What "God" Do You Worship?

[heretic888]

Is there a way to reconcile the followers of these two faiths?

Yes. From http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=494366#post494366:

In 1981, psychologist Dr. James Fowler published a book entitled Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. While there is still some debate about the validity of his Faith Development Theory (FDT) among the psychological community, empirical research has generally supported Dr. Fowler's ideas and it has demonstrated success in psychotherapuetic applications. In essence, FTD concerns the development of an individual's "faith" over the course of his or her lifetime through a series of six invariant, sequential, hierarchical stages (comparable to the cognitive development theory of Jean Piaget, the moral development theory of Lawrence Kohlberg, or the ego development theory of Jane Loevinger).

"Faith", in this context, is not necessarily religious in content (although it often is), but concerns how an individual makes sense of life and where he or she places a concern for ultimacy (whatever that may be). Fowler's "faith" is similar in many respects to the "existential intelligence" that Dr. Howard Gardner has suggested in his recent update to Multiple Intelligences Theory.

The following is a brief summarization of Fowler's stages of faith:

1) Intuitive-Projective Faith: Typical of children between 2 and 7 years of age; characterized by emotional narcissism and a domination by one's impulses; fantasy and reality are poorly distinguished; one's faith is a projection of oneself and one's intuitions; drawn to imaginative stories involving fantastical beings.

2) Mythic-Literal Faith: Typical of children between 7 to 12 years of age; sees the world in a very orderly and dependable way; able to reason inductively and deductively; can begin to take the perspectives of others; has a very literal outlook and interprets reality in a very literal way; adopts a reciprocal view of morality ("eye for an eye", reward & punishment).

3) Synthetic-Conventional Faith: Typically found at age 12 and beyond; individual defines oneself on the basis of his or her relationships with others (parents, peers, teachers, etc.); a strongly sociocentric outlook on life; individual identifies exclusively with one group as opposed to others; adopts the morals and norms of the in-group; this is the "unexamined" faith.

4) Individuative-Reflective Faith: Typically found in the early 20's and beyond; one begins to move beyond the group identity and adopt individual views; a "de-mythologizing" stage of faith; translates the symbols and images of one's tradition into personal concepts and ideas; beginning of post-conventional morality.

5) Conjunctive Faith: Typically found at midlife and beyond; begin to distinguish between what is true and what one believes; realizes the stories, symbols, and teachings of one's tradition are inherently partial and incomplete; seeks truth/wisdom from a multitude of sources (i.e., other traditions) in order to complement and/or correct one's own; characterized by a "radical openness" to other viewpoints, acceptance of pluralistic views, and use of paradox for understanding; deepening of post-conventional morality.

6) Universalizing Faith: Extremely rare; concepts of "relevent irrelevance" and "decentration of self" become important; have a detached but passionate view of life; identify with the whole of humanity, regardless of tradition or in-group; selfless compassion for all others; characterized by a unitive experience with being.

The "solution", if I may be so bold, is for the practitioners of these faiths that are at Stages 2 and 3 to "grow up" and start thinking like rational adults. Because, ultimately, this has less to do with the content of one's beliefs than it does about the cognitive patterns that underline those beliefs (i.e., using reason instead of appeals to authority/tradition as a basis for one's truth-claims). Whether this is "secular" or "religious" is irrelevant, as one can be religious and still perfectly rational.

Laterz.

 

[Ram]

None, thats about it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Wait a minute isn't God Alanis Morissette and God's voice is Alan Rickman

Sorry I couldn't resist... I will slink back to my corner now.... I should never take days off...

 

[michaeledward]

The "solution", if I may be so bold, is for the practitioners of these faiths that are at Stages 2 and 3 to "grow up" and start thinking like rational adults. Because, ultimately, this has less to do with the content of one's beliefs than it does about the cognitive patterns that underline those beliefs (i.e., using reason instead of appeals to authority/tradition as a basis for one's truth-claims). Whether this is "secular" or "religious" is irrelevant, as one can be religious and still perfectly rational.

While I don't disagree with these ideas. It certainly does not seem to be a way to bring about effective change. Telling people of faith that they must 'Grow Up', just doesn't seem to be bringing anything productive to the table. If my goal is to piss off the holy people, well, that might be a way to do it, but the age-based analysis, somehow doesn't feel helpful.

If I recall my Houston Smith, he explained the Hindu religion as being tolerant of human desires. The basic tenet is do what you think will fulfill you. And as you progress through the wheels of life, you will find fulfilling carnal desires is unsustaining, then fulfilling the family desires wanting, to fulfilling the community service leaves one empty, until you progress to being in tune with the everything. (I don't think Mr. Smith would appreciate my synopsis, but you get the idea).

In this telling, the progression is not based on age, but rather on what goes unfulfilled. While my position of a non-believer is not secret on this board, I certainly understand, know and love people whom have a very close connection with churches of different sorts. They each take a measure of fulfillment from that community that I do not question or wish to denigrate.

But, I am troubled when a person of one faith makes a claim that demands a person of another faith is wrong. Something just doesn't seem right there.

 

[heretic888]

While I don't disagree with these ideas. It certainly does not seem to be a way to bring about effective change. Telling people of faith that they must 'Grow Up', just doesn't seem to be bringing anything productive to the table. If my goal is to piss off the holy people, well, that might be a way to do it, but the age-based analysis, somehow doesn't feel helpful.

The "age-based analysis" was an analogy, nothing more, nor does it entail "telling people" what to do. What I gave was a psychological explanation, not a pedagogical one.

If I recall my Houston Smith, he explained the Hindu religion as being tolerant of human desires. The basic tenet is do what you think will fulfill you. And as you progress through the wheels of life, you will find fulfilling carnal desires is unsustaining, then fulfilling the family desires wanting, to fulfilling the community service leaves one empty, until you progress to being in tune with the everything. (I don't think Mr. Smith would appreciate my synopsis, but you get the idea).

In this telling, the progression is not based on age, but rather on what goes unfulfilled.

This is actually how the concepts are presented in the work neo-Piagetians like James Fowler and Jane Loevinger. The "age-analysis" really represents more or less statistical averages (i.e., most people at Stage X tend to be Y years old), although sometimes a certain age seems to be prerequisite (most probably due to age-related brain development) to achieve a certain stage of development.

The basic idea in Fowler's work is that an individual will not change their level of "faith" if it adequately addresses what it needs to address and fulfills what it needs to fulfill for the practitioner. The complexity of one's "faith" is often related to the complexity of one's environment. A person only changes his or her "faith" if it begins to fail in answering fundamental questions for the believer.

Now that we're speaking pedagogically, I believe the best way to do that is to provide environments that evoke more complex thought patterns. This is often achieved through educational reform, but economic development (i.e., full-scale industrialization) can also be a boon. You will notice that most of the world's "fundamentalists" come from poor or undeveloped regions of the world.

But, I am troubled when a person of one faith makes a claim that demands a person of another faith is wrong. Something just doesn't seem right there.

It seems "right" if your outlook is based on something like Stage 2 or 3, which is precisely the problem.

Laterz.

 

[evenflow1121]

I believe in an God that wants you to work to achieve things, not just sit on your *** and pray but work toward things. And I believe in a God that gave you excellents and shortcomings on purpose, and whatever short comings you have, you excel in areas that others do not, and try to use that towards you. Far too many times people just sit back and feel sorry for themselves without realizing their true strengths and what they can actually accomplish with a little drive in them. Dont ever let fear or doubt get in the way of your dreams, whatever they may be.

 

[DeLamar.J]

I see myself as my own god.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Egyptian-Taoist, seeking Zen, while dancing with Shiva.

 

[Brother John]

what "God" do I worship??

To quote Tolkien:
".....oh yes, an Older chap, gray beard....pointy hat...."

hahaha....
just kiddin..


The one I was taught to pray to from my youth, the one I left as I grew up and the one who found me again when I needed more Light for my path.


Your Brother
John

 

[spiderboy]

I do not consider myself to be religious at all, and am actually very envious of those who have something more to support them in life. I just dont see it.

I guess I value my family and friendships above all else - they are what I lean on when things get tough.

Alex

 

[evenflow1121]

I sort of evaded this question and I apologize for that, I did not want to hurt anyone's feelings. But the truth is that I do not believe in a God, I believe in myself. I dont know how we got here, or where we come from, but I do not believe in an after life or an ever loving entity who is somehow perfect, yet allows suffering and all other atrocities to come about. Now I have dwelled upon the whole free will issue a lot, but even at that I can not see myself believing in a higher being, see if it is our will, and we can not control ourselves, then would an ever loving ever perfect being give us this gift, or perhaps it is a detriment, just my two cents, hope no one is offended by this.

(BTW I have not been posting or trolling much because I just moved to my new place, and still waiting on furniture and what not).