Understanding Belief

[CV75]

The problem is that faith and feeling the spirit are internal responses.

Yes, and so is belief in and an adherence to a particular line of logic and rationale. That is the problem with OPs like this one that pit belief against belief for belief’s sake.

[Thunderfire]

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

We are told that "the righteous will live by faith" Habakkuk 2:4. So in my opinion, everything I believed until proven had to first be founded in faith. But then once proven I no longer had faith in these things, rather I developed knowledge of things I once only had faith in believing. For me, this presents the opportunity to have faith in greater mysteries of God. So the process of having faith leading to knowledge never ends because we are pursuing an endless God! Just my thoughts

[Damien the Leper]

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 assume too much based on your interpretation of what I have said. These conclusions that you claim as logical on behalf of others...what are they? Are they emotively and psychologically based? Let me be clear, I am asking what makes the person(s) thought processes and reasoning rational? Human experience affects our emotions and our psychology.

For example, Wade Englund and I have gone to bat on many occasions concerning gay marriage. I have emotively and passionately at times argued my position. However, I have actually conceded to Wade in such a way so as to purge the emotive response and replace it with logic and rational arguments. (HUGE thank you goes to Wade)

For the underlined portion above, what does 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.

Please demonstrate how faith relies on logic and rationality then. I would certainly entertain hearing the reasons that one may consider logical and/or rational for their belief in God or supernaturalism.

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.

I do understand the human need for companionship and reason for existence and I believe that faith is an appropriate response. But why is it appropriate? What makes it appropriate? Is it truly so awful an idea that there isn't a God, a Demiurge, an Un-moved Mover, a Zeus, an Odin, etc. who is the author of some form life and existence?

As I have stated before, I have not claimed that God does not exist. I'm stating that one side's reasoning, for me at least, outweighs that of the other. It's not necessarily about right or wrong. In fact, I reject that thought process altogether.

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.

Are the questions bolded and underlined above relevant? If so, how? Why? Who decides this relevance?

I am often reminded of Copernicus and other scientists in these types of discussions. Their scientific findings and assertions that are logically and rationally based are the very things that brought them religious condemnation.

Rather than ask why something was created...ask what purpose does this real thing serve according to reality as we know it? Take food for example. We know that it nourishes. What makes it nourishment? Vitamins, protein, etc. That is the purpose. Humans, just like animals, are existing creatures that develop in intelligence and anatomy. This science has taught us (NOTE: I didn't say science proved anything).

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.

I truly respect what you have said here. I cannot rationally and logically make a claim that God does not exist. I don't have that kind of knowledge. If God does exist and I find out in the next life then...whoops! I was wrong. I'll deal with that if that time comes.

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?

This I also respect. This is probably the primary reason why I do come to the defense of those who consider themselves believers. Unlike other atheists, I can respect the hope for the supernatural. Do I believe that people of faith are wasting their time? No! I don't think I could in good conscience make such a horrible claim.

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.

Wait...now I'm confused. The Church of Jesus Christ or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

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.

Time for a bit of honesty, I struggle (obviously) with the concept of faith because I don't know how to make faith a rational or logical response for me. I sincerely apologize if I came off as saying others faith is irrational...I don't believe that is what I meant.

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.

Fair enough. I appreciate the conviction of your post because I believe this is what I was looking for when I proposed what I did in the OP.

-guerreiro9

[Damien the Leper]

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.

This is actually true. Some examples are mathematics, gravity and electricity.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Or you assume too much.

[Damien the Leper]

Speak for your own world view!

I do believe that what I stated was an opinion and not a fact.

[Damien the Leper]

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

But that would change the game and the parameters of discussion. The odd-numbered statements were not hypothetically or theoretically inspired. They were statements and not inquiries. The reason the statements are proposed as they are was to demonstrate how they fall flat on their faces as compared to the even-numbered statements.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

I've already done this so many times- someone else take over!

Edited November 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Damien the Leper]

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 don't. I only know what I have logically concluded. I have assumed nothing.

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).

This question completely side steps what I stated in the paragraph you have quoted. I was asked questions and I responded in a way I thought would be appropriate to mfbukowski.

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?

Humans, by nature and maturity, develop. It doesn't seem possible to revert back to such a mindset that you seem to propose.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, and so is belief in and an adherence to a particular line of logic and rationale. That is the problem with OPs like this one that pit belief against belief for belief’s sake.

I believe that faith is a matter of the heart and logic is a matter of the mind. Remember, I have assumed nothing. I have only asked questions to understand.

[Damien the Leper]

We are told that "the righteous will live by faith" Habakkuk 2:4. So in my opinion, everything I believed until proven had to first be founded in faith. But then once proven I no longer had faith in these things, rather I developed knowledge of things I once only had faith in believing. For me, this presents the opportunity to have faith in greater mysteries of God. So the process of having faith leading to knowledge never ends because we are pursuing an endless God! Just my thoughts

Very interesting and dare I say Gnostic? Thanks for the response.

[Damien the Leper]

deleted

I've already done this so many times- someone else take over!

Please don't get frustrated with me. The mathematics, gravity and electricity comment was a joke and not bait. Thank you for your contributions nonetheless.

[CV75]

I believe...

That is my point for you. Your belief in logic and rationale is fundamentally no more logical or rational than a religious person's belief in spiritual processes.

[CV75]

I don't. I only know what I have logically concluded. I have assumed nothing.

So you really don't know how useful your logic is, yet you hold to it witout any assumption. You only know what you know, and claim no assumptions. That is irrational--I'm not saying it's a bad thing, only that it is no more rational than holding to any other belief.

This question completely side steps what I stated in the paragraph you have quoted.

Not really. It anticipates what you said about not knowing for sure.

Humans, by nature and maturity, develop. It doesn't seem possible to revert back to such a mindset that you seem to propose.

Yet it does happen! Humans, by nature, maturity, experience and choice do stop developing and even revert and regress, and if by choice, most often to their benefit.

[CV75]

I do believe that what I stated was an opinion and not a fact.

Opinions are based on beliefs, as are beliefs about what those beliefs are based upon--none of which are fundamentally formed on a rational basis other than the opinion that "it works for me."

[guerreiro9]

Valentinus,

Perhaps I did misinterpret your original post. I have mentioned this before and will do so again, because so much of our form of communication is nonverbal, it is inevitable that misunderstandings will occur on internet forums. If I have misunderstood you I apologize. Perhaps, I came off as combative, in the first paragraph anyway, but it did appear that you were parroting an argument I have heard frequently of late and I reject as complete nonsense. The idea that ones belief's are illogical or irrational if they differ from my own is offensive to me and a very dangerous and unhealthy philosophical position. It appeared this was the approach you were taking, and that you were not actually interested in understanding the beliefs of others, but rather were dismissing any belief out of hand. If this is not what you intended then I apologize, if it was what you intended then I stand by my words and you hold a dangerous and unhealthy philosophical position.

Human experience affects our emotions and our psychology.

Yes it does, but to ignore those experiences when forming one's beliefs is completely illogical. Our entire cognitive process is colored by the experiences we have passed through and logic and rationality can only be judged in this context. What is logical and rational to one may not be to another.

For the underlined portion above, what does effect the rational nature of their decision?

The rational nature of a decision is not based on whether the decision turns out to be correct. There have been many ill-fated rational decisions. If I were asked to define what would constitute a rational decision (which it appears I have been) I would define it as a decision that is reached after adequately examining the information available to a person at that moment in time. Given this definition many have rationally chosen to believe in God, while many have rationally chosen not to.

Please demonstrate how faith relies on logic and rationality then. I would certainly entertain hearing the reasons that one may consider logical and/or rational for their belief in God or supernaturalism.

I tried to explain what I feel is a logical reason why I continue to believe in God. I am promised certain outcomes in response to certain actions, and when those outcomes are fulfilled my faith is increased. As an example let us assume that you know nothing of electricity. In a sense electricity is supernatural to you as it does not exist as part of your natural world. Someone promises you that if you touch an exposed wire you will feel a shock. You touch an exposed wire and sure enough you feel a shock. Does it mean that the wire you just touched carries an electrical charge? No, it does not. There could be a number of explanations for the sensation you just felt. Would it be irrational for you to believe that the wire you just touched carries an electrical charge. No, and for anyone who has had the misfortune of accidentally touching an exposed wire, I think believing the wire carries an electrical charge is a rational decision. Notice though, that the rationality of this decision is not based on whether the wire actually carries an electrical charge, but is based on the experience you had with the wire.

I do understand the human need for companionship and reason for existence and I believe that faith is an appropriate response. But why is it appropriate? What makes it appropriate? Is it truly so awful an idea that there isn't a God, a Demiurge, an Un-moved Mover, a Zeus, an Odin, etc. who is the author of some form life and existence?

I am not sure what you are asking relative to the appropriateness of faith, perhaps you could clarify. Awful is a subjective term, and to me yes, nothingness seems awful compared to the alternative. I fully accept that completely rational people may choose to believe in nothingness.

As I have stated before, I have not claimed that God does not exist. I'm stating that one side's reasoning, for me at least, outweighs that of the other. It's not necessarily about right or wrong. In fact, I reject that thought process altogether.

I completely understand other's claims that God does not exist even if you have not made the claim yourself.

Are the questions bolded and underlined above relevant? If so, how? Why? Who decides this relevance?

I am often reminded of Copernicus and other scientists in these types of discussions. Their scientific findings and assertions that are logically and rationally based are the very things that brought them religious condemnation.

Rather than ask why something was created...ask what purpose does this real thing serve according to reality as we know it? Take food for example. We know that it nourishes. What makes it nourishment? Vitamins, protein, etc. That is the purpose. Humans, just like animals, are existing creatures that develop in intelligence and anatomy. This science has taught us (NOTE: I didn't say science proved anything).

The questions were meant to be examples of questions I had asked myself or one might ask themselves upon choosing to believe in a creator. They were relevant to me, but may not be to others.

I truly respect what you have said here. I cannot rationally and logically make a claim that God does not exist. I don't have that kind of knowledge. If God does exist and I find out in the next life then...whoops! I was wrong. I'll deal with that if that time comes.

I respect your decision not to believe in God, and appreciate your respect of mine.

This I also respect. This is probably the primary reason why I do come to the defense of those who consider themselves believers. Unlike other atheists, I can respect the hope for the supernatural. Do I believe that people of faith are wasting their time? No! I don't think I could in good conscience make such a horrible claim.

If only more were willing to stand for the belief of others even if that belief is not shared.

Wait...now I'm confused. The Church of Jesus Christ or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

When speaking of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I try to follow the guidelines here http://www.mormonnew...org/style-guide, although it does appear that I should have capitalized the "T" on my first reference and I did not. I feel it is respectful to address others as they wish to be addressed and I try to extend that courtesy when possible.

Time for a bit of honesty, I struggle (obviously) with the concept of faith because I don't know how to make faith a rational or logical response for me. I sincerely apologize if I came off as saying others faith is irrational...I don't believe that is what I meant.

I accept your apology and offer one of my own if that is truly not what you meant. We all have things we struggle with in this life, but we can improve upon them and make them strengths if we wish it. If you do not wish it then I respect your decision and hopefully we can continue these dialogues. If you do wish it, then I extend my hand and will help you in anyway possible. You will never develop faith against your will.

Fair enough. I appreciate the conviction of your post because I believe this is what I was looking for when I proposed what I did in the OP.

Thank you, I have tried to explain my beliefs as honestly as possible, and appreciate you doing the same.

-guerreiro9

Edited November 21, 2012 by guerreiro9

[Damien the Leper]

That is my point for you. Your belief in logic and rationale is fundamentally no more logical or rational than a religious person's belief in spiritual processes.

I did not mean to imply that it did. I mean only that it doesn't seem rational or logical to me.

We all believe something. Some people believe guys look good with a pony tail. Or that anchovies are good on a pizza.

The difference is that these beliefs are not faith based. Beliefs are not automatically synonymous with faith. This gets to the point I made earlier that it becomes a game of "I know you are but what am I".

[Damien the Leper]

So you really don't know how useful your logic is, yet you hold to it witout any assumption. You only know what you know, and claim no assumptions. That is irrational--I'm not saying it's a bad thing, only that it is no more rational than holding to any other belief.

I remember when I took a Geometry class in high school. One of the primary laws of Euclidean Geometry is that you are to never assume anything. Such a law is far from irrational but is based in logical conclusions that can be demonstrated in proof statements. The same line of logic applied to Geometry can be replicated in other areas such as philosophy and faith.

Not really. It anticipates what you said about not knowing for sure.

How so? And try not to assume anything.

Yet it does happen! Humans, by nature, maturity, experience and choice do stop developing and even revert and regress, and if by choice, most often to their benefit.

Please demonstrate.

[Damien the Leper]

Opinions are based on beliefs, as are beliefs about what those beliefs are based upon--none of which are fundamentally formed on a rational basis other than the opinion that "it works for me."

Correct. This is simple relativity. But I still stand with the position that we shouldn't automatically conflate beliefs with faith. That would be illogical because such a position as that would assume too much about human thought processes.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus,

Perhaps I did misinterpret your original post. I have mentioned this before and will do so again, because so much of our form of communication is nonverbal, it is inevitable that misunderstandings will occur on internet forums. If I have misunderstood you I apologize. Perhaps, I came off as combative, in the first paragraph anyway, but it did appear that you were parroting an argument I have heard frequently of late and I reject as complete nonsense. The idea that ones belief's are illogical or irrational if they differ from my own is offensive to me and a very dangerous and unhealthy philosophical position. It appeared this was the approach you were taking, and that you were not actually interested in understanding the beliefs of others, but rather were dismissing any belief out of hand. If this is not what you intended then I apologize, if it was what you intended then I stand by my words and you hold a dangerous and unhealthy philosophical position.

That was not my intent. But the same line of thinking you have presented can be applied to those who hold opinions (or beliefs) that they are "more correct" than others. It is presumptuous. Such a line of thinking stands as an attempt to in some way discredit another position. I reject such notions and dismiss them.

Human experience affects our emotions and our psychology.

Yes it does, but to ignore those experiences when forming one's beliefs is completely illogical. Our entire cognitive process is colored by the experiences we have passed through and logic and rationality can only be judged in this context. What is logical and rational to one may not be to another.

I did not intend for anyone to ignore them but to critically think about the experiences and how they influence. I agree with you on the relativity of logic and rationality. You as a LDS believer find the basis of your faith and beliefs to be rationally and logically sound. My conclusions concerning my former faith may very well disagree with your perceptions. There is nothing wrong with that.

For the underlined portion above, what does effect the rational nature of their decision?

The rational nature of a decision is not based on whether the decision turns out to be correct. There have been many ill-fated rational decisions. If I were asked to define what would constitute a rational decision (which it appears I have been) I would define it as a decision that is reached after adequately examining the information available to a person at that moment in time. Given this definition many have rationally chosen to believe in God, while many have rationally chosen not to.

Thank you for expanding on this. I agree.

Please demonstrate how faith relies on logic and rationality then. I would certainly entertain hearing the reasons that one may consider logical and/or rational for their belief in God or supernaturalism.

I tried to explain what I feel is a logical reason why I continue to believe in God. I am promised certain outcomes in response to certain actions, and when those outcomes are fulfilled my faith is increased.

Who is making such promises? Where does such authority come from? Do you know or do you have a pretty good idea (hope)?

As an example let us assume that you know nothing of electricity. In a sense electricity is supernatural to you as it does not exist as part of your natural world. Someone promises you that if you touch an exposed wire you will feel a shock. You touch an exposed wire and sure enough you feel a shock. Does it mean that the wire you just touched carries an electrical charge? No, it does not. There could be a number of explanations for the sensation you just felt. Would it be irrational for you to believe that the wire you just touched carries an electrical charge. No, and for anyone who has had the misfortune of accidentally touching an exposed wire, I think believing the wire carries an electrical charge is a rational decision. Notice though, that the rationality of this decision is not based on whether the wire actually carries an electrical charge, but is based on the experience you had with the wire.

Of course. The conclusions are based on the experiences that you and I both alluded to earlier.

I do understand the human need for companionship and reason for existence and I believe that faith is an appropriate response. But why is it appropriate? What makes it appropriate? Is it truly so awful an idea that there isn't a God, a Demiurge, an Un-moved Mover, a Zeus, an Odin, etc. who is the author of some form life and existence?

I am not sure what you are asking relative to the appropriateness of faith, perhaps you could clarify. Awful is a subjective term, and to me yes, nothingness seems awful compared to the alternative. I fully accept that completely rational people may choose to believe in nothingness.

To be clear, why does faith make sense?

As I have stated before, I have not claimed that God does not exist. I'm stating that one side's reasoning, for me at least, outweighs that of the other. It's not necessarily about right or wrong. In fact, I reject that thought process altogether.

I completely understand other's claims that God does not exist even if you have not made the claim yourself.

As do I, but I disagree with the conclusion because like the belief in God, saying that God does not exist is without evidence.

Are the questions bolded and underlined above relevant? If so, how? Why? Who decides this relevance?

I am often reminded of Copernicus and other scientists in these types of discussions. Their scientific findings and assertions that are logically and rationally based are the very things that brought them religious condemnation.

Rather than ask why something was created...ask what purpose does this real thing serve according to reality as we know it? Take food for example. We know that it nourishes. What makes it nourishment? Vitamins, protein, etc. That is the purpose. Humans, just like animals, are existing creatures that develop in intelligence and anatomy. This science has taught us (NOTE: I didn't say science proved anything).

The questions were meant to be examples of questions I had asked myself or one might ask themselves upon choosing to believe in a creator. They were relevant to me, but may not be to others.

Agreed. Thank you for explaining.

I truly respect what you have said here. I cannot rationally and logically make a claim that God does not exist. I don't have that kind of knowledge. If God does exist and I find out in the next life then...whoops! I was wrong. I'll deal with that if that time comes.

I respect your decision not to believe in God, and appreciate your respect of mine.

Thank you and you're welcome.

This I also respect. This is probably the primary reason why I do come to the defense of those who consider themselves believers. Unlike other atheists, I can respect the hope for the supernatural. Do I believe that people of faith are wasting their time? No! I don't think I could in good conscience make such a horrible claim.

If only more were willing to stand for the belief of others even if that belief is not shared.

Perhaps this is my way of giving God the benefit of the doubt.

Wait...now I'm confused. The Church of Jesus Christ or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

When speaking of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I try to follow the guidelines here http://www.mormonnew...org/style-guide, although it does appear that I should have capitalized the "T" on my first reference and I did not. I feel it is respectful to address others as they wish to be addressed and I try to extend that courtesy when possible.

I was actually joking with you. Once again, humor doesn't translate well via internet. It was a joke in reference to the Bickertonites, the Strangites and the LDS. But I do agree with what you've said.

Time for a bit of honesty, I struggle (obviously) with the concept of faith because I don't know how to make faith a rational or logical response for me. I sincerely apologize if I came off as saying others faith is irrational...I don't believe that is what I meant.

I accept your apology and offer one of my own if that is truly not what you meant. We all have things we struggle with in this life, but we can improve upon them and make them strengths if we wish it. If you do not wish it then I respect your decision and hopefully we can continue these dialogues. If you do wish it, then I extend my hand and will help you in anyway possible. You will never develop faith against your will.

At this point, I don't know that I want to believe. I don't see what good it will do me. In essence, I can be as a Christ-like person without being a Christ-like person (Christians and LDS).

Fair enough. I appreciate the conviction of your post because I believe this is what I was looking for when I proposed what I did in the OP.

Thank you, I have tried to explain my beliefs as honestly as possible, and appreciate you doing the same.

-guerreiro9

[Ahab]

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

I think you mean, as I would say in my own way:

What is it about the Judeo-Christian narratives that you like which inspire you to want to believe?

My answer: I like hearing about what happened in the past and how that might benefit me, and my life.

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

I think you mean, as I would say in my own way:

What is it about the Judeo-Christian truth claims that motivate me to want to believe them?

My answer: They sound good, or like they might lead to something good, for me.

______________________________________________________________________________

Next...

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

The logic of knowing that if it is true and can benefit me that I should then put it to use in my own life.

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.

That is weird. If you had had conversation with me it would have gone more like this:

You: What gives the Bible authority?

Me: God.

You: Says who?

Me: God, and the Prophets, and others who have faith or hope that it's true.

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

Me: Maybe that's because God hasn't told you it is true, or you just don't have the faith or the desire to believe.

You: 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?

Me: Someone wrote something down as scripture by being inspired by God to write that, and God has also told me that what that person wrote is true. I'm saying I've received a personal revelation from God to assure me of what is true. I'm not just relying on what someone wrote down while claiming God said that, or inspired that. I'm saying God has told ME that idea is true.

You: 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?

Me: No, that's not what I said or meant. God is the authority, and God can inspire someone to write something just as God can inspire someone to know that what is written is true, when it is. With God to help us, personally, we can know the truth of all things.

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

Me: Okay. I was, but I'll do so again.

You: 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?

Me: No, or at least not totally correct. God has also told me, personally, so I'm not just relying on what that writer said.

You: 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.

Me: Yes I do know that God said that, because he said so to me.

You: (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.

Me: It is when God is the one who gives the faith to you, or to me, which assures us of what is the truth. If God were to say something like this to you: That is true!... why would you not believe him? If God said so, and you knew it was God, I think you would.

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?

Yes. For example, it could be substantiated by God telling you something is true while you don't accept that assurance from God as a reason for you to believe what God has said is true. There's no guarantee that someone will have faith in what is true simply because someone has substantiated the truth.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Ahab

[pmccombs1]

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.

Is there any sort of evidence possible for value or meaning?

We can find all sorts of evidence for material phenomena and come to a reasonable conclusion about the nature of things and how they came to be. From this we might understand, at least, how the atheist can deny God.

But does the atheist stop there? Not usually. Then he goes on to explain how irrational belief, particularly that found in what he calls "religion," is bad. It's dangerous and it needs to be stopped. Atheists like Dawkins think that atheism needs to become more militant and root out the evil that is religion. So, you see, it plays into some value system.

We can see where the view of the material world and reality arises, and if we understand the atheist then we must agree that he is indeed rational. But where did his value system come from, if not from the imagination? By the atheists' own standards, all values and meanings are make-believe. Whenever an atheist makes a claim about good or bad, he is participating in something akin to the thing he despises. He is practicing religion. He can't prove the goodness or badness of anything with objective evidence to back him up. He has to appeal to some other subjective area beyond reason.

[pmccombs1]

You: What gives the Bible authority?

Me: God.

You: Says who?

Me: God, and the Prophets, and others who have faith or hope that it's true.

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

Me: Maybe that's because God hasn't told you it is true, or you just don't have the faith or the desire to believe.

So, lots of people say different things about what God is, does, has said, and so forth. God has spoken to a lot of different people through many centuries, and He is saying some very different things. Maybe the Bible has the right words, or the Quran, or the Bagavhad Gita, or some Upanishads, or the Book of Mormon, or some combination of them, etc., etc.

Suppose one wants to know the truth; which of all these things is right, or none of them? Well, the Mormon story gives us a handy answer, "Why not ask God and find out?" What greater witness can you have than from God? Right? And we have lots of stories around that particular doctrine, of people asking and finding out after the manner of our Mormon formula.

Only, there's a catch. We aren't unique in this doctrine of seeking the Spirit for guidance, even though sometimes we claim otherwise. Other people in other faiths believe it too, and guess what? God confirms their own version of the Truth! I know Catholics who have heard the voice of God and have been cemented in their faith beyond all doubt. Could they be right? Uh oh. We're back to square one.

Now the question is this: How can I know if my spiritual confirmation really came from God? Will the real God please stand up?

There are some challenges. For instance, we can't objectively know what these other people have felt who claim some alternative confirmation of Truth. What we can see is their language, and it seems very much similar to the language we use to describe our own experiences. They felt incredible peace, assurance, goodness, certainty, and gratitude. Perhaps the voice was audible. It imparted a feeling of good-will and charity. It opened the mind and enlightened understanding. It provided them with visions and comfort.

I get this from some Catholic acquaintances about the Eucharist and about their mother Church, the only true Church on the face of the earth (according to their spiritually-confirmed experiences). Sam Keen, the wonderful agnostic, shared his own experience with this "Spirit." It set him in his path. A Jewish atheist friend of mine recounted to me his experience with the "universe" and with receiving visions and messages from his deceased relatives that strengthened him in his atheism. We are far from the only people having spiritual experiences; it's prevalent enough that researches are well aware of it and have studied it in a demographic that includes more than just Mormons.

Another challenge is that this spiritual sense can't be correlated with any reliable and material fact. We can't say, for instance, "you know it's from God because it won't deny Christ. That's the litmus test." Well, that's illogical. How can we rely on that statement? How do we know it's true? What is Christ, or what is Good? It's just as easy to say that, "you can know it's from God because it won't deny Vishnu." Is the claim coming from a reliable source that can be verified?

If the whole point is to verify the authoritative source that says, "it's from God if it doesn't deny Christ (or the Good, or whatever)," then you can't point back to the authority for its own validation to describe what the test is. That's a fallacy of circular reasoning. The first red flag that goes up is when a religious text or teaching points to itself for validation. "Gee. I wonder if such-and-such source of authority is reliable. I guess I'll ask it and find out." That's irrational thinking.

We're trying to discover if God exists, and if He does, if He has said anything or has any connection with us whatsoever. We are quite aware that there are many people pushing their versions of the answers to this question. Some of us have traditional ties to these groups and we maybe choose to "go along to get along," except sometimes in Internet forums where we just have to bring up these troubling issues and see if anyone out there has ideas that might help us out--besides, "well, ask God. If you're willing to get the answer, you'll get it". Of course. We have also, very frequently, already experienced a spiritual witness that is often associated with a testimony in other people. Some of us have even had it for multiple, contrary ideas. But for the reasons explained above, we can't accept those experiences as reliable representations of objective reality. We know that the human mind is just too tractable and easily sucked into narratives that can literally change the material human experience to grant certainty to these personal experiences that can't be measured against some external, reliable source.

We can continue to struggle with our faith, as it seems that this is why were are here in the first place. But an objective certainty is not possible to achieve in mortality; we may only feel a subjective conviction. In the end, belief is tied to a central faith that has to do with subjective experience and desire, and not with deductive logic or reason. The time may come when we choose to accept a subjective witness of one of the various Truths out there; it will be something that reflects who we are or who we have become. Being and becoming, I suppose, must have to do with the purpose of life, if there is one.

[Erin15]

I am sincerely asking for rational, reasonable and critically logical thinking.

Logic and reason have their place and benefits, of course, but they don't seem like very useful tools for discussing spiritual experiences.

I love art, and when I talk about art, I discuss it in the language of art. I also love history, and when I discuss it I discuss it in the language of history. I do not discuss history in the language of art, nor do I discuss art in the language of history. (Expect when I am discussing art history )

Anyway, my point is, it is going to require severe mental gymnastics to try and discuss spiritual matters in the language of logic and critical reason, and at best it will be only partially successful.

[Ahab]

So, lots of people say different things about what God is, does, has said, and so forth. God has spoken to a lot of different people through many centuries, and He is saying some very different things.

How do you get from your first sentence to your second sentence? What is your reasoning based on? The fact that lots of people say God says something doesn't mean God has actually said those things, necessarily. And the fact that lots of people say God is such and such doesn't mean that's what God actually is, necessarily. The thing to do is to get to know God for yourself, to see how he is, and then once you know God you can then tell if what you know of him is in agreement with what others say of him.

Obviously some people are wrong in some of their ideas about God. Conflicting opinions of him can't be how he really is.

Maybe the Bible has the right words, or the Quran, or the Bagavhad Gita, or some Upanishads, or the Book of Mormon, or some combination of them, etc., etc.

Do you know how you can find out what is true, about God? All you have to do is get to know him, and then you'll know how he is.

Suppose one wants to know the truth; which of all these things is right, or none of them? Well, the Mormon story gives us a handy answer, "Why not ask God and find out?" What greater witness can you have than from God? Right? And we have lots of stories around that particular doctrine, of people asking and finding out after the manner of our Mormon formula.

It is the best way, don't cha know. Why rely on what other people tell you when you can get to know God for yourself?

Only, there's a catch. We aren't unique in this doctrine of seeking the Spirit for guidance, even though sometimes we claim otherwise. Other people in other faiths believe it too, and guess what? God confirms their own version of the Truth!

Or so they say. I don't rely on what others say about God, though, so when what they say conflicts with what God says I believe God rather than take their word for what God says. They are not the person or persons I'm referring to when I talk about the God I worship.

I know Catholics who have heard the voice of God and have been cemented in their faith beyond all doubt. Could they be right? Uh oh. We're back to square one.

Look, it's really simple. Get to know God for yourself rather than relying on what other people tell you. Other people are sometimes right about what God has said, but you can only know that if you know God for yourself and you can see the harmony.

Now the question is this: How can I know if my spiritual confirmation really came from God? Will the real God please stand up?

That's a pretty good point. We do need to make sure we're calling the same person (or persons) "God". Lots of people can be referred to as "God", but they're not necessarily the same person (or persons) I worship. Satan likes to call himself God, too, so you need to be a little selective in who you call "God".

And that's about all I have to say about your post right now... except that it was a lot of text and I have no real desire to respond to all of your thoughts.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Ahab