What They Talk About: Historical Skepticism of Mormonism

[OGHoosier]

On 8/12/2025 at 12:39 PM, Analytics said:

 

When people lean on the former, i.e. the tools of methodological empiricism, tested against our known cognitive blind spots, the trajectory is remarkably consistent. Whether they began as evangelical, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, or Southern Baptist, they converge on a naturalistic view of the world: no credible evidence for the supernatural, no surviving "god hypothesis." Call their belief systems atheism, agnosticism, humanism, naturalism, or "none," they are all in the same neighborhood. Think of Steven Pinker, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Steven Weinberg,Sean Carroll, Bart Ehrman, David Bokovoy.... While there is diversity is in the starting points, following real-world evidence in a way that overcomes cognitive biases leads to the same place.

 

What methodology do these people share?

After all, they don't really share research methodologies, areas of expertise, or even common trajectories (have you looked up what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been up to lately?) I see some physicists, some philosophers, some biblical scholars by training and methodology - wildly different fields. Their careers do not accomodate ready comparison - except, of course, in the conclusions they reject. Rather odd for you to hold these disparate individuals up as methodological examples. One could be forgiven for thinking that you selected them principally based on the conclusions they came to, which conclusions form the measure of "methodological empiricism tested against our known cognitive blind spots." After all, biases are heuristics, the validity of which can only be decided once the facts are. Rather circular. 

I find it unfortunate that, though many others in relevant fields have come to different conclusions, you say nothing about them. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I find it unfortunate that, though many others in relevant fields have come to different conclusions, you say nothing about them. 

If only they could converge on a single faith, then you might be on to something… 🤔

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If only they could converge on a single faith, then you might be on to something… 🤔

Analytics's own description of the inevitable outcome of proper methodology was "a naturalistic view of the world: no credible evidence for the supernatural, no surviving 'god hypothesis.'" Any opposition to that absolute premise is in the same camp as regards this proposition  - that's the nature of absolutes. In passing, I note that Sabine Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll take different sides on the question of superdeterminism. Should we toss the consistency of the atheists out the window too?

I find it somewhat surprising that you would offer this critique since all of the examples I linked rejected the above position in favor of Christianity (though it could be argued that Godel was simply a personalist theist.) Though, since you posted about 8 minutes after I did, and Larry Sanger's argument alone is a 15 minute read, I don't have very good evidence to believe that you referred to them all.

 

Edited August 14, 2025 by OGHoosier

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

What methodology do these people share?

In general, these people all use the tools of rationality.

11 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

After all, they don't really share research methodologies, areas of expertise, or even common trajectories (have you looked up what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been up to lately?)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali apparently became a Christian 2 years ago. Quoting Wikipedia:

Quote

In November 2023, Hirsi Ali converted to Christianity stating that "atheism can't equip us for civilisational war."^[145][146] Explaining her decision in an essay for UnHerd, Ali argued that the West was under threat from "the resurgence of great-power authoritarianism and expansionism in the forms of the Chinese Communist Party and Vladimir Putin's Russia; the rise of global Islamism, which threatens to mobilise a vast population against the West; and the viral spread of woke ideology, which is eating into the moral fibre of the next generation."^[146] Against such threats, secular approaches, whether they be arguments, technologies, or military force, are, in her view, inadequate.^[146] She concluded that upholding Judeo-Christian traditions was the most credible answer for the Western society to survive.^[146] 

Personally, it seems awfully cynical to me to strategically believe false things because society can’t survive without doing so. But on the other hand, the most common insight Yuval Noah Harari talks about is that our capacity to believe false things is the secret to humanity’s ability to create civilizations.

In any case, there is a fundamental difference between embracing Christianity because you read the Bible and accepted it as God’s Word, and embracing Christianity because you believe it is better equipped than atheism to win a culture war against Islam.

11 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I see some physicists, some philosophers, some biblical scholars by training and methodology - wildly different fields. Their careers do not accomodate ready comparison - except, of course, in the conclusions they reject. Rather odd for you to hold these disparate individuals up as methodological examples. One could be forgiven for thinking that you selected them principally based on the conclusions they came to, which conclusions form the measure of "methodological empiricism tested against our known cognitive blind spots."

I think you missed the point. While its true that the people I listed reject belief in astrology, werwolves, magic elves, a flat earth, etc., you reject almost all of those same things, too. What they have in common that is more interesting is the positive conclusion in naturalism. Rationality leads to this. It doesn’t lead to an infinite long list of false belief systems. 

11 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

After all, biases are heuristics, the validity of which can only be decided once the facts are. Rather circular. 

Calling my position circular misses the distinction between process and outcome. I’m not defining the method by the fact that it leads to naturalism; I’m pointing out that when you use methods that force predictive risk, survive falsification, update in proportion to evidence, and actively correct for known cognitive blind spots, you repeatedly get a map of reality that’s drained of the supernatural. That’s an empirical observation about where the method lands, not a premise I’ve baked into it.

So, sure, the people I listed don’t share an academic field or data set. What they share is a willingness to run their beliefs through those error-correcting tools and follow the results, even when the results kill cherished intuitions. That’s the common methodology, and that’s why the convergence matters.

11 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I find it unfortunate that, though many others in relevant fields have come to different conclusions, you say nothing about them. 

Did you read my post to the end? These are the type of people I had in mind when I said:

If, instead, you want a "truth" that sidesteps these proven tools, you have the full buffet of human tradition. You can believe what you're taught in seminary. Or the Sunday school of your choice. Or the synagogue. Or the mosque. Or the psychic. Or the Wiccan. Drink the sacrament wine. Or smoke some peyote. Or climb a mountain and meditate with a Buddhist in Tibet if that is your thing. Do whatever you want and you'll get an answer, and the odds are good you'll choose the same one you set out trying to believe in the first place.

If somebody like Hirsi Ali or Don Bradley decide they don’t want to be an atheist they are free to choose whatever belief system they like. That’s my point. But, there is a difference between choosing a religion based on what you like and choosing a religion on what rationality indicates is actually literally true. If you do the latter, it leads to the same place.

Edited August 14, 2025 by Analytics

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

In passing, I note that Sabine Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll take different sides on the question of superdeterminism. Should we toss the consistency of the atheists out the window too?

My actual words weren’t that 100% of their specific beliefs about everything, even things on the edge of the known and the knowable, would be exactly the same. What I said was their beliefs would be “in the same neighborhood.” 

And that’s the beauty of having a free mind. You aren’t told by a prophet, priest, or shaman what you are supposed to believe. You can dive into the evidence and follow where it leads. And if you do so properly, it leads to the same general place.

Based on the strength of the evidence, having an appropriate level of uncertainty is a feature of the system, not a bug. Debating about it is great.

Edited August 14, 2025 by Analytics

[Analytics]

I happen to have a license to ChatGPT Pro, and to explore my ideas regarding this thread, I asked GPT-5 Pro the following four prompts. If anyone is interested in the answers I got, let me know.

Prompt 1

You are completely open to the supernatural, and in that sense have a completely open mind. Without any guidance from anybody, you decide to read the Book of Mormon. You pray about it according to Moroni 10:4, and get a distinct burning in the bosom, indicating to you that the Book of Mormon is in fact "true," and you decide that the religious beliefs, practices, and institutions described in the Book of Mormon are real and contain God's message to us about such things.

Based upon this paradigm--literally believing what is in the Book of Mormon but not being influenced or guided by any individuals about how it should be interpreted--what would you conclude about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City? Would you conclude that it is in fact God's true Church because its teachings, operations, and culture tightly comply with what the Book of Mormon actually says? Or would you suspect that the Mormon pew is a ramiumptom? Does the Book of Mormon teach that the true church *usually* falls into apostasy? If you take everything the Book of Mormon teaches into account, what would you make of the modern Church and its investment portfolio?

Keep your response to under 400 words, and use a conversational style. Give me a single opinion on what independently believing the Book of Mormon most likely says about the likelihood of the Church being true. The goal isn't to measure the correlations between believing the Book of Mormon and believing the Church. The goal is to objectively compare the teachings in the Book of Mormon and see if they point to the Mormon Church being God's one-and-only true Church.

Prompt 2

The real idea I'm exploring is one of methodology. Latter-day Saints often describe reading the Book of Mormon as an "experiment" (Moroni 10, Alma 32) so you can know for yourself if the Book of Mormon is true and that therefore the Church is true. I'd like to explore whether it really is. Imagine you are an expert at rational thought and have a very good understanding of cognitive science, including how and why we are prone to cognitive biases. Other than this understanding, you are completely open to the truth-claims of the Book of Mormon.

In terms of rationality, how would you describe the Church's conversion process, including the tests it proposes to find out if it is true. Is it based on rationality, or is it based on leveraging cognitive biases to integrate people into the community? Or something else? Give us your best single answer to this question. Keep your answer conversational, and under 400 words.

Prompt 3
If a smart, open-minded individual with strong spiritual impulses sincerely wants to know the truth about which religious belief system is right, but whose most important goal is to only believe things that are true, what should he do to figure out the truth? If he is really dedicated to finding and embracing the truth and takes these steps that are most likely to lead to what is true, can you predict what belief system or group of belief systems he'll most likely end up?

Daniel C. Peterson said something to the effect that from the perspective of rationality, the question of which religion is true is an open question, because smart people believe a variety of things, including Mormonism. Because the question is open, we are free to believe whatever we want and trust the spirit. He suggests this is by divine intent. Please look up his actual arguments on this point and evaluate his actual point, not the way I paraphrased it. Is there a flaw in this analysis?

So here is the big question. What mode of investigation has the best track record to finding the truth. If your feelings about truth are captured in the hymn "Oh Say What Is Truth?", what should you do to find it? How confidently can you predict where you'll end up? Where is that place? Is that a good thing or bad thing?

Please shoot straight in your answer. 500 words max. Conversational style.

Prompt 4

How do you define agnosticism? How does that differ from atheism? Atheists typically say that atheism means "without belief in God(s)" and generally say they are without belief because "God" hasn't been coherently defined and sufficient proof hasn't been offered. They typically say that they'd change their mind if enough evidence came to light regarding the God hypothesis.

In contrast, they tend to say "agnosticism" means the affirmative belief that an answer to the God hypothesis is intrinsically unknowable. With these definitions, "atheism" is actually a more humble position than "agnosticism"--atheism isn't positively claiming that something is unknowable; it's merely claiming that to date, we lack sufficient evidence to justify belief.

Can you evaluate whether or not these definitions are coherent and are generally the ones most commonly used by self-described atheists? Based on that analysis, would you like to revise your conclusion that "running that playbook" will most likely lead to agnosticism?

Finally, if one is left in this position, what are your thoughts about meaning, morality, and quality of life? Is it possible to find morality, meaning, and joy without God?

On this final question, keep the response to 300 words or less.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 8/13/2025 at 10:07 PM, OGHoosier said:

Analytics's own description of the inevitable outcome of proper methodology was "a naturalistic view of the world: no credible evidence for the supernatural, no surviving 'god hypothesis.'" Any opposition to that absolute premise is in the same camp as regards this proposition  - that's the nature of absolutes. In passing, I note that Sabine Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll take different sides on the question of superdeterminism. Should we toss the consistency of the atheists out the window too?

I find it somewhat surprising that you would offer this critique since all of the examples I linked rejected the above position in favor of Christianity (though it could be argued that Godel was simply a personalist theist.) Though, since you posted about 8 minutes after I did, and Larry Sanger's argument alone is a 15 minute read, I don't have very good evidence to believe that you referred to them all.

 

I don't view Christianity as a single faith. Do you? Additionally, I have no doubt I could find stories of ex-muslims / ex-Hindi's / ex-whatever returning to their faith. You point out that Sabine and Sean have different views. That's great. If you ask them if super-determinism is proven by the data, I know that they would say no. There is room for differing opinions. A naturalistic world view doesn't claim to know all the answers. Sean Carroll is a strong proponent of the many worlds interpretion of Quanotm Mechanics and spends a good amount of time talking about it, but he readily acknowledges it is only one of many possible theories and that further work is needed. 

 

Let's contrast that with Christianity. If I'm am a married gay man and ask "Christians" how I should live my life, how many answers will I get? Will they have the same epistemological humility as the physicists? Or will they declare that they know I'm going to hell? Isn't whether someone is going to live with God or not kind of the point of religion? Why are there so many opinions each stated with certainty on something so straight forward?

[Teancum]

On 8/13/2025 at 10:47 PM, OGHoosier said:

 

What methodology do these people share?

After all, they don't really share research methodologies, areas of expertise, or even common trajectories (have you looked up what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been up to lately?) I see some physicists, some philosophers, some biblical scholars by training and methodology - wildly different fields. Their careers do not accomodate ready comparison - except, of course, in the conclusions they reject. Rather odd for you to hold these disparate individuals up as methodological examples. One could be forgiven for thinking that you selected them principally based on the conclusions they came to, which conclusions form the measure of "methodological empiricism tested against our known cognitive blind spots." After all, biases are heuristics, the validity of which can only be decided once the facts are. Rather circular. 

I find it unfortunate that, though many others in relevant fields have come to different conclusions, you say nothing about them. 

It really does not matter whether they share methodologies or not does it. From whatever acceptable methods they used, they arrived at similar conclusions did they not?

[Teancum]

On 8/5/2025 at 1:50 PM, Pyreaux said:

Science didn’t “disprove God”

It just helped clear the fog of bad ideas people tied to Him. If fact, I think God inspired the science to disprove what He didn't say. Science, then, doesn’t destroy revelation. It often sifts away false assumptions that humans attached to it.

Science does not try to disprove God. But religion certainly fails to prove that God exists. It always boils down to faith, some metaphysical testimony gaining experience, it is a mystery and so on and so on. 

[OGHoosier]

@Analytics, I have to chuckle when you say:

Quote

What they have in common that is more interesting is the positive conclusion in naturalism.

When you yourself described the common belief they come to as:

Quote

no credible evidence for the supernatural, no surviving "god hypothesis."

I might not be as smart as Steven Pinker but I can count the occurrences of the word "no" in a sentence. Your definition of naturalism is entirely negative and therefore cannot be a positive conclusion. This puts me in mind of the old Michael Scott "I declare bankruptcy!" gag from The Office. 

"I have come to the positive conclusion that there is no evidence for the supernatural!"

"But that's still a negation!"

"But no, I phrased it POSITIVELY!"

Quote

 I’m not defining the method by the fact that it leads to naturalism; I’m pointing out that when you use methods that force predictive risk, survive falsification, update in proportion to evidence, and actively correct for known cognitive blind spots, you repeatedly get a map of reality that’s drained of the supernatural. That’s an empirical observation about where the method lands, not a premise I’ve baked into it.

Except the examples you choose to demonstrate the consistent results of your methodology don't have a corner on epistemic virtue! In what way was Bertrand Russell somehow more in tune with predictive risk, falsification, and bias correction than Kurt Godel, who blew up the Russellian dream of a complete and consistent mathematics? I've learned a lot from Sean Carroll, but I don't see him as particularly better at these epistemic virtues than Iain McGilchrist, Ed Feser, or Larry Sanger, all of whom have updated and changed their minds based on exposure to evidence and argumentation while coming to dramatically different conclusions about the nature of the universe. I suppose you must consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali circa 2006 superior to Ayaan Hirsi Ali circa 2025, though her style of argumentation doesn't seem to have changed much. Bart Ehrman is an good scholar, but I also get surprising and remarkable insights from others, among them Jonathan Bernier, T.C. Schmidt, and James Ware, who come to different conclusions with imo better cases. You claim much for your cited examples based on a common methodology which you attribute to them, but as far as I can tell, the evidence for both the presence of this methodology and the success of its application is that they came to similar conclusions as you regarding naturalism.

Furthermore, a problem in giving the above as the sine qua non of "rationality" is that the application of these tools depends on the landscape of the questions you ask, the definitions you use, and even your metaphors. That's where the major points of dispute are in the first place. You've got yourself a methodology for arriving at very secure beliefs regarding a subset of questions which (a) rely on readily manipulated experimental conditions or (b) give rise to very straightforward predictions, but this is not the whole picture - the formulation of definitions and predictions is the hard part and necessarily depends on epistemic virtues entirely prior to prediction and falsification! What Pinker calls "rationality" you might as easily call "positivism"; given the scope of his work it's forgiveable that he doesn't dive into the philosophical debates but to treat his work as the summum of rational thought is ridiculous. In so doing you elide vast sweeps of human inquiry and endeavour motivated by the love of truth and spirit of genuine inquiry. 

This would not be Texas sharpshooting if you could give demonstrate that nobody has ever come to an opposite conclusion based entirely on their application of your four tools, or that your four tools really are the only game in town, but I don't see you doing that work. Much cleaner to handwave those who come to different conclusions as slaves to bias.

For my part I recommend the material theory of induction, the idea that theories of induction are always situational and fact-dependent and there are no universal rules for them. I recommend John Norton's very accessible seminal 2010 paper on the topic: https://philpapers.org/rec/NORTAN. This does not invalidate the utility of any of the principles Pinker describes but it does situate them as what they are: useful epistemic tools, the utility of which depends on the research question and the facts. Not "rationality" iself. 

Quote

My actual words weren’t that 100% of their specific beliefs about everything, even things on the edge of the known and the knowable, would be exactly the same. What I said was their beliefs would be “in the same neighborhood.” 

@SeekingUnderstanding, this one's for you too: Superdeterminist and many-worlds interpretations of wave-function collapse are not "in the same neighborhood." They imply radically different and contradictory views of the ontology of the cosmos. If superdeterminism is true, that entails that even quantum indeterminacy is itself determined and totally undermines both the concept of locality and even the possibiliity of falsifiability. If many-worlds is true, than the appearance of quantum indeterminacy is maintained but the universe (and every universe) splits with every wave-function collapse. These are vastly different worldstates. Superdeterminism and many-worlds are farther apart in their implications than the vast majority of Christian sects, but apparently one is "the neighborhood" and the other is not.

People come to accept conclusions other than materialist naturalism for all sorts of reasons. Some see it as philosophically incoherent or observationally inferior to other options. (Godel, Feser, McGilchrist, Thomas Nagel) Some inherit their belief and don't reflect on it much (the modal Sunday School teacher that your critiques seem tailored for.) Others are convinced by historical argumentation. (the McGrews, Don Bradley) Others by radical empiricism, what you might call religious experience. (Blake Ostler, Philip Wiebe, to name a couple) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but behind your references to the "many false ideas" is the implied (but never stated) idea that all of these approaches are to be grouped together in one franken-epistemology that can be charged with, and discredited by, the diversity of the world's religions. I don't think combining all these approaches into one convenient classification makes a lot of sense. It especially doesn't make sense when, in the same breath, you praise the "room for debate" of a group of people who theoretically should be relying on the same methodology yet come to radically different beliefs about the foundational nature of the cosmos!

Edited August 15, 2025 by OGHoosier

[Analytics]

On 8/15/2025 at 3:41 PM, OGHoosier said:

Furthermore, a problem in giving the above as the sine qua non of "rationality" is that the application of these tools depends on the landscape of the questions you ask, the definitions you use, and even your metaphors....

Can you clarify what you’re actually arguing?

Are you saying that when people rigorously apply methodological empiricism (predictive risk, falsifiability, evidence-weighted updating, and bias correction) they don’t converge on a broadly naturalistic view of the world?

Or are you saying that convergence isn’t meaningful--that there’s no epistemic reason to prefer beliefs that survive these filters over those that don’t?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 8/15/2025 at 2:41 PM, OGHoosier said:

 

@SeekingUnderstanding, this one's for you too: Superdeterminist and many-worlds interpretations of wave-function collapse are not "in the same neighborhood." They imply radically different and contradictory views of the ontology of the cosmos. If superdeterminism is true, that entails that even quantum indeterminacy is itself determined and totally undermines both the concept of locality and even the possibiliity of falsifiability. If many-worlds is true, than the appearance of quantum indeterminacy is maintained but the universe (and every universe) splits with every wave-function collapse. These are vastly different worldstates. Superdeterminism and many-worlds are farther apart in their implications than the vast majority of Christian sects, but apparently one is "the neighborhood" and the other is not.

People come to accept conclusions other than materialist naturalism for all sorts of reasons. Some see it as philosophically incoherent or observationally inferior to other options. (Godel, Feser, McGilchrist, Thomas Nagel) Some inherit their belief and don't reflect on it much (the modal Sunday School teacher that your critiques seem tailored for.) Others are convinced by historical argumentation. (the McGrews, Don Bradley) Others by radical empiricism, what you might call religious experience. (Blake Ostler, Philip Wiebe, to name a couple) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but behind your references to the "many false ideas" is the implied (but never stated) idea that all of these approaches are to be grouped together in one franken-epistemology that can be charged with, and discredited by, the diversity of the world's religions. I don't think combining all these approaches into one convenient classification makes a lot of sense. It especially doesn't make sense when, in the same breath, you praise the "room for debate" of a group of people who theoretically should be relying on the same methodology yet come to radically different beliefs about the foundational nature of the cosmos!

I feel like there is a bit of sleight of hand going on here. Analytics initial claim was

Quote

When people lean on the former, i.e. the tools of methodological empiricism, tested against our known cognitive blind spots, the trajectory is remarkably consistent. Whether they began as evangelical, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, or Southern Baptist, they converge on a naturalistic view of the world: no credible evidence for the supernatural, no surviving "god hypothesis." Call their belief systems atheism, agnosticism, humanism, naturalism, or "none," they are all in the same neighborhood. Think of Steven Pinker, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Steven Weinberg,Sean Carroll, Bart Ehrman, David Bokovoy.... While there is diversity is in the starting points, following real-world evidence in a way that overcomes cognitive biases leads to the same place.

No where in there was there a claim that naturalism understands everything about the universe. Here is what Sean Carroll says about many worlds [emphasis mine]:

Quote

All of the approaches to quantum mechanics that we’ve considered face looming challenges as we contemplate developing them into rock-solid foundations for an understanding of the physical world. So each of us has to make a personal judgment about which of these problems will eventually be solved, and which will prove fatal for the various approaches. That’s okay; indeed, it’s crucial that different people come down differently on these judgments about how to move forward. That gives us the best chance to keep multiple ideas alive, maximizing the probability that we’ll eventually get things right.

Many-Worlds offers a perspective on quantum mechanics that is not only simple and elegant at its core but seems ready-made for adapting to the ongoing quest to understand quantum field theory and the nature of spacetime. That’s enough to convince me that I should learn to live with the annoyance of other copies of me being produced all the time. But if it turns out that an alternative approach answers our deepest questions more effectively, I’ll happily change my mind.

Can you point to a general conference address in the last decade that shows the same epistemological humility? How about something from the pope? From the Southern Baptist convention? How about a grand Ayatollah or grand Imam?

Edited August 18, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Malc]

On 8/11/2025 at 11:09 AM, bluebell said:

There is a pronunciation guide in the back of the Book of Mormon, but I have no idea where it came from.  

I'm assuming with the name Moroni that JS passed on the correct way to say it, since the belief is that Moroni actually introduced himself to Joseph Smith in person.

Good points - thanks.

For anyone really interested, there is an article in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: How the Guide to English Pronunciation of Book of Mormon Names Came About. The Abstract says:

Quote

Nobody in the early days of the church attempted to define in print how the proper names appearing in the Book of Mormon—but not the Bible—were to be pronounced. Joseph Smith spelled out unfamiliar proper names to his scribes during the translation process, and he never formally recorded his pronunciations. Throughout the twentieth century, several church committees attempted to standardize the pronunciation and provided a printed guide for English-speaking church members. In studying the pronunciation guide’s evolution for English-speaking church members, one thing becomes clear: church members will probably never pronounce Book of Mormon proper names correctly until either the ancients themselves tell us how they said their names or the Lord reveals the proper pronunciations.

I checked for a Spanish language Guide, but find myself insufficiently interested to pay for it.

[Malc]

On 8/15/2025 at 12:21 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don't view Christianity as a single faith. Do you? Additionally, I have no doubt I could find stories of ex-muslims / ex-Hindi's / ex-whatever returning to their faith. You point out that Sabine and Sean have different views. That's great. If you ask them if super-determinism is proven by the data, I know that they would say no. There is room for differing opinions. A naturalistic world view doesn't claim to know all the answers. Sean Carroll is a strong proponent of the many worlds interpretion of Quanotm Mechanics and spends a good amount of time talking about it, but he readily acknowledges it is only one of many possible theories and that further work is needed. 

 

Let's contrast that with Christianity. If I'm am a married gay man and ask "Christians" how I should live my life, how many answers will I get? Will they have the same epistemological humility as the physicists? Or will they declare that they know I'm going to hell? Isn't whether someone is going to live with God or not kind of the point of religion? Why are there so many opinions each stated with certainty on something so straight forward?

Some religions (including, I believe, Mormonism) claim to provide answers to the "three eternal" questions, the  last of which (below) is relevant to your penultimate question: "Isn't whether someone is going to live with God or not kind of the point of religion?":

• Where did I come from?
• Why am I here?
• Where am I going after this life?

At least, this is what I remember of the "pitch" from the missionaries in Scotland in the 1970s.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Malc said:

Some religions (including, I believe, Mormonism) claim to provide answers to the "three eternal" questions, the  last of which (below) is relevant to your penultimate question: "Isn't whether someone is going to live with God or not kind of the point of religion?":

• Where did I come from?
• Why am I here?
• Where am I going after this life?

At least, this is what I remember of the "pitch" from the missionaries in Scotland in the 1970s.

Quote

Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where do we go after this life? No longer need these universal questions remain unanswered.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/04/the-race-of-life?lang=eng

Also:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/believe/life-has-purpose

Edited August 20, 2025 by Calm

[Malc]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/04/the-race-of-life?lang=eng

Also:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/believe/life-has-purpose

Thanks, Calm. You know you're just encouraging me to be lazy - I could (should) have verified that info myself.

[2BizE]

Many Bible scholars suggest the most primary characters in the Bible are not historical and the stories are just that: stories. Data does not support the existence of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. It is believed that Jesus (Joshua) was a historical figure. If these ancient peoples were actually non-historical, where does this leave the LDS church?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Malc said:

Thanks, Calm. You know you're just encouraging me to be lazy - I could (should) have verified that info myself.

I more than likely have more downtime than you, so you are helping me not be bored. I don’t want to be forced too watch videos all day, lol

Edited August 20, 2025 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 8/14/2025 at 12:18 PM, Analytics said:

I happen to have a license to ChatGPT Pro, and to explore my ideas regarding this thread, I asked GPT-5 Pro the following four prompts. If anyone is interested in the answers I got, let me know.

Prompt 1

You are completely open to the supernatural, and in that sense have a completely open mind. Without any guidance from anybody, you decide to read the Book of Mormon. You pray about it according to Moroni 10:4, and get a distinct burning in the bosom, indicating to you that the Book of Mormon is in fact "true," and you decide that the religious beliefs, practices, and institutions described in the Book of Mormon are real and contain God's message to us about such things.

Based upon this paradigm--literally believing what is in the Book of Mormon but not being influenced or guided by any individuals about how it should be interpreted--what would you conclude about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City? Would you conclude that it is in fact God's true Church because its teachings, operations, and culture tightly comply with what the Book of Mormon actually says? Or would you suspect that the Mormon pew is a ramiumptom? Does the Book of Mormon teach that the true church *usually* falls into apostasy? If you take everything the Book of Mormon teaches into account, what would you make of the modern Church and its investment portfolio?

Keep your response to under 400 words, and use a conversational style. Give me a single opinion on what independently believing the Book of Mormon most likely says about the likelihood of the Church being true. The goal isn't to measure the correlations between believing the Book of Mormon and believing the Church. The goal is to objectively compare the teachings in the Book of Mormon and see if they point to the Mormon Church being God's one-and-only true Church.

Prompt 2

The real idea I'm exploring is one of methodology. Latter-day Saints often describe reading the Book of Mormon as an "experiment" (Moroni 10, Alma 32) so you can know for yourself if the Book of Mormon is true and that therefore the Church is true. I'd like to explore whether it really is. Imagine you are an expert at rational thought and have a very good understanding of cognitive science, including how and why we are prone to cognitive biases. Other than this understanding, you are completely open to the truth-claims of the Book of Mormon.

In terms of rationality, how would you describe the Church's conversion process, including the tests it proposes to find out if it is true. Is it based on rationality, or is it based on leveraging cognitive biases to integrate people into the community? Or something else? Give us your best single answer to this question. Keep your answer conversational, and under 400 words.

Prompt 3
If a smart, open-minded individual with strong spiritual impulses sincerely wants to know the truth about which religious belief system is right, but whose most important goal is to only believe things that are true, what should he do to figure out the truth? If he is really dedicated to finding and embracing the truth and takes these steps that are most likely to lead to what is true, can you predict what belief system or group of belief systems he'll most likely end up?

Daniel C. Peterson said something to the effect that from the perspective of rationality, the question of which religion is true is an open question, because smart people believe a variety of things, including Mormonism. Because the question is open, we are free to believe whatever we want and trust the spirit. He suggests this is by divine intent. Please look up his actual arguments on this point and evaluate his actual point, not the way I paraphrased it. Is there a flaw in this analysis?

So here is the big question. What mode of investigation has the best track record to finding the truth. If your feelings about truth are captured in the hymn "Oh Say What Is Truth?", what should you do to find it? How confidently can you predict where you'll end up? Where is that place? Is that a good thing or bad thing?

Please shoot straight in your answer. 500 words max. Conversational style.

Prompt 4

How do you define agnosticism? How does that differ from atheism? Atheists typically say that atheism means "without belief in God(s)" and generally say they are without belief because "God" hasn't been coherently defined and sufficient proof hasn't been offered. They typically say that they'd change their mind if enough evidence came to light regarding the God hypothesis.

In contrast, they tend to say "agnosticism" means the affirmative belief that an answer to the God hypothesis is intrinsically unknowable. With these definitions, "atheism" is actually a more humble position than "agnosticism"--atheism isn't positively claiming that something is unknowable; it's merely claiming that to date, we lack sufficient evidence to justify belief.

Can you evaluate whether or not these definitions are coherent and are generally the ones most commonly used by self-described atheists? Based on that analysis, would you like to revise your conclusion that "running that playbook" will most likely lead to agnosticism?

Finally, if one is left in this position, what are your thoughts about meaning, morality, and quality of life? Is it possible to find morality, meaning, and joy without God?

On this final question, keep the response to 300 words or less.

I am interested in the answers.

[Teancum]

On 8/15/2025 at 4:41 PM, OGHoosier said:

@Analytics, I have to chuckle when you say:

When you yourself described the common belief they come to as:

I might not be as smart as Steven Pinker but I can count the occurrences of the word "no" in a sentence. Your definition of naturalism is entirely negative and therefore cannot be a positive conclusion. This puts me in mind of the old Michael Scott "I declare bankruptcy!" gag from The Office. 

"I have come to the positive conclusion that there is no evidence for the supernatural!"

"But that's still a negation!"

"But no, I phrased it POSITIVELY!"

Except the examples you choose to demonstrate the consistent results of your methodology don't have a corner on epistemic virtue! In what way was Bertrand Russell somehow more in tune with predictive risk, falsification, and bias correction than Kurt Godel, who blew up the Russellian dream of a complete and consistent mathematics? I've learned a lot from Sean Carroll, but I don't see him as particularly better at these epistemic virtues than Iain McGilchrist, Ed Feser, or Larry Sanger, all of whom have updated and changed their minds based on exposure to evidence and argumentation while coming to dramatically different conclusions about the nature of the universe. I suppose you must consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali circa 2006 superior to Ayaan Hirsi Ali circa 2025, though her style of argumentation doesn't seem to have changed much. Bart Ehrman is an good scholar, but I also get surprising and remarkable insights from others, among them Jonathan Bernier, T.C. Schmidt, and James Ware, who come to different conclusions with imo better cases. You claim much for your cited examples based on a common methodology which you attribute to them, but as far as I can tell, the evidence for both the presence of this methodology and the success of its application is that they came to similar conclusions as you regarding naturalism.

Furthermore, a problem in giving the above as the sine qua non of "rationality" is that the application of these tools depends on the landscape of the questions you ask, the definitions you use, and even your metaphors. That's where the major points of dispute are in the first place. You've got yourself a methodology for arriving at very secure beliefs regarding a subset of questions which (a) rely on readily manipulated experimental conditions or (b) give rise to very straightforward predictions, but this is not the whole picture - the formulation of definitions and predictions is the hard part and necessarily depends on epistemic virtues entirely prior to prediction and falsification! What Pinker calls "rationality" you might as easily call "positivism"; given the scope of his work it's forgiveable that he doesn't dive into the philosophical debates but to treat his work as the summum of rational thought is ridiculous. In so doing you elide vast sweeps of human inquiry and endeavour motivated by the love of truth and spirit of genuine inquiry. 

This would not be Texas sharpshooting if you could give demonstrate that nobody has ever come to an opposite conclusion based entirely on their application of your four tools, or that your four tools really are the only game in town, but I don't see you doing that work. Much cleaner to handwave those who come to different conclusions as slaves to bias.

For my part I recommend the material theory of induction, the idea that theories of induction are always situational and fact-dependent and there are no universal rules for them. I recommend John Norton's very accessible seminal 2010 paper on the topic: https://philpapers.org/rec/NORTAN. This does not invalidate the utility of any of the principles Pinker describes but it does situate them as what they are: useful epistemic tools, the utility of which depends on the research question and the facts. Not "rationality" iself. 

@SeekingUnderstanding, this one's for you too: Superdeterminist and many-worlds interpretations of wave-function collapse are not "in the same neighborhood." They imply radically different and contradictory views of the ontology of the cosmos. If superdeterminism is true, that entails that even quantum indeterminacy is itself determined and totally undermines both the concept of locality and even the possibiliity of falsifiability. If many-worlds is true, than the appearance of quantum indeterminacy is maintained but the universe (and every universe) splits with every wave-function collapse. These are vastly different worldstates. Superdeterminism and many-worlds are farther apart in their implications than the vast majority of Christian sects, but apparently one is "the neighborhood" and the other is not.

People come to accept conclusions other than materialist naturalism for all sorts of reasons. Some see it as philosophically incoherent or observationally inferior to other options. (Godel, Feser, McGilchrist, Thomas Nagel) Some inherit their belief and don't reflect on it much (the modal Sunday School teacher that your critiques seem tailored for.) Others are convinced by historical argumentation. (the McGrews, Don Bradley) Others by radical empiricism, what you might call religious experience. (Blake Ostler, Philip Wiebe, to name a couple) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but behind your references to the "many false ideas" is the implied (but never stated) idea that all of these approaches are to be grouped together in one franken-epistemology that can be charged with, and discredited by, the diversity of the world's religions. I don't think combining all these approaches into one convenient classification makes a lot of sense. It especially doesn't make sense when, in the same breath, you praise the "room for debate" of a group of people who theoretically should be relying on the same methodology yet come to radically different beliefs about the foundational nature of the cosmos!

This is an interesting discussion. May I ask, what methods do you use to come to your conclusions that Mormonism is God's best truth?  How about coming to the conclusion that there is a God. And do other adherents of other religions use the same method to come to the conclusion that their chosen beliefs are God's best truth?  Do they use similar methodologies or different ones?  

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am interested in the answers.

(one of four)

Prompt
You are completely open to the supernatural, and in that sense have a completely open mind. Without any guidance from anybody, you decide to read the Book of Mormon. You pray about it according to Moroni 10:4, and get a distinct burning in the bosom, indicating to you that the Book of Mormon is in fact "true," and you decide that the religious beliefs, practices, and institutions described in the Book of Mormon are real and contain God's message to us about such things.

Based upon this paradigm--literally believing what is in the Book of Mormon but not being influenced or guided by any individuals about how it should be interpreted--what would you conclude about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City? Would you conclude that it is in fact God's true Church because its teachings, operations, and culture tightly comply with what the Book of Mormon actually says? Or would you suspect that the Mormon pew is a ramiumptom? Does the Book of Mormon teach that the true church *usually* falls into apostasy? If you take everything the Book of Mormon teaches into account, what would you make of the modern Church and its investment portfolio?

Keep your response to under 400 words, and use a conversational style. Give me a single opinion on what independently believing the Book of Mormon most likely says about the likelihood of the Church being true. The goal isn't to measure the correlations between believing the Book of Mormon and believing the Church. The goal is to objectively compare the teachings in the Book of Mormon and see if they point to the Mormon Church being God's one-and-only true Church. 

GPT-5 Pro, Reasoned for 5m 48s
Short version: if I read the Book of Mormon straight and use it as the yardstick, I’d be skeptical that the modern LDS Church is “the one true church.”

Why? The BoM’s markers for Christ’s church are stark: built purely on His gospel, not adding or subtracting; humble leadership; priests support themselves; radical care for the poor; no rich-vs-poor divide; severe warnings against pride, costly apparel, and institutional drift. (The Church of Jesus Christ)

It also depicts a repetitive “pride cycle”: communities flourish, get prosperous, then slide into apostasy—eventually even the post‑Resurrection church corrodes after ~200 years. In other words, apostasy isn’t rare; it’s the default unless a people stay painfully vigilant. (The Church of Jesus Christ)

On culture, the Zoramites’ ramiumptom scene is a caricature of religious status—set prayers, exclusion of the poor, spiritual superiority. The book treats that vibe as a neon “not my gospel” sign. (The Church of Jesus Christ)

Now compare that blueprint to today’s institution: a highly centralized, professionally managed investment operation (Ensign Peak) that recently settled with the SEC over disclosure failures; the Church’s own statement frames the portfolio as long‑term, prudent stewardship. Whether you buy the rationale or not, a massive, discreetly managed reserve sits awkwardly beside the BoM’s hair‑trigger warnings about wealth and optics of hoarding. That’s a theological red flag on BoM terms. (SEC, newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)

Yes, there are points of alignment—Christ‑centric name, lay local clergy, baptismal focus. But the book’s most consistent tests (economic equality, leaders not living off the ministry, transparent aid to the poor, anti‑elitism) weigh heavier—and they tilt against a Fortune‑100‑style church. (The Church of Jesus Christ)

My single take, Book‑of‑Mormon‑only: the odds the modern Church exactly matches God’s “one true church” are low. Sincere disciples? Plenty. Divine good done? Absolutely. But institutionally, it looks too much like the very pride‑and‑prosperity pattern the BoM spends hundreds of pages warning you to distrust. If your pew starts to feel ramiumptom‑shaped, the book would tell you to step down and recalibrate. (The Church of Jesus Christ)

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am interested in the answers.

(2/4)

Prompt
The real idea I'm exploring is one of methodology. Latter-day Saints often describe reading the Book of Mormon as an "experiment" (Moroni 10, Alma 32) so you can know for yourself if the Book of Mormon is true and that therefore the Church is true. I'd like to explore whether it really is. Imagine you are an expert at rational thought and have a very good understanding of cognitive science, including how and why we are prone to cognitive biases. Other than this understanding, you are completely open to the truth-claims of the Book of Mormon.

In terms of rationality, how would you describe the Church's conversion process, including the tests it proposes to find out if it is true. Is it based on rationality, or is it based on leveraging cognitive biases to integrate people into the community? Or something else? Give us your best single answer to this question. Keep your answer conversational, and under 400 words.

GPT-5 Pro, Reasoned for 4m 55s
Short answer: it’s not a rational test; it’s a highly effective commitment engine that leans hard on predictable human biases to produce sincere conviction.

Here’s the shape of it:

• The “experiment.” Read, pray, “ask with real intent,” and interpret a warm, salient feeling as confirmation (Moroni 10). Plant the “seed” and treat any perceived growth as proof (Alma 32). Failure is attributed to you—insufficient faith, wrong timing, poor “nourishing.” That makes the test non‑falsifiable.

• Cognitive mechanics.
  Affect-as-information: strong positive emotion feels like truth.
  Expectation effects: priming (“you will feel a burning”) creates demand characteristics.
  Confirmation & motivated reasoning: you vividly notice hits, rationalize misses.
  Interoception noise: fasting, novelty, music, group prayer—all amplify bodily arousal that’s easily misattributed to the divine.
  Identity & consistency: small commitments (lessons, testimony bearing) escalate to big ones (baptism, tithing, callings), and we align beliefs to past public choices.
  Social proof & belonging: tight community, frequent contact, and shared language generate powerful conformity pressures that most brains label “truth.”

• Bayesian take. Extraordinary claims start with low priors. Private feelings are low‑specificity evidence—they fit countless hypotheses (“God,” “group uplift,” “placebo”). A good test must risk being wrong; this one routes negative outcomes back to the subject, so it rarely reduces confidence.

• Pragmatic payoff vs. epistemic warrant. The process reliably delivers real benefits—purpose, norms, mutual aid. That makes it instrumentally rational for joining a tribe. But benefits aren’t the same as truth-tracking about gold plates and angelic visitations.

Single opinion: If you’re grading on epistemic rationality, the LDS conversion “experiment” is closer to a skillful use of human psychology—expectation, affect, identity, and community reinforcement—than to a neutral truth test. It’s superb at producing committed Latter-day Saints; it’s weak at discriminating whether the Church’s supernatural claims are actually true. In other words, it’s more “A/B test where B = belong” than a double‑blind on reality.

 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am interested in the answers.

(3/4)

Prompt
If a smart, open-minded individual with strong spiritual impulses sincerely wants to know the truth about which religious belief system is right, but whose most important goal is to only believe things that are true, what should he do to figure out the truth? If he is really dedicated to finding and embracing the truth and takes these steps that are most likely to lead to what is true, can you predict what belief system or group of belief systems he'll most likely end up? 

Daniel C. Peterson said something to the effect that from the perspective of rationality, the question of which religion is true is an open question, because smart people believe a variety of things, including Mormonism. Because the question is open, we are free to believe whatever we want and trust the spirit. He suggests this is by divine intent. Please look up his actual arguments on this point and evaluate his actual point, not the way I paraphrased it. Is there a flaw in this analysis? 

So here is the big question. What mode of investigation has the best track record to finding the truth. If your feelings about truth are captured in the hymn "Oh Say What Is Truth?", what should you do to find it? How confidently can you predict where you'll end up? Where is that place? Is that a good thing or bad thing?

Please shoot straight in your answer. 500 words max. Conversational style.

 

GPT-5 Pro, Reasoned for 6m 6s

Straight answer: The method with the best track record for finding truth is adversarial empiricism—make risky predictions, blind yourself to outcomes, preregister what would change your mind, and invite critics to try to break your claims. That family of methods (science and the historical‑critical toolkit) works because it rewards reproducible results and punishes stories that only feel good.(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

How to run that on religion (practically):

1. Write down specific hypotheses (e.g., “X prophecy will occur by Y date,” “Z prayer produces A measurable effect”).

2. Precommit pass/fail criteria and blinding where possible.

3. Seek out the strongest disconfirming evidence first (archives, archaeology, counter‑testimonies).

4. Separate “fruits” (community, meaning) from “facts” (did the supernatural event happen?).

5. Update credences Bayesian‑style; don’t let negatives be explained away by definitions that make the claim unfalsifiable.

Prediction of where a sincere truth‑maximizer lands: Applying that process to concrete, testable claims typically lowers confidence in specific supernatural assertions. Large, careful tests of things like intercessory prayer don’t show reliable effects; results cluster around null. Expect many such investigators to end up agnostic or in a thin, non‑dogmatic theism/spirituality—sometimes in ethical communities that don’t hinge on miracle claims. Confidence: moderate.(PubMed)

On Daniel C. Peterson’s point: Peterson argues God intends “religious ambiguity”: enough evidence to justify faith, but never “decisive, intellectually coercive proof,” preserving freedom to choose; in his words, “We must choose; the choice is unavoidable.” He also highlights scriptural patterns where God avoids spectacular proofs (“clear evidence that God doesn’t wish to convince us by means of dramatic special effects”). This invokes the broader “divine hiddenness/epistemic distance” line—belief shouldn’t be compelled.(The Interpreter Foundation, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Is there a flaw? As an account of why disagreement persists, it’s coherent; as a method for truth, it’s weak. If a system is designed so evidence is always underpowered and negative results can be reinterpreted as “space for faith,” the test stops being truth‑tracking. You’ve traded adjudication for permission. That’s fine as a theology of freedom; it’s not a way to know which competing revelations are true. (In other words: ambiguity explains pluralism; it doesn’t resolve it.)(The Interpreter Foundation)

Bottom line for the seeker who “only wants what’s true”: Use the tools that punish you when you’re wrong—prediction, replication, and open critique. They’re imperfect (science polices itself because bias is real), but nothing else beats their combined hit rate over time. Run that playbook on rival religious claims and you’re most likely to land in agnosticism or a minimalist theism that resists bold, testable miracle claims. Whether that’s “good” depends on your goals; it’s very good for epistemic integrity—less cozy, more honest.(PLOS, nature.com)

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am interested in the answers.

(4/4)

Prompt
How do you define agnosticism? How does that differ from atheism? Atheists typically say that atheism means "without belief in God(s)" and generally say they are without belief because "God" hasn't been coherently defined and sufficient proof hasn't been offered. They typically say that they'd change their mind if enough evidence came to light regarding the God hypothesis.

In contrast, they tend to say "agnosticism" means the affirmative belief that an answer to the God hypothesis is intrinsically unknowable. With these definitions, "atheism" is actually a more humble position than "agnosticism"--atheism isn't positively claiming that something is unknowable; it's merely claiming that to date, we lack sufficient evidence to justify belief.

Can you evaluate whether or not these definitions are coherent and are generally the ones most commonly used by self-described atheists? Based on that analysis, would you like to revise your conclusion that "running that playbook" will most likely lead to agnosticism?

Finally, if one is left in this position, what are your thoughts about meaning, morality, and quality of life? Is it possible to find morality, meaning, and joy without God?

On this final question, keep the response to 300 words or less.

 

GPT-5 Pro, Reasoned for 5m 13s

Definitions (straight up):

• Atheism: In popular/org usage, “lack of belief in gods.” In academic philosophy, often the stronger claim “there is no God.” Both are live; contexts differ. (atheists.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

• Agnosticism: Originally Huxley’s epistemic norm—don’t claim to know/believe without adequate evidence. In popular use, either “unknown” or the stronger “unknowable.” It’s a knowledge stance, not a belief stance, so you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Are your proposed defs coherent/common?
Yes—with a caveat. Your atheism = “without belief pending evidence” matches how many self‑described atheists and orgs use it. Your agnosticism = “intrinsically unknowable” describes strong agnosticism; many agnostics just say “not known,” not “can’t be known.” Philosophers stress the belief/knowledge split and note common hybrids (e.g., “agnostic atheist”). (atheists.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Do I revise my earlier destination (“agnostic”)?
Yep—precision matters. Running the adversarial‑empiricism playbook usually lands people at agnostic atheism: withholding belief in gods while also saying the question isn’t settled to knowledge-level standards. Call it “weak atheism on belief, agnosticism on knowledge.” Confidence: moderate. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

---

Meaning, morality, joy—without God (≤300 words)

Short version: absolutely possible; millions do. The reliably useful ingredients are human, not supernatural.

• Morality: You can ground “oughts” without revelation—e.g., reduce suffering (consequentialism), respect persons/rights (deontology), and cultivate character (virtue ethics). In practice, pluralistic ethics works by overlapping reasons: harm reduction, fairness, reciprocity, and consent.

• Meaning: Build a “meaning portfolio”: relationships, mastery, service, and awe. You don’t need metaphysics to feel transcendence—music, nature, art, and hard problems will do fine.

• Well‑being: Much of religion’s happiness edge comes from community practice (regular gatherings, service, rituals). Those benefits can be reproduced secularly: join or build communities with shared projects and prosocial norms. Data: the “actively religious” report more happiness largely where community is strong—the operative word is active; the mechanism is social. You can get the mechanism without the metaphysics. (Pew Research Center)

• How to live it:

  1. Embed in a real community with recurring commitments.

  2. Do visible good weekly (volunteer, mentor, mutual aid).

  3. Keep a truth diary: what would change your mind about big claims?

  4. Ritualize the good stuff (walks at dawn, Sunday dinners, monthly letters to future‑you).

  5. Guard your attention; curate media like your diet.

Net: you can have morality, meaning, and joy on a strictly truth‑first path. You’ll trade some cosmic certainty for intellectual honesty and durable human goods—a fair deal for most grown‑ups.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 hours ago, Malc said:

Some religions (including, I believe, Mormonism) claim to provide answers to the "three eternal" questions, the  last of which (below) is relevant to your penultimate question: "Isn't whether someone is going to live with God or not kind of the point of religion?":

• Where did I come from?
• Why am I here?
• Where am I going after this life?

At least, this is what I remember of the "pitch" from the missionaries in Scotland in the 1970s.

And as near as I can tell, all religions claim to know with a great deal of certainty the answers to those and many other questions. And as far as I can tell the answers do not match. This is what makes comparing religion to physics a red herring. Religion is bad at knowing what is unknown (as demonstrated by each faith tradition having different and contradictory answers - and each faith tradition being sure they are correct). Science on the other hand is pretty good at knowing what is unknown (see Sean Carroll's statement on Many Worlds) and it has a built in mechanism to correct itself.