Agnostic Actualization vs. Simple Faith

[Anonymous]

So here is a thought that both helps me find meaning in my own religious expression and fosters a compassionate, valuing outlook on the perhaps “simple” faith of others.

However we explain spiritual experiences, they *happen*. Religion *works*. People really are healed through faith and ministration. People have dreams and visions, occasionally very dramatic. People receive guidance they feel is beyond themselves all the time. Positive thinking, the placebo effect, the relationship between mind and body… these connections can explain some of these “miracles” to a degree, but not all and not fully. I think there is something more going on, some connection or influence we do not yet understand. For me, this is the realm of the spiritual, the transcendent.

So here is the question: What level of enlightenment would it take for an agnostic to achieve the same benefits as these “simple” believers? I believe in the power of the mind, visualization, etc. I am open to someone focusing the powers of meditation and other disciplines to say, heal herself from cancer. But what percentage of people, even the most aware and actualized, could accomplish what many believers experience daily?

There are disadvantages to religion of course, but the overarching command to love each other truly and live responsibly should take care of many of those.

As I wrestle with how best to deal with difficult issues that could potentially destroy faith, I remember this. I remember the inexplicable but real benefits of faith and religion. And this is just one category, not to mention the peace and morality and other benefits gained from religion.

[Anonymous]

Yes, very good points Enoch. These are some of the reasons that I stay in the church for me.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Enoch wrote:

What level of enlightenment would it take for an agnostic to achieve the same benefits as these “simple” believers?

I think I disagree with your usage of the term ‘agnostic’, but I know what you mean by it.

Here’s where I get confused. If you were to ask a believing, religious person, they would say, I think, that an ‘agnostic’ (humanist? deist? buddhist? … ) approach to actualization misses crucial elements (for instance, faith in Christ), and that therefore while such an approach might be beneficial, it can never lead to the same place that can be achieved by a fully faithful and believing Christian, or, in our case, Mormon. And on the other hand, the claim that one can achieve that same level of fulfillment, enlightenment, or whatever it is we want to call it, implies that the Christian’s faith is merely a crutch, and that while it’s a positive force, it is ultimately unnecessary.

This, of course, fails to take into account the differences between individuals, but it seems to me that there will always be this conflict between the two approaches. Condescension on the one hand, pity or disdain on the other.

[Anonymous]

Great great thoughts, and well-said. I argue this point all the time with folks, those more intensely in disaffection or their own faith deconstruction. We are quick to dismiss spiritual experiences when we are trying to sort things out from our new perspective.

What is the cause? Really, nobody knows. Nobody has ever known. Is it a brain chemical / evolutionary and psychological manifestation or is it of divine origin? Is it true or made up? We don’t know.

What we DO know is that these things happen to all kinds of people (epic figures like “prophets” and everyday people), all the time, all throughout history. It is a part of humanity: spiritual experiences, dreams, visions, intuitions, visitations, revelations, brilliant insights from seemingly nowhere. I know there aren’t scientific, double-blind studies for miracles and healings … but they happen.

I don’t know why. I don’t know for sure how. But I have a really hard time feeling like I am being “reasonable” and “objective” if I personally deny these things happen. They have happened to me.

So my main question for myself is this — how do I integrate this into making meaning in my life?

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

We are quick to dismiss spiritual experiences when we are trying to sort things out from our new perspective.

I know I am guilty of this, and I guess it’s good to know that I’m not the only one. I’m getting better (again) at accepting that there is a place for these things in my view of what’s ‘real’.

I think I have been more likely to ‘accept’ spiritual experiences from those outside the church. Probably part of the reason is that those in the church invariably use them as proof that the church is ‘true’. Once I begin to accept them just as an indication that God operates in people’s lives, things tend to calm down. I was going to add that I think these sorts of things ought to be kept more private, but now I’m not so sure.

[Anonymous]

Great questions, Enoch.

Doug said something that I want to address in response to the overall question – and to highlight what I think is THE central paradox of Mormonism:

Quote:

Here’s where I get confused. If you were to ask a believing, religious person, they would say, I think, that an ‘agnostic’ (humanist? deist? buddhist? … ) approach to actualization misses crucial elements (for instance, faith in Christ), and that therefore while such an approach might be beneficial, it can never lead to the same place that can be achieved by a fully faithful and believing Christian, or, in our case, Mormon. And on the other and, the claim that one can achieve that same level of fulfillment, enlightenment, or whatever it is we want to call it, implies that the Christian’s faith is merely a crutch, and that while it’s a positive force, it is ultimately unnecessary.

The thing is that offiical Mormon theology says exactly that – that, ultimately, faith in Christ in this life is unnecessary – that those who die without even having heard of Jesus, much less have faith in him, can be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom and be blessed exactly as those who knew, accepted and strove to follow Christ to the best of their ability their entire lives. Mormonism teaches the ultimate 11th-hour-worker compensation plan (from Jesus’ parable of those who were paid exactly the same no matter how long they labored).

As I’ve said in another thread recently, the central issue is that we tend to be very liberal in our application of that universal grace when it comes to how we view “others” and much more conservative when it comes to “our own”. We tend to accept that “they” will have a true opportunity in the next life, while believing that “we” have our chance here and now and won’t have any other opportunity there and then.

It keeps most people’s heads from exploding, which is a good thing overall for them.

I just don’t buy it. I believe the core teaching of Mormonism really is much more universalist than most members realize – that it transcends our mortal understanding and is FAR more liberal and gracious than we tend to realize. Therefore, I believe “agnostic actualization” can be exactly like “believing faith” in its ultimate outcome – as long as it is actualizing what we would term as “Christlike” character growth. If someone is becoming like God, they are becoming like God – no matter what they call themselves and the process through which they are becoming.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

I think I have been more likely to ‘accept’ spiritual experiences from those outside the church. Probably part of the reason is that those in the church invariably use them as proof that the church is ‘true’. Once I begin to accept them just as an indication that God operates in people’s lives, things tend to calm down.

I am the same way, Doug. I have a hard time when try to convince me of the truth of the church based on some experience they have had. If I can step back and say “This happened to them because God loves them just as he loves others” then I am Ok with it. If only some of those would realize that others have spiritual experiences even if they are outside of the church.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

If someone is becoming like God, they are becoming like God – no matter what they call themselves and the process through which they are becoming.

Wow, excellent! Thanks for that!

Butters wrote:

I have a hard time when try to convince me of the truth of the church based on some experience they have had.

I hear you. I am frustrated by the same sorts of things. Actually, I might use the word “saddened.” I am sorry that they feel so much trauma about the need to get others to see things exactly like they do. I wish more people could adapt the idea that revelation is personal, it is not meant to convince others. It is for them to cherish for themselves. I would hope it could bring them more peace and understanding of others on their individual journeys.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I am sorry that they feel so much trauma about the need to get others to see things exactly like they do. I wish more people could adapt the idea that revelation is personal, it is not meant to convince others. It is for them to cherish for themselves. I would hope it could bring them more peace and understanding of others on their individual journeys.

I agree – but we should remember that it’s a two-edged sword. It’s a bit hypocritical to condemn zealotry in a zealous manner.

That more traditional member who tries to convince everyone else they simply MUST have the Church in their lives NOW is no different conceptually than the heterodox member (or ex-member) who tries to convince everyone else that they simply MUSN’T have the Church in their lives NOW. The scale also slides proportionately on each side.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

That the more traditional member who tries to convince everyone else they simply MUST have the Church in their lives NOW is no different conceptually than the heterodox member (or ex-member) who tries to convince everyone else that they simply MUSN’T have the Church in their lives NOW. The scale also slides proportionately on each side.

Yes, I agree completely. As you said, as long as people are truly improving themselves – or seeking goodness – they need to have the freedom to pursue their own revelations.

[Anonymous]

Enoch wrote:

…However we explain spiritual experiences, they *happen*. Religion *works*. People really are healed through faith and ministration. People have dreams and visions, occasionally very dramatic. People receive guidance they feel is beyond themselves all the time. Positive thinking, the placebo effect, the relationship between mind and body… these connections can explain some of these “miracles” to a degree, but not all and not fully. I think there is something more going on, some connection or influence we do not yet understand. For me, this is the realm of the spiritual, the transcendent…So here is the question: What level of enlightenment would it take for an agnostic to achieve the same benefits as these “simple” believers? …But what percentage of people, even the most aware and actualized, could accomplish what many believers experience daily? …As I wrestle with how best to deal with difficult issues that could potentially destroy faith, I remember this. I remember the inexplicable but real benefits of faith and religion. And this is just one category, not to mention the peace and morality and other benefits gained from religion.

Personally, I think many atheists and agnostics will never see the light no matter what experiences they have. For example, if they see a ghost they will probably interpret it as a hallucination because that’s what they already expect to be the case ahead of time. I would rather just let them believe what they want to and not try to change their mind as long as they don’t expect me to believe the same thing too because it’s not going to happen. That’s the main disagreement I have with them; in many cases they start to act like it is absolutely not acceptable to believe anything different than they do.

Even if some popular beliefs actually are a complete myth that doesn’t necessarily mean they are bad for people to believe in. If it makes people feel better or behave better to believe these things than they would if they were to abandon the beliefs and the overall results in the local society are mostly positive or neutral then I see no good reason whatsoever to try to eradicate the beliefs over some obsessive conviction about what is supposedly true or not. Of course, this kind of cost-benefit analysis is tricky to evaluate in a case like Mormonism because the costs are so high in terms of time, money, and strict rules the Church is asking for that it is debatable whether the benefits are really worth it on average.

To be honest, I just don’t believe the hard-core atheist metaphysical assumption that science can adequately explain everything we see. For example, if the brain is basically just an “evolved” computer made out of meat and all mental processes are supposedly entirely contained within it then this theory just doesn’t help to explain reports of experiences that look like precognition or ESP to almost anyone that hasn’t already made up their mind that this is supposed to be impossible. In some cases the odds against chance of coincidences like this are astronomical but these experiences keep happening anyway. I fully expect most skeptics to continue to dismiss these experiences simply because they can’t be replicated on demand but that doesn’t make their alternative explanations for them very convincing either.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Personally, I think many atheists and agnostics will never see the light no matter what experiences they have. For example, if they see a ghost they will probably interpret it as a hallucination because that’s what they already expect to be the case ahead of time.

I think part of the problem here is simplification. We as humans tend to simplify the world in order to understand it. A billion random variables don’t sit well with us and so we come up with a framework to conceptualize it. I like the term “assumptive reality” for this framework because it self discloses that this framework is based upon assumptions. Having such a framework is generally required to be a happy, contributing member of society.

In your example the Atheist has an assumptive reality that assumes that ghosts don’t exist.

The religious or spiritual type may have an assumptive reality that assumes an afterlife and therefore a spiritual presence for deceased persons.

When the stock market goes up or down – pundits try to extrapolate a cause. If causes can be known then these things can be regularly predicted. Unfortunately so much depends on chance and that brings us back to the billion random variables. Even when we try to dissect what happened in the past economy- we can’t fully understand. We can so often only reach our best approximation (or even imitation) of understanding. How much less accurate are we at predicting these events?

If market forces and individual investor behavior muddy the waters of “cause and effect”, It gets much more complicated when we move back to theology and we attempt to understand our place in time, space, and relevance amongst a billion (or perhaps trillion, is gazillion still a word?) random variables.

If I have included generalizations/simplifications in this post- I can’t help it, my brain is just wired that way. We are prone to our weaknesses even in attempting to describe our weaknesses. :crazy:

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I think part of the problem here is simplification. We as humans tend to simplify the world in order to understand it. A billion random variables don’t sit well with us and so we come up with a framework to conceptualize it. I like the term “assumptive reality” for this framework because it self discloses that this framework is based upon assumptions…When the stock market goes up or down – pundits try to extrapolate a cause. If causes can be known then these things can be regularly predicted. Unfortunately so much depends on chance and that brings us back to the billion random variables. Even when we try to dissect what happened in the past economy- we can’t fully understand. We can so often only reach our best approximation (or even imitation) of understanding…

Exactly, to me it is atheism and agnosticism that both look like an oversimplification and faith is about being open-minded to consider more possibilities. On the other hand, I would consider continuing to believe in something that depends too much on ignorance or denial of contradictory evidence as more of a delusion than any kind of worthwhile faith (Luke 8:17). Myths like this are a shaky foundation to try to build on over the long run even if they are comforting to people as long as they can continue to believe in them. What happens when the myth is exposed? I’m not so sure that any positive results produced by some of the worst myths are really worth the overall pain they cause when they inevitably fail. That’s why I think some religious leaders should be more careful about the claims they make.

[Anonymous]

As an avowed agnostic I have to put in my two cents. Agnosticism is the position that the true, ultimate nature of things is unknown and likely unknowable. In that sense, I don’t see agnosticism as an oversimplification. Any other position requires one to either confirm or deny the existence of God (and a whole bunch of other things), and my brain won’t allow me to do either. Accepting that I can never objectively know anything about God does simplify things, in a sense, because it provides another place to file things. Unfortunately the ‘I don’t know’ file is getting pretty full. I am astonished from time to time when I note the things that once seemed obvious to me that I no longer have any attachment to, and it makes me wonder where I am heading.

All this talk about markets reminds me of a quote from Peter Lynch who quipped that if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything. I think I have been trying to set the ‘data’ free to see where it leads, not in the expectation that I will find ultimate truth, but just that maybe I will find something that works for me. So far the experiment has been mostly successful. Most people don’t think that way, and pretty much all of my difficulties are due to the incongruity of trying to interact effectively with those people.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Most people don’t think that way, and pretty much all of my difficulties are due to the incongruity of trying to interact effectively with those people.

Pretty much sums up the issue for a lot of people with regard to a lot of things.

[Author]

Posts