neither did your saviour Dawkins, but he developed it.
Now that is cheap and silly isn't it? And how did young Dickie save me? And please quote from his development of Newspeak. Where does He equate hate and love as most believers do?
Dawkins has become quite unpleasant in his views on race and trans rights, mostly out of some inane commitment to "science." I don't know of his saying hate and love are equivalent, but then I don't know of any Christians who do that either.
I'm not interested in Dawkins' beliefs. And he isn't racist. Islamophobic yes. Transphobic yes. I told him he needs to love his enemies. Why do you not know of his saying hate and love are equivalent? And I know the majority of Christians do: Damnation is love.
My point is that Dawkins is the prophet of a set of highly particular scientifist, anti-religious doctrines. "All religions are false" is a derivative of his insistence that all facts have to be derived from a scientific hermeneutic, even if they have nothing to do with, and that no other epistemology or hermeneutic is acceptable or authentic. It's a faith, just like any other, which admits and provides no evidence outside itself. In that sense, it's an idolatry, in that all idolatries are hermetically sealed against external heresies.
The fact that all religions are false is nothing to do with Dawkins.
This is not a fact.
Oh, so at least one religion is true. Which one's that?
Be fair. The truth of any given religion is an unknown. We cannot state their truth one way or the other as a fact. We can only put forward a hypothesis regarding any truth claim.
We've been arguing about how or if that can be tested for thousands of years.
I'm reminded of the philosophers in Hitch-Hiker's - "what's the point of arguing all night whether there is or isn't a God if this machine goes and gives you his phone number in the morning?"
The fact that all religions are false is nothing to do with Dawkins.
This is not a fact.
Oh, so at least one religion is true. Which one's that?
Be fair. The truth of any given religion is an unknown. We cannot state their truth one way or the other as a fact. We can only put forward a hypothesis regarding any truth claim.
We've been arguing about how or if that can be tested for thousands of years.
I'm reminded of the philosophers in Hitch-Hiker's - "what's the point of arguing all night whether there is or isn't a God if this machine goes and gives you his phone number in the morning?"
It's also unclear what model or understanding of truth we're working with here.
The fact that all religions are false is nothing to do with Dawkins.
This is not a fact.
Oh, so at least one religion is true. Which one's that?
Be fair. The truth of any given religion is an unknown. We cannot state their truth one way or the other as a fact. We can only put forward a hypothesis regarding any truth claim.
We've been arguing about how or if that can be tested for thousands of years.
I'm reminded of the philosophers in Hitch-Hiker's - "what's the point of arguing all night whether there is or isn't a God if this machine goes and gives you his phone number in the morning?"
It's also unclear what model or understanding of truth we're working with here.
The fact that all religions are false is nothing to do with Dawkins.
This is not a fact.
Oh, so at least one religion is true. Which one's that?
Be fair. The truth of any given religion is an unknown. We cannot state their truth one way or the other as a fact. We can only put forward a hypothesis regarding any truth claim.
We've been arguing about how or if that can be tested for thousands of years.
I'm reminded of the philosophers in Hitch-Hiker's - "what's the point of arguing all night whether there is or isn't a God if this machine goes and gives you his phone number in the morning?"
I couldn't be fairer. Every . religion . all religion . religion . is . false .
The fact that all religions are false is nothing to do with Dawkins.
This is not a fact.
Oh, so at least one religion is true. Which one's that?
Be fair. The truth of any given religion is an unknown. We cannot state their truth one way or the other as a fact. We can only put forward a hypothesis regarding any truth claim.
We've been arguing about how or if that can be tested for thousands of years.
I'm reminded of the philosophers in Hitch-Hiker's - "what's the point of arguing all night whether there is or isn't a God if this machine goes and gives you his phone number in the morning?"
I couldn't be fairer. Every . religion . all religion . religion . is . false .
You are free to assert anything you'd like, but absent an argument or rationale of how you arrived at this determination it can be summarily dismissed.
I don't know what that means, but surely religions are natural. They're heckin' everywhere. Humans can't help but make religions. They can, and are, studied as naturally occurring phenomenon in the same way that subcultures are naturally occurring phenomenon.
Ceasing to care about those I know and love in order to obtain my own salvation sounds like the heights of narcissism to me.
I've been through this game of twisted logical alchemy whereby God rejecting most of humanity for all eternity is somehow cast as his "love" but I didn't buy it then, which is why I'm no longer a con evo, and I don't buy it now.
Yup. Exclusivism without compassion is unsustainable.
This discussion reminds me of arguments between beginning students in philosophy classes. Martin54 asserts that all religions are false but has not provided his definition nof "religion". I think we need a definition. From Wikipedia:
"Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine, sacredness,faith, and a supernatural being or beings."
In other words, the term is almost undefinable. Notice "no scholarly consensus".
I will stick to my example: ancestor worship is one of the most common religions in the world. I don't see any way to falsify it. We all have ancestors, and either we do or we do not respect them.
The insistence that only Abrahamic religions count lowers the level of the discussion.
This discussion reminds me of arguments between beginning students in philosophy classes. Martin54 asserts that all religions are false but has not provided his definition nof "religion". I think we need a definition. From Wikipedia:
"Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine, sacredness,faith, and a supernatural being or beings."
In other words, the term is almost undefinable. Notice "no scholarly consensus".
I will stick to my example: ancestor worship is one of the most common religions in the world. I don't see any way to falsify it. We all have ancestors, and either we do or we do not respect them.
The insistence that only Abrahamic religions count lowers the level of the discussion.
Include any and all you like, they are untrue. I.e. false. Made up. No more real, true than a limited liability company. And less than the way a person is made up. Than an interpersonal relationship is made up. And that quote is most definitional.
I don't know what that means, but surely religions are natural. They're heckin' everywhere. Humans can't help but make religions. They can, and are, studied as naturally occurring phenomenon in the same way that subcultures are naturally occurring phenomenon.
They are, but that's certainly quite odd, isn't it? A whole species that dedicates untold amount of resources to something unproveable and invisible (mostly) that fills an itch in its system... but can't rightly agree on what that itch is... and yet can't get along without it, will in fact re-invent religion if it is taken from them...
To me, it cries out for an explanation. And any number of explanations exist, but aren't convincing.
I don't know what that means, but surely religions are natural. They're heckin' everywhere. Humans can't help but make religions. They can, and are, studied as naturally occurring phenomenon in the same way that subcultures are naturally occurring phenomenon.
They are, but that's certainly quite odd, isn't it? A whole species that dedicates untold amount of resources to something unproveable and invisible (mostly) that fills an itch in its system... but can't rightly agree on what that itch is... and yet can't get along without it, will in fact re-invent religion if it is taken from them...
To me, it cries out for an explanation. And any number of explanations exist, but aren't convincing.
I quite agree! And given the human propensity to go about and create a religion if there isn't one present, I'm inclined to believe that some part of the explanation for why we have such a need to make religions is to be found within one of the established religions. For me, Christianity and the Abrahamic religions overall offer a powerful explanation for the human need to craft a religion.
Of course, Abrahamic religions aren't the only religions, and I think it's true that some of the impulse behind the ancestor cults that never got as grand as our faith explain some aspects as well.
Oh, homo adorans. That creation was meant to sing in endless praise to and for God and that some shit happened and there was some stuff for awhile and here we are. So the need or desire to worship things stems from the sort of original need/desire, as it were, to worship God. Judaism and Islam share a similar worldview, albeit with caveats.
It's an interesting idea. I've not run into it in quite those terms, though I certainly do think the God-shaped hole is there on purpose, whether you want to attribute it to creation or fall or both, I dunno.
But of course, accepting that means accepting that someone created us that way. Ay, there's the rub...
I've not come across a convincing natural explanation for the ubiquity and predominance of religion in human cultures. Supernatural, yes.
Me neither. But I wasn't purposefully looking for an explanation; I was awash with '50s-60s petit bourgeois middle England culturally acquired stories, myths, disinformation on top of some pretty sharp cuts in my infant-child development. Being a walking encyclopaedia, low-end Mensa, didn't help in an environment awash with lower middle class shame, violence. Etc, blah blah blah. Hence my ADD component. I was ripe for the slaughter by the sickle of belief, which was already happening with superstition, parapsychology, pseudoscience. Alongside science. And then belief gathered me to its bosom for 50 years.
I now have a terribly simpler explanation for it all.
It's an interesting idea. I've not run into it in quite those terms, though I certainly do think the God-shaped hole is there on purpose, whether you want to attribute it to creation or fall or both, I dunno.
But of course, accepting that means accepting that someone created us that way. Ay, there's the rub...
I've not come across a convincing natural explanation for the ubiquity and predominance of religion in human cultures. Supernatural, yes.
I don't know of a systematic naturalistic phenomenon, although the Freudian line about reifying various external manifestations of internal habits of mind (note that I'm heavily glossing that) is attractive to me. Someday I'll read more into the sociology of religion and anthropology and perhaps have a better explanation.
Jung's views are even more pertinent. Mind you he wasn't an atheist, one of the causes of their breakup. I think projection offers a clear mechanism for religious views occurring. But I'm not an atheist either.
It's an interesting idea. I've not run into it in quite those terms, though I certainly do think the God-shaped hole is there on purpose, whether you want to attribute it to creation or fall or both, I dunno.
But of course, accepting that means accepting that someone created us that way. Ay, there's the rub...
I've not come across a convincing natural explanation for the ubiquity and predominance of religion in human cultures. Supernatural, yes.
I don't know of a systematic naturalistic phenomenon, although the Freudian line about reifying various external manifestations of internal habits of mind (note that I'm heavily glossing that) is attractive to me. Someday I'll read more into the sociology of religion and anthropology and perhaps have a better explanation.
Don't worry, it can't make any difference if your beliefs are strong enough.
Jung's views are even more pertinent. Mind you he wasn't an atheist, one of the causes of their breakup. I think projection offers a clear mechanism for religious views occurring. But I'm not an atheist either.
Jung’s views are interesting, I think, but he gets far too woo-woo for me pretty quickly. I also think some of his pronouncements are far too paternalistic and western-centric. I don’t go in the for the full critique of Jung as a kind of proto-fascist, but I sympathize with that view.
It's an interesting idea. I've not run into it in quite those terms, though I certainly do think the God-shaped hole is there on purpose, whether you want to attribute it to creation or fall or both, I dunno.
But of course, accepting that means accepting that someone created us that way. Ay, there's the rub...
I've not come across a convincing natural explanation for the ubiquity and predominance of religion in human cultures. Supernatural, yes.
I don't know of a systematic naturalistic phenomenon, although the Freudian line about reifying various external manifestations of internal habits of mind (note that I'm heavily glossing that) is attractive to me. Someday I'll read more into the sociology of religion and anthropology and perhaps have a better explanation.
Don't worry, it can't make any difference if your beliefs are strong enough.
Speak for yourself. My belief is quite strong and has been modified by everything I’ve learned. I don’t see how one could genuinely learn something and not be changed by it. So if I learned of a systematic naturalistic explanation for the development of religions then that would certainly modify my understanding of religious development.
Jung's views are even more pertinent. Mind you he wasn't an atheist, one of the causes of their breakup. I think projection offers a clear mechanism for religious views occurring. But I'm not an atheist either.
Jung’s views are interesting, I think, but he gets far too woo-woo for me pretty quickly. I also think some of his pronouncements are far too paternalistic and western-centric. I don’t go in the for the full critique of Jung as a kind of proto-fascist, but I sympathize with that view.
OK, but he transformed the view of the unconscious, as Freud hated spiritual and mystical stuff, whereas Jung noticed that it comes up in a lot of people, often in weird forms. Where does it come from? Freud would boil it down to instinctual energy. But J's view of Self integrates a lot of other stuff, e.g., pagan.
Jung's views are even more pertinent. Mind you he wasn't an atheist, one of the causes of their breakup. I think projection offers a clear mechanism for religious views occurring. But I'm not an atheist either.
Jung’s views are interesting, I think, but he gets far too woo-woo for me pretty quickly. I also think some of his pronouncements are far too paternalistic and western-centric. I don’t go in the for the full critique of Jung as a kind of proto-fascist, but I sympathize with that view.
OK, but he transformed the view of the unconscious, as Freud hated spiritual and mystical stuff, whereas Jung noticed that it comes up in a lot of people, often in weird forms. Where does it come from? Freud would boil it down to instinctual energy. But J's view of Self integrates a lot of other stuff, e.g., pagan.
For sure, I’m not disagreeing with that, and I think that his views are interesting within the framework of an early psychoanalysis that’s receptive to the spiritual. Of course, much of modern psychoanalysis has taken a Freudian line and developed a place for the spiritual without Jung’s ideas, such as Lacan and his ilk.
It's an interesting idea. I've not run into it in quite those terms, though I certainly do think the God-shaped hole is there on purpose, whether you want to attribute it to creation or fall or both, I dunno.
But of course, accepting that means accepting that someone created us that way. Ay, there's the rub...
I've not come across a convincing natural explanation for the ubiquity and predominance of religion in human cultures. Supernatural, yes.
I don't know of a systematic naturalistic phenomenon, although the Freudian line about reifying various external manifestations of internal habits of mind (note that I'm heavily glossing that) is attractive to me. Someday I'll read more into the sociology of religion and anthropology and perhaps have a better explanation.
Don't worry, it can't make any difference if your beliefs are strong enough.
Speak for yourself. My belief is quite strong and has been modified by everything I’ve learned. I don’t see how one could genuinely learn something and not be changed by it. So if I learned of a systematic naturalistic explanation for the development of religions then that would certainly modify my understanding of religious development.
It's an interesting idea. I've not run into it in quite those terms, though I certainly do think the God-shaped hole is there on purpose, whether you want to attribute it to creation or fall or both, I dunno.
But of course, accepting that means accepting that someone created us that way. Ay, there's the rub...
I've not come across a convincing natural explanation for the ubiquity and predominance of religion in human cultures. Supernatural, yes.
I don't know of a systematic naturalistic phenomenon, although the Freudian line about reifying various external manifestations of internal habits of mind (note that I'm heavily glossing that) is attractive to me. Someday I'll read more into the sociology of religion and anthropology and perhaps have a better explanation.
Don't worry, it can't make any difference if your beliefs are strong enough.
Speak for yourself. My belief is quite strong and has been modified by everything I’ve learned. I don’t see how one could genuinely learn something and not be changed by it. So if I learned of a systematic naturalistic explanation for the development of religions then that would certainly modify my understanding of religious development.
It couldn't stop your belief.
How do you know that? You seem to know more about me than I do myself. I could learn something that rendered my belief null. I don’t know what that would be, but it’s a possibility.
Jung's views are even more pertinent. Mind you he wasn't an atheist, one of the causes of their breakup. I think projection offers a clear mechanism for religious views occurring. But I'm not an atheist either.
Jung’s views are interesting, I think, but he gets far too woo-woo for me pretty quickly. I also think some of his pronouncements are far too paternalistic and western-centric. I don’t go in the for the full critique of Jung as a kind of proto-fascist, but I sympathize with that view.
OK, but he transformed the view of the unconscious, as Freud hated spiritual and mystical stuff, whereas Jung noticed that it comes up in a lot of people, often in weird forms. Where does it come from? Freud would boil it down to instinctual energy. But J's view of Self integrates a lot of other stuff, e.g., pagan.
For sure, I’m not disagreeing with that, and I think that his views are interesting within the framework of an early psychoanalysis that’s receptive to the spiritual. Of course, much of modern psychoanalysis has taken a Freudian line and developed a place for the spiritual without Jung’s ideas, such as Lacan and his ilk.
I knew Vera von der Heydt, who knew Jung and did a training analysis with him. Anyway, she was from a Jewish family, but became a Catholic, and wrote some interesting books, e.g., Prospects for the Soul. Incidentally, Jung gets fierce criticism from some Buddhists, for his orientalism.
Jung's views are even more pertinent. Mind you he wasn't an atheist, one of the causes of their breakup. I think projection offers a clear mechanism for religious views occurring. But I'm not an atheist either.
Jung’s views are interesting, I think, but he gets far too woo-woo for me pretty quickly. I also think some of his pronouncements are far too paternalistic and western-centric. I don’t go in the for the full critique of Jung as a kind of proto-fascist, but I sympathize with that view.
OK, but he transformed the view of the unconscious, as Freud hated spiritual and mystical stuff, whereas Jung noticed that it comes up in a lot of people, often in weird forms. Where does it come from? Freud would boil it down to instinctual energy. But J's view of Self integrates a lot of other stuff, e.g., pagan.
For sure, I’m not disagreeing with that, and I think that his views are interesting within the framework of an early psychoanalysis that’s receptive to the spiritual. Of course, much of modern psychoanalysis has taken a Freudian line and developed a place for the spiritual without Jung’s ideas, such as Lacan and his ilk.
I knew Vera von der Heydt, who knew Jung and did a training analysis with him. Anyway, she was from a Jewish family, but became a Catholic, and wrote some interesting books, e.g., Prospects for the Soul. Incidentally, Jung gets fierce criticism from some Buddhists, for his orientalism.
That’s interesting! I hadn’t heard of her, I’ll do some looking around and check out some of her books. Thanks!
I know that Buddhist thinkers have had a fruitful exchange with psychoanalysis but I’ve not gotten around to checking any of that stuff out. Some day!
It's an interesting idea. I've not run into it in quite those terms, though I certainly do think the God-shaped hole is there on purpose, whether you want to attribute it to creation or fall or both, I dunno.
But of course, accepting that means accepting that someone created us that way. Ay, there's the rub...
I've not come across a convincing natural explanation for the ubiquity and predominance of religion in human cultures. Supernatural, yes.
I don't know of a systematic naturalistic phenomenon, although the Freudian line about reifying various external manifestations of internal habits of mind (note that I'm heavily glossing that) is attractive to me. Someday I'll read more into the sociology of religion and anthropology and perhaps have a better explanation.
Don't worry, it can't make any difference if your beliefs are strong enough.
Speak for yourself. My belief is quite strong and has been modified by everything I’ve learned. I don’t see how one could genuinely learn something and not be changed by it. So if I learned of a systematic naturalistic explanation for the development of religions then that would certainly modify my understanding of religious development.
It couldn't stop your belief.
How do you know that? You seem to know more about me than I do myself. I could learn something that rendered my belief null. I don’t know what that would be, but it’s a possibility.
It's an interesting idea. I've not run into it in quite those terms, though I certainly do think the God-shaped hole is there on purpose, whether you want to attribute it to creation or fall or both, I dunno.
But of course, accepting that means accepting that someone created us that way. Ay, there's the rub...
I've not come across a convincing natural explanation for the ubiquity and predominance of religion in human cultures. Supernatural, yes.
I don't know of a systematic naturalistic phenomenon, although the Freudian line about reifying various external manifestations of internal habits of mind (note that I'm heavily glossing that) is attractive to me. Someday I'll read more into the sociology of religion and anthropology and perhaps have a better explanation.
Don't worry, it can't make any difference if your beliefs are strong enough.
Speak for yourself. My belief is quite strong and has been modified by everything I’ve learned. I don’t see how one could genuinely learn something and not be changed by it. So if I learned of a systematic naturalistic explanation for the development of religions then that would certainly modify my understanding of religious development.
It couldn't stop your belief.
How do you know that? You seem to know more about me than I do myself. I could learn something that rendered my belief null. I don’t know what that would be, but it’s a possibility.
Wanna bet?
Martin, you’ve been dinged so many times on telling people that you know what they think better than they do. It’s like you can’t help yourself. I’d be delighted to bet, my student loans aren’t getting smaller as fast as I’d like.
It's an interesting idea. I've not run into it in quite those terms, though I certainly do think the God-shaped hole is there on purpose, whether you want to attribute it to creation or fall or both, I dunno.
But of course, accepting that means accepting that someone created us that way. Ay, there's the rub...
I've not come across a convincing natural explanation for the ubiquity and predominance of religion in human cultures. Supernatural, yes.
I don't know of a systematic naturalistic phenomenon, although the Freudian line about reifying various external manifestations of internal habits of mind (note that I'm heavily glossing that) is attractive to me. Someday I'll read more into the sociology of religion and anthropology and perhaps have a better explanation.
Don't worry, it can't make any difference if your beliefs are strong enough.
Speak for yourself. My belief is quite strong and has been modified by everything I’ve learned. I don’t see how one could genuinely learn something and not be changed by it. So if I learned of a systematic naturalistic explanation for the development of religions then that would certainly modify my understanding of religious development.
It couldn't stop your belief.
How do you know that? You seem to know more about me than I do myself. I could learn something that rendered my belief null. I don’t know what that would be, but it’s a possibility.
Wanna bet?
Martin, you’ve been dinged so many times on telling people that you know what they think better than they do. It’s like you can’t help yourself. I’d be delighted to bet, my student loans aren’t getting smaller as fast as I’d like.
Ah, you're young, there is hope. What stops you now reading on the psychology of religion, of belief? But be careful if you actually have an open mind.
I don't know what that means, but surely religions are natural. They're heckin' everywhere. Humans can't help but make religions. They can, and are, studied as naturally occurring phenomenon in the same way that subcultures are naturally occurring phenomenon.
I'm not surprised!
Nature does NOT have to, cannot[,] argue, reason against unnature, unreason.
Comments
I'm not interested in Dawkins' beliefs. And he isn't racist. Islamophobic yes. Transphobic yes. I told him he needs to love his enemies. Why do you not know of his saying hate and love are equivalent? And I know the majority of Christians do: Damnation is love.
Sounds like an abusively controlling cult to me. Or possibly some half-baked rehash of Yoda’s useless bullshit advice to Anakin in RotS.
This is not a fact.
Indeed, it's not even an observation. It's a dangling assertion snipped out of a worldview with nary an argument given to it to rest on.
Oh, so at least one religion is true. Which one's that?
Be fair. The truth of any given religion is an unknown. We cannot state their truth one way or the other as a fact. We can only put forward a hypothesis regarding any truth claim.
We've been arguing about how or if that can be tested for thousands of years.
I'm reminded of the philosophers in Hitch-Hiker's - "what's the point of arguing all night whether there is or isn't a God if this machine goes and gives you his phone number in the morning?"
It's also unclear what model or understanding of truth we're working with here.
I go with "things that aren't false".
I couldn't be fairer. Every . religion . all religion . religion . is . false .
You are free to assert anything you'd like, but absent an argument or rationale of how you arrived at this determination it can be summarily dismissed.
If the kingdom of heaven is like a pearl of great price, what's a reasonable amount to give up in exchange?
"Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine, sacredness,faith, and a supernatural being or beings."
In other words, the term is almost undefinable. Notice "no scholarly consensus".
I will stick to my example: ancestor worship is one of the most common religions in the world. I don't see any way to falsify it. We all have ancestors, and either we do or we do not respect them.
The insistence that only Abrahamic religions count lowers the level of the discussion.
Include any and all you like, they are untrue. I.e. false. Made up. No more real, true than a limited liability company. And less than the way a person is made up. Than an interpersonal relationship is made up. And that quote is most definitional.
They are, but that's certainly quite odd, isn't it? A whole species that dedicates untold amount of resources to something unproveable and invisible (mostly) that fills an itch in its system... but can't rightly agree on what that itch is... and yet can't get along without it, will in fact re-invent religion if it is taken from them...
To me, it cries out for an explanation. And any number of explanations exist, but aren't convincing.
I quite agree! And given the human propensity to go about and create a religion if there isn't one present, I'm inclined to believe that some part of the explanation for why we have such a need to make religions is to be found within one of the established religions. For me, Christianity and the Abrahamic religions overall offer a powerful explanation for the human need to craft a religion.
Of course, Abrahamic religions aren't the only religions, and I think it's true that some of the impulse behind the ancestor cults that never got as grand as our faith explain some aspects as well.
But of course, accepting that means accepting that someone created us that way. Ay, there's the rub...
I've not come across a convincing natural explanation for the ubiquity and predominance of religion in human cultures. Supernatural, yes.
I now have a terribly simpler explanation for it all.
I don't know of a systematic naturalistic phenomenon, although the Freudian line about reifying various external manifestations of internal habits of mind (note that I'm heavily glossing that) is attractive to me. Someday I'll read more into the sociology of religion and anthropology and perhaps have a better explanation.
Don't worry, it can't make any difference if your beliefs are strong enough.
Jung’s views are interesting, I think, but he gets far too woo-woo for me pretty quickly. I also think some of his pronouncements are far too paternalistic and western-centric. I don’t go in the for the full critique of Jung as a kind of proto-fascist, but I sympathize with that view.
Speak for yourself. My belief is quite strong and has been modified by everything I’ve learned. I don’t see how one could genuinely learn something and not be changed by it. So if I learned of a systematic naturalistic explanation for the development of religions then that would certainly modify my understanding of religious development.
OK, but he transformed the view of the unconscious, as Freud hated spiritual and mystical stuff, whereas Jung noticed that it comes up in a lot of people, often in weird forms. Where does it come from? Freud would boil it down to instinctual energy. But J's view of Self integrates a lot of other stuff, e.g., pagan.
For sure, I’m not disagreeing with that, and I think that his views are interesting within the framework of an early psychoanalysis that’s receptive to the spiritual. Of course, much of modern psychoanalysis has taken a Freudian line and developed a place for the spiritual without Jung’s ideas, such as Lacan and his ilk.
It couldn't stop your belief.
How do you know that? You seem to know more about me than I do myself. I could learn something that rendered my belief null. I don’t know what that would be, but it’s a possibility.
I knew Vera von der Heydt, who knew Jung and did a training analysis with him. Anyway, she was from a Jewish family, but became a Catholic, and wrote some interesting books, e.g., Prospects for the Soul. Incidentally, Jung gets fierce criticism from some Buddhists, for his orientalism.
That’s interesting! I hadn’t heard of her, I’ll do some looking around and check out some of her books. Thanks!
I know that Buddhist thinkers have had a fruitful exchange with psychoanalysis but I’ve not gotten around to checking any of that stuff out. Some day!
Wanna bet?
Martin, you’ve been dinged so many times on telling people that you know what they think better than they do. It’s like you can’t help yourself. I’d be delighted to bet, my student loans aren’t getting smaller as fast as I’d like.
Ah, you're young, there is hope. What stops you now reading on the psychology of religion, of belief? But be careful if you actually have an open mind.
I'm not surprised!
Nature does NOT have to, cannot[,] argue, reason against unnature, unreason.
Is that better?
But we humans are unreasonable creatures with minds that want to reason, consider and explain. Many scriptures describe this state.
We are part of nature and yet able to regret, forgive, think ahead, reason and justify in a way animals just can’t.
My way of dealing with these bleak thoughts is to ˋlift up my eyes to the hillsˋ and to concentrate on the Light.
I think lack of faith can be bleak because there is then noting to ˋlift up our eyesˋ to. If you see what I mean.