Hristo's FI Journal

[chenda]

Fwiw, I only abandoned atheism for theism due to reason and logic. Rationality and scientific thinking is the only way I can believe.

But I only found that through Indian philosophy. It can be found elsewhere but its not as easy to find.

[RockyMtnLiving]

And speaking of disrupting iconoclasts, how about Jesus Christ himself? I'm pretty sure that Christianity did to Judaism what Luther is being alleged to have done to the medieval "Church" up thread. See, e.g., Michener's "The Source." Michener describes the following scene. A Jew who was a bastard son was denied access to the Temple by the rabbis based on their interpretation of the Torah. Under the rabbinical interpretation, the only path forward for the bastard son was this. He first needed to be sold into slavery, then marry a slave. The offspring of that marriage would then be allowed back into the Temple. There was no way for the bastard son himself to be allowed entry to the Temple, however. The son was doomed for eternity, in essence, because his father procreated outside of marriage. So sayeth the Torah.

Perceiving the injustice of his situation, the Jew was thus open to other ideas. So one day a Christian arrived in the bastard Jew's town, approached the Jew and said, in essence: "Your current belief system is penalizing you unfairly, as your 'bastard' status was not your fault, was not your sin. And yet you are punished, as your rabbis forbid you entry to the Temple. So convert to Christianity and become free. All you need to do is believe in Christ and you are absolved of your sins, even sins held against you unfairly by others."

And so the Jew converted to Christianity, then and there, on the spot. He was saved.

The history of religious beliefs is fascinating, complicated, non-linear and definitely worthy of study. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/17 ... m-judaism/.

[Hristo Botev]

Indeed. I would love to grab a beer (or three) with you and explore this in rich detail.

In.

I agree with @chenda that it seems a bit of a stretch to lump all that Luther (and subsequent reformists) did as “the devils plaything”. There were serious gripes with the Church at that time, many of them I would argue would be classified as institutional betrayals per your words (indulgences being at the top of my list).

Definitely agree re indulgences etc. being institutional betrayals. That's why I said the institutional Church would/did betray its followers without /before Luther et al. That's also my point; the institutional Church is a human institution; it will always betray you--'tis inevitable. Luther was also inevitable. That's what I meant by devil's plaything

I understand your point re: logic leading to Enlightenment and eventually leading to “God is dead”.

I don't know if that is my point. It's not logic; really. Logic predated the church. It's the fundamental mindshift in worldview that occurred that resulted in the enlightenment--with "religion" understood as some sort of separate and distinct concept.

But surely you don’t believe that the Church continuing to hold that kind of power over the population to be i) feasible in modern day society; and ii) beneficial for modern day society?

Granted I'm deep in my reading of Plato at the moment, so I necessarily have to ask you to define what you mean by "beneficial," and probably also "feasible" as well. But, short answer, I don't think "modern day society" (with God abolished) is "beneficial" for man. But I'd certainly take the Church exercising control over me over The Machine, as Kingsnorth defines it. But no, modern day society and a Church-dominated society cannot coexist; of course, the continuation of our species and modern day society also cannot coexist.

Unless the Church was solely run/administered by benevolent holy men (holy people?)

These people do not exist.

it leads the same way that any powerful institution led by men leads - towards corruption. The failure to address the worst of this (child abuse) is what turns so many off.

For sure. The institution you love already has betrayed you, and will continue to do so. However, when what remains of human population is standing upon a smoldering pile of uninhabitable debris that used to be Earth struggling to breathe, I don't think we will be saying that the worst corruption of the Church was child abuse.

How would you like to see the role of the institution and the criteria for those administrating it’s authority?

At this point, I'd like them to mostly keep their mouths shut and simply administer the sacraments.

[Hristo Botev]

And speaking of disrupting iconoclasts, how about Jesus Christ himself? I'm pretty sure that Christianity did to Judaism what Luther is being alleged to have done to the medieval "Church" up thread.

Unless of course you actually believe that Christ is God incarnate; and if you don't, what's the point? To @macg's earlier (now deleted?) point upthread, if you don't believe that Christ is God incarnate, then what we're talking about is indeed just a really interesting academic study of history and evolutionary development--see also Sprial Dynamics.

ETA: One of my favorite Flannery quotes:

“Someone once told the Catholic writer Flannery O’Connor that it is more open-minded to think that the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar is a great, wonderful, powerful symbol.

Her response was, “If it’s only a symbol, to hell with it.”

[chenda]

Which is why religious study scholars rightly adopt 'methodological atheism' even if they are believers, and firewall as far as they can between the two.

Questions like did Jesus really come back from the dead or walk on water are simply not appropriate historical questions.

[Hristo Botev]

Which is why religious study scholars rightly adopt 'methodological atheism' even if they are believers, and firewall as far as they can between the two.

Questions like did Jesus really come back from the dead or walk on water are simply not appropriate historical questions.

I don't really know what that means; but whether or not Jesus actually came back from the dead is the only appropriate historical question that matters. (I don't think the walking on water thing really matters.) And if you have to build a firewall between what you "believe" and what you study; well, that seems like it is bound to result in some sort of schizophrenia, or something (unless by "believer" we are really talking about some sort of cultural of Sunday Christian). Also gets to the point upthread (Kingsnorth's) about the poison pill that Luther and the other reformers dropped in accidentally inventing "religion" as a concept and as something for study and for arguing.

[zbigi]

With tradition and authority demolished, reason would become the only 'basis for argument about God, creation and morality.'

Wasn't medieval scholasticism the precursor to that? I.e. trying to marry the already reason-based ancient Greeks with the Bible? Luther would be just the logical next step to this.

[Hristo Botev]

Wasn't medieval scholasticism the precursor to that? I.e. trying to marry the already reason-based ancient Greeks with the Bible? Luther would be just the logical next step to this.

Probably. I've only read bits and pieces of Aquinas's Summas; and I've not read any of the other Scholastics. I'm only on Plato currently; haven't even started Aristotle. I know Aquinas draws heavily upon Aristotle. Perhaps I'll get to the end of the canon and find out that, as it happens, I'm in fact a devout believer in the Myth of Progress. Or perhaps I'll conclude that Aquinas represents the pinnacle of human thought, in an almost demi-god, Achilles-like, glow in the dark smart manner of speaking; and that it was all downhill from there.

But, Aquinas certainly doesn't argue against the Magisterium; or advocate for sola scriptura.

As it stands currently, I'm reading Plato and seeing: (a) Socrates regularly concedes that it all falls apart without God (or "gods")*; and (b) sure as hell doesn't seem like we've "progressed" much if at all over the course of the past 2,500 years, at least as it concerns human thought.

*I'm as much prone to a tin foil hat as anyone, so perhaps the reason why Socrates keeps talking about an afterlife as a necessary ingredient for a proper concept of "justice" is because the Complete Works of Plato that I'm working my way through sits on my bookshelf only thanks to the painstaking efforts of the Catholic monks who copied those works by hand; and perhaps they "added" a thing or two.

[chenda]

I don't really know what that means; but whether or not Jesus actually came back from the dead is the only appropriate historical question that matters.

Its not a historical question, because the idea is as scientifically tenable as to whether the tooth fairy exist.

Humans compartmentalise different domains of belief (religion, science, ethics) which have different methadologies. The boundaries must be respected.

[Hristo Botev]

Its not a historical question, because the idea is as scientifically tenable as to whether the tooth fairy exist.

Humans compartmentalise different domains of belief (religion, science, ethics) which have different methadologies. The boundaries must be respected.

Right; that's the point Kingsnorth is making. We live in Luther's world (I'm using "Luther" as a trope). In Luther's world we compartmentalize "religion" from "science" (and "ethics"). This is scientism. Science is the study of the things of the world. Science is not the study of the things not of the world. Science allows you to study what exists. Science does not allow you to study existence. Reason("Natural Reason") can take you only so far to knowing God; that's Book 1 of Summa Contra Gentiles (The "Little Summa"); that much of Aquinas I've read (I probably understood 5% of it).

It is a historical question. Did the Resurrection happen as a historical matter? The question is not whether it is "scientifically tenable" that the Resurrection happened; did it happen, as a matter of historical fact? That is the question. If you don't because you don't believe it is scientifically tenable then you are relying upon something to make truth claims that cannot make truth claims.

[chenda]

It is a historical question. Did the Resurrection happen as a historical matter? .

This is a topic of going debate. Ehrman vs Licona are apparently having another 7 hour bout soon.

https://ehrmanblog.org/video-ehrman-vs- ... 09-debate/

[Hristo Botev]

This is a topic of going debate. Ehrman vs Licona are apparently having another 7 hour bout soon.

Probably a more productive and beneficial and enjoyable debate than arguing about whose sports ball team is the best. Or which show on your preferred streaming platform is most binge-worthy, or whatever.

[chenda]

Probably a more productive and beneficial and enjoyable debate than arguing about whose sports ball team is the best. Or which show on your preferred streaming platform is most binge-worthy, or whatever.

Yes I completely agree. They do break for lunch though. Out of interest, are you planning on studying non western philosophy at some point?

[Hristo Botev]

Out of interest, are you planning on studying non western philosophy at some point?

No; I'm not a non western--I'm a southern redneck. And as I figure I only got about 30 years left, at most--probably more like 20--I'll have my hands full tackling this list: https://thinkingasleverage.wordpress.co ... ding-list/. Though, tbh, I might just quit after I get to Aquinas and start all over (well, maybe I'll quit after Dante and Thomas More, and then start over).

If I'm being honest, though, I'm sure I'll read Nietzsche, cuz I enjoy getting to peak inside that guy's mind; and I'll read more modern/contemporary writers with whom I share some level of culture in common (southerners and Anglos). I'm always reading at least something by Percy, or Berry, or of course Kingsnorth--and I'm currently on a multi-year journey to read Foote's Civil War, which is a surefire shoe-in for an eventual place in the canon.

I've read the Tao de Ching (sp?). That was good--I liked it's anti-travel bias; I feel the same way: my western tradition might equate travel/tourism with the sin of covetousness, and I think that is correct.

[zbigi]

Its not a historical question, because the idea is as scientifically tenable as to whether the tooth fairy exist.

It's impossible for science to disprove anything with 100% certainty. So, technically speaking, all ideas (as long as they're internally consistent, follow basic logic etc.) are scientifically tenable, and could turn out to be true. For example, the physical laws of the universe could very well have a crazy exception saying that there's one person in the history of humankind that is able to walk on water. (that law would be terribly hard to study for scientists because of its limited scope and probably they would never really discover and document it, and the only accounts would be left in folk tales or religious texts).

[zbigi]

No; I'm not a non western--I'm a southern redneck. And as I figure I only got about 30 years left, at most--probably more like 20--I'll have my hands full tackling this list: https://thinkingasleverage.wordpress.co ... ding-list/. Though, tbh, I might just quit after I get to Aquinas and start all over (well, maybe I'll quit after Dante and Thomas More, and then start over).

I recommend looking into Simone Weil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Weil) if you haven't already. She's a French Jew who converted to Christianity, and is also well-read in Eastern traditions. Her writing on religious and other subjects is quite something. It's also rather short and concise, with every paragraph full of meaning.
I found out about her through reading XX century Polish intellectuals, who were fascinated by her. Also, as per Wikipedia, Albert Camus described her as "the only great spirit of our times". You might find her writing valuable.

[chenda]

I've read the Tao de Ching (sp?). That was good--I liked it's anti-travel bias; I feel the same way: my western tradition might equate travel/tourism with the sin of covetousness, and I think that is correct.

Yes I like it too. Well, if ever want to dip your toes in some Indian philosophy the short 12 verse Mandukya Upanishad is worth a read. I've been reading some of The Enneads but Plotinus is hard work; Epicurus was a much better writer. I heard someone say once that western philosophy is now bankrupt, as its a prisoner of its own rationality and can't provide a soteriology solution to life. Actually perhaps that's a reformation legacy as well, although there are probably exceptions.

@zbigi - yes, although its not a falsifiable statement to say there was once a unique exception to the laws of physics where someone once walked on water, hence it can't be within the remit of science.

[take2]

Granted I'm deep in my reading of Plato at the moment, so I necessarily have to ask you to define what you mean by "beneficial," and probably also "feasible" as well.

But, short answer, I don't think "modern day society" (with God abolished) is "beneficial" for man. But I'd certainly take the Church exercising control over me over The Machine, as Kingsnorth defines it. But no, modern day society and a Church-dominated society cannot coexist; of course, the continuation of our species and modern day society also cannot coexist.

…

For sure. The institution you love already has betrayed you, and will continue to do so.

…
At this point, I'd like them to mostly keep their mouths shut and simply administer the sacraments.

It’s a fair question as to my definitions of beneficial/feasible. I don’t have a good answer, but I agree with you that modern day society and the continuation of our species cannot coexist.

However, I think the crux of our differing viewpoints is exactly the fact that we both agree the institution has betrayed its followers, and will likely betray them again.

Given that, and given the fact that expecting the clergy to “keep their mouths shut and simply administer the sacraments” is just as fanciful as being able to put Luther back in his box, my question is why is subverting to the authority of the Church a better outcome?

I don’t mean subverting to the authority of God (however one chooses to define God), but rather the specific institution of the Catholic Church?

I’m what you referred to as a lapsed Catholic. I really enjoy reading your journal as I don’t know anyone IRL who is truly a devout, well read Catholic. I know many who go to Church regularly, but it’s more for the community, the routine, and to instil morality into their children. I sincerely doubt many of them truly believe; indeed most of the younger ones only returned when they had children of their own. I may be doing this myself (for the same stated reasons), but am well aware that if I had been brought up Protestant, Muslim, or at the Church of Richard Dawkins, that’s what I would be considering imparting onto my kids.

I’m not sure the institution of the Catholic Church is the answer to the issues caused by modern society. Perhaps it can serve as a vessel for building communities, promoting interdependence, collective belief in something greater than the individual, etc which are useful to society. But is that any different to a Protestant/Muslim/Spiral Dynamics/etc community doing the same?

Perhaps it was your use of “the one true faith” that makes me question why this particular faith, when you already accept that the institution of said faith is littered with betrayal.

[RockyMtnLiving]

Here are the major religions on Planet Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups. What are the criteria by which one determines the "one true faith"?

And here is Richard Feynman on "not knowing things": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na-KzVwu6es

Like Feynman, I'm comfortable not knowing things. I don't need a faith-based structure to fill in the many gaps in my many uncertainties.

[chenda]

It's interesting to note the significant divergence in economic performance between Catholic and Protestant countries in the modern period. Northern Europe significantly outperforms Southern Europe in pretty much any mainstream measure of economic success you care to cite (Catholic but very Secular France is the obvious exception but geographically its the only European country which strands both North and South, with a North Sea and Mediterranean coastline)

Through colonialism this appears to have been mirrored in the similar divergence between North and South America.

Of course correlation does not prove causation but its interesting to speculate what would have happened if Spain and Portugal had colonised North America and Britain had colonised South America. Would the disparity be inverted?

I have no idea. Would the industrial revolution have begun in a Catholic Britain? Why not the more promising environs of late renaissance Italy? Doubtless there are many reasons but either way I'm starting think culture plays a bigger role in economic outcomes than is generally understood. That was certainly Lee Kuen Yew's opinion anyway.