Secularist Dogma: Final Refuge Of The Unfeeling?

[stemelbow]

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.

That's a fair way to put it, I'd say. Afterall I would saysomething very similiar by suggesting just as you did, that humanists are in the need to see and touch. But ifwe have a spiritual sense, then that's a bit limiting, as a whole.

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.

But prayer and revelation have produced some very focused and directed lives. I'm not sure revelation was ever meant to produce technology, or knowledge of the cosmos--at least not the type of knowledge we're limited to by science.

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.

Which I might argue is understandable. Afterall God created all, has interest in all and will therefore bless all similarly, according to their needs. It stems from more than belief itself in that sense, since that which can be produced also occur to the non-faithful, if you will.

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.)

That is if you take the moving mountains literally I suppose.

[Nofear]

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.

Blake Ostler's FAIR presentation: Spiritual Experiences as the Basis for Belief and Commitment may have some arguments and ideas worthy of your consideration.

<h1></h1>

[Robert F. Smith]

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"

Humanists pride themselves on not speaking from ignorance, and I can respect that. However, it means actually reading widely and deeply enough to familiarize oneself with the nature of the real world. In this case, it means understanding that for thousands of years most learned Jews and Christians read Holy Writ in a figurative manner (where appropriate), just as Joseph Smith suggests in D&C 77:2ff. As Tom Wright pointed out in the video which you apparently ignored, those ordinary folk listening to Jesus' parables did not take them as factual stories. Blind literalism is the approach taken by those who ignore the best secular scholarship. That such scholarship happens to coincide with thousands of years of religious experience is no accident. That you are unaware of that fact is sad.

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.

My point is that what you blindly see as "the literal claims of the Bible," are often not literal claims at all, but your misreading of the text.

A good example is the hyperbole which you automatically interpret as literal when it comes to the KJV translation of the Hebrew word 'eretz "land, earth." We frequently find the word translated "earth," as though meaning the entire planet, when in fact only the locality or region is being referred to and might better be translated "land." Read that article you just cited with that difference in mind and substitute "land" in each place where it now reads "earth." Of course my interpretation of such texts may be of no more value that anyone else's, but you should at least be aware of the actual range of interpretation available so as not to stub your toe on unpleasant reality -- as you are now doing.

It is intellectually dishonest to create straw men based on one's own ignorance.

[Nofear]

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.

I may diverge in this thought from many other faithful and believing Mormons, but I hold a similar view of "good" -- but extended beyond this realm. The eternal societies have figured out what works and what doesn't. Our mortal probation is, in part, to prepare us with the attributes and desires pursuant to our participation in and the "good" of the heavenly kingdoms. Given the vastly greater perspective and experience of God, I hold it as sheer vanity and foolishness for men to set aside God's guidance "supposing they know of themselves" what is the best "good".

[mfbukowski]

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.

I dunno- it seems like your entire post was about not taking things literally, but yet you take this literally.

I think God can do anything, and if he wanted to make the world in 6 days or give light to barges drifting half underwater, he could do it.

But on the other hand, I see no reason to take ANY of this literally. God provides for us on our journey of life and gives us his light, but we have to do our part and think of possible answers to our problems and trust in him. THAT is the message of the story- What's wrong with that?

Sure it could be literal, but I find no reason to postulate that is in any way necessary. I think the Book of Abraham would be just as inspired and equally valuable if there was never an Abraham, papyri to be translated, or a Joseph Smith to "translate" it.

Sure it could have happened the way the story is told, but honestly, it doesn't matter to me one bit. If Joseph was looking out over the ocean or into a fire or looking at the moon and wrote the book of Abraham- so what?

And if he thought he was "translating" a papyrus- what's the difference? None to me whatsoever.

[mfbukowski]

That's a fair way to put it, I'd say. Afterall I would saysomething very similiar by suggesting just as you did, that humanists are in the need to see and touch. But ifwe have a spiritual sense, then that's a bit limiting, as a whole.

Seeing and touching are as much subjective experiences as having a religious experience. There is no difference on a subjective level.

All science adds is the verification that others have had the same experience. Kind of like testimony meeting.

[Darth_Bill]

>Sure it could have happened the way the story is told, but honestly, it doesn't matter to me one bit. If Joseph was looking out over the ocean or into a fire or looking at the moon and wrote the book of Abraham- so what?

And if he thought he was "translating" a papyrus- what's the difference? None to me whatsoever.

How far would you take that? If you really KNEW that JS made it all up, would you still have the same attitude? Much of what we have in institutional revelation of the divinity of Jesus Christ is tied to Joseph. If you thought he made it up, what would that really do to you? If you start taking everything figuratively, then what are you really left with. Can those beliefs exist outside of the realm of religion? Can I be a good person, striving to be as "godly" as I can without the knowledge or belief that Jesus is the Christ? Can the jews do it? Can you if you find that Joseph did make it up?

Not that I think he did, but the fact that I take most of the scriptures figuratively and my realization of it has led me to question what I really do believe.

[Darth_Bill]

Seeing and touching are as much subjective experiences as having a religious experience. There is no difference on a subjective level.

All science adds is the verification that others have had the same experience. Kind of like testimony meeting.

Not quite. Science has to show a good proven hyponthesis of, say, >95% probability, with reproducable results. That doesn't happen with religion. You can't just have a vision on demand.

[mfbukowski]

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.

To me, this is really a backwards way of seeing it. The Bible is not science and not intended to be. Science teaches us the facts about the universe- according to the latest model that people have created which will be thrown out in the next 20 years anyway.

In other words, it's not that different than what you call "fiction". Both present a picture of the world drawn by humans who find these models useful for various purposes, but know that they are just that- transitory models built to explain whatever it is they want to explain.

Spiritual writings teach us about the MEANING of our lives and what is important to people- not about transitory "facts", but about principles which people have always found useful in defining their place in the universe.

If you want to discover the meaning of life, you go to the scriptures. If you want to find out how to build an airplane or a radio telescope you go to science.

Big difference.

[mfbukowski]

Not quite. Science has to show a good proven hyponthesis of, say, >95% probability, with reproducable results. That doesn't happen with religion. You can't just have a vision on demand.

I didn't say anything opposed to that. The point is that science gives objective verification. Of course it is more precise- I am not questioning that. All I am saying is that testimony meeting lets one know that one is not alone in making one's "observations" about one's subjective experiences.

[Analytics]

Humanists pride themselves on not speaking from ignorance, and I can respect that. However, it means actually reading widely and deeply enough to familiarize oneself with the nature of the real world. In this case, it means understanding that for thousands of years most learned Jews and Christians read Holy Writ in a figurative manner (where appropriate), just as Joseph Smith suggests in D&C 77:2ff....

Hi Robert,

You are totally free to read the Bible any way you want, and I didn’t mean to suggest that anybody in particular reads the Bible in any specific way. The fact remains, a fairly recent article in The Ensign claims without qualification, that Latter-day Saints believe that the story of Noah is literal description of concrete historical events. “We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.”

Getting back to my original point, I happen to believe that when it comes to understanding the truth about reality, the humanist approach is superior. Humanists are fully engaged with observable reality. When you add revelation-based religion to that, it adds tension. The tension is huge for folks like Donald Parry and the Ensign's editors who believe that the "multiple testimony of God's prophets" are literal descriptions of concrete events. Others lessen the tension by taking concrete descriptions metaphorically. Good for them. But to the extent there is tension, that tension indicates the superiority of humanism.

All the best,

Analytics

Edited August 26, 2011 by Analytics

[Analytics]

To me, this is really a backwards way of seeing it. The Bible is not science and not intended to be. Science teaches us the facts about the universe- according to the latest model that people have created which will be thrown out in the next 20 years anyway.

In other words, it's not that different than what you call "fiction". Both present a picture of the world drawn by humans who find these models useful for various purposes, but know that they are just that- transitory models built to explain whatever it is they want to explain.

Spiritual writings teach us about the MEANING of our lives and what is important to people- not about transitory "facts", but about principles which people have always found useful in defining their place in the universe.

If you want to discover the meaning of life, you go to the scriptures. If you want to find out how to build an airplane or a radio telescope you go to science.

Big difference.

But is it a reliable guide in that realm?

Terms like atheism, skepticism, and humanism have been used interchangeably in this thread, but I think Humanism has a distinction in that it can provide a positive framework for meaning and ethics.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Analytics

[Analytics]

[duplicate]

Edited August 26, 2011 by Analytics

[Darth_Bill]

The Noah's ark thing that keeps popping up in threads here is actually something that has caused me problems. Last year (or this year?) I attended Sunday School where it was discussed. I had an issue because I don't think it happened, or at least, not as it was described or taught. So, I felt I was not in anywhere close to harmony with orthodox LDS teachings. I've always believed differently but this is one area that I flat-out disagreed. I have lived with that "tension" as Analytics describes for a long time and I find that I weary of it. I'm just not sure what to do with it.

While I am not unfeeling, what does one do with that tension? Does one just try to un-see it? At what point does it become too much to try and justify? I'm an engineer and without practicality, it doesn't hold my interest much. The Church has much that I find practical, but I tire of other justifications.

[Senator]

While I am not unfeeling, what does one do with that tension?

Per my personal experience, you silently admit you don't believe it and move on. There really is no need for tension.

When you think about it, does the historical reality of the flood, or many other bygone stories, affect one wit your present day-to-day living?

I only suggest you make the admittion to yourself. Vocalizing it among your more believing peers usually doesn't go over well. (again per my experience)

[Chris Smith]

Is a kind of civil rellgion necessary, and is that what you intend here?

IMO, yes and yes.

[Chris Smith]

Given the vastly greater perspective and experience of God, I hold it as sheer vanity and foolishness for men to set aside God's guidance "supposing they know of themselves" what is the best "good".

Given the utter unknowability of a being who has been interpreted differently (if at all) by every culture throughout history, I consider it sheer vanity to set aside a logical concept of the good in favor of one rooted in one's particularistic interpretation of that being.

[Darth_Bill]

Per my personal experience, you silently admit you don't believe it and move on. There really is no need for tension.

When you think about it, does the historical reality of the flood, or many other bygone stories, affect one wit your present day-to-day living?

I only suggest you make the admittion to yourself. Vocalizing it among your more believing peers usually doesn't go over well. (again per my experience)

Yep, been doing that for many years. However, what one does with the realization that the atonement really doesn't make a lot of sense either. We scoff at scapegoat concepts but it is the central tenent of the religion. At some point, not believing in the OT, NT and whatnot does a person look in the mirror and wonder what the heck he is doing? I can get past some of the historical issues but when even the metaphorical stops making sense.....

And yes, voicing concerns among the believers doesn't go over too well. I dare say that most haven't even thought about it. My wife never concerned herself about the atonement being logical or even giving it a second thought. She was socially happy and didn't bother to really question anything and was disturbed when I did. I've been in apologetics for quite some time, and I never really asked if it really made any sense, just if it was internally justified or consistent. Two different ideas, that.

[ldsfaqs]

You were mistaken.

hmmm.... Okay, well then my comments apply to any Christian out there, or those who might benefit from some of my thoughts.

However, I'm sure you could benefit from some of them since most of them were directed at the issue in question, that is Atheistic judgment of religion.

So, care to respond? I'm curious how you would defend and correct many of my comments and questions to you, the atheistic assumptions you make.

Edited August 26, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Chris Smith]

hmmm.... Okay, well then my comments apply to any Christian out there, or those who might benefit from some of my thoughts.

However, I'm sure you could benefit from some of them since most of them were directed at the issue in question, that is Atheistic judgment of religion.

So, care to respond? I'm curious how you would defend and correct many of my comments and questions to you, the atheistic assumptions you make.

In my experience, prayer never produced any particularly useful results, and my understanding of the world was much more coherent and consistent with reality when I dropped the ancient near eastern religious beliefs.

[wenglund]

In my experience, prayer never produced any particularly useful results, and my understanding of the world was much more coherent and consistent with reality when I dropped the ancient near eastern religious beliefs.

This touches on what I believe to be the crux of the matter. Our decisions about which secular/religious world views to buy into and place our faith ought ultimately be based on our trust in the ability of the respective worldviews to maximize our capacity to achieve our worthy objectives in this life and perhaps in the life to come.

Some people may believe that reliance solely upon man is the way to derive the most good, whereas others may believe it best to lean also upon a higher power. The results of each, on balance, will ultimately tell.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 26, 2011 by wenglund

[TAO]

Edited.

Edited August 27, 2011 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

But is it a reliable guide in that realm?

Terms like atheism, skepticism, and humanism have been used interchangeably in this thread, but I think Humanism has a distinction in that it can provide a positive framework for meaning and ethics.

If you read the thread you will see that I advocate a humanistic ethics.

And the first question about a reliable "realm"- it is not clear to me what the full question is. Perhaps you could re-phrase it in a full sentence.

[mfbukowski]

This touches on what I believe to be the crux of the matter. Our decisions about which secular/religious world views to buy into and place our faith ought ultimately be based on our trust in the ability of the respective worldviews to maximize our capacity to achieve our worthy objectives in this life and perhaps in the life to come.

Some people may believe that reliance solely upon man is the way to derive the most good, whereas others may believe it best to lean also upon a higher power. The results of each, on balance, will ultimately tell.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

Consider cheating on your wife.

If you know you are careful enough never to get caught, the logical things would be to do such, if there was no universal and always watching moral code. The moral code of God is the reason why doing such is a no-no.... especially for super-careful people.

I'm glad you have an omniscient God looking over your shoulder, my friend, because it sounds like you'd be pretty twisted if you didn't. Why would it always be "logical" to expend a bunch of time, energy, and self-respect sneaking around cheating on your wife? I can see why that might seem logical if there's something seriously wrong with your marriage and you're not getting what you want or need at home, but only a sociopath would claim that one will always be happier if one can successfully betray one's wife.

In any event, nobody has the capability to cheat perfectly. There is always a risk of discovery, no matter how careful you are. So you are essentially constructing hypothetical scenarios that will never obtain in the real world. We've evolved our "moral" impulse toward faithfulness and cooperation precisely because unfaithful and non-cooperative behavior is risky and usually counterproductive.

That is because they don't do a thorough enough job. A dictator who wanted to really control people would actually kill most people in the world... and keep the rest very close to him.

Killing most of the people in the world would wipe out most of the technology and infrastructure, which would mean one's quality of life would take a nose dive. In any event, what the h*** would this accomplish? Aside from a vague sense of power, what would be the reward of this sort of behavior?

Seriously, dude, you have a strange idea of how to achieve happiness. Maybe it's time you seek a more wholesome moral education than you're getting from your current church.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited August 26, 2011 by Chris Smith