Comments on: A Humean Hope

By: Jeff G

Jeff G — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:53:53 +0000

Well, I don’t want to say that it is all that bad and I did caricature it a little bit. However, there is a time and a place in which each tool ought to be used, and I think the Socratic Method, or the rules of Liberal Science in general are too often treated as if this rule did not apply to them. I don’t think that everything “ought” to be examined.(!) I think that some conceptual tools work precisely because they go unexamined. Ironically enough, I think the rules of Liberal Science themselves are tools whose efficacy depends upon their being unexamined. This, I think, is where I part ways with Rorty.

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:56:10 +0000

I think one thing about the Alma 32 imagery is that we can plant a seed and see it sprout in unexpected places. Great point Jeff.

The socratic method I don’t see quite as negatively as you do. I don’t think it’s really about criticizing everything but your own position. Socrates point was that everything had to be examined after all. The problem with some is that they don’t reflect sufficiently on their position at hand.

That said I clearly agree there are big limits to the socratic method and one should put bounds on public criticism as a method.

By: Jeff G

Jeff G — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 04:43:29 +0000

Geoffrey, I can definitely identify with a lot of what you say. I wish you nothing but the best in your search for happiness.

Totally unrelated and just for the record: My post was not meant to suggest that in time we can or ought to violate the rules of rational inquiry such that we can pass from conceptual point A to point B. Rather, I meant to suggest that the rules of rational inquiry are sufficiently flexible, nuanced and versatile that, given enough time and motivation, it is pretty much possible to go from any point A to any point B without violating them.

By: Stephen M (Ethesis)

Stephen M (Ethesis) — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:37:23 +0000

Geoffrey — I surely wish you well.

By: Geoffrey

Geoffrey — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:28:31 +0000

A very poignant realization for me is that belief is heavily dependent upon experience. I was excommunicated three years ago and vowed that I would never set foot in an LDS church again. I have attempted to discard all previous beliefs, especially about morality, trying to convince myself that having premarital sex, for instance, is OK as long as I’m “committed” to someone. I tried so hard to believe this because I was so attached to the behavior, but the outcome was always the same. My life and thinking seemed always out of sorts and off balance. In short, a belief I tried to dislodge is, and most likely, will be with me the rest of my life. Why that is, I don’t know. Part of me thinks that much of it has to do with social conditioning (parents, primary, young men, mission, etc.). Although this might explain some of it, I think a more accurate explanation is that truth is constant.
A few weeks ago, I had an experience. Without going into detail, this experience has led me back into open inquiry. I’m actually open and willing to learn from a different angle whereas before, I was completely closed to the possibility. I’ve now stopped drinking beer and coffee, have attended church twice, and have an appointment with the bishop this week. I feel an enormous amount of resistance and I understand the hardship ahead. My point is that, the beliefs I thought I no longer had (and didn’t necessarily want) are with me. In many cases, they operate in the background like a computer application without me even aware of them. And it is life’s experiences that bring them into full view.

By: Jeff G

Jeff G — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:32:29 +0000

Thanks for sharing that, Lawrence. One of my biggest fears, while posting here at the Thang, is that the thoughts and conceptual tools I’m trying to share are doing more harm than good.

I can’t help but suspect that one of the motivations behind our blogging presence is that we feel a common tension in our lives between the things we want to believe and the things that we feel like we “have” to believe. I certainly know that I’ve felt that tension in my life, and many of the posts and emails that I read over the years lead me to believe that I’m not alone. My hope is that the free exchange of thoughts and ideas among us can help to relieve this tension.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:32:12 +0000

Jeff, I’ve followed your posts and comments here and on your own blog for several years now. Your life’s arc and your recent writings have been a powerful inspiration to me and a source of hope; my own faith has required considerable work, both emotional and intellectual, and you’ve helped me with it as you’ve shared your own thoughts and experiences, in this post perhaps more than any.

By: Jeff G

Jeff G — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:49:25 +0000

A couple more metaphors which come to mind:

Quine talks about each person’s web of beliefs wherein any belief can be saved if the proper adjustments are made elsewhere in the web.

I also like to think of this as a somewhat drawn out evolutionary process by which we are able to gradually construct a robust conceptual niche which is hospitable to the beliefs we value most.

Both imply that the process of making a comfortable space for some beliefs takes time and real intellectual work.

By: Kent (MC)

Kent (MC) — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:25:51 +0000

We need to have more doubt in our doubts.

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:34:46 +0000

I am still think through this, but I think I agree. When I was new in the church, new information perpetually had me on the ropes, and I was a literal embodiment of being “thrown about by every bit of doctrine”, or however the saying goes. I think it is because I am a doubter by nature. But with time, I have learned to give my faith and religious convictions the benefit of the doubt (as opposed to just the doubt). What is not rational now will either become rational through a transformation of me or a transformation of it.