How Tolerant of Ambiguity is Mormonism?

[notHagoth7]

What do you think?

Well, in this instance:

1) I think you're having fun w/the thread.

2) And that you enjoy being asked questions.

3) And as part of that fun, you're generally averse to coming out and saying what you happen to think. (Perhaps to tease out the discussion.)

As to what I think about the compatibility/incompatibility, one's answer would hinge on whether they thought a potential 99.99999999999999999999999...% accuracy was incompatible with the degree of accuracy one can find within or through Mormonism. And that answer will differ somewhat depending on who you ask. I have my own answer for that, but people are probably better off arriving at their own.

[notHagoth7]

In any system of logic, if you put garbage in, you'll get garbage out. The senses, spiritual senses included, are very good at providing you with accurate information you can act on, but they suck when it comes to absolute truth. Maybe logic takes this fudge factor into account.

So you're saying that logic is incomplete. And the spiritual senses have wiggle room/fault tolerances of their own.

So you're suggesting the two combined are more reliable. Kind of like using a map and a compass, instead of relying on just the one or the other?

[Tsuzuki]

Well, in this instance:

1) I think you're having fun w/the thread.

2) And that you enjoy being asked questions.

3) And as part of that fun, you're generally averse to coming out and saying what you happen to think. (Perhaps to tease out the discussion.)

That would be a very accurate assessment.

[Tsuzuki]

So you're saying that logic is incomplete. And the spiritual senses have wiggle room/fault tolerances of their own.

So you're suggesting the two combined are more reliable. Kind of like using a map and a compass, instead of relying on just the one or the other?

What I'm saying is that the logic system you use should account for the margins of error in the information you are trying to interpret, whether temporal or spiritual. In this way, I suppose maybe logic could be seen as similar to a shock absorber or suspension system on a car.

[Brenda]

Yes, but in maybe logic, every positive is treated as if it were a false positive.

Quite the opposite. Depending too much on a sense of certainty, rather than on faith, is what is destructive. Faith is comfortable with uncertainty.

I'm stepping out of this thread, because I don't understand what you're talking about. Thanks for your time.

[notHagoth7]

What I'm saying is that the logic system you use should account for the margins of error in the information you are trying to interpret, whether temporal or spiritual. In this way, I suppose maybe logic could be seen as similar to a shock absorber or suspension system on a car.

Huh. 180 degrees. I see faith itself as the shock absorber or suspension system. Not logic.

I pursue things in faith (fully believing there's an answer). Using logic to quarry and refine clarity. Using faith as a tuning fork to hone in. And if I hit a roadblock where things don't fully align or add up, I temporarily defer to faith to fill the temporary gap, until further knowledge is available.

But perhaps we're talking past each other?

An example or illustration please.

[Tsuzuki]

Huh. 180 degrees. I see faith itself as the shock absorber or suspension system. Not logic.

I pursue things in faith (fully believing there's an answer). Using logic to quarry and refine clarity. Using faith as a tuning fork to hone in. And if I hit a roadblock where things don't fully align or add up, I temporarily defer to faith to fill the temporary gap, until further knowledge is available.

But perhaps we're talking past each other?

An example or illustration please.

You just gave a good example. You have faith built into your logic system.

[DarkScythe]

i like this thread. And I like your logic, Tsuzuki.

[Tsuzuki]

Bumping doesn't seem to work, so I'll do it the old fashioned way.