User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 46

  1. #11
    Nickle Iron Silicone Charmed Justice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Hence, anyone who is religious is necessarily not open-minded about some things (adheres to principle 4, which is accepting some views as unquestionably true).
    I see. Do you believe that everything deserves to be questioned? Are their somethings that we shouldn't be open-minded about in your opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    However, if one's religion is not very fundamentalistic, one should be able to remain open-minded. (About most things, not all however, as a religion by definition necessitates some degree of fundamentalism.)
    Have you seen this brand of religion with Christians or Muslims?
    There is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe.

  2. #12
    it's a nuclear device antireconciler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Intj
    Enneagram
    5w4 so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Whoa, please explain that.
    I'm interested in hearing why you've said this.
    (what exactly do you perceive fundamentalism to be?)
    Isn't it tricky?

    ---
    proposal: detach "fundamentalism" from "incontrovertible belief holding"

    grounds: there may be discerned two uses of "incontrovertible belief holding", one which is "fundamentalist", the other which is is retained by the normal operation of the mind for which:

    hypothetical: should there arise feeling of disgust for the idea of the discernment, we direct this disgust against the former use of incontrovertible belief holding and leave the second use undefined, to be yet filled in

    hypothetical: should there exist the second use, then use of "fundamentalism" gains a parallel and mirrored second use

    support: the second use of incontrovertible belief holding suggested as a normal function of the mind can be provoked by sufficient doubt which challenges the person, but according to the following two ways which are distinguished:

    (1) the person does not question as a form of sacrifice which guarantees the doubter's safety. Impossible to detect except in hindsight or as the doubt is crumbling, for to see clearly is to undo it. It is unconscious.

    (2) the person does not question as a form of standing up for one's self which is the ending of sacrifice and unconsciousness. It is the assuming of agency, for there exists some questioning which is not questioning, but is the frightening of oneself and does not serve the intended function of enlightening, and instead, keeps the eyes shut.

    error theory: adopting the critical attitudes of the enlightenment liberates enough energy that the mind becomes carried away in it, but there is no error, only the failing to distinguish when to distinguish runs counter to the current age which has not yet sufficiently articulated itself into its other
    ~ a n t i r e c o n c i l e r
    What is death, dies.
    What is life, lives.

  3. #13
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EnFpFer View Post
    I see. Do you believe that everything deserves to be questioned? Are their somethings that we shouldn't be open-minded about in your opinion? ?
    I would say yes, we should question everything. This is the only way we may have an opportunity to discover errors in every aspect of our lives. If every part of our lives is questioned, then errors cannot take refuge in any part of our thought. Yet, if we do not question some things, we are allowing a place in our worldview where some erroneous ideas may be left undisturbed.

    The bottom line is, we need to do all we can to avoid errors in our thought as they entail problems in our society. The most reliable way to accomplish that is by critically examining all that we can critically examine.


    Quote Originally Posted by EnFpFer View Post
    Have you seen this brand of religion with Christians or Muslims?
    Liberal Christianity is perhaps the closest thing to this I know of. They tend to take great liberty with regard to the figurative interpretation of scripture and unlike the Conservative Christians, they almost never insist on one correct, and an unquestionable interpretation of scripture.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #14
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Religion. Defintion. 1. A worldview about ethics or how people should behave. 2. about metaphysics or the nature of the world that is discovered by philosophy rather than science or more by abstract reasoning rather than empirical investigation. 3. About eschatology or matters of life after death and spiritual phenomena. 4. Accepts some principles as incontrovertible. The quantity of principles that are regarded as unquestionable determines how much a religion adheres to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the thesis that some views in the worldview are unquestionable. All religions are fundamentalistic by definition, yet because there are degrees of fundamentalism, some are necessarily more fundamentalistic than others.

    Religions are dangerous on the account that fundamentalism discourages critical thought. Fundamentalism also encourages people to believe that some of their views are unquestionable. Because they are discouraged from thinking critically, their abstract reasoning faculties are frequently weakened severely. In order to construct an interpretation of a piece of literature, one needs critical thinking skills. When one lacks critical thinking skills, one easily succumbs to wishful thinking and merely interprets the literature in a way that appears pleasing to him or her. For this reason, the religious often interpret the text in a way that in the views of many is sacrilegious or an act of distortion of the scripture. For example, many Muslims believe that those who use Islam to justify violence are distorting the scripture. Is Islam blameless?

    []

    On the one hand, we see that religion, and Islam most prominently, can produce kind and peace loving people, yet on the other, fanatics who are willing to kill thousands in favor of their beliefs. Is religion to be blamed for this? Certainly because this is a result of people believing that their views are incontrovertible. This, however, is not the entirety of the problem. If someone merely believes that their views are indisputably true, he or she will not have the sufficient motivation to kill thousands. After all, a very high degree of aggression is necessary in order for people to behave in such an ignominious manner. Is religion solely responsible for the problem? Certainly not, as there is a variety of reasons why people became intensely aggressive, poverty or oppression are clear-cut examples of such reasons. Does religion contribute to the problem? It certainly does on the account that it discourages people from being open-minded and compels them to believe that they are right only because a sacred text or a divine authority insists that they are.
    Your point, while relevant in many ways, is problematically incomplete.

    Religion is not responsible for an individuals desire to harm. To levy summary blame on the basis of opportunity is to misapply judgment on a system of thought that merely provides occasion. Certainly, fundamentalist belief provides sanctuary for zealotry and other antisocial behaviors; while it is important to identify accountability, we should not presume that a single entity is necessarily wholly responsible for deviant human behavior. We must remember that autonomy and agency hold lease over our fundamental behaviors irrespective of external stimulation.

    Although you briefly make mention of this point, your emphasis seems to offer religious thought as a cornerstone cancer on the mind -- outweighing many other potential vices to manipulate and distort the thinking of the intellectual underclass. This seems unfair.

    As I mentioned, religion provides opportunity for deviant thinking (and, subsequently, deviant acts) to flourish. It is able to accomplish this by offering fertility of interpretation in contemporary doctrine and insular historical text. In creating a justifiable basis for negative behavior to gain validation and support, many who commit otherwise unthinkable acts do so with a clear conscience, as they are able to validate their actions against a form of spiritual holism an ideology that combines certain spiritual and non-spiritual ingredients into a hybrid system of thought.

    Does this brand of thinking increase the probability that an already poisoned mind will violently respond? Certainly. Is it the singular rationale for the violent behavior? Certainly not.

    Many factors must be considered, if one wishes to gain a complete picture of his opposition. Exploitation in religious doctrine must be integrated with powerlessness in socioeconomic status. Weakness of personal esteem must be interlinked with intransigence of submissiveness in culture. Vulnerability in identity must be merged with accessibility of education. The list of variables continues, SolitaryWalker, and cannot be simplified into a clean indictment of any singular one.

    To capitulate analysis at this point is to undermine the credibility of ones stance altogether. Without proper seasoning, ones entre is naked of taste. Of quality.

    While I find much accurate about your stance, I find unsettling your single-handed targeting of fundamentalism in religious thought as the sole culprit in destructive acts that seek to channel religion as motive.

  5. #15
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Your point, while relevant in many ways, is problematically incomplete.

    Religion is not responsible for an individuals desire to harm. To levy summary blame on the basis of opportunity is to misapply judgment on a system of thought that merely provides occasion. Certainly, fundamentalist belief provides sanctuary for zealotry and other antisocial behaviors; while it is important to identify accountability, we should not presume that a single entity is necessarily wholly responsible for deviant human behavior. We must remember that autonomy and agency hold lease over our fundamental behaviors irrespective of external stimulation.

    Although you briefly make mention of this point, your emphasis seems to offer religious thought as a cornerstone cancer on the mind -- outweighing many other potential vices to manipulate and distort the thinking of the intellectual underclass. This seems unfair.

    As I mentioned, religion provides opportunity for deviant thinking (and, subsequently, deviant acts) to flourish. It is able to accomplish this by offering fertility of interpretation in contemporary doctrine and insular historical text. In creating a justifiable basis for negative behavior to gain validation and support, many who commit otherwise unthinkable acts do so with a clear conscience, as they are able to validate their actions against a form of spiritual holism an ideology that combines certain spiritual and non-spiritual ingredients into a hybrid system of thought.

    Does this brand of thinking increase the probability that an already poisoned mind will violently respond? Certainly. Is it the singular rationale for the violent behavior? Certainly not.

    Many factors must be considered, if one wishes to gain a complete picture of his opposition. Exploitation in religious doctrine must be integrated with powerlessness in socioeconomic status. Weakness of personal esteem must be interlinked with intransigence of submissiveness in culture. Vulnerability in identity must be merged with accessibility of education. The list of variables continues, SolitaryWalker, and cannot be simplified into a clean indictment of any singular one.

    To capitulate analysis at this point is to undermine the credibility of ones stance altogether. Without proper seasoning, ones entre is naked of taste. Of quality.

    While I find much accurate about your stance, I find unsettling your single-handed targeting of fundamentalism in religious thought as the sole culprit in destructive acts that seek to channel religion as motive.
    I did not state that religion is the only cause of violence, but a significant cause, significant enough to be the main cause of violence. In fact, even in the text that you have cited, I stated that although there are many other reasons why people engage in violent behavior, religion is certainly a notable reason.

    If religion no longer plays any role in our society, all violence will not be eliminated, but a great deal of it will be. Possibly even, most of the violent acts will no longer have a motivator.

    In the passage below, I have stated clearly that although religion is responsible for much of the violence in the world, it is not the sole cause of all of the violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Is religion solely responsible for the problem? Certainly not, as there is a variety of reasons why people became intensely aggressive, poverty or oppression are clear-cut examples of such reasons. Does religion contribute to the problem? It certainly does on the account that it discourages people from being open-minded and compels them to believe that they are right only because a sacred text or a divine authority insists that they are.
    .
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #16
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer
    Whoa, please explain that.
    I'm interested in hearing why you've said this.
    (what exactly do you perceive fundamentalism to be?)
    I went with Solitary's definition, which is to hold an incontrovertible belief. If you think of believers in terms of a spectrum, on one end you have people who won't question anything--these are the full-blown fundamentalists--and on the other end, you have people who question everything. I doubt anyone really falls into such extremes, but it's a useful abstraction. In any case, what I'm saying is that even the people who question all things will still practice some form of fundamentalism. Such a person will at the very least believe that all things can or should be questioned. If they were to question that belief, rather than hold it as a matter of fact, they would paralyze the belief itself. To question whether you can even question, rather than to question all things but the questioning itself, is to stop questioning to that extent. It's kind of like enantiodromia: as open-mindedness intensifies, it grows more like fundamentalism and finally gives way to its opposite.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  7. #17
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    I went with Solitary's definition, which is to hold an incontrovertible belief. If you think of believers in terms of a spectrum, on one end you have people who won't question anything--these are the full-blown fundamentalists--and on the other end, you have people who question everything. I doubt anyone really falls into such extremes, but it's a useful abstraction. In any case, what I'm saying is that even the people who question all things will still practice some form of fundamentalism. Such a person will at the very least believe that all things can or should be questioned. If they were to question that belief, rather than hold it as a matter of fact, they would paralyze the belief itself. To question whether you can even question, rather than to question all things but the questioning itself, is to stop questioning to that extent. It's kind of like enantiodromia: as open-mindedness intensifies, it grows more like fundamentalism and finally gives way to its opposite.
    The definition of a fundamentalist is not one who merely neglects to question some things, but one who holds to an ethical principle that some things are never to be questioned. A lot of people exist who do not have such a principle. In fact, most do not. For instance, conventional teenagers may not make an effort to question many things, but they surely don't have maxims that prohibit them from doing so. The same can be said with regard to the conventional office workers who do not belong to any religious or a political group, they may go through their lives not having questioned anything, yet it is doubtful that they will establish a moral principle that they should not question anything.

    In short, we have a confusion here between somebody who merely neglects to question some things and someones who has a moral principle decreeing that some things should not be questioned. The first kind of a person is not a fundamentalist, yet the second kind is.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #18
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I did not state that religion is the only cause of violence, but a significant cause, significant enough to be the main cause of violence. In fact, even in the text that you have cited, I stated that although there are many other reasons why people engage in violent behavior, religion is certainly a notable reason.

    If religion no longer plays any role in our society, all violence will not be eliminated, but a great deal of it will be. Possibly even, most of the violent acts will no longer have a motivator.

    In the passage below, I have stated clearly that although religion is responsible for much of the violence in the world, it is not the sole cause of all of the violence.
    Hmm.

    Covering one eye while gazing at the night sky will earn you only a fraction of the available beauty.

    Violence in religious identity is not necessarily consequent to encouraged violence in religious identity. Human motivation is a complex machine.

    Discerning this distinction is important to unfurling a better appraisal of the problem of religion.

  9. #19
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Hmm.

    Covering one eye while gazing at the night sky will earn you only a fraction of the available beauty.

    Violence in religious identity is not necessarily consequent to encouraged violence in religious identity. Human motivation is a complex machine.

    Discerning this distinction is important to unfurling a better appraisal of the problem of religion.
    My argument was that religion conduces to acts of violence because it convinces people that their beliefs are unquestionable true for one. Secondly, many religions teach their followers that they have a duty to impose their views on others. Thirdly, religion discourages critical thought and open-minded inquiry, for this reason it conduces to people becoming hostile to those who disagree with them.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,500

    Default

    When a preacher says that he doesnt want someone who hasnt yet accepted god into his life by his side if he were in the hospital. That just rubbed me the wrong way.

Similar Threads

  1. Problem of Religious bigotry
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 03:57 PM
  2. Role of Religion in Personal Development
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-06-2008, 05:11 PM
  3. Problems of Typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-26-2008, 11:12 PM
  4. A Note on the Problem of Induction
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:47 AM
  5. Problem of Problematicality
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 05:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO