Understanding Belief

[Damien the Leper]

Wow Wade! I honestly think this is my favorite post (as far as I can remember) that you have given. I would like for you to share more. Thank you very much sir.

[Damien the Leper]

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?

The equations you propose are not obsurd at all. Mathematics does provide rounding as you suggest. So I do not disagree with you.

The laws and origins of mathematics have been tested through postulation. You cannot demonstrate that mathematics won't always work anymore than you can assume or attempt to argue that gravity won't always work.

[mfbukowski]

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?

Yep- I agree with Valentinus on this one.

Look - logic has its place and I personally think that its uses are very limited but certainly math is one of them where it is a tad.... useful to say the least.

But this doesn't show anything unusual about logic at all. This is just an example of rounding numbers. There is nothing magic or mysterious or absurd or "illogical" or anything like that here.

Edited November 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

The equations you propose are not obsurd at all. Mathematics does provide rounding as you suggest. So I do not disagree with you.

The laws and origins of mathematics have been tested through postulation. You cannot demonstrate that mathematics won't always work anymore than you can assume or attempt to argue that gravity won't always work.

How well did the "rounding" argument work with your math teacher?

Your answer - 67

Correct answer - 100

"just round up teacher, they are the same number because you can round."

Think about it, 1= 0.999... That is obsurd! I didn't say 1 is close to equal 0.999.., using the two squiggly lines. I used =, meaning they are the same. Logic tells me that they cannot be the same number, it tells me that they are at the same time. It really is weird!

Edited November 27, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

ignore this

Edited November 27, 2012 by pogi

[Damien the Leper]

How well did the "rounding" argument work with your math teacher?

Your answer - 67

Correct answer - 100

"just round up teacher, they are the same number because you can round."

Think about it, 1= 0.999... That is obsurd! I didn't say 1 is close to equal 0.999.., using the two squiggly lines. I used =, meaning they are the same. Logic tells me that they cannot be the same number, it tells me that they are at the same time. It really is weird!

Now this getting obsurd. Rounding 67 to 100 isn't even on the same planet if your trying to compare it to .99999 rounded to 1.

[Damien the Leper]

Yep- I agree with Valentinus on this one.

This hardly, if ever, happens.

[mfbukowski]

ignore this

But if I do, is it still a "real" comment or not?

[mfbukowski]

How well did the "rounding" argument work with your math teacher?

Your answer - 67

Correct answer - 100

"just round up teacher, they are the same number because you can round."

Think about it, 1= 0.999... That is obsurd! I didn't say 1 is close to equal 0.999.., using the two squiggly lines. I used =, meaning they are the same. Logic tells me that they cannot be the same number, it tells me that they are at the same time. It really is weird!

It's not weird at all.

It's Pragmatism. For all practical purposes, literally, they are the same. So we put the two squiggly lines they DEFINING them as "equal" for all practical purposes.

We mentally define reality in certain ways to perform certain tasks, for practical purposes. That is precisely why EVERY scientific calculation is considered "correct" within a certain mathematical range. Everything that can be measured is measured "plus or minus" something because measurements themselves vary.

The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.^[1] It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities which fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. According to the interpretation, the act of measurement causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature of the mathematics is known as wavefunction collapse. The essential concepts of the interpretation were devised by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in the years 1924–27.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Golly do you think this means that our knowledge of reality is not objective but "mind dependent"?

Who woulda thunk it?

[mfbukowski]

This hardly, if ever, happens.

Oh it happens a lot more often than you think- I am just trying to get you to understand that, but we have two very thick skulls between our brains communicating!

[wenglund]

Wow Wade! I honestly think this is my favorite post (as far as I can remember) that you have given. I would like for you to share more. Thank you very much sir.

You are most welcome.

If needs be, I can share more insights into how reason is an integral part of faith. However, in this post I wish to explore how faith may be an integral part of reason.

Two participants in this thread have already touched on this question. First, CV75 intimated that we accept, on faith, that reason/logic, themselves, are the right way of thinking. Since all we have to test reason/logic is reason/logic, this unavoidable circularity forces us to accept the results on faith. Since many of us lack the time and training needed to fully understand and test reason/logic, we rely in faith on what experts have to say on the matter. And, since we can only now test our current and past usage of reason/logic, and not the future, we continue to employ reason/logic having faith that doing so will, for the most part, prove productive going forward. Faith, then, is the motivating force behind our use of reason.

Second, Pogi suggested we go to a philosophy board and pose the question: "Do you exist?" The point of such an exercise is to flesh out the various limits of reason/logic--which limits are a function of the finite and fallible human minds that invented and evolved the tools of reason/logic, and a function of the finite and fallible human minds that utilize the invented tools of reason/logic. We humans, individually and collectively, are quite some distance away from omniscience. There is much about the universe, particularly the complexities of human nature, that we don't substantively grasp, and even far less that we "know." And, since our fallible invention of reason/logic is heavily reliant upon human information, faith is needed to bridge the gaps and compensate for our oft substantial inadequacies in knowledge and factuality, thus enabling reasoning/logic to be viable.

For example, science has been built on reason and logic. Yet, as Paul Davies explains, science is taken on faith. See also HERE and HERE and HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

You are most welcome.

If needs be, I can share more insights into how reason is an integral part of faith. However, in this post I wish to explore how faith may be an integral part of reason.

Two participants in this thread have already touched on this question. First, CV75 intimated that we accept, on faith, that reason/logic, themselves, are the right way of thinking. Since all we have to test reason/logic is reason/logic, this unavoidable circularity forces us to accept the results on faith. Since many of us lack the time and training needed to fully understand and test reason/logic, we rely in faith on what experts have to say on the matter. And, since we can only now test our current and past usage of reason/logic, and not the future, we continue to employ reason/logic having faith that doing so will, for the most part, prove productive going forward. Faith, then, is the motivating force behind our use of reason.

Second, Pogi suggested we go to a philosophy board and pose the question: "Do you exist?" The point of such an exercise is to flesh out the various limits of reason/logic--which limits are a function of the finite and fallible human minds that invented and evolved the tools of reason/logic, and a function of the finite and fallible human minds that utilize the invented tools of reason/logic. We humans, individually and collectively, are quite some distance away from omniscience. There is much about the universe, particularly the complexities of human nature, that we don't substantively grasp, and even far less that we "know." And, since our fallible invention of reason/logic is heavily reliant upon human information, faith is needed to bridge the gaps and compensate for our oft substantial inadequacies in knowledge and factuality, thus enabling reasoning/logic to be viable.

For example, science has been built on reason and logic. Yet, as Paul Davies explains, science is taken on faith. See also HERE and HERE and HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Bless you bless you great post as usual.

And where did these ideas come from? The Pragmatists of course! Gould was not even a philosopher and got most of his ideas from Kuhn who got them from Polanyi

Polanyi–Kuhn debate

Although they used different terminologies, both Kuhn and Michael Polanyi believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativized discipline. Polanyi lectured on this topic for decades before Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Supporters of Polanyi charged Kuhn with plagiarism, as it was known that Kuhn attended several of Polanyi's lectures, and that the two men had debated endlessly over the epistemology of science before either had achieved fame. In response to these critics, Kuhn cited Polanyi in the second edition of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions",^[7] and the two scientists agreed to set aside their differences.^{[citation needed]} Despite this intellectual alliance, Polanyi's work was constantly interpreted by others within the framework of Kuhn's paradigm shifts, much to Polanyi's (and Kuhn's) dismay.^[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn#Polanyi.E2.80.93Kuhn_debate

Here is an interesting essay on postmodernism, Polanyi and Rorty. http://oak.ucc.nau.edu/jgr6/rorty.html

[wenglund]

Bless you bless you great post as usual.

And where did these ideas come from? The Pragmatists of course! Gould was not even a philosopher and got most of his ideas from Kuhn who got them from Polanyi

http://en.wikipedia....0.93Kuhn_debate

I am glad you mentioned Kuhn and Polanyi since they helped make us aware that within the secular realm generally, and science and philosophy in particular, reasoning/logic have lead inadvertently to divergent, competing, and conflicting conclusions, theories, schools of thought, and paradigms, and this at times in ways that make the divergences "incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand [or disprove] one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm." (ibid). And, in spite of these incommensurable divergent results, we still retain FAITH in reason/logic, and we still retain FAITH in our chosen conclusions, theories, schools of thought, and paradigms--that is until "anomalous results build up," and "science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted," (ibid.) These paradigm shifts or scientific revolutions unavoidably proceeds on FAITH and the newly created paradigm will then continue in FAITH until the next revolution.

Like others, the more I learn about science and philosophy, and the tools of reasoning/logic upon which they are built, the more I see of FAITH in each, and the more I realize, as Kuhn and Polanyi, the substantial degree of subjectivity in it all and that "All Knowing is Personal": "...Polanyi claims that absolute objectivity (objectivism) is a false ideal, because all knowledge claims (including those which are derived from rules) rely on personal judgements.^[4] He denies that a scientific method can yield truth mechanically. All knowing, no matter how formalised, relies upon commitments. Polanyi argued that the assumptions which motivate critical philosophy are not only false, they serve to undermine the commitments which motivate our highest achievements. He advocates a fiduciary post-critical approach, in which we recognise that we believe more than we can prove, and know more than we can say."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 27, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

I am glad you mentioned Kuhn since he helped make us aware that within the secular realm generally, and science and philosophy in particular, reasoning/logic have lead inadvertently to divergent, competing, and conflicting conclusions, theories, schools of thought, and paradigms, and this at times in ways that make the divergences "incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand [or disprove] one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm." (ibid). And, in spite of these incommensurable divergent results, we still retain FAITH in reason/logic, and we still retain FAITH in our chosen conclusions, theories, schools of thought, and paradigms--that is until "anomalous results build up," and "science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted," (ibid.) These paradigm shifts or scientific revolutions unavoidably proceeds on FAITH and the newly created paradigm will then continue in FAITH until the next revolution.

Like others, the more I learn about science and philosophy, and the tools of reasoning/logic upon which they are built, the more I see of FAITH in each, and the more I realize, as Kuhn and Polanyi, the substantial degree of subjectivity in it all and that "All Knowing is Personal": "...Polanyi claims that absolute objectivity (objectivism) is a false ideal, because all knowledge claims (including those which are derived from rules) rely on personal judgements.^[4] He denies that a scientific method can yield truth mechanically. All knowing, no matter how formalised, relies upon commitments. Polanyi argued that the assumptions which motivate critical philosophy are not only false, they serve to undermine the commitments which motivate our highest achievements. He advocates a fiduciary post-critical approach, in which we recognise that we believe more than we can prove, and know more than we can say."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Totally agree and well put.

As Joseph Smith- even in secular terms, an absolute genius- said, "Faith is a principle of action".

No action whatsover can be accomplished without some level of faith. Typing on a keyboard, one has faith that one's fingers will move as one expects. Reading, one exercises faith that one's eyes will not suddenly blank out or grow too blurry to see.

Those who have experienced the effects of age or disability or disease know all too clearly how true that is, and how thankful they are every time they are able to exercise the faith necessary to accomplish even simple tasks.

[pogi]

Now this getting obsurd. Rounding 67 to 100 isn't even on the same planet if your trying to compare it to .99999 rounded to 1.

You are right, they are not on the same planet, one number can be rounded (67) the other cannot (0.9999), because It is 1, they are the same number. A rounded number can never be equal to the number it is rounded to.

Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: 0.999999....

Look, I'm not making this stuff up. It's weird I know! I first heard about it on Science Friday a few weeks ago. I have since done some reading on it. 0.999... is not equivalent to, close to, or really, really close to 1. It is 1.

My point is that things are not always as they seem, logically speaking.

Because the human senses are easily deceived, fallible, and extremely limited in their scope, the amount of information that we can gather is so negligible when you consider (it is really inconceivable) the vastness of the universe and beyond. We as mortal humans can only perceive of the tiniest fraction of the likely infinite number of variables that make up the entirety of space, matter, energy, and time.

Think of the limits of space, matter, and energy alone that are within the reach of our faculties. Many of us have not even been outside of our countries of origin. I have only been to 10 or 12 of the western 50 United States. 90% or more of my knowledge is based completely on trust of the experiences of others. For all I know, the eastern states do not even exist. Until I can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste them for myself, I don’t have any real knowledge of them, all I have is trust that they exist. The evidence seems overwhelming in their favor, but if everybody told me that the world was flat, then I would probably believe that too. They could show me pictures of the precise spot where the ocean drops off and tell me grand stories of brave sailors who went too far, never to return. I wouldn’t need to fall off the end of the Earth to discover that the earth is flat…or would I? You can see how easy it is to confuse trust for knowledge. We trust in the logic of others, without understanding it ourselves most of the time.

The furthest place that man has stepped is the moon; at least I “trust” that is so. When you throw in the alluring temptations of greed, power, and fame, one must consider the reliability of trusting in the mortal man. Everything seems to have a price; even the purity of science and religion are not out of the grasp of filthy lucre to be manipulated for personal gain. There are seemingly endless examples of this.

While we have been able to process and explain many of the variables that we can perceive, we have to keep in mind that man’s reason and logic are fallible and corruptible by greed, power, and fame. Also, his conclusions are not certain and may possibly change in time, or place (other universes). The best that we can do is form probabilities while realizing that even those probabilities are questionable, extremely questionable.

What we are left with is a probable picture and explanation of a few of the variables that we have gathered within our reach in an endless sea of variables. It is like we are limited to 3 pieces of a puzzle with a possible infinite number of pieces, and we are not even sure if what we are holding are even real puzzle pieces because we can’t know anything for 100% certainty, but they probably, hopefully are; that’s our best guess of what they are anyway. How can you place so much trust that the pieces you hold paint an accurate picture of what really is? Does this give you the sense of the nothingness of man and his measure? He simply cannot see the big picture. Logic is as much an issue of trust as faith is.

Edited November 27, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

What we are left with is a probable picture and explanation of a few of the variables that we have gathered within our reach in an endless sea of variables. It is like we are limited to 3 pieces of a puzzle with a possible infinite number of pieces, and we are not even sure if what we are holding are even real puzzle pieces because we can’t know anything for 100% certainty, but they probably, hopefully are; that’s our best guess of what they are anyway. How can you place so much trust that the pieces you hold paint an accurate picture of what really is? Does this give you the sense of the nothingness of man and his measure? He simply cannot see the big picture. Logic is as much an issue of trust as faith is.

NOW you're talkin!

[pogi]

I just read Wade's posts,

I think that I just said the exact same thing in a much more drawn out way. Well said!

[Jude2]

No action whatsover can be accomplished without some level of faith. Typing on a keyboard, one has faith that one's fingers will move as one expects.

I must lack faith or something

[wenglund]

And where did these ideas come from? The Pragmatists of course!

I was reading through several of your posts on another thread (about revelation), and I was reminded of another instance of FAITH in science and philosophy that is most essential, and I am surprised that neither of us have thought to mention it here. You said: "We cannot get outside ourselves to see anything to check to see if what is 'outside' corresponds to what is 'inside'."

Since we cannot get outside of our mind, we then must rely on FAITH that what we experience "inside" corresponds closely to what is "outside." [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

I was reading through several of your posts on another thread (about revelation), and I was reminded of another instance of FAITH in science and philosophy that is most essential, and I am surprised that neither of us have thought to mention it here. You said: "We cannot get outside ourselves to see anything to check to see if what is 'outside' corresponds to what is 'inside'."

Since we cannot get outside of our mind, we then must rely on FAITH that what we experience "inside" corresponds closely to what is "outside." [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes indeed that is true! If you have ever stubbed your toe in the middle of the night on some unseen object you know that sometimes there is a discrepancy between what we perceive and what we soon find out is "outside". On the other hand the results of that discrepancy are reported "inside" your toe as soon as your toe experiences the results of the discrepancy and the incorrect perception

Unfortunately though that experience is still subjective. It might be nice to make some one else feel the pain for us, but it doesn't work that way. And if we jump around or cry out and wake our spouse after stubbing our toe it will become clear that what we are feeling is purely subjective as she gently dozes off while we continue to rub our toe. She might like to be able to "feel our pain" but fortunately or unfortunately it is not literally possible.

But after a while it becomes clear- what we don't know about what is "outside" is irrelevant to our lives. Science allows us to know that there are things such as gamma rays constantly piercing our bodies but we do not experience them and so they are totally irrelevant to our lives. Ultimately the only thing relevant to our lives is what we experience, spiritually or otherwise. If it is "outside" us and never gets in, it just doesn't matter.

Edited November 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Look, I'm not making this stuff up. It's weird I know! I first heard about it on Science Friday a few weeks ago. I have since done some reading on it. 0.999... is not equivalent to, close to, or really, really close to 1. It is 1.

That solely depends on the context where the number is being used. In other contexts .99999.... approaches 1, but never reaches it.

If you believe it is true in all mathematical contexts, you have misunderstood what they taught or they screwed up in their teaching.

Mathematics is a variety of languages. Not all of the languages have the same definitions.

Edited November 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[CV75]

Ultimately the only thing relevant to our lives is what we experience, spiritually or otherwise. If it is "outside" us and never gets in, it just doesn't matter.

How does this apply to people living without knowledge of the plan of salvation? They are still included in it and living it under God’s watchful care whether they know it or not (He atoned for them; He will resurrect and judge them, etc.). So the plan, while “outside” and irrelevant to them for the time being is quite relevant to God throughout their lives. It is irrelevant to them in their subjective way, relevant to them in God’s subjective way, and also relevant to them in a way that is objective to them (or regardless of what they subjectively experience). According to the plan, they will eventually have knowledge of it, and it will become retroactively subjectively relevant to them.

Edited November 28, 2012 by CV75

[Damien the Leper]

I found this interesting when I began to re-read Greg Epstein's book Good Without God:

Call Humanism a faith if you like--we should have no particular allergy to that word--but recognize that it is a faith in our ability to live well based on conclusions and convictions reached by empirical testing and free, unfettered rational inquiry. In other words, we question everything, including our own questions, and we search for as many ways as we can confirm or deny our intuitions. We have no holy books meant to be taken at face value or blindly obeyed. We are open to revising any conclusion we have made if new evidence appears to contradict it.

Epstein, Good Without God, pg. 10

I also wanted to share this from his book:

What is Humanism?

Humanism is a bold, resolute response to the fact that being a human being is lonely and frightening. We Humanists take one look at a world in which the lives of thousands of innocent children are ripped away every year by hurricanes, earthquakes, and other "acts of God," not to mention the thousand other fundamental injustices of life, and we conclude that if the universe we live in does not have competent moral management, then so be it: we must become the superintendents of our own lives. Humanism means taking charge of the often lousy world around us and working to shape it into a better place, though we know we cannot ever finish the task.

In short, Humanism is being good without God. It is above all an affirmation of the greatest common value we human beings have: the desire to live with dignity, to be "good." But Humanism is also a warning that we cannot afford to wait until tomorrow or until the next life to be good, because today--the short journey we get from birth to death, womb to tomb--is all we have. Humanism rejects dependence on faith, the supernatural, divine texts, resurrection, reincarnation, or anything else for which we have no evidence. To put it another way, Humanists believe in life before death.

More formally, the American Humanist Association defines Humanism as a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment, aspiring to the greater good of humanity. This approach, though affirmed by most of the world's hundreds of millions of atheists and agnostics, is not particularly organized. And yet it can be, and it already is in many places, though some secularists bristle at the thought that this is too much like an "organized religion." As we'll see, Humanism is a cohesive world movement based on the creation of good lives and communities, without God.

Nonreligious people often wonder why on earth, with all the abuses and scandals and illogical ideas religion is responsible for, is religion still so powerful? The answer is that for most, religion is not about belief in an all-seeing deity with a baritone voice and a flowing beard. It is about group identification--the community and the connections we need to live. It is about family, tradition, consolation, ethics, memories, music, art, architecture, and much more. These things are all good, and no one wants to or should be asked to give them up because of lack of belief in a god.

The truth is that at the present time, the above list of social goods--family, tradition, memories, music, etc.--is difficult to find communally outside traditional forms of religious affiliation or custom. And in truth, being a good person in a vacuum is not a very satisfying experience. Those of us who don't want to worship an invisible being or spend our days fretting about punishment in Hades do want to be able to share what we do hold dear with our families and the broader world, and that we want to be understood and appreciated for who we are. To do so we need community.

At the most important times of our lives--when we or our loved ones are sick and dying; when a new baby is born; when we want to affirm our love in marriage; when we want to education our children not only about facts and dates, but also important values--we need to be part of a group. We need what, at least potentially, can be found or created in a Humanist community: a place where family, memory, ethical values, and the uplifting of the human spirit can come together with intellectual honesty, and without a god.

Good Without God, pg xiv

And then this:

Is humanism a Faith?

I'm often asked whether Humanism is a religion. Practically speaking, Humanism is not a religion, because most of us associate the word religion with a system that includes divinities and the supernatural. Humanists have no popes and no perfect people--as the intentionally silly T-shirts say, we are a "nonprophet organization." Sociologically speaking, however, Humanism is similar to a religion in the way that it involves shared values with efforts to organize a community and is essentially a way of life. So I prefer the European term lifestance, meaning more than a philosophy but not a divine or revealed religion. In any case, asking whether Humanism is a religion or not is little more than a semantic "gotcha" game. Some ask because their religious and are trying to knock Humanist down a peg; others are angry at religious hypocrisy and are afraid to be associated with anything that even faintly smells of belief, a word laden with baggage and unhappiness.

But the point is not whether you believe in something, it's what you believe in. Not believing in anything is a belief too---in nihilism. As TV and film writer/director Joss Whedon said, "The enemy of Humanism is not faith--the enemy of Humanism is hate, it is fear, it is ignorance, it is the darker part of man that is in every Humanist, and every person in the world...But faith is something we have to embrace. Faith in God means believing absolutely in something, with no proof whatsoever. Faith in humanity means believing absolutely in something with a huge amount of proof to the contrary. We are the true believers."

Good Without God, pg xv

Emphasis to similar added.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Valentinus

[wenglund]

Because it is such a sticking point for many skeptics, let's return to considering the role of reason in spiritual faith, specific to receiving answers to Moroni 10 prayers.

Here are several plausible points of reasoning that may somewhat imperceptibly occur to an investigator's mind that may lead her to rationally conclude that it is a spiritual confirmation from God as to the verity of the things prayed about.

Upon experiencing the "sensations" in response to her prayers, the investigator may mentally perform a comparative analysis that might include the following:

1. In quickly assessing the "sensations," she may determine that they were not typical and were somewhat unlike what she has experienced in her day-to-day life, and may even seem to her to have been "other-worldly" (see below). And, since the "sensations" resulting from her prayers weren't typical and seemed other-worldly, she may reasonably conclude that the sensations may have been generated by some external, other worldly source.

2. She may remember that the "sensations" resulting from her prayer may have been somewhat similar, though more pronounced, than what she experienced during the discussions with the missionaries. This tie-in to the missionary discussions may lead her to reasonably figure that there is a causal link between the "sensations" and the spiritual messages, and thus reasonably conclude that the "sensations" are spiritual and godly and from a spiritual and godly source.

3. In turn, she may reason that while she may have sought and expected an answer to her prayers, thus rendering her vulnerable to the possibility that her own strong desires could have mentally generated the "sensations," she didn't have the same expectations during the missionary discussion, and yet unexpectedly experienced similar "sensations." So, because of this difference in expectations, she may reasonably figure that both sets of similar "sensations" were not purely a product of her mind, but were generated externally, and reasonably conclude that the spiritual-associated, other-worldly "sensations" were initiated by God.

4. Upon considering the atypical and other-worldly nature of the "sensations," she may realize that the "sensations" entailed more than just an unusual, seemingly non-physical and not entirely emotional "burning in the bosom," and may have also included a "still small voice," but more likely involved a revelatory stream of consciousness as well, wherein the verity of the things being prayed about are unquestionably impressed upon her mind, and in ways she may not have expected nor in ways that would have naturally occurred to her mind. And, these realizations, along with her other points of reasoning, may reasonably add to her confidence that the spiritual "sensations" were externally generated, and came God.

There may be other points of reasoning that may occur near imperceptibly to investigators' minds, and the participants here are free to suggest them if they wish.

However, whether each and every investigator who has received an answer to their prayers, as promised in Moroni, undergoes the same points of reasoning as suggested above, it is fair to suggest that they all at least experience some form of reasoning that tends to remove sufficient doubt in their minds and hearts about the provenance of the "sensations" so as to confidently motivate them to join the Church of Jesus Christ's, and continue their spiritual journey on the path that Christ has set forth, having hope that the seed of faith they are now acting upon will grow to maturity and bear the fruit of spiritual knowledge as intimated in Alma 32 and illustrated in Lehi's dream.

In other words, the nature of the "sensations" and the varied circumstances under which they occur, provides sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude, with increased confidence, that they are spiritual and of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I found this interesting when I began to re-read Greg Epstein's book Good Without God: Epstein, Good Without God, pg. 10

I also wanted to share this from his book: Good Without God, pg xiv

And then this: Good Without God, pg xv Emphasis to similar added.

These are some appealing thoughts, and I appreciate you sharing them with us.

You may be pleased to learn that I respect and applaud belief systems, including Secular Humanism, whose primary intent is to do "good." And, for those people who can't, for whatever reason, manage to believe in God, I would prefer that they ascribe to a belief system that is primarily intended to do good, than not.

And, if Secular Humanists are satisfied with their highest aspirations being limited to what humankind, individually and collectively, can accomplish on their own, that is fine for them.

However, for me, my aspirations are much higher. I wish to become like the divine Christ, which means that I can't just rely on the arm of flesh and lean unto our own human understandings, but must instead place my reliance and trust on the transcendent power and workings of heaven.

In short, I am not just looking to be humanly goodly, I am looking to be godly, and must therefore rely on God--though, admittedly, I can have these higher aspiration and reliance because I am able, and do believe in God.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2012 by wenglund