For mashugenah
For those not on xullrae's journal, I have been involved in a lengthy discussion with mashugenah over there. As the original post has now become very buried, and I consider it rude to keep banging on under someone else's journal (and forcing them to watch the car crash), I have attempted to move the discussion here so only those of us concerned need to play with it
( Read more... )
We do have terms relating to certain types of philosophical viewpoints. If the pro-divine stance says 'ah, but how do you know if any of it's real' then we can dig out the works of Zhuangzi, or if some one is flanneling, we can accuse them of sophistry.
The debate is a complex mixture of philosphies and examinations, and each one deserves to be taken out and labelled. Especially as the subject touches on every aspect of life.
Often, the debate zips across from the politics of morality to the structure of the human brain to the notion of the soul. This is often because what faith and religion means to one person is something else entirely to another person. We have words for these things, and each part of the mixture affects the whole and is worthy of a debate on it's own.
When it comes to the more mystic side of things, people use words like 'feelings','instinct' and 'I just know'. Not only are none of these descriptions helpful, they only serve to zip the ball backwards and forwards again.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I don't think it's possible to not alienate some side of the discussion, though picking through the knotted mass that is the debate not only goes some way to preventing this, it also does two things: It demonstrates what faith isn't, and helps show that deductive reasoning isn't going to crack this particular subject.
Most religions have some kind of story or anecdote where an intiate goes 'I don't get it' and the response is typically 'Ahhh!', and that, is hardly helpful.
It could be simply that I am to inarticulate to express how my faith works to other people, however.
Reply
Leave a comment