If religion is man made, is there a better way?

[Anonymous]

I find the discussions on this website to be paradoxical. Growing up LDS, I believed in the Church as being not only true, but real. I didn’t view so many aspects of the gospel as metaphorical; I didn’t try and reconcile my beliefs with science; I didn’t know about the contradictions or the censored history. I had a system of belief that I believe tied in well with main stream, orthodox Mormon thought. Yet on this website, I find the discussions and explanations efforts to fight reality. Once I became aware of–and read–much of the Church’s beginnings from non-censored sources, I began to doubt the Church’s reality. From there, I steadily progressed toward’s agnosticism as I’ve read a lot about the beginnings of Christianity, and the links of earlier belief systems that contribute to the Christianity of today. With advances in various fields of science, the idea that religion offers a take on reality seems minute, and the idea that religion isn’t man made seems unlikely, it was a way to explain things when science couldn’t. Just as no one seriously believes in Greek and Roman Gods anymore–the idea seems preposterous to most sane people–many people are beginning to feel that way about the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

The more that I study, and the longer that I view religion from this point of view, the more the idea that religion is valuable continues to decrease. It seems like science continues to encroach on religion, making more and more religious viewpoints seem outdated and false. Yet many of you are trying to still believe by loosening the terms of truth, reality, etc. Why? Why when it seems so obvious that Joseph isn’t what he claimed to be? There are numerous Church statements by Prophets & Apostles laying it all at the feet of Joseph, either he’s a fraud and this Church is basically a waste of time, or he actually experienced the things the modern Church claims he did and it’s true. There isn’t room for hoop jumping or loop holes with statements like that, and if one accepts the idea that the Mormon Church is Joseph’s creation, then what is it’s value? Not only that, but once one starts to view Mormonism as a man-made thing, then the odds that another Church is “real” seem much less likely (there histories are even more jacked up than Mormonism.)

My ultimate point is that for those of us who believe Joseph made the Church up and wrote the Book of Mormon, and find ourselves basically agnostic, is fighting so hard to fit a square into a circle of value, or is a different mode of belief better? For society in general as well; is a belief system based more on what we can prove, a more rational system, a better way? Is a society like this even possible? I guess some Western European Countries are close to this, and from a variety of societal statistics, they seem to be doing much better than America–one of the most religious societies on the planet. There are numerous humanistic organizations that are highly altruistic and moral, without a belief in the supernnatural as the driving force.They choose to help there fellow man because of ideas like the Golden Rule, not because of a belief in eternal rewards for their service. Isn’t that more altruistic, ultimately? I really believe that in many ways, human beings would be better off without religion–in the end, the minuses outweigh the pluses. That’s my view right now, even though I still go to Church every week and live a very Mormon lifestyle (for family reasons).

[Anonymous]

I have asked myself similar questions. If I came to the point where I needed to leave the church, I am sure I wouldn’t join any other.

But, in answering the questions, I found that I couldn’t argue with the value that I do see and have experienced as I have participated in religion. I think that there is much good in the world and many people serving out of kindness and good will through out the world. I agree that religion doesn’t necessarily have a corner on the market when it comes to good works. But I guess I see religion as more that just a way to get people to serve others. I think, at least in the mormon world, goals to elevate the understanding and spiritual capacities of the members….to literally change who they are and how they function in the world and in my estimation those changes can’t be made without the influence of a God. It is clear that charity for example (which is greater than love….more than service) is a gift of God. And I cannot deny that scripture study has had a tremendous impact on how I live and the kind of choices I make when I am wronged by someone or when I find myself feeling and acting selfishly. And then there is the whole thing about having a relationship with God and then a commitment to follow. Is there value in that? I think yes. I certainly have been blessed my life because of my commitment. I have seen miracles and felt guidance. I don’t think a civic or corporate organization can produce those things in the lives of individuals and then in groups.

So, while I see value in community groups and the good they produce, not to mention the goodness I see in agnostic and atheist friends, I cannot dismiss the value of religion. And even as I have questioned JSmith as a prophet and the legitmacy of the restoration, I can’t deny the knowing in my heart that there is a God and that He wants more for me and from me than good works. Even if I did walk away from the church, I would have to come to terms with that knowledge.

Is there a better medium for people to come face to face with themselves, to be challenged and stretched, to be humbled and changed? If there is a better mechanism, I’d like to take a look at it.

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

I find the discussions on this website to be paradoxical.

Many things in life are paradoxical. Try to reconcile these conundrums:

Free will vs. order and safety

Mobs vs. the wisdom of the crowd

etc. etc.

My point is that there are tons of paradoxes in life.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Growing up LDS, I believed in the Church as being not only true, but real. I didn’t view so many aspects of the gospel as metaphorical; I didn’t try and reconcile my beliefs with science; I didn’t know about the contradictions or the censored history. I had a system of belief that I believe tied in well with main stream, orthodox Mormon thought.

Me too.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Yet on this website, I find the discussions and explanations efforts to fight reality.

Maybe you haven’t talked to the right person yet. Or maybe you’re still too literal in thought. This is one thing I thought when I was going through disaffection. I often wondered how people could, on the one hand, act so rational in every day life, but in their religious life be so gullible. I have a different view of it now.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Once I became aware of–and read–much of the Church’s beginnings from non-censored sources, I began to doubt the Church’s reality. From there, I steadily progressed toward’s agnosticism as I’ve read a lot about the beginnings of Christianity, and the links of earlier belief systems that contribute to the Christianity of today. With advances in various fields of science, the idea that religion offers a take on reality seems minute, and the idea that religion isn’t man made seems unlikely, it was a way to explain things when science couldn’t. Just as no one seriously believes in Greek and Roman Gods anymore–the idea seems preposterous to most sane people–many people are beginning to feel that way about the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

I’m right there with ya. No need to beat around the bush here. You’re preaching to the choir. For an example of how I deal with this with regard to prayer, check out this post I made at mormonmatters.org just recently. http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/22/is-prayer-about-god/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/22/is-prayer-about-god/

wordsleuth23 wrote:

The more that I study, and the longer that I view religion from this point of view, the more the idea that religion is valuable continues to decrease.

Is your definition of “valuable” the only one that counts?

wordsleuth23 wrote:

It seems like science continues to encroach on religion, making more and more religious viewpoints seem outdated and false.

Like what? Are we talking about geophysical things, biological, physics related, chemical? What? Since I don’t esteem the method of “revelation” as a reliable mechanism to tell me things about the natural world in which I live, why would I believe anything that religion says about them? Do you believe that religion and science are just different mechanisms for finding out the same things? Dang, I sure don’t!! That seems absurd. I know many people do it, but it doesn’t work for me.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Yet many of you are trying to still believe by loosening the terms of truth, reality, etc. Why?

I don’t think religion is worthless. I think it has value. Once again, I don’t consider it religion’s job to tell me things about physical reality. I think its job is to tell me about spirituality. If it does and I get benefit from it, it has value to me. Having said that, the cultural definitions of words that exist in Mormonism is very skewed. “True” seems to mean “believe” or “have faith that.” “Blessings” are often confused with coincidence, and correlation is often taken as causation. Note though that these things are hardly unique to Mormonism. Take a look at U.S. politics. Who confuses correlation with causation more than U.S. politics? As hawkgrrrl said in another post “For a stage 3 faith, “true” usually means applying a “factual” definition of truth to things that are more like principles.” Is this what truth means?

What does “true” mean to you? Let’s talk science. Do you believe that Maxwell’s equations are “true”? If true means “no error” then I can prove they’re not true. If “true” means that it coincides with reality in the best way we know how, then sure Maxwell’s equations are true. My point is that if we think that science doesn’t have error then we are fooling ourselves. I don’t know your station in life, but have you ever read a scientific paper? In virtually every scientific paper I’ve read there’s an error term accompanying any hypothesis or equation. This is an admission of imperfection. I’m using the term “science” loosely here. I’m really talking about the fruits of science. Science, meaning the method of science is absolutely brilliant, and very reliable, and it produces results that describe our observable world far far better than religion. But it’s still not perfect. Is religion’s goal to coincide with, or describe observable reality? Not in my book. So why would I judge their truthfulness by the same standard?

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Why when it seems so obvious that Joseph isn’t what he claimed to be?

Have you ever heard of the “Black Swan” concept by Nassim Nicholas Taleb? The idea here is that life is a game of probabilities. Most of the time nothing interesting happens, or rather, the “normal” thing happens. But it turns out that our world is shaped by the outliers, not the generalities. Think of it like a gaussian random variable. Most of the time, in fact 99.7% of the time, everything happens within 3 standard deviations of the mean. But sometimes something happens outside of that. Those are the interesting things. The hard part is being able to tell when an event is a “Black Swan,” and when it’s just plain false. For this, we have a plethora of decision making tools to help us combat our psychological decision making problems. Things like analysis of competing hypotheses for example. I agree with you that there is plenty of evidence that suggests that Joseph is not what he claimed to be. But as I’ve said, to say that with complete certainty is simply ignorant.

As a side note, what exactly did Joseph claim to be? I don’t think he claimed himself near what our current leaders claim him to be. But what they claim shouldn’t have bearing on what he himself claimed.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

There are numerous Church statements by Prophets & Apostles laying it all at the feet of Joseph, either he’s a fraud and this Church is basically a waste of time, or he actually experienced the things the modern Church claims he did and it’s true.

I must say that I couldn’t care less what prophets and apostles say on the issue. Why would I allow them to dictate the terms on which I accept or reject the church? If Darwin claimed that his theory proved there is no God, but turned out to be wrong, does that mean the rest of Darwin’s work and theories are worthless?

wordsleuth23 wrote:

There isn’t room for hoop jumping or loop holes with statements like that,

Says who? Once again the leaders of this church do not dictate to me my relationship with the church (unless they decide to excommunicate me).

wordsleuth23 wrote:

and if one accepts the idea that the Mormon Church is Joseph’s creation, then what is it’s value?

Well, we’ve come full circle, and I think I’ve explained how it has value. It has value to me because I’ve devoted my life to it whether its claims are literally true or not. If Mormonism helps me to be a better person, it has value to me. I stay in large measure for this exact reason. I love to be amongst Mormons, even though I don’t always agree with them. And I love to serve people. It makes me feel good, and Mormonism provides plenty of opportunities to serve others.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Not only that, but once one starts to view Mormonism as a man-made thing, then the odds that another Church is “real” seem much less likely (there histories are even more jacked up than Mormonism.)

Sure. Do you feel you need to join another religion. I sure don’t. I can work out my spirituality on my own between me and Christ (whether Christ is metaphorical or not).

wordsleuth23 wrote:

My ultimate point is that for those of us who believe Joseph made the Church up and wrote the Book of Mormon, and find ourselves basically agnostic, is fighting so hard to fit a square into a circle of value, or is a different mode of belief better?

Now this is a good question. I doubt many on this site will try to convince you to stay LDS. swimordie’s not anymore and he seems to do pretty well. And I’ve met atheists who were spiritual but certainly areligious. Maybe a different mode of belief is better. For me it’s convenient to stay, and I don’t think it’s dishonest (I know some people have an issue with this). I stay because I think spirituality is important for me. I have meditation to be extremely useful. I’m sure it’s all psychological, but I don’t really care. When I say spiritual, I mean that in a metaphorical way. It may or may not be that we actually have a spirit. In either case, many things deemed spiritual affect us psychologically, and even physically. Also, as I’ve said, Mormonism produces great people, and I find that serving among them is a great way for me to enrich my life. I view those in church who say things at which I roll my eyes as sojourners just like me and just like you.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

For society in general as well; is a belief system based more on what we can prove, a more rational system, a better way? Is a society like this even possible? I guess some Western European Countries are close to this, and from a variety of societal statistics, they seem to be doing much better than America–one of the most religious societies on the planet.

Well, I liken this a bit to Star Trek. Do we really want to be Vulcan? Do we want to be Romulan? I think right now we (especially in America) could use a bit more Vulcan, but I wouldn’t want to be completely Vulcan. As for others, I wouldn’t be too quick to point out the strong points of Scandinavia and compare them with our weak points. Since I view taxation as socially acceptable (but still wrong) theft, and I have serious moral problems with universal health care, and things of that ilk, I don’t really think they’re that much better off than we are. Just different, with a different set of problems. But I’d like to see more research done on happiness in the two countries. But let’s not turn this into a political debate.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

There are numerous humanistic organizations that are highly altruistic and moral, without a belief in the supernnatural as the driving force.They choose to help there fellow man because of ideas like the Golden Rule, not because of a belief in eternal rewards for their service. Isn’t that more altruistic, ultimately?

Yes, it is. I agree with you that we should do things for the right reasons. And I’ve argued that on this site before as well. The thing is, everyone here agrees.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

I really believe that in many ways, human beings would be better off without religion–in the end, the minuses outweigh the pluses. That’s my view right now, even though I still go to Church every week and live a very Mormon lifestyle (for family reasons).

Look, I hate to call you on this, but this is total speculation. Can you prove it? Neither can anyone else. The thing is, especially if you’re a humanist, religion was created by man. Hence, there is something to be said about it from an evolutionary point of view. It has served a purpose in humanity. It might be that it is wearing out its usefulness, but maybe not. Until someone can demonstrate to me that it’s not needed, that we’re better off without it, I will be of the opinion that it serves some purpose, since it was invented for some reason.

[Anonymous]

jmb, thanks for saving me some typing! LOL I could have written half of it (not the science part).

I feel that our mythology means more to me now that I am able to view it in a non-literal way. Does the story of Job have to be historical for it to be true? I don’t believe so. It can still instruct us. I actually like it better when it is viewed symbolically.

Have you read The Power of Myth? It is a great book and I highly recommend it. It talks about how important myths are to civilizations and how we need them. I really think it is sad that people don’t see value in myths anymore.

I love paradox now. It is fascinating how two opposite statements can be true! Yes, true! They are puzzles for our minds and we will be astonished when we work them out.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

Maybe you haven’t talked to the right person yet. Or maybe you’re still too literal in thought. This is one thing I thought when I was going through disaffection. I often wondered how people could, on the one hand, act so rational in every day life, but in their religious life be so gullible…..

I guess in many ways, this is exactly how I feel. It’s also how most scientists–the “hard” sciences–feel. Believing what we can empirically confirm seems like the most “rational” way to believe. I guess I’ve used the wrong term for myself, I’m a naturalist, not an agnostic. Liberal interpretaions of religion may work for progressive, educated people, but they protect religion in its most fundamental, harmful forms. How do we reconcile the problems fundamental religious views cause our society? I guess the best way to sum up my current view of religion is to read Sam Harris–The End of Faith & Letter To A Christian Nation.

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 said,I really believe that in many ways, human beings would be better off without religion–in the end, the minuses outweigh the pluses. That’s my view right now, even though I still go to Church every week and live a very Mormon lifestyle (for family reasons).

I am inactive but still a believer, wordsleuth go’es to church for family reasons and is not a beliver, in fact he believes the minuses outweigh the pluses. If I were to lose my confidence in the restoration it would create a black empty hole that could not be filled by anything else. I know many people who have replaced a belief in God with science or simply with a powerfull dose of unbelief. And I believe a light has been turned off that used to light them from within, but the wattage was so low they don’t know one was ever on, so it’s not missed.

Most of them that I have known become angry people and on many levels fight what they formally believed. They often become missionaries for their new unbelief system. They don’t seem to love their new unbelief system, but they seem to know what it is they hate. I often wonder where and how they gained this testimony that feeds their new unbelief system. The world has as many non-religious beliefs as their are religions. One web page said their were 10.000 major christian religions and 33.000 christian denominations, it did not explain the differance between the two.

I think it is as important as ever to try to discover if there is a God or not. I have found that people who believe in God seem to be happier people than those who do not. And I think that happiness for the sake of happiness is a worthwhile objective. I know I could not replace my belief system with anything better, except to increase the belief with more belief.

[Anonymous]

word sleuth said, I guess in many ways, this is exactly how I feel. It’s also how most scientists–the “hard” sciences–feel. Believing what we can empirically confirm seems like the most “rational” way to believe.

Einstein was an agnostic till the day he died. Yet he learned enough to realize that their was an old one behind the workings of the universe, old one was his term for god.

The seven main scientists who founded quantum mechanics knew that science could only serve to give answers to the physical universe, and that it left unanswered questions about mind, as apart from the brain, it could not answer questions about the spiritual, about God. Those seven, each in their own way were mystics, they knew their was so much that science cannot touch. For example they cannot answer this question: it is the mind or spirit that thinks, not the brain or pysical body. Science cannot explain consciousness, which is the same as saying they cannot prove or disprove if man has a spirit living inside the body, only the mystical (religion) can do that.

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

How do we reconcile the problems fundamental religious views cause our society?

OK. I think here you have distilled the core question. “What do I do with the knowledge that my religious community has pervasive ideas that cause problems in society?” And here is my answer: My mission, should I choose to accept it, and should I have enough love to fullfil it, is to stick with my religion, let my righteousness exceed that of the scribes and pharisees, see the Father, and change my religious community as I change myself.

I respect those who believe that the world will be a better place if they leave LDS-ism. I respect those who believe that LDS-ism is the answer to all the world’s problems. And I choose to think perhaps LDS-ism and the world (and I) will be best off if I can pull off a loyal, lifelong, faithful, subversive marathon. And that will sure be a lot easier if I can again enjoy LDS-ism unreservedly, assuming it can be done with personal forward movement. And that’s what I think this site is about.

Tom Haws

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

It’s also how most scientists–the “hard” sciences–feel.

Once again, if you are going to insist upon such certain claims, then I must call you on your speculation. If you are going to make such claims, please provide evidence. I work in a nuclear physics national laboratory, and I would not necessarily agree with this.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Believing what we can empirically confirm seems like the most “rational” way to believe.

Again, it depends what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the observable world then I agree. If we’re talking about what’s impossible to know in this life then does it matter at all what we believe, or by what method we come to know it (as long as we don’t force it on others)? One of science’s greatest mechanisms is falsifiability. Religion lacks such a mechanism, making it less reliable in terms of conventional “proofs.” But if the test of something’s truthfulness is in how it makes a person feel, then maybe there is truth in religion after all. If religion makes claims about the natural world that contradict good science, I will try to find metaphorical meaning in it. Religion is not a mechanism for determining truth about observable reality. It’s a mechanism for helping you spiritually. If it doesn’t do that, then get rid of it. If it does, hold on to it and use it that way. I view the church as a tool.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Liberal interpretaions of religion may work for progressive, educated people, but they protect religion in its most fundamental, harmful forms.

I disagree here as well. The values that libertarian thought rest on, are the most accurate, and closest to absolute Truth, and make the fewest assumptions that I am aware. I have no problem with fundamentalist groups doing what they want, as long as they don’t trounce the rights of others, and specifically children. If they do, we have an obligation to intervene. I don’t think anyone here would argue that a violation of civil rights is okay. And if anyone, especially the state, tried to tell me that my religion needed to be abolished because the minuses outweighed the pluses, even if I haven’t violated anyone’s rights, well, let’s just say I would not go quietly. A healthy understanding of the differences of things literal and metaphorical is not an endorsement of a harmful religion. In any event I would not classify Mormonism as harmful (especially outside of the cultural nonsense found in Utah, and after we got rid of polygamy).

Besides that, a liberal interpretation of religion is a very healthy view. Would you say that a literal view of religion is better? Would you really want to abolish religion? Have we not learned anything from the USSR? Incidentally, I served my mission in Russia so I have some thoughts on what this might be like!!

wordsleuth23 wrote:

How do we reconcile the problems fundamental religious views cause our society?

We don’t. Why do we need reconciliation? People make choices, people do smart things, and people do stupid things. We allow them to choose. That’s the most honest and righteous (IMHO) way to view things. If you want to instill more rationalism in the people then preach it to them. Show them that their culture may not be what it claims, but we don’t use the law, or force to stamp out people’s choice. I have no problem with trying to instill a more healthy view of reality in fundamentalist religious group, and I don’t personally affiliate with them, but I also would not use force to dispose of them!

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

many of you are trying to still believe by loosening the terms of truth, reality, etc. Why?

Great point. I left the church a few years back from being uncomfortable with lots of church stuff, and all my research since has only lengthened the distance. Yet I still find myself wanting to defend the church somehow. Most of us are probably here for that reason. I think it’s culture, not truth, that keeps people hanging on. Jeez, you even said you still go to church, for “family reasons”, what does that say? We are trying to find a way to be attached to our roots without severing a limb. Maybe the LDS church will go the way of Judaism; a cultural thing rather than a literal working church.

So, yes, science and historicity have dampened the light of the church, and to many of us, we gotta alter our personal view of the church from what its leaders claim it to be; we justify it to ourselves. But I personally couldn’t sit in church and take sacrament with that knowledge in my head, I wonder, how can you?

[Anonymous]

Wordsleuth, when you say that the world would be better off without religion, do you mean “church”? Sometimes I do, from a historical and social perspective see that church does in fact do damage. I certainly have my own personal list. But I think the reason they do damage (and I don’t know if you are referring to the LDS church or churches in general) is because the people in them fail. They miss the point (love being the point) or they get caught up in power or control or religious shame or improper fear or even right fighting. Maybe it is the leadership that blows it..or its the people or its both. My point is that none of these things is Christlike or God like or even the best of human nature. It is evidence to me that all of us, no matter if we participate in religion or not, need more than just religion….we need a God in our lives. NOw if there isnt’ a god, then that is another matter, but I am going on the assumption that there is. I believe strongly that there is.

Sometimes I wish that I could worship or hold onto the bits of truth I do know and value and resume my relationship with God without the entanglements of dealing with the “church”. There are definitely parts of mormon society that truly make me roll my eyes or that bring tears to my heart. And I wonder a bit at what you said about people being rational in their normal lives but gullible at church. On the one hand, I think sometimes you might be right. And in that case, I wonder if these people are lazy or fearful or just simply don’t get it. On the other hand, I resent the implication because I know from personal experience that knowledge does in fact come from faith even though I can’t prove it or take it to show off at the next science fair. I think the road to personal improvement is the hardest road and the one most humans avoid. They avoid it by staying safe….rather that safety is found in not daring to question religion or in those who need every criticism to justified avoiding the pursuit.

I was sitting in church yesterday, feeling the part of me that wanted to be there and the part of me that didn’t, and trying to absorb the best out of the not so great lesson. The subject was charity and how charity, above any other doctrine, was linked to exaltation. I read a quote that even said that a person can have a misunderstanding of doctrine and still, if they have charity, be saved. That made me think about all this effort we take to dissect every corner of our history and every mistake ever made. And then to go and dissect all the deficits in church and use all of it as a great case against religion. I guess what I am saying is that maybe all these concerns we have about church and culture and truth aren’t as important as how we love and treat each other. And maybe you are right even on this front that church isn’t the most loving place on the earth. But…..I think it is suppose to be. And so I think I tend towards the idea that making myself more loving and disciplining my weaknesses is perhaps a better use of my time than all the valid criticisms my brain can identify. I mean, maybe the Lord let our history go wacky and maybe he allows our culture to be crazy just to see if we will love anyway. I am not sure I see that people get to this kind of love without adversity. So….maybe the church is doing what its designed to do. Maybe it is just us that has the choice to keep our eyes on the ball. And maybe too I am saying that the only kind of religion that really makes a proper difference is the one that happens on an individual basis on the inside of a persons being.

[Anonymous]

Poppyseed said much of what I would have said.

As a former history teacher, the thought of a religion-less world terrifies me. I don’t think it’s “religion” that is at fault; I think it’s just that unrighteous dominion in ANY organization really is the natural default of FAR too many people – and I actually see it less in the Church than I do outside of it, although I see it WAY too much in the Church, as well. (I think that it is instructive that D&C 121 includes “almost all men” – with NO exception made for religious leaders. I think most LDS leaders do a remarkable job avoiding it, but there absolutely are too many who don’t – since it is a constant temptation.)

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

wordsleuth23 wrote:

It’s also how most scientists–the “hard” sciences–feel.

Once again, if you are going to insist upon such certain claims, then I must call you on your speculation. If you are going to make such claims, please provide evidence. I work in a nuclear physics national laboratory, and I would not necessarily agree with this.

Refer to a Doctoral Dissertation titled “Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist Word-View”, by Greg Graffin. He received his Ph.D. in Evolutionary Biology from Cornell. It was published in 2006. Also refer to research by Sam Harris. Both authors were referring to members of the National Academy of Sciences in the US. jmb275, if I make claims, I’ve read something reliable and I’m referring to it. Since I’m not an academic paper here, I don’t feel the need to cite everything. Considering the statements made on this website, I’m surprised you’re calling anyone out on speculation. I’m referring to science, yet most of the statements made here belong in an Epistemology book; they are all based on speculation.

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23,

Thanks for this thread. Very interesting discussion, and thanks to the other contributors as well.

I read Sam Harris’ book “The End of Faith” last year, and really enjoyed the read. He is a gifted writer, but even so I felt by the time I hit the last chapter that he had set up an elaborate straw man, by using or defining the word ‘faith’ as he did. He used it in the sense of unjustified or ‘blind’ belief. Which I don;t believe really equates to ‘faith’. Both the Book of Mormon and the NT define it differently.

But perhaps he was just intending to preach to the secular ‘choir’ anyway—- I don’t know. In that case, it wouldn’t matter. OTOH, for a believer, he clearly missed the mark. One who believes in the Bible would be quick to say that their faith involves ‘evidence’ (Hebrews 11:1); a Mormon would emphasis that faith requires the object of that faith to be ‘true’ (Alma 32:21).

What a treat it was, though, to get to his last chapter on Mysticism. ROFL. I labeled myself a mystic back in the 90’s due to my experiences and what I found in searching for truth. There is nothing like being there! LoL.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Considering the statements made on this website, I’m surprised you’re calling anyone out on speculation. I’m referring to science, yet most of the statements made here belong in an Epistemology book; they are all based on speculation.

Proof of exclusively subjective experience must by necessity (or, nature) be different than proof of the physical. If God wanted to reveal Himself, and yet not interfere with moral agency and the operation of faith, how else could He do it? To bad we can’t answer that question to the satisfation of anyone but ourselves, but I think it well worth considering, nonetheless.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

wordsleuth23 wrote:

It’s also how most scientists–the “hard” sciences–feel.

Once again, if you are going to insist upon such certain claims, then I must call you on your speculation. If you are going to make such claims, please provide evidence. I work in a nuclear physics national laboratory, and I would not necessarily agree with this.

Refer to a Doctoral Dissertation titled “Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist Word-View”, by Greg Graffin. He received his Ph.D. in Evolutionary Biology from Cornell. It was published in 2006. Also refer to research by Sam Harris. Both authors were referring to members of the National Academy of Sciences in the US. jmb275, if I make claims, I’ve read something reliable and I’m referring to it. Since I’m not an academic paper here, I don’t feel the need to cite everything.

It’s not so much the nature of your claim, it’s the matter-of-fact certainty in which you articulate it, as if there’s no room for something else. In any event, I apologize if I’ve offended. I didn’t mean to imply you hadn’t done research or anything, as it is clear from your intro that you have.

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Considering the statements made on this website, I’m surprised you’re calling anyone out on speculation. I’m referring to science, yet most of the statements made here belong in an Epistemology book; they are all based on speculation.

Do you mean statements made by me, or made by others? I mean there’s tons of speculation on this website since we’re all searching for other interpretations. I’m only trying to point out that there may be validity to this “loosening of terms” as you called it. I engage in speculation when I have on the metaphorical/spiritual hat because it’s interesting to discuss. That doesn’t mean that I take it literally.

You seem like someone who has gone through a lot of the same things I have. And from your intro, you have done more research than me. You mentioned “Yet on this website, I find the discussions and explanations efforts to fight reality.” If I’m doing this I certainly don’t intend to. That’s why I suspected maybe you hadn’t read the right posts yet or something.

[Author]

Posts