A Real-World Parallel of TC's "Unbelief". **ASSER

[Insanity Falls]

*WARNING!! THIS POST CONTAINS ASSERTIONS!!*

A parallel of the "Unbelief" of Thomas Covenant at work in REALITY

I find myself in a similar circumstance to Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever!

The circumstance is this: I am convinced that it is not possible for any person to believe that a set of self-contradictory notions can actually represent an actual reality.

As I have stated elsewhere, I see that "God" is a word that stands for a variable set of self-contradictory notions.

I am convinced that people really *cannot* "believe in God", no matter what they say! And no matter what they do!
It's simply not possible!

And this is how my circumstance is like that of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever!

His experience of the unreal "Land", is equivalent to my experience of people who actually assert belief in some "God"!

I simple *cannot* believe them! I have no choice!

How then shall I react to them!

Well, I can only react to reality as I see it!
And I can never pretend that their asserted "belief" is real (else I will be being as schizophrenic as they are!)

I shall react to their condition as I see it to be: I shall treat them as insane! (And note that this is the only way that I shall keep my own sanity! For to react to the insane on their terms, that would itself be insane!) And by being dedicated to rational action and interaction, I will help to forward the day when sane reality re-assumes in everyone's minds.

And these here musings can't help but make me wonder about the origins of Donaldson's tale of Unbelief, in his fundamentalist upbringing, and his rejection of it.

[EDIT:
To Moderators: Why does the system truncate my title?
I put a warning, as requested, in my title, but it has been truncated by the system, so that it is unreadable, and yet it WAS accepted in full at "Preview". I put a warning in my title! I can't help it if the system randomly cuts it out! ]

[hierachy]

While I think this thread will degrade into a flame war pretty quickly, I hope that it does not, as I think it is an interesting topic.

To a certain degree, I agree with you. However, the concept of a god is not inherently in contradiction to reality. Only a specifically defined god may be disproved in this way.

Also, there is a difference between irrationality and insanity.

That is all I am willing to say right now. Just testing the water before I dive in.

[I'm Murrin]

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function"

[Insanity Falls]

Thanks for your replies!

I want to edit my post desperately, and yet I shall refrain as you have already responded to it.

I would now expand my rather thoughtless diagnosis of "insanity" to "fear, expedient duplicity, confoundedness, craziness, reckless irrationality, a lack of certain experiences and self-realization, a lack of certain realizations, as well as having psychotic-imaginings, and mistaken ideas that they have experienced a "genuine miracle" etc, and all the rest of it". (I shouldn't pretend to be understand, or cast every "believer" in together, or present my "take" as comprehensive - that is ridiculous!)

But by point remains worth stating, I think.

The "God" that Christianity presents, does indeed refer to self-contradictory notions. And therefore this "God" cannot be subject to real belief or disbelief.

However, the concept of a god is not inherently in contradiction to reality. Only a specifically defined god may be disproved in this way

Yes, a "more powerful being", for example, is a valid concept which can be held up for consideration/belief/disbelief/testing. But then the religions claim way more than that for their "Gods". And those claims invalidate them.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function"

Yes, when we are thinking of possibilities, eg, the enemy might be here or there, but NOT when we are talking about "married bachelors", "living dead", and "able and intelligent spirits", "all-seing", "all-powerful", and "living beings who can be without a being", "living beings who can sense without senses", "living beings who can act without interactions".

All that said, I think the real interest in this topic, is the parallel with the Unbeliever's dilemma: I don't believe a certain key ingredient of our society is real - or is what it presents itself to be.

And I think it is interesting whether this ingredient, which played a huge role in Donalson's upbringing, had an effect on the genesis of "the Unbeliever".

And I find it interesting that if I try to think like "believers" I tend to go more than a bit scizophrenic myself!

[I'm Murrin]

[Dammit, my computer crashed while I was writing a response. I've managed to record the last part so I don't have to come up with it all again, but I'll have to briefly make my early couple of points from memory.]

First, I mentioned that I realise now that the quote I posted is not appropriate in the context being discussed. That refers to consciously holding these contradictory ideas in mind, knowing that they are contradictory. What this discussion involves is not the same.
I wanted to point out next that in the case we are referring to--that of contradiction in religious belief--there is not usually a case of people being aware of the contradictions. The mind set in these cases is usually to just accept.
[That's a lot briefer and less clear than I had before, but it's the best I can do. The rest is copied straight from the original post I typed, then continued from where I was cut off.]
To argue that the because what they believe is contradictory they cannot truly believe it is to assume that they are aware of the contradiction--since, were they aware that they believed a contradiction, they would immediately question the belief, and find themselves incapable of certainty. In reality, they do not realise the contradiction. Nor, if a person informs one who believes such contradictory ideas that they are contradictory, would the person experience any kind of revelation that changes their belief. They are already in a set of mind that simply accepts the contradicaiton, so that often the reaction would be simply a mental shrug.

Covenant's situation differs in that it fits more with the quote I posted--he is conscious that the belief and non-belief in the existence of the Land are contradictory, but in the end he chooses to hold both of these ideas as true, and in the paradox is able to find a knife-edge path that will allow him to keep his sanity and health while still working to save the Land.

[Fist and Faith]

It seems to me there's quite a difference between your unbelief and Covenant's. Covenant did not believe that the Land or the people in it were real. You believe the world and the people in it are real, but you believe some of the people are lying about this particular topic.

The problem I see with your premise is in your definition of Christianity. IMO, for what an agnostic's opinion is worth, a Christian is, very simply, one who follows Christ's teachings. That's it.

What you have such difficulty with is the specific beliefs of some Christians. Some followers of Christ's teachings also insist that a Christian must believe X, Y, and Z. Other Christians say that's crazy, and the definition actually includes A, B, and C.

On top of that, there is debate of what Christ's teachings actually are. Is Chapter X, Verse Y to be taken literally, or is it a metaphor? Are we really supposed to pluck our eyes out when we think a woman other than our wife is hot?

Did Jesus claim to be God in human form, or did he say he was merely God's son? Or was he an angel who came to us in human form?

Some forms of Christianity seem rather crazy to me, filled with contradictions and irrational ideas. Others are beautiful and logical, even if I don't see evidence that they are actually real.

And, as I've said at times, I know very well that some people can perceive things that I cannot. These things can be demonstrated to be real. The fact that nobody has been able to demonstrate their perception of God to me does not mean they don't perceive God.

[The Laughing Man]

thanx Fist, now I have absolutely nothing to add to this thread but "well said!"

well, maybe just this....

....the old seers as well as the mystics of our world have one thing in common, they have been able to see the mold of man but not understand what it is. Mystics, throughout the centuries, have given us moving accounts of their experiences. But these accounts, however beautiful, are flawed by the gross and despairing mistake of believing the mold of man to be an omnipotent, omniscient creator; and so is the interpretation of the old seers, who called the mold of man a friendly spirit, a protector of man....

....my belief was based on faith and, as such, was a secondhand conviction that did not amount to anything; my belief in the existence of God was, like everyone else's, based on hearsay and not on the act of seeing....He assured me that even if I was able to see, I was bound to make the same misjudgment that mystics have made. Anyone who sees the mold of man automatically assumes that it is God....

....what we call God is a static prototype of humanness without any power. For the mold of man cannot under any circumstances help us by intervening in our behalf, or punish our wrongdoings, or reward us in any way. We are simply the product of its stamp; we are its impression. The mold of man is exactly what its name tells us it is, a pattern, a form, a cast that groups together a particular bunch of fiberlike elements, which we call man.

...the mold of man is not a creator, but the pattern of every human attribute we can think of and some we cannot even conceive. The mold is our God because we are what it stamps us with and not because it has created us from nothing and made us in its image and likeness. Don Juan said that in his opinion to fall on our knees in the presence of the mold of man reeks of arrogance and human self-centeredness.....

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=372284#372284

[Avatar]

Interesting topic, and interesting posts.

I certainly share your feelings to a certain point. I can't believe those things, and I can't understand belief in them.

However, it's not only clear to me that some people can and do, but also that despite holding these ideas they clearly do not demonstrate otherwise insane, psychotic or schizophrenic behaviour.

Many of them are, to not put too fine a point on it, good, decent, kind and intelligent people. While we can't believe that their assertations on this matter are true, they are true to them.

They live, operate and interact with the world on the basis that they are true. (Well, they should.) So it's the same as if it were true. The world reflects the actions based on that assumption.

I call myself a practical athiest. I like the idea of some divine power, I like the idea particularly that there will be some type of justice. But I see no evidence to suggest it, and consider it unlikely at best.

But, in the spirit of what James was suggesting, the concept on it's own is fine. It's simply the specifics of each religion so far that I contest with.

And because, as Fist said, there is nothing general about it, any given idea of it shouldn't affect me at all except on an interpersonal level, and briefly and shallowly at that.

So, to put it briefly, except at random moments, the fact that people can and do believe doesn't trouble me. Those random moments too are only when I see it misused for gain or pain.

That saying about whatever get's you through the day applies. A person's relationship with the universe is totally up to them. The only time I take a hand is when they make it public, open it for discussion, or when it affects me personally.

And even then, the best you can hope for is a good debate.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

what befuddles me is that so many people point at a "flawed religious premise" to try to "prove" that no God exists and couldn't possibly exist. Just as many will do the same with "science".

[Avatar]

It can't prove that no god exists, only that the religious premise is flawed / illogical / whatever.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

It can't prove that no god exists, only that the religious premise is flawed / illogical / whatever.

And even that is only proven to those who cannot find logic in certain ideas; cannot see beauty or wisdom in paradox; or whatever the particular case is. For example, I think it's despicable for one in power to demand sacrifices from those beneath, and I am unable to believe our infinitely loving creator would do so. But that doesn't mean that's not what happened. It just means I won't follow God if I find out that is the case.

[Menolly]

:::putting my nose where it don't belong:::

As I have stated previously, I am terrible at debate, so I won't even try. However, I have just started adult b'nai mitzvah classes at my shul, and the first book our teacher had us read is Conversations with Rabbi Small. It brings up points about Judaism that I had never learned, and for me, helps avoid some of the contradicitions stated above.

But, ask me to say why it helps me? I can't explain. However, the used paperbacks of the books are fairly cheap. Shipping will most likely cost more than the book itself.

[Avatar]

Sounds interesting Menolly, and always nice to have you say something. What type of contradictions does it address?

Fist...are you saying the we can't see logic or beauty or wisdom in the paradox of a loving god demanding sacrifices?

Anyway, as always I love your assertation that, while there could easily be a god, if (it's) anything like some people seem to portray it, you won't have anything to do with it.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

In June, the Rabbi went on vacation... only to find himself unraveling a mystery as old as time itself. The girl appeared, unannounced, at his cabin door. Would the Rabbi convert her to Judaism, she had asked. It was vital to her forthcoming marriage.

And so began Rabbi Small's investigation into the magic, the mysticism, the truths, and the fables of the world's oldest religion. Shot through with tension, conflict, humor, and wisdom, Conversations with Rabbi Small is a richly woven tapestry of past and present beliefs that Jews and non-Jews will find meaningful, thought-provoking, and more than a bit surprising.

Told in the form of a novel, this insightful and sensitive book will be accessible to a large audience, from young people to adults.

looks interesting....kinda like the Shikse Code?

[Fist and Faith]

Fist...are you saying the we can't see logic or beauty or wisdom in the paradox of a loving god demanding sacrifices?

So it seems. I sure can't. But I'm usually hesitant to claim that my logic is objectively superior to someone else's. Aliantha (iirc) thinks our creator has the right to do with us as it pleases. I don't see the logic there, either, and don't think we would have the right to do whatever we wanted with AI, if we ever create it.

Anyway, as always I love your assertation that, while there could easily be a god, if (it's) anything like some people seem to portray it, you won't have anything to do with it.

And such a god would get along just fine without me as a worshiper.

[Avatar]

But not as well as you would without worshipping it.

No, I agree, I don't see anything inherently acceptable in that paradox either.

--A

[Menolly]

Sounds interesting Menolly, and always nice to have you say something. What type of contradictions does it address?

A couple of examples...

The character of Rabbi small explains the difference in the view of monotheism between Judaism and Chr-stianity, and why a trinity g-dhead makes no sense to most Jews.

He says G-d is primarily a G-d of Justice. That we would most likely have a dual g-dhead, male and female, if G-d was primarily a G-d of Love. But he explains his reasoning, it's not given only as point blank statements.

The Rabi is not a mystic, he's very plainly portrayed as a learned typical American Jew. So, the issue of the duality of HaShem and Shechina is not addressed at all. But this book addresses the basics, and I was surprised to learn there were examples I never heard of.

Other examples are given, but Kemelman writes much better than I could explain. The book is a bit dated in the setting aspect, as it was written in the 1980s. But otherwise it reads well. The very ending is cliche though, IMO. But I can overlook that for most of the stuff I learned from the book.

[Avatar]

Sounds interesting. Will have to keep an eye out for it.

--A

[Prebe]

It can't prove that no god exists

Just like I can't prove a Ftumsh doesn't exist, because nobody is going to tell me exactly what a Ftumsh is! If someone would, I could give it a shot.

[Fist and Faith]

It can't prove that no god exists

Just like I can't prove a Ftumsh doesn't exist, because nobody is going to tell me exactly what a Ftumsh is! If someone would, I could give it a shot.

True enough. Certain gods (and possibly Ftumshi) can be proven to not exist. If a specific god is supposed to, say, reside beneath the surface of Pluto, and we eventually develop the technology to look there, we may prove that that specific god does not exist.

Of course, that does not prove that no god exists. Nor can such a thing be proven. And perhaps it is impossible to prove that Ftumshi do not exist, but I don't know enough about them to guess. However, if they are as undefinable as the broadest, non-dis-provable definition of "god," would one spend much time pointing out the flaws in the logic of believing that they do exist?