I’m going to make this a one way dialogue to save time because I already know how this goes. I’ve done it before.

I ask the rationalists, “Do you agree that we can act in ways that are more or less in accordance with reality?” Response: “Yes”.
Then I ask, “Do you agree that it’s valuable to be in accordance with reality?” Response: “Yes”.

At this point, it’s established that both sides agree the moral domain (how we act) is valuable. The rationalists will agree to this out of one side of their mouth, but then on the other side, they will dismiss religious stories on the claim that they are not historical events. If the moral domain is associated with reality, then it doesn’t matter whether or not a story is historical if there is moral value in the story.

This doesn’t go far enough, however, since plenty of rationalists will agree to this and still reflexively dismiss religious stories. Why?

It’s largely because the rationalist prioritizes being coherent, or being singular, above all, and they see the division of religious people. We all desire coherence. Still, it is a mistake to prioritize coherence over fulfillment. Stories which communicate truths about the moral domain are not just for children to keep them in line. They are for those people who rightly prioritize fulfillment even over singularity or coherence.

Rationality blinds us to our division (coherence vs fulfillment) and/or projects the frustration over our division onto others, in which religious people are an easy target. The hidden story of the soul, which the best stories seek to uncover, incorporates this division (“The Son of Man brings division”, “We must deny ourselves”).

This lowering of the self, acknowledging error, in order to re-prioritize fulfillment to its rightful place is called repentance. It’s a relational move rather than a rational move. It’s relational because you are mercifully taking your foot off the neck of the one within you who prioritizes fulfillment.

You might be surprised that I'm very much into the story of the soul, and have written and read millions of words on it. It's just that I think it is very natural, not of some supernatural realm, and that it is not fairly represented by man's panoply of gods, by literalized myths, by mass murder stories, by judgment, by hellfire punishment, etc.

I, and any psychologist, see self-expression as a great value in life, not this ignorant, backwards, neurotic self-denial creed. We all have a NEED for coherence, but we don't all (or always) desire it (as you say we do). Every act of addiction, repression, denial, dissociation, strategic dissonance, fantasy in place of reality, faking reality over real reality, is testament to the will to escape coherence. Fairy tales in lieu of reality don't help with this vice of man (children's fairy tales, of course, are age and development appropriate and not of the same ilk).

You seem to pose a revealing dichotomy between religious and rationalist. Rationality and reason are just limited tools, not anything omniscient. It is religion that claims omniscience while believing that kissing donkeys cures infections, that demons cause leprosy. Name another subject besides religion where you put rationality as an enemy of understanding it??

The emotive core of man -- the soul, our sense of humanity -- is vital above and beyond the intellectual and abstract abilities, by far. It's found not in superstition and magic, but in the nature of human consciousness. Once we start investigating that, we are studying something where rationality and our "heart" are not opposing, but are complimentary aspects of natural human consciousness. No Zeus, Thor or the rest of the panoply needed. THAT is myth.

define rationalist for the context please.

And doesn't that terminology imply that if you believe you're an irrationalist?

.

The parable of the prodigal son ends like this:

The father keeps the theist from defecting, and gets them to suppress their righteous indignation, because he knows they are addicted to the short term comfort of reassurance. He makes the theist feel special and superior through the voice of reassurance.

For the rationalist, the father uses another strategy. Since he knows the rationalist is addicted to coherence and reason, he simply gives them an unlimited stream of ways to analyze how the situation is unjust. He also makes the rationalist feel smarter and superior for engaging in this.

Someone who is just and merciful will not bury their head in the sand when they notice this manipulation happening in the privacy of their own house.

There seem many ways to approach this. I would, with my limited understanding of these terms, and if being polemic, counterpose rationalism - knowledge gained through reasoned logic, with empiricism - knowledge gained by exploration of the natural world using the senses, as per Plato vs Aristotle. Which does not appear all that useful here.

I believe this may be the best definition for the purpose of this post:



And so there is an apparent schism between "rationalism" and, say, divine revelation, and thirdly everyday sensory perception, empiricism. This seems to me rather an unnecessary demarcation in a modern discourse and reflects probably on the sharpness of debates being had in schools of thought when such debate was novel. For instance, there be no impenetrable barrier between divine revelation - supersensory perception? and reason, while perhaps applied to varying contexts and assuming one refrains from dogmatism, and certainly not reason and empiricism such is the basis of the modern scientific method. I am not well versed in philosophy to add much here.

I think this statement is reasonable (perhaps it can be shown to be circular but it is within a rational framework i would suggest) while recognising the reality of divine revelation (cambridge dict. christian theology):



The parable example is an interesting illustration, I am still trying to wrap my head around the analysis of the father speaking to the rationalist - are we saying the rationalist is being trapped in his self-righteousness? Is rationalism here reducing salvation to strict adherence to the Law? Is this alluding to Jewish elders failing to grasp their own wrong headed legalism and rejection of Jesus Christ?

Re empiricism and religious stories, for instance it has been shown, i believe conclusively, that the events of Exodus were real and historical events.

“What belongs to the father belongs to the son” - this is the promise for the older brother in the story. Yet, the older brother clearly expresses that he has been denied what he desires which belongs to the father.

The father does not want his son to rebel and denounce his sonship the way the younger brother did, so his first strategy when he senses righteous indignation is reassurance. Nevermind that the reassurance is incoherent with the promise.

If reassurance no longer works for the father, then what will he do? Give up? Perhaps he will then try to offer a rational, coherent explanation that satisfies his son.

What if the older brother isn’t having it with the coherent explanation he was offered. What will the father do then? Perhaps he will offer another rational, coherent explanation maybe more sophisticated than the last one. If that doesn’t work, maybe the father will try another. Then another. And another.

As long as the older brother values coherence enough to deny his own fulfillment, then the father will have his way with him. The older brother can even coherently believe that the father doesn’t exist! As long as it keeps his son complacent under his domain, then the father will count that as a win. It’s not ideal. The father would rather be acknowledged, loved and worshipped by his son, but as long as he doesn’t defect, it’s still a win for the father.

Listen, when he sees that his friend is laying down his life and squandering his potential, the just and merciful man will find him guilty. Then, that merciful man will lay down his own life in order to intervene and make sure his friend will no longer lay his life down.

What does "prodigal" mean?

On what subjects besides religion do you have to decide whether you are going to be a rationalist or not? What's up with that? When you go into a subject wanting to believe it whether it is true or not, the first casualty is rationality.

When deciding how to act, imitation and the assurance of belonging come before rationality and the desire for coherence. A young child isn’t reasoning much about how to act.

The rationalist has only gotten to that point because they have, to some degree, denied themselves from the assurance of fitting in with the group in order to explore the unknown with the hope of greater fulfillment. In that unknown, they discover an ascension in the form of rational coherence.

The person who denies themselves from desiring more than what the assurance of belonging provides will never transcend to fully becoming a rationalist. That is not to say that rationalists still don’t feel the pull of community pressure. The levels stack on each other.

From the point of view of the rationalist, it is clear to them that the people captured by the assurance of tribalism should desire to transcend that for a more individualized rationality. However, telling them to “be more rational” isn’t going to be what allows the level of risk taking necessary.

It is the desire for fulfillment. That is what can allow someone to deny their desire for reassurance and transcend tribalism. It is also what can allow the rationalist to deny their desire for coherence and transcend rationalism.

The rationalist can’t rationalize themselves beyond coherence in order to pursue fulfillment. The just and merciful man finds the rationalist guilty for denying fulfillment to his friend who is hidden away in the basement of his own house.

The strong man finds the rationalist guilty for not visiting his friend who is imprisoned, for not feeding his friend who is hungry, for not attending to his friend who is sick.

So if the first level of morality is group belonging, and the second level is rationality, the third level is the religious/spiritual. It involves relating between the different characters of the story of the soul.

The draw of the first level is assurance and reassurance found in the group. The draw of the second level is coherence. The draw of the third level is fulfillment. Assurance and coherence provide short term satiation. Fulfillment is everlasting.

The lower levels will constantly attempt to hijack the third level. Often when we think we are engaging the third level, we are actually just looking for a quick hit of reassurance or coherence that temporarily quells our inner conflict. The only reliable way to engage the third level is to develop an appropriate suspicion of group consensus and the rational intellect, as well as to consciously deny our desire for reassurance and coherence.

To do this, again, requires a strong engagement with the desire for fulfillment. A prerequisite to that is a degree of conscious awareness of our emptiness and lack which is painful (before we can desire fulfillment, we have to notice our lack of fulfillment). The resistance is almost always too strong to overcome, so we have to be strategic and take advantage of the opportunities when the resistance is light.

When do these opportunities of light resistance present themselves? It’s when we suffer. The silver lining of pain is the opportunity to pursue fulfillment. We should first develop the ability to linger and stand in our pain.

Listen, I am the one who is willing to get his hands dirty and who takes on debt that isn’t mine. I am the judge who opens and closes the gate. I speak the truth and keep my promises, and I promise paradise.

Does scripture express that a son's inheritance must follow the death of the father, or is this a culture that developed on an interpretation or implication of honouring the father? If one third is given, two thirds remains, which is "everything I have"



It seems no law has been broken as such, but the eldest feels an injustice because of jealousy and self righteousness. The father's response is consistent with the law and recognises the repentance of the younger, which embodies two principles of Christianity, does it not. The eldest may choose to accept or not, I do not see it necessary for the father to continue to placate the son with endless rationality - we do not know whether he was reassured or not, which is allegorical to the choice of acceptance of Jesus as the Christ.

Yeah ... a child isn't reasoning much about how to behave, and you aren't reasoning much about what to believe in the realm of religion. In fact, this irrational strategy is built into the religion, and all manner of artifices and doctrines are constructed in the absence of any reasonable reality testing. "Suspend your disbelief for this belief system," goes its dubious wisdom, "reality and rationality don't apply here."

So you are a non-rationalist when it comes to origins, metaphysics, meaning, etc. Interesting that you are the one creating the labels leaving yourself in this category.

The inheritance law that you are referencing is of the world. The promise that “what belongs to the father belongs to the son” is spiritual law. Which is greater?

Activism and moral panics too often keep people in a spiritual stupor. The activists should ask themselves, “Have I ever been as certain about something in the past and later realize that I was in error?”

There is wisdom in self doubt.

Spiritual law surely sounds greater but what is spiritual law? The Father giving to the Son is the Kingdom to come (a promise), that which is not of this world, is it not? There are many layers at work I think - how do we understand this?

There is an important difference between these two:
1) What belongs to the father will belong to the son
2) What belongs to the father belongs to the son

Which did Jesus claim through the father’s dialogue in the parable?
Which did the younger brother have faith in that caused him to defect?
Which did the older brother believe that caused him to stay?
Which brother is rewarded more?

He says 'you are always with me' which would imply 'what belongs to the father belongs to the son' past present and future, and 'everything i have is yours', reinforcing the infinitive. And yet the kingdom of God is a promise for the future, hence the verb "will" to indicate this, as in "thy will be done" etc.
The younger brother I am not sure, when he sins he cannot have faith in much, though he demands his share immediately according to his interpretation of the law.

Your questions are excellent, I can see this should elucidate the meaning but Ill have to come back to this later as I am confusing myself at this point.

Today we worship the god who killed every child, infant and fetus on earth (in the Great Flood), the commander of genocides throughout the Holy Lands, the bigot of bigots, to whom women are chattel, who condones slavery, who is for stoning to death witches, unruly children, homosexuals, who inspired bears to rip children to shreds, who turned human beings into salt for looking at what he did, who is the ultimate plaguester and torturer, who is for cheating/welching/murdering over a lost bet, who is for killing a rape victim … If you look at the reason god spared Moses when he was coming to kill him too, you get a great feel for how omniscient this character was.

"We see nothing morally wrong with any of this. In fact, we believe it is holy and righteous. We declare it worship worthy, and we do so by sacrificing all agency and judgment to the superstitions and brutalities of yester-centuries. We thus turn morality on its ear, exactly in this way: by refusing moral agency and instead opting for willfully blind obedience and adherence to ANYTHING, no matter what “He” does or says."

LOOK at your religion. The truth of it is staring you right in the face. Just maybe, the above did not come from omniscience and love. All this is begat, perpetrated, and canonized because we don't care about being rational.

It’s obvious the parable is about the relationship between the soul (son) and God (father). It’s less obvious that it’s also about the relationship between the human individual and their soul.

This command of Jesus is relevant:
“Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’”

.

Listen, from now on Christ sits at both the right hand and left hand of God. The Holy Spirit is the devil’s advocate. The heretic is the savior. The repentant one is the savior.