Fact and Truth

[Fist and Faith]

On the second, this is surely proven to your satisfaction but unproven in public debate. It's just like when you refuse to expound on why Chesterton is wrong and insist on only debating me in my own words. Your assertion is no evidence for third parties.

I'm not interested in third parties or public debate. You and I only do this in public, because that's the nature of the Watch, and you will not discuss it privately. But I don't care if anyone else is swayed by either of us; I'm just seeing if any legitimate ideas out there contradict what I currently understand about life, reality, etc.

My opinion is that a refusal to directly confront the original authors in 'direct combat' is much more easily explained by an inability to defeat the ideas of those authors than by simply accepting a person's word that the writer is wrong. It is the refusal that is the strange thing and suspicious to the honest inquirer, who should always be ready to tackle the ideas of anyone, and not to discriminate against someone's ideas merely because they have died.

So OK, for everyone else except you Lewis's work would offer interesting thought - even if it were only thought they disagreed with, they wouldn't be able to say that the thought and consideration was unintelligent.

I posted this at Into the Wardrobe. I was told I should read various other books first, so that I'd be able to understand it. That didn't really help with the problem. That's always the answer. You have given me that same answer about books you've recommended by both Lewis and Chesterton. You say "Read X." When I say X is wrong, you don't address the particular problem*, you say "Read Y, then you'll get X." It wasn't that I didn't get X, I just think it's wrong. Now, I could reread up to that part in Miracles, in order to refresh my memory on what I didn't agree with. Do you think it will help? Do you think you'll answer it in a way that changes my mind? We did go back and forth a few times about Mere Christianity, and I still disagree with the basic premise of the book. Your arguments don't work for me, because their starting points are conclusions.

*Yes, I know, you'll now say, "You refuse to tell me the problems with TEM, so how can I address them?" And the non-Chesterton issues I bring up will be forgotten.

[rusmeister]

On the second, this is surely proven to your satisfaction but unproven in public debate. It's just like when you refuse to expound on why Chesterton is wrong and insist on only debating me in my own words. Your assertion is no evidence for third parties.

I'm not interested in third parties or public debate. You and I only do this in public, because that's the nature of the Watch, and you will not discuss it privately. But I don't care if anyone else is swayed by either of us; I'm just seeing if any legitimate ideas out there contradict what I currently understand about life, reality, etc.

My opinion is that a refusal to directly confront the original authors in 'direct combat' is much more easily explained by an inability to defeat the ideas of those authors than by simply accepting a person's word that the writer is wrong. It is the refusal that is the strange thing and suspicious to the honest inquirer, who should always be ready to tackle the ideas of anyone, and not to discriminate against someone's ideas merely because they have died.

So OK, for everyone else except you Lewis's work would offer interesting thought - even if it were only thought they disagreed with, they wouldn't be able to say that the thought and consideration was unintelligent.

I posted this at Into the Wardrobe. I was told I should read various other books first, so that I'd be able to understand it. That didn't really help with the problem. That's always the answer. You have given me that same answer about books you've recommended by both Lewis and Chesterton. You say "Read X." When I say X is wrong, you don't address the particular problem*, you say "Read Y, then you'll get X." It wasn't that I didn't get X, I just think it's wrong. Now, I could reread up to that part in Miracles, in order to refresh my memory on what I didn't agree with. Do you think it will help? Do you think you'll answer it in a way that changes my mind? We did go back and forth a few times about Mere Christianity, and I still disagree with the basic premise of the book. Your arguments don't work for me, because their starting points are conclusions.

*Yes, I know, you'll now say, "You refuse to tell me the problems with TEM, so how can I address them?" And the non-Chesterton issues I bring up will be forgotten.

All of this says to me that we have reached a stalemate, something that has been obvious to me for some time.

I can refute the claim that starting points are conclusions, but again, think it a waste of time, except maybe for 3rd parties. When Lewis begins Mere Christianity bu stating that what we see is that we feel that we ought to act/be a certain way, and we do not in fact do this, that is not a conclusion - it is an observation, and an excellent starting point. If you don't agree with that observation, fine. But I think most intelligent people will - and that it is not a conclusion.

For the rest, stalemate.

[Fire Daughter]

Oh Mom would debate when the subject was important to her. But, on such belief or matters of faith, no...you are right, she wouldn't. Mainly because she always thought a person's faith was personal to them.

But, if someone attacked her faith, not that that happened very often, she would debate, not to defend herself, but to try to "offer up" what was in her heart. Then again, she really saw no need to explain herself to anyone. She enjoyed talking about it, and at the same time, she kept alot to herself. I hesitate to speak of all she had seen and heard throughout her amazing and glorious life.

And as for Love...well let's just say there was nothing simple about the way she loved. Yes, she always said that it was "so easy" for her to love. But, the truth is, it brought her alot of pain as well. Mom's heart was wide open, and being that open all the time, it bled out often. As high as the joy was...the pain was equally excruciating.

Of miracles...Well, there is a journal entry I can post when I am home again about our trip to Rome for Pope John Paul's funeral. I went with her, it was just her and I. And the miracle that happened there is two fold...Naeem is healthy, he is HIV free. But Mom...and she would say, "that too is a miracle."

[Fist and Faith]

We seem to have drifted from the Tank. Color me surprised.

Now if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

And yet, here you are, posting this kind of thing here, at the Watch. Where nobody who doesn't agree with you acts the way you are talking about. Who is your target audience? This is the same problem you have with Hell. You don't like when people reject Christianity based on a flawed understanding of Hell. But you don't mind characterizing all who don't agree with you in an inaccurate way - a way that can be looked down upon - even when those here who disagree with you don't show signs of that way.

Do I say those who embrace Christianity do so because oblivion terrifies them to such an extent that they grasp whatever life preserver they can find? That, even though they feel in their hearts that oblivion is what awaits us, they look and look and look at a Christianity that they do not think real, and find a way to embrace it?

No, I do not. Because what Christian here has given me reason to believe they feel that way?

Well obviously, Fist, one can take your tack, and basically insist that either nobody is right, or can be shown to be right, or that it doesn't matter all that much whether one is right and to what extent - that all reasoning is equally good and all positions are equally valid, or they can take my tack and deny that, and then proceed to try to establish either that their own position is actually true or at least more true than others, or at least that it is logical that most positions must be invariably less than completely true.

As to whether the shoe fits, you seem to be saying that it can't possibly fit anybody, at least here at the Watch. I think that more than questionable; I think that a majority here believe in their own individual sovereignty (as ultimate arbiter of truth) and that in suggesting that it is rational to submit to something wiser than myself, I am in a tiny minority.

Yes, that's all fine, in theory. But that's not the situation here. I've never heard anybody here who does not embrace your faith say anything to indicate they believe your God exists. If we don't believe your God exists, we can't very well be refusing to submit to God. Just as I'm not refusing to eat beets if there aren't any being served.

And from what we know of what you think God is, we do not agree that there is greater wisdom there than what we have found elsewhere. So if I did believe your God existed, I would refuse to submit because it is something less wise. Just as I always refuse to eat beets when they're on the table, because they suck.

I hope this post isn't too furious.

[rusmeister]

We seem to have drifted from the Tank. Color me surprised.

And yet, here you are, posting this kind of thing here, at the Watch. Where nobody who doesn't agree with you acts the way you are talking about. Who is your target audience? This is the same problem you have with Hell. You don't like when people reject Christianity based on a flawed understanding of Hell. But you don't mind characterizing all who don't agree with you in an inaccurate way - a way that can be looked down upon - even when those here who disagree with you don't show signs of that way.

Do I say those who embrace Christianity do so because oblivion terrifies them to such an extent that they grasp whatever life preserver they can find? That, even though they feel in their hearts that oblivion is what awaits us, they look and look and look at a Christianity that they do not think real, and find a way to embrace it?

No, I do not. Because what Christian here has given me reason to believe they feel that way?

Well obviously, Fist, one can take your tack, and basically insist that either nobody is right, or can be shown to be right, or that it doesn't matter all that much whether one is right and to what extent - that all reasoning is equally good and all positions are equally valid, or they can take my tack and deny that, and then proceed to try to establish either that their own position is actually true or at least more true than others, or at least that it is logical that most positions must be invariably less than completely true.

As to whether the shoe fits, you seem to be saying that it can't possibly fit anybody, at least here at the Watch. I think that more than questionable; I think that a majority here believe in their own individual sovereignty (as ultimate arbiter of truth) and that in suggesting that it is rational to submit to something wiser than myself, I am in a tiny minority.

Yes, that's all fine, in theory. But that's not the situation here. I've never heard anybody here who does not embrace your faith say anything to indicate they believe your God exists. If we don't believe your God exists, we can't very well be refusing to submit to God. Just as I'm not refusing to eat beets if there aren't any being served.

And from what we know of what you think God is, we do not agree that there is greater wisdom there than what we have found elsewhere. So if I did believe your God existed, I would refuse to submit because it is something less wise. Just as I always refuse to eat beets when they're on the table, because they suck.

I hope this post isn't too furious.

No, it's OK.

I'm not even talking about submitting to God yet, Fist. You DO believe, though that the Orthodox Church exists (I hope), and the Catholic Church, and that there are other Christian, Judaic or Islamic authorities that could receive you into their faiths. Those are visible representatives of authority they claim resides elsewhere, and not in themselves. THAT is what I mean by "refusing to submit" - you hold that your wisdom is higher. You have not (yet, at least) found any of them to be more right than you are.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Perhaps it's because the minimum cost of membership is always One Soul? This is not to be given lightly, assuming one believes it exists in the first place.
Why give one's soul over to a human institution who wields codified traditions that I patently do not agree with? Institutions that claim the only way to be in true communion with them is to agree with them on all articles of membership?
Rejection is an attempt to avoid hypocrisy by pretending to accept that which I do not, just to fit in with a flock that by its membership rules is intolerant of all who are different, and proud of it.
There can be no membership without indoctrination, assimilation, and a voluntary submission of will to a higher, wiser authority.
I think it is possible to believe the authority has it right on a great deal of points. But the spots where disagreement occur are deal-breakers. Who in their right minds would accept an offer of healing grace when they know beforehand it is guaranteed to come with a poison pill?

dw

[Fist and Faith]

Well, since God is the source of every bit of the Orthodox Church's (or whichever) wisdom, it's not the OC I would be submitting to if I believed said God existed.

Not believing the OC God exists, then I would, indeed, have to submit to the organization known as the Orthodox Church. And yes, I do hold that my wisdom is higher. You've said enough things to convince me of that. The OC is not always wiser than the individual.

Not that there is no wisdom in the OC. There's plenty of great stuff, I'm sure. I've heard some, and I'm sure there's more. But submitting entirely to whatever it says? Not a chance. My wisdom was gathered from various sources throughout my life. Some from this or that church. Some from people I've known. Some from books and movies. An individual is not created in a vacuum, after all.

[rusmeister]

Well, since God is the source of every bit of the Orthodox Church's (or whichever) wisdom, it's not the OC I would be submitting to if I believed said God existed.

Not believing the OC God exists, then I would, indeed, have to submit to the organization known as the Orthodox Church. And yes, I do hold that my wisdom is higher. You've said enough things to convince me of that. The OC is not always wiser than the individual.

Not that there is no wisdom in the OC. There's plenty of great stuff, I'm sure. I've heard some, and I'm sure there's more. But submitting entirely to whatever it says? Not a chance. My wisdom was gathered from various sources throughout my life. Some from this or that church. Some from people I've known. Some from books and movies. An individual is not created in a vacuum, after all.

Well, I would qualify heavily the part about "submitting to whatever it says" - "It" means everything that lines up with Tradition, not "everything at all". If my priest told me to kill my wife, or steal money for the Church, I'd tell him where to get off. WE don't submit to 'anything they say'. "They" includes the dead as well as the living.

I'd ask, what's wiser than you? Whose wisdom is higher? On what basis do you think you know what the Orthodox Church teaches and on what basis do you think your wisdom is higher? I think you know very little about it; you've heard/read things that I, a most imperfect member have said and interpreted them through your own prism, which is not how an inquirer seeks to understand the Church. You've never even been an inquirer, let alone a catechumen. Sure you can hear things from me, or SerScot, or Zahir or whoever, but until you engage in genuine inquiry, you can't really think you know about the Orthodox Church.

Anyway, my driving point is that you are your own highest authority. There is nothing higher or wiser than you that you ought to submit to - certainly you are aware of no such thing or you would be there. (Submission should be qualified also - it does NOT mean "mindless" and does allow us to question - just as you can ask your mother "Why this?" and "Why that?" Whether I like the answers does not affect whether they are true or not.)

[rusmeister]

Perhaps it's because the minimum cost of membership is always One Soul? This is not to be given lightly, assuming one believes it exists in the first place.
Why give one's soul over to a human institution who wields codified traditions that I patently do not agree with? Institutions that claim the only way to be in true communion with them is to agree with them on all articles of membership?
Rejection is an attempt to avoid hypocrisy by pretending to accept that which I do not, just to fit in with a flock that by its membership rules is intolerant of all who are different, and proud of it.
There can be no membership without indoctrination, assimilation, and a voluntary submission of will to a higher, wiser authority.
I think it is possible to believe the authority has it right on a great deal of points. But the spots where disagreement occur are deal-breakers. Who in their right minds would accept an offer of healing grace when they know beforehand it is guaranteed to come with a poison pill?

dw

Quite right.
But if I disagree, does that mean I am right? On what basis? Is it possible that I could be wrong? (If not, then what you say follows)

I do agree, of course, on human institutions in general; the question is whether it could be possible to find one that is actually divine. I also agree that you should not pretend to accept what you will not accept. No one is saying otherwise.

When you say "articles of membership", though, you are framing it in a way that the institutions I am familiar with do not see it (you interpret something that they do not say and themselves reject). If it were rephrased, "articles of truth", agreeing that these things are actually true, then you would have a better handle on what they are trying to say. But if you don't agree, we're back to question one and its follow-up: "On what basis?".


Finally, on "one's soul". What is meant by that, certainly in the Christian traditions, is to give (commit) one's life; not merely do something on Sunday, but to adopt a new way of seeing the world and to live 24/7 by that vision - which they claim is the true vision. It does not mean to become a mindless tool, as is so often portrayed.

[Fist and Faith]

I'd ask, what's wiser than you? Whose wisdom is higher? On what basis do you think you know what the Orthodox Church teaches and on what basis do you think your wisdom is higher? I think you know very little about it; you've heard/read things that I, a most imperfect member have said and interpreted them through your own prism, which is not how an inquirer seeks to understand the Church. You've never even been an inquirer, let alone a catechumen. Sure you can hear things from me, or SerScot, or Zahir or whoever, but until you engage in genuine inquiry, you can't really think you know about the Orthodox Church.

For what reasons do any of us choose to learn about anything? Do you pick a topic out of a hat, or take whatever suggestion comes along, and decide to learn all that can be learned about it, committing yourself to not stopping?

No, you do not. None of us do. We usually have reasons to begin learning about something in the first place. Otherwise, we don't bother. How could we? With billions of things we can learn about, we choose certain ones for certain reasons.

And when we do start to learn about something, do we always learn as much as can be learned about it? No, we don't. With a few exceptions throughout our lives, we stop for one reason or another.

Anyway, my driving point is that you are your own highest authority. There is nothing higher or wiser than you that you ought to submit to - certainly you are aware of no such thing or you would be there. (Submission should be qualified also - it does NOT mean "mindless" and does allow us to question - just as you can ask your mother "Why this?" and "Why that?" Whether I like the answers does not affect whether they are true or not.)

Correct on all counts. I know right from wrong. There have been times when something that initially sounded wrong was explained more fully, and turns out it was right. But when X feels wrong to me, and no explanation you offer puts it into a better light, it's just wrong. I have no reason to believe it's a right that I just don't like.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

When you say "articles of membership", though, you are framing it in a way that the institutions I am familiar with do not see it (you interpret something that they do not say and themselves reject). If it were rephrased, "articles of truth", agreeing that these things are actually true, then you would have a better handle on what they are trying to say. But if you don't agree, we're back to question one and its follow-up: "On what basis?".

To me, the difference between calling them articles of truth rather than articles of membership is negligible, from the point that if you agree with them (all) you call them truths, and if you don't you call them whatever you wish -- but these semantics produce differences of connotation only. The effect, however, is the same -- you either agree with them all or you don't -- or perhaps believers-in-training somehow hold to a temporary nebulousness that they all stem from the higher authority that is Correct, and simply have to learn to accept them all as they can, like it or not. Still, all semantics.

Finally, on "one's soul". What is meant by that, certainly in the Christian traditions, is to give (commit) one's life; not merely do something on Sunday, but to adopt a new way of seeing the world and to live 24/7 by that vision - which they claim is the true vision. It does not mean to become a mindless tool, as is so often portrayed.

To me, it seems more like a question of the level of obedience to an external authority. If the individual is always wrong, then one potentially must learn to rewire their instincts, so their conditioned responses mirror that which Authority has designated Acceptable. Initially, to one who is struggling with the yoke, a choice of simple obedience may be the only way to comply with all the 'articles of truth', meaning obedience 'because I say so.' With proper guidance and/or indoctrination, however, the committed individual can learn to 'drink the Koolaid', and either embrace simple obedience as a way of life, or better yet, internalize the rule-set, making it his/her own, and thus learn to rewire, or supplant what may have been the original instinct to contravene the 'truth'. This can also be called learning to walk the path, but the effect of behavior modification and eventually thought modification is the same, whatever language we wish to couch it in.
To one who does not recognize the 'T'ruth of this particular vision, or perhaps even the divinity of (any) Authority, it can all seem quite foolish, however well-intentioned. And this tips easily over into offense, when it unequivocably condemns the behaviors of a majority of the people that one knows, for reasons that would be difficult to accept even if they weren't also extremely difficult to understand. Behind the carefully spun logical arguments both for and against, all the mighty castles of logic inevitably boil down to the question of 'whether or not God said so.' And in the end, you either believe that, or you don't.

dw

[danlo]

To paraphrase King Julian, "The word authority always gives me the heebeejeebees!!

[rusmeister]

When you say "articles of membership", though, you are framing it in a way that the institutions I am familiar with do not see it (you interpret something that they do not say and themselves reject). If it were rephrased, "articles of truth", agreeing that these things are actually true, then you would have a better handle on what they are trying to say. But if you don't agree, we're back to question one and its follow-up: "On what basis?".

To me, the difference between calling them articles of truth rather than articles of membership is negligible, from the point that if you agree with them (all) you call them truths, and if you don't you call them whatever you wish -- but these semantics produce differences of connotation only. The effect, however, is the same -- you either agree with them all or you don't -- or perhaps believers-in-training somehow hold to a temporary nebulousness that they all stem from the higher authority that is Correct, and simply have to learn to accept them all as they can, like it or not. Still, all semantics.

Finally, on "one's soul". What is meant by that, certainly in the Christian traditions, is to give (commit) one's life; not merely do something on Sunday, but to adopt a new way of seeing the world and to live 24/7 by that vision - which they claim is the true vision. It does not mean to become a mindless tool, as is so often portrayed.

To me, it seems more like a question of the level of obedience to an external authority. If the individual is always wrong, then one potentially must learn to rewire their instincts, so their conditioned responses mirror that which Authority has designated Acceptable. Initially, to one who is struggling with the yoke, a choice of simple obedience may be the only way to comply with all the 'articles of truth', meaning obedience 'because I say so.' With proper guidance and/or indoctrination, however, the committed individual can learn to 'drink the Koolaid', and either embrace simple obedience as a way of life, or better yet, internalize the rule-set, making it his/her own, and thus learn to rewire, or supplant what may have been the original instinct to contravene the 'truth'. This can also be called learning to walk the path, but the effect of behavior modification and eventually thought modification is the same, whatever language we wish to couch it in.
To one who does not recognize the 'T'ruth of this particular vision, or perhaps even the divinity of (any) Authority, it can all seem quite foolish, however well-intentioned. And this tips easily over into offense, when it unequivocably condemns the behaviors of a majority of the people that one knows, for reasons that would be difficult to accept even if they weren't also extremely difficult to understand. Behind the carefully spun logical arguments both for and against, all the mighty castles of logic inevitably boil down to the question of 'whether or not God said so.' And in the end, you either believe that, or you don't.

dw

I think the shortest response is that your thesis seems to be that one cannot be both intelligent and reasonable AND submit to an authority they perceive as more intelligent and reasonable than themselves, and here I am, living proof that, though you may disagree and even question my intelligence, intelligent people can and do see reason to do so.

Now, I think you can take my signature "The individual is always wrong" further than I intend. I do not mean it completely literally in all imaginable interpretations. I mean it specifically that the individual, relying always on only his own authority as ultimate arbiter of truth, must wind up in self-deception. He needs an external check in order to avoid that.

What you seem to perceive as "articles of Truth" are perceived from the inside as ideas or propositions that are part of a holistic Truth. If we said the same thing about a well-established scientific theory, we would soon find that we could not get very far in understanding the theory if we insist on our right to deny the propositions - something you are certainly free to do, and you may be free in rejecting science itself - a lot of believers are accused of doing exactly that - but you could not be both a scientist accepting and propounding on the ideas based on the theory while at the same time denying its "articles" (such as that radio-carbon dating is a valid and sure method of measuring age in the millions and billions of years). The faith of the scientist in that article of Truth may be blind acceptance, because his fourth-grade science teacher told him so and he accepted it and went on with his work without ever questioning it, or he may have done extensive work convincing himself to his own satisfaction that it really was true.

Of course, many of the things that traditional and ancient Christianity in my experience asks us to accept are things that we could not possibly know under our own steam, via our own ability to learn - such as that Christ is the Son of God or that Mary is ever-Virgin. Others, like the doctrine of sin, are "practical as potatoes" and readily provable (People can deny the proof, of course, but why argue over the color of the sky with color-blind people?) On the former, our acceptance really IS blind, in a way - it is whatever led us to the institution telling us this in the first place that must serve as evidence. On the latter - the things amenable to our reason, we are certainly free to question. In the Orthodox Church you are welcome to hang out for the rest of your life, even if you never become a member because you question dogmas, and a great many of its members will explain everything as patiently as they can. Trying to boil it down to a simplistic "because God said so" and then ridiculing it for its simplicity is really intellectually dishonest. It is true that there IS the simple question, "Is the Authority telling the Truth or not?". It is not true that the answers are merely simple or merely sophistic, esp. when you are talking about the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

[rusmeister]

To paraphrase King Julian, "The word authority always gives me the heebeejeebees!!

There is always authority, even if the authority is the self. Anarchy is simply everyone becoming their own authority, which, intellectually, is what we have today. Protestantism is one great exercise in that anarchy, the authority of the individual as the ultimate arbiter of truth, thus, the chaos that is most of what we see in modern western Christianity today.

The one thing that cannot be attained through that anarchic self-authority is the truth. As long as you don't care about that, I guess you can be happy with it.

[danlo]

Oh, I care about the truth more than you can imagine--we, probably, need to create a thread on the "nature" of authority as I could argue forever with you about that--if you mean self-governance, I might be in a bit more accordance with that--contrary to some others I'm flexible...

But see you immediately jump to a generalization and accuse me of not caring about the truth--that's very hurtful rus. Like archaic western thought you seek to label me, like that damned Aristotle, before you have any idea of where I'm really coming form.

The one thing that cannot be attained through that anarchic self-authority is the truth

how do you know? Books aside how do you know, are you the authority?

[Fist and Faith]

The one thing that cannot be attained through that anarchic self-authority is the truth. As long as you don't care about that, I guess you can be happy with it.

To think that someone does not care about truth just because the truth they find is not the same as your truth is - say it with me, everybody - arrogant. Which, of course, you will deny, and tell us what a terrible sinner you are. I have found truth through my self-authority. Which is good, because I do care about it. And I am as sure of my truth as you are of yours.

[aliantha]

The one thing that cannot be attained through that anarchic self-authority is the truth

how do you know? Books aside how do you know, are you the authority?

The man's got a point. It is theoretically possible that the individual could indeed stumble onto the truth on his or her own. As we have no reliable, independent confirmation of which view of the Universe is the way it really is, then the only way to determine whether you, personally, have arrived at The Truth or not is through faith in yourself.

Rus, even with your acceptance of Orthodoxy's view of the truth as The Truth, you still had to exercise your independent decision-making process. You had to determine that Orthodoxy rang true for you.

I'm not taking a position right now on who owns The Truth. I'm simply observing that *everybody* makes an independent decision on what to believe. In the last analysis, faith -- belief or unbelief -- is up to the individual.

To say, then, that the "individual is always wrong" is, um, problematic.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I think the shortest response is that your thesis seems to be that one cannot be both intelligent and reasonable AND submit to an authority they perceive as more intelligent and reasonable than themselves, and here I am, living proof that, though you may disagree and even question my intelligence, intelligent people can and do see reason to do so.

I'm not questioning your intelligence, or even your reason. I respect and agree with many of the articles or truths that you hold to be God-evident. But I don't agree with all of them -- and if told that they are an all-or-nothing set, I have to respectfully say "no-sale."

Now, I think you can take my signature "The individual is always wrong" further than I intend. I do not mean it completely literally in all imaginable interpretations. I mean it specifically that the individual, relying always on only his own authority as ultimate arbiter of truth, must wind up in self-deception. He needs an external check in order to avoid that.

I agree that an external check is an excellent idea - even vitally necessary, given that we are not born with all the things we need to know to survive, thrive, and help make the world a better place. We only disagree on what/who that external source should be.

What you seem to perceive as "articles of Truth" are perceived from the inside as ideas or propositions that are part of a holistic Truth.

I can see truth -- or elements of faith -- that resonates with me, that feels more like Truth than truth. I'm not totally deaf to the message -- I merely disagree that this Truth is holistic, infallible, and always Right. I think it's great that you have found your bedrock -- but it really is a shame that that same bedrock would stone (condemn) others that I count as friends.

Of course, many of the things that traditional and ancient Christianity in my experience asks us to accept are things that we could not possibly know under our own steam, via our own ability to learn - such as that Christ is the Son of God or that Mary is ever-Virgin. Others, like the doctrine of sin, are "practical as potatoes" and readily provable (People can deny the proof, of course, but why argue over the color of the sky with color-blind people?) On the former, our acceptance really IS blind, in a way - it is whatever led us to the institution telling us this in the first place that must serve as evidence. On the latter - the things amenable to our reason, we are certainly free to question. In the Orthodox Church you are welcome to hang out for the rest of your life, even if you never become a member because you question dogmas, and a great many of its members will explain everything as patiently as they can. Trying to boil it down to a simplistic "because God said so" and then ridiculing it for its simplicity is really intellectually dishonest. It is true that there IS the simple question, "Is the Authority telling the Truth or not?". It is not true that the answers are merely simple or merely sophistic, esp. when you are talking about the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

The purpose of boiling it down isn't to make it easier to reject, it is to make certain you keep working at the foundation where I am and you need to be, instead of adding more minarets to the ivory tower you have already ascended to. I don't speak Chesterton-ese or Lewis-ese, nor do I wish to. I don't need apologists, because I don't feel I have wronged them.
I *have* listened to Fr Hopko, who sounds like a genuinely nice guy. I don't agree with him on all points, but you wouldn't expect me to.

I don't agree with *all* the tenets of Orthodoxy -- but many of them are quite rational, logical, and Good.

dw

[Avatar]

To say, then, that the "individual is always wrong" is, um, problematic.

Agreed.

--A

[rusmeister]

I think the shortest response is that your thesis seems to be that one cannot be both intelligent and reasonable AND submit to an authority they perceive as more intelligent and reasonable than themselves, and here I am, living proof that, though you may disagree and even question my intelligence, intelligent people can and do see reason to do so.

I'm not questioning your intelligence, or even your reason. I respect and agree with many of the articles or truths that you hold to be God-evident. But I don't agree with all of them -- and if told that they are an all-or-nothing set, I have to respectfully say "no-sale."

Now, I think you can take my signature "The individual is always wrong" further than I intend. I do not mean it completely literally in all imaginable interpretations. I mean it specifically that the individual, relying always on only his own authority as ultimate arbiter of truth, must wind up in self-deception. He needs an external check in order to avoid that.

I agree that an external check is an excellent idea - even vitally necessary, given that we are not born with all the things we need to know to survive, thrive, and help make the world a better place. We only disagree on what/who that external source should be.

What you seem to perceive as "articles of Truth" are perceived from the inside as ideas or propositions that are part of a holistic Truth.

I can see truth -- or elements of faith -- that resonates with me, that feels more like Truth than truth. I'm not totally deaf to the message -- I merely disagree that this Truth is holistic, infallible, and always Right. I think it's great that you have found your bedrock -- but it really is a shame that that same bedrock would stone (condemn) others that I count as friends.

Of course, many of the things that traditional and ancient Christianity in my experience asks us to accept are things that we could not possibly know under our own steam, via our own ability to learn - such as that Christ is the Son of God or that Mary is ever-Virgin. Others, like the doctrine of sin, are "practical as potatoes" and readily provable (People can deny the proof, of course, but why argue over the color of the sky with color-blind people?) On the former, our acceptance really IS blind, in a way - it is whatever led us to the institution telling us this in the first place that must serve as evidence. On the latter - the things amenable to our reason, we are certainly free to question. In the Orthodox Church you are welcome to hang out for the rest of your life, even if you never become a member because you question dogmas, and a great many of its members will explain everything as patiently as they can. Trying to boil it down to a simplistic "because God said so" and then ridiculing it for its simplicity is really intellectually dishonest. It is true that there IS the simple question, "Is the Authority telling the Truth or not?". It is not true that the answers are merely simple or merely sophistic, esp. when you are talking about the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

The purpose of boiling it down isn't to make it easier to reject, it is to make certain you keep working at the foundation where I am and you need to be, instead of adding more minarets to the ivory tower you have already ascended to. I don't speak Chesterton-ese or Lewis-ese, nor do I wish to. I don't need apologists, because I don't feel I have wronged them.
I *have* listened to Fr Hopko, who sounds like a genuinely nice guy. I don't agree with him on all points, but you wouldn't expect me to.

I don't agree with *all* the tenets of Orthodoxy -- but many of them are quite rational, logical, and Good.

dw

Thanks, Dukkha,
I think the biggest thing I would try to communicate is that what I would say condemns and stones us all, and me first.

A pity on Lewis and Chesterton - they speak directly to the sources of the modern ailments of thought - and that's not insult or superiority! e are all in the same boat, and we are all seasick! But if you find Hopko pleasant and intelligent, that's as much as I could ask for. How different speakers speak to people really CAN be "different strokes for different folks".

I guess I just react when you begin speaking about organized religion as a general evil, and give an impression of manipulation and control that I know is NOT the rule, not only in Orthodoxy, generally speaking, but in all sincere versions of the Faith.