The Philosophy of "Spiritually Lost"?
What I find gripping is what these principles might mean if they illustrate not only the dynamics of being physically “lost” but also spiritually “lost” as well (whatever that might mean). Each of us is born stuck on the back side of a lens in our own thinking. We can never truly get out from behind it, either. It is the meta-eye through which we view the world.
Many don’t think of it as a lens (an interpretive device). Many make the mistake of thinking their mind touches reality directly with no intermediate stages at all (and no possible distortion, either). Think of it this way, instead of rose coloured glasses, what if you have rose colored corneas? Or even worse - crap colored corneas (I know a few people who seem to have this).
So maybe something like "faith" is a distortion of the lens through which many see.
Or, maybe it's the correction.
Many don’t think of it as a lens (an interpretive device). Many make the mistake of thinking their mind touches reality directly with no intermediate stages at all (and no possible distortion, either). Think of it this way, instead of rose coloured glasses, what if you have rose colored corneas? Or even worse - crap colored corneas (I know a few people who seem to have this).
So maybe something like "faith" is a distortion of the lens through which many see.
Or, maybe it's the correction.
posted by CSW at
8:19 AM
3 Comments:
As somebody who has gone into and come out of faith I can definitely attest the shocking differences between those two world views. I can only speak for myself but I have found a state of non-faith to be liking increasing the resolution of the CCD behind my lens. It has been an incredibly fascinating journey that I will continue for as long as I can.
By
Josh, at 9:45 PM
This may be personal, but it sounds like that's what you want. If that's the case, is that objective? Aren't we kind of good at seeing what we want to see? Isn't that the classic criticism of Christians?
Imagine a researcher saying, "I'm going to try to verify this for as long as I possibly can." It's not longer about simply establishing the accuracy of the thing. It's now about perseverance in a pre-chosen course.
You sound kind of like a Christian - only pointed in a different direction!
By
CSW, at 4:08 PM
You know I think that is a fair observation.
I do like a naturalistic point of view, probably because it resonates with my rationalistic, scientific thought process. I cannot say I like it more or less than I liked the Christian world view when I was a Christian, but I can say that the process of moving from Christianity to naturalism was primarily motivated by my bias to prove Christianity and not to find naturalism.
Which brings up an interesting point; I think it is still possible to be objective in the face of a prejudice towards a given conclusion.
The classic criticism of Christians, I think, is not that they have a bias or prejudice towards a certain set of conclusions, but rather that their bias becomes the reason for their conclusions. It is quite rare that a Christian will surrender a point of inconsistency in their belief structure, even when it is apparent to others. It is also rare that they will say the most feared words, "I do not know." Instead their bias becomes the reason the inconsistency does not exist, or that their knowledge is in fact complete. This type of circular thinking can be found outside of religious circles, and I do not think it is fair to fault only Christians, or even all Christians, for this.
Most everybody has a bias towards something, it is how they handle that bias that makes the difference.
By
Josh, at 4:11 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home