Understanding Belief

[wenglund]

I submit that it is epistemically impossible for the human mind to have faith without some measure of reason/logic, and it is impossible for the human mind to have reason/logic without some measure of faith. I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

If so, then faith and reason would suggest that we not speak of faith and reason as discrete categories, but rather in terms of a spectrum arrayed with varied admixtures of each.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would also submit that both faith and reason are unavoidably reliant upon evidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Wow.

This is worth about 87 rep points and I can only give one. I suggest everyone contribute

You can spread some points around to her other posts though....

[mfbukowski]

I submit that it is epistemically impossible for the human mind to have faith without some measure of reason/logic, and it is impossible for the human mind to have reason/logic without some measure of faith. I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

If so, then faith and reason would suggest that we not speak of faith and reason as discrete categories, but rather in terms of a spectrum arrayed with varied admixtures of each.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agreed!

[CV75]

I submit that it is epistemically impossible for the human mind to have faith without some measure of reason/logic, and it is impossible for the human mind to have reason/logic without some measure of faith. I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

If so, then faith and reason would suggest that we not speak of faith and reason as discrete categories, but rather in terms of a spectrum arrayed with varied admixtures of each.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Great General Conference article about that: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/by-faith-all-things-are-fulfilled?lang=eng

“Bearing in mind that faith and reason are necessary companions, consider the following analogy: faith and reason are like the two wings of an aircraft. Both are essential to maintain flight. If, from your perspective, reason seems to contradict faith, pause and remember that our perspective is extremely limited compared with the Lord’s. Do not discard faith any more than you would detach a wing from an aircraft in flight. Instead, nurture a particle of faith and permit the hope it produces to be an anchor to your soul—and to your reason. That is why we are commanded to “seek learning … by study and also by faith.” Remember, faith precedes and produces miracles for which we have no immediate explanation within our experience...”

[CV75]

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.

Of course anyone who knows the difference shouldn't conflate beliefs with faith when differentiation is necessary, but the terms can be logically and rationally used synonymously as well.

[pogi]

Quote from Wade: "I submit that it is epistemically impossible for the human mind to have faith without some measure of reason/logic, and it is impossible for the human mind to have reason/logic without some measure of faith. I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

If so, then faith and reason would suggest that we not speak of faith and reason as discrete categories, but rather in terms of a spectrum arrayed with varied admixtures of each."

I would also submit that both faith and reason are unavoidably reliant upon evidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The evolution of faith:

Trust (in parents, teachers) - Desire to know/Hope that it is good - Belief (usually based in trust and hope)- Faith (based on evidence and reason) - Knowledge

The evolution of reason:

Trust (in parents teachers) - Desire to know/Hope that it is good - Belief (usually based in trust and hope) - Reason (based on evidence and faith) - Knowledge

I think you are on to something there Wade!

Edited November 25, 2012 by pogi

[Jude2]

Valentinus quoted Harfad in posting 9; It is based on personal revelation and the testimony of the Holy Ghost, not the declaration alone that “the Bible says so”.

And then said; 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.

First two Book of Mormon quotes;

"….for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain." Moroni 7

" And neither at any time hath any wrought miracles until after their faith; wherefore they first believed in the Son of God. And there were many whose faith was so exceedingly strong, even before Christ came, who could not be kept from within the veil, but truly saw with their eyes the things which they had beheld with an eye of faith, and they were glad." Ether 12:19

A quote from Elder Marcus Nash

“If, because of unbelief or doubt, you find your faith wavering, remember that even the ancient Apostles implored the Lord to “increase our faith.”23 Bearing in mind that faith and reason are necessary companions, consider the following analogy: faith and reason are like the two wings of an aircraft. Both are essential to maintain flight. If, from your perspective, reason seems to contradict faith, pause and remember that our perspective is extremely limited compared with the Lord’s.24 Do not discard faith any more than you would detach a wing from an aircraft in flight. Instead, nurture a particle of faith and permit the hope it produces to be an anchor to your soul—and to your reason.25 That is why we are commanded to “seek learning … by study and also by faith.”26 Remember, faith precedes and produces miracles for which we have no immediate explanation within our experience, such as a Dutch oven full of food from two small biscuits or simply enduring in faith against all odds”

Me speaking; Our faith is built on the spiritual experience which reason then tells us is real and not something “psychologically based”. Most Mormons can relate an experience which can not be explained by reason alone. One of mine own was to have the Spirit say ‘look to the right’ in so doing I narrowly missed being mowed down by a car. It was actually more like a hand on my chest preventing me from moving forward. Reason tells me I should have taken that fatal step but I was stopped by a warning from the Spirit.

And President Hinckley has a quote;

“Some time ago I read the newspaper report of the remarks of a prominent journalist. He is quoted as having said, “Certitude is the enemy of religion.” The words attributed to him have stirred within me much reflection. Certitude, which I define as complete and total assurance, is not the enemy of religion. It is of its very essence.

Certitude is certainty. It is conviction. It is the power of faith that approaches knowledge—yes, that even becomes knowledge.

…..Faith, which is of the very essence of personal conviction, has always been, and always must be, at the root of religious practice and endeavor……..The marvelous and wonderful thing is that any individual who desires to know the truth may receive that conviction. The Lord Himself gave the formula when He said, “If any man will do [the will of the Father], he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17).

It will take study of the word of God. It will take prayer and anxious seeking of the source of all truth. It will take living the gospel, an experiment, if you please, in following the teachings. I do not hesitate to promise, because I know from personal experience, that out of all of this will come, by the power of the Holy Ghost, a conviction, a testimony, a certain knowledge.

People of the world seem unable to believe it, so many of them. What they do not realize is that the things of God are understood only by the Spirit of God. There must be effort. There must be humility. There must be prayer. But the results are certain and the testimony is sure.”

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

Br. Hinckley, I and most Mormons would disagree with you.

The promise is if you live the teachings and exercise a little faith you will have this “certain knowledge” of faith.

[pogi]

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

Br. Hinckley, I and most Mormons would disagree with you.

The promise is if you live the teachings and exercise a little faith you will have this “certain knowledge” of faith.

Thanks for your post Jude2!

Valentinus is partially right, however, faith does not hold up under "rational" argument if you are on the opposing side of faith. Faith is born through proving the word right through hope and trial, not by seeking to prove the word wrong through doubt and argument. It cannot, and will not, hold up that way.

Faith will also not hold up under "rational" argument if you are on the supporting side of faith, if that argument is under the spirit of contention. It's best to stay clear of argument all together when discussing faith. Discussion usually works best.

Edited November 25, 2012 by pogi

[wenglund]

Quote from Wade: "I submit that it is epistemically impossible for the human mind to have faith without some measure of reason/logic, and it is impossible for the human mind to have reason/logic without some measure of faith. I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

If so, then faith and reason would suggest that we not speak of faith and reason as discrete categories, but rather in terms of a spectrum arrayed with varied admixtures of each."

The evolution of faith:

Trust (in parents, teachers) - Desire to know/Hope that it is good - Belief (usually based in trust and hope)- Faith (based on evidence and reason) - Knowledge

The evolution of reason:

Trust (in parents teachers) - Desire to know/Hope that it is good - Belief (usually based in trust and hope) - Reason (based on evidence and faith) - Knowledge

I think you are on to something there Wade!

Yup!! Said another way, "reason" is the epistemic vehicle by which we travel through graduated points of faith on our way to the end of knowledge. And, "evidence" is the fuel that enables the vehicle to move along that epistemic road.

This is Alma 32 in a nut shell.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 26, 2012 by wenglund

[Jude2]

Thanks for your post Jude2!

Faith is born through proving the word right through hope and trial, not by seeking to prove the word wrong through doubt and argument. It cannot, and will not, hold up that way.

I like that!

[Damien the Leper]

What is your definition of logic and rationality and why do you prefer them as your primary frame for defining, perceiving and experiencing your life, reality and the choices you make about information?

Carl Sagan made a mistake, like many others, when he stated "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The entire premise that constructs and surrounds this statement eliminates rational thinking (at least IMO).

I personally do not respect logic that much and I have no need or desire to conform to some logic or even to define it for myself. It's simply irrelevant to me and I use other frames and narratives to organize my experience of knowledge.

This is an interesting perspective. Would you mind expanding on it? Also, what level of conformity, in any form, are you comfortable with?

As I see it anyway, logic always requires that a postulate system already be in place, and then one can discuss the logics of that system. But at the foundation is an arbitrary postulate that was created simply from the imagination of a human being, like all things are created.

The postulate system works because it begins with something that is detectable and can be tested. A hidden God who hides for the sake of being able to do so, IMO, is not really worth the time or effort.

God IS.

This statement proposes a philosophical, rather than a theological, argument. What does this statement mean? What makes the statement worthy of study or introspection?

We forget that 'God' is a word or a concept or a narrative just like all words. It's a way to frame reality. When we see the sacredness of nature, of life, of humanness, a lot of us like to see God. It's a choice (as the Sermon says, the pure in heart will SEE God). The word 'God' is short, 3 letters, very handy. It's helpful and at the same time can cause a lot of barriers in understanding between people, because the God that one person is talking about (say, you) is not the same image that another person is talking about (say, me). I think most people care about things like love and freedom (as two examples). The only difference is the frame we put that in. I love putting that in the frame of God. This provides a transcendant, ecstatic frame to everything for me. But I know some people prefer love and freedom in other frames and find that their understanding and experience of God violates that. Usually when I hear people begin to talk about that God, I don't recognize what they are talking about, and if that was my God, I wouldn't support him either. So I can only respect their decision to say 'I won't follow or consent to that God' because I don't either! ha ha.

Interesting take. I appreciate this.

I no longer think on my eternity with terms like salvation and exaltation. So I cannot answer this. As far as Resurrection is concerned, I have a deep sense that I am eternal--have always existed and always will, in some way or another. Is my sense correct? Only time will tell. But it is an experience with me, that I experience my eternal-ness constantly in every moment of the now. But I feel comfortable examining Resurrection both of Jesus and of us all in a mechanical sense, and questioning it. I don't have conclusions, so until I do, I can accept the story as it is, don't have a lot of problem with it, and I certainly find the symbolism and the hope for its reality to be beautiful.

This is a fascinatingly somewhat Gnostic perspective. I like what you've said here.

[volgadon]

The entire premise that constructs and surrounds this statement eliminates rational thinking (at least IMO).

Not necessarily. Sometimes what seems rational doesn't correspond to reality. The simplest theory is not always the best one, as sometimes there are additional factors which need to be considered. Like any other idea, though, this principle is open to abuse and misuse.

Edited November 26, 2012 by volgadon

[Damien the Leper]

You've made a decision for yourself (it seems) that such a way of perceiving one's experiences is defective, and I am curious how, when and why you made this decision. Perhaps for others an emotion, spirit, psychological base is preferable. For myself, I don't use these categories. I just call it all experience, life, being human.

Emotions are impulsive and can be irrational. I don't find that they can be trusted completely. Perspectives and ideas that lack reason, rationality and logic no longer appeal to me.

I find it odd (from my point of view) that you use the word 'inconsequential' and 'mythology' in the same sentence. From my point of view, there is hardly anything of greater consequence than myth (or other names this goes by = narrative). You personally (based on your experience and the choices for which you are responsible) have decided that mythology is inconsequential. Why?

I do not mean that they are inconsequential because nothing can be learned from them. They are inconsequential because there is no real, IMO, "eternal" value to them.

And I agree with you that the story of Heracles and the Odyssey carry in many ways the same weight as the Hebrew scriptures we use EXCEPT that if you examine Greek thinking, there are a lot of things I personally disrespect like the level of childish selfishness of the characters, but there is a lot to criticize in some Biblical characters as well (King David, maybe?). So the point isn't what is written--it's what WE make decisions about what we know based on what we are presented with in what is written whether it is the New Testament or the latest offering of Dr. Wayne Dwyer (for one example). We have to find and know ourselves, for the good and bad, as reflected in what is written.

This I do agree with you. I believe that narratives teach us things about ourselves and help us to develop our own thought processes.

Human beings are ALWAYS creating mythology. There is no moment or space or time without mythology. We LIVE a story all the time. We LIVE a meaning all the time. We have our personal mythologies and we connect to larger cultural mythologies in some way (conforming or challenging or both).

Interesting.

I enjoyed everything you have to say.

I think you helped me with a new word. The experiences in the Church and the gospel and in God and in seeking spiritual experience are phenomenological. They are not necessarily evidence based in terms of a list of criteria of evidence needed to fit a "rational" frame/model or Enlightenment model that is still dominant in our culture/mythology. There IS phenomena experienced. The experience is primary. Our explanation after is secondary (or so I say). And our explanation is based on who WE are (individually or as a group).

Just embrace the phenomena though, maybe, without trying to explain it into the ground, ha ha. I don't know.

I have always enjoyed dialoging with you. I appreciate the exchange. I cannot dismiss supernaturalism from the equation as atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris do.

[Damien the Leper]

The promise of spiritual evidence after belief, which leads to faith, which leads to knowledge, you know, the parts you don't want to talk about.

The promise of spiritual evidence after belief, which leads to faith, which leads to knowledge, you know, the parts you don't want to talk about.

It cannot and will not be substantiated for you without belief, believe it or not!

You want to see something funny, go onto a philosophy forum and pose the question "do you exist"?

I cannot substantiate you without faith. As soon as I can do that, I might be willing to talk to you about God. Good luck!

I disagree that faith and belief are somehow the exact same thing.

For example, I do not have faith that 2+3=5. That is just silly. Just as silly would be if I had some sort of faith that somehow God can make 2+3=6 or some other obsurdity such as that. I believe 2+3=5 based on a logical hypothesis and premise that stems from something that can be detected and tested.

[Damien the Leper]

I submit that it is epistemically impossible for the human mind to have faith without some measure of reason/logic, and it is impossible for the human mind to have reason/logic without some measure of faith. I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

If so, then faith and reason would suggest that we not speak of faith and reason as discrete categories, but rather in terms of a spectrum arrayed with varied admixtures of each.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would also submit that both faith and reason are unavoidably reliant upon evidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Interesting. Would you mind explaining further? I am sincerely interested in this, Wade. I do enjoy the new level by which you have proposed for the thread based on these 2 posts.

[Damien the Leper]

Of course anyone who knows the difference shouldn't conflate beliefs with faith when differentiation is necessary, but the terms can be logically and rationally used synonymously as well.

I agree only to the extent that one would find faith to be an appropriate response to a thought, idea or theory.

[Damien the Leper]

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

Br. Hinckley, I and most Mormons would disagree with you.

I am good with everything you have said up to this point. I appreciate and respect why you conclude things the way you do. Thank you for sharing.

The promise is if you live the teachings and exercise a little faith you will have this “certain knowledge” of faith.

This is still begging too many questions:

1) Who is making the promise?

2) How do you know without a doubt that it is the person you are claiming?

3) Can you provide a substantial case to reasonably argue such a perspective?

4) Can this theory 1) be detectable 2) be tested 3) be conclusively determined. (The argument against empirical evidence doesn't hold up)

The bolded red above, even within scientific and philosophical circles, scares the hell out of me. It asserts and assumes too much.

[Damien the Leper]

Not necessarily. Sometimes what seems rational doesn't correspond to reality. The simplest theory is not always the best one, as sometimes there are additional factors which need to be considered. Like any other idea, though, this principle is open to abuse and misuse.

I see what you're saying. As I stated before, something must have been detected in order for a theory to be proposed. Then that theory should be able to be tested.

[CV75]

I agree only to the extent that one would find faith to be an appropriate response to a thought, idea or theory.

Hence any belief or truth claim from a non-scriptural (and/or non-prophetic) authority cannot be made without faith in that non-scriptural (and/or non-prophetic) authority. That the authority has authority with the holder of belief means that faith in that authority has been placed, even if the holder of belief and the authority are the same person.

Also, so much of what we learn, secularly and spiritually, begins with faith sufficient to explore another's thought, idea or theory further. And even in grade school, the specter of detention could give one a sufficeint "desire to believe" to do such work.

Edited November 26, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

edit above

Edited November 26, 2012 by CV75

[Damien the Leper]

Hence any belief or truth claim from a non-scriptural (and/or non-prophetic) authority cannot be made without faith in that non-scriptural (and/or non-prophetic) authority. That the authority has authority with the holder of belief means that faith in that authority has been placed, even if the holder of belief and the authority are the same person.

Also, so much of what we learn, secularly and spiritually, begins with faith sufficient to explore another's thought, idea or theory further. And even in grade school, the specter of detention could give one a sufficient "desire to believe" to do such work.

You overuse the word faith. I've heard some conservatives say that man-made climate change is somehow a religion. Perhaps that works if you reference the "Encyclopedia Moronica".

[CV75]

You overuse the word faith. I've heard some conservatives say that man-made climate change is somehow a religion. Perhaps that works if you reference the "Encyclopedia Moronica".

Oh my...!

This doesn’t address the fact that:

Any belief or truth claim from a non-scriptural (and/or non-prophetic) authority cannot be made without [ * ] in that non-scriptural (and/or non-prophetic) authority. That the authority has authority with the holder of belief means that [ * ] in that authority has been placed, even if the holder of belief and the authority are the same person.

Also, so much of what we learn, secularly and spiritually, begins with [ * ] sufficient to explore another's thought, idea or theory further. And even in grade school, the specter of detention could give one a sufficient "desire to believe" to do such work.

[ * ] Substitute “faith” with any word you are more comfortable with, regardless whether you do so rationally or not!

[pogi]

I disagree that faith and belief are somehow the exact same thing.

For example, I do not have faith that 2+3=5. That is just silly. Just as silly would be if I had some sort of faith that somehow God can make 2+3=6 or some other obsurdity such as that. I believe 2+3=5 based on a logical hypothesis and premise that stems from something that can be detected and tested.

Emotions are impulsive and can be irrational. I don't find that they can be trusted completely. Perspectives and ideas that lack reason, rationality and logic no longer appeal to me.

I agree, emotions cannot be trusted completely, but neither can logic. Faith is not emotional only, if it was, I would not trust it either.

Again, you cannot prove, using logic, that I exist. Sometimes faith and emotions come in more handy than logic, just to simply get through the day without driving yourself crazy!.

Man's logic is ever evolving based upon new evidence of truth. What makes you think that this will ever stop? How can you trust that what we know now will not be radically different from what we know in 1,000 years? That seems to be the trend. We may look back and say that we were completely blind to the truth and that our "knowledge" seems obsurd. How can you be sure that someday God will not prove himself. It may seem illogical now, but again, logic is ever evolving and may not seem so illogical then. With every new discovery comes new questions, and we realize just how miniscule our comprehension of things really are.

You say that you believe that 2+3=5. You probably also believe that 1 = 1 and nothing else. What if I told you that I can "prove", using logic, that it also equals 0.999999... ? Sounds obsurd doesn't it?

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 and 0.999999....

Put in decimal form, 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 0.999... and 1.

There are other equations that prove this fact as well.

If "logical" people cannot agree on the most basic fundamental equation of 1 = 1, you have reason to question your belief in logic and math, just like you have reason to question faith. how can you be sure you are making the right choice? Logic and math seem to work pretty well now, but will it always work? You cannot demonstrate that it will. You deny faith because there is no proof, yet you equally have no proof to support your belief in logic and math. So, why is it better than faith?

Edited November 26, 2012 by pogi

[Nathair/|\]

What is your definition of logic and rationality and why do you prefer them as your primary frame for defining, perceiving and experiencing your life, reality and the choices you make about information?

I personally do not respect logic that much and I have no need or desire to conform to some logic or even to define it for myself. It's simply irrelevant to me and I use other frames and narratives to organize my experience of knowledge.

As I see it anyway, logic always requires that a postulate system already be in place, and then one can discuss the logics of that system. But at the foundation is an arbitrary postulate that was created simply from the imagination of a human being, like all things are created.

God IS.

We forget that 'God' is a word or a concept or a narrative just like all words. It's a way to frame reality. When we see the sacredness of nature, of life, of humanness, a lot of us like to see God. It's a choice (as the Sermon says, the pure in heart will SEE God). The word 'God' is short, 3 letters, very handy. It's helpful and at the same time can cause a lot of barriers in understanding between people, because the God that one person is talking about (say, you) is not the same image that another person is talking about (say, me). I think most people care about things like love and freedom (as two examples). The only difference is the frame we put that in. I love putting that in the frame of God. This provides a transcendant, ecstatic frame to everything for me. But I know some people prefer love and freedom in other frames and find that their understanding and experience of God violates that. Usually when I hear people begin to talk about that God, I don't recognize what they are talking about, and if that was my God, I wouldn't support him either. So I can only respect their decision to say 'I won't follow or consent to that God' because I don't either! ha ha.

I already answered with my view on scripture authority.

I no longer think on my eternity with terms like salvation and exaltation. So I cannot answer this. As far as Resurrection is concerned, I have a deep sense that I am eternal--have always existed and always will, in some way or another. Is my sense correct? Only time will tell. But it is an experience with me, that I experience my eternal-ness constantly in every moment of the now. But I feel comfortable examining Resurrection both of Jesus and of us all in a mechanical sense, and questioning it. I don't have conclusions, so until I do, I can accept the story as it is, don't have a lot of problem with it, and I certainly find the symbolism and the hope for its reality to be beautiful.

I don't consider religion nor spirituality nor belief nor faith nor the narrative of the Church to be exercises in the supernatural, so I can't answer that.

I think you might find Gnostic philosopher Timothy Freke's talk recorded in Druidcast 08 of interest and value.

[wenglund]

Interesting. Would you mind explaining further? I am sincerely interested in this, Wade. I do enjoy the new level by which you have proposed for the thread based on these 2 posts.

Let's begin by considering all the reasoning that may go into an act of faith as seemingly simple as applying the spiritual test in Moroni 10. Large portions of the reasoning I am about to explicate may be so subtle and rapid as to be nearly imperceptible to the conscious m ind, but significant nevertheless.

Consider your typical investigator who has listened to some of the missionary discussions and has been informed about Moroni's test and was encouraged to apply the test. Here are some of the plausible points of reasoning that may have been involved just in MOTIVATING the investigator to apply the test:

1. The investigator may feel as though she has been awash too long in a sea of spiritual indecision and doubt and indirection, and may desire more firm direction and means of navigation.

2. The investigator may consider that what she has heard so far in the missionary discussion, resonates with her, and makes sense, and seems to be what she has been seeking, but she isn't sure, and she may think it wise to make more sure, and the proposed test may strike her as a viable way to affect greater surety one way or another.

3. The investigator may also reason that the missionaries haven't asked her to just take their word for it, but they have proposed some other way to test the verity of what has been said and the verity of what is written in the Book of Mormon. By offering this additional test, this may increase the investigator's confidence both in what has been said as well as in the test, itself.

4. The investigator may also reason that offering an additional test isn't all that may boosts her confidence. It also may be boosted by the realization that the test advises going directly to the source for spiritual confirmation. This, too may resonate and make sense to her since such an spiritual strategy comports with certain common sense beliefs she has developed in her secular life over the years.

The reader is free to suggest other points of reasoning as well.

Each of these points of reasoning may be combine to provide sufficient confidence and MOTIVATION for the investigator to apply the spiritual test. And, whether each of these points of reasoning I mentioned occur to the imperceptible consciousness of all investigators or not, at the very least some points of reasoning must of necessity have occurred in order for the person to be MOTIVATED sufficiently to apply the spiritual test, and in particularly to apply it in earnest.

Thus far, I have just consider multiple plausible points of reasoning that may MOTIVATE investigators to kneel in prayer to God and to asking Him about the truth of things. For reasons of relative simplicity, I didn't get into the complexity of reasoning that may have previously gone into the investigator accepting the presuppositions about God's existence, the presumed reality of him interacting with mankind, and prayer as a viable means for interacting with God, which would also leave the investigator open to applying the test.

Now, if this doesn't suffice in demonstrating considerable amounts of reasoning in simply MOTIVATING a person to apply the spiritual test, then if needs be in the next several posts I can move on to consider all the reasoning that may be involved in the OPERATION of the test itself, and then move on to all the reasoning involved in ACTING ON the results of the test.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-