Secularist Dogma: Final Refuge Of The Unfeeling?

[TAO]

Edited.

Edited August 27, 2011 by TAO

[William Schryver]

I also find TAO's recent posts EXTREMELY disturbing, to say the least, and I think they are very out of place in this thread. I would like to request that he/she refrain from further derailing what has otherwise turned into a very interesting discussion.

[Chris Smith]

A person would do that for pleasure, simply. And it wouldn't really need a bunch of time and energy... just carefullness.

I think you're underestimating the investment of time, resources, and emotional energy that real "carefulness" in cheating would entail. But even leaving all that aside, I think someone who truly loves and respects his wife and has been educated to believe in integrity will have no need of God to enforce good behavior. For such a person, faithfulness will be its own reward.

Of course there is, but there is a point where the benefits of 'cheating' outweigh the consequences. Remove the moral law God gives us, and you will find that it is logically consistent to 'cheat' when the rewards outweigh the consequences.

I think you're assuming that one must either have a God-given "moral law" or no moral law at all. Actually, most people in Western societies have a "religious" commitment to the cultural norms and moral "laws of the land". People who come from third-world countries are often amazed when they visit Western countries (including those with low levels of theistic belief) to see how orderly everything is. That's because we've experienced the benefits of such a society, and we're committed to maintaining those benefits.

In game theory, there are many situations when betrayal is "logical". However, the benefits of betrayal usually disappear when you have enforcement mechanisms in games with multiple iterations, which is the case in most real-life situations. In real life, cooperation is simply usually more beneficial than betrayal in the long term.

If you are an effective dictator, you would have already prepared for this and selected groups of people to maintain the technology. True, technology wouldn't advance as much, but then again, that wouldn't make a difference if you were dictator over everyone. Yes, much of the infrastructure would collapse too. But who cares when you are never going to use that part of the world.

What is the reward of the behavior? Anything you want really. Riches? Pleasure? and of course the obvious power. Pretty much anything you want actually.

But if you have the capability to take over the world, then presumably you already have all these things. So what's the point of killing billions of people? I don't think you've really thought this through very well. (Maybe that's a good thing!)

Lol, I don't get this from church, I get this from thinking about ideologies, from my own head.

Well, it's fairly typical religious reasoning. I can't even count the number of religious people I've heard say cringe-inducing things like, "If I didn't believe in God, I'd probably go start doing drugs, because what would be the point?" Really, it's kind of horrifying to me that there's an entire class of people in our society who are totally ignorant of the real bases for virtue, and can think of no reason to act virtuously except that they're afraid of divine punishment. I can only conclude that religion has severely stunted these people's moral development.

And you are right, I wouldn't be happy, because I did develop a large sense of empathy towards others. So much empathy that I'd rather die than do it. But others don't have this empathy.

Well, I'm not going to commit 10% of my income and 1/7 of my weekdays to sustain a set of myths whose only purpose is to frighten sociopaths into obedience. Such people probably won't be fooled, anyway.

Peace,

-Chris

[jo1952]

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.

Oh, if only this is what those who cling to scientific theories always did...

jo

[TAO]

EDIT: Will didn't like the posts, so I'll not post them in this thread.

And I also removed all the rest, as to make things cleaner. Though I don't understand why. Alas, it is not my thread.

EDIT: To Chris: If you think I am using that 'common religious thinking', you wouldn't be approaching it from the angle I am viewing it from. Just wanted to tell you I wasn't going in that direction.

Edited August 27, 2011 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

EDIT: Will didn't like the posts, so I'll not post them in this thread.

And I also removed all the rest, as to make things cleaner. Though I don't understand why. Alas, it is not my thread.

Just remember not everyone needs a program of "behavior modification"

I trust you will understand what I mean and why we may not agree on this point, and stay friends

Edited August 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[TAO]

Just remember not everyone needs a program of "behavior modification"

I trust you will understand what I mean and why we may not agree on this point, and stay friends

Oh, undoubtedly, I am not worried about it, and I hardly let it determine my friends.

[jo1952]

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.)

Perhaps something to consider is this. Both science and religion seek truth. Science has an immediate visible advantage over religion in that the knowledge obtained through science (though not perfect and has not yet reached absolutes in its seeking for truth) is quantitatively observabable. For instance, you expressed this concept well when you said:

The fruits of science help make my life better every day. I can see them, touch them, feel them.

New findings in science where successful and correct conclusions of studies provide advancement in technology, medicine, etc., build upon themselves. Thus, "good" (if you will, as opposed to failed theories, or moving target theories) scientific knowledge progresses and is added upon through each successive generation. This, however, is NOT how religious seeking for truth is experienced by each individual. Even though others have had much revealed to them - some more than others - it can only happen within each individual's lifetime, and can only be experienced by each individual on a personal basis. Their personal experiencing of truth, due to the very nature of how God reveals truth to us when we are able to bear it, is not quantitative for the entire world. It must be learned originally by each person - regardless of when they are born.

The journey of the person seeking religious truth is thus automatically not comparable to scientific truth. Whereas the line upon line knowledge obtained by science can be instantly enjoyed by everyone, the line upon line spiritual knowledge obtained by the individual is a personal journey. Even when, in religion, more revelation has been received and revealed to any given group of people, each person within that group must still first start with faith in Christ, which is only the beginning of their journey. They cannot jump on the wagon at any given moment and instantly BE at the same level of understanding truth as everyone else is in their chosen religious belief system. In fact, no TWO people can even make that claim; we are each at our own personal point in our journey.

Therefore, I would offer that just because a secularist does not embrace religion, the secularist is in error to point to religion and try to use the same standard used for measuring secular truth as they do when measuring what they may or may not perceive as being religious truth.

Regards,

jo

[Franktalk]

Secularist Dogma and might I add religious dogma. I will discuss both but I will leave out the witness of any third party.

First of all I believe there are two camps. The pure secularist and the pure religious. There are very few of these people, most people are a mix of the two. But I think we can learn a great deal by an examination of the pure states. I have found that these two states are based on faith. But many in the state would disagree I have found people who say their faith in God is based on evidence which in my view is nonsense. But let me add that most secular humanist swear that their view is based on evidence as well. It is my position that this is also false. That at the base level of understanding even science is built on vapor. I will get into that more later.

I believe that both camps have a desire to know the truth. Here there is some difference to that vision based on which camp you are in. But the quest for truth is the same. For instance many secularists are fine with the idea that they are the result of an accidental process and death is the absolute end to their existence. They have come to believe that the truth is nihilism and they embrace it. The religious will see this life as a stepping stone. The secularist embraces this world and the religious embrace the next.

I now wish to discuss the methods used by each camp. I will avoid the discussion as to why one would choose one over the other. In seeking truth the secularist will use the cause and effect relationship of things on the earth as a base line for their quest. The senses are trusted as truth detectors. The world around the secularist is truth and the understanding of the world provides a deep understanding of that truth. There is a trust in the world and there is a trust that the world has not changed in the past. This is called uniformitarianism and is used to project back in time to extend the knowledge of today to processes that take long periods of time that can not be directly observed. The religious person cast off this world so the cause and effect relationships are just design features of this particular world. The world holds no truth so truth must come from outside the world.

The secularist embraces science as their method of choice to examine the world around them. Since science is based on naturalism then science is the actual process that truth is discovered or developed. A TV set can be a form of truth to a secularist. I have had many talks with secularist that know that at the base level of science there is no foundation. They know that the exact details of reality may never be known. They know that some things are observed yet not understood at some base level. They are OK with this foundation. What they do is to focus on the larger issues of what they view as truth. They focus on the processes around them and seek to know about things. They place them self in the natural world and embrace the idea that parts of the universe came together to examine itself. They know that science changes from day to day with each new discovery or theory. But they have faith that the methods that they are using are leading them to truth. They see the knowledge of today as truth and the knowledge of tomorrow as closer to the ultimate truth. They are not bothered by the lack of absolute truth but embrace the future projection that truth is mostly known and will be refined over time. They have faith that the foundation of science is enough to build on. They have faith that the methods of science bring them closer to the ultimate truth of everything.

The religious person embraces an idea of God. I will use the Bible in this section. They seek truth as to why things are here not the cause and effect between the things. Once they understand the Word of God they see the Word as truth as spoken by God. The world then diminishes in its importance. They embrace the messages in scripture and modify their view of the world around their faith that the truth of scripture is absolute and everything else is secondary. They embrace supernatural events unseen and see the past as changed by God at times by His will. They see revelation as an unfolding of truth and study of scripture as a personal unfolding of truth. They have faith that scripture is enough of a foundation to build on. They have faith that the rules contained in scripture will bring them closer to truth.

The process of acquiring truth is vastly different for these two camps. The secularist can show a fossil bone to the religious. To the secularist the bone has great meaning. To the religious person it means nothing, it is an old bone. The religious person can show a verse of scripture to the secularist. It means a great deal to the religious person but means nothing to the secularist. So to speak evidence or give a witness of faith from each side means little to the opposite camp.

I am close to a purist in the religious camp. I have met some purist in the secular camp over the years. I have had many conversations about faith and also about the process of deciding which faith to follow. There are a great many factors that lead one to choose one path over another. But the bottom line is as each of us experiences the world we form a world view. It is that world view which will in the end determine which branch of the tree of faith that one will follow. If it were possible to stand at the base of that tree and ponder that leap of faith just what would that look like?

If the purpose of this thread is to find understanding then I think that can be done. But if the purpose is to find an argument that will change a persons faith from secular to religious then it can’t be done. The person who is secular must have a significant emotional event to shake their world view before that can happen. If you are at a place of logic then it is a waste of time. But if they get a calling from God it will shake them to their foundations.

[Chris Smith]

The journey of the person seeking religious truth is thus automatically not comparable to scientific truth.

To be clear, I recognize that not all "revealed knowledge" can be compared with the natural world or expected to have immediate physical utility the way scientific knowledge would. However, there has been much purported "revelation" throughout world history that has made claims on the physical world, and unfortunately those claims have turned out to be pretty uniformly unreliable. The world hasn't ended despite time-sensitive prophecies that it would; many wars have been lost despite prophecies of victory; many cosmologies have been debunked though they stemmed from visionary experience; many messiahs have failed to return and temples failed to be built in the allotted time; many patriarchal blessings have failed to be fulfilled; many resurrections have failed to occur and rappers failed to convert despite revelations that they would. Given the unreliability of visionary ways of knowing in those cases where they make falsifiable claims, why should we expect them to be valid when their claims are unfalsifiable?

Edited August 27, 2011 by Chris Smith

[jo1952]

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".

Okay, I just finally got to this post - I'm trying to catch up on this thread, but am addressing posts as I reach them and not after I have finished reading all the comments posted. Thus, I am posting thoughts without realizing someone else may have already made comments which turn out to be something similar to what I have posted. (What???) So....I have this to say to you; and I have already mentioned this very same problem with Calmoriah....Get Out of My Head!!!!

Best regards,

jo

[mfbukowski]

Okay, I just finally got to this post - I'm trying to catch up on this thread, but am addressing posts as I reach them and not after I have finished reading all the comments posted. Thus, I am posting thoughts without realizing someone else may have already made comments which turn out to be something similar to what I have posted. (What???) So....I have this to say to you; and I have already mentioned this very same problem with Calmoriah....Get Out of My Head!!!!

Best regards,

jo

Surrender.

You will be assimilated.

[jo1952]

Surrender.

You will be assimilated.

So it's true. Resistance is futile.

[Loran Blood]

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.

This seems odd to some, at first glance, but from a gospel perspective, I would have to say that evangelism becomes imperative at the point at which the secularist realizes that he is, in reality, living in a world of heterodox philosophies within which secular humanism/naturalism is only one, and, if such a philosophy is to have any meaning to him, it must be extended to others that such meaning may be confirmed in others. This, I would posit, is a basic element of human nature, in both a spiritual and psychological sense.

I also think that for him to convert you away from the Church would be a kind of conquest, at the same time providing personal psychological affirmation as well as "evidence" of the power of his philosophy to convert.

[Loran Blood]

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!

Indeed. This would depend, for me, upon the individual psychology and character of the person involved. For many moderns, secularism is a favorite retreat. For others, it is nihilism. For yet others, nihilism is overcome by moving beyond it to the will to power.

The spiritual and psychological dynamics in play are the real interesting aspect of it.

[Loran Blood]

multiple post, "bad gateway" error, so I tried to post multiple times.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Well frankly I think that seeing a conflict between humanism and Mormonism misses the point. God is, after all, human.

Is he? I thought he was a "god?"

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

Its already the doctrinal core (and hence, by definition, the philosophical core), so why would this need future expansion?

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.

Pragmatism is wholly incompatible with the gospel (as is everything else Dewy taught). I think you ought perhaps go back to the original Humanist Manifesto and do a long, exhaustive reading. You will presently find that humanism is, and was constructed to be, the antithesis of theistic/metaphysical religion of any kind, as well as to the entire structure of western ethical and social thought, for which humanism's value relativism has no use, but which for the progressivism of which humanism is the philosophical basis, marrow to the bones.

[Loran Blood]

Well frankly I think that seeing a conflict between humanism and Mormonism misses the point. God is, after all, human.

Is he? I thought he was a "god?"

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

Its already the doctrinal core (and hence, by definition, the philosophical core), so why would this need future expansion?

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.

Pragmatism is wholly incompatible with the gospel (as is everything else Dewy taught). I think you ought perhaps go back to the original Humanist Manifesto and do a long, exhaustive reading. You will presently find that humanism is, and was constructed to be, the antithesis of theistic/metaphysical religion of any kind, as well as to the entire structure of western Judeo/Christian ethical and social thought, for which humanism's value relativism has no use, but which for the progressivism of which humanism is the philosophical basis, is marrow to the bones.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

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.

This, for me, is indicative of two things, the first being what is perhaps a deep intellect that lacks breadth, and an intellect, strong as it may be, devoid of imagination. And that is the fatal exception.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Calm]

EDIT: Will didn't like the posts, so I'll not post them in this thread.

And I also removed all the rest, as to make things cleaner. Though I don't understand why. Alas, it is not my thread.

EDIT: To Chris: If you think I am using that 'common religious thinking', you wouldn't be approaching it from the angle I am viewing it from. Just wanted to tell you I wasn't going in that direction.

Tao, not only are you much younger than most of us here, but you have a unique way of looking at things. Sometimes this doesn't communicate well, especially to those that belong to a different age group. You are a good guy for going along without getting all defensive.

[Loran Blood]

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

But man is not god, which therefore ends the discussion prematurely (unless you believe that man is god, in which case your understanding of LDS theology is drastically at variance with mine).

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.

Or, one could also say the the humanist view is out of harmony with both accepted science and the restored gospel.

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.

Unfortunately, the writers of this statement did not have LDS or any other traditional religious worldview in mind. They meant a rigid, uncompromising positivistic, Darwinian materialism, and I'm afraid your efforts to rehabilitate to the point it may become grafted to the tame olive tree are deeply misguided.

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)

Your interpretation and the meaning of the original text have nothing do do with one another here.

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.

This all at this point appears to me to be a bit desperate, and makes my wonder what, in point of fact, is thought to be achieved by a project of revisionism which seeks to blend the gospel with secular humanism. In any case, the doctrine that all human artifacts, phenomena, and attributes, including consciousness, mind, feelings, emotions, psychological states, and their effects (culture, civilization, philosophy, art, politics, and...religion) are nothing more than epiphenomena of blind, random, improbable but fortuitous evolutionary processes is central to the philosophy of humanism, but completely obviated by acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

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,

You know, at first glance, I think you may be right.

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.

The massaging necessary here is just staggering mf, and I applaud your intellectual creativity. However, the "way to see" what the Humanist Manifesto claims is to stay with the original intent of the authors, and their intent was to make impermissible any claims to knowledge outside the narrow realm of positivist science who's basis is not just methodological, but metaphysical naturalism, or materialism. Again, this is the challenge of an alternative religion against the claims of the gospel, who's intent is to overthrow and supplant that gospel with its own.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

"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

Yes, I noticed that about the time I was old enough to take notice of it.

[Loran Blood]

Is it really? Inspiring, inspirational? (-;

Naw. Its blighted far too many lives and dug far to many graves (of both the born and the unborn) to be "inspiring" or "enlightening."

Unless, of course, one alters the meaning of those terms...

[mfbukowski]

Unfortunately, the writers of this statement did not have LDS or any other traditional religious worldview in mind.

Well, you did get something right after all.

They never accounted for anyone believing that people could become gods.

You are wrong about the other stuff. I know they intended to be atheists, that was their whole goal. But they goofed in never thinking that God is actually a glorified man.

You DO know that right? Because some of your posts seemed to be totally ignorant of that point of LDS doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

Pragmatism is wholly incompatible with the gospel (as is everything else Dewy taught).

I think you should read the first part of the thread. You are mistaken. Tell that to Paulsen, Truman Madsen and many others including our own DCP.

I don't like Dewey's politics either- but that is irrelevant to the discussion at this point.

God organizes the world- this view is that man organizes the world. God is a man. Figure it out.