Pride

[_Analytics]

Pride

The way I look at it, life forces us to choose an epistemological system to evaluate the world around us and come to conclusions or non-conclusions, as the case may be. Here are some options I’ve read on this board:

1- Some of us choose “reason”, which I define as approaching truth claims using logic and empirical evidence. For those of us without highly specialized knowledge, it generally entails going along with the consensus of the scientific community.

2- Some of us choose “faith”, which I define as choosing to believe something not because the evidence compels us to believe, but rather because of some desirable characteristic. For example, we might find Christianity to be a beautiful, comforting story, hence we choose to have faith in it because of the aesthetic and comforting qualities of it.

3- Some of us choose “agnosticism”, which I define as focusing on how we ultimately don’t know and ultimately can’t really know, and thus just have to wander around wondering, doing the best we can knowing that we don’t and can’t know.

4- Some of us choose “spiritual knowledge”, which entails having certain thoughts and feelings which we interpret as being reliable instructions from God on various aspects of the ultimate nature of reality.

Depending upon the question under consideration, any given individual may choose one or more epistemologies to deal with it.

What I find interesting is how we throw around the word “pride”. One person says somebody is prideful for trusting science more than God, and somebody else says somebody is prideful for being 100% sure that some particular thoughts and feelings are a lucid message from God.

Now, there can be a fruitful debate about the strengths and weaknesses of these various approaches to truth, and somebody can be too confident in their approach. But something seems a little strange that we’d call others prideful for approaching life with a different epistemology than the one we chose.

[_Runtu]

What I find interesting is how we throw around the word “pride”. One person says somebody is prideful for trusting science more than God, and somebody else says somebody is prideful for being 100% sure that some particular thoughts and feelings are a lucid message from God.

Now, there can be a fruitful debate about the strengths and weaknesses of these various approaches to truth, and somebody can be too confident in their approach. But something seems a little strange that we’d call others prideful for approaching life with a different epistemology than the one we chose.

For what it's worth, I've used "hubris" in the context of those who say they know whether other people's spiritual experiences are valid or not. I have no problems with people telling me they are 100% sure that God spoke to them; I object when they say they are 100% sure that God didn't speak to someone else.

[_Analytics]

What I find interesting is how we throw around the word “pride”. One person says somebody is prideful for trusting science more than God, and somebody else says somebody is prideful for being 100% sure that some particular thoughts and feelings are a lucid message from God.

Now, there can be a fruitful debate about the strengths and weaknesses of these various approaches to truth, and somebody can be too confident in their approach. But something seems a little strange that we’d call others prideful for approaching life with a different epistemology than the one we chose.

For what it's worth, I've used "hubris" in the context of those who say they know whether other people's spiritual experiences are valid or not. I have no problems with people telling me they are 100% sure that God spoke to them; I object when they say they are 100% sure that God didn't speak to someone else.

Perhaps it goes back to the definition of a “valid” spiritual experience. I’ve had spiritual experiences. Does that mean that God was sending me unequivocal messages about the ultimate truth of anything? Can I be sure that it was from God and not the product of a healthy (or sick) brain? Can I be sure I interpreted it correctly? Even if we did determine that it was from God and that the message was in fact unequivocal, can we be sure God isn’t lying?

Personally, I’d be comfortable using spiritual experiences to validate, say, the love of my family or the intrinsic value of human beings or other abstract concepts. But I’m also comfortable categorically rejecting “the spirit” as an authoritative source on the truth, regardless of whether or not the “real” spirit feels different than anything I’ve personally felt.

I think that makes me a humble person, aware of my own fallibility as a human being and unwilling to put much weight on something that is intrinsically subjective and tied to myself. Perhaps that means I’m not the kind of soul that God wants to admit into his prestigious academy that leads to Celestial glory. But it certainly doesn’t mean I’m prideful.

[_moksha]

I know one unfortunate way to silence a great deal of religious thought is with antipsychotic drugs.

[_twinkie]

I define "Pride" as refusing to acknowledge that we may not know as much as we think we do.