Have you ever done that?
What was it like?
Did it help - was the conflict resolved?
Did you feel justified to challenge them? If yes, what was your justification?
I'm asking all this to further the topic.
The ethics of challenging the religious - given that they might be neurotic etc.
- Thread starter greenberg
- Start date
Have you ever done that?
What was it like?
Did it help - was the conflict resolved?
Did you feel justified to challenge them? If yes, what was your justification?
I'm asking all this to further the topic.
I would assert that as long as a healthy brain is present then yes. All children in this category for example realize that mommy and daddy still exist when they are out of sight... or that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Point taken. Someone who'se brain doesn't function properly might not have the ability to recognize delusion. There are also hard to crack delusions that are bound to a person's identity. For most theists, if you attack 'God' then they feel personally attacked because 'God' is part of their identity. People are willing to kill and die for delusional identity components once they have taken hold and that's why that type of delusion is so dangerous.
It's better to show someone the truth (or bring to focus something that has already been seen). It provides a grounding reference point. If you do show someone the truth and they don't change their mind immediately then that is fine (it's also ok to help them out along the way if they ask), but if they persist in trying to peddle their delusion then they should absolutely be condemned for lying.
Not quite, there is no threat of eternal torture, no absolution of bad behavior, and no promise of eternal bliss.
There are some features that are common to all humans and there are some that are not.
Accurately as far as our visibility into it can take us. Adequately is a matter of opinion so there's no sense debating it.
Apparently, I don't share those assumptions either.
On a sidenote greenberg, when delusion isn't challenged this is an all too common result:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187002.php
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187002.php
You are playing the same card as them in that you are very ready and willing to accuse the other party of delusion and of lying, and in that you apriori and assume yourself or your knowledge superior.
You do. You said:
So? I could say the USA invaded Iraq because the USA's delusion that material wealth is crucial to happiness hasn't been challenged.
I see, well if I spot a delusion such as:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78127
Then I definately have some superior knowledge as to what exists. Of course, I can demonstrate it whereas a theist cannot so even in this context it's not quite the same as the theists card.
Just to avoid confusion... YOU SAID: "You assume at least this... everyone is basically the same with potentially the same abilities"
and I SAID: "There are some features that are common to all humans and there are some that are not."
Those are not equivalent statements.
We invaded Iraq because the president wanted to do so. If Bush was telling the truth in that he believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction then clearly that was a delusional belief (just like Christianity is).
In circumstances like Iraq (or any kind of perceived threat scenario), delusional belief plays an import role in human survival. For example, if Iraq had WMDs then we would have prevented some form of annihilation. When survival is at stake, it is better to err on the side of delusion. That's why delusional belief exists in the first place.
Consider the environment of early humans. A man believes there is a predator behind a bush every day of his life. It turns out there never were any predators; however, if there was he would have a greater chance of survival because of that delusional belief. Now take into consideration that other members of his tribe share his delusional beliefs and share resources / support. They become stronger and that promotes survival even more.
Fast forward to the present and you can see how we ended up a species of delusional beliefs. Our environment is much different now and some of those delusional beliefs no longer help us (but rather do the opposite).
Last edited:
i think you're a religious bigot, and that by your own admission, you're acting in response to fear. so why don't you just suck it up and experience god for yourself, and quit judging and analyzing those of us who have done it already?
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
There is an implicit judgement of Greenberg in this and I suspect he felt it earlier in your discussion. You know he could experience God and that it would be the same God that you experience. So he is choosing not to do this. Can you see how this could be seen as judging him?
A parallel situation could be a cool girl in High school talking to an uncool girl:
Like, why don't you stop not being cool, it's making you such a sour puss.
The cool girl is not really getting how her assumptions - and there are several - when they touch the emotions of the uncool girl are like little knives.
A God of Love would certainly challenge that cool girl
to
better be able to empathize with the experience of the 'uncool' girl
and not to make assumptions about what is really going on in that other person.
Another way to put it is, for all you know, Greenberg is going through a dark night of the soul at a far deeper level in relation to God than you have reached. (If you are reading the G, I do not think this is the case.) On some level your inability to understand his despair or 'not feeling like he is making a choice to not experience God' is phobic on your part and certainly not loving.
I mean even Jesus on the cross got freaked out.
As well he should have.
I have been freaked the f&%k out.
And I have read his recent posts and felt the sting of his fear and me no likey.
And I do hope that it is in response to the dark night of a soul that will reach for a dawn. Reaching for the dawn is in my opinion overcoming that fear and making that choice barring all consequences. It seems to me that intellect is a stumbling block in his case, and he's intellectualizing having the relationship.
Lori 7 said:
All else aside for the moment, faith is the sacrifice of the intellect. I believe it was Aquinas who said that faith is the sacrifice in which God most delights.
• • •
Turduckin said:
This general reality should not blind us to the particular. To use style as an example:
Pretend for a moment that my style was the dominant style in the culture. There would be broad swaths of dark colors and natural patterns. The mottled variations of granite, for instance. Lots of dark greens and blues. There wouldn't be much for pastel colors, and there would be less striping, dotting, &c. I'm something of an essentialist and an impressionist. At least, these are the aesthetics I prefer.
If, however, someone else held stylistic sway, perhaps we would see combinations of colors: a beige offset with black accent, some stripes here and there, and maybe a few cake-frosting decorations on buildings.
Hop onto the next stylistic influence ....
Point being that there will always be a sense of style. There will always be popular color arrangements. There will always be something influencing the expression of these elements of our humanity. The question of which style dominates will have much influence over the outcome.
Likewise with religion. Sure, there may always be a religion or something religious guiding the majority of society, but if the United States was a Wiccan society, for instance? Well, we wouldn't be arguing about homosexuals, evolution in schools, &c. Who knows? Maybe everything would be made of stone so that we could cut down fewer trees, and there would be no plastics. It's hard to project because we're so accustomed to the Judeo-Christian influence.
However, the point is that the manifestation of that religious influence will bring, in different expressions, different outcomes. And here's the thing: if it was Wicca, we wouldn't have door-to-door evangelists, a multibillion-dollar teleministry industry, or a President who invades a country because God told him to. These are fairly big differences.
If, however, someone else held stylistic sway, perhaps we would see combinations of colors: a beige offset with black accent, some stripes here and there, and maybe a few cake-frosting decorations on buildings.
Hop onto the next stylistic influence ....
Point being that there will always be a sense of style. There will always be popular color arrangements. There will always be something influencing the expression of these elements of our humanity. The question of which style dominates will have much influence over the outcome.
Likewise with religion. Sure, there may always be a religion or something religious guiding the majority of society, but if the United States was a Wiccan society, for instance? Well, we wouldn't be arguing about homosexuals, evolution in schools, &c. Who knows? Maybe everything would be made of stone so that we could cut down fewer trees, and there would be no plastics. It's hard to project because we're so accustomed to the Judeo-Christian influence.
However, the point is that the manifestation of that religious influence will bring, in different expressions, different outcomes. And here's the thing: if it was Wicca, we wouldn't have door-to-door evangelists, a multibillion-dollar teleministry industry, or a President who invades a country because God told him to. These are fairly big differences.
Additionally, not all religious ideas become so warped as to suggest mental illness. So to say that things "would not change if another religion, or no religion, were dominant" either seeks to excuse the current paradigm or denigrate possible alternatives. Attempting to mitigate perceptions of harm helps nobody except those who do harm.
Um ... okay. An interesting issue that I'm having a hard time connecting to what I thought were the themes of the discussion.
Um ... okay. I am pleased by the Lawrence decision. How about if we come back to this one in a moment?
Why thank you; a vital difference worth noting is that, while the Christian delusion tends to hurt a hell of a lot of people, the idea of a self-examining Universe is not going to condemn you to Hell for having good, dirty, fun sex. It has no reason to claim, as Christians in the U.S. have, that equality is oppressive. The notion of such a purpose in life is not remotely as affecting in mundane application as the idea of an invisible, all-powerful God who judges people poorly for being as It created them.
There is a practical difference. The effects of ideas tend to be closer to the heart of the question than the mere fact that an idea exists.
Uh ... wow. As with your prior point, well, I'm not sure what your point is.
You asked Greenberg, "Why do you want to challenge the religious? Is it an expression of some neurosis you suffer from?"
I responded describing what I consider practical issues, and yet you're snapping back that one should "Deal with it, or move to a deserted island." Well, that's sort of the heart of the question. It's not about neurosis, but dealing with the issues presented by what seems delusional (e.g., religion).
Our friend PJdude1219 included in the "Political Cartoons" topic a couple of frames that lean toward a relevant point:
As we consider what a compassionate address of the neurotic and delusional might be, we ought to remember that for so many of them right now, equality is considered oppressive; if they cannot be superior, they're being oppressed. Or so they tell us.
In other words, we face the challenge that arises when the sick demand their right to be afflicted. And, frankly, it's hard to argue with that proposition. However, what to do? Well, as you pointed out, you deal with it, or move to a deserted island. You either live with it or learn how to fight it effectively.
So to bring this around in something of a circle, how would doing so be an expression of, say, Greenberg's neurosis?
Anyway, I must be missing something. Let me know.
Last edited:
Did you make that up? I don't agree with that statement, and it's not a good reiteration of what i meant. From my perspective, faith is trust. And trust of something or someone can be the result of a lot of things, and certainly using your intellect can be one of them. What I am suggesting though is that your faith is not soley placed in your intellect, but rather, in the knowledge of that something or someone that you're examining. What I am suggesting is that a real interaction with that something or someone would prove to be a valuable experience, moreso, or in addition to, any intellectual exercise. I mean, one's intellect is a given. You can't just shut it off. Though I admit it seems to me sometimes that some people try to ignore it or thwart it at every opportunity they're given. I certainly don't think that's true in Greenberg's case, or in yours from what I've read. You both seem extremely intelligent to me. My concern is that Greenberg and many others are trying to intellectualize a belief in god, and from my perspective, that would have to be a dead end. Not a waste of time necessarily, but alone, a dead end. And that is because your intellect is fallable, and your sources of knowledge are fallable. What is the best source of knowledge concerning God? Knowing God. Not knowing about God, but an actual interaction with Him. Could He be lying to you during that interaction, or could He be deceptive in presenting Himself towards you? Yeah, I suppose He could. But why would He be? He's God. And it still seems worth it to me, to experience the interaction, and make a determination based upon it rather than without it. To me it's like the difference between reading a biography or even an autobiography, and having a relationship with the subject of it. The book may have some information in it about the subject that you didn't know, even given your relationship with them. But in the grand scheme of things, in relation to the issue of trust, which of the two would be the better source of knowledge of the subject? I might suggest both, but which would be better?
The problem with what I'm suggesting is that many people want to think that just because they haven't had what I describe as a personal experience with Him as of yet, that what I'm suggesting is impossible, and I'm making it all up.
Or, the fact that you assume you can distinguish between the two.
People hear voices and see things that are not apparent. There are medical reasons for these phenomenon.
And, there is childhood indoctrination, of which you're most likely a successful candidate.
YOU, personally, may not be making it up after all.
And YOU may be making assumptions for no other reason than it's what YOU want to believe, because they make YOU feel more comfortable about YOUR life. The FACT is that YOU don't know me, and never walk in my shoes, and what YOU think about what I have experienced could very well be incorrect.
Just as I don't personally know or have walked in the shoes of the raving lunatic standing on a street corner soapbox, preaching. He is self-evident, as you are.
A rose is a rose... You need not prescribe that the rose is a product of the god you believe to exist based on your so-called 'personal' experiences.
I exist as Godzilla, Mary Antoinette and Napoleon as viewed by the lunatic. He is as adamant to that delusion as you are to your god. And, I am equally confident I am not incorrect in his assessment of me as such.
You're free of course to assume I'd stoop to your level of a kindergarten version of the 'warm and fuzzies' however most adults have leaped past the simple world of sandcastles and mud pies.
Logic, it ain't, indoctrination and delusion, it is. That shouldn't make you feel good at all, yet it does.
Well, at least we've determined the title of this thread is correct.
And, you see me as a wizard. Fairy tales abound.
Would you understand me better if I recited an incantation for you, or waved my hand to produce pixie dust that I might blow your way?
and you think i'm text book huh?