How do you define faith?

[Traveler]

Traveller, I don't believe I was receiving external guidance. Stopping to think about why you are doing something in a particular way is just using common sense. If you slow down in a shopping centre because everyone else around you does and then you happen to see a *caution-wet floor* sign you don't tend to worry about spiritual possession. Slowing down is hardly going to cause harm or be defined as sinful. Attributing your actions towards spiritual influences is a bit of a stretch. Identifying your actions as logical or illogical is sometimes called using 'common sense'.

On religious ideas and a feeling that you are prompted by God or inspired...I think that it is all rather dependent on your current relationship with God. With hope and humility I guess. Currently for me, seeking confirmation is best: prayer, fasting, His word etc. Sometimes it can be pretty clear when you operate outside of what you should be doing...and othertimes not.

Funnily enough, my sister was once told by a guy that God's word was that he marry her. Her reply, "I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to seek confirmation from God on that one." She's been married over a decade now (to someone else LOL).

Good post - There are some thoughts here I would like to pursue but I am not sure there is interest and for my time here; there may be better fish to fry.

The Traveler

[WANDERER]

The fried fish says thankyou LOL. I'm currently rewriting my definition of faith.

[DigitalShadow]

DS,

In your opening post, you stated you were not ‘religious’, and then later you state you are an atheist. They are two vastly different stances. One implies that you might believe in God, but do not adhere to the beliefs of any specific religious denomination. The other, of course, denies the existence of God.

As I see it, that is the root of your inability to feel that you have faith, and that you have received no answer to your prayers.

If you do not believe in God, why would you pray? If you do not believe in God, why would you pray and then expect to receive any kind of an answer?

If you are perfectly satisfied within yourself that God does not exist, you likely will not receive an answer confirming that He does indeed exist (according to me). My opinion, and I certainly don’t supersede God here, so I do leave open the possibility of a clear and direct answer to you.

If you do not believe in God, but have a desire to believe He exists, that in and of itself is an expression of faith. (Note that I did not say "If you do not believe in God, but have a desire to know whether He exists.")

If that is the case, and you have that desire, you are expressing faith. You are hoping that He does exist, after all. You may see no evidence of Him right now. But you have the hope. THAT is faith. Build on that little thread.

I commend you for supporting your LDS wife, and attending church with her, even though you do not believe as she does. That is love.

As far as all of the differences in religious beliefs across the world, I think yes, many times people declare their answers to prayers as truth, when in reality it has been "just their brain filling in the gaps and giving them what they want". People can justify or rationalize all manner of actions by saying "God tells me to do this." It doesn’t mean it is true, and it certainly doesn’t make bad things good.

I am not a scholar, scientist, or theologian. I hope I have not stated anything that offends.

I think that maybe you're misunderstanding the word atheist. It has a lot of negative connotations from religious folk so I don't blame you, but really it just literally means not-theist. This is exactly what I meant by not religious. I do not actively deny the possibility of god, I simply don't believe in any of the ones presented to me because there is no evidence.

I hope that clears some things up for you.

[Alaskagain]

Not theist.

Atheist.

Merriam Webster:

2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

No negative connotations due to my personal religious belief.

What don't I understand?

[Elphaba]

Not theist.

Atheist.

Merriam Webster:

2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

No negative connotations due to my personal religious belief.

What don't I understand?

Unless I am reading your response to DS wrong, you seem to be upset with him because he is an athiest, and this offends you because of your strong belief in TCOJCOLDS and its profound relationhship God.

If I am not correct, please ignore the next paragraph.

If I am correct, are you also upset with the billions of other people on the planet who don't share your belief in TCOJCOLDS and its profound relationship with God? (In fact, of these who are religious, millions probably worship an undeniably different god.)

BTW, I too feel DS should have made the fact that he was an atheist clear in his OP post. However, I do believe his questions about "faith" were/are genuine.

Elphaba

[Alaskagain]

Dear Elphaba,

You are not correct. I am not "upset" in any way. Nor offended.

DS did not address anything that I wrote, and chose to discuss the meaning of a word instead. And that's perfectly fine.

I just wanted to clear up that I know the meaning of the word "atheist", and I will now add that I do not perceive it to be a word that reflects negatively on any person who would describe themselves as such.

As to all of the other people who live or have lived on this earth are and have been able to worship, or not, as they please/d. I certainly don't think I am "better" than someone who chooses/thinks/believes differently than I do. I don't know how I can prove that to you, except by telling you that I have friends/family of several different faiths and some who are atheists. I still love them and respect their choices, and you can believe me, or not. (I have all I can handle just trying to keep myself straight. I can't, nor would I want, to make their choices for them, too!)

Alaskagain

[WANDERER]

Okay Traveller, came upon an Alma quote..and landed on Elder David A. Bednar and his

"Seek Learning by Faith" message: assurance, action and evidence.

Recent Addresses

Alaska Again: I think actively denying there is a god wouldn't be cohesive with a belief that there is no god. The Elder's message on faith makes interesting reading by the way.

[DigitalShadow]

Dear Elphaba,

You are not correct. I am not "upset" in any way. Nor offended.

DS did not address anything that I wrote, and chose to discuss the meaning of a word instead. And that's perfectly fine.

I just wanted to clear up that I know the meaning of the word "atheist", and I will now add that I do not perceive it to be a word that reflects negatively on any person who would describe themselves as such.

As to all of the other people who live or have lived on this earth are and have been able to worship, or not, as they please/d. I certainly don't think I am "better" than someone who chooses/thinks/believes differently than I do. I don't know how I can prove that to you, except by telling you that I have friends/family of several different faiths and some who are atheists. I still love them and respect their choices, and you can believe me, or not. (I have all I can handle just trying to keep myself straight. I can't, nor would I want, to make their choices for them, too!)

Alaskagain

I didn't address the rest of what you wrote as it seemed dependent on a not entirely accurate definition of atheist. I'm sorry if I came off as a bit of a jerk, but I'm used to a lot of hostility and misunderstanding when I mention that I am an atheist. I (along with many other atheists) disagree with the dictionary definition of atheism as there is no "doctrine" for disbelief. It is implying that atheists disbelieve God with the same conviction that theists believe in god, which is entirely untrue in most cases. I simply don't believe that there is enough evidence to decide one way ior the other. I guess the closest dictionary definition to my beliefs would be "agnostic." I probably should have used that word instead for the sake of simplicity and I apologize.

I am praying in an attempt to find God, just as I've been instructed by missionaries and our Bishop. How else am I supposed to find the truth of the matter since there is no emperical evidence I can go on? I have a desire to know whether god exists (not just a desire to believe he exists), just as I have the desire to find the truth of any matter. But if you only have a desire to believe something exists untempered by questioning, wouldn't that just be blind faith instead of faith?

[Elphaba]

You are not correct. I am not "upset" in any way. Nor offended.

DS did not address anything that I wrote, and chose to discuss the meaning of a word instead. And that's perfectly fine.

I just wanted to clear up that I know the meaning of the word "atheist", and I will now add that I do not perceive it to be a word that reflects negatively on any person who would describe themselves as such.

Okay, I misunderstood. I get it now.

As to all of the other people who live or have lived on this earth are and have been able to worship, or not, as they please/d. I certainly don't think I am "better" than someone who chooses/thinks/believes differently than I do. I don't know how I can prove that to you, except by telling you that I have friends/family of several different faiths and some who are atheists. I still love them and respect their choices, and you can believe me, or not. (I have all I can handle just trying to keep myself straight. I can't, nor would I want, to make their choices for them, too!)

Just as I don't feel the need to prove anything about myself because of my atheism, nor do I think you are obligated to prove anything about yourself and your faith either. You can if you choose to, but you are not obligated to.

When I talk about myself, my beliefs, my inability to understand people who do believe in God, or my faith in humanity, etc., I am telling the truth about my beliefs. If others don't believe me, there is nothing I can do about that. I do enjoy trying to help someone understand. But I also understand it is difficult for believers to comprehend my non-belief. And that's okay. The important part for me is that people understand I do not lie; however, I have no control over that either. So I have to let that go as well.

Likewise, you are not obligated to prove anything about your beliefs to me or anyone else. I believe what you say about your faith just as I believe what everyone says. I just don't always understand it, and that is why I ask questions. I also try and bring perspective to people's beliefs to help me understand.

But it is not because I don't believe you.

Regarding DS, I agree he should have used the word "agnostic" rather than "atheist." What I hear by many believers, and you said it as well, is that if you don't believe in God why would you want to pray. It's a very simple question to me: because he wants to believe in God. And DS has answered that question. And frankly, just as you and I don't have to justify our beliefs or actions, neither does DS. He is searching for God in the manner many LDS have told him to, and it's not working. He does not have to justify that. You call his actions faith, but he is the only person who can really define what he is feeling, and according to him, nothing is happening. So he is asking why it isn't working, and his question is valid.

My point is, just as I don't lie about my experience, and you don't about yours, I believe DS is honest about his. That's all the justification he needs.

Elphaba

[Alaskagain]

Nicely expressed, Elphaba. Thank you.

DS, no apology necessary, but I am glad you clarified. I listed my questions on the basis of not knowing where you are coming from, as far as labels go, and did not mean to infer judgement on my part.

I'm just tryng to wrap my mind around some concepts here about prayer and faith; scripture/doctrine notwithstanding, these are just my thoughts.

I suppose within the desire to know truth, it doesn't matter if your desire is to know whether God exists or if your desire is to believe He exists. Overall, you just want to know the truth.

In the first case, are you seeking affirmation of His existence before you can put yourself out there to believe? In the second case, are you willing to put yourself in that vulnerable position of not having evidence, not even a "feeling", and want to believe in Him anyway?

I am not sure it makes any difference at all. I am only posing them as questions to ponder, and I am not expecting you to answer them for me.

(And look, I'll be real honest here. I'm not trying to seem like a wise person. I'm not.

I mean, really, I once purchased a Yugo -- and thought it was going to be a great car! :lol:So who am I?)

What matters is that you are seeking, and I think you ARE exercising faith by praying and following the counsel of the missionaries and the bishop.

DS:"But if you only have a desire to believe something exists untempered by questioning, wouldn't that just be blind faith instead of faith?"

Yes. And no, I wouldn't want anyone to rely solely on blind faith. We are always encouraged to search out answers for ourselves, and not follow blindly.

I hope you receive some answers soon. And with that, an amicable goodnight.

[Alaskagain]

DS,

I ran across this in a another thread, and immediately thought of you when I read it.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/9404-how-can-i-strengthen-my-faith-gospel.html#post167266

Particularly "He did not have faith in his father's words but first had a desire to know (have faith)." You have a desire to know. And, you are acting in faith, by offering up your prayers.

[Guest Malcolm]

I have heard DS's line of argumentation before. In the past, the particular person rather preferred to take such position because it freed her from any and all "moral conventions." As we all know, morality is God's idea of social and individual behavior. If one refuses to relate to any concept of deity we are free to do whatever we desire in order to ascertain happiness as long as it is not illegal.

I understand it may not be the current case but it may suit DS' agenda just the same. After all God demands sacrifice, faithfulness, hard work, and restrain (physical and emotionally). We are also encouraged to cultivate qualities that are seen as weaknesses: contentment, patient, humility, meekness, moderation, charity, community.

It would be REALLY interesting if DS would be able to explore really the core reasons for resisting acceptance of the existence of God. Every human civilization has sensed, in greater or lesser degree, the existence of forces greater and beyond their control or sphere of understanding. Still, he can not deny that he feels drawn into the experience. Of all places, here is DS reading, sharing, thinking, getting his feet wet in religion! Heck, I'd say he is neck-deep in religion and doctrine. Go figure.

We love you Digital and we certainly enjoy your company. I think atheism is a cover story for fear. Truth erases doubt and ambiguity. Truth also demands action. The fence-sitting status would be undoubtedly revoked.

What do you think?

[DigitalShadow]

I have heard DS's line of argumentation before. In the past, the particular person rather preferred to take such position because it freed her from any and all "moral conventions." As we all know, morality is God's idea of social and individual behavior. If one refuses to relate to any concept of deity we are free to do whatever we desire in order to ascertain happiness as long as it is not illegal.

I understand it may not be the current case but it may suit DS' agenda just the same. After all God demands sacrifice, faithfulness, hard work, and restrain (physical and emotionally). We are also encouraged to cultivate qualities that are seen as weaknesses: contentment, patient, humility, meekness, moderation, charity, community.

It would be REALLY interesting if DS would be able to explore really the core reasons for resisting acceptance of the existence of God. Every human civilization has sensed, in greater or lesser degree, the existence of forces greater and beyond their control or sphere of understanding. Still, he can not deny that he feels drawn into the experience. Of all places, here is DS reading, sharing, thinking, getting his feet wet in religion! Heck, I'd say he is neck-deep in religion and doctrine. Go figure.

We love you Digital and we certainly enjoy your company. I think atheism is a cover story for fear. Truth erases doubt and ambiguity. Truth also demands action. The fence-sitting status would be undoubtedly revoked.

What do you think?

I've also heard your line of thinking before, atheism->immorality. While I'm sure that there are some people who resist religion because of the moral responsibility, I assure you that I am not one of them and I think that anyone who knows me in real life would agree. People have a built in sense of what is right and what is wrong, it doesn't take scripture to realize that you should treat people how you want to be treated. I am a good person because it is the right thing to do, not because I fear punishment or want some reward after I die.

Also, the fact that every civilization had a concept of a higher power speaks more to the human desire for there to be one, it would only point to some universal truth if they all independently came up with the same God.

I find your last paragraph somewhat ironic because I have always felt that religion can be a cover story for fear, not atheism. People are afraid of not knowing what happens after they die, afraid of going to hell, afraid of what could happen to them with no one looking out for them. Religion provides a convenient security blanket for those people. I'm not saying this is the case for all religious people, just as not all atheists believe that way out of fear.

I thank you for your concern, but I'm not "resisting" the acceptance of God, I'm just failing to see evidence of any kind for it. I'm in search of the truth and I'm exploring the possibility of God because religion does a lot of good for a lot of people, including my wife. That is why I come here and ask these questions.

[Guest Malcolm]

Hello DS:

I think you suffer from "west-tocitosis" like a dear friend of mine coined our short-sighted, naive and misinformed perspective of world. There is no such thing as an "universal sense of right and wrong." Just because you see a more or less "civilized" societies in the west and the appearance of law and order it does not mean that it is the norm but rather the exception.

In most of the world today, law, order and rules are ascertained based on mores and values, communal rules linked to survival and the threat of war. Safety and well being is a function of tribal affiliation, aggressive posturing and the means to inflict death or the fear of.

The ONLY reason the west is a bit better is because of the Judeo-Christian traditions and history. But we are 1000 years away from its origins so we can not see it. You are a product of the west and its mores and values, including a socially "impregnated" sense of moral behavior, which is nothing more than socially expected behavior that can be adjusted depending on your family history, educational level, socioeconomic status and the like. But it is not a universal concept. The natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the beginning.

For the non-believer there is no life after death so nothing to worry about. It is the one that knows but decides to ignore the "warning labels" for whatever reason the one that should be affraid. At the end of the road the anxiety creeps in and they then recognize that there is no other way but to turn to God for certainty. Although some remain defiant to the end. Go figure. For the believer faith is precisely the absence of fear. It is the affirmation of certainty since we know for SURE where we are going after this life on account of having lived our lives in accordance with the commandments of God, who is the ultimate judge and arbiter for the faithful and also the unfaithful.

I was not implying that you were not an upstanding citizen. On the contrary. Eloquent as your assertion is about you being a morally upright person, which again is in nowise in question, it is however naive. To say that it is a spontaneous expression of self (universal goodness) ignores most of the atrocities recorded in recent history. Again I have heard the argument before and it seems to me that ignoring/denying God but believing in goodness and an innate sense of right or wrong is like talking about wood furniture and refusing to talk about the forest.

Any thoughts?

[Aelswyth]

To me, all faith starts out with an intellectual conviction of some kind. One cannot just "have faith" based on nothing at all; that is why we have been given scriptures, prophets, even scholarly research, to help us begin to exercise faith - to give us something on which to base it. Some people, it seems, can simply decide to believe something regardless of whether it's logically or rationally tenable, and continue to do so no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, usually by wearing a big pair of blinders. :)

But I think most people need some kind of basis and confirmation for the things they believe to be true. I certainly do. I believe in this Church because of a spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost, but also because of my own purely mental conviction that, from a rational and logical standpoint, it doesn't make any sense for these things to have been falsified or invented in some way. I find there is too much corroborative evidence from multiple sources to dismiss the claims of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Church. So I have faith in that which is unknown, because I am convinced by that which IS known.

To me, faith can be of two kinds. There is the kind of faith which is choosing to trust despite one's doubts. Then there is the kind of faith which is absolute perfection of belief, unwavering trust in the truth of something. The first is the kind that gets you through the tough times. The second is the kind that makes miracles, the kind that Jesus compared to being like a little child, the kind which we are all exhorted to attain to. And that is by far the harder one to achieve. Sometimes I get there; but much of the time my faith is closer to the first kind. It's something that must be continually worked on and watered and fed and nurtured, or it will atrophy and die.

That's one of the main reasons why the General Authorities of the Church are so concerned that we consume faith-building materials rather than faith-destroying materials, because they know that when your faith is fragile, all it takes is one little pin to burst the bubble. Those with strong faith may find challenging viewpoints to be actually faith-strengthening, but I don't think many of us are that solid all the time, especially when we lack the knowledge to refute the arguments against us. The nourishment of faith-building materials is essential to achieving that perfection of trust which is asked of us by the Lord. My personal acts of nourishment include reading Scripture and other inspirational publications, praying to Heavenly Father, reading scholarly studies on the FARMS and FAIR websites, attending sacrament meeting and performing acts of service to others. On the other side of things, if I do read something negative, I immediately counteract it by searching out the LDS response to whatever the criticism is. I always come away satisfied that there is a logical defense and strengthened by the information obtained. This keeps me from spiraling down into doubt and possibly (worst-case scenario) losing my testimony. God willing, that will never happen to me.

[Aelswyth]

Also, the fact that every civilization had a concept of a higher power speaks more to the human desire for there to be one, it would only point to some universal truth if they all independently came up with the same God.

Actually, a remarkable number of cultures and peoples have "come up with" the same God. All Indo-European peoples believed in a supreme Heavenly Father. In most of the Indo-European languages, his name means exactly that (Tiwaz Fader in German, Faeder Tiw in Old English, Jupiter in Roman, Zeus in Greek, Dyaus Pita in Sanskrit, Tyr in Norse, Dievas in the Baltic, Dagda in Gaelic, Dazbog in Slavic, Dispater in Gaulish...). There was also a supreme Heavenly Father in ancient China (Shang Di/Tian Zhu, meaning "King Above" and "Sky Lord" respectively), and in Polynesian mythology there is a Sky Father named Ranginui and an even higher Heavenly Father named Io. There is also the Sumerian Anu, the Australian Aboriginal Altjira/Baiame, the Finnish Ukko, etc. These are all names for "Heavenly Father" or "Sky Father". In most cases He is considered the greatest of gods, the king of gods, the father of gods and men; however, in a very few (such as in the Norse mythology), the Heavenly Father has been pushed into the background by the sacrificial/savior god (in this case, Odin), who is quite clearly a stand-in for Christ, somewhat twisted by the passage of time and the influence of other elements; or by another more accessible god who acts as intermediary and messenger between Heavenly Father and mankind (such as Tane, the forest god in Maori mythology, who climbed to the highest Heaven and received from Io the Three Baskets of Knowledge to bring to humanity). It's really quite astonishing the amount of consistency one finds among so many of the "pagan" and "heathen" religions. I find it eminently probable that these reflect the memories of an ancient knowledge that became distorted over time.

[Maya]

It is aleap in to unknown beeing sure someone will catch you....

[WANDERER]

There is no doubt that you can be a good person without being a theist in my opinion...it's probably not universal though as an atheist is often seen as denying the existence of God. But not knowing God and denying Him is a bit oppositional.

Asking questions and being open to it and to other people's views takes some degree of faith if a 'borrowed' one perhaps. What do you think?

[Guest Malcolm]

To me, all faith starts out with an intellectual conviction of some kind. One cannot just "have faith" based on nothing at all; that is why we have been given scriptures, prophets, even scholarly research, to help us begin to exercise faith - to give us something on which to base it

"Intellectual" implies prior knowledge acquired thru rational/inquiry means, which may or may not be the case for most people so we can not expect that to be true even most of the time. Most people have a "social awareness" (traditions, conversations, historical account) of religion and God. Such can not be construed as intellectual, in my opinion since they have never question the surrounding body of knowledge.

But I think most people need some kind of basis and confirmation for the things they believe to be true. I certainly do. I believe in this Church because of a spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost, but also because of my own purely mental conviction that, from a rational and logical standpoint, it doesn't make any sense for these things to have been falsified or invented in some way. I find there is too much corroborative evidence from multiple sources to dismiss the claims of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Church. So I have faith in that which is unknown, because I am convinced by that which IS known

.

I am not a big believer in the need for "evidence or intellectual experience" to perfect or strengthen the faith. For 150 years faithful LDS lived and worked for the building of the Kingdom of God on the earth without a thread of "evidence". as we refer to it today. Faith is built and strengthened by the Spirit as we live in obedience to the commandments, as we engage in His work and study His word. The blessings mount, your insight is multiplied, your strength increases and the reach of the priesthood to act, influence and modify the very world around us is augmented. I can truly and sincerely testify to that effect.

The whole historical background of faith point to a progression that goes from the physical manifestations of God (burning bushes, voices from heaven, angels, etc) to a a testimony of Him based on faith rather than evidence. Meaning that, you must believe and the manifestation re-affirming your belief is shown forth after the fact. You must read the scriptures, but the intention must be that of faithful inquiry not an intellectual exercise. Most biblical archaeologists as not religious people at all. They have no interest in the spiritual claims of the text.

Your argument is eloquent, but it draws from a rational root that is simple not supported by the biblical record. The experiment ALWAYS begins with faith, which is the hope for things not yet known but true. It starts with the heart-felt desire inspired by the Spirit to get to know more about God and to get closer to Him. Anything else is indeed an intellectual exercise, which in my sometimes less than humble opinion, could be the first step in a very slippery slope if your faith is not solidly rooted.

What do you think?

[Aelswyth]

"Intellectual" implies prior knowledge acquired thru rational/inquiry means, which may or may not be the case for most people so we can not expect that to be true even most of the time. Most people have a "social awareness" (traditions, conversations, historical account) of religion and God. Such can not be construed as intellectual, in my opinion since they have never question the surrounding body of knowledge.

.

I am not a big believer in the need for "evidence or intellectual experience" to perfect or strengthen the faith. For 150 years faithful LDS lived and worked for the building of the Kingdom of God on the earth without a thread of "evidence". as we refer to it today. Faith is built and strengthened by the Spirit as we live in obedience to the commandments, as we engage in His work and study His word. The blessings mount, your insight is multiplied, your strength increases and the reach of the priesthood to act, influence and modify the very world around us is augmented. I can truly and sincerely testify to that effect.

The whole historical background of faith point to a progression that goes from the physical manifestations of God (burning bushes, voices from heaven, angels, etc) to a a testimony of Him based on faith rather than evidence. Meaning that, you must believe and the manifestation re-affirming your belief is shown forth after the fact. You must read the scriptures, but the intention must be that of faithful inquiry not an intellectual exercise. Most biblical archaeologists as not religious people at all. They have no interest in the spiritual claims of the text.

Your argument is eloquent, but it draws from a rational root that is simple not supported by the biblical record. The experiment ALWAYS begins with faith, which is the hope for things not yet known but true. It starts with the heart-felt desire inspired by the Spirit to get to know more about God and to get closer to Him. Anything else is indeed an intellectual exercise, which in my sometimes less than humble opinion, could be the first step in a very slippery slope if your faith is not solidly rooted.

What do you think?

Well, I'm sorry, but I am above all a rational person. That is simply who I am, and my post was about my experience of faith, and my process of coming to and nurturing that faith. It was not intended to be a how-to guide for anyone else. If, as you seem to imply, my approach to faith is less perfect than it ought to be, then that is my own failing and a function of my nature, which at this point I cannot remedy. Perhaps I need to work on that. But I feel that my faith is strong, and I stand by my assertion that we are given rational minds and intellect for a good reason, and that we are to use these in the exercise of our faith, both the cultivation of it and the exercise of it in our everyday actions. Of course, that is simply my opinion, which I happen to consider to be just as good as that of any other common human being. :)

[DigitalShadow]

Hello DS:

I think you suffer from "west-tocitosis" like a dear friend of mine coined our short-sighted, naive and misinformed perspective of world. There is no such thing as an "universal sense of right and wrong." Just because you see a more or less "civilized" societies in the west and the appearance of law and order it does not mean that it is the norm but rather the exception.

In most of the world today, law, order and rules are ascertained based on mores and values, communal rules linked to survival and the threat of war. Safety and well being is a function of tribal affiliation, aggressive posturing and the means to inflict death or the fear of.

The ONLY reason the west is a bit better is because of the Judeo-Christian traditions and history. But we are 1000 years away from its origins so we can not see it. You are a product of the west and its mores and values, including a socially "impregnated" sense of moral behavior, which is nothing more than socially expected behavior that can be adjusted depending on your family history, educational level, socioeconomic status and the like. But it is not a universal concept. The natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the beginning.

For the non-believer there is no life after death so nothing to worry about. It is the one that knows but decides to ignore the "warning labels" for whatever reason the one that should be affraid. At the end of the road the anxiety creeps in and they then recognize that there is no other way but to turn to God for certainty. Although some remain defiant to the end. Go figure. For the believer faith is precisely the absence of fear. It is the affirmation of certainty since we know for SURE where we are going after this life on account of having lived our lives in accordance with the commandments of God, who is the ultimate judge and arbiter for the faithful and also the unfaithful.

I was not implying that you were not an upstanding citizen. On the contrary. Eloquent as your assertion is about you being a morally upright person, which again is in nowise in question, it is however naive. To say that it is a spontaneous expression of self (universal goodness) ignores most of the atrocities recorded in recent history. Again I have heard the argument before and it seems to me that ignoring/denying God but believing in goodness and an innate sense of right or wrong is like talking about wood furniture and refusing to talk about the forest.

Any thoughts?

I believe that people have a basic sense of right and wrong which is refined and enforced with laws and culture. Just because some places in the world are less "civilized", doesn't mean they have a different basic sense of right and wrong, they have simply justified their actions with necessity. Survival is obviously a stronger human imperitive than altruism, that doesn't mean altruism doesn't exist. Anyone who spends a few seconds pondering morality will realize that if everyone treated others how they would like to be treated the world would be a lot better place. The fact that our country is prosperous and that we don't have to worry about survival or impending invasions means that we are better able to focus on morality, it has little or nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian cultural start.

I would also like to clarify something. Believing that there is nothing after death is a belief, just like believing there is something after death. A "non-believer" doesn't have to subscribe to either of those. I admit that I have no idea what happens after I die, and I am OK with that. You say that faith is the absence of fear for a believer, but I tend to think it is more accurately the reliever of fear. Instead of having to deal with the concept of not knowing what happens, a believer puts their faith into a religion and then they no longer have to fear because they "know" what will happen.

I don't believe that my good behavior is a spontaneous expression of a universal concept of morality, but I do believe that it has nothing to do with my acceptance/rejecting of God. There are many factors that affect how moral a person is, but in my experience it has little or nothing to do with their religion (or lack there of).

[Guest Malcolm]

No need for apologies. I welcome your reply. I was also expressing my opinion and experience on the matter, which it so happens to diverge somewhat from yours.

We use whatever gifts we are given to discern and inquire and thus there are many.

[Traveler]

......

I would also like to clarify something. Believing that there is nothing after death is a belief, just like believing there is something after death. A "non-believer" doesn't have to subscribe to either of those. I admit that I have no idea what happens after I die, and I am OK with that. You say that faith is the absence of fear for a believer, but I tend to think it is more accurately the reliever of fear. Instead of having to deal with the concept of not knowing what happens, a believer puts their faith into a religion and then they no longer have to fear because they "know" what will happen.

.........

I do not think believers have any better idea of what happens after death than people like your self. Never-the-less there must be a connection with consequences or there will never be a sense of morality, purpose, intelligence or enlightenment.

As a fellow scientist can you give me any example of any event that occurs without incentive or in other words a result without a cause? Is this not contrary to the “scientific method”?

The Traveler

[Aelswyth]

No need for apologies. I welcome your reply. I was also expressing my opinion and experience on the matter, which it so happens to diverge somewhat from yours.

We use whatever gifts we are given to discern and inquire and thus there are many.

Actually, after re-reading your post, I believe we are basically saying very similar things; we both believe in the chicken and the egg, where we differ is in our opinions of which comes first. Either way, I think it's safe to say that the two in co-existence (intellectual knowledge and faith) support and continually give birth to one another, all things being ideal.

I'm still not sure, though, that I agree with your idea of scriptural history showing a progression from evidence-based belief to faith-based belief. In most scriptural accounts, evidence was provided to those who showed themselves worthy by having at least enough faith to fill a mustard-seed. Meaning, yes, one must at least believe in the possibility of such things, otherwise one is unable to perceive them. Those who don't believe they can be healed, cannot be healed. "No sign will be given to this evil and adulterous generation." But still, evidences are provided for those that deserve them. After all, the Father and Son appeared in the flesh to Joseph Smith, which I think is a far greater manifestation than the simple burning bush which Moses first saw. Joseph Smith and others saw many physical manifestations and heard audible voices. They saw Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, multiple angels, and multiple resurrected prophets. I don't consider that to indicate progressing towards faith without evidence. I do, however, think that that viewpoint is one that could be espoused by the mainstream churches who no longer believe in visions, manifestations and miracles - those who "have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof". It would certainly be necessary for them to believe that evidences are no longer given, because otherwise they would be faced with the plain fact that God is just not revealing himself to them because they don't deserve it. (Not to claim that I've seen any manifestations or out-of-the-ordinary miracles myself; I'm probably as undeserving as the next person in that regard!)