Faith is a decision

[Scottie]

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 the adherents.

You didn't answer my question. Why do you choose not to believe in Scientology?

[Uncertain]

Hi Daniel,

I'm not sure that it's always (or even typically) a conscious decision, or a simple one-shot choice.

The evidence for and against the Gospel, by contrast, leaves us in a situation where we're forced to choose. It's neither a slam-dunk for, nor, despite the claims of certain critics, a slam-dunk against. Which is, I think, exactly where the Lord wants it.

I must say I see tension between your two statements above. If I understand statement one correctly you believe similarly I would say to what I believe that belief is not a conscious decision a simple exercise of free will. Have I misunderstood you? Now you might believe as I believe that we can influence our beliefs by our actions but this is not the same as determining our beliefs by our actions.

If this is indeed the case and if indeed the evidence for Mormonism is not a "slam dunk case" how in the world is it justified to base eternal rewards/punishment on belief in core principles of Mormonism? For example having eternal families in LDS theology is predicated on belief in and following a certain set of principles. And if indeed the evidence for those principles is such that belief is not compelled and if indeed we cannot with an exercise of free will choose to believe those principles how in the world is it justified to deny eternal families to those who don't believe in the given set of principles and hence don't follow them? After all if I understand your statement one correctly they did not necessarily make a conscious and free will decision to not believe.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Scott Lloyd]

You didn't answer my question. Why do you choose not to believe in Scientology?

I think the answer was implied in my response. But, if you require, I will spell it out: I have determined that other religious faiths, Scientology included, do not contain the full measure of truth that Mormonism does, though I do accept those elements of Scientology and other religious faiths that coincide with Mormonism.

[ERayR]

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.

I have no trouble believing this. If living LDS principles conflicts with the lifestyle they choose it could cause great discomfort. To this there is, IMO, but two remedies. Align their lifestyle to LDS princples, which will bring harmony and peace or leave and not look back. I am sure many exmo's find peace and fulfilment elswhere but the vocal online ones don't appear to find the peace they claim. By all means if you choose not to find peace in association with the saints then find it where you choose but if you don't then please don't come back and attempt to drag everyone into your misery.

[Uncertain]

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, choice comes into play.

Hi Scott,

Well just about all religions fall within the category of a plausible case being made for either side. So I would repeat my challenge pick a religion of your choosing in which a plausible case could be made for one side or another and with an effort of will choose to believe in that religion. If belief is really fully under your control a simple matter of a exercise of free agency you should be able to do this.

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.

Well choosing to attend church or not bad mouthing church leaders is not equal to choosing to believe. I fully accept by our actions we can influence to one extent or another what we believe what I reject is the idea that even if we make all the "correct" choices that we are somehow magically given the power to sit down one day and with an effort of will choose to believe something. If this is the case you should be able to demonstrate this I would ask that you make all the "correct" decisions with regards to Islam then with an effort of will choose to believe all the claims of Islam can you do this?

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

I agree that it's impossible to prove Mormonism based on publicly-available evidence.

But Latter-day Saints believe, as you may perhaps recall, in personal revelation. The recipient of such a revelation, if she believes it to be authentic, is justified in being personally certain of that to which the revelation attested, even if such certainty cannot be transferred to another person. (Mention of the revelation would, to that other person, simply be one more datum of publicly-available evidence, to be sifted along with all of the other such evidence.) A secularist, say, who denies the reality of such revelation cannot plausibly claim a countervailing personal revelation.

So the situation is, from the believer's perspective, asymmetrical.

If I understand statement one correctly you believe similarly I would say to what I believe that belief is not a conscious decision a simple exercise of free will.

It is not solely a conscious decision, but is very often impacted by conscious and/or unconscious decision(s). It is not, typically, a simple exercise of free will.

If this is indeed the case and if indeed the evidence for Mormonism is not a "slam dunk case" how in the world is it justified to base eternal rewards/punishment on belief in core principles of Mormonism? For example having eternal families in LDS theology is predicated on belief in and following a certain set of principles. And if indeed the evidence for those principles is such that belief is not compelled and if indeed we cannot with an exercise of free will choose to believe those principles how in the world is it justified to deny eternal families to those who don't believe in the given set of principles and hence don't follow them? After all if I understand your statement one correctly they did not necessarily make a conscious and free will decision to not believe.

Not being the Judge, I hesitate to lay down His precise blueprint for the Last Judgment, but I would be surprised if He failed to judge humans on the basis of the whole spectrum of their cognitive, conative, affective, and (I would add) spiritual attributes, as well as their actions. (In other words, I don't see people being judged solely on the basis of their cognitive aspect.) Moreover, you should understand that I tend toward a quasi-universalist, and very liberal, understanding of ultimate human destiny.

In any event, as I've said, while I don't believe that the publicly-available, secular evidence compels belief (or unbelief), I do firmly believe that sufficient private, subjective evidence is available to justify life-long commitment and discipleship.

[ERayR]

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?

I choose not to believe in Scientology because the preponderance of the evidence within my own experience(s) leads me to the LDS Church. Thats not to say I reject healing by faith because I definatly believe in that.

I know you discount spiritual experiences as mearly brain functioning. That may or may not be but these experiences are in the realm of my reality and I must give them some consideration or else my next option is to believe in nothing. Again the preponderance of evidence and the unwillingness to believe in the futility of nothing doesn't allow me that option.

[DonBradley]

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-

Interesting, Wade! I think you are right that it does provide greater control over one's own future.

Don

[Uncertain]

It is not solely a conscious decision, but is very often impacted by conscious and/or unconscious decision(s). It is not, typically, a simple exercise of free will.

Hi Daniel,

I agree with this but if it is not a conscious decision something under our direct control a simple exercise of free will as the saying goes then we are left with the problem I outlined. If belief is not entirely under our control if I can't consciously choose what to believe with an exercise of free will how is it justified to base eternal rewards/punishments on the content of my beliefs?

Not being the Judge, I hesitate to lay down His precise blueprint for the Last Judgment, but I would be surprised if He failed to judge humans on the basis of the whole spectrum of their cognitive, conative, affective, and (I would add) spiritual attributes, as well as their actions. (In other words, I don't see people being judged solely on the basis of their cognitive aspect.) Moreover, you should understand that I tend toward a quasi-universalist, and very liberal, understanding of ultimate human destiny.

In any event, as I've said, while I don't believe that the publicly-available, secular evidence compels belief (or unbelief), I do firmly believe that sufficient private, subjective evidence is available to justify life-long commitment and discipleship.

Well what I can judge is if a given religious teaching is self consistent and compatible with a just and loving God. And if it is not this is good evidence to believe the given religious teaching is not in fact something God does or believes. It appears to me you are left with two options God strictly enforces the belief requirement in which case we have the problem I outlined above. Or God based on our cognitive, conative, affective and spiritual attributes relaxes those requirements and lets people who don't believe and hence don't accept temple ordinances etc gain the same rewards as those that do. Personally I am partial to option two but frankly option two does not appear compatible with LDS theology as I understand it. Which I am okay with but I am not sure you would be .

Actually there is an option three God provides overwhelming evidence for what he wants us to believe and hence is justified in denying blessings to those who fail to follow what he has made abundantly clear.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[ERayR]

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.

That is one of the options and there are certainly some things, taken individually, that could lead you to that conclusion. However, when all the little things are added up, to me, the scales tip overwhelmingly in favor of Joseph Smiths truth claims.

[Scottie]

But Latter-day Saints believe, as you may perhaps recall, in personal revelation. The recipient of such a revelation, if she believes it to be authentic, is justified in being personally certain of that to which the revelation attested, even if such certainty cannot be transferred to another person.

And this is where we diverge on beliefs. I believe that spiritual "answers" are nothing more than the mind. If we believe that the mind is powerful enough to generate feelings of confirmation, then at what point do we say, "Oh, there is no way the mind could have created THIS powerful of a confirmation!" I, personally, don't put a limit on that. Believers, it appears, do.

It is not solely a conscious decision, but is very often impacted by conscious and/or unconscious decision(s). It is not, typically, a simple exercise of free will.

I agree with this, and I've said before that it is FAR too simplistic to pin a lifelong belief on a single event. Most beliefs come about from a lifetime of events.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

Well just about all religions fall within the category of a plausible case being made for either side. So I would repeat my challenge pick a religion of your choosing in which a plausible case could be made for one side or another and with an effort of will choose to believe in that religion. If belief is really fully under your control a simple matter of a exercise of free agency you should be able to do this.

I never meant to imply that it is a "simple matter of exercise of ... agency." A testimony of the truth is, in the final analysis, a spiritual gift.

Well choosing to attend church or not bad mouthing church leaders is not equal to choosing to believe.

To apply the analogy from earlier in this thread, doing such things is akin to planting the seed, cultivating the ground, fertilizing the soil, removing the weeds and doing other things to facilitate the process in the hope and expectation that God will send the rain and sunshine to make the plant grow.

I fully accept by our actions we can influence to one extent or another what we believe what I reject is the idea that even if we make all the "correct" choices that we are somehow magically given the power to sit down one day and with an effort of will choose to believe something.

As a matter of faith, I choose to believe the Biblical instruction that God will not give stones to his children who ask for bread.

If this is the case you should be able to demonstrate this I would ask that you make all the "correct" decisions with regards to Islam then with an effort of will choose to believe all the claims of Islam can you do this?

Is personal revelation a tenet of Islam? I'm not acquainted with it enough to know. Perhaps Dr. Peterson can tell us.

[DonBradley]

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.

Scott,

I greatly appreciate your mild response, which is not really something I could have hoped for!

It could be that we're reading Dan's post a bit differently. But I'll take it that we do agree more than has been evident to me from past discussion.

I think for me the issue has been that the will is always, invariably, and necessarily the decisive factor in these cases. Based on my own experience and that of others I've known closely and whose self-reports I believe implicitly, I do not believe this to be so. But when it comes down to the more limeted proposition offered in this thread, that faith is volitional, if not necessarily entirely so, I certainly can't disagree.

I think one of the deeper questions, which affects this one, is just what faith is. I've been wrestling with this quite a bit over the last several months, and I think I have some glimmers. I've long been dissatisfied with how I used to define faith, and how I commonly hear it defined (or think I'm hearing it defined)--and this dissatisfaction contributed to my loss of belief. I don't think that framing faith as a leap of belief over a chasm of missing evidence is really the best way to frame it, and this is how I had framed it.

I think that perhaps holding beliefs beyond the evidence is usually one of the results of faith, but I'm not convinced it's what faith is.

Anyway, maybe I'll eventually have my thoughts sufficiently sorted out to actually write them up.

Thanks again for your soft answer.

Cheers,

Don

[Daniel Peterson]

I often hear from critics of the Church that Muslims claim precisely the same sort of personal revelatory certainty that Latter-day Saints do. I confess that I've never encountered such claims from Muslims, neither in my reading nor in my personal contacts. But I bow to the superior knowledge of Islam that many anti-Mormons and apostate Mormons plainly possess. Who am I to argue with them?

I agree with this but if it is not a conscious decision something under our direct control a simple exercise of free will as the saying goes then we are left with the problem I outlined. If belief is not entirely under our control if I can't consciously choose what to believe with an exercise of free will how is it justified to base eternal rewards/punishments on the content of my beliefs?

I'm not sure why you're wanting to discuss this position with me, since I don't hold it. I don't believe that I've ever said that God will base his judgment on the content of our beliefs.

To be perfectly candid, since I'm not God, I don't know precisely how he intends to do it. That's why I leave such judgment to him.

Again, though, it appears to me mistaken to conclude that "belief is not entirely under our control if I can't consciously choose what to believe with an exercise of free will." The situation doesn't seem nearly so simple as that.

Well what I can judge is if a given religious teaching is self consistent and compatible with a just and loving God. And if it is not this is good evidence to believe the given religious teaching is not in fact something God does or believes. It appears to me you are left with two options God strictly enforces the belief requirement in which case we have the problem I outlined above. Or God based on our cognitive, conative, affective and spiritual attributes relaxes those requirements and lets people who don't believe and hence don't accept temple ordinances etc gain the same rewards as those that do. Personally I am partial to option two but frankly option two does not appear compatible with LDS theology as I understand it. Which I am okay with but I am not sure you would be .

I'm content to believe that there are billions of years ahead of us, that God is merciful and loving, and that all who genuinely seek truth and goodness will ultimately get what they want.

[Scottie]

I choose not to believe in Scientology because the preponderance of the evidence within my own experience(s) leads me to the LDS Church.

Could you explain then why you chastise critics for always taking the negative side of LDS evidences? Could it be that the preponderance of the evidence within our own experience(s) leads me to believe that the LDS Church is false? Just as you believe Scientology is false?

Do you think a Scientologist might chastise you for discounting the many, MANY evidences that support Scientology? Do you dismiss them with a wave of your hand? Or do you give them serious consideration and, when viewed in context, see how correct they are?

I know you discount spiritual experiences as mearly brain functioning. That may or may not be but these experiences are in the realm of my reality and I must give them some consideration or else my next option is to believe in nothing. Again the preponderance of evidence and the unwillingness to believe in the futility of nothing doesn't allow me that option.

So, if I understand you right, you have your mind made up already (aka, you don't have the option) that there MUST be a God and that Mormonism MUST be true? Any evidence must be altered to fit the pre-determined conclusion?

[Uncertain]

I never meant to imply that it is a "simple matter of exercise of ... agency." A testimony of the truth is, in the final analysis, a spiritual gift.

To apply the analogy from earlier in this thread, doing such things is akin to planting the seed, cultivating the ground, fertilizing the soil, removing the weeds and doing other things to facilitate the process in the hope and expectation that God will send the rain and sunshine to make the plant grow.

Hi Scott,

I see so belief is not in fact merely an exercise of free will instead belief is thrust upon us by God. A person could make all the "correct" decision fertilize the seed so to speak but ultimately it is up to God whether that person believes or not hence it is not the person choosing to believe it is God choosing to give or not give belief. The person merely choose the prerequisites to belief whether he ultimately believes is not up to him. Does the same thing apply to believers in other religions I wonder? Does a person fertilize the field with regards to say Hinduism and God then grants him belief in Hinduism?

As a matter of faith, I choose to believe the Biblical instruction that God will not give stones to his children who ask for bread.

Is personal revelation a tenet of Islam? I'm not acquainted with it enough to know. Perhaps Dr. Peterson can tell us.

It does not matter if personal revelation is a tenet of Islam. If belief is purely a matter of freely chosen decisions made by you then you can in fact believe in anything because it is merely a matter of exercising your free agency to make those decisions that cause you to form belief. Simply exercise your free agency and poof you will believe in Islam that is all there is to it. Then simply exercise your free agency again to make the correct decisions with regards to Mormonism and poof you will be back to believing in Mormonism no worries .

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

I greatly appreciate your mild response, which is not really something I could have hoped for!

It could be that we're reading Dan's post a bit differently. But I'll take it that we do agree more than has been evident to me from past discussion.

I think for me the issue has been that the will is always, invariably, and necessarily the decisive factor in these cases. Based on my own experience and that of others I've known closely and whose self-reports I believe implicitly, I do not believe this to be so. But when it comes down to the more limeted proposition offered in this thread, that faith is volitional, if not necessarily entirely so, I certainly can't disagree.

I think one of the deeper questions, which affects this one, is just what faith is. I've been wrestling with this quite a bit over the last several months, and I think I have some glimmers. I've long been dissatisfied with how I used to define faith, and how I commonly hear it defined (or think I'm hearing it defined)--and this dissatisfaction contributed to my loss of belief. I don't think that framing faith as a leap of belief over a chasm of missing evidence is really the best way to frame it, and this is how I had framed it.

I think that perhaps holding beliefs beyond the evidence is usually one of the results of faith, but I'm not convinced it's what faith is.

Anyway, maybe I'll eventually have my thoughts sufficiently sorted out to actually write them up.

Thanks again for your soft answer.

Cheers,

Don

I can't disagree with any of the above Don. I see now that in the past I have perhaps come across as more abolutist on this subject than is proper.

I think on matters of faith, we are all struggling to "see through a glass darkly," intellectually as much as anything else.

[HiJolly]

I'm content to believe that there are billions of years ahead of us, that God is merciful and loving, and that all who genuinely seek truth and goodness will ultimately get what they want.

There it is. Any subsequent comment will simply confuse the issue. You da man, Dan!

HiJolly

[ERayR]

Could you explain then why you chastise critics for always taking the negative side of LDS evidences? Could it be that the preponderance of the evidence within our own experience(s) leads me to believe that the LDS Church is false? Just as you believe Scientology is false?

Do you think a Scientologist might chastise you for discounting the many, MANY evidences that support Scientology? Do you dismiss them with a wave of your hand? Or do you give them serious consideration and, when viewed in context, see how correct they are?

So, if I understand you right, you have your mind made up already (aka, you don't have the option) that there MUST be a God and that Mormonism MUST be true? Any evidence must be altered to fit the pre-determined conclusion?

I don't believe I chastized anybody. In fact if you will go back and read my posts I think you will find that in post #79 one of the remedies I suggested was to find peace and fulfilment elswhere. I have also stated I am a firm believer in the 11th Article of Faith. 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Please stop putting your words in my mouth. I said nothing about altering evidence. What I said was that the evidence I have leads me to beleive that to beleive in a big nothing is futile. To me the preponderance of evidence shows me that there is something and that the LDS Church best explains it. My conclusion is not predetermined but at this point is pre-rejected ( I don't have that option) because I have already weighed the evidence and found it wanting. I don't have to revaluate it over and over. That evidence must be altered is your construct, perhaps because that is how you choose to operate on the other side of the issue.

[Uncertain]

I often hear from critics of the Church that Muslims claim precisely the same sort of personal revelatory certainty that Latter-day Saints do. I confess that I've never encountered such claims from Muslims, neither in my reading nor in my personal contacts. But I bow to the superior knowledge of Islam that many anti-Mormons and apostate Mormons plainly possess. Who am I to argue with them?

You and me both my friend . I have no idea if Muslims as a basic creed affirm personal revelation as the basis for religious certainty I certainly accept whatever your expert view is. I also strongly suspect in a religion of billions there are Muslims out there firmly convinced God has spoken to them in a personal revelatory fashion affirming the truth of core Islamic principles. For that matter if even a very small percentage of Muslims believe this the total number may be greater than all the membership in the LDS church with a similar revelatory experience simply given the size difference of the two religions.

I also am well aware even if Muslims don't base personal belief on revelatory experiences there are religions that do besides the LDS church and they in many cases get directly contradictory results.

I'm not sure why you're wanting to discuss this position with me, since I don't hold it. I don't believe that I've ever said that God will base his judgment on the content of our beliefs.

(bold added by me)

Well to be perfectly honest I struck up the conversation with you because you are a super smart educated guy who thinks a lot about these kinds of things. I highly respect your reasoning abilities. And if there was a flaw in my reasoning you would be the one to point it out. And this is an issue I really do have questions about.

Now with regards to the bolded portion are you LDS ? Do you believe a person must accept a set of religious ordinances performed by one having authority in order to obtain certain eternal rewards? How likely is it do you think that a nonbeliever will accept those ordinances? It seems self evidently true that if acceptance of certain religious ordinances are required to gain rewards in the afterlife belief is also required. Because lack of belief will mostly lead to lack of acceptance QED .

Again, though, it appears to me mistaken to conclude that "belief is not entirely under our control if I can't consciously choose what to believe with an exercise of free will." The situation doesn't seem nearly so simple as that.

Well I would love to hear a counter argument. I understand belief is complex and I entirely accept our freely chosen actions can certainly influence what I believe. But so do other things not in my control like genetics and environment. If you or I don't have complete and conscious control over our beliefs with an exercise of free will how in the world is it justified to base eternal rewards/punishment on what beliefs we may hold?

I'm content to believe that there are billions of years ahead of us, that God is merciful and loving, and that all who genuinely seek truth and goodness will ultimately get what they want.

I am sympathetic to this view something like a "random walk algorithm" given enough time purely by luck we will stumble across the "truth" whatever it may be. Although I am not completely sold on this model.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[HiJolly]

It appears to me you are left with two options God strictly enforces the belief requirement in which case we have the problem I outlined above. Or God based on our cognitive, conative, affective and spiritual attributes relaxes those requirements and lets people who don't believe and hence don't accept temple ordinances etc gain the same rewards as those that do. Personally I am partial to option two but frankly option two does not appear compatible with LDS theology as I understand it. Which I am okay with but I am not sure you would be .

Actually there is an option three God provides overwhelming evidence for what he wants us to believe and hence is justified in denying blessings to those who fail to follow what he has made abundantly clear.

All the Best,

Uncertain

Uncertain, I highly recommend that you read Amazon: On Being Certain

Unlike belief, certainty simply *is not* a conscious, rational choice. It is produced by the subconscious mind, which is STILL your mind, whether you like that or not.

Joseph Smith knew it, and scientific analysis has confirmed it. Have you read the book?

HiJolly

[Uncertain]

Uncertain, I highly recommend that you read Amazon: On Being Certain

Unlike belief, certainty simply *is not* a conscious, rational choice. It is produced by the subconscious mind, which is STILL your mind, whether you like that or not.

Joseph Smith knew it, and scientific analysis has confirmed it. Have you read the book?

HiJolly

Thanks for your input. Well I would vigorously dispute your assertion that belief is a conscious, rational choice. But I do agree certainty is not necessarily a conscious rational choice. Have not read the book will have to queue it up.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[consiglieri]

I think on matters of faith, we are all struggling to "see through a glass darkly," intellectually as much as anything else.

Perhaps faith is a journey rather than a destination; a matter of the heart rather than the mind; a familiar reflection on an inner pool rather than a set of syllogisms.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for, "Wax on. Wax off.")

[DonBradley]

Here is a great example of the Analytic-al reflectiveness I've come to expect from you over the years, Roger. I think these are excellent thoughts.

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.

Yes! Probably the main thing I came to balk at about having faith was the idea of decoupling the strength of my belief in something from the quality and quantity of the evidence for that thing. I saw faith as consciously doing just that, and I worried that I would just be going for wish fulfillment, rather than reality.

But I now question whether this is really the essence of what people do in exercising faith. I think the concept of faith, and what it means pragmatically in the lives of real persons, bears much deeper exploration.

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

[Lightbearer]

Faith is indeed a decision. I think it is in fact the opposite of sin. As it states:

(Romans 14:23)"... for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

This is why to me faith is linked to good works, which is the opposite of sin which is evil works. Now we are given our agency to choose, between what? Between actions, good or bad. Now if good actions are a sign of faith, then bad actions are a sign of sin. So if sin is truly a decision then faith must be. Now if faith were not a decision then I would ask where does it come from? Does God force it on us? I think not. Now it may not always be a conscious decision, but it is a decision none the less. If faith comes by hearing the word of God, then why do not all who hear have faith? That is where the decision comes in. They decide not to believe. While I was on my mission I taught many people who choose not to believe, even in the face of evidence that was real and that they actually acknowledged, yet they chose to remain in sin. One in particular admitted they knew it was true but they were unwilling to repent. Those who try to deny that faith is a decision must do so or they condemn themselves, because then they are accountable for rejecting faith. This is a hard thing to admit, but is true. The fact is God gives us enough evidence to convince us if we have a desire for righteousness, if we do not God also allows enough "probable deniability" so as to avoid sending everyone who rejects the Gospel from perdition.