The importance of understanding for belief

[DrZoidberg]

Why wouldn't Christianity, and other religious beliefs be a philosophy?

How do you define philosophy?

Because traditionally religion hasn't been philosophy. Traditionally religion has been a shared sense of identity, shared rituals and a collection of practical advice on how to be more successful in life. The magical stuff hasn't really been critical. Christianity and Islam are weird religions. Using them as templates for what religion is will give you a warped idea of all the types of religions out there.

A major problem with Christianity is that it treats humans as one-dimensional and simple beings. Traditionally religions have been a hell of a lot smarter, and nuanced when it comes to the human condition. So just looking at Christianity or Islam we're tempted to think of religion as stupid.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Why wouldn't Christianity, and other religious beliefs be a philosophy?

Most Christians don't see Christianity as essentially a philosophy.

If you disagree with them, I guess you could try to argue how they are wrong.

That being said, the Christian theology is a philosophy and each Christian is free to study it, or even to talk about it in public, to discuss it on the Internet, to organise fellow Christians to discuss it and develop it etc.

That has not always been true and discussing theology could get you in serious trouble with the Church but even then it was still true that at least some people could study theology as the philosophy of the divine and make up their own mind about that provided they remained discreet about their views.

Lots have Christian intellectuals have effectively done just that.

How do you define philosophy?

Different people, different definitions.

For me, philosophy in its most general sense in a conception of reality which has to be both explicit and distinctive. Explicit meaning articulated in some way. Distinctive meaning distinct from mere public opinion.

According to this, the Christian theology is definitely a philosophy.

But I don't think that any religion would necessarily come with any philosophy.
EB

 

[rousseau]

I can understand getting comfort from the idea of going to Heaven but what about the existence of God? What would be comforting in that?
EB

God belief possibly as an answer to "Why me".

It solves an existential conundrum. If an omnipotent creator is the reason I'm alive, then I'm supposed to be here, there is a purpose to my existence. Almost as a form of escapism from the fact that reality is a bit pointless, mundane, and often brutal.

 

[J842P]

In another thread I have had a discussion with Wilson about belief and philosophy (among other things).

One thing stuck with me. He repeatedly scorned philosophy. Thinking it was unnecessary and a sham or something.

So my question, can a person who doesn't have a firm grip on philosophy be a Christian?

Abrahamic Monotheism is a complicated philosophical system of thought. While the basic premise is simple, each believer needs to resolve all the omnipotence paradoxes in their own head. Until they've done that, they don't know what they believe.

Perhaps an example can make it more clear what I believe. Imagine a libertarian wanting to vote for a political party that shares his views. He thinks it's the communists. And then gets a shock when they're voted into power and he sees the bills they're trying to pass.

If you don't understand what it is you claim you believe, do you really believe? I'd argue no. Putting on a Che Guevarra t-shirt doesn't make you a revolutionary. Hanging a cross around your neck and praying a lot doesn't make you Christian.

Thoughts?

No, religion doesn't require the believer to resolve the paradoxes that arise. While some variants of Abrahamic Monotheism have encouraged philosophical investigation of religion, others have explicitly rejected reason over faith, and see reason as an enemy to faith.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why wouldn't Christianity, and other religious beliefs be a philosophy?

Because all religions deal with the big questions by avoiding them. They just sweep them under the carpet. Christianity's "God did it" is such an example. Introducing God to any problem solves nothing. Because all you've done is transferred to problem from humans to God. If what you are doing is avoiding questions and providing false answers you're not doing philosophy.

I think it's helpful to think of it in terms of, religion helps us manage our feelings. Philosophy helps us manage our thoughts. Religion isn't philosophy because that's not what it's for IMHO.

How do you define philosophy?

I like Whitehead's definition. "Philosophy is asking questions like a child and answering them like a lawyer". Philosophy is the fundamentals of experience, thinking and knowledge. Every academic subject, if abstracted far enough will always end up in philosophy. It's the fundamental academic ur-discipline from which all subjects have arisen.

 

[Speakpigeon]

In another thread I have had a discussion with Wilson about belief and philosophy (among other things).

One thing stuck with me. He repeatedly scorned philosophy. Thinking it was unnecessary and a sham or something.

So my question, can a person who doesn't have a firm grip on philosophy be a Christian?

Abrahamic Monotheism is a complicated philosophical system of thought. While the basic premise is simple, each believer needs to resolve all the omnipotence paradoxes in their own head. Until they've done that, they don't know what they believe.

Perhaps an example can make it more clear what I believe. Imagine a libertarian wanting to vote for a political party that shares his views. He thinks it's the communists. And then gets a shock when they're voted into power and he sees the bills they're trying to pass.

If you don't understand what it is you claim you believe, do you really believe? I'd argue no. Putting on a Che Guevarra t-shirt doesn't make you a revolutionary. Hanging a cross around your neck and praying a lot doesn't make you Christian.

Thoughts?

No, religion doesn't require the believer to resolve the paradoxes that arise. While some variants of Abrahamic Monotheism have encouraged philosophical investigation of religion, others have explicitly rejected reason over faith, and see reason as an enemy to faith.

Very good point.

Pope Benedict XVI made in his time a public lecture where he severely criticised Islam for, and warned Christians against, regarding reason as enemy of faith.

Unfortunately, he himself was quick to dispense with reason as soon as he was short on arguments, reaching instead for his Bible to reveal the Truth.
EB

 

[rousseau]

Although I'm sure this aspect plays a part, it can't possibly be the explanation to the success of Christianity, or other religions.

Christianity expanded largely through the conversion of the political elite and I don't see how this idea of social club could have been a motivation for them. It also wasn't a motivation for the populace since I don't think they had much of a choice once their emperor or king had converted. The early Christians were persecuted so there again your idea doesn't work.

I'm sure that priests nowadays rely on the social club effect but there is so much competition in this respect that it's not going to be that effective. Those who insist nowadays to practice a religion in the West are probably the small minority of the population which is somehow naturally sensible to religious ideas.

In America, I suspect you also have something else which is a siege mentality, like the Afrikaners in South Africa at the time of the apartheid. People congregate which those they think ressemble them because you're stronger joining a community. There's a similarity with the idea of social club but it's much less benign. Then, yes, belief may be less important in this case but it may still provide the ideology of the community so that you join for the ideology. Yet, even there, I think the religious belief is an essential ingredient. It tells people that their community is somehow morally right.

People who believe, and who are inclined to believe, get comfort from the prospect of a God existing, and there being an afterlife, and that's just about all that matters.

I can understand getting comfort from the idea of going to Heaven but what about the existence of God? What would be comforting in that?
EB

Historically, it's mostly been theology.

Mission work across Europe after the fall of Rome is illuminating. Leaders of 'Barbarian' groups were quick to accept the new answer (Christianity) to existence, which allowed the religion to propagate and over-take Paganism. IIRC, the main difference between Paganism and Christianity, is that Christianity introduced the concept of the after-life. "Convert to my religion and you'll become immortal" is a convincing argument.

These days it's cultural as well as theological. Without a few core tenets (God, afterlife) Christianity is nothing, but without cultures (social clubs) continuing to propagate the faith, the theology would dissolve into nothing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Although I'm sure this aspect plays a part, it can't possibly be the explanation to the success of Christianity, or other religions.

Christianity expanded largely through the conversion of the political elite and I don't see how this idea of social club could have been a motivation for them. It also wasn't a motivation for the populace since I don't think they had much of a choice once their emperor or king had converted. The early Christians were persecuted so there again your idea doesn't work.

I'm sure that priests nowadays rely on the social club effect but there is so much competition in this respect that it's not going to be that effective. Those who insist nowadays to practice a religion in the West are probably the small minority of the population which is somehow naturally sensible to religious ideas.

In America, I suspect you also have something else which is a siege mentality, like the Afrikaners in South Africa at the time of the apartheid. People congregate which those they think ressemble them because you're stronger joining a community. There's a similarity with the idea of social club but it's much less benign. Then, yes, belief may be less important in this case but it may still provide the ideology of the community so that you join for the ideology. Yet, even there, I think the religious belief is an essential ingredient. It tells people that their community is somehow morally right.


I can understand getting comfort from the idea of going to Heaven but what about the existence of God? What would be comforting in that?
EB

Historically, it's mostly been theology.

Mission work across Europe after the fall of Rome is illuminating. Leaders of 'Barbarian' groups were quick to accept the new answer (Christianity) to existence, which allowed the religion to propagate and over-take Paganism. IIRC, the main difference between Paganism and Christianity, is that Christianity introduced the concept of the after-life. "Convert to my religion and you'll become immortal" is a convincing argument.

So you in fact agree with me that the main point is not God but the promise of afterlife. God is just the necessary assumption to justify that believers would be able to achieve afterlife.

These days it's cultural as well as theological. Without a few core tenets (God, afterlife) Christianity is nothing, but without cultures (social clubs) continuing to propagate the faith, the theology would dissolve into nothing.

I'm not so sure. What is really required is an organisation dedicated to propagating the ideology and an effective hook, which I think is basically the promise of an afterlife. God and all the rest are means to this end.

If the Church is to survive it will need something more potent than the principle of the social club because the competition in this respect is currently winning.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Although I'm sure this aspect plays a part, it can't possibly be the explanation to the success of Christianity, or other religions.

Christianity expanded largely through the conversion of the political elite and I don't see how this idea of social club could have been a motivation for them. It also wasn't a motivation for the populace since I don't think they had much of a choice once their emperor or king had converted. The early Christians were persecuted so there again your idea doesn't work.

I'm sure that priests nowadays rely on the social club effect but there is so much competition in this respect that it's not going to be that effective. Those who insist nowadays to practice a religion in the West are probably the small minority of the population which is somehow naturally sensible to religious ideas.

In America, I suspect you also have something else which is a siege mentality, like the Afrikaners in South Africa at the time of the apartheid. People congregate which those they think ressemble them because you're stronger joining a community. There's a similarity with the idea of social club but it's much less benign. Then, yes, belief may be less important in this case but it may still provide the ideology of the community so that you join for the ideology. Yet, even there, I think the religious belief is an essential ingredient. It tells people that their community is somehow morally right.


I can understand getting comfort from the idea of going to Heaven but what about the existence of God? What would be comforting in that?
EB

Historically, it's mostly been theology.

Mission work across Europe after the fall of Rome is illuminating. Leaders of 'Barbarian' groups were quick to accept the new answer (Christianity) to existence, which allowed the religion to propagate and over-take Paganism. IIRC, the main difference between Paganism and Christianity, is that Christianity introduced the concept of the after-life. "Convert to my religion and you'll become immortal" is a convincing argument.

These days it's cultural as well as theological. Without a few core tenets (God, afterlife) Christianity is nothing, but without cultures (social clubs) continuing to propagate the faith, the theology would dissolve into nothing.

Theology has always been a ridiculous discipline. It's starting with assumptions pulled right out of one's rear end and then applying serious philosophy. Obviously a waste of time. Which is why, in seminary, priests mostly study sociology. The results of 2000 years of Christian theology has not been impressive.

 

[rousseau]

Historically, it's mostly been theology.

Mission work across Europe after the fall of Rome is illuminating. Leaders of 'Barbarian' groups were quick to accept the new answer (Christianity) to existence, which allowed the religion to propagate and over-take Paganism. IIRC, the main difference between Paganism and Christianity, is that Christianity introduced the concept of the after-life. "Convert to my religion and you'll become immortal" is a convincing argument.

So you in fact agree with me that the main point is not God but the promise of afterlife. God is just the necessary assumption to justify that believers would be able to achieve afterlife.

These days it's cultural as well as theological. Without a few core tenets (God, afterlife) Christianity is nothing, but without cultures (social clubs) continuing to propagate the faith, the theology would dissolve into nothing.

I'm not so sure. What is really required is an organisation dedicated to propagating the ideology and an effective hook, which I think is basically the promise of an afterlife. God and all the rest are means to this end.

If the Church is to survive it will need something more potent than the principle of the social club because the competition in this respect is currently winning.
EB

As far as I know, historically that was one of the main reasons for it's success. Probably still the case these days, but there are indeed a number of factors contributing to it's survival.

As you say, those vested in the Christian organisation are an organising force. Culture plays a part, as well as the very nature of the belief system.

Regardless, religion is on it's way out, especially now with the rise of the internet. It's going to be a long process, but the truth usually prevails in these cases.

 

[rousseau]

Historically, it's mostly been theology.

Mission work across Europe after the fall of Rome is illuminating. Leaders of 'Barbarian' groups were quick to accept the new answer (Christianity) to existence, which allowed the religion to propagate and over-take Paganism. IIRC, the main difference between Paganism and Christianity, is that Christianity introduced the concept of the after-life. "Convert to my religion and you'll become immortal" is a convincing argument.

These days it's cultural as well as theological. Without a few core tenets (God, afterlife) Christianity is nothing, but without cultures (social clubs) continuing to propagate the faith, the theology would dissolve into nothing.

Theology has always been a ridiculous discipline. It's starting with assumptions pulled right out of one's rear end and then applying serious philosophy. Obviously a waste of time. Which is why, in seminary, priests mostly study sociology. The results of 2000 years of Christian theology has not been impressive.

I like to think to think that Christianity coming to be in the ancient world implies that religion was about as scientific as people could get about the world back then, but then, that very few people seemed to question that we're the centre of the universe and the subject of an all powerful deity probably implies that throughout history, people have usually been very stupid.

That said, I'm sitting over here in my position of privilege with eight years of post-secondary and a robust high school education. If I was a farmer in Africa I'd probably be a believer too.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Theology has always been a ridiculous discipline. It's starting with assumptions pulled right out of one's rear end and then applying serious philosophy. Obviously a waste of time. Which is why, in seminary, priests mostly study sociology. The results of 2000 years of Christian theology has not been impressive.

I like to think to think that Christianity coming to be in the ancient world implies that religion was about as scientific as people could get about the world back then, but then, that very few people seemed to question that we're the centre of the universe and the subject of an all powerful deity probably implies that throughout history, people have usually been very stupid.

That said, I'm sitting over here in my position of privilege with eight years of post-secondary and a robust high school education. If I was a farmer in Africa I'd probably be a believer too.

I don't think religion is a poor mans science. Scholars in the ancient world had no problem separating the two. I think it was more a lack of imagination than anything else. Ancient Greek philosophers were not religiously rigid in any way. Imhotep did write a bunch of spells for how wounds should be treated. But he also conducted medical experiments and produced a medical manual.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Who knows reality?

The founding of the Church is based on the premise that people need a shepherd. This principle seemed to have worked well even at the time of the Early Church when Christians had the political power and all Jewish sects against them. The Gnostics have basically remained a curiosity. So, I don't see how a "gnostic/Greek philosophy" could be said to make more sense. Christians are, and have always been, in fact largely free to opt for a Gnostic perspective, because you can't police free thinking. Did they?

It makes more sense because it doesn't require a belief in miracles or other absurdities. And, historically, they were surely not "always free" to opt for Gnosticism. A very stupid statement.

Meanwhile, the churchs position is still:

Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession",

This is a quote from one individual called Kevin Knight, who clearly doesn't speak for the Church. Please.

I don't know who that is, but I got the quote, which is St. Irenæus, from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm

So if you desire salvation within the church, your deviations are at your peril.

Again, what does it mean "salvation within the Church"?

Not going to go there. This question smacks of the t word.

As to why that formulation won out over Gnosticism, I'd guess that one, it had a more consistent organization. The gnostic churches didn't even have fixed pastors, the role rotated among members. The more authoritarian structure would be more attractive to the civil authorities. Two, the Catholics had the advantage of simplicity and accessibility: do as we say and you'll be saved, as opposed to the studying and reflection required by Gnosticism.

So, effectively, this is to say that the pastoral principle adopted by the Church made more sense even to you now.

As to the future, you still haven't explained why Gnosticism would be more effective.
EB

See above. You're not very focused on this discussion. My initial point was how belief is dictated by the church's insistence that scripture was history.

That the church was successful politically says nothing to its spirituality. It achieved it's supremacy by violence.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Who knows reality?

The founding of the Church is based on the premise that people need a shepherd. This principle seemed to have worked well even at the time of the Early Church when Christians had the political power and all Jewish sects against them. The Gnostics have basically remained a curiosity. So, I don't see how a "gnostic/Greek philosophy" could be said to make more sense. Christians are, and have always been, in fact largely free to opt for a Gnostic perspective, because you can't police free thinking. Did they?

It makes more sense because it doesn't require a belief in miracles or other absurdities. And, historically, they were surely not "always free" to opt for Gnosticism.

What difference could there be between belief in an almighty and omniscient God and belief that this God can perform miracles or bestow this ability on a select few? Once you believe in the former, it does make sense to believe in the latter.

A very stupid statement.

The persistence of religious belief under the long-lived totalitarian regime of Staline throughout the soviet bloc is testament that you can't police free thinking.

I don't know who that is, but I got the quote, which is St. Irenæus, from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm

So you're satisfied that quoting McCarthy is the proper way you can fathom the true nature of America?

So if you desire salvation within the church, your deviations are at your peril.

Again, what does it mean "salvation within the Church"?

Not going to go there. This question smacks of the t word.

???

As to why that formulation won out over Gnosticism, I'd guess that one, it had a more consistent organization. The gnostic churches didn't even have fixed pastors, the role rotated among members. The more authoritarian structure would be more attractive to the civil authorities. Two, the Catholics had the advantage of simplicity and accessibility: do as we say and you'll be saved, as opposed to the studying and reflection required by Gnosticism.

So, effectively, this is to say that the pastoral principle adopted by the Church made more sense even to you now.

As to the future, you still haven't explained why Gnosticism would be more effective.
EB

See above. You're not very focused on this discussion. My initial point was how belief is dictated by the church's insistence that scripture was history.

That the church was successful politically says nothing to its spirituality. It achieved it's supremacy by violence.

You still haven't explained why Gnosticism would be more effective.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

That said, I'm sitting over here in my position of privilege with eight years of post-secondary and a robust high school education. If I was a farmer in Africa I'd probably be a believer too.

...and why not. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west the world over. A tiny fraction of humans, even today, travel more than 25 to 100 miles from home. Almost no one (perhaps 10 million) live in the mountains where they might see a horizon curve. ...and how much science did you get in grammar school? Well about 80% of the world's population gets no more than that.

 

[bilby]

That said, I'm sitting over here in my position of privilege with eight years of post-secondary and a robust high school education. If I was a farmer in Africa I'd probably be a believer too.

...and why not. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west the world over. A tiny fraction of humans, even today, travel more than 25 to 100 miles from home. Almost no one (perhaps 10 million) live in the mountains where they might see a horizon curve. ...and how much science did you get in grammar school? Well about 80% of the world's population gets no more than that.

No, it doesn't.

The sun rises pole-wards of east, and sets pole-wards of west in the summer; and rises equator-wards of east, and sets equator-wards of west in the winter. And at high latitudes this variation is very pronounced, to the point where at latitude 66°33′46.7″ (as of May 7 2017; the exact latitude varies over time on a 40,000 year cycle) the sun rises and sets in the direction of the pole at midsummer, and never rises or sets at all at midwinter - and polewards of that latitude, sunrises and sunsets occur less frequently than once per day (to a minimum of one of each per annum close to the pole itself)

/nitpick

Fine detail aside, we know that paleolithic cultures were aware of the shifting position of sunrise and sunset with the seasons; They (presumably) lacked the maths to use this information to calculate that the Earth is a sphere rotating on its tilted axis and orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit; But the basic observations were known to them; All that they lacked was the thinking part. Education is everything.

 

[fromderinside]

All that they lacked was the thinking part. Education is everything.

Like I said.

/(nitpick)^​2