Reasoning with True Believers

[_Sethbag]

This seems to be going toward a discussion of the value of religion on utilitarian grounds. I'm personally far less interested in that discussion, and much more interested in the discussion of whether a given religion's worldview is one that is reflective of actual, objective reality, or whether it's manmade. I realize that others are more interested in that aspect than me, and that's obviously just fine.

A lot of religions probably offer things that would be very helpful in the lives of a lot of people. I'm sure there are aspects of Buddhism, for example, that would be helpful in a lot of lives. That doesn't mean it's "true", however.

And, with respect to the LDS church, the Church's claims themselves include that it is literally true in an objective reality sense, not just helpful or useful, and hence is even more deserving of criticism on that basis. As GBH said, either the LDS Church is literally true, or it's a fraud. I think it's a fraud. And that's true whether or not someone is helped in their individual life by some aspect of it.

The good and positive aspects of religion, I'm convinced, come due to the well-meaning efforts of millions of believers over time, who are personally interested in the church (whatever church) being a good and positive influence in their lives, and in the lives of others. And the LDS church hasn't got a monopoly on well-meaning believers.

[_BishopRic]

This seems to be going toward a discussion of the value of religion on utilitarian grounds. I'm personally far less interested in that discussion, and much more interested in the discussion of whether a given religion's worldview is one that is reflective of actual, objective reality, or whether it's manmade. I realize that others are more interested in that aspect than me, and that's obviously just fine.

A lot of religions probably offer things that would be very helpful in the lives of a lot of people. I'm sure there are aspects of Buddhism, for example, that would be helpful in a lot of lives. That doesn't mean it's "true", however.

And, with respect to the LDS church, the Church's claims themselves include that it is literally true in an objective reality sense, not just helpful or useful, and hence is even more deserving of criticism on that basis. As GBH said, either the LDS Church is literally true, or it's a fraud. I think it's a fraud. And that's true whether or not someone is helped in their individual life by some aspect of it.

The good and positive aspects of religion, I'm convinced, come due to the well-meaning efforts of millions of believers over time, who are personally interested in the church (whatever church) being a good and positive influence in their lives, and in the lives of others. And the LDS church hasn't got a monopoly on well-meaning believers.

Very well said! (I think I wrote the same thing someplace -- but obviously not as eloquently....)

(smilie)

[_Analytics]

This seems to be going toward a discussion of the value of religion on utilitarian grounds. I'm personally far less interested in that discussion, and much more interested in the discussion of whether a given religion's worldview is one that is reflective of actual, objective reality, or whether it's manmade.....

I find both issues interesting, which is why calling it "The Seven Lies of Success" tickles my brain. But at this point, I'm not arguing the utilitarian value of religion, but rather with Wade's claim that "what works" may likely be evidence of what is "real". He thinks that is a rational presumption. I disagree.

[_Sethbag]

This seems to be going toward a discussion of the value of religion on utilitarian grounds. I'm personally far less interested in that discussion, and much more interested in the discussion of whether a given religion's worldview is one that is reflective of actual, objective reality, or whether it's manmade.....

I find both issues interesting, which is why calling it "The Seven Lies of Success" tickles my brain. But at this point, I'm not arguing the utilitarian value of religion, but rather with Wade's claim that "what works" may likely be evidence of what is "real". He thinks that is a rational presumption. I disagree.

I disagree too. Mormons, I think, are theologically inclined to agree with it, however, as it forms at least some of the basis of the teaching that if one would know if the doctrine is of the father, he or she should live it, and if it is, he or she will come to know.

[_wenglund]

In any case, I’ll engage in your Socratic reasoning. Yes, I think that there is a certain amount of workability in reality.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "certain amount"? (feel free to you a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being a miniscule amount of workability, and 10 being entirely workable all the time)

Could you do the same for what you may believe to ultimately be the amount of workability of unreality or "lies"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The way I see it, the concept of workability implies that there is an agent influencing or shaping reality. How much a particular agent can shape reality depends upon his or her "circle of influence", as Stephen Covey allegedly said. Believing useful "lies of success" can greatly expand a human's circle of influence.

That is interesting to hear, though I am not sure how it directly answers my question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Analytics]

In any case, I’ll engage in your Socratic reasoning. Yes, I think that there is a certain amount of workability in reality.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "certain amount"? (feel free to you a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being a miniscule amount of workability, and 10 being entirely workable all the time)

Could you do the same for what you may believe to ultimately be the amount of workability of unreality or "lies"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The way I see it, the concept of workability implies that there is an agent influencing or shaping reality. How much a particular agent can shape reality depends upon his or her "circle of influence", as Stephen Covey allegedly said. Believing useful "lies of success" can greatly expand a human's circle of influence.

That is interesting to hear, though I am not sure how it directly answers my question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Answering your first question directly, there is 1 unit of workability in reality.

The second question doesn’t make sense. The lies per se aren't workable--rather they are tools that enhance the believer's ability to work reality.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by “workability”?

[Gadianton]

This seems to be going toward a discussion of the value of religion on utilitarian grounds. I'm personally far less interested in that discussion, and much more interested in the discussion of whether a given religion's worldview is one that is reflective of actual, objective reality, or whether it's manmade. I realize that others are more interested in that aspect than me, and that's obviously just fine.

A lot of religions probably offer things that would be very helpful in the lives of a lot of people. I'm sure there are aspects of Buddhism, for example, that would be helpful in a lot of lives. That doesn't mean it's "true", however.

And, with respect to the LDS church, the Church's claims themselves include that it is literally true in an objective reality sense, not just helpful or useful, and hence is even more deserving of criticism on that basis. As GBH said, either the LDS Church is literally true, or it's a fraud. I think it's a fraud. And that's true whether or not someone is helped in their individual life by some aspect of it.

The good and positive aspects of religion, I'm convinced, come due to the well-meaning efforts of millions of believers over time, who are personally interested in the church (whatever church) being a good and positive influence in their lives, and in the lives of others. And the LDS church hasn't got a monopoly on well-meaning believers.

Just curious. Why do you prefer reasoning about what is real (or not) over what works?

I ask because I think that you may find, through exploring this question somewhat deeply, that ulimately utility is the core motivator.

Also, I wonder if your stated preference (i.e. reasoning about what is real over reasoning about what works), when applied across the entire conceptual board (secular as well as religious), is at all contingient upon the degree to which a given subjectmatter is subjective or objective in nature?

I ask because, as I understand things, the more subjective the subjectmatter, the more illusive our ability to definitive determine reality, and the more fruitless our pursuit of definitive reality. As such, in cases of more subjective subjectmatters, then wouldn't reason (if not pragmatism) suggest a change in preference towards a more fruitful lines of reasoning? Perhaps one that is is highly fruitful--such as workability?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

In any case, I’ll engage in your Socratic reasoning. Yes, I think that there is a certain amount of workability in reality.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "certain amount"? (feel free to you a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being a miniscule amount of workability, and 10 being entirely workable all the time)

Could you do the same for what you may believe to ultimately be the amount of workability of unreality or "lies"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The way I see it, the concept of workability implies that there is an agent influencing or shaping reality. How much a particular agent can shape reality depends upon his or her "circle of influence", as Stephen Covey allegedly said. Believing useful "lies of success" can greatly expand a human's circle of influence.

That is interesting to hear, though I am not sure how it directly answers my question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Answering your first question directly, there is 1 unit of workability in reality.

So, to your way of thinking, reality only works (or is "workable"--see below) one time out of ten?

The second question doesn’t make sense. The lies per se aren't workable--rather they are tools that enhance the believer's ability to work reality.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by “workability”?

By "workability" I mean "functional" and "progressive". Or, in other words, it is that which operates in an ordered fashion towards a utilitarian end or that tends to facilitate healthy evolution towards the fullest/best measure of the creation (or thing).

For example. take something as mundane and relatively simple as getting out of bed in the morning. Would you say that only one time out of ten when getting out of bed it actually works (i.e. you are functionally able to slide to the side of the bed and stand up on the floor), and the other nine times you have some chaotic experience where nothing seems to go right and you either are rendered incapable of getting out of bed, or you are sent spinning towards some unintended and random places in space, etc.?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Analytics]

By "workability" I mean "functional" and "progressive". Or, in other words, it is that which operates in an ordered fashion towards a utilitarian end or that tends to facilitate healthy evolution towards the fullest/best measure of the creation (or thing).

For example. take something as mundane and relatively simple as getting out of bed in the morning. Would you say that only one time out of ten when getting out of bed it actually works (I.e. you are functionally able to slide to the side of the bed and stand up on the floor), and the other nine times you have some chaotic experience where nothing seems to go right and you either are rendered incapable of getting out of bed, or you are sent spinning towards some unintended and random places in space, etc.?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The definition of workability I was using was “capable of being operated, handled, or shaped.” By “reality”, I thought you were referring to the totality of real things in the universe. Thus, when we talk about “reality” being “workable”, I interpreted the question thusly: How much of the actual universe can be operated, handled, or shaped?

I answered 1 because the vast majority of the universe is in a time and place over which everybody has no ability whatsoever to operate, handle, or shape.

Shifting to your definition of workability, you are asking about how much of “reality” is functional or progressive, operating in an ordered fashion towards a utilitarian end?

Could you define “reality” in the context of your question?

Applying my position to your example, getting up in the morning might be more “workable” if you tell yourself lies about how everything happens for a beneficial purpose, about how fun your job is, etc.

[_wenglund]

By "workability" I mean "functional" and "progressive". Or, in other words, it is that which operates in an ordered fashion towards a utilitarian end or that tends to facilitate healthy evolution towards the fullest/best measure of the creation (or thing).

For example. take something as mundane and relatively simple as getting out of bed in the morning. Would you say that only one time out of ten when getting out of bed it actually works (I.e. you are functionally able to slide to the side of the bed and stand up on the floor), and the other nine times you have some chaotic experience where nothing seems to go right and you either are rendered incapable of getting out of bed, or you are sent spinning towards some unintended and random places in space, etc.?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The definition of workability I was using was “capable of being operated, handled, or shaped.” By “reality”, I thought you were referring to the totality of real things in the universe. Thus, when we talk about “reality” being “workable”, I interpreted the question thusly: How much of the actual universe can be operated, handled, or shaped?

I answered 1 because the vast majority of the universe is in a time and place over which everybody has no ability whatsoever to operate, handle, or shape.

Shifting to your definition of workability, you are asking about how much of “reality” is functional or progressive, operating in an ordered fashion towards a utilitarian end?

Could you define “reality” in the context of your question?

I am fine with the dictionary definition: "the state or quality of being real...that which is factual or true"

Applying my position to your example, getting up in the morning might be more “workable” if you tell yourself lies about how everything happens for a beneficial purpose, about how fun your job is, etc.

Assuming that one can effectively lie to oneself in that way (I have serious doubts that they can), I can see how that may work to motivate the pessimists and cynics amongst us. ;-)

However, I doubt that those lies would work for anyone absent tacit acceptance of a myriad of related truths or facts (some in ways that are so ingrained within us as to often be taken for granted and aren't at the forefront of our consciousness)--such as: one has a body that physically exists and occcupies physical space, and that body contains muscles and a brain and so forth, and those muscles will expand and contract voluntary to commands sent to the muscles from the brain, thereby setting things in motion in such a way as to cause the body to rotate from a reclined to an up-right sitting position on the bed, and then to a standing position on the floor. Furthermore, there need be the tacit acceptance of facts regarding various aspects of one's environment (i.e. the frictional surface of the bed, the solid nature of the floor, as well as various laws of physics that will come into play that will allow the body to move and stand as desired--i.e. gravity, inertia, acceleration, force, mass, etc., though one may not think of them in those terms). And, I am just scratching the surface.

To get a sense for just what all facts and truths must be tacitly accepted in executing the seemingly simple act of rising out of bed, consider the difference between a new-born infant and a grown adult. The former is significantly lacking in awareness of, let alone acceptance of, the necessary facts and truths needed to rise from their bed, and is thus entirely incapable of accomplishing such a simple act; whereas most adults can perform that action near effortlessly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-