Catholicism & Islam

[LuisDantas]

I'm contemplating on what exactly you mean by this; can you clarify please.

The core of it is that healthy religion needs questioning and at least occasional reevaluation of the relevancy of its traditions.

Meanwhile, the Qur'an famously and explicitly presents itself (and by extension Islaam itself) as divinely protected from such a need, even as it assures Muslims that the Gospels and the Torah are no longer well preserved and therefore are not trustworthy either.

It is a very ironical situation, and very much a worrisome one as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is a flaw of the human species in general. I don't know any scientist bent on scientism that feels such philosophical methodology needs reforming. Systems are led by people.......people don't walk around thinking they are wrong about things.

Generally, people don't walk around claiming that they are right about things because God assures them of that either. And it is a very good thing that they do not.

However, Islaam and some segments of Christianity deny themselves that very healthy caution, to everyone's loss.

We all think we are right....system or not. The only reason you believe it needs reforming is because you think they are wrong about things. They most certainly think you or any system you subscribe to needs reforming as well.

Probably true, but frankly fairly besides the point. There are very patent and concrete issues to deal with, regardless of any abstract worries.

Muslims and Christians live in the same world as everyone else. One of the consequences is that they share our common need to reconsider our ethical parameters as experience and circunstances allow and demand it.

One would expect that fairly obvious need to override attachments to tradition and scripture, but apparently that is not all that common after all.

But yes, I ultimately do agree with you, I just don't think that a group unwilling to reform is a bad thing or that it in any way means they are wrong about things (not saying you said that). It's an attitude you have in life, whereby you are willing to sincerely analyze an objection toward your respective world view and ideas. This infects many people, theist and non-theist alike

On this we seem to disagree. If anything, I think that a group that sincerely believes its existence to be the gift from a creator God would have that much bigger a craving to make that gift worth it, and therefore strive that much harder to keep their ethical parameters healthy and relevant.

This would make for an interesting topic.

Muslims are primarily [and above all] people of the book. The same thing that infects Christianity with Sola Scriptura.......infects Islam. Christianity [nor Judaism dare I say] were ever intended to be people of the book. That is a huge difference that I think many fail to realize. Books can't rise up and let you know you are misunderstanding them......and therefore the consequences is interpretation anarchy and opposing views sprout from it. It's unavoidable. It's like having a Constitution without a court system. It simply will not and never will work. A system must exist that meshes with reality and real people that have differing opinions.....even when all parties are well meaning.......people still disagree.

This seems to point towards one of our main disagreements about the nature and role of religious doctrine.

Texts are IMO inherently incomplete. In a nutshell, they do no know us and can't even attempt to learn about us.

They can only be so useful without a discerning mind to complete their message and decide when and how to apply and correct it. Mainly because they lack cognitive abilities (much like laws and Constitutions, which are IMO likewise limited and similarly in need of the enabling and application that demands discerning beings).

Attempts to use texts to fix the behavior and perception of living beings are, far as I can see, inherently self-limitating to a very serious extent, and there is essentially no point to them. Not in this day and age when there are so many and so better sources for wisdom and knowledge.

As for disagreements, they can be very helpful and enlightening, when they happen is a properly receptive context.

Central authorities really does solve that problem.

I beg to emphatically differ. Central authorities can be helpful for minor, unimportant matters such as (say) conventions of heraldry or of protocol. But the core, meaningful matters of doctrine are essentially poisoned by any reliance on central authorities.

Problem is that the US and the world in general has a big beef and neuro associations with authority figures (which is understandable given how crappy they've been). Especially in the US with the fight to keep clericalism in it's place with separation of church and state. So I get it, I just don't think it by default makes a system wrong. It's a trust thing for sure.

Trust must be earned if it is to be deserved. More significantly, it must be earned if it is to be trustworthy.

Far too often authorities do not understand what they are talking about, nor do those who listen to them understand what they meant to say. Both flaws happen so depressingly often that they actually compensate each other to a very significant extent.

 

[Quiddity]

The core of it is that healthy religion needs questioning and at least occasional reevaluation of the relevancy of its traditions.

Meanwhile, the Qur'an famously and explicitly presents itself (and by extension Islaam itself) as divinely protected from such a need, even as it assures Muslims that the Gospels and the Torah are no longer well preserved and therefore are not trustworthy either.

It is a very ironical situation, and very much a worrisome one as well.

Ah ok. Yes, I completely agree that questioning and reevaluating is definitely healthy.

Do you know where in the Qur'an it explicitly says this?

 

[Quiddity]

Generally, people don't walk around claiming that they are right about things because God assures them of that either. And it is a very good thing that they do not.

It would be silly of me to deny such a thinking exists, but really that’s far from how the Christian tradition developed (I'm sure other religions have a history of this). The amount of questioning can fill stadiums and it’s not something that perhaps the general population gets into or even that a philosophy professor even bothers with. But it’s there.

But the idea that you can’t question is simply not there. I'm sure perhaps it resides heavily in religious peoples home because the parents simply can’t answer questions. Even some priests themselves don't engage either because of laziness or are busy with pastoral duties.

However, Islaam and some segments of Christianity deny themselves that very healthy caution, to everyone's loss.

I’m not going to disagree with this as I said above, because it’s obvious that this exist. However, I do have a different perspective than you in terms of it being all doom and gloom. I’m on the inside and can assure you that I spend more time debating and arguing with Catholics then I do any other group. I know it’s tempting to think that I’m somehow a new wave of catholic that actually embraces dialogue and seems to be open, but really, Catholics have a long tradition of being this way. The main problem is truly ignorance. Many Catholics are simply very poorly catechized and fit the caricatures you are used to seeing nicely.

Probably true,

More than probably.

One would expect that fairly obvious need to override attachments to tradition and scripture, but apparently that is not all that common after all.

Why is it obvious? I mean, just you saying that makes you sound more religious than I. Especially given that human behavior is sometimes complex and morality equally.

On this we seem to disagree. If anything, I think that a group that sincerely believes its existence to be the gift from a creator God would have that much bigger a craving to make that gift worth it, and therefore strive that much harder to keep their ethical parameters healthy and relevant.

I worded it poorly and was mixing groups and individual thought in one. What I meant is that group dynamics and individual thought are linked but still different. I expect more of a rejection from a group then an individual. Groups can create unhealthy patterns very easily but in no way means that their actual position has no weight to it. Unhealthy patterns come from a religious and ethno-cultural dimension. However I would argue that religion influence is primarily tradition with a small t in that it’s things passed down from Irish Catholic family to Irish Catholic family and usually has little to do with actual official teaching.

This seems to point towards one of our main disagreements about the nature and role of religious doctrine.

Texts are IMO inherently incomplete. In a nutshell, they do no know us and can't even attempt to learn about us.

They can only be so useful without a discerning mind to complete their message and decide when and how to apply and correct it. Mainly because they lack cognitive abilities (much like laws and Constitutions, which are IMO likewise limited and similarly in need of the enabling and application that demands discerning beings).


Attempts to use texts to fix the behavior and perception of living beings are, far as I can see, inherently self-limitating to a very serious extent, and there is essentially no point to them. Not in this day and age when there are so many and so better sources for wisdom and knowledge.

As for disagreements, they can be very helpful and enlightening, when they happen is a properly receptive context.

Wait, I don’t think you understood me. I’m actually agreeing with you with the exception of there is essentially no point to them. That is most definitely your bias kicking in. I mean, I don’t say that about Islamic or Buddhist text or any text for that matter. It really is a stretch IMO.

I beg to emphatically differ. Central authorities can be helpful for minor, unimportant matters such as (say) conventions of heraldry or of protocol. But the core, meaningful matters of doctrine are essentially poisoned by any reliance on central authorities.

It’s not about trusting because they are somehow smarter than the individual. It’s about preservation of what is. But yes, that does take some level of trust. And that’s fine that you disagree but I’d love to hear you propose an alternative when it comes to such matters.

Trust must be earned if it is to be deserved. More significantly, it must be earned if it is to be trustworthy.


Far too often authorities do not understand what they are talking about, nor do those who listen to them understand what they meant to say. Both flaws happen so depressingly often that they actually compensate each other to a very significant extent.

The lack of trust of authorities infects the whole world and is ingrained in our politics and academics. I get that. But if you are going to completely reject any form of authority, you at least have to propose an alternative. Surely you don’t distrust all authority? I mean, I very much doubt all Doctors, Scientist, etc. I’m guessing you give religious authority a special place? And I'm not talking about always having a level skepticism here because I'm sure we all have that to some extent. What I'm saying is that we reach a point where we simply don't know it all and then you make a decision to trust or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Quiddity , for all I know I may well be more religious than you are.

I am also atheistic as a rock.

The two attributes do not oppose each other at all.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It's unfortunate that you would choose too primarily regurgitate the in vogue view of those that have gone before you absent any due credit. I know it's in vogue to say Christianity is just like Islam.......that itch is difficult too not scratch......*sigh*............Christian issues were muddied, complex, and very often are poorly researched. That isn't in any way a justification for those atrocities that occurred; some things were absolutely wrong for any Christian to commit (like some things that occurred during the Crusades). However, I strongly disagree that somehow makes them equal or that discourse is in some way restrictive because of stupid crap Christians did.

But really.........I don't care..........not as in I don't care about the people that have passed because of the horrors or that I somehow want to dismiss it [easy bait to jab at - go for it].

I'd much rather talk about if said atrocity _____[enter any atrocity here]_____ was done in conjunction to their respective faith. For example, if you want to criticize the RC because of their position on homosexuality........that would be a worthy and warranted claim on your part. Why? Because it has clear connections/claims to what we believe.

I'm more interested in that. Dogmas like that lasts and can have an overwhelming impact on the world [negative or positive depending on your view].

You'll be hard pressed to connect atrocities of the past to things we actually believe.

Islam on the other hand.....

Translation: when we do it, we'll handwave it, when they do it, we'll claim it's an integral part of their religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

It would be silly of me to deny such a thinking exists, but really that’s far from how the Christian tradition developed (I'm sure other religions have a history of this). The amount of questioning can fill stadiums and it’s not something that perhaps the general population gets into or even that a philosophy professor even bothers with. But it’s there.

I guess I am not satisfied. I have seen far more of my share of surrendering to magical promises than I would like to witness in my entire life. It cheapens and IMO insults religion.

But the idea that you can’t question is simply not there. I'm sure perhaps it resides heavily in religious peoples home because the parents simply can’t answer questions. Even some priests themselves don't engage either because of laziness or are busy with pastoral duties.

And yet, how can one in honesty claim religiousness without it?

IMO, one can not.

I’m not going to disagree with this as I said above, because it’s obvious that this exist. However, I do have a different perspective than you in terms of it being all doom and gloom. I’m on the inside and can assure you that I spend more time debating and arguing with Catholics then I do any other group. I know it’s tempting to think that I’m somehow a new wave of catholic that actually embraces dialogue and seems to be open, but really, Catholics have a long tradition of being this way. The main problem is truly ignorance. Many Catholics are simply very poorly catechized and fit the caricatures you are used to seeing nicely.

I have no issue with what you say here. Far as I know it is the exact truth.

(...)

Why is it obvious? I mean, just you saying that makes you sound more religious than I. Especially given that human behavior is sometimes complex and morality equally.

Gosh, it better be obvious. It is just basic human decency, really. People are not supposed to dwell carelessly in such serious, consequential matters.

I worded it poorly and was mixing groups and individual thought in one. What I meant is that group dynamics and individual thought are linked but still different. I expect more of a rejection from a group then an individual. Groups can create unhealthy patterns very easily but in no way means that their actual position has no weight to it. Unhealthy patterns come from a religious and ethno-cultural dimension. However I would argue that religion influence is primarily tradition with a small t in that it’s things passed down from Irish Catholic family to Irish Catholic family and usually has little to do with actual official teaching.

I basically agree, but there is definitely an upside to that as well. Groups can and often do course-correct their own inherited doctrines. That is very much a good thing.

Wait, I don’t think you understood me. I’m actually agreeing with you with the exception of

there is essentially no point to them. That is most definitely your bias kicking in. I mean, I don’t say that about Islamic or Buddhist text or any text for that matter. It really is a stretch IMO.

Call it bias if you will. It is my stance and I see no reason to let go of it.

I decided a while ago that I don't consider anyone truly religious until and unless he or she has decided to take responsibility for his or her own scripture, writing it if at all possible, and accepting the IMO unavoidable duty to explain when and how it applies or fails to.

It is for the religious person to validate the scripture, and in truth never the other way around. Scripture at its best is essentially a memory aid, nothing more.

It’s not about trusting because they are somehow smarter than the individual. It’s about preservation of what is. But yes, that does take some level of trust. And that’s fine that you disagree but I’d love to hear you propose an alternative when it comes to such matters.

To preserve a worthy tradition is in essence to dare to learn better as the occasion presents itself, IMO.

None of us should ever feel ashamed of finding ourselves in the position to improve on the teachings that we inherited. To be, as it was once described, on the shoulders of giants and therefore that much better aware of what we are dealing with.

The lack of trust of authorities infects the whole world and is ingrained in our politics and academics. I get that. But if you are going to completely reject any form of authority, you at least have to propose an alternative. Surely you don’t distrust all authority?

I guess I actually do. At the very least, I try to build my own impression on how much I trust them.

I mean, I very much doubt all Doctors, Scientist, etc. I’m guessing you give religious authority a special place?

Everyone is a religious authority, or should hope to become one. It is a very significant part of everyday existence.

And I'm not talking about always having a level skepticism here because I'm sure we all have that to some extent. What I'm saying is that we reach a point where we simply don't know it all and then you make a decision to trust or not.

Indeed we do!

 

[Quiddity]

@Quiddity , for all I know I may well be more religious than you are.

I am also atheistic as a rock.

The two attributes do not oppose each other at all.

I'm glad you think that way. That really is a bridge to at least dialogue.

 

[Quiddity]

Translation: when we do it, we'll handwave it, when they do it, we'll claim it's an integral part of their religion.

Who's we?

 

[Quiddity]

I guess I am not satisfied. I have seen far more of my share of surrendering to magical promises than I would like to witness in my entire life. It cheapens and IMO insults religion.

I agree. Which is why I’ve said on countless occasions that if I wasn’t Catholic I wouldn’t all of a sudden start raping and pillaging. In fact, I’d probably still believe in god [not gods for philosophical reasons] in some way and more importantly I’d still do what I thought was good. But really, involving experience in the magical sense that you speak of……shouldn’t even have any bearing in an argument. Either an argument stands or it doesn’t; regardless how crazy religious people act or say.

And yet, how can one in honesty claim religiousness without it?


IMO, one can not.

Well, probably because we have a different definition of what it is to be religious. Asking questions is definitely healthy, but it doesn’t guarantee anything either. People can be religious and not ask questions. I mean, I’m sure you’ve come across some atheist that is poorly catechized and simply hold weak arguments? That doesn’t take away his title as an atheist right?

Gosh, it better be obvious. It is just basic human decency, really. People are not supposed to dwell carelessly in such serious, consequential matters.

I’m not following how a fairly obvious need to override attachments to tradition and scripture somehow limits someone from dealing with consequential matters?

Call it bias if you will. It is my stance and I see no reason to let go of it.

Presuppositions matter. It shapes how you see things and interpret others. I’m sure you wouldn’t accept such an answer like from me. And I’m not asking that you simply change it for just-so stories and our conversation, but simply follow what you are asking religious folks to do……be open, analyze, and reform. Just be aware of it and the arguments that hold it up. Which I’m sure you do, but the world is bigger than your experiences and research you’ve done. And the same goes for me. Although I have yet to bump into an atheist who has properly represented theistic arguments of God (particularly of the aristotelian thomistic metaphysics ilk). I’m sure someone is out there but I haven’t come across it.

I decided a while ago that I don't consider anyone truly religious until and unless he or she has decided to take responsibility for his or her own scripture, writing it if at all possible, and accepting the IMO unavoidable duty to explain when and how it applies or fails to.


It is for the religious person to validate the scripture, and in truth never the other way around. Scripture at its best is essentially a memory aid, nothing more.

That can be a conversation all on its own and is difficult to resolve in one sitting.

To preserve a worthy tradition is in essence to dare to learn better as the occasion presents itself, IMO.


None of us should ever feel ashamed of finding ourselves in the position to improve on the teachings that we inherited. To be, as it was once described, on the shoulders of giants and therefore that much better aware of what we are dealing with.

Ok………I just do not think that it is always so. Sometimes wisdom is timeless and doesn’t need reforming. Like the killing of the innocent. Without getting into technicalities, I’m sure you’d agree with that.

Everyone is a religious authority, or should hope to become one. It is a very significant part of everyday existence.

I’m not…….and don’t claim to be. I’m just trying to deepen my understanding. The idea that we are the center of authority is precisely what is causing the problem. There is no way to build a society or construct laws when everyone thinks they are right.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Who's we?

we

[wee]
plural pronoun, possessive our or ours, objective us.
1.
nominative plural of I.
2.
(used to denote oneself and another or others):
We have two children. In this block we all own our own houses.
3.
(used to denote people in general):
the marvels of science that we take for granted.
4.
(used to indicate a particular profession, nationality, political party,etc., that includes the speaker or writer):
We in the medical profession have moral responsibilities.

 

[Quiddity]

we

[wee]
plural pronoun, possessive our or ours, objective us.
1.
nominative plural of I.
2.
(used to denote oneself and another or others):
We have two children. In this block we all own our own houses.
3.
(used to denote people in general):
the marvels of science that we take for granted.
4.
(used to indicate a particular profession, nationality, political party,etc., that includes the speaker or writer):
We in the medical profession have moral responsibilities.

Umm...ok

I feel confident you know the difference between asking what the word "we" means and who the object of "we" is.

Prove me right.