Seek and Ye Shall Find....

[Navidad]

Doubt is like incertitude. It is often the precursor for wonderful growth. "Finding value in uncertainty opens the door to learning and growth. Certainty closes the door. Absolute certainty locks it."

Edited September 4, 2025 by Navidad

[Navidad]

53 minutes ago, stelf said:

I don't think it's about not having faith or doubts. If there was no faith at all then we would never investigate new drugs or treatments. I think equipoise is much more about a lack of certainty. I believe @Navidad recently posted in a different thread about this. I think we run into trouble when we are so certain of things that they can't be challenged. I have many people in my life that are this way. Their conclusions are what comes first and so they dismiss anything that challenges those. I see this in my work at times as well. A researcher is convinced that a particular treatment will be effective and is resistant to the analysis we perform.

As for spiritual truth, I feel the same way. I was brought up to be certain about the gospel and the church. I think we are explicitly taught this by the church leaders. I think the stories of Abraham, Moses, and Nephi are about demonstrating unflinching loyalty even when confronted with commandments that seem immoral. To me this is blind obedience. It is saying that we should trust in our conclusions even when everything is telling us to doubt. I no longer see this as a virtue. 

So, I was never spiritually neutral and I am not now.

Perhaps when we think of being neutral about something, we are thinking about being wishy-washy or vacillating in a way that is unhealthy, especially when it come to matters of faith. I would simply like to suggest the opposite for your consideration. To me, being neutral means I am willing to "receive" what someone else has to offer me, whether it is a new way to make snickerdoodles (no way), to think about heaven, or a new perspective on some historical event, especially one I have researched. I think resistance to new ways of looking at things, even at matters of faith lead us into a kind of closeted darkness. Receiving something does not mean accepting, embracing, or even valuing it. It means listening, learning, gaining new insights, at the very least to how sincere others think and believe. I once took part on a three person panel to talk about the real facts behind the Missouri War between Saints and non-Saints. My two companions on the panels were the authors of the two best books on the history of the Saints in Missouri. Both faithful (more or less) to the LDS faith, their books, presentations, and conclusions could not be more different. I didn't fully agree with either of them, but I enjoyed listening and learning from them that day. Yes, even history can become a sacred matter for debate. We learn best when we listen, consider, and honor our differences, even those that are spiritual, perhaps especially those that are spiritual, especially especially because we know that now we see through a glass darkly. In that sense certainly leads us into the dark, not into the light. 

[manol]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Alma 32 is about testing belief - and it presents a philosophy of belief that is coupled to knowledge.

I read Alma 32 as a protocol for testing a new idea - giving it the opportunity to demonstrate its merit under favorable conditions - in order to figure out whether or not to incorporate it into one's belief system.  So one needs to be open to belief in order to give the new idea a fair chance, but imo one need not already believe in order to start the test.

Edited September 3, 2025 by manol

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, stelf said:

I don't think it's about not having faith or doubts. If there was no faith at all then we would never investigate new drugs or treatments. I think equipoise is much more about a lack of certainty. I believe @Navidad recently posted in a different thread about this. I think we run into trouble when we are so certain of things that they can't be challenged. I have many people in my life that are this way. Their conclusions are what comes first and so they dismiss anything that challenges those. I see this in my work at times as well. A researcher is convinced that a particular treatment will be effective and is resistant to the analysis we perform.

As for spiritual truth, I feel the same way. I was brought up to be certain about the gospel and the church. I think we are explicitly taught this by the church leaders. I think the stories of Abraham, Moses, and Nephi are about demonstrating unflinching loyalty even when confronted with commandments that seem immoral. To me this is blind obedience. It is saying that we should trust in our conclusions even when everything is telling us to doubt. I no longer see this as a virtue. 

So, I was never spiritually neutral and I am not now.

I don't think I'm understanding what you mean.  Before you seemed to explain equipoise as not being too strong or too negative towards an outcome--balanced. 

In my understanding, balanced is another way to say neutral.  For example, when something is neither acidic nor alkaline, it is described as neutral, right?  Because the hydrogen and hydroxide ions are balanced?  (Honest question as I'm no scientist and barely passed chemistry) 

But here it sounds like you are describing equipoise as a lack of certainty, which you see as different than neutrality (or being balanced).  If I'm understanding you right, you are saying that someone can be pro something (or con something), but as long as they are not certain about it, then they have equipoise.  Am I on the same page with you or am I confused?

I don't want to share else until I know that I'm not out in left field.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Doubt is like incertitude. It is often the precursor for wonderful growth. "Finding value in uncertainty opens the door to learning and growth. Certainty closes the door." Absolute certainty locks it."

Isn't the definition of faith also incertitude though?  Because faith is something that is believed, but not known, and doubt seems to be something that is not believed, but also not known.  Faith that is certain can't be described as faith, can it?  

 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Sure.I am drawing a distinction between seeking belief and seeking reasons to believe. If we are seeking reasons to believe, then the belief is already a foregone conclusion, and our search is only about looking for validation of our beliefs.

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean, but I don't think the above statement is necessarily true.

For example, my son is getting his college degree.  Part of that process was to try to decide what he wanted to major in.  As part of that process, he researched 'reasons' to believe a specific major would be a best fit for him.  He looked for reasons to major in accounting, data processing, engineering, and music.  Then he compared and contrasted the reasons he came up with, to make his decision. 

From my perspective, seeking a reason to major in a field of study is not the same as having a foregone conclusion to major in a field of study.

 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that this isn't as simple as it sounds. That we can speak of truth suggests that we believe truth exists. I am reminded of that line in the Indiana Jones movie The Last Crusade. Professor Jones tells his class: "Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If you want truth, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is just down the hall." People who like that quote rarely pay attention to what comes next. Professor Jones goes on to say "We do not follow maps to buried treasure and X never, ever marks the spot”. The irony intended in this statement by the movie script (and that is lost by extracting the quote from its context) is that the movie presents an Indiana Jones who is indeed searching for truth, who follows a map to the buried treasure, and over the course of the adventure discovers that X can indeed mark the spot (none of which Jones is actually looking for). We start by believing that truth exists. But, the idea that "the truth that we are looking for actually exists" is a slippery slope. The truth that exists may not be the truth we are looking for. And the question is: how do we respond when we start to discover that a difference exists between the truth that we want and the truth that is there? Elder Bruce Hafen in his book The Believing Heart takes a believers approach to this question. His discussion is a good starting point - and to give you a bit of a taste -

 

All that reminds me of why I enjoyed my philosophy classes in college.  But truth is not just for the philosophical realm.  It is basically whatever accurately reflects reality, what is factual and logical.  If something is a fact, it is also a truth.  But looking for it is never simple, I agree.

Quote

He goes on to deal with his other two levels - and the discussion is good. I tend to frame it differently. But here is that blind faith issue. An unwillingness (or even an inability) to recognize the gap between what we think is true and the reality we actually experience is not a sustainable faith.

I agree that that kind of faith is unsustainable, because it is not built on any foundation.  That kind of faith is the opposite of what comes from seeking because it has never sought and so is incapable of finding. 

Seeking requires investigation, reasoning, and personal experience.   And faith built on the results of investigation, reasoning, and personal experience cannot be described as 'blind faith'.

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Isn't the definition of faith also incertitude though?  Because faith is something that is believed, but not known, and doubt seems to be something that is not believed, but also not known.  Faith that is certain can't be described as faith, can it?  

 

I agree completely. However, a lot of religiously motivated folks describe their faith as certainty and their certainty as faith. I think that does damage to faith. All churches have members who could be described in this way. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I agree completely. However, a lot of religiously motivated folks describe their faith as certainty and their certainty as faith. I think that does damage to faith. All churches have members who could be described in this way. 

Agreed.

Do you think there ever comes a time when faith can become certainty?  When it can go from belief to knowledge with enough experience?

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Something isn't not-true because no one is willing to accept it.

If Mfb doesn’t show up for this, he’s probably given up trying to post.   
 

Quote

And in our world of lies and fake news, the ability to find truth is becoming a skill we all need to develop ...

This is TRUTH 

Edited September 4, 2025 by Calm

[Navidad]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Agreed.

Do you think there ever comes a time when faith can become certainty?  When it can go from belief to knowledge with enough experience?

 

I would word it a bit differently. I would suggest that faith never should become certainty because at that point it ceases to be faith. I also would not equate certainty with knowledge. Knowledge is a step on the journey to wisdom. The most knowledgeable person may not be the most certain. A knowledgeable person is aware of what they don't know as well as what they do know. Take care

Edited September 4, 2025 by Navidad

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

For example, my son is getting his college degree.  Part of that process was to try to decide what he wanted to major in.  As part of that process, he researched 'reasons' to believe a specific major would be a best fit for him.  He looked for reasons to major in accounting, data processing, engineering, and music.  Then he compared and contrasted the reasons he came up with, to make his decision. 

From my perspective, seeking a reason to major in a field of study is not the same as having a foregone conclusion to major in a field of study.

This reminds me of that old joke:

"I don't usually talk to English majors. But, when I do, I order a double espresso."

I think that you are still misunderstanding -

"As part of that process, he researched 'reasons' to believe a specific major would be a best fit for him."

I don't think this is actually analogous - because there really isn't any belief in this process of looking at college majors. The idea of belief (as opposed to rational knowledge) goes out the door when we start using some sort of objective means of measuring the differences between them. I could re-write you analogy by changing a single word and the meaning wouldn't change at all - but it's use in this discussion goes away:

Quote

As part of that process, he researched 'reasons' to know a specific major would be a best fit for him.  He looked for reasons to major in accounting, data processing, engineering, and music.  Then he compared and contrasted the reasons he came up with, to make his decision. 

Belief at this point is limited to his belief that the objective measures of comparison will yield the best fit. If we were to extend this analogy to the question of religious belief and faith, it would amount to creating a list of things that could be used to grade every religious experience, and, once finished, we could score them up to find the best religious experience. Is this really belief? I certainly don't think so - other than a necessary belief that such a system could come up with a best religious fit. And this is an illustration of the thinking behind my earlier comment on the complexity of the epistemology of truth.

The challenge is that, in the context of your OP, you aren't discussing a comparison of religions with an objective set of comparatives. You are discussing approaching a specific religious set of beliefs by either "seek[ing] for reasons to believe" or "seek[ing] for reasons to doubt". And in that narrow context, you will always be able to find evidence to support your original belief. What if there is no truth in our subject? How does approaching it by seeking for reasons to believe give us a basis for recognizing that it isn't true? And perhaps just as importantly, such an approach doesn't help us understand how something can be partially true, or a reflection of truth. This idea that we can come to a knowledge of the truth by simply believing it is true and subsequently looking for reasons to believe feels to me more like a simple platitude than any effective process.

[manol]

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

Doubt is like incertitude. It is often the precursor for wonderful growth. "Finding value in uncertainty opens the door to learning and growth. Certainty closes the door. Absolute certainty locks it."

Agreed. 

If the divine injunction to "seek, and ye shall find" has an expiration date, I think it comes after our individual mortal expiration dates.

 

On 9/2/2025 at 6:47 AM, Tony uk said:

I imagine, that when we seek answers, through faith. Then we will be more open to understanding the truth, in whatever form that it may take. However, if we are doubtful or anyway negative, our search for the truth and the appropriate answers will be overshadowed by any doubts that we may have.

 

On 9/3/2025 at 10:41 AM, bluebell said:

But can starting out the journey with doubt, and moving through the journey with doubt, ever get us onto a road that doesn't lead to doubt?  I don't personally think it can.  I think in order to seek truth, you need to start from a place of believing the truth you are looking for actually exists. [emphasis manol's]

I agree with both of you.  Ime our frame of mind plays a role in our seeking.  "Closed-minded" and "seeking" don't really go together, at least not in this context, do they?  I much prefer "the truth is out there" (cue "The X-Files" theme music). 

 

22 hours ago, stelf said:

 Their conclusions are what comes first and so they dismiss anything that challenges those. I see this in my work at times as well. A researcher is convinced that a particular treatment will be effective and is resistant to the analysis we perform.

Yes, I see this too, in myself sometimes.  I will have "written" a "story" around the first conclusion that I reached, and now I'm attached to that story.  And adopting a new paradigm is going to cost me that beautiful, even cherished, story.   The cost of the new is the old. 

Sometimes I try to fit new "information", so to speak, into an old paradigm, so that I don't have to virtually start all over again.  This works sometimes if the change isn't too big, but not always... something about the folly of putting new wine into old wineskins comes to mind...

 

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Seeking requires investigation, reasoning, and personal experience.   And faith built on the results of investigation, reasoning, and personal experience cannot be described as 'blind faith'.

Well said!

I'm sort of a perpetual seeker, for better or for worse (though not necessarily any moreso than anyone else).  Within the past few days I came across something that I cannot simply blow past without stopping to investigate.  I need to get much further into the "investigation" stage in order to have enough information to "reason" whether it's worth a full-blown Alma-Chapter-32-style "personal experience" experiment... although in a way I suppose that experiment has already started.

So... yeah.  I'm appreciating this thread a lot.

Edited September 4, 2025 by manol

[stelf]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think I'm understanding what you mean.  Before you seemed to explain equipoise as not being too strong or too negative towards an outcome--balanced. 

In my understanding, balanced is another way to say neutral.  For example, when something is neither acidic nor alkaline, it is described as neutral, right?  Because the hydrogen and hydroxide ions are balanced?  (Honest question as I'm no scientist and barely passed chemistry) 

But here it sounds like you are describing equipoise as a lack of certainty, which you see as different than neutrality (or being balanced).  If I'm understanding you right, you are saying that someone can be pro something (or con something), but as long as they are not certain about it, then they have equipoise.  Am I on the same page with you or am I confused?

I don't want to share else until I know that I'm not out in left field.

I suppose true equipoise is as you describe, a balance. However, my point is more about the practicality. We are not really ever truly balanced. We have biases, inclinations, suspicions, or hopes that cause us to lean one way or the other. 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would word it a bit differently. I would suggest that faith never should become certainty because at that point it ceases to be faith. I also would not equate certainty with knowledge. Knowledge is a step on the journey to wisdom. The most knowledgeable person may not be the most certain. A knowledgeable person is aware of what they don't know as well as what they do know. Take care

I was thinking of a practical application of the question.  Like, at what point can a husband's or wife's faith that their spouse loves them, become certain.  Is that possible in your eyes?  Where is certainty possible, and where is it not, in your opinion?  Is certainty always a sin, or just in spiritual things?

I agree that faith ceases to be faith when it goes from believing to knowing, but from my perspective, that's the whole point.  To move from faith in Christ, for example, to knowing Christ.  Because of our experiences with Him.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 

The challenge is that, in the context of your OP, you aren't discussing a comparison of religions with an objective set of comparatives. You are discussing approaching a specific religious set of beliefs by either "seek[ing] for reasons to believe" or "seek[ing] for reasons to doubt". And in that narrow context, you will always be able to find evidence to support your original belief. What if there is no truth in our subject? How does approaching it by seeking for reasons to believe give us a basis for recognizing that it isn't true? And perhaps just as importantly, such an approach doesn't help us understand how something can be partially true, or a reflection of truth. This idea that we can come to a knowledge of the truth by simply believing it is true and subsequently looking for reasons to believe feels to me more like a simple platitude than any effective process.

I'm still not sure what you are saying, sorry.  But I'm not sure you are understanding me either.  

Think of how an archaeologist might seek to know if Clark (of Lewis and Clark fame) camped on the banks of the Yellowstone River in a specific location in montana, by seeking for evidence of that camp.  Seeking the evidence implies that the archaeologist believes that Clark could have camped there, but seeking does not imply that they know he camped there.  It does not imply that the archaeologist expects to learn whether or not Clark actually camped in that spot by simply believing that he did.

(I got to work on an archaeological site on the banks of the Yellowstone looking for Clark's campsite about ten years ago and it was a lot of fun!)

Likewise, I'm not speaking about the bolded statement in your post at all.  I'm not talking about knowing something is true by believing it is true.  In the OP I'm discussing approaching spiritual beliefs (such as, that Christ is our Savior) by seeking for evidence that the belief is valid.  I'm talking about believing that something could be true, and then seeking for evidence that it is or isn't.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2025 by bluebell

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, stelf said:

I suppose true equipoise is as you describe, a balance. However, my point is more about the practicality. We are not really ever truly balanced. We have biases, inclinations, suspicions, or hopes that cause us to lean one way or the other. 

Thanks for clarifying.

In your previous post to me you said:

Quote

As for spiritual truth, I feel the same way. I was brought up to be certain about the gospel and the church. I think we are explicitly taught this by the church leaders. I think the stories of Abraham, Moses, and Nephi are about demonstrating unflinching loyalty even when confronted with commandments that seem immoral. To me this is blind obedience. It is saying that we should trust in our conclusions even when everything is telling us to doubt. I no longer see this as a virtue.

I agree that we can be too certain about things sometimes (too certain about our faith, and too certain about our doubts, too certain we are right and too certain others are wrong--certainty can plague just about any perspective).

Speaking only for myself, when I study the stories of Moses, or Abraham, or Nephi, I see a ton of nuance in them.  Imperfect men, dysfunctional families... Mistakes, and pride, and repentance, and God in the middle of it all. And in my experience in church, I see our leaders and lessons focused on pointing out all of that.  I didn't join the church until I was 9.  Still a kid, but not with the whole background that born in the covenant kids get.  My husband joined the church when he was 16, long before he knew me.  Which is to say that I recognize our experiences are different than yours.  

From my perspective, church leaders have pushed seeking certainty (which is to say a lifetime of seeking), through research, personal study, and personal experiences.  Obedience that is based on faith which has come from a seeking God's will, can't be described as blind obedience.

It could still be the wrong choice, but being wrong is different than being blind.

 

[Senator]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for clarifying.

In your previous post to me you said:

I agree that we can be too certain about things sometimes (too certain about our faith, and too certain about our doubts, too certain we are right and too certain others are wrong--certainty can plague just about any perspective).

Speaking only for myself, when I study the stories of Moses, or Abraham, or Nephi, I see a ton of nuance in them.  Imperfect men, dysfunctional families... Mistakes, and pride, and repentance, and God in the middle of it all. And in my experience in church, I see our leaders and lessons focused on pointing out all of that.  I didn't join the church until I was 9.  Still a kid, but not with the whole background that born in the covenant kids get.  My husband joined the church when he was 16, long before he knew me.  Which is to say that I recognize our experiences are different than yours.  

From my perspective, church leaders have pushed seeking certainty (which is to say a lifetime of seeking), through research, personal study, and personal experiences.  Obedience that is based on faith which has come from a seeking God's will, can't be described as blind obedience.

It could still be the wrong choice, but being wrong is different than being blind.

 

I question the bolded above.  Off my recollection I don't find leaders and lessons pointing out the imperfections of the men (prophets), their family disfunctions, mistake and pride.  Repentance? Yes.  But I could be totally mistaken.

I think this hesitance is partially due, because doing so would grant permission for such critique on our contemporary leaders, which we have been counseled not to do.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Senator said:

I question the bolded above.  Off my recollection I don't find leaders and lessons pointing out the imperfections of the men (prophets), their family disfunctions, mistake and pride.  Repentance? Yes.  But I could be totally mistaken.

I think this hesitance is partially due, because doing so would grant permission for such critique on our contemporary leaders, which we have been counseled not to do.

I think that you are right.  Especially in past lessons (like the Teachings of the Prophets) and when it came to stuff that was taught on Sundays, especially.   There have been times when we were more into faith-promoting than faith-ful (as in accurate) teachings of history. 

But since we've moved to Teaching in the Savior's Way and the Come, Follow Him manual over the last decade or so, I've seen a real emphasis on digging in.  I think of the books the church published about the Saints (The Saints, volumes whatever we are up to now).  In my ward, they handed those out and encouraged all members to read them.  And they are full of the weaknesses of leaders.

The Doctrine and Covenants contains whole revelations calling church leaders to repentance, including JS.  And our lessons don't ignore over those (unless I guess the teacher decides to).

Institute and seminary classes are also teaching the warts and weakness examples, if the teacher is a good teacher.  General conference talks have pointed out the weaknesses of prophets and apostles (Notwithstanding My Weakness from 1976 is a good example) in the past and I think we have been getting more and more of those lately.  And the podcasts we have access to are crazy good right.  They aren't church run but there are so many that are done by current church leaders and instructors, and that have church scholars weekly.  And they get down into the nitty gritty dirt of life and the scriptural stories.

(And by family dysfunction I was speaking of how the Abrahamic covenant is first given to a completely dysfunctional family.  Lehi's family is also dysfunctional, yet it brought us the book of mormon!  The things that God can do with dysfunction are so impressive.  Off of the top of my head in recent memories, I really like Elder Stevenson's GC talk about his dysfunctional family pictures, and the reminder that no family is perfect.  We've also had speakers at GC share their stories of losing faith, growing up in an abusive home, and other imperfect life stories).

[Senator]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that you are right.  Especially in past lessons (like the Teachings of the Prophets) and when it came to stuff that was taught on Sundays, especially.   There have been times when we were more into faith-promoting than faith-ful (as in accurate) teachings of history. 

But since we've moved to Teaching in the Savior's Way and the Come, Follow Him manual over the last decade or so, I've seen a real emphasis on digging in.  I think of the books the church published about the Saints (The Saints, volumes whatever we are up to now).  In my ward, they handed those out and encouraged all members to read them.  And they are full of the weaknesses of leaders.

The Doctrine and Covenants contains whole revelations calling church leaders to repentance, including JS.  And our lessons don't ignore over those (unless I guess the teacher decides to).

Institute and seminary classes are also teaching the warts and weakness examples, if the teacher is a good teacher.  General conference talks have pointed out the weaknesses of prophets and apostles (Notwithstanding My Weakness from 1976 is a good example) in the past and I think we have been getting more and more of those lately.  And the podcasts we have access to are crazy good right.  They aren't church run but there are so many that are done by current church leaders and instructors, and that have church scholars weekly.  And they get down into the nitty gritty dirt of life and the scriptural stories.

(And by family dysfunction I was speaking of how the Abrahamic covenant is first given to a completely dysfunctional family.  Lehi's family is also dysfunctional, yet it brought us the book of mormon!  The things that God can do with dysfunction are so impressive.  Off of the top of my head in recent memories, I really like Elder Stevenson's GC talk about his dysfunctional family pictures, and the reminder that no family is perfect.  We've also had speakers at GC share their stories of losing faith, growing up in an abusive home, and other imperfect life stories).

There you go.  Obviously you have been paying more attention than I!!

[Okrahomer]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Agreed.

Do you think there ever comes a time when faith can become certainty?  When it can go from belief to knowledge with enough experience?

 

I love this question.

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm talking about believing that something could be true, and then seeking for evidence that it is or isn't.

This isn't at all what I read in your OP:

On 9/1/2025 at 6:00 PM, bluebell said:

Someone (might have been on a podcast, I can't remember) posited that there is more than one way to interpret all the times that the scriptures teach that if we seek, we shall find.  Normally, we take that to mean seeking truth, or seeking Christ, or seeking the gospel, etc.  But this person said that because faith is a required part of gaining a testimony, seeking isn't as straightforward as it seems.

If we seek for reasons to believe, then we will find them because that is an exercise of faith that God will honor, but the opposite is also true.  If we seek for reasons to doubt, the scripture is promising that we will find those as well.  This is one reason why Christ commands us to "doubt not".   Leaning into doubt will get us farther from Him because we are seeking the wrong things.

I''ll try once more and then let it go.

Suppose that you pray for something - and you have absolute faith that God will give you what you pray for. And it doesn't happen. If you are approaching this by seeking for reasons to believe, you end up justifying the failure of God to answer your prayer by believing that God answered your prayer, just in some other way. Or, in other words, God's answer was not to answer your prayer. In taking this route, your belief that God always answers your prayers becomes stronger. Had the outcome you were looking for also occurred, you would believe that God answered your prayer. In other words, if you start with this frame of mind, that God will answer your prayer, and you look for reasons to strengthen that belief, no matter what the outcome really is, you can choose to understand it in such a way that your belief that God will answer your prayers is confirmed.

The same thing can occur from the other direction. If you pray about something with the expectation that God doesn't answer prayers, and it doesn't happen, your belief is confirmed. And if it does happen, you can explain it a way through a variety of mechanisms - which also preserves your belief.

The thing is, the OP asks about the suggestion that we should take a route to examining our experiences that is not simply seeking evidence from a neutral place and looking to see if it confirms or rejects what we believe. And I am trying to point out that this process (simplified in this way) results only in confirmation bias.

I am all for examining evidence - I think, though, that we have to be careful about our biases when we examine that evidence.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This isn't at all what I read in your OP:

I''ll try once more and then let it go.

Suppose that you pray for something - and you have absolute faith that God will give you what you pray for. And it doesn't happen. If you are approaching this by seeking for reasons to believe, you end up justifying the failure of God to answer your prayer by believing that God answered your prayer, just in some other way. Or, in other words, God's answer was not to answer your prayer. In taking this route, your belief that God always answers your prayers becomes stronger. Had the outcome you were looking for also occurred, you would believe that God answered your prayer. In other words, if you start with this frame of mind, that God will answer your prayer, and you look for reasons to strengthen that belief, no matter what the outcome really is, you can choose to understand it in such a way that your belief that God will answer your prayers is confirmed.

The same thing can occur from the other direction. If you pray about something with the expectation that God doesn't answer prayers, and it doesn't happen, your belief is confirmed. And if it does happen, you can explain it a way through a variety of mechanisms - which also preserves your belief.

The thing is, the OP asks about the suggestion that we should take a route to examining our experiences that is not simply seeking evidence from a neutral place and looking to see if it confirms or rejects what we believe. And I am trying to point out that this process (simplified in this way) results only in confirmation bias.

I am all for examining evidence - I think, though, that we have to be careful about our biases when we examine that evidence.

I think I see what you’re saying, and I think I’ve also figured out our disconnect. And it’s basically just our different perspectives (and a misunderstanding of the OP).

In your example about the prayer to God that goes unanswered, you stated that if you pray and the answer doesn’t come, that seeking with faith means that you look for a way to interpret the lack of an answer as actually an answer. 

From my perspective, that’s not what seek with faith means.  I would not interpret that outcome as evidence in favor of a belief about God and prayer. At best it would go into the neutral pile—things that I cannot assign as pro or con at this time because I don’t have enough information.

At worst, it would be evidence that He doesn’t answer prayers.

But in my opinion, both of those options come from seeking in faith.

In my understanding there is no confirmation bias in the example that you presented, because there is nothing in the idea of seeking from a position of faith that requires me to interpret every result of that search as evidence in support of an outcome.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

There you go.  Obviously you have been paying more attention than I!!

I think I’m just in a place right now where I’m predisposed to notice those kinds of things.  Because they mean a lot to me when they show up.  😊

[Tony uk]

If God does not answer what we ask for in prayer. It may not mean that the prayer, is anyway being ignored by God. Maybe God feels that we ask for may not be suitable to be answered at that particular time. It should not be about expecting to get what we want when we want it. Faith in God, is to trust in God's plan, and that at times he is not ignoring our prayer, just delaying a response.