Ernie & Kevin : I have also mixed feelings about revelation. No question that some claims to revelation are off the ranch. Koresh is a good example, or Jones at Jonestown. We could add a hundred others easily enough. There are also cases where --as I see it-- there sometimes are examples of both the crazy and the authentic. Joseph Smith is a prime example. Take the empirically disproven Book of Abraham and the altogether different Doctrine and Covenants. Still, even when we can say that revalation is authentic, how do you make a case which has empirical standing ? What yardstick do you use ? For me there are two basic measures. Could be more, but these are most convincing : ( 1 ) Aesthetic, and ( 2 ) Moral / Functional. Is it beautiful, does it facilitate adding beauty to the world or into lives ? This is anything but trivial, it is essential for any kind of fulfilling life. Does it contribute to superior ethical choices ? Does it help communities live together for the best available purposes ? Does it give special meaning to human relationships ? There is also sense of mission, but , so far, I'm not sure how to factor this in. Where does sense of mission derive from ? After all, there are all kinds of missions which are possible and some are VERY sick. Best model of how this works is classical Biblical, also found in Asian religions including Buddhism, call it spirit and anti-spirit, the Almighty vs Satan. Yes, indeed, there is a vital place for reason in the life of faith --and generally. But Freud, and many others, have made it clear that the most reasonable-reason has a major irrational foundation. We are all crazy to some extent, some more than others. It is self deception to think that pure reason guides anyone all the time, maybe even most of the time. We think with our emotions and some theories say this is dominant in life. The crux is whether there is another dimension to consciousness than mind alone. My own view : We are like natives in New Guinea. "What do you mean that there are radio waves that can be broadcast from another part of the world and we can hear them here ? That is pure nonsense." Of course, this still leaves out the question of what you choose to listen to. Crap radio or good radio ? My thoughts for now. Billy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- 10/28/2011 7:19:44 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi Kevin, Sent from my iPhone On Oct 28, 2011, at 4:57, "Kevin Kervick" <[email protected]> wrote: > My contention is that when any individual claims to have spoken to God, and thus has the answers for his followers and for humankind, he is probably delusional or sociopathic, or both. I sympathize to some degree, but: A) I don't think Jesus was a sociopath. :-) B) I talk to God all the time, and freely give answers to my "followers" and humankind. But I don't claim infallibility or absolute authority. The real issue I think is the -kind- of authority we claim. The source of that authority -- divine, rational, or structural -- appears less problematic than its absolutism. E -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
