Response to Coggins

[_Droopy]

Hi Coggins,

I’m going to respond to your post piecemeal bit by bit, from beginning to end. I think it would be too overwhelming to tackle it at one go. I’ll number each post and eventually I hope to respond to your entire post.


Marg previously: “What I brought up in the thread with Wade was critical thinking concepts. It is true that religious "faith" does not employ critical thinking. In fact it is the antithesis of reasoning. All one needs for religious faith is acceptance of whatever one is told to accept by some authority.”



Coggins:

Quote:
This is simply false and deploys several materialist conceits (not that you are conceited, hopefully) of traditional usage. True faith, in any substantive and actualized sense, involves serious thought and reflection at some level, even if such thought in our relationship to God is not always appropriate or necessary, Faith is not unreasoned assumption and is not the antithesis of reasoning. Even the best philosophers and scientists must have faith in their methods and intellectual templates. Truly religious people have faith in God because they've acted upon true or valid principles and seen the evidence of their truth manifest in their lives and in the real world of which they are apart.

Coggins I specified the sort of faith I was referring to “religious” faith. The def’n for faith at answers.com gives the following

faith (fāth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

#1 and #2 seem applicable to religious faith, perhaps 4. Confident belief in the truth of the existence of a god or an afterlife for example. And that belief doesn’t rest on logical proof or material evidence.

You seem to be saying correct me if I'm wrong that religious belief can rest on logical proof or material evidence. Can you explain to me how one could have a belief/faith in God’s existence in which is does rest on logical proof or material evidence?

Not necessarily in the sense that one means when speaking about science or empirical evidence. What I said was that true faith, at least in a LDS context, involves experience and critical, reflective thought in the sense that individual experiences with the principle of faith in the living of the gospel throughout one's life validate or provide the "evidence of things not seen" that Paul speaks of. Faith, as Talmadge said, is a "principle of power". without faith, their is no action, and without action, faith is moot. If this is the case, then since human action is goal directed and calculated to achieve some end in view, than faith (that the end, effect, or consequence will indeed be realized by the actions taken) is an inherant aspect of any goal directed, rational, experience or knowledge based activity.

Do you consider that your particular belief in God and God’s existence uses evidence? Is that evidence open to evaluation by others who are independent and objective? How can one assess your evidence if you do use evidence to warrant your belief in God? If you do use evidence (assuming you do) for your belief in God, then isn't it the case you aren't relying on faith?

I do not believe in God. I know he is and I know that Jesus Christ is. This is the direct, unmediated perception of truth that comes when the Spirit of God speaks directly to the spirit intelligence that is the essence of the individual self. There are other things in the gospel I know are true (have received a testimony of) and other things, primarily the philosophical or theological implications of settled doctrines already understood, in which I believe with various degrees of certainty, and this falls mostly into the realm of theological speculation. Other things I believe and have complete confidence in, even though I have received no revelation, in any direct way, as to their truth, because they are logically consistent with any number of other things are known to be true. And if I know that they are true, then the other concepts follow by implication or necessity.

I do use evidence as an adjunct to the personal witness within myself of God's existence, and this is open to any number of objective, independent observers (the cosmic constants, for example), but the problem here is, of course, that the interpretation of any evidence or data I may present as evidence of God's presence in the universe may readily be discounted by creative and sophisticated minds and given alternative explanations. Science and philosophy are full of plausible, if imaginative explanations for everything such that God need never enter the picture. The incredibly complex nature of the universe, and our very fragmentary understanding of it, virtually guarantee this state of affairs.

Hence, revelation and direct witness from God are necessary to both know that he is and understand his nature and attributes. Critical thought, scholarship, and evidence come into play as we elucidate and explore what we know of God, his gospel, and its implications, but these intellectual tools cannot be used to discover God; to come to know him and comprehend him, at least in any detail. Some certainly have used such methods to convince themselves of the general existence of a central, supreme organizing intelligence in the universe (Jeans, Whitehead, Eddington, Sir Fred Hoyle, and many others), but this is still quite a ways from knowledge of God (his actual identity) and a personal relationship with him, as understood in the gospel.

You are still assuming that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. This may be true of certain kinds of faith, or of certain definitions of the term. In a LDS context, faith, since it is inextricably linked to action, and specifically, sacrificial action, cannot possible be understood as non-intellectual or anti-rational. Beliefs may be so, and certain kinds of faith, what is normatively called 'blind" faith (but this is difficult too, because having 'blind faith" in Jesus Christ, when one has a direct knowledge of his attributes and character, is completely in harmony with one's knowledge of his attributes and character. In this case, not having faith in something he asks you to do or accomplish, or a sacrifice he asks you to make, is irrational to the extent that it defies the clear evidence and experience one has had in the exercising of faith previously, as well as one's sure knowledge of God's character, and hence, the legitimate reasons for exercising faith in God in the first place) may indeed be anti-rational. But faith per se is not rigidly compartmentalized from intellect anymore than emotion necessarily always is. I think in a truly mature, well balanced person, there is an interconnection and interplay between these human attributes.

The hermetic sealing of faith from reason is an enlightenment rationalist notion carried over from the radical mind/body, spirit/matter dichotomy of the ancient Greeks. The gospel throws the entirely different light on these concepts.

Loran

[_Droopy]

What I brought up in the thread with Wade was critical thinking concepts. It is true that religious "faith" does not employ critical thinking. In fact it is the antithesis of reasoning. All one needs for religious faith is acceptance of whatever one is told to accept by some authority.

This is simply false and deploys several materialist conceits (not that you are conceited, hopefully) of traditional usage. True faith, in any substantive and actualized sense, involves serious thought and reflection at some level, even if such thought in our relationship to God is not always appropriate or necessary, Faith is not unreasoned assumption and is not the antithesis of reasoning. Even the best philosophers and scientists must have faith in their methods and intellectual templates. Truly religious people have faith in God because they've acted upon true or valid principles and seen the evidence of their truth manifest in their lives and in the real world of which they are apart.

Faith is inextricably linked to action, and hence is an order of magnitude apart from mere belief, which may indeed, just as blind irrational faith may be, antithetical to critical thought. The point is that there are different forms of faith, some being indeed destructive and anti-intellectual, and others being productive and which work in harmony with critical thought and and reflection. Indeed, artificially separating faith and reason as generations of worshipers of human intellect have done would very likely destroy both if taken seriously. Modern agronomy and farming is based on critical thought. However, each and every farmer must still plant with faith, grounded in empirical science and experience, that his crops will actually grow. Faith, as Paul said, is the evidence of things not seen. It is not preassumptions of or belief in purely abstract doctrines or a ledger of rules. Faith, intellect, and experience are deeply interconnected, as are reason and imagination. The rigid, positivistic separation of them into sealed compartments is the artificial contrivance of an antagonistic philosophical system, not givens.

Further, at least in the church, the presence of continuing revelation to each member obviates the need for blind acceptance of what is taught by authorities.

I appreciate many religious individuals have little to no understanding of the concept of atheism and think it is a belief system. But it is not. If you'd like to discuss that further I will.

You may, but I've been down this road before and it won't wash with me marg, on philosophical principle. Any body of belief, in anything whatsoever, including bodies of belief that deny other beliefs (such and such is not the case), and make propositions and statements that are claimed to have truth value, is a system of belief. All that needs to be pointed out here is that atheism, to the extent it is a system of non-belief in God and spiritual claims, is therefore by definition a system of belief in the nonexistence of something, or, in other words, a system of belief that makes positive claims to knowledge about the nonexistence of certain phenomena, and hence, is a system of belief that makes positive statements about aspects of the universe but uses negative propositions to make positive claim of knowledge or truth (i.e., God does not exist, which is the same thing as saying the non-esistence of God exists, or is an existent feature of the universe).

In short atheism is a default position to theism. Critical thinking is also not a belief system...there are thinking tools which can employed which result generally, in better, closer to truth results and/or better decision making than if no thinking tools are employed and only complete reliance of gut feelings or authority.

I agree completely with your assessment here.

Sometimes there is little choice but to rely on authority but then that authority should be critically evaluated and it kept in mind.

This doesn't hold up under all conditions, however. In the military, when survival in the field of combat is the prime directive, critical analysis of authority could get one and others killed, or provoke much more catastrophic consequences. And this is apropos, because we are, according to gospel doctrine, in a field of battle here, in which the war in heaven has continued from its beginnings in the preexistence. We don't have anything near all the relevant knowledge, wisdom, or ability necessary to defeat our opponents on our own. Therefore, questioning God at every turn could, quite literally get us spiritually killed; many times we just have to listen to his counsel, or that of his authorized servants, and follow him into unknown territory. That's experience and critical thought based faith in a gospel sense: following Christ based on past experience and testimony into uncharted waters. Its not irrational unless one has no inherent trust in his own perceptions and experiences.


I

f you read my posts to Wade, Coggins you will note I mention not just empirical evidence but reasoning as well. The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"..is shorthand for a logical concept which is a thinking tool, which when employed aids in decision making, improves the quality of critical thinking and probability of conclusion, theory, results, opinion etc. If you have a problem with the logic in that Coggins then argue that issue.

You may be talking past Wade and I here. I don't have any problem with what you've said here as to the importance of logical reasoning employed as a tool aiding in the quality of decision making and the making of choice. The problem seems to be a radical division you've made between faith (as you've very narrowly defined it), and reason and empirics, aspects of human intellectual capacity you refuse to place limitations upon and seem to believe, not only help us explain the universe, but somehow define it and set absolute imitations upon the universe itself as to, not only what can be known about it, but as to whether there is anything at all to know beyond the intellectual limitations of the methodologies themselves. In other words, the philosophy of materialism or scientism conflates methodology and theoretical framework with the the phenomena they were created to conceptualize.

It must be kept in mind that these are metaphysical assumptions, not any possible extrapolations from the intellectual framework of the methodologies themselves. Logic, empiricism, and the scientific method are excellent tools for the level of reality with which they deal and within which they were created and to which they have direct reference. Outside of this particular mortal realm, they have little, if any epistemological value. This template has severe limitations balancing their definite strengths, and cannot be used as oracles to tell us anything beyond the perceptive range dictated by their inherent attributes.

Coggins you may believe whatever you wish I'm not arguing against you doing that. But the thread both you and Wade set up ..had to do with applying reasoned judgment to church leaders/J.Smith claims as to whether the claims were likely true and if not why not. We live in a world in which generally reasoning leads to better choices. that isn't guaranteed but generally when one gathers information and then makes decisions, they are in a better position to reason to a good conclusion than if no information was gathered.

Quote:
This is the fundamental problem of scientism and metaphysical materialism generally: the attempt to push methdologies and cognitive frameworks beyond their bounds into realms outside their stict delimitations, and then to claim that anything remaining outside those delimitations does not exist. At the same time, we demand that any possible spheres of existence outside what we call the "natural" world conform to both our present understanding of that world and the perameters of the intellectual superstructures we've developed to explain it and the methadologies we've developed to explore and discover its features.



Where did I claim something does not exist? I didn't make any such claim. And I don't need to make any such claim. If anyone presents to me a claim for something existing, for which I am extremely skeptical and have good reason to be extremely skeptical ..then logically, rightfully so, the burden is on them to present their reasoning and evidence. It's not up to me to prove whatever they claim does not exist. Simply expecting me to believe without question or in other words to have faith is irrational. I have nothing against the existence of any strange extraordinary thing.. but I need to be persuaded with good reasoning that the thing in questio

n exists.

Firstly, while an atheist may relieve him or herself from making any positive claims about the nonexistence of a, b, or c,, the claims are implicit in the atheist (or an anti UFO position, for an alternative example) position. Just refraining from making them changes nothing philosophically.

Secondly, a core problem between to people such as you and I are that we are coming from two utterly dissonant and incompatible frames of reference as to basic metaphysical assumptions. This cannot be overemphasized. I accept the possibility and, indeed, the reality of alternative and complimentary avenues to true knowledge. You accept only those those from of knowledge derived from logical reasoning and data or evidence acquired by empirically verifiable experiment and observation. This is not just a problem of methodology and or practical theoretical paradigms. Its a difference in fundamental philosophical assumptions about the world and what is possible within it.

I accept the rigors of philosophical analysis, and the scientific method, but I do not accept them as sola scriptora; I don't delimit the universe, or reality, to the appearances created by my own mental sets or templates, despite their practical use in certain specific circumstances among certain classes of phenomena.

The question here is which templates, paradigms, and methods are peculiar to and valid for the correct comprehension of which phenomena, and which are not. If one a priori closes off the possibility of the acquisition of knowledge of aspects of reality not amenable to one set of methodologies or frames of reference, one will never be able to approach such knowledge if it does exist (as one will have obviated any possible verification of its existence).


Quote:
The problem is, of course, that the human methadologies and templates cannot be extracted from the very natural world within which they arose to explain that very natural world; their perceptual range, or shall we say, their perceptual depth of field, is embedded within the same empirical world as the phenomena they attempts to study and explain, and are therefore conditioned and limited by the rule, laws, and charactistics of that world.

Like it or not Coggins, people claim's can be evaluated rationally as to whether or not they are likely true and if not true, a determination given the data presented can be made as to the likely reason. In some cases, as in J.Smith's case ...there is good reasoning to conclude with high probability he lied in many of his claims. I don't expect you to believe that given your background.

The above statement relies heavily on an unexamined assumption. That assumption is that religious or metaphysical claims, in some very broad sense, can simply be analyzed rationally and a determination made based on the claim made (Joseph Smith saw and talked with God) without a substantial background of assumptions or biases about what the world is like and what is possible within it that is quite separate from what any rational analysis might say about it given another set of philosophical or metaphysical preconceptions, or given just what we understand about the "natural" world through our own perceptual filters.

If Joseph did talk with God, the simple fact of the matter is that no rational analysis will bring anyone to a conclusion one way or the other outside of a set of preexisting philosophical biases. Their are really only two: One is that such things may be possible, and the other is that such things are impossible. A rational critique of Joseph's claims, independent of revelation and the exercise of faith, will yield a determination quite in harmony with what we already believed about the fundamental nature of the universe before we began, and little else.

Joseph's claims are intended precisely to push us forcefully outside the box and into uncharted territory. Its a paradigm shift when we allow the concepts of faith and revelation to be at least a possibility, but only a continuation of the preexisting format when we attempt to move into a dark room, not with a flashlight, but with a microscope. Quite an instrument for studying certain aspects of nature, but useless for studying anything in a dark room without a source of light.[/quote]

[_MrStakhanovite]

So I think this thread has some high potential.

[_Blixa]

The dead truly walk among us. The grave has spewed them out.

Nick has some advice for Coggins:

You better run, you better run
You better run to the City of Refuge
You better run, you better run
You better run to the City of Refuge

You'll be working in the darkness
Against your fellow man
And you'll find you're called to come forth
So you'll scrub and you'll scrub
But the trouble is, bub
The blood it won't wash off
No, it won't come off!

[_Droopy]

This post was also a mistake from the archives, that I didn't mean to re-post.

Anyway, Blixa, Marx is dead, socialism has been long debunked and consigned to the slag heap of philosophical and moral history, and the gospel is still true.

Otherwise, never mind.