Debate In Mormonism

[elguanteloko]

I wonder if el is consistent in his application of skepticism to the idea that certain "sins" are not really sins after all and we can do as we please without the worry of eternal consequences.

What proof is there in el's world view that such is the case? Why would he choose one side over the other in such an argument, and be skeptical of the other side only?

Of course there is no motivation behind such a view, and el is being entirely impartial and objective..

I am consistent and skeptical of everything major in my belief set and if a belief isn't something I'm skeptical about and I should be, you can always present me with good arguments why I should and, if good, I will. You are going to have to trust me on this one (or not), I don't really care. What I do care about (and this is why I take the pain to respond to you) is to point out that mistrusting atheists and myself is nothing but a psychological tool to systematically avoid reasoning. I will also point out that this attitude of yours is deeply ingrained in today's Mormon culture where sin is thought to be the cause of critical thinking.

Edited November 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

Let's get specific. Given that God will not force you to believe(We call it Agency), what evidence would you require to believe?

The Mormon God? That's an easy question to answer: His appearance and reliable manifestations to the world (heal a bunch of people in an instant in front of everyone's eyes, move planets, impart perfect knowledge in the sciences, etc -you know, standard God stuff we would expect).

[shalamabobbi]

I am consistent and skeptical of everything major in my belief set and if a belief isn't something I'm skeptical about and I should be, you can always present me with good arguments why I should and, if good, I will. You are going to have to trust me on this one (or not), I don't really care. What I do care about (and this is why I take the pain to respond to you) is to point out that mistrusting atheists and myself is nothing but a psychological tool to systematically avoid reasoning. I will also point out that this attitude of yours is deeply ingrained in today's Mormon culture where sin is thought to be the cause of critical thinking.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the false dichotomy between science and religion, but I don't believe it is possible to arrive at a correct distinction between right and wrong purely from an intellectual basis. From whence arises conscience in your view? How do you derive morality from a purely intellectual basis?

[elguanteloko]

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the false dichotomy between science and religion, but I don't believe it is possible to arrive at a correct distinction between right and wrong purely from an intellectual basis. From whence arises conscience in your view? How do you derive morality from a purely intellectual basis?

...ok, that was a turn. Open threads on those topics and you'll have me there. I don't want to derail this one.

[CV75]

I gave reasons why it does. You can address them, you know?

I think I have been addressing it, so here’s a recap:

Your question from post #9: Here's a question for you: Do you think you can seriously question the veracity of the truth claims of Mormonism and the plausibility of these claims as being better explanations for life and the world than other explanations AND still have 'the Spirit' while you are doing this? My Answer: Yes, where “question” means “seek” or “analyze” and “explanations/evidence” are strictly the product of intellectual discipline, which segregates faith-based spiritual processes from the study but does not abandon them, allowing the Spirit to remain. But neither is this requisite to applying intellectual discipline.

Your question: Can you seriously conceive it? Answer: Yes.

Q: IOW, can you seriously question God's existence while having faith in God or seriously questioning the veracity of miracles while believing there are miracles? A: Where “question” means “doubt” and “faith” means “assurance of things that are true”, no. But neither is this requisite to applying intellectual discipline.

A full study would entail intellectual and spiritual experimentation. Not all doubt is abandoned in the spiritual experiment; not all faith is abandoned from the intellectual experiment.

Your conclusion: I think you need to adopt, for a small time at least, a skeptical attitude before you can seriously question something and I don't see how 'a skeptical attitude' can be reconciled at the same time with having the Spirit. That sounds like a contradiction to me: "To have faith in God while seriously questioning God."

My conclusion: Intellectual discipline requires neither skepticism nor gullibility, just discipline. For the sake of certains school of intellectual discipline, I do think you need to segregate prior spiritual conclusions from the physical or rational evidence to the contrary. I agree that before you can seriously doubt something which the Spirit has borne witness of you must abandon faith, but that is an extremely poor substitute for (if relevant at all) intellectual discipline. I do not agree that an intellectually skeptical attitude cannot be reconciled at the same time with having the Spirit—all it takes is discipline. I do agree that a spiritually skeptical attitude (doubt) cannot be reconciled at the same time with having the Spirit (faith).

[elguanteloko]

I think I have been addressing it, so here’s a recap:

Your question from post #9: Here's a question for you: Do you think you can seriously question the veracity of the truth claims of Mormonism and the plausibility of these claims as being better explanations for life and the world than other explanations AND still have 'the Spirit' while you are doing this? My Answer: Yes, where “question” means “seek” or “analyze” and “explanations/evidence” are strictly the product of intellectual discipline, which segregates faith-based spiritual processes from the study but does not abandon them, allowing the Spirit to remain. But neither is this requisite to applying intellectual discipline.

...lol Brother, this isn't addressing my reasons, this is addressing (supposedly) the question. I gave reasons why your answer is incoherent and mine isn't.

Your question: Can you seriously conceive it? Answer: Yes.

...

Q: IOW, can you seriously question God's existence while having faith in God or seriously questioning the veracity of miracles while believing there are miracles? A: Where “question” means “doubt” and “faith” means “assurance of things that are true”, no. But neither is this requisite to applying intellectual discipline.

I gave reasons why it was... you aren't addressing them still. Do you know what reasons are?

I also provided uses of the word "question" so you got what I was getting at... you missed that too and started providing your own uses of the word in weird and terribly ambiguous ways like "I'm seeking God's existence".

Edited November 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

One more time, CV75:

It doesn't seem coherent to say that you are seriously questioning (or investigating) whether or not God exists when you won't accept wherever the evidence leads you to. "I believe X. I will see whether or not X but I will not accept not X as an answer because I already believe X." Can you say this person is taking the issue seriously? Is this person questioning anything? Seems to me this person is just playing around without any regards for what is true.

"I'm trying to determine whether or not I should go to the park but I should go to the park."

or

"I'm thinking whether or not God exists but God exists."

..makes no sense.

Faith is irrelevant here since 'faith' implies belief (and it is at the core of faith since you can't have faith in something you think is false).

Edited November 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[CV75]

One more time, CV75:

It doesn't seem coherent to say that you are seriously questioning (or investigating) whether or not God exists when you won't accept wherever the evidence leads you to. "I believe X. I will see whether or not X but I will not accept not X as an answer because I already believe X." Can you say this person is taking the issue seriously? Is this person questioning anything? Seems to me this person is just playing around without any regards for what is true.

"I'm trying to determine whether or not I should go to the park but I should go to the park."

or

"I'm thinking whether or not God exists but God exists."

..makes no sense.

Faith is irrelevant here since 'faith' implies belief (and it is at the core of faith since you can't have faith in something you think is false).

This is what I am saying—that one’s faith in God is irrelevant to a purely academic approach and therefore does not have to be abandoned.

If one is (“seriously” as you put it) investigating whether or not God exists on an academic basis alone, he would have the discipline to accept wherever the evidence leads him—but only on an academic basis. Faithful academics do this all the time and understand, for example, where atheists are coming from. But even academics can disagree over the evidences for God’s existence or non-existence, as well as what constitutes a sound methodology.

I would also say that “serious” investigators would apply more than just an academic approach alone, but determining whether one is serious or not is a subjective call, another reason your proposition fails.

"I'm thinking whether or not God exists but God exists." makes perfect sense from a certain faithful academic's standpoint.

[elguanteloko]

This is what I am saying—that one’s faith in God is irrelevant to a purely academic approach and therefore does not have to be abandoned.

If faith God necessitates believing God exists (since you can't have faith in something you believe is false), then if a particular activity (in this case intellectual activity) necessitates putting your belief in God aside, then intellectual activity necessitates putting your faith in God aside. (PLEASE read what I just wrote carefully this time, for heaven's sake)

If one is (“seriously” as you put it) investigating whether or not God exists on an academic basis alone, he would have the discipline to accept wherever the evidence leads him—but only on an academic basis. Faithful academics do this all the time and understand, for example, where atheists are coming from. But even academics can disagree over the evidences for God’s existence or non-existence, as well as what constitutes a sound methodology.

What "other people" (other Christians or believers) believe is irrelevant since we are talking about one person, brother. ONE person has to abandon her faith or belief in God if she wants to really think about whether God exists or not (at least for the moment). Good grief!

"I'm thinking whether or not God exists but God exists." makes perfect sense from a certain faithful academic's standpoint.

Of course it makes sense but the point is that both can't be held at the same time (if you are to be said to be really thinking whether or not God exists critically); THAT is what doesn't make sense. You have to put the "God exists" part aside for the moment; if not then this is meaningless and you can't really be considering "whether or not God exists", which is the point.

Seriously, I'm really saddened by your inability to get this.

Edited November 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[CV75]

If faith God necessitates believing God exists (since you can't have faith in something you believe is false), then if a particular activity (in this case intellectual activity) necessitates putting your belief in God aside, then intellectual activity necessitates putting your faith in God aside. (PLEASE read what I just wrote carefully this time, for heaven's sake)

Paraphrasing what you said (correcting for mistakes): “If faith in God necessitates believing God exists, and if intellectual activity necessitates putting your belief in God aside, then intellectual activity necessitates putting your faith in God aside.”

My response: It depends on what you mean by “putting your belief in God aside (even for the moment).” It can be done as i described, but It is improvable to completely eradicate belief outside the narrow purview of the intellectual study because it would require undoing, avoiding and preventing all past, present and future faith-associated works, which led/lead to asking the question in the first place. For example, the believer could not explore whether God exists from the standpoint of being a believer without having first done what it took to become a believer (exercise faith).

What "other people" (other Christians or believers) believe is irrelevant since we are talking about one person, brother. ONE person has to abandon her faith or belief in God if she wants to really think about whether God exists or not (at least for the moment). Good grief!

If many do it, then certainly one does.

Of course it makes sense but the point is that both can't be held at the same time (if you are to be said to be really thinking whether or not God exists critically); THAT is what doesn't make sense. You have to put the "God exists" part aside for the moment; if not then this is meaningless and you can't really be considering "whether or not God exists", which is the point.

Seriously, I'm really saddened by your inability to get this.

Yes, they can, and I described how: discipline.

[elguanteloko]

Paraphrasing what you said (correcting for mistakes): “If faith in God necessitates believing God exists, and if intellectual activity necessitates putting your belief in God aside, then intellectual activity necessitates putting your faith in God aside.”

thanks for correcting those mistakes.

My response: It depends on what you mean by “putting your belief in God aside (even for the moment).”

It means you really have to consider the possibility that the conclusion you have arrived at might be incorrect and be ready to abandon what should be abandoned if the evidence suggests so.

It can be done as i described, but It is improvable to completely eradicate belief outside the narrow purview of the intellectual study because it would require undoing, avoiding and preventing all past, present and future faith-associated works, which led/lead to asking the question in the first place. For example, the believer could not explore whether God exists from the standpoint of being a believer without having first done what it took to become a believer (exercise faith).

No one is talking about 'completely eradicating belief' nor belief at all. I'm not saying you have to not believe in God to consider whether or not God exists. You merely have to consider that you might be very wrong and be willing to accept such conclusion if the evidence suggests.

If many do it, then certainly one does.

I'm trying to make you focus (actually, I've been doing just that since I started talking to you here). Saying "but X and Y do it" makes you loose focus on the fact that we are speaking about whether or not what you say they are doing is actually happening. I'm explaining why they are not (and you say they do) but saying "many people do" is not helping anything here.

Yes, they can, and I described how: discipline.

BTW, you took advantage of the room for a different interpretation of what I said in post #82 but you didn't talk about the other one.

"I'm trying to determine whether or not I should go to the park but I should go to the park."

Does this make sense to you, CV? Doesn't it seem to you that we should, if we want to determine whether or not we should go to the park, put the belief that we should go to the park aside for a moment? Is this the 'intellectual' attitude of honesty you think a Mormon scholar should have? Should Mormon scholars be willing to change their views about the existence of God if the evidence suggests the non existence of God is the most correct position?

Edited November 9, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

Also, I didn't give enough of a response to this comment of yours (post #83):

If one is (“seriously” as you put it) investigating whether or not God exists on an academic basis alone, he would have the discipline to accept wherever the evidence leads him—but only on an academic basis. Faithful academics do this all the time and understand, for example, where atheists are coming from. But even academics can disagree over the evidences for God’s existence or non-existence, as well as what constitutes a sound methodology.

I'll go by parts again.

If one is (“seriously” as you put it) investigating whether or not God exists on an academic basis alone,

It isn't 'an academic basis' what I'm talking about. You make it sound like this is like reading a book. I'm talking about determining as far as one's understanding can go whether or not God exists. You keep taking my "questioning" and "thinking" as I've been telling you NOT to take them: in the lightest possible sense of the words. I'm going for the heaviest senses of the words. Not 'academic' thinking but as far as one's understanding can go.

he would have the discipline to accept wherever the evidence leads him—but only on an academic basis.

btw, you are the only one here who started talking about an 'academic basis only'. All along I've been talking about one's own serious understanding and beliefs, not for purposes of a paper (or a forum).

Faithful academics do this all the time and understand, for example, where atheists are coming from.

I don't know how familiar you are with 'atheism' and the arguments for it and against God or Christianity... but I have never seen one Christian who seriously fought atheism and skepticism from within. Not one. But this is talk for another thread. If you run through the Christian intellectual elite of today, however, you will find that they rely on a fundamental trust, not argumentation for God's existence or intellectual justification since so far there have been too many loses to keep on going. Having God intellectually justified is a forgotten tale by now among people dedicated to think about these issues (not apologists, btw, they are dedicated to defend like payed lawyers).

But even academics can disagree over the evidences for God’s existence or non-existence, as well as what constitutes a sound methodology.

....and? Even among those that agree with the basics, God doesn't come out in the conclusions.

Edited November 9, 2011 by elguanteloko

[CV75]

....and? Even among those that agree with the basics, God doesn't come out in the conclusions.

It seems the more I point out the need for good definitions, the more contradictory your conditions become – so why balk at qualified responses?

I'll point out the is the progression (paraphrasing):

1. "To have faith in God while seriously questioning God" requires adopting, at least temporarily, a skeptical attitude.

2. Can you question things like whether or not God exists intellectually with the Spirit, since doing so requires leaving faith and trust aside, at least for the moment?

3. Doubt must replace faith to question critically. You can't question something critically without, by definition, leaving faith in that thing. You are not able to critically assess God's existence, even in principle, without leaving faith aside while you are critically assessing it.

4. God can either exist or not and to intellectually address this you must leave your "assurance" aside.

5. To critically examine something you must be willing to accept to change according to the evidence. To be serious about this, one must be open to the possibility that his reasons for believing God exists are flawed and is willing to change his position.

6. You are not seriously questioning (or investigating) whether or not God exists when you won't accept wherever the evidence leads you to. Faith is irrelevant here.

7. Unless you put the "God exists" part aside for the moment; you can't really be considering "whether or not God exists."

8. You really have to consider the possibility that the conclusion you have arrived at might be incorrect and be ready to abandon what should be abandoned if the evidence suggests so.

9. I'm not saying you have to not believe in God to consider whether or not God exists. You merely have to consider that you might be very wrong and be willing to accept such conclusion if the evidence suggests. Should Mormon scholars be willing to change their views about the existence of God if the evidence suggests the non existence of God is the most correct position?

10. It isn't 'an academic basis' what I'm talking about. I'm going for the heaviest senses of the words. Not 'academic' thinking but as far as one's understanding can go. All along I've been talking about one's own serious understanding and beliefs. Having God intellectually justified is a forgotten tale by now among people dedicated to think about these issues.

For example, this progression is problematic: Seriously questioning > Intellectually questioning > Question critically > Critically examine > Investigating > Considering > Consider the possibility > What scholars should do > Not academic questioning > “Heaviest” questioning > according to one’s own understanding and beliefs. Since this progression was used to better clarify your position, are these increasingly more clarifying terms supposed to be, at their root, somewhat synonymous? If so, what’s so similar between “heaviest” and “consider the possibility”? Does “heaviest” have an emotional or psychic component to it (like the phrase, all our heart, might, mind and strength)? How is that exclusively “intellectual” or “critical”? To me, “heaviest” means with all resources at our disposal, including the spiritual; does it mean that to you? Why you conclude that having God intellectually justified is a forgotten tale among people dedicated to think about these issues--wouldn't they constantly be setting current views aside?

The same type of inconsistency and contradiction follows this: Have a skeptical attitude > Leaving belief, faith and trust aside > Doubt must replace faith > Not that you have to not believe in God; and this: Willing to accept the evidence > Willing to change belief according to the evidence > Willing to accept the possibility > Be ready to abandon

This is why I’m not sure I can accommodate a continued exchange on this topic; we’ll see; I may drop out at this point. I think it might be worth your while to give your “heaviest” effort to finding out more about faith and spiritual process before advocating setting these aside or understanding how they needn’t be set aside.

[TruthSeeker24]

Going back to the original question, I just had some thoughts on it. Matthew 18:19-20 comes to my mind first.

(19) Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

(20) For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

I kind of feel that God just really wants us to have a spirit of "oneness" and "unity." I think debating and things like that have there place, but only when it comes to truly finding out the truth for yourself and for the purpose of becoming more Christ-like. I hear a lot of Mormons say we shouldn't be afraid to face the debates against us, but I'm reminded of a story by Brigham Young. He said the prophet Joseph knew so much that if he told even Brigham, then Brigham himself would apostatize. Brigham in turn forcefully told Joseph to keep it to himself, for he didn't want to hear anything that might be to much for him to handle. Brigham Young had a testimony of the truth, and if knowing something would lead him to leave the truth, why hear it? The fact is, no matter what truth there is, there are just some things we aren't ready to hear yet, and if a debate or controversial issue is something which might lead to us apostatizing, I think we should avoid the argument, and yes...I think we should run like hell from it lol.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on the matter.

[shalamabobbi]

...ok, that was a turn. Open threads on those topics and you'll have me there. I don't want to derail this one.

I don't have time to open thread(s) right now, as I'm in the middle of moving.

Apply the following to "the proclamation on the family" as it relates to sexual behavior.

I accept these impressions of right from wrong as originating from God(or self existent, and adherence to them that which eventually makes gods of men/women), however I'm aware that they can be attributed to evolution.

Nevertheless we seem to be able to change our evolutionary imprint easily enough with the application of a little "rational thought", which makes its evolutionary value somewhat dubious..

Why would evolution select for attributes of behavior that are not followed except by a small minority of the population?

That's it. If you feel it deserves a thread of it's own, feel free, and I'll join in as I find time..

[elguanteloko]

I don't have time to open thread(s) right now, as I'm in the middle of moving.

Apply the following to "the proclamation on the family" as it relates to sexual behavior.

I accept these impressions of right from wrong as originating from God(or self existent, and adherence to them that which eventually makes gods of men/women), however I'm aware that they can be attributed to evolution.

Nevertheless we seem to be able to change our evolutionary imprint easily enough with the application of a little "rational thought", which makes its evolutionary value somewhat dubious..

Why would evolution select for attributes of behavior that are not followed except by a small minority of the population?

That's it. If you feel it deserves a thread of it's own, feel free, and I'll join in as I find time..

If you don't accept evolution I won't bother. In my experience, the only people who don't accept it are the ones who don't get it (and by your statements here you seem to fall in this group) or the ones who are paid to not get it.

[elguanteloko]

Since this progression was used to better clarify your position, are these increasingly more clarifying terms supposed to be, at their root, somewhat synonymous?

....obviously not, man. In trying to describe a car, just like a position, you don't just mention the wheels... that doesn't mean the one describing the car means the wheels are somehow synonymous with the steering wheel or the chassis, etc.

I will accept the sad reality that you simply can't get this and stop trying to help you get it. I've written enough about it so you can go back and reread if you want.

Have a good one.

[shalamabobbi]

If you don't accept evolution I won't bother. In my experience, the only people who don't accept it are the ones who don't get it (and by your statements here you seem to fall in this group) or the ones who are paid to not get it.

I do accept evolution.

[elguanteloko]

I do accept evolution.

You said:

I accept these impressions of right from wrong as originating from God(or self existent, and adherence to them that which eventually makes gods of men/women), however I'm aware that they can be attributed to evolution.

and making special exceptions without good reason is to not accept evolution; saying it won't make it and saying it 'can' be attributed to evolution shows you don't accept it. Sorry.

[shalamabobbi]

You said:

and making special exceptions without good reason is to not accept evolution; saying it won't make it and saying it 'can' be attributed to evolution shows you don't accept it. Sorry.

I see. Dogma isn't just for the religious..

I guess in your worldview that makes me the thought criminal, lol

Edited November 10, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[elguanteloko]

I see. Dogma isn't just for the religious..

I guess in your worldview that makes me the thought criminal, lol

you missed this: "and making special exceptions without good reason is to not accept evolution;"

[shalamabobbi]

you missed this: "and making special exceptions without good reason is to not accept evolution;"

Did I? Without good reason for who? For me, or the scientific community at large?

[CV75]

I will accept the sad reality that you simply can't get this and stop trying to help you get it. I've written enough about it so you can go back and reread if you want.

I see someone that lacks sufficient understanding of the subject matter asking a question, ineffectively trying to explain what he thinks he means, and not liking or understanding the responses, and all this from a position where “getting it” means agreement with faulty understanding and beliefs.

It is telling that you cannot or will not articulate what your use of the word “heaviest” means (I suspect it's rather limited in scope) or that you cannot address why you believe that people dedicated to think about “these issues” would not change or be willing to change their views commensurate with the "heaviest" evidence.

[TruthSeeker24]

Aren't Mormons supposed to be on the same side? lol

[HeatherAnn]

I see someone that lacks sufficient understanding of the subject matter asking a question, ineffectively trying to explain what he thinks he means, and not liking or understanding the responses, and all this from a position where “getting it” means agreement with faulty understanding and beliefs.

CV,

Please explain in WHY you think his understanding & beliefs regarding evolution are "faulty."

Since you "see someone that lacks sufficient understanding of the subject matter" - that seems to imply you know enough about the subject matter to know when someone lacks understanding or not.