Escaping Indoctrination - Faith Isn't a Virtue.

by cofty 144 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  KateWild

  We are in danger as usual in a debate such as this of drowning in a Sea of Semantics.-phizzy

  Lol! That's not dangerous phizzy, it's entertaining, and it's typical of JWN. Enjoy!

  The term....

  "rational people must demand......"-cofty

  ......is inappropriate to me. Agressive people demand things not rational people. Rational people are more assertive than agressive in my experience and are able to communicate in ways that do not intimaidate others.

  We all want to view ourselves as rational. You are right phizzy, it's all semantics.

  Kate xx
• 

  Apognophos

  What is wrong with having faith in something that you may not be able to prove? Contrary to your assertion otherwise, I see nothing wrong with it if something good comes out of it. Now when it is twisted to serve the selfish ends of a few at the expense of others, it obviously has become a bad thing.

  mrhhome, it's better for someone to do good than not to do good, obviously. But it's better if they don't do good on the basis of faith in something they haven't verified. Here's why. Most converts to the Witness religion were people who had pre-existing faith in the Bible. They were then shown that there was more to the Bible than they thought -- various prophecies and commands. They swallowed this eagerly. This was only because they had the existing vulnerability of "faith" -- the kind that cofty is talking about. This kind of faith is like a big security hole in a computer OS -- it's not doing any harm until someone comes along to exploit it.

  Now, it's true that we also exercise faith in science, but even if we don't personally re-verify the findings of scientists, the proof of their findings is in the results of scientific discovery -- the technology and medicine that we have today, which make up modern civilization. So this is a faith based on experience.
• 

  mrhhome

  Oubliette,

  • Science: Question everything. No cow is sacred.
  • Religion: Question nothing, especially the people in power.

  This statement is flawed for several reasons. Addressing them in reverse order.

  (1) "Religion: Question nothing, especially the people in power."

  • I belong to a Wesleyan tradition (Methodist) that teaches you to use reason and personal experience along with tradition to understand scripture. Trust me. They will question almost anything. There is even a formal democratic process for changing church doctrine, which on occassion has produced intense debate.
  • If you do not like what someone is preaching at one church, there is little stigma associated with leaving and finding a church with which you agree.
  • I have challenged pastors on more than one occassion. It got so intense once that we almost came to blows. I was never disciplined.
  • Independent churches fire their pastors all the time.

  (2) "Science: Question everything. No cow is sacred."

  • In theory, maybe. In practice, no. Scientist routinely play to their funder's biases. Heaven help any young professor who challenges man-made global warming theories. He will be black-balled for life.
  • It is interesting that this statement mentions nothing about truth. Hypothetically given infinite resources and time, science could unravel all the mysteries in the universe. Practically, we have neither. Consequently, there will always be some things that will remain a mystery. My faith is simply my solution to that mystery.
  • As an aside, mystics refer to many of the central tenants of our faith as "mysteries" and prayerfully meditate on them.
• 

  Oubliette

  mrhhome: there will always be some things that will remain a mystery. My faith is simply my solution to that mystery.

  So you address your own areas of ignorance by putting "faith" in that ignorance. Interesting "solution."

  I prefer seeking knowledge knowing full well I may never get it. Nevertheless, I enjoy the process.

  mrhhome: Independent churches fire their pastors all the time.

  Proving my point. The people with the power were the ones that did the firing.

  mrhhome: I have challenged pastors on more than one occassion. It got so intense once that we almost came to blows. I was never disciplined.

  Challenging false or unprovably beliefs or ideas with rational inquiry is not the same as resorting to violence to "settle" your differences. It's disturbing you don't see the difference.

  Apparently you have unresolved anger issues.

  I would respectfully suggest you reconsider the OP because it is about escaping indoctrination. You are confusing a way of thinking that allows for individual autonomy with the heirarchical structures of power ubiquitous in virtually all human institutions.
• 

  mrhhome

  Its interesting that MrHome and Villagegirl feel the need to change the meaning of faith I described in my OP.

  ... Neither am I talking about mrhome's pedantic definition of faith that equates faith with everything short of mathematical proof.

  Thanks Cofty. I learned a new work today. Pedantic. An intellectual put down. I like it. I think that I will use it more often myself.

  To address your point, you state that I changed the meaning of the word "faith" from that described in your OP. Yes and No, I did change from your definition, because I do not believe that your definition is what was intended in the scripture. Your definition of faith appears to require a blind, unquestioning allegiance to an organization that serves the ends of its human leaders at the expense of its followers.

  That is certainly not my faith, nor do I believe that that is the faith expected by Jesus.
• 

  Pistoff

  MrHome:

  "Scientist routinely play to their funder's biases. Heaven help any young professor who challenges man-made global warming theories. He will be black-balled for life.

  Not if he can prove his point.

  "Consequently, there will always be some things that will remain a mystery. My faith is simply my solution to that mystery.

  As an aside, mystics refer to many of the central tenants tenets of our faith as "mysteries" and prayerfully meditate on them."

  This is the whole point; mystics meditate, religious folk have faith that God did it but scientists go to work to discover how it really happened without appealing to an invisible all powerful source for an explanation.
• 

  Oubliette

  Pistoff: This is the whole point; mystics meditate, religious folk have faith that God did it and scientists go to work to discover how it really happened.
• 

  mrhhome

  Oubliette,

  You have made good points in past posts. This was not one of them.

  I prefer seeking knowledge knowing full well I may never get it. Nevertheless, I enjoy the process.

  As do I, I just refuse to limit myself to the strict confines of science knowing its limitations in answering the really important questions in life.

  Proving my point. The people with the power were the ones that did the firing.

  Depending on the church, it can either be a direct vote by the members of the church or a church council that was elected by the church. My apologies if you have issues with "power" resting in the general church population. Then yes, I misunderstood your original statement.

  Challenging false or unprovably beliefs or ideas with rational inquiry is not the same as resorting to violence to "settle" your differences. It's disturbing you don't see the difference.

  Actually in this case, a known gossip created trouble for a youth and her family. A young inexperienced pastor made a dumb decision and waded into the matter. He inadverently walked all over her and her family, and when I respectfully challenged him on it, he just kept digging a deeper hole. Yes, it makes me mad when good people get hurt. It stops being an academic debate about theology or doctrine, when good people start getting hurt. I make no apologies for making a firm stand.
• 

  mrhhome

  Not if he can prove his point.

  Yes, especially if they start proving their point.

  Obviously, you have no experience in the practical mechanisms of how "science" really works. To re-iterate a point made in a previous thread, we worship the religion of science without understanding it.

  I am not opposed to science. I just recognize its practical, and even theorecticaly, limitations.

  [... we really need a spell checker on this...]
• 

  galaxie

  Two types of faith in my book;.. founded faith and unfounded faith eg, I have faith my son will return safe from the oil rig he works on.thus;.. because there are many many safety checks and procedures from the outset on every part of his job my faith in these is founded because they can be tested and improved and ultimately exist for his safety.

  If something occured which caused him harm then the expression, 'my faith was shattered ' comes into play.

  Unfounded faith on the other hand is faith with no backup evidence ie, god, angels devils, demons, heaven, hell, paradise, living forever supernatural influence etc etc.

  Which type as a rational thinking educated human being do you think fits the bill?

  Best wishes to all