Are there people that are otherwise logical but drop their skepticism when it comes to l religion? How do they consolidate those 2 sides of themselves?
-
The way i think about it:
The brain has two halves (hemispheres)
The left hemisphere does rational thinking
the right hemisphere does magical thinking (which probably also covers religion)
Both of these hemispheres developed through evolution, because both of them are useful and beneficial to your life. That is why you should employ both.
Would that not require hypocrisy in a lot of areas?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Tbh I think a lot of people bury that logical side deep down and compartmentalize. The narrative we tell ourselves can be quite powerful.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The end scares most people so much that logic gets thrown out the window.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Compartmentalise. It's a trait of Homo sapien to convice themselves things are true, so they can believe any bullshit, try not to fall for it yourself in otjer areas.
The problem for me arises when they speak from authority on another subject they are expert in, if they're so naive and easily misled on that, how can i trust their opinion on anything substantive?
A superb example of this is Katherine Hayhoe. I get around it by just reading nothing she writes on climate change because her evangelical christianisim just muddies the waters too much to take her at all seriously. On a side note, my goto is Professor Kevin Andersin.
-
Every time you're challenged on your beliefs, you claim to not know, but when you're challenging other people's beliefs you use words like "irrational" and "illogical".
You don't behave like someone who is calmly on the fence at all.
I worry that your debating position and your actual beliefs are out of alignment and I'm not sure whether you're misleading us or yourself.
They are just trying to align everything that's being said to their previously held beliefs. People aren't typically all that aware of what their core beliefs are because an alternative, challenging core belief would have to breach all the way into it for it them to realize they have one. Without the salient contrast, they just don't notice it's there. It's just blue against a blue background, and unless a yellow comes along, they're not going to realize there's anything there. The materialistic worldview is so prevalent that a random online conversation isn't likely to get through, no matter how well argued. I've had similar discussions many times and sooner or later people just kind of "reset" and I find myself having to say the same things again and again because there's just this impenetrable thought loop going on. Logic doesn't breach it, it's just that they keep asking for all the different ways we can reach the number 42. If I tell them 41+1=42, they ask again and I have to try to explain how 40+2 is also 42, and so on ad nauseum. "Hahaa, but there's a 33-4347+132562+767368, I bet you can't do anything to get that to 42". That can be done all day. If the person isn't truly open for new ways to think (and few people in these type of settings are), as in they aren't actively looking for it with an open curiosity, it's not likely they'll realize much during that convo.
It's really, really, natural and normal. I just thought it was funny because OP is behaving the exact same way they're asking about in their initial post. They'll probably eventually figure it out.
-
Why is it good that it makes you uncomfortable? And I’ll go a step further and ask whether all discomfort regarding religion is good. For example, was your chaplain saying you should be uncomfortable because you’re not sure if it’s rooted in truth, or were they saying you should be going out of your comfort zone and challenging yourself to do more and/or expressing your faith in new ways? If so, are the two equivalent?
I’m asking in genuine curiosity: I grew up Catholic, and never felt much of a community motivation for my religion. Once I got to college, I mostly stopped going to church, with occasional bursts where I’d decide to go for a month or so. So going to church dried up before my faith did for me, and I don’t really understand going in the absence of faith.
I hung on as an agnostic theist for years, though lately I think I’ve been more of an agnostic atheist. I agree with your sentiment on God existence not being predicated on belief, but have also reached the conclusion that if I need belief to accept something as true, it probably isn’t.
Definitely the "go out of your comfort zone" take. Christ loves us as we are, but you can't stay the same, act the same, and have the true repentance required for salvation. Striving to be better is not comfortable. Confronting your own sins is not comfortable. Empathizing with the downtrodden is not comfortable. Going out and getting your hands dirty and your bank account emptier to help the poor, the sick, the widowed and orphaned, the homeless, the hurting is not comfortable. But that's what the example of Christ requires us to do.
-
Definitely the "go out of your comfort zone" take. Christ loves us as we are, but you can't stay the same, act the same, and have the true repentance required for salvation. Striving to be better is not comfortable. Confronting your own sins is not comfortable. Empathizing with the downtrodden is not comfortable. Going out and getting your hands dirty and your bank account emptier to help the poor, the sick, the widowed and orphaned, the homeless, the hurting is not comfortable. But that's what the example of Christ requires us to do.
How do you reconcile that with your discomfort about much of your connection to religion being circumstantial? Isn’t that very different than what you just told me?
After all, the post you just gave me is the practiced rhetoric of a firm believer. You were able to fall back into it quite easily, but does it accurately reflect how you really feel? Do you still feel this tie to Christ and that you are being held to this divine mandate given that you were saying you (your faith?) was at a low point a couple posts earlier?
-
How do you reconcile that with your discomfort about much of your connection to religion being circumstantial? Isn’t that very different than what you just told me?
After all, the post you just gave me is the practiced rhetoric of a firm believer. You were able to fall back into it quite easily, but does it accurately reflect how you really feel? Do you still feel this tie to Christ and that you are being held to this divine mandate given that you were saying you (your faith?) was at a low point a couple posts earlier?
How do you reconcile that with your discomfort about much of your connection to religion being circumstantial? Isn’t that very different than what you just told me?
So, just now, I was explaining what she meant. How it relates to my answer above being uncomfortable is that I can't grow in my faith unless I'm honest with myself about the shortcomings of my faith, including any shaky foundations.
After all, the post you just gave me is the practiced rhetoric of a firm believer. You were able to fall back into it quite easily, but does it accurately reflect how you really feel?
Cutting right to the quick of it, aren't you? As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I am a cradle Episcopalian and it shouldn't be surprising that I have the official ready to drop, but what I wrote above is, yes, something I fully believe even after poking at it with my skeptical mind.
Do you still feel this tie to Christ and that you are being held to this divine mandate given that you were saying you (your faith?) was at a low point a couple posts earlier?
I don't always feel as tied to Christ as I would prefer, or maybe better to say as much as Zi think I should be. But yes, I still feel the impetus to follow the example of Christ even in these low times, because I genuinely think a path of radical love, forgiveness, charity, and empathy is ideal. On that, I can hope at least I've been consistent.
-
You’re saying I could be thinking twice as fast
Read "doublethink" from dictionary.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/doublethink
a situation in which someone seems to believe two opposite things, or claims to believe something but does the opposite
-
How do you reconcile that with your discomfort about much of your connection to religion being circumstantial? Isn’t that very different than what you just told me?
So, just now, I was explaining what she meant. How it relates to my answer above being uncomfortable is that I can't grow in my faith unless I'm honest with myself about the shortcomings of my faith, including any shaky foundations.
After all, the post you just gave me is the practiced rhetoric of a firm believer. You were able to fall back into it quite easily, but does it accurately reflect how you really feel?
Cutting right to the quick of it, aren't you? As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I am a cradle Episcopalian and it shouldn't be surprising that I have the official ready to drop, but what I wrote above is, yes, something I fully believe even after poking at it with my skeptical mind.
Do you still feel this tie to Christ and that you are being held to this divine mandate given that you were saying you (your faith?) was at a low point a couple posts earlier?
I don't always feel as tied to Christ as I would prefer, or maybe better to say as much as Zi think I should be. But yes, I still feel the impetus to follow the example of Christ even in these low times, because I genuinely think a path of radical love, forgiveness, charity, and empathy is ideal. On that, I can hope at least I've been consistent.
Thank you so much for responding. I sincerely hope you find what you are searching for.
-
System shared this topic onSystem shared this topic on
