Human Reason and Christian Denominations

[Angrboda]

What's interesting to me about all the different sects of Christianity is that it is a prime example of humans using their own reason to create a belief system. Look at how varied some denominations are. Some will allow a homosexual to lead a church while others will not let a known gay person through the door. They all use the same Bible but use their own reason to decide what parts to emphasize and how to properly interpret scripture. It's not like some supernatural being is communicating them to tell them exactly what to do. If some Christians here believe that is the case then feel free to provide evidence of your communication with this being.

That sounds silly to me too!   We all have different backgrounds, different biases, and different understandings about a number of things.  I wouldn't expect Christianity to be any different.  I don't think that any of us, are above reproach;  I've been wrong on things before, I changed my mind on things, and I've had to eat crow on occasion.   I'm still growing, still learning, and I'm sure still screwing up.

I do disagree, however, that any of this means that people are just making things up (perhaps some are).  But some of us, don't believe that we are free to just make things up, or that thins are subjective.   Some believe that there is an objective truth, that we are trying to achieve.

The core insight Burton makes in On Being Certain is this: Certainty is a feeling. There is a feeling we have when we know something. To experience this feeling for yourself Burton asks us to recall a recent tip of the tongue experience. Think of meeting someone knowing you know her name but being unable to recall it. That feeling of knowing--"I know this!"--combined with a lack of content (being unable to recall the name) nicely separates the content of knowledge (the name) from the feeling of knowing (the feeling inherent in the tip of the tongue experience). In short, there is a felt experience that is associated with knowing something. Or, more specifically, knowing you know something.

Burton, a neurologist, speculates that this "feeling of knowing" or the "feeling of conviction" is vital to human cognition as it provides us with a reward structure for thought. After successfully solving a problem the feeling of knowing helps signal to us that a solution has arrived. The feeling of knowing also helps us engage in mental search. If I feel I know something (like your name) I'll persist in digging into my memory to figure it out. If, however, I don't get the feeling of knowing I'll not waste any time searching for your name. A similar thing occurs when my students take tests. Sometimes they reach a question where they have a strong feeling of knowing: "I know this!" But on other questions they just draw a blank. No feeling of knowing. On those questions they just guess and move on. But it they feel that they know the answer they will linger and engage in mental search.

Beyond illuminating the phenomenological experience of conviction/knowledge, Burton's other big point is that this system is very glitchy and error prone. Specifically, once I get the feeling of knowing I may forgo any further investigation or reflection. My feeling of knowing tells me I have the answer so why sweat looking for alternatives? As a reinforcing emotion knowledge feels good, it's pleasurable. Consequently, may people stick with the pleasure of "knowing" instead of shrugging off the feeling to reenter the world of debate and argument. It takes a kind of courage to move back into uncertainty. More specifically, it takes a kind of self-overcoming, of saying "No" to yourself. "Knowing" is as pleasurable as doughnuts or ice cream and, like with other pleasures of the flesh, self-restraint and discipline may be required to move back into uncertainty. People might need a diet from certainty. How's that for a New Year's Resolution? To not be so cocksure all the time.

The point of all this is that religious dogmatism is so stubborn because we aren't dealing with rationality. We are working with an emotional system. Overtly, the conversation is about biblical texts or rational arguments. But at root what is governing the conversation is the feeling of knowing. And if the person feels they are right then quality counter-arguments just won't penetrate. The dominant emotional tone of conviction convinces the person that he is in the possession of the truth. That feeling drives the conversation.

Certainty and Dogmatism: The Feeling of Knowing

[Brian37]

There is diversity and differing opinions within Christianity just as there is everywhere else.

Yes, which proves my point. 

Our species ability to do good and be non violent isn't in any label. There is not one nation friend or foe alike that does not have hospitals or prisons.

I think Christians and Jews and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists ARE very capable of compassion, empathy and non violence.

I just don't agree with where religious people think the origins of our behaviors come from.

[The Valkyrie]

Teh Gayz are bad.

So is everyone else according to Christian propaganda.

[vulcanlogician]

The core insight Burton makes in On Being Certain is this: Certainty is a feeling. There is a feeling we have when we know something. To experience this feeling for yourself Burton asks us to recall a recent tip of the tongue experience. Think of meeting someone knowing you know her name but being unable to recall it. That feeling of knowing--"I know this!"--combined with a lack of content (being unable to recall the name) nicely separates the content of knowledge (the name) from the feeling of knowing (the feeling inherent in the tip of the tongue experience). In short, there is a felt experience that is associated with knowing something. Or, more specifically, knowing you know something.

Burton, a neurologist, speculates that this "feeling of knowing" or the "feeling of conviction" is vital to human cognition as it provides us with a reward structure for thought. After successfully solving a problem the feeling of knowing helps signal to us that a solution has arrived. The feeling of knowing also helps us engage in mental search. If I feel I know something (like your name) I'll persist in digging into my memory to figure it out. If, however, I don't get the feeling of knowing I'll not waste any time searching for your name. A similar thing occurs when my students take tests. Sometimes they reach a question where they have a strong feeling of knowing: "I know this!" But on other questions they just draw a blank. No feeling of knowing. On those questions they just guess and move on. But it they feel that they know the answer they will linger and engage in mental search.

Beyond illuminating the phenomenological experience of conviction/knowledge, Burton's other big point is that this system is very glitchy and error prone. Specifically, once I get the feeling of knowing I may forgo any further investigation or reflection. My feeling of knowing tells me I have the answer so why sweat looking for alternatives? As a reinforcing emotion knowledge feels good, it's pleasurable. Consequently, may people stick with the pleasure of "knowing" instead of shrugging off the feeling to reenter the world of debate and argument. It takes a kind of courage to move back into uncertainty. More specifically, it takes a kind of self-overcoming, of saying "No" to yourself. "Knowing" is as pleasurable as doughnuts or ice cream and, like with other pleasures of the flesh, self-restraint and discipline may be required to move back into uncertainty. People might need a diet from certainty. How's that for a New Year's Resolution? To not be so cocksure all the time.

The point of all this is that religious dogmatism is so stubborn because we aren't dealing with rationality. We are working with an emotional system. Overtly, the conversation is about biblical texts or rational arguments. But at root what is governing the conversation is the feeling of knowing. And if the person feels they are right then quality counter-arguments just won't penetrate. The dominant emotional tone of conviction convinces the person that he is in the possession of the truth. That feeling drives the conversation.

Certainty and Dogmatism: The Feeling of Knowing

That's interesting.

Though a counterpoint that pops to mind is: How often is our sense of certainty demonstrably wrong in a "tip of the tongue" instance? When we are certain we know such-and-such's name, we are certain that it lies somewhere in our memory banks (and it usually does)... we just can't recall it immediately. As such, I think it is incorrect to characterize such a feeling as "error prone." It may be "combined with a lack of content" but only so in the same fashion that you don't know X's phone number, but it is in your phone.

What is certain, however, is that such feelings compel one to "forgo any further investigation or reflection," and that is probably key to understanding dogmatic certainty. I am reminded of when I was memorizing African countries for a geography test. I would drill myself on the answers. When I came to a country I couldn't immediately remember, I searched and searched my memory banks until I found the answer, "Botswana!" Then came that feeling of knowing--that intrinsic reward for recollection. In the same manner, religious indoctrination drills answers to cosmic questions into one's head. And simple recollection of that answer not only halts any tendency toward further investigation, it also bestows upon one the gratifying feeling of certitude.

[Godscreated]

Both Jesus and Paul were predicting imminent  heaven on earth in the form of socialist equality.  Jesus preached that to be part of that, one should give everything away and begin to act like that kingdom where already there. You have to twist pretty hard to avoid believing Jesus was wrong about the timing, if nothing else.  But how you can reconcile the Gospels with capitalism is beyond me.  As I understand it, the line is Jesus was preaching what you had to have done to survive the kingdom of God  if he didn't die for their sins.  Oddly, he failed to mention that last bit.  Nor did he say some of you standing here won't taste death before the coming of the kingdom of God, unless I'm  crucified in which case the kingdom of God will just mean that believers will be resurrected. He said the former but not the later.

When Paul said, better to marry than burn it was not an endorcement.  If you can read The Gospels and Paul's letters and argue heterosexual marriage is the bed rock of Christian society, you have already done so much rationalizing that a little more here and there is hardly surprising.

Here's a fine example of misinterpretation of the scriptures what denomination do you belong to. You accuse Christians of misrepresenting god's word and to date you haven't gotten any of of right. 

GC

[The Grand Nudger]

Delicious irony.........................

[Jenny A]

Both Jesus and Paul were predicting imminent  heaven on earth in the form of socialist equality.  Jesus preached that to be part of that, one should give everything away and begin to act like that kingdom where already there. You have to twist pretty hard to avoid believing Jesus was wrong about the timing, if nothing else.  But how you can reconcile the Gospels with capitalism is beyond me.  As I understand it, the line is Jesus was preaching what you had to have done to survive the kingdom of God  if he didn't die for their sins.  Oddly, he failed to mention that last bit.  Nor did he say some of you standing here won't taste death before the coming of the kingdom of God, unless I'm  crucified in which case the kingdom of God will just mean that believers will be resurrected. He said the former but not the later.

When Paul said, better to marry than burn it was not an endorcement.  If you can read The Gospels and Paul's letters and argue heterosexual marriage is the bed rock of Christian society, you have already done so much rationalizing that a little more here and there is hardly surprising.

Here's a fine example of misinterpretation of the scriptures what denomination do you belong to. You accuse Christians of misrepresenting god's word and to date you haven't gotten any of of right. 

GC

What I haven't gotten right is Christian theology.

The denomination I was raised in is irrelevant. No denomination I know of grapples with the fact that Jesus preached socialism and an immediate new order on earth. Unless you twist his words to hell, that is what he was, an apocalyptic rabbi speaking to the Jews about a kingdom earth to be ruled by the 12 disciples (apparently Judas' betrayal had yet to occur to him at time he made that promise).

Christians should call themselves Paulites, because they sure don't follow Jesus. Christian theology is based on Paul, at the expense of the Gospels. But if you choose Paul, just remember that marriage is just barely more honorable than adultery. Better to marry than burn.

[Minimalist]

G-C can twist anything to get to his republicunt jesus.

[robvalue]

Yup, when someone says to me, "I'm a Christian", I assume nothing more than they call themselves a Christian. Their religious beliefs could be literally anything, and I'm not going to correct them.

[Godscreated]

Here's a fine example of misinterpretation of the scriptures what denomination do you belong to. You accuse Christians of misrepresenting god's word and to date you haven't gotten any of of right. 

GC

What I haven't gotten right is Christian theology.  

The denomination I was raised in is irrelevant.  No denomination I know of grapples with the fact that Jesus preached socialism and an immediate new order on earth.  Unless you twist his words to hell, that is what he was, an apocalyptic rabbi speaking to the Jews about a kingdom earth to be ruled by the 12 disciples (apparently Judas' betrayal had yet to occur to him at time he made that promise).

Christians should call themselves Paulites, because they sure don't follow Jesus. Christian theology is based on Paul, at the expense of the Gospels. But if you choose Paul, just remember that marriage is just barely more honorable than adultery. Better to marry than burn.

You still have it all wrong, the kingdom you speak of is the church and the disciples were to lead out in building Christ's bride. The socialism you speak of is Jesus telling us to help the needy, that isn't socialism by any stretch of the imagination. Jesus was not a rabbi even though some called Him by that title. Jesus never was recorded speaking directly to Judas except for the betrayal. Paul's teachings do not contradict what Jesus taught because Paul's teachings came directly from Jesus. Paul wasn't against marriage he taught that one did not necessarily need to be married if marriage wouldn't suit him, Paul was teaching devotion to Christ first the same thing Jesus taught. I'm a Southern Baptist and all parts of the Bible are just as important as any other. You have preached this same ol' message for a while now and it is as unworthy as it was the first time you brought it up. You must have left the church because this is all you got from the scriptures, this isn't the way to a Christian life, it's you who twist scriptures not the majority of Christians and as for you ever and I mean ever being a Christian in the past that was impossible.

GC

---

Yup, when someone says to me, "I'm a Christian", I assume nothing more than they call themselves a Christian. Their religious beliefs could be literally anything, and I'm not going to correct them.

You wouldn't have a foot to stand on, you've shown that over the time you've been here.

GC

---

G-C can twist anything to get to his republicunt jesus.

I'll have you know I support any democrat that will do for this nation what is important for this country and yes he must be a Christian. You need to get your head out of the sand in that sand box you play in and learn to spell Jesus and republican. Eyes full of sand tend to miss lead people Minny don't you know that.

GC