The anti-intellectualism of religion

[Howze]

Yes, this is very much true. We are indebted, the world over, to a good number of intellectuals who also happened to be Christians.

Perhaps the were effective in their intellectualism because they put in in its correct place as Christians.

Leaving aside the question of 'faith' for a moment, what exactly is "intellectual pride"?

Making an idol of one's intellect - putting it in the place of God. Possibly even making an idol of 'intellectualism'.

[Kane]

Perhaps the were effective in their intellectualism because they put in in its correct place as Christians.

Making an idol of one's intellect - putting it in the place of God. Possibly even making an idol of 'intellectualism'.

I have edited my post to make it more comprehensive, less general. Please refer back. Thank you.

[OtherCheek]

Isn't it true that all holy books attack the intellectuals? Isn't it always something along the lines of the wise will be made fools in paradise, reason is our enemy, or some jargon to that effect?

In fact the Christian bible gives us perhaps the most striking example of this:

"I thank thee, O Father, . . . because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Luke 10:21

Indeed it seems that the attack on knowledge gets going right out of the gate. We're unavoidably sinful humans who will all be tortured by suffering and eventual death because we took a bite of the "knowledge apple"?

The theme here is we should be suspicious and afraid of our own minds. Apparently Paul agreed with this:

"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong." 1 Corinthians 1:27

I know there's plenty of passages that contradict these themes, but "wise" is virtually always equated with simplistic, obedient, unquestioning, etc. (still the antithesis of intellectualism). It is simply true that the bible spends considerable energy convincing us that we shouldn't trust ourselves, our nature (or flesh) is inherently sinful and evil, the "world" is out to get us, the successful, intelligent, and powerful will pay for their hard work in eternal hell (and the poorer and more ignorant you are the better your reward will be).

I know there's various movements out there (e.g. prosperity gospel type of thing) that try and move away from this theme, but those movements certainly enjoy little if any blblical support (or you have to stretch the language pretty far to find any merit ascribed to intellectualism or success). Only those supposedly annointed by god can have legitimate power and unpunished success (of course god never comes down to inform us who he's voting for).

I actually see an emphasis from scripture, placed on learning. But in the scriptures, we are taught that there is much knowledge and truth to be had which is far beyond the capacity or ability of man's own conceit to obtain.

Gen. 30:27
27 And Laban said unto him, I pray thee, if I have found favour in thine eyes, tarry: for I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.

Prov. 1:5, 7
5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
7 ¶ The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Prov. 9:9
9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

Isa. 1:17-18
17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Dan 1:17-20
17 ¶ As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
...
Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in...

20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.

Matthew 7:7
7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

John 16:13
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

John 5:39
39 ¶ Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which of me.

Acts 7:22
22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.

1 Cor, 2:13-14
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2 Tim 3:7
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Heb 5:8
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

[Howze]

What is offensive to God about pride if it is that he set people up to have to take pride in the first place? Is it somehow different to effect things by force of intellect than by force of the body? What is the moral problem with pride?

I think there is good pride - like taking personal pride in the work of your hands, being proud of your accomplishments and bad pride which is simply self exultation. We see this kind of pride on the site all the time.

[Kane]

What is pride if it is not exultation? Does the event of "taking personal pride in the work of your hands, being proud of your accomplishments" not mean exultation in the efforts of your personal self?

I'm not satisfied with your answer. I still see no sinfulness in being prideful. What is more, you have only answered according to being proud of physical things (the work of your hands, your accomplishments), and left-out the intellectual things you suggested kill faith.

So, I go back to my original question: what exactly is intellectual pride?

[Jon_Day]

There is plenty of evidence in the Bible. I know you are not going to like me saying that but there were all sorts of miracles and prophetic fullfilment that validates Jesus. Nevertheless some who saw it all still didn't believe (Judas, the Jewish heirarchy) or has serious doubts (all the disciples bar John). I really don't think God expects us to believe with no evidence - but, at some point you've got to jump - which is called faith.

I would say that to define the writings of the Bible as "evidence" might leave a little to be desired as far as the use of the word "evidence", but I certainly see your point.

This reminds me of Douglas Adams reasoning about the Babel fish . Im pretty sure that materialist evolutionists dispute that man is divinely created.

You know it's funny, I'm a HUGE Douglas Adams fan. I noticed just after I posted it that it was very similar. I believe he said something along the lines of "If we were able to prove that God exists, then he would no longer exist...since God created man, and man exists, then that proves that God exists, and therefore he doesn't exist." - or something like that. It was pretty funny the first time I read it, and I'm sure it probably stuck in there subconsciously. I do often use a lot of dry humor in my postings...even if it isn't always understood as such, what with the lack of inflection, tone, and modulation.

I'm sure most materialist evolutionists (is that what I am?) do not accept divine creation...otherwise they would be creationists. One thing this makes me wonder...if God had "sneezed" the universe out into a kleenex that we see as space...would that be as "divine"?

[Howze]

What is pride if it is not exultation? Does the event of "taking personal pride in the work of your hands, being proud of your accomplishments" not mean exultation in the efforts of your personal self?

No I don't think so. This sort of pride is a healthy pride where we put the best we have into a project which is brought to a satisfactory conclusion. There is not an egotistical exultation in it, more self-respect.

I'm not satisfied with your answer. I still see no sinfulness in being prideful. What is more, you have only answered according to being proud of physical things (the work of your hands, your accomplishments), and left-out the intellectual things you suggested kill faith.

An intellectual acomplishment would be an equally valid source of healthy pride.

So, I go back to my original question: what exactly is intellectual pride?

Round and round the mulberry bush eh Chris?

Luke 18 11-14 is about religious pride:

11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

in the prayer verse 11,12 try substituting ' I thank am thankful that I am not like other men - gullible fools who believe without proper scientific evidence, without letters after their names and without the benefit of my brilliant mind - even as these religious types. I have read all the enlightenment philosophers and try to stay up-to-date in particle physics' and you will get the drift of what I am talking about.

[OtherCheek]

No I don't think so. This sort of pride is a healthy pride where we put the best we have into a project which is brought to a satisfactory conclusion. There is not an egotistical exultation in it, more self-respect.




An intellectual acomplishment would be an equally valid source of healthy pride.



Round and round the mulberry bush eh Chris?

Luke 18 11-14 is about religious pride:

11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

in the prayer verse 11,12 try substituting ' I thank am thankful that I am not like other men - gullible fools who believe without proper scientific evidence, without letters after their names and without the benefit of my brilliant mind - even as these religious types. I have read all the enlightenment philosophers and try to stay up-to-date in particle physics' and you will get the drift of what I am talking about.

I like your answers, Howze. I would go even further, probably, and say that there is no such thing as "righteous pride" or "healthy pride" - depending on how you want to define "pride". I would rather use the terms "pleased". I agree with you, that from a religious sense, God wants us to acknowledge Him in all things. Pride tends to lead us away from that. IMO

[YourMaster]

I like your answers, Howze. I would go even further, probably, and say that there is no such thing as "righteous pride" or "healthy pride" - depending on how you want to define "pride". I would rather use the terms "pleased". I agree with you, that from a religious sense, God wants us to acknowledge Him in all things. Pride tends to lead us away from that. IMO

I gotta comment on this (even though I probably shouldn't). Everyone seems to have a heavy dose of righteous indignation these days (human nature I guess). Of course it gets more interesting when we couch our moral judgments in axiomatic terms (whether it's the conservative theist with their conclusions on pride or the leftist with their own rallying cry of moral platitudes that they view as immutable objective moral principles). Of course what usually gets lost in the process is rationality.

Some people are poor while others are rich. But did the entrepreneur steal from the poor man to find his riches? Or did he innovate, build a business, and grow new wealth where there was none before (and actually create conditions that are better for the poor man)? Because of this is he chargeable with a moral infraction? Similarly what if he takes pride in his accomplishments? Of course there's a such thing as good taste, but pride in the right things serves as a showcase to others. There are some things worth sharing after all. You may not think my hypothetical is what you mean when you say pride .... but if not this then what? After all we are talking in terms of our society today (not the relatively unpleasant conditions of first century Roman Palestine).

I'd say morality evolves (I think so much becomes clear through even a cursory reading of history). This is a different world than the world our ancestors lived in several thousand years ago. In fact it's even a different world than the world many leftist ideas developed in.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't like praise ... just send money

Sorry YM, but I don't send money to chumps like you, so try again.

[Darth Executor]

"I thank thee, O Father, . . . because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Luke 10:21

Indeed it seems that the attack on knowledge gets going right out of the gate. We're unavoidably sinful humans who will all be tortured by suffering and eventual death because we took a bite of the "knowledge apple"?

The theme here is we should be suspicious and afraid of our own minds.

Jesus is saying His disciples are retarded but thanks God for them anyway. That's all. I dunno how you managed to read all that crap into it.

Apparently Paul agreed with this:

"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong." 1 Corinthians 1:27

Where's the attack on KNOWLEDGE here? At best it's an attack on people considered wise or strong. Far from being an attack on knowledge, it's saying God's knowledge far surpasses that of men. In other words, it's a good attribute or he wouldn't be attributing it to God.

[Kane]

No I don't think so. This sort of pride is a healthy pride where we put the best we have into a project which is brought to a satisfactory conclusion. There is not an egotistical exultation in it, more self-respect.

What is wrong with recognising the 'ego' (which literally means "I", or the "self")? Is there something wrong with looking at what you have accomplished and saying "I (ego) did that"? I think you would answer 'no'. And if you are happy with what you have accomplished, proud of what you have done, are you therefore guilty of exalting yourself? I think you would say 'no'.

But now you have drawn a line between what you consider healthy pride (self-respect) and what I'm assuming would be the other side of that coin, unhealthy pride (self exultation). I'm suggesting that your dichotomy is false, that there is no healthy pride and unhealthy pride. I'm suggesting that all pride is self-exultation, and that that is not unhealthy. And later on, if we can get past this point of defining terms, perhaps we can discuss the self-abnegating nature of the Christian religion.

So, not to be a pain in the posterior, but I don't think you have accomplished anything in the (lack of) definitions you have set out. I'm asking you to parse out the reality of pride and demonstrate how it is sinful. I'm asking you to define your terms, not just assume that the connotations you import into the word in question (pride) are shared by me -- because they're not.

An intellectual acomplishment would be an equally valid source of healthy pride.

Would it? Then take some healthy pride in defining your terms, please.

Round and round the mulberry bush eh Chris?

Luke 18 11-14 is about religious pride:

11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

in the prayer verse 11,12 try substituting ' I thank am thankful that I am not like other men - gullible fools who believe without proper scientific evidence, without letters after their names and without the benefit of my brilliant mind - even as these religious types. I have read all the enlightenment philosophers and try to stay up-to-date in particle physics' and you will get the drift of what I am talking about.

You have imported your own connotations into Jesus's parable; you have resorted to eisogesis, which, if we're to head down that path, can lead to a multiplicity of irrelevant scripture-flinging that will get us nowhere. For example, if I were to do as you have done, I could simply take Jesus's words and write them out as follows (keep in mind that I will be using eisogesis, as you have done):

"I thank you, Lord, that I am not like that other man -- that I don't need evidence for your scriptural claims, fantastical stories, and that I am humble enough to not seek after evidence that you will never provide beyond subjective experience, that I can shut down my faculty of reason at will, and simply accept these stories just on their telling (and nothing else), and that I lack enough confidence in my ability to understand history that I can just buckle under self-proclaimed historical authorities -- even as these religious types. I have refused to read, learn and understand cross-cultural perspectives, comparative religious claims, and generally reliable scientific hypothesis."

The simple lesson is this: you have used a measure to judge, and by that same measure you have been judged (Matt. 7:1-2).

Around the mulberry bush? I suppose that is going to continue to be the case until you provide definitions that don't simply regress the question. Stating pride can be dichotomised between the healthy and unhealthy, that other things that relate to the 'ego' -- e.g., self-respect -- are fine, but pride is not because it focuses on the self (ego) is sketchy reasoning, at best.

Can you please provide some definitions for your terms? Otherwise, I'm going to have to decide whether to give up or continue on chasing you around the proverbial mulberry bush.

[Howze]

What is wrong with recognising the 'ego' (which literally means "I", or the "self")? Is there something wrong with looking at what you have accomplished and saying "I (ego) did that"? I think you would answer 'no'. And if you are happy with what you have accomplished, proud of what you have done, are you therefore guilty of exalting yourself? I think you would say 'no'.

But now you have drawn a line between what you consider healthy pride (self-respect) and what I'm assuming would be the other side of that coin, unhealthy pride (self exultation). I'm suggesting that your dichotomy is false, that there is no healthy pride and unhealthy pride. I'm suggesting that all pride is self-exultation, and that that is not unhealthy. And later on, if we can get past this point of defining terms, perhaps we can discuss the self-abnegating nature of the Christian religion.

I doubt we are going to get past that point as it seems vital to your 'faith' that there is no such thing as bad pride. I disagree that pride is always self exultation, and further that self exultation is a good thing. I think self-respect vs self exultation is a reasonable dichotomy.

So, not to be a pain in the posterior, but I don't think you have accomplished anything in the (lack of) definitions you have set out. I'm asking you to parse out the reality of pride and demonstrate how it is sinful.

It's sinful because it requires no dependance on God and is willfully independent. It is the fundamental sin which caused Satan to fall.

I'm asking you to define your terms, not just assume that the connotations you import into the word in question (pride) are shared by me -- because they're not.

Well I have tried to explain and you seem to understand - I'm fine with you disagreeing BTW.

Would it? Then take some healthy pride in defining your terms, please.

I've done that and you seem to be understanding what I am saying, and I added a bit up there, but to reiterate:

Healthy Pride: Self-respect in undertanding what you do well and doing things to the best of your ability. Example Michelanglo producing his very best for the Sistine Chapel.

Unhealthy pride: An overbearing self promotion of your percieved good points. Often self decieving and anti-God. Others see it and find it ugly. Example Ali proclaiming 'I am the greatest'.

You have imported your own connotations into Jesus's parable; you have resorted to eisogesis, which, if we're to head down that path, can lead to a multiplicity of irrelevant scripture-flinging that will get us nowhere. For example, if I were to do as you have done, I could simply take Jesus's words and write them out as follows (keep in mind that I will be using eisogesis, as you have done):

"I thank you, Lord, that I am not like that other man -- that I don't need evidence for your scriptural claims, fantastical stories, and that I am humble enough to not seek after evidence that you will never provide beyond subjective experience, that I can shut down my faculty of reason at will, and simply accept these stories just on their telling (and nothing else), and that I lack enough confidence in my ability to understand history that I can just buckle under self-proclaimed historical authorities -- even as these religious types. I have refused to read, learn and understand cross-cultural perspectives, comparative religious claims, and generally reliable scientific hypothesis."

Lol, touche.

The simple lesson is this: you have used a measure to judge, and by that same measure you have been judged (Matt. 7:1-2).

Around the mulberry bush? I suppose that is going to continue to be the case until you provide definitions that don't simply regress the question. Stating pride can be dichotomised between the healthy and unhealthy, that other things that relate to the 'ego' -- e.g., self-respect -- are fine, but pride is not because it focuses on the self (ego) is sketchy reasoning, at best.

Sometimes concepts are hard to define and understand - although I think you are trying very hard (overly hard) to make that point. Nevertheless you can't read the Bible without coming to the conclusion that Pride can be sinful. In that scripture the Pharisee was doing all the right things according to the letter of the law but thought that was all He needed - he had decieved himself that he was not a sinner who nevertheless needed God's mercy. Thats Pride.

Can you please provide some definitions for your terms? Otherwise, I'm going to have to decide whether to give up or continue on chasing you around the proverbial mulberry bush.

If you'll be honest you'd see that I have provided numerous definitions and tried to explain myself as clearly as I can.

[OtherCheek]

What is pride if it is not exultation? Does the event of "taking personal pride in the work of your hands, being proud of your accomplishments" not mean exultation in the efforts of your personal self?

I'm not satisfied with your answer. I still see no sinfulness in being prideful. What is more, you have only answered according to being proud of physical things (the work of your hands, your accomplishments), and left-out the intellectual things you suggested kill faith.

So, I go back to my original question: what exactly is intellectual pride?

Christopher, that's all good and fine from your perspective. And I don't think you are defending the idea of arrogance and self-conceit. But, from a Christian standard which many others try to live by, there is a higher power than our own intellect that we are admonished to recognize and acknowledge. I think the varying definitions of "pride" seem to evolve around that difference in approach between us.

[Kane]

Christopher, that's all good and fine from your perspective. And I don't think you are defending the idea of arrogance and self-conceit.

True.

But, from a Christian standard which many others try to live by, there is a higher power than our own intellect that we are admonished to recognize and acknowledge.

Yes, I realise that, and it is part of the self-abnegating nature of the Christian religion.

I think the varying definitions of "pride" seem to evolve around that difference in approach between us.

Quite possibly. Though I don't see that as a tremendous impediment to rational discussion. You?