Donn
Philosopher
Mystery and Faith and Religion
I have been trying to talk sense into an old friend who has a bad case of the religion virus.
The really odd thing in his case is that it's not a straightforward belief - it's not a "literal bible" or "Catholic" case, it's not even a vanilla "Christianity" case; it's a merging of Buddhism and Catholicism with several twists.
"Leap of Faith"
At the base of every chain of my reasoned questioning is his stock reply: I believe because it's a mystery.
( He does not say it that plainly, it's my precis. )
He says things like:
"I am/was/still am/am not a creature of two minds. Jesus is, and Jesus is not; both are true. It is illogical but necessary for my mental wellbeing. But how long can I be a creature of two minds? I say to myself then: 'I must not deny Jesus; and not exalt myself.' So I will not deny him. But it's not that simple, as you can see from above...!"
Then he says:
"Some things, like the words of Christ, cannot be tampered with. Christ's teaching is perfect"
Which seems to be a contradiction.
I don't know, is this a compartmentalized mind, split three or more ways, or is it something more?
I wrote:
>From my pov, believers have not done the homework. They have not connected the dots. They have glossed-over the tough bits and they cherry-pick the parts they swallow.
He replied:
They have not done the homework; they have glossed over the tough bits; they have cherry-picked the parts they swallow...Gandhi said something to the effect that he might be floored in a debate with an atheist, let's say, but he goes behind the relative and attains the absolute. In order to make some kind of progress, the leap of faith must be taken; there is no time to explore all the reasonable alternatives: it's time (and there's always this terrible urgency for every moment is a moment of crisis - Merton) to go beyond reason, beyond, away....
It's always an argument by "mystical reference" with him.
I said (meaning him specifically) :
>For example, when I begin asking tough questions, when I start to give a believer good examples of what I mean, the believer resorts to a bunker mentality and shuts down, refusing to extend their horizons. This proves that thought and religion do not mix. QED.
He says:
"In order to have faith (an unshakable belief in something esp. without proof) means to forego that proof, to stop questioning to a great degree or every degree. But the intellect has its place in the religious life...don't think that it doesn't."
I said:
>So few speak with that small voice of truth : Reason. They are drowned out by the multitude who put their fingers in their ears and say "nah nah nah nah I can't hear you."
When I try, in my broken way: that's what I feel you have been doing to me.
He replied:
It's not that 'I will not hear' but that 'I must not hear' for my own good. I guess lots say nah nah and refuse to hear because they feel threatened, and rightly so...this sceptical stuff etc. is hard stuff to swallow for a person who believes, who is a believer... I know from my own experience. It's tough! It's upsetting; it touches on the dark side in the believer
I can't post more about what he said concerning his "Buddha nature", he asked me to keep it private. I wish I could, but it's moot.
The thing about the Buddhism mix-in: it is Zen and I/no-I and all that "mysterious" stuff. It's all about confounding the mind and trying to "force" Enlightenment etc. Please forgive my broad strokes, I think he is using Zen and Tibetan Buddhism as his main influences.
So, it seems to be an attraction to mystery for it's own sake. How can you argue against this?
A leap of faith into mystery. Belief is valid because mystery is outside all systems of thought and argument and logic and evidence etc. I'm sure there are fallacies and so forth here, but I need to enumerate them and I am not at all sure how to argue them.
Also, he quotes a lot of people, but here is one that I thought I would check on:
"The want of belief is a defect that ought to be concealed when it cannot be overcome."
-- Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Religion
I'm assuming Swift meant "want" as in "desire for", surely!
Finally, some of his particularly noxious (from my pov) quotations were:
Understanding is the reward of Faith. Therefore seek not to understand that thou mayest believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.
St. Augustine: On the Gospel of St. John
( Sounds like Kung-Fu to me )
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
-- Old Testament: Psalms 14:1; 53: 1
( Well, it's directly from that gawd, so it's understandably vile. )
Unbelief does nothing but darken and destroy. It makes the world a moral desert, where no divine footsteps are heard, where no angels ascend and descend, where no living hand adorns the fields, feeds the birds of heaven, or regulates events.
-- Friedrich Wilhelm Krummacher
( Says you ... )
Unbelief, in distinction from disbelief, is a confession of ignorance where honest inquiry might easily find the truth. "Agnostic" is but the Greek for "ignoramus."
-- Tryon Edwards
( Cute. I say, "Woo" is the Geek for believer )
In all unbelief there are these two things; a good opinion of one's self, and a bad opinion of God.
-- Horatius Bonar
( Which I have to say I utterly agree with )
Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau;
Mock on, mock on; 'tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.
-- William Blake: Mock on
( I picture the wind as issuing from Blake's "opinion"
We all have one ... )
I believe because it is impossible.
-- Tertullian: De Carne Christi
( The very nutshell of my post )
Every man who attacks my belief diminishes in some degree my confidence in it, and therefore makes me uneasy, and I am angry with him who makes me uneasy.
-- Samuel Johnson
( Foot bullet )
Believing hath a core of unbelieving.
-- Robert Williams Buchanan: Songs of Seeking
( Which is typical of my friend, he loves his positive-negative space stuff )
Right, over to you.
I have been trying to talk sense into an old friend who has a bad case of the religion virus.
The really odd thing in his case is that it's not a straightforward belief - it's not a "literal bible" or "Catholic" case, it's not even a vanilla "Christianity" case; it's a merging of Buddhism and Catholicism with several twists.
"Leap of Faith"
At the base of every chain of my reasoned questioning is his stock reply: I believe because it's a mystery.
( He does not say it that plainly, it's my precis. )
He says things like:
"I am/was/still am/am not a creature of two minds. Jesus is, and Jesus is not; both are true. It is illogical but necessary for my mental wellbeing. But how long can I be a creature of two minds? I say to myself then: 'I must not deny Jesus; and not exalt myself.' So I will not deny him. But it's not that simple, as you can see from above...!"
Then he says:
"Some things, like the words of Christ, cannot be tampered with. Christ's teaching is perfect"
Which seems to be a contradiction.
I don't know, is this a compartmentalized mind, split three or more ways, or is it something more?
I wrote:
>From my pov, believers have not done the homework. They have not connected the dots. They have glossed-over the tough bits and they cherry-pick the parts they swallow.
He replied:
They have not done the homework; they have glossed over the tough bits; they have cherry-picked the parts they swallow...Gandhi said something to the effect that he might be floored in a debate with an atheist, let's say, but he goes behind the relative and attains the absolute. In order to make some kind of progress, the leap of faith must be taken; there is no time to explore all the reasonable alternatives: it's time (and there's always this terrible urgency for every moment is a moment of crisis - Merton) to go beyond reason, beyond, away....
It's always an argument by "mystical reference" with him.
I said (meaning him specifically) :
>For example, when I begin asking tough questions, when I start to give a believer good examples of what I mean, the believer resorts to a bunker mentality and shuts down, refusing to extend their horizons. This proves that thought and religion do not mix. QED.
He says:
"In order to have faith (an unshakable belief in something esp. without proof) means to forego that proof, to stop questioning to a great degree or every degree. But the intellect has its place in the religious life...don't think that it doesn't."
I said:
>So few speak with that small voice of truth : Reason. They are drowned out by the multitude who put their fingers in their ears and say "nah nah nah nah I can't hear you."
When I try, in my broken way: that's what I feel you have been doing to me.
He replied:
It's not that 'I will not hear' but that 'I must not hear' for my own good. I guess lots say nah nah and refuse to hear because they feel threatened, and rightly so...this sceptical stuff etc. is hard stuff to swallow for a person who believes, who is a believer... I know from my own experience. It's tough! It's upsetting; it touches on the dark side in the believer
I can't post more about what he said concerning his "Buddha nature", he asked me to keep it private. I wish I could, but it's moot.
The thing about the Buddhism mix-in: it is Zen and I/no-I and all that "mysterious" stuff. It's all about confounding the mind and trying to "force" Enlightenment etc. Please forgive my broad strokes, I think he is using Zen and Tibetan Buddhism as his main influences.
So, it seems to be an attraction to mystery for it's own sake. How can you argue against this?
A leap of faith into mystery. Belief is valid because mystery is outside all systems of thought and argument and logic and evidence etc. I'm sure there are fallacies and so forth here, but I need to enumerate them and I am not at all sure how to argue them.
Also, he quotes a lot of people, but here is one that I thought I would check on:
"The want of belief is a defect that ought to be concealed when it cannot be overcome."
-- Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Religion
I'm assuming Swift meant "want" as in "desire for", surely!
Finally, some of his particularly noxious (from my pov) quotations were:
Understanding is the reward of Faith. Therefore seek not to understand that thou mayest believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.
St. Augustine: On the Gospel of St. John
( Sounds like Kung-Fu to me )
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
-- Old Testament: Psalms 14:1; 53: 1
( Well, it's directly from that gawd, so it's understandably vile. )
Unbelief does nothing but darken and destroy. It makes the world a moral desert, where no divine footsteps are heard, where no angels ascend and descend, where no living hand adorns the fields, feeds the birds of heaven, or regulates events.
-- Friedrich Wilhelm Krummacher
( Says you ... )
Unbelief, in distinction from disbelief, is a confession of ignorance where honest inquiry might easily find the truth. "Agnostic" is but the Greek for "ignoramus."
-- Tryon Edwards
( Cute. I say, "Woo" is the Geek for believer )
In all unbelief there are these two things; a good opinion of one's self, and a bad opinion of God.
-- Horatius Bonar
( Which I have to say I utterly agree with )
Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau;
Mock on, mock on; 'tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.
-- William Blake: Mock on
( I picture the wind as issuing from Blake's "opinion"
We all have one ... )I believe because it is impossible.
-- Tertullian: De Carne Christi
( The very nutshell of my post )
Every man who attacks my belief diminishes in some degree my confidence in it, and therefore makes me uneasy, and I am angry with him who makes me uneasy.
-- Samuel Johnson
( Foot bullet )
Believing hath a core of unbelieving.
-- Robert Williams Buchanan: Songs of Seeking
( Which is typical of my friend, he loves his positive-negative space stuff )
Right, over to you.
