Why is belief so important?

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

So, why is "belief" so important? If you remove it from the religious realm, it is still a critical component of our actions. Sometimes we act on substance, sometimes on evidence--or knowledge--but sometimes we have to step away from the comfortable and do something new. Faith is the basis of any action where we act before we have the firm foundation of either tangible or constructed evidence. When a child learns to ride a bicycle with training wheels, the know that they can ride with the training wheels. When they are removed they are in a new territory where they cannot act on what they know. They must act on the faith they have in a parent/friend--or perhaps themselves. But it cannot be something they know--because it is new.

Why is belief so important? As we conceive it in English, it really isn't. However, as a stand-in for faith (particular the active, doing, verb-faith) it is the basis of all progress. Without it, we learn nothing new, act only the way we have before. We are stable, but stagnant. We don't progress.

Now, add back in your religious context and you can see it as an eternal principle apart from the temporal one that we use without calling it faith/belief.

This is excellent and helpful, thanks for responding to my message with such good comments.  I really appreciate it.  This makes sense to me, and I think Marlin Jensen used a similar example later in his talk.  He spoke about the new LGBT policy in Nov 2015 and how distressing that was to him personally.  He said that it was the hardest challenge he's ever faced with respect to the church, which I thought was quite a statement.  He then talked about his having to decide how to proceed and ultimately he determined that he would trust the brethren even though personally he didn't understand the reasons why.  

Thinking about this example of faith being an element of trust where we are able to take actions about something that we don't have clear knowledge about, like the young child in your example, and just trust a parent/friend, I think that is what Marlin is doing with the LGBT policy. 

I personally disagree with Marlin's conclusion to trust that the LGBT policy was correct, personally I think it was wrong.  I've lost my trust in the leaders of Mormonism to make inspired decisions on a consistent basis.  I think they are prone to error and bias just like every other human being.  So, if Marlin thinks faith in the institution is the most important decision we can make in this life, then that doesn't help me, because I don't agree with that.  

But if I can find a way to put faith in some things, I still have a belief in God, I don't know why, its not completely rational, but it still exists.  I trust my intuition at times, but I question it at others, its a mixed bag.  I've learned enough about how our brains work, how unconscious bias influences all of us on a regular basis, that I don't always trust my gut anymore.  I especially feel its important to question our gut feelings about things because of these biases.  But when it comes to making final decisions, after doing all that questioning and research and study, I think that my gut plays into my final decision quite frequently, and I am fine with attributing some of those impulses to inspiration and God.    

Perhaps because we can never have all the information and we can never be free from the flaws in thinking that that mortals are subject to, perhaps knowing when to trust and have faith in something is one of the key things we need to learn to effectively navigate this life.  I think Marlin is getting at this from a faith/trust = salvation perspective, and I don't really subscribe to the old salvation model so much anymore.  I do like the eternal progression model for Mormonism much better.  

Thanks again for the thought provoking comment, and let me know if any of my thoughts make sense or you have anything to add. 

[hope_for_things]

On 10/12/2016 at 9:37 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The church has no authority.  That is the province of the priesthood of God.  The church is merely a vehicle used by the priesthood in furtherance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and such an organizaton is malleable and can be called by whatever name is convenient (church, synagogue, congregation, assembly, etc.).  People who have faith in the church have their priorities backwards.

I don't believe in any kind of authority anymore, I think God looks at intent and need, I think God requires any kind of previous authorization to work with people.  But I can see what you're saying as priesthood, although I find it interesting because I think your argument about priesthood is a similar one to some of our polygamist offshoot groups.  

[hope_for_things]

On 10/12/2016 at 9:40 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

James the Brother of Jesus said that faith without works is dead as a body without a soul.

I'm guessing you're aware that most scholars consider the Epistle of James to be written by someone else.  

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe in any kind of authority anymore, I think God looks at intent and need, I think God requires any kind of previous authorization to work with people.

I don't think that fits with the teachings and actions of Christ.
He specifically gave the Apostles authority.  He specifically sought out John to baptize him for a reason.  Scripture specifically mentions priesthood offices - even outside of Mormon scripture.
I don't see how we can ignore the existence of God given authority, even if we doubt the current application.

Quote

 But I can see what you're saying as priesthood, although I find it interesting because I think your argument about priesthood is a similar one to some of our polygamist offshoot groups. 

Almost identical actually.  But it's also correct principle if you look at Church history, priesthood runs the Church and there are priesthood offices that transcend the Church.  The Church does not run the priesthood as is sometimes implied.  Almost everything restored by Joseph Smith came to the priesthood first long before it came to the Church.
In fact, our canonization and common consent practices still emphasize this - the priesthood is given a revelation from God.  Not every revelation is adopted as binding on the Church by common consent and the membership.  Doesn't invalidate the revelation in any way.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe in any kind of authority anymore, I think God looks at intent and need, I think God requires any kind of previous authorization to work with people.  But I can see what you're saying as priesthood, although I find it interesting because I think your argument about priesthood is a similar one to some of our polygamist offshoot groups.  

The distinct thing about the Pligs is that priesthood is the only thing they recognize -- unlike the apostles of the NT and of modern times.  When we read the comments made by modern LDS Brethren, or of ancient NT apostles, we find well balanced discussions of the full range of human moral and ethical behavior.  Paul is never unbalanced in his preaching, while being unbalanced is normal for the Pligs.

God is very gracious and forgiving with all of us.  He understands how his children tend to go to one extreme or another, instead of adopting well-balanced behaviors.  He also recognizes that many do not accept the authority of his priesthood.  However, non-recognition does not change the fact that such authority actually exists and is regularly exercised on Earth by the Saints of the Last Days -- in preparation for his second coming.

[Calm]

On 10/13/2016 at 8:04 AM, hope_for_things said:

I can provide scriptures that emphasize our actions as being more important than belief, like the sheep and goats parable mentioned earlier.

Actions are a result of desires, desires are a result of values, values are a result of beliefs.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/14/2016 at 9:36 AM, hope_for_things said:

I'm guessing you're aware that most scholars consider the Epistle of James to be written by someone else.  

To the contrary, I am unaware of any such poll of scholars having been taken.  Moreover, the strong arguments in favor of authorship by James the Brother of Jesus carry a great deal of weight with most scholars -- although Martin Luther certainly rejected the epistle entirely, and almost equally disliked Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/12/2016 at 8:03 AM, hope_for_things said:

I recently attended the Spirit of Dialogue conference at UVU and they are celebrating their 50th anniversary. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/50th-anniversary/spirit-of-dialogue-conference/

It was a great meeting with wonderful guests.  One of the highlights for me was the last session, a discussion between Marlin Jensen (former church historian and emeritus status GA) and Gregory Prince.  The audio is posted at the above link.  He said something that I've been pondering about ever since the meeting.  In talking about the essays and the challenges that the information age presents to members he said:

The part in bold is what I've been struggling to understand.  He mentioned meeting with many people over the years who're struggling with their membership.  Why is belief so important to him, and why is it a choice?  Why is it more important than who you choose as your spouse?  Why is belief the most important choice we will ever make in this life?  I don't get it.

I have some thoughts, but I wanted to ask to the group.  Thanks

Seems pretty clear to me- all we have and all we are is what we believe.

I don't even understand the question.  Do you believe in your perceptions or think they are all illusions.  Some teach that.  Do you believe you are a computer simulation?  Some believe that.  And on it goes.

Do you believe your parents are actually your parents?  What if you were secretly adopted?  Have you had a paternity test?

Do you believe all you learned in school?  What do you reject?

Do you believe your political affiliations are correct?  Do you believe that abortion is good or bad?  Why?  Is war murder?  Why or why not?

How should pets be treated- as people?  Are you a vegetarian?  How much should you exercise?  Do you make excuses for what you have done wrong?  How do you know what is right or wrong?   Are there helicopters following you?  Why not?  When you sit on a bench in the park, do you believe it will support your weight?  When you walk, do you believe your legs will buckle beneath you?  Isn't that possible?

Do soldiers really die for your freedom or is that an illusion?

The point i am trying to make is whether you ask the questions or not- you take many of your beliefs for granted and are not even aware of them as "beliefs".

A true skeptic questions everything and knows that belief is all we have and all we are, and we take most of what we tacitly believe on faith.

Edited October 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 10/14/2016 at 8:33 AM, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe in any kind of authority anymore, 

You probably don't want to tell the IRS about that.

[Nofear]

On 10/12/2016 at 0:41 PM, hope_for_things said:

Why would God care either.  Wouldn't God be more interested in our actions than our beliefs.  

I believe that behavior motivated by an absolute knowledge isn't as beneficial to a person's character as behavior motivated by faith/trust. God doesn't want our obedience so much as he wants not just obedience but an obedience motivated by the goodness (or desire for goodness) of our character. Indeed, without faith it is impossible to please God.
 

[mfbukowski]

On 10/12/2016 at 10:41 AM, hope_for_things said:

Why would God care either.  Wouldn't God be more interested in our actions than our beliefs.  

Do you have kids?  What if they always did exactly what you wanted like little robots and never acknowledged your existence?  Computers do what you tell them and have no beliefs. 

Do you love your computer as a child?

[mfbukowski]

On 10/12/2016 at 11:32 AM, Tacenda said:

Some of these I've been wondering also. And what if we believe something false? Just take our chances? How do we know if the belief is correct?

I will answer you but you won't believe it

You MAKE it "correct" in your life.  The belief causes you to act in a way that shows your faith to God along with your love.  This is not science- there IS no objective reality- I don't know how to say that any other way, I have said it so many times.

God teaches us individually to get closer to him.  If you want to be an EV, and God has led you to that, THAT is the "correct" path for you at this time in your life.   It's a customized instruction plan in thousands of steps and lessons.   If you jump in at lesson 478 but missed lesson 1-486, you can make up those lessons later or even in the spirit world.  Then after you finish lesson 478, maybe you can jump to lesson 8,349 and skip the intervening lessons because God decides you don't need them.

This is about YOUR maturation in the spirit it is not about learning facts and figures about God.  There ARE no "facts" about God- there are only ways to represent him that we are capable of dreaming up that work with our own understand of life.   He leads us closer

For me the lds church teaches those principles which are perfectly suited to my needs to grow closer to God.

If it does not do that for you because of something someone did to you in church, like the lady next to you or Brigham Young, then we need to go with what DOES work for us.

Brigham Young was the cause of a bunch of problems but he was also a brilliant prophet.  We just have to deal with that and move on, or don't deal with it because wse can't and move on.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I will answer you but you won't believe it

You MAKE it "correct" in your life.  The belief causes you to act in a way that shows your faith to God along with your love.  This is not science- there IS no objective reality- I don't know how to say that any other way, I have said it so many times.

God teaches us individually to get closer to him.  If you want to be an EV, and God has led you to that, THAT is the "correct" path for you at this time in your life.   It's a customized instruction plan in thousands of steps and lessons.   If you jump in at lesson 478 but missed lesson 1-486, you can make up those lessons later or even in the spirit world.  Then after you finish lesson 478, maybe you can jump to lesson 8,349 and skip the intervening lessons because God decides you don't need them.

This is about YOUR maturation in the spirit it is not about learning facts and figures about God.  There ARE no "facts" about God- there are only ways to represent him that we are capable of dreaming up that work with our own understand of life.   He leads us closer

For me the lds church teaches those principles which are perfectly suited to my needs to grow closer to God.

If it does not do that for you because of something someone did to you in church, like the lady next to you or Brigham Young, then we need to go with what DOES work for us.

Brigham Young was the cause of a bunch of problems but he was also a brilliant prophet.  We just have to deal with that and move on, or don't deal with it because wse can't and move on.

Mic drop!  Thank you for this fantastic insight!! I think I already know I'm LDS to the bone. Just need to navigate some more until I come to a conclusion for sure.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Mic drop!  Thank you for this fantastic insight!! I think I already know I'm LDS to the bone. Just need to navigate some more until I come to a conclusion for sure.

That's certainly our hope Tacenda!  

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's certainly our hope Tacenda!  

Your not making this easy.  

[hope_for_things]

On 10/14/2016 at 10:12 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The distinct thing about the Pligs is that priesthood is the only thing they recognize -- unlike the apostles of the NT and of modern times.  When we read the comments made by modern LDS Brethren, or of ancient NT apostles, we find well balanced discussions of the full range of human moral and ethical behavior.  Paul is never unbalanced in his preaching, while being unbalanced is normal for the Pligs.

God is very gracious and forgiving with all of us.  He understands how his children tend to go to one extreme or another, instead of adopting well-balanced behaviors.  He also recognizes that many do not accept the authority of his priesthood.  However, non-recognition does not change the fact that such authority actually exists and is regularly exercised on Earth by the Saints of the Last Days -- in preparation for his second coming.

I would agree that polygamists tend to look at things from an extreme POV, but I think Mormons do as well as many other fundamentalists of all persuasions even atheist fundamentalists.  And I agree that humans tend to extremes.  I'm not sure Paul was very balanced or ancient NT apostles, and I don't see a lot of balance coming from our current leaders, at least not enough for my liking.  

[hope_for_things]

On 10/15/2016 at 10:18 PM, Calm said:

Actions are a result of desires, desires are a result of values, values are a result of beliefs.

I can accept this definition, and if this is what Marlin Jensen meant, this broad of a definition in my mind includes members of other religions, atheists, and anyone that holds similar basic values of goodness.  But I don't think he was talking in such broad terms.  

[hope_for_things]

On 10/15/2016 at 10:54 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

To the contrary, I am unaware of any such poll of scholars having been taken.  Moreover, the strong arguments in favor of authorship by James the Brother of Jesus carry a great deal of weight with most scholars -- although Martin Luther certainly rejected the epistle entirely, and almost equally disliked Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.

I said most scholars think James the brother of Jesus wasn't the author, you say that most scholars think he is.  Here are two LDS scholars who would leave the question open, and there are many non LDS scholars who do the same.  There doesn't seem to be any compelling evidence to attribute this to the brother of Jesus, just speculation.  

I found this BYU article in 2002 on the subject interesting.  

Quote

The views regarding the authorship of the Epistle of James vary dramatically. A recent New Testament writer graphically depicted that of fifty-six twentieth century scholars, 13 percent argue that the Epistle of James was written by a non-Christian of Jewish origin, 9 percent attribute partial credit to James, 37 percent consider it to be written pseudonymously, and 41 percent conclude that it was written by James the brother of the Lord. [7] As to the traditional Catholic view, it seems to have its beginnings with Jerome, the 4th century Christian scholar, who struggled with the notion of a familial relationship between James and Jesus. He resolved his conflict by concluding that the books authorship must be James the son of Alphaeus (see Matthew 10:3). This view largely continues within the Catholic tradition today. [8]

The Protestant position frequently attributes the authorship of James with James the brother of the Lord (see Galatians 1:19; Matthew 13:55). The reasoning comes in part from the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, who identified James as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ” [9]; and Eusebius, a fourth century Christian historian who indicated that following Paul’s “appeal unto Caesar” (Acts 25:11), the Jews of Jerusalem turned their attention toward “James the Lord’s brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem.” [10] These statements, together with scriptures that depict James as sympathetic toward the Gentile gathering and, at the same time, supportive of some elements of Mosaic law (see Acts 15:13–20; 21:18–20; Galatians 2:9, 12), guide many to conclude that the Epistle of James was written by James the brother of Jesus.

When examining the statements and writings of prophets and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on James, Presidents Heber J. Grant [11] and Joseph Fielding Smith [12] both make reference to James as an “Apostle,” while Elder Bruce R. McConkie states, “The author of this General Epistle is not known for certain. 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/go-ye-all-world-messages-new-testament-apostles/discipleship-and-epistle-james

Interesting that even McConkie leaves the question of authorship open.  

Also looked at another LDS scholar here:

Quote

So, James is Jacob. But this raises the question, which Jacob? There are at least six in the New Testament, including two apostles (James son of Zebedee, brother of John, James brother of Jesus, James son of Alphaeus). Is this James one of those six? Or yet a seventh James? We don’t know, and the letter doesn’t really give us any definitive signs, just hints.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2015/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-42-james-draft/

Those are just a couple that I found with a quick search.  

[hope_for_things]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Seems pretty clear to me- all we have and all we are is what we believe.

I don't even understand the question.  Do you believe in your perceptions or think they are all illusions.  Some teach that.  Do you believe you are a computer simulation?  Some believe that.  And on it goes.

Do you believe your parents are actually your parents?  What if you were secretly adopted?  Have you had a paternity test?

Do you believe all you learned in school?  What do you reject?

Do you believe your political affiliations are correct?  Do you believe that abortion is good or bad?  Why?  Is war murder?  Why or why not?

How should pets be treated- as people?  Are you a vegetarian?  How much should you exercise?  Do you make excuses for what you have done wrong?  How do you know what is right or wrong?   Are there helicopters following you?  Why not?  When you sit on a bench in the park, do you believe it will support your weight?  When you walk, do you believe your legs will buckle beneath you?  Isn't that possible?

Do soldiers really die for your freedom or is that an illusion?

The point i am trying to make is whether you ask the questions or not- you take many of your beliefs for granted and are not even aware of them as "beliefs".

A true skeptic questions everything and knows that belief is all we have and all we are, and we take most of what we tacitly believe on faith.

I don't disagree with your positioning, because I think that belief isn't a choice, I think its just who we are.  This is part of why I said I don't understand Marlin's position.  He said its the most important choice we make, well why?  Why is it a choice if its something thats a part of all of us, we can't choose it, its just part of our world, our environment, our experience, so why is it so important, why does he position it as a choice that is more important than our choice of spouse.  

I don't see how you're answering this question that Marlin presented. 

[hope_for_things]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You probably don't want to tell the IRS about that.

Ha!  I repent, you got me there!  :-) 

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you have kids?  What if they always did exactly what you wanted like little robots and never acknowledged your existence?  Computers do what you tell them and have no beliefs. 

Do you love your computer as a child?

Yes, I have three kids, all still in the house, one teenager and two elementary age.  I don't want them to be robots, I do want to teach them to be good people though.  I'm not sure that I would care for acknowledgement so much.  I do care and want to have a relationship with them though.  

This is part of why I have a hard time believing in the kind of God that I was taught exists through the Mormon faith.  Because I don't see that God cares to clearly have a relationship with us.  I don't see God's hand in our daily lives like I would think a creator/parent would want to be involved.  I'm willing to chalk this up to my lack of understanding, trying to comprehend an incomprehensible being, but if anything this is evidence on the side of God not existing.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I have three kids, all still in the house, one teenager and two elementary age.  I don't want them to be robots, I do want to teach them to be good people though.  I'm not sure that I would care for acknowledgement so much.  I do care and want to have a relationship with them though.  

This is part of why I have a hard time believing in the kind of God that I was taught exists through the Mormon faith.  Because I don't see that God cares to clearly have a relationship with us.  I don't see God's hand in our daily lives like I would think a creator/parent would want to be involved.  I'm willing to chalk this up to my lack of understanding, trying to comprehend an incomprehensible being, but if anything this is evidence on the side of God not existing.  

Sigh.

If you want to believe that.  I think that is pretty naive myself

You needed to grow up with this.  Maybe this is now a good time for you to question everything

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_You_Know_Is_Wrong

This is a great comedy album- but just think about the title.  What IF "everything you know is wrong?" including your belief that we do not choose belief?

I did that and that is why I appear so confident.  I have a good reason for believing everything I believe, or I do not believe it.  I manufacture my own beliefs and every belief is something that comes from me, except when I run broadside into a revelation which I know is NOT from me. and yes, I have those.

I am not bragging- I amazed others think that is unusual.  Why should you accept every belief from your environment unquestioned?

That is the mentality of an intellectual automaton. 

Edited October 17, 2016 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Sigh.

If you want to believe that.  I think that is pretty naive myself

You needed to grow up with this.  Maybe this is now a good time for you to question everything

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_You_Know_Is_Wrong

This is a great comedy album- but just think about the title.  What IF "everything you know is wrong?" including your belief that we do not choose belief?

I'm willing to consider that my belief that we don't choose to believe is wrong.  You'll rarely see me proclaiming that I'm 100% right on anything these days.  If I've learned anything in recent years its that I have limits and I'm trying to be humble and open to different perspectives.  I think that its human nature to think we know how things work, but if we're honest we should recognize just how limited our perspectives are.  

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I did that and that is why I appear so confident.  I have a good reason for believing everything I believe, or I do not believe it.  I manufacture my own beliefs and every belief is something that comes from me, except when I run broadside into a revelation which I know is NOT from me. and yes, I have those.

Turning this same advice that you gave me back around to you.  I've heard you make this statement before that you are able to discern when a revelation is not coming from you.  I would ask you the question, how do you know when something is coming not from your own head?  How can you be sure that you are not practicing a self deception of sorts?  Are you sure that you know what you know?  

Edited October 17, 2016 by hope_for_things

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm willing to consider that my belief that we don't choose to believe is wrong.  You'll rarely see me proclaiming that I'm 100% right on anything these days.  If I've learned anything in recent years its that I have limits and I'm trying to be humble and open to different perspectives.  I think that its human nature to think we know how things work, but if we're honest we should recognize just how limited our perspectives are.  

Turning this same advice that you gave me back around to you.  I've heard you make this statement before that you are able to discern when a revelation is not coming from you.  I would ask you the question, how do you know when something is coming not from your own head?  How can you be sure that you are not practicing a self deception of sorts?  Are you sure that you know what you know?  

Well I would sure like to see that quote- I believe I have never said it.

That would be totally inconsistent with my overall epistemology as a good pragmatist and Rorty guy.  Read the Rorty quote yet again.  Sorry but you still do not get it at all.

EVERYTHING is "in your head" even the impression that something is NOT in your head.  That is the whole point of this position!

But you have to apply pragmatism to "THIS POSITION" as well.  Relativism is only relatively true!

I am fully prepared to accept the idea that testimonies are a product of the unconscious and nothing more.  But for me, talking to my deep unconscious and getting an "answer" which is in my head is not different than talking to some alleged "authority" and misinterpreting what he says which is in HIS head.

In my head, the sensation of receiving a message from God is clearly from "outside" but that is not the only option!  I could also accept the paradigm that it is IN my head.

But the point is THAT is irrelevant!

THE BELIEF is all we have to go on in this context.  There is no way to know otherwise unless you BELIEVE it is possible that God exists.

But what if we are wrong and God does not exist?

IRRELEVANT! The power of belief is that we live a life of peace and knowledge of our place in the universe and that our Father loves us.  If we die and all goes black- what harm did it do?  We will not even know it all went "black"

What if near death experiences ARE just a brain without oxygen?  Who cares?

I for one do not.  I would not change anything about my life if there was no God, and my belief in his love and existence and the confirmations I get give me unspeakable joy.

But THAT is totally unknowable.  Totally!  So it's a version of Pascal's Wager- but I already am CERTAIN of the answer.  Certainty is a mental state and says nothing about the world, just as truth is a mental state and says nothing about the world.

 

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

except when I run broadside into a revelation which I know is NOT from me. and yes, I have those.

Sorry for the confusion, I was talking about this statement you made.  I didn't mean to get sidetracked on the my use of the word inside your head, my language skills throwing off the discussion here unintentionally.  (I get the Rorty position and well enough to know what you're saying).  It does sound like you got the gist of what I was trying to say anyway.  

I do hold out the possibility for the existence of God, and for me it just rings true, however, I still have questions about this, and I'm still exploring and holding this belief up to scrutiny.  

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The power of belief is that we live a life of peace and knowledge of our place in the universe and that our Father loves us.  If we die and all goes black- what harm did it do?  We will not even know it all went "black"

For example, you've connected the power of belief with peace and knowledge of God's love.  I'm thinking many Atheists experience peace  and comfort within their paradigms.  I just don't know why the belief in God has to be privileged over those without that belief so frequently in religious circles.  I"m perfectly happy saying that my belief works well for me and even expressing why, but I don't feel the need to look down on those with different beliefs.   Not saying you are doing that, but that is the implication in the Marlin Jensen quote as I understand it.  

Pascal's wager I think worked much better in the time and place that he inhabited, than it does in our world today.  The understanding we have about the universe is vastly greater.  The default position for a belief in deity that existed prominently within the culture of Pascal, has changed very much in our society today.  If it works for anyone, I have not problem with it.  It isn't compelling for me though.