Does a normal theist lack the ability to introspect?

[wynn]

One thing that is soon evident, from many theists, is their absolute conviction that they are "on the right path," that they have "chosen the right religion."

Their ability to reflect on their own particular epistemology of religion is very limited - it is as if they take for granted that their own senses and minds can be fully trusted.

(Which can become rather strange, if they promulgate the doctrine that the senses and the mind are not to be trusted - and they do tend to promulgate this doctrine.)



Does a normal theist lack the ability to introspect on their own epistemology of religion?

 

[Thoreau]

One thing that is soon evident, from many theists, is their absolute conviction that they are "on the right path," that they have "chosen the right religion."

Their ability to reflect on their own particular epistemology of religion is very limited - it is as if they take for granted that their own senses and minds can be fully trusted.

(Which can become rather strange, if they promulgate the doctrine that the senses and the mind are not to be trusted - and they do tend to promulgate this doctrine.)



Does a normal theist lack the ability to introspect on their own epistemology of religion?

I agree and disagree. Being a theist myself - though not Christian, Muslim or Jewish - I personally don't see myself on the "right path", per se. My beliefs are simply a product my experience. And what may work for me may not work for another. I also understand that my beliefs can and probably will shift over time, as they have previously. I wasn't always a theist, ya know. But here I am, a believer in a higher power. In a year, that may change. Or it may not. I question not only my beliefs but all belief as well all of the time. I have no certainty that what I believe to be true to me is true for everyone. But it is what works for me and that's what matters. The same applies to others. I don't expect anyone to share any one set of beliefs. Whatever works for them (so long as it doesn't negatively affect anyone else) is fine with me. Talking snakes? Flying pigs? I really don't care. When it all boils down to it, it's all faith. No one knows for sure, even though many think that they do.

 

[clusteringflux]

Does a normal theist lack the ability to introspect on their own epistemology of religion?

Probably.
It would explain why so many go to church and have others dictate to them what they should study, know, think, feel , etc.

But I would suggest that any slice of "normal" people would exhibit a lack of self reflection to some degree, perhaps even at a higher rate than theists. Many people in today's society don't contemplate anything deeper than food, water, sleep.

 

[Rav]

All I can say with certainty is that my own ongoing critical analysis of the epistemology that I embraced when I was a Christian was one of the things that ultimately lead me back to agnosticism. But it wasn't tragic for me. I have embraced those experiences as an important part of my own personal evolution. I have no doubt however that there are people who are much more heavily invested in their religious beliefs and thus would avoid such a properly comprehensive investigation. Others would in fact consciously avoid it, reasoning that intense skeptical inquiry into the veracity of one's own beliefs opens one up to the influence of the devil, who will try to take advantage of the opportunity to lead them away from God. They would no doubt argue that this is exactly what happened to me.

 

[wynn]

All I can say with certainty is that my own ongoing critical analysis of the epistemology that I embraced when I was a Christian was one of the things that ultimately lead me back to agnosticism.

But it wasn't tragic for me.

I have embraced those experiences as an important part of my own personal evolution.

You know that I envy you this.
We've talked about this before, but I still seem to be unable to relate to your experience.

Was there ever a point for you where you felt you're not entitled to your own personal evolution, but instead must subject yourself to someone's else's idea of who you should be?

If yes, how did you come to feel comfortable with the idea of your personal evolution?

 

[NMSquirrel]

Was there ever a point for you where you felt you're not entitled to your own personal evolution, but instead must subject yourself to someone's else's idea of who you should be?

can't speak for him..

but my thoughts are;
they haven't been with me my whole life, all they know of me is what i show them, what i show them is not all there is to me,

i have tried to conform to others ideals of who i should be. it does not work.

 

[wellwisher]

Most religious people live a normal life with their life full of spiritual and secular concerns. Like in all forms of knowledge it is easier to accept the word of the experts. For example how many scientists reinvents the wheel to make sure it is correct and some erroneous assumption is not just accepted? It is easier to memorize and build upon traditions that have been accepted for a long time. One assumes others have already tried to reinvent the wheel and the truth survived the tests.

I am a little diffent in that I challenge all assumptions in both theology and secular studies since I know knowledge is always in flux and the future will change everything.

For example, I watched an itunesU lecture on cosmology giving by a professor at the U Chicago to students at Carnegie Melon. He said that the universe was primarily dark energy and dark matter based on various inferences. Science have yet to isolate either. But based on inference something is needed to account for the observations of an expanding universe and gravity.

The dark energy is suppose to be what is causing space to expand, with this expanding space causing the red shift, from which we infer the expansion. Since there is so much dark energy (majority of the universe), is it possible dark energy is red shifting directly, instead of through the middleman of space. This would make the middleman inference Of expanding space time an illusion. We don't know what dark energy is, and therefore what dark energy is capabile of exactly. The universe could be moving slower, with dark energy helping science to create an illusion that they willneed time to clear up. They logically closed a loop that may demonstrate their own wrong cause and effect.

It comes down to faith in the experts and not someone off the streets with less training. Right? If a spiritual person takes the word of a Saint over Dawkins, this is human nature. Dawkins would need to get a degree in theology to be credible, right? If not then maybe my inference is correct. It is all faith, with some faith based on the prestige of the scholar over common sense.

 

[Rav]

You know that I envy you this.
We've talked about this before, but I still seem to be unable to relate to your experience.

Was there ever a point for you where you felt you're not entitled to your own personal evolution, but instead must subject yourself to someone's else's idea of who you should be?

I was what you might call a born again Christian. Not of the "I had a profound revelatory experience and accepted Jesus into my heart right then and there" variety, though. I was, rather, an agnostic who had a chance encounter with some evangelical Christians and ended up accepting an invitation to attend a church service and a bible study. Eventually I become a believer and was baptized. The process wouldn't have worked if I wasn't willing to accept Christian teachings as an ultimate authority on matters of personal and spiritual evolution and, indeed, everything else.

If yes, how did you come to feel comfortable with the idea of your personal evolution?

When I realized that fundamentalist Christianity couldn't possibly be the ultimate, inerrant truth concerning the nature of existence.

It's a much longer story than that, but I simply prefer to articulate bits and pieces of it from time to time rather than try to do it all at once. You're not directly asking me to, of course, but a comprehensive answer to your question would indeed take time, which is why I am pointing it out. I'm happy to answer any further, more specific questions however.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

One thing that is soon evident, from many theists, is their absolute conviction that they are "on the right path," that they have "chosen the right religion."

Their ability to reflect on their own particular epistemology of religion is very limited - it is as if they take for granted that their own senses and minds can be fully trusted.

(Which can become rather strange, if they promulgate the doctrine that the senses and the mind are not to be trusted - and they do tend to promulgate this doctrine.)



Does a normal theist lack the ability to introspect on their own epistemology of religion?

Whats a normal theist ? Someone human that thinks there is a god ? I don't know if you can generalize because of the fracturing of religious Ideas. It truly amazes Me how you can get so many different interpretations of one book . It is like civilization is built on it . That is weird if you ask me.

Now it is a fact that the human mind is deceived. There are lots of physics experiments that do just the opposite of what the mind tells it is possible. Things you would think that repel attract and things you think attract repel. To connect introspection to external realities is very hard to do . At least for me . You never know tell it happens and then when it does you don't know if it will do it again . When it does it can defiantly catch you off guard . When you least expect it expect it . Watch out for your knee jerk . It happens to me all the time . I get over excited and pull the trigger to soon .

 

[wynn]

When I realized that fundamentalist Christianity couldn't possibly be the ultimate, inerrant truth concerning the nature of existence.

When you realized this.

So it was not something under your control, it was not something you could plan - but something, a realization that came about due to time, experience, a number of known and unknown factors?


All along, I have been trying to come to feel comfortable with the idea of my personal evolution - but to no avail.
On the one hand, there is an enormous pressure that I feel that I need to submit to an authority.
On the other hand, I feel a strong need to direct myself, to be comfortable in my own skin.

Perhaps I have been trying to do the impossible, by planning to come to feel comfortable with the idea of my personal evolution. Perhaps this comfort cannot come into being until a realization occurs - and for such a realization, factors may be necessary that are not (fully) under my control.

It's a much longer story than that, but I simply prefer to articulate bits and pieces of it from time to time rather than try to do it all at once. You're not directly asking me to, of course, but a comprehensive answer to your question would indeed take time, which is why I am pointing it out. I'm happy to answer any further, more specific questions however.

Thank you.

 

[Rav]

So it was not something under your control, it was not something you could plan - but something, a realization that came about due to time, experience, a number of known and unknown factors?

Sure, at the time I couldn't have made any definitive statements about how it would all unfold. That's just the way life is. But aside from any considerations about exactly what free-will is and to what extent we are able to exercise it, I can say that nurturing a willingness to engage in an ongoing critical analysis of ones own motivations and beliefs results in a personal evolution that is more open-ended. In other words, while one may not have complete control over how one's life will unfold, I believe that one can certainly take measures to ensure that a greater number of potential destinations remain available, thereby increasing the likelihood that one might eventually embrace a satisfying world-view that is also consistent with the reality of the external world that it is formulated within. This is good for people like me who value truth at least as much as happiness, or perhaps more accurately believe that to some significant extent they ultimately go hand in hand.

Perhaps I have been trying to do the impossible, by planning to come to feel comfortable with the idea of my personal evolution. Perhaps this comfort cannot come into being until a realization occurs - and for such a realization, factors may be necessary that are not (fully) under my control.

All I can offer here is to suggest that in the meantime, you try to find a better balance between living life, and trying to figure out how you're supposed to be living it, and what it's all ultimately for anyway. There are three reasons for this. First of all, it's good for your emotional and psychological well-being. I bet there are a ton of things you'd be interested in that you don't even know you'd be interested in until you try them. Second, I bet you'll find that if you can step away from the endless philosophizing for a while, at least occasionally, you can come back to it with new and interesting perspectives and perhaps more importantly, fresh eyes. Honestly, balance and moderation is everything. It genuinely is a recipe for an overall enhancement of all the facets of one's existence. Finally, self-knowledge is a critical component of any effort to find any sort of confidence and contentment in life, and to understand yourself you need to allow for a more complete expression of yourself. The kind that comes through actions and engagement rather than words.

While this is not a complete solution to your philosophical woes, I can scarcely imagine that the following of such advice wouldn't benefit you in some tangible way. After all, it is obviously somewhat derivative of ancient wisdom concerning the human condition

 

[Pineal]

Does a normal theist lack the ability to introspect on their own epistemology of religion?

I don't think theists are special cases, at least not because of this issue.

Does a normal person introspect?

I don't think so. Technically, sure. But how many people theist or otherwise mull over their epistemologies. Even scientists and other people who think they stand out because they do not take things on faith, rarely seem to have a handle on epistemology. In my experience of course. They may of course look carefully at the protocols of specific research and in that sense focus on epistemology, but I find little questioning of epistemology as a whole in pretty much every group of people who might get lumped under 'normal'.

 

[kx000]

I have given thought to every religion, they are all equaly wrong acording to the bible. It says, He who hath a ear hear what the spirit saith unto the churches of asia. x7 in Book of Revelation

 

[Pineal]

I have given thought to every religion, they are all equaly wrong acording to the bible. It says, He who hath a ear hear what the spirit saith unto the churches of asia. x7 in Book of Revelation

So it seems clear you fall intot he category of those who think/feel they are on the right path and others are on the wrong ones - let me know if that was unfair.

Do you think you can introspect on your own epistemology of religion - as the OP is focusing on?

IOW what you basically posted here is that Christianity is the right path, and you reached this conclusion after thought about every religion. That isn't really an on topic post, though it might be approaching one.

 

[lightgigantic]

One thing that is soon evident, from many theists, is their absolute conviction that they are "on the right path," that they have "chosen the right religion."

Their ability to reflect on their own particular epistemology of religion is very limited - it is as if they take for granted that their own senses and minds can be fully trusted.

(Which can become rather strange, if they promulgate the doctrine that the senses and the mind are not to be trusted - and they do tend to promulgate this doctrine.)



Does a normal theist lack the ability to introspect on their own epistemology of religion?

Are persons who are certain in their doubt of others exempt from the charge?

 

[kx000]

So it seems clear you fall intot he category of those who think/feel they are on the right path and others are on the wrong ones - let me know if that was unfair.

Do you think you can introspect on your own epistemology of religion - as the OP is focusing on?

IOW what you basically posted here is that Christianity is the right path, and you reached this conclusion after thought about every religion. That isn't really an on topic post, though it might be approaching one.

Wait, did you not read my last post? I know I am on the right path, do you dispute that? I think Christianity is the best religion man has had, but it is still wrong.

 

[Arioch]

@Knowledge --

I have given thought to every religion, they are all equaly wrong acording to the bible.

This from the man who frequently says, on this very site no less, that the bible is full of shit.

I think Christianity is the best religion man has had, but it is still wrong.

Really? At least Jainism hasn't killed anyone.

 

[wynn]

Are persons who are certain in their doubt of others exempt from the charge?

Feel free to charge me, but I am not the one making claims on behalf of God.
You are.

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

Are persons who are certain in their doubt of others exempt from the charge?

Go ahead, but I doubt you'll find any. Sevens on the Dawkins scale are incredibly rare(I've only met one and even Dawkins and Hitchens aren't sevens), ones on the other hand are incredibly common.

 

[wynn]

All I can offer here is to suggest that in the meantime, you try to find a better balance between living life, and trying to figure out how you're supposed to be living it, and what it's all ultimately for anyway. There are three reasons for this. First of all, it's good for your emotional and psychological well-being. I bet there are a ton of things you'd be interested in that you don't even know you'd be interested in until you try them. Second, I bet you'll find that if you can step away from the endless philosophizing for a while, at least occasionally, you can come back to it with new and interesting perspectives and perhaps more importantly, fresh eyes. Honestly, balance and moderation is everything. It genuinely is a recipe for an overall enhancement of all the facets of one's existence. Finally, self-knowledge is a critical component of any effort to find any sort of confidence and contentment in life, and to understand yourself you need to allow for a more complete expression of yourself. The kind that comes through actions and engagement rather than words.

While this is not a complete solution to your philosophical woes, I can scarcely imagine that the following of such advice wouldn't benefit you in some tangible way. After all, it is obviously somewhat derivative of ancient wisdom concerning the human condition

Allright.