Invitation to Defend Religious Faith

I define religious faith as belief in a deity who is not an object of the believer's experience. I specify religious faith to exclude the mundane faith, prejudice and assumption which people must employ constantly to be able to deal with the world from this discussion. I would also exempt from this discussion anyone who is claiming direct experience of God [unless they can produce God for me directly, which I would find even more interesting than a good debate] as such a person would not hold the existence of a deity as a matter of faith.

Religious faith presents a whopping problem for me personally, as I am very concerned with the science of ethics. All religions I have encountered basically boil down to a system of authoritarian ethics mainly relying upon the commandments of some deity for the grounding of moral prescriptions.

The problem lies in the fact that different religions hold different moral premises to be true. If we exclude reason and rely upon religious faith as our guide, we have no means of comparing and accepting or rejecting competing ethical systems. Ethical discourse becomes a form of 'he said, she said' between competing dogma. There can be no grounds to resolve disputes between conflicting ethical prescriptions if the ultimate basis for one's moral framework is the suspension of disbelief. To be topical, when someone holds a belief in the afterlife so strongly they are willing to commit mass murder-suicides, the idea that faith is sufficient grounding for ethics becomes unappealing.

That being said, I have never encountered the religious advocate who did not offer up proof and argument to convince me of their beliefs; however when I make my attempt at a Socratic elenchus and achieve a formally absurd conclusion arising from my religious acquaintance's premises, I am counseled to make the leap of faith, or better yet that they could not possibly convince me of the existence or non-existence of God and that faith is the only key. I typically protest quite vehemently at this point that a burning bush, angel or faith healing would suffice more than adequately, so cough one up, and things generally devolve from there.

My interest lies in the fact that there are very large numbers of people for whom holding formally contradictory beliefs is not troubling. How is it that a conclusion of [a=~a] doesn't make some people at least curious about the premises that led them to that point? The problems inherent in formal contradiction have been apparent to some for over 2,500 years; why is this knowledge still hit or miss among an educated, functional population? I find intermittent rationality fascinating grounds for discussion so let's instantiate our subject in religious faith and see what happens.

Should you happen to believe in a deity, please state necessary and sufficient conditions for your belief and then defend them on rational grounds.
If your defense will ultimately rely upon religious faith, i.e., if you cannot or choose not to defend your belief on rational grounds, please explain:
1. why you would [or would not] choose to employ logic and reason in your daily life, except as regards religion and ethics, and
2. how you would [or would not] consider yourself morally superior to those who hold as an article of faith that killing themselves and a bus load of people will grant them eternal life.#

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

I will bite by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 18 September 2006

I identify two strong considerations:

First, There is ample evidence to suggest there are entities which have no real scientific basis (at least not yet). Ghosts, aliens, demons, angels, and the like are all well documented by people who have experienced them directly or indirectly. Perhaps there are just millions and millions of gullible people. Perhaps such entities are just another branch of our kingdoms in biological taxonomy but we have difficulty harnessing evidence. The safest assumption we can make at this point is the one they already imply: a spiritual one. Further, there is evidence that there is conflict between these entities (take exorcisms for example) suggesting that there probably is a head of either side (God and Satan) (otherwise, why would there be conflict? How do they know what side they identify with?)

Second, and more strongly I believe, we have evidence that everything that exists in the universe has a first cause. The big bang explains how everything got here, but there is nothing to explain how these sub-atomic particles have reached their "at big bang" state. I suggest that a god of some sort put them there, but everyone argues "who put God there?" My response is that we have no evidence to suggest that God (if there is one) is subject to the same rules we observe on matter.

On these points (and a few others), I identify my religious grounds, but they will not work for everyone. Certainly my faith cannot, in any way, be considered superior to any other school of thought. Do bear in mind that failure to agree with either rationality above implies you already have a faith (religion perhaps?) in the opposite. That is, that these things have more correct reasoning (say through science and observation), but we as humans have not found it yet. These people believe religion is not sufficient to reconcile them. In either case, the "believer" or "non-believer" both have faith in something that cannot be proved with no level of rationality. That is: "Religion can explain it" or "Science will explain it". Neither side can say with any absolute truth that their position is more correct. The suggestion that science will somehow explain what we don't know is just as valid as religion does explain what we don't know. Both are rather volatile positions. For all we know, the truth can swing either way.

At any rate, I do want to address this sentence:

All religions I have encountered basically boil down to a system of authoritarian ethics mainly relying upon the commandments of some deity for the grounding of moral prescriptions.

Christianity, although often misrepresented in that way, actually teaches that salvation is yours whether you disobey (or disobeyed) the rules it defines or not. Rather it is a gift to you, and your response to this gift defines how committed you are to accepting it. This is the concept of grace. If you make a mistake, redemption is still yours as long as it was a mistake and you are sorry for it. If it's on purpose, it is clear you do not really accept the grace given to you - perhaps a clear rejection of it.

I recommend familiarizing yourself with the following concepts:

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

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

before pawning off all religions as win or lose authoritarian ethic systems.

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 18 September 2006

And here I thought my presentation was so complete that no dispute was possible.

You start with an incredibly provocative statement without the least evidentiary or argumentative support; you've begged the entire issue. Where is the ample evidence of 'entities without scientific basis' e.g., angels, demons, etc.? Either they exist and you have some means by which you know it, in which case the scientific basis is given by the fact of your knowing, or they are speculative, in which case Occam's Razor would tend to dispense with said entities.

Your further assumptions about the nature of spiritual disputants and there necessarily only being two sides in the conflict [the existence of which you've begged] is similarly lacking in any evidence or argumentative weight whatsoever.

Next, if you believe that some metaphysical problem exists with matter existing eternally, you've failed to state what that problem is and why it wouldn't apply to any given deity. I agree that I have no evidence that God is subject to physics; I have no evidence of God whatsoever. It is inappropriate to speak of the application of physical laws to fiction.

The fact that your argument re: first causes leads to an infinite regression of proof should also sound an alarm to you. If the nature of existence is such that existing things must be created, your point is not merely about physics, but about all which exists, including a deity. If at least one thing can exist which is not created, the burden lies upon you to prove why matter is not one such thing. You have proof that subatomic particles must be created and must be created by a sentient being? What is that proof?

The regress is the hallmark of invalid logic, while the utter lack of evidence is a hallmark of an unsound starting premise.

It is not faith which leads me to doubt the supernatural, it is the purported definition of the term 'supernatural' and the utter inability of anyone who advocates the existence of such to be able to produce it. I'll take a pragmatic stance here ala Charles Peirce. I need a reason for a radical program of disbelief as much as I would need one for a radical set of beliefs. My reason for disbelieving the supernatural is lack of experience, the inability of others to reproduce their experience and my own experience of people who tell untruths.

Finally, you misunderstood my claims about religion and ethics. They hold true even for a Christianity unconcerned with good works. The source of moral authority still lies in God in such a metaphysical scheme whether or not you include the concept of divine grace and asking sincerely for forgiveness of sins. In fact, moral authority inheres all the more strongly in the deity in such a setup as only the deity's 'grace' allows us to overcome our inherent sinfulness and to redeem our naughty ways.

How would you differentiate a faith in that kind of deity vs. faith in a deity who will reward you for killing a busload of nuns and yourself? How do you weigh the dichotomous moral commands if your standard of proof for a moral authority amounts to belief in the absence of any evidence?

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by wyldeling :: NR6 :: on 19 September 2006

I find you have several good points, and, in general, I find your argument compelling. However, there are some things that I think are flawed.

you've begged the entire issue

Begging the question, as I understand it, is that the person has assumed the antecedent of what he is trying to prove. What has he assumed here? He states quite clearly that there is evidence for the existence of entities which defy scientific proof. Now, I'll admit that the "evidence" he is talking about is eye-witness accounts, so that automatically makes them less trustworthy. However, there is no assumption present.

Either they exist and you have some means by which you know it, in which case the scientific basis is given by the fact of your knowing, or they are speculative, in which case Occam's Razor would tend to dispense with said entities.... My reason for disbelieving the supernatural is lack of experience, the inability of others to reproduce their experience and my own experience of people who tell untruths.

You are correct, that up to this point such entities have failed to stand up to scientific scrutiny. But, is it possible that some of these phenomena are sensitive to the expectations of the observer, e.g. placebo effect? I agree that Occam's Razor would tend to discount such entities, but we, as of this point, don't know everything and can't measure it either. (See this thread.) So, I'm going to withhold judgement.

I agree that I have no evidence that God is subject to physics; I have no evidence of God whatsoever. It is inappropriate to speak of the application of physical laws to fiction.

This is very dangerous ground. In this statement, you have essentially said that a null result implies a negative result. Simply put, just because there is no evidence of a something, does not mean it does not exist. Science can say nothing as to the existence or the nature of the Divine because, almost by definition, the Divine must exist outside of the physical realm, and science deals strictly with the physical. No more, no less.

The fact that your argument ... leads to an infinite regression of proof should also sound an alarm to you.... If at least one thing can exist which is not created, the burden lies upon you to prove why matter is not one such thing.... The regress is the hallmark of invalid logic ...

For the most part, you are correct. The problem here is that this is a problem that has existed for millenia. The Greeks struggled with it. Their solution: the Prime Mover, the initial impetus for everything else. Unfortunately, this hasn't been resolved. We don't know what came before the Big Bang, and, as far as we know, we cannot know what came before. So, what started it all? It is an unanswerable question, and arguing about infinite regress, while a valid criticism, is going to get you nowhere.

The problem with these arguments is that they are bound by logic. As a mathematician and physicist, I can appreciate the rigor, but there are limits to logic. Zeno's Paradox is a good example. The only way out of the paradox is to go outside of the confining logic and make a leap of intuition and come up with the concept of a limit. The method of exhaustion is an early example. Newton's method for generating a derivative, is another good example. But, back to my point, all systems of logic are incomplete, as proved by Gödel. This essentially means that within a system of logic there are statements that can be made that meet all of the axioms of the system, but that cannot be proven by the system. Thus, while it is very tempting to put approach the concept of the Divine from a logical perspective, it is one of those statements that can be neither proven nor disproven using logic.

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 19 September 2006

The assumption here, I felt was not the presentation of eye witness accounts as evidence, but the claim of existence of 'ample evidence' of entities which have no scientific basis. I was challenging people to either produce some rational grounds for faith.

The author simply implies his position is prima facie valid without argument. I do not believe one can rationally ground faith in the existence of entities which have no basis in the realm of public verification in nothing more than the argument from popularity. That is what I found question begging.

The author claims that his explanation of such hypothetical entities, that they do exist, required fewer suppositions than the conclusion that millions of people are insufficiently incredulous. The premise that verbal accounts of encounters with angels which fail to present themselves publicly is a prima facie argument for their existence begs his conclusion that such evidence is ample enough to place the burden of proof upon any who would disagree. After all, my stated point was for any defender of the faith to rationally ground it. The existence of an unseen, unexperienced 'spiritual' world would appear to me to be much more complex and require more suppositions than the explanation that some people are liars and neurotic. At least, I need some argument to show why the burden falls to me.

My response is that you ought not and, in fact, do not withold judgement. Many, I would claim the vast majority of, advocates of the spiritual claim there are ethical implications of their metaphysical assertions. Either you find the claims sufficiently weighty to act as if they are true or you do not. I am assuming you do not from what you've written; keeping an open mind is good though.

Me:I agree that I have no evidence that God is subject to physics; I have no evidence of God whatsoever. It is inappropriate to speak of the application of physical laws to fiction.

You:This is very dangerous ground. In this statement, you have essentially said that a null result implies a negative result. Simply put, just because there is no evidence of a something, does not mean it does not exist. Science can say nothing as to the existence or the nature of the Divine because, almost by definition, the Divine must exist outside of the physical realm, and science deals strictly with the physical. No more, no less.

From what grounds can I rationally, scientifically begin to make claims on the nature of that which is by definition unexperienced and if I accept your definition of the Divine, probably unable to be experienced?

Any suppositions about the nature of a deity presume one exists. The truth value of any existential statement regarding properties of an entity which does not exist is false. Translated into English, all existential propositions begin, "There is at least one thing such that ..." Any statement I might make about the King of France's haircut is false.

The lack of any evidence or experience regarding some entity's properties discharges one to say nothing at all about them. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent. It is epistemically invalid to discuss properties which are beyond ken; as I defined religious faith, all deities fit this category. Should you disagree, I will invite you to produce a deity that is otherwise.

I hoped my point was even plainer than pointing out the logical difficulties of infinite regression. If we can logically accept that an unexperienced Prime Mover need not have a prior impetus why can we not hold the same for everything else at some unexperienced point in time?

But, back to my point, all systems of logic are incomplete, as proved by Gödel. This essentially means that within a system of logic there are statements that can be made that meet all of the axioms of the system, but that cannot be proven by the system. Thus, while it is very tempting to put approach the concept of the Divine from a logical perspective, it is one of those statements that can be neither proven nor disproven using logic.

This is not completely correct. If the concept of the Divine is internally contradictory, and I believe it is on many points, logic can dispense with the concept easily. Logic alone will not be sufficient to prove even the existence of apples, much less a deity, but it is sufficient to disprove concepts which contain both some premise and its negation. So if some argument for the existence of the Divine rests implicitly upon either invalid or unsound argument, at the least, that argument can be rejected. The argument from design is one such argument that may be rejected for numerous flaws.

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by wyldeling :: NR6 :: on 20 September 2006

Actually, it is not question begging, but a debate about what underlying assumptions are valid when providing evidence. We know from experience that eye-witnesses are the worst form of evidence, but most people believe eye witness accounts are valid evidence. I do agree that popularity does not equate to hard evidence, but hard (scientific) evidence for such hypothetical entities is not forthcoming. So, if they do exist, then we must conjecture that we cannot as of yet measure the effects they have on the world. But, again, lack of evidence does not indicate that they do not exist.

I, like you, distrust the ethics of the supernatural. Its basis is dubious at best. But, as the hard evidence indicates a null result, there is a third option in weighing their claims: withhold judgement, which is the logical, and scientifically sound, thing to do. That does not mean I believe their claims, but it is a well reasoned stance.

You:I agree that I have no evidence that God is subject to physics; I have no evidence of God whatsoever. It is inappropriate to speak of the application of physical laws to fiction.

Me:This is very dangerous ground. In this statement, you have essentially said that a null result implies a negative result. Simply put, just because there is no evidence of a something, does not mean it does not exist. Science can say nothing as to the existence or the nature of the Divine because, almost by definition, the Divine must exist outside of the physical realm, and science deals strictly with the physical. No more, no less.

You:From what grounds can I rationally, scientifically begin to make claims on the nature of that which is by definition unexperienced and if I accept your definition of the Divine, probably unable to be experienced?

Unable to be experienced? I did not mean to imply that. It may be possible for such an entity to exist outside of what we currently define as being physical and still interact with it. Nothing bars that from happening, as it would be outside of our current experience. But, only in this case could you begin to discuss it.

The truth value of any existential statement regarding properties of an entity which does not exist is false. Translated into English ...

I know the translation, I've studied logic as applied to language, in addition to my mathematical training. To my point though, "any existential statement regarding properties of an entity which does not exist is false" provided you have perfect knowledge. Unfortunately, we are dealing with imperfect knowledge, so which allows us to discuss what they may be like. These discussions can be self-consistent and logical, but without knowledge of an entities lack of existence, the truth of an existential statement must admit a third value: unkown.

Since, I am an agnostic, I do not have a deity that can fit this description. But, what I am arguing against is the statement, "it is epistemically invalid to discuss properties which are beyond ken." Arguing from an empirical point of view, think Hume, it is possible to establish knowledge of what is beyond one's experience. From a strict point of view, this comes about by inference and the understanding that different things may have common properties. (Incidentally, this is the counter to Hume's counter argument regarding his color of blue principle.) For instance, I know for a fact that dragons do not exist, but I can reasonably discuss them in the context of what I already know and understand. I can tell you which piece of dragon art has a truer depiction of what a real dragon (western, four legs, wings) must look like based upon established knowledge. Their lack of existence does not prevent such a discussion. In the case of a deity, this is more problematic, but the idea is the same.

I actually was pointing out that this particular infinite regression has existed for a very long time, and does not look like it is going away. A different question that exists in physics, with similar logical obsurdities, is where did the universe come from? It is more subtle than the Prime Mover question, but it leads to many of the same questions.

If the concept of the Divine is internally contradictory, and I believe it is on many points, logic can dispense with the concept easily.

I would like to understand what you believe is self-contradictory about the concept of the Divine. Some of it I can glean from you initial, and other, postings, but I would like it spelled out.

The argument from design is one such argument that may be rejected for numerous flaws.

One of the most amusing points I have regarding design, is that complexity arises naturally from simple systems. The things people should be looking for as "proof" that the universe is designed is that the design is whether or not the design is simple and its ability to produce emergent behavior at increasingly larger scales. Personally, I find the "design" of the universe to be somewhat simple, and it scales to large structures quite well. Is it designed? Who cares. I don't have to factor it into my equations for them to come out correctly, so it does not matter.

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 22 September 2006

Actually, it is not question begging, but a debate about what underlying assumptions are valid when providing evidence...

So, if they do exist, then we must conjecture that we cannot as of yet measure the effects they have on the world. But, again, lack of evidence does not indicate that they do not exist.

The arbitrary manner of the assertion of their existence and the arbitrary manner in which properties are attributed to them is sufficient warrant for their summary dismissal due to being entirely irrational. Any random statement I make about the world has [as far as I know] the possibility of being true as long as it isn't an explicit contradiction. That is to say, what I happen to know or not doesn't influence the case but I might be right in any given claim by 1) sheer coincidence and 2) the fact that propositions have meanining outside the intentions of their utterer.

So if the context of my discovery is non-existent, i.e. I am making claims at random or based on wish fulfillment, there is no reason to put any value at all in my claim.

'God is a loving God!'

'Why?'

'Because that's how I want Him to be.'

Given that I am not omniscient I can't even know if He exists sans experience of him, any claim I make about whether or not he's a happy or angry god is arbitrary due to lack of experience. If you have no experience of god and I am claiming no experience of god, then any claims I make about god's nature should be summarily rejected by you as irrational for being arbitrary.

I, like you, distrust the ethics of the supernatural. Its basis is dubious at best. But, as the hard evidence indicates a null result, there is a third option in weighing their claims: withhold judgement, which is the logical, and scientifically sound, thing to do. That does not mean I believe their claims, but it is a well reasoned stance.

Do you really withold judgement on any claim for which you have no evidence in support of at the moment?

Your evidence that anything exists which is not physical, immaterial, spiritual is what? Your evidence that this non-physical substance can interact in some manner with the physical is what? Both assertions are perfectly arbitrary. You have no evidence [I assume] in their favor whatsoever.

I therefore reject the claim for being irrational; it is not an identification of reality whatsoever so your epistemic method at the least is invalid. Despite the fact that I cannot negate your existential claim of possibility [which is equivalent in function to demanding I prove a hypothetical universal claim] I believe rejecting arbitrary claims is the proper response so long as one continues to hold rational identification of the world as a benchmark of properly dealing with the world.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with imperfect knowledge, so which allows us to discuss what they may be like. These discussions can be self-consistent and logical, but without knowledge of an entities lack of existence, the truth of an existential statement must admit a third value: unkown.

Having done a bit of work with a three value logical system, I don't think we need an unknown value for any work we need to do. We can simply say the truth value of a given statement is currently undetermined, and preserve our two value system, rather than institute a three value system.

Arguing from an empirical point of view, think Hume, it is possible to establish knowledge of what is beyond one's experience.

I was ambiguous here apparently, I meant beyond ken as in, unable to be experienced in principle. Evidently you do not think that non-physical means that. Kant, on the other hand, thought the noumenon was unable to be experienced; I thought that was perhaps your contention as well given your comments on the Divine.

For instance, I know for a fact that dragons do not exist,

I think this is inconsistent with your strong agnostic view. You only know for a fact that you have not found any dragons to date and the fossil record won't support their existence to date. I don't think you can prove the negated existential that not at least one western-style, four legged, winged dragon exists to be true.

but I can reasonably discuss them in the context of what I already know and understand. I can tell you which piece of dragon art has a truer depiction of what a real dragon (western, four legs, wings) must look like based upon established knowledge. Their lack of existence does not prevent such a discussion. In the case of a deity, this is more problematic, but the idea is the same.

What you will be discussing above are the most commonly agreed upon characteristics of a fictive entity in some given community. You aren't discussing the non-existent properties of something that is not an object of your experience. Discussing the popular cultural depiction of a dragon doesn't sound to me like "establishing knowledge of what is beyond one's experience." The object of experience is the body of mythology you reference when judging the art.

Neither of which can be answered from one's armchair. I think both are empirical questions, that if ever answered, will be answered by science and not a priori reasoning. I deny the category of synthetic a priori reasoning is legitimate.

I would like to understand what you believe is self-contradictory about the concept of the Divine. Some of it I can glean from you initial, and other, postings, but I would like it spelled out.

Non-material existence is arbitrarily asserted on behalf of most deities. Unless you posit a non-material sense organ, the non-material is in principle unable to be experienced. Refusing to multiply entities unnecessarily deals with the issue handily.

At least by many, deities are attributed with properties, namely omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, that contradict the law of identity.

The concept of divine miracles implies action through no particular means except God's will. This implies idealism, that the nature of entities is extrinsically determined by God or that everything is contained in God's mind. This contradicts the basic experience of consciousness. Awareness is always awareness of something; awareness is not primary, it is a relationship of subject and object. Without both there is no awareness. The implication of this is that subject and object exist independently of one another. The nature of the relata determines the result of their interaction, i.e. the relata exist independently, subject and object have intrinsic natures and therefore idealism is false [not all things are contained within God's mind].

One of the most amusing points I have regarding design, is that complexity arises naturally from simple systems.

If complexity implies design, is God simple? Better yet, one could only know complexity implied design through experience by reference to simple things not being designed and complex things being designed. The ID creationist claims everything is designed by a god and that complexity is the proof of it; what do they use as a point of comparison?

The things people should be looking for as "proof" that the universe is designed is that the design is whether or not the design is simple and its ability to produce emergent behavior at increasingly larger scales. Personally, I find the "design" of the universe to be somewhat simple, and it scales to large structures quite well. Is it designed? Who cares. I don't have to factor it into my equations for them to come out correctly, so it does not matter.

It matters in that the ethical implications of religion are purported to follow from accepting that not only a god exists, but that the particular god of whatever creationist exists. Actually I find intentionally designed worlds like MMORPGS to be significantly simpler than the world that apparently does not need an intentional designer to perpetuate. I'd say simplicity implies design.

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 19 September 2006

You beat me to the punch, but did an excellent job, so I can't complain.

Another good example to add to your list of things not logical is the ability to mathematically prove that .999... = 1:

1 = (1/3)*3 = (.333...)*3 = .999...

Sure, they are approximately the same, but they aren't supposed to be equal. So much for pythagoreanism.

I'd also like to add that the concept of faith shouldn't seem that odd, even to the atheist. Faith is an essential part of any action, as perfect knowledge is beyond the grasp of everyone. Of course, there are statistical principles (such as Bayes' Theorem) that outline ways to take a best guess at what is likely and not so likely, but these do not limit the choices to what is scientific. Specifically, there are many instances in which determining what is probable relies wholly on unscientific things like "feelings."

Then again, principles of science aren't necessarily excluded from religious decision making. Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon contains a great analogy of the process of an idea becoming knowledge and how faith is integral in that conversion.

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 19 September 2006

Feelings are not statistical data; when confronting guesses about the future, your feelings typically result from application of your knowledge of how past events made you feel applied to the present. They are more of a factor in utility calculations than in determining probability. I might be hesitant to do something highly improbable if it resulted in very unpleasant feelings, which is not actually a commentary on probability but on my risk assessment criteria.

Does the LDS religion view ethics as teleological or deontological?

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 20 September 2006

I brought up feelings because it seems you hold the scientific method as the one and only means of determining what is logical. What about a situation like this, then: A friend of yours tells you of a dream he had the night previous in which he saw a dog oddly standing on a residential roof. To his surprise, he happened upon this odd scene during his morning commute. Now, in order to logically prove that his dream was prophetic, you'd have to consider probabilities of many things (e.g., a coincidental occurrence, your friend's honesty, etc.), but I doubt the scientific method would have anything to do with it. Instead, you'd rely on what you know of the person and of life in general (things that would fall under what I previously called "feelings") to come to a very logical conclusion that would have no place as "scientific proof."

Does the LDS religion view ethics as teleological or deontological?

Both, in addition to being virtuous. Because of the nature of god, He gives commands that, if followed, will result in the best possible consequence: "the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39) Thus, a morally right action, like being honest, is according to command (deontological), has good consequences (teleological), and makes one a better person (virtuous).

(Of course, the LDS church doesn't have a published official answer to this questions. The above represents my opinion on the subject.)

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 21 September 2006

I brought up feelings because it seems you hold the scientific method as the one and only means of determining what is logical.

Logic is a method for determining that one's thought process will accurately [and algorithmically] lead one from true premises to true conclusions. The scientific method is some practical rules of thumb regarding observation and experiment maintained in a framework of logical thought; rather than determining logic, it is determined by logic.

What about a situation like this, then: A friend of yours tells you of a dream he had the night previous in which he saw a dog oddly standing on a residential roof. To his surprise, he happened upon this odd scene during his morning commute. Now, in order to logically prove that his dream was prophetic, you'd have to consider probabilities of many things (e.g., a coincidental occurrence, your friend's honesty, etc.), but I doubt the scientific method would have anything to do with it. Instead, you'd rely on what you know of the person and of life in general (things that would fall under what I previously called "feelings") to come to a very logical conclusion that would have no place as "scientific proof."

What you call feelings I would call the sum conclusions of your experience and an excellent guide to making judgements about the world. When I talk about feelings, I mean the emotional responses I have to events.

Further, logic is not a method of proving what exists in the world. It is a means of ensuring that one's thought process preserves the truth. Logic couldn't tell you why such an event happened, only experience, observation and testing would lead you to that reliably. From the evidence you've given, we'd need to investigate more, through the scientific method to determine if this was coincidence or precognition. Have you met such a person, by the way?

So far, of people who have claimed to have ESP, be precognitive, translate mystic texts with magic rocks, etc., I am aware of none who can stand up to the scientific method and maintain their claims in the face of actual testing and public observation. James Randi is offering a lot of money to the person who can. Brandishing my Occam's Razor, I think I can put forth a pretty simple hypothesis why no one has met his challenge yet.

But ultimately, you would maintain that God knows better than any person what acts are good and will have the best possible results, yes? So if God says do X, you will do X without question, yes? So the foundation of your ethics is deontological, not teleological and not virtue based. You will do as God commands regardless of your own conclusions on the presumption that God knows best. That is to say, if you do or do not agree with any commandment contained in any text or speech you believe divinely inspired, you will follow it regardless of your own ethical beliefs about any given command from your own limited perspective. Yes or no? Would you sacrifice your son ala Abraham or not?

(Of course, the LDS church doesn't have a published official answer to this questions. The above represents my opinion on the subject.)

I was interested in your thought to be honest. :)

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 25 September 2006

Logic is a method for determining that one's thought process will accurately [and algorithmically] lead one from true premises to true conclusions.

Science, then, is only one particular means of using logic. With that being the case, if your intention is for someone to prove their thoughts reasonable, you can't restrict them to scientific means.

What you call feelings I would call the sum conclusions of your experience and an excellent guide to making judgements about the world.

Let's call it "personal experience," then, and move on.

Me: Now, in order to logically prove that his dream was prophetic, you'd have to consider probabilities of many things (e.g., a coincidental occurrence, your friend's honesty, etc.) [...] you'd rely on what you know of the person and of life in general to come to a very logical conclusion that would have no place as "scientific proof."

You: From the evidence you've given, we'd need to investigate more, through the scientific method to determine if this was coincidence or precognition.

Is this further investigation any different than what I prescribed?

Have you met such a person, by the way?

The example was made up, but I've met many people who have made claims that are just as improbable and that would need to be evaluated in a similar fashion.

Why is public observation required for it to be logical? What are you ruling out when you say "actual testing" and why?"

But ultimately, you would maintain that God knows better than any person what acts are good and will have the best possible results, yes?

Yes. (I'll reference this as "QA" (question A) and "AA" (answer A) from here on out.)

So if God says do X, you will do X without question, yes?

"Without question" is going too far, as there are things that must be answered prior to dedicating oneself to doing X:

What is the nature of God? (This includes QA, as well as questions concerning God's justice, honesty, motivations, glory, etc.)
Did God say to do X?

Given that the answer to #1 implies that God knows what is best and will instruct a person in the manner most proper to obtaining that "best," and given the answer to #2 is yes, then I would be all for doing X.

So the foundation of your ethics is deontological, not teleological and not virtue based. You will do as God commands regardless of your own conclusions on the presumption that God knows best. That is to say, if you do or do not agree with any commandment contained in any text or speech you believe divinely inspired, you will follow it regardless of your own ethical beliefs about any given command from your own limited perspective. Yes or no? Would you sacrifice your son ala Abraham or not?

I don't agree that my answers above force me into a deontological corner. It is only because of knowledge of God's character/nature that one follows God's commands. Using your Abraham example, Abraham acted to carry out God's command to sacrifice his son because Abraham knew the nature of God. Thus, although he didn't yet understand specifically how obeying would make him a better person or exactly what good consequences would follow, those were his incentives to obey the command. He trusted God based on his past experiences with Him.

Later on in hindsight, I'm sure Abraham was able to understand the entire situation - if not completely, at least much better than he did while tying Isaac to the altar. Of course, this understanding would then teach him more about the nature/character of God and he would likely be better able to answer questions 1 & 2 in the future.

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 26 September 2006

Science, then, is only one particular means of using logic. With that being the case, if your intention is for someone to prove their thoughts reasonable, you can't restrict them to scientific means.

I can restrict them to using evidence and logic in doing so which is close to the whole of the scientific method sans replicability. I want someone to pony up religious beliefs which are not arbitrary and can account for the complete contradictions of other religions with their own.

Joseph Smith found the problem so frustrating it was not without direct divine intervention that he solved the problem; why, for instance, should any follower of his accept anything less as proof of which denomination of Christianity or any other religion to follow? Why should I? If prophets need God and Jesus to come down from on high to prove their existence well enough to point one to a given religion why should anyone else accept anything less as a standard of proof?

B: Now, in order to logically prove that his dream was prophetic, you'd have to consider probabilities of many things (e.g., a coincidental occurrence, your friend's honesty, etc.) [...] you'd rely on what you know of the person and of life in general to come to a very logical conclusion that would have no place as "scientific proof."

K: From the evidence you've given, we'd need to investigate more, through the scientific method to determine if this was coincidence or precognition.

B:Is this further investigation any different than what I prescribed?

Yes, because the scientific method would demand replicable results. As I understand it, you can't puzzle out precognition with an armchair analysis of your friend's personality and conform to the scientific method.

The example was made up, but I've met many people who have made claims that are just as improbable and that would need to be evaluated in a similar fashion.

Did you believe the miraculous happened in any of those cases?

K:So far, of people who have claimed to have ESP, be precognitive, translate mystic texts with magic rocks, etc., I am aware of none who can stand up to the scientific method and maintain their claims in the face of actual testing and public observation.

B:Why is public observation required for it to be logical? What are you ruling out when you say "actual testing" and why?"

I am ruling out, in short, all the forms of proof that don't actually prove the claim made. Public observation is a prudent rule of investigation simply so the people involved can know the results are true. It cuts down on liars. The fact is, if some event is actually occurring and is not a scam, public observation should not be a problem. If someone is making an improbable claim, if it is true, reproducing it should not be problematic.

I'd require double-blind testing and replicable results when I say actual testing. So far, whenever mystical claims are put up against these standards, they fail to produce results consistent with their claims.

AA is known through what method? Is it a method that can deal rationally, i.e. logically and with evidentiary support, with conflicting reports on the answer such as might be offered by a militant Islamist, Hindu or better yet a Satanic cultist?

I don't agree that my answers above force me into a deontological corner. It is only because of knowledge of God's character/nature that one follows God's commands.

1) Whether or not you profess to know God's nature, if your ethical system is founded on moral authority rather than a particular goal, it is deontological. If you accept ethical prescriptions not through rational means, i.e. not through using evidence of true claims and following them to logical conclusions, but through authoritarian means, i.e. God is good and knows the answer to ethical questions perfectly so I ought not try to question his commands, you are following a deontologic system.

2) How do you happen to know god's character? I think this an amazingly broad claim to make and tantamount to knowing the mind of god. In the conflict of the two would you try to achieve your own happiness or follow God's will? If you claim the latter would lead to the former, you will need to support the claim that you know what God's will happens to be.

3) How do you know there is only one god and one set of commands? Holy texts and many people's faith are clearly in conflict on this topic. Having read your article on the fundamental irrationality of worrying about gas to the exclsuion of more efficient cost savings, I know you personally don't accept vague feelings as evidence regarding savings. Do you change your outlook when it comes to so trivial an issue as the foundation of your ethics? :)

Using your Abraham example, Abraham acted to carry out God's command to sacrifice his son because Abraham knew the nature of God. Thus, although he didn't yet understand specifically how obeying would make him a better person or exactly what good consequences would follow, those were his incentives to obey the command. He trusted God based on his past experiences with Him.

How many experiences have you had with God? Please compare and contrast them with your experience with local gasoline prices and the logical and argumentative process by which you chose to reject worrying about gasoline prices so exclusively.

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 29 September 2006

I have no problem with logic or evidence, but it's the scope of these that causes issues. Specifically, it doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to require spiritual evidence concerning the nature of God to be reproduced publicly by science. In expecting a "mystical" claim to repeat itself for the scientific tester, you are expecting it to perform according to scientific laws. How can one expect this to work in testing for something that is admittedly not scientific? It would be like asking for the rules of basketball to be explained only through the rules of football. You can draw parallels, sure, but there are different rules for different games.

(Of course, expecting beliefs which are not arbitrary and self-contradictory is perfectly fine, given that you accept that any belief system will be incomplete in some ways - which is fine as long as the belief system isn't claiming to contain 100% of truth.)

I'll stop using examples/analogies, though, and try to get down to the meat of this. I believe our purpose here on earth involves progressing. Part of this progress is obtaining a body, part is scholastic learning, part is having a family, part is developing a relationship with God - and there are probably some other parts as well as some overlap in there. The scientific method (including the requirement for public reproducability) is a great for scholastic learning, but how does it make sense for it to also be the ideal method for developing a relationship with God? If such was the case, how would someone born in the backwoods of Australia 3000 years ago develop such a relationship? Science as we know it hardly existed and they'd never have even heard of the scientific method. What of people who are born today but have an extremely low IQ? Is God excluding them because they don't have the mental sharpness to engage in detailed scientific analysis? Of course not. In order for God to be just, He must be accessible to all. Thus, there is a different means of developing a relationship with Him then there is in determining whether or not a hybrid is worth the money.

If you think about it another way, we are talking about God here - someone that has a higher IQ than anyone (or everyone combined?). He likely has essential truth (meaning essential to us developing a relationship with Him) to give us that our most advanced (and yet contradictory) Physics laws can't touch. Does it not make sense that He would communicate this to us even though our quickly developing science is insufficient?

The method for determining the nature of God is complex and personal, but it follows a pattern. Through prophets, family, missionaries, or other persons/experiences, people come across opportunities to feel the Spirit (or Holy Ghost). If a person seeks spiritual truth and to develop a relationship with God, he must learn to first identify and then follow feelings. In answer to you question, such actions will allow one to determine which church/doctrine/teaching (if any) is "true" through a process that is both logical and based on evidence, although it is deeply personal.

Revelation to "solve the problem:" First, just because Joseph Smith received a large amount of direct revelation does not mean 1) he required revelation in this way to "solve the problem," or 2) such would be required for another person to "solve the problem." To get to your main issue, though, no one has to accept anything "less" than what these prophets received as a standard of proof. All are entitled to their own personal revelation, as it wouldn't make sense to withhold the revelatory opportunity from some and not others.

Question 1: I follow God's will because I know it leads to happiness, which is very much a "particular goal." I investigate God's will through "evidence of true claims and following them to logical conclusions" as I explained previously. It is my duty, of course to appropriately question all that is claimed to be a command of God in order to determine its authenticity, but to intentionally remove all trust of being with whom I'm trying to develop a relationship is just plain counterproductive (just as it is in familial, peer or work relationships).

Question 2: I explained the basic process earlier and yes, it is tantamount to knowing part of the mind of God. As for a conflict of the two, I don't think such a thing exists. God's will for me is immortality and eternal life, a goal that can be broken down to apply to almost any earthly circumstance by following the Holy Ghost.

Question 3: I think I've already answered your initial question. As for accepting "vague feelings as evidence," I think my outlook is similar. I've had countless experiences with buying gas and observing gas price fluctuations, the scope and depth of which are appropriately summarized in one article. Experiences "with God" (i.e., with the Holy Ghost) are similarly countless, but they vary greatly in intensity from feeling extraordinarily good about myself and life after spending a weekend chainsawing trees off of the top of houses in Hurricane Katrina's wake last year, to listening to General Conference, to a very poignant answer to prayer. Of course, the principles of direct observation are also applicable in determining the truth of alleged divine teachings - and I think you can imagine how often I do that, considering what you've observed of my personality in Gas Prices in Perspective.

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 02 October 2006

I have no problem with logic or evidence, but it's the scope of these that causes issues. Specifically, it doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to require spiritual evidence concerning the nature of God to be reproduced publicly by science. In expecting a "mystical" claim to repeat itself for the scientific tester, you are expecting it to perform according to scientific laws. How can one expect this to work in testing for something that is admittedly not scientific?

The reason I posted this article on OmniNerd was stumbling across your article on Joseph Smith after a recent encounter with 'Mormon' proselytizers. I would very much like to analyze the nature of your claims about the mystic and spiritual evidence. I am taking you as a paradigm example of someone making a claim like, 'I am precognitive'; and this is how I will investigate.

First, I need to define your terms to advance this discussion. If you are putting forth a rational defense of faith in the spiritual world, I need to find out what claims we can agree characterize 'spirit'.

You are claiming that in addition to the material world which admits of publicly verifiable observation and in which material objects produce sensible, regular effects on other material objects, there is also a spiritual world which can produce sensible, but irregular effects [i.e. miraculous effects not bound by physical laws], on material objects, which can also produce internal emotional effects and which is neither public nor verifiable in any scientific sense.

I will refer to things which are spiritual in nature as spirit, from now on. On your claim, spirit is a form of existence which humans are aware of but not through any empirical method.

Here follow claims I think you hold to be true:

1) Spirit exists and is different than heredity, environment or any material entity that exists in the physical universe.

2) Spirit does not admit of analysis by any of the five traditional senses.

3) Spirit is not subject to such standards of the scientific method as replicability. Spiritual claims cannot be tested, cannot be reproduced and cannot be subjected to tests of public observation.

4) In the absence of any empirical evidence in favor of the existence of spirit, and in the absence of the ability to reproduce any claims about spirit's interaction with the world or human consciousness, humans are rationally warranted to believe in the existence of spirit.

5) Claims about spirit are subject both to analysis and subject to comparison with other claims about spirit, such that some claims about spirit may be rejected and others accepted.

6) One knows the truth or falsity of spiritual claims through some means known as spiritual evidence [specifics of which as yet unstated by you, yet asserted to be rational].

If you can agree to these and if these explain the whole of your argument in favor of spirit, except for 6) in which I need you to define 'spiritual evidence' for me, then I think the debate can proceed rationally.

Why must any belief system be, in some ways, incomplete? Not that I necessarily disagree, but I just want to know the reasoning.

I believe our purpose here on earth involves progressing. Part of this progress is obtaining a body, part is scholastic learning, part is having a family, part is developing a relationship with God - and there are probably some other parts as well as some overlap in there.

Why do you believe any of this especially the part about human purpose being progressing and the implication that progression involves human existence without a body? Is there a rational reason, experience or evidence for believing any of that?

The scientific method (including the requirement for public reproducability) is a great for scholastic learning,

More importantly, it is great for achieving results that prayer and sheer belief will not achieve. Science performs work. The standards of science result in a body of knowledge which may be built upon due to being able to trust prior results and utilized to perform labor which would otherwise be impossible.

but how does it make sense for it to also be the ideal method for developing a relationship with God? If such was the case, how would someone born in the backwoods of Australia 3000 years ago develop such a relationship?

I would have to fault your reasoning here. You have a hidden premise, the premise that Australian aborigines must necessarily be able to have a relationship with God. If this is not question begging, and I think it may be, it is at least a premise not shared by a great number of theologians.

I would say plainly that without a Bible or Book of Mormon, you would not know about the God you believe exists. Hindus, raised in their culture and without recourse to your Bibles, do not know about your God and have no relationship with that object of belief. Even Christians prior to Joseph Smith did not know your God. Unless you have some evidence you have not submitted, there is no reason to conclude that Australians would necessarily have some means of knowing the God you are asserting exists.

Science as we know it hardly existed and they'd never have even heard of the scientific method. What of people who are born today but have an extremely low IQ? Is God excluding them because they don't have the mental sharpness to engage in detailed scientific analysis? Of course not. In order for God to be just, He must be accessible to all. Thus, there is a different means of developing a relationship with Him then there is in determining whether or not a hybrid is worth the money.

I believe your reasoning here is faulty as well. You've assumed your own conclusion by virtue of attributing certain qualities to God and therefore ruling out what empirically appears to be the case on no grounds at all. You assume [with no evidence presented in favor of your ground-breaking assertion] God must be just, and that justice entails that everyone would have a chance to know Him, and therefore the lack of scientific evidence must entail that there is a non-scientific means of knowing Him.

1) Your God therefore, chose to condemn every person prior to Joseph Smith to not knowing Him very well. He also chose to condemn every person prior to Jesus to knowing Him even less. He also chose to condemn every person prior to Judaism to not knowing Him at all. Why would a just God do this?

2) If the Holy Bible and Book of Mormon are the revealed word of God and the only overt means of knowing Him, then God is denying a relationship with Him to every person not exposed to those books by chance, and by necessity to every person who existed prior to those books. Why would a just God do this?

If you think about it another way, we are talking about God here - someone that has a higher IQ than anyone (or everyone combined?).

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The reason debates like that and ones based on the claim you asserted can rage on is that they are arbitrary. In the absence of evidence, any claim whatsoever can be asserted, and without evidentiary foundation there will be no rational end to the debate. That is why I assert that arbitrary claims should be rejected out of hand, because of the invalid context of their discovery.

He likely has essential truth (meaning essential to us developing a relationship with Him) to give us that our most advanced (and yet contradictory) Physics laws can't touch. Does it not make sense that He would communicate this to us even though our quickly developing science is insufficient?

No, it does not. You are predicating qualities of God that I do not believe exist in any holy text. Unless you are claiming direct knowledge of what you claim, everything you've claimed is entirely arbitrary. If I put forth the competing claim that all of your spiritual evidence, including the holy texts and fantastic feelings you have had while being good, are the product of Satan; all things equal, my claim has equal justification to your own.

Opportunities which logically could not have existed prior to Mormonism, Christianity and Judaism. If a just God must reveal Himself, God failed to be just prior the advent of Judaism and only progressed to justice in the 1800's.

If a person seeks spiritual truth and to develop a relationship with God, he must learn to first identify and then follow feelings. In answer to you question, such actions will allow one to determine which church/doctrine/teaching (if any) is "true" through a process that is both logical and based on evidence, although it is deeply personal.

Untrue. I have competing evidence. People submitting their relationship with God to the evidence of feelings and strong belief achieve, as a product of consulting only their belief and feelings, ethical conclusions that contradict the ethical conclusions held by other people doing the same. Unless God wants people to hold contradictory beliefs, which premise I believe would contradict your just God theory, then a deeply personal experience consulting feelings and belief can achieve two mutually exclusive results. This fact should be extremely troubling to you, given that you claim introspection is sufficient to know God.

Is there any other spiritual evidence you admit of spiritual analysis?

Revelation to "solve the problem:" First, just because Joseph Smith received a large amount of direct revelation does not mean 1) he required revelation in this way to "solve the problem,"

I was informed by LDS missionaries that Smith was confused about what religion to follow and that he did not resolve his confusion until God and Jesus dropped in on him.

or 2) such would be required for another person to "solve the problem." To get to your main issue, though, no one has to accept anything "less" than what these prophets received as a standard of proof. All are entitled to their own personal revelation, as it wouldn't make sense to withhold the revelatory opportunity from some and not others.

Only on your just God theory, that justice requires God provide a relevatory opportunity to all. Without that presupposition, we don't know what God's motives are so it could easily make sense.

Question 1: I follow God's will because I know it leads to happiness, which is very much a "particular goal."

You know this via spiritual evidence? That is, you do not know this in the method that you know that you will save more by avoiding convenience stores than by shopping gas prices?

I investigate God's will through "evidence of true claims and following them to logical conclusions" as I explained previously. It is my duty, of course to appropriately question all that is claimed to be a command of God in order to determine its authenticity, but to intentionally remove all trust of being with whom I'm trying to develop a relationship is just plain counterproductive (just as it is in familial, peer or work relationships).

It is not counter-productive if you are attempting to determine whether or not such a person even exists. In fact, it is the first step to determining that fact.

Question 3: I think I've already answered your initial question. As for accepting "vague feelings as evidence," I think my outlook is similar. I've had countless experiences with buying gas and observing gas price fluctuations, the scope and depth of which are appropriately summarized in one article.

Note that these are empirical experiences that anyone could have, and that I assume you expect readers to need by virtue of your presentation of evidence, to accept your argument as rational. At least, an entirely different form of argumentation is going to be needed to put forth spiritual claims.

Experiences "with God" (i.e., with the Holy Ghost) are similarly countless, but they vary greatly in intensity from feeling extraordinarily good about myself and life after spending a weekend chainsawing trees off of the top of houses in Hurricane Katrina's wake last year,

Occam's Razor suggests the existence of God is unnecessary to explain this feeling and further science can explain how to repeat that feeling.

to listening to General Conference,

Which is nothing more or less than people talking. Occam's Razor suggest God is unnecessary to explain this occurrence.

to a very poignant answer to prayer.

Was this answer miraculous or could it have been coincidental to your prayer?

Of course, the principles of direct observation are also applicable in determining the truth of alleged divine teachings - and I think you can imagine how often I do that, considering what you've observed of my personality in Gas Prices in Perspective.

I'll see exactly how you do that regarding religion and spirit when you put forth your response to the issues I have posed above.

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 19 October 2006

Your comments on the nature of Spirit are correct in some respects but off in many others. The best way for you to grasp what I believe on the subject would probably be to do some more study on the subject (the entry in the Bible Dictionary is a good place to start), but I will briefly address your comments here.

Spirit is matter, but not in the same sense. It follows laws, but not the same laws. An individual's spirit is subject to heredity, but not in the same sense (i.e., traits from spirit parents). It is subject to empirical investigation, but not in exactly the same way. It interacts with the physical world and can produce effects that can be observed with the five senses.

As you can see, many of your statements concerning my beliefs are off. I know this explanation is short, though, so let me know where you have questions. So far, you only asked one, which was concerning spiritual evidence.

Spiritual evidence is comparable to physical evidence but on the spiritual plane. This sort of evidence is not the only way for one to gain knowledge of God, but it is one of the necessary ways. For example, in order to find out if the Book of Mormon is true I can read it and consider how it might have come to be. I can observe how following what it teaches affects the lives of others. I can study it looking for hard evidences that it is what it claims to be (for example, see this page by Jeff Lindsay or this page at FARMS). Lastly, I can live what it teaches and see how this affects me spiritually. As Elder John K. Carmack of the Seventy said: "Jesus explained, 'If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself' (John 7:17). In other words, as you try it you can know it is true. This requires the faith to try, but it yields spiritual evidence. To the disciple who tries the experiment will come conviction, knowledge, and light" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1988, 32; or Ensign, Nov. 1988, 26). Lastly, as explained previously, I can take advantage of the promise of the Book of Mormon. All of these things play a part in determining if the book is true. I also think spiritual evidence is summarized well by D&C 50:23-25 when it speaks of edification and rejoicing.

Perhaps the best way to know of spiritual evidence however, is to get some. It comes in varying degrees, but you will usually know it when you find it.

Why must any belief system be, in some ways, incomplete?

Because we can't know everything.

My rational reason consists of spiritual, mental and physical evidence (as explained above) leading me to the undeniable conclusion that the Book of Mormon is true and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. (As a side note, I'm not sure what you mean by progression involving human existence without a body. From where did you get that?)

The same is true of faith and gaining spiritual evidence. The difference comes in the requirements (e.g., sincerity, faith, etc.). It's a great method for achieving results that science will not achieve. It performs work and builds an additional (yet not mutually exclusive) body of knowledge which may be added upon through trusting prior results and be utilized to perform labor which would otherwise be impossible.

You have a hidden premise, the premise that Australian aborigines must necessarily be able to have a relationship with God. If this is not question begging, and I think it may be, it is at least a premise not shared by a great number of theologians.

I'm aware of that premise and it will be discussed later. You are getting away from my point, however, which is that it doesn't make sense for God to require mankind to use the scientific method to develop a relationship with Him. On the contrary, establishing a method that the vast majority of people living in any time, in any place and at any intelligence level can take advantage of allows God to better accomplish His purposes. You must admit that is logically consistent with my premises.

I have not set up the Book of Mormon and Bible as being the only means through which a person can develop a relationship with God. They are simply the most complete tools currently available. As Joseph Smith [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction said]], "...the Book of Mormon [is] the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." A person can develop a relationship with God through numerous means - even within a different religion - but some methods are more effective than others.

This is starting to get a little frustrating. It has been stated that we are looking at this with the purpose of identifying/resolving internal inconsistencies. However, when I make progress on this front it seems that you throw out the "but you assume that God exists" card rather than concede the consistency.

In any case, moving on ...

He didn't. God has revealed His gospel to prophets in almost every age. Adam, Noah, Enoch, Moses, Christ, Peter, Joseph Smith, Gordon B. Hinkley, and a bunch of others in between - and these are only the ones of which we have record. As for those who never came into contact with any of these prophets or their writings (e.g., a child who dies at the age of two in communist China), they will get their chance to hear the gospel in the Spirit World after death. Everyone is given (at least one) chance and everyone is judged justly based on what they do with what they are given.

B: He likely has essential truth (meaning essential to us developing a relationship with Him) to give us that our most advanced (and yet contradictory) Physics laws can't touch. Does it not make sense that He would communicate this to us even though our quickly developing science is insufficient?

K: You are predicating qualities of God that I do not believe exist in any holy text. Unless you are claiming direct knowledge of what you claim, everything you've claimed is entirely arbitrary.

What does it matter if you can find this in a holy text? I can, and I can also go into detail on the matter, but why does that make any difference to you?

If I put forth the competing claim that all of your spiritual evidence, including the holy texts and fantastic feelings you have had while being good, are the product of Satan; all things equal, my claim has equal justification to your own.

Hardly. There is a cohesive and reasonable system of beliefs and evidences surrounding my claims and yours was made up while writing this post. My own life of experience supports my own conclusion, while yours is based on pure conjecture concerning my experiences.

False, as explained earlier.

People submitting their relationship with God to the evidence of feelings and strong belief achieve, as a product of consulting only their belief and feelings, ethical conclusions that contradict the ethical conclusions held by other people doing the same. Unless God wants people to hold contradictory beliefs, which premise I believe would contradict your just God theory, then a deeply personal experience consulting feelings and belief can achieve two mutually exclusive results. This fact should be extremely troubling to you, given that you claim introspection is sufficient to know God.

Who said anything about consulting only belief and feelings? Also, I challenge you to find two people in the exact same situation doing the same thing that come up with mutually exclusive results.

B: Revelation to "solve the problem:" First, just because Joseph Smith received a large amount of direct revelation does not mean 1) he required revelation in this way to "solve the problem,"

K: I was informed by LDS missionaries that Smith was confused about what religion to follow and that he did not resolve his confusion until God and Jesus dropped in on him.

You failed to address my point: Just because he received a personal visit from God does not mean his problem could not have been answered with anything else.

Only on your just God theory, that justice requires God provide a relevatory opportunity to all. Without that presupposition, we don't know what God's motives are so it could easily make sense.

Yes, everyone will have a revelatory opportunity. And yes, if you start changing the foundation of my belief system then it would change some of my conclusions. Again, however, the system itself is very much internally consistent.

B: Question 1: I follow God's will because I know it leads to happiness, which is very much a "particular goal."

K: You know this via spiritual evidence? That is, you do not know this in the method that you know that you will save more by avoiding convenience stores than by shopping gas prices?

I know this via life experience, which involves methods much like those in the Gas Prices article and includes spiritual evidence.

B: I investigate God's will through "evidence of true claims and following them to logical conclusions" as I explained previously. It is my duty, of course to appropriately question all that is claimed to be a command of God in order to determine its authenticity, but to intentionally remove all trust of being with whom I'm trying to develop a relationship is just plain counterproductive (just as it is in familial, peer or work relationships).

K: It is not counter-productive if you are attempting to determine whether or not such a person even exists. In fact, it is the first step to determining that fact.

If you do not know if such a being exists, then you don't have any trust to remove (which is of what I was speaking). Yet, if you aim to find out if such a being exists, you must at least "hope" enough that you will open yourself to proper investigation. (Again, this is explained in Alma 32, to which I've linked numerous times. If you've already read it, I suggest you give it another look because it answers many of the questions you are repeatedly asking.)

B: Question 3: I think I've already answered your initial question. As for accepting "vague feelings as evidence," I think my outlook is similar. I've had countless experiences with buying gas and observing gas price fluctuations, the scope and depth of which are appropriately summarized in one article.

K: Note that these are empirical experiences that anyone could have, and that I assume you expect readers to need by virtue of your presentation of evidence, to accept your argument as rational. At least, an entirely different form of argumentation is going to be needed to put forth spiritual claims.

Yes, these are experiences anyone could have - as are my spiritual experiences. Neither are necessary, however, for someone to consider my argumentation consistent. They might not accept it as true, but they can see it is at least feasible.

B: Experiences "with God" (i.e., with the Holy Ghost) are similarly countless, but they vary greatly in intensity from feeling extraordinarily good about myself and life after spending a weekend chainsawing trees off of the top of houses in Hurricane Katrina's wake last year,

K: Occam's Razor suggests the existence of God is unnecessary to explain this feeling and further science can explain how to repeat that feeling.

Actually, given the nature of some of the experiences, I think the Razor supports my conclusion - which is much simpler than the psychologically or physiological mechanisms you likely think explain my experiences.

Also, I find it ironic you continue to call on this theory as Ockham himself believed in God: "No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by experience, or (c) by some infallible authority," with (c) referring to "the Bible, the Saints and certain pronouncements of the Church." (Hoffmann, et al. "Ockham's Razor and Chemistry". HYLE—International Journal for the Philosophy of Chemistry 3:3–28. 1997.) (Note this is just an observation and is not meant to completely discredit the theory in the religious arena.)

B: to a very poignant answer to prayer.

K: Was this answer miraculous or could it have been coincidental to your prayer?

Very much not coincidental.

[Show/Hide] [Reply] 0 Nerd-Its

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 21 October 2006

Your source claims spirit is a more pure, refined form of matter. What does this mean? I know of no referent in the world in which purity and refinement are admitted of matter, excepting perhaps precious metals. Does this mean a spiritual sheep is 20 karat pure and not also half goat? Is there any evidence that backs this claim regarding spirit?

I also notice that this account of spirit virtually mirrors Plato's theory of the Forms. I know why Plato created this theory and I know why he was wrong to do so. Does the LDS account of spirit fall prey to the same objections? Your cite was too brief for me to tell.

Spiritual evidence is comparable to physical evidence but on the spiritual plane.

I don't exist on a spiritual plane, so how I would gain or utilize spiritual evidence is problematic for me.

This sort of evidence is not the only way for one to gain knowledge of God, but it is one of the necessary ways. For example, in order to find out if the Book of Mormon is true I can read it and consider how it might have come to be.

This would not prove the book true. Speculation is not observation. A completely coherent speculation is nevertheless entirely arbitrary unless founded on accurate observation.

I can observe how following what it teaches affects the lives of others.

This would not prove the book true. The Book of Mormon can contain correct ethical premises and also faulty physical, historical and metaphysical claims.

I can study it looking for hard evidences that it is what it claims to be (for example, see this page by Jeff Lindsay or this page at FARMS).

Do you have other hard evidence? These appeared far from 'hard' to me.

Lastly, I can live what it t

Name:
Password:	Forgot?
	Remember me?
	I'm new, register me!

	Never
	Hit and run
	Carjacking
	Mugging
	Physical assault
	Assault with a deadly weapon
	Rape
	Attempted murder
	Other

Login or Register

What is OmniNerd?

Submit New Content

Voting Booth

Been a victim of a violent crime?

blog (coffee shop) by Kevin1 on 15 September 2006, tagged as theology

I will bite by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 18 September 2006

RE: I will bite by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 18 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by wyldeling :: NR6 :: on 19 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 19 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by wyldeling :: NR6 :: on 20 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 22 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 19 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 19 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 20 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 21 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 25 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 26 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 29 September 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 02 October 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 19 October 2006

RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 21 October 2006