Faith is a decision

[wenglund]

Hi Wenglund,

Well if all it takes is your belief it is in your best interest.

As I have previously itereated and reiterated, that isn't all it takes. It also takes, among other things, evidence and reason and will.

And as you claim you can consciously decide what you believe all you have to do is first is with an exercise of will or whatever method you use consciously decide it is in your best interest to believe the sky is not blue then proceed from there.

But, as I have intimated, belief (be it whether the sky is blue or whether it is in my interest to believe the sky is blue), is not soley a matter of will.

The problem is I fail to see the difference in you having conscious control over whether or not the sky is blue and you having conscious control over believing it is to your advantage to believe the sky is blue.

I fail to see the difference also--and that is because, in principle, I don't believe there is a difference.

Simply use your free will and consciously decide to alter your belief such that you now truly believe it is to your advantage to believe the sky is not blue then go from there .

You are asking me to do something that I already said I could not do. You can keep asking in hopes of making a point on which we don't disagree. But, I am not sure what value there would be in doing so--except perhaps to demonstrate your shear force of will in choosing to be banal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel Peterson]

And this is where we diverge on beliefs. I believe that spiritual "answers" are nothing more than the mind.

And I believe that your dogmatic certainty on that point is unwarranted.

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.

I think the mind is very powerful, too. It can create certainty where no certainty is warranted. It can, for example, be convinced that absolutely no spiritual answer has ever been, is ever, or will ever be anything more than an invention of the mind, where such a conclusion goes considerably past any evidence actually on hand.

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.

You may be right. The mere fact that I've never met, nor read, nor read about a Muslim making such a claim doesn't mean that there aren't scores of millions of Muslims claiming personal propositional revelation in support of Islam.

are you LDS ?

Very much so, yes.

Do you believe a person must accept a set of religious ordinances performed by one having authority in order to obtain certain eternal rewards?

Yes.

How likely is it do you think that a nonbeliever will accept those ordinances?

Lacking any and all access to comprehensive postmortem data, I have no way of answering your question.

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?

Once again, I'm not the Judge, and I don't presume to dictate what he will do.

I simply trust him as infinitely wise and good and loving.

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.

Nor am I. It's certainly not my model.

I take it that you missed my point. It has nothing to do with a "random walk algorithm" or with "stumbling across" truth. It has to do with a loving Father, who wishes to share what he has and is with his children.

[Uncertain]

Again are you being deliberatly obtuse? I have said several times belief is the sum of the evidences we choose to accept. If you want to say the sky is not blue it conflicts with other evidences you have so it is not accepted. Again, beliefs are a sum not and individual data point.

Okay then can you chose to not accept the sum of evidences that show the sky is blue? In other words can you choose as of right now to dismiss all the evidence the sky is blue and truly in your heart of hearts believe the sky is not blue? I don't believe I am the one being deliberately obtuse here. I will say it again if you have complete conscious and voluntary control over your beliefs. You should be able to ignore or reinterpret the sum of evidences showing the sky is blue and make yourself believe it is some other color purely with an act of will. This is the definition of having complete conscious and voluntary control over your beliefs. If you can't ignore the conflicting evidences and make yourself believe the sky is not blue then you don't have complete conscious and voluntary control over all your beliefs. Instead your belief at least in this case is dictated to you and you have no choice in the matter. You are compelled to believe the sky is blue because of the overwhelming evidence.

[Uncertain]

As I have previously itereated and reiterated, that isn't all it takes. It also takes, among other things, evidence and reason and will.

But, as I have intimated, belief (be it whether the sky is blue or whether it is in my interest to believe the sky is blue), is not soley a matter of will.

I fail to see the difference also--and that is because, in principle, I don't believe there is a difference.

You are asking me to do something that I already said I could not do. You can keep asking in hopes of making a point on which we don't disagree. But, I am not sure what value there would be in doing so--except perhaps to demonstrate your shear force of will in choosing to be banal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

Well perhaps I did misunderstood you. I understood you be be claiming you did have conscious and complete control over your beliefs. If you do not think you do then we are in agreement and I apologize for my misunderstanding.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Ahab]

I just read Robert L. Millet's recent contribution to Mormon Scholars Testify.

In it, he makes the point that having faith in Christ -- and, more particularly, Christ's restored gospel -- is a decision.

In my mind, a corollary to that point is that abandoning one's faith is likewise a decision, or in other words, a choice one makes and that one is not forced into.

I have made that assertion in the past on this board and have been criticized for it, most recently a few days ago on the Compound, where there was a link posted to a thread I started last year. Briefly stated, I said that so long as we can plausibly defend the restored gospel, our burden has been met, because that maintains a milieu where an individual truth seeker can decide to have faith, as Millet puts it.

Nice to know that Bob Millet and I coincide in our thinking on this matter.

It may just be a semantics issue, but I think it's more correct to say that having or accepting faith is a decision.

Faith, itself, is an assurance or the state of being sure about something, and while we may decide to accept an assurance from someone about something, it doesn't seem quite right to me to say that we decide what that assurance really is, although I can see how we can decide what we think or believe that assurance is.

The assurance, or faith, is what it is, and when someone assures us of something we then have 3 choices:

1) we decide to accept the assurance, or

2) we decide to not accept it, or

3) we remain undecided until we make up our own mind, neither accepting or rejecting it.

Edit: Nevermind. I now see that "having" faith is what Robert was talking about.

[ERayR]

Okay then can you chose to not accept the sum of evidences that show the sky is blue? In other words can you choose as of right now to dismiss all the evidence the sky is blue and truly in your heart of hearts believe the sky is not blue? I don't believe I am the one being deliberately obtuse here. I will say it again if you have complete conscious and voluntary control over your beliefs. You should be able to ignore or reinterpret the sum of evidences showing the sky is blue and make yourself believe it is some other color purely with an act of will. This is the definition of having complete conscious and voluntary control over your beliefs. If you can't ignore the conflicting evidences and make yourself believe the sky is not blue then you don't have complete conscious and voluntary control over all your beliefs. Instead your belief at least in this case is dictated to you and you have no choice in the matter. You are compelled to believe the sky is blue because of the overwhelming evidence.

As I said welcome to earth and as far as I am concerned you may have the last word. However, if I were you I would think twice before trying to use that argument as you stand before the judgement bar of Christ.

[Uncertain]

You may be right. The mere fact that I've never met, nor read, nor read about a Muslim making such a claim doesn't mean that there aren't scores of millions of Muslims claiming personal propositional revelation in support of Islam.

Well you would certainly know much better than I would. In any case it is a very minor point and completely superfluous to any argument made concerning the reliability of LDS epistemology. Even if not a single Muslim anywhere in the world believes God told them core doctrines of Islam are true. There certainly are other religions beside Mormonism that use personal revelation as support for doctrinal claims contradictory to those taught in Mormonism.

Lacking any and all access to comprehensive postmortem data, I have no way of answering your question.

Well we certainly do have pre mortem data . How many unbelievers do you currently know that accept LDS ordinances a large fraction? I really don't see why this is a controversial point whatsoever. Do you really think those who don't believe in LDS claims are likely pre or post mortem to accept LDS ordinances? So unbelievers would accept ordinances to what be nice to their postmortem LDS neighbors ?

Nor am I. It's certainly not my model.

I take it that you missed my point. It has nothing to do with a "random walk algorithm" or with "stumbling across" truth. It has to do with a loving Father, who wishes to share what he has and is with his children.

This is why I said something like. And yes if we don't have complete conscious and voluntary control over our beliefs and if indeed what we believe is important in obtaining rewards in the afterlife. Than no I don't think stumbling across the truth is that far fetched of a description. After all we would have to come across that particular combination of circumstances such that belief would arise. And if this life is any indication coming across such circumstances can to some extent be described as stumbling. What do you suppose you would currently be believing if you were raised in Saudi Arabia?

(Edit : Currently I am leaning towards the overwhelming evidence model. If God truly wants us to believe something he will provide overwhelming evidence that something is true. Perhaps in the afterlife he will provide overwhelming evidence Mormonism is correct.)

All the Best,

Uncertain

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

Well perhaps I did misunderstood you. I understood you be be claiming you did have conscious and complete control over your beliefs. If you do not think you do then we are in agreement and I apologize for my misunderstanding.

I believe we have some conscious control over our beliefs, though not complete control. I am not sure how this could have been misunderstood given my "captain" analogy and my iterations and reiterations (your shear force of will perhaps?), but I gladly accept your apology.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Glenn101]

Uncertain, on 22 June 2010 - 02:53 PM, said:

Okay then can you chose to not accept the sum of evidences that show the sky is blue? In other words can you choose as of right now to dismiss all the evidence the sky is blue and truly in your heart of hearts believe the sky is not blue? I don't believe I am the one being deliberately obtuse here. I will say it again if you have complete conscious and voluntary control over your beliefs. You should be able to ignore or reinterpret the sum of evidences showing the sky is blue and make yourself believe it is some other color purely with an act of will. This is the definition of having complete conscious and voluntary control over your beliefs. If you can't ignore the conflicting evidences and make yourself believe the sky is not blue then you don't have complete conscious and voluntary control over all your beliefs. Instead your belief at least in this case is dictated to you and you have no choice in the matter. You are compelled to believe the sky is blue because of the overwhelming evidence.

As I said welcome to earth and as far as I am concerned you may have the last word. However, if I were you I would think twice before trying to use that argument as you stand before the judgement bar of Christ.

Actually, the sky is not blue. The sky, made up of gases that are invisible to the human eye, is colorless. The apparent blue that we see is due to the phenomenom of rayleigh scattering of the light that come from the sun, with the blue being scattered much more efficiently than the other colors. The night sky is black, because there is no light to scatter. Black is the absence of color.

Not even two cents' worth, Glenn

[Uncertain]

I believe we have some conscious control over our beliefs, though not complete control. I am not sure how this could have been misunderstood given my "captain" analogy and my iterations and reiterations (your shear force of will perhaps?), but I gladly accept your apology.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well I misunderstood this statement "Not that I disagree with your point, but if I thought it to my advantage to genuinely believe the sky is not blue, I could do so. But, I have a rather maleable mind when it comes to pragmatism."

But in hind site I was wrong my interpretation was not a generous one and I apologize. It sounds to me we are largely in agreement I also think we have some conscious control over our beliefs just not complete control.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[tonyloaf]

Of course faith is a choice. Is this really a serious question? God does not, and man can not, compel belief. A dictator may be able to force you to profess a certain belief, but whether you really believe it is a decision you make. People reject compelling evidence all the time in all sorts of matters.

A more interesting question is whether there is a "belief" gene (the "God gene") as someone proposed not too long ago. Are people genetically predisposed to believe in religion or God? If there is, and I'm inclined to think there is, that would shed new light on the scriptures regarding the "seed of Abraham" and "my sheep hear my voice." But even genetic disposition does not trump our agency.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well we certainly do have pre mortem data . How many unbelievers do you currently know that accept LDS ordinances a large fraction?

No.

I really don't see why this is a controversial point whatsoever. Do you really think those who don't believe in LDS claims are likely pre or post mortem to accept LDS ordinances? So unbelievers would accept ordinances to what be nice to their postmortem LDS neighbors ?

I'm afraid that I really have no basis on which to estimate rates of postmortem conversion. Sorry.

I don't think stumbling across the truth is that far fetched of a description.

Well, it depends upon what we're talking about. If you're talking about my view of the postmortem process of learning about and accepting the gospel -- which is what I was talking about -- then no, that doesn't even remotely resemble my view.

What do you suppose you would currently be believing if you were raised in Saudi Arabia?

I would most likely be a Sunni Muslim, perhaps even a Wahhabi.

But this is irrelevant to my view of the life to come.

And, for the record, I don't believe that the preponderance of Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia constitutes any more of an argument against the truth claims of theism than the higher-than-average proportion of atheists and agnostics in Scandinavia and Germany constitutes an argument that atheism is merely a matter of upbringing and social conditioning.

[MistahStokes]

And, for the record, I don't believe that the preponderance of Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia constitutes any more of an argument against the truth claims of theism than the higher-than-average proportion of atheists and agnostics in Scandinavia and Germany constitutes an argument that atheism is merely a matter of upbringing and social conditioning.

Sweet. Maybe you'll drop the likes of Hitchens and start with something like Steve Maitzen's arguments about the demographics of Theism. A blog response to something like this would be a great! Since Steve isn't a celeb like Hitchens, he could even dialouge with you.

[Uncertain]

No.

I'm afraid that I really have no basis on which to estimate rates of postmortem conversion. Sorry.

Hi Daniel,

Well it's a good thing I was not talking about postmortem conversion rates . What I was discussing is how the requirement to accept religious ordinances in order to obtain heavenly rewards is a de facto judgment on belief. Since it is very unlikley unbelievers will chose to accept religious ordinances in which they don't believe. Hence if you believe accepting a certain set of religious ordinances are necessary to obtain heavenly rewards it follows you also believe God is judging us on our beliefs at least to some extent.

Well, it depends upon what we're talking about. If you're talking about my view of the postmortem process of learning about and accepting the gospel -- which is what I was talking about -- then no, that doesn't even remotely resemble my view.

I would most likely be a Sunni Muslim, perhaps even a Wahhabi.

But this is irrelevant to my view of the life to come.

And, for the record, I don't believe that the preponderance of Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia constitutes any more of an argument against the truth claims of theism than the higher-than-average proportion of atheists and agnostics in Scandinavia and Germany constitutes an argument that atheism is merely a matter of upbringing and social conditioning.

Well I agree with you with regards to atheism good thing I am not an atheist. I do think religious diversity causes real problems with statements that God has a "one true faith" that everyone must accept to gain heavenly rewards. In any case I was simply pointing out at least in this life "stumbling" across the truth is an apt description. Whether or not this applies in the afterlife who knows again this is an exceedingly minor issue and is a diversion from the main question. Which is if indeed we don't have completely conscious and voluntary control over our beliefs how is it justified to base heavenly rewards/punishment on our beliefs? I already outlined my potential solution if God is going to judge us on a set of beliefs he will provide overwhelming evidence those beliefs are indeed true either in this life or the next.

In any case Daniel I have very much enjoyed this discussion even if I have devoted to much time to it. I don't know if I can continue it much further but I would be very interested in reading your reply.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Daniel Peterson]

Professor Maitzen's article looks very interesting. I'm embarrassed to say that I missed it -- particularly since that journal is one that I used, at least, to follow pretty faithfully.

Well it's a good thing I was not talking about postmortem conversion rates .

That's what I suspected.

The problem is, that is what I was discussing.

What I was discussing is how the requirement to accept religious ordinances in order to obtain heavenly rewards is a de facto judgment on belief. Since it is very unlikley unbelievers will chose to accept religious ordinances in which they don't believe. Hence if you believe accepting a certain set of religious ordinances are necessary to obtain heavenly rewards it follows you also believe God is judging us on our beliefs at least to some extent.

Ultimately, I suppose, that will be so.

However -- I have no idea whether you have any LDS background or not -- Latter-day Saints don't believe that everything is settled at death. Hence the relevance of postmortem learning, cognition, and belief. Regarding which, as I've noted, I have no systematic data.

In any case I was simply pointing out at least in this life "stumbling" across the truth is an apt description.

With respect to this life, yes, I agree with you.

Whether or not this applies in the afterlife who knows again this is an exceedingly minor issue and is a diversion from the main question.

On the contrary, it's fundamental to my view of (the solution to the problem raised by) the main question, which is why I brought it up.

Best wishes to you.

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, for what it's worth, today's entry on Mormon Scholars Testify, written by a historian (Jim Tueller) who studies religious conversion, seems to endorse a notion of "belief as choice."

[handys003]

Scott- don't you think "epiphany" is a better term?

[tonyloaf]

Hi ERayR,

If you can't believe the sky is not blue simply by exercising your free will than this is an example of a belief that is not under the control of your free will. I am not sure how many other ways I can put this. If you can control with an exercise of free will what you believe than you can make yourself believe the sky is not blue simply by an exercise of free will.

You are failing to distinguish between faith (belief) and knowledge. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things. Faith is belief in the unseen. I accept that the sky is "blue" based on my own knowledge acquired by personal observation and years of experience that tell me that "blue" is the universally accepted term to describe its color on a cloudless day. It has nothing to do with belief. Your "blue sky" argument is a false argument.

I also feel compelled to add that, contrary to your implications, people are perfectly capable of denying obvious realities by the exercise of their wills. We have psych wards full of such people. Jos. Smith said that denying the Holy Ghost was equivalent to denying that the sun was shining at noon day. People are capable of willfully rejecting blinding, obvious truth.

[ERayR]

You are failing to distinguish between faith (belief) and knowledge. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things. Faith is belief in the unseen. I accept that the sky is "blue" based on my own knowledge acquired by personal observation and years of experience that tell me that "blue" is the universally accepted term to describe its color on a cloudless day. It has nothing to do with belief. Your "blue sky" argument is a false argument.

I also feel compelled to add that, contrary to your implications, people are perfectly capable of denying obvious realities by the exercise of their wills. We have psych wards full of such people. Jos. Smith said that denying the Holy Ghost was equivalent to denying that the sun was shining at noon day. People are capable of willfully rejecting blinding, obvious truth.

deleted

[Hamba Tuhan]

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

You suspect wrong.

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?

Again, you guess wrong. I think the most likely explanation for any 'spiritual experience' is that my brain made it up. The only way to know is to go forward in faith and test that proposition. For example, if what I think is an angel appears to me one night and tells me there's an ancient book buried in a hill nearby, I'm going to assume it was all a dream...right up to the point where I go to the hill, find the rock, and uncover the record. Whether or not I actually engage in the faithful steps following the angel's visit is a choice. If I simply choose the 'it was all a dream' option and stick with it, I'll never really know.

I reject this idea.

Of course you do. A choice you have made.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

Dude, did you totally miss my earlier assertion:

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.

I'm not interested in calling people liars. I am quite willing to accept that their experiences have been radically different to mine. In private, I then like to try to account for the differences.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott- don't you think "epiphany" is a better term?

Not sure I follow you, handys003. A better term for what?

[Hamba Tuhan]

And this is where we diverge on beliefs. I believe that spiritual "answers" are nothing more than the mind.

Fair enough. Why do you choose this as your default position?

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!"

For me, it's when the ancient record really is in the hole on the hillside, to reference my post above.

[ttribe]

Incidentally, for what it's worth, today's entry on Mormon Scholars Testify, written by a historian (Jim Tueller) who studies religious conversion, seems to endorse a notion of "belief as choice."

I see the website continues to die a slow death. Oh wait, was that lurking greedily?

[Hamba Tuhan]

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

For what it's worth, I spent several months living on an island in Indonesia where, in all the local languages, the colour of the sky and the colour of grass are expressed as the same colour. Trying to tell them that 'blue' and 'green' are separate colours simply befuddles them. They can't see it. They're clearly just slight different shades of the same colour.