Diversity, Inclusion, Equity

[Belinda]

"Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about."
- Sam Harris

Classic, isn't it? Harris is so certain.

That's just what I'm talking about. What the man knows about what real persons of faith think wouldn't fit in a thimble.

Doesn't stop him talking, though.

Want to see it in action? Just watch the "conversation" on religion between him and Jordan Peterson. It consists mostly of Harris talking, and listening to nothing. And all the time, he's sitting across from a guy whose intellect is manifestly far greater than his, and who is barely able to get a word in edgewise because Harris is monologuing nonstop.

That raises an interesting question, though: why are the proselytizing Atheists so angry? Aren't they the "certain" ones?

Religionists who are sure they know God's truth are idolising the source of whatever their beliefs are.You may as well believe the Holy Virgin appeared in Medjugorje as believe God wrote The Bible.

[Immanuel Can]

Religionists who are sure they know God's truth are idolising the source of whatever their beliefs are.You may as well believe the Holy Virgin appeared in Medjugorje as believe God wrote The Bible.

People who use terms like "religionist" simply manifest that they don't have the first clue what they're talking about. They don't even detect a difference among "religions."

[Belinda]

Religionists who are sure they know God's truth are idolising the source of whatever their beliefs are.You may as well believe the Holy Virgin appeared in Medjugorje as believe God wrote The Bible.

People who use terms like "religionist" simply manifest that they don't have the first clue what they're talking about. They don't even detect a difference among "religions."

It's interesting to categorise religions according to a scale ranging between authoritarian and liberal.

[Immanuel Can]

It's interesting to categorise religions according to a scale ranging between authoritarian and liberal.

Well, to know how to do that, one has to know something about what the "religionists" actually say.

By the way, I've never met a "religionist." I've met Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Zoroastrians, Rastafarians, Wiccans, Jews, agnostics, Unitarians, New Agers, Diests, Animists...among others, and of course tons and tons of Christians: but never once have I ever had one of them come up to me and say, "Hello, IC; I'm a religionist."

I wonder what they know that you don't.

[Belinda]

It's interesting to categorise religions according to a scale ranging between authoritarian and liberal.

Well, to know how to do that, one has to know something about what the "religionists" actually say.

By the way, I've never met a "religionist." I've met Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Zoroastrians, Rastafarians, Wiccans, Jews, agnostics, Unitarians, New Agers, Diests, Animists...among others, and of course tons and tons of Christians: but never once have I ever had one of them come up to me and say, "Hello, IC; I'm a religionist."

I wonder what they know that you don't.

I don't care for the word myself as a word. Same as other jargon words 'religionist' saves a lot of time and effort.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionist

Everybody knows stuff I don't know. God only is omniscient. I, same as you, am subject to my own experience.

[Immanuel Can]

Everybody knows stuff I don't know. God only is omniscient. I, same as you, am subject to my own experience.

Fair enough. But experience can expand. Things are not all equal in the realm of the "religions."

[Immanuel Can]

...it is "bad faith" to take a concept of faith in a "magic book" and believe it to be the authoritative concept of faith.

Back to this. Here's a quotation from John Locke on the subject. I think you'll see that it gives recognition both to your assumed definition of "faith," and also to my assertion of its natural relation with reason. See if what he says is of any use in your thinking, KL.

"There is another use of the word reason, wherein it is opposed to faith: which, though it be in itself a very improper way of speaking, yet common use has so authorized it, that it would be folly either to oppose or hope to remedy it. Only I think it may not be amiss to take notice that, however faith be opposed to reason, faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind: which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason; and so cannot be opposite to it.

He that believes without having any reason for believing, may be in love with his own fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays the obedience due to his Maker, who would have him use those discerning faculties he has given him, to keep him out of mistake and error. He that does not this to the best of his power, however he sometimes lights on truth, is in the right but by chance; and I know not whether the luckiness of the accident will excuse the irregularity of his proceeding. This at least is certain, that he must be accountable for whatever mistakes he runs into: whereas he that makes use of the light and faculties God has given him, and seeks sincerely to discover truth by those helps and abilities he has, may have this satisfaction in doing his duty as a rational creature, that, though he should miss truth, he will not miss the reward of it. For he governs his assent right, and places it as he should, who, in any case or matter whatsoever, believes or disbelieves according as reason directs him. He that doth otherwise, transgresses against his own light, and misuses those faculties which were given him to no other end, but to search and follow the clearer evidence and greater probability."

--- John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, p. 245

[Belinda]

Everybody knows stuff I don't know. God only is omniscient. I, same as you, am subject to my own experience.

Fair enough. But experience can expand. Things are not all equal in the realm of the "religions."

What I said, religions are on a scale ranging between liberal and authoritarian. Sure many of us can learn. Distinguish between getting educated and getting indoctrinated.Distinguish between learning dogma, and learning how to sift probability from the dross of improbability.

[Immanuel Can]

Everybody knows stuff I don't know. God only is omniscient. I, same as you, am subject to my own experience.

Fair enough. But experience can expand. Things are not all equal in the realm of the "religions."

What I said, religions are on a scale ranging between liberal and authoritarian.

I know. And some are totally authoritarian; but some are very anti-authoritarian. So you can make no general statements about "religion" in that regard -- at least, none for which so many exceptions can be located that any such generalization is simply wrong..

[Belinda]

Fair enough. But experience can expand. Things are not all equal in the realm of the "religions."

What I said, religions are on a scale ranging between liberal and authoritarian.

I know. And some are totally authoritarian; but some are very anti-authoritarian. So you can make no general statements about "religion" in that regard -- at least, none for which so many exceptions can be located that any such generalization is simply wrong..

I agree.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree.

I'm just saying this: just as it's not realistic to group all "people" into one category and generalize about anything that is actually NOT generally true, it's not realistic for us to group all "ideologies" or all "religions" into one thing, then complain that they're all guilty of the same things the worst of them are. It's not merely that it's unfair to do so, though it is, of course; it's that it fails to respect any real data, or to reflect any reality.

In other words, generalizations about "religion" are frequently just untrue.

[Belinda]

I agree.

I'm just saying this: just as it's not realistic to group all "people" into one category and generalize about anything that is actually NOT generally true, it's not realistic for us to group all "ideologies" or all "religions" into one thing, then complain that they're all guilty of the same things the worst of them are. It's not merely that it's unfair to do so, though it is, of course; it's that it fails to respect any real data, or to reflect any reality.

In other words, generalizations about "religion" are frequently just untrue.

I agree.

[KLewchuk]

I agree.

I'm just saying this: just as it's not realistic to group all "people" into one category and generalize about anything that is actually NOT generally true, it's not realistic for us to group all "ideologies" or all "religions" into one thing, then complain that they're all guilty of the same things the worst of them are. It's not merely that it's unfair to do so, though it is, of course; it's that it fails to respect any real data, or to reflect any reality.

In other words, generalizations about "religion" are frequently just untrue.

I agree.

I don't. When we "group" things we do so because they have certain common characteristics; that is why we "group" them. Now, are our groupings the most helpful? Sometimes not. Are our groupings accurate (i.e. don't contain things which should not be part of the group)? Possibly.

For example, I would group religious "fundamentalisms" together. I think it is helpful.

[KLewchuk]

...it is "bad faith" to take a concept of faith in a "magic book" and believe it to be the authoritative concept of faith.

Back to this. Here's a quotation from John Locke on the subject. I think you'll see that it gives recognition both to your assumed definition of "faith," and also to my assertion of its natural relation with reason. See if what he says is of any use in your thinking, KL.

"There is another use of the word reason, wherein it is opposed to faith: which, though it be in itself a very improper way of speaking, yet common use has so authorized it, that it would be folly either to oppose or hope to remedy it. Only I think it may not be amiss to take notice that, however faith be opposed to reason, faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind: which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason; and so cannot be opposite to it.

He that believes without having any reason for believing, may be in love with his own fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays the obedience due to his Maker, who would have him use those discerning faculties he has given him, to keep him out of mistake and error. He that does not this to the best of his power, however he sometimes lights on truth, is in the right but by chance; and I know not whether the luckiness of the accident will excuse the irregularity of his proceeding. This at least is certain, that he must be accountable for whatever mistakes he runs into: whereas he that makes use of the light and faculties God has given him, and seeks sincerely to discover truth by those helps and abilities he has, may have this satisfaction in doing his duty as a rational creature, that, though he should miss truth, he will not miss the reward of it. For he governs his assent right, and places it as he should, who, in any case or matter whatsoever, believes or disbelieves according as reason directs him. He that doth otherwise, transgresses against his own light, and misuses those faculties which were given him to no other end, but to search and follow the clearer evidence and greater probability."

--- John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, p. 245

None really; I might point out that Locke is dead.

Again, in common language in 2020, when someone asserts something without sufficient evidence and are asked to give account for their belief... they will often claim to believe "on faith".

[Immanuel Can]

I might point out that Locke is dead.

Not exactly a salient point. If he was right, he was right.

Again, in common language in 2020, when someone asserts something without sufficient evidence and are asked to give account for their belief... they will often claim to believe "on faith".

Locke says that was so, even in his day; but even back in his day, that was recognized as "a very improper way of speaking, "even if common use has so authorized it, that it would be folly either to oppose or hope to remedy it." (See above)

In other words, people in Locke's day were already getting that wrong, and were so committed to that wrongness that it was hopeless to straighten them out. Still, they were wrong about what Christians like Locke were actually thinking. And Biblically, a better definition of "faith" goes right back to the very beginning.

So if I say today that "faith" means to me, as a (post-?) modern Theist something quite different from what you have heard secular people say it means, you should believe me. The whole history of the term is on my side, and you can confirm that with reference to Locke, or to the Bible itself. You don't have to take my word for it, though I'm telling you the truth about how I think.

And I believe you, too...when you say that people have the misunderstanding of it you say they do. Locke agrees with you about that, too.

Given all that, the only silly thing would be for either me to insist everyone in the modern secular world understands the term my way, or for you to insist that I am somehow duty bound to concede it the other way. Both are true: modern people have one understanding of "faith," and rational Theists have another.

Fair enough?