Criteria For Establishing Truth, or Adequate Justification for Believability

(from notebook, July 7 2006)

I'm seeking evidence that supports a belief in god and religion. Like most people, I feel strongly that my own position on the subject-an agnostic one-is plainly correct. I'm so nearly convinced of this that I don't doubt I could close the door on the subjects of God and Faith today and feel content living as I choose to live until the day I die. I feel strongly that the non-religous life is clearly superior to that of a believer. Furthermore, I tend to think that a life of faith is so unreasonable, I'd dare call it outrageous or absurd.

Others, noting that I possess such an attitude, might ask, "Josh, what evidence is required to convince you that there is a god who created this world and currently occupies himself in our affairs?"

I hold that the best evidence is that which is plainly apparant to my senses. And the more senses experiencing the direct evidence of the existence of god, the better.

Beyond this, the best evidence is scientific-be it empirical data or sound logical arguments.

The next best evidence barely qualifies as "evidence". It is a judgement of reasonableness, which includes the use of common sense. For example, why would a person believe in the north pole when he/she has never actually been there and experienced it first hand? How can mere claims convince us that the north pole really exists?

In this example, mere claims are not all that support the proposition that a north pole exists. We have photos, stories, and scientific studies that all attest to the poles existence. By now, the pole is spoken of as if its presence were a plain and simple fact. You find no one arguing for a belief in the North Pole. No one is claiming while lacking direct evidence of its existence. And it is somewhat reasonable to observe that no agenda is furthered by claiming that a North Pole exists.

Yet, speaking of something as though it were plainly true does not make it so. What then is the difference between a lie that sounds like a plain statement of truth and a plain statement that is indeed a fact? No doubt believers throughout their lives have participated in meetings in which God and Jesus are spoken of as though their existence is the simplest and clearest of facts. While this plain speech does not make something true, its effects are both powerful and subtle, producing conviction that's an enormous barrier to reason.

In order to extract the core difference between that which is unworthy of belief and that which is qualified to be believed (truth), lets create an analogy.

You have heart disease; and if nothing is done about it, you will die within the month. An aquaintance refers you to someone who claims to have found a cure for ailing hearts. You meet this person at his office to discuss the subject. This person states that he is a biologist who, for years, has studied a unique species of jelly fish that live only in remote tributaries of the Amazon River. According to this "expert", these jelly fish produce a toxin which will completely heal a diseased heart. Allegedly, the toxin breaks down and assists in the rebuilding of heart tissue. This cure can be had only after you make a trip to Brazil to meet the Jelly Fish handler and fork over $400,000 in cash; which, incidentally, amounts to the value of your home, two cars, as well as your retirement and children's college funds.

The other option available to you is a heart transplant; which, according to your doctor, is a very risky procedure, and one that only promises a few more quality living years if successful. Your doctor claims that only one donor heart could be found and that a trip to the Phillippines would be required immediately in order to obtain it and undergo the operation. After the operation, you would be forced to remain in intensive care in the Phillippines for nearly a month.

You simply cannot take both trips. Your time is limited. Being a redneck from the deep woods of northern Alabama, you have never heard of heart tranplants and you've never known anyone personally who has had one performed. Who can you believe? Your doctor or the jelly fish expert?

What are the criteria for truth? What justifies belief? Can a test be constructed? We'll see....

The Unreality of Overstreet's Pyschological Reality

(from notebook, July 4 2006)
Upon reading a few pages of The Enduring Quest by Overstreet:

Overstreet identifies an invisible reality behind physical reality. This invisible reality, or psychological reality, consists of the "whys" associated with physical things. For example, "why" did an author write a book. "Why" did an engineer build a bridge. "Why did the artist utilize those colors. The answers consist of needs, frustrations, triumphs-feelings/mind-behind all things. These answers could fill books, granting the ordinary much glory. Seen in this light, Overstreet seems to bestow upon physical reality significance and meaning, as well as a depth of information not unlike the information shared by an art historian critiquing a work of art.

Does a work of art literally possess both the emotion and reason which occupied the artist while creating it? No. But in a sense it communicates it spiritually, if you will.

A psychologist might explain the effects of a piece of art by referring to both instinctual and learned emotion which are communicated through works of art due to the commonality of our emotional natures. Yes, "spiritually" is a misleading word, just as Overstreets concept of this invisible reality is misleading. It is a human psychological construction, just as so much of our "reality" is. To a great extent, we depend on similar constructions for our continued happiness. Overstreet chooses to infuse something abstract or mystical into his conception of the mind and reality. He creates a reality out of simple correlating facts; the learned, natural emotions attached to those facts; as well as an unreasonable faith in purpose/meaning.

Diminishing Controlling Factors: Church and State

(from notebook)
Religion is a great distraction for mankind. It offers other worldly rewards and answers. Its mysticism robs us of happiness by diverting our attention from our true condition. It is no wonder humanity struggles with poverty, violence, ill health, and overpopulation when two major institutions of control-church and state-work to draw individuals' attention away from their lives and towards the minutia of political and heavenly affairs. Of course, the greatest controllers in life are deeply ingrained and personal (instinct and culture) and it is in dealing with these things that government and religion leave us ill equipped.

Both institutions, in many significant examples, have indeed worked to arm people with the knowledge and tools needed to find greater happiness. Modern religions' moral codes are better than no moral codes at all, I'm inclined to say. I think that someone who has adopted many unnecessary moral rules and is highly restrained will likely be a happier person than someone who is so immoral and out of control that he harms himself and others, and likely finds himself so out of sync with society that he is ultimately imprisoned. Some measure of law, order, and equality imposed by a state seems to me to be preferable to complete anarchy.

Yes, I admit that there have been responsible, intelligent rules of conduct implemented by both Church and State. It is the seemingly arbitrary, unreasonable, dogmatic rules that are offensive to me. Most unacceptable are these institutions tendency to offer up fears and concerns which fill our minds, hearts, and time...offering excuses or justifications for neglecting our own enjoyment, our own sense of freedom. It is difficult enough maintaining our preferred lifestyles and soothing our own natural fears and insecurities in order to experience perfect moments of enjoyment without having to suffer additional fears and insecurities propogated by these two monstrous institutions.

I advocate the transformation of religion based upon vague, empty messages from the self-declared divine of ancient times into a sort of humanist "religion", based on goodwill, empathy, mutual concern & benefit, and desire for personal freedom. This transformation began hundreds if not thousands of years ago, but has sputtered forward, or progressed, at a snails pace, only to see periods of great hope crushed on a routine basis in this last century by the evil and chaos of the great wars. Public education should involve not just the assimilation of knowledge, but the strengthening of character primarily in accordance with this progressive humanist "religion"-instilling respect and love for others and oneself.

I also advocate "hero-governments" which provide security, health, and emergency assistance to nations. You might imagine these governments resembling a local government in function-providing police, emergency, and medical services. Policy would by and large be domestic. A hero-government would only be concerned with securing a society in which happiness can be freely sought by individuals in whatever manner they chose, as long as they did not compromise this society, or do injustice to others. The judicial branch of government would be quite large. It would be bound by a measure of justice based largely on science, and subject to numerous checks by independent, unbiased organizations.

So I may be lacking the details and logistics to start writing constitutions and begin nation building. More than anything, I digress. Returning to the subject of happiness, with this last entry I've come to realize that the ingredients for happiness which are most deserving of my attention are what proactive system of morals shall we adopt, and in what ways can we manipulate, destroy, or harmonize with the primary controlling factors in our lives--instinct, culture, and personality--to best serve our pursuit of happiness.

The happiness formula is known (but what of the next degree?)

The idea that happiness is man's natural emotional state is almost certainly one of those attractive, easy to understand explanations for a more complex phenomenon. Though I'm sure this is true, I wonder to what degree happiness is actually suppressed throughout one's lifetime and especially during puberty. What would be even more interesting would be to determine exactly which social and cultural mores unneccessarily and cruely work to turn kids from the free expression/feeling of joy. What fascets of our culture, or which tactics of parenting, cause some children to bottle up their youthful energy and exhuberance? Being a developmental specialist, I'm sure my mom could attempt to answer these sorts of questions. Finally, I'd note that its entirely possible-and quite likely-that the natural hormonal changes of puberty have the largest impact on a child's transition from free expression to a relative obsession with social/sexual acceptance.

Working with the idea as a basis for the happiness formula, it seems as though our focus will fall on two areas. 1) The removal of negative barriers to happiness, and 2) the creation of controls which ultimately yeild greater happiness (morals?). #2 is deserving of greater thought, whereas entire fields of science are already dedicated to #1 (psychology, therapy, medicine, etc), however unrecognized or unpracticed such fields may be in the day to day lives of common people. #2 involves the construction of a system of morality based on science-a) what behavior produces the most positive affect on the individual; and b) the learning of wisdom-a depth of knowledge of one's body and mind which leads individuals to make the best choices for their wellbeing. And with these two components of happiness, the latter (b) is the least controversial, while being, yet again, a truth that is largely ignored by Americans.

In quick review, I assert that many, many people neglect their physical and mental well beings by ignoring common knowledge regarding how to live a healthy lifestyle, and by turning a blind eye to a large body of science which offers help for mental, emotional, physical, and relationship problems. This may be an extreme generalization, but I think it gets to the point that if people were serious about being happier, they'd find that most components of the "formula" are already known-they're just not implemented. The knowledge of all negativities (past psychological, physical, mental, etc) burdens on the body and mind, and the necessity of the negativities removal for happiness, deserves greater recognition.

The importance of Energy for happiness

(from notebook--free form)
Regarding the notion of an "equation" for happiness, which is meant to be a big part of this blog:

Energy is a very important part of that equation.
Or is it? I can be very relaxed, very tired, and still be quite happy.
This sort of happiness may be more rare. You may call it contentment.
Perhaps by "energy" I mean mental vitality, which is very close to being synonymous with "happiness" itself.
Play involves energy and motion and it seems to produce happy feelings.

My making note of the importance of energy for happiness came about recently when I was feeling particularly tired. Which begs the question: Am I mistaking energy with a lack of tiredness? Is tiredness akin to pain, which would rid the equation of the need of "energy" as a factor in the equation. We could then simply place greater importance upon a lack of pain for happiness.

But how can an equation that aspires to produce something-happiness-boil down to the absence of something-pain? It is plausible if the natural state of man is happiness. Then one could understand that if she removed all impediments, she would be perfectly happy. It is far from settled, but we can still ask whether the natural state or the natural inclination (motion) of humans is happiness. This idea seems to find support through the observation of children. While kids experience all emotion, including negative, they more often demonstrate happiness when their physical needs are taken care of. And they certainly seem to demonstrate happiness that adults do-adults who have spent a lifetime "taming" their natural inclination to be happy.

The logic of The Reconstruction of Belief, and thoughts

(from pink notebook)

Notes on The Reconstruction of Belief, by Charles Gore

These notes are an attempt to present the logic utilized by the author.
Author:
--It is undeniable, when one observes the universe and mind of man, that there exists a universal mind or spirit.
--The universe is the manifestation/will of this mind.
--Therefore, there is a god...
--The unity of experience of the prophets and others in the Bible demonstrates that God is a god with a distinct personallity.
--This personality, or unity of message, translates to (partial quote): God is intensely personal and moral. He is the one and only god, the absolute creator, sustainer, and judge of all that is. He is almighty. He has a purpose. He wants to make his people understand that there is no manner of fellowship with Him except by conformity to goodness, by 'doing justly and loving mercy and walking humbly'. He wishes to overthrow, one by one, every device of human pride and willfulness, and finally to vindicate himself in his whole creation.

The author of The Reconstruction of Belief, predictably, encourages the reader to possess a willing, open mind, free of preconceived notions and biases when reading the book. This is good advice. But, I propose, if this "open mindedness" which the author so fervently asks for bares too much semblance to unthinking, uncritical acceptance, then he may have devised a way, through reason, to lull an average reader into bed, so to speak. An open mind and open heart, when faced with an emotional treatise and large amounts of information, will naturally be overcome or overwhelmed into accepting a large measure of the argument before him due to lack of sufficient counterpoint. You can approach a work-and should approach a work-with great contempt for anything uttered that seems at first unreasonable. The absorption of a great deal of information (as is present in scripture and is present in greater quantity through the words of preachers), sans critical thinking, will guarantee cognitive assimilation. Criticism is never bias/closed mindedness. It is a manifestation of open mindedness.

Notes continued...
pg 106. "We have to take note both of the individuality and distinctiveness of the message of each of the prophets and the continuity of the teaching through their whole succession" This, the author seems to argue, is indicative of God's particular personality, and why prophecy/scripture is true/valid.

Is human will more reaction or practivity (new activity from new thought), or is it more chaotic? Does freedom exist, or is it a facade?

Author says:
Biology has never proven adequate for expressing the movement of life. Mind and freedom seem to belong to the conscious mind from the beginning. Mind and freedom seem to belong to the conscious mind from the beginning.

The author's strongest conviction is that man has free will.
Note: Personality, which the author calls "the highest known thing" may be a result of a chaotic, lawful universe just like photosynthesis or avalanches.
Note: The idea that god created everything, is omniscient and omnipotent, translates into "authority and power is ultimately found in something other than your national/civil/clan leader. Do not relent to any other will but the God's, or the churches." If one thinks of the Catholic Church as just another entity seeking power through the aquisition of others' wills and wealth, then one can see how Chrisianity's view of god helps serve that purpose.

A short Q & A aiding in the erosion of the individual will's preeminence

(from pink notebook)

Look back on purpose.
Q: Is it possible that someone else knows what is best for us?
A: Yes
Q: How possible?
A: Very possible
Q: So, does this mean we'd be wise to seek out those people?
A: Yes
Q: How do we know when we find them?
A: We would go to the people who have demonstrated the most success with others. Like a mentor, a wise man, leader. Even though they could get things wrong from time to time, there should be no doubt that they'd get thing right more often than you or I would.

{note: admittedly, this could be called plagiarism, it sounds so much like a quote from Plato's Republic, or Laches & ?... At any rate, its very very interesting to note that there is something about modern liberal thinking that resists what this apparant truth about authority implies. Being a modern liberal thinker myself, I might point out the great void that exists just outside our selfs which serves to keep us in constant doubt of all external supposed truths. The void is not truly a void, but might as well be when one considers the vast difference between experiential knowledge (from our senses and direct experience) and any other form of knowledge. What I'm saying is that the only reason I do not simply seek out the wisest, most accomplished individual and hand over my will (as believers try to do with the church and god) is because the great knowledge void, or the base of knowledge that exist apart from my experiential knowledge, is worthy of great fear and distrust. Being liberal, my faith resides in myself, however unfounded that faith may be, and my responsibility is to myself. This notion is empowering and required for individual growth. If one is not liberal, and is more concerned with society as a whole, I'd think he'd have to admit that liberalism and individual growth are only beneficial to society. A society of strong individuals should be better than a society of sheep. Or am I wrong? Also, you might ask whether I am wrong about fearing/distrusting all non-experiential knowledge. What of science? Finally, could a simple answer suffice. Like, handing over our wills temporarily to experts of specific aspects of life/living is wise, while handing over our wills to those who claim to know best about how to live our entire lives is ignorant...for such people, like life coaches, are not likely to exist}

Life as a series of trying and accomplishing

[the following is the continuation of my transcribtion (nice word, eh?) of handwritten content from my pink coffee shop notebook to this blog. I've got to say, what I intended to address here is very important (how to use accomplishment for happiness as efficiently and effectively as possible...and to reveal any problems with the notion of accomplishment/goal orientation for aquisition of contentment...or something like that). However, my free form here got a little off track, I think. Here it is:]

So a person can choose to live life as a series of trying and accomplishing. One most likely would do so because it makes him/her happy; and as with everything that makes people happy, it is wise to give into it at some point...

If I were to deconstruct the reasons for why accomplishment makes people happy, could I simplify it to the point where "accomplishment" could be achieved without undo effort, or without wasted energy, or with greater pleasure...?

We are taught through positive reinforcement and observation that doing something of note is good. We are taught this from a very very young age. It is deeply ingrained in our personalities. However, we've all experienced great relaxation/pleasure/joy doing things that are not purpose oriented. What are those things? Well, it seems as though everything we do has the purpose of giving us more pleasure/joy... There is the potential for reward in everything we do. From achiving purpose for pleasure or gettingn a law degree for pride and money-and pleasure from pride and money.

The question is not should I live for a purpose; the questions are for my own purpose or for others' purposes? Religion says for others'--or the others is actually yous if only you knew what god knows.

The question is how do I go about accomplishing my goal. What specific purpose do I have,when all is said and done. There is a wiser, better way of accomplishing the goal--once the goal is accomplished, then what do you do? Can you expect more.

Intellectual stimulation. Contentment is a majoy goal-it is happiness... Happiness is contentment plus excitement/pleasure through physical/mental activity....

Analysis of Purpose

Hey there. So, I'm going to continue transcribing handwritten content from my pink notebook to this blog.

This next bit I titled "Analysis of Purpose". Beneath the title I provided a hierarchy of statements of purpose which imply intelligence. That hierarchy is such:

I have a calling
It is destiny
It was fate
I have a purpose
I have a reason to live
Why do I exist?
Why?

Yeah, and then I drew arrows from each statement to what I think it implies. Here you go:

I have a calling: God or a ruler or wiseman chose me to do something. There are qualities about me that make me worthy of special assignment. I am special. I am not worthless and my life is not without meaning.

It is destiny: A supreme being or power, in the beginning, foresaw and intended for this to happen. I am a part of the plan-a plan with or without purpose. A plan like a journey with a destination. {...Doesn't a journey have a purpose, like, to enjoy? Couldn't a journey's purpose be only to set events in motion? But could you divorce the will of the person with his day to day choices based on purpose (less pain, more enjoyment), from the course of events? He is a course of events... his is a part of it all. His will is no more than the changing of the wind or the rotation of the earth. All were set in motion, a supposed "journey" began, and it continues to this day witn no macro purpose. There are only micro purposes on the same level of the human mind.}

It was fate: It occured because it was meant to. It was meant to because someone decreed it to (and had power over everything) OR, It was meant to occur because all things were once set in motion, and all things necessarily follow.

I have a purpose: I have chosen to take up actions for achieving a specific goal; OR, I believe someone else has given me a purpose for whatever reason.

I have a reason to live: By simply living I am satisfying some need.

Why do I exist? I may or may not have a reason for existing, but I feel I do and want to know what it is.

Why? The action taken was taken w/ consideration of all possible action and possible consequences of those actions.

All implies intelligence. At the top of the hierarchy, supreme intelligence is implied, at the bottom, basic intelligence.
A concluding question: What is below "why" on the hierarchy? What's above it? Is it correct to even ask "why"?

-So, that is my "Analysis of Purpose". The less than expected result was an emphasis on intelligence: resembling faith in a supreme intelligene at the highest level of purpose, and being something akin to the easy assumption of a basic intelligence in the simple question "why?" I'll add that sometimes I've thought it either ignorant or presumptuous to believe that purpose lies behind everything, and to ask "why?" in such a way that a working will or human mind is implied.