Very absurd doctrine --> Very zealous devotion. Why?

[Boojatta]

For example, communists were proud of their theories of economics. People had to wait in line for hours just to buy toilet paper in communist Poland. No externally imposed crisis (such as a war) could be blamed for the economic problems.

For example, Nazis were proud of their theories of race, inheritance, and genetics. According to the Nazis, all Poles (including Polish code breakers who broke the Nazi government's codes) would be classified as subhuman. In Germany itself, many shop owners and professors were classified as subhuman.

The irony is that economics was central to communist doctrine. Race was central to Nazi doctrine. These were not peripheral ideas. A communist chef might prepare meals that are both tasty and nutritious, but tell you, "My real talent is in economics. I hope to make a contribution to communist economic scholarship." A Nazi chef might prepare meals that are both tasty and nutritious, but tell you, "My real talent is genetics. I hope to make a contribution to Nazi genetic theory."

Did they never hear the words "know thyself"?

[beam me up scottie]

1. What does this have to do with religion?

[Dr.Phool]

2. I didn't see religion mentioned.

[beam me up scottie]

3. Good.

I thought maybe it was just me.

[Dr.Phool]

4. You can find zealots in just about any endeavor.

Trickle down economics, dogs on leashes, aliens, Borneo Cargo Cults, anything.

[beam me up scottie]

6. Sushi fans,

nannies, artificial inseminators...

[salvorhardin]

8. Trekkies...

Macintosh fans...

[beam me up scottie]

9. nipple makers,

ostrich feather pickers

[varkam]

11. Coke / Pepsi drinkers...

Marshmallow peep enthusiasts...

[smirkymonkey]

21. Let my Peeps go.....

[trotsky]

16. Wolf nipple chips?

Ocelot spleens?

[Boojatta]

5. It's about the psychology of devotion to a system of doctrines.

If there is no God in Buddhism, then is Buddhism not a religion?

If the "geo" in "geology" refers to the Earth, then would it be wrong for a school of geology to study rocks from the moon?

[NMMNG]

10. Buddhism actually isn't a religion, though most Westerners consider it one

Therefore we ask, if Buddhism is not a religion, what then is it? Our reply is: Buddhism is a way of life, a philosophy, a psychology, a way of thinking, through which we may ourselves take on the responsibility of determining how our life-bearing kamma (karma) will work out for us. Meditation is one of the procedures of mental discipline and purification through which we may begin to learn such responsibility.
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/is_buddhism_a_religion1.htm



It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."

Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents.

snip

In Buddhism there is not, as in most other religions, an Almighty God to be obeyed and feared. The Buddha does not believe in a cosmic potentate, omniscient and omnipresent. In Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. A Buddhist is, therefore, not subservient to any higher supernatural power which controls his destinies and which arbitrarily rewards and punishes. Since Buddhists do not believe in revelations of a divine being Buddhism does not claim the monopoly of truth and does not condemn any other religion. But Buddhism recognizes the infinite latent possibilities of man and teaches that man can gain deliverance from suffering by his own efforts independent of divine help or mediating priests.

Buddhism cannot, therefore, strictly be called a religion because it is neither a system of faith and worship, nor "the outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a God or gods having power over their own destiny to whom obedience, service, and honor are due."

snip

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm

[Boojatta]

14. That's a very thorough response.

Could you give a brief answer to the geology question?

[htuttle]

15. Technically, 'geologists' don't study rocks from the moon

People who study rocks from other planets are generally referred to as 'exogeologists', 'astrogeologists' or 'planetary geologists'.

[undergroundpanther]

7. Zealots try to make utopias

out of this flawed confused reality as if it could be if everyone else just went along with their plan or their religion or whatever..It seems zealots want something better than this mess but instead of looking to spiritual wisdom and realizing all that is eventually passes away here ,zealots insist on making the world conform to some utopia in their heads as if they could make anything be permanent or lasting here,as if they alone knew what should be done about things others do that upset them,as if they alone are responsible for this world ,they want to fix problems so bad and save the world from itself they will do terrible things to create a temporary illusory utopia ...often by bullying and scapegoating other people and imposing their own zealous personal reality over others or by doing it because of fear assuming what they think their gods want, onto this mess we are all stuck in....it's sad really.

[Strong Atheist]

12. If a capitalist and a communist marry,

does the grass need to be mowed less often, and leaves need to be raked less, and snow shoveled less? Inquiring minds NEED to know!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. And.... the point is....

T-Grannie

[Strong Atheist]

17. Boojatta never has one. KNOW this. nt.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

18. Okay, then

that's good to know. Kind of a free-wheelin' sort of guy, huh?

T-Grannie

[Strong Atheist]

19. More like the king of non-sequiturs. nt.

[charlie]

20. If the Socratic Method

isn't a means to an end, but the end itself, then he's your guy. If wandering in interminable clouds of ever more rarified questions-questions-questions isn't your thing, then he's not.

[Strong Atheist]

22. It ain't the Socratic Method. It's non-sequiturs. nt.

[The Magistrate]

23. One Might, Sir, Apply That More Widely

The Apostle Paul famously stated that Christian doctrine was seen as foolish by the wise of the earth, and that this very appearance of foolishness was the deity's device to exalt the believer and shame the wise man, or in short, that the very absudity of the dogmas was an excellent argument for belief in them. Any number of early Christian theologians pressed that point in controversialist writings aimed at debate with the conventionally religious of that Roman day.

[Boojatta]

24. Are "rarified questions" and absurd dogmas related? e.o.m.

[The Magistrate]

25. Your Meaning Is Unclear, Sir

A clarification would be appreciated before any response is attempted.

[Boojatta]

26. Perhaps I simply did not understand your post.

The following words seemed to be a key part of the post that you were responding to: "ever more rarified questions-questions-questions."

The following words seemed to be a key part of your post: "the very absurdity of the dogmas."

Does that clarify?

One Might, Sir, Apply That More Widely

Can you give a few examples of wider application?

this very appearance of foolishness was the deity's device to exalt the believer and shame the wise man

I trust that you are paraphrasing accurately from the writings of the Apostle Paul, but perhaps the words are nevertheless misleading.

My interpretation: some who appear to be foolish actually know simple truths. Allegedly wise people who can formulate impressively complicated falsehoods that look true are more likely to boast than people who know simple truths. To cut down on the boasting, the truth is not impressively complicated looking and not even true looking. Possession of the truth will not be a ticket to boast.

Why it may be desirable to arrange things so that truth will be in the hands of those who are less likely to boast: Boasting is not an honest admission of ignorance or other imperfection, but an exhibition of a delusion of personal greatness that is a compensation for self-perceived lack of worth. Also, boasting takes attention away from general principles and puts it on particular people.

[The Magistrate]

27. If That Is the Root Of The Misunderstanding, Sir

The fault is mine, for my intention had been to reply to your own original post commencing this discussion, and not to the comment it seems actually to have keyed off of, which was the first in this thread to attract my notice, as it happened.

It does seem to me, though, that the Apostle Paul meant his words much more plainly than you have suggsted. There was nothing simple about his theology, nor is there anything simple about Christian dogma as he propounded it, or as later exponents of that faith have expounded it since. The beliefs, and the "proofs" of them proffered, struck the educated of the time as absurdities, as indeed in many instances they still do today. The idea raised in the face of this by the Apostle was not that the dogmas of the faith were simple, but that his diety was not bound by human ideas of wisdom or even good sense, and deliberately contrived absurd things as divine truth precisely to shame those who were wise, since they would never accept absurdities as truth. The whole line, of course, is aimed at little more than flattery of the credulous and the foolish, to aid in their recruitment, and to armor them against the sneers of persons who saw through the concoctions at a glance.

It seems quite clear to me, Sir, that the idea you propse above, that absurd beliefs lead to a greater devotion to the belief, at least among those who hold it, is a sound one, inasmuch as it describes and accurately predicts a great deal of human behavior, extending far beyond the particular examples you proposed. My comments were intended to illustrate one other field to which it could be applied, and in which it evidently was applied with some consciousness of the process by a founding luminary.

[Boojatta]

28. Many followers of the Apostle Paul were zealously devoted to the absurd?

my intention had been to reply to your own original post commencing this discussion, and not to the comment it seems actually to have keyed off of

I also make errors.

It does seem to me, though, that the Apostle Paul meant his words much more plainly than you have suggested.

I was trying to be charitable in my interpretation. If I ignore words that describe allegations of things witnessed and focus on words concerning general principles, then is there any reason for me to worry about what the Apostle Paul meant?

The whole line, of course, is aimed at little more than flattery of the credulous and the foolish, to aid in their recruitment, and to armor them against the sneers of persons who saw through the concoctions at a glance.

Could we say that the Apostle Paul taught by example how someone can gain some benefit from credulous and foolish people? Had he spelled out that particular lesson in exquisitely simple terms, perhaps he would have turned the credulous and foolish against him. Could the credulous and foolish be compared to a censorship department in a totalitarian government?

My comments were intended to illustrate one other field to which it could be applied, and in which it evidently was applied with some consciousness of the process by a founding luminary.

Okay, I think that I understand now. Thank you for the clarification. Your whole post was very good.

[Boojatta]

29. To clarify...

Could the credulous and foolish be compared to a censorship department in a totalitarian government?

Censors don't understand everything. Perhaps subtle messages that would be censored, if they were understood, could appear throughout essays and books that are not merely permitted by a totalitarian or theocratic government, but actually recommended by such a government. Perhaps ideas that would be intolerable to the credulous and foolish can be inserted into a message in a form that arouses no opposition from the credulous and foolish.