Why Does Everything Need Evidence Now?

[TruthSeeker24]

Just a thought. It seems to me that in the world of mormon apologetics, mormons are strongly transitioning towards the modern concept of there needing to be evidence in all things. For example, we now have arguments centered around evolution, pre-adamites, polygamy issues, negros and the priesthood, and a thousand other things, all because of the evidence that is now present. So I guess my question would be thus:

What is the line we should be drawing between the evidence, and faith in the prophets? It SEEMS to me that the original mormonism was geared towards believing in the prophets regardless of their being contradictory evidence, as the evidence is almost never flawless, whereas the words of the prophets, when spoken by the Spirit, ARE flawless. Would it be better to take the words of the prophets and believe them, and to stop trying to find and rely on evidences as much as we are?

[Duncan]

well I would like to know where ideas come from and what things are based on and not someone's funny ideas being passed off that have no bearing in reality

[TruthSeeker24]

well I would like to know where ideas come from and what things are based on and not someone's funny ideas being passed off that have no bearing in reality

Understandable. But it must be concluded that there are things that we never will be able to find evidence on, or be able to find out where it came from. Some things, only God knows, and those things are at times given to prophets. Isn't it better to trust the prophets than rely on evidence? I'm not saying evidence is unnecessary, only that the words of the prophets should hold more bearing.

[David T]

We're in a day and age where much more information has become falsifiable. When seeking after the core truth, it is only natural to desire to be able to pare away that which was misunderstaning or primitive conclusions or symbol, and discern the core essence of Truth that remains. There will always be unprovable elements of Faith - if one is able to remove incorrect distractions, it can bolster one's confidence in those core elements that are unprovable and must be declarations of faith.

If something can be shown to not be correct, I don't want to place unwarranted faith or weight on it for my understanding of the Gospel, and the overlying Epic of Eternity.

Edited April 23, 2012 by David T

[Duncan]

Understandable. But it must be concluded that there are things that we never will be able to find evidence on, or be able to find out where it came from. Some things, only God knows, and those things are at times given to prophets. Isn't it better to trust the prophets than rely on evidence? I'm not saying evidence is unnecessary, only that the words of the prophets should hold more bearing.

very true and as an active member of the Church i trust revelation receiving capabilities

[shalamabobbi]

Just a thought. It seems to me that in the world of mormon apologetics, mormons are strongly transitioning towards the modern concept of there needing to be evidence in all things. For example, we now have arguments centered around evolution, pre-adamites, polygamy issues, negros and the priesthood, and a thousand other things, all because of the evidence that is now present. So I guess my question would be thus:

What is the line we should be drawing between the evidence, and faith in the prophets? It SEEMS to me that the original mormonism was geared towards believing in the prophets regardless of their being contradictory evidence, as the evidence is almost never flawless, whereas the words of the prophets, when spoken by the Spirit, ARE flawless. Would it be better to take the words of the prophets and believe them, and to stop trying to find and rely on evidences as much as we are?

As far as faith, belief and the confirmation thereof go, evidence is not the source of those. As stated in the D&C 50:18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

That's why seeking after a sign (not so much a modern day issue) and having to have objective proof (not so much a meridian day issue) are related.

The Lord expects us to accept light and truth simply because it persuades us to do good without having to have proof. So we are wrestling with our conscience and the spirit and self justification and rationalization, being honest with ourselves and others, or hiding our true selves from others.

We receive no witness until after the trial of our faith.

Apologetics is involved not with a strictly objective approach because the issue of faith is not objective in nature. It is involved with debunking false arguments. It is involved with illustrating possible alternative interpretations of data that are in line with belief.

Certainly to the extent that it is possible, it would be an advantage to seek a purely objective apologetic argument.

What is the line we should be drawing? That is determined individually.

But as already stated conflicts point to areas where error exists on one side or the other and those who want to get to the bottom of what we can know will study it out and look for resolutions that ring true to themselves.

And then we get to come here to bash one another with what we have found. It's great fun..

[TruthSeeker24]

Good answers. I suppose I just like the idea of following the prophets to the death like in old Mormon days.

[BCSpace]

It SEEMS to me that the original mormonism was geared towards believing in the prophets regardless of their being contradictory evidence, as the evidence is almost never flawless, whereas the words of the prophets, when spoken by the Spirit, ARE flawless.

I find it interesting that usually, and especially in the cases you mentioned, there is no contradictory evidence from science.

[Calm]

Good answers. I suppose I just like the idea of following the prophets to the death like in old Mormon days.

OTOH, it is very important if one is going to make that choice that one determines that one is actually following the prophets and not just following what someone else claims for the prophets.

A large extent of apologetics (at least that done by the more 'academic' variety) is in attempting to determine what was actually said and meant.

Would it be better to take the words of the prophets and believe them, and to stop trying to find and rely on evidences as much as we are?

Different people need different aids, evidences can help them get to a point where they can "take the words of the prophets and believe them". If someone is not already to that point, should we dessert them as somehow not worthy of our attention or go after them as the shepherd went after the one lost sheep who for whatever reason hadn't been paying close enough attention to his directions before to stay with the rest of the more attentive flock.

[Calm]

Apologetics for the faith started before the Church was even organized. Have you looked at what was written back then in publications for the Saints? Joseph Smith was very interested in a book dealing with Mesoamerica, even he, who probably had visions of what life was like for the Nephites and others, wasn't just satisfied with taking the Book of Mormon on its own and ignoring any evidences for it available from nonprophetic sources.

[phaedrus ut]

As long as we have religion I suspect the age old discussion of faith vs. evidence will continue. It's not really a winnable debate but it's fun to watch from the sidelines.

Phaedrus

[TruthSeeker24]

I find it interesting that usually, and especially in the cases you mentioned, there is no contradictory evidence from science.

Evolution? The pre-adamite theory?

[epiginosko]

This has been a trend since the enlightenment movement and the age of science and reason. We now have the ability to test out theories and a much greater understanding of the laws of physics and the natural world. This has made us a skeptical people. This is not always a bad thing. Personally, I think we are just beginning to see the wonder and marvel that Heavenly Father is. The Book of Mormon teaches us that good is eternal, evil is eternal, laws are eternal, and agency is eternal. When speaking on laws, I tend to think of this as "natural laws" more than the Law of Moses which, as we know, was the preparatory law given prior to the coming of the Savior and His fulfillment of it.

We know from the Book of Abraham that Heavenly Father created worlds without end by gathering already existing matter. We know that He gathered already existing intelligence and formed them into spirit. I think what we are learning, scientifically, is that Heavenly Father is the great engineer, the great physicist, the great architect (to borrow a Masonic term). We are beginning to understand His laws.

As far as evidence of the Book of Mormon, I like what Dan Peterson has said - we won't ever be able to fully prove or disprove the Book of Mormon. Similarly, Terryl Givens in his book "By the Hand of Mormon" wrote that there must be an opposition in all things; meaning that there must be just as much evidence to believe as there is to disbelieve - else our agency is void.

[cinepro]

Just a thought. It seems to me that in the world of mormon apologetics, mormons are strongly transitioning towards the modern concept of there needing to be evidence in all things.

While the apologetic approach (and their attendant theories and interpretations of Church teachings) is one way to approach the gospel, there are still many, many members of the Church who feel the way you do and give primary concern to what the scriptures and Church publications say. Meaning, if they perceive a conflict, they are willing to disregard whatever is in conflict with Church doctrines and teachings, no matter how much evidence or support there is for it.

[cinepro]

Similarly, Terryl Givens in his book "By the Hand of Mormon" wrote that there must be an opposition in all things; meaning that there must be just as much evidence to believe as there is to disbelieve - else our agency is void.

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense.

"Evidence" is simply "evidence". It's not like God is sitting up in heaven with His hands on two dials, one for "Evidence" the other for "Counter-Evidence", and as people make discoveries He has to calibrate both dials to keep them in balance.

And how would that work for positive evidences that turn out to be not-so-positive, like "Quetzalcoatl"? Do the people who have their faith strengthened by that evidence get more counter-evidence than the ones who are doubtful?

It's also absurd to think "evidence" has anything to do with "agency." No one really believes that, because if we did, "evidence" would be a bad word, and people who seek for "evidences" would be perceived as weakening the faith of others with the "evidence" (which, in fact, they are).

We talk a lot about "faith" and how great it is, but there isn't an LDS on this planet who wouldn't trade in all their "faith" for evidence-based beliefs in 2 seconds if given the choice.

Edited April 23, 2012 by cinepro

[shalamabobbi]

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense.

"Evidence" is simply "evidence". It's not like God is sitting up in heaven with His hands on two dials, one for "Evidence" the other for "Counter-Evidence", and as people make discoveries He has to calibrate both dials to keep them in balance.

And how would that work for positive evidences that turn out to be not-so-positive, like "Quetzalcoatl"? Do the people who have their faith strengthened by that evidence get more counter-evidence than the ones who are doubtful?

It's also absurd to think "evidence" has anything to do with "agency." No one really believes that, because if we did, "evidence" would be a bad word, and people who seek for "evidences" would be perceived as weakening the faith of others with the "evidence" (which, in fact, they are).

We talk a lot about "faith" and how great it is, but there isn't an LDS on this planet who wouldn't trade in all their "faith" for evidence-based beliefs in 2 seconds if given the choice.

It also makes a mockery of the command to study things in the earth and under the earth(geology) if all that we are studying is fabricated evidence to test our faith..

"There is incumbent upon every member of this Church the mandate of the Lord to equip ourselves to do something worthwhile in society. The Lord has made it very clear in the Doctrine and Covenants that we are to get an education by study and by faith of things under the earth, and on the earth, and above the earth, of the wars and the perplexities of the nations, of the times and the seasons of all things of the earth. (See D&C 88:79.) I want to urge our young people to be hungry for education. You will be doing the will of the Lord as you educate your minds and your hands for future work to make a contribution to the world of which you will be a part." (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 172.)

[thesometimesaint]

I don't look for evidence of God. I have a testimony of him and his prophets that is all that is necessary for me. Now if we're looking for evidence of what God did that is a different question.

[epiginosko]

I doubt Terryl Givens was implying that there is fabricated evidence. Rather I believe he was offering up that we will always find reasons to believe something true as well as reasons to believe something false, and that this is part of the eternal "opposition in all things" concept. We must live by faith. If it is evidence we seek, we will find plenty to both bolster and oppose our desired object.

[LDSToronto]

What is the line we should be drawing between the evidence, and faith in the prophets? It SEEMS to me that the original mormonism was geared towards believing in the prophets regardless of their being contradictory evidence, as the evidence is almost never flawless, whereas the words of the prophets, when spoken by the Spirit, ARE flawless. Would it be better to take the words of the prophets and believe them, and to stop trying to find and rely on evidences as much as we are?

Are you able to discern when a prophet is speaking by the spirit, and when a prophet is not speaking by the spirit? And secondly, what standard are you using to measure flaws in a prophet's words?

H.

[Maidservant]

What is the line we should be drawing between the evidence, and faith in the prophets?

Faith is not informational. That is, as I understand faith, faith is NOT to THINK something is a fact or is true WITH OR WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Many people, including the faithful, take this definition of faith. I do not go here at all, and I do not read the scriptures as teaching this faith.

Faith is creational. That is, faith is not FACTS that are true or not true--i.e. whether or not God exists or not--but PRINCIPLES that are true--that is, once one has an experience with God and comes to understand the principles of godliness, then one begins to act and to create one's life upon those principles and in relationship with God. It is not to try to decide without any information or incomplete information what color God's hair is (or similar), but a faith in God's approach to being a human being, and trusting that, and following him in that.

= = = = =

further notes:

I am not a fan of proof (as if facts and knowledge were static and independent of being, which as I understand, they are not); and I am a great fan of constant revision of what it is we, as human beings, think we know (upon any subject; I do not, for example, divide 'science' and 'religion' from each other).

Evidence is not proof (in any subject). Evidence is evidence. What quality and quantity of evidence a person accepts as arising to the level of proof is a personal decision, and subjective.

I also don't need evidence of God, I need experience. That is what I seek. I cannot prove to myself that I was born. I have no recollection of it. I only have my mother's word for it, so to speak. But I experience myself being alive every day. Repeat: God is experienced. Either a person experiences God, or he doesn't. There is no INFORMATION that can assail one or the other of these realities. If we have not experienced God, we might hear the report of someone who did, i.e. Joseph Smith (just one example, and the most pertinent to this board). Then we have to evaluate what it is he said happened with him. Accepting his account of his experience(s) with God is part trust in Joseph Smith as a person (his integrity), and part an evaluation of the content of his message in light of the paradigm we personally carry. We can confirm our paradigm or adjust it due to the new opportunity. Of course, many people experience God on their own, and call that by the handy word "testimony" or "revelation" or "the Spirit" (and etc), and so, again, these are first-hand experiences and personal, and cannot be assailed by information, per se. (Not that God can't provide information, but he would do so attached to spirit).

We are in on earth for the great work of charity. Everything else we think might 'fail'. Charity is the only thing that is going to persist and that we can count on as a faith project through every paradigm, policy change, etc etc etc that we pass through as a church and a world.

Learning, and more learning, and information and such, cannot possibly violate faith, as I have described above. Now, for me anyway, I don't have time to investigate every polygamy claim (if that concerned me, which it doesn't, but just as an example), and I don't have time to waste on suspending my FAITH-FULL growth and creation of myself as a daughter of God, and my life and for others; to wait while I do that particular investigation (or any number of others). So, yes, there is some trust on my part that my heavenly Father loves me, guides the church, guided Joseph Smith, etc, even though I don't know everything or completed all possible investigations. On the other hand, if I decided to take up that issue (or any other) or if I was presented with information for an opportunity to evaluate it, I am completely interested in what can be known and have no fear that what reality can be known could possibly violate my FAITH.

As far as faith, belief and the confirmation thereof go, evidence is not the source of those.

However there is this: Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is . . . evidence."

(Remember, evidence does not = proof, when I say the following:)

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no person is asked to follow or to make a covenant or believe or anything without evidence. It is all based on evidence. We are asked to TRY the claims. Starting with the Book of Mormon witness. We are asked to LIVE and see what happens, and get our OWN EVIDENCE. It is precisely this kind of exercise that IS faith--a creation of a celestial life based on celestial laws that are presented to us for our opportunity to apply them in our lives if we wish.

If we wonder if God will forgive us (for one example), we have the evidence of Alma the Younger's experience and any number of others. These are evidences, or enough evidence to try for ourselves. THE EXPERIENCES OF OTHER PEOPLE in the scriptures or all around us ARE the evidences of God.

If in trying the principles, we don't get the result that was expected or that we choose for our life, then we can't judge each other. We have to trust that we are all doing the best between ourselves and God (if we think he's there), doing the best according to what we know by our experiences.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Maidservant

[shalamabobbi]

However there is this: Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is . . . evidence."

(Remember, evidence does not = proof, when I say the following:)

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no person is asked to follow or to make a covenant or believe or anything without evidence. It is all based on evidence. We are asked to TRY the claims. Starting with the Book of Mormon witness. We are asked to LIVE and see what happens, and get our OWN EVIDENCE. It is precisely this kind of exercise that IS faith--a creation of a celestial life based on celestial laws that are presented to us for our opportunity to apply them in our lives if we wish.

If we wonder if God will forgive us (for one example), we have the evidence of Alma the Younger's experience and any number of others. These are evidences, or enough evidence to try for ourselves. THE EXPERIENCES OF OTHER PEOPLE in the scriptures or all around us ARE the evidences of God.

If in trying the principles, we don't get the result that was expected or that we choose for our life, then we can't judge each other. We have to trust that we are all doing the best between ourselves and God (if we think he's there), doing the best according to what we know by our experiences.

sorry.. (objective) evidence..

[epiginosko]

Faith is not informational. That is, as I understand faith, faith is NOT to THINK something is a fact or is true WITH OR WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Many people, including the faithful, take this definition of faith. I do not go here at all, and I do not read the scriptures as teaching this faith.

Faith is creational. That is, faith is not FACTS that are true or not true--i.e. whether or not God exists or not--but PRINCIPLES that are true--that is, once one has an experience with God and comes to understand the principles of godliness, then one begins to act and to create one's life upon those principles and in relationship with God. It is not to try to decide without any information or incomplete information what color God's hair is (or similar), but a faith in God's approach to being a human being, and trusting that, and following him in that.

= = = = =

further notes:

I am not a fan of proof (as if facts and knowledge were static and independent of being, which as I understand, they are not); and I am a great fan of constant revision of what it is we, as human beings, think we know (upon any subject; I do not, for example, divide 'science' and 'religion' from each other).

Evidence is not proof (in any subject). Evidence is evidence. What quality and quantity of evidence a person accepts as arising to the level of proof is a personal decision, and subjective.

I also don't need evidence of God, I need experience. That is what I seek. I cannot prove to myself that I was born. I have no recollection of it. I only have my mother's word for it, so to speak. But I experience myself being alive every day. Repeat: God is experienced. Either a person experiences God, or he doesn't. There is no INFORMATION that can assail one or the other of these realities. If we have not experienced God, we might hear the report of someone who did, i.e. Joseph Smith (just one example, and the most pertinent to this board). Then we have to evaluate what it is he said happened with him. Accepting his account of his experience(s) with God is part trust in Joseph Smith as a person (his integrity), and part an evaluation of the content of his message in light of the paradigm we personally carry. We can confirm our paradigm or adjust it due to the new opportunity. Of course, many people experience God on their own, and call that by the handy word "testimony" or "revelation" or "the Spirit" (and etc), and so, again, these are first-hand experiences and personal, and cannot be assailed by information, per se. (Not that God can't provide information, but he would do so attached to spirit).

We are in on earth for the great work of charity. Everything else we think might 'fail'. Charity is the only thing that is going to persist and that we can count on as a faith project through every paradigm, policy change, etc etc etc that we pass through as a church and a world.

Learning, and more learning, and information and such, cannot possibly violate faith, as I have described above. Now, for me anyway, I don't have time to investigate every polygamy claim (if that concerned me, which it doesn't, but just as an example), and I don't have time to waste on suspending my FAITH-FULL growth and creation of myself as a daughter of God, and my life and for others; to wait while I do that particular investigation (or any number of others). So, yes, there is some trust on my part that my heavenly Father loves me, guides the church, guided Joseph Smith, etc, even though I don't know everything or completed all possible investigations. On the other hand, if I decided to take up that issue (or any other) or if I was presented with information for an opportunity to evaluate it, I am completely interested in what can be known and have no fear that what reality can be known could possibly violate my FAITH.

However there is this: Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is . . . evidence."

(Remember, evidence does not = proof, when I say the following:)

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no person is asked to follow or to make a covenant or believe or anything without evidence. It is all based on evidence. We are asked to TRY the claims. Starting with the Book of Mormon witness. We are asked to LIVE and see what happens, and get our OWN EVIDENCE. It is precisely this kind of exercise that IS faith--a creation of a celestial life based on celestial laws that are presented to us for our opportunity to apply them in our lives if we wish.

If we wonder if God will forgive us (for one example), we have the evidence of Alma the Younger's experience and any number of others. These are evidences, or enough evidence to try for ourselves. THE EXPERIENCES OF OTHER PEOPLE in the scriptures or all around us ARE the evidences of God.

If in trying the principles, we don't get the result that was expected or that we choose for our life, then we can't judge each other. We have to trust that we are all doing the best between ourselves and God (if we think he's there), doing the best according to what we know by our experiences.

I like much of what you said here. Beautifully written and full of great points. I can agree that God is something to be experienced not proven. However, I also have empathy for those whose faith is shaken because the narrative changed. The church we grow up in, the Sunday School lessons we are taught, and the presentation of the stories of Joseph Smith and the Restoration are, I think we can all agree, simplified. One may assume that the Church desires to present easily understandable messages which allow us to focus on personal application of the principles rather than get caught up in the minutia of details about historical accuracy. It's a religious sermon, after all, not a lecture on religious history. And the aim is to increase our desire and our commitment to live according to the Gospel standards and be a charitable Christian people. The problem comes when some discover that historical accuracy is not always spiritually satisfying, and the controversies and failings of men can seem at such odds with what we are taught on Sundays. I speak this as someone who is currently pursuing an academic career in History and Sociology with an emphasis in American Religious Studies.

To state it as clearly as possible; I understand why the committees on our church curriculum keep the messages simplified and sanitized, focusing on principles over history. I also understand why faithful members can be shaken to the core when they discover that things may not be as simple as they were taught.

I believe that the Church is making great strides in supporting more widely published historical accounts (even when unflattering). The Joseph Smith Papers is a good example of this. Unfortunately, those whose faith begins to be tested because of historical information (even when correct) are too easily dismissed as "apostate" and the information dismissed as "anti-" which does very little to bridge the gap between intellectualism and faith.

[Maidservant]

I like much of what you said here. Beautifully written and full of great points. I can agree that God is something to be experienced not proven. However, I also have empathy for those whose faith is shaken because the narrative changed. The church we grow up in, the Sunday School lessons we are taught, and the presentation of the stories of Joseph Smith and the Restoration are, I think we can all agree, simplified. One may assume that the Church desires to present easily understandable messages which allow us to focus on personal application of the principles rather than get caught up in the minutia of details about historical accuracy. It's a religious sermon, after all, not a lecture on religious history. And the aim is to increase our desire and our commitment to live according to the Gospel standards and be a charitable Christian people. The problem comes when some discover that historical accuracy is not always spiritually satisfying, and the controversies and failings of men can seem at such odds with what we are taught on Sundays. I speak this as someone who is currently pursuing an academic career in History and Sociology with an emphasis in American Religious Studies.

To state it as clearly as possible; I understand why the committees on our church curriculum keep the messages simplified and sanitized, focusing on principles over history. I also understand why faithful members can be shaken to the core when they discover that things may not be as simple as they were taught.

I believe that the Church is making great strides in supporting more widely published historical accounts (even when unflattering). The Joseph Smith Papers is a good example of this. Unfortunately, those whose faith begins to be tested because of historical information (even when correct) are too easily dismissed as "apostate" and the information dismissed as "anti-" which does very little to bridge the gap between intellectualism and faith.

While I tend to be in the "I-don't-care-what-the-history-was-that's-not-my-faith" and the "I'll-stop-going-to-Sunday-School-if-they-start-having-more-lessons-on-it" camp, I can't contradict anything you say here in a general way. In fact, my words were meant to be a support for knowing more and opening it all, in some forum or another. There's is nothing that can't be known, whether church history, origin sciences, things that looked like mistakes but really were rather spot on, and things that seemed so right but were mistakes, on and on and on. There is nothing particularly glorious in a personal faith that closes its eyes, or at least I have made that choice for me. Again, however, since I can't track down every detail, trust is still part of the equation. I can understand experiencing my trust being violated by God and/or the church (more by God than the Church), as that struggle with betrayal by God is part of my daily experience (although not generally on historical issues per se).

I personally don't use the word "apostate" (is meaningless to me personally--and do we really hear it, say, at General Conference? I dunno . . . ) and the word "anti" only as a handy catchall (trying to examine that).

By the way, as far as the narrative changing, maybe another thread.

And woot for history and religious studies! Just finished that myself. Utterly delicious, is it not?

[Cobalt-70]

...It SEEMS to me that the original mormonism was geared towards believing in the prophets regardless of their being contradictory evidence, as the evidence is almost never flawless, whereas the words of the prophets, when spoken by the Spirit, ARE flawless....

I would disagree with that. It was not really until the early 20th century, after the Scopes Monkey Trial, that Mormons began to think that parts of their theology could not, or should not, be proven by scientific methods. In fact John Widtsoe went so far as to write a whole book attempting to prove Joseph Smith was a prophet on the basis of 1908 science. http://books.google....=gbs_navlinks_s

Edited April 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Tarski]

whereas the words of the prophets, when spoken by the Spirit, ARE flawless.

That's a big loophole you left there.

Would it be better to take the words of the prophets and believe them, and to stop trying to find and rely on evidences as much as we are?

People who want power over other people's minds love it when you think that way. It is a major tactic of the priestly class especially.

What you suggest is not a virtue.

As far as I can tell all real human knowledge about the world has come by way of evidence. In fact, being very strict about what counts as evidence has allowed an even better understanding of the world. Even so called analytic truths (mathematics) cannot be accepted without something like evidence (usually presented in the form of a deductive proof discovered by someone).

On the other hand, do to time and resource constraints, we often have to act without sufficient evidence and in that sense we have to apply something one might call faith. But that is an unfortunate brute fact of life and not some blessing or planned feature of existence. It sucks like death and taxes.

By the way,...they are just men and have no priveldged access to truth.