Secularist Dogma: Final Refuge Of The Unfeeling?

[Loran Blood]

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?

Its not, but this is irrelevant, because cheating on one's wife, and much else human beings do that is destructive and self sabotaging, is not rational or logical. Few, if any human beings make those kinds of choices, and much besides, based upon reason.

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.

Nonsense. In the first place, our moral philosophies have developed (they never "evolved" in any Darwinian sense, but were, at all events, here in the beginning of human civilization and have come and gone, waxed and waned, developed and deteriorated, in waves among various cultures in various times, places, and contexts) for two fundamental purposes, the first being the positive and healthy mediation of human relationships (morality is the "structural integrity of relationship") and as, in a metaphysical sense, a means of purifying the motives, sensitivities, feelings, intellectual attributes, and desires of the individual. In either sense, morality is not primarily a utilitarian concept. That which is "right" is not done solely because the effects will be positive (in any particular case, one may have to sacrifice something of substantial value for doing what is right, or undergo other kinds of deprivation or suffering), but because it is right. It is in harmony with an overarching moral/ethical order in the cosmos.

People who cheat on their wives, or use drugs, or drive drunk, or engage in all kinds of risky, self and societally destructive behavior, do not do so because of any rational calculation. Indeed, the truth of the matter, testified to by the whole of human history, is that peaceful, ordered, civil society is not the natural state of mankind. Civilization has to be rigorously cultivated, taught, inculcated, and passed on clearly and vigorously generation by generation, or it will be lost. Barbarism is humankind's general tendency, and irrationality his natural state. The myth of rational man is among the most egregious of the lies that secular humanism and its various ideologues among its various schools have been foisting for many generations in the West, and no amount of genuflection before its alter can alter the reality.

"Reason" has killed and destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions just in the 20th century alone, alongside its use to vastly improve the lives of even more millions. Remember that socialism was "scientific," fascism was the wave of the future in the thirties among most trendy intellectuals, who saw it as based in rational necessity and clear thinking. The regimented, totalitarian futures of the Jacobins, Comte, Saint Simon, Marx, the Fabians, Skinner, and yes, that inveterate fellow traveller John Dewy, were, one and all, grounded in claims of reason, logic, and "science."

"Sin" isn't rational, and it has always been so well represented among the human family precisely because of that fact. But this is an oversimplification. Sin - any sin - may be, indeed, rational, from a specific point of view and determination to achieve something one wishes to achieve.

Secondly, numerous people do and can "get away," in this life, with cheating on their wives. And even if they don't, when they get caught, they deal with the destruction and hurt and move on. Their are countless people out there, Chris, without conscience, and without conscience, as without God, everything is permitted, and lack of conscience is a wonderful anesthetic. It anthetasizes both our sense of guilt and pain at having deeply harmed another, as well as the fundamental irrationality of unnecessarily causing chaos and strife in our own lives. For many, very many, the "kick" of wild flings, getting high, or "partying hard" easily overcomes rational thought.

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?

What did Mao's killing of upwards of seventy million of his own people accomplish? Stalin's twenty million? The Soviet Union's fifty million? Hitler's twelve million? These were all rational people, Chris. They thought. They calculated. They reflected. They planned. They derived policies and behaviors from the core principles of the ideologies they followed, which they all described as either scientific, rational, or clearly necessary to the future of mankind. In the progressive thirties, eugenics was all the rage among the educated elites of the West, as much in America as in Europe. It was "social hygiene" based in rational, scientific principles relative to inheritance and the dynamics of social development. All very rational, all very scientific, and all very logical, once the fundamental premises were accepted.

And its there, at fundamental premises, that we meet the crux of the matter, and see why "reason" is not, and cannot be an ultimate value, but only a tool deployed and utilized by valuing beings. Its is what we are, as human beings, morally and spiritually, that determines how intellectual tools such as reason are ultimately used. Sexual immorality, such as cheating on one's wife, goes on in such profusion, not because it is irrational or not, but because the "natural man" tends strongly toward precisely those kinds of things as a matter of his fundamental nature. I've never known a sexual hedonist (and I've known a number) who restrained himself because of rational reflection on the possible consequences.

The upshot of the matter is that reason in no way precludes evil. It creates transistors, internal combustion engines, space shuttles and computers, but does not condition the natural man to reject the natural tendencies and impulses of his intrinsic nature. This is especially the case when, as with our present age, normative moral principels and assumptions have been impugned and expunged from the social framework to the point that barbarism, which is by far the more natural path of least resistance (to the desires and impulses of the liberated, radically autonomous self), has began to gobble up rationality as fast as the "rational" secularist prophets of sexual and social liberation several generations ago began gobbling up traditional Judeo-Christian moral norms.

Crime pays, and pays big on many occasions and in many ways, as does immorality and vice of all kinds. Indeed, subjectively, whether it pays or not, and what we make of the consequences of our immorality if we must suffer them in this life, is again, based not on logical analysis but our core values and self concept. Our worldview, in other words. The gospel tells us only that if we really want to be happy, then we'll scrupulously avoid evil in ourselves, to the best of our ability, even if we have every reason to think that we will "get away with it." in the interim.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

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

They were unrelenting materialists and atheists. None of them ever contemplated the possibility of humans becoming gods, for the reason that they had already completely rejected the possibility of God.

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.

I'm not seeing the logical relevance here. They were atheists who rejected all possibility of anything existing outside of the observable, empirical universe and its empirical testable, scientifically verifiable natural principles. Deification is irrelevant, in this vision. It is out of the question.

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

Right.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

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.

Pragmatism claims that the basis upon which that which is ethical or moral is known by or through its effects, or consequences. Clearly, while that can be understood in some sense to be useful in at least explaining some kinds of moral decision making, it is woefully inadequate for others.

Pragmatism is a close relative of utilitarianism, and both contain the same fundamental weakness in that neither can point to any ultimate, fundamental ground of their moral claims, and both contain, at their core, a strong latent relativism, as they must remain thoroughly embedded in the cultural context of the time and place of their philosophical origin and application. They cannot move beyond that boundary into the cosmos, and seek the ultimate ground of morality in standards beyond "utility" (as defined by the culture/group/social context) or consequences (good or bad consequences as defined by the culture/group/social context).

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

The main point is that John Dewey and the other writers/signers of the Humanist Manifesto, as with their ancestors today, believed the universe to be a great, magnificent, fortuitous accident. The universe climbed Mt. Improbable since the Big Bang.

That's it, mf. That's all there is. We, all of us are a fluke of the universe, and Mormonism is just another evolutionary epiphenomena clinging to a ledge on Mt. Improbable.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[TAO]

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.

Nah, he was fine in telling me to stop. He was justified. It wasn't because my logic was wrong... it is because I was criticizing Chris's position in a harsher way than good people do. There is a point where criticism is pointless, at least in my view.

I guess you could say I 'lost control' of the criticizing side of me there for a second ;-).

Alas, it is behind me now. I hope to not lose control of it again. It is rarely justified for me to do such, really.

Edited August 28, 2011 by TAO

[jo1952]

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?

Hi Chris:

It would be very easy for me to point to scientific theories which have failed but are still clung to due to the secularist's "faith" in science. Many of their theories are not provable, though they are held to AS truth for a myriad of reasons which I am quite sure you have already been in discussions about. Likewise, I have no doubts that you have been in discussions with those who believe in God about the issues you brought up above. Believers can be just as susceptible to false interpretations of "evidence" as the Humanist is susceptible to false interpretations of "evidence".

What I have seen in my experiences is that there are, for the most part, four types of "evidence". Two of them exist within our perceived physical world; two of them exist within our perceived spiritual world.

In the physical world, one type of evidence produces what is labeled as "true" due to the results derived from the evidence. I would place the incredible advancements man's knowledge has made which you have described as things which have improved your life - they are the things you can see, touch, use, etc. The other type of evidence that exists in the physical world are the yet unproven theories, as well as the theories which remain unproven but have been around for so long that they have changed in scope in the minds of many in the scientific community who have allowed them to shift from theory to truth - even though there really isn't anything "proven" which can be seen, touch or used. There are no manifestations that can be pointed to as "proof" that the theories are "true". I would label these as "untrue" until such time as they can produce knowledge which leads to improvements in our lives which we can see, touch, use, etc.

In the spiritual world, evidence plays pretty much the same "role" as it does in the physical world; the obvious difference being that evidence in the spiritual world remains "unseen". However, "truth" found there still results in knowledge which improves the believer's life. Many of the improvements (or, we can call them changes as would be appropriately understood by the believer) CAN be "seen" by others by way of the choices that are now being made by the believer, even though the unbeliever still cannot "see" the spiritual world. And so, I would label these changes as "true" - the person's life has been improved in ways that he and others can see; though for the believer experiencing the changes it is more profoundly being felt than it is to the observer. Also, there will be other changes going on inside of the believer which cannot be seen from the outside. On the down side, we also have manifestations of incorrect interpretations which have led to "untrue" conclusions. Some of these are the ones you have described above. Yet the secularist has also manifested "untruth" in their still unproven theories, or those theories they have now accepted as "true" even though they remain unproven.

Therefore, both the secularist and the believer are both susceptible to incorrect interpretations of what they are "seeing"; whether it is something being seen in the physical world, or whether it is something being seen in the spiritual world. As such, I do not personally believe that the secularist has any advantages over the believer when the secularist points to physical evidence as any type of proof that their "truth" is superior in any way. In fact, I would offer that inasmuch as the believer's "truth" can only change them in the course of their life on the earth, it seems that spiritual truth is so reliable as to have a quantitative advantage over secular truth since it starts out as a complete unknown in the life of each believer; whereas the results of scientific truth must be built upon prior and progressively proven "truth".

Reasons for the misinterpretations of evidence in both the physical and the spiritual worlds could always be discussed on another thread.

Regards,

jo

[Franktalk]

Loran Blood,

There is a reality away from this one we see. That reality dictates and controls much of what we experience in this universe. But our free will from our spirit is left alone to learn the greater truth. As you have made the case there are absolutes in morals and in truth. They can't be found here by our reason. They exist as a foundational block of the greater reality. In our attempt to find those things here in this reality we must conclude that this reality does not give up those answers. Those who attach them self to lessor ideals do them self a great disservice. Truth and a moral structure come from within, and that within comes from outside this reality.

[Hestia]

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.

Refrain from such personal attacks.

[mfbukowski]

Pragmatism claims that the basis upon which that which is ethical or moral is known by or through its effects, or consequences. Clearly, while that can be understood in some sense to be useful in at least explaining some kinds of moral decision making, it is woefully inadequate for others.

Pragmatism is a close relative of utilitarianism, and both contain the same fundamental weakness in that neither can point to any ultimate, fundamental ground of their moral claims, and both contain, at their core, a strong latent relativism, as they must remain thoroughly embedded in the cultural context of the time and place of their philosophical origin and application. They cannot move beyond that boundary into the cosmos, and seek the ultimate ground of morality in standards beyond "utility" (as defined by the culture/group/social context) or consequences (good or bad consequences as defined by the culture/group/social context).

The main point is that John Dewey and the other writers/signers of the Humanist Manifesto, as with their ancestors today, believed the universe to be a great, magnificent, fortuitous accident. The universe climbed Mt. Improbable since the Big Bang.

That's it, mf. That's all there is. We, all of us are a fluke of the universe, and Mormonism is just another evolutionary epiphenomena clinging to a ledge on Mt. Improbable.

We disagree on such a fundamental level about this that there is no sense in discussing it further.

[Chris Smith]

What did Mao's killing of upwards of seventy million of his own people accomplish? Stalin's twenty million? The Soviet Union's fifty million? Hitler's twelve million? These were all rational people, Chris.

I wasn't arguing that no atheist would ever do such a thing, Loran. I was just arguing that if you're a hedonist whose only purpose in life is to be happy, killing millions of people isn't the most logical course of action. It was only logical for the dictators you mentioned because they were acting in service of ideologies that entailed such behavior. Hedonists these men were not. Their goal was not just happiness, but purity-- purity of the race and purity of the proletariat. (An ideological obsession with purity-- racial, moral, or even theological-- has been the driving force behind many of the great mass-murders throughout history. See Chirot and McCauley, Why Not Kill Them All?, 36-44, 81-87.)

The upshot of the matter is that reason in no way precludes evil.

I agree. I'm convinced that cooperative behavior is the best route to happiness, but I'm also convinced that people can't be relied upon to figure this out and act on it on their own. It's still necessary to socialize people into this kind of behavior and to design enforcement mechanisms to prevent betrayal. But thanks to reason, those socialization and enforcement mechanisms don't need to be theistic or rooted in arbitrary divine revelation. They can be based on reason, even if the rational calculus isn't made explicit in the socialization process.

[Chris Smith]

jo,

However, "truth" found there still results in knowledge which improves the believer's life.

I agree that there are demonstrable real-world benefits of belief in some religious claims. As I said before, though, that doesn't necessarily mean those claims are true. If I believe a placebo is an Advil, it may still have some benefit for me. However, my belief still is not true. In order to be true, a belief's predictions must be borne out in the real world. If Advil is supposed to produce relief in 50% of cases but our pill is only producing relief in 20% of cases, then it's probably just a sugar pill. The belief that it's Advil isn't useless, but it also isn't true. Similarly, the slight increase in happiness and lifespan that Christianity produces is pretty unremarkable compared to Christianity's predictions that Christians can move mountains, raise the dead, and be transformed into sinless people.

Put simply, false beliefs can have utility. The test of the truth of a proposition is not whether belief in the proposition has utility, but rather whether predictions derived from the proposition are borne out in the real world.

On the down side, we also have manifestations of incorrect interpretations which have led to "untrue" conclusions. Some of these are the ones you have described above. Yet the secularist has also manifested "untruth" in their still unproven theories, or those theories they have now accepted as "true" even though they remain unproven.

I readily acknowledge, as you point out, that the realm of religious knowledge may include a mixture of true and false propositions just as the realm of scientific knowledge does. But pretty much all of the testable religious propositions I ever tested turned out not to be true. At some point one has to ask oneself whether it's fruitful to continue testing such things, or whether perhaps one should assume for practical purposes that all claims of a religious nature are untrue.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited August 28, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

I recall long ago a great LDS patriarch (Serge Lauper) explaining to me that patriarchal blessing is not fortunetelling, that the blessings are conditional. The prophet Jona misunderstood that simple principle and got very petulant when the Lord changed his mind about destroying Nineveh. Whether the story was a parable or actually took place is less important than the principle being taught.

It is quite true that some prophecies appear not to have been fulfilled within a reasonable time-frame, and the late David Noel Freedman commented on that failure for some of the prophecies of Amos and Micah. However, he used this to establish the reliability of the scribes and editors of those texts, i.e., those prophets were accurately recorded (Freedman, Unity of the Hebrew Bible, 53). He adds that "biblical scholars have increasingly recognized the value of sociological and anthropological studies as important aids to understanding the phenomenon of biblical prophecy" (105).

As to whether such prophecies are "unfalsifiable" or "pretty uniformly unreliable," I'd like to know what sort of data you used to reach that conclusion. Is that an impression based on a mishmash in your mind, or is it based on actual scholarship?

[Chris Smith]

As to whether such prophecies are "unfalsifiable" or "pretty uniformly unreliable," I'd like to know what sort of data you used to reach that conclusion. Is that an impression based on a mishmash in your mind, or is it based on actual scholarship?

Of course it's based on actual scholarship. I haven't done any kind of sweeping statistical analysis, if that's what you're asking, though those kinds of studies have certainly been done on psychics and clairvoyance. My studies of prophecy have been more in the form of a series of case studies. I have degrees in Biblical Studies and Christian History and I'm working on one in Religions in North America, so I've studied quite a few different prophets, including Joseph Smith, Nat Turner, Ellen White, Muhammad, Handsome Lake, Thomas Muntzer, Kim Clement, and the Biblical prophets. There are bits and pieces of prophecies that seem to come true here and there, but not at a higher rate than could be attributed to coincidence, and often only by doing interpretive violence to the original prediction can it be made to fit. Most specific, low-probability predictions are falsified by events. (Of course, that doesn't stop believers in all these prophets from forgetting or finding rationalizations to explain the failures. Religion's power to inspire rationalization and selective memory is far more impressive than its power to inspire prophecy, IMO.)

I could give specific examples if you like, but not right now. I'm leaving in an hour for a four-day camping trip with the family. (Here's a short list to get you started.)

Edited August 28, 2011 by Chris Smith

[wenglund]

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 sciences are also not devoid of false conclusions and prophecies. Yet, that hasn't caused some of us to lose faith in science. We find value in looking at things non-stereotypically and on balance (assessing the successes as well as the failures), and realize that progress often entails having made mistakes and rising above them. On the same basis, some of us still retain faith in God, and this because it has been very good for us to do so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Is secularist dogma the final refuge Of the unfeeling?

I don't know that those who gravitate towards secular dogma and away from religious beliefs are necessarily unfeeling. From my experience, some tend to be quite emotive--manifesting their emotions most often in the form of cynicism, negativity, and prejudice.

I would suggest instead that secular dogma may often be the final refuge of a an adult fundamentalist mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 28, 2011 by wenglund

[why me]

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

No. The human being is in a constant flux of ideas, beliefs, and ideals. Humanism is an extention of the beatitudes without religion. It is absolute faith in the goodness of the human being to such an extent that she or he can rise above the negatives in human nature and be a source of good to her or his fellow human beings. However if one looks into the new testament one can see that the early church was in a constant fight with members who wished to embrace worldly knowledge at the expense of heavenly knowledge and at that time, the greeks were leaders in philosophy and certainly had influence with the early christians who wished to incorporate such knowledge into their own lives.

However, since beliefs are in constant flux, it would be difficult to say that humanism is the final destination for any human being.

[mfbukowski]

Is secularist dogma the final refuge Of the unfeeling?

I don't know that those who gravitate towards secular dogma and away from religious beliefs are necessarily unfeeling. From my experience, some tend to be quite emotive--manifesting their emotions most often in the form of cynicism, negativity, and prejudice.

I would suggest instead that secular dogma may often be the final refuge of a an adult fundamentalist mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wham!

[Loran Blood]

I wasn't arguing that no atheist would ever do such a thing, Loran. I was just arguing that if you're a hedonist whose only purpose in life is to be happy, killing millions of people isn't the most logical course of action.

I doubt, from both a serious psychological perspective and a gospel perspective, that many hedonists are seeking happiness, except perhaps, in a fundamentally pathological sense. In any case, and just for one example, Mao was a world class hedonist, indeed, one of the most expansive in history.

It was only logical for the dictators you mentioned because they were acting in service of ideologies that entailed such behavior. Hedonists these men were not.

Correct in some cases, fundamentally incorrect in others.

Their goal was not just happiness, but purity-- purity of the race and purity of the proletariat. (An ideological obsession with purity-- racial, moral, or even theological-- has been the driving force behind many of the great mass-murders throughout history. See Chirot and McCauley, Why Not Kill Them All?, 36-44, 81-87.)

Purity is one aspect, and necessary to a totalist ideology, but I would have to say that the ultimate goal was power, for which ideological purity is a fundamental component in its acquisition and application.

I agree. I'm convinced that cooperative behavior is the best route to happiness, but I'm also convinced that people can't be relied upon to figure this out and act on it on their own. It's still necessary to socialize people into this kind of behavior and to design enforcement mechanisms to prevent betrayal.

Agreed.

But thanks to reason, those socialization and enforcement mechanisms don't need to be theistic or rooted in arbitrary divine revelation. They can be based on reason, even if the rational calculus isn't made explicit in the socialization process.

And here I have to part company. Nothing in history demonstrates that "reason" has ever been salient in the processes of moral socialization and the development of character. "Reason" may make someone stop and reconsider before robbing a bank regarding the possible consequences, but this is, in the first place, a purely utilitarian consideration that has no basis as a moral or ethical system, being purely a matter of self preservation, and secondly, is itself subject to the psychological/charcterological attributes of the robber. Great evil is done, and done in great quantities, both in the name of reason and in defiance of it. This is the case because reason cannot provides concepts of "ought" or "should" in a moral sense, but only in a pragmatic, self preservational sense. If history demonstrates anything, however, it is that reasoned thought is a poor substitute for a settled moral compass grounded in something beyond the relative frame of reference of a specific culture, the desires and passions of the carnal moment or of far seeing hubris - or the core assumptions of culture itself - being more than adequate for easily overcoming the problem of possible consequences - or of even caring about them.

A morality that is sufficient and applicable to each new generation - millions of people who must be taught from the "ground up" the elements of ordered civil society, cannot be derived from "reason" because, as I've mentioned above, reason is nothing more than an intellectual tool whose use is itself determined by preexisting moral structures. A rational human being, in other words, can use his moral bearings and moral sense to negotiate a ethical quandary, but there is no syllogistic or inductive pathway to those core moral principles. They are either given, at the outset, or they are determined along any number of developmental pathways subject to the complexities and various orientations of human personality. Those pathways, without a settled standard grounded in the absolute, can develop "rationally" in any way whatever. Our morality can be Christian, or it could be Nietzschean. It can be that of Jesus or that of Hefner. It can accept the reality of absolute moral knowledge, or it can be relativist/nihilist. We can, as Dostoevsky indicated, take our pick.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Of course it's based on actual scholarship. I haven't done any kind of sweeping statistical analysis, if that's what you're asking, though those kinds of studies have certainly been done on psychics and clairvoyance. My studies of prophecy have been more in the form of a series of case studies. I have degrees in Biblical Studies and Christian History and I'm working on one in Religions in North America, so I've studied quite a few different prophets, including Joseph Smith, Nat Turner, Ellen White, Muhammad, Handsome Lake, Thomas Muntzer, Kim Clement, and the Biblical prophets. There are bits and pieces of prophecies that seem to come true here and there, but not at a higher rate than could be attributed to coincidence, and often only by doing interpretive violence to the original prediction can it be made to fit. Most specific, low-probability predictions are falsified by events. (Of course, that doesn't stop believers in all these prophets from forgetting or finding rationalizations to explain the failures. Religion's power to inspire rationalization and selective memory is far more impressive than its power to inspire prophecy, IMO.)

Reason, as mentioned, is only an intellectual tool, a vehicle upon which rides our assumptions, paradigms, world view, and prejudices. The very ambiguity present in much statistical analysis of prophecy is, itself, apropos to the epistemological problems at issue.

[Calm]

The sciences are also not devoid of false conclusions and prophecies. Yet, that hasn't caused some of us to lose faith in science. We find value in looking at things non-stereotypically and on balance (assessing the successes as well as the failures), and realize that progress often entails having made mistakes and rising above them. On the same basis, some of us still retain faith in God, and this because it has been very good for us to do so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just came across this quote today of Arthur Eddington:

Religious creeds are a great obstacle to any full sympathy between the outlook of the scientist and the outlook which religion is so often supposed to require ... The spirit of seeking which animates us refuses to regard any kind of creed as its goal. It would be a shock to come across a university where it was the practice of the students to recite adherence to Newton's laws of motion, to Maxwell's equations and to the electromagnetic theory of light. We should not deplore it the less if our own pet theory happened to be included, or if the list were brought up to date every few years. We should say that the students cannot possibly realise the intention of scientific training if they are taught to look on these results as things to be recited and subscribed to. Science may fall short of its ideal, and although the peril scarcely takes this extreme form, it is not always easy, particularly in popular science, to maintain our stand against creed and dogma.

http://www.todayinsc...-Quotations.htm

Combine that with the LDS attitude towards "creeds".....

Edited August 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[Facsimile 3]

HEY EVERYBODY! I'm back!

When you speak of things like evil spirits you invite some of that into the situation. When you speak this extensively about Humanism, Pragmatism and Mormonism you invite ME .

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

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

Great stuff MFB! I remember reading this before and it still hits the spot to read it again!

Pragmatism claims that the basis upon which that which is ethical or moral is known by or through its effects, or consequences. Clearly, while that can be understood in some sense to be useful in at least explaining some kinds of moral decision making, it is woefully inadequate for others.

Pragmatism is a close relative of utilitarianism, and both contain the same fundamental weakness in that neither can point to any ultimate, fundamental ground of their moral claims, and both contain, at their core, a strong latent relativism, as they must remain thoroughly embedded in the cultural context of the time and place of their philosophical origin and application. They cannot move beyond that boundary into the cosmos, and seek the ultimate ground of morality in standards beyond "utility" (as defined by the culture/group/social context) or consequences (good or bad consequences as defined by the culture/group/social context).

The main point is that John Dewey and the other writers/signers of the Humanist Manifesto, as with their ancestors today, believed the universe to be a great, magnificent, fortuitous accident. The universe climbed Mt. Improbable since the Big Bang.

That's it, mf. That's all there is. We, all of us are a fluke of the universe, and Mormonism is just another evolutionary epiphenomena clinging to a ledge on Mt. Improbable.

Lauren it isn't helpful for your case to throw out bombs like Utilitarianism, Relativism or Pragmatism with no explanation as to what you mean by those loaded words.

Pragmatism is a close relative of utilitarianism, and both contain the same fundamental weakness in that neither can point to any ultimate.

I am truly interested in what you mean by this. As it stands now, your argument is circular, and I'm worried that as you seek to defend the Church throwing these explosive rounds about, you might actually blow your fingers off instead of hitting your target opponent.

Is secularist dogma the final refuge Of the unfeeling?

I don't know that those who gravitate towards secular dogma and away from religious beliefs are necessarily unfeeling. From my experience, some tend to be quite emotive--manifesting their emotions most often in the form of cynicism, negativity, and prejudice.

I would suggest instead that secular dogma may often be the final refuge of a an adult fundamentalist mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My thoughts exactly.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Facsimile 3

[jo1952]

jo,

I agree that there are demonstrable real-world benefits of belief in some religious claims. As I said before, though, that doesn't necessarily mean those claims are true. If I believe a placebo is an Advil, it may still have some benefit for me. However, my belief still is not true. In order to be true, a belief's predictions must be borne out in the real world. If Advil is supposed to produce relief in 50% of cases but our pill is only producing relief in 20% of cases, then it's probably just a sugar pill. The belief that it's Advil isn't useless, but it also isn't true. Similarly, the slight increase in happiness and lifespan that Christianity produces is pretty unremarkable compared to Christianity's predictions that Christians can move mountains, raise the dead, and be transformed into sinless people.

Put simply, false beliefs can have utility. The test of the truth of a proposition is not whether belief in the proposition has utility, but rather whether predictions derived from the proposition are borne out in the real world.

I readily acknowledge, as you point out, that the realm of religious knowledge may include a mixture of true and false propositions just as the realm of scientific knowledge does. But pretty much all of the testable religious propositions I ever tested turned out not to be true. At some point one has to ask oneself whether it's fruitful to continue testing such things, or whether perhaps one should assume for practical purposes that all claims of a religious nature are untrue.

Peace,

-Chris

Hi Chris!

The sticky wicket in all of this, of course, is the religious beliefs are not based on something that can be seen in the real world. Of course, we have already agreed that we can see evidences manifested by individuals who have accepted Christ by the changes they make. What cannot be seen in experiencing of the Holy Ghost in all of this. So, to the unbeliever, it is quite fair to make justifications such as a placebo effect being manifested rather than anything "real" going on.

There really is nothing that I or any other believer can say beyond what they have tried to describe in the language of words which mankind uses to communicate with one another. The Holy Ghost, however, communicates at a level which cannot be understood by someone who has not also had such an experience. Of course, this can sound very suspicious to the unbeliever. The believer will claim that this is how it is supposed to be; that we take that leap of faith to allow a desire in us to believe what we have been told about Christ. It is really not a difficult thing to actually do - take that leap, I mean. But sometimes it can take a lifetime, or longer, for an individual to actually take that step.

I'm sure these are things you have heard time and time again. Quite frankly, if I had not believed at such an early age, I would be scratching my head today as a result of all of the arguing going on, the confusion, the double speak, the anger, believers killing other believers, perceived failed prophesies, etc.

I would offer that instead of watching how others come to Christ and questioning their actions and wondering how much longer it's worth to see how fruitful their claims are, that you step away from everyone else and their descriptions of how exercising faith in Christ has effected them. Don't base any expected experience that you might have on anything they have stated. If you should ever take the leap, your experience will be singularly unique to you. It will be the one which God thinks is most appropriate for you because He is the one who knows you best; knows the pure intent of your heart, etc.

Peace and happiness to you as well, Chris!!

Love,

jo

[Jaybear]

Is secularist dogma the final refuge Of the unfeeling?

I don't know that those who gravitate towards secular dogma and away from religious beliefs are necessarily unfeeling. From my experience, some tend to be quite emotive-- manifesting their emotions most often in the form of cynicism, negativity, and prejudice.

I don't know what you mean by "secular dogma", but I have noticed that you have a tendency to insult the intelligence of those who don't share your worldview. I wonder then if "YOUR EXPERIENCE" is colored by the predictably negative reaction you get in response to your misplaced arrogance.

In my experience those who have elevated secular humanism to a quasi religion are the most charitable, positive and tolerant people that I know. I get the impression that some of these people are motivated by the desire to prove to their friends and family that they are "better persons" because they reject religion.

I would suggest instead that secular dogma may often be the final refuge of a an adult fundamentalist mind.

There you go again Wade.

You are, of course, projecting here. Secular humanist reject blind faith and dogma in favor of scientific inquiry. Unlike religion, scientific inquiry is centered around the concept of falsifiability. Scientific knowledge advances when theories are proven wrong.

[William Schryver]

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,

No offense intended. In fact, I allow that it is entirely possible that I simply misunderstood what you were trying to say. Even so, I do think you were kind of taking the thread into areas that diverged from my original intent, so I thought I'd say something. But don't take it personal. You know how things sometimes go in this rough and tumble message board world.

.

.

.

Back to the topic at hand: I will say that this thread, and the comments I have read on it, have certainly focused my mind on the question of the utility of faith in our lives. I have been thinking a lot about that topic in the past few days, and the more I think about it, the more I want to try to put down on paper some of those thoughts.

Thanks again to those who have contributed their opinions. All have been valuable, even when I have not agreed with the perspectives expressed.

Edited August 29, 2011 by William Schryver

[mfbukowski]

HEY EVERYBODY! I'm back!

Evil doers beware! How was Israel??

[wenglund]

I don't know what you mean by "secular dogma", but I have noticed that you have a tendency to insult the intelligence of those who don't share your worldview. I wonder then if "YOUR EXPERIENCE" is colored by the predictably negative reaction you get in response to your misplaced arrogance.

Your hyper-sensitive and emotive reaction to my fairly benign post unwittingly underscores my point--for that I thank you.

In my experience those who have elevated secular humanism to a quasi religion are the most charitable, positive and tolerant people that I know. I get the impression that some of these people are motivated by the desire to prove to their friends and family that they are "better persons" because they reject religion.

I can respect that this may have been your experience. I have no doubt that there are very good and decent and highly intelligent secularists. My intentionally explicit qualifiers should have alerted you that I wasn't stereotyping or making a generalizations. I was simply speaking to my experience. And, my experience is somewhat different from yours, in part because the secularists I tend to interact with are those that quite uncharitably rail against and belittle my faith.

You are, of course, projecting here. Secular humanist reject blind faith and dogma in favor of scientific inquiry. Unlike religion, scientific inquiry is centered around the concept of falsifiability. Scientific knowledge advances when theories are proven wrong.

Evidently, you didn't understand what I meant by "adult fundamentalist mind" (which isn't about blind faith) Oh well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 29, 2011 by wenglund