Understanding Belief

[Damien the Leper]

I wish to first provide a disclaimer: This thread isn't about discussing why people leave faith behind. There is already a thread open that is discussing that issue. This thread is not meant to argue atheism vs. faith (belief). I am sincerely asking for rational, reasonable and critically logical thinking. To be clear, this discussion should also discount "faith" reasoning.

I want to begin by asking questions:

1) What is it about the Judeo-Christian narratives that appeal to you to believe?

2) What is it about the Judeo-Christian truth claims that appeal to you to believe?

______________________________________________________________________________

Next...

What line of logical thinking drives you to believe? I ask this question because it demands a "from the actual source" justification.

From a discussion with an Evangelical friend:

Me: What gives the Bible authority?

Ev: God.

Me: Says who?

Ev: God and the Prophets and I have faith and hope that what I believe is real and true.

Me: How can you substantially validate such a claim? Based on the reasoning you have given I cannot conclude as you do.

Ev: Why not?

Me: You assert that 1) God asserts the authority of scripture and 2) scripture asserts its authority because it is inspired from God. How do you justify these assertions?

Ev: 2 Timothy 3:16.

Me: Really? I'm not following. Correct me if I'm wrong. You are asserting that scripture, because it is "God breathed", is the credential to properly place authority? You do realize that you have just gone in a circle right?

Ev: No I didn't.

Me: Think very hard about what you have said in response to my questions.

Ev: I don't know what you're getting at.

Me: Let me explain my reasoning to your thought processes. You assert the authority of scripture because God and the Prophets validate such a claim. My question to this response is: "Says who?" Your response was God. Well, how do you know? You are essentially saying to be that you say that some writer of a book of scripture says that God says so. Is that correct?

Ev: I wouldn't say it like that exactly but...

Me: But that is what you are claiming. In the end, you don't actually know that God, if he does exist and I'm not saying he doesn't, said any or did any of the things that scripture claims.

Ev: I said before that my faith and hope validates my beliefs.

Me: (Slightly awkward silence)...so your response is to appeal to faith which is emotively and psychologically based? You do realize that this reasoning will continue to fall flat on its face. I'm not trying to dissuade you from believing. I'm trying to understand where any actual authority stands and why I should consider any truth claims. Faith is not a reasonable or logical response.

_______________________________________________________________________

The conversation went on a tangent after that.

My final question as I tried to get my friend to consider is this:

Can any of your beliefs and truth claims that you assert from scriptural (and/or prophetic) authority actually be substantiated without faith?

[CV75]

1) What is it about the Judeo-Christian narratives that appeal to you to believe?

Love and safety.

2) What is it about the Judeo-Christian truth claims that appeal to you to believe?

The attendant observation that love and safety have been achieved and can be had.

Can any of your beliefs and truth claims that you assert from scriptural (and/or prophetic) authority actually be substantiated without faith?

No, as cannot any belief or truth claim from any non-scriptural (and/or non-prophetic) authority.

[emeliza]

1) What is it about the Judeo-Christian narratives that appeal to you to believe?

Gives me direction and understanding on how to live my life.

2) What is it about the Judeo-Christian truth claims that appeal to you to believe?

The end result of living the way the teachings direct me. I am happier, which is a subjective emotion, but having lived different ways, this is the one with the best results and fewer consequences and not so up and down.

[mfbukowski]

Can any of your beliefs and truth claims that you assert from scriptural (and/or prophetic) authority actually be substantiated without faith?

What alleged "claims" did you have in mind, specifically?

Why should they be, or not be, and where did that "should" come from?

What are the underlying value assumptions behind the question itself? Why do you want to know?

[Damien the Leper]

Love and safety.

The attendant observation that love and safety have been achieved and can be had.

No, as cannot any belief or truth claim from any non-scriptural (and/or non-prophetic) authority.

Then from a logical and rational perspective there really isn't any reason to believe?

[Nathair/|\]

Alma 32 and my personal experience. I don't think I would follow any Abrahamic faith at all without the Book of Mormon.

[Damien the Leper]

What alleged "claims" did you have in mind, specifically?

1) God exists.

2) Scripture is authoritative.

3) Resurrection implemented the means by which believers attain salvation and exaltation.

4) Miraculous narratives meant to establish some form of supernatural (absolute?) truth.

Why should they be, or not be, and where did that "should" come from?

Please expand on what you are asking.

What are the underlying value assumptions behind the question itself? Why do you want to know?

The question doesn't assume anything. It questions assertions believed to be 'truths'.

Forgive my self-aggrandizement. While I no longer believe, I am trying to figure out, for myself, why I lost faith and no longer believe. Part of my reasoning for dropping out of faith is because there is a lacking of evidence to support certain claims, narratives, etc. and that history according to scripture does not match up with history (not in all cases) according to archaeological records and other studies.

[harfad]

1) What is it about the Judeo-Christian narratives that appeal to you to believe?

2) What is it about the Judeo-Christian truth claims that appeal to you to believe?

Not sure why you are limiting it to “Judo-Christian” narratives and truth claims. Mormonism requires me to believe all narratives and truth claims that are divinely inspired and com from God; and they are a lot more than “Judo-Christian”. What appeals to me about them, and enables me to recognize, accept, and believe in them is the gift and power of the Holy Ghost: “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” (Moroni 10:5).

Next...

What line of logical thinking drives you to believe? I ask this question because it demands a "from the actual source" justification.

If you mean deductive logic without the aid of the light of Christ, the answer is none. But belief based on the witness of the Spirit is not entirely unreasonable. It involves the recognition of truth by the light of Christ, coupled with logical deductions based on association with other truths previously so discovered.

From a discussion with an Evangelical friend:

I didn’t find that helpful. The Mormon basis of belief is different from an Evangelical one. It is based on personal revelation and the testimony of the Holy Ghost, not the declaration alone that “the Bible says so”.

My final question as I tried to get my friend to consider is this:

Can any of your beliefs and truth claims that you assert from scriptural (and/or prophetic) authority actually be substantiated without faith?

It depends on what it is; but the most fundamental parts of it cannot be. It is based on faith, and the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Edited November 20, 2012 by harfad

[Damien the Leper]

Not sure why you are limiting it to “Judo-Christian” narratives and truth claims. Mormonism requires me to believe all narratives and truth claims that are divinely inspired and com from God; and they are a lot more than “Judo-Christian”. What appeals to me about them, and enables me to recognize, accept, and believe in them is the gift and power of the Holy Ghost: “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” (Moroni 10:5).

This begs the question of how do you know it is from God? Furthermore, what is God. Who says that God is what you or anyone else claims God to be?

If you mean deductive logic without the aid of the light of Christ, the answer is none. But belief based on the witness of the Spirit is not entirely unreasonable. It involves the recognition of truth by the light of Christ, coupled with logical deductions based on association with other truths previously so discovered.

What is the light of Christ? Where does this concept come from? What gives the "light of Christ" any weight of authority and discernment? It doesn't seem to help if anyone tries to put reason and unreason on the same shelf.

I didn’t find that helpful. The Mormon basis of belief is different from an Evangelical one. It is based on personal revelation and the testimony of the Holy Ghost, not the declaration alone that “the Bible says so”.

But the LDS perspective doesn't do much better either. LDS assert that a modern day prophet "says that God says so". Furthermore, LDS who receive revelation "say that the Spirit confirms or that God tells them so". This still doesn't work. It is too emotively and spiritually-psychologically based.

It depends on what it is; but the most fundamental parts of it cannot be. It is based on faith, and the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Faith is emotive and psychologically based. It doesn't hold up in rational argument or discussion.

[CV75]

Then from a logical and rational perspective there really isn't any reason to believe?

I don't se how you got that from what I wrote.

On the other hand, it is logical and rational to conclude that the beliefs and truth claims that I assert from scriptural (and/or prophetic) authority cannot be substantiated without my having faith in them (the beliefs, the truth claims, the sources, the authority), and neither can any of yours, without your having faith in them.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't se how you got that from what I wrote.

On the other hand, it is logical and rational to conclude that the beliefs and truth claims that I assert from scriptural (and/or prophetic) authority cannot be substantiated without my having faith in them (the beliefs, the truth claims, the sources, the authority), and neither can any of yours, without your having faith in them.

I drew my conclusion based on the notion that faith doesn't rely on logic or rationality. Am I wrong in thinking this?

No. Though I am not a huge Bill Maher fan, I do agree with his statement that "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." The principle is the same. I don't have faith. I can believe something that there is reasonable, rational and logical evidence for.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Valentinus

[CV75]

I drew my conclusion based on the notion that faith doesn't rely on logic or rationality. Am I wrong in thinking this?

Yes, because your conclusion is based on the faulty notion that you don’t have faith in what you believe or assert based on a brand of logic or rationality that you have faith in.

[mfbukowski]

1) God exists.

2) Scripture is authoritative.

3) Resurrection implemented the means by which believers attain salvation and exaltation.

4) Miraculous narratives meant to establish some form of supernatural (absolute?) truth.

You are barking up the wrong tree- that's the problem.

No evidence exists nor can exist for any of these alleged "claims". The fact of the matter is that the LDS church expects these to be taken on faith as confirmed by the Holy Spirit. Those are the only "claims" made by anyone.

The question doesn't assume anything. It questions assertions believed to be 'truths'.

That's the whole issue then, isn't it? What kind of "truth" do you think it means? Scientifically verifiable truth? You will not find it here and if that is what you are seeking don't bother.

The proof is in the pudding. You live the principles and see if your life is better. Read Alma 32- that's exactly what it says. That is the only kind of "truth" available here. But I would wager you have no theory of truth backing up your claims that anything else is "true" either.

What IS "truth" after all? That is the question here, and without a theory of what that is, you will not even know what to look for. You are seeking truth but don't know what it is or what it would look like if you found it. Does that make sense?

Forgive my self-aggrandizement. While I no longer believe, I am trying to figure out, for myself, why I lost faith and no longer believe. Part of my reasoning for dropping out of faith is because there is a lacking of evidence to support certain claims, narratives, etc. and that history according to scripture does not match up with history (not in all cases) according to archaeological records and other studies.

It isn't supposed to!

Religious truth is about what brings you closer to God and has nothing to do with history or science. It is a different kind of truth. It is about a narrative that gives your life meaning and purpose.

You can find nothing more important in life than that.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, because your conclusion is based on the faulty notion that you don’t have faith in what you believe or assert based on a brand of logic or rationality that you have faith in.

You recklessly use the term faith. It is a simple game of "I know you are but what am I". It won't work with me.

[mfbukowski]

Faith is emotive and psychologically based. It doesn't hold up in rational argument or discussion.

Does everything in your life hold up to rational argument? How did you, or will you pick your significant other?

What makes you decide what is important in your life? Is murder wrong? Is abortion wrong? Is gay marriage right? Who did you vote for? What job should you pick? Why is a scene beautiful? Why is there something rather than nothing? What do you want out of life and why?

None of these questions can be answered by cold evidence and logic, but answering them will be among the most important tasks you will find in life.

They are about values and purpose and meaning, what is important and why it is, what we should or should not do and why, and have nothing to do with logic and evidence.

[mfbukowski]

I can believe something that there is reasonable, rational and logical evidence for.

Nah.

You believe all kinds of things you have absolutely no evidence for. Of course that is saying something different than what you said. The question is what things you are willing to believe without evidence and what things you are not willing to believe without evidence.

[Damien the Leper]

Ok, so I have heard a few positions and thoughts on the subject matter. I thank those who have participated.

Statement #1: God exists.

False.

Statement #2: I believe God exists.

True.

Statement #3: The LDS church is the one true church of God on the Earth.

False.

Statement #4: I believe that the LDS church is the one true church of God on the Earth.

True.

Would members of this board agree with the premises of these hypothetical statements? Do members also understand the core value of both statements? Statements #1 and #3 are false because they are unverifiable claims. Conversely, statements #2 and #4 are indeed factual statements solely based on the opinion of the person who claims and owns them.

Once more...

Statement #5: Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ.

False.

Statement #6: Joseph Smith believes he saw God and Jesus Christ.

True.

Let me be clear again, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone out of faith. However, if there is not a rational, reasonable, or logical explanation for a worldview, leaving the "faith" construct out of the equation, then the worldview is inconsequential and goes onto the same shelves as mythology.

Again, I'm not saying that God does not exist. I'm stating that there seems to be a lacking of evidence to support the worldview that God does in fact exist. If the narratives found in scripture are simply narratives rather than actual historical writings then what greater value do they have than that of the story of Heracles or the Odyssey? Not an ounce.

[guerreiro9]

I drew my conclusion based on the notion that faith doesn't rely on logic or rationality. Am I wrong in thinking this?

No. Though I am not a huge Bill Maher fan, I do agree with his statement that "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." The principle is the same. I don't have faith. I can believe something that there is reasonable, rational and logical evidence for.

Valentinus,

I'll humor you and give you an answer, even though it does appear that you do not wish to understand anyone's belief but your own. It is very naive and foolish to assume that all beliefs and thoughts that do not align with your own are somehow irrational. Much more intelligent and rational people than you and I have weighed the evidence, examined their experiences and come to the logical conclusion that God must exist. Whether God does or does not exist does not effect the rational nature of their decision.

You are completely wrong that faith does not rely upon logic or rationality, at least in my case anyway, and I would expect in the case of believers of most religions. There are logical and rational reasons for believing as they do, even though it may be difficult for some to articulate their reasoning.

As for my reasoning let us start with the grand question; does a creator exist? This is a simple yes or no question, but the implications are staggering.

If no, then all of this, all life, all existence, the entire universe, all reality simply sprang into being from nothing. There is no impetus, no reason, there is only....... nothing. This could fit our current scientific models, but is not demanded by them. If we wish to believe this we are choosing to exercise as much faith as those who choose to believe in a creator. Atheism requires the same level of faith as theism, and cannot be proven in any concrete way. Agnosticism would be the only way to avoid having to rely on faith.

If yes, then we can ask other questions. Why was all of this created? Was there a reason for the creation? Are there other creations? Is there any relationship between the creator and I? and a multitude of others. The concept of a creator could also fit our current scientific models, but as before is not demanded by them. As a member of the scientific community I can also tell you that our current scientific models are woefully incomplete. Even if someone was able to prove or disprove the existence of a creator using our current scientific models, they would probably be in error and the proof would be rejected later as we gain more understanding. Remember, people of all ages have considered themselves the pinnacle of human achievement and knowledge only to looked upon as quaint fools by future generations. The same will be true of us.

At this point is it any more logical to believe in a creator vs. nothing? I think there are logical and rational reasons for both, but given my experiences I believe the more logical and rational conclusion is that there was some sort of creative force behind the creation of the universe. Could I be wrong? Yes. Could those who chose to believe in nothing be wrong? Yes. Are my arguments illogical or irrational? No, even though in the end they may lead me to incorrect conclusions.

So at this point I take a leap of faith, I choose to believe in a creator. And why do I do this? Because I want there to be something more to my existence, I want there to be something more than nothing. Is it illogical or irrational to try to find meaning in your existence? When faced with two alternatives both requiring faith is it illogical and irrational to choose to believe in the alternative that offers more?

I cannot speak to the broader Judeo-Christian narrative, but I choose to believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it most completely and adequately answers the questions that I have about the purpose of the creation. If one religion is true I want it to be the Church of Jesus Christ, because it offers the most compelling narrative for the destiny of man. I do not want the other religions to be true because their narratives do not appeal to me nearly as much.

So how do I rationally sustain this believe? Many people may find other narratives compelling and wish for them to be true. Why do I continue in my believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church? The best explanation is given in Alma 32 and mentioned by Nathair. I want it to be true so I try it, and repeatedly the promised response is received. Something is promised in the gospel and I try it and I receive the promised response. Is it possible that I am deluding myself? Sure, but it is also possible that what I am repeatedly seeing is a true phenomenon, so I continue to try and it has not failed to respond. Is it illogical and irrational then to continue to believe in something that I do not fully understand, but do receive responses repeatedly as promised? If so then there are many irrational scientists and engineers because this exact thing is done all the time. There are many many phenomena that we do not understand completely, but we know that when a certain input is given a certain response is received.

So in the end I choose to believe because I want it to be true, and I have had repeated experiences that have confirmed my belief.

-guerreiro9

Edited November 20, 2012 by guerreiro9

[CV75]

You recklessly use the term faith. It is a simple game of "I know you are but what am I". It won't work with me.

If you want to believe that, fine; it demonstrtes my point, and is an easy way (not logical, and not rational, but even if it were, it is only because you choose to believe a particluar logic and rationale) to avoid introspection of how close your use and mine are, and how illogical and irrational your perception fundamentallay is.

[CV75]

However, if there is not a rational, reasonable, or logical explanation for a worldview, leaving the "faith" construct out of the equation, then the worldview is inconsequential and goes onto the same shelves as mythology.

Speak for your own world view!

[Damien the Leper]

Does everything in your life hold up to rational argument? How did you, or will you pick your significant other?

Not to be shallow, but there was physical attraction to my significant other. I believe that my choice in dating him was a rational and logical one based on how we interact. From that stems the emotive response that is tied into my psychology.

What makes you decide what is important in your life? Is murder wrong? Is abortion wrong? Is gay marriage right? Who did you vote for? What job should you pick? Why is a scene beautiful? Why is there something rather than nothing? What do you want out of life and why?

This oddly resembles, first, a tangent into whether or not "good" actually exists. This then begs the question of who decides what is "good". This rabbit hole chase is flawed by the odd idea that some standard had to be created rather than naturally exist. It is an attack on relativity and it builds its own argument in such a way so that it protects itself from any real scrutiny. It doesn't work for me.

I decide what is important in my life not because of narcissism but by what I see in the world around me. Keep in mind that the worldview, philosophically speaking, isn't centered either around a "divine" being/truth or self. I choose education not for the primary reason others may choose it. Money is secondary but necessary in order to survive. I chose education so that I could learn and then in turn teach.

What I want from life is to live. To touch lives for good and to experience the touch of others seeking to do the same. I want to breathe, to love, to be loved, to lift burdens, to bond with random people because we share the greatest trait of all: our humanity. The very real fact that we do exist.

None of these questions can be answered by cold evidence and logic, but answering them will be among the most important tasks you will find in life.

They are about values and purpose and meaning, what is important and why it is, what we should or should not do and why, and have nothing to do with logic and evidence.

I disagree.

[Nathair/|\]

Ok, so I have heard a few positions and thoughts on the subject matter. I thank those who have participated.

Statement #1: God exists.

False.

Statement #2: I believe God exists.

True.

Statement #3: The LDS church is the one true church of God on the Earth.

False.

Statement #4: I believe that the LDS church is the one true church of God on the Earth.

True.

Would members of this board agree with the premises of these hypothetical statements? Do members also understand the core value of both statements? Statements #1 and #3 are false because they are unverifiable claims. Conversely, statements #2 and #4 are indeed factual statements solely based on the opinion of the person who claims and owns them.

Once more...

Statement #5: Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ.

False.

Statement #6: Joseph Smith believes he saw God and Jesus Christ.

True.

Let me be clear again, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone out of faith. However, if there is not a rational, reasonable, or logical explanation for a worldview, leaving the "faith" construct out of the equation, then the worldview is inconsequential and goes onto the same shelves as mythology.

Again, I'm not saying that God does not exist. I'm stating that there seems to be a lacking of evidence to support the worldview that God does in fact exist. If the narratives found in scripture are simply narratives rather than actual historical writings then what greater value do they have than that of the story of Heracles or the Odyssey? Not an ounce.

Might I submit that you replace each instance of "false" with "Untestable through logic or objective evidence?"

[CV75]

Not to be shallow, but there was physical attraction to my significant other. I believe that my choice in dating him was a rational and logical one based on how we interact. From that stems the emotive response that is tied into my psychology.

This does not make sense. How can you know the initial “physical attraction” was not a function of a pre-existing underlying emotional component or vulnerability, or that your initial interactions were similarly not based on such illogical and irrational forces, and that such forces do not impair your logic and rationale now?

I decide what is important in my life not because of narcissism but by what I see in the world around me. Keep in mind that the worldview, philosophically speaking, isn't centered either around a "divine" being/truth or self. I choose education not for the primary reason others may choose it. Money is secondary but necessary in order to survive. I chose education so that I could learn and then in turn teach.

How do you know you are not narcissistic? I'm sure we can examine many of your statements and show that you are (but that is not my objective).

What was important to you as a two-year old, and why, and how would you have explained it (can you even remember)? And how do you know you won’t revert back to that as a preferred mode of operation, after having used a set of changing beliefs to move away from it in the first place?

[ControlFreak]

The problem is that faith and feeling the spirit are internal responses. Call them psychological and emotional if you will, I know I have a hard time telling the difference.

So, if you choose to live the law of chastity, show compassion or participate in fellowship of the church, I am fairly certain you will feel good about it. But why should you choose to interpret that as evidence that God is good rather than evidence that moral discipline, kindness and healthy relationships with others are good?

That's my whole issue. I can plant the seed and try it, and most of the time the fruit is good. Fact is, the church teaches good principles that for the most part can lead to a happy life. But how does that confirm anything other than the principles and lifestyle themselves as opposed to proving God? Scriptures like Alma 32 and Moroni 7 start from that assumption that if something feels good and brings happiness, than it must be from God. I feel like happiness or warm feelings as a result of living a "godly" life only proves the value of that lifestyle.

To me, it seems like faith in God can only come directly as a gift of revelation from God.

[Nathair/|\]

The problem is that faith and feeling the spirit are internal responses. Call them psychological and emotional if you will, I know I have a hard time telling the difference.

So, if you choose to live the law of chastity, show compassion or participate in fellowship of the church, I am fairly certain you will feel good about it. But why should you choose to interpret that as evidence that God is good rather than evidence that moral discipline, kindness and healthy relationships with others are good?

That's my whole issue. I can plant the seed and try it, and most of the time the fruit is good. Fact is, the church teaches good principles that for the most part can lead to a happy life. But how does that confirm anything other than the principles and lifestyle themselves as opposed to proving God? Scriptures like Alma 32 and Moroni 7 start from that assumption that if something feels good and brings happiness, than it must be from God. I feel like happiness or warm feelings as a result of living a "godly" life only proves the value of that lifestyle.

To me, it seems like faith in God can only come directly as a gift of revelation from God.

You need to pay more attention to MFBukowski's posts. I do agree with you on the last sentence. I believe he would too.