Comments on: The Wisdom of Doubt, Part VIII http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:02:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: The Mahablog » The Wisdom of Doubt: The Series http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-269074 Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:37:56 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-269074 [...] Part VIII: The origins of fundamentalism. [...] […] Part VIII: The origins of fundamentalism. […]

]]> by: The Mahablog » The Last Magician http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-265152 Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:26:59 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-265152 [...] The scientific revolution began in the 16th century, but even in Newton’s time science was not exactly science yet. Newton lived in a time suspended between pre-modern and modern thought, between mythos and logos. Human consciousness was moving away from a world of mystical revelation, but hadn’t yet fully entered the Age of Reason. Nor was Newston a true fundamentalist as we understand the word today. Fundamentalism wouldn’t be “invented” for a couple more centuries. [...] […] The scientific revolution began in the 16th century, but even in Newton’s time science was not exactly science yet. Newton lived in a time suspended between pre-modern and modern thought, between mythos and logos. Human consciousness was moving away from a world of mystical revelation, but hadn’t yet fully entered the Age of Reason. Nor was Newston a true fundamentalist as we understand the word today. Fundamentalism wouldn’t be “invented” for a couple more centuries. […]

]]> by: The Mahablog » The Wisdom of Doubt, Part IX http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264553 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:17:40 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264553 [...] In the last episode I provided a skip through history from the Reformation to the birth of fundamentalism in the early 20th century. Let’s pick up the story in the 1920s. [...] […] In the last episode I provided a skip through history from the Reformation to the birth of fundamentalism in the early 20th century. Let’s pick up the story in the 1920s. […]

]]> by: priscianus jr http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264512 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:17:30 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264512 Moonbat is right. You must mean "substitutionary atonement." There is no such word as "substantionary." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement Moonbat is right. You must mean “substitutionary atonement.” There is no such word as “substantionary.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement

]]> by: moonbat http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264510 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:02:35 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264510 I have often heard the phrase "substitutionary atonement" but never "substantionary atonement". FWIW, it's not in merriam-webster.com either. I have often heard the phrase “substitutionary atonement” but never “substantionary atonement”. FWIW, it’s not in merriam-webster.com either.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264496 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 02:13:45 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264496 <i>I keep thinking that, somewhere in there, there should be a way to point to the difference between being faithful to an ideal, and stubbornly believing that one’s own vision has perfectly captured that ideal. Even without doubts about the ideal itself, one can have doubts about one’s own understanding of it.</i> That's an excellent point, and is sorta where I went in the first Wisdom of Doubt post, but I need to get back to it. This series is turning into my Unified Theory of Spirituality. :-) I keep thinking that, somewhere in there, there should be a way to point to the difference between being faithful to an ideal, and stubbornly believing that one’s own vision has perfectly captured that ideal. Even without doubts about the ideal itself, one can have doubts about one’s own understanding of it.

That’s an excellent point, and is sorta where I went in the first Wisdom of Doubt post, but I need to get back to it. This series is turning into my Unified Theory of Spirituality. :-)

]]> by: Longhairedweirdo http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264495 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 02:02:10 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264495 Another point that is interesting, regarding faith and doubt... the concept of faith has undergone a good bit of shaking up. It comes from the notion of, e.g., "faithful service". In that sense, it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with one's state of mind, but instead with one's actions. One is faithful to the law if one acts in accordance with the law, regardless of how stupid you think the law is. I keep thinking that, somewhere in there, there should be a way to point to the difference between being faithful to an ideal, and stubbornly believing that one's own vision has perfectly captured that ideal. Even without doubts about the ideal itself, one can have doubts about one's own understanding of it. Another point that is interesting, regarding faith and doubt… the concept of faith has undergone a good bit of shaking up. It comes from the notion of, e.g., “faithful service”. In that sense, it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with one’s state of mind, but instead with one’s actions. One is faithful to the law if one acts in accordance with the law, regardless of how stupid you think the law is.

I keep thinking that, somewhere in there, there should be a way to point to the difference between being faithful to an ideal, and stubbornly believing that one’s own vision has perfectly captured that ideal. Even without doubts about the ideal itself, one can have doubts about one’s own understanding of it.

]]> by: Longhairedweirdo http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264488 Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:24:07 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264488 While I've never heard the term "substationary atonement", it does sound very much like the notion of the Redemption, that Jesus had to die on the cross to allow the forgiveness of sins, that it is only through this that atonement can come. Part of this is the idea that people can't be saved by their actions, because without the sacrifice, there is still no atonement. While I’ve never heard the term “substationary atonement”, it does sound very much like the notion of the Redemption, that Jesus had to die on the cross to allow the forgiveness of sins, that it is only through this that atonement can come. Part of this is the idea that people can’t be saved by their actions, because without the sacrifice, there is still no atonement.

]]> by: Lynne http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264436 Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:39:17 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264436 Fascinating. Don't forget that the Quakers, the most populous religious group in the British American colonies until about 1750, also had a history of dispensing with clergy and approaching God directly. Fascinating. Don’t forget that the Quakers, the most populous religious group in the British American colonies until about 1750, also had a history of dispensing with clergy and approaching God directly.

]]> by: kuvasz http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264431 Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:19:21 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/21/the-wisdom-of-doubt-part-viii/#comment-264431 Thank you for the effort you put in to this essay. I have a younger brother who has become quite a "Christian," as he approaches 40, oddly so for knowing ONLY six of the Ten Commandments when asked by me, nor any of the beliefs I learned about from which the Nicene Creed was founded over ten years of catechism classes and Catholic school. When I asked him what makes someone a "Christian" he said one had to believe in the Bible. I nearly vomited. Since then I have cursed myself for poking his fontanel with a pencil as a baby. As Dr Leon Bronowski said in his episode on "The Ascent of Man," it all boils down to Knowledge versus Certainty. And yes, I have begun to have long, very long discussions with my brother about the history of Christianity, because he knows so little about it. Maybe that's the strength of Fundamentalist religion everywhere, even the ignorant can join. My favorite was when he admonished me for saying "God damn" as a blasphemy against the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain and he had no idea that it was actually a proscription for breaking an oath one swears to God he would uphold. Trained as a Catholic I mentioned that for Catholics the commandment was defined as the second of ten, where as in his Christianity it was referred to it as the third commandment. Pushing on to the point I asked him, “who is correct?” These folks are making up their own Christianity to suit their purpose and worse, they have no historical basis for it. Thank you for the effort you put in to this essay.

I have a younger brother who has become quite a “Christian,” as he approaches 40, oddly so for knowing ONLY six of the Ten Commandments when asked by me, nor any of the beliefs I learned about from which the Nicene Creed was founded over ten years of catechism classes and Catholic school.

When I asked him what makes someone a “Christian” he said one had to believe in the Bible.

I nearly vomited.

Since then I have cursed myself for poking his fontanel with a pencil as a baby.

As Dr Leon Bronowski said in his episode on “The Ascent of Man,” it all boils down to Knowledge versus Certainty.

And yes, I have begun to have long, very long discussions with my brother about the history of Christianity, because he knows so little about it.

Maybe that’s the strength of Fundamentalist religion everywhere, even the ignorant can join.

My favorite was when he admonished me for saying “God damn” as a blasphemy against the commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain and he had no idea that it was actually a proscription for breaking an oath one swears to God he would uphold.

Trained as a Catholic I mentioned that for Catholics the commandment was defined as the second of ten, where as in his Christianity it was referred to it as the third commandment. Pushing on to the point I asked him, “who is correct?”

These folks are making up their own Christianity to suit their purpose and worse, they have no historical basis for it.

]]>