its a trap..ask someone if they are humble, if they answer 'yes' then they are not.
Is a person who claims to know God, humble?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
OK. but they can say things like 'I am nothing special' or 'I have no special skills' or 'it has nothing to do with me it is all God's doing'. IOW they can assert that they know God, are doing God's work, etc., and also suggest that there is nothing special about them.
Note they never claim they are humble. But can you see these things going together?
Nope, that's not what I said. I did not say a surgeon knows a lot, so he cannot be humble. Please respond to what I said.
Well, as I said. Theists tend to be praising humility as something that should be strived for and that they are striving for. If people with mustaches do this, please link me to the research. Once people are asserting that humility is of great importance AND saying they know they are doing God's will or know God, there is an issue raised -which as far as I know cannot possibly be raised with people with mustaches - about whether there is a contradiction.
I have suggested that sometimes the term theists is too broad in S's posts - in various ways. But it is a fair issue to raise and frankly repeatedly bringing up the blue shoes/mustache category seems very strange. It is as if the coupling between humility as a high value amongst theists is an unknown or up for some dispute.
I think Signal has made it very clear that it is these two things coupled that is problematic. Perhaps you think that theists do not generally consider humility an important value. If so, please raise that issue. If not, please stop bringing up the mustaches, because it is irrevelent.
I'm still not getting the way you are thinking of service. A person saying this or that religious authority said X may or not be serving. They are making an appeal to aurthority or expertise - note: I do not necessarily consider this a fallacy; I simply do not see where service comes in. Or how the act of choosing the right authority, which is implicit in such assertions, is not a special skill or gift.
Again neither I nor Signal has said X knows a lot, so X cannot be humble. I really cannot see how what we did say was reduced to this much easier to respond to assertion.
I would think to get a more accurate answer we would have to ask an Amish person..i watched a special about the Amish and being humble was a high priority for their life style..
i don't claim to be an expert on humble..my Ego tends to get in the way..
of the ppl i have met who made those claims, i only believed only a small percentage of those to truly be humble..(less than 1%)
if a person is truly humble they wouldn't need to tell anyone they are..
as far as asserting they are doing Gods work, it all depends on the context..
terrorist claim this..
AND
this is how it is taught in the church..maybe its a 'fake it,till you make it' thing..do do otherwise is frowned on (peer pressure)
more later..
so knowledge is ok with humility as long as it doesn't lead to an opinion about a course of action for another?
IOW a surgeon is humble for as long as they don't have strong opinions about procedures suited for particular individuals in particular circumstances?
I am still not getting what inextricable link you are suggesting exists between having a state of humility and making a claim of knowledge about god. I mean regardless whether humility is esteemed or not, it in no way [I]makes [/I]the individual humble or not humble or whatever anymore than blue shoes or a moustache makes a person humble or not.
IS the OP question "do theists (aka making claims about god) esteem humility as a quality" or "are theists (aka making claims about god) humble?"
All Signal has done is lodge a question about how making a claim of knowledge about god automatically renders one humble or not.
This to me seems to suggest one is trying to establish a dichotomy between knowledge ( at least knowledge edging towards action) and humility.
think like "submission" or something like that - IOW one doesn't posses the ruthless ambition to cut the authority down or surpass them or whatever.
I know
Its more like "X makes a claim of knowledge about god so are they humble/not humble"
... and reading between the lines, its not too hard to guess which option signal would vouch for ....
I can't see how you can't - even the OP title uses the words "know" and "humble" and is followed by a question mark
Last edited:
That's closer. In this case the person would be saying God wants you to do this or that, believe this or that. Or I am doing what God wants - which means that if I have a problem with what you are doing, I have a problem with God's choices and desires.
It is a claim about oneself, about what one knows and the source of that knowledge -in this case the ultimate authority with all the attendant implications.
Telling a person what the right course of action is and telling them, implicitly, that they are the ones to carry that course of action out - perform the bypass, as was one of my examples I think. No, that person cannot be humble about their skills and knowledge. They would have to know they have special skills and knowledge. They may rationally limit the scope of these - or intuitively for that matter. They might say - my best sense is that you should have that lump removed, rather than biopsied first. IOW qualify their suggestion, but even here a doctor is assuming a dynamic role and is confident in their skills and knowledge.
Note: I do not think the surgeon is wrong to lack humility around this role. Unless they are not competent. They worked hard to develop skills and knowledge. They have skills and knowledge we can safely say most people do not have. Likewise any other expert. They can be humble about themselves as moral beings, golfers, parents and so on, but it makes not sense for them to be humble about their work since it is implicit and explicit that they are experts.
Is it an easy think to know that one is doing the will of God? Did you just wake up one day knowing God's will and knowing how to live by God's expectations? Was it easy for you to know how to apply scripture to everyday life in specific concrete situations? Was it easy for you to be close to God?
Or was this the result of a long process, in your case, one you likely think has been going on for many lives, where you gradually acquired the ability to see through maya or however you conceive it?
In the case of gurus, people lie down on the ground in front of them, in honor of this great skill and achievement, and gurus tend not to intercede as I certainly would, if someone abased themselves before me, even if they 'really' interpreted it bowing to the GURU or Shiva through me.
It is implicit in claims to know God will, to be doing God's will, that one has a skill or gift. One can either hear directly from God or had the incredible intuition to both find and recognize someone to act as a regular mediary between one and God.
A huge percentage of religious people think that people in other religions lack this intuition/ skill and have chosen incorrectly.
I chose correctly. I know the Bible is the word of God and the Koran is not. Or vice versa.
Of course there are, as I have said to Signal, theists who think there are many paths to God. But I think it is safe to say this is a minority view.
To then act as if this ability - to know this path is correct, or deeper,than the others - is not a skill or tremendous innate gift is disingenous. To pretend humility on that issue, is hypocrisy.
And what it means is that everyone should be able to do this. With all the attendant judgments of those who do not. Which for most religious people is much of the rest of the religious world, let alone athiests, who won't even try or have no intuition or worship Satan without knowing it or are caught up in Maya, etc.
I can do something that most of the rest of the world cannot or refuses to do correctly.
But I am nothing special or I have no special skills or I have not worked incredbily hard in this life or over many lives to come to this place
just do not ring true, given the other assertions. Many religious people will also pretend that the do not see the other religions as false, but then given the important tenets they consider of critical importance, ideas that even the supposed holy leaders of the other religions do not accept as true, they must think they have insight entire whole religions do not have.
The Pope does not accept reincarnation.
While many Gurus do in fact honor Jesus, they do not consider him the only special case. I met few who honored Muhammed.
I'lll let Signal field that one. At least those questions are both in the ballpark as far as I have been interpreting it.
1) it is not edging toward action, it is action. Perhaps if they say it while they are alone, it is edging toward action, though it is still a meta position. One is making claims about oneself, evaluating oneself. Having knowledge does not entail this. 2) For me it is focused on the issue. I think one can be humble in some ways while not in others. In the context of the world as it is, where most people think you do not know God because what God is telling you is not what God is telling them AND YOU KNOW THIS you cannot be humble on this issue.
God does not want us to eat pork, it debases us as humans.
uttered in a world where one knows that most people have not heard God says this, seem to be unable to or unwilling to, AND they can hear me say this, and have heard it said and disagreed, I am not being humble.
I may be a humble parent, dancer, chess player, but on this issue I must think I have a special skill or insight, at the very least the intuition that reassures me this book is God's word and that one is not.
Unless I am of the many paths camp, but these are rare.
OK, but that still doesn't address what can either be seen as epistemological hubris or the result of a skill gift or long term achievement: knowing what God wants, knowing what is God's word or teacher and what is not.
For me, they are not humble on that issue. They must have faith not only in God but in their own abilities, though few seem willing to acknowledge this despite how they act interpersonally.
OK, this pisses me off. REad the damn OP title. Does it say
Is a person who knows God humble?
or can a person who knows God be humble?
No, it doesn't. From there the OP expands and clarifies.
I believe most theists will say this.
yes, I understand that bind. But if one claims to know God isn't one claiming to have a special skill, gift or having achieved something through some significant work? Most theists I encounter seem to think they must say no. While at the same time - the ones who claim they are doing God's work or know God or that their scriptures are the right ones, etc - making implicit claims about most of the rest of the world.
I don't think this is restricted to theists, by the way. Atheists can do this also. Some atheists of course will say that they think they have good or excellent rational skills and using these skills that they respect they have decided __________.
Right but the epistemological issue is the same here. They trusted they knew what God wanted or their religious leader did. That is incredible faint in one's own ability. This same faith in oneself, note that, in oneself, is present in anyone who thinks they know God's will, even if the decisions seem less directly important.
Voting for Bush because his policies or he himself is closer to God led to uncounted deaths. Perhaps that is what God wanted, but the issue is that people, a lot of them, thought they knew God's will. They are claiming a skill.
Do you realize that you are saying humility curtails the efficacy of knowledge?
I disagree.
I don't think humility requires that one lack confidence or whatever.
On the contrary I think humility empowers knowledge since it makes it more "doable" both for one's self and to whoever one want to pass it on or benefit from it.
IOW humility, or a lack of overbearing ego, increases the reception and application of knowledge
Generally such questions are characterized by realization, which, for the most part, is a gradual process.
The dynamic aspect of spiritual life (IOW what makes it go quick or slow) is governed by how much one reciprocates with things outside of one's self (like saintly people, scripture etc) - as such, its more accurate to describe it as being catalyzed by the mercy of others - so interpreting humility as complete abstinence from instructing others is certainly not what they have in mind when discussing humility as a prerequisite for spiritual advancement.
some do, but if its part of the culture it tends to become an external trapping (which no doubt stands opposed to the "I bow down to no man" John Wayne ideology of the west) - IOW one can talk about spending one's life/lives perfecting the act of paying obeisances .... and receiving it for that matter (ie thinking 'they are bowing down to ME' is certainly a thought in the wrong direction ... regardless whether such a thought makes one want to encourage or discourage them from doing so)
Or alternatively, one can get a general idea from knowledge that surrounds the personality - for instance I doubt whether you personally know or have directly heard from the president of the USA but I bet you can estimate his ideas or how he would like to will action on a great many things --- or for that matter I bet you can estimate a few general guidelines on how the future president of the USA would like to will action even though no one who has a clue exactly who that will be at the present
probably because a majority of religious people adhere to traditions that originated around the Jordan river which are not famous for the breadth of their henological discourses .... but even then, as the world becomes more global (even if only in terms of economy) cultures becomes more diverse and tolerant by necessity - even if you want to talk about the current turmoil in the middle east, arguably 9/11 and circa operation desert storm to present have been the best things to happen to islam in the past 400 years in terms of the culture of islam (ie widespread discussion and study of islamic precepts outside of islam).
I mean how many people in the 1980's even knew what the koran was?
This is nonsense.
Even in terms of mundane schooling, there are many variegated levels of education which are intended for different individuals with different needs, interests and concerns. To advocate that humility demands that they all be viewed in a homogeneous fashion simply reduces the efficacy of them at best or pandering to the egos of swaggering boastful young men in trade college or whatever at worst.
Having normative opinions (ie ideas about what people should do) is unavoidable, even if one is advocating that people shouldn't tell others what to do
or alternatively - I can do something that is the constitutional position of all living entities from the world's richest man to the bug
or alternatively - the soul has spent countless lives chewing what it has already been chewing for millions of lives
IOW your ideas about how religious life curtails humility are only pertinent for as long as one persists in entertaining the culture of the material world
so do these "important tenets" some how render service to god inoperable if they are not accepted?
How is the statement "god is eternal" an action?
this is certainly a very generous definition for "action" of yours - I can guarantee that if you now try to offer a definition of "knowledge" it will be quite miserly (since it doesn't have much space to occupy)
generally individuals classify claims of knowledge according to the epistemological frameworks they arise from - for instance saying "i heard this on sciforums" probably has less credibility than "i heard this on a news website" which in turn has less credibility than "I heard this on a science research web site" ... even though all of them are on the "internet".
IOW humility doesn't really come in to it
now is that the essential precept of muslims/jews, the one from which all others stem?
Or is it a detail?
If we want to talk about conflicting details disfiguring holistic discussion I think you will find that there is nothing to talk about
on the contrary having uniform details on anything is a sure way to render it clumsy and inoperable ... more so than communist russia
I can't imagine how you could be a humble (by your definition of humility) parent and not an irresponsible one
special only by a material estimation ...
or alternatively, its characteristic of any system of knowledge to have variety
just because there is variety in public education does not make prep school just as valid choice for you as university
I would just like to point out that you had presented what seemed like a bind. How can one say that theists cannot be humble and make claims about knowing God's will and doing it and so forth and still be humble yourself? IOW you were assuming that there was a trap and that one could not without hypocrisy challenge theists in this way.
However I take responsibility for my self-evaluation there. Something I do not see a large percentage of theists doing. I do feel I have skills and gifts, based at least on part on long effort on issues like this one. I am good at something and that something gives me the expertise, in my judgment, to claim there is a problem with what theists, those who do this, are doing there.
It is precisely this lack of responsibility taking that irks me. I also think it leads to common judgments theists have of both atheists and theists with other beliefs. I think it is quite pernicious.
I think, but I am not sure, that Signal thinks it leads to damaging interactions with people who may in fact be more aware of themselves - not that I have quite seen her word it that way or go so far. That when a theist who is certain they know God and proclaims this as part of a dialogue with a novice or non-theist or someone struggling with faith or religious knowledge, the dialogue becomes damaging because the theist is not taking responsibility for what they are claiming. And likely end up accusing, at least implicitly, Signal of lacking humility, despite the ludicrousness.
My take is that the lack of responsibility taking is in fact based on a lack of introspection and this becomes damaging when those who lack this ability encounter people who have it.
Last edited:
Can you elaborate, give some concrete examples?
kx000
Valued Senior Member
NO, if you dont have FAITH in me, the you can suck a fat one.
Yes, it is out of place in some contexts.
Confidence in one's own abilities AS ASSERTED TO OTHERS.
What, in my description of the surgeon, confident and openly asserting, if necessary, his or her confidence in his or her knowledge and skills
is an overbearing ego.
I can see how it could be, in fact I have experienced it. But it does not seem necessary to me.
The surgeon is simply asserting that certain innate skills - say dextrous hands and perhaps certian kinds of learning ability- and long work and study and experience have led to a place where yes, you should listen to me and not your bus driver.
IOW you present a false dichotomy: humility or overbearing ego. I'd be one of the first to say surgeons can exhibit the latter, but I have also met others who were neither of these things when it had to do with their area of expertise.
Generally such questions are characterized by realization, which, for the most part, is a gradual process.
Yes, and in this I think they merely extend the contradiction.
If I were to say 'I know Obama's will' I would have to feel like some kind of expert. I can make some estimations, but I would not make that statement. If I did, I would also be able to openly take responsibility for why I had such faith in my discernment of a person I have not had a complex, deep and rather long set of discussions with. Where I heard his words responding to my words. Or even non-verbal exchanges that I felt confident in.
Then I would be an expert compared to many people, especially if I was confident he spoke with candor or was transparent. And I would take responsibility for that expertise. I would make I based statement regarding epistemology and my confidence I knew his will.
But many of these Muslims would say that you are following a bad religion and if Signal was right about the vows during initiation, that you actually ritually cut yourself off from the true profet and via that God. And I doubt many of them have epistemological qualms about their certainty on this.
A very large percentage of Christians would have similarly harsh judgments about your epistemology, though this word would not come up.
For example, many would say that you cannot distinguish Satan's voice from God's and you bowed down to a false prophet.
Should they not be more humble?
Isn't Signal on to something, even if you don't think it applies to theists like you?
So you think you can humbly think that All Christians at not at the same level of education as you?
Fine, but that's not the issue.
As I have made clear to Signal, I do not think this is a necessary condition of theism. I am a theist. I do think what Signal may be overgeneralizing is a widespread general problem.
The issue is not whether the Catholics are not serving God, the issue is how can someone believe that their intuition is better than every single Catholic since by definition they need to accept the Pope as THE ONLY AND THE MOST IMPORTANT representative of God on earth and you know this is false.
Depends on the context. But note, this was disingenous. It's not one of the examples raised by Signal. So it becomes a counterexample as if exceptions meant there was not a problem with other kinds of statements of certainty around God.
Claiming one knows something about God is speaking to another person. Active verb, affected other person. Very important issue, thus potential strong effects - I am hardly being generous. Note, it is also the result of a self-evaulation. An action based on a serious of introspective actions - one would hope. This shouldn't even need to be said. Then take an example like Signal's - I am doing the will of God and this is an action that can have all sorts of effects on listeners and even those this statement is relayed to. Now those actions referred to become messages about God's will also.
It is a small example with enormous implications about who is paying attention to God or can. And it is damn important to those Jew and Muslims for whom it is important.
Please tell Orthodox Jews that not eating pork is a 'detail' and see if they think you have an epistemological problem and hubris.
One could be humble in relation to other parents out there and be conscious of uncertainties confusions and doubts and still be a good parent. A parent who says I know I raise my children as God wants me to is not being humble.
So when you tell Muslims their religion is like prep school and your is like university, do you get along on epistemological issues?
Not at all.
I was not calling upon the Buddha or Buddhism or the Pali Canon as an authority, I referred to him/them merely as a source of an idea, just like I would cite any other source.
For the listener, there cannot ensue any obligation from my referring to the Buddha.
The same is not true when theists refer to God.
Since God is defined as Omnimax, The Summum Bonum, The Creator and Controller of the Universe and everyone in it, etc.,
any instance of claiming the truth about God also has some implication for the person to whom the theist is talking to.
Given the definition of "God", for the listener, there ensues an obligation from theists referring to the "truth about God."
Because some of us believe that it takes enormous skills or the status of being God's chosen person, in order to discern what is the truth about God and what is not the truth about God.
This is a completely extraneous comparison.
It is beyond me how you can make it.
The person wearing blue shoes or having a moustache is not thereby making any claims that would obligate others.
The theist, by (presumably) talking about God, is making such obligatory (or condemning) claims.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with this.
No, it does not change anything.
The servant of the servant of the servant of God is still presuming himself to be able to discern the truth about who is a servant of God and who is not.
Which implies that this servant of the servant of the servant presumes himself to have this incredible ability to discern such things.
Yet this servant of the servant of the servant is still presuming himself to be so able that he can discern
which lineage of personalities
is indeed from God
and which one is not.
You yourself have somehow come to realize, on your own,
that the Catholic apostolic succession
is inferior
to a particular Hindu disciplic succession.
After that, you joined a Hindu organization, and not the Catholic Church.
This suggests that you consider yourself to have an incredible gift of discerning "which religion is the right one."
And you have had this gift, this ability before you joined an organized religion.
What is this??
Monotheism(take your pick) is about the least humble belief system humans have ever come up with. It starts with the assumption that there is a creator, then adds that the creator of everything for some asinine reason(which is never adequately explained) shows an interest in the lives of something which must be as close to itself as pond scum is to us, then almost always adds that said creator has a special plan for everyone(because everyone needs to feel special of course), and of course there's almost always that bit about different people's being burnt forever in some sort of hell(which isn't even close to the most imaginative takes on "the afterlife" that I've heard).
So yeah, I really don't think that any monotheist can really be humble, at least about that. They may show humility in other areas, but not really anything connected to their religious beliefs. The only "believers" that seem to show any sense of humility about their beliefs are the deists.
So yeah, I really don't think that any monotheist can really be humble, at least about that. They may show humility in other areas, but not really anything connected to their religious beliefs. The only "believers" that seem to show any sense of humility about their beliefs are the deists.