Reading, faith, world views and inner conflic

[markdohle]

Reading, faith, world views and inner conflict

When reading a book, say a book of philosophy that is set in story form, the reader enters into the world of the writer and for a time, while immersed in the author’s world, takes on the world view presented in the pages. A relationship is formed with a book, a subjective experience that can be either enriching or at times damaging.

Reading a book that is written as a defense of one particular point of view, without a story line, is a different experience altogether. We receive from any volume and its message according to the openness to what is being presented. To take an adversarial stance truncates what can be received and can even miss the point entirely. For entering into the world of one who has beliefs foreign to the reader can cause anxiety, but this will pass if stayed with, for integration and deepening of ones understanding of life, is the reward of allowing ones faith and world view to augment and mature.

Some books show us world views that we cannot accept, but can lead to understanding why others think and believe differently. This is not always easy for me, for prejudices towards others is the norm (at least from my own experience) and I being burdened with my own pre-judgments can find myself being very selective in what I take from a volume that is perhaps antipathetic to my own views. Defenses go up very easily, for I believe that most people put a lot of effort into what they believe.

There are people who delve deeply into their chosen world views and I think it is important to read them. Those however who take on a contemptuous attitude, I tend to leave alone, since it causes a response from me, which is often based on anxiety that in turn, makes it impossible to read. If a tome is written simply to attack, it is then written only for those who believe in the same way and will bolster ones superiority towards others, often being spurred on my the choir. So there is little communication when books or papers are written in this genre. Though they often cause lively debate and high book sales for those who participate in this kind of entertainment; which no doubt serves a needed function for society.

At times I find it difficult to give others a fair hearing. I fail to see them, or respond poorly to their own failings in there attempt to get a point across. I see no way out of this dilemma and that has brought me a measure of peace. I am at an age, moving rapidly towards old age. I need to delve deeper into my own path, and yes to perhaps become narrower in my interest, without denying others the right to search other avenues in their own journey towards truth.

Being narrow minded is the problem and is based on arrogance and a type of personal infallibility that I fear is common and that I must fight in myself on a regular basis. We all wish to be seen and heard, well I do, and so I try to give that response to others, though I do fail at times, so strong is my own sense of personal infallibility, sad to say. Yet I will still seek to dilute that vice.

I am a man of faith. Many find such a stance childish, though I do not believe my faith is childish in any way. The struggle for truth is life long and when we die, well we enter into the deepest mystery of all. When I die, and actually find that my faith was true (I am a Christian), I will most likely be astounded and surprised. For below faith, is doubt, perhaps this doubt goes deeper than I wish to contemplate. Yet I choose faith, for though it can seem absurd, a world without God and faith is even more absurd. I seem to be backed into a corner, yet I will always choose faith, for my relationship with God, a God without form, yet manifested in Jesus Christ is the light I have chosen to follow.

Lord I believe; help my unbelief.

[redhen]

Yet I choose faith ...

I know this isn't part of your argument, but I would like to delve a bit deeper into your statement above.

Is it even possible to "choose faith"? Is it possible to will yourself to believe something? I don't think it is, and many philosophers agree. There are several reasons for this, here's one;

One reason is connected with the characteristics of beliefs that they aim at the truth. If I could acquire a belief at will, I could acquire it whether it was true or not; moreover I would know that I could acquire whether it was true or not. If in full consciousness I could will to a acquire a "belief" irrespective of its truth, it is unclear that before the event I could seriously think of it as a belief, i.e. as something purporting to represent reality.

- Bernard Williams, Deciding to Believe.

Of course there are other causal factors that can produce a belief; hypnotism, drugs, etc., but we are not concerned with these methods. This does raise the question though, if one could acquire a desired belief through one of these roundabout methods, would it be moral? Again, I think most philosophers (and psychologists) would say no. Self deception is an important topic, for epistemological and moral reasons. I believe it is wrong, in almost all cases. The exception might be where someone whose son is lost at sea and desperately wants to be alive. Although wrong, this type of self delusion brings about some level of comfort and relief, so it may have a use here.

[markdohle]

I know this isn't part of your argument, but I would like to delve a bit deeper into your statement above.

Is it even possible to "choose faith"? Is it possible to will yourself to believe something? I don't think it is, and many philosophers agree. There are several reasons for this, here's one;

- Bernard Williams, Deciding to Believe.

Of course there are other causal factors that can produce a belief; hypnotism, drugs, etc., but we are not concerned with these methods. This does raise the question though, if one could acquire a desired belief through one of these roundabout methods, would it be moral? Again, I think most philosophers (and psychologists) would say no. Self deception is an important topic, for epistemological and moral reasons. I believe it is wrong, in almost all cases. The exception might be where someone whose son is lost at sea and desperately wants to be alive. Although wrong, this type of self delusion brings about some level of comfort and relief, so it may have a use here.

Think you for your thoughtful comment. I don't look upon faith as something bad or dishonest, or perhaps based on fear of life without having faith. It is something that I have always had and I study my faith in order to deepen my understanding of it, so that I can live out my life as best as I can. Christ Jesus does that for me and the New Testament is for me a holy book, the Word of God, though I am not a fundamentalist by any means. If you think I am suffering from self deception, well ok, go for it.

Atheism is also a choice; perhaps not all of those who are atheist are honest in taking that path but is based on something else. I don't know. You can only interrupt me and what I have written from your own perspective or world view, which is as it should be, however, it does not touch me on any deep level what you stated. However you saying that I am immoral over having faith, or self deluded, well that is your personal opinion, and we all have them, don't we?

There is my no means a consensus among philosophers or psychologist on faith and religion. There are many authors who speak deeply about faith and they do not come across as self deceived to me. If you want only to pick those authors who agree with you on this subject, well and good, I wish you well on your journey.

I have read and studied Ayn Rand and other philosophers who are atheistic and they were not convincing. Yes faith can seems absurd, but atheism is even more so for me, it simply makes no sense and I think it is losing ground. Dawkins said that the universe 'seems to be designed", well perhaps it actually is.

Again thanks for your thoughtful response.

peace

mark

[redhen]

Hi Mark,

Perhaps there is some confusion in what faith denotes in this context.

I don't look upon faith as something bad or dishonest, or perhaps based on fear of life without having faith. It is something that I have always had

Ok, this sounds like belief in that it is not something one chooses, but rather a passive phenomenon.

and I study my faith in order to deepen my understanding of it, so that I can live out my life as best as I can.

This sounds like religion.

If you think I am suffering from self deception, well ok, go for it.

I know that's what Dawkins would say, he even has a book title based on it. I'm not so sure.

However you saying that I am immoral over having faith, or self deluded, well that is your personal opinion, and we all have them, don't we?

Sure, opinions are the cheapest commodity on the planet, everyone has one. Anyways, I never said you were immoral or self-deluded.

Yes faith can seems absurd, but atheism is even more so for me, it simply makes no sense and I think it is losing ground.

That's a contentious claim, and has been hashed out many times here on UM. I'm still interested in your opinion as to whether it is possible to choose a belief, given the excerpt from the Williams essay I quoted.

Thanks

Just came back from walking the dog and I think I found the answer.

I think the definition of faith was causing the problem for me. In one response to faith you stated "It is something that I have always had", but in another you wrote "I choose faith".

I suspect it was not a choice for you, it was not something you simply willed to do, and this makes sense as it is something the philosophers claim is impossible.

It also falls in line with what I know of Christian theology. Faith is a gift, freely bestown on some and denied to others. This seems inherently unfair to me, but that's another topic.

"I choose faith" doesn't sound to me like "I believe in premise (p)". It sounds more like the exhortation "Keep the faith". Which again doesn't sound to me like a call to believe a certain set of claims, but more like "Keep loyal to the Church".

Faith is a real bug to narrowly define.

Edited October 30, 2011 by redhen

[markdohle]

That's a contentious claim, and has been hashed out many times here on UM. I'm still interested in your opinion as to whether it is possible to choose a belief, given the excerpt from the Williams essay I quoted.

Ok I will give it a shot:

One reason is connected with the characteristics of beliefs that they aim at the truth. If I could acquire a belief at will, I could acquire it whether it was true or not; moreover I would know that I could acquire whether it was true or not. If in full consciousness I could will to a acquire a "belief" irrespective of its truth, it is unclear that before the event I could seriously think of it as a belief, i.e. as something purporting to represent reality.

I would say that my acceptance of my faith does not come from personal experience per-se, but from my taking for truth the experience of the early church of the Risen Lord. I am convinced, not sure I always like what I hear in the NT and especially the OT, but if God does exist, then it is reasonable for him to become flesh as Jesus did.

People believe in many things, and yes they do so at will. Some of the things are silly (and yes I know that we each have a list of silly things that people believe in). People will also (myself included) be limited by their belief systems, that will inhibit the ability to give another a fair hearing. I find that 'free thinkers' can be, and much of them are very dogmatic in their assertions and not very convincing.

I have doubt and faith, I can choose which I will decide to develop and deepen. I personally think that keeping faith and developing a loving relationship with God is harder than atheism. This is merely my opinion.

To believe that the material universe is all that there is would do away with a great deal of pondering over philosophical issues like suffering. There would be no problem to try to resolve, it is just reality, in a universe that is governed by a blind process called evolution. That there is no afterlife would not terrify me. There are many times in my life when the thought of just blinking out is a very pleasant prospect.

Like I have said, and perhaps it is simple wiring, but atheism makes no sense to me and is not especially rational, nor is it a theory or belief based on the discoveries of science. People of faith and atheist will use the findings of science to back up their claims on atheism and theism. It will always be an open question and thinking people choose, others, well they perhaps go along, which is also fine, we are all different, deeply complex entities.

Not sure I have done what you wanted on this, but did the best I could.

peace

mark

[redhen]

I was just editing my last post, and I guessed wrong again, lol.

I would say that my acceptance of my faith does not come from personal experience per-se, but from my taking for truth the experience of the early church of the Risen Lord.

Ok, faith then is not something you've always had. You come to your beliefs the way most people acquire theirs, based on sufficient evidence for them. That's fine.

People believe in many things, and yes they do so at will. Some of the things are silly (and yes I know that we each have a list of silly things that people believe in).

I don't believe these are conscious, willful acts though. Something is affecting their behaviour and interfering with their normal decision making process. Greed is a good example, think back to the beginning of the current world financial crisis. Think of all the people who didn't care or bother to read the fine print on the dozens of credit card applications they got in the mail. Or think of all the new homeowners, mortgage brokers, government officials and speculators in the U.S., who let greed black out any sober thought. In these cases, yes, one could say "people believe what they want to believe".

Like I have said, and perhaps it is simple wiring,

That could be plausible.

but atheism makes no sense to me and is not especially rational, nor is it a theory or belief based on the discoveries of science.

Now we get stuck for pages on the definition of "atheism", lol. I take atheism to mean something like "God has nothing to do with it", i.e. "my toaster manual is atheistic".

Looking back at your post title I notice the phrase "inner conflict", the technical term for this is cognitive dissonance, meaning "clashing thoughts". This is normal, everyone has some level of it. A good example are smokers who know that smoking is detrimental to their health, so they make excuses or explain away or make light of medical reports on smoking.

I looked at the example Wiki gives The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop an old classic that follows the same predictive pattern: "one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it".

I suspect in many cases of religious cognitive dissonance, the something one desires is certitude. Certainty of the existence of God, and other questions. This is the doubt you mentioned. I don't think one can have certainty about God, and a search for such certitude would be futile and exhausting. But I can see how this inner conflict arises.

pax

[markdohle]

I was just editing my last post, and I guessed wrong again, lol.

Ok, faith then is not something you've always had. You come to your beliefs the way most people acquire theirs, based on sufficient evidence for them. That's fine.

I don't believe these are conscious, willful acts though. Something is affecting their behaviour and interfering with their normal decision making process. Greed is a good example, think back to the beginning of the current world financial crisis. Think of all the people who didn't care or bother to read the fine print on the dozens of credit card applications they got in the mail. Or think of all the new homeowners, mortgage brokers, government officials and speculators in the U.S., who let greed black out any sober thought. In these cases, yes, one could say "people believe what they want to believe".

That could be plausible.

Now we get stuck for pages on the definition of "atheism", lol. I take atheism to mean something like "God has nothing to do with it", i.e. "my toaster manual is atheistic".

Looking back at your post title I notice the phrase "inner conflict", the technical term for this is cognitive dissonance, meaning "clashing thoughts". This is normal, everyone has some level of it. A good example are smokers who know that smoking is detrimental to their health, so they make excuses or explain away or make light of medical reports on smoking.

I looked at the example Wiki gives The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop an old classic that follows the same predictive pattern: "one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it".

I suspect in many cases of religious cognitive dissonance, the something one desires is certitude. Certainty of the existence of God, and other questions. This is the doubt you mentioned. I don't think one can have certainty about God, and a search for such certitude would be futile and exhausting. But I can see how this inner conflict arises.

pax

Thank you very much, you have given me something to ponder further on.

Peace

Mark

Edited October 30, 2011 by markdohle

[encouraged]

Wow! I am impressed! Two people being intellectually honest with each other, discussing opinions that are so contrastive that they usually lead to flaming words, and doing so without the use of intonation, body language, or para language to clarify their attitude. I don't know how such can be done without the one allowing the other a great deal of trust in their true intentions--to intellectually discover what makes the other person's position a reasonable position to them.

The world could use a lot of what you guys have! This site could use a lot of what you guys have.

What's cool to me is that I can almost visualize, in a global view, how and why both of you can't quite synthesize the other's position out of the material you have to work with because of your position and history of the topic. I think however, each of you acquired more of the kind of material you need to get closer to doing so.

A really rewarding opportunity to be a part of it and an analyst of it at the same time. Thanks! Please keep up the good bilateral mind-melts!

[dreamgoddess11]

Very beautiful dialog. It's good to see this "help me understand you" approach. Well done.

[libstaK]

I agree, it is a treasure to read something that informs all sides of an issue - thanks Mark Dohle and Redhen, I really enjoyed that.

[markdohle]

Thanks everyone. Vsiting my family, so don't have much time to reply to all the comments.

Peace

mark

[redhen]

I was taught that the first rule in argumentation is the Truth seeking principle. That means that both parties are seeking the truth, not just brow-beating an opponent into accepting their views.

I've posted some contentious thoughts here in the past, regarding some firmly held opinions. Some of those posts have carried on over 20 pages or so. Those dialogues lasted as long as they did because I am open to new information, even if it is opposition to my beliefs. For all I know I could be wrong.

Humility is a virtue that's important in many religions. No one's perfect, but I strive to remain humble, like the dust. That's the ideal anyways, lol.

[markdohle]

I was taught that the first rule in argumentation is the Truth seeking principle. That means that both parties are seeking the truth, not just brow-beating an opponent into accepting their views.

I've posted some contentious thoughts here in the past, regarding some firmly held opinions. Some of those posts have carried on over 20 pages or so. Those dialogues lasted as long as they did because I am open to new information, even if it is opposition to my beliefs. For all I know I could be wrong.

Humility is a virtue that's important in many religions. No one's perfect, but I strive to remain humble, like the dust. That's the ideal anyways, lol.

Well I believe you

Peace

Mark

[Cosmic Radiant]

Reading, faith, world views and inner conflict

When reading a book, say a book of philosophy that is set in story form, the reader enters into the world of the writer and for a time, while immersed in the author’s world, takes on the world view presented in the pages. A relationship is formed with a book, a subjective experience that can be either enriching or at times damaging.

Reading a book that is written as a defense of one particular point of view, without a story line, is a different experience altogether. We receive from any volume and its message according to the openness to what is being presented. To take an adversarial stance truncates what can be received and can even miss the point entirely. For entering into the world of one who has beliefs foreign to the reader can cause anxiety, but this will pass if stayed with, for integration and deepening of ones understanding of life, is the reward of allowing ones faith and world view to augment and mature.

Some books show us world views that we cannot accept, but can lead to understanding why others think and believe differently. This is not always easy for me, for prejudices towards others is the norm (at least from my own experience) and I being burdened with my own pre-judgments can find myself being very selective in what I take from a volume that is perhaps antipathetic to my own views. Defenses go up very easily, for I believe that most people put a lot of effort into what they believe.

There are people who delve deeply into their chosen world views and I think it is important to read them. Those however who take on a contemptuous attitude, I tend to leave alone, since it causes a response from me, which is often based on anxiety that in turn, makes it impossible to read. If a tome is written simply to attack, it is then written only for those who believe in the same way and will bolster ones superiority towards others, often being spurred on my the choir. So there is little communication when books or papers are written in this genre. Though they often cause lively debate and high book sales for those who participate in this kind of entertainment; which no doubt serves a needed function for society.

At times I find it difficult to give others a fair hearing. I fail to see them, or respond poorly to their own failings in there attempt to get a point across. I see no way out of this dilemma and that has brought me a measure of peace. I am at an age, moving rapidly towards old age. I need to delve deeper into my own path, and yes to perhaps become narrower in my interest, without denying others the right to search other avenues in their own journey towards truth.

Being narrow minded is the problem and is based on arrogance and a type of personal infallibility that I fear is common and that I must fight in myself on a regular basis. We all wish to be seen and heard, well I do, and so I try to give that response to others, though I do fail at times, so strong is my own sense of personal infallibility, sad to say. Yet I will still seek to dilute that vice.

I am a man of faith. Many find such a stance childish, though I do not believe my faith is childish in any way. The struggle for truth is life long and when we die, well we enter into the deepest mystery of all. When I die, and actually find that my faith was true (I am a Christian), I will most likely be astounded and surprised. For below faith, is doubt, perhaps this doubt goes deeper than I wish to contemplate. Yet I choose faith, for though it can seem absurd, a world without God and faith is even more absurd. I seem to be backed into a corner, yet I will always choose faith, for my relationship with God, a God without form, yet manifested in Jesus Christ is the light I have chosen to follow.

Lord I believe; help my unbelief.

Hey I wanted to say I used to be a christian because my parents taught me that. I kept my faith a long time but once I grew up I was exposed to many worldviews. I was shocked that there was so many belief systems out there and I was very interested in the time about learning about all them just for the sake of knowledge. Well as I read and researched, I noticed that most all religions are based off the same things. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ReohCr35U.

I repsect all belief systems, I just think that you do not fully understand the worldview of a non-christian. Fear of going to hell for being curious about life shouldn't exist in a religion. Religion is great, but it's purpose is only to control peoples minds so they can live peacefully. But not everyone wants to live like that, although there is nothing wrong with it. Other people want to be free and never let fear into their lives.

[redhen]

Well as I read and researched, I noticed that most all religions are based off the same things.

There are several different threads on the video Zeitgeist. Here's one response that refutes the claim you made.

[markdohle]

Thank you redhen, very good. I usually don't respond to comments in the genre that Magika made, it just gets old, though I am sure that Magika does a lot of studying on the subject.

peace

mark

[Cosmic Radiant]

Thank you redhen, very good. I usually don't respond to comments in the genre that Magika made, it just gets old, though I am sure that Magika does a lot of studying on the subject.

peace

mark

Im not the kind of person to bash your religion, I even said I respect it. You gave your opinion and I gave mine. Im not here to convert you out of Christianity. My parents are really good Christians. I might of got carried away with my post, but all I really wanted to get across was that your perception is your reality. If christianity is your reality then thats great, but theres many other realitys. It's all about what you truly believe.

You can respond to me, Im not gonna be negative. If you dont wanna respond then thats your choice, but it seems kinda rude and close-minded.

[markdohle]

Im not the kind of person to bash your religion, I even said I respect it. You gave your opinion and I gave mine. Im not here to convert you out of Christianity. My parents are really good Christians. I might of got carried away with my post, but all I really wanted to get across was that your perception is your reality. If christianity is your reality then thats great, but theres many other realitys. It's all about what you truly believe.

You can respond to me, Im not gonna be negative. If you dont wanna respond then thats your choice, but it seems kinda rude and close-minded.

Its not that, I was not offended, nor did I think you were being negative. You study and learn. No need to respond really. I wish you well my friend. I am 63 years old, so I have spent decades thinking and pondering and have come to an ever deeper appriciation of my faith, not sure that makes me closed minded. We can only truly express ourselves from our own understanding of reality and what it is about.

Peace

mark