I think that being faith based may be something we outgrow, like being ego based. Both have a function that we tap from time to time even when outgrown because they become the repository of information and attribute. That said, I do consider Christian mysticism, simply because I have a more thorough understanding of it than any other form of mysticism and live in a society that is more Christian based, giving me a way to communicate. The idea that Christ is the culmination of all men as the son of God does, I think, have a related concept in every form of mysticism. Our individual view gives us each our own way into the paradox of One. Life may be as simple as a "force" that differentiates and unites through order and chaos and other such ranges, as RP suggests. Faith, I think, in whatever form, is a system of thought that can lead to a path to understanding.
On Oct 4, 2:49 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm very much in agreement with you, Neil. But, like you, I am also > suspicious of arguments which claim to base themselves on pure > "reasonableness." We are much more than just rational intelligence - > you mention "emotional understanding"; we are complex, forever > interacting unities - personalities formed out of all sorts of aspects > apart from "pure Reason," whatever that may be. > > One of these aspects is our need for meaning-giving narratives, > stories, myths to help us structure and find sense and fulfillment in > our lives, both individually and communally. But such narratives and > identity myths are immediately subject to distortion and manipulation. > For them to be any way useful they need a constant open dialogue with > sceptics, critics and heretics. Even classical traditional Christian > theology recognised this with the concept of "ecclesia semper > reformanda" - more theoretically than practically. And Dostoevsky's > Grand Inquisitor is always present to manipulate and take control. > > Personally, I "lost" the faith many years ago - and do not miss it. > Yet I still know many great people who are motivated by faith - and > I'm not talking about fundamentalist fruit and nut-cases either. > > On 4 Okt., 17:34, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > oops - drat this laptop! ... was caused over a sandwich. This turned > > out to be the Balkan assassination story. My view these days is that > > this war started with the British invasion of Iraq in 1913 and might > > be better explained from the point where various imperialist navies > > (British, US, French, German and Japanese) were queuing up in 1906 off > > the Chinese coast (Boxer rebellion etc.) - such analysis is way beyond > > school examination 'sound bites'. > > > What I'd like to see is a much more open society that was no longer > > printing myths. I want my beliefs and fellowship based in an accurate > > version of what human life is about and the dangers involved in > > denying this. I want control to be based in Reason that leaves > > emotional understanding in. What I find personally is that I repeat > > the mistakes of any elite thinking or practice in being so frustrated > > about general ignorance. It's not intellectually honest to believe in > > the will of the majority, though one can make a lesser claim for a > > society in which votes matter than perfection. > > > In the past, religion often had emancipatory aims - much of its > > language is about freedom from debt - and I find myself wishing one > > could take part in the fellowship of such religion without corrupting > > into all the sacred text belief in god nonsense - just as I don't mind > > feeling proud of my country and its people as long as it's not on the > > basis of jingoism and false history. Much western history is little > > more than dross versions of stuff peddled by the Vatican. > > > Today's religion is economics based in imperialist myth - we hide a > > holocaust, indeed deny one - as in the book 'Killing Hope' - though > > one need not focus on the Americans. I feel the truth of this may be > > so bad that figures like Churchill, Bush, Blair and others may well > > have been bag men for international finance and the preservation of an > > ancien regime. I wish in many ways for a religion that stood up to > > this. > > > On Oct 4, 4:07 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The ultimate answer for me is that belief in god lacks intellectual > > > honesty. I wouldn't seek any argument on the existence of god - for > > > me an answer either way is a rationalist fantasy - i.e. there is no > > > answer. I reject most of the ideology I was brought up in as based in > > > fables. The idea of scripture as revelation from god doesn't appeal > > > in the slightest. Most of it is wrong and flatly uninteresting - one > > > would expect any such conversation to reveal what we don't know and be > > > less obviously made up by human beings. This doesn't make me > > > unreligious, but does make me consider religion as person-made. > > > > Much of the non-religious ideology of my youth fails for similar > > > reasons. I once believed the British Empire was a fine thing and the > > > world wars were the fault of rotten Germans and Japanese. I now know > > > this was because more accurate history was denied me. As a kid, I > > > thought the Opium Wars must have been about our brave Royal Navy > > > chasing drug dealing Chinamen around, and our empire about bringing > > > civilisation, fair-play and cricket to the 'undeserving'. I couldn't > > > understand why Americans had been so dumb as to reject our rule. I > > > thought our society was broadly fair and you got by on skill and > > > merit. I know this was all bunk. > > > > The essential component of intellectual growth is belonging to a group > > > free of infectious diseases - average IQ (however suspect a measure) > > > is reduced by this kind of disease. Over the years I've found some > > > solace in science, but it's clear this form of reasoning is only a > > > starting place. We lack any proper account of what science is, and as > > > usual the widely held ideas are plain wrong. Science is not value- > > > free or intellectually linear and requires massive effort, passion and > > > some clear-break thinking and a gereat deal of training on what > > > evidence amounts to and how it fits with theories. Its quest is truth > > > but a quest is not truth. > > > > My grandson (14) is having a hard time at school just now and like > > > most teenagers knows more or less 'sweet FA' - other than how to get > > > into arguments with his mother and into detention. He came home with > > > s story that WW1
