Why I Cannot Abide Organized Religion

[ppp]

So you are caused by something else and thus a part of it in a chain of cause and effect. Or you are totally yourself? So which is it?

Caused

 

[lukethethird]

I agree that we each determine meaning and purpose for ourselves. But we are afforded that ability because meaning and purpose have not been dictated to us, and because we have been inspired to ask for it by the nature of existence, itself.

Very clever all that, when you think about it! I, personally, am very grateful for this predicament. And it's why I don't like religions imposing their 'meaning and purpose' on the rest of us.

That is also the beef of the atheist that you despise.

 

[ppp]

So how did descriptive laws cause prescriptive laws?

You are going to have to explain that question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Caused

So you are in effect a part of the whole back to the Big Bang?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are going to have to explain that question.

If the universe is descriptive laws, how did it cause prescriptive laws?

 

[Kooky]

Mikkel is just play-acting the guru. If someone else was saying it, they would have a point. In fact there is nothing in your paragraph in which I disagree.

Sorry, I didn't know you two have a history.

Interesting. I don't believe I was doing that. Are you speaking generally, or specifically?

I don't believe you're doing that, either - sorry if I gave that impression.

I merely meant to use gaslighting as an extreme example of how deeply our sense of self is tied to the assumption that our own perceptions and experiences are reliable and accurate reflections of an objective world.

Even if we claim to rationally doubt our experiences, I would argue that we still implicitly assume that what we experience is "real" - even Mikkel. At least, that's from my experience and understanding of the issue.

 

[ppp]

So you are in effect a part of the whole back to the Big Bang?

Get on with it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Even if we claim to rationally doubt our experiences, I would argue that we still implicitly assume that what we experience is "real" - even Mikkel. At least, that's from my experience and understanding of the issue.

Yeah, I do. But we always end up in what subjectively matters and the is-ought problem. We are already there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Get on with it.

Sorry. Can you explain?

 

[ppp]

I don't believe you're doing that, either - sorry if I gave that impression.

No. That's fine. I wasn't sure. Which is why I asked.

I merely meant to use gaslighting as an extreme example of how deeply our sense of self is tied to the assumption that our own perceptions and experiences are reliable and accurate reflections of an objective world.

Even if we claim to rationally doubt our experiences, I would argue that we still implicitly assume that what we experience is "real" - even Mikkel. At least, that's from my experience and understanding of the issue.

I agree. And I think that pragmatically we have to function on the general assumption that our experiences reflect the objective world. It is when we start to assume that our experience necessarily reflect objective reality that we get in trouble.

 

[ppp]

Sorry. Can you explain?

That question has been asked and answered at least twice. Get on with your point.

 

[PureX]

Considering the thought behind the posts of yours that I have read, I suspect that you already know that I am going to recite the difference between prescriptive and descriptive laws. Is this something of which you are really unaware, or\are you just taking me thru the motions?

That argument would be irrelevant, of course, in that the "laws" we're talking about are both intrinsic and causal. It would be like arguing the difference between subjective and objective existence, when obviously, existence is both, and neither. As subjectivity and objectivity are only cognitive conceptual perceptions OF existence. They are not extant in and of themselves.

Perhaps it would be easier if we were to call these "laws", "forces", or perhaps "meta-phenomeona". The ancient Greeks called them "logos". I'm OK with that term, too. Really I don't care what we call them, as what matters is that they are the governing agency of physical existence. They determine what exists, physically, and how it does so. (I am including energy under the umbrella of physicality, here, which may be a little misleading to those who view existence as an expression of universal consciousness.)

I see how that is hope. I do not see how that is faith. Unless you are using the two words synonymously?

Faith is choosing to trust in what we hope to be so, to the degree that we are willing to act on that hope. It does not require that we know, or presume to know, anything to be so (i.e., that we believe in it). Therefor, it does not require us to deny our skepticism or our doubt. And to me, this is the crucial difference.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. That's fine. I wasn't sure. Which is why I asked.



I agree. And I think that pragmatically we have to function on the general assumption that our experiences reflect the objective world. It is when we start to assume that our experience necessarily reflect objective reality that we get in trouble.

All fair and well. And in practice we end here.
There are people that claim something objective without objective evidence.
They ought not to do that.

Well for the second one, you can't solve that with rationality and objective evidence. And you don't live all of your life only based on rationality and objective evidence. Neither do I.

 

[anna.]

It is constantly trying to keep itself from splintering. And only partially succeeding

Constantly? How so?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That question has been asked and answered at least twice. Get on with your point.

That we end in what matters and what we ought to do. But there your evidence won't help you.

 

[anna.]

Well, I do think it has had its splinters and fractions. But of course all of Christianity is uniformly a totally united version of Catholicism.

The Church did, most notably via the schism and the reformation. But if you look at core doctrine, the Nicene Creed, for example, affirms the same beliefs it always has.

 

[PureX]

That is also the beef of the atheist that you despise.

I don't despise atheists, I despise willful stupidity. Whether it comes from atheists or theists or whomever. It's OK to be stupid. We all are. I certainly am. But wilful stupidity is another matter. That's inexcusable in my book.

But anyway, I share their dislike for that about organized religion.

 

[ppp]

That argument would be irrelevant, of course, in that the "laws" we're talking about are both intrinsic and causal.

It's not irrelevant. You are confusing the map for the territory. There are no laws or "laws" intrinsic or causal or extant. There is only reality. And reality functions however reality functions. The map (scientific laws) are not the territory (reality).

Faith is choosing to trust in what we hope to be so, to the degree that we are willing to act on that hope. It does not require that we know, or presume to know, anything to be so (believe in it). Therefor, it does not require us to deny our skepticism or our doubt. And to me, this is the crucial difference.

I have chosen to act on hope. I don't ever remember trust being part of that decision. But maybe that is just me.

 

[anna.]

I was speaking more in terms of religions as a collective.

How can wildly disparate religions be part of a collective?

They all seem to exhibit the tendency to want to become organized and authoritative, rather than to remain a service that people can use or not use as they see fit.

So do boy scouts and golf clubs and quilt guilds. I understand if someone doesn't want to be part of an organized religion but they don't have to be. Organization itself isn't a bad thing, I don't know how many people would be attracted to chaos religion.

 

[ppp]

There are people that claim something objective without objective evidence.

Why I reference objective reality, I am not claiming access to either underlying reality or numina.

Well for the second one, you can't solve that with rationality and objective evidence.

yep.