Belief

greymare said:
does it make sense that I believe some things, know other things, but still cant commit thats its entirely a belief?

And in all honestly, the more things i believe teh more there is to think about. so, i guess i think this fellas opinions are a load of hogwash. ( no disrespect intended).
Click to expand...
Ditto that.
 
soleil10 said:
I think he means secular individualism
Click to expand...

Which is? Does this mean what Americans call liberalism? Or libertarianism? Or conservatism? Or what? (And this doesn't even touch European groups.)

You'll see astonishingly different views on what freedoms people should have, and what they should be doing with their lives, between these groups. To lump them together would seem odd, and to single out one group would also seem odd.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Thomas said:
And yes, by secular I should have said 'secular fundamentalism' — although this does not let all libertarians off the hook, as too often 'libertarian' includes the right to offend whoever, whenever, at will — in fact it can be a fundamentalism in a different guise.
Click to expand...

Trust me, one doesn't have to be a libertarian to view oneself as having the right to be offensive. "Fundamentalism" finds guises just about everywhere. There is no group free of it.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Thomas said:
Unfair really — I make no excuse for Ireland, my dad grew up there.

I'm talking about a succession of documents from Vatican II onwards that highlights the essential dignity of the human person, the right to freedom of belief and expression which includes, rather than excludes, religious inclination.

In Europe the tendency is increasingly towards 'newthink' ... most evident in the European Charter which actively seeks to make sure that there is no mention of Christianity in Europe's cultural heritage. Frankly this is akin to the old Soviet days of retouching individuals out of group photos.

And yes, by secular I should have said 'secular fundamentalism' — although this does not let all libertarians off the hook, as too often 'libertarian' includes the right to offend whoever, whenever, at will — in fact it can be a fundamentalism in a different guise.

Thomas
Click to expand...
Who except God is above criticism? :confused: Isn't that how idolatry is born?
 
Hi SG —

No-one is above criticism, nor am I saying such.

Thomas
 
Belief remains very important. I think secularization may be a wrong name for what is happening in the US and Europe. Secularization would mean 'making everyone non believers', and its not the same thing as that. As the population and communication grows there is forged a shared belief that we must live together in the same world. We are all fundamentalists but we are pressed close enough to see the differences and similarities between ourselves, and that's all it is. Other beliefs give way to this belief as we get squeezed closer together. It is the same thing as what happens in a busy cafeteria. As long as people aren't grabbing my seat and blocking the food, I am peaceful with them and the cafeteria can hold its maximum number of people. As long as we're stuck in the cafeteria we each yield space, and we expect others to yield space.
 
Thomas said:
In Europe the tendency is increasingly towards 'newthink' ... most evident in the European Charter which actively seeks to make sure that there is no mention of Christianity in Europe's cultural heritage. Frankly this is akin to the old Soviet days of retouching individuals out of group photos.
Click to expand...

First off, if someone could define "secular fundamentalism" I would appreciate it. Are we just talking about something like state sponsored atheism, or is it a pejorative term hinting at religion's dissatisfaction with the reduced status of it's cultural hegemony?

Leaving that aside, here is a quote from an essay to which Near Eastral linked on another thread about Snoopy's book on continental philosophy:
A Reading of Kuhn in Light of Heidegger as a Response to Hoeller’s Critique of Giorgi

Brent Dean Robbins

Duquesne University

"...in order to carry out its project, the "calculative thinking" of science, as the ground of science and technology, denies other forms of discourse, including history. As I have tried to show, this need not be the only kind of discourse. ...we can also imagine the possibility of a discourse which allows for a ritual recovery of the hidden meaning and ground; which, as a "referential context of significance," includes the possibility of transformation." (emphasis mine).

Janus Head/1.1/Brent Dean Robbins
Click to expand...

I guess the question that should be asked is: to what degree is religion authentic versus inauthentic Dasein?

Chris
 
Chris, that is a bit too complicated for me to read. Looks interesting though. For what its worth, I think I agree with you. Its something to do with counterpointing calculative thinking with ritual recovery. That sounds similar to PO1's Science vs. Religion where the Science answers the how and the Religion answers the why. Is that the gist? Then I've looked up the word 'Dasein' and so you're talking about the limitations of if-then thinking, the dark areas in the coordinate systems where light never shines. I'm hoping there is another kind of math that we just don't know about, maybe some bigger picture and plan.
 
Hi Dream.

I like this essay because a careful reading of it explains everything in it. It's self contained, you don't need any special knowledge beforehand. That doesn't make it an easy read, but the payoff is huge. Comprehend what this guy is saying and you'll be ten miles ahead.

Chris
 
[QUOTE) I guess the question that should be asked is: to what degree is religion authentic versus inauthentic Dasein? Chris

It depends on the individual and the depth of their understanding; their belief system and their life experience.

My 'religion' sets me free so I need not attempt to place myself, or any other, into a secualr or religious 'definition'. I am 'me'; I exist, and my life experience has filled me with an infinite store of faith, then become belief, then proven as knowledge that has supplied my needs, not only as a viable human being, but an immortal, spiritual soul!

I am not a fundamentalist, I am not an isolationist, I am whatever it is that I have become, and I have become far more than all of these. In the end I think that I shall have become a survivor, and what have I survived?

Myself.

Victor G
 
Definitely I think what you said here Victor G is realistic, and also what you're saying about individuals and their depth of understanding. I don't know about Brent Robbins, so when he says 'recovery of the hidden meaning and ground' its like he's talking about returning to ritual to understand those who founded ritual, ourselves. He has accused rationalism of cutting us off from nature, so to him the rational may be isolationist. It's nature that forces us to be rational sometimes, and belief and Plan are really synonymous words. Instead of saying 'In the future' you could say 'In the belief' and you'd be right on the money. So summercat's quote is saying to leave room for belief.

Reason says to believe that one thing does never transform into another, but History suggests that the past world was transformed into the present one. I personally think this is astonishing and especially that the world is assembling instead of cracking up. It is a miracle. Despite being a skeptic I believe things will continue to move unstoppably towards another positive transform.
 
It has occurred to me that it is also a belief to "believe in nothing".
I think that Wilson used his platform to get people to question the seeming solid framework of established custom, convention and tradition.

I have read a number of his books, some of which were quite good and they also had that element to them.
:confused:Question reality.:confused:
Accept nothing at face value, as the game of duplicity has been going on for a long, long time and it can be extremely......"subtle" at times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top