Oughta change this thread to Religions -Still Going? On Sunday, February 14, 2016, david <[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
> From the Stanford Encyclopedia: > > "Royce and James had always disagreed deeply concerning the proper > understanding of religious phenomena in human life. When James delivered > the Gifford Lectures in 1901 and 1902, he directed many arguments against > Royce's idealism, though he did not there target his friend by name. > James's lectures, published as The Varieties of Religious Experience, were > a popular and academic success . Royce believed that James, who had never > been regularly affiliated with an established church or religious > community, had in that work placed too much emphasis on the extraordinary > religious experiences of extraordinary individuals. Royce's first education > was into a strongly Protestant world view, he always retained a respect for > the conventions of organized Christianity, and his writings exhibit a > consistent and deep familiarity with Scripture. He sought a philosophy of > religion that could help one understand and explain the phenomena of > ordinary religious faith as experienced by communities of ordinary people. > There was a deeper difference between them, as well, and it centered on a > metaphysical point. Royce's 1883 insight concerning the Absolute was at > bottom a religious insight. Contrary to the open-ended pluralism and > pragmatism of James, Royce was convinced that the object and source of > religious experience was an actual, infinite, and superhuman being." > > . > > > dmb says: > > I don't think the problem belongs to any particular kind of theism or type > of Christianity. And I don't think the other guy's view puts any > restrictions on us either. As I see, the problem is that we're dealing with > people who pretend to be thinking seriously but have already committed > themselves to certain final answers. > Jc: That sword cuts two ways, Dave. Doesn't"commited to final answers" apply equally to the anti-theistic as well? Dmb: > > If a person has prior commitments like that, their thinking process will > be in the service of that prior view. The problem is that it restricts and > restrains what they able to appreciate and remember. Such prior commitments > amplify the confirmation bias that effects us all so that criticisms are, > in effect, filtered out and the information that seems to confirm their > beliefs gets seared into their memories. > Jc: Hmmm. I see what you mean. It does explain a great deal. Dmb: > > > Even further, religious faith (and political ideologies) are totalitarian > in the sense that every part of reality must be made to fit within their > worldview. And everything that does not fit is explained away, dismissed > and/or immediately forgotten. That's what fanatics seem so impervious to > evidence and reason. > > Jc: Well I certainly agree that you are an expert on fanatics. > > > dmb says: > > It would be foolish to exclude religion as a topic or issue for discussion > because it's a major feature of human culture and because idealism in > general, and especially Royce's idealism, is a religious view. Again, the > problem is that such religious people are coming to the discussion with a > large set of prior commitments about what's true and what's real. Coming to > the table with a prior faith almost always brings a strong bias that > hinders and frustrates a productive exchange of ideas. It creates blind > spots in the mind, so to speak. > > John continues to insist that James and Royce were equally religious and > that my protests to the contrary are symptoms of fear, prejudice, or even > post traumatic stress induced by a bad experience with theism. > > > Jc: I have no idea what drives it, your anti-theism but I do note it. Whether James and Royce were equally religious... I can't say. I do think that dismissal of Royce on those grounds is intellectually feeble. But I will ask an expert. > > This is mere slander, of course, but even worse is that it defies what the > Stanford Encyclopedia and James himself have to say on the topic. It's like > he just doesn't care what's true and what's not true. He wants to make it > fit no matter what it takes. That's what happens when you are already > committed to some faith before you even start to think. It warps everything > so that real conversations are almost impossible. > > > Take it easy. > > Dave > > > A real conversation. That sounds good. I am willing to give it a try, again. Let me first investigate your claims and I will get back to you. John C. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 2016-02-05 16:41 GMT+01:00 david <[email protected]>: > > > > > >> > > >> Adrie quoted Wikipedia to dispute John's claims: > > >> > > >> > > >> "His publication in 1885 of The Religious Aspect of Philosophy > > >> ...contained a new proof for the existence of God based upon the > reality > > >> of > > >> error. All errors are judged to be erroneous in comparison to some > total > > >> truth, Royce argued, and we must either hold ourselves infallible or > > >> accept > > >> that even our errors are evidence of a world of truth. Having made it > > >> clear > > >> that idealism depends upon postulates and proceeds hypothetically, > Royce > > >> defends the necessity of objective reference of our ideas to a > universal > > >> whole within which they belong, for without these postulates, “both > > >> practical life and the commonest results of theory, from the simplest > > >> impressions to the most valuable beliefs, would be for most if not all > > of > > >> us utterly impossible”. (see The Religious Aspect of Philosophy, p. > > 324)" > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> dmb says: > > >> > > >> > > >> Since Royce was offering fallibilism as "a new proof for the existence > > of > > >> God" and "the necessity of objective reference of our ideas", his > > >> fallibilism is very, very different from the fallibilism of > Pragmatists > > >> like James and Pirsig. I think it's fair to say that Pirsig is NOT > > >> offering > > >> theism or objectivity. James, Dewey, and Pirsig are quite explicit in > > >> their > > >> rejection of SOM and even James, the most religion-friendly of the > > three, > > >> wrote his Varieties of Religious Experience in order to DISPUTE the > > >> religious claims made by Royce. > > >> > > >> > > >> From the Stanford Encyclopedia: > > >> > > >> "Royce and James had always disagreed deeply concerning the proper > > >> understanding of religious phenomena in human life. When James > delivered > > >> the Gifford Lectures in 1901 and 1902, he directed many arguments > > against > > >> Royce's idealism, though he did not there target his friend by name. > > >> James's lectures, published as The Varieties of Religious Experience, > > were > > >> a popular and academic success . Royce believed that James, who had > > never > > >> been regularly affiliated with an established church or religious > > >> community, had in that work placed too much emphasis on the > > extraordinary > > >> religious experiences of extraordinary individuals. Royce's first > > >> education > > >> was into a strongly Protestant world view, he always retained a > respect > > >> for > > >> the conventions of organized Christianity, and his writings exhibit a > > >> consistent and deep familiarity with Scripture. He sought a philosophy > > of > > >> religion that could help one understand and explain the phenomena of > > >> ordinary religious faith as experienced by communities of ordinary > > people. > > >> There was a deeper difference between them, as well, and it centered > on > > a > > >> metaphysical point. Royce's 1883 insight concerning the Absolute was > at > > >> bottom a religious insight. Contrary to the open-ended pluralism and > > >> pragmatism of James, Royce was convinced that the object and source of > > >> religious experience was an actual, infinite, and superhuman being." > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Since Pirsig was suspicious of James for trying to sneak religion in > > >> through the back door into philosophy, imagine what he'd think of > > Royce's > > >> "respect of the conventions of organized Christianity" and his stance > > >> "contrary to the open-ended pluralism and pragmatism of James". > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Like I keep saying, trying to make this Idealistic religious fanatic > > into > > >> a Pirsigian is like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. > Why, > > >> why, why does John keep preaching this nonsense against all evidence > and > > >> reason? This covert theism is bullshit and cannot be sustained > without a > > >> huge dose of dishonesty, or ignorance, or both. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> It's fine if a person insists on being an Idealist, an Absolutist, or > a > > >> advocate of conventional Christianity but it makes no sense to paint > > >> Pirsig > > >> or Pragmatism in these colors. The keys concepts of these two opposed > > >> views > > >> will crash into each other like two trains heading in opposite > > directions. > > >> It's worse than a pointless waste of time because, frankly, it's so > > >> obviously stupid. It makes me sad and angry that John is allowed to > > >> continue raining his bullshit on Pirsig and James. > > >> > > >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
