Does anyone become an expert by reading (or pondering) a single book (or its derivatives) -- a book that cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate?
One cannot become an expert on dog training by reading / pondering a book -- nor a brain surgeon, nor an airline pilot, nor an architect. So how could anyone become an "expert" regarding as complex a matter as "god" by doing no more than that (and thinking or emoting about it, or discussing the matter with others who are doing the same things)?
Right. I would never call a guy who has studied the philosophy of chess an expert chess player, though, they might be an expert on the philosophy of chess.
An expert in architecture is one who has studied all aspects of architecture, or, has studied a narrow discipline within architecture (say, Deconstructivism), and is an expert in that area.
Included in that description of expert is an actual interaction with the subject.
My question is to highlight the fact that there are no experts on God. Just as there are no experts on Atlantis, Bigfoot, Pixies, Unicorns, Elves, etc.
That studying God is to study a mythology: a fabrication of Man's imagination. And is a branch of philosophy, and perhaps the Arts.
What is sad is that people who declare themselves experts on God in the form of priests and ministers, et al, are simply frauds. Yes, frauds. Liars and cheats.
How could they be anything else? In reality, they know nothing more about God than an expert on Bigfoot. Their value - I don't disagree they offer some service that is valuable - is in the area of counSELLING. They are glorified advisors who gain their legimacy through the dogmatic assertion of their organization that an unimpeachable source (God) has validated their authority. The marketing of the church includes convincing the consumers that their personal development program is not only all the rage, but one that extends into the afterlife. (The afterlife being one of the marketing claims that the government allows them to make, despite the obvious lack of proof.)
If theists balk at this description of their favored Brand, they can apply it to any other cult or religion they feel is inferior and fraudulent. Scientology, Mormonism, New Age Spiritualism, Chiropracty, or whatever 'religion' a person may cling to, etc. can be seen to incorporate the same snake oil: making it seem that only through this Brand, can you achieve unadulterated fulfillment in life, and that experts actually exist.
These experts (and this is how you distinguish the woo from the real) are always people who seem to have an uncanny ability to see into the arcane; the occult; the deeply mysterious and hidden wonders that your average person simply can't learn. The average person must seek out this mystic and empty their mind to accept the "truth" of this so-called expert in order to unlock the mystery of life, the universe and everything.
However, I will be proven wrong about "experts" on God if they can actually show they know more about God than the frauds.
So far, though, in the last, say, 150,000 years, this hasn't been done.
ba: Does anyone become an expert by reading (or pondering) a single book (or its derivatives) -- a book that cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate?
jc: Verily, every religious tome is in this category, failing to be truthful or accurate, yet the preachers and commentators still move in, falsely believing themselves empowered. The reason this can happen is that none has experience of spirit, therefore none is capable of authentic metaphysical ideation. Ten thousand theories appear, where is not one fact.
ba: One cannot become an expert on dog training by reading / pondering a book -- nor a brain surgeon, nor an airline pilot, nor an architect. So how could anyone become an "expert" regarding as complex a matter as "god" by doing no more than that (and thinking or emoting about it, or discussing the matter with others who are doing the same things)?
jc: In these worldly occupations one becomes an expert by reading many books (taking many classes), so the analogy is faulty, making a presumption one could become an expert on God if there were only more books or classes. Becoming an expert on the physical is not analogous to becoming an expert on the metaphysical. The souls only become experts on the metaphysical one way, which is gaining self-experience as spirit.
The comment is correct to assail the preachers for reading just this one inaccurate book, then thinking and emoting about it, as well as discussing it with others at seminaries. But it is incorrect to posit that a similar education system could be put into place, like those whereby one enters varied worldly professions. The complaint is righteous, but the basis of the complaint is false, comparing two things in the world, not looking above the world.
ba: Right. I would never call a guy who has studied the philosophy of chess an expert chess player, though, they might be an expert on the philosophy of chess.
jc: The mind is still struggling with worldly analogies, here apparently contradicting itself by admitting the philosophy or theology of God might be learned through books. One could say this analogy is not analogous to the others, and is introduced sloppily. The argument was not about becoming divine, but about becoming an expert on God. It’s true only those who become divine can be experts on God, but this is beyond the stated case. He seems to be trying to let the analogies speak for themselves, but fails to show mastery.
ba: An expert in architecture is one who has studied all aspects of architecture, or, has studied a narrow discipline within architecture (say, Deconstructivism), and is an expert in that area.
jc: Yes, to become a worldly expert one studies many books, and/or takes many classes. The fields are complex, and this complexity must be approached over an extended period.
ba: Included in that description of expert is an actual interaction with the subject.
jc: No. Some fields require practice, like surgery or dog training, but not architecture. The architect learns and tells his story through paper, that construction workers carry out. Interaction with the subject is required in some fields, not all, and much can be known about God without interacting with the Lord. Upon investigating the soul, one learns about the Maker’s goodness and wisdom. Without the Lord, though, personality is lost.
ba: My question is to highlight the fact that there are no experts on God.
jc: He here admits his argumentation to be circular, that he is already presuming the conclusion. There are experts on God, but none that have openly taught before now.
ba: Just as there are no experts on Atlantis, Bigfoot, Pixies, Unicorns, Elves, etc.
jc: He is again letting his analogies speak for him, failing to show appropriate discrimination. His argument has become that God is a fantasy, but he is unaware his focus has changed. If God is a fantasy there can be no experts on God, and we learn he was not honestly asking if there are experts on God. His mind is closed on the subject. If his mind were more powerful he’d see immediately there is a large raft of consequences to come if God is a fantasy, including his eternal death, not just that there are no experts.
ba: That studying God is to study a mythology: a fabrication of Man's imagination. And is a branch of philosophy, and perhaps the Arts.
jc: Well, this is a harsh stance, he’s dismissing philosophy and art as fantasy too. He’s also saying that no matter how hard he tried, his own philosophy, his own ideas about who he is and why he is here, must be limited to fantasy. This is solipsism, the idea there is no external reality that can be contacted. I’d have called this a form of mindlessness, and you can see how unfriendly and even hostile this is. Yet he is not looking for friends.
ba: What is sad is that people who declare themselves experts on God in the form of priests and ministers, et al, are simply frauds. Yes, frauds. Liars and cheats.
jc: These remarks are true, and this is why I thought the post to be interesting. What’s sadder still is that the priests and ministers do not know themselves to be liars and cheats. To themselves they feel knowledgeable and righteous, and this is the ego’s self-deception, a double wall against the prophets or true authorities who should be leading. They not only do not know, they do not know they do not know, the double bind of spiritual ignorance. Thinking they know, their ideas become obstacles to real knowledge.
ba: How could they be anything else?
jc: This is hand-waving. He’s merely stating an opinion or private dislike of his. He also won’t accept an answer to this question, thinking the idea of a true authority to be absurd. It can be answered. There is a “how,” though in general the preachers are false teachers, the blind leading the other blind into a pit. The “how” this can occur, isn’t in religion yet.
ba: In reality, they know nothing more about God than an expert on Bigfoot.
jc: Again, his argument has become the trivial one that he believes God to be fantasy therefore there can be no experts, as he fails to notice the raft of other consequences including the certainty of his annihilation at death. He’s unable to think of annihilation, an irrational entity failing to long for eternal continuance, not enjoying his life deeply.
ba: Their value - I don't disagree they offer some service that is valuable - is in the area of counSELLING. They are glorified advisors who gain their legitimacy through the dogmatic assertion of their organization that an unimpeachable source (God) has validated their authority. The marketing of the church includes convincing the consumers that their personal development program is not only all the rage, but one that extends into the afterlife. (The afterlife being one of the marketing claims that the government allows them to make, despite the obvious lack of proof.)
jc: These are all true remarks, and it’s about all the religions, not only Christianity. Yet the whole story is not told thereby. We haven’t seen what the governments of the world would have looked like, had religion not been introduced. The preachers have their uses. They enter the ministry from selfish motives, often to draw attention to themselves and to feel in power over others, but their effect is generally one of stabilizing the larger society.
ba: If theists balk at this description of their favored Brand, they can apply it to any other cult or religion they feel is inferior and fraudulent. Scientology, Mormonism, New Age Spiritualism, Chiropracty, or whatever 'religion' a person may cling to, etc. can be seen to incorporate the same snake oil: making it seem that only through this Brand, can you achieve unadulterated fulfillment in life, and that experts actually exist.
jc: Again, these are all true remarks. Though the preachers are not experts, though they’ve only studied an inaccurate book and hobnobbed with others who studied it, there is still a possibility of experts who have not yet shown themselves openly. A fatal flaw of Christianity is denying the possibility of further prophets, which renders the priesthood detached from reality and the religion essentially dead. Ba faults the preachers correctly for a faulty book, then he faults them incorrectly for a fantasy God. A mind audacious enough to throw down the whole priesthood ought to suspect something greater is afoot.
ba: These experts (and this is how you distinguish the woo from the real) are always people who seem to have an uncanny ability to see into the arcane; the occult; the deeply mysterious and hidden wonders that your average person simply can't learn. The average person must seek out this mystic and empty their mind to accept the "truth" of this so-called expert in order to unlock the mystery of life, the universe and everything.
jc: These statements are the case about the gurus, but not the preachers, who generally claim to be fallible men, though like all men failing to see the exact nature of their fallibility. Christianity accepts that anyone can become a preacher through the seminary. Yet all these humans are united in a rebellion against the Living God. The theists approach a faulty idea of the Deity, in essence erecting mental idols to themselves. Gurus say they’ve reached union with God within, while demonstrating the usual greedy traits.
ba: However, I will be proven wrong about "experts" on God if they can actually show they know more about God than the frauds.
jc: He here drops his interim argument that God is a fantasy, generating an intriguing statement. There are some, WLC included, already showing authentic knowledge of God. In general the separation has to be between selfish and selfless individuals, who have traits usually the reverse. Someone with self-awareness as spirit and knowledge of God will be capable of a radically different lifestyle, one that has never even been envisioned.
ba: So far, though, in the last, say, 150,000 years, this hasn't been done.
jc: I usually say “ all history,” and so far ba is not doing anything to change this situation.