Ernie: "...sounds like you have a binary view of True/False belief based solely
on personal benefit. Is that intentional or just a simplification?" The point of my formulation is expediting action in the world, or, anyway, expediting genuine progress of some kind toward achieving goals. Every play cannot be a touchdown but every play should at least advance the ball 3 or 4 yards down the field. So to speak. Sometimes it is the best idea to hedge things, I know that. However, generally I detest hedging anything and always try to find a way to actually do something productive even if there is some risk of making a mistake. I can live with a mistake if it isn't a really bad error of judgment, but I can't live with doing nothing when I know I should have done something. Personal benefit is basic, of course, but what I am assuming is that I had better take into account how my choice effects others. As best as can be done anyway; no way can anyone always get this right. The crux of existentialism is that we are in this world to learn from experience and to make our lives rich with experiences that do us good. Or as a professor once explained it to me, "a paper about an adventure, say traveling across America, is clearly inferior to getting in a car, filling the tank, and driving down the highway." Is belief ontological or is it existential? That is what you are asking. Therefore, since for me the acid test is whether it works or not, I may experiment. Hopefully with some forethought, of course, because some things can only turn out badly but can be foreseen if you make the effort. However, others you cannot know unless you seek some kind of experience. Like the months, maybe it actually was a year or more, back in my teens, when I ventured into pietism. No question about it for me, ever since: That approach is huge mistake. Left a very bitter aftertaste, like the time when I had a gigantic hangover and ceased, for all time, drinking to excess. For a few hours I had drowned my sorrows, but drinking a large quantity of alcohol was worse than facing my problems head-on, regardless of the pain. And pietism wastes great amounts of time for no good reason. It is unproductive and doesn't solve any problems. What it amounts to is self-indulgence of the worst kind. About pietism: - Does this belief deliver what it promises? NO - Does that help make everyone’s life better in appropriate ways? NO - How does this match up with other truths people have experienced? It is a little difficult to answer the third question but my solution is simply to say that there are far better exemplars of faith than any (any) Pentecostal preacher I have ever heard in person or heard on TV or otherwise know about. Luther, Schweitzer, Kierkegaard, Barth, Rauschenbusch, Niebuhr, and so forth. Actually the list can go far back in time, all the way to Clement -or all the way back to Paul. There is no comparison. I cannot think of even one Pentecostal preacher whose intellect I can respect, none. Well maybe one, but highly qualified because of all the off-the-wall things he sometimes says, Pat Robertson, who, anyway, has the considerable virtue of actually doing things to help along the faith-based objectives he believes in. Otherwise the roster of Pentecostal preachers is basically a sorry lot of mostly poorly educated people who essentially lack the capacity for critical thinking. This is my impression even if, anon, maybe there are some Pentecostal preachers whom I do not know about who are different. This is unfair to local pastors, who I put in a different category since their mission in life is personal for the most part, consisting of helping people deal with mostly private issues to do with health, misfortune, maybe depression, kids who go off the reservation, and you name it. Indeed, I give them a lot of credit for what they do. Still, when it comes to the life of the mind, well, forget it. They are not the ones to turn to. All of this said, I have known at least a few pietists who are the best kinds of people anyone could hope to meet. Kind, helpful, considerate, compassionate, and so forth. The world is a better place because of them. But on another level they miss the boat entirely because of their disengagement from the world, hence the long slide from Christian predominance in America to Christianity-in-retreat wherever you look. Yes, my world is not fuzzy at all. Sometimes I am at a loss for answers but if it is important I look until some kind of clarity presents itself. As soon as there is clarity it is also clear what I should do. B. ________________________________ From: Centroids <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 8:10 PM To: Billy Rojas Cc: [email protected] Subject: Belief Re: [RC] Critique of Religion and Philosophy & other Hi Billy, True belief is what works, false belief is what does not work. I agree with that, though I hedge at bit: Truth is what works What works is NOT the truth How do I know whether something is true or false? Simple: Does my belief make my life better or worse? Interesting. I generally agree, but I’d refine it further: - Does this belief deliver what it promises? - Does that help make everyone’s life better in appropriate ways? - How does this match up with other truths people have experienced? That formulation also sounds like you have a binary view of True/False belief based solely on personal benefit. Is that intentional or just a simplification? My world is much fuzzier and multidimensional... 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
