Understanding Belief

[mfbukowski]

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.

I see it as no different than anything else really - it's not that complicated. We come here to learn. As babies we come here knowing nothing and we are here to experience it all- the knowledge of good and evil which gives us choice.

If we don't learn about the gospel here we will have an opportunity on the other side. Don't get tied up in the subjective/objective language- the object of using that kind of language is to simplify our description of reality not to complicate it.

Any way you look at it, God wants them to learn the truth of the plan- that living that way and believing that way is what he wants for his children. Understanding it in this way using the model of reality we are discussing here doesn't change any of that.

All it does is make religious experience as "real" in a thought model as scientific experience. It makes subjective experience as "valid" as what is scientifically "provable".

One can ask atheists how they can believe in a world they cannot experience and be fully consistent in having a view that makes religious experience as valid as science, because science itself is dependent on the experience of humans. On the other hand, science does not examine the "objective world" the way it thinks it does because anything beyond human experience is prima facie inaccessible to human experience, "by definition" as it were.

That is the strength of the theory over correspondence. Scientific atheist types who believe that science in some way "corresponds" to some reality beyond what we can see are left believing in a world we cannot see!

And we also have on "our side" the entire notion of the Copenhagen Interpretation as well as statements by physicists that the ultimate building blocks of the universe are ultimately unknowable and beyond the ability of humans to probe.

Physicists seeking to understand the deepest levels of reality now work within a framework largely of Susskind’s making. But a funny thing has happened along the way. Susskind now wonders whether physicists can understand reality.

They can't understand it because they are at the fringes of what we can experience and organize linguistically in our minds, where all of "reality" is organized.

This view also shows how compatible Mormonism is with the most cutting edge philosophy and physics - the notion that Humankind actually organizes our world mentally obviously to me at least is a very close parallel to God organizing worlds from "matter unorganized" and the notion of us being mini-gods who do the same sorts of things but on a tiny scale while he does it on the scale of universes.

We don't need some 800 year old Neoplatonic theory of Being to come up with a Restoration view of philosophical issues- I believe that God has already provided a different way of seeing theology that works very well with the Restoration.

Once you see the position, I think it is pretty unassailable. I wish I thought it up, but I have been studying variations of this for over 40 years now and stole most all of it from various Pragmatists and postmodernists.

I ain't switichin' for nothin"!

[Damien the Leper]

Those are some appealing thoughts, and I appreciate you sharing them 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-

First, I sincerely appreciate your kind words.

Second, post #124 is great. I enjoyed reading it.

Last, stop being an over-achiever, Wade!

Edited November 28, 2012 by Valentinus

[mfbukowski]

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.

Exactly.

And then you apply the "scientific" tests of Alma 32 for confirmation!

[wenglund]

Last, stop being an over-achiever, Wade!

LOL! At this point, my aspirations are far from achievements. So, no worries about me having over-achieved or over-achieving anytime soon.

It is just that it is a part of my spiritual nature to want to become like my Father and elder brother, just as I suspect it is a part of their spiritual natures to want the same for me. At this point, I can't see any reason to settle for less--though I can respect if other people choose differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

LOL! At this point, my aspirations are far from achievements. So, no worries about me having over-achieved or over-achieving anytime soon.

It is just that it is a part of my spiritual nature to want to become like my Father and elder brother, just as I suspect it is a part of their spiritual natures to want the same for me. At this point, I can't see any reason to settle for less--though I can respect if other people choose differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Understood. I may not believe in any way that you do but I can at least encourage you on your journey.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I think that you will find that if you view God as a Human, humanism secular or otherwise suddenly can be seen in a very different light.

The objectives are almost identical- to make the world a paradise for humanity and to enoble humanity in every way possible. Those objectives are obviously the objectives of Mormonism- to reach, in our terms, exaltation and create a "Zion society" on this earth where all humanity is free and becoming the best they are capable of being, or "filling the measure of their creation and having joy therein".

In fact, seeing the Council of the Gods as exalted Humans means that we literally worship Man, the Man of Holiness.

You can't get more humanistic than literally worshiping Man.

Yet of course the overall context is vastly different than secular humanism- we see far beyond those limits placed there by secularists.

[mfbukowski]

I will say this only once because of the vast potential in being misunderstood in what I am saying but I think this might be the place to say it.

There are many who view the future of "religion" Godlessly and in totally humanistic terms- in other words, worshipping Man and the best in human potential and trying to achieve it. Richard Rorty for example is one of these.

In many ways, we have been there for 150 years already. If they could only see it!!

In "Anticlericalism and Atheism" Rorty discusses Vattimo's work Belief and argues that the end of metaphysics paves the way for an anti-essentialist religion. Rorty's conception of religion, determined by private motives, is designed to produce the gospel's promise that henceforth God will not consider humanity as a servant but as a friend. In "The Age of Interpretation," Vattimo, who is both a devout Catholic and a frequent critic of the church, explores the surprising congruence between Christianity and hermeneutics in light of the dissolution of metaphysical truth. As in hermeneutics, interpretation is central to Christianity, which introduced the world to the principle of interiority, dissolving the experience of objective reality into "listening to and interpreting messages."

Edited November 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

I will say this only once because of the vast potential in being misunderstood in what I am saying but I think this might be the place to say it.

There are many who view the future of "religion" Godlessly and in totally humanistic terms- in other words, worshipping Man and the best in human potential and trying to achieve it. Richard Rorty for example is one of these.

In many ways, we have been there for 150 years already. If they could only see it!!

I suspect that they may only come to "see it" when they understand that man is more than just flesh and blood, and is made alive by the divine spirit that is within each of us. As long as people only grasp the physical aspect of man, and remain unaware of our divine spirits, they have little or no chance of believing in and aspiring to become fully divine Man.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

I will say this only once because of the vast potential in being misunderstood in what I am saying but I think this might be the place to say it.

There are many who view the future of "religion" Godlessly and in totally humanistic terms- in other words, worshipping Man and the best in human potential and trying to achieve it. Richard Rorty for example is one of these.

In many ways, we have been there for 150 years already. If they could only see it!!

I think that you will find that if you view God as a Human, humanism secular or otherwise suddenly can be seen in a very different light.

The objectives are almost identical- to make the world a paradise for humanity and to enoble humanity in every way possible. Those objectives are obviously the objectives of Mormonism- to reach, in our terms, exaltation and create a "Zion society" on this earth where all humanity is free and becoming the best they are capable of being, or "filling the measure of their creation and having joy therein".

In fact, seeing the Council of the Gods as exalted Humans means that we literally worship Man, the Man of Holiness.

You can't get more humanistic than literally worshiping Man.

Yet of course the overall context is vastly different than secular humanism- we see far beyond those limits placed there by secularists.

Fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing.

[Damien the Leper]

I found this on YouTube. It's an hour and a half long and many may not be able to watch all of it but it's worth watching nonetheless.

[mfbukowski]

I suspect that they may only come to "see it" when they understand that man is more than just flesh and blood, and is made alive by the divine spirit that is within each of us. As long as people only grasp the physical aspect of man, and remain unaware of our divine spirits, they have little or no chance of believing in and aspiring to become fully divine Man.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Indeed! I think you are precisely right. In fact I am working on a paper about Rorty that makes that exact point regarding his notion of what an "ironist" is- basically the flaw is in his notion of the self.

But I thought it fascinating that he wants to view God as a "friend", and that exact phrase occurs in the D&C in at least 3 places where Christ refers to US as "friends"

Doctrine and Covenants 84:77

77 And again I say unto you, my friends, for from henceforth I shall call you friends, it is expedient that I give unto you this commandment, that ye become even as my friends in days when I was with them, traveling to preach the gospel in my power;

Doctrine and Covenants 93:45

45 Verily, I say unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., or in other words, I will call you friends, for you are my friends, and ye shall have an inheritance with me—

Doctrine and Covenants 88:117

117 Therefore, verily I say unto you, my friends, call your solemn assembly, as I have commanded you.

It just boggles my mind to realize that Rorty, one of the most influential philosophers of our times was so close to having a position so close to the Mormon understanding.

[mfbukowski]

Curiously, the Didache, a first Century Christian document gives us what is arguably the first exposition of what is now called "Rule Based Utilitarianism". Clearly the Didache is a religious document and think it otherwise would be a distortion. It argues that being "good" is just a better way to live than being bad, and though it is a religious work, the argument itself is not religious.

It argues that the way of morality is the "Way of Life"- that living a moral life is a better life in a utilitarian way than living a sinful life which it calls the "Way of Death".

It's style of argumentation parallels Alma 32 quite similarly. In fact when you think of Alma 32 it argues that you yourself will experience the good effects of living well. It essentially argues that living morally is its own reward if you want to see it that way.

So simultaneously one can see it as a religious work which preaches a utilitarian message. Very interesting

[wenglund]

Understood. I may not believe in any way that you do but I can at least encourage you on your journey.

I wish you all the best and encourage you as well, while looking forward to joining you in whatever areas of "good" where our respective journeys may overlap. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Don't get tied up in the subjective/objective language- the object of using that kind of language is to simplify our description of reality not to complicate it.

Where “a rose by any other name…,” I am assessing how well the model and its terms apply to the rose that I see, so getting “tied up in the language” (when I understand what I mean) might indicate a problem with the model!

Just kidding; it’s obviously the best model for the purposes you described. But where I already take for granted that religious / spiritual experience is often more authentic than what is scientifically claimed as proof against it, or I don’t actually see with the five senses what science describes but I do see with the five senses what the Spirit describes, it may be harder to make any thought model “fit” just right. This is why I concluded there is room in the Gospel for both models, depending on who is experiencing what, and how.

But back to what you are saying with regards to the question I had above: all realities are independently subjective realities, whether they align with God’s reality or not; and when they do align with each other and/or God’s reality, they can be considered inter-subjective or agreed-upon objective realities (right)?

[Damien the Leper]

I wish you all the best and encourage you as well, while looking forward to joining you in whatever areas of "good" where our respective journeys may overlap. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You need to become ordained...I'm thinking I may recruit you to officiate my gay wedding some day...

[wenglund]

It argues that the way of morality is the "Way of Life"- that living a moral life is a better life in a utilitarian way than living a sinful life which it calls the "Way of Death".

Besides Alma 32, this also fits D&C 120, particularly verses 20 - 21, which, not coincidentally, follows immediately after the verses on the principles of intelligence, and immediately before the verse where the Father and Son are revealed as having bodies of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

But back to what you are saying with regards to the question I had above: all realities are independently subjective realities, whether they align with God’s reality or not; and when they do align with each other and/or God’s reality, they can be considered inter-subjective or agreed-upon objective realities (right)?

Yep that's the way I see it. Arguably they are even almost "empirical". I mean you have 14 million people reporting, presumably, similar experiences. Of course not all of those would say they have a "testimony" but many do- even those who are inactive.

There are quite a few inactive people who pay their tithing like clock work- who would do that without a testimony? Others who have not been to church in years do not want to have their names removed? Why is that? Because on some level there is still a glimmer of recollection of what that spirit of testimony was like.

It's like the pink elephant again- where two or three see it and the others don't. Maybe some have their eyes shut or seeing it is like seeing those images that were popular a few years ago, where you have to stare at it in just the right way and suddenly it "pops" into a 3-D image. We describe it religiously just fine but now I am fishing for other language.

But yes- clearly the phenomenon is not "only" subjective by any means.

[mfbukowski]

Besides Alma 32, this also fits D&C 120, particularly verses 20 - 21, which, not coincidentally follow immediately after the verses on the principles of intelligence, and immediately before the verse where the Father and Son are revealed as having bodies of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Great point!

[wenglund]

You need to become ordained...I'm thinking I may recruit you to officiate my gay wedding some day...

As long as you marry a lesbian, I can't see any reason for me to not want to officiate that kind of gay wedding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[pogi]

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.

I will not attempt to argue with you. Either way, my point is still valid if what you are saying is true. My understanding is based completely on trust, as I imagine yours is as well. The fact that 1 sometimes equals 0.999... is just as weird if not more confusing than saying it always equals 0.999... When some of the best and brightest cannot agree on the most basic and fundamental of all numbers, the number 1, and what it is equal to, we have reason to question where we put our trust. What do we really know?

[Damien the Leper]

As long as you marry a lesbian, I can't see any reason for me to not want to officiate that kind of gay wedding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ha ha! That was good...I guess I asked for that one.

[pogi]

As long as you marry a lesbian, I can't see any reason for me to not want to officiate that kind of gay wedding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ha, ha, ha!

I'm sure he would be happy to officiate in your gay (pre-1930's gay) wedding as well.

[mfbukowski]

Here's an artificially created situation inducing both subjective and "intersubjective experience"

These poor folks certainly think what is happening is "real".

I could only watch one or two but they seem to go on without end.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f47_1353943384

Edited November 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

Yep that's the way I see it.

Great—one follow-up, then I’ll quit: are you also saying that all individuals’ realities are independently subjective realities, including the party’s reality that influences another party’s reality unbeknown to the influenced party – as far as its existence in relation to the influenced party? In other words, if an individual doesn’t perceive that another reality is affecting his own, is that other reality still “subjective by association” or “secondarily subjective” to the affected individual?

[mfbukowski]

Great—one follow-up, then I’ll quit: are you also saying that all individuals’ realities are independently subjective realities, including the party’s reality that influences another party’s reality unbeknown to the influenced party – as far as its existence in relation to the influenced party? In other words, if an individual doesn’t perceive that another reality is affecting his own, is that other reality still “subjective by association” or “secondarily subjective” to the affected individual?

Wow.

Heck if I know! Don't get too tied up in the words and by all means let's not make this into some kind of metaphysics! Sounds like you want to build worlds of subjective realities bumping into each other. That's far too complicated for me. I just see it in terms of what people know.

I don't worry about defining what people don't know.

I mean- give me a list of everything you don't know. It's a contradiction because you don't know what you don't know, and to write a list you would have to know what you don't know.

It's hard enough defining what we DO know!

if an individual doesn’t perceive that another reality is affecting his own, is that other reality still “subjective by association” or “secondarily subjective” to the affected individual?

I don't know how anything you don't know can be "subjective". The very term is speaking of what I personally know. If you are seeing something affecting me and I don't - that is YOUR perception not mine. Maybe I will discover it is affecting me sooner or later but for now I don't know, so it can't be "subjective" to me.

I guess. But don't make it too complicated - it is really intended to be very simple.

Here's an interesting essay by Feser who is an EV philosopher talking about the tyranny of scientism and the view that there is some kind of "objectivity" possible. Really good essay.

But among other things, it shows that I am not the only religious person drawn to this kind of thinking- it is catching on everywhere- finally since it has been around for 120 years or so.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/