Scouting and "Myth of the Teen Brain"

[DanKroh]

GaHillBilly,

 

You''ve presented an interesting thesis.

 

However, I do think that it fails to take into account the true variability of both agnosticism and Wicca (or general Paganism), which you do mention, but don''t fully expound upon.

 

First, I take it that you primarily have experience with "new-age, touchy-feely" Wiccans/Pagans. We are not all such. In fact, among my more hard-core co-religionists, such IRAB (I Read A Book) or "fluffy" Pagans are treated with much derision. Also, she may not be truly a "Wiccan", but some other flavor of Pagan. Many Pagans realize that Wicca is the largest, and most recognizable of the Pagan religions to most people, and say that they are "Wiccan" as a shorthand because they feel it will be better understood than saying they are "Pagan". In any case, not all Wiccans or Pagans assert that they have "knowledge". They do assert that they have "a cohesive set of beliefs", which is not the same as having "knowledge".

 

Second, while you have accurately portrayed the tenents of agnosticism (as opposed to the common misconception that they are "just unsure about God"), I think you have portrayed it with more rigidity than many have in their beliefs. I know many people of spiritual beliefs who consider themselves "something" AND an agnostic (including my own pastor, a UU minister), because they recognize that their belief in "something" is just that, a belief that can never be proven, that is based solely on faith, about which they can never have real knowledge.

 

Personally, I don''t find the idea of a Wiccan Agnostic to automatically be a self-contradiction. Perhaps the way it was presented by this particular person was, but, especially after extensive conversations with my pastor about his Agnosticism, I don''t find the idea to be "intrinsically irrational".

[GaHillBilly]

In the absence of knowledge, how is a "cohesive set of beliefs" different than a Dungeons and Dragons set?

 

There may be a basis for a rationally valid exception to the rule that belief without knowledge is just play-acting* . . . but I can''t think what it might be. So, pending correction, I see no reason to abandon to my original assertion that a Wiccan agnostic is walking exercise in irrationalism.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

* In case it occurs to you: I would immediately agree that believers within many (all?) religions have ''belief without knowledge''. Certainly, this is true among orthodox Christians. I would (of course) grant that such a person might happen to believe what is true, even if they don''t know it to be so themselves. In this case, they are STILL play-acting, but it just happens that they are playing at ''the real''.

 

But, if the general case is that all believers of Wiccan, Xianity, whatever, are without knowledge, then it would seem that such a ''belief system'' is really ONLY play-acting.

 

It may also occur to you to note that many modernist ''Christians'' today implicitly deny the possibility of knowledge about God when they deny that supernatural revelation has occurred, and that this denial would put them in the same boat, epistemologically speaking, as Wiccans. I could only agree, and note that there have been quite a few prominent agnostics over the past century who abandoned such churches with some form of the parting question, "What''s the point?". I think the answer, for many who remain, is that participating in their particular form of Christian play-acting, makes them feel better.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

GaHillBilly writes:

In the absence of knowledge, how is a "cohesive set of beliefs"

different than a Dungeons and Dragons set?

 

How is this different from any other religion?

[DanKroh]

So, GaHillBilly, by extension then, any person who professes belief in any religion while claiming to also be agnostic is also quite irrational?

 

Interesting. I can''t say I agree, but thank you for the clarification.

[GaHillBilly]

I think the confusion here is that many people today are so immersed in post-modern conceptions of religion, that they completely misunderstand what the original and orthodox believers were actually claiming.

 

Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Judaism all claim to describe a set of facts about people, God, the universe, and the relation between them. For an orthodox believer in any of those religions, to reject an element of their faith because you disliked that element is simply silly. For orthodox believers, to do so would be EXACTLY like rejecting the idea of ''gravity'' because you don''t like falling.

 

Post-modern thinkers are so far from this, in their conception of truth that it is apparently hard for them to wrap their minds around the possibility of someone asserting a set of religious claims because they were factually true.

 

By contrast, post-modern practitioners of many religions see their ''faith'', more or less consciously, as an expression of their psychological state. There is, fundamentally, no claim of knowledge of the supernatural. This is true, at least in the US, of most groups of people among liberal Protestants, Jews, and Muslims.

 

But the waters are muddied here by two facts.

 

First, liberal theologians discovered that the LANGUAGE of orthodoxy produced larger emotional and psychological effects, than language expressing their actual thinking. Since the goal was a greater ''spirituality'' -- which in the post-modern sense is a purely INTERNAL and PERSONAL state of emotions and desires -- and since the LANGUAGE of orthodoxy was more effective in producing these psychological states, it was retained, but redefined.

 

In other words, in the early 1900''s liberal theologians who no longer believed in the Resurrection as a historical fact -- which was virtually the only core meaning it had had for 1800 years or so -- continued to preach about it, while redefining it to mean something else, like the ''resurrection of hope within the hearts of each believer''. This sounds good, but is really psycho-babble, void of any cognitive or moral content. But, due to the fact of linguistic inertia . . . it worked. Many words carry a potent psychological wallop because of the history of their use within a society. Of course, the wallop arises from the original meaning. Once that''s abandoned, not only in conscious, but also in subliminal and cultural memory, the words loose their ''umpfh''.

 

But a side effect of this use of language for its psychological effect, rather than it''s meaning, is that it made it hard to tell the difference between people who were using the words the old, orthodox manner, and those who were using them in the new psychological manner.

 

Second, theology is a discussion of what people OUGHT to think. In practice, even orthodox Christians think, and behave, quite differently. Thus, individuals who in theory, and maybe even mostly, in practice believe in the facts of an orthodox religion will still sometimes, or even often, condition their belief, not on evidence but on preference. This is not a great surprise, at least within orthodox Christian theology, in which ''love of truth'' is held to be attained only with great practical difficulty.

 

But, again, it does muddy the waters, since those who are generally orthodox often speak, or even act, as if they were not.

 

 

Now, back to agnosticism.

 

I guess, upon reflection, I was really making 4 claims, only one of which you reject.

 

 

1) Agnosticism, generally, claims that knowledge of the supernatural is unattainable. I understand all to have, essentially agreed with this.

 

2) If agnostics are correct, and such knowledge is in fact unreachable, all ORTHODOX religions are false, since they all claim, and indeed, depend upon such knowledge. I''m not sure all understood that I was saying this, but I assume all agree.

 

3) If agnostics are correct, no religion which continues can claim knowledge of the supernatural. Again, I understand all to have agreed.

 

4) But, (and here''s the rub) a religion without knowledge is not, in any fundamental sense, different from a child''s game based on imagination.

 

I understand some of you disagree with this claim, but I''m unable to see on what grounds you do so. Frankly, it seems to me you reject this claim, not because you can challenge it, but simply because you don''t like it. (How very post-modern of you!)

 

The problem is that rational speech of this kind -- if this is indeed what you are doing -- rapidly ceases to become rational speech, or even speech at all. My observation, made before, is that post-modernists return to an orthodox view of truth when they collect their change at Walmart. For the sake of an intelligible discourse, I''d prefer to stick that the orthodox view here, as well.

 

That said, there may be legitimate and rational grounds for your rejection of my description of post-modern religious practice as childish games played to ''have fun'' (or feel better). So, let me pose the question: precisely how do Wiccan beliefs (or any other religious beliefs) which are devoid of knowledge differ from a child''s play-acting?

 

GaHillBilly

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I would say they do not differ at all, with the further observation that ALL religions are devoid of (supernatural or spiritual) knowledge.

 

I am not sure, but it looks like you are objecting to agnostics following some religion that they agree is not based on knowledge of the supernatural, as opposed to people who follow a religion that they believe IS based (rightly or wrongly) on knowledge of the supernatural.

 

There are some people who do not care if their religion is made up; Jedi appears to be turning into a real religion.

 

(I would like to point out that I am typing in a style reiminiscient of Data on Star Trek: TNG, not because Star Trek is a religion, but because I am avoiding the use of apostrophies).

[Beavah]

I would like to point out that I am typing in a style reiminiscient of Data on Star Trek: TNG, not because Star Trek is a religion, but because I am avoiding the use of apostrophies

 

Yah, I remember seeing an advertisement from a Pacific Northwest hospital looking for a part-time translator for Klingon. Seems like a number of the mentally ill who show up in the hospital insist on speaking Klingon.

 

I am with GA and St. Paul. If Jesus did not really rise from the dead, then Christianity is poppycock and Christians are to be pitied in the same way as delusional Klingons. The claims of religions are that they really know the makeup of the universe as it relates to human interactions with a real, non-psychological deity or deities.

 

If Jesus really did rise from the dead, then we all should pity Merlyn

 

Ethically, though, I am most concerned about cloning. It seems that Scouter Terry has developed an efficient way of cloning apostrophe embryos (stem cells for punctuation?), and is upsetting the natural balance.

 

Beavah

 

[GaHillBilly]

Merlyn_LeRoy wrote:

 

"I would say they do not differ at all, with the further observation that ALL religions are devoid of (supernatural or spiritual) knowledge."

 

I''m not sure to what your "they" above refers, so I''m not sure what you are saying. If you mean to say that all religions are devoid of knowledge, well that''s quite debatable, but not what''s being debated here.

 

 

 

"I am not sure, but it looks like you are objecting to agnostics following some religion that they agree is not based on knowledge of the supernatural, as opposed to people who follow a religion that they believe IS based (rightly or wrongly) on knowledge of the supernatural."

 

Well, I don''t know that I objected to anything. I was trying not to ''object'', but to analyze and describe. It''s true, I think following a made-up religion is silly, but I don''t think I said that. What I did say was that I couldn''t see any fundamental difference between a child''s, or teen''s imaginary play-reality, and a knowledge-free religion, like the version of Wiccan DanKroh described.

 

 

 

"There are some people who do not care if their religion is made up; Jedi appears to be turning into a real religion."

 

I guess I would say that that''s just what it''s NOT turning into: a "real religion". A real religion can be true, or false, but not made up! As I said before, a made up religion is just play-acting, in every sense I can call to mind.

 

People forget what the word ''reverence'' means, and think that it refers to the actions and motions that people might use to express their reverence. But fundamentally, to revere means to acknowledge your inferior station (in the sense that a knight acknowledges his vassal state before the king) and the superior station of that which you revere. The motions used are incidental to the thing itself; simply folding hands doesn''t constitute reverence. And, if there''s nothing you revere in actuality, then it''s possible for you to be reverent! To ''revere'' what you made up yourself is impossible, for how can you acknowledge your inferior state before your own mental creation?

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

[GaHillBilly]

"And, if there''''s nothing you revere in actuality, then it''''s possible for you to be reverent!"

 

Oops! I hope it''s obvious I meant ''impossible'' where I had ''possible''.

 

 

BTW, can someone tell me

1) If it''s possible for unprivileged posters to edit there own posts?

2) What HTML or edit code is allowed . . . and what that code is? (How did Beavah get those italics?)

3) How smilies are entered in this forum?

 

I haven''t been able to locate a posting guide that covers those quesions.

 

GaHillBilly

[packsaddle]

If you enter a colon : followed by a parenthesis ) you get a plain smiley. If you enter a semicolon with the same paren you get a wink. Beyond that you will have to get the tips from someone else. But as you are typing in your reply, look to the left panel. You will see a hot field called, ''Format this Post''. Hit that once you''ve typed stuff in and you enter the realm of html. Have a nice trip. I''m not sure how far you can take the edits, I have never pushed it.

 

BTW, I do not consider belief in the resurrection to be necessary for a legitimate faith. I can view the resurrection and other such things to be delightful myths. But that does not detract from the value of, say, the great commandment. However, I do understand that others may be of the opinion that belief in all sorts of myths are necessary for all sorts of religious faiths.

[Trevorum]

GHB said, "A real religion can be true, or false, but not made up! As I said before, a made up religion is just play-acting, in every sense I can call to mind."

 

I disagree. Strongly. You can not deny the reality of a religion just because you do not like the way it was founded ("made-up"). Case in point: several tens of millions of LDS adherents. Not to mention Scientology.

 

[DanKroh]

"What I did say was that I couldn''t see any fundamental difference between a child''s, or teen''s imaginary play-reality, and a knowledge-free religion, like the version of Wiccan DanKroh described."

 

Just to clarify, Wicca (that''s the name of the religion, btw, a Wiccan is one who follows it) is NOT an agnostic religion. The vast majority of Wiccans that I know (myself included) claim a personal gnosis of their gods, and feel that they were "called" by the gods, and are not just doing it "because it feels good". I was, however, positing that it *could be possible* for someone of ANY religion to claim belief without gnosis, without that being an irrational position.

 

This is only my personal opinion, but I think there are many adherents to many religions who do not, in fact, have personal knowledge of the god they worship. Doesn''t mean they are agnostic, of course, but from what GaHillBilly is saying, it does make their religious experience "play-acting" (and please correct me if I''ve misinterpreted your position). Personally, I think this discounts the value of faith, though. I think you can have faith in the "facts" of your religion, even if you have not experienced that knowledge in a personal way.

[GaHillBilly]

I can''t spend time here today -- just discovered some server problems that have to be fixed posthaste -- but I''d better clarify something I said rather awkwardly.

 

"A real religion can be true, or false, but not made up! As I said before, a made up religion is just play-acting, in every sense I can call to mind."

 

I haven''t quite figured out what I should have said, but what I was trying to get at is that a religion that the adherent EITHER made-up himself, or ELSE knew to be made-up by someone else is only play-acting. Someone might well not know that a religion was made-up by someone else, and so be deceived into become an adherent of a religion that is false.

This still doesn''t quite express what I need to say: I''ll have to think about it some more.

 

 

 

And, Trevorum wrote:

 

"You can not deny the reality of a religion just because you do not like the way it was founded."

 

Uhm, yes, I can. If it''s a manufactured fairy tale, unrooted in any facts, then it''s "reality" is PRECISELY what I can, and do, deny. Such a ''foundation'' is just exactly -- by definition! -- nothing more than fiction.

 

I suppose one might, at least in theory, imagine a religion which by accident asserted as objects of belief actual truths . . . but I doubt that you have any such case in mind.

 

 

 

Finally, DanKroh wrote:

 

"I think you can have faith in the "facts" of your religion, even if you have not experienced that knowledge in a personal way."

 

I would agree, with the understanding that if those facts you have faith in are in actuality false; then you have faith in a false religion.

 

What I thought you were saying is that the majority of Wicca (thanks for the correction) KNEW the objects of their belief to be manufactured out of human imagination, and that they lacked even a supposed basis in knowledge for giving their credence to those objects of belief. If you are saying that most Wicca DO believe they have knowledge, then I would agree that yes, that could be a religion. Of course, in that case, I would think it to be a false one, and would anticipate that the ''facts'' of their knowledge can be shown to be without foundation. Of course, I''d have to look at the ''creed'' which encapsulates the ''faith'' of that individual or group of Wiccan practitioners in order to validate my anticipation.

 

 

GaHillBilly

[Trevorum]

"You keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means ... " (Inigo Montoya to Vizzini)

 

I rather think that those tens of millions of Mormons would disagree with you about the "reality" of their religion. Not to mention the US Government.

 

And by the way, there are many people who genuinely see ALL religions as "manufactured fairy tales".

[DanKroh]

"If it''''s a manufactured fairy tale, unrooted in any facts, then it''''s "reality" is PRECISELY what I can, and do, deny. Such a ''''foundation'''' is just exactly -- by definition! -- nothing more than fiction."

 

Except that what Trev and Merlyn are trying to say, if I may interpret for them, is that one religion''s fairy tale IS another religion''s facts. The "foundation" of ANY religion cannot be proven or disproven by objective means (at least, in the absence of a time machine). All we have are the "stories" of our respective holy books that tell us what our own particular "facts" are. Some people may consider the Bible to be a "manufactured fairy tale", and have been unimpressed by the "facts" presented to try to convince them otherwise.

 

Some of those "facts" can be *supported* by physical evidence, but there can always be an interpretation of that evidence that contradicts the religious doctrine. Here''s an example: there is physical evidence from a number of sources that there was, in fact, a "great flood" something like 4000 years ago. However, given that many religions have a "great flood story", saying that the flood is attributable to any one god is an interpretation which is not supported by the evidence, not to mention, there is also an interpretation of those events which include no gods at all, but natural events at work (a mid-ocean comet or meteor strike being in the lead right now).

 

So is the great flood story a fact, or a fairy tale?

 

I also think we are not using the term "knowledge" in the same way. When I speak of having "knowledge" of something spiritual, I mean first-hand knowledge, personal knowledge, either as a primary witness or as a personal gnosis (i.e. epiphany or similar term). If you (generic you, not personal you) are a Christian, and claim to "know" that the resurrection is a "fact", then either you are over 2000 years old and witnessed the event for yourself, or you have a personal gnosis about it, which is by its very nature unverifiable and unproveable. If you do not have either of those things, then by my definition, you don''t have "knowledge"-- instead, you have a belief based on faith that the story represented in the Bible is true and accurate. If the "facts" of any religion were proveable and verifiable, then there would be no debate about what was the "true religion".

 

What an agnostic is saying is that it is impossible to have that kind of knowledge about gods. That unless you''ve had a personal encounter (even in a spiritual or metaphysical sense) with a god, then you don''t have "knowledge" of that god, and they believe that such a thing happening is impossible. Therefore it is impossible to "know" any god.

 

Plenty of people believe in a religion without having first-hand witness or personal gnosis of everything they are asked to believe by their religion. They may believe that such knowledge IS possible (i.e., they are NOT agnostic), but they still don''t have that kind of knowledge themselves. An agnostic in that religion would take it one step further and say "I don''t have this kind of personal knowledge, and I don''t believe it''s possible to get it, but I''m going to believe in this religion anyway because I have faith." You call that "play-acting"; I call it having faith.

 

Is such a spirituality as rich and life-altering as it is to someone who has a more personal relationship with their god? Possibly not. But is it any less valid or "real" to them? I don''t believe so. It''s just another way that some people experience the divine universe.

 

I can see that there may be religious sects out there where if you haven''t HAD that personal gnosis, you can''t truly be considered a believer of that religion. However, Wicca is not one of them, and neither was the flavor of Christianity I was raised in. Maybe your experience with your religious sect differs.

 

But unless a religion has such a requirement of a personal gnosis, I see no conflict in someone calling themselves a believer in that religion AND an agnostic.

 

As far as who may or may not have faith in a false religion, well, I think there is only one way that each of us will know the answer to that in the end. All we can do is keep the faith in our own way until that mystery is revealed to us.