The Dangers of Fundamentalism -- John Dominic Crossan.

[_richardMdBorn]

Was Muggeridge a believer early in life?

I have read bits and pieces about that over the years. I could only manage to find this one online:

Malcolm Muggeridge's journey.

What this familiar criticism overlooks is the extent to which Muggeridge had always been a deeply religious character, a "pilgrim." As an adolescent, he would secretly read the Bible-secretly, because he knew his father would not have approved. At Cambridge, he seriously contemplated a religious vocation. His diary is full of entries minuting his religious fears, cravings, and exaltations. Muggeridge understood that the merely human is at best the nearly human. At the same time, his revulsions are at odds with the ampleness of the faith he proclaimed. In an interview from the 1960s, Muggeridge said that he "saw life as an eternal battle between two irreconcilable opposites, the world of the flesh and the world of the spirit." Yet "God made the world and saw that it was good." It seems a pity that this robust soul should have mistaken affirmation for indulgence.

Muggeridge's autobiography is interesting. I read it about twenty years ago so the details are a bit vague. He's very funny talking about Sidney and Beatrice Webb. His account of stupid Westerners coming and praising Stalin and the Soviet Union circa 1935 reminds me of Obama and his lunacy about Islam.

[_JAK]

Personal and emotionally involved supposition is unreliable.

JAK

I don't discount emotion.

Perhaps you've heard of Daniel Goleman.

Or the concept of Emotional intelligence.

As a result of the growing acknowledgement by professionals of the importance and relevance of emotions to work outcomes,[8] the research on the topic continued to gain momentum, but it wasn’t until the publication of Daniel Goleman's best seller Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ that the term became widely popularized.[9] Nancy Gibbs' 1995 Time magazine article highlighted Goleman's book and was the first in a string of mainstream media interest in EI.[10] Thereafter, articles on EI began to appear with increasing frequency across a wide range of academic and popular outlets.

I don't wear the idea that emotion should be excluded as an important factor in decision-making. We can deny it 'till the cows come home, but emotion/intuition play a large role in decision-making.

I am not an automaton who operates only by "logic", though that certainly is very important.

Ray A stated:
I don't discount emotion.

It’s important to recognize that emotions play a significant role in decision-making. Equally important is to recognize that emotions are often unreliable. The capacity to distinguish between unreliable emotional response and an emotional response fundamentally grounded in one’s over-all awareness of a situation is also important.

For example: If one is genuinely confronted by a dangerous situation, fear is a friend which may direct one out of danger. However, one may experience the emotion of fear when, in fact, there is little or nothing to fear. Experience is often related to how reliable one’s sense of emotion may be. A teen-age drivers may lack appropriate fear of how risky it is to drive far above the posted speed limit. Their judgment, their emotional response is likely to be flawed regarding the danger they face as a novice driver. In this example, absence of fear is a genuine threat. Teen-age drivers tend to be at higher risk in general than drivers age 40 (for illustration). That is not to say that all those 40 have reliable emotional response. It’s a generalization on which insurance companies base insurance premiums for drivers. Insurance companies use carefully gathered evidence to determine driver’s ability to exercise reliable, safe response to driving situations.

We can apply emotional responses to a wide variety of situations and observe the extent or degree to which individuals respond in emotionally appropriate ways. To be sure, some are better than others.

In your reference was this, part of which is just below.

"The most distant roots of emotional intelligence can be traced to Darwin’s early work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and second adaptation.[3] In the 1900s, even though traditional definitions of intelligence emphasized cognitive aspects such as memory and problem-solving, several influential researchers in the intelligence field of study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-cognitive aspects. For instance, as early as 1920, E. L. Thorndike used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of understanding and managing other people.[4]"

This entire article is quite detailed.

Ray A stated:
I don't wear the idea that emotion should be excluded as an important factor in decision-making. We can deny it 'till the cows come home, but emotion/intuition play a large role in decision-making.

Certainly, emotions are as you describe. The more in tune people’s emotions are with the realities which surround them, the better the chances for reliable “decision-making.” Conversely, the poorer the emotional responses, the poorer the “decision-making” is likely to be.

It is generally considered that both heredity and environment play significant roles in the status of an individual’s emotional responses.

Ray A stated:
I am not an automaton who operates only by "logic", though that certainly is very important.

It’s doubtful that anyone would make such a claim. At the same time, emotional response varies so widely with individuals that such responses are unreliable. As a result, we frequently ask for the views of our friends or relatives regarding important decisions which inherently involve emotions. It’s a way of accessing what an individual may fail to notice in contemplating a decision or choice.

Your links are good and add information to understanding about the influence of emotions upon decision-making.

JAK

[_EAllusion]

"The light of Christ" is more of an an internal moral compass that leads one to know what is good. Believing in Jesus is good, ergo it leads to that.

What Craig is arguing is a little different. You know how some LDS describe a spiritual experience so powerful that one absolutely knows Mormonism is true? Moreover, this experience is so foundational that anything that contradicts it must itself be wrong? It is the most basic truth from which everything else must flow? Well, Craig argues that every single living person has had such a witness from the Holy Ghost built into them. Only it testifies of his version of Christianity. Got it?

[_Ray A]

Well, Craig argues that every single living person has had such a witness from the Holy Ghost built into them. Only it testifies of his version of Christianity. Got it?

That's precisely what bothered me from the start, and why I gave the Muslim example.

Here is what Craig had to say about "Mormon witness":

Doesn’t this land us in subjectivism? As Plantinga would say, it’s difficult to see how. How is the fact that other persons, like Muslims or Mormons, falsely claim to experience a self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit relevant to my knowing the truth of Christianity via the Spirit’s witness? The existence of an authentic and unique witness of the Spirit does not exclude the existence of false claims to such a witness. How, then, does the existence of false claims of the Spirit’s witness to the truth of a non-Christian religion do anything logically to undermine the fact that the Christian believer does possess the genuine witness of the Spirit? Why should I be robbed of my joy and assurance of salvation simply because someone else falsely pretends, sincerely or insincerely, to the Spirit’s witness? If a Mormon or Muslim falsely claims to experience the witness of God’s Spirit in his heart, that does nothing to undermine the veridicality of my experience.......

So that brings us to the scenario that you both envision: you’re confronted with a Mormon friend who claims to know that Mormonism is true because he experiences a “burning in the bosom” when he reads the Book of Mormon. Now we’re no longer talking about knowing Christianity to be true; we’re talking about showing Christianity to be true. The difference is crucial. William Alston points out that this situation taken in isolation results in a standoff. For neither person knows how to convince the other that he alone has a veridical, rather than delusory, experience. This standoff doesn’t undermine the rationality of the Christian’s own belief, for even if the process of forming his belief is as reliable as can be, there’s no way he can give a noncircular proof of this fact. Thus his inability to provide such a proof doesn’t nullify the rationality of his belief. But although he is rational in retaining his Christian belief, the Christian in such circumstances is at a complete loss as to how to show his Mormon friend that he is correct and that his friend is wrong in his respective beliefs.

Counterfeit Claims of the Spirit’s Witness.

[_JAK]

For many years I wondered what happened to A.N. Wilson, author of Jesus, a critical look at Christianity. I see from Craig's website that Wilson (who was atheist) has "returned to the fold".

A.N.Wilson.

Wilson's April Daily Mail Article Religion of hatred: Why we should no longer be cowed by the chattering classes ruling Britain who sneer at Christianity.

This reminds me too much of Malcolm Muggeridge, another who returned to the fold late in life.

I read a few of Wilson's books and watched a video he did debunking Christianity, and I believe he was actually quite "religious" but lost his faith. In any case, this is a very interesting development as I had wondered for years what happened to Wilson.

The absurdity of willful ignorance is blind faith.

According to Religious Tolerance there are “over 1,500 Christian faith groups in North America.” In general, these faith groups are in competition for followers. They have different perspectives and do not agree on doctrines and dogmas.

In part, Ray A stated:
This reminds me too much of Malcolm Muggeridge, another who returned to the fold late in life.

Actually, Malcolm Muggeridge converted to Roman Catholicism at age 79. To say he “returned to the fold” is to beg the question of “the fold.” Roman Catholicism is not Mormonism or any other demonination within the traditions of the Protestant Reformation.

Doctrines and dogmas vary widely in Christianity. Keep in mind that Christianity is one of many world religions. Those world religions lack consensus. Therefore, for any to claim that it and only it is somehow the correct or true religion is arrogant. Moreover, none of the claims has been established to be valid over all other claims.

As for richardMdBorn’s question: “Was Muggeridge a believer early in life?”

The answer may be found in these details.

JAK

[_Ray A]

Actually, Malcolm Muggeridge converted to Roman Catholicism at age 79. To say he “returned to the fold” is to beg the question of “the fold.” Roman Catholicism is not Mormonism or any other demonination within the traditions of the Protestant Reformation.

Doctrines and dogmas vary widely in Christianity. Keep in mind that Christianity is one of many world religions. Those world religions lack consensus. Therefore, for any to claim that it and only it is somehow the correct or true religion is arrogant. Moreover, none of the claims has been established to be valid over all other claims.

As for richardMdBorn’s question: “Was Muggeridge a believer early in life?”

The answer may be found in these details.

JAK

Technically correct, but it seems like splitting hairs to me, considering Muggeridge's lifelong [supressed] "spiritual beliefs" and inclinations, as expressed in What I believe....

Ever since I can remember, the image of earthly power, whether in the guise of schoolmaster, mayor, judge, prime minister, monarch or any other, has seemed to me derisory. I was enchanted when I first read in the Pensees (Pascal being one of the small, sublime band of fellow-humans to whom one may turn and say in the deepest humility: 'I agree') about how magistrates and rulers had to be garbed in their ridiculous ceremonial robes, crowns and diadems. Otherwise, who would not see through their threadbare prentensions? I am conscious of having been ruled by buffoons, taught by idiots, preached at by hypocrites and preyed upon by charlatans in the guise of advertisers and other professional persuaders, as well as by verbose demagogues and ideologues of many opinions, all false.

It's not as if Muggeridge had never considered Christianity, never considered baptism and the priesthood (he did), never read the scriptures (he did). Have you read his book? Titled,

Jesus Rediscovered. (Emphasis mine.)

[_JAK]

Actually, Malcolm Muggeridge converted to Roman Catholicism at age 79. To say he “returned to the fold” is to beg the question of “the fold.” Roman Catholicism is not Mormonism or any other demonination within the traditions of the Protestant Reformation.

Doctrines and dogmas vary widely in Christianity. Keep in mind that Christianity is one of many world religions. Those world religions lack consensus. Therefore, for any to claim that it and only it is somehow the correct or true religion is arrogant. Moreover, none of the claims has been established to be valid over all other claims.

As for richardMdBorn’s question: “Was Muggeridge a believer early in life?”

The answer may be found in these details.

JAK

Technically correct, but it seems like splitting hairs to me, considering Muggeridge's lifelong [supressed] "spiritual beliefs" and inclinations, as expressed in What I believe....

Ever since I can remember, the image of earthly power, whether in the guise of schoolmaster, mayor, judge, prime minister, monarch or any other, has seemed to me derisory. I was enchanted when I first read in the Pensees (Pascal being one of the small, sublime band of fellow-humans to whom one may turn and say in the deepest humility: 'I agree') about how magistrates and rulers had to be garbed in their ridiculous ceremonial robes, crowns and diadems. Otherwise, who would not see through their threadbare prentensions? I am conscious of having been ruled by buffoons, taught by idiots, preached at by hypocrites and preyed upon by charlatans in the guise of advertisers and other professional persuaders, as well as by verbose demagogues and ideologues of many opinions, all false.

It's not as if Muggeridge had never considered Christianity, never considered baptism and the priesthood (he did), never read the scriptures (he did). Have you read his book? Titled,

Jesus Rediscovered. (Emphasis mine.)

It’s important to keep in mind that in Malcolm Muggeridge’s most mentally alert years and his perceptions were different than what he expressed late in life. In the reference which you provided, Muggeridge expressed this: “I disbelieve in progress, the pursuit of happiness and all the concomitant notions and projects for creating a society in which human beings find ever greater contentment by being given in ever greater abundance the means to satisfy their material and bodily hopes and desires.”

That (as we take the reference and him at his word) is the expression of a man near the end of life. Without question, those who see the inevitable (death) a short time before them tend to believe that which is emotionally comforting.

He also evaluates thus: “The half-century in which I have been consciously alive seems to me to have been quite exceptionally destructive, murderous and brutal.”

Again, it is likely an honest perception at that point in time. Even if his view, it does not justify his virtual death bed conversion to Roman Catholicism. It may explain it.

Now consider an aging man’s comment: “Education, the great mumbo-jumbo and fraud of the age, purports to equip us to live, and is prescribed as a universal remedy for everything, from juvenile delinquency to premature senility. For the most part, it only serves to enlarge stupidity, inflate conceit, enhance credulity and put those subjected to it, at the mercy of brain-washers with printing presses, radio and television at their disposal.” (your post’s reference)

On the contrary, education and information gives us modern medicine, your computer, NASA, the Hubble, the complex of innovation in every area of advancing information. It’s not “mumbo-jumbo and fraud” as he is quoted. He may have felt that emotional response to “education,” but it is an incorrect characterization of education and what it has afforded us who are fortunate enough to embrace and take advantage of information that can be directly applied to our health and to our judgments.

Muggeridge states (in your cite): “…the Christian position still seems to me preferable to any scientific-materialist one, however cogent and enlightened.” Keep in mind that this is a generic statement delivered by a man of significant age. He did not become a Mormon. He did not become any other of the plethora of denominations, the product of the Protestant Reformation. He converted to Roman Catholicism.

Ray A stated:
Technically correct, but it seems like splitting hairs to me, considering Muggeridge's lifelong [supressed] "spiritual beliefs" and inclinations, as expressed in What I believe....

On the contrary, we don’t know that he had “lifelong [suppressed] ‘spiritual beliefs’…” as you state. That’s your conjecture. There is ample documentation that people express differently their views and even beliefs at age 79 than at age 39 (or 9). Their views may well have changed. Their emotions and emotional response to life is subjective. There is no refutation to emotions are unreliable as I previously characterized. The fact that people have different views, different emotional perceptions at various points in their lives is ample evidence that emotions are unreliable.

It is a leap to an emotional conjecture to consider that Muggeridge has only now in his waning years arrived at correct emotional perspective. It’s not an intellectual response. It’s emotional.

Ray A stated:
It's not as if Muggeridge had never considered Christianity, never considered baptism and the priesthood (he did), never read the scriptures (he did).

We don’t know that he “considered Christianity” fractured as that religion is. He converted to Roman Catholicism at an old age. Roman Catholicism is a very specific and historically long religious perspective. Even if one makes the case that he “considered baptism and the priesthood,” the fact is that he did not embrace it or accept it or believe in it. That he may have read “scriptures” does not mean that he embraced any singular interpretation of Christian scriptures. To speculate that he did is supposition only. His life demonstrates that he rejected religious doctrine until old age. People who are looking at near-term death are often emotional. Emotions tend to be irrational. They emerge as a most subjective response to a situation or a series of situations. In addition, they lack objectivity.

We can find many who began life in some religious organization, who accepted blindly in their early years what that organization (as reinforced by their parents) perpetuated as true without question. Yet many of these people who gained more information, education, and perspective came to the conclusion that the religious propaganda was not sustained by facts. Religion employs truth by assertion. That is an unreliable method for discovery. Most religions are rooted in ancient scripts which have a multiplicity of interpretations. Hence, we have many Christian groups marketing their own version of Christianity.

A near-death emotional conversion to one of many Christian denominations does not give that denomination credibility or superiority over other denominations. Unlike religious dogmas, education (information) is ever open to new detail. It is open to modification the moment new information offers a superior explanation to a question. While religion does not evolve quickly, it does so far behind the curve of current knowledge. Ancient scripts must be justified and reinterpreted so as to preserve their truth absolute. Contrary to that, the scientific method is open to new information. Contrary to that (specifically), medical science is open to tested application of treatment to illness. Contrary to that, the science of any new discovery is open to better, more effective application of genuine information to a problem.

Religion is dragged kicking and screaming toward reevaluation. Religion is not open to revised conclusions in that it has declared it has already articulated truth absolute. Education, information, or science (all part of the same) remains open to new and greater information. All are open to rapid change if the evidence warrants that change. All are not limited by dogma as is religion. Rather, intellectual inquiry is constantly seeking reliable, tested confirmation for conclusions. Moreover, all are quick to absorb and incorporate that which added information yields. Such is not the case with religion.

Muggeridge’s late-life emotional responses, not withstanding, are pontifications of generalized criticism. They lack the specificity of the intellectual rigor which affords us modern medicine, the very computers and Internet upon which we can rely. (I mention computer only in that it is our common denominator in discussion on a forum such as this.) We rely on intellectual rigor for what we know, what we can demonstrate, what we can apply, and what we can share with common agreement. Religion lacks that and relies upon truth by claim.

JAK

[_Ray A]

That (as we take the reference and him at his word) is the expression of a man near the end of life. Without question, those who see the inevitable (death) a short time before them tend to believe that which is emotionally comforting.

I don't disagree with this at all, and it strikes me as probably an accurate assessment. Muggeridge was also known as a flamboyant "womaniser". Having spent a lifetime serving Mammon, he finds God at 79, then lectures everyone to avoid behaving as he did for 79 years. That doesn't mean there isn't some truth to his aging remorseful reflections (about the vanity of a life such as he led), conversion, and subquently lamenting "chronicles of wasted time". Would he have lived any differently at 39? Unlikely, even if realising then what he realised at 79.

The same applies to Wilson, who candidly admits that much of his re-conversion is motivated by a strong distaste of "anti-God, anti-religion intellectuals", like himself. In spite of the apparent hypocrisy, perhaps there could be some truth in what they say, though I disagree with how they both went overboard. It's sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. It could have been done with much more tact, but they were and are both journalists. Wilson is at least honest in admitting that what he believes cannot be proven. So it is subjective, as you point out. It sort of reminds me of Yul Brynner warning, "don't smoke!". There is, however, some objective truth in that advice, in spite of Brynner's mistake.

[_JAK]

That (as we take the reference and him at his word) is the expression of a man near the end of life. Without question, those who see the inevitable (death) a short time before them tend to believe that which is emotionally comforting.

I don't disagree with this at all, and it strikes me as probably an accurate assessment. Muggeridge was also known as a flamboyant "womaniser". Having spent a lifetime serving Mammon, he finds God at 79, then lectures everyone to avoid behaving as he did for 79 years. That doesn't mean there isn't some truth to his aging remorseful reflections (about the vanity of a life such as he led), conversion, and subquently lamenting "chronicles of wasted time". Would he have lived any differently at 39? Unlikely, even if realising then what he realised at 79.

The same applies to Wilson, who candidly admits that much of his re-conversion is motivated by a strong distaste of "anti-God, anti-religion intellectuals", like himself. In spite of the apparent hypocrisy, perhaps there could be some truth in what they say, though I disagree with how they both went overboard. It's sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. It could have been done with much more tact, but they were and are both journalists. Wilson is at least honest in admitting that what he believes cannot be proven. So it is subjective, as you point out. It sort of reminds me of Yul Brynner warning, "don't smoke!". There is, however, some objective truth in that advice, in spite of Brynner's mistake.

Yul Brynner’s warning (I remember it), was made when he knew he was dying of lung cancer. He knew the facts, and there was no speculation as there is with religious claims.

Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the United States House) is fond of religiosity. He preaches about morality, opposes divorce, yet has been divorced twice and married three times. He had multiple affairs while married.

He made multiple appearances at Christian Coalition groups and preached/preaches “family values.” He may run for President in 2012. It likely will not be on moral values. What hypocracy.

Rudy Giuliani’s three marriages might not hurt him as much in that he hasn’t lectured people on moral values.

Will the right-wing religious fundamentalists accept either of these two as the standard bearer for the Republican Party?

The multiplicity of questions is mind-boggling.

JAK