I think it was Jonathon Swift who said that it was no use trying to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into. He's a good man for a quote: I've always thought of his comment about having just enough religion to hate, yet not enough to love one another.
But anyway, back to the first quote, which came to mind last night when in conversation with some more friendly brethren. We concluded that logic wouldn't bridge our difference of opinion, but whereas to me that signifies a problem with what the brethren believe, to them it means that logic is an unreliable guide.
Which is true to some extent. Emotional matters are not susceptible to reason, for a start. However, I do think that any rules for life should have at least some backing by reason, and that's where we differ. I can approach that difference from any angle, and I can't convey it. None of my visitors tries much logic, as I have a reputation for picking that line of things apart, but they are usually at pains to mention that logic has its limits. That leaves me with very little to explain of my dissatisfaction with their system.
I think Swift's point was that if someone's opinion is based on an analysis of a situation and a sober judgment in consequence, then by questioning either the steps in that reasoning or the facts it's based on, one can change their mind. If there is no such structure, but the opinion exists in isolation, there is no point of attack, even when the conclusion is obviously flawed.
All I can do, in this case, is say that while I'm pleased the brethren system is working for them, it doesn't for me. At a very deep level, it just feels wrong. While they're slightly hurt and puzzled by that, it is something they can take in.
To then speak to someone else, nothing to do with the brethren, is both a relief and a jarring shock. Things which have to be taken as assumptions when speaking to brethren suddenly become bizarre and questionable when explaining them to an outsider. Even the fact that there was no point offering my visitors a cup of tea. Suddenly shifting modes of thought is actually quite stressful.
One interesting fact emerged, and that is that as far as the brethren are concerned I could go back to the meetings today if I wanted. It's odd that the difference, in that sense, is presented as being on my side. What seems odd to them, in return, is that I am cordial and friendly and willing to talk, yet remain unpersuaded. Brethren thought says that only bitterness against the position can explain why somebody wouldn't want to be involved if they could. I think they think I'm only pretending to be uninterested, and will give it up soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
It would be interesting, Survivor, to know what your differences with the EB are. You would seem to have attended their meetings for a third of a century (since before you were born) and been subject to intense indoctrination. You appear not to be subject to family, spouse, money or a riotous nature dragging you "out." So what motivates you?
At the risk of offending, I add the word "inertia" followed by a troupe of smileys and a question mark.
If my differences haven't become clear by now, I'm not sure what else I can say.
My observation is that family, spouse and money are all things which tend to hold people "in", not drag them out, and even a riotous nature can be accomodated to a degree. What is really beyond the pale is thinking.
My journey can be summarised as follows. I have come to disagree with much of the established brethren belief. I am required to subscribe to those beliefs in order to settle down. So my choice is to pretend to believe in the hope that something will change somewhere down the line before the strain of pretending breaks a family apart, or state my position and leave. Does there need to be more than that?
As I've said many times, to incomprehension each time, seeing that something is not the way doesn't mean you know what is.
I'm not sure where inertia comes into it, except it took me years to overcome.
"Even the fact that there was no point offering my visitors a cup of tea."
You are right, Survivor, to pinpoint the apparent lack of logical thinking within the EB system. Orthodox (lower case 'o'!) theology has a logic and believers are usually willing to submit their thinking to scholarly and/or popular examination.
Would it be feasible to ask your visitors next time they come how it could ever be an act of injustice/unrighteousness (the true meaning of the Greek word translated 'iniquity' in JND's 2 Timothy 2:19) to share a cup of tea with you? Injustice is offensive to a holy God, and the non EB world can't grasp how the EB cup of tea apartheid chimes with the Biblical concept of separating from injustice.
Thankyou, Survivor, for the increased clarity. Thinking is certainly a crime in EB, and you are guilty. You will have to join us in outer darkness!
".....subscribe to those beliefs in order to settle down.....before the strain of pretending breaks a family apart...."
Would this suggest that one must declare commitment to the beliefs in order to marry?
If so this indicates wisdom, strength and courage to see the probable outcome.
As I have commented earlier, the trouble with logical thinking is that once one has acquired it, it is impossible to shed… “An astrologer can become an astronomer but an astronomer cannot become an astrologer” (quoting a line in my head; I can’t recall the source). Many of the contributors to Ex Peebs net attest to this saying things like “how wonderful it is to discover that God gave us a mind to think with”. Much of EB indoctrination is about rejecting logic as an appropriate modality in many areas of thought. My impression of your mind, survivor, is that it is so fertile that it was inevitable that you would either leave or seriously compromise your integrity. Paradoxically, this doesn’t mean that you are right and they are wrong, it just means that there are irreconcilable differences. If the Judeo-Christian God is the creator, it’s hard to understand how he/she could give us the sort of language based thinking minds that we have and that it’s also true that we were meant to suspend logic in favour of irrational belief. One possible explanation is that God has a sense of humour and that the joke is on us…
When tackling very complex problems, such as whether to stay in the EB or not, reason and logic, or at least our ability to apply it, does indeed have its limitations.
One can glibly counter this by saying that valid logic, applied to true starting assumptions, has at least never yet yielded a wrong answer. At worst it yields no answer. But I don’t know any truly valid argument against someone who rejects the very principles of logic, someone who regularly believes six impossible things before breakfast, or who believes that Jesus was born in 4 BC as well as being born in 6 or 7 AD.
So I agree with Jonathan Swift and Survivor: there is not a lot to be gained (at least in the short term) simply by showing an EB that his beliefs are contradicted by known facts or by the Bible or even that they are self-contradictory. By itself, that will not make him want to leave the EB. But if something else (maybe an emotional factor, or a desire for autonomy, or a thirst for knowledge, or a thirst for spiritual sustenance) makes him want to leave the EB, then he will start to listen to facts and logic.
If we take a long-term view, maybe it is still worthwhile educating EB acquaintances, so that they will have something to think about, some day when something other than reasoning makes them want to leave the EB.
It was encouraging to read in an earlier entry, Survivor, that you felt that Brethren are valuing education more, now that they are responsible for its delivery. To the outside observer, it still seems they have an uphill road in front of them.
Here's a comment about religious fundamentalists that seems apposite:
‘They are ... rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason, and rely instead on social support to maintain their beliefs.
They are blind to themselves ... and as closed-minded as they are narrowminded. They can be woefully uninformed about things they oppose ... They are also surprisingly uninformed about the things they say they believe in, and deep, deep, deep down inside many of them have secret doubts about their core belief.’
[Page 140 of Chapter Four - ‘Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism’
‘The Authoritarians’ by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.]
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Joan's (earlier) and Pebbles' comments will probably spark extra postings, so I'll leave those for now.
Other than that, I am reminded of the companion comment to "six impossible things before breakfast":
"Nonsense? I could show you nonsense compared to which that's as sensible as a dictionary." Said when Alice objected that a hill couldn't be a valley when compared to anything, no matter how high.
I've had various reactions when I've pointed out that the brethren's beliefs don't make sense, from guarded agreement to accusation of being possessed by the devil. What the reactions have in common is that it is held that the beliefs do make perfect sense but that the human mind is too feeble to see the sense, which is on a divine level.
Human logic doesn't get much of a look-in when trumped like that, regardless of the fact that logic is an absolute thing. My grandfather often said that the truth is the truth, regardless of who believes it, and I find that a very useful concept, though I cordially differ on what that truth is. And, as Robert says, that doesn't make me right, either.
I think that a system that defies rational explanation can only be preserved through intimidation and constant re-enforcement - brain-washing, if you will. Brethren are able to carry such a number of irrational explanations only because of the daily gatherings and the public sharing of belief statements.
It takes a long time and diligent work to cleanse all those unhealthy ideas. I used to have a mantra I repeated frequently; "because I believe it to be so does not make it to be so." It is not easy to give up an idea or disposition simply because it cannot be proven, and I wish I could say I've eliminated more than a few. The thing I can say is that I have learned to distinguish assertions from facts and I have learned to be skeptical of people who would coerce me by assertion.
Good to see deer laker again!
Post a Comment