Greetings and introduction from mitchellmckain

[mitchellmckain]

I stumbled onto this site searching for a forum devoted to the discussion of the ideas of Scott Peck, you know the author of "The Road Less Traveled". If anyone knows of such a forum let me know.

The title of this forum intrigued me because I am an unusal person: I am kind of a cross between an evangelical christian and a secular humanist. LOL I have a masters in physics and a masters of divinity. I was not raised christian and I was a scientist before I was ever a christian. Science is an inseperable part of how I percieve the world, which is very much according to a methodological naturalist, and so my approach to religion could never be a question of choosing between science and relgion but one asking myself if there is any value to religion when science is a given. By science now, I very much mean modern science as developed starting with Galileo as a well defined method of inquiry AND the consensus of the scientific community. SO that means I am very much an evolutionist and an avid opponent of creationist pseudoscience. Of course I believe that God is the creator of everything but I actually think that evolution is MORE compatable with the Christian idea of God and His involvement with the world, than is design (the watchmaker conception of a creator).

If you dig deeper you will find that I am also an existentialist and a pragmatist in the tradition of their founders Kierkegaard and Charles Sanders Peirce for whom these philosophical innovations were I believe at their roots motivated by christian apologetics. You will not have to dig so deep to find that I am also a pluralist in several senses. The first sense is in ethics as a compromise beteen relativism and absolutism, recognising that although much of ethics is highly culturally relative there is a core of absolutes that can be derived from a pragmatic examination of what makes a society a productive contribution to the lives of its members. I am also a pluralist in the sense that while everyone certainly has beliefs that are definitely correct and other beliefs that are definitely wrong, there is much of human thinking that is simply different. In other words, the "truth" is not singular, one dimensional or black and white, but a multiplicity, infinite dimensional and a full spectrum of color. I think that 90% of religion is just language.

And yet for all that you will find that am a fairly orthodox protestant evangelical christian -- not fundamentialist by any means of course, but I am a trinitarian christian. And yet... is anyone here familar with Scott Peck's 3 stages of spirituality in his book, "A Different Drum"?

[darkumbra]

Welcome to the forum
I hope you find your experience here worthwhile. We're a motley bunch.

[NH Baritone]

Welcome, Mitchell.

So, why are you NOT a Jain? Or a Buddhist? Or a Baha'i?

[Emery]

Welcome Mitchell. I read those Peck books in the 90s, and though I really liked the Road Less Travelled, he started to lose me on the demon possession books. But I find it intriguing, because he seems to have the credentials, and if there is anything to the demon possession thing, Peck is where I'd start. I vaguely remember what Different Drum was about: did he start with the possession there, or was it with Children of the Lie?

Hope you enjoy the forum, we definitely need more Christians here!

[whoosanightowl]

Wow, very interesting post. It's going to be difficult to nail you down to anything isn't it?! I can't understand how you can hold all those varying world views and have them all mesh together somehow.
Maybe you could do a podcast with Emery and Scott and/or Tony one of these days, now that would be fun!
Welcome to the forum!
Sue

[mitchellmckain]

So, why are you NOT a Jain? Or a Buddhist? Or a Baha'i?

My parents were both psychology majors and my father was active in the American communist movement, to the point of being blacklisted from his teaching profession and taking me to visit Black Panther headquarters when I was a child. I did have some early encounters with Buddhism in literature as a child, but I only became aware of the Bahai much later in order to make any investigation as to what they were all about, and I am still very unclear about what Jainism is like. For whatever reason I found inspiration in the writings and mythology of Christianity and thus it became a language in which I could express my own discoveries on my own spiritual exploration and journey.

So.... while I may not have been raised Christian, I was born in the United States which is immersed in a culture and history that is heavily influenced by Christianity. For example, I really liked the books of C. S. Lewis, with his effort to convey Christian ideas under the cover of fantasy and science fiction. Anyway, I have every reason to believe that there are hidden premises and presumptions riddling our language, entertainment and academic studies that ultimate derive from a Christian world view that we have inherited from the middle ages. Such things are not shed very quickly even when effort is made to intentionally do so.

It seems like a rational line of argument to say that if you were born over there somewhere then it is highly unlikely that you would be a Christian. But I deny that this is rational in any way at all. Anyone born over there simply isn't me and that is all there is too it, for I do not believe in this mythology of pre-existent souls. I know it seems kind of arbitrary that so much of what we are is a product of such coincidences such as where we are born, but coincidence or not it is who and what we are. You might as well get all excited about the unfairness of cows being born a cow and worms being born a worm. You may see this as a good argument against relgion but I only see it as a good argument for pluralism.

Welcome Mitchell. I read those Peck books in the 90s, and though I really liked the Road Less Travelled, he started to lose me on the demon possession books. But I find it intriguing, because he seems to have the credentials, and if there is anything to the demon possession thing, Peck is where I'd start. I vaguely remember what Different Drum was about: did he start with the possession there, or was it with Children of the Lie?

Hope you enjoy the forum, we definitely need more Christians here!

He wrote no demon possession books that I know of. He was a clinical psychiatrist after all. His second book, "People of the Lie" was an examination of the idea of human evil from a purely psychological perspective based completely on case studies of patients. The idea there was that some people make such a habit of lying to themselves that they become detached from reality and motivated primarily by the need to defend the web of lies they have constructed and in such a state people seem to become capable of just about anything. In chapter 5 (one chapter of 7) he does relate his encounters with the whole demon posession and exorcism subculture. But I am not the sort of person who flips out and goes all judgemental just because someone says they had experiences that don't mesh with mine. This is the difference between objective observation and subjective experience. The latter may be a very good reason for those that experience them to believe what they do but until I experience them for myself they are not going to be real to me, and they should understand that only objective observation can be the basis for public decisions. But my grasp on reality is not so feeble that I feel any desperate need to classify them as dumb, delusional or mentally ill just because they say that they had an experience which does not fit into my perception of reality AND it doesn't automatically render everything else they say as invalid.

In any case I don't think demonic possession and exorcism is mentioned in any other place in any of his books. His third book, "A Different Drum" is about community and it is there that he relates his experience in clinical practice that led him to believe in stages of human spirituality that is quite counter what most religions would believe, seeing a skeptical stage (which probably means atheistic) as being on a higher spiritual level than institutional religion. This idea was greatly expanded upon by another author in a book entitled "Not the religious type".

[mitchellmckain]

Wow, very interesting post. It's going to be difficult to nail you down to anything isn't it?! I can't understand how you can hold all those varying world views and have them all mesh together somehow.
Maybe you could do a podcast with Emery and Scott and/or Tony one of these days, now that would be fun!
Welcome to the forum!
Sue

If people ask straight up questions with genuine interest then they will get straightforward answers. But yeah if they play games with me then I will dance circles around them laughing. I am not here as fodder to serve some pathological need to shoot down the people who dare to think differently.

[NH Baritone]

So, why are you NOT a Jain? Or a Buddhist? Or a Baha'i?

My parents were both psychology majors and my faher was active in the American communist movement, to the point of being blacklisted from his teaching profession and taking me to visit Black Panther headquarters when I was a child. I did have some early encounters with Buddhism in literature as a child, but I only became aware of the Bahai much later in order to make any investigation as to what they were all about, and I am still very unclear about what Jainism is like. For whatever reason I found inspiration in the writings and mythology of Christianity and thus it became a language in which I could express my own discoveries on my own spiritual exploration and journey.

So.... while I may not have been raised Christian, I was born in the United States which is immersed in a culture and history that is heavily influenced by Christianity. For example, I really liked the books of C. S. Lewis, with his effort to convey Christian ideas under the cover of fantasy and science fiction. Anyway, I have every reason to believe that there are hidden premises and presumptions riddling our language, entertainment and academic studies that ultimate derive from a Christian world view that we have inherited from the middle ages. Such things are not shed very quickly even when effort is made to intentionally do so.

It seems like a rational line of argument to say that if you were born over there somewhere then it is highly unlikely that you would be a Christian. But I deny that this is rational in any way at all. Anyone born over there simply isn't me and that is all there is too it, for I do not believe in this mythology of pre-existent souls. I know it seems kind of arbitrary that so much of what we are is a product of such coincidences such as where we are born, but coincidence or not it is who and what we are. You might as well get all excited about the unfairness of cows being born a cow and worms being born a worm. You may see this as a good argument against relgion but I only see it as a good argument for pluralism.

Then perhaps you had better define your terms when you describe yourself as "a fairly orthodox protestant evangelical christian." This little essay (along with most of your writing here) falls outside the standard usage of those words. You essentially are saying you're a Christian by accident ... which hardly resonates with the ring of "The Good News."

By the way, why did you refer to your dad's communist leanings? I don't deny that it offers an interesting element of background, but you somehow thought it relevant to my question, and I'm confused as to why.

[mitchellmckain]

Then perhaps you had better define your terms when you describe yourself as "a fairly orthodox protestant evangelical christian." This little essay (along with most of your writing here) falls outside the standard usage of those words. You essentially are saying you're a Christian by accident ... which hardly resonates with the ring of "The Good News."

I do not accept the validity of your paraphrase. I was trying to answer a vague question as best I could comprehend what it is that you were trying to get at. I am sorry that you did not find it informative or helpful. I certainly don't find your reply here to be helpful at explaining what you are after. Do you want me to preach "The Good News"? Are you soliciting information or hunting for an attack strategy?

By the way, why did you refer to your dad's communist leanings? I don't deny that it offers an interesting element of background, but you somehow thought it relevant to my question, and I'm confused as to why.

I am not debating you. And I found your question to be far to vague to really judge what might be relevant. Ok let's try this: I will ask you a similar question, and perhaps your answer will give me an idea of what you mean by your question.

Why are you not a fan of the professional go player Rin Kaiho?

Lets take care of the most likely answer that I can think of, right away. If your answer to the above question is something like, "I have no idea what your are talking about", or "I don't even know who that is". Then I will be glad to answer to your quetion on the same level, which is that I am far less familiar with those relgions.

[NH Baritone]

Then perhaps you had better define your terms when you describe yourself as "a fairly orthodox protestant evangelical christian." This little essay (along with most of your writing here) falls outside the standard usage of those words. You essentially are saying you're a Christian by accident ... which hardly resonates with the ring of "The Good News."

I do not accept the validity of your paraphrase. I was trying to answer a vague question as best I could comprehend what it is that you were trying to get at. I am sorry that you did not find it informative or helpful. I certainly don't find your reply here to be helpful at explaining what you are after. Do you want me to preach "The Good News"? Are you soliciting information or hunting for an attack strategy?

Hmm ... I debated adding my last two sentences. Apparently I chose wrong. Sorry to have pricked your tender spot. The point (that I apparently tread all over) was contained in the first sentence: How do you see yourself fitting into the box defined by the words: "a fairly orthodox protestant evangelical christian"?

By the way, why did you refer to your dad's communist leanings? I don't deny that it offers an interesting element of background, but you somehow thought it relevant to my question, and I'm confused as to why.

I am not debating you. And I found your question to be far to vague to really judge what might be relevant. Ok let's try this: I will ask you a similar question, and perhaps your answer will give me an idea of what you mean by your question.

Why are you not a fan of the professional go player Rin Kaiho?

Lets take care of the most likely answer that I can think of, right away. If your answer to the above question is something like, "I have no idea what your are talking about", or "I don't even know who that is". Then I will be glad to answer to your quetion on the same level, which is that I am far less familiar with those relgions.

Your words in my mouth are dead on. I didn't even know that Go had a professional level of play.

But I am familiar with golf (my dad & granddad played). I also understand American football, baseball, hockey, basketball, soccer, figure skating, poker and mumbletypeg. Knowing the ins-&-outs of a sport, however, hardly equates with a life-time of commitment to it, fashioning my life after the heroes of the game, or dedicating almost every Sunday morning and a sizable chunk of my salary to its spread.

In other words, I grew up in America, but I'm not a sports fan nor a Christian. You, in contrast, are a fan of religion. So far you've also defined yourself outside of Catholicism & Fundamentalism, even though you likely grew up around those influences, as well. I'm guessing you're aligning yourself with Francis Collins, whose conversion to Christianity still baffles me, except that it seems to meet a need for social connection.

So, the question still sits above, if you want to answer it.

[darkumbra]

Why are you not a fan of the professional go player Rin Kaiho?

Do you play Go? I have three different boards, several sets of stones. All glass unfortunately. But... a bookshelf of about 30 Go books, several of his books included. I wish I had more time to devote to the game.

[mitchellmckain]

Why are you not a fan of the professional go player Rin Kaiho?

Do you play Go? I have three different boards, several sets of stones. All glass unfortunately. But... a bookshelf of about 30 Go books, several of his books included. I wish I had more time to devote to the game.

Yep. My American Go Association rank is 3 kyu and I play on dragongoserver.net This is my favorite board game and the only game which I have played in a tournament. I have also watched professional games over the internet. My avatar is hikaru which is the main character in an anime tv series "Hikaru no Go" about a boy who becomes attached to a thousand year old ghost of a professional go player - a series which I have watched all 76 episodes over 7 times.

I do not accept the validity of your paraphrase. I was trying to answer a vague question as best I could comprehend what it is that you were trying to get at. I am sorry that you did not find it informative or helpful. I certainly don't find your reply here to be helpful at explaining what you are after. Do you want me to preach "The Good News"? Are you soliciting information or hunting for an attack strategy?

Hmm ... I debated adding my last two sentences. Apparently I chose wrong. Sorry to have pricked your tender spot.

LOL The "projection of emotion onto me" strategy ends here if you want me take you seriously rather than rolling in the aisles with laughter.

The point (that I apparently tread all over) was contained in the first sentence: How do you see yourself fitting into the box defined by the words: "a fairly orthodox protestant evangelical christian"?

So, the question still sits above, if you want to answer it.

The question is too big. Its like "tell me what you believe" which is just an invitation to set up a shooting gallery for you. You have to ask more specific questions, and I require an expression of specific interest in the specific things you want me to talk about, because we are not going to play the "how dare you shove your beliefs down my throat" game. I have already added the words trinitarian and attending a Vinyard church on the positive side and added the caveates of non-fundamentalist, evolutionist, existentialist, pragmatist and a high probability that many Christians would deny that I am Christian (fairly common "christian" affectation frankly). But ok lets add something more: I think that the largest Christian consensus (among believers) about the meaning of the word Christian is contained in Nicean creed and the scriptural canon established in the eccumenical councils from 325 to 419 AD. If you want to know more about my point of view then there is my blog that you can read (comments too) and there is a link off of my relativistic simulator page to some old OPs that I have written. So that should give you something to start with if you are really interested but I am certainly open to any more specific questions that you can think of.

I am far less familiar with those relgions.

Your words in my mouth are dead on. I didn't even know that Go had a professional level of play.

But I am familiar with golf (my dad & granddad played). I also understand American football, baseball, hockey, basketball, soccer, figure skating, poker and mumbletypeg. Knowing the ins-&-outs of a sport, however, hardly equates with a life-time of commitment to it, fashioning my life after the heroes of the game, or dedicating almost every Sunday morning and a sizable chunk of my salary to its spread.

Ok another stab in the dark at trying to answer your question: When I was a kid I concieved an ambition "to understand the secrets of universe" and as I grew up the avenues of inquiry in which I decided were those where such could be found were first in science especially physics then philosophy and finally religion. Perhaps the "childish ambition secrets of the universe" part is fairly common and it is what the adult decides this means that varies between people. So in my case that began with giving over a huge chunk of my life to the study of math and physics, but I also made increasingly long and deep expeditions into philosophy and relgion as well.

In other words, I grew up in America, but I'm not a sports fan nor a Christian. You, in contrast, are a fan of religion.

Right. We are different and I am sure we think quite differently in many ways, but rather than irritating me or seeing this as a cause for depression, I find this fact both exciting and a cause for hope.

So far you've also defined yourself outside of Catholicism & Fundamentalism, even though you likely grew up around those influences, as well. I'm guessing you're aligning yourself with Francis Collins, whose conversion to Christianity still baffles me, except that it seems to meet a need for social connection.

Never heard of him until you mentioned him. A while back people told me that I sounded like John Polkinghorne, but I had never heard of him. But when I looked him up, it made a lot of sense because he was a quantum physicist who became an Anglican priest. So I found one of his books and wrote a commentary on it that can be found here. So this is my typical reaction to a comment such as yours -- to look up the guy and tell people what I think.

Collins stated that God is the explanation of those features of the universe that science finds difficult to explain (such as the values of certain physical constants favoring life),

Here I would disagree with Collins because I don't see God's role in things as an explanation at all. If science finds something difficult to explain then that neccessarily means that science seeks an explanation for it and I do not believe that God can help in any way to explain the sort of thing that science would seek to explain. This is a consequence of the difference between what is physical and what is spiritual as I see it. So yeah I guess you might be thinking "no fair!" because that pretty much punches a hole in your ambition to show me the error of my ways doesn't it? LOL Sorry that's the breaks. Oh and if I am wrong about this (and other things) just tell because I would be overjoyed to apologize, and have a less jaded view of people as a result.

In reviewing The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine by Alister McGrath, Collins says "Addressing the conclusions of The God Delusion point by point with the devastating insight of a molecular biologist turned theologian, Alister McGrath dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism, and demonstrates instead that Dawkins has abandoned his much-cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism."

Yep I quite agree. I think as a science writer Dawkins has a lot to offer and I particularly enjoyed his "Climbing Mount Improbable" but his understanding of relgion is quite shallow and in supporting this myth that science somehow disproves God, Dawkins has unwittingly created his own fundamentalist dogmatic religion which is as shallow, willfully ignorant and intolerant as the worst fundamentalist Christian groups.

Collins remains firm in his rejection of Intelligent Design, and for this reason was not asked to participate in the 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which tries, among other things, to draw a direct link between evolution and atheism. Walt Ruloff, a producer for the film, claimed that Collins was "toeing the party line" by rejecting Intelligent Design, which Collins called "just ludicrous."

Yep this film is as dishonest and disgusting a piece of pure propaganda that has ever been produced and I was outraged by its shoddy and dishonest treatment of Dawkins.

In 2009, Collins founded The BioLogos Foundation to "contribute to the public voice that represents the harmony of science and faith." He is currently serving as the foundation's president.

So I looked this up and respond to it below.

BioLogos rests on the following premises:

1. The universe was created by God, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. The properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan.
4. Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong and the search for God.

This is a little too Deistic, so I would reply to #1 that God's creation of the universe started 13.7 billion years ago and so I disagree with number 4. 2&3 are too mild, for I very much believe that the Universe created and designed for the purpose of life and would in fact describe it as a womb of life. To number 5 I would add the modification that this is a purely biological relationship and would expand vastly on number 6 (summarizing here) that we have an inheritance which is completely seperate from the biological one, an inheritiance of the mind transmitted not by DNA but by human communication and it is this which truly makes us human.


So you see if you give me something specific I that can comment on, my response will not be lacking.

[Lawrence]

that we have an inheritance which is completely seperate from the biological one, an inheritiance of the mind transmitted not by DNA but by human communication and it is this which truly makes us human.

Have you ever read the book Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson? It has a very similar idea in it.

I am certainly open to any more specific questions that you can think of.

I'm interested in your opinions in the cosmological and teleological arguments. Do you use them to defend your God or is it not important? Also do you believe that belief in God is rational (from logical arguments), irrational (from faith) or only through personal revelation?

[Emery]

Here it is, Mitch:

Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption

I thought People of the Lie started down this path, but I remember thumbing through this book at the library. He includes a lot of his own eyewitness accounts of exorcism, and I found them intriguing given his expertise. I figured if anyone could spot an epileptic fit, or some psycho-induced phenomenon, he could.

[Pseudonym]

G'day, Mitchell, and welcome.

I stumbled onto this site searching for a forum devoted to the discussion of the ideas of Scott Peck, you know the author of "The Road Less Traveled".

Never heard of either of them, although obviously I've heard the phrase "the road less travelled" before.

You've got me curious now. Could you post a book review, please?

And yet for all that you will find that am a fairly orthodox protestant evangelical christian -- not fundamentialist by any means of course, but I am a trinitarian christian.

Sounds like the phrase you might be searching for is "Neo-Orthodox" to me.