that God has provided. Yet, absolutely none of these possibilities is considered at least as an alternative, they are rejected without evidence. This only seems to reinforce the idea that some have that the Bible may just be right in the way in repeatedly talks in theory and demonstrates in practice how people turn away from the right way, with the resultant consequences, even down through generations.

                "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness; 24 But to them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

                St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 1.


                Attached Files

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

                  there is no arguing the logical consistency of the god postulate. it is, for those who accept it, an axiom. although there are some who like to assert it is a theorem, somehow their proofs stand up only for those who already believe the result. the axiom, however, is not in contradiction to any known facts.

                  otoh, there is no necessity for it in explaining any known facts. it exists more at a metalevel, to provide a system of explanation or interpretation of manifest reality. it is not a necessary axiom as there are systems of interpretation which are adequate without it. but it provides meaning, and -often- solace, for those who accept it.


                  whether religious belief is beneficial or harmful is itself variable. on the one hand there are those individuals who, motivated by their religious beliefs, do great service to others. otoh, of course, there have been those whose religious beliefs have motivated great violence. in the extreme, belief in an afterlife can be so strong as to make this life a mere pale foreshadowing. e.g. the albigensian crusade and the decision to kill every resident of beziers because of the heresy of SOME of them and the impossibility of identifying which of the residents were indeed heretics. ["kill them all, god will know his own."]

                  for believers, the god postulate rarely stand alone, but usually carries with it many other axioms of interpretation, which constitute the dogma, a SYSTEM of belief. these systems of dogma vary widely, and interestingly are internally consistent but are often in contradiction with other such systems. these systems, however, serve to provide strong elements of culture and tribal identity.

                  re "free will": there is growing neurophysiological evidence that what we perceive as free will is an epiphenomenon occurring rather late in the chain of neurophysiologic events preceding behavior. believers in free will have been driven to basing their theories on the unpredictability of quantum level phenomenon. in this interpretation "freedom" becomes merely a label for probabilistic unpredictability, not what people usually mean. the notion of driven behavior, whether at a neurophysiological or psychological level of analysis, is in sharp contrast to our usual notions of responsibility as embodied, for example, in criminal law.

                  i think, observing myself here, that i am a good example of the title of this thread. when i was about 6 or 7 years old, my parents asked me if i wanted to go to religious school along with many of my friends. i said, "no, i believe in science." and i have continued to do so to this day.
                  Last edited by jk; May 16, 2012, 06:51 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

                    Well said JK. There are some who would say the Head of Christian Church Jesus Chrit is axiomatic. However, not every Christian accepts this premise as a starting point without controversy. There is reasoning and evidence like Bruce's work answering are the new testament writings reliable. However like a jury that is presented so much evidence after a long drawn out court trial, each juror must make their own deciision. The difference is each one of us is accountable for our own decision. When our last breadth comes, this is where our decision to trust or not trust Christ is found to be real or nonsense.

                    And CSLewis summed it up best. Here is his quote.
                    I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

                      Originally posted by jpetr48 View Post
                      Well said JK. There are some who would say the Head of Christian Church Jesus Chrit is axiomatic. However, not every Christian accepts this premise as a starting point without controversy. There is reasoning and evidence like Bruce's work answering are the new testament writings reliable. However like a jury that is presented so much evidence after a long drawn out court trial, each juror must make their own deciision. The difference is each one of us is accountable for our own decision. When our last breadth comes, this is where our decision to trust or not trust Christ is found to be real or nonsense.

                      And CSLewis summed it up best. Here is his quote.
                      I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to
                      +1 and this along with prophecies of the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Jesus led me to Christ.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

                        i am curious why, in this discussion of religious belief, the only religious belief espoused is christian. there are many other religious belief systems, and the original post was about the effect of analytic thinking on any or all of them. are the christians here saying that only THEIR religious belief deserves respect? and what of all the other diverse believers in the world? do you believe in the idea of "many roads to the same great truth"? and, if so, what of the serious contradictions between the systems of dogma applicable to the various roads? if not, what do you make of those alternative, "false" belief systems? similarly, even within broadly labelled [i.e. "christian"] belief systems, there are great variances in the other, accompanying, postulates that adjoin the god postulate. how are they reconciled? if they are not to be papered over, they pose a grave problem for any analytic approach. and, there, again, is the isssue which started this thread.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

                          Originally posted by jk View Post
                          i am curious why, in this discussion of religious belief, the only religious belief espoused is christian. there are many other religious belief systems, and the original post was about the effect of analytic thinking on any or all of them. are the christians here saying that only THEIR religious belief deserves respect? and what of all the other diverse believers in the world? do you believe in the idea of "many roads to the same great truth"? and, if so, what of the serious contradictions between the systems of dogma applicable to the various roads? if not, what do you make of those alternative, "false" belief systems? similarly, even within broadly labelled [i.e. "christian"] belief systems, there are great variances in the other, accompanying, postulates that adjoin the god postulate. how are they reconciled? if they are not to be papered over, they pose a grave problem for any analytic approach. and, there, again, is the isssue which started this thread.
                          Yes, we do believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. We have no choice for Jesus said in John 14:6, "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." We don't really know if Jesus saves others. That is up to God.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

                            Originally posted by jk View Post
                            i am curious why, in this discussion of religious belief, the only religious belief espoused is christian. there are many other religious belief systems, and the original post was about the effect of analytic thinking on any or all of them. are the christians here saying that only THEIR religious belief deserves respect? and what of all the other diverse believers in the world? do you believe in the idea of "many roads to the same great truth"? and, if so, what of the serious contradictions between the systems of dogma applicable to the various roads? if not, what do you make of those alternative, "false" belief systems? similarly, even within broadly labelled [i.e. "christian"] belief systems, there are great variances in the other, accompanying, postulates that adjoin the god postulate. how are they reconciled? if they are not to be papered over, they pose a grave problem for any analytic approach. and, there, again, is the isssue which started this thread.
                            I'm not a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Sikh so hopefully those of other faiths will join in. I have quite a bit of knowledge of Islam, although I'm no expert, and I have little knowledge of Buddhism or the Sikh religion. Perhaps there are even some Hassadim on iTulip who would vehemently reject the claims of Jesus of Nazareth and they will chime in.

                            I not only have real respect for you,
                            jk, but I like you and value your opinions. Please don't take anything I'm saying as a condemnation of your right to reject the theist point of view since I (a) do NOT believe in a theocracy of any type, and (b) see any forced "faith" as utterly worthless. As an Orthodox Christian I respect and accept the truth wherever it is found (as in the Ten Commandments, for example) together with factual truth revealed through scientific inquiry.

                            I have accepted the Incarnation and all the implications thereof because although I really didn't want to (I rather liked being my own god!) the evidence led me to that conclusion. Once a man or woman does that they begin to understand that other religions offer a sytem of truth where Orthodox Christianity sees Truth as a Person. So no, I do not believe that there are
                            "many roads to the same great truth" because this great truth is Truth Himself.

                            At the same time I do not feel the need - and am counseled against it by the Orthodox Church - from attacking the beliefs of other religions but rather to offer the Truth of God Incarnate. That doesn't preclude my responsibility to defend the truth of Orthodoxy when it is attacked, persecuted or slandered, but you will likely never lead anyone to this Truth by insulting them and hardening their ears to anything further you may wish to say.
                            As to the other Christian sects: unless you are Orthodox you are heterodox. But that doesn't mean everything they teach is false nor does it mean that they are automatically condemned. It depends upon (a) the extent of their heresy, and (b) the spirit in which it is held.

                            And while I firmly believe that the only way to God is through God Himself - Jesus Christ - that doesn't mean that every single human being who doesn't become an Orthodox Christian during this life is automatically condemned for all eternity. Christ is going to judge the world and every human being who ever lived, and He doesn't need the "help" of a corrupt and sinful being such as me. We are bound by His ordinances - He is not.
                            As Blessed Augustine said, "How many lambs there are outside the Church, how many wolves there are within."

                            ("The Lord has mercy and compassion on whom He wills, because He alone knows the secrets of the heart and who is worthy and who is not."
                            St. John Chrysostum - *See: Exodus 33:19*)

                            While the Church has always taught canonicly that a particular judgement occurs after death, we don't know how long "death" actually is for death itself is a great mystery. The process may take hours and the Church holds out hope that many are saved during death for we are commanded to pray for all men.

                            The analytic approach is necessary even in testing the claims of the Christian faith. But as in science itself can only lead to a conclusion that must be accepted or rejected upon some level of faith.


                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

                              no problem with your comments, raz. and i reciprocate your esteem. one of the things i like about this place is the large number of people whom i respect.

                              fwiw, i have my own set of understandings which to some degree map [in a mathematical sense] to certain religious beliefs. instead of a judgement LATER, for example, i think about something i call "instant karma" NOW, in the present. this is to say, that i think people who are harmful or hateful suffer in the present by being who they are. they may not feel like they are suffering in the usual sense of experiencing pain, but i see them as leading coarser, less rich and therefore in some sense impoverished lives. they "suffer," in this sense, merely by being themselves. or perhaps i should say, by being merely themselves.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

                                Originally posted by jk View Post
                                no problem with your comments, raz. and i reciprocate your esteem. one of the things i like about this place is the large number of people whom i respect.

                                fwiw, i have my own set of understandings which to some degree map [in a mathematical sense] to certain religious beliefs. instead of a judgement LATER, for example, i think about something i call "instant karma" NOW, in the present. this is to say, that i think people who are harmful or hateful suffer in the present by being who they are. they may not feel like they are suffering in the usual sense of experiencing pain, but i see them as leading coarser, less rich and therefore in some sense impoverished lives. they "suffer," in this sense, merely by being themselves. or perhaps i should say, by being merely themselves.
                                I feel the same way.

                                "Every day is Judgement Day. Always has been. Always will be." --Tom Robbins (Skinny Legs and All)

                                Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X