does /fit/ have faith? spirituality thread

File: 1498015246993.jpg (51KB, 400x323px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 400x323px

>>41898975

A while ago, this guy who had just graduated high school posted a thread on /fit/ asking for general advice about life. He got some great answers, but I was pretty surprised by how many people just kind of presented "You should be X religion" as if it was some kind of factual thing they were sharing. In my opinion, it illustrates a consistent trend of poor reasoning on this topic.

People generally become more religious as they become older. As a seminary drop out who spent half of his life extremely religious, I've spent years talking with anybody and everybody about their beliefs. I would later go on to teach philosophy of religion in a secular university. Mitch Albom is no philosopher, but he was basically right when he said the following:

>Most people are so distracted by life, they don't really think about death unless they have to.
>When they do think about it, it's usually pretty shallow.
>Ergo, most people go through life knowing they're going to die intellectually but not really believing/accepting it.

I think as people age, their mortality becomes more obvious and their brains develop to a point where they get a greater awareness of the world they live in instead of constantly surrounding themselves with entertainment.

My thoughts on "spirituality" is that it's a way to bridge the gap between our inability to understand difficult circumstances or the unknowable in life as a species. It's a lot easier for people to arrive at religious conclusions because they're almost always inherited culturally and roughly 85% of the population identifies as creationists. Dawkins-fanboys would be quick to point out that this is a weakness or some kind of shortcoming, and while I certainly don't think what child-psychologists refer to as "magical-thinking" is the most constructive way to view the world, there is something to be said about the fact that nobody can indefinitely prove anything either way.

>>41900131
What do you think of Jordan B. Peterson?

Also, are you Jordan B. Peterson?

Modern religion is the fast food of transcendental paths. Find an ascetic routine and stick with it, worry about the metaphysics once you've actually got some self control.
t. every traditional teaching ever

File: 1498030945576.jpg (37KB, 378x700px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 378x700px

>>41900158

Jordan B. Peterson is actually a minor, if even mentionable figure in psychology of religion. There are way more meaningful contributions in academia to the topic.

No, I am not Jordan B. Peterson. I actually wound up leaving the field and academia altogether due to the abysmal job market in the social sciences / philosophy. I now work as a software engineer for a major company.

I still think about and use the skills I learned everyday. The issue is that these topics don't require a great intellect (although it helps). Instead, what's required is a sincerity with one's self to hold yourself accountable in regards to divorcing what you believe on principles of good reason as opposed to believing something because you want to believe it. That kind of reason-guided maturity and sincerity is something that western philosophers have been writing about since the 17th century.

>>41900131
hmm

>>41900131
I was considering studying at a seminary, how was your experience? What made you decide to drop out?

>>41898975
Yes.
In iron we trust.

>>41900321
Sex with little boys got boring. They only have so many holes.

At least girls have that bonus orifice.

>>41898975
Mind if I save this wojak?

>>41900343
I was a protestant you fucking idiot.

>>41900321
Seminary was eye opening when I went, but not for the reasons they intended it to be. I would pretty much advise against it, as the main reason I left was because I saw how fake the religion was. That's actually pretty common in seminaries and biblical universities.

As far as my experience, academically speaking, I learned how unreliable the bible was, how poorly protestant ministers are educated how to interpret it, how inconsistent theology is, how blatantly dishonest Catholic scholarship was, and how intellectually dishonest people could be even at the highest levels. That is to say, when it comes to studying theology or religion as a layman, there's ultimately a certain amount of belief and trust you have to invest in scholarship to hang your hat on and empower you to make truth claims about other topics. The problem is that, when you get into a seriously accredited institution to study these things, you find out that the scholarship is often poor at best or dishonest at worst. I serious had "specialists" trying to teach me that dinosaurs had only become extinct a few hundred years ago and that the world was 10,000 years old. Then conversations almost always devolve into debating opinion based on unknowable axioms which almost always the same conclusion - we'll just have to agree to disagree. You would literally be doing almost the exact same exercise if you debated a perceived star wars universe based on the movies - including hearing many of the same arguments.

Socially I learned how disingenuous most Christians were. Lucky for all of us this stuff isn't real, or we'd all be in a lot of trouble because virtually nobody takes it as seriously as they claim. Here's a link to a scale which details some research to my point.

I have to go to work now.

>file.scirp.org/pdf/PSYCH_2014092909275333.pdf