Secularist Dogma: Final Refuge Of The Unfeeling?

[William Schryver]

I have, as has been reported, essentially retired from my brief and somewhat mercurial career as a Mormon message board participant. But recent events prompt me to pursue a topic of rather integral relation to questions of faith, and faith in the restored gospel in particular.

I have a friend with whom I have enjoyed a rather close relationship since high school. Indeed, he is and has been the only person whom I could or ever would characterize as "my best friend." That said, our relationship has dwindled to distant and strained in recent years, coinciding with his transition from believing Latter-day Saint to confirmed secularist—a path that commenced with disillusion consequent to his experience on a stake high council, a calling which we both, quite coincidentally, held at the same time in our respective stakes.

Consistent with the common trajectory I have observed in those who follow such a path, he has just recently sought to reestablish the line of communication between us—primarily, it would seem, in order to now evangelize to me his newly adopted world view. Of course, I have long noted that a large proportion of those who abandon faith in the restored gospel eventually reach the point where evangelizing their unfaith becomes imperative—almost, as it were, a final rite of passage wherein their reconstructed world view is put to its ultimate test of potency.

With that preface, I include below the brief e-mail exchange I have had with this friend in the past few days. We initially had a conversation by phone, during which he recited a quote from the late Reuben Abel, Professor of Philosophy for many years at CCNY, and a rather noted mid-20th century advocate of the precepts of naturalistic humanism. I immediately zeroed in on what I felt was Abel’s misuse of the term “dogma,” and my friend and I terminated our conversation with my call for a definition of terms, specifically of the word ”dogma”, which I reminded him was of Greek origin, and whose literal interpretation is “that which, to one, seems to be.”

My friend replied thusly to my e-mail proposing a definition of the term:

I did look into dogma, but it probably is not relevant because the author I quoted speaks English and I believe he is using the word without any tricks. "Even if philosophical analysis does not always produce new knowledge, or get us as far along the road to enlightenment as we would wish, it is nonetheless essential that we prefer articulate reasoned uncertainty over inarticluate or irrational dogma." Reuben Abel. In context, I don't think dogma is the crux; the thought is similar to Voltaire's, "A very popular error--having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack upon one's convictions."

I have now replied to him:

Abel's statement is clearly based on the assumption that dogmata*, by definition, are "inarticulate" and/or "irrational." That is a demonstrably false assumption. Indeed, I'm convinced the argument could be made that most dogmata, at least those of the formal variety, are both reasoned and rational. Whether they are true and/or useful is another question altogether.

In any event, it occurs to me that Abel's statement is more or less tautologous in its essentials: that we should prefer the articulate and reasoned over the inarticulate and unreasoned. I doubt such a proposition is very susceptible to argument, except as a question of preference. Even so, it is necessarily limited to those questions of preference that present both alternatives--the reasoned and the unreasoned. In my experience, not all questions in life are so easily described, and even in the case of those that do present such stark alternatives, I have observed that the "unreasoned" or instinctive answer is quite often superior to its reasoned, rational alternative. As a matter of fact, for many years now I have deeply pondered precisely this question, and I am more convinced than ever that, in matters of supreme import and extreme complexity, an appeal to inarticulated instincts** is quite frequently superior to the ponderous vagaries of human reason.

As for the notion of deliberate deconstruction of conviction as a moral imperative for the "reasoning" participant in life, well ... let's just say that the proposition is far from a novelty to me. Indeed, I have observed that this idea is, by all indications, a de rigueur component of what I have long since dubbed "boilerplate declarations of unfaith." I am becoming increasingly convinced that every newly minted secularist receives this Voltaire quotation, printed on a little slip of paper, as part of his catechism, and is solemnly adjured to tape it on the fridge door, or the bathroom mirror, or perhaps both.

-WS

* = Here is the dictionary definition: dogma. I understand how the word is used in contexts such as that of Abel's statement--narrowly applied and loaded. Strictly speaking, a "dogma" is merely "something held as an established opinion," with no judgment of merit attached thereto. Nevertheless, I will suspend my understanding of the word for the duration of this discussion, and temporarily allow that it means merely: "irrational and likely superstitious beliefs held by ignorant and largely unreasoning people."

** = I should emphasize that when I employ the term "inarticulated instincts" I understand such things to be reflexive actions informed by substantial practice and experience rather than merely basic instincts such as those typified by an animal deciding to fight or flee.

I do not know if the conversation will proceed. Previous to now, I am persuaded that my friend has assiduously avoided such discussions with me on account of his lack of confidence when it comes to advocating for his position. It remains to be seen if that condition no longer obtains.

The question I propose for discussion in this thread is as follows: Is a reliance upon pure humanistic reason the final refuge of those for whom the concepts of inspiration and personal revelation have lost their meaning and power?

[CV75]

Is a reliance upon pure humanistic reason the final refuge of those for whom the concepts of inspiration and personal revelation have lost their meaning and power?

I would say not, since, as with any refuge, it will ultimately fail and others will have to take its place. If not enjoying the progress toward charity that inspiration and personal revelation bring, there are so many substances to abuse and addictions to adopt when reason fails!

[mfbukowski]

The question I propose for discussion in this thread is as follows: Is a reliance upon pure humanistic reason the final refuge of those for whom the concepts of inspiration and personal revelation have lost their meaning and power?

Well frankly I think that seeing a conflict between humanism and Mormonism misses the point. God is, after all, human. I don't think the dear professor understands the potential in Mormonism to unify with humanism when one is finally willing to throw out all the Neoplatonic sectarian philosophy that uninformed Mormons still cling to in desperation.

Frankly, I see the understanding Mormonism in terms of humanism expanded to the point of the possibility of humans becoming gods to be the philosophical future of Mormonism

I think the professor was using the term "dogma" more as a synonym for "unreasoned belief" than anything else.

The roots of this unity between humanism and Mormonism, at least on the secular philosophical side, can be found in the philosophy of William James, most particularly in his "Varieties of Religious Experience", then the line can be traced to John Dewey, who was a full fledged "humanist" if there ever was one. Overall, the philosophy is known as Pragmatism and has had many notable adherents, and I find it highly compatible with Mormonism.

Here is an article by David Paulsen about William James:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_speculative_philosophy/v013/13.2paulsen.html

And here is another link to more info "certifying" James to be understandable in terms of Mormonism

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/

I think incidentally that Ostler's views on "translation" are also related to this general philosophical position, as well and the "catalyst" understanding of the source of the Book of Abraham; one can also see a relationship between these views and linguistic constructivism. I mention that because I know of course, that these are areas in which you are interested and could be an easy way for you to relate to the concepts.

[mfbukowski]

Deleted for re-formatting - to be re-posted soon

Edited August 25, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Daniel Peterson]

Interesting -- albeit sad -- opening post.

There's long been a more or less friendly relationship between Mormons and William James.

His Varieties of Religious Experience cites a prominent Mormon at some length in a note (I think I know who it was, and actually, in pursuit of the Mormon's identity, once examined the original manuscript of the book back in the Houghton Library at Harvard, though the results of that examination were inconclusive) and gives a pretty sympathetic account of Mormonism.

If I'm not mistaken, Truman Madsen did a master's thesis on William James.

For what it's worth, the current executive director of the Maxwell Institute, M. Gerald Bradford, wrote his doctoral dissertation on William James, as well.

[Calm]

Weird. Duplicate post.

There has been a rash of them going on lately off and on due to some glitch of the board. The mods are working on it, but it appears to be complicated. Just be extra patient waiting to see if the post has gone through and don't hit 'add reply' again if some error message appears (such as some phrase with "forbidden" in it which seems to be the more recent problem). Instead make sure you save your post prior to hitting reply and then check to see if it went through before trying again.

Sometimes the board dups. the post even if you've only hit the button once, perhaps it's become sentient and duplicates on its own posts it really likes.

[Analytics]

I have, as has been reported, essentially retired from my brief and somewhat mercurial career as a Mormon message board participant.

Great introduction to a long message board post, LOL.

Consistent with the common trajectory I have observed in those who follow such a path, he has just recently sought to reestablish the line of communication between us—primarily, it would seem, in order to now evangelize to me his newly adopted world view. Of course, I have long noted that a large proportion of those who abandon faith in the restored gospel eventually reach the point where evangelizing their unfaith becomes imperative—almost, as it were, a final rite of passage wherein their reconstructed world view is put to its ultimate test of potency.

1 Nephi 8:12

I do not know if the conversation will proceed. Previous to now, I am persuaded that my friend has assiduously avoided such discussions with me on account of his lack of confidence when it comes to advocating for his position. It remains to be seen if that condition no longer obtains.

The question I propose for discussion in this thread is as follows: Is a reliance upon pure humanistic reason the final refuge of those for whom the concepts of inspiration and personal revelation have lost their meaning and power?

Given the fact that his position is incredibly stronger than yours, if he does bow out of the conversation it will be because of a sense of futility or pity, not a lack of confidence.

In any case, it seems there are two issues going on here. One has to do with truth, and the other is with the more ethereal aspects of life; aesthetics, inspiration, meaning, etc. Just because somebody has lost faith that personal revelation and inspiration are reliable sources of truth doesn’t mean that such things have lost meaning.

Speaking for myself, I find lots of inspiration in some religions; as on example, I find chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians to be a truly inspirational piece of literature. As a matter of fact, I find a lot of inspiration in the New Testament. But that doesn’t mean that Jesus really rose from the dead.

But I don’t find a lot of truth in the Bible. If you examine it with a reasonably critical mind, it’s clear that God didn’t create the world in 7 days, the first man’s name wasn’t Adam, and he didn’t live 6,000 years ago. There wasn’t a world-wide flood, and there wasn’t a tower of Babel. Jesus didn’t touch some rocks to illuminate a boat to sail to the new world, Abraham didn’t write with his own hand upon the papyrus that Joseph Smith found, etc. It’s just a bunch of mythology, and in general it isn’t true.

Humanistic reason is in fact the strongest position for those who care about the truth, and understand the intrinsic weakness in “revelation” and “inspiration” as filters for truth. Additionally, Humanism is an inspiring, inspirational world view.

[LeSellers]

don't hit 'add reply' again if some error message appears (such as some phrase with "forbidden" in it which seems to be the more recent problem). Instead make sure you save your post prior to hitting reply and then check to see if it went through before trying again.

Refreshing the page seems to trigger a second copy when the 504 "Forbidden" error page pops up.

If it happens, go back to the General (or whatever) Discussions page and and refresh it. If your message went through, it will show up there to confirm it. I'd refresh the Discussion page a few times (3~5) before going back to the original offending page and refreshing it. A dupped message is better (for some, anyway) than a lost one.

Lehi

[Calm]

uninformed Mormons still cling to in desperation.

I think more often they cling to it because it's comfortable. Adults have very busy lives and who wants to go through it with the back of your mind always feeling like you are behind on your homework....that feeling is meant to drive younger people to push themselves, not older.

I also find it very interesting that so many protest against the new paradigm by claiming those considering it to be confused by or even drowning in the philosophies of men. Without knowing the intellectual history (I think I am using that term right here, correct me if I am wrong) of the concepts we hold near and dear, often we have no clue that it's just another of a long line of concepts created by philosophy now seeming so natural, logical and obvious because it's been embedded into our cultural framework.

[mfbukowski]

This is something that I wrote several years ago- I might disagree with a few of the points now, but overall I think it presents my views of the similarities between what I might call "Mormon Humanism" distinguishing it from "secular humanism".

I have said before that if man is God, then humanism , (with adjustments, obviously), can be seen as theology.

In my study of "American Philosophy"- ie: Pragmatism, the more it is totally clear to me that Joseph had to be an American, as quoted above.

The outlook of the "raw frontier" to be conquered is mirrored in "matter unorganized" waiting to be organized, and the view that Man is God and creator of

the universe all fit together perfectly. And of course there are obvious parallels in all of humanism.

In fact, this may be a good time to post something I have been meaning to get to for awhile. Recently on another thread, there was some talk of Humanism and

the Humanistic Manifesto, written in 1933.

A hundred years before that manifesto, another "philosopher" named Joseph, not only saw the importance of the same principles, but also carried the position

further by harmonizing the yet-to-be-written manifesto with, of all things, Christianity. On this basis alone Joseph can be seen even in a secular sense to

be a "prophet", forseeing ideas yet to be written.

I will post a section of that Manifesto and insert into it the parallels with Mormonism. (Note: The link to this was no longer working- but this is the "Humanist Manifesto of 1933" and it can be found on the internet.)

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

The Mormon position is a hybrid of this view and the traditional Christian view- the universe is "organized" by God (and on a personal level our individual "worlds" or if you will, "world views") are organized out of unorganized matter, but the matter is eternal.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

This of course implies evolution- I personally have no problem with that- but on the other hand it can also be seen another way: that Adam was created out of the dust of this world, and God works according to natural processes. The King Follette Discourse can also be seen here- the notion that Gods and matter have always existed and that man and God both are perpetuated according to natural, continuous, processes.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

There is no such thing as immaterial matter, and spirit is indeed "matter" but more refined. We affirm the unity of "reality as experience" both subjectively and objectively defined (in my view)

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

In one sense, this can be seen as a re-assertion of #2 above. Certainly the Book of Mormon is heavily laden with what happens in the interaction between individuals and their culture and how cultural swings - from pride to humility for example- affect the religiosity of people in the culture. Also it is clear to me that linguistic constructivism sheds light on this, and that I believe relates to Abraham 4, where God organizes the world by definitions- "calling" their work "the first day" etc. In a sense one can see God (Yaweh) as the Word- who creates the world through language/culture- the Word who organizes all things.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

At first glance, this might appear to deny the tenets of Mormonism, but I suggest there is another way to see this. Mormonism is indeed highly "empirical" in the sense that it requires personal spiritual experience to verify its truth claims, and certainly the "method of verification" found in Alma 32 suggests a type of "scientific method" applied to morality and happiness. One is to test claims through experience and determine for themselves if they are true or not. So though the results may not be "scientific" certainly the methodology suggested is definitely a parallel to the scientific method.

TO BE CONTINUED BELOW

[mfbukowski]

FROM ABOVE

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

"All creeds are abominable" - Mormonism can be seen in terms of Dewey's reconstruction of philosophy, as well as the restoration of truth. For me, his "reconstruction" parallels the "restoration"

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

A very Mormon notion- seeking out of the best books- study everything, all of truth is one whole.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

Mormons would agree with the spirit of this, but certainly deny any implications contained of no after-life. We are here to do our best during this life, but also do better in the next. In fact, a goal of exaltation is beyond the dreams of secular humanists. Our goal is perfection in the here and now, AND exaltation in the afterlife.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

Pretty clear disagreement here I think. But I think it IS interesting that they acknowledge a presence of "religious emotion". On that we would agree. They just channel inappropriately because of a lack of understanding.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

Total disagreement here, unless one sees all Mormon ideas as "not supernatural" in principle due to our materialism and due to undiscovered science, which IS after all a quite Mormon notion. It is interesting however that again, they are acknowledging "religious emotions" but are understanding them in a "natural" way.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

The pragmatic common sense of Brigham Young comes to mind, but of course the attitude here seems to be anti-religous. The phrase "manly attitudes" certainly reflect that it was written in 1933.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

Couldn't get more "Mormon" than this. Alma 32 completely. Saying that our pragmatically proven lifestyle "adds to the satisfactions of life" is an understatement!

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

Mormonism restores the truth, all other creeds should be "reconstituted" or "reconstructed" through converting the world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

This certainly fits with what Mormons believe about the Millenium and living the law of consecration, but for now, I think we would disagree overall with this point of view.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

I think when I wrote this the parallels with Mormonism for the 15th point were so obvious I didn't even comment.

One could substitute "Mormonism" for "humanism" in most of this document and have it all fit perfectly

Edited August 25, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Pahoran]

Great introduction to a long message board post, LOL.

1 Nephi 8:12

Given the fact that his position is incredibly stronger than yours, if he does bow out of the conversation it will be because of a sense of futility or pity, not a lack of confidence.

"Incredibly stronger?" Exaggerate much?

Sorry to be the one to break this to you, "Analytics," but it isn't a given and it isn't a fact. At best it's an ideological position; in my observation, it frequently arises from nothing more substantial than fairly baseless assumptions of intellectual superiority on behalf of those who embrace it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

If I'm not mistaken, Truman Madsen did a master's thesis on William James.

I'm not sure if this is is the thesis or not, but he did write a very sympathetic view of James, which can be found here

[stemelbow]

Additionally, Humanism is an inspiring, inspirational world view.

Is it really? Inspiring, inspirational? (-;

[mfbukowski]

I think more often they cling to it because it's comfortable. Adults have very busy lives and who wants to go through it with the back of your mind always feeling like you are behind on your homework....that feeling is meant to drive younger people to push themselves, not older.

I also find it very interesting that so many protest against the new paradigm by claiming those considering it to be confused by or even drowning in the philosophies of men. Without knowing the intellectual history (I think I am using that term right here, correct me if I am wrong) of the concepts we hold near and dear, often we have no clue that it's just another of a long line of concepts created by philosophy now seeming so natural, logical and obvious because it's been embedded into our cultural framework.

I would agree. Now in re-reading that, it sounds a bit harsh. But now it is there, and quoted, I won't change it for that reason.

I have been seeing things this this way now for 40 years and actually the reason I joined the church 30 years ago is because I saw the parallels then.

That's what turned an atheist into a believer, coupled with an amazing dose of a spiritual experience to go with it! But I can definitely relate to being "locked in" to a comfortable view!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"Incredibly stronger?" Exaggerate much?

Sorry to be the one to break this to you, "Analytics," but it isn't a given and it isn't a fact. At best it's an ideological position; in my observation, it frequently arises from nothing more substantial than fairly baseless assumptions of intellectual superiority on behalf of those who embrace it.

Regards,

Pahoran

You noticed this too? I thought it was an interesting statement from Analytics. I don't know how he could substantiate it. And I have know idea how he could make it a fact.

[mfbukowski]

The links between the manifesto and William James' philosophy become clearer when one realizes that John Dewey, a disciple of James, was actually a signatory to the original 1933 Manifesto

Main article: Humanist Manifesto I The first manifesto, entitled simply A Humanist Manifesto, was written in 1933 primarily by Roy Wood Sellars and Raymond Bragg and was published with thirty-four signatories including philosopher John Dewey. Unlike the later ones, the first Manifesto talked of a new "religion", and referred to Humanism as a religious movement to transcend and replace previous religions based on allegations of supernatural revelation. The document outlines a fifteen-point belief system, which, in addition to a secular outlook, opposes "acquisitive and profit-motivated society" and outlines a worldwide egalitarian society based on voluntary mutual cooperation, language which was considerably softened by the Humanists' board, owners of the document, twenty years later.

The title "A Humanist Manifesto" - rather than "The Humanist Manifesto" - was intentional, predictive of later Manifestos to follow, as indeed has been the case. Unlike the creeds of major organized religions, the setting out of Humanist ideals in these Manifestos is an ongoing process. Indeed, in some communities of Humanists the compilation of personal Manifestos is actively encouraged, and throughout the Humanist movement it is accepted that the Humanist Manifestos are not permanent or authoritative dogmas but are to be subject to ongoing critique.

http://en.wikipedia....anist_Manifesto

Note the use here of "dogma" and an interesting parallel with the notion of an "open canon".

Edited August 25, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

"Incredibly stronger?" Exaggerate much?

Sorry to be the one to break this to you, "Analytics," but it isn't a given and it isn't a fact. At best it's an ideological position; in my observation, it frequently arises from nothing more substantial than fairly baseless assumptions of intellectual superiority on behalf of those who embrace it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Of course it is a fact. Reason has a great track record for figuring out the truth, and revelation does not. Of course I don't expect you to concede this point, but nevertheless, it is true.

[Chris Smith]

You noticed this too? I thought it was an interesting statement from Analytics. I don't know how he could substantiate it. And I have know idea how he could make it a fact.

I'm inclined to agree with Analytics about the strength of the humanist position. I recall as an eight(ish) year old being suddenly seized with a sense of dreadful certainty that someday I would lose my faith and become an atheist. Even then I could detect some of the incongruities in the Christian worldview, and recognized the similarity between belief in God and belief in other ethereal beings such as Santa Claus. My faith persisted for many years thereafter, but I'm convinced that this was largely due to religion's powerful social and ritual mechanisms rather than the inherent coherence and explanatory power of Christianity as an intellectual system. It's actually a remarkable testament to secular humanism's intellectual appeal that it's on the rise in spite of its poor public image, organizational weakness, low birth rate, and generally unsatisfying rewards system. Is secular humanism a much stronger intellectual position? IMHO, yes. But it is also a much weaker "meme" in many respects.

[stemelbow]

In a hundred years it'll be interesting to learn where we'll be on this. Humanism will be much different than what it is, mostly because more learning, technology, and ideas will be bandied about. Religion will too change significantly in response to the ability of humans to explain how the process of learning that has our trust will reflect how religious claims remains possible.

With the growing trendiness of holding to an atheistic humanism, it'll be interesting to see how that will shape religious thought, and LDS thought in particular--chipping at the claims as much as possible. Even then I'd probably conclude much like I do now--we simply don't know as much as we pretend to know, and our faith in eliminating possibilities for the sake of drawing conclusions while helpful in some respects isn't always getting us a very good view of truth.

We'll see.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm inclined to agree with Analytics about the strength of the humanist position. I recall as an eight(ish) year old being suddenly seized with a sense of dreadful certainty that someday I would lose my faith and become an atheist. Even then I could detect some of the incongruities in the Christian worldview, and recognized the similarity between belief in God and belief in other ethereal beings such as Santa Claus. My faith persisted for many years thereafter, but I'm convinced that this was largely due to religion's powerful social and ritual mechanisms rather than the inherent coherence and explanatory power of Christianity as an intellectual system. It's actually a remarkable testament to secular humanism's intellectual appeal that it's on the rise in spite of its poor public image, organizational weakness, low birth rate, and generally unsatisfying rewards system. Is secular humanism a much stronger intellectual position? IMHO, yes. But it is also a much weaker "meme" in many respects.

Interesting perspective. I have to say that I am not shocked you would agree with him. Is that my "humanism" or is it revelation?

Well let me grab some corn and think on it for a bit and see what Analytics says.

[Ariarates]

Will, you seem very convinced that you are right and your friend is wrong. Maybe. But what if you are wrong?

[Calm]

uninformed Mormons still cling to in desperation.

I think more often they cling to it because it's comfortable. Adults have very busy lives and who wants to go through it with the back of your mind always feeling like you are behind on your homework....that feeling is meant to drive younger people to push themselves, not older.

I also find it very interesting that so many protest against the new paradigm by claiming those considering it to be confused by or even drowning in the philosophies of men. Without knowing the intellectual history (I think I am using that term right here, correct me if I am wrong) of the concepts we hold near and dear, often we have no clue that it's just another of a long line of concepts created by philosophy now seeming so natural, logical and obvious because it's been embedded into our cultural framework.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Will, you seem very convinced that you are right and your friend is wrong.

Is not everybody convinced they are right?

Maybe.

Ought oh, here it comes.

But what if you are wrong?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo. people are never wrong. What has to be shown is that Will is indeed wrong. Not just asserted with a "maybe".

[Analytics]

Interesting perspective. I have to say that I am not shocked you would agree with him. Is that my "humanism" or is it revelation?

Well let me grab some corn and think on it for a bit and see what Analytics says.

Just to flesh out what I’m talking about, a reasonably skeptical humanist admits the fact that as human beings we don’t know very much, but that the best way to figure stuff out is through the scientific method—make hypotheses, skeptically try to disprove them, only tentatively accept the results, and keep observing.

In contrast, revelation has to deal with God authoritatively telling you the truth, and then you having faith that what you were told is true. Because of the alleged attributes of God and this faith aspect, it’s considered a good thing in certain religious circles to be quite confident that what God told you was true.

How can the two methods be tested? I’d suggest we could take a piece of knowledge that we agree upon now, and investigate which approach figured out the truth first. Mormons already do this. For example, the health benefits of the Word of Wisdom might be something that revelation figured out before humanists. In contrast, the fact that there was no global flood was something that humanists figured out before those who had faith in Biblical revelations.

It could be argued that any given scientific insight could be the result of revelation: despite the revelation that had been embraced to the contrary, one could argue that Copernicus figuring out that the earth goes around the sun is an incidence of revelation. But even then, the key to embracing this new revelation rather than the old revelation is to be a humanist who is skeptical about revelation and sets out to test things scientifically, rather than somebody who has faith in the revelation you've already accepted.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Analytics