Shaken Faith Syndrome, 2Nd Edition

[ERayR]

While I understand that faith is essential to religion ... If not evidence and fact..what exactly is that leap of faith leapt from? I've hesitated to bring up Thomas Edison but perhaps it's time ... He said and I couldn't agree more that "faith as well intentioned as it might be must be built on facts. For faith built on fiction is a damnable false hope"

Makes perfect sense to me...

While some things can be easily determined as to what is fact or fiction others can not. That leaves one to determine for themselves what interpretation of the data they choose to accept. I prefer to apply Nephi's solution.

[Johnnie Cake]

You made the statement that belief wasn't a decision, I said that it was a decision. It is a decision which information you choose to accept and which you choose to reject. So please refrain from misrepresenting what I said. Thank you.

I agree that is probably the reason your not in the church but would disagree that the evidence disappeared. I do agree that it is probably that you chose to reinterpret it to align with other information that you chose to accept. What we can and obviously do disagree on is the validity of that information.

What I said was ..."Belief isn’t a decision it’s a reaction to evidence…likewise non-belief is also a reaction to evidence or lack thereof" To help lance this boil let me concede that at some level a decision IS made to believe or not believe...but for me it was a reaction to the evidence or lack thereof...

I'm not interested in scoring points or being correct...I'll admit when I'm wrong and change my position when shown to be wrong or incorrect...I no longer have a fixed point to fight for...I allow the truth (as I understand it to be) to be my guide...but in so saying understand that my understanding of truth may not be your truth.

Many of Mormonisms truth claims are debatable, nuanced or claims supported only by faith...

[ERayR]

What I said was ..."Belief isn’t a decision it’s a reaction to evidence…likewise non-belief is also a reaction to evidence or lack thereof" To help lance this boil let me concede that at some level a decision IS made to believe or not believe...but for me it was a reaction to the evidence or lack thereof...

I'm not interested in scoring points or being correct...I'll admit when I'm wrong and change my position when shown to be wrong or incorrect...I no longer have a fixed point to fight for...I allow the truth (as I understand it to be) to be my guide...but in so saying understand that my understanding of truth may not be your truth.

Many of Mormonisms truth claims are debatable, nuanced or claims supported only by faith...

You are welcome to choose any reaction you wish. I have no problem with that. What I do have is a Problem with this statement you made in a post. ". . .but if you wish to insist that your faith is not based on evidence but mere hope and a wish...well then...be my guest.". I do have a problem with being misrepresented. So now I ask that you show that I said that I based my faith on "mere hope and a wish" or else retract.

Thank you

[Palerider]

John 20

Luke 17

Would you like a dozen or so more quotes?

Religion is about changing our personal lives and attitudes- you will not become the best human you can be because of someone else's archaeological discovery

Do really think the Bible is worthless because we evolved or there was no flood? That Shakespeare is worthless because there was no Juliette?

Please....

If you had read my response carefully you would have noticed that I said Thomas was not chastized DIRECTLY for needing empirical evidence of the Savior's resurrection. As a matter of fact I don't think he was chastized AT ALL. It is just made clear that those who will come later after the Savior's ascencion will have to have receive testimony of his Messiahship based on HIS TEACHINGS and the accounts of His witnesses.

There is ample and acceptable biblical and secular "proof" that the Savior actually did exist. There is an actual country (Israel) where His life was spent. You can go there and visit if you like.

Unlike the B of M which is higly questionable in it's origins, one cannot go and visit Zarahemla or any other of the cities mentioned therein. Cannot find verifiable remnants of that civilization. The B of M has had to change it's title page several times in the face of overwhelming DNA evidence regarding the origins of the "Lamanites". If empirical evidence weren't important, the church would have ignored the evidence and maintained that all Native Americans are descendants of the semitic tribes.

The LDS faith can't even decide where the hill Cumorah is located, because to locate it near Palmyra (as so many early LDS leaders have indicated) means one cannot support with evidence, the stories of the huge battle that would have taken place there.

I'm not at all attempting to base my faith in Christ on archeological evidence. My faith in Him is based upon the testimony I have received through the Holy Ghost. The presence of corroborating archeological evidence keeps the story of Christianity from slipping into the realm of pure fantasy, which unfortunately is where the LDS foundational stories reside.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Palerider

[Johnnie Cake]

You are welcome to choose any reaction you wish. I have no problem with that. What I do have is a Problem with this statement you made in a post. ". . .but if you wish to insist that your faith is not based on evidence but mere hope and a wish...well then...be my guest.". I do have a problem with being misrepresented. So now I ask that you show that I said that I based my faith on "mere hope and a wish" or else retract.

Thank you

In my opinion you take these threads way too seriously....I accept your word that your faith is based on evidence rather than a hope or a wish and that you chose faith.

What drives me crazy in boards of this nature is the need for exactness...everyone is so worries about protecting their tiny little turf.

It all seems like simantics to me...I say that Belief isn't a decision its a reaction to evidence...but then you say that your belief is a decision based on evidence...but isn't a reaction to evidence and chosing to believe based on some evidentual experience....just two different sides of the same coin...it was never my intent to get you all in a tither over simantics...

[Johnnie Cake]

It should be noted that I have successfully navigated "Shaken Faith Syndrome"...so I know somewhat of what I speak... in other words I'm a specialist on the subject...

[ERayR]

In my opinion you take these threads way too seriously....I accept your word that your faith is based on evidence rather than a hope or a wish and that you chose faith.

What drives me crazy in boards of this nature is the need for exactness...everyone is so worries about protecting their tiny little turf.

It all seems like simantics to me...I say that Belief isn't a decision its a reaction to evidence...but then you say that your belief is a decision based on evidence...but isn't a reaction to evidence and chosing to believe based on some evidentual experience....just two different sides of the same coin...it was never my intent to get you all in a tither over simantics...

I don't care whether you think that belief is a decision or a reaction. I do care and can not let it pass when you categorize my belief as being based on a wish and a promise. I do not look upon that characterization of me as being semantics. Neither is it protecting any turf. I just don't like being called an air head. I think I read a retraction in your statement so will go on that premise for now.

[Kevin Christensen]

Please....

If you had read my response carefully you would have noticed that I said Thomas was not chastized DIRECTLY for needing empirical evidence of the Savior's resurrection. As a matter of fact I don't think he was chastized AT ALL. It is just made clear that those who will come later after the Savior's ascencion will have to have receive testimony of his Messiahship based on HIS TEACHINGS and the accounts of His witnesses.

And this is different from the way any investigator approaches the accounts of the Book of Mormon witnesses how?

There is ample and acceptable biblical and secular "proof" that the Savior actually did exist. There is an actual country (Israel) where His life was spent. You can go there and visit if you like.

There is evidence that Jesus lived. Is Israel evidence, secular proof of the resurrection, or the miracle at Cana with the wine, or the raising of Jairus' daughter?

There are people out there who insist that the Jesus of History is quite different than the Jesus of Faith, and people who argue against even the Jesus of history.

Unlike the B of M which is highly questionable in it's origins, one cannot go and visit Zarahemla or any other of the cities mentioned therein.

Isn't Jerusalem a Book of Mormon city?

Cannot find verifiable remnants of that civilization.

As Ian Barbour observes, "paradigms are neither verified, nor falsified, but assessed" against a range of criteria and evidence. The Book of Mormon provides a great variety of puzzles and potential tests. As with science in general, just how a person goes about defining which puzzles to test, and how a person goes about gathering evidence, and contextualizing what is known in relation to the unknown can make a great difference in the outcome.

The B of M has had to change it's title page several times in the face of overwhelming DNA evidence regarding the origins of the "Lamanites".

An anthropomorphic Book of Mormon that alters its own content? Interesting image. But not, I think as realistic as one that is a text to be read an interpreted by readers who always demonstrate by what they notice, and what they do not notice, the range and quality of their reading and contextualization.

And I think there is a difference between a title page, translated material, Mormon's introduction, and the editorial prefaces. And the significance of the DNA issue depends heavily on whether a reader supposes that the Book of Mormon describes the origins of all continental populations, or some, and whether the term "Lamanites" must always have a biological definition, or a political one (as happens with Jacob, still first generation).

If empirical evidence weren't important, the church would have ignored the evidence and maintained that all Native Americans are descendants of the semitic tribes.

The church is an assembly of people, that is, an assembly of readers. Readers, I noticed, who are encouraged to seek out of the best words of wisdom that they might come to more perfect understandings of all things, including nations and languages. D&C 1 clearly sets out "the authority" of the leadership, and that authority is expressly declared as coming through people who when they err "it shall be made manifest" and to whom wisdom will come based on inquiry, and not simply office.

Being scandalized what should be taken utterly for granted comes from having faulty expectations, from being so focused on motes in other's eyes, that there is no self-reflection.

The LDS faith can't even decide

The church is made up of individuals who must make their own decisions regarding the objects of their faith, and the means by which they nurture it. Individual harvests may vary, as individuals may have good ground or stony ground, or who may let the seed be choked off by weeds, neglect, or predations. Harvests may differ widely because it is individuals who decide what to do with the word.

where the hill Cumorah is located, because to locate it near Palmyra (as so many early LDS leaders have indicated) means one cannot support with evidence, the stories of the huge battle that would have taken place there.

Do Mormon and Moroni count as voices? Should the Book of Mormon text count less than what the opinions of early readers who left NO evidence of careful, verse by verse analysis? Does it not matter that the first serious attempt to construct an internal geography did not appear until the 1930s, over 100 years after publication? If D&C 1 expressly declares that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest" should it be taken as scandalous to observe that the New York Hill does not fit the details of the Book of Mormon description?

I'm not at all attempting to base my faith in Christ on archeological evidence. My faith in Him is based upon the testimony I have received through the Holy Ghost. The presence of corroborating archeological evidence keeps the story of Christianity from slipping into the realm of pure fantasy, which unfortunately is where the LDS foundational stories reside.

My faith began with my own reading of the Book of Mormon. My nurture of that faith includes consideration of a wide range of evidences, including ways that the Book of Mormon accurately describes Jerusalem 600 BCE, the conditions of the Arabian journey, including the convergences of the Nahom location, and the details in Bountiful. And from my readings from the best scholars on the Mesoamerican side, I'm impressed by a wide range of information that supports my own "cause to believe." See John Welch's discussion of the natureand range of "evidence" here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=8&chapid=60

It seems to me that those who hold out for evidence certified from skeptical secular sources that coerces their unwilling submission on matters of "faith" will have both a long wait, and a painful jolt in finally encountering a God who they left with no other means of persuasion than coercive proof. I'd rather accept an invitation that encourages me to seek on my own initiative, showing by my actions a desire to believe, than wait for a gun placed at the back of my head, as may be due someone who tells God, "Not unless you make me."

And I like Mike Ash's approach. He understands the difference between those who are happy with "cause to believe" and those who demand final, absolute knowing before making a commitment that involves sacrifice.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[mfbukowski]

I'm not at all attempting to base my faith in Christ on archeological evidence. My faith in Him is based upon the testimony I have received through the Holy Ghost. The presence of corroborating archeological evidence keeps the story of Christianity from slipping into the realm of pure fantasy, which unfortunately is where the LDS foundational stories reside.

So God created the earth from nothing, put Adam and Eve in the Garden, and a talking snake made them do something that all mankind became guilty for, so God sent his son, who is the same person as God- somehow- who was born of a virgin, to somehow die for mankind to cure them of dying and free them from "bad" things they did,and cure Adams sin, even though that makes no sense- so they can go to a nice imaginary place after they die and their body rots.

There was a flood which covered the earth, even Mt. Everest, donkeys can talk and a man who was dead magically woke up again all because there is a real place called "Jerusalem" and these events supposedly occurred in its environs, but of course we have no real evidence for any of it.

That makes as much sense as concluding that Shakespeare's Two Gentlemen must have been "real" because they came from a real place, Verona Italy, or that Sherlock Holmes was real because he came from London.

Very logical.

[mfbukowski]

There is an actual country (Israel) where His life was spent. You can go there and visit if you like.

And see all the tourist traps based on legends.

(That doesn't mean they are false)

[Gervin]

And see all the tourist traps based on legends.

(That doesn't mean they are false)

Here is a famous tourist trap, and a favorite of mine, based on the legend of the "blocking of the waters of Gihon Spring."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah's_Tunnel

What's your favorite legend-based Book of Mormon in MesoAmerica tourist trap?

[Gervin]

Here are few more tourist traps, legend-affirming artifacts, and Biblical-negating connections for the tourist looking to lather himself up into a state of false religious historicity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited May 16, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

What's your favorite legend-based Book of Mormon in MesoAmerica tourist trap?

I kind of like all the Mayan sites myself, since that's where the Nephites lived, not to mention all the old testament sites as well.

And of course I never said that ANYONE'S "historicity" was "false", in fact I believe in both the historicity of the Bible AND the BOM and have testimonies that both are indeed historical.

In fact I said that legends can well be true.

But intellectually if you think that you can prove miracles beyond the shadow of a doubt- or that there is even "evidence" for such things you are mistaken AND naive.

The whole reason atheists exist is exactly because there is no evidence for such things. But atheists are mistaken in understanding what religion is all about anyway, as you have amply shown.

[Gervin]

I kind of like all the Mayan sites myself, since that's where the Nephites lived,

Which site in Mesoamerica do you suggest visiting for the best "Nephite experience?"

[Gervin]

But intellectually if you think that you can prove miracles beyond the shadow of a doubt- or that there is even "evidence" for such things you are mistaken AND naive.

Who made that claim? Not I.

[mfbukowski]

Which site in Mesoamerica do you suggest visiting for the best "Nephite experience?"

Which site do you think proves the Bible?

[mfbukowski]

Who made that claim? Not I.

Then why did you bring it up?

[Gervin]

Which site do you think proves the Bible?

I think you can look at the links I provided or do a little research on your own to discover that there are many sites and artifacts that prove the setting and culture of the Bible. So, again, which Mayan site best proves to you the setting and culture described in the Book of Mormon?

[Gervin]

Then why did you bring it up?

Every post I've made on this topic is on this page. I've not made any mention of miracles.

[mfbukowski]

I think you can look at the links I provided or do a little research on your own to discover that there are many sites and artifacts that prove the setting and culture of the Bible. So, again, which Mayan site best proves to you the setting and culture described in the Book of Mormon?

Culture and setting proves nothing of a religious nature. Jesus was resurrected because Jerusalem exists.?

Here's some of Mark Wright's views on the BOM.

[Gervin]

Culture and setting proves nothing of a religious nature.

Much of the info I linked actually does speak to the religious nature of the Israelites, showing artifacts that point to culture and belief. You're not informed.

Jesus was resurrected because Jerusalem exists.?

Another strawman by way of putting words in my mouth.

Why don't you answer my question about Mayan / Nephite sites?

[Johnnie Cake]

We Now Return You To Your Regularly Scheduled "Shaken Faith Syndrome" OP, Already In Progress...

So faith can be shaken when one discovers that the foundation that ones faith was built upon could not stand up to scrutiny and examination in the manner that one believed it would. In other words, to put ones faith to a test is to subject ones faith to the buffetings of reality...in some it survives and may be strengthened while in others it is either shaken or crumbles...

[omni]

I think you can look at the links I provided or do a little research on your own to discover that there are many sites and artifacts that prove the setting and culture of the Bible. So, again, which Mayan site best proves to you the setting and culture described in the Book of Mormon?

They may validate the culture and settings of the Bible, but it no more proves its supernatural claims than knowing the location of Nauvoo and Kirtland proves the supernatural claims of the Doctrine and Covenants.

[DBMormon]

Did anyone listen to Ash's interview on my podcast. Curious of any thoughts.

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/

sound quality?

questions?

ect?