Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 10 of 13  •  Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Analytic thinking threatens beliefs
6 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:37PM #91
SeraphimR
Posts: 12,687

May 4, 2012 -- 8:53PM, newsjunkie wrote:


Somebody tells me I gotta belong to, be obedient to the church i was baptized in, or I burn in hell for all eternity, hmmm I wonder if that can be right....


analytical thinking kills that notion, you betcha.




Really?


Can I see the theorem?

“So long as there is squalor in the world, those obsessed with social justice feel obliged not only to live in it themselves but also to spread it evenly.”

http://takimag.com/article/the_ugly_truth_theodore_dalrymple
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:52PM #92
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

May 4, 2012 -- 9:37PM, SeraphimR wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 8:53PM, newsjunkie wrote:


Somebody tells me I gotta belong to, be obedient to the church i was baptized in, or I burn in hell for all eternity, hmmm I wonder if that can be right....


analytical thinking kills that notion, you betcha.




Really?


Can I see the theorem?




Why ask.... you don't want to subject your religious beliefs to analytical thinking, remember? If you're having trouble remembering, go back to post 50, for example.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 11:47PM #93
quondamonachus
Posts: 401

The logical positivists shot down religion with rational analysis; Derrida shot down rational analysis, thus, though an athiest, opening the window to religion, or the mystical dimension.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 8:24AM #94
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

Of course people can believe whatever they like. Also, if I think over a claim about some supernatural realm and decide I can't believe it, I don't have to believe it. Nobody can prove or disprove any claim about the supernatural, but one can think it over and decide whether it makes sense or means anything to them.


I don't see what I can do about anything supernatural, so why worry about it?

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 8:29AM #95
SeraphimR
Posts: 12,687

May 5, 2012 -- 8:24AM, newsjunkie wrote:


Of course people can believe whatever they like. Also, if I think over a claim about some supernatural realm and decide I can't believe it, I don't have to believe it.




Of course you don't have to, but don't pretend it is "analytical thinking".

“So long as there is squalor in the world, those obsessed with social justice feel obliged not only to live in it themselves but also to spread it evenly.”

http://takimag.com/article/the_ugly_truth_theodore_dalrymple
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 8:31AM #96
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

May 5, 2012 -- 8:29AM, SeraphimR wrote:


May 5, 2012 -- 8:24AM, newsjunkie wrote:


Of course people can believe whatever they like. Also, if I think over a claim about some supernatural realm and decide I can't believe it, I don't have to believe it.




Of course you don't have to, but don't pretend it is analytical thinking.




Why do you pretend to know my thought processes?

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 8:32AM #97
SeraphimR
Posts: 12,687

May 5, 2012 -- 8:31AM, newsjunkie wrote:


May 5, 2012 -- 8:29AM, SeraphimR wrote:


May 5, 2012 -- 8:24AM, newsjunkie wrote:


Of course people can believe whatever they like. Also, if I think over a claim about some supernatural realm and decide I can't believe it, I don't have to believe it.




Of course you don't have to, but don't pretend it is analytical thinking.




Why do you pretend to know my thought processes?




Intuition.

“So long as there is squalor in the world, those obsessed with social justice feel obliged not only to live in it themselves but also to spread it evenly.”

http://takimag.com/article/the_ugly_truth_theodore_dalrymple
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 8:36AM #98
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

May 5, 2012 -- 8:32AM, SeraphimR wrote:


May 5, 2012 -- 8:31AM, newsjunkie wrote:


Why do you pretend to know my thought processes?




Intuition.




Well there you have an indictment against relying on intuitive thinking alone. Much intuition simply reflects pre-concieved notions. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 11:17AM #99
adamcro-magnon
Posts: 1,151

The world is not the tidy beast that postmodernism may wish it to be.   Postmodernism comes up with relativism as a solution whereas it is in fact the problem - not the solution.


Both Ernest Gellner and Karen Armstrong tackle postmodernism, the latter endorsing it, possibly salivating at that which Gellner can only describe, most scathingly and scornfully as metatwaddle; he excoriates the whole business, quoting Ian Jarvie, who sees the end product of postmodernism not just as relativism but nihilism.  Gellner writes: ‘It is a regress into subjectivity and navel-gazing’ and ‘Relativism does entail nihilism: if standards are inherently and inescapably expressions of something called culture, and can be nothing else, then no culture can be subjected to a standard, because (ex hypothesi) there cannot be a transcultural standard which would stand in judgement over it.’  Both Gellner’s and Armstrong’s accounts are worth digesting.  If the overweening demands of objectivity in science pall then turn to Armstrong’s last chapter.  If the waffle and twaddle of endlessly deep subjectivities cannot be called to account and you regret this, then turn to Gellner.


Karen Armstrong in the final chapter of ‘The Case for God’ goes at length into postmodernism and postmodern theology.  She quotes those devotees of postmodernism, who when they see or hear ‘truth’ being mentioned know only too well that someone somewhere near them is all too ready to impose something upon them in the language of dominance.  Pilate’s question might as far as they are concerned never receive an answer.  What matters is meaning and meaning is use and use, meaning (this is certainly the case in Armstrong’s understanding of initiation into the mysteries).  Truth does not enter the equation: meaning is use and use meaning.


What matters is not truth but the hermeneutic of meaning.  There are meaning systems, many and varied.  Where some followers of a strict religious faith (such as the orthodox Christianities) rejoice in the fact that the scientific ethic of cognition is knocked off its pedestal in a postmodern perspective for it cannot be seen or be allowed to come and sit in judgement on any other system of meaning (it’s all relative), they are not always primed to the fact that their own religious ethic of cognition is equally vulnerable when it starts spouting a truth (of which we have to be made aware so that it can be, for our own good, imposed upon us.)  


That is why, too, for Armstrong, Gould’s notion of non overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is so palatable - each meaning systems is its own province and cannot be used to subvert or call to account a different meaning system.  NOMA is trotted out as a solution.  It is however the problem and although Karen Armstrong may be applauded for her rediscovery of those two delicious greek Honeys, ‘Mythos’ and ‘Logos’, garnered from the exhilarating slopes of Mt Slippery and insist on their being kept firmly apart so that they do not come into conflict, Richard Holloway in his ‘Guardian’ review of Armstrong’s book points to the fact that with 'Mythos' and 'Logos' it is for the orthodox Churches not a question of non-overlapping magisteria for claims are made there for which an empirical reality is expected: there was a Virgin Birth; there was a God Incarnate and there was a Resurrection - these are held to be objective facts and no amount of postmodern twaddle can waffle its way around them by viewing the concerns as mythical, metaphorical or the workings of the poetic imagination.  Meaning systems do conflict.


ACM

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 12:00PM #100
LittleLes
Posts: 9,994

May 5, 2012 -- 11:17AM, adamcro-magnon wrote:


The world is not the tidy beast that postmodernism may wish it to be.   Postmodernism comes up with relativism as a solution whereas it is in fact the problem - not the solution.


Both Ernest Gellner and Karen Armstrong tackle postmodernism, the latter endorsing it, possibly salivating at that which Gellner can only describe, most scathingly and scornfully as metatwaddle; he excoriates the whole business, quoting Ian Jarvie, who sees the end product of postmodernism not just as relativism but nihilism.  Gellner writes: ‘It is a regress into subjectivity and navel-gazing’ and ‘Relativism does entail nihilism: if standards are inherently and inescapably expressions of something called culture, and can be nothing else, then no culture can be subjected to a standard, because (ex hypothesi) there cannot be a transcultural standard which would stand in judgement over it.’  Both Gellner’s and Armstrong’s accounts are worth digesting.  If the overweening demands of objectivity in science pall then turn to Armstrong’s last chapter.  If the waffle and twaddle of endlessly deep subjectivities cannot be called to account and you regret this, then turn to Gellner.


Karen Armstrong in the final chapter of ‘The Case for God’ goes at length into postmodernism and postmodern theology.  She quotes those devotees of postmodernism, who when they see or hear ‘truth’ being mentioned know only too well that someone somewhere near them is all too ready to impose something upon them in the language of dominance.  Pilate’s question might as far as they are concerned never receive an answer.  What matters is meaning and meaning is use and use, meaning (this is certainly the case in Armstrong’s understanding of initiation into the mysteries).  Truth does not enter the equation: meaning is use and use meaning.


What matters is not truth but the hermeneutic of meaning.  There are meaning systems, many and varied.  Where some followers of a strict religious faith (such as the orthodox Christianities) rejoice in the fact that the scientific ethic of cognition is knocked off its pedestal in a postmodern perspective for it cannot be seen or be allowed to come and sit in judgement on any other system of meaning (it’s all relative), they are not always primed to the fact that their own religious ethic of cognition is equally vulnerable when it starts spouting a truth (of which we have to be made aware so that it can be, for our own good, imposed upon us.)  


That is why, too, for Armstrong, Gould’s notion of non overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is so palatable - each meaning systems is its own province and cannot be used to subvert or call to account a different meaning system.  NOMA is trotted out as a solution.  It is however the problem and although Karen Armstrong may be applauded for her rediscovery of those two delicious greek Honeys, ‘Mythos’ and ‘Logos’, garnered from the exhilarating slopes of Mt Slippery and insist on their being kept firmly apart so that they do not come into conflict, Richard Holloway in his ‘Guardian’ review of Armstrong’s book points to the fact that with 'Mythos' and 'Logos' it is for the orthodox Churches not a question of non-overlapping magisteria for claims are made there for which an empirical reality is expected: there was a Virgin Birth; there was a God Incarnate and there was a Resurrection - these are held to be objective facts and no amount of postmodern twaddle can waffle its way around them by viewing the concerns as mythical, metaphorical or the workings of the poetic imagination.  Meaning systems do conflict.


ACM





RESPONSE:


>>What matters is not truth but the hermeneutic of meaning<<


MW definition "hermeneutic" : the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)


Some of us like to begin by separating what in true from what is not true.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 10 of 13  •  Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook