mfbukowski Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 That's part of the problem. The Mormon praxis I'm most moved by is the temple. I love the symbolism life after death and of social life continuing on. I like the idea of participating in a creation drama and how it moves me to think deeply about my origin and how I can derive purpose and meaning in life. It's a beautiful environment for meditation about the possibility of life after death and so on. I happen not to believe one way or another about life persisting after death. I don't believe that the gestures, words, and phrases presented in the temple are literally needed by me to have the best possible afterlife, assuming that there is such a thing as life after death. I'm essentially agnostic as to the existence of God, or gods. I don't see any reason to believe that Jesus was literally the son of God, or that he was resurrected, etc. Nevertheless, I've come to believe that religious practice can be valuable even if one does not assent to religious dogma. The unfortunate trouble for me is that I'm drawn to a religious practice for which the Church demands I assent to certain dogma, and I don't.Perhaps your idea of "assent to certain dogma" is the hang up. I don't see these beliefs as "dogma". I believe them because they give my life meaning.Clearly you have a belief that LDS beliefs have utility.Faith is a HOPE for things unseen that you are willing to act on. Is your hope for these things strong enough to feel you can call it "faith"?
Brade Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Perhaps your idea of "assent to certain dogma" is the hang up. I don't see these beliefs as "dogma". I believe them because they give my life meaning. Clearly you have a belief that LDS beliefs have utility. Faith is a HOPE for things unseen that you are willing to act on. Is your hope for these things strong enough to feel you can call it "faith"?I don't believe them because I don't believe them. I don't know what else to say about it. If my believing certain claims is a test for whether I can participate at a certain level, and I don't believe the right things, then to bad for me, I guess. I think for many claims I don't sufficiently hope them to be true to call my relation to them faith. And just to be clear, I'm not agitating for the Church to change on my behalf. I'm just trying to explain one of the reasons why I've chosen not to actively participate. Edited March 3, 2012 by Brade
wenglund Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 I don't believe them because I don't believe them.I suspect that throughout the history of mankind, a lot of people didn't believe in science. Is that a problem?Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Brade Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 I suspect that throughout the history of mankind, a lot of people didn't believe in science. Is that a problem?Thanks, -Wade Englund-I don't think so.
wenglund Posted March 4, 2012 Author Posted March 4, 2012 I don't think so.So, you don't think they were/are disadvantage in any way by their dis-belief in science?Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Brade Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 So, you don't think they were/are disadvantage in any way by their dis-belief in science?Thanks, -Wade Englund-Wade, first, TBH I'm not sure what it is to disbelieve science. Second, your question, "Is that a problem" is ambiguous. A problem for whom? For me? No, that's not a problem for me that people in the past disbelieved in science (whatever that happens to mean). A problem for them that they didn't believe in science? It's certainly not a problem for them now. Was it a problem for them then. I don't know. I guess I'd need to know something of the context of these different historical people who didn't believe in science. I was answering the first disambiguation because as best I could sort it out I thought you were saying something like, "it's a problem for your position that people in the past didn't believe in science". Help me understand what you're trying to get at here.
wenglund Posted March 4, 2012 Author Posted March 4, 2012 Wade, first, TBH I'm not sure what it is to disbelieve science. Second, your question, "Is that a problem" is ambiguous. A problem for whom? For me? No, that's not a problem for me that people in the past disbelieved in science (whatever that happens to mean). A problem for them that they didn't believe in science? It's certainly not a problem for them now. Was it a problem for them then. I don't know. I guess I'd need to know something of the context of these different historical people who didn't believe in science. I was answering the first disambiguation because as best I could sort it out I thought you were saying something like, "it's a problem for your position that people in the past didn't believe in science". Help me understand what you're trying to get at here.What I am getting at is that disbelief may be disadvantageous to the disbeliever. In other words, disbelief may not always be a virtue.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Brade Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 What I am getting at is that disbelief may be disadvantageous to the disbeliever. In other words, disbelief may not always be a virtue.Thanks, -Wade Englund-I think you're probably right. Just to be clear, I'm not claiming or arguing that disbelief is always a virtue.
wenglund Posted March 4, 2012 Author Posted March 4, 2012 I think you're probably right. Just to be clear, I'm not claiming or arguing that disbelief is always a virtue.I realize this. I mentioned it because I suspect that some people, for whatever reason, seem to be more inclined towards unbelief or disbelief than others, to a point that may not be in their best interest.The challenge in such cases, though, they may not be capable of seeing what they may be missing out on because of their disbelief.To illustrate what I am saying, back in 2000 (that would be AD not BC ) I worked as a VISTA volunteer. My job was to teach under-privileged people of Seattle how to use computers and the Internet. This project was prompted by a number of studies that showed that there were a variety of significant socio-economic advantages that came from having access to and knowledge of and skills in computers and the Internet, and that the gap between the have's and the have-not's was widening. The intent of my program, then, was to bridge the so-called digital divide and make the advantages of technology available to the have-not's.Anyway, during one of my courses, which was attended mostly by younger people, particularly blacks and immigrants, I encouraged the students to bring their parents and grandparents.However, one of my Hindu students spoke up and said that his parents refused to have anything to do with computers, and didn't believe in them because they thought that computers were filled with ghosts. They had the impression that the way the computer worked was when someone would type on a key board, ghost would write what they were typing onto the monitor. And, these good people didn't want anything to do with ghosts. True story.Anyway, this suggested to me at least one way that disbelief (or false belief) in science, within our own day, may be disadvantageous to the disbeliever. It might be in the disbelievers best interest to believe, or at the very least, suspend their disbelief for a time, to see if there may be something to believing.To me, the same principle applies to the restored gospel of Christ,Thanks, -Wade Englund-
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) You mean there really are no ghosts in computers?(bump!) Edited March 7, 2012 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts