DOUG – I don’t do nice things for others because it makes me feel good. The good feeling is like gravy. I try to do nice things because I think that’s the best way to help the world achieve peace. As for the next life, I think the Lord tries to reveal the truth to every soul, in both Heaven and Hell. And the answer to why some resist can be illustrated by yours and mine blind belief that the Eagles and the Bears are (respectively) the best football teams EVER! It’s because we’re stubborn. I’ll never convince you that the Bears rule all just as you can’t convince me of “Eags, Baby!”. And I like that you keep harping on the original question of where these loves come from. I’ve been thinking a lot about it. This is what I have. If you take two points and draw with a line between and you keep bisecting the line, the two points will never meet. I think the same law applies. And that’s what faith is. It’s the bridge between the known and the unknown.
JACE – Ben, and everyone else, thanks for discussing this. It came up for me recently when I was thinking on a common New Church belief that a soul which passes away prior to rationality will eventually choose Heaven and cannot be destined for Hell. This seems like a contradiction of free will to me. I am not an expert on the scriptures, but the reasoning that I have heard from theologs is that these souls ARE in free will, but by being surrounded with the clear truth as they reach rationality, they always choose Heaven over Hell. This doesn’t sit well with me because that would mean that the choice for Hell, even chosen out of free will, is a product of circumstance and environment, both of which are to some degree out of our hands. My belief is that if Hell is real, either these souls which pass away prior to rationality are just as likely to choose Hell as any other soul, or Hell cannot be eternal.
BEN – Doug, thanks for writing again. I think that ‘gravy’ feeling we get from doing good things is evolved. We feel good, because in the course of the last 4 billion years, the DNA that we are made of, and the genes we are vehicles for have learned that these ‘nice’ decisions ARE the most likely to lead to further life (a product of this ‘peace’ you mention). So, regardless of your conscious reasons for choosing, your unconscious (instinctual) reasons may be evolved to give you signals (good feelings) when you make life sustaining choices. Sometimes these good feelings are really mis-firings (like eating candy). About the bisecting line. I think the process of continually bisecting that line is called science. At all points, we have to have some faith, but it should be totally flexible, based on our ability to bisect that line again. Once we do, what was previously ‘faith’ is assimilated into our knowledge base, and we are left with another ’space’ to bisect, right? is that where faith exists now? What about when we bisect that line again? Faith takes a new name. Etc, etc, etc. This is a great example of the God of the Gaps theory (we talk about this on the blog “An Excerpt from the Varieties of Scientific Experience”). Anyhow, my question is, why have static faith in any one thing? Why not just keep bisecting the line, all the while being TOTALLY honest about what we don’t know? Why is it valuable to have faith (mind you, I think THEORY is very important)? Why not just continue to bisect the line without adhering to the current faith-based understanding of the unknown. Why not just call it a theory, and if said theory is what helps society bisect the line again, maybe it’s a good theory. Looking at it this way, I have a hard time seeing the value of ‘faith’. Just the value of theory. Having said that, I’ve never heard a minister refer to his dogma as theory.
DEREK – Wow, everybody should read what Ben just wrote. If you already read it, you should reread it. I think that was one of the most well-constructed arguments anybody has made on his wall yet, seriously.
DOUG – Mr. Miyagi said to Daniel, “Walk this side of the road–safe. Walk this side of the road–safe. Walk middle–squish like grape.” The New Testament says, “Be hot or be cold, for if you are lukewarm I will vomit you out of my mouth.” My faith is that I believe in God. How I interpret God, this world, and the hereafter is all, as you would call, theory. I have used the Bible, the works of Emanuel Swedenborg, the Tao Te Ching, and a host of other works to construct my understanding of it all. But I think the question of a primary faith is essential. Mine is in God. Perhaps yours is in science. But in everyone’s journey we have to pick an initial direction. If we don’t, if we fail to pick a direction, then it becomes much easier to move in a circle, unable to discover anything new. You cannot orienteer any route with a fixed mark, be it sun, star, mountain peak, whatever. God is my fixed mark.
Your previous post sounds atheistic. Would you qualify yourself as one? Just curious. Also, am I reading correctly that you are suggesting the only way to know if there is a God is to have science prove there is one? And as to having a static belief in any one thing, I don’t consider my belief in God is static. My relationship with Him is ever-changing. The Writings talk about how more illuminous the world becomes the more we learn about it; therefore, the more I read and learn and think, the more “bright” my mind becomes. Lastly, my theory is that none of this–God, Heaven, Hell, etc–is provable (in the hard science matter of things) on this planet. Just because man believes there is or is not a God, does not prove that there is and is not a God. We’ll all bump into the truth, one way or the other, when we die. Either there will be something. Or there won’t be.
BEN – I think I’d classify myself as Agnostic. Not in the sense that I just say, “I don’t know” to everything, but in the sense that I attempt to be completely honest about what I can/do know, in an objective sense. Because of this stance, a sub-category of how I would classify myself would be atheist (along with the subcategories of anti-alchemy or anti-astrology). I wouldn’t say primary faith is necessary. I don’t know is a perfectly satisfactory answer to MOST big questions, especially when you follow up with, “But my theory is _____.” The ‘Writings’ may talk about how illuminous the world becomes the more we learn about it, but the dogmatic claims that are made in EVERY book of Swedenborg’s writings do not imply that they are flexible. They are static claims, just like all dogma. Also, it’s important to note, that while the idea of God is debatable, it’s really the ideas within ‘religions’ that we can debate more pointedly. God may or may not exist as you say… there are unlimited ways in which a God could exist (in our experience or apart from it). But the static claims in religious doctrine are EASILY debated. It is this dogma that is most likely to keep things circular, I think, and not the willingness to change your ‘fixed point’, as you say. To answer your question, I think to know anything in an objective way that calls for us to ’spread it as information’, these things must be known in a scientific way. Otherwise, we can just claim to KNOW anything (from our spiritual, or aesthetic perception), and then brainwash the next generation with whatever we personally hold to. I think people can know things that aren’t scientifically provable, but not on any level other than a ‘personal’ level. Once they start telling other people that this bit of thought is objectively true, they have placed the burden of scientific proof directly on their own shoulders. If no proof can be found, why not call it religious theory?
DOUG – I know that like light–which is both particle and wave–answers to all big questions can be answered both ways, scientifically and religiously. Ask a question with a scientific slant, chances are you’re looking for an answer with a more scientific slant. Ask a question with a religious slant, chances are you’re looking for an answer with a religious slant. I think science and religion work in harmony and both must be present for true understanding. Science often answers the “how”, religion often answers the “why”. For me, I find more enjoyment, fulfillment, and understanding in thinking about the “why.” Lastly, what is the proof we should be looking for? If I have an NDE, is that enough proof? If I go into deep meditation and come out of it believing I’ve communicated with God, is that enough proof? Why can’t one’s personal experience be enough proof? Why does one have to have it supported by others in order for it to be true? I think these questions come back to perception.
BEN – Doug, I’m so glad you’re willing to debate this stuff. I’ve found that many folks actively avoid these topics because it would just be too hard to change their minds. Anyhow, in my opinion, religion offers claims, not answers. Any “why” answer a religion provides (like the ‘why’ questions science provides) MUST be a theory. Musn’t it? How can a religion offer an answer? Any answer offered by ANYONE (science or religion) must be checked by humanity. The way we check stuff is through logic, philosophy, science, etc. We don’t check a religious claim by making more claims. Right? I mean, why don’t we (anyone) believe any of the thousands of the religious claims made by Islam or mainstream Christianity? I would think it is because we have looked at the info, and we’ve determined that the claims about the literal Bible or the claims about the treatment of women in the Koran, for instance, don’t fit into our idea of ‘what makes sense’. That’s the scientific process in us talking. We’ve lined it up with our ‘understanding of the world’ and we’ve discarded those things that don’t make sense (ie, Creationism or Jihad). If we only reject the ideas because they don’t fit what ‘our’ religion says, then that’s claim on claim. It’s really kind of empty reasoning. I don’t know why science and religion must both be present for a true understanding of anything. What is it about religion that is necessary? Sure religion offers claims that make people feel good, but that doesn’t mean much. I can make a claim that in the next life you will be in a state of constant ecstasy, but as long as it is just a claim, it’s really not an ‘answer’ or necessary in any way. I certainly don’t think any of the thousands and thousands of religions that have gone extinct were necessary. And I can’t think of one that exists today that is… necessary. Obviously religions present many different ideas about God, spirituality, the after-life, etc. But any idea a religion presents is either consistent with objective, scientific fact or not. When it is not, what about it is necessary? When it IS consistent, doesn’t it only garner legitimacy BECAUSE of the consistency? I dig that the Writings of the New Church recommend that people question their faith. People should question everything, I think, if they hope to uncover the truth. I think it’s not enough to say, “I can’t buy that now, but maybe later” when something flies in the face of scientific fact. Shouldn’t we out and out reject those claims like we do (I hope) with Creationism? Seems like just brushing these claims under the carpet (like AC 828, and many others) isn’t being intellectually honest. And if the claims made by Swedenborg are totally up to personal interpretation, why do we hold them up above other books? Because we want (some of) his writing to be true? About proof. I think Near Death Experiences and other spiritual experiences are not proof enough to justify teaching dogmatic claims to young minds and to expect others (through institutional influence) to buy it. However, an experience like the one’s you listed is PLENTY enough ‘proof’ to then share your personal story and to tell people what you think. You need no proof for that. For the public to meet these stories with anything but skepticism is counter-productive to actual knowledge, though. In any of these cases, if we neglect to follow up the claims with specific scientific testing, how are we NOT doing ourselves a disservice? If personal experience is enough for something to be ‘true’ then why don’t most folks think people really speak in tongues, faith-heal, fly, see UFO’s, time-travel, etc? If they think that was their experience, fine. But to dogmatically tell someone that your subjective opinion/experience is objective fact is, in my opinion, damaging dogma, because it could be very misleading, and we should try to avoid misleading others (in my opinion). I think this is what happens everyday in religious communities, even those that are actively trying to limit this. If we are dedicated to NOT misleading each other, we cannot teach subjective, 2nd hand (or worse) experience as objective fact. Would you disagree? Shouldn’t we go out of our way to avoid telling people that things are true, which are not true, or to at least make sure our audience knows that what we are saying is nothing more than subjective opinion?
DOUG -Why put so much stock in science? Why is science the great equalizer? Hasn’t it been misled just as many people as religions? Haven’t just as many people twisted scientific data to meet their personal needs? And, what do you see as the difference between truth and fact? or truth and proof? I think relying solely on science to provide answers would be akin to being in a courtroom and swearing an oath to tell the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts. Science and faith need each other to help each and every person make sense of this gift of life, whatever it is and wherever it comes from.
BEN – In regards to your questions about science, I guess the reason I put stock in science is that I think science and religion are often both trying to do the same things. If all religion did was tell stories or hunches about those things we do not yet understand/know, then I’d be less of a critic. The problem is, religion makes CLAIMS. Dogmatic claims. These claims are unvalidated, subjective opinion being presented as objective truth. Anything about salvation, sin, the definition of true love, the true nature of God, the true nature of the afterlife, or any other “answer” that is provided by religion is nothing more than conjecture. Conjecture is bad science. It’s all about the presentation. In science & philosophy, you apply logic, peer review, double-blind studies, testing, more testing and you practice being your own harshest critic. You can do this with religion, too, but then you’re just taking science and testing religious topics. Religion itself, isn’t involved. Personal truth, or anecdotal truth, just isn’t enough to qualify as fact. That’s why the thousands of UFO sightings since 1947 have been discredited (among other reasons). The contradictory stories of all these folks may have taken place, or some of them, or none of them. But why just have faith that they did? Just as the ‘canals’ that were first observed on Mars, which led to widespread belief that intelligent life existed there, were disproven by peer review, so must we be vigilant to not present anything as FACT which is only anecdotal, subjective or personal. To do so, would be intellectually dishonest. That’s why I think science doesn’t need faith, if it has theory, hypothesis, hunch, etc.
DEREK – Thanks Ben. Right on target, and very thorough. I’m going to assume that you all have read this and have subsequently gotten rid of all any dogma and blind faith in your life. I’m dying to move forward into some interesting new areas of debate once we’re all on the same page about this stuff. Anybody not convinced? Like Ben, I’m really excited to have such an open forum of debate and people have had some really interesting things to say. However, one thing I’ve noticed throughout all of these wall posts and blog posts is that Ben will pose some very direct questions, often yes or no questions, and the response will flat out NOT ANSWER those questions (nobody specific, I’m referring to MANY people here). They will, instead, address some other aspect of the debate that they feel they have a better chance of winning. Here is a very simple one that seems to get dodged a lot: Do you support the practice of presenting subjective ideas as objective fact?
Well. That’s it so far. Maybe more people will post, but until then, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Please leave a comment or two and maybe we can get some fruitful discussions going here as well. Don’t hesitate to check out the comments under the ‘Fewer Americans Believe in Hell’ post, too.
CCD,
Ben
Posted by ccdguy 
Posted by ccdguy 
Posted by ccdguy 