Philologos wrote:
You - for whatever reason - seem to feel that if I disagree with Group A's consensus [differing with the psychosocial folk on what might be abusive, for example], that is not good, and if I also reject Group B's consensus [taking a view of God that cannot be supported from any mainstream theology] this is plain bad.
Well.... yeah. In both cases, the underlying issue is method. A is using a good method given the assumptions. B is using a good method using the assumptions. You don't seem to have anything nearly as solid on your method though, which is why the suggestion of projection is presented. If your notion of God were unorthodox, but found using a historical method and/or philosophical analysis of some form, y'know, a good justification structure, then that's fine. But.... often status quos are justified, meaning they get the presumption.
Quote:
I - for better or worse - have always trusted my own perceptions and my own conclusions as more reliable than the group. Doubting Thomas - I gotta see and decide for myself.
But you have to have evidence, and the evidence has gotta be good.
Quote:
You - for better or worse - and I do not know if it is innate or if it is an acquired habit of thought - I myself learned patterns closer to yours in my teens and maintained them at least in part through my 30s - appear to assume that the theories and perceptions of a peer-reviewing discipline are likely to be more reliable than those of any individual.
Well.... yes. And this is often a sensible assumption. Even further, you... don't seem to focus or use much method.
Quote:
Of course either group or individual; may be wrong. It is highly probable that in many respects both are.
But we gotta look at method.