Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[drumdude]

MG,

Do you believe in “sad heaven” or the concept that your loved ones who left the church will be in some way separated from you for eternity?

That seems to be a very sad thing to consider, and very arbitrary on God’s part.

I’m willing to leave the ultimate answer to that question in God’s hands.

My personal feeling is that I will still have an association with family and others that I may have had relationships with in this life whether members of the church or not. And that I will make new associations.

Eternity is a long time.

And it is what it is.

I’m not too worried about the afterlife as much as I am in living the ‘good life’ in this one.

Regards,
MG

I think most believers feel this way too. But then often times a church leader comes along to rattle your cage a little, and talk about what you'll be missing out on by not following them. "Eternity is a long time" is often what I've wanted to say to them in response.

[MG 2.0]

He’s always been a seeker. When we were kids he went back to school at UCLA and received a doctorate in the neurosciences. He ended up doing brain research there at the university and teaching in the college system there in Southern California. During that time and thereafter having done LDS history research the old fashioned way at the Huntington Library and in other venues he gradually became a non believer. More or less a materialist in its strictest sense I think.

Later in life he moved towards a belief in reality that exists outside the material world we live in, but not a believer in Mormonism or traditional Christianity. He more or less thinks that we live in a world that is of our own making, that we can’t really be sure of anything beyond knowing that we are conscious.

So our talks have been over decades. To answer your question, I can’t say that it was “hard on me” because it was just part of my life from a young age. I probably didn’t fully understand the extent of his non belief until I returned from my mission and went to BYU.

Our family has had others that have left the church and those that have remained. A mixed bag.

I’ve been exposed to alternative views and ways of looking at ‘the world’ from the time I was a teenager. So I have to chuckle a bit when I get the impression that some folks here seem to think I was ‘born yesterday’, so to speak.

I’ve been around the block, albeit from a position of reading and learning over decades on my own without any special academic training. And that probably shows.

Just a regular guy.

Regards,
MG

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that his change in belief did not come between the two of you.

No. In fact, I spent the latter part of the afternoon yesterday with him. Ninety years old!

We spent a few hours talking about ‘reality’ and mind/body stuff. We have these conversations frequently. We disagree on some important things but we have respect and love for one another. My wife and I, along with my other five siblings take dinner into him regularly just so we can visit and enjoy time with him.

Dad hasn’t attended church in many years. We have two out of six of us kids that are out of the church. Nephews and nieces in and out also.

Like I said, a mixed bag.

We all love and respect each other. In fact, I just had a 70th birthday celebration and my brother (no longer a member of the church) came from Denver to be with us.

We have a very cool family.

Regards,
MG

[doubtingthomas]

No. In fact, I spent the latter part of the afternoon with him. Ninety years old!

Waiting

I would rather come across as irrational (in your mind) than exempt myself from expressing my views that I believe have a foundation in Godly truth.

I wonder, is the Holy Ghost guiding you to express your views here? Would your Bishop be happy with your participation on this board?

In any case, we are more interested in knowing why you believe what you believe. Share some spiritual experiences so we can analyze them, or share some of your evidence. It's very easy to argue that something is possible, but it's not so easy to demonstrate that something is likely.

[MG 2.0]

I’m willing to leave the ultimate answer to that question in God’s hands.

My personal feeling is that I will still have an association with family and others that I may have had relationships with in this life whether members of the church or not. And that I will make new associations.

Eternity is a long time.

And it is what it is.

I’m not too worried about the afterlife as much as I am in living the ‘good life’ in this one.

Regards,
MG

I think most believers feel this way too. But then often times a church leader comes along to rattle your cage a little, and talk about what you'll be missing out on by not following them. "Eternity is a long time" is often what I've wanted to say to them in response.

I haven’t had any experiences like you describe. I’ve been in the church a long time now. Even back in the years whenI went through a fairly intense faith crisis my local leaders were VERY supportive and didn’t give me any grief.

My experience with leaders is that on the whole they have been gentle and good men.

I’ve served in some of these positions also and would hope others would say the same of me.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that his change in belief did not come between the two of you.

No. In fact, I spent the latter part of the afternoon yesterday with him. Ninety years old!

We spent a few hours talking about ‘reality’ and mind/body stuff. We have these conversations frequently. We disagree on some important things but we have respect and love for one another. My wife and I, along with my other five siblings take dinner into him regularly just so we can visit and enjoy time with him.

Dad hasn’t attended church in many years. We have two out of six of us kids that are out of the church. Nephews and nieces in and out also.

Like I said, a mixed bag.

We all love and respect each other. In fact, I just had a 70th birthday celebration and my brother (no longer a member of the church) came from Denver to be with us.

We have a very cool family.

Regards,
MG

Yes, you do. I run into so many folks whose families are divided by all kinds of things.

My LDS grandparents had six children around 35 grandchildren. Around half stayed in the church. That caused a rift in some of the six families, which was sad to see. Others just seemed to take it in stride.

[huckelberry]

I get it. I would describe the faith I had when I was LDS as reasoned faith. But I’m asking you and my 19 year old self, why require your faith to be reasonable? Doesn’t it diminish the importance of faith when we force it to jump through hoops of reason?

I think about what Jesus asked of his followers. He didn’t present them with a reasoned argument. He told them not to concern themselves with things of this world, to give worldly possessions and even family, and to follow him. That’s a huge leap of 100% faith. .......



I could tell you my deconversion story through a faithful LDS lens. It would be a cautionary tale that illustrates why “reasoned faith” is not what God asks of his children. Reason is human — the arm of the flesh. What this life is testing is the strength of your faith in the face of your fallen human brain. That’s the test — not when your human reasoning tells you that you’re doing the reasonable thing, but when your fallible, mortal brain is screaming at you that what you believe is completely unreasonable. In this version of the story, my faith in God was weakened by leaning on the moral crutch of reason. When my crutch shattered, my faith was too weak to keep me on the straight and narrow?

Is it possible that demanding faith to submit to reason is s simple but huge mistake?

I don’t speak for anyone but myself. But I find it easy to respect someone who says “I don’t know it all works, but I have faith ….” I really do believe that all people should be given space to figure out their place in the universe. If someone takes the existence of God on faith, trying to reason them out of it makes little sense to me.

But the reasoned part of reasoned faith is, in my view, fair game for reason based arguments. Reason isn’t individual, unless you are arguing with yourself. And not all reasoning is equal. There are sound arguments and terrible arguments. (Faith based reasoning is filled with the terrible ones.)

So, in another thread, Ajax and I have been talking about God’s love. It’s interesting to me to hear how he thinks about that. In fact I find it interesting to talk with people of faith about what their faith means to them in their personal lives. How it fits into their constructed reality, if you will. Ajax isn’t presenting me with an argument. We’re just talking and sharing how we think. I’ve had tons of discussions, sometimes over extended periods of time about people’s faith. I’ve enjoyed them all.

The common thread in all of those conversations is that no one is trying to reason anyone into thinking differently. It’s a completely different kind of interaction — one that I would suggest would be in the magisteria of faith, not reason.

..........

Using NOMA as a model, trying to attack faith with reason would itself be irrational. That’s the point of non-overlapping magisteria — the two domains don’t overlap. Leave reason out of the domain of faith and faith out of the domain of reason.

From my perspective, faith is not rational, meaning it is not grounded in reason. It’s something else. And that’s okay. We may be animals who can reason, but we are not rational animals.

........

Res Ipsa, I thought your post presented some interesting proposals to think about so I copied it leaving out portions focused upon your interaction with MG.

I am inclined to see value in Goulds nonoverlapping magisteria. He was referring to science and religion as engaged in different areas of investigation. One being how the physical world works and has worked while he other is concerned with human values, interrelationships and goals. I doubt that the separation can be complete but there is important differences.

I am inclined to think that faith and reason are completely inseparable. I think reason has little existence by itself. It is a function of observation, stories, harmony, beauty. It rejects confusion. Perhaps mathematics is close to reason alone but I do not think it could exist without the ideas of counting and relative measurements, experience. Conversely my ability to enjoy a story, make plans have hopes all depend upon my ability to reason. Religious words phrases and ritual would loose all meaning without connection to reason.

Now it is clear I am using reason in a broader sense than the limited set of things that are the result of rational proof. Faith perhaps introduces the idea of dealing with uncertainty. Very little is completely proven by reason and we have to deal with a lot of decisions. It is also obvious that though we do not deal with things proven we constantly use our reason to negotiate with the small portion of stuff we know.

I do not think Jesus had any interest in blind faith, though he noticed blind guides without approval. He referred to light and eyes.

I could tell you my deconversion story through a faithful LDS lens. It would be a cautionary tale that illustrates why “reasoned faith” is not what God asks of his children. Reason is human — the arm of the flesh. What this life is testing is the strength of your faith in the face of your fallen human brain. That’s the test — not when your human reasoning tells you that you’re doing the reasonable thing, but when your fallible, mortal brain

my god what awful things to have been taught. A summary of what is dreadful in Mormon and some other versions of faith.

reason is part of the divine.

[Res Ipsa]

I get it. I would describe the faith I had when I was LDS as reasoned faith. But I’m asking you and my 19 year old self, why require your faith to be reasonable? Doesn’t it diminish the importance of faith when we force it to jump through hoops of reason?

I think about what Jesus asked of his followers. He didn’t present them with a reasoned argument. He told them not to concern themselves with things of this world, to give worldly possessions and even family, and to follow him. That’s a huge leap of 100% faith. .......



I could tell you my deconversion story through a faithful LDS lens. It would be a cautionary tale that illustrates why “reasoned faith” is not what God asks of his children. Reason is human — the arm of the flesh. What this life is testing is the strength of your faith in the face of your fallen human brain. That’s the test — not when your human reasoning tells you that you’re doing the reasonable thing, but when your fallible, mortal brain is screaming at you that what you believe is completely unreasonable. In this version of the story, my faith in God was weakened by leaning on the moral crutch of reason. When my crutch shattered, my faith was too weak to keep me on the straight and narrow?

Is it possible that demanding faith to submit to reason is s simple but huge mistake?

I don’t speak for anyone but myself. But I find it easy to respect someone who says “I don’t know it all works, but I have faith ….” I really do believe that all people should be given space to figure out their place in the universe. If someone takes the existence of God on faith, trying to reason them out of it makes little sense to me.

But the reasoned part of reasoned faith is, in my view, fair game for reason based arguments. Reason isn’t individual, unless you are arguing with yourself. And not all reasoning is equal. There are sound arguments and terrible arguments. (Faith based reasoning is filled with the terrible ones.)

So, in another thread, Ajax and I have been talking about God’s love. It’s interesting to me to hear how he thinks about that. In fact I find it interesting to talk with people of faith about what their faith means to them in their personal lives. How it fits into their constructed reality, if you will. Ajax isn’t presenting me with an argument. We’re just talking and sharing how we think. I’ve had tons of discussions, sometimes over extended periods of time about people’s faith. I’ve enjoyed them all.

The common thread in all of those conversations is that no one is trying to reason anyone into thinking differently. It’s a completely different kind of interaction — one that I would suggest would be in the magisteria of faith, not reason.

..........

Using NOMA as a model, trying to attack faith with reason would itself be irrational. That’s the point of non-overlapping magisteria — the two domains don’t overlap. Leave reason out of the domain of faith and faith out of the domain of reason.

From my perspective, faith is not rational, meaning it is not grounded in reason. It’s something else. And that’s okay. We may be animals who can reason, but we are not rational animals.

........

Res Ipsa, I thought your post presented some interesting proposals to think about so I copied it leaving out portions focused upon your interaction with MG.

I am inclined to see value in Goulds nonoverlapping magisteria. He was referring to science and religion as engaged in different areas of investigation. One being how the physical world works and has worked while he other is concerned with human values, interrelationships and goals. I doubt that the separation can be complete but there is important differences.

I am inclined to think that faith and reason are completely inseparable. I think reason has little existence by itself. It is a function of observation, stories, harmony, beauty. It rejects confusion. Perhaps mathematics is close to reason alone but I do not think it could exist without the ideas of counting and relative measurements, experience. Conversely my ability to enjoy a story, make plans have hopes all depend upon my ability to reason. Religious words phrases and ritual would loose all meaning without connection to reason.

Now it is clear I am using reason in a broader sense than the limited set of things that are the result of rational proof. Faith perhaps introduces the idea of dealing with uncertainty. Very little is completely proven by reason and we have to deal with a lot of decisions. It is also obvious that though we do not deal with things proven we constantly use our reason to negotiate with the small portion of stuff we know.

I do not think Jesus had any interest in blind faith, though he noticed blind guides without approval. He referred to light and eyes.

As I tried to say when I first mentioned the concept, I'm not proposing NOMA as a representation of reality. I'proposed it as way to interact in a way that get the result that MG said he wanted. As an example, MG bore his testimony. Using NOMA as a model, I would assign that to the realm of faith, and would not try to assault it with reasoned arguments. And I'd do that even though MG has already told me that he views his faith as being reasoned.

You may very well be right that faith and reason are inseparable. That's not how I see it, but neither can I claim they are completely separable. That's the kind of dilemma for postmodernists -- at what point does one stop deconstructing everything in sight and figure out how to share ideas with other people?

I think we're defining reason a little differently. Maybe your lens is better than mine. I think faith and reason both have to grapple with uncertainty. I just read a commencement address by Ken Burns that I may start a thread on. One thing that he said was that the opposite of faith is not doubt -- it is certainty. Something to think about.

Before I read your post and Burns' speech, I would have said that faith views things as certain that reason does not. But now you two are making me rethink that.

Jesus's faith seems pretty blind to me. I don't see him making any reasoned arguments for the existence of a reward in heaven. But I'm not wedded to that by any means.

[Res Ipsa]

my god what awful things to have been taught. A summary of what is dreadful in Mormon and some other versions of faith.

reason is part of the divine.

To be clear, that is not what anyone taught me. That is me telling my story through a different lens than I would ordinarily use to tell it.

[huckelberry]

my god what awful things to have been taught. A summary of what is dreadful in Mormon and some other versions of faith.

reason is part of the divine.

To be clear, that is not what anyone taught me. That is me telling my story through a different lens than I would ordinarily use to tell it.

Yes, it sounds like something youthful fear and uncertainty might put together rather than something directly taught. I seem to be aware of the idea back in my own memory somewhere, I do not think it was intentionally taught that way.

[MG 2.0]

my god what awful things to have been taught. A summary of what is dreadful in Mormon and some other versions of faith.

reason is part of the divine.

To be clear, that is not what anyone taught me. That is me telling my story through a different lens than I would ordinarily use to tell it.

I appreciate your clarification.

Regards,
MG