Re: "You're just not advanced enough to understand this!"

That's not unique to religion. We see it in subjects like mathematics, physics or medicine as well.

I'd ask them how it is that they think that they understand it. What exactly makes them 'advanced'?

If what they are claiming seems possible, if it doesn't seem totally unlikely on its face, and if they can outline a path between here and there that's continuous, that doesn't require any leaps into or miraculous interventions from out-of the unknown, a reasonable path whose process and procedures don't offend my intellectual or spiritual sensibilities, then I might begin to think that there could conceivably be something to it.

My budding faith would be increased if advanced status in whatever it is had effects here on the earthly plane more impressive than the mere ego-inflation of the supposedly 'advanced' ones. Physics can point to extensive experimental verification and to its pragmatic success as the basis of engineering. A spiritual path might produce more subtle effects in its 'advanced' ones, but I'd still expect to see something like superior emotional stability, wisdom and compassion.

If superior [whatever] is indistinguishable from nothing at all, then it's reasonable to wonder whether it might just be nothing at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No problem. Reasons for posting were already covered.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Willingness to learn, not goodwill...

That's a good point, but for three threads now you've been talking unquestioning submission...
And those eastern gurus do all sorts of nasty things to their pupils at times.

..And even if I did reply like that? I would be biting back a "Go f- yourself." But I would be doing so out of a desire to get what I could still get from this douchey person.

Have you not ever bitten back a hostile reply in order to get what you could out of a situation?

But also...I would take the "You're not advanced enough to understand this!" as a putdown, yeah, but also a challenge. I'd want to prove their smug asses wrong.

That's why being a douche might mean they're not worth following anyway, so telling them off might be in your best interest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Has any of you actually replied to a "You're just not advanced enough to understand this!" -? What happened?

I have. I got a "Who do you think you are?!" kind of reply.

 

Where in the original statement is the person dismissing you??????????

The only person who would see it as such would be a person so puffed up with self pride that they cannot bear anyone revealing a deficiency in their current state.

I know i am not advanced enough to understand many things about God. But i don't get all precious and react to God by saying He is dismissing me.

The Meek are given wisdom the proud are left to their own thinking. Being told one is lacking is no big deal to one who understands they are lacking.

IT IS NOT a DISMISSAL at ALL. YOUR too PROUD to realise this.

Then stay between the rock and a hard place you find yourself. But stop whinging about it.

It is only seen as a dismissal and contempt by someone who is has an overrated view of their own magnificence. Do you think the universe revolves around you?

You wonder why you stuck? It is no wonder to me.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

Taking pride in your meekness, eh?

You are just a lone ranger Christian, Adstar, you don't live in the real world where you'd have to face people higher up in the congregational hierarchy contempting you, while you still having to depend on them.

It's easy for you to judge.

 

This thread is about religious instances of the 'argument from authority', one of the informal fallacies in JamesR's thread over in the General Philosophy forum.

In effect, an appeal to authority is saying -- 'I'm an AUTHORITY! You're not! You must believe whatever I tell you!!'

Of course, a person's boasts about being an 'authority' don't mean that he/she really is one. Lots of people make empty boasts, especially if it raises their own status and bends others to their will. And even if somebody really is an authority about some subject of expertise, that authority doesn't mean that they are omniscient and inerrant about it. Error and confusion might still be present. Nor does expertise guarantee that authorities are telling us the whole story and don't have agendas of their own.

The problem with applying a simple warning about the 'argument from authority' is that there are people out there who really do know more than we do, about almost everything. Often the most intelligent thing that we can do is simply shut up, listen to them and learn.

So the serious and interesting philosophical problem arising from the 'argument from authority' is -- How do we recognize those who truly are authorities about some subject matter of interest? Who should we be listening to? And... How should we respond intellectually (or spiritually) to authorities once we've identified them?

Nobody likes that. But sometimes it's a learning experience.

The problem here is typically when people simply boast of their supposed authority WITHOUT their having revealed their superior state [of whatever] or any deficiencies in anyone else's state. In the religious context, there's usually just some hand-waving about how they know God and you don't.

Of course, we don't actually know that there is any "God". And assuming for the sake of argument that there really is, there typically isn't any credible reason to think that the "authoritative" individual knows any more about it than anyone else.

That's why I'd begin by asking the 'authority' to explain what his or her authority consists of and how he/she believes that it was acquired.

The problem isn't God. God keeps his mouth shut. (Probably because he doesn't exist.) The problem is all the people that claim to have been visited by "holy spirits", who have listened to the "voices in their hearts" (or heads), who have read "inerrant scriptures" or who belong to the One True Church. Everyone who struts around with a puffed-out chest and sets themselves up as God's Mouthpiece.

It's like that old British TV show, 'The Prisoner' (a truly amazing existentialist TV program). The big boss was #1. But we never see #1, we never learn (until [maybe] the last episode) who #1 is. All we see is a never-ending succession of #2's, all of whom claim to speak for #1 and claim to be relaying his orders. The analogy is obviously to God (#1) and to the pope, the church, the bible, government rulers, teachers, judges, managers... the list of #2's is endless. All of them adminstering the divine order that everyone (except us, apparently) knows is flowing straight from #1.

I don't know that wisdom can come from anywhere but your own thinking. Even when other people teach you things, even when you simply try to memorize whatever they tell you without any criticial thought at all, what you learn still needs to be internalized. People have to come to understand what they're being told. They have to learn how to incorporate it into their own lives.

The problem of this thread arises when other people tell us that the universe revolves around them and their beliefs, and when we are commanded to orbit.

It doesn't work that way. My decisions about what I believe and don't believe are my own decisions. My understanding of whatever I learn and how it meshes with everything else that I know emerges from my own thinking. It can be no other way.

 

you are absolutely ridiculous. seriously, if you're a troll, then you're not only a troll, you're a gigantic asshole too imo. if you're not a troll and you're really this pathetic, then you don't need a guru, and you don't need a religion. you need a psychologist.

 

I've never heard that before (especially from religious people) but i wouldn't make too much f a big deal about it.

 

heh...alls ya got ta say is "understand WHAT?"

 

Exactly.
But while with mundane knowledge, we have some scope for recognizing who is an authority in a field, this is not so in spirituality/religion.

Spiritual/religious authority seems to be a moving target, a circularity, self-referential - because one gets an understanding of what spiritual/religious authority is from that same person who proposes to be a spiritual/religious authority. But different people from different paths have different criteria for what constitutes authority ...


Interestingly, the Buddha's first sermon was "I am the Rightfully Self-Awakened One!" It was not well received. After that, he changed his approach, and was, apparently, successful.

Sure, but unless you yourself have taken that path, you won't know whether what they are saying is actionable or not and whether it will lead to the supposed result (authority).

It's eventually a useless question, I'm afraid.

I have seen people explain how they have come to their authority in spiritual/religious matters.
The instructions the gave were prohibitively difficult for me (such as years of strenuous mediation practice combined with the input of many other people - something that cannot be repeated at will), or simply not understandable ("just look within").

Another phenomenon typical for modern spiritual (supposed) authorities is that the instructions they give to people were not the ones they had followed to come to their state of spiritual advancement.

Good examples are the popular Eckhart Tolle and Byron Katie. Both had gone through severe personal crisis and trauma before emerging into their advanced state.
One can only wonder how essential the experience of that trauma was to their advancement, and how people without such trauma will never become as advanced following their instructions.

But at least theoretically, even this is not a problem - provided, of course, that they are right.
If orbiting such an authority means that one will attain the optimal position of one's true self or something like that, then it would only be right to orbit such an authority.

But so many people who consider themselves authorities only want that we take their judgment of us seriously, while they refuse to take responsibility for our spiritual advancement.

I am now inclined to think that this is just plain wrong.

I am prepared to go by someone's instructions, take their judgment of me seriously and to worship them - as long as they will take responsibility for my advancement.

But if they refuse to do so, then the deal is off.

 

Yeah I get this a lot . First impressions of a carpenter just about always pigeon holes the person into the stupid category . The truth of the matter is five minutes with any geoengineer , structural engineer, electrical engineer ,Architect , Banker, Loan officer, Real estate agent , Tittle company employee, Building inspector, Politician, Attorney, Zoning compliance officer and they begin to change there mind . Course you know what say " Your all going to be sorry when the carpenter gets here

 

Come on. You got to know how to read a ruler. Thats smart. Make straight lines, make things fit flush.

 

WE make pretty pink houses for you and me too. Sometimes with white picket fences . There is a pecking order . Electricians like to think they are at the top of the ladder, but really truly plumbers are . Now I will show you why : If the electrician wires first and it is in the way of were sewer lines go we cut his wiring out and throw it on the ground . The electrician has to make a special trip to fix it on his own dime. Now you would think that the laborer is the lowest form on a project , but no this is not true . The General contractor running the project is . This is common knowledge for the general con tractor signs zee checks . Even the Architect can be subject to his whim. He can be one nasty buzzard if a person don't live up and that my friend is why everyone knows these is true

 

"You're just not advanced enough to understand this!"

"Thank you for your assessment.

Now could you possibly direct me to someone who can explain, 'as if to a child' their understanding of the topic?"

For unless one can explain anything in layman's terms when dealing with an entry level audience, then they either do not know their subject very well or it is an untrustworthy venture.

Seek not the seeker; seek rather, what they sought.

Just my opinion......

 

I would use a similar line of reasoning as Bill Mayer. Since religious faith, by definition, doesn't require an understanding/knowledge of the physical world (unlike science, where 'this is beyond your ability to understand' is a legit thing to say sometimes) then the only way someone would be able to say that would be if they have access to information I do not, that they can tap into something that I cannot. I'd ask them to prove that is the case, that they have access to sources of information I do not.

Undoubtedly they'd be unable to demonstrate that they do. Or, as Harold Camping as just demonstrated, their attempt to prove they do have access to information I do not would result in their information being proven false, proving my point.

Given the attitude of some of the most religious people in the world towards science, education and rationality either god or the gods don't care about someone's intelligence/insightfulness or he/she/it/they utterly failed to get that message across, which brings into question why a deity who wants the company of intelligent people would be so stupid.

If any of the major religions are true their deities clearly do not want to only be in the company of the intelligent or rational, since those things lead to questioning many of the claims of said religions. For instance, you can't be maximally rational and informed about reality and yet be a young Earth creationist. You cannot base your world view on rationality and evidence and deny evolution. To be a young Earth creationist you have to deny things you can see and examine with your own senses and instead take the word of a copy of a translation of a copy of a copy of edited selected parts of translations of copies of a translation of works whose authors are unknown and unverifiable and which is often demonstrably wrong. If that's the sort of person the Christian god wants to hang around with he's an idiot, just like the people who believe as I just outlined.

Why should the being or beings which supposedly (according to theists) made the entire universe need anything from us?

In mathematics, science, medicine etc there is a quantifiable 'thing' to grasp. For someone to grasp say something in mathematics then they would be required to understand the things it is based upon, such as you can't learn vector calculus if you don't know about vectors and calculus. Thus someone's knowledge might not be advanced enough to grasp something yet. That information is provable (or in science's case, justifiable with physical evidence), there is an external observer independent 'truth' which can be examined and tested and verified. No such thing exists in religion, you do not need to be educated to have faith. If anything education seems to reduce faith.

Then there's the issue of not having an advanced enough capability to grasp certain concepts or results or facts. Mathematics is one of those subjects people just don't get, while others get it with ease. Certain people's minds are particularly adept at grasping certain concepts. Some people struggle with abstract logical concepts and mathematics is abstract logic. Of course religion is abstract too but there's no right or wrong. In mathematics you are simply wrong if you say 1+1=3 but in religion you can claim whatever you like. If you don't grasp what someone is saying in religion you can just claim they are wrong and you're in just as justifiable a position as your opponent.

Because there is a right and a wrong, an objective truth which can be examined and tested, it is possible to say "Bob has a more mathematical mind than Jim". No such thing exists for religion, it is supposed to be within the grasp of everyone, faith doesn't require external truth to be compared with. If anything it avoids being compared to external truth as much as possible.

Hence "This is too advanced for you" is a legit response in regards to science, maths, medicine, anything which can be demonstrated to be based in reality or logic. Religion has none of that, so the comment "This is too advanced for you" is a bullshit reply from a theist, who might well think of themselves as humble too....

 

why do you need anything from us? i believe that communion is the meaning of life.

 

Depending on them? That’s got nothing to do with Christianity. Depending on another human. Christianity is primarily a relationship between a person and God all dependence is within that relationship only. Any other relationships likened to a brother or sister.

Unless you Want to be dependant on another human? Are you the kind who wants to make someone else responsible for your eternal destiny?

LOL and i like how you said just a lone ranger Christian.

I am not alone, God is with me always.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That’s why i can stand alone.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

My personal experience has been that persons who are advanced spiritually don't tend to go around talking about it, nor would they ever use a line like, "You're just not advanced enough to understand this."

Nor would they presume to give advice on spiritual matters, beyond sharing their own experience and leaving it to the listener to find their own path.

There are people whose company leaves one feeling restored, even if no words have passed between them and others with whom even a brief exchange is a relief to have done with, if courtesy does not permit same to be avoided in the entire.

The shared burdens of others are willingly carried by the energy they bring to the relationship shared, and that is, in large, the message.

Personal relationships are the foundation of any community, and the most personal being one's relationship with their own spirituality, which is unique unto each, IMO.

 

If someone is not advanced enough to understand something, an appropriate response would be to explain it in simplified terms or direct them to a source of information where they CAN become advanced enough to understand it. Duh...