Is science a religion?

[Fist and Faith]

rus, I guess we're winding down, eh? At least for the moment. But there is something I'd like you to keep in mind. Yes, I would like you to understand varioius other things that I think are important. (Meaninglessness is a big one. You cannot hope to understand it any more than I can hope to understand Christianity. Fine. I'll write that one off.) But, if we have any future discussions of any significance, it will likely make things easier if you understand this:

I have not chosen to not have faith. Rather, I have not chosen to have faith.

The difference between those two things is pretty darned big. It could be that at least some, and possibly a lot, of our troubles communicating are the result of you approaching me as though I have chosen to not have faith.

Since I now believe all argument with you to be futile, I can only speak of belief - in what is actually true, in what IS. In your case, my other words in general express, directly or indirectly, my belief that for you to come to God, he will have to come to you, and you really won't like it when He does.

But he isn't going to, eh? That's not how it works. He says we have to choose him first, and that we must do so without evidence. This is what you've been saying, no?

If he changes his mind, though, I hope he comes to me as, say, an amazingly good, loving man who heals people here and there, and raises the dead now and then; rather than with hordes of locusts, or floods, or plagues.

[lucimay]

It seems your hatred of Christianity colors some of your thinking.

just because someone is not a christian or disagrees with christian perspective does not make them a "hater" weez.

you're ascribing opinions to prebe that he's never stated, far as i know.
he's always been fairly respectful of everyone's beliefs and opinions when he posts.

I would agree that "hate" is a strong word that would take some effort to prove. But a solid case can be made for hostility, and I think Prebe will agree that at the very least, that is how a lot of his posting can be taken by Christians.

Speaking in general, if one is aware of one's emotional reaction to something (metacognition) then they stand less chance of taking a purely irrational stance. But it is always a struggle when your convictions are strong enough to tolerate what you perceive as definitely false.

welp. ima have to disagree. i think taking offense is a choice we make, from moment to moment on a case by case basis.

i don't think, and this is just my opinion now, that prebe has ever been hostile. okay MAYbe slightly irreverantly semi-insensitive in his sense of humor ( ), but not hostile. (i, however, luv his wry sense of humor but i realize some may not get him. he's very funny tho)

he has defended his stance on more than one occasion on more than one topic in the tank and the close and...if shit is dished out to him he can certainly dish it back and i have seen him do that, but rarely, if ever, have i seen him pick a fight or be overtly hostile or even remotely "hater-esque" (i can make up that word because ima writer) to someone who he disagreed with. he's actually quite even-tempered and reasonable, and i have seen him be so even in the face of overt hostility.
he'll always try to make you laugh.

(having said all that, i cannot claim to have read ALL prebe's posts so i therefore cannot claim full and comprehensive knowledge of his every action. )

the above bolded part of the quote...i don't understand what you're saying.
can you clarify for me. i'm just not getting what you mean. thnx.

[Cybrweez]

Yea, hatred might've been a bit strong, I was thinking of the right word, and distrust came to mind, but that's not strong enough, based on prebe's posts. But, I think hostility is, and I don't talk about humor. Certainly, some of prebe's posts display the hostility. And as I said, towards Christianity, not Christians. I'm not one of those who can't separate the 2.

And case in point is ID as Christian apologetics. There are people who are not Christians that are in the ID movement. Period. They would scoff at them being known as Christian apologists.

And prebe, I said Creationists talk about God creating the universe, not ID. So yea, they do get into nature of God, I'm not sure what that has to do w/ID. People like to tie them together, and that's my point. ID supporter may just say there is design, who knows where it comes from. But, it may be a majority that would say its God of the Bible. Maybe what you mean to say is some Christians use ID for their apologetics.

[rusmeister]

just because someone is not a christian or disagrees with christian perspective does not make them a "hater" weez.

you're ascribing opinions to prebe that he's never stated, far as i know.
he's always been fairly respectful of everyone's beliefs and opinions when he posts.

I would agree that "hate" is a strong word that would take some effort to prove. But a solid case can be made for hostility, and I think Prebe will agree that at the very least, that is how a lot of his posting can be taken by Christians.

Speaking in general, if one is aware of one's emotional reaction to something (metacognition) then they stand less chance of taking a purely irrational stance. But it is always a struggle when your convictions are strong enough to tolerate what you perceive as definitely false.

welp. ima have to disagree. i think taking offense is a choice we make, from moment to moment on a case by case basis.

i don't think, and this is just my opinion now, that prebe has ever been hostile. okay MAYbe slightly irreverantly semi-insensitive in his sense of humor ( ), but not hostile. (i, however, luv his wry sense of humor but i realize some may not get him. he's very funny tho)

he has defended his stance on more than one occasion on more than one topic in the tank and the close and...if shit is dished out to him he can certainly dish it back and i have seen him do that, but rarely, if ever, have i seen him pick a fight or be overtly hostile or even remotely "hater-esque" (i can make up that word because ima writer) to someone who he disagreed with. he's actually quite even-tempered and reasonable, and i have seen him be so even in the face of overt hostility.
he'll always try to make you laugh.

(having said all that, i cannot claim to have read ALL prebe's posts so i therefore cannot claim full and comprehensive knowledge of his every action. )

the above bolded part of the quote...i don't understand what you're saying.
can you clarify for me. i'm just not getting what you mean. thnx.

Whoops! I should've said "so strong that you are unwilling to tolerate what you perceive to be definitely false."
Sorry for the kipper!
In simple language, that bolded part translates to: "If you realize that your attitude is caused by emotion, you are more likely to not let it dominate your thinking. It's hard when you are really sure that you are dealing with falsehood, though."
Is that clearer?
Like Andy, I don't take personal offense from others' comments. Irritation at false/inaccurate perceptions of what I believe? Yes. Offense? No.

On Prebe, yes, I agree that he generally has a good sense of humor. (You do, Prebe!) If it is aimed at a misunderstanding of faith, then it ain't funny, but that's another issue...

[rusmeister]

rus, I guess we're winding down, eh? At least for the moment. But there is something I'd like you to keep in mind. Yes, I would like you to understand varioius other things that I think are important. (Meaninglessness is a big one. You cannot hope to understand it any more than I can hope to understand Christianity. Fine. I'll write that one off.) But, if we have any future discussions of any significance, it will likely make things easier if you understand this:

I have not chosen to not have faith. Rather, I have not chosen to have faith.

The difference between those two things is pretty darned big. It could be that at least some, and possibly a lot, of our troubles communicating are the result of you approaching me as though I have chosen to not have faith.

Since I now believe all argument with you to be futile, I can only speak of belief - in what is actually true, in what IS. In your case, my other words in general express, directly or indirectly, my belief that for you to come to God, he will have to come to you, and you really won't like it when He does.

But he isn't going to, eh? That's not how it works. He says we have to choose him first, and that we must do so without evidence. This is what you've been saying, no?

If he changes his mind, though, I hope he comes to me as, say, an amazingly good, loving man who heals people here and there, and raises the dead now and then; rather than with hordes of locusts, or floods, or plagues.

I appreciate the thoughts. (Really!)

I think I do understand meaninglessness, of course, and think that I think it through further than you do - but that's just going to be infinite re-hashing.

On choice, I do grant that you have had no experiences to impel a choice of faith. On the other hand, we choose to believe or not believe every day - I as well as you. The believer is tempted to doubt just as the unbeliever is tempted to faith. And speaking as a grammar teacher, there is no practical difference. The practice is the same.

[Fist and Faith]

I think I do understand meaninglessness, of course, and think that I think it through further than you do - but that's just going to be infinite re-hashing.

Is it not possible for you to be wrong??? Ever? About anything? Is it truly impossible for someone who is within a certain worldview to have a greater understanding of that worldview than someone outside of it? What would you think of someone who said he understood Orthodoxy better than you do, despite not being a Christian of any sort? He hadn't just read, but studied the Bible cover to cover. Read all the other Orthodoxy sources. Read everything of Lewis and Chesterton. Asked Orthodox priests what is meant in this passage and that passage. And yet, never embraced any of it? Yeah, a far-fetched scenario. Why would anyone put that much effort into something he didn't believe in? But, for the sake of argument. Don't you think it's possible that there are aspects of Christianity that can only be understood by a Christian? Don't you think the points of faith (Is that the accepted, or at least an acceptable, term for it?) that are discussed in books impart different knowledge and wisdom to someone who believes in their truth than to someone who does not?

On choice, I do grant that you have had no experiences to impel a choice of faith. On the other hand, we choose to believe or not believe every day - I as well as you. The believer is tempted to doubt just as the unbeliever is tempted to faith. And speaking as a grammar teacher, there is no practical difference. The practice is the same.

No. I'm not tempted to faith. I have no idea what it's like inside your head, but, just as with meaninglessness, you don't know what it's like to be inside mine. I don't choose to not believe. Not even every decade, much less every day. If I have two paintings to look at, I can choose to look at one or the other. But if there is only one painting in front of me, I don't have a choice of what to look at.

[rusmeister]

I think I do understand meaninglessness, of course, and think that I think it through further than you do - but that's just going to be infinite re-hashing.

Is it not possible for you to be wrong??? Ever? About anything? Is it truly impossible for someone who is within a certain worldview to have a greater understanding of that worldview than someone outside of it? What would you think of someone who said he understood Orthodoxy better than you do, despite not being a Christian of any sort? He hadn't just read, but studied the Bible cover to cover. Read all the other Orthodoxy sources. Read everything of Lewis and Chesterton. Asked Orthodox priests what is meant in this passage and that passage. And yet, never embraced any of it? Yeah, a far-fetched scenario. Why would anyone put that much effort into something he didn't believe in? But, for the sake of argument. Don't you think it's possible that there are aspects of Christianity that can only be understood by a Christian? Don't you think the points of faith (Is that the accepted, or at least an acceptable, term for it?) that are discussed in books impart different knowledge and wisdom to someone who believes in their truth than to someone who does not?

On choice, I do grant that you have had no experiences to impel a choice of faith. On the other hand, we choose to believe or not believe every day - I as well as you. The believer is tempted to doubt just as the unbeliever is tempted to faith. And speaking as a grammar teacher, there is no practical difference. The practice is the same.

No. I'm not tempted to faith. I have no idea what it's like inside your head, but, just as with meaninglessness, you don't know what it's like to be inside mine. I don't choose to not believe. Not even every decade, much less every day. If I have two paintings to look at, I can choose to look at one or the other. But if there is only one painting in front of me, I don't have a choice of what to look at.

Fist, you ought to know the answer to your own question. My objection to your formation of it is that it does not take into account that I have accepted truth that is not "mine".

I do think it difficult to understand some aspects of faith from the outside. A person who has not taken the leap of faith remains forever a theoretician, in that sense who has never practiced.

"You say "different knowledge and wisdom". If they are mutually contradictory, then that merely means that at least one of them must be wrong. Meaninglessness can not mean both meaning and meaninglessness. It is not wisdom. It is nonsense - because that's what meaningless means. (-less = non; sense=meaning).

I understand 'other views' (meaning other ideas). I am convinced that they are wrong, even though some are very, very close to what is right (and have lots of great truth in them). Could I be wrong? Wrong formulation. Anyone CAN be wrong. The question is, am I wrong? Obviously, I believe not. But even if I were, the Puddleglum response (I hope you know by now what I am referring to, but if not, oldeship.blogspot.com/2009/03/puddleglums-speech.html or better yet: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wuiq7j4nCA ) would still keep me on my course - because there are things more important than merely being right.

[Fist and Faith]

Fist, you ought to know the answer to your own question. My objection to your formation of it is that it does not take into account that I have accepted truth that is not "mine".

Yes. In fact, Yes! So the question is: Is everything taught to you by an authority of that faith automatically considered to be unquestionable truth?

Because if you can question, someone who embraces a different belief might be considered a good source of information about that belief. Possibly even a better source of information than those who do not embrace it, but are only theoreticians.

...the Puddleglum response (I hope you know by now what I am referring to, but if not, oldeship.blogspot.com/2009/03/puddleglums-speech.html or better yet: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wuiq7j4nCA ) would still keep me on my course - because there are things more important than merely being right.

That is also a matter of opinion. Many people *raises hand* would rather live with a truth that is less pleasant than a prettier fiction. As far as I know, my wife is, and always has been, entirely faithful to me. I live a happy life because of it. But if anybody knows that she's cheating me, I'd appreciate it if you would tell me. I'd rather have my life come crashing down, and be miserable for as long as it takes to recover, than to continue living in a false bliss. (And that has nothing to do with STDs. I'd feel the same if that was not a concern.)

Same with Pudleglum. If I learned that Aslan and Narnia were not real, I'd rather live in the cave than convince myself that Aslan and Narnia were real.

And I'd rather live with the truth that the universe speaks to me than try to convince myself that something else is the truth.

[Loredoctor]

That is also a matter of opinion. Many people *raises hand* would rather live with a truth that is less pleasant than a prettier fiction. As far as I know, my wife is, and always has been, entirely faithful to me. I live a happy life because of it. But if anybody knows that she's cheating me, I'd appreciate it if you would tell me. I'd rather have my life come crashing down, and be miserable for as long as it takes to recover, than to continue living in a false bliss. (And that has nothing to do with STDs. I'd feel the same if that was not a concern.)

And I'd rather live with the truth that the universe speaks to me than try to convince myself that something else is the truth.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SCcJslv7X0

[rusmeister]

Fist, you ought to know the answer to your own question. My objection to your formation of it is that it does not take into account that I have accepted truth that is not "mine".

Yes. In fact, Yes! So the question is: Is everything taught to you by an authority of that faith automatically considered to be unquestionable truth?

Because if you can question, someone who embraces a different belief might be considered a good source of information about that belief. Possibly even a better source of information than those who do not embrace it, but are only theoreticians.

The answer to the question is, if it is not dogma of the Church, then there is freedom to differ and remain in the Church. (You are free to question anything at all - and you will be given answers, which will usually be far more detailed than you might even want them to be.) But if you disagree with Church dogma, like Tolstoy, then you can't also claim to be united in faith with the Church.
Of course, if you want to know about a belief, your best source is educated people who hold that belief.

...the Puddleglum response (I hope you know by now what I am referring to, but if not, oldeship.blogspot.com/2009/03/puddleglums-speech.html or better yet: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wuiq7j4nCA ) would still keep me on my course - because there are things more important than merely being right.

That is also a matter of opinion. Many people *raises hand* would rather live with a truth that is less pleasant than a prettier fiction. As far as I know, my wife is, and always has been, entirely faithful to me. I live a happy life because of it. But if anybody knows that she's cheating me, I'd appreciate it if you would tell me. I'd rather have my life come crashing down, and be miserable for as long as it takes to recover, than to continue living in a false bliss. (And that has nothing to do with STDs. I'd feel the same if that was not a concern.)

Same with Pudleglum. If I learned that Aslan and Narnia were not real, I'd rather live in the cave than convince myself that Aslan and Narnia were real.

And I'd rather live with the truth that the universe speaks to me than try to convince myself that something else is the truth.

There is a critical difference that makes your analogy casuistry, and that is that in the face of absolute meaninglessness, there can be no recovery or hope. Thus, the thing that ought to be is not only preferable to the thing that is, it is the only sane thing to embrace. That is not the case with an adulterous wife. To literally say "Life's a bitch and then you die" - and mean it - is nihilistic despair, and to embrace it is insanity.

if you have even a speck of romance in your soul, you ought to sense that Puddleglum's choice (in the context he refers to) really is the nobler and wiser response. You could even say that here intelligence and wisdom part ways and point to different objects.

[Prebe]

Thank you very much for the kind words Lucy.

However, I think you paint me in a hue that might be slightly on the rosy side

In having humour, I plead "guilty as charged" * flourishes*

But I can also be a sarcastic & arrogant bastard, when I'm in that mood.

But hate? Definitely no. Not even Cail

[Fist and Faith]

The answer to the question is, if it is not dogma of the Church, then there is freedom to differ and remain in the Church. (You are free to question anything at all - and you will be given answers, which will usually be far more detailed than you might even want them to be.) But if you disagree with Church dogma, like Tolstoy, then you can't also claim to be united in faith with the Church.

So then this is a part of the Church's dogma. The Church says that meaningless must and will, if embraced, and if fully thought out, lead to despair.

And you have decided that, no matter what you learn is the Church's dogma, you will accept it. You have faith not only in God and Jesus, but in every aspect of the Church's dogma, including any that you have not yet heard of.

Of course, if you want to know about a belief, your best source is educated people who hold that belief.

Very interesting word! "Educated." That's a loophole you can fly a 747 through. If anyone in the world disagrees with the Church's dogma then they are obviously not sufficiently educated. If education does not lead to one holding the Church's position, then the education is insufficient or inaccurate.

There is a critical difference that makes your analogy casuistry, and that is that in the face of absolute meaninglessness, there can be no recovery or hope. Thus, the thing that ought to be is not only preferable to the thing that is, it is the only sane thing to embrace. That is not the case with an adulterous wife. To literally say "Life's a bitch and then you die" - and mean it - is nihilistic despair, and to embrace it is insanity.

You are wrong. It's not "Life's a bitch and then you die." It's "Life is glorious and then you die." There is no need for recovery, and hope is not defined as you insist it must be. You speak as though you were an authority on something that you have no reason to believe you are an authority on. You do not know what it is like to believe that there is no God-given meaning to existence. No objective meaning. And yet you say how it MUST feel for those who do. As though I can tell you what it is to embrace Christ. What a ridiculous thing it would be for me to do that.

if you have even a speck of romance in your soul, you ought to sense that Puddleglum's choice (in the context he refers to) really is the nobler and wiser response. You could even say that here intelligence and wisdom part ways and point to different objects.

The overriding problem between you and me is that you cannot fathom the idea that others do not, will not, can not, feel the same way you do about any idea they are exposed to. But it just doesn't work like that. You insist that everything must fit into your specific worldview. When it doesn't, you insist that the other person has not understood, or has not considered things fully, or whatever. And all that because you have decided, without evidence, that the Bible is an accurate record of actual events 2,000 years ago, and that the people in authority at the Orthodox Church have the only accurate interpretation and translation of the Bible. Is that a fair description of your position? I'm not attempting to say anything other than your position, but it's not always easy to understand. You've said: "It is not speculation if it is claimed to be revelation." Does that mean the same as: "It is not speculation if it is written in the Bible or taught by the Orthodox Church."? That's what you mean by "revelation"?

[Orlion]

Fist, you ought to know the answer to your own question. My objection to your formation of it is that it does not take into account that I have accepted truth that is not "mine".

Yes. In fact, Yes! So the question is: Is everything taught to you by an authority of that faith automatically considered to be unquestionable truth?

Because if you can question, someone who embraces a different belief might be considered a good source of information about that belief. Possibly even a better source of information than those who do not embrace it, but are only theoreticians.

The answer to the question is, if it is not dogma of the Church, then there is freedom to differ and remain in the Church. (You are free to question anything at all - and you will be given answers, which will usually be far more detailed than you might even want them to be.) But if you disagree with Church dogma, like Tolstoy, then you can't also claim to be united in faith with the Church.
Of course, if you want to know about a belief, your best source is educated people who hold that belief.

...the Puddleglum response (I hope you know by now what I am referring to, but if not, oldeship.blogspot.com/2009/03/puddleglums-speech.html or better yet: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wuiq7j4nCA ) would still keep me on my course - because there are things more important than merely being right.

That is also a matter of opinion. Many people *raises hand* would rather live with a truth that is less pleasant than a prettier fiction. As far as I know, my wife is, and always has been, entirely faithful to me. I live a happy life because of it. But if anybody knows that she's cheating me, I'd appreciate it if you would tell me. I'd rather have my life come crashing down, and be miserable for as long as it takes to recover, than to continue living in a false bliss. (And that has nothing to do with STDs. I'd feel the same if that was not a concern.)

Same with Pudleglum. If I learned that Aslan and Narnia were not real, I'd rather live in the cave than convince myself that Aslan and Narnia were real.

And I'd rather live with the truth that the universe speaks to me than try to convince myself that something else is the truth.

There is a critical difference that makes your analogy casuistry, and that is that in the face of absolute meaninglessness, there can be no recovery or hope. Thus, the thing that ought to be is not only preferable to the thing that is, it is the only sane thing to embrace. That is not the case with an adulterous wife. To literally say "Life's a bitch and then you die" - and mean it - is nihilistic despair, and to embrace it is insanity.

if you have even a speck of romance in your soul, you ought to sense that Puddleglum's choice (in the context he refers to) really is the nobler and wiser response. You could even say that here intelligence and wisdom part ways and point to different objects.

I think you can believe in "Life's a bitch, and then you die" and still not succumb to despair and hopelessness. All it requires is a little Stoicism. One can learn to accept and be content with what they have rather than worry about that which, to them, is unattainable. So there's no meaning to life, I still enjoy reading, ice-cold Coca-Cola, and interfacing with friends. I can do all those things and enjoy them, even if I think it's all pointless in the grand scheme of things. As far as recovery, the same applies. If I become diabetic, I wouldn't be able to enjoy Coca-Cola, and that would be a fate worse than hell But instead of pinning for that which I can not have (without slipping into a coma, anyway) I can accept things as they are and still enjoy and be content with the things I do have. And I can find comfort in knowing that all of my life's problems will cease to be when I die.

Having spent time on that, that is not how I view things (at least, not the whole story). I believe we ought to strive for things that are important to us, even if I do not believe in them. Kinda like how Covenant went in the end to confront Foul, because the Land was important to him despite his thinking it was not real.

[Prebe]

Hmmm. Hostility. Hostile. Any kind of disagreement can be percieved as hostile.

Disrespect? Disrespect is particularly easily percieved in religious questions. Mainly because many of the things that religious people believe seem so utterly outlandish to the unbeliever. Not saying so wouldn't be honest.

[rusmeister]

The answer to the question is, if it is not dogma of the Church, then there is freedom to differ and remain in the Church. (You are free to question anything at all - and you will be given answers, which will usually be far more detailed than you might even want them to be.) But if you disagree with Church dogma, like Tolstoy, then you can't also claim to be united in faith with the Church.

So then this is a part of the Church's dogma. The Church says that meaningless must and will, if embraced, and if fully thought out, lead to despair.

And you have decided that, no matter what you learn is the Church's dogma, you will accept it. You have faith not only in God and Jesus, but in every aspect of the Church's dogma, including any that you have not yet heard of.

That is correct. I believe that there are authorities that actually know more than I do, and that I have things yet to discover from them. I further believe - what you really object to - that an authority can actually be completely correct - but I can only accept that if the institution is divine; not merely human.

Of course, if you want to know about a belief, your best source is educated people who hold that belief.

Very interesting word! "Educated." That's a loophole you can fly a 747 through. If anyone in the world disagrees with the Church's dogma then they are obviously not sufficiently educated. If education does not lead to one holding the Church's position, then the education is insufficient or inaccurate.

The purpose of my "loophole" is to point out that in human discourse, people often lack knowledge, and that acquiring knowledge can transform their views. I mean the word in a broad sense, not in the narrow institutional sense. It is a truism that very very few people who object to the Church's position actually know what that position is and on what basis it is held. A good example of this is the media-orchestrated reaction against the Pope's statements that abstinence and monogamy, not condoms, are the true answer to sexual ills in Africa (or anywhere else). The reaction was based entirely on a lack of knowledge of the basis of the Catholic Church's position, and so education really is the problem - people have not learned to really understand what it is they deny or object to.

There is a critical difference that makes your analogy casuistry, and that is that in the face of absolute meaninglessness, there can be no recovery or hope. Thus, the thing that ought to be is not only preferable to the thing that is, it is the only sane thing to embrace. That is not the case with an adulterous wife. To literally say "Life's a bitch and then you die" - and mean it - is nihilistic despair, and to embrace it is insanity.

You are wrong. It's not "Life's a bitch and then you die." It's "Life is glorious and then you die." There is no need for recovery, and hope is not defined as you insist it must be. You speak as though you were an authority on something that you have no reason to believe you are an authority on. You do not know what it is like to believe that there is no God-given meaning to existence. No objective meaning. And yet you say how it MUST feel for those who do. As though I can tell you what it is to embrace Christ. What a ridiculous thing it would be for me to do that.

Again, I don't say that everyone who holds your views will despair, so I don't pretend to tell you how you actually feel. I do say that despair must result if one thinks beyond the context of one's own life and thinks it through - connects the objective long-term meaninglessness of it with the short-term aspect of one's own life; realizing that that meaninglessness must apply to all heres and nows and make even present glory or joy a passing thing that means nothing. This is the general problem of stoicism (Orlion, take note!), and it is the reason it really failed as a philosophy, reaching its culmination and death in ancient Rome (as far as the West is concerned). (I recommended TEM to avoid a thousand arguments (or at least reduce them to a few dozen...)

if you have even a speck of romance in your soul, you ought to sense that Puddleglum's choice (in the context he refers to) really is the nobler and wiser response. You could even say that here intelligence and wisdom part ways and point to different objects.

The overriding problem between you and me is that you cannot fathom the idea that others do not, will not, can not, feel the same way you do about any idea they are exposed to. But it just doesn't work like that. You insist that everything must fit into your specific worldview. When it doesn't, you insist that the other person has not understood, or has not considered things fully, or whatever. And all that because you have decided, without evidence, that the Bible is an accurate record of actual events 2,000 years ago, and that the people in authority at the Orthodox Church have the only accurate interpretation and translation of the Bible. Is that a fair description of your position? I'm not attempting to say anything other than your position, but it's not always easy to understand. You've said: "It is not speculation if it is claimed to be revelation." Does that mean the same as: "It is not speculation if it is written in the Bible or taught by the Orthodox Church."? That's what you mean by "revelation"?

By speculation I mean what the word means - to suppose, suggest, say "What if..."
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculating
Acceptance of the faith is not speculation. It is a choice, based on the kind of evidence you admit you would accept if it happened to you personally, which, regardless of its subjectivity, would be true. It is a choice to accept a report as true. Furthermore, if one finds that the authority accepted is consistently right, then the perception ceases to be subjective and becomes objective. So the initial causes to accept the authority may be subjective, but with an authority that is always right, it becomes clear (gradually or suddenly) that it is not teaching something merely subjective, but objective.
So speculation is out of court altogether because it implies that I come up with this stuff myself. In the case of the Christian Church, it is not thinking and pondering about something, still less idle, casual, or inconclusive review. It is acceptance of revelation; that a claim of revelation is true.
I do fathom that others do not feel that way. It is obvious to all that there area million ideas on what the nature of truth is; the most popular today being that there is no truth, or that truth is a purely personal, completely non-objective thing. The authority I accept explains why this is so. And until you can talk to me about Orthodox theology, I have every right to say that you have not learned what it is my faith teaches and do not understand. The fact that you keep saying things like "because the Bible says so" (in other posts), something that I never say, shows that you haven't really attempted understanding - the more so when you deliberately limit yourself to whatever I will say here and now.
If you go to oca.org and read Fr Thomas Hopko's* brochures (a catechism, if you will) on what the faith teaches and on what basis it does so, you'd have a lot clearer picture, I think, of what my worldview is - a million things that I don't have the time or energy to post here - and are not my invention in any event. www.oca.org/OCorthfaith.asp?SID=2
But if you won't, then you are decidedly not educated; meaning, you are free to believe what you want, but not knowing what I believe, you can hardly refute it.

One 'bone' I'll throw you - Hopko is the son-in-law of the now-deceased Alexander Schmemann - one of the greatest Orthodox thinkers of the 20th century. www.schmemann.org/
And here is an example of his work - from that site: www.schmemann.org/byhim/betweenutopiaandescape.html
That site was organized by Fr Victor Sokolov, a man instrumental in my own conversion, now also deceased. (and on wikipedia)

[rusmeister]

Yes. In fact, Yes! So the question is: Is everything taught to you by an authority of that faith automatically considered to be unquestionable truth?

Because if you can question, someone who embraces a different belief might be considered a good source of information about that belief. Possibly even a better source of information than those who do not embrace it, but are only theoreticians.

The answer to the question is, if it is not dogma of the Church, then there is freedom to differ and remain in the Church. (You are free to question anything at all - and you will be given answers, which will usually be far more detailed than you might even want them to be.) But if you disagree with Church dogma, like Tolstoy, then you can't also claim to be united in faith with the Church.
Of course, if you want to know about a belief, your best source is educated people who hold that belief.

That is also a matter of opinion. Many people *raises hand* would rather live with a truth that is less pleasant than a prettier fiction. As far as I know, my wife is, and always has been, entirely faithful to me. I live a happy life because of it. But if anybody knows that she's cheating me, I'd appreciate it if you would tell me. I'd rather have my life come crashing down, and be miserable for as long as it takes to recover, than to continue living in a false bliss. (And that has nothing to do with STDs. I'd feel the same if that was not a concern.)

Same with Pudleglum. If I learned that Aslan and Narnia were not real, I'd rather live in the cave than convince myself that Aslan and Narnia were real.

And I'd rather live with the truth that the universe speaks to me than try to convince myself that something else is the truth.

There is a critical difference that makes your analogy casuistry, and that is that in the face of absolute meaninglessness, there can be no recovery or hope. Thus, the thing that ought to be is not only preferable to the thing that is, it is the only sane thing to embrace. That is not the case with an adulterous wife. To literally say "Life's a bitch and then you die" - and mean it - is nihilistic despair, and to embrace it is insanity.

if you have even a speck of romance in your soul, you ought to sense that Puddleglum's choice (in the context he refers to) really is the nobler and wiser response. You could even say that here intelligence and wisdom part ways and point to different objects.

I think you can believe in "Life's a bitch, and then you die" and still not succumb to despair and hopelessness. All it requires is a little Stoicism. One can learn to accept and be content with what they have rather than worry about that which, to them, is unattainable. So there's no meaning to life, I still enjoy reading, ice-cold Coca-Cola, and interfacing with friends. I can do all those things and enjoy them, even if I think it's all pointless in the grand scheme of things. As far as recovery, the same applies. If I become diabetic, I wouldn't be able to enjoy Coca-Cola, and that would be a fate worse than hell But instead of pinning for that which I can not have (without slipping into a coma, anyway) I can accept things as they are and still enjoy and be content with the things I do have. And I can find comfort in knowing that all of my life's problems will cease to be when I die.

Having spent time on that, that is not how I view things (at least, not the whole story). I believe we ought to strive for things that are important to us, even if I do not believe in them. Kinda like how Covenant went in the end to confront Foul, because the Land was important to him despite his thinking it was not real.

I feel that I responded to your idea of stoicism in my response to Fist, but note that Covenant's choice was the same as Puddleglum's in that important respect. It is the noble and admirable, and even right thing to do, even if the Land is not real - because some things should be opposed - even if they are only happening in the realm of the imagination.

[rusmeister]

Hmmm. Hostility. Hostile. Any kind of disagreement can be percieved as hostile.

Disrespect? Disrespect is particularly easily percieved in religious questions. Mainly because many of the things that religious people believe seem so utterly outlandish to the unbeliever. Not saying so wouldn't be honest.

I think the charge of hostility arises when the argument appears to be (a key point!) emotionally driven.
Also, as has been pointed out before, many of the things the unbeliever accepts on faith can seem equally outlandish (which only really means "foreign") to the believer.

It's fine to say that something seems foreign. An approach that would not seem hostile would be one of inquiry - one that asks on what basis the seemingly crazy idea is believed, rather than simply ridiculing what seems crazy. Since the target most often tends to be Christianity, distinguishing between the branches of C. and knowing more of its history than merely "Boy, the Catholic Church sure was corrupt in the Middle Ages, eh?" (not that you say this - but it is the essence of what is taught in public schools) would also facilitate a perception of more reasoned opposition to faith.

As long as one treats faith as something that is merely blind, then that treatment will almost certainly be hostile, and itself blind to all that is not mere blindness.

[Orlion]

Thanks for using the bold, that really got my attention The problem you point out for stoicism could be potentially harmful, and I do understand where you are coming from. However, in some cases (admitting that other cases are as you describe), I think the problem is resolved in the principle of stoicism, as I see it anyway, and that is acceptance. If one is able to accept "meaninglessness", he may come to terms with that philosophy and live his life in contentment, albeit a very different manner then the theologian. Objectively, he would view meaninglessness as how things are, ain't nothing going to change that, but he can still derive contentment from the subjective side of life (things that are important to him).

Now, this is assuming that one would be able to get to this "enlightenment." Most people, be it because of cultural influence or cosmic truth, want their lives to have purpose and meaning, hell, it could even be human nature to want this! A lot of people do want their lives to be justified, and this thinking does clash with the idea of "meaninglessness" (as I understand it, Fist, you've got permission to correct me). So, this concept of "meaninglessness" in the world of today is one that has to be developed by the person, and may not necessarily be a default position....wow, that statement has the potential of a can of worms!

I do appreciate the Puddleglum incident in that it helped me understand an aspect of faith and the whole Covenant thingy, and I think you have a point in that nobility in his decision is an important part of it.

[Fist and Faith]

There is a critical difference that makes your analogy casuistry, and that is that in the face of absolute meaninglessness, there can be no recovery or hope. Thus, the thing that ought to be is not only preferable to the thing that is, it is the only sane thing to embrace. That is not the case with an adulterous wife. To literally say "Life's a bitch and then you die" - and mean it - is nihilistic despair, and to embrace it is insanity.

You are wrong. It's not "Life's a bitch and then you die." It's "Life is glorious and then you die." There is no need for recovery, and hope is not defined as you insist it must be. You speak as though you were an authority on something that you have no reason to believe you are an authority on. You do not know what it is like to believe that there is no God-given meaning to existence. No objective meaning. And yet you say how it MUST feel for those who do. As though I can tell you what it is to embrace Christ. What a ridiculous thing it would be for me to do that.

Again, I don't say that everyone who holds your views will despair, so I don't pretend to tell you how you actually feel. I do say that despair must result if one thinks beyond the context of one's own life and thinks it through - connects the objective long-term meaninglessness of it with the short-term aspect of one's own life; realizing that that meaninglessness must apply to all heres and nows and make even present glory or joy a passing thing that means nothing.

Yes, that sums it up nicely. That is what I think existence amounts to. And nothing about that is cause for despair.

Now... Despite my saying that, you say I haven't really thought it through. That there is no way anyone who doesn't despair can embrace it and have thought it through. Why? Because, despite not thinking it really is the truth of existence, you think that you are more capable of understanding how that line of though would impact those who do embrace it. And if they do not react to that line of thinking as you think they would, they cannot have really thought it through.

IOW, your inability to experience this line of thought from the inside gives you a superior understanding of how it is experienced by those on the inside.

Is it really possible that you do not see the contradiction in that?

Acceptance of the faith is not speculation. It is a choice, based on the kind of evidence you admit you would accept if it happened to you personally, which, regardless of its subjectivity, would be true.

Yes, but you do not have that kind of evidence. You never had any such experiences. It is not possible. Because an all-knowing and all-powerful being could not bestow such illogic as you display in what I just said. Omniscience cannot lead to such illogic. A being that powerful and that illogical could not create a universe that runs as well as this one does. Therefore, you did not experience what you believe you experienced.

[Prebe]

As long as one treats faith as something that is merely blind, then that treatment will almost certainly be hostile.

Well, call me hostile then.