Faith is a decision

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't understand why anyone would want to choose to ignore troublesome issues and choose to focus on the faith promoting ones.

Maybe because the religion actually works, producing the exact 'fruits' one would logically expect if its truth claims were valid.

Trying to understand what light is has troubled thinkers for a long time, but it would be silly to focus on the whole wave-vs-particle-vs-possibly-something-else issue and not actually choose to utilise light.

[Scottie]

You are wrong.... Believing in those things would be based on the "evidences", the Faith, thus it would be a "choice".

You are correct. My belief or disbelief in something is directly tied to the evidences available. For me, the evidence for Bigfoot and leprechaun is equally compelling as the evidence for the LDS church being true.... which is to say not at all.

Even if I could choose to believe in these things, why would I?

I could choose to believe in Zeus. After all, there is abundant evidence that he is high atop Mt Olympus throwing lightning bolts. Surely you have seen the lighting bolts, right? Just because you and your "science" have determined that it is static discharges created by positive and negative electrical forces doesn't diminish MY choosing to believe that Zeus is really responsible for lightning. You and I just view the evidence differently. You have chosen to believe in the fallible human scientists, where I have chosen to believe in Zeus.

[Scottie]

Maybe because the religion actually works, producing the exact 'fruits' one would logically expect if its truth claims were valid.

Trying to understand what light is has troubled thinkers for a long time, but it would be silly to focus on the whole wave-vs-particle-vs-possibly-something-else issue and not actually utilise light.

1. Religion, and Mormonism specifically, doesn't necessarily always produce good fruits.

2. You say that as if Mormonism is the ONLY way to produce good fruits. Rest assured, it is not.

[Hamba Tuhan]

My belief or disbelief in something is directly tied to the evidences available.

As is mine. Now, how do we explain the differences in beliefs?

[Nofear]

The bottom line is that I can't just simply "choose" to believe that the troublesome issues don't trouble me. In my mind, that would be intellectually dishonest. I don't understand why anyone would want to choose to ignore troublesome issues and choose to focus on the faith promoting ones.

As a scientist, I can empathize with this position. And it's ok to have issues that "trouble" one. And it doesn't necessarily mean ignoring them. Indeed, I tend to find most of the ones that "trouble" me as exciting challenges to explore. Yet, in all this I still must maintain loyalty (i.e. faith) to the truths God has revealed to me. What's hard about that to understand?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1. Religion, and Mormonism specifically, doesn't necessarily always produce good fruits.

I'm willing to believe you if you claim this has been your experience. I hope you'll believe me if I claim my experience has been different.

2. You say that as if Mormonism is the ONLY way to produce good fruits. Rest assured, it is not.

Of course it isn't. But there are promises and truth claims specific to 'Mormonism.'

[Nathair/|\]

You are correct. My belief or disbelief in something is directly tied to the evidences available. For me, the evidence for Bigfoot and leprechaun is equally compelling as the evidence for the LDS church being true.... which is to say not at all.

Even if I could choose to believe in these things, why would I?

I could choose to believe in Zeus. After all, there is abundant evidence that he is high atop Mt Olympus throwing lightning bolts. Surely you have seen the lighting bolts, right? Just because you and your "science" have determined that it is static discharges created by positive and negative electrical forces doesn't diminish MY choosing to believe that Zeus is really responsible for lightning. You and I just view the evidence differently. You have chosen to believe in the fallible human scientists, where I have chosen to believe in Zeus.

My mentor, Gwydion ap Don, tells me it is time to do a little Druidic stirring of the pot here. What happens when you introduce Pascal's wager into the equation?

Yours under the Puckish oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Scottie]

As is mine. Now, how do we explain the differences in beliefs?

Well, personally, I don't put limits on what the brain is capable of producing. I suspect that you do.

I'm guessing that you believe that the spiritual confirmation that you received was generated by an out of body entity known as the Holy Ghost, correct? That there is NO possible way that it could have been generated internally by your brain? And that this confirmation trumps any and all other evidences, right?

I reject this idea. I believe that the mind is capable of emotions and feelings beyond our comprehension. Especially when one is looking for a confirmation.

How many troublesome church issues have you resolved by saying, "We don't know the mysteries of God, but I'm sure it will be explained after we die?" For me, this is not good enough. ANY religion could use this and still remain true if you wanted it to. I don't see why Mormonism should get a free pass just because you want to "choose" to believe in it.

[Scottie]

My mentor, Gwydion ap Don, tells me it is time to do a little Druidic stirring of the pot here. What happens when you introduce Pascal's wager into the equation?

Mormonism has a unique fix for Pascal's Wager. They believe that all religions have some truth to them, so in essence, they believe in all religions to some extent. Mormonism is just the final goal with all the truths.

[Scottie]

I'm willing to believe you if you claim this has been your experience. I hope you'll believe me if I claim my experience has been different.

The stories on RfM would seem to contradict your claim. Unless you are calling them liars, MANY exMo's are much happier out of the church than they ever were in the church.

[Analytics]

I see you are a partaker of Scottie's dogmatism.

[wenglund]

The value I see in considering faith to be somewhat influenced by choice is the empowerment and control that is provides over one's own future. One is not entirely at the mercy of externalities, but if something is believable and advantageous to believe, then to some extent one can choose to believe it.

To me, it is analogous to our being captians of the ships of our minds. The conceptual winds of excternal reality may blow as they please, but each of us have the power to set our congnative sails and rudders of faith to head us towards our chosen destination. We need not be tossed to a fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Analytics]

The value I see in considering faith to be somewhat influenced by choice is the empowerment and control that is provides over one's own future. One is not entirely at the mercy of externalities, but if something is believable and advantageous to believe, then to some extent one can choose to believe it.

To me, it is analogous to our being captians of the ships of our minds. The conceptual winds of excternal reality may blow as they please, but each of us have the power to set our congnative sails and rudders of faith to head us towards our chosen destination. We need not be tossed to a fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't say this often, but I agree with you here, Wade.

The thing is, we need to remember that the act of choosing to believe something doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether or not it is actually true.

For example, there might be a 50% probability of sunny weather on my next vacation, and I could have

[wenglund]

I don't say this often, but I agree with you here, Wade.

The thing is, we need to remember that the act of choosing to believe something doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether or not it is actually true.

Your belief in what you just said, then, has no bearing on whether it is true.

But, this is beside the point of the topic of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel Peterson]

I share this point of view completely. From my own experience, of acquiring, losing, and then (re)gaining faith, supplemented with what I know of others--both personally and through research that has been done on the human mind, faith transitions are complex, with various factors--rational, experiential, motivational, social, moral, and spiritual--going into them.

I am wearied, and irked, when people, either apologists for religion or critics thereof, are certain that motivational factors are everything. Critics will sometimes make it out that believers believe only because they want to--that religion is simple wish fulfillment and nothing more; and defenders of a given faith (and I have encountered this in the Church, in Catholicism, in Evangelical Christianity, and Islam) sometimes portray those who believe otherwise as willfully resisting what they really know to be true. <SIGH>

Thanks, Don.

I don't see what I said as being all that controversial, really. It's pretty standard-issue psychology (I think, being a non-psychologist) that humans interact with the world and each other in an interplay of three modes -- the affective (e.g., the emotions), the cognitive, and the conative (having to do with volition).

William James defends a position rather like mine in his famous response to W. K. Clifford, The Will to Believe. Of course, he's talking about choices between what he calls "live hypotheses," and there are, obviously, critics out there who regard Mormonism as the deadest of dead hypotheses -- a position that, in my judgment, cannot withstand scrutiny.

[ERayR]

I don't believe so. From my observations, it appears that apologists start with the endpoint of "the church must remain true" and make the evidence fit that. I let the evidence lead me where it will. For me, personally, it has led me to believe that the church is false.

Now, I will admit that there are a few perplexing issues which do not necessarily lead to the church being false. I know that some critics would do the exact opposite and start with the premise that the church must remain false and then make the evidence fit that.

I do have bias, just as everyone does, but I try very hard not to fall into that trap. For example, even though JS sealed himself to 14 year old girls, I have seen no evidence to believe that he was a pedophile. I don't know how the BoM was produced. I don't know why JS would rather die than renounce his beliefs.

The bottom line is that I can't just simply "choose" to believe that the troublesome issues don't trouble me. In my mind, that would be intellectually dishonest. I don't understand why anyone would want to choose to ignore troublesome issues and choose to focus on the faith promoting ones.

The bottom line is that the information you have chosen to give the most weight in your decisions does define your belief. So all potestations to objectivity aside your disbelief is the sum of your choices, therefore it is a choice.

I can't understand why anyone would simply choose the most negative explanations when the evidence for the positive is equally as persuasive or more so when taken in context of other evidence and the overall picture.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

As you know, I am one of those who strongly disagreed with you when you previously argued this idea. I strongly disagreed with you then as a nonbeliever. I will strongly disagree with you now as a Latter-day Saint.

I appreciate your candor, Don.

I also note that, in the subsequent post, you emphasized that you agree with Daniel's point of view completely. As it happens, I do too. Which indicates, perhaps, that I have expressed myself poorly in the past. If so, I regret it.

Perhaps we are not so very far apart on this subject after all.

[Uncertain]

Hi All,

The idea that we have full and complete control over what be believe I think is self evidently false. For those who disagree I propose a serious of experiments first go outside look at the sky and then with an effort of will make yourself believe the sky is not blue don't just claim the sky is not blue really and truly in your hearts of hearts make yourself believe the sky is not blue. Second experiment, for those with a conviction of Mormonism make an effort of will and stop believing in Mormonism and with all your soul start believing in Islam you can always make an effort of will and switch back no harm no foul . If belief is purely a matter of choice a simple exercise in your free agency then both of these things should be possible.

Now I am not claiming belief is entirely outside of our control. For example I can choose to affect my environment in such a way as to increase the probability of one set of beliefs over another. If I wanted belief in Islam I could study only positive sources about Islam I could associate primarily with devote believers in Islam I could act as if Islam were true and follow it's precepts. Such actions I clearly have control over and can exercise my free agency to perform. But still at the end of the day if I gain belief or not is not a deliberate choice made by me either I believe or I don't. After I read the Koran I don't suddenly gain the ability to say now I will make a free will decision to consciously choose to believe Islam close my eyes and poof I choose belief. My belief is influenced by many other environmental and social factors over which I have little control. I can partially affect my beliefs by the choices I make but I can't fully determine my beliefs with an exercise of free will. Which is problematic if a given religion asserts eternal rewards are based on one belief or another. Which is why I believe if God is really going to judge us on what we believe he will provide a sufficient amount of evidence that belief is thrust upon us.

I would also add there are many examples of belief being thrust upon us and we have no choice in the matter. When I walk outside and see a truck driving down the road no matter how hard I try I can't make myself with an exercise of free will believe the truck is not there and calmly walk into the street. For that matter I can't make myself believe the earth is flat the weight of evidence is such I really have no choice in the matter.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[MistahStokes]

William James defends a position rather like mine in his famous response to W. K. Clifford, The Will to Believe. Of course, he's talking about choices between what he calls "live hypotheses," and there are, obviously, critics out there who regard Mormonism as the deadest of dead hypotheses -- a position that, in my judgment, cannot withstand scrutiny.

huh?

This is from the Will to Believe

Let us give the name of hypothesis to anything that may be proposed to our belief; and just as the electricians speak of live and dead wires, let us speak of any hypothesis as either live or dead A live hypothesis is one which appeals as a real possibility to him to whom it is proposed. If I ask you to believe in the Mahdi, the notion makes no electric connection with your nature,--it refuses to scintillate with any credibility at all. As an hypothesis it is completely dead. To an Arab, however (even if he be not one of the Madhi's followers), the hypothesis is among the mind's possibilities: it is alive. This shows that deadness and liveness in an hypothesis are not intrinsic properties, but relations to the individual thinker. They are measured by his willingness to act. The maximum of liveness in hypothesis means willingness to act irrevocably. Practically, that means belief; but there is some believing tendency wherever there is willingness to act at all.

Are you saying that the idea of Mormonism being a dead wire to a person based entirely on the subjectivity of the person, cannot withstand scrutiny?

[ERayR]

Well, personally, I don't put limits on what the brain is capable of producing. I suspect that you do.

I don't know about Hamba Tuhan but as for me you would be wrong in your assumption.

I'm guessing that you believe that the spiritual confirmation that you received was generated by an out of body entity known as the Holy Ghost, correct? That there is NO possible way that it could have been generated internally by your brain? And that this confirmation trumps any and all other evidences, right?

See above

I reject this idea. I believe that the mind is capable of emotions and feelings beyond our comprehension. Especially when one is looking for a confirmation.

I agree with this.

How many troublesome church issues have you resolved by saying, "We don't know the mysteries of God, but I'm sure it will be explained after we die?" For me, this is not good enough. ANY religion could use this and still remain true if you wanted it to. I don't see why Mormonism should get a free pass just because you want to "choose" to believe in it.

For me personally - In my early years a few but not many. In later years I have found that most of those issues have been cleared up. I took to heart D&C 76:5-10

5 For thus saith the Lord

[Scottie]

I can't understand why anyone would simply choose the most negative explanations when the evidence for the positive is equally as persuasive or more so when taken in context of other evidence and the overall picture.

I disagree here. Most times, the positive explanation strains plausibility. I tend towards the simplest explanation, which just so happens to be the negative explanation.

If you were to go into a Scientology board similar to MADB, would you choose to accept the positive explanations for a particularly strange belief, regardless of how strained it may be, or would you choose to accept the most plausible explanation, which would probably mean a negative against Scientology?

I'm sure you've seen the

where Scientology has changed peoples lives for the better, right? So the fruits are obviously there. Honest question... why do you choose NOT to believe in Scientology?

[Daniel Peterson]

Are you saying that the idea of Mormonism being a dead wire to a person based entirely on the subjectivity of the person, cannot withstand scrutiny?

No.

I see that I should not have used the term position twice in what I wrote above, as it refers to two different "positions" -- the one that William James and I appear to share, and the one claiming that Mormonism is, objectively speaking, a dead hypothesis -- thus leaving what I wrote vulnerable to misreading.

I do not think that the claim that Mormonism has been definitively proven false can be sustained. Others differ with me on that. I think that they're wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi All,

The idea that we have full and complete control over what be believe I think is self evidently false. For those who disagree I propose a serious of experiments first go outside look at the sky and then with an effort of will make yourself believe the sky is not blue don't just claim the sky is not blue really and truly in your hearts of hearts make yourself believe the sky is not blue. Second experiment, for those with a conviction of Mormonism make an effort of will and stop believing in Mormonism and with all your soul start believing in Islam you can always make an effort of will and switch back no harm no foul . If belief is purely a matter of choice a simple exercise in your free agency then both of these things should be possible.

Now I am not claiming belief is entirely outside of our control. For example I can choose to affect my environment in such a way as to increase the probability of one set of beliefs over another. If I wanted belief in Islam I could study only positive sources about Islam I could associate primarily with devote believers in Islam I could act as if Islam were true and follow it's precepts. Such actions I clearly have control over and can exercise my free agency to perform. But still at the end of the day if I gain belief or not is not a deliberate choice made by me either I believe or I don't. After I read the Koran I don't suddenly gain the ability to say now I will make a free will decision to consciously choose to believe Islam close my eyes and poof I choose belief. My belief is influenced by many other environmental and social factors over which I have little control. I can partially affect my beliefs by the choices I make but I can't fully determine my beliefs with an exercise of free will. Which is problematic if a given religion asserts eternal rewards are based on one belief or another. Which is why I believe if God is really going to judge us on what we believe he will provide a sufficient amount of evidence that belief is thrust upon us.

I would also add there are many examples of belief being thrust upon us and we have no choice in the matter. When I walk outside and see a truck driving down the road no matter how hard I try I can't make myself with an exercise of free will believe the truck is not there and calmly walk into the street. For that matter I can't make myself believe the earth is flat the weight of evidence is such I really have no choice in the matter.

Earlier in this thread, Daniel Peterson distinguished between things that are obviously true/false and those for which there is no slam dunk either way. As I see it, the matter of the sky being blue and the truck driving down the road belong in the former category. Matters such as the veracity of Mormonism tend to be those for which a plausible case can be made on either side intellectually. It is more the latter category in which, ultimately, volition comes into play.

And I have said in the past that, in practice, it is rarely as simple as a single decision made at a given point in time. Rather, it is the cumulative result of a myriad of personal choices made over time. These might include choices pertaining to reading material; sources in whom one reposes trust; the weight given to information and opinions; habits regarding personal prayer, worship, scripture study; obedience to commandments; faultfinding; pride; indulgence of the natural-man tendency to speak evil of Church leaders; conflict with family or fellow Church members; peer group pressure; etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sure you've seen the

where Scientology has changed peoples lives for the better, right? So the fruits are obviously there. Honest question... why do you choose NOT to believe in Scientology?

This is not as problematical as you think when you consider the widespread attitude among Mormons that elements of truth can be found in all or virtually all religious faiths. It is thus not surprising that, to the extent that truth is found within an given religious faith, that faith would have changed for the better the lives of its adherents.

[Scottie]

I do not think that the claim that Mormonism has been definitively proven false can be sustained. Others differ with me on that. I think that they're wrong.

An unfalsifiable religion cannot be falsified. Neither can it be proven.

I think that both sides are wrong to claim to KNOW one way or the other.

That being said, looking at different religions and religious leaders, and seeing many of the same characteristics in JS, it certainly makes it difficult to believe that Mormonism isn't just one more in a slew of manmade religions.