The energy expended in "religious debates".

Fresco wrote:

"The point I want to stress is that "the religion debate" is unlike most others in that "facts" are absent except for the practice of religions per se.
So whereas in other debates we are open to be persuaded by "points of information" there seem to no substantive issues to argue about except perhaps for the nature and origins of "morality", which we can do anyway under the general field of "ethics". And we should note that this is less popular than "religion" as a debating forum."

Actually, I must disagree to some extent here - as a very weelowan indeed, I was (although clearly ready to be so) reasoned out of religion by such books as Butler's "The Way of All Flesh" and Vidal's "Julian", as well as by my own reasoning.

Of course, religious people can dismiss all "facts" (in inverted commas because of the changing nature over time of out knowledge and beliefs about the physical world) and reasoning by calling on faith and the supernatural and ineffable nature of their deity and its reality - however, I think we can - at least at some times in our lives - be open to changing our beliefs because of facts and sound reasoning...

dlowan

My rhetorical usage of "facts" on this thread is predicated on my usual stance that "all facts are a matter of social consensus." I apologize for perhaps jumping too early to the corollary that "where there is no consensus, as in religion, there are no "facts".

I think you correctly identified that your "conversion" was less due to the mechanisms of "debate" than to a predisposition to consider other worldviews. It is significant that those with a vested interest in maintaining their "flock" introduce the concept of "the Devil" who might lead waverers away with his silvery tongue. So our continued involvement in these issues is perhaps more to do with covert power structures than overt beliefs.

truth
We do this in order to be known? Interesting, given that most of us use pseudonyms. Maybe we should change the forum to "Able2beknown". I participate mainly to find out what I think; it's a forum for reflexive expression. And, of course, I learn from others. But, as Cav said, it's also a chance for a good daily stretch. The fact that we cannot come to conclusions, to the resolution of differences is neat in a way. We don't have to worry about losing something.

BULLSNORT!! You know I'm working hard to put it into a different perspective - I'll take exception with the broadly painted "THEY".
You just had to do that! Still Lov ya boss and agree just a little with a few things! Besides I justed turned off "Anger Management"
what a hoot!! Laughed my ARSE off

JLN

Agreed - "self knowledge" is often surprising !

My cousin, who became a born again Christian at a late stage in life, told me that religion could not be discussed on an intellectual level. I'm still mulling that over in my mind.

At this point in my life, I am still "unlearning" as Mark Twain suggested about Huck Finn and his relationship with Jim, a runaway slave. What is left, is learning and a willingness to listen. Just as Henry Fleming in Crane's RED BADGE OF COURAGE, I still find myself an unknown quantity.

I still believe that there are only two emotions--love and fear.

Should this response smack of stream of consciousness, it should, because there can be no developmental logic in things unseen.

truth
Letty, love and fear, hmmmm. And they tend to occur together.

J.L., and from the recesses of my mind, "Perfect love casteth out fear."

Oops, another stream forded.

Fresco calls it expended energy; Freud calls it sublimation and sometimes cathexis, and everybody calls it catharsis(even adverts)

Letty,

Letty, nice to see you !

Your cousin voices the thoughts of esoteric philosophers who divide the "mind" into three: the "intellectual", the "emotional", and the "instinctive". Energy is then "wasted" when the "wrong" mind/centre is engaged inappropriately.

You may therefore have identified a nuance of my own exposure to such systems with respect to this thread...namely that "intellectual debate" is futile with repect to "religion" - an essentially "emotional function"...but you have also made me remember that the esotericists say we are doomed ( ) to waste energy in this way because of "cosmic forces" beyond the control of "ordinary man" !!

Wearing my atheists hat I of course officially reject such "esoteric nonsense" and base my rejection of "logic" on Piagetian epistemology which purports to transcend logic...but when I take my hat off at night...well thats a different matter ! :wink:

truth
Fresco, I have always felt that LOGIC has its place--in both the positive and negative senses of the phrase.

I don't think one can approach religious debates with logic -- one might as well approach the reliability of Tarot Cards with logic.

Nice to see you again, Fresco. Hey, I understood some of the stuff you said. I'm improving or you are. Which is it? I do know this, that educators wear a lot of hats, which one do you take off at night?

My Gawd, J.L. Define logic for me before I dive in to the philosophy of music.

truth
Letty, you can use the dictionary just as well as I. I would suggest, however, that to me logic is the discipline of consistency. We do not use logic to arrive at the next inferential step from premise to conclusion, but we can use it (i.e., truth tables) to see if we have neither contradicted ourselves nor made unwarranted inferences (i.e., non-sequiturs). More than that I cannot say. I never think by EXPLICIT use of logical rules. To the extent that my thinking is reasonable, it is consistent with IMPLICIT rules, as is my use of grammar.

truth
Letty, pardon my first sentence; it sounds so rude.

You're not rude, J.L. I was just thinking that dictionaries are wonderful for denotation; parts of speech; diacritical markings; word used in a sentence, but they don't and can't explain connotation. Only we can do that within the confines of the ever changing culture. Did I mention spelling?

JLN

Re: "logic" and the "machinery of debate"...my grounds for rejection are briefly that logic assumes an "objective reality" (fixed set membership) or at least a degree of "social consensus" from which to proceed to further consensus. This is not the case with a "religion debate" which starts from non-consensus between adherents and detractors.

As an aside...where Buddhism appears to "score" in all this is because of its ultimate convergence of observer and observed which transcends "objective reality"...witness the "koan" as the epitome of translogic....hence whether or not the existence of "God" proceeds from a state of observer dissolution is purely experiential and ineffable.

Letty,

Your homework is to investigate the social, psychological and religious significance of hats and wigs from 1700 to the present day...and I want it in by Friday...neat writing and no padding out with artwork !

Fresco...ok...will you brush the blood off the pages? I haven't worn a periwig in years....(thumbing hastily through pages of the dictionary for epistemology) Hey, I knew that, too. Piaget certainly wasn't given to random sampling, now was he. Someone once told me that he affected more conversation than education.

J.L. I still hold on to my original premise. The best philosophy is the simplest. After all, my friends. Jesus was a philosopher. Whether we believe in his divinity is really a non issue. He was first, a teacher.

truth
Letty, yes, Jesus was a teacher. I like to say that he pointed the way and we chose to worship (and suck) his finger.

A comment to your aside fresco; the convergence of the observer and the observed doesn't transcend objective reality it becomes it. It transcends the ego.