Christians vs Christians (yec)

[Fake Messiah]

If you really believe the Bible is against seeking wisdom and doesn't teach reason, you got some skewed views.
Link to Verses
Out of the many verses about knowledge and wisdom I like:
James 3:13-18  ESV
Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. ...

Using the word "wisdom", over and over - like a dim-witted schoolchild who hasn't learned what a thesaurus is - is not the same as teaching reason. What exactly is this "wisdom from above"?

Yeah, Bible is clear what that "wisdom" is 1 Corinthians 2:6-7, "Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God"

[vulcanlogician]

Actually, it's a pretty good analogy. Arguing about which imaginary friend is 'better' misses the point that 'imaginary' has no gradations. Same with dead.

Boru

Not according to Miracle Max.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Ah, but that only works for people mostly dead.

If a person's truly dead..... well, there's only one thing left you can do.

[Homeless Nutter]

The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. I define wisdom as sound application of knowledge, is that not how you define it?

That's one way to put it, I suppose. It's a fairly vague term, which may incorporate knowledge, experience, intelligence, good judgement, etc. I'd say it's mostly used to describe a quality, rather than a skill, or ability.

I would assume then that the "other" wisdom would be tainted, forced, harsh, not open to reason, full of conviction, biased and insincere.

...But still "sound application of knowledge"?

Should I also provide you with a link to verses about knowledge?

Hey, whatever you think may help your case. But keep in mind - I'm not easily impressed by folksy platitudes.

Listen, I understand the world is full of idealistic and unreasonable people and belief systems. Why do so many atheists assume that all faith is a blind faith without evidence, logic and reason?

Not necessarily "without". Often "despite". People's ability to rationalize and compartmentalize irrational beliefs, decisions and actions is widely known. And if some believers actually found logical and reasonable explanations to the problems most rational people have with religion - they are REALLY bad at communicating that logic. Otherwise - we'd all have been convinced by now.

As it stands - I've never met an atheist, or even a mildly irreligious person, who turned to religion without some sort of a personal - often traumatic - experience (like a loss of a loved one, going sober, mental breakdown, etc), which could perfectly explain their sudden need to believe. Logic and reason alone never seem to be enough to make leaps of faith...

Those are definitions it seems we can never seem to agree on. My point was to counter Fake Messiah's point in the Bible preaching anti-intellectualism. I'm certain there is a metric shit ton of believers that are just blinding doing what their parents taught them growing up for no reason other than, it's something to do. I realize that a lot of people like that, don't like to question their belief, and disapprove of questions from the children they teach. I saw tons of them growing up and in my church. Within that church and lots since, there have been those who encourage questioning, reason and belief.

Yes, I'm sure there are religious people, who encourage such things. But usually - in my experience at least - those people are a minority, they still expect you to reach the "correct" faith-based conclusions, after all your questioning, and have particular ways of interpreting and applying reason and logic. Calling creationism - for one example - "intelligent design" doesn't make it a science, a rational belief, or a worthwhile academic pursuit. You can call pouring over bronze age proverbs a pursuit of knowledge, but it's not likely to result in any kind of new practical solutions to modern problems. That's probably why many atheists believe religions promote anti-intellectualism.

No one I knew that buried their heads in the sand ever used the Bible to defend that belief, because the Bible actual says some really simple things like Proverbs 12:1 "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid. "

Hmmm... Not so much "simple", as "simplistic". Yeah, as I said - antiquated folksy platitudes don't really do much for me. To each their own, I suppose.

[Belacqua]

...But still "sound application of knowledge"?   

I think I would distinguish the wise application of knowledge from the intelligent application of knowledge. (And I know that in conversation these aren't hard and fast rules, but just to make a distinction maybe it's useful.)

Intelligence involves the memory, application, and manipulation of facts. An intelligent person remembers what she learned before and applies it skillfully to a different situation, probably toward a specific end. 

Wisdom involves knowing which specific end is a good one. 

An intelligent person may discover a new medicine, but get divorced twelve times. For tax advice, go to an intelligent person. If you want to decide whether to pack in your well-paid office job in order to become a park ranger because you've always dreamed of doing so, ask a wise person. A committee of wise people should plan the course of the nation. A committee of intelligent people should implement that course. 

The Bible ironically points out the difference between the goals of the people the world considers wise, and the wisdom of the people whom God considers wise. 

The wise people of the world, in the way the Bible uses the term, aim toward the goals that the world values. As you know, the world values fame, money, and power, calls this success, and imagines that it makes you happy. 

The wisdom of God subverts this, according to the New Testament. The wisdom of God demands that we give up fame, money, and power, and devote our lives to serving others. It says that no one should have a moment's comfort until everyone is lifted up. It says that for you and me, it is better to give up every worldly pleasure in order to aim toward a better world. Whether this Kingdom of God is an earthly utopia or a heavenly one depends on your interpretation. 

Neither of these outcomes is at all likely. People who are wise in the worldly sense are almost certainly correct when they say that the goal will never be reached (earthly utopia is impossible and heaven is a pipe dream). The wisdom of Jesus says that we should ignore those people's wisdom and work toward those goals anyway. Faith is the assurance that these goals, while declared impossible by all intelligent people, are nonetheless worth working toward. 

In my personal judgment, most Christians do not live up to the challenge that the NT lays down. It's really difficult, after all, and it's easier for preachers to preach a self-righteous defense of worldly (false) wisdom. But all the extremists -- St. Francis, William Blake, Simone Weil, preach what I'm saying here. 

I'm not a Christian, but this is what I take the words to mean.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Actually, it's a pretty good analogy. Arguing about which imaginary friend is 'better' misses the point that 'imaginary' has no gradations. Same with dead.

Boru

Not according to Miracle Max.

Yabbut, Max was bitter because the King's stinking son fired him. 

Boru

[vulcanlogician]

I'm not a Christian, but this is what I take the words to mean.

Y'know, Belequa, I picked up Romans yesterday. I figured I'd read it to see if I didn't need to reevaluate my position on Paul. (I selected Romans because, apparently, this is the epistle wherein Paul espouses what most Christians consider central to Christian belief.) I'm four chapters in, and so far, I'm not impressed. I figured I'd tell you, since you are one of the reasons I am motivated to make this reassessment.

Any opinions on Romans 1:24-32? It's rather hard for me to find any value in it.

I did read some Blake, though. Again, because you mentioned him. "Auguries Of Innocence" and some others. Now that's good stuff.

[tackattack]

---

Using the word "wisdom", over and over - like a dim-witted schoolchild who hasn't learned what a thesaurus is - is not the same as teaching reason. What exactly is this "wisdom from above"?

Yeah, Bible is clear what that "wisdom" is 1 Corinthians 2:6-7, "Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God"

---

That's not a verse telling you what wisdom is, just how it's revealed.

---

The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. I define wisdom as sound application of knowledge, is that not how you define it?

That's one way to put it, I suppose. It's a fairly vague term, which may incorporate knowledge, experience, intelligence, good judgement, etc. I'd say it's mostly used to describe a quality, rather than a skill, or ability.

I would assume then that the "other" wisdom would be tainted, forced, harsh, not open to reason, full of conviction, biased and insincere.

...But still "sound application of knowledge"?

Should I also provide you with a link to verses about knowledge?

Hey, whatever you think may help your case. But keep in mind - I'm not easily impressed by folksy platitudes.

Listen, I understand the world is full of idealistic and unreasonable people and belief systems. Why do so many atheists assume that all faith is a blind faith without evidence, logic and reason?

Not necessarily "without". Often "despite". People's ability to rationalize and compartmentalize irrational beliefs, decisions and actions is widely known. And if some believers actually found logical and reasonable explanations to the problems most rational people have with religion - they are REALLY bad at communicating that logic. Otherwise - we'd all have been convinced by now.

As it stands - I've never met an atheist, or even a mildly irreligious person, who turned to religion without some sort of a personal - often traumatic - experience (like a loss of a loved one, going sober, mental breakdown, etc), which could perfectly explain their sudden need to believe. Logic and reason alone never seem to be enough to make leaps of faith...

Those are definitions it seems we can never seem to agree on. My point was to counter Fake Messiah's point in the Bible preaching anti-intellectualism. I'm certain there is a metric shit ton of believers that are just blinding doing what their parents taught them growing up for no reason other than, it's something to do. I realize that a lot of people like that, don't like to question their belief, and disapprove of questions from the children they teach. I saw tons of them growing up and in my church. Within that church and lots since, there have been those who encourage questioning, reason and belief.

Yes, I'm sure there are religious people, who encourage such things. But usually - in my experience at least - those people are a minority, they still expect you to reach the "correct" faith-based conclusions, after all your questioning, and have particular ways of interpreting and applying reason and logic. Calling creationism - for one example - "intelligent design" doesn't make it a science, a rational belief, or a worthwhile academic pursuit. You can call pouring over bronze age proverbs a pursuit of knowledge, but it's not likely to result in any kind of new practical solutions to modern problems. That's probably why many atheists believe religions promote anti-intellectualism.

No one I knew that buried their heads in the sand ever used the Bible to defend that belief, because the Bible actual says some really simple things like Proverbs 12:1 "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid. "

Hmmm... Not so much "simple", as "simplistic". Yeah, as I said - antiquated folksy platitudes don't really do much for me. To each their own, I suppose.

---

Unfortunately, I'll probably have to agree that people promoting critical thinking in their faith are probably in the minority. I would say most people just accept it. Just because the minority might be the ones promoting a reasoned faith, doesn't mean that the rest are promoting blissful ignorance. More than likely, like most of society, people just go through their days and lives without thinking at all, just reacting and sometimes analyzing after the why.

I've never met an atheist, or even a mildly irreligious person, who was an anti-theist without some sort of a personal - often traumatic - experience (like a loss of a loved one, going sober, mental breakdown, etc), which could perfectly explain their sudden need to turn away from religion. </sarcasm> See that doesn't really work does it?

Wisdom, as mentioned is sound application of knowledge. You can be knowledgeable about complex math, but wisdom is knowing you don't need differential topology to solve 2+2=4 . Similarly, applying conventional worldly knowledge to the spiritual, interpersonal and supernatural isn't wise. Knowledge applied with bias, insincerity, harshness or that are illogical could still be knowledge, but what the verse was saying was that they're not a "good" foundation to apply that knowledge.

Logic and reason alone never seem to be enough to make leaps of faith because we don't do things in a vacuum. We are complex social creatures and have many reasons why we would or wouldn't do/believe something. Getting to faith doesn't necessarily exclude logic and reason and no one has proven that point to me yet.

[Homeless Nutter]

Unfortunately, I'll probably have to agree that people promoting critical thinking in their faith are probably in the minority. I would say most people just accept it. Just because the minority might be the ones promoting a reasoned faith, doesn't mean that the rest are promoting blissful ignorance. More than likely, like most of society, people just go through their days and lives without thinking at all, just reacting and sometimes analyzing after the why.

No, they don't promote "blissful ignorance". They promote an old book of barbarian poetry as the source of pretty much all necessary knowledge. Which is - in practice - worse. Trotting out old proverbs for every occasion isn't wisdom - no offense.

I've never met an atheist, or even a mildly irreligious person, who was an anti-theist without some sort of a personal - often traumatic - experience  (like a loss of a loved one, going sober, mental breakdown, etc), which could perfectly explain their sudden need to turn away from religion. </sarcasm> See that doesn't really work does it?

Well, no, it doesn't - for a number of reasons. But mainly - we're not talking about the role of logic and reason in becoming radically opposed to the idea of god, when you already don't believe in gods. Why are you trying to change the subject? I'm perfectly able to concede that people with a grudge against religion may have been hurt in some way. But then, of course - seeing negative consequences of religion all over the world is pretty traumatic in itself.

No, we're talking about the need for logic and reason when accepting faith. Which - as you admit it - there isn't any, since most people get there without a logical thought in their mind - or even without a choice, since religions insist on indoctrinating children. Therefore use (or abuse) of logic and reason is completely incidental to being a theist.

Wisdom, as mentioned is sound application of knowledge. You can be knowledgeable about complex math, but wisdom is knowing you don't need differential topology to solve 2+2=4 . Similarly, applying conventional worldly knowledge to the spiritual, interpersonal and supernatural isn't wise.

LOL... Nonsense. It's the prime excuse of every quack and every fraudster. We can - and almost universally do - apply "conventional, worldly knowledge" to the spiritual and the supernatural - it's just that when we do, we inevitably find, that it's all just fiction, or products of ignorance of how the "natural" world works. And everyone knows it, except for when talking about their particular blind spots, usually covering things they really want - eternal life, access to magical powers, etc.

And as for "the interpersonal" - I don't even know what you mean. What kind of "otherworldly" knowledge do I need for that, in your opinion? Don't we have psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, therapists - are those people sorcerers, or unwise?

Knowledge applied with bias, insincerity, harshness or that are illogical could still be knowledge, but what the verse was saying was that they're not a "good" foundation to apply that knowledge.

Yeah, great, but let me reiterate my question - is this "Knowledge applied with bias, insincerity, harshness or that are illogical" still "sound application of knowledge"? And if not - why are you and the bible calling it "wisdom", be it the "naughty" kind? Is this sarcasm again? Does it really help, for god's word to be sarcastic, when believers love to quote tiny passages out of context?...

Logic and reason alone never seem to be enough to make leaps of faith because we don't do things in a vacuum. We are complex social creatures and have many reasons why we would or wouldn't do/believe something. Getting to faith doesn't necessarily exclude logic and reason and no one has proven that point to me yet.

As I said - it mostly doesn't involve logic, rather than exclude it. And most people claiming to be using reason, when believing in magic, simply have a warped idea of what's reasonable. No matter how much mental gymnastics you use to rationalize your beliefs - at some point you have to make a giant leap into believing, that you are part of the correct religion, based on the actual book containing the word of god, and all the other systems of belief, and all the other holy books - to an impartial eye practically indistinguishable from yours in terms of evidence presented - are fraudulent, or otherwise wrong, at least to some extent.

Sure, a believer in aliens will call a proponent of fairies unreasonable. But neither of them applies the same rigorous logic to their own pet supernatural belief, as they do to each other's. Calling yourself rational and being rational aren't the same thing.

And all that talk about not doing things in a vacuum and complexity - just another excuse, for intellectually lazy people to jump to their own preferred conclusions, usually the ones forced on them in childhood. Hey, you can't figure out everything - therefore let's just accept whatever's convenient and what works for me and people in my immediate surroundings. Sure it's kind of "logical", and kind of "reasonable", but that's not the reason and logic I'm talking about. And let me repeat - if ANYONE found a truly rational and logical way into believing in supernatural - it would be a belief held by virtually everyone.

[Belacqua]

I figured I'd tell you, since you are one of the reasons I am motivated to make this reassessment.

Uh-oh! I never meant to be influential or anything... 

Romans is hard. It makes sense to read it, since it has had such a huge role in the formation of Christianity. But since the debates among Christians have largely come about due to disagreements about Romans, and since many of those Christians were smarter than I am, I don't expect to reach any conclusions about it. 

Any opinions on Romans 1:24-32? It's rather hard for me to find any value in it.

For us moderns, it reads like a condemnation of homosexuality. And of course I have no interest in doing that. 

I guess there are two ways to go about it that rise above simple "gay is bad" thinking. The first is Platonic and the second is Aristotelian. I don't know how much the Greeks were in Paul's mind when he wrote the letter. It is aimed at a very specific audience: Jewish converts to early Christianity in the year 58 or so. Paul has his audience in mind, so he uses Jewish sources and phrasing. But as an educated Roman citizen in the Hellenic world, he would have at least some knowledge of basic Greek thought. So I don't think I'm completely anachronistic in reading through that lens. And as always, the importance of the book isn't just what he wrote; it's also all the interpretations that have been made since. 

The Platonic reading will be familiar to you. God is the Good -- the form of the Good, which is impassible and eternal. It is the goal of all good people to aim constantly toward that Good and as much as possible approach it. So it isn't homosexuality which is the error here; it's giving in to drives that pull us away from the path to the Good. So phrases like "they worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" mean that they swerved away from the Good and took lower goals. The "dishonorable passions" would be, for Plato, something like misdirected Eros -- aimed not at the Good but at short-term reward. You know this from the Symposium -- falling in love with a beautiful boy is fine for a beginner, but we are supposed to graduate to higher things. In this case the short-term poorly-chosen goals may involve homosexual genital contact, but that isn't what makes it bad. What makes it bad is that they're satisfied with Erotic goals that they should be going beyond. That whole list of bad stuff in verses 29-31 are just the stuff that people do when they ignorantly choose goals other than the Good. 

The Aristotelian reading has to do with the fulfillment of potential based on the kind of animals we are. Modern intelligent people sometimes still use this to argue against homosexuality -- such arguments aren't simply limited to "God says it's bad." Again, I don't wish to make this judgment. 

Here the idea is that when we are conceived we have a specific set of potentials, and our goal is to fulfill those as much as we can. A human's potentials are different from an elephant's, and if a human attempts to fulfill an elephant's potentials instead of a human's, he is being unnatural. The reasoning is that human potentials include child-bearing, and so it is natural and good (flourishing) to do that. So what Paul is condemning here is, again, not homosexual playing around per se. It is that people have turned away from the things that people are, by nature, set to do. As if an acorn refused to become an oak tree and instead set its mind on being a platypus. 

Now, an inability or disinclination to fulfill one's potential isn't necessarily evil. Priests aren't supposed to have kids, after all. And if my health or my social situation works against children, that's not a crime. It's like an acorn which fell in a shady place, and grew into a short oak tree -- not 100% what it could have been if it were lucky. And since no human being can fulfill 100% of his or her potential, failing to do so isn't a cause for negative judgment. But still, purposefully aiming at things that humans don't have the potential for is a waste, and the bad stuff listed in 29-31 is intentional effort against the full flourishing of which we are capable. 

So, as with so many things in the Bible, one can read it on different levels. How many levels Paul intended is a question of interest to historians, but to people who want to be good, the readings which are best, even if they come later, are best. 

I did read some Blake, though. Again, because you mentioned him. "Auguries Of Innocence" and some others. Now that's good stuff.

Yeah, Blake can't be beat. 

And he has two advantages which Paul doesn't have: 1) he is readable and charming, and 2) so much of what he says is beneath the surface, and so few people take the time to understand him deeply, that he remains popular with people who would hate him if they knew him better. 

If you want to start following what he called "the Golden Thread" in his work, you could read German Lutheran mystic Jacob Boehme. 

Jacob Boehme wrote that “When I take up a stone or clod of earth and look
upon it, I see that which is above and that which is below, indeed [I see] the whole
world therein.”98 Blake wrote of the ability “To see a World in a Grain of Sand / And
a Heaven in a Wild Flower / Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand / And Eternity in
an hour.” [E 490]
Boehme said “if … thy Eyes were opened, then in that very Place where
thou standest, sittest or liest, thou shouldst see the glorious Countenance or Face of
God, and the whole heavenly Gate.”99 And Blake insisted that “If the doors of
perception were cleansed every thing would / appear to man as it is: infinite.” [E 39]

And since Hegel said that the modern world begins with Boehme and with Francis Bacon, Blake's thought begins to seem more important in the grand scheme of things.