Secularist Dogma: Final Refuge Of The Unfeeling?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Interesting. Hmmmm. I am not sure were to go with this. Like I said, I will go grab some corn and think on this a bit.

[stemelbow]

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.

Hey Analytics, I'm going to try responding thusly (even though you didn't respond to me--and I'm sticking my beak in here without solicitation): But according to the scientific method isn't there a need to put your trust in, or have faith in, the notion that the methods used will get us the most reliable truth? Or perhaps better put, isn't it faith to suggest that the conclusions reached via scientific method are true, as we rely on the best possible explanation quite often?

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.

Granted, but that does not suggest the two are mutually exclusive for some believers.

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.

Or interestingly, the notion that there were Nephites. Perhaps according to the scientific method we'd be forced to say there were no Nephites, at least for now. But if there really were Nephites, as the BoM suggests, then we really need, in our limited capacity, something other than the scientific method to learn a truth. Perhaps in the future science will provide a better case for Nephites, but it isn't there now, no? In this, you see what I mean by putting faith in the scientific method?

[Maidservant]

In my view, Mormonism encompasses the best of humanism because Mormonism encompasses the best of all worldviews and belief systems . . . we are gradually being brought into one around the same table to break bread within a covenant relationship. But (in my view) Mormonism does not favor humanism over, say, the Tree of Life eastern-ish religious philosophy. They are both there. Neither favored. All in one . . . and better then they were before in a synergistic, revelatory, real time, real God sense.

Also in my view I have long ago dismissed the construct of "reason" or at least my perception of that construct. "Reason" is meaningless to me, because (among other things but perhaps best said) all human beings reason based on what they have in them and what they have before them. Thus, all people reach reasonable conclusions, reasonable to themselves.

Logics are logics within a system already postulated. If you substitute a new postulate, your logics are going to change. In other words . . . we name things. We can pick up a rock. It's a rock, of its own self. But our experience with that rock is mediated by language and a conceptual frame (ie reason, belief, dogma, science, culture, whatever).

Reason as it has been used is a relic of the Enlightenment and people from all walks of life are simply experiencing life differently than this, whether within their sciences, their religions or their anyway of looking at life and living it.

Placing reason opposite or in binary to inspiration (or any of its synonyms) is, again, a conceptual choice we've made over time . . . it developed. There is nothing intrinsic or natural about this paradigm. We chose it, we made it. Granted, such a paradigm (ie the Enlightenment > reason v irrationality) arose from the challenges, questions and tensions of a previous paradigm that could no longer answer the greater questions that were arriving at and being experienced by humanity. By the same process, this binary is a relic to a paradigm that cannot answer humanity questions any more, and it is falling away, allowing a new paradigm to be born that answers more questions in one (reason integrated with inspiration, for example . . . although we don't even have to think of it that way or give it that language; in fact, I think we are not; but I call it that here for this discussion).

In terms of the gospel, I have never experienced my faith as something I had to think (a certain way) or believe (a certain way). I have experienced my faith as a process of constant growth where my beliefs are challenged (by my Father) and broken down -- ESPECIALLY those beliefs that I once held as religious or faithful -- and my eyes are being opened line upon line and new beliefs given or old beliefs understood more clearly. In other words, I can NEVER remain in my same beliefs and still be living the gospel.

Of course, some beliefs are just what they are. I am my heavenly Father's daughter. The life and mission of Jesus Christ is a reality. These are my touchstones and I know them to be true. But from a standpoint of discussing conceptual frameworks, I am completely comfortable saying that I TAKE these concepts as true, and since I do take them as true, they have CONSEQUENCES. If I believe I am my heavenly Father's daughter, then that has a CONSEQUENCE. One of the consequences is: that I am his daughter. Further consequences run into the practical, where I act certain ways within society based on that belief.

The Enlightenment assumed that truth was an object that could be discovered (discovery itself as a way to approach the world, is SOOO Enlightenment, love it!). I have come to see that belief is creative and creatable.

Of course, in this view, heavenly Father is the greatest creator we know and has provided HIS beliefs for us, so that we can become LIKE HIM (if we choose), and have the gift of the consequences of HIS beliefs.

I could say a lot more on reason, but I'm sure this is plenty for now.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Maidservant

[Vance]

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

Ariarates, you seem very convinced that Will is wrong. But what if you are wrong?

It works both ways.

[Chris Smith]

Hey Analytics, I'm going to try responding thusly (even though you didn't respond to me--and I'm sticking my beak in here without solicitation): But according to the scientific method isn't there a need to put your trust in, or have faith in, the notion that the methods used will get us the most reliable truth? Or perhaps better put, isn't it faith to suggest that the conclusions reached via scientific method are true, as we rely on the best possible explanation quite often?

IMO, it's not so much faith as simple pragmatism. The fruits of science help make my life better every day. I can see them, touch them, feel them. They are predictable and reliable. As long as I don't drop my laptop in a pool of water or let the battery run out, my laptop will turn on every time I touch the power button. By contrast, the results of prayer have never proved particularly epistemologically reliable. Revelation has produced little or no viable technology or useful knowledge of the cosmos, and in fact has produced many devastatingly erroneous beliefs.

Admittedly, one could argue that prayer and religion are themselves useful technologies in the sense that they produce demonstrable health and social benefits. But these benefits are similar to the placebo effect; the effect seems to stem from the belief itself rather than from the epistemological validity of that belief. A wide range of beliefs produce equivalent effects, and there's also usually a disparity between the actual effects (which are limited in scope) and the usually-extravagant effects predicted by the belief systems themselves. (For example, Christianity predicts that believers will be able to move mountains and raise the dead, but instead the most we observe is a slight increase of lifespan due to healthy, happy living, and perhaps a slightly higher-than-average remission rate. Thus Christianity's predictions are false, but belief in the truth of those predictions nonetheless does have certain benefits.)

Edited August 25, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Analytics]

Hey Analytics, I'm going to try responding thusly (even though you didn't respond to me--and I'm sticking my beak in here without solicitation): But according to the scientific method isn't there a need to put your trust in, or have faith in, the notion that the methods used will get us the most reliable truth? Or perhaps better put, isn't it faith to suggest that the conclusions reached via scientific method are true, as we rely on the best possible explanation quite often?

That is a fair point. If the ultimate purpose of life is in fact to believe certain things which don't have much supporting evidence, then the secularists are missing the boat. I suppose approaching life as a humanist could be considered a type of faith in this way. But on the other hand, it seems you are broadening faith to mean the acceptance of the consequences of every choice you make, then “faith” seems pretty featureless. After all, if faith is the motivation that gets you out of bed, is faith also the motivation for staying in bed if you don’t think facing the day is worth it? If that’s what faith is, does any action or non-action escape it?

Granted, but that does not suggest the two are mutually exclusive for some believers.

That should go without saying. The difference between religious faith and “humanistic faith” is that religious faith has some tension with the observed material world, while humanistic faith does not.

Or interestingly, the notion that there were Nephites. Perhaps according to the scientific method we'd be forced to say there were no Nephites, at least for now. But if there really were Nephites, as the BoM suggests, then we really need, in our limited capacity, something other than the scientific method to learn a truth. Perhaps in the future science will provide a better case for Nephites, but it isn't there now, no? In this, you see what I mean by putting faith in the scientific method?

Yes, that's a great example. To me that seems to be a default, passive faith that you are describing. But on the other hand, if you see little upside and a lot of downside to walking away from a meme that works for you, then I totally agree that it would take a lot of active faith to walk away from it.

[William Schryver]

I am presently on the road and have yet to read and consider all of the replies on this thread. But after I return home later, I will do so ...

[Calm]

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....But I can definitely relate to being "locked in" to a comfortable view!

I think we are all locked into comfortable views about something (we have to be, otherwise we'd not have enough time to accomplish anything due to all the time spent on reexamining all aspects of our choices and behaviours, etc), no need to feel superior because we think we've managed to push ourselves out of our comfort zone in one area as undoubtedly we are confirmed couch potatoes in another, possibly much, much more important area.

[mfbukowski]

I think we are all locked into comfortable views about something (we have to be, otherwise we'd not have enough time to accomplish anything due to all the time spent on reexamining all aspects of our choices and behaviours, etc), no need to feel superior because we think we've managed to push ourselves out of our comfort zone in one area as undoubtedly we are confirmed couch potatoes in another, possibly much, much more important area.

OK where's the camera? Now I KNOW you're watching me!

[ldsfaqs]

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.

I'm going to disagree with you, because while what you say IS most certainly true in relation to your man-made religions, it's not at all true concerning Mormonism which IS God's Eternal and Absolute Truths. Thus, it's the only religious system that fits perfectly with the intellect, because it's actually true, while all others are mans feeble attempts, and thus always will fail intellectually speaking.

Please, understand that I'm not just saying this as some sort of posturing, I learned it and saw it. I'm a convert to the Church from being in multiple religions, and seeing how the Bible didn't fit them, and only when mormonism came along did a religion in full and accurately fit. I also left mormonism in the pride of my late youth and early 20's being ignorant of a couple of issues. But, when I finally buckled down to see if there was a True Church on the earth, and intellectually fitting (because by that time I wasn't interested in man-made religion, nor "feelings") Mormonism in the final results was the only one to actually make sense intellectually speaking.

Further, your statement is an interesting one to me, because after all, you believe you hold the "truths" of God in your view, thus how can God's Truths actually NOT being intellectually coherent, true, etc.? This gives tell something I've observed with other Christians, that is that you all don't actually really know what is true, you just think you do but deep inside know very well you don't, yet you still want to condemn others as wrong, that you have the market cornered. BTW, what you just described is the very definition of "cognitive dissonance".

[ldsfaqs]

IMO, it's not so much faith as simple pragmatism. The fruits of science help make my life better every day. I can see them, touch them, feel them. They are predictable and reliable. As long as I don't drop my laptop in a pool of water or let the battery run out, my laptop will turn on every time I touch the power button. By contrast, the results of prayer have never proved particularly epistemologically reliable. Revelation has produced little or no viable technology or useful knowledge of the cosmos, and in fact has produced many devastatingly erroneous beliefs.

Disagree again. To the Christian the fruits of prayer are made manifest and testified to every day. Obviously it's not a "perfect" system, that God's Will and our actual needs are involved, as well as others actions, but, any Christian knows and see's "quantifiable" evidences of God's working in mans lives. Of course it's not "reliable", we are dealing with mortals here that are subject to good and evil, right and wrong, etc., not inanimate objects. That doesn't somehow make Faith "not true".

Also disagree. Revelation has produced ALL technology and useful knowledge of the cosmos. Yes, there is false revelation, that which is from Satan and ourselves thus creating bad results, that's the normal mortal experience. But, just because there is bad revelation, doesn't mean there is not true, good, and right revelation. I thought you were a Christian? What a fascinating thing that you don't understand and know that principle, instead defending Atheism false and perverted arguments against "belief".

Admittedly, one could argue that prayer and religion are themselves useful technologies in the sense that they produce demonstrable health and social benefits. But these benefits are similar to the placebo effect; the effect seems to stem from the belief itself rather than from the epistemological validity of that belief. A wide range of beliefs produce equivalent effects, and there's also usually a disparity between the actual effects (which are limited in scope) and the usually-extravagant effects predicted by the belief systems themselves. (For example, Christianity predicts that believers will be able to move mountains and raise the dead, but instead the most we observe is a slight increase of lifespan due to healthy, happy living, and perhaps a slightly higher-than-average remission rate. Thus Christianity's predictions are false, but belief in the truth of those predictions nonetheless does have certain benefits.)

"Facts" i.e. true doctrines from God are not related to the prayer of a person, it's a subject of intellect that stands on it's own.

However, by study AND by faith, those doctrines can and are understood, true ones from false ones by ones effort in prayer. Of course, that's if there is an objective exercise occurring, that is the comparison of ideology's etc. to determine which if any is true. The thing with religion, most tend to simply immerse themselves in the one faith, having little contact or understanding of otherwise. I find mormons to be less susceptible to this, since we seek and study all things without an overt bias against those things, in contrast to anti-mormons which already have a bias against everything not them, thus not ever actually being able to understand and accurately represent and know other things as well, but especially their most hated targets, i.e. Mormonism.

I also completely disagree that prayer or other religious experiences are equivalent to the Placebo Effect. Of course, not saying it doesn't happen, but the more true, right, independent etc. the thing, the less placebo it is. So, just because there are placebo effect experiences out there with people, does not at all mean the real thing isn't also out there. Mormonism in my view fits this fact. Further, we know from the scriptures and in life itself that Gifts of the Spirit are available to all, not simply the Church itself, as Mark 9 & Luke 9 indicates (along with it's condemnation of anti'ism against other righteous or believers). Just because there are false gifts, doesn't mean there aren't true gifts. All righteousness and truth comes from God, no matter the person. The existence of human error doesn't change that fact. Again, why are you agreeing with the Atheist?

Christianity's predictions are not at all false, only your premises and assumptions are related thereto.

When has anyone actually even moved a mountain? It's a teaching principle, not necessarily real, unless God requires it of course.

People have raised the dead. There were many miracles in Christ's time, many miracles during the Restoration of His Church.

NONE of this was a "placebo effect", nor mass hypnosis nor any other malarkey. Because there was plenty of witnesses, plenty of average folks, smart folks, successful folks, etc. who witnessed the various things. Obviously, God has his purposes for the "great" miracles..... when something important is happening, He goes bonkers in the miracle front. People have done all kinds of other miracles also over many years, lesser miracles which are still miracles, from healing, to visions, to tongues (the real version i.e. LDS) etc. all kinds of things with events. I find your lack of faith disturbing.....

[TAO]

I would actually disagree with Analytics on the strength of the humanist position... I find the humanist position... inconsistent while using Atheism, at least in my logic. An idea that can be a conclusion of Atheism (not that most Atheists take it to that level) is that there is no universal moral philosophy... in other words, there is no 'punishment' if you are not 'caught'. This kinda creates problems with humanism, of course, and that is why I don't really find the position of humanistic atheist logically consistent... I find an atheist dictator a logically consistent position... but at least that's how I view it (not trying to offend any atheists here).

So really, it doesn't fit quite together with me =/.

Edited August 26, 2011 by TAO

[Chris Smith]

I thought you were a Christian?

You were mistaken.

[mfbukowski]

I would actually disagree with Analytics on the strength of the humanist position... I find the humanist position... inconsistent while using Atheism, at least in my logic. An idea that can be a conclusion of Atheism (not that most Atheists take it to that level) is that there is no universal moral philosophy... in other words, there is no 'punishment' if you are not 'caught'. This kinda creates problems with humanism, of course, and that is why I don't really find the position of humanistic atheist logically consistent... I find an atheist dictator a logically consistent position... but at least that's how I view it (not trying to offend any atheists here).

So really, it doesn't fit quite together with me =/.

That's a good point- for what it's worth I think that is where secular humanism runs off the track, but I think it is possible to define a principle which is "always true" in all civilized societies, and I think that principle is something pretty close to the "golden rule", or the Kantian Categorical Imperative. I think no civilized society can survive without affirming such a principle; a society which did NOT affirm it- such as the Roman Empire or Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union could not survive.

I find also a Christian parallel defined in the Didache- the Way of Life vs the Way of Death. When understood this way, the ultimate principle can be seen as both "humanistic" - that is- civilized human society cannot survive without postulating such a principle is always "true"- and also compatible with a Christian value system while also giving a "proxy" for those who need to feel some sense of "absolute truth".

Such a principle I think can be said to be "absolutely true" in a Pragmatic sense since acting on its denial would ultimately lead, I believe, to the death of the society which denied it, or conceivably to humanity itself if humanity broadly denied it.

Since the survival of humanity itself requires such a principle, it can be seen as both "humanistic" AND "Christian" at the same time. That's why I consider myself a "Mormon humanist" and that is the difference I think to other forms of humanism. I also of course affirm Christian morals based on that principle and all the moral principles of the gospel.

It also fits with the notion that "the wages of sin are death" and all that goes with that.

Edited August 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Chris Smith]

I would actually disagree with Analytics on the strength of the humanist position... I find the humanist position... inconsistent while using Atheism, at least in my logic. An idea that can be a conclusion of Atheism (not that most Atheists take it to that level) is that there is no universal moral philosophy... in other words, there is no 'punishment' if you are not 'caught'. This kinda creates problems with humanism, of course, and that is why I don't really find the position of humanistic atheist logically consistent... I find an atheist dictator a logically consistent position... but at least that's how I view it (not trying to offend any atheists here).

So really, it doesn't fit quite together with me =/.

Humanism basically suggests that a cooperative social strategy is best for everyone. I think history shows that this is true. For a true believer in the humanist principle, one should behave cooperatively because it's the most reliable route to happiness, not because one is afraid of punishment. No omniscient Punisher is necessary to frighten citizens into obedience if you focus your civic education on the positive benefits of virtue rather than on the negative, coercive punishments for sin.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

I think it is possible to define a principle which is "always true" in all civilized societies, and I think that principle is something pretty close to the "golden rule", or the Kantian Categorical Imperative. I think no civilized society can survive without affirming such a principle; a society which did NOT affirm it- such as the Roman Empire or Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union could not survive.

I agree. And I would add that it is possible to construct an ideology which "religiously" adheres to this principle without being theistic. Religion's power to motivate ethical behavior stems not from the idea of God, but from its mechanisms of socialization and reinforcement.

[TAO]

That's a good point- for what it's worth I think that is where secular humanism runs off the track, but I think it is possible to define a principle which is "always true" in all civilized societies, and I think that principle is something pretty close to the "golden rule", or the Kantian Categorical Imperative. I think no civilized society can survive without affirming such a principle; a society which did NOT affirm it- such as the Roman Empire or Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union could not survive.

I disagree actually... I think a civilization such as the Soviet Union could survive... if they took it to more extremes. But they would have to catch the world on it's unawares, and hit it fast. It's possible though. Espeically with advancing technology. There are a few new technologies that may be released in the next 50 years that are VERY scary in what they can do... interpretation of the impulses of the mind... and of course... virtual reality, in terms of the senses other than sight (though they are probably working on that one too right now). And the worse thing is... though these things seem ridiculous... they are already partially developed =o. They can simulate a cat's brain on a computer, right now. Now they are working on jumping to the human brain. It could do great things, like cure Alzheimer's.... but it could also do some seriously bad things... such as create spies that don't know they are spying. It's almost as if... the technology shouldn't be developed... in a way. It's too risky, I would say.

I find also a Christian parallel defined in the Didache- the Way of Life vs the Way of Death. When understood this way, the ultimate principle can be seen as both "humanistic" - that is- civilized human society cannot survive without postulating such a principle is always "true"- and also compatible with a Christian value system while also giving a "proxy" for those who need to feel some sense of "absolute truth".

Hmmm... absolute truth... I'm pretty sure it exists... I don't know if it is 'provable', so to say though. What I can say though is that I can find truths that I would never deny. They are not held as absolute truths by other people, but I would defy everyone in the world to believe in those truths. That's the closest I can get... to an absolute truth...if it is one =).

In other words, I guess... I don't worry about true 'absolute truth'. I look for what I cannot deny. I look for what is 'instinctively correct'... in each and every person. It changes from time to time, depending on what the person is going through, but it helps me understand what motivates people some of the time. =) Of course, it's all theoretical... the way my brain works is it 'listens'/'observes' peoples actions to everything, and modifies a model I have in my head, which can represent other people. In this sense, I try and predict what they do ahead of time... well... in the least... things they will do that are important. It is always getting better all the time... never perfect... but always improving. It's strange really.... sorry about rambling off, in any case =D.

Such a principle I think can be said to be "absolutely true" in a Pragmatic sense since acting on its denial would ultimately lead, I believe, to the death of the society which denied it, or conceivably to humanity itself if humanity broadly denied it.

Even if it lead to the death of that society, it would not be an absolute truth, guaranteed. After all, we cannot see all the variables, we can just reliably guess. It's why I believe in God, really... a life without him would be mundane... purposeless really. It would be a life in which I would not to live, and there would be no point of me living. We would all be disposable, I guess you could say =P.

That sense of purpose... it's one of my undeniable =). Life must mean something permanent. =D

Since the survival of humanity itself requires such a principle, it can be seen as both "humanistic" AND "Christian" at the same time. That's why I consider myself a "Mormon humanist" and that is the difference I think to other forms of humanism. I also of course affirm Christian morals based on that principle and all the moral principles of the gospel.

Hehe.... I haven't studied humanism to the depth that you have... I just watch people who are 'humanist', and then think about their philosophies, I guess =P. Not a reliable way to go by the book definition, but definitely a practical way,I guess XD. That's how I've learned about most things, really... is by watching others. And my imagination grew, and so now I see things very differently than I used too =). It's growing up I guess =D.

What is really weird though is that I cannot be convinced by another person arguing against me, in terms of my strong values. What happens instead is that a debate goes on inside my head... in a way, a simulation. If it doesn't defeat me, it allows me to shore up my point's weaknesses, so they can't be defeated by future arguments. Of course, this is still in process as well, and is only for things I deeply consider.

Now I've gone off on tangent again... lol... I like thinking about how the brain works... and how my brain works in ways that make it seem like it has it's own control of itself ;-). It's smarter than I am XD.

Alas, I should really stop talking =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

Humanism basically suggests that a cooperative social strategy is best for everyone. I think history shows that this is true. For a true believer in the humanist principle, one should behave cooperatively because it's the most reliable route to happiness, not because one is afraid of punishment.

Yes, I know, this is why I think it disagrees with atheism... and to a sense... 'practicalism', as I will call it. Basically... if you are given the capability to take over the world... a humanist would argue you shouldn't do it... while a 'practicalist' would argue you should.

My problem is that I see Atheism and Practicalism as fitting really well together. Again... in atheism... there is no 'moral barrier'... you behave because society expects a certain way... society determines the morals. But if you can avoid that... if you can avoid being caught... or stop all the things catching you... what barrier lies between you and getting anything you want? Nothing... society's rules aren't really.... practical... when there is nobody to enforce them, in a sense. That is why, 'taking over the world' could have a sort of logic to it, if you have the capabilities and have that 'practical atheist' point of view I was talking about.

I guess the reason why I think about it is because although I am 'humanistic' on my strong values, I am practicalistic on everything else. If there was no moral code, I would see no reason, if I wouldn't get caught, not to do whatever it was.

No omniscient Punisher is necessary to frighten citizens into obedience if you focus your civic education on the positive benefits of virtue rather than on the negative, coercive punishments for sin.

This is where I disagree. As I said, I am an example of someone who would feel very little restrictions in such a case. The only things stopping me... are my own sense of morals. Humanistic atheism doesn't make sense to me because it's not practical, nor logical to hold to a moral code when you aren't going to be punished for not obeying it. This is why society's moral code ultimately is not good enough to maintain enough freedom for humanism to make sense. It takes an ultimate, inescapable law to make it work. =/

[mfbukowski]

I agree. And I would add that it is possible to construct an ideology which "religiously" adheres to this principle without being theistic. Religion's power to motivate ethical behavior stems not from the idea of God, but from its mechanisms of socialization and reinforcement.

Well I would have to agree- and this is precisely why I think these ideas may be helpful to Will and his problem with his friend.

Principles of faith - like the existence of God are based on just that- faith, and are compatible with "reason" completely in my opinion. That is the central point here in my opinion. One need not be an atheist to be a thorough- going rational thinker.

On the other hand, rational thinkers do not need to be religious in my opinion. That is precisely because I feel there is no conflict between reason and religion. Truth is truth.

I see religion and and reason- or science for that matter as almost parallel universes which have little to do with each other. Religion deals with private, subjective experience and giving one's life meaning, whereas religion and science has to do with objective observations which all can verify for themselves.

I see them as pretty much independent variables which need not have much to do with each other. One has to do with private beliefs and the other has to do with what is objectively verifiable for all- it is in a sense "public".

Edited August 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[William Schryver]

I have read most of the posts on this thread, and I appreciate those who have taken the time to craft thoughtful replies.

After considerable reflection today, I have concluded that I am not really interested in a protracted examination of the merits of secularism, nor of measuring it against the tenets of Mormonism. I am interested in an examination of the utility of faith, and I have resolved to address that topic via the completion of long-neglected essay that I started a couple years back. That said, I am no longer interested in message boards as a forum for the discussion of such things. If and when I complete said essay, I will submit it to some appropriate journal for their consideration.

I will, as what I expect will be my final word in this thread, share the remainder of the e-mail conversation with my friend. He replied to me:

You have been acting the role of apologist for too long. I think both quotes simply ask individuals to think about what they do and why they do it. And my bad on the second quote; it actually comes from Nietzsche. I hope Voltaire will excuse my haste.

To which I then replied (somewhat edited):

You wrote:

"You have been acting the role of apologist for too long."

Although I have … effectively retired from engaging in any apologetic activities related to Mormon studies (I did what I felt I was called to do, and have since moved on to other things), and without disputing (for the sake of our discussion) the transparent characterization implicit in the phrase "acting the role," I freely acknowledge that I have been, for all intents and purposes, an "apologist" (not a pejorative, by any means, as far as I'm concerned) for my convictions for as long as I can remember--a measure of time which appears to be steadily shrinking with each passing year. ;-)

Whether or not that constitutes "too long," I do not know and cannot say. But then, you only meant it as a rhetorical parry, right?

In any event, I'm rather persuaded that I have plumbed the depths of secularist/humanist philosophy sufficiently to know what's at the bottom. I have tossed several stones into that particular hole, and never yet heard a splash. Perhaps I just didn't have patience commensurate to the profundity of the well. I allow for that possibility, but I have ... returned to renew the experiment. Some forks in the road, once passed, remain forever not taken. Nevertheless, I am willing that you should show me what I might have missed, if perchance I have missed it.

Of the Abel and Nietzsche quotes (I actually did entertain a moment of doubt that it was Voltaire, but then didn't give it a second thought--I have seen it cited many times over the years, almost always in the context of someone declaring the imperative of deconstructing convictions in the interest of the pursuit of objective truth) you wrote:

"I think both quotes simply ask individuals to think about what they do and why they do it."

They do that. They are, of course, extracted from a contextual milieu that does much more than that. They are touchstones of a much larger code of tenets. One might even characterize it as ... a dogma, be he a Greek in 400 B.C. or an American in 2011. In any event, much meaning attaches to them that cannot be readily discerned in the mere handful of words they contain. I think it is tantamount to disingenuousness to suggest otherwise; the quotes cannot be contextually divorced from the larger oeuvres of their respective authors.

… I do think about what I do, why I do it, and have literally spent the better part of my life investigating and intensely contemplating the rhymes, reasons, and purposes of this time-delimited existence in which we all "play a role."

I think it could also truthfully be said that I've gone quite a few rounds when it comes to philosophical discussions such as this. At least I've been around the block enough to have reached the personal conclusion that secular humanism is merely the somewhat desperate final refuge of those for whom "the substance of things hoped for," and "the evidence of things not seen" have been exhausted by the daily grind of pervasive cynicism and an overwhelming sense of futility in the face of a world long since grown jaded to the seemingly childish hope that, eventually, good will triumph over evil, notwithstanding

good can often be.

I mentioned to you (in relation to my attraction to the songs of Ligabue) that I have become convinced that such things are given meaning to us in three ways: via exegesis; via eisegesis; and via external influences that use a song (or a poem, or a novel, or a movie, etc.) as a vehicle. I really believe that. And, in that context, a certain Ligabue song has really come to mean a lot to me. It is called Atto di Fede (Act of Faith). … The last verse, translated literally, reads:

To live is an act of faith

Not a compliment

This is my act of faith

This is your moment

And how you see it, you see it

But it’s all in how you see it

There are those who only want

To revisit another regret

To live is an act of faith

In the midst of affliction

This is my act of faith

This is a covenant

… Please don't be offended by the nature of our largely rhetorical discussion of the tenets of secularism, its validity and merits, etc. We can, I believe, manage to effectively fence off that discussion such that it exists separate and distinct from anything else we talk about. I very much want you to argue in the affirmative for your points of view. I will, of course, attempt to counter those arguments. That is the nature of testing hypotheses by the adversarial method. I have found that method to be rather effective in terms of its ability to cull bad arguments from the herd. In any case, the adversarial method needn't make of its participants adversaries. I am entirely willing to be convinced, when and if arguments are convincing. I expect that you feel similarly. Let us then proceed on that basis.

Again, I thank those of you who have contributed thoughtfully to this topic. I will continue to observe with interest any subsequent discussion of these questions, although I will not likely participate further.

Edited August 26, 2011 by William Schryver

[TAO]

Sorry will if I took over your thread there for a sec =P

[Chris Smith]

That is why, 'taking over the world' could have a sort of logic to it, if you have the capabilities and have that 'practical atheist' point of view I was talking about.

Taking over the world is actually not practical, mainly because it's too risky. Dictators have very short average lifespans, even when they're successful.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Virtually all of your comments here indicate the absence of critical thinking, and thus your conclusions are badly flawed. You might want to try following the understanding of a great, non-Mormon biblical scholar

.

You don't find a lot of truth in the Bible because you read it pretty much in the shallow, literal manner of most evangelicals. As Tom Wright points out, the silliest approach is to see 6 twenty-four hour days in Gen 1 (indeed, Creation starts before there are sun & moon). The same is true of reading "Adam" as a name, rather than as a descriptive term meaning "man" or "earth" (from which he is made): "man" is Hebrew 'adam, made from 'adama "earth, clay." The word-play is deliberate. The ritual, poetic, and catechetical text of the Genesis Creation story is symbolic, and not intended as science or literal history, and it is not the only ancient Creation story (have a look at E. Speiser's translation-commentary on Genesis for a broader view). As Elder John A. Widtsoe pointed out in his Rational Theology, 120,

"

Symbolism

. Naturally, the very essence of these fundamental truths is not known to man, nor indeed can be. We know things only so far as our senses permit. Whatever is known, is known through symbols. The letters on the written page are but symbols of mighty thoughts that are easily transferred from mind to mind by these symbols. Man lives under a great system of symbolism. Clearly, the mighty, eternal truths encompassing all that man is or may be, cannot be expressed literally, nor is there in the temple any attempt to do this. On the contrary, the great and wonderful temple service is one of mighty symbolism. By the use of symbols of speech, of action, of color, of form, the great truths connected with the story of man are made evident to the mind."

Some scholars, such as the late W. F. Albright, saw the Flood story as folklore reminiscent of the great Pluvial rains at the end of the last Ice Age. Since flood stories show up all over the planet, perhaps it would be helpful to examine such stories with a bit more care. The same applies to your ridiculous statement that "there wasn't a tower of Babel." You meant that the biblical version seemed to you to be absurd. Yet there were ziggurats aplenty in Mesopotamia, and several major ones at Babylon (Bab-el "Gate of God"). Some suggest the biblical text at that point contains a late gloss. Certainly the Book of Mormon speaks of a "Great Tower," which would be appropriate to early Jaredite times, while insertion of Babel would have been a anachronism.

That an advanced sentient being could provide devices for illumination of the Jaredite barges drifting to the New World seems reasonable in a world in which Steve Jobs has provided us with even more fantastic devices of various kinds.

This same misreading of text and of archeological reality leads you to declare that "Abraham didn't write with his own hand upon papyrus." You are creating your own mythology. Humanists should be embarrassed. For one thing, Abram's autograph need not have been found any more than St. Paul's autograph should be found on the letters which he specifically declares he is signing. They were copied and passed on by a community for centuries. We only have copies. Of course. It would be utterly silly to think otherwise. Of course it is much easier to create straw men to knock down that to deal with the real thing.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Analytics]

Virtually all of your comments here indicate the absence of critical thinking, and thus your conclusions are badly flawed. You might want to try following the understanding of a great, non-Mormon biblical scholar

.

You don't find a lot of truth in the Bible because you read it pretty much in the shallow, literal manner of most evangelicals....

Historically, all Bible believers read it in a literal manner and only started getting sophisticated with their readings once they realized that it wasn't literally true. An article in The Ensign articulates this, written from the perspective of somebody who doesn't realize that the flood story is merely "folklore reminiscent of the great Pluvial rains at the end of the last Ice Age"

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

It appears that you and I agree that the "multiple testimonies of God's prophets" were wrong about this. That's my point.

Of course if you interpret the literal claims of the Bible as being allegories, symbolic, cultural, or mythological, you can find symbolic truth in it. You could do the same thing for any work of fiction.

[Robert F. Smith]

Humanism basically suggests that a cooperative social strategy is best for everyone. I think history shows that this is true. For a true believer in the humanist principle, one should behave cooperatively because it's the most reliable route to happiness, not because one is afraid of punishment. No omniscient Punisher is necessary to frighten citizens into obedience if you focus your civic education on the positive benefits of virtue rather than on the negative, coercive punishments for sin.

Should the pragmatic value of game theory be applied to manage potential societal discord? Particularly in a pluralistic society or world? For example, how are believers and non-believers in religion to coexist in harmony? Is a kind of civil rellgion necessary, and is that what you intend here?