Theophobia

[DrVolin]

Sadly, the blog post quoted in the OP vanishes in a puff of smoke when it is realized that atheism requires just as much faith as theism. Why does no one ever attack those crafty agnostics?

[Canadian_watcher]

Sadly, the blog post quoted in the OP vanishes in a puff of smoke when it is realized that atheism requires just as much faith as theism.

YES! And therein is the hypocrisy.

[Canadian_watcher]

The moral aspects are to act with courage and do what one believes (knows) is right.

The people in charge of our military believe what they are doing is right and courageous by killing hundreds of thousands.

how do you know what they believe?

Are there non made up religions?

Traditionally, yes, quite a few, if you have faith.

Semantics.. this path will lead nowhere. There was a time before Religion X, so therefore it was made up. Besides, we're getting in to religion again and I'm talking about faith.

Are there ethics that are never subject to situational judgment?

Perhaps not ever. But it helps to have some guidelines, don't you think? If you don't know what your faith is but in the most vague, general way, like a nebulous force that is in me (how'd it get in there, anyway?) you never really know what it is you might be following.

I gave you the guidelines. Do what is right.
Nebulous force never 'got in me' - it is me, and through me and all the various pieces in the Universe (except you.. wouldn't want to include you and thereby be seen to be foisting anything anywhere).. through all the parts we are functioning as one. if more parts do NOT do what is right, bad happens to the Universe. Like poison in a river.

In a little known interview with John Lennon he says he was a Reagan fan. Which of the 'little knowns' are you willing to believe - both, neither, or the one that suits your worldview?

Einstein seems rather specific in that particular letter. And all I'm saying is that his relationship with faith and religion was not simplistic, and probably was a poor example for Laodicean to chide me with.

But your disapproval is noted. May the force be with you.

Well, if you're going to unearth a little known letter with which to prove a point you'd better make it specific. You've probably only got one shot at a tactic like that.

[American Dream]

Besides, we're getting in to religion again and I'm talking about faith.

Meaning what exactly? Did you ever define what you mean by "faith"?

[barracuda]

The moral aspects are to act with courage and do what one believes (knows) is right.

The people in charge of our military believe what they are doing is right and courageous by killing hundreds of thousands.

how do you know what they believe?

C'mon. I don't have to be a mind reader to know that your brand of homemade situational ethics is a minefield. "Act with courage and do what one believes is right" - it's like a recipe for war. Have you never met, known or spoken to a soldier? They all think what they are doing is brave and right.

Are there non made up religions?

Traditionally, yes, quite a few, if you have faith.

Semantics.. this path will lead nowhere. There was a time before Religion X, so therefore it was made up. Besides, we're getting in to religion again and I'm talking about faith.

No, this path is intrinsic to the subject at hand. If one has faith in a religion, as opposed to some made up thing it became convenient for you to believe yesterday and which you will forget about and replace tomorrow, much of the time, that religion is eternal. It was not an invention of man. According to Christians and many other religions, god created the world. To think otherwise is to lack faith.

I gave you the guidelines. Do what is right.
Nebulous force never 'got in me' - it is me, and through me and all the various pieces in the Universe (except you.. wouldn't want to include you and thereby be seen to be foisting anything anywhere).. through all the parts we are functioning as one. if more parts do NOT do what is right, bad happens to the Universe. Like poison in a river.

"Do whatever you think is right" does not constitute moral guidance, I'm afraid.

In a little known interview with John Lennon he says he was a Reagan fan. Which of the 'little knowns' are you willing to believe - both, neither, or the one that suits your worldview?

Einstein seems rather specific in that particular letter. And all I'm saying is that his relationship with faith and religion was not simplistic, and probably was a poor example for Laodicean to chide me with.

But your disapproval is noted. May the force be with you.

Well, if you're going to unearth a little known letter with which to prove a point you'd better make it specific. You've probably only got one shot at a tactic like that.

I suggest you look into Einstein's relationship with his faith more deeply if it interests you. It's a complex and revealing portrait, really, of a man who is very unsure of where he stands in that respect.

[Saurian Tail]

When discussing any subject it is essential to start with definitions. What I see here is the conflation of critical thinking with reductionism.

I propose that critical thinking and the application of rigorous intuition are essentially the same thing. I would be very interested to know if Jeff has proposed a definition and how closely it might align with the definition of critical thinking given below.

That different people have different conceptions of what critical thinking is points to the absolute importance of defining terms so that we can begin to talk apples to apples rather than apples to oranges. It also shows that words have meanings that can be understood and agreed upon. The equivocation of words leads to much pain, occults meaning, and inhibits the ability to arrive at clarity.

Furthermore, I propose that that the root foundation of occult knowledge begins with the ability to get clarity of understanding and act from that secure foundation ... be it for good or evil.

Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

Continued ...

http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT ... inking.cfm

Reductionism can mean either (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.[1] This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings.

Reductionism strongly reflects a certain perspective on causality. In a reductionist framework, phenomena that can be explained completely in terms of relations between other more fundamental phenomena, are called epiphenomena. Often there is an implication that the epiphenomenon exerts no causal agency on the fundamental phenomena that explain it.

Reductionism does not preclude the existence of what might be called emergent phenomena, but it does imply the ability to understand those phenomena completely in terms of the processes from which they are composed. This reductionist understanding is very different from that usually implied by the term 'emergence', which typically intends that what emerges is more than the sum of the processes from which it emerges.

Religious reductionism generally consists of explaining religion by boiling it down to certain nonreligious causes. A few examples of reductionistic attempts to explain the presence of religion are: the view that religion, could be reduced to humanity’s conceptions of right and wrong; the belief that religion is fundamentally a primitive attempt at controlling our environments; or in the opinion of religion, as a way to explain the existence of a physical world. Typical religious reductionists are such theorists as Edward Burnett Tylor and James Frazer.[2] Sigmund Freud's idea that religion is nothing more than an illusion, or even a mental illness, and the Marxist view that religion is "the sigh of the oppressed," providing only "the illusory happiness of the people," are two other influential reductionist explanations of religion.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

[Saurian Tail]

Why is 'critical thinking' sometimes extremely dangerous?
Because it comes as part of a mindset which seems to be very hostile to criticism of itself -
for example its reductionist worldview tends to come bundled with 'outcome orientation ' or 'evidence based' approaches - Evidence Based approaches have many severe problems associated with them
for example http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.o ... /52/9/1179

You are confusing cause and effect here Searcher. These types of programs are the result of a reductionist world view, not of critical thinking.

-ST

[tazmic]

I tended to consider Icke's take on "reptilian" and all that's grown from it as a case of an appropriated theory/metaphor then getting taken way too literally and then growing into it's own rather strange belief system.

[Canadian_watcher]

The moral aspects are to act with courage and do what one believes (knows) is right.

The people in charge of our military believe what they are doing is right and courageous by killing hundreds of thousands.

how do you know what they believe?

C'mon. I don't have to be a mind reader to know that your brand of homemade situational ethics is a minefield. "Act with courage and do what one believes is right" - it's like a recipe for war. Have you never met, known or spoken to a soldier? They all think what they are doing is brave and right.

2 things:
1. That wasn't my question. I asked you how you know what they think is "right." Bravado and outward expressions do not often reveal what people hold, deep down, to be 'right.' People betray or silence this part of themselves every day.
2. I'm married to a former soldier.

No, this path is intrinsic to the subject at hand. If one has faith in a religion,

I didn't say I had faith in a religion. I said I had faith. Faith that my thoughts and actions do impact the world.

In an effort to clear this up, may I ask you these questions:

- Do you have faith that there is a force of evil and a force of good and that they are in active opposition to one another, battling for supremacy?
- Do you believe that you can interact with intelligence that is not directly observable?

as opposed to some made up thing it became convenient for you to believe yesterday and which you will forget about and replace tomorrow,

THAT is highly insulting. What do you believe today, 'cuda? Will you forget about it tomorrow?

I suggest you look into Einstein's relationship with his faith more deeply if it interests you. It's a complex and revealing portrait, really, of a man who is very unsure of where he stands in that respect.

You like to assume that you know everything and the rest of us just need to do a little research to catch up. I'm very familiar with Einstein.

[wintler2]

What I see here is the conflation of critical thinking with reductionism.

I agree. Reductionism is the strawman being pilloried, but critical thinking is the real target, the sworn enemy of the many churches of received wisdom.

[wintler2]

I know you didn't ask me, but believe it or not, i'd like to 'clear this up' too!

In an effort to clear this up, may I ask you these questions:

- Do you have faith that there is a force of evil and a force of good and that they are in active opposition to one another, battling for supremacy?

No. The alacritiy with which one mob of humans will leap to the conclusion that it is we that are the force for good and they/them/whoever are the force for evil, and commence to smite the bad 'uns (who coincidentally usually occupy valuable real estate) is the most common rationale for every war ever. The good-evil thing is so last too-many millenia, its an operating system for a light switch not an organism, never mind a civilisation.

- Do you believe that you can interact with intelligence that is not directly observable?

Assuming its there, and open to interacting, and some channel 'not directly observable' (que?) exists, sure. So?

[Canadian_watcher]

I just read this while looking up "Faith Without Religion".. it is written by 'just some guy' (meaning that I do not know if he is 'trained' *ahem*) but I really l like it, so I'm sharing it:

I believe faith is the very first step towards knowledge. Having faith, in my view, is to be open minded to the fact that there might be more than the eye and the other senses can catch. Once the mind is open for the intuition to the fact that there is more, the curiosity flame that burns inside all of us will burn an intense fire that will fuel the constant pursuit for the so called truth.
I believe religion might be an initial necessary step so man gets more aware to the expanded power of consciousness, you can call it God if you want. However, I do believe that once that awareness is stablished, religion becomes a barrier to higher reach as it constraints ourselves to a set of rules or dogmas. I firmly believe the next step for humanity is the non-religion. Not atheism, as one thing doesn't have to do with the other, but non-religion on the standpoint that each individuality will form its own view of the Universe and the self, but compiling bits and pieces of information from all religions, philosophies and scientific knowledge, as I do think we should not fragment them as we currently do in this world.

[Canadian_watcher]

I know you didn't ask me, but believe it or not, i'd like to 'clear this up' too!

In an effort to clear this up, may I ask you these questions:

- Do you have faith that there is a force of evil and a force of good and that they are in active opposition to one another, battling for supremacy?

No. The alacritiy with which one mob of humans will leap to the conclusion that it is we that are the force for good and they/them/whoever are the force for evil, and commence to smite the bad 'uns (who coincidentally usually occupy valuable real estate) is the most common rationale for every war ever. The good-evil thing is so last too-many millenia, its an operating system for a light switch not an organism, never mind a civilisation.

Yes, coming to believe that one is 'right' while another is 'wrong' and trying to forcibly change the world to suit one's own view is the cause of every problem we have. You are coming at it from a POV that ascribes motives to people, though. I meant good and evil as forces of nature, so to speak, wherein all of us are subject to those forces. Do you believe that good and evil are forces beyond that which men and women deduce for themselves?

- Do you believe that you can interact with intelligence that is not directly observable?

Assuming its there, and open to interacting, and some channel 'not directly observable' (que?) exists, sure. So?

That's a funny answer. You believe in it if it is there?

[Canadian_watcher]

Still and all, good people, I do not wish to dissect the merits of anyone's faith. I just want to make it clear that people of faith are subject to ridicule on this board and elsewhere. That others have faith frightens a great many people, and I think that's a shame.

[Saurian Tail]

What I see here is the conflation of critical thinking with reductionism.

I agree. Reductionism is the strawman being pilloried, but critical thinking is the real target, the sworn enemy of the many churches of received wisdom.

Perhaps, but when you use the appeal to ridicule fallacy, you weaken your own argument. It cuts both ways.

-ST