The unreasonable propositions in our lives

[dastardly stem]

Is it reasonable to have faith in Jesus Christ? What are the reasons? And do those reasons fall in the realm of rational?

Those talks by Bednar that were critiqued by RFM and BYP make me wonder if Bednar has an explanation that deems faith in Jesus Christ as reasonable. I'm skeptical that he'd have good reasons. But does anyone? It seems to me anytime we invoke faith as the reason we are simply tracing a circle in our reasoning. Can we really escape that circle for things that are claimed by faith?

When discussing faith, I find it helps to realize that:
1. It has both secular and religious connotations
2. It is synonymous with trust, belief, confidence, conviction, hope, etc.
3. It is arrayed along a spectrum, from weak to strong, blind to informed, false to true, unreasonable to reasonable, irrational to rational, etc.
4. The weakness or strength, etc. of faith is contingent upon the level, types, and strength of supportive/contra evidence and reasoning

Regarding faith in Jesus Christ, and whether such faith is unreasonable or unreasonable, weak or strong, etc. it depends upon what one may consider acceptable evidence and reasoning. This is where the critic and believer tend to part ways. Elder Bednar briefly pointed out several of those difference--such as, evidence obtained through seeing and the other 5 senses as contrasted with evidence obtain through the Spirit and other things.

But there is no spirit inside a person. Evidence through the spirit is likely nothing more than people feeling, thinking from thoughts and impressions. Of course that could be wrong but a demonstration of spirit must be given before we simply treat our faith hopes, hopes dreams and impressions on par with empirical evidence.

It also depends upon where a given individual or group is at in their faith development. A recent investigator, with little knowledge and experience in the gospel, may be weak in faith as compared with the strength of someone who has been a long-time member, and is quite knowledgeable about the gospel, and has been thoroughly tested and tried in their faith.

There is also the difference between those who have failed the tests of faith and lost faith as contrasted those that have passed and excelled in their faith and are at the top of the class so to speak (I have in mind the critics as opposed to Elder Bednar).

Elder Bednar implied the spectrum of faith and the process of faith development when he mentioned passages from Alma 32.

And, while he forcefully proclaimed that faith in Jesus is reasonable, and that the critics were unreasonable to suggest otherwise, nevertheless, he left each to confirm or disconfirm that for themselves using the Alma 32 in relation to 10 doctrinal truths.

Thanks, Wade Englund

But what if alma 32 and 10 doctrinal truths aren’t enough to demonstrate anything? I don’t know how to discuss much with all the presuppositions you seem to rely on. But I think I’ve been there and understand it well enough. I just don’t buy it and find it unreasonable to buy it.

[wenglund]

But there is no spirit inside a person. Evidence through the spirit is likely nothing more than people feeling, thinking from thoughts and impressions. Of course that could be wrong but a demonstration of spirit must be given before we simply treat our faith hopes, hopes dreams and impressions on par with empirical evidence.

I understand that is your opinion. It differs markedly from my experience. Hence, the divergence between critics and believers that I mentioned. It begs the question.

And, it underscores Bednar's point. The critics think faith in Christ and his gospel is unreasonable because it lacks empirical evidence via the 5 senses--i.e. physical evidence. Whereas, Bednar contends that, since the things of the spirit transcend the 5 senses, and are not physical, then in terms of spiritual faith, it is unreasonable to limit the empirical evidence to, or even look for empirical via the 5 senses. In other words, when determining the reasonableness of spiritual faith, it is unreasonable to demand that the evidence for such faith be limited to or found within the physical--just as it would be unreasonable to demand that evidence for faith in the physical should be limited to or be found within the spiritual. Reasonableness of faith in something is contingent upon the evidence relevant to the domain of that things existence--spiritual evidence for matters of spiritual faith, and physical evidence for matters of physical faith.

In principle, it would be metaphorically like assessing the reasonableness of faith in Einstein's theory of the constant speed of light by restricting the evidence to what may be obtained using a car's speedometer. That would be unreasonable. Right?

But what if Alma 32 and 10 doctrinal truths aren’t enough to demonstrate anything?

Then this would be made evident through earnestly applying the Alma 32/10 doctrinal truths process.

From Bednar's and my and other people's experience, it was enough to demonstrate a broad range of spiritual things.

In principle, it would be like asking "what if the scientific method were used in relation to 10 theories of physics, and it wasn't enough to demonstrate anything?" Applying the scientific method to the 10 physics theories would be the way to find out.'

I don’t know how to discuss much with all the presuppositions you seem to rely on. But I think I’ve been there and understand it well enough. I just don’t buy it and find it unreasonable to buy it.

Fair enough. From my perspective, if you haven't applied the proper testing method in matters of spiritual faith, then you aren't reasonably in a position determine if you understand well enough or not, let alone if something is reasonably bought or not. It is unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

To each their own.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[dastardly stem]

I understand that is your opinion. It differs markedly from my experience. Hence, the divergence between critics and believers that I mentioned. It begs the question.

What experience do you have that qualifies you to suggest people have spirits in them? Why won't you tell the larger scientific community? If you mean you have prayed, and have had spiritual experiences how have you determined they are anything other than activity inside yourself? The mind is a mysterious thing. It certainly has demonstrated it can make people think something external is influencing them when it is not.

And, it underscores Bednar's point. The critics think faith in Christ and his gospel is unreasonable because it lacks empirical evidence via the 5 senses--i.e. physical evidence. Whereas, Bednar contends that, since the things of the spirit transcend the 5 senses, and are not physical, then in terms of spiritual faith, it is unreasonable to limit the empirical evidence to, or even look for empirical via the 5 senses.

Yes. And he's merely relying on a presupposition here--as if there is such a realm as spirit. If there is not, and we certainly do not have any reason to think there is, then it is unreasonable to think such experiences should in any sense supply knowledge or truth.

In other words, when determining the reasonableness of spiritual faith, it is unreasonable to demand that the evidence for such faith be limited to or found within the physical--just as it would be unreasonable to demand that evidence for faith in the physical should be limited to or be found within the spiritual. Reasonableness of faith in something is contingent upon the evidence relevant to the domain of that things existence--spiritual evidence for matters of spiritual faith, and physical evidence for matters of physical faith.

I think this describes it just fine. Of course it's possible there is another realm in which spirit resides, theoretically. But if there is no spirit realm, if there is no God, then all you are relying on is nothing, Is unreliable, is unverifiable, is guesswork and pretend. If no one has a useful demonstrate for a spirit realm, then it is unreasonable to think it exists.

In principle, it would be metaphorically like assessing the reasonableness of faith in Einstein's theory of the constant speed of light by restricting the evidence to what may be obtained using a car's speedometer. That would be unreasonable. Right?

I don't see how the analogy fits. We have ways to assessing the reasonableness of the constant speed of light. On what grounds are you thinking this is a good analogy to an unknowable spirit realm?

But what if Alma 32 and 10 doctrinal truths aren’t enough to demonstrate anything?

Then this would be made evident through earnestly applying the Alma 32/10 doctrinal truths process.

Ok. Done and done.

From Bednar's and my and other people's experience, it was enough to demonstrate a broad range of spiritual things.

Then demonstrate. I'd be all ears.

In principle, it would be like asking "what if the scientific method were used in relation to 10 theories of physics, and it wasn't enough to demonstrate anything?" Applying the scientific method to the 10 physics theories would be the way to find out.'

If so, then lay it out. Let's see. I don't see how your analogies are working for you at all. You are simply assuming a spirit realm and assuming your spirit can somehow interact in that realm. As I said, I won't deny that possibility, I'm simply asking for some reason to think any of this is. You can say, try it yourself...but I have. How can anyone demonstrate that any spirit experience is anything other than activity of their mind?

I don’t know how to discuss much with all the presuppositions you seem to rely on. But I think I’ve been there and understand it well enough. I just don’t buy it and find it unreasonable to buy it.

Fair enough. From my perspective, if you haven't applied the proper testing method in matters of spiritual faith, then you aren't reasonably in a position determine if you understand well enough or not, let alone if something is reasonably bought or not. It is unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

To each their own.

Thanks, Wade Englund

ok.

[sock puppet]

Is it reasonable to have faith in Jesus Christ? What are the reasons? And do those reasons fall in the realm of rational?

Those talks by Bednar that were critiqued by RFM and BYP make me wonder if Bednar has an explanation that deems faith in Jesus Christ as reasonable. I'm skeptical that he'd have good reasons. But does anyone? It seems to me anytime we invoke faith as the reason we are simply tracing a circle in our reasoning. Can we really escape that circle for things that are claimed by faith?

If you are talking about faith in JC being a literal being that (a) was the Only Begotten of Elohim, a man with super, even "god" powers, (b) himself became a god, (c) atoned for everyone's sins, and (d) resurrected after being actually dead for about 36 hours, then no, I do not think that faith is rational.

If you are talking about an identity (JC) that if we rally around, practice the golden rule, etc. makes us more civic towards our fellow human beings, it serves a social purpose. There are practical reasons for that kind of faith that belief in JC will make our lives better.

[huckelberry]

You sound as though some scientist is tracking and documenting my complete cognitive process. Maybe in star trek five or six.

I suppose an mri might find that tumor.

They actually are. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/Brian Laundrie ... -thinking/

Rivendale, I went to your link and found at least some interest there.
the following stood out some:
"The Hard Problem is the nature of qualia, the subjective experiences associated with conscious events. “Seeing red” is part of the Easy Problem, “experiencing the redness of red” is part of the Hard Problem. No matter how well we might someday understand the connectivity of neurons or the laws of physics governing the particles and forces of which our brains are made, how can collections of such cells or particles ever be said to have an experience of “what it is like” to feel something?

These questions have been debated to death, and I don’t have anything especially novel to contribute to discussions of how the brain works. What I can do is suggest that (1) the emergence of concepts like “thinking” and “experiencing” and “consciousness” as useful ways of talking about macroscopic collections of matter should be no more surprising than the emergence of concepts like “temperature” and “pressure”; and (2) our understanding of those underlying laws of physics is so incredibly solid and well-established that there should be an enormous presumption against modifying them in some important way just to account for a phenomenon (consciousness) which is admittedly one of the most subtle and complex things we’ve encountered. in the world.

My suspicion is that the Hard Problem won’t be “solved,” it will just gradually fade away as we understand more and more about how the brain actually does work. I love this image of the magnetic fields generated in my brain as neurons squirt out charged particles, evidence of thoughts careening around my gray matter. (Taken by an MEG machine in David Poeppel’s lab at NYU.) It’s not evidence of anything surprising — not even the most devoted mind-body dualist is reluctant to admit that things happen in the brain while you are thinking — but it’s a vivid illustration of how closely our mental processes are associated with the particles and forces of elementary physics."
/////////////////my thought:.
I do not know for sure but it is possible that all of our self, awareness and thinking, is physical process. Our mind and body are part of the same thing, one whole. I am aware that a good deal of mapping of our brain for various experience and thought has been done. Different sorts of mental states can be seen by patterns of brain activity. I do not think there is anything there which could determine whether a brain activity was influenced by God on some particular moment. I gather you suspect the physicality of our thought would make it unreasonable to think a spiritual source could influence our thought. I am unsure how much more I can say of that other than I find I do not share that view but whatever I think of it falls into an area with uncertainty.

[Rivendale]

They actually are. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/Brian Laundrie ... -thinking/

Rivendale, I went to your link and found at least some interest there.
the following stood out some:
"The Hard Problem is the nature of qualia, the subjective experiences associated with conscious events. “Seeing red” is part of the Easy Problem, “experiencing the redness of red” is part of the Hard Problem. No matter how well we might someday understand the connectivity of neurons or the laws of physics governing the particles and forces of which our brains are made, how can collections of such cells or particles ever be said to have an experience of “what it is like” to feel something?

These questions have been debated to death, and I don’t have anything especially novel to contribute to discussions of how the brain works. What I can do is suggest that (1) the emergence of concepts like “thinking” and “experiencing” and “consciousness” as useful ways of talking about macroscopic collections of matter should be no more surprising than the emergence of concepts like “temperature” and “pressure”; and (2) our understanding of those underlying laws of physics is so incredibly solid and well-established that there should be an enormous presumption against modifying them in some important way just to account for a phenomenon (consciousness) which is admittedly one of the most subtle and complex things we’ve encountered. in the world.

My suspicion is that the Hard Problem won’t be “solved,” it will just gradually fade away as we understand more and more about how the brain actually does work. I love this image of the magnetic fields generated in my brain as neurons squirt out charged particles, evidence of thoughts careening around my gray matter. (Taken by an MEG machine in David Poeppel’s lab at NYU.) It’s not evidence of anything surprising — not even the most devoted mind-body dualist is reluctant to admit that things happen in the brain while you are thinking — but it’s a vivid illustration of how closely our mental processes are associated with the particles and forces of elementary physics."
/////////////////my thought:.
I do not know for sure but it is possible that all of our self, awareness and thinking, is physical process. Our mind and body are part of the same thing, one whole. I am aware that a good deal of mapping of our brain for various experience and thought has been done. Different sorts of mental states can be seen by patterns of brain activity. I do not think there is anything there which could determine whether a brain activity was influenced by God on some particular moment. I gather you suspect the physicality of our thought would make it unreasonable to think a spiritual source could influence our thought. I am unsure how much more I can say of that other than I find I do not share that view but whatever I think of it falls into an area with uncertainty.

If someone could demonstrate how immaterial things interact with material things that would be something. As it is we have a fairly good understanding of the chemical process that go into thought processes including chemical gradients and neuron firing. As Sean Carroll has said

Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV. The questions are these: what form does that spirit energy take, and how does it interact with our ordinary atoms? Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can’t be a new collection of “spirit particles” and “spirit forces” that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments. Ockham’s razor is not on your side here, since you have to posit a completely new realm of reality obeying very different rules than the ones we know.

Current understanding of physics makes this mental model guided by soul energy untenable. But there is hope. Maybe spirit matter obeys a completely new kind of physics we don't understand.

[huckelberry]

Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV. The questions are these: what form does that spirit energy take, and how does it interact with our ordinary atoms?

Current understanding of physics makes this mental model guided by soul energy untenable. But there is hope. Maybe spirit matter obeys a completely new kind of physics we don't understand.

Rivendale, I am familiar of course with this idea of a human soul or spirit. I do not think it fits observation of how human experience and thought works. Simple observations about how physical bodily conditions effect thought should be strong evidence. That could be food lack or excess, hormonal influences, adrenaline, drugs or alcohol, all of which point to a mind body unity.

I believe I gave up as unrealistic and aesthetically unpleasant the soul image noted here around 1968. It is not that I have never reconsidered, I do not think I know all about it.I might add I do not see how physics adds much to the question. You would need a material something you could measure and track to get physics involved I think.