Theophobia

[vanlose kid]

here we go again. C_w is making a distinction, not pretending to make one. it's a fairly common distinction actually, the one between faith and religion, kind of like the one between ethics and morality.

here we go again. i shouldn't and don't care less what CWs faith or religion is - but neither give her the right to claim special knowledge or insight that she can't put on the table/provide evidence for.

...

she says explicitly that she believes in things unseen for which there is not evidence. a lot of people do that. their beliefs or feel or whatever you want to call it influence their lives. aboroginal believe in the dream time and ancestors. they can table no evidence for any of their beliefs and yet they do claim special knowledge and insight into these matters. does this bother you any?

as for the distinction between faith and religion, there are at least two very critical thinkers, some would say great thinkers, who have faith and no religion which i've often cited and have learnt from: Wittgenstein and Weil. they seem to have been able to make that distinction and to have faith without it impairing their ability to think critically or otherwise in any way. now if this is a fact, what does one say to someone who claims that people of faith lack the ability to think critically? i guess one could dismiss the fact.

...

anyway, she's free to do so. you're free to argue that there isn't a meaningful distinction: or as you say not buy it. but there's no need for you to disparage her, is there?
*

If i see a poster repeatedly claim that malign info is good info, and then run away and start a new thread about a different issue without meaningfully responding to criticism, then yes i do think there is a need for some disparagement. And i've said so and done so for years, since long before CW joined the board.

that's one way of interpreting what C_w was doing. another way would be to say that she was trying to separate the issues of Icke and his info and the question of faith. so she "ran away" to start a thread on one aspect of the discussion that you say she was running away from. other's might say she was trying to tackle one aspect of the discussion head on, on its own terms and separate from the discussion of Icke and his info. would't you agree?

*

[barracuda]

What I'm arguing here is that even on RI we are missing opportunities for the very same reason the mainstream does. Here on RI it is quite usual to see someone mocked, their research discarded, and their worth devalued if it is uncovered that they are people of faith. Just one example... Michael Cremo is a creationist; barracuda 'just had to point that out' in order to discredit him.

THAT's my problem. And really, it's everyone's problem.

Dismissal of the theory of evolution is a bit of a sticking point for me, I admit. It's a position I don't care to see getting traction, for political reasons, frankly, so I tend to disparage creationism, and I do feel that espousing it discredits a thinker from a certain degree of rigorousness.

But it seems to me, in the terms you've outlined as your definition of faith, that most everyone here on the board "has it" in one way or another - whther it is faith in the existence of UFOs, or DMT elves, or the NWO, or chupacabras, or what have you. This board is all about the idea that things which are not immediately apparent might have credence. So I think that's why I reacted the way I did to your premise - it seemed an attack on the members of the board, and plainly wrong.

Also, the entire OP is a very typical right-wing dispargement of intellectuals and the "godless left" that I have heard enough times to recognise it as reiterating decades of baseless propaganda, imo.

[Canadian_watcher]

Also, the entire OP is a very typical ight-wing dispargement of intellectuals and the "godless left" that I have heard enough times to recognise it as reiterating decades of baseless propaganda, imo.

problem.

you've labeled it without thinking and therefore discard every part of it.

[brainpanhandler]

there are at least two very critical thinkers, some would say great thinkers, who have faith and no religion which i've often cited and have learnt from: Wittgenstein and Weil. they seem to have been able to make that distinction and to have faith without it impairing their ability to think critically or otherwise in any way. now if this is a fact, what does one say to someone who claims that people of faith lack the ability to think critically?

Those are two very exceptional exceptions that prove the rule, although in the case of Weil I think it is safe to say she was a Christian, despite drawing wisdom from many traditions, and was opposed to syncretism in a way which strongly suggests she was "religious".

[barracuda]

problem.

you've labeled it without thinking and therefore discard every part of it.

Not at all. I've been sitting here discussing faith with you for the last day. I think the OP is typical right-wing propaganda. That's not a dismissal of your premise, its a criticism of the article.

As to your premise regarding the people on the board, I think you're just wrong, for the reasons I've outlined, which you seem to not have disagreed with. So what's the problem?

[kool maudit]

the culture-war noises here are drowning the signal.

is there such a thing as a discarnate intelligence? could there be? could such a thing have had a role in our history?

what if there are people who suspect that this is the case? what about people who reject the premise?

these are the questions.

[vanlose kid]

there are at least two very critical thinkers, some would say great thinkers, who have faith and no religion which i've often cited and have learnt from: Wittgenstein and Weil. they seem to have been able to make that distinction and to have faith without it impairing their ability to think critically or otherwise in any way. now if this is a fact, what does one say to someone who claims that people of faith lack the ability to think critically?

Those are two very exceptional exceptions that prove the rule, although in the case of Weil I think it is safe to say she was a Christian, despite drawing wisdom from many traditions, and was opposed to syncretism in a way which strongly suggests she was "religious".

she was christian in some sense, no doubt. but it's clear that she didn't care much for the Catholic church and aspects of christian dogma.

on edit: she wasn't christian in any popular american sense of that term, although if she lived now she would of course risk the possibility of being dismissed and lumped together with Pat Robertson et al.

on edit: which is to say that i have no trouble imagining manly men such as Rushdie or Hitchens telling the "wee skirt" she has no idea what she's talking about.

*

[Canadian_watcher]

But it seems to me, in the terms you've outlined as your definition of faith, that most everyone here on the board "has it" in one way or another - whther it is faith in the existence of UFOs, or DMT elves, or the NWO, or chupacabras, or what have you. This board is all about the idea that things which are not immediately apparent might have credence. So I think that's why I reacted the way I did to your premise - it seemed an attack on the members of the board, and plainly wrong.

It seemed to be an attack on the members of this board.
Interesting.

[kool maudit]

the nature of RI means that it contains many members for whom the feeling of being under attack is not an uncommon thing. it doesn't make the discussions any easier, particularly when divergent opinions concerning culture-warry issues are raised, but it's kind of unavoidable.

[barracuda]

But it seems to me, in the terms you've outlined as your definition of faith, that most everyone here on the board "has it" in one way or another - whther it is faith in the existence of UFOs, or DMT elves, or the NWO, or chupacabras, or what have you. This board is all about the idea that things which are not immediately apparent might have credence. So I think that's why I reacted the way I did to your premise - it seemed an attack on the members of the board, and plainly wrong.

It seemed to be an attack on the members of this board.
Interesting.

Yes, and against the left in general:

I'm talking about anyone who says they have faith - even if that faith isn't tied to a religion. You cannot tell me that there isn't a prejudice, especially noticeable here on this board but prevalent in the "left" almost everywhere, against people who are spiritual.

It's an old saw with no teeth, I'd say, and has a definite history on the right.

[sunny]

In general, I find people on the left to be much more spiritual than those on the right, if by spiritual you mean non-materialistic rather than religious.

[Canadian_watcher]

Barracuda,

When does an observation about a group of people move from being observation into being an attack?

[barracuda]

I don't know, maybe when it is accusatory, disparaging, divisive, demonstrably unfounded, and puts people on the defensive.

[Canadian_watcher]

I don't know, maybe when it is disparaging, divisive, demonstrably unfounded, and puts people on the defensive.

I disagree with the 'putting people on the defensive' attribute you've listed. I don't think that that should count.

[Wombaticus Rex]

People put themselves on the defensive, your reactions are yours.