I wasn’t sure if this is even the right place to put this topic in. Sorry if this should be in Mundane Babble…
I am looking for guidance. I’m not looking for a theological debate. The past year religion has been the only thing I’ve been able to think about. Religion has intrigued me so much, that it’s been almost impossible for me to start thinking about anything else. Does anyone feel the same? I’m obsessively reading ILP religion topics, and I rarely ever feel compelled to reply to any post. It’s not that I’m not impressed with the topics (there are some of the most genious theists, agnostics, and atheists I’ve ever known here in ILP…), it’s just that I feel anything I say will result in simple subjectively, rendering my opinion useless. Am I wrong?
I need guidance because I need to put my mind at ease. If anyone can think of any, what do you do to cope with something like this?
I spend so much time in the religion forum I became the moderator
I think that the field of religion is where philosophy really shines because none of us, no matter our beliefs, can claim to know the truth of the matter. What that means is that we are left with degrees of wrongness on the issue, so we have to present ourselves from this position of wrongness and defend what we believe as best we can or at least use what we believe to try and live life. That would also be where I think that religion shines – in the modern context, the notion of a “philosophy” has largely been sundered from how one actually lives their life but within the context of religion these ideas maintain their unity. It isn’t enough in any religious philosopher to merely sit by and mingle their minds with the ether; instead one’s religious philosophy has to line up with the manner in which they live their life if they are to take them seriously on the subject at all.
Given that, I’d say that most of the posters on ILP are humble enough to recognize their failings and so using them for guidance isn’t a bad first step, but I would recognize it as such. I would say that when one’s passion reaches a certain level, it makes sense to go beyond internet fora (which always have a certain degree of superficiality about them) and delve into the real deal. So why not PM the posters that inflame you (both for good and for ill) and ask them for a short reading list. If there is a decent library in your area, they can probably hook you up (they do buy books if people request them) and if that fails you can drop a couple bucks on Amazon. I’ve gotten a lot of good books there for under $5 and some excellent books for under $20, which is really pretty manageable.
ILP is a great corrective – when you think you’ve found the answer, some poster at ILP will shoot you down and make you rethink the issue. I think that is good because it prevents complacency. But for real guidance I’d go beyond ILP and see what is out there.
As for subjectivity, we are all bound by both the problems of modernity and post-modernity but I wouldn’t let that stop you. Since ILP is a corrective and not a be-all-end-all, why not seek to correct what is there? When you see something that is wrong, sure it is wrong from your subjective vantage point (we are all thusly limited) but that doesn’t mean that your viewpoint doesn’t have merit. Think of the old Buddhist story about the three blind men and the elephant. Each of their subjective viewpoints did say something about the elephant but they shouldn’t be mistaken for the elephant itself. So run with what you’ve got and see where it goes. I think the worst response to the problems presented by modernity and post-modernity is inaction. Go with what you have, act on it, and see what happens.
Welcome to my world Mikey. As much as I’d like to get away from religion, I dwell on it day in and day out. It consumes me. I’m a pastor’s son gone atheist. It has been a long journey. I am surrounded by religion.
I feel completely free to post my thoughts on ILP. I would encourage you to do the same. As Xunzian has said, ILP can be not only a good source of correction and dialog, but it will also help strengthen your thoughts, opinions, and views. Have courage and speak your mind. Don’t hold back. What have you got to lose?
Very well put. I’ve read maybe less than a dozen of books that have to do with the matter (more or less), like Desmond Morris, Dawkins, Sartre, and Camus. I feel these books swayed me in a certain way, which feels comfortable, however the back of my mind speaks “it’s still just your thoughts (in this case, other people’s thoughts).” I would like to read some good books based on pro-theism, but I don’t know where to look (I’ve read the Bible, but ehh, ya know…). I thirst for more education, but my nihilistic tendencies tell me no matter how well an argument for atheism or theism is, it usually amounts to the same conclusion, “I’m (we are) right, you (they) are wrong”. Is this right?
I feel uneasy because I fear for my mental health.
It’s not that I don’t feel free to do so. I’m not particuarly threatened or intimidated by other’s theological debates, it’s simply that I sometimes feel that my opinion isn’t worth much. I can think, which is obvious, but I cannot come to any conclusions whatsoever. Is there something I’m missing?
The trick with the last two authors you mentioned is to view them as correctives, not as authorities. If you view them as authorities, the situation you’ve described can’t help but occur. Remember: DaDa isn’t an art movement, it is an anti-art movement. Likewise, post-modernism isn’t philosophy, it is anti-philosophy. When either art or philosophy become stagnant, the hammer of either of those movements is a very good thing. It shakes things up and forces people outside of their comfort zones. The danger is forgetting that and instead finding one’s zone of comfort in the smashing of things and calling that a movement! That is a dangerous mistake and one that ought be avoided. In my opinion, anyway.
How is it going in your personal life outside of ILP? Sometimes when a people are in psychological pain they obsess about religion as a way to avoid facing the painful issues. If that’s what you’re doing it might be helpful to seek out someone to talk to about what’s bothering you.
Mikey, I’m not sure which direction you are looking for the guidance you seek regarding religion. If it’s from a curious nature, I would advise just keep reading posts in this folder. I’m Christian, so if your are interested in that vein, I may have a little that could help. It’s possible the part of your mind that is not at ease could be connected to your heart and needs more than what you can tangibly obtain from senses, people or authored philosophers. Please ask me if this is what you are interested in.
Just like most people, I dabble in pain and joy, sometimes both. As for right now, of course, there are “problems,” but what is truly bothering me is the fact that I feel like my head is going to explode from a thinking/assuming overload. I hope that’s not circular logic.
I may have not used the right words to describe the way I feel. I’m not looking for religious guidance, I’m looking for a way to understand why I’m obsessing over it. It’s not that I’m exactly fence-sitting, as far as I know the most rational theological stance for my perception to handle is agnosticism. I know, I know, agnoctisism usually comes with the tag that says, “Hi, I’m a fence-sitter,” but that is not the way I feel. My mind tells me that I don’t know because both assertions (theism and atheism) don’t convince me at all. The part that is truly getting to me, is that my “stance” is still based off my subjectivity. This is where the overload comes from. Extending beyond religion, how can I know anything? What are the requirements for knowledge other than observation and emotions?
I’m sorry, I thought you wanted to know and understand religion. To fully understand it, God and the tenets that are involved, it requires faith that millions have as well. Otherwise, you will be missing the key component which will help you in that understanding. As an example, some believe black holes exist in this universe without having firsthand knowledge of them theirselves. They have faith in scientists who postulate and view images in a radio telescope they exist without physically experiencing them firsthand.
It is true, I do lack faith which is a requirement to fully understand theism, however I think that you may have misunderstood me. It isn’t simple theism that intrigues me, it’s religion-"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. " Although most religions have theism in common, looking at religion through the “anthropologic lens” is a mind-blower. For me, at least.
Ahh, well then, your best bet is to focus your lens on the threads that pass through this ‘Religion’ folder. My help would be of no help to you at all. I enjoyed our exchange.
I would advise you to start your journey into the philosophy of religion with epistemology. Learn the difference between belief, faith, justified belief, knowledge, etc. Learn how to think critically, which is not an easy or a natural thing to do.
Personally, I believe people are wrong when they say that we cannot “know” the answers to the questions that you are asking yourself today. I believe that we can know the answers to those questions. I believe that you will discover the answers to those questions. The problem is, the answers we find may not be the answers that we had hoped to find. When that happens, I think it’s natural to pretend that “the answer just isn’t out there.” Well, the answer IS out there and often can be known. It’s just that the answer an individual hopes to find may not be out there because it’s not the correct answer. It’s usually not a case in which the answer is unavailable but a case in which the seeker simply cannot accept the truth.
First off, never have I said that “we cannot know the answers.” I’ve said that both viewpoints do not convince me.
You are demonstrating that your perception tells you that agnosticism is wrong. Are you saying that you personally believe in an absolute truth? That’s like saying subjectivity is objectivity.
You have created faulty logic here.
“Before Joe took his first bite of the apple, he didn’t know what it would taste like. He was hoping it would taste good. However, it actually tasted bad and he was severely dissapointed.”
Joe has come to the conclusion that apples taste bad. He didn’t throw up his arms afterwards and say “well, I’ll never know what apples taste like!”
Since you know that the “answer,” or, “truth” exists, please, enlighten me.
Right. And I don’t believe that I wrote that YOU had written such a thing. Others in the thread, however, have.
Agnosticism proper is an epistemic stance, not a metaphysical one. It is to this form of agnosticism that my statement should be applied.
Your analogy is inapt. If Joe wants desperately to believe that apples “taste good” then after biting into his first apple and finding the taste disgusting, he probably wouldn’t surmise “All apples taste bad.” He would probably surmise “THIS apple tastes bad” and continue to taste other apples.
Improve your attitude and perhaps I will.
I hope you do. Most people (and perhaps I’m wrong but you certainly seem to be one of those people) believe that critical thinking is something that comes naturally to humans. This is utterly false. Critical thinking is largely an acquired skill not, like say, intelligence, an inherited one.
