Bradley And Hanks At Sunstone

[why me]

He told me of a great book by Sam Harris "The End of Faith." As it is, that is one I just recently acquired and am going to start this week. Just finished Stenger and am read a phenom of a book by John W. Loftus, "Why I Became an Atheist." Wow what a read! Anyway, Hector Avalos' book "Why Biblical Studies Must End" is also interesting, because he is using the Bible scholars' conclusions themselves to show why the Bible is for all intents and purposes simply irrelevant to us today, so why bother studying it? Anyway, more later.....

Sam Harris is a part of the Hitchens and Dawkins crowd since his book was published at or around the same time as their books. Books about atheism are making many people rich. Plenty of buyers and wannabee believers in it. Such is the way we are heading at the moment. Hopefully you will not be taken in by such books.

Edited July 30, 2012 by why me

[wenglund]

Wade, I disagree, somewhat. I do believe pride can be a problem (it is a problem for all of us, at times), but I think if you "listen" to the podcast (John's voice), you will not find any pride, there. You will find great humility and real suffering. You will find humility in the very fact that he is still attending church and bringing his children there, despite the very great struggles he has with belief.

It isn't the tone of his speech that is important to me, but his perspective--i.e. where he sees himself standing in relation to his Heavenly Father and the restored gospel/Church. (More below)

What I see, in John's struggle, and many others, is a conflict over moral issues/beliefs, to some degree. The church is not always correct in it's teachings (or actions); that can easily be shown, in that they have officially thrown some things out (like Adam-God, ban against racially mixed marriages, priesthood exclusion and much more) and even made some adjustments in the Temple rituals. Even Joseph Smith told us that not everything from the mouth of a prophet is from God. So, why the need to always believe the church is 100% correct, in order to be a fully accepted member? I think a lot of people disagree with the church on certain issues, but mostly just keep their mouth shut. Not all of us can do that, because it seems hypocritical.

I haven't argued that the Church is infallible. I've suggested nothing of the sort. Rather, I was speaking to who or what we should be focused on in terms of errs and correction, and who and what we should trust in ultimately judging errs and corrections.

What I see is John focusing on God and the Church as in err and needing to change, rather than himself. I also see him deciding for himself, according to his own puny human methods of determination, rather than looking to God.

This is a classic case of pride. And, John can fill his speeches with all sorts of humble intonations, and it will not change this.

The good news is, John has essentially created his own struggles by putting himself at odds with God and the gospel--i.e. putting his trust in himself rather than God, and by looking externally rather than internally for correction. This means that he can minimize those self-created struggles by putting his trust back in God and looking inward for change and correction as well as direction. He can rid himself of his self-created struggles through rightly humbling himself before God, and letting God conform John to his image instead of the other way around. If he does, he will be doing himself, his children, and those who look up to him, the greatest favor. He will be showing us all the best way to deal with our struggles--by laying them at the feet of Christ and centering our eyes on him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Sam Harris is a part of the Hitchens and Dawkins crowd since his book was published at or around the same time as their books. Books about atheism are making many people rich. Plenty of buyers and wannabee believers in it. Such is the way we are heading at the moment. Hopefully you will not be taken in by such books.

Only by reading them will we ever be able to honestly assess their strengths and weaknesses. So far I am not finding atheists arguments to be anything like I have supposed in the past, nor are the characterizations about them anywhere near accurate.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Sam Harris is a part of the Hitchens and Dawkins crowd since his book was published at or around the same time as their books. Books about atheism are making many people rich. Plenty of buyers and wannabee believers in it. Such is the way we are heading at the moment. Hopefully you will not be taken in by such books.

And its irrelevant what crowd he belongs to (even that characterization isn't quite correct), but what about his arguments and evidences. Poisoning the well does nothing to understanding what the man says. We LDS are far too often far too guilty of doing this. We have done this for so long that we are completely unaware of doing it. Besides, I have been reading Hitchins as well as others. I rather like his humor, even if he gets carried away from facts at times. On other things he is spot on, and nigh near unrefutable. Atheist logic, I am discovering for myself through reading their materials is far stronger than we suppose. It is a most surprising discovery of mine actually. All these years simply believing what believers have said about them, and not realizing what it is they are actually saying. My days of ignorance, based on heresay are ending......

Edited July 30, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[wenglund]

And its irrelevant what crowd he belongs to (even that characterization isn't quite correct), but what about his arguments and evidences. Poisoning the well does nothing to understanding what the man says. We LDS are far too often far too guilty of doing this. We have done this for so long that we are completely unaware of doing it.

Good point.

Then, again, we are not well served to read these things uncritically, nor should we shy away from being as skeptical about what they say as they demand we be skeptical of the things they question--particularly in regards to some of their own well-poisoning against religion.

This all sounds well and good within a given paradigm. However, what is to be done when there is a clashes of paradigms? How do we assess and decide between them? Kevin Christian wrote a good article on this called: "Paradigms Crossed."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Good point.

Then, again, we are not well served to read these things uncritically, nor should we shy away from being as skeptical about what they say as they demand we be skeptical of the things they question--particularly in regards to some of their own well-poisoning against religion.

This all sounds well and good within a given paradigm. However, what is to be done when there is a clashes of paradigms? How do we assess and decide between them? Kevin Christian wrote a good article on this called: "Paradigms Crossed."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, and its equally important to follow the evidence where it goes, regardless of whether it is comfortable to do or not. We are well advized to not read anything uncritically. The paradigm is evidence. The atheists deal with evidence and lack thereof, not faith and wishful thinking. This is one of the things that is astonishing me, is how powerful the atheist arguments are for one very simple reason. They really do deal with the evidence and logic instead of stopping as soon as something ends up faith promoting. They are not into that, they are into the truth. It's fascinating to read, without question. I am skeptical about the things they say as soon as I see they cannot support what they say with evidence. Therein lies their power, it's hard to be skeptical when they continue to show the evidence as opposed to asking us to merely believe them because they say so. Far too much of religious discourse does this, much to its own detriment.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[wenglund]

Yes, and its equally important to follow the evidence where it goes, regardless of whether it is comfortable to do or not....The paradigm is evidence.

For the most part, I agree.

However, evidence is meaningless and valueless absent a system of validation, falsification, interpretation, weighting, assessment, etc., In short, the paradigm isn't the evidence. It can't be. Rather, it is the systems through which the evidence is fed. The evidence doesn't take us anywhere without the system, and we typically end up following where the systems may lead us--the exception being paradigm shifts.

The atheists deal with evidence and lack thereof, not faith and wishful thinking.

This makes for a nice sound bite, but it is incredibly naive, if not remarkably ironic. As I have been pointing out to Addams (using evidence), everyone deals with faith and to some extent wishful thinking. It is unavoidable with finite human minds.

This is one of the things that is astonishing me, is how powerful the atheist arguments are for one very simple reason. They really do deal with the evidence and logic instead of stopping as soon as something ends up faith promoting.

It certainly appears that that have promoted your faith in the way that they deal with evidence and logic. We'll see if it stops there for you as it oft does with them--your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

They are not into that, they are into the truth.

Yes...I have heard this slogan. Unfortunately, it begins to ring quite hollow when I see how quickly their minds close to reasonable alternative ways of interpreting the evidence.

It's fascinating to read, without question. I am skeptical about the things they say as soon as I see they cannot support what they say with evidence. Therein lies their power, it's hard to be skeptical when they continue to show the evidence as opposed to asking us to merely believe them because they say so.

Skepticism isn't just about testing whether there is evidence for the claims. It also consists, in part, of determining whether there are better or more workable and progressive ways of interpreting the evidence. Just because the glove doesn't fit, doesn't mean you can't rightly convict.

Far too much of religious discourse does this, much to its own detriment.

Maybe.

What I find more detrimental is adult fundamentalism, dogmatism, intellectual arrogance and bigotry, which plagues the irreligious as well as if not proportionally more so than the religious. Religionists may at times stifle themselves by not progressing beyond blind faith, but atheist unavoidable stiffle themselves by summarily dismissing a whole potentially wonderful and enriching dimension of reality, or by ignoring the vast aspects of secular life that are unavoidably faith-based.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

I haven't argued that the Church is infallible. I've suggested nothing of the sort. Rather, I was speaking to who or what we should be focused on in terms of errs and correction, and who and what we should trust in ultimately judging errs and corrections.

You bring up a good point about who we should trust, Wade. The LDS Church encourages leaning on the spirit. It also encourages us to heed the council of the prophets. Honestly, I do not have a problem heeding the council of the prophets, when I have a confirmation that what I'm being told is true or correct. But, if I don't get that confirmation and, am, in fact feeling the spirit leading me in another direction, on a certain issue, I think it would be wrong, not to pay attention to that. I can take council from the prophets (or anyone who wants to offer it), but I don't think I am supposed to hand over my agency to anyone else...not even President Monson. That is not pride, IMHO. I call it leaning on the spirit or on God, directly. If that's what you are calling "pride", I would have to disagree.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Libs

[why me]

Only by reading them will we ever be able to honestly assess their strengths and weaknesses. So far I am not finding atheists arguments to be anything like I have supposed in the past, nor are the characterizations about them anywhere near accurate.

I think that one reason for this is the audience that they play to: the mass audience. I found it interesting that in a couple of nordic countries Dawkin's book was a best seller for months. Certainly, the masses were reading it. So, the style is simple and at times just a little sensational.

[why me]

And its irrelevant what crowd he belongs to (even that characterization isn't quite correct), but what about his arguments and evidences. Poisoning the well does nothing to understanding what the man says. We LDS are far too often far too guilty of doing this. We have done this for so long that we are completely unaware of doing it. Besides, I have been reading Hitchins as well as others. I rather like his humor, even if he gets carried away from facts at times. On other things he is spot on, and nigh near unrefutable. Atheist logic, I am discovering for myself through reading their materials is far stronger than we suppose. It is a most surprising discovery of mine actually. All these years simply believing what believers have said about them, and not realizing what it is they are actually saying. My days of ignorance, based on heresay are ending......

I am not poisoning the well. I am just stating that his book was published at the same time as Hitchen's and Dawkin's books. Atheism is big business and a good money maker. And all three played to mass audiences and did much to lead people away from god. For example, Hitchen's substitle for his book is "How Religion Poisons Everything"

Not very scientific. But playing to the masses, it works.

Edited July 31, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Good point.

Then, again, we are not well served to read these things uncritically, nor should we shy away from being as skeptical about what they say as they demand we be skeptical of the things they question--particularly in regards to some of their own well-poisoning against religion.

This all sounds well and good within a given paradigm. However, what is to be done when there is a clashes of paradigms? How do we assess and decide between them? Kevin Christian wrote a good article on this called: "Paradigms Crossed."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not to mention the Hitchen's book which seems to highlight the atrocities of religion and the stupidity of religion and of those people who still believe. One chapter is entitled: Is Religion Child Abuse. Certainly this plays to the recent news of the catholic church and the role of faith in a child's life imposed on them by religious parents.

The wavering masses will be well pleased with such chapter headings.

[why me]

Yes, and its equally important to follow the evidence where it goes, regardless of whether it is comfortable to do or not. We are well advized to not read anything uncritically. The paradigm is evidence. The atheists deal with evidence and lack thereof, not faith and wishful thinking. This is one of the things that is astonishing me, is how powerful the atheist arguments are for one very simple reason. They really do deal with the evidence and logic instead of stopping as soon as something ends up faith promoting.

Well, there you go. Atheists deal with evidence and religionists deal with faith. I do wish that we can prove god exists. Gosh, how easy it would all be to do life knowing that there is a god based on evidence. And how wonderful it would be if we had more evidence for the book of mormon than a few witness statements. But...such is the way it is.

If you are interested in atheism you would be best to leave the sensational books behind. And go back to the early 60's and discover the 'God is Dead' movement based on Radical Theology. It was 'hip' back in the day.

http://www.sunypress.edu/p-5575-the-call-to-radical-theology.aspx

http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=537

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Well, there you go. Atheists deal with evidence and religionists deal with faith. I do wish that we can prove god exists. Gosh, how easy it would all be to do life knowing that there is a god based on evidence. And how wonderful it would be if we had more evidence for the book of mormon than a few witness statements. But...such is the way it is.

If you are interested in atheism you would be best to leave the sensational books behind. And go back to the early 60's and discover the 'God is Dead' movement based on Radical Theology. It was 'hip' back in the day.

http://www.sunypress...l-theology.aspx

http://www.religion-...k.asp?title=537

And once again, whose atheist books are you labeling as sensationalist here? Which ones have you read that you think merit the term sensationalist? Just curious, thanks. One reason I ask is because even science books by atheists these days are far stronger than those of the 60's because the evidence has continued to pile up that science has the track record for success and accomplishments since the 1960's...... So who is being sensationalist and why do you call their writings this?

[mrmandias]

Science had a track record that was just fine by the 1960s. Nothing since then has materially altered the reputation of science for the better.

To the extent that the continued success of science within its sphere has persuaded atheists that science can answer non-scientific questions, however, contemporary atheist books should be worse, not better.

[wenglund]

You bring up a good point about who we should trust, Wade. The LDS Church encourages leaning on the spirit. It also encourages us to heed the council of the prophets. Honestly, I do not have a problem heeding the council of the prophets, when I have a confirmation that what I'm being told is true or correct. But, if I don't get that confirmation and, am, in fact feeling the spirit leading me in another direction, on a certain issue, I think it would be wrong, not to pay attention to that. I can take council from the prophets (or anyone who wants to offer it), but I don't think I am supposed to hand over my agency to anyone else...not even President Monson. That is not pride, IMHO. I call it leaning on the spirit or on God, directly. If that's what you are calling "pride", I would have to disagree.

I am suggesting that humility consists of our using our agency to place our trust in God (the person most deserving of our trust) and accordingly using our agency to conform our will with his (since it is in our best interest), whereas pride is putting more trust in ourselves and other men than God, and attempting to conform God to our will. With humility, God is the object of our devotion, whereas with pride, man is the object of our devotion.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that John ought not stay in the Church. I am very glad that he decided to stay, and I trust that he and his family may be the better for it. I also found much of what he said in his Sunstone presentation to be sensible and quite touching.

It is just that when I compare and contrast his Sunstone message to that of Don's, I see that both messages have great intellectual and emotional appeal. However, I sense (and it may just be me) that Don's message also carried great spiritual power, whereas John's did not.

I attribute this, in part, to who or what they each were respectively focused on. To me, John seem mostly focused on himself and what he had decided and why he had decided what he had according to his own way of thinking. Whereas, a portion of Don's message gave deference to Christ, and spoke to how Don, himself, was changed by the Spirit.

This fits what I suggested earlier since intellectual and emotional appeal are things both John and Don have a lot of control over, whereas the Spirit is entirely in God's control. And, his Spirit is typically manifest when his will is given deference, and where he is the object of trust and devotion, rather than man.

Said another way, from what these two good men said, John is staying in the Church because of what John thinks and who and what John has decided to be, and his thinking has intellectual and emotional appeal, though understandably lacking in Spirit. Don and Maxine, and Janet, etc., on the hand, have returned to the Church because they have been changed by the Spirit and conformed themselves and their wills to the Spirit, and accordingly, their shared message has intellectual and emotional as well as spiritual appeal.

The reason I mention this is because the addition of the Spirit to the equation can make the difference between peace and self-inflicted struggles, between quantum progress and feet-dragging progress, etc..

Having said this, I can respect that if you have humbled yourself before God, and conformed your will to his, and believe he desires for you to go in a different direction at this time than the restored gospel, I fully support you in so doing, and my prayers are with you, having faith that in the end it will all work to the best. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 31, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Only by reading them will we ever be able to honestly assess their strengths and weaknesses. So far I am not finding atheists arguments to be anything like I have supposed in the past, nor are the characterizations about them anywhere near accurate.

I would hope that the honest assessment entails not just the intellect, but emotions and Spirit as well.

I mention this because after watching your youtube video regarding your quest for knowledge, and in reading you posts here of late, I get the sense that you are focused almost entirely on the intellect, nearly to the exclusion of emotions and Spirit.

And, while the intellect is a good thing, it can, of itself, distort our perspective of life and warp the way we live our lives.

There is good reason why we have both a mind and a heart. Each provide their own wonderful perspectives. The mind offers us perception, conceptualization, and logic, whereas the heart offers us beauty and love. The mind offers us science, and the heart offers us art. Etc., etc.

And, each provides checks and balance for the other. The mind helps keep emotions rational, and the heart keeps the mind moral and charitable.

As such, a mind without a heart may lack beauty and love and morality, and a heart without the mind may lack intelligence and rationality. Together, they offer a full range of perspectives and wisdom.

Earlier, you quoted a wonderful passage from Paul, which I would like to briefly paraphrase to say: Can the mind say to the heart, I have no need of thee? Or can the heart say to the mind, I have no need of thee?

Then, in addition to the mind and the heart, there is the important aspect of the Spirit, I won't get into that now (since my previous post touched on it), but I may say more later if needs be.

I guess what I am trying to say, Kerry, is that over the years that I have known you, that you more than most people have found a healthy balance between the mind, heart, and spirit. Your writings, speeches, and videos, were not just passionate and invigorating, but had intellectual, emotional, and spiritual appeal.

Yet, lately, it seems that you have jettisoned the last two. To no small degree, you seem to have lost passion and perspective and also emotional and spiritual appeal. Like so many before you, while your mind remains somewhat keen, your current messages comes across as warped in a sterile and myopic way.

I hope I am wrong about you. And, really, it isn't my place to judge (that is between you and God). I mention this as a brother who loves you and only wants what is best. I mention it as something to consider, for what it may be worth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kevin Christensen]

Kerry wrote:

Yes, and its equally important to follow the evidence where it goes, regardless of whether it is comfortable to do or not.

N.R. Hansen famously observes that "all data are theory laden." Evidence only gets noticed and valued with respect to a particular paradigm. And the comfort of the fit is relative to the paradigm. And paradigms, as Barbour explains, always involve a network of assumptions.

For example, I remember reading Carl Sagan talking about how even intelligent people can have hallucinations. He cited his own experience, after his parents died, of hearing their voices. But of course, his interpretation of his experience is not the same thing as evidence that he was hallucinating.

Poe's short story, The Purloined letter, famously illustrates how a framework controls perception. Those who unsuccessfully search for the letter assume that it is hidden. The detective who recognizes the implications of the their unconcious assumption is able to find what they had overlooked.

David Wright's essay in New Approaches was the most rigorous and challenging, an example of following the evidence where it led with respect to a given set of assumptions not only about translation, but also with respect to the problem field, and the standards of solution. I noticed that Margaret's work in The Older Testament under cut the basic assumptions and methods employed and provided a way to account for the same evidence in a way that leaves Joseph looking inspired, rather than anachronistic in Alma 13.

We are well advized to not read anything uncritically.

Properly speaking criticisim involves discernment, understanding, comprehension. Not just reflex skepticism about God or other people. Though it does usually help to be skeptical of our own omniscience.

The paradigm is evidence.

From Ian Barbour:

Kuhn maintained that the thought and activity of a given scientific community are dominated by its paradigms, which he described as "standard examples of scientific work that embody a set of conceptual, methodological and metaphysical assumptions." Newton's work in mechanics, for instance, was the central paradigm of the community of physicists for two centuries. In the second edition (1970) of Kuhn's book and in subsequent essays, he distinguished several features which he had previously lumped together: a research tradition, the key historical examples ("exemplars") through which the tradition is transmitted, and the set of metaphysical assumptions implicit in its fundamental conceptual categories. Adopting these distinctions, I will use the term paradigm to refer to a tradition transmitted through historical exemplars. The concept of paradigm is thus defined sociologically and historically, and its implications for epistemology (the structure and character of knowledge) must be explored.

Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 8—9.

The paradigm is the framework, in which we not only place evidence, but the framework in which we decide what counts as evidence, and where it goes, and where we look and how we explain it. The trick with paradigms is to be aware of how we construct them and what their implications are, and what alternatives exist, and what their implications are, and how do decide which is best.

The atheists deal with evidence and lack thereof, not faith and wishful thinking.

Sagan once explained away NDE accounts of going through a tunnel and emerging into light as memories of birth experiences. He didn't explain, among other things, the implications of babies having their eyes closed during that period. And of course, in Contact, he has his heroine taken through a tunnel and into the presence of an alien who appears in the form of her father, and who helped her resolve her personal issues, which shows how far away he got from wishful thinking.

This is one of the things that is astonishing me, is how powerful the atheist arguments are for one very simple reason. They really do deal with the evidence and logic instead of stopping as soon as something ends up faith promoting. They are not into that, they are into the truth.

The arguments are powerful because they seek for information within frameworks that assign significance according to the assumptions of those frameworks, which involve networks of assumptions.

What I've found interesting is how often the same evidence that may seem decisive and powerful with respect to one set of assumptions can fit quite comfortably within another. (Wade mentioned my "Paradigms Crossed" essay, which gives many specifics.)

It's fascinating to read, without question. I am skeptical about the things they say as soon as I see they cannot support what they say with evidence. Therein lies their power, it's hard to be skeptical when they continue to show the evidence as opposed to asking us to merely believe them because they say so. Far too much of religious discourse does this, much to its own detriment.

Should I establish my paradigm by generalizing about religion from the religious discourse that "asks us to believe them because they say so," or should I consider something a bit meatier as the standard example of religion. If I spot someone acting like their thinking is at Level 1 or Level 2 in the Perry Scheme of Cognitive or Ethical Growth, should I call that "religion", an example of uncritical religious thinking? Or is it more criticial, more discerning, to label it as Level 1 or Level 2 thinking?

Regardless of who is an atheist and a believer, who, of Coe and Sorenson, is the most discerning relative to the Book of Mormon? Or going back the other way, just because Talmadge was an Apostle and a believer, that does not mean that Jesus the Christ is the last or best word on the gospels.

By definition, an atheist is one who looks out at the nature, the cosmos, history, and a whole range of human experiences and says, like a traffic cop, "Nothing to see here, move along." In Poe's story of the Purloined Letter, they would be accusing the detective of fraud or stupidity, uncritically dismissing his claim to have found something where they failed to do so.

Agnoticism is more self reflective and honest, I think. They are like the ones who, in the story of Poe's Purloined Letter, say, "I searched everywhere I could think of looking and found nothing." Me, I've found stuff, I've got evidence that works within my paradigm, and which seems better than others. I've got questions, but that doesn't cancel out the evidence I have. And I have many times found that by giving my questions time, by keeping my eyes open, and by re-examining the implications of my own assumptions, I've been able to reconcile many previous questions and issues. That gives me hope for the future. But I'm also willing to keep looking, and "proving the contraries" that truth (knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come) might continue to be made manifest.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited July 31, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[MAsh]

N.R. Hansen famously observes that "all data are theory laden." Evidence only gets noticed and valued with respect to a particular paradigm. And the comfort of the fit is relative to the paradigm. And paradigms, as Barbour explains, always involve a network of assumptions.

Dan Vogel has been very up front that his conclusions on some Mormon-related issues are based on his initial approach to the un-likelihood that JS communicated with God. LDS read the same evidence but arrive at a different conclusion but with a bias in a paradigm that accepts the likelihood that JS communicated with God.

One of my favorite atheist (agnostic) writers is Michael Shermer. Shermer argues that all of us engage in what he calls "belief-dependent realism" which he explains as “once belief is formed, reasons can be found to support it.” (It's a form of confirmation bias.) And correctly points out that this approach applies as much to himself as anyone else.

Kerry, you have quite a list of interesting books on your list of read, and need-to-read, but I didn't see any books on your list that contradict the primary atheistic arguments. I've actually been doing a lot of reading from atheists and believers (who write opposing arguments) for some time now. Obviously, the evidence I accept will be different than an atheist who reads the same works, but I think it's only fair that I read both sides so that I can personally decide whose arguments are stronger. If you are not reading material by intelligent believers that make opposing arguments isn't that just stacking the deck in favor of confirmation bias to support your decision that the atheist's arguments are the strongest. Now it's certainly possible that you may come to that conclusion even if you read opposing arguments, but it seems that in fairness you should read both sides (with an equally open mind) before deciding that the atheist arguments are the more convincing arguments.

Edited July 31, 2012 by MAsh

[Calm]

And it probably would be a good idea to alternate between POVs so one doesn't become too attached to/set in one before considering opposite POVs.

[Libs]

I am suggesting that humility consists of our using our agency to place our trust in God (the person most deserving of our trust) and accordingly using our agency to conform our will with his (since it is in our best interest), whereas pride is putting more trust in ourselves and other men than God, and attempting to conform God to our will. With humility, God is the object of our devotion, whereas with pride, man is the object of our devotion.

We are in agreement.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that John ought not stay in the Church. I am very glad that he decided to stay, and I trust that he and his family may be the better for it. I also found much of what he said in his Sunstone presentation to be sensible and quite touching.

It is just that when I compare and contrast his Sunstone message to that of Don's, I see that both messages have great intellectual and emotional appeal. However, I sense (and it may just be me) that Don's message also carried great spiritual power, whereas John's did not.

I attribute this, in part, to who or what they each were respectively focused on. To me, John seem mostly focused on himself and what he had decided and why he had decided what he had according to his own way of thinking. Whereas, a portion of Don's message gave deference to Christ, and spoke to how Don, himself, was changed by the Spirit.

This fits what I suggested earlier since intellectual and emotional appeal are things both John and Don have a lot of control over, whereas the Spirit is entirely in God's control. And, his Spirit is typically manifest when his will is given deference, and where he is the object of trust and devotion, rather than man.

Said another way, from what these two good men said, John is staying in the Church because of what John thinks and who and what John has decided to be, and his thinking has intellectual and emotional appeal, though understandably lacking in Spirit. Don and Maxine, and Janet, etc., on the hand, have returned to the Church because they have been changed by the Spirit and conformed themselves and their wills to the Spirit, and accordingly, their shared message has intellectual and emotional as well as spiritual appeal.

The reason I mention this is because the addition of the Spirit to the equation can make the difference between peace and self-inflicted struggles, between quantum progress and feet-dragging progress, etc..

Having said this, I can respect that if you have humbled yourself before God, and conformed your will to his, and believe he desires for you to go in a different direction at this time than the restored gospel, I fully support you in so doing, and my prayers are with you, having faith that in the end it will all work to the best. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, Wade. I enjoyed this post and agree with you on many things.

I haven't heard or read Don's talk, so I have no basis for comparison. But, I don't think I would want to make a comparison, anyway. We are all, wherever we are, on the spiritual path, and often our faith is not perfect. We all flux between good and not so good times, in our faith walk. Hopefully, it is all for learning and growing, even the adversity.

[wenglund]

We are in agreement.

Thanks, Wade. I enjoyed this post and agree with you on many things.

I haven't heard or read Don's talk, so I have no basis for comparison. But, I don't think I would want to make a comparison, anyway. We are all, wherever we are, on the spiritual path, and often our faith is not perfect. We all flux between good and not so good times, in our faith walk. Hopefully, it is all for learning and growing, even the adversity.

Well said.

Truth be told, I hesitated drawing the comparison for that very reason (as well as me being personally reticent to judge the spirituality of others), but I went ahead anyway because I thought it provided a good opportunity to illustrate what I believe to be an important point. Perhaps some other illustration would have been better. Who knows? Either way I hope you were able to look past the foibles and catch the spirit of what I said and still grasp my message, as you seem to have.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 31, 2012 by wenglund

[why me]

Kerry, you have quite a list of interesting books on your list of read, and need-to-read, but I didn't see any books on your list that contradict the primary atheistic arguments. I've actually been doing a lot of reading from atheists and believers (who write opposing arguments) for some time now.

One such believer book would be "The Reasons for God" by Timothy Keller. His book is centered on belief in the age of skepticism. When Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris published their books we were certainly living through the age of skepticism. Which is one reason why all three books were popular to the mass audience.

[HiJolly]

Don and I had a few good chats while we were at Sunstone last week. He has a good heart. It will be interesting to carry on with him via the internet about the things I am learning. He told me of a great book by Sam Harris "The End of Faith."

I read Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins' books a few years ago and really enjoyed the experience. Impressions:

Hitchens - fatally flawed prose, logically speaking. Proof that premises must be *true* for logic to work.

Harris - I think he defines faith and belief in ways very different from the way I do. Essentially I think I agree with him, though. His last chapter was awesome!

Dawkins - Really smart, but really lacking in needed information for his chosen topic. Reminded me of a rich kid whining because he doesn't own *all* the marbles in school.

Anyway...

HiJolly

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Science had a track record that was just fine by the 1960s. Nothing since then has materially altered the reputation of science for the better.

To the extent that the continued success of science within its sphere has persuaded atheists that science can answer non-scientific questions, however, contemporary atheist books should be worse, not better.

Really? The discover of the Higgs Boson, the further experiments for laser technology to heal blindness (that's RIGHT, ***HEAL*** blindness), computer technology? The space telescope? NEW and better medicines and technology to help fight cancer? Are you seriously joking with me here? What, did you stop reading in the 1960's or something?! Science is vastly stronger, more informed, and more powerful now than was ever even thought possible in the 1960's. The continually recurring and further evidences for evolution have been staggeringly piling up since the 1960's as well. And, the new scientists who are now in the position that they have the option of taking no prisoners in their new analysis of evidence for spirituality and God. The science of neuroscience has begun demonstrating with powerful new experiments and evidence that the brain is vastly stronger, vastly more able to produce religion and God than we ever before supposed in the 1960's. No, it is not science which is standing still, it is you apparently. If I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say I apologize. I am hastily reading tonight, I gotta get to bed early for work tomorrow.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Wade noted:

There is good reason why we have both a mind and a heart. Each provide their own wonderful perspectives. The mind offers us perception, conceptualization, and logic, whereas the heart offers us beauty and love. The mind offers us science, and the heart offers us art. Etc., etc.

Kerry responds:

This is simply false, and one reason why Stenger noted that so many of us are stuck in medieval thinking. In this case with the heart, this is the way outdated ancient thinking. We know the heart does ONE thing, pumps blood. This is literally undisputable. We also KNOW because of thousands and tens of thousands of experiments with MRI that EVERYTHING to do with emotions, feelings, thoughts, thinking, etc. is in the brain. This too is literally indisputable. They have NEVER found emotions in the heart, but have absolutely without one failure ALWAYS found where in the brain emotions come from through literally umpteen thousands of experiments. This, I would propose, is yet another area where religion has to back down from the pure power of scientific experiments and evidence that has been and is repeatable by any doctor competent to use MRI's on patients. Art is most definitely in our brains as are patterns, science, religion, God, feelings, hope, prayer, etc. Many thousands of neuroscientist and doctors have been putting together information for decades on this and their writings are beginning to be put in print. Once again, science is advancing our knowledge about us, while ancient thinking has kept us back with the pretended knowledge that our hearts produce art, emotions, and the spirit. None of this myth making fantasy has any credibility in reality in any manner.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts