The Choice To Believe -- Or Not To Believe

[strappinglad]

Let's think about the loaves and fishes miracle ( sorry gray ). Jesus fed the 5000 and it would have been obvious to those present that carts and carts of food weren't showing up with the meals. It would also have been difficult to deny that Jesus had an unearthly power, yet what did He say such that most of His disciples " followed no more after Him"? What type of people are needed to build the Kingdom ? Are those that are only after a free lunch going to go the distance when the lunch peters out? Would it be to their eternal benefit to have them make covenants that they had no intent to live up to?

As I have quoted before " A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still ".

[Brian 2.0]

But I submit they had choice in the prior preparation of the soil.

This starts to sound like confirmation bias to me.

There is another thread going on where a very active poster has obviously "prepared his soil" to believe that there was a global flood.

Sure, you can choose to look at evidence a certain way and probably get the answer you desire or hope for with real intent... but I submit that's a bad thing.

That's why I'm not a huge fan of the concept of "leading with faith" when exploring the issues. Or "leading with doubt". Both do the same thing... By definition they privilege evidence that leans a certain way. We shouldn't be "leading" with anything except the desire to know the truth.

[CMZ]

That's why I'm not a huge fan of the concept of "leading with faith" when exploring the issues. Or "leading with doubt". Both do the same thing... By definition they privilege evidence that leans a certain way. We shouldn't be "leading" with anything except the desire to know the truth.

 

Sounds good enough. What we are talking about here is somebody receiving the blessings of the gospel; so we just don't like to see people halting between two opinions forever just to show how intellectually egalitarian they are being. We understand things work a little differently and on different timetables for everyone. You'll sometimes here in the Church about how it took Brigham Young to years to investigate it; he was not about to join just because he was suckered into it by someone else.

[Storm Rider]

So, to choose to believe "Mormonism" or to choose to not believe "Mormonism" are equally valid choices?

 

It depends upon how you define valid.  What is the purpose of God for his children?  Are we being led by the Spirit or not. If you are asking me if the Spirit will direct a person's life outside of Mormonism the answer is an unequivocal Yes.  We know that there will be a unity of the faith with one Lord and Master.  I don't think any of us will be perfectly aligned with God's will until after this life. 

[ERayR]

Do you think there is such a thing as an "invalid" choice? What do you mean when you say a choice is "valid"?

 

A valid choice is any choice that does no harm to someone else.  An invalid choice is one that knowingly brings harm to someone else.  The choice to beat on your wife is not a valid choice.

[ERayR]

no, ERayR, that doesn't make them both valid.  read post 19 until you grok the unicorn analogy.  it may take several readings--but your hard work will be rewarded, promise

:0)

 

--Erik

 

Who says a valid choice has to be correct?  Valid = 1.(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.  In the case of believing or not believing one may have cogent reasons for either one but one or both choices may not be correct. 

[Kenngo1969]

Thank you Kenngo.   I appreciate it.

 

Jim

You're welcome.  (And, for the record, I try to not be stingy with rep points.  Unfortunately, there are many when I forget to give credit where it's due.  A lot of times, I'll be reading through a thread and will stop after I've read, say, 20 posts or something, and will say to myself, "You know, there's some really good stuff in here.  I should've given a rep point to that post, and that one ..." and so on.  Suffice it to say, when and if I remember, and I think credit is due, I'm not going to withhold a rep point from you just because we may have our differences.  Variety is the spice of life, and if two people are of the same opinion about absolutely everything, one of them is unnecessary.  I certainly don't think you're unnecessary. )

[Kenngo1969]

the above image came to mind, had to share.  Brian 2.0 made a point that's tough to argue against: ONLY when the evidence is equally balanced and in equilibrium will it simply come down to a "choice" to believe or disbelieve (post 19 )

 

--Erik

Good news, Wile!  Mormonism is like the Evel Knievel Rocket Cycle that enables you to clear that giant chasm instead of falling off of the cliff!  (Yes, Erik, I know you'll disagree with that sentiment, but you have to admit: you left the door wide open for me to employ that analogy! Thanks so much!  ) 

[Kenngo1969]

The thing is, evaluating Mormonism (or religious truth claims in general, for that matter) isn’t like a lab experiment: “Add two drops of this reagent, and three drops of that reagent, and you can replicate what Professor X, D.Chem., did.”  Rather, it’s more like being on a jury.  The process may well lead to different (perhaps inconsistent) results for different parties hearing the same evidence, but when it comes right down to it, we’re all our own “triers of fact” (jurors/juries or judges) when it comes to religious truth claims: we have to decide for ourselves what evidence we think is significant, how much weight we’re going to give to any particular piece of evidence (if any), what evidence we’re going to discount or discard, and so on.  Evidence which may “seal the deal” (my phrase) for me, you may not find all that persuasive, and vice-versa.  And, just like in law, there’s really no such thing as a “slam-dunk case.” 

 

My father was a police officer for 43 years.   He had a DUI trial in which his arrestee, between the time my father arrested him and the time that case went to trial, was involved in yet another DUI, in which our “poor, unfortunate arrestee” was injured.  He came to court all bandaged and casted up.  The jury never heard a word about why the guy came to court in that condition (because the judge ruled that such information would be unduly prejudicial), and even though all of the elements of DUI in my father’s case were firmly established at trial (e.g., actual physical control of the vehicle, intoxication, impairment such that the arrestee was not able safely to operate the vehicle, and so on), the jury acquitted him.  Why?  Because they (1) felt sorry for him, and (2) doubted that he could operate a vehicle at all … in his current condition! 

 

In extreme cases, judges can compel a directed verdict, but God doesn’t work that way.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Grundelwalken]

I have followed this thread with interest. Many years ago when I was about 17 years of age I argued with mom about the evidence for the LDS Church. I told her, "If God wants us to know of his church, why doesn't he make it plain so everyone can know of it and believe it." Mom, "because then everyone would want to join, such as those with not a true faith." Me, "So what's wrong with that?" I've never had an answer yet.On this thread there are scholarly answers all over the place.Why, if the LDS Church is the true one on Earth, is there not an easy path to knowing and believing in it? Why all the mystery? Why the dependence on a feeling that is interpreted as an answer to someone's prayer. That feeling is common all over the world.Why do LDS need a Testimony Meeting for people to tell each other of their faith in the gospel and Joseph Smith?

Mostly a lurker but have to comment on this. God will never force the human mind. That includes using undue or unwanted influence to create "faith" that is not desired. That whole AGENCY thing is very important to Him. Faith requires 'hope' (see Alma 32:21) and Hope needs something from the 'hoper.' MW

[cinepro]

Mostly a lurker but have to comment on this. God will never force the human mind. That includes using undue or unwanted influence to create "faith" that is not desired. That whole AGENCY thing is very important to Him. Faith requires 'hope' (see Alma 32:21) and Hope needs something from the 'hoper.' MW

 

 

Evidence does not effect agency.  Joseph Smith had just as much agency when he left the sacred grove as he did when he entered. 

 

God may have His reasons for hiding the evidence, but it doesn't have anything to do with "agency".  Jesus could be sitting on a throne in SLC or Rome and spending 24 hours a day doing nothing but miracles and answering questions from doubters, and we would still have just as much agency.

Edited March 10, 2014 by cinepro

[Senator]

 That includes using undue or unwanted influence to create "faith" that is not desired.

 

The case of Alma the Younger may be contradictory to that statement.

[Gray]

I've read Givens book, The God Who Weeps. It's an excellent book in many respects, but I'm not sure I share his opinion that our beliefs are completely voluntary. I think we tend to believe that which is most convincing to us, which seems to dependent on how much we know and how we tend to interpret evidence - in other words, our education and our personality.

 

I do agree that our beliefs can be very morally significant. For example, what we believe about others, what we believe is the best way to treat others, our beliefs on charity and love and unity.

 

I don't think our beliefs regarding the truthfulness of any particular institution or religious tradition are morally significant, though. People of equal moral fiber can believe in Mormonism or Catholicism or Islam or have no particular religious beliefs at all.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

Evidence does not effect agency.  Joseph Smith had just as much agency when he left the sacred grove as he did when he entered. 

 

God may have His reasons for hiding the evidence, but it doesn't have anything to do with "agency".  Jesus could be sitting on a throne in SLC or Rome and spending 24 hours a day doing nothing but miracles and answering questions from doubters, and we would still have just as much agency.

 

Agreed. Knowledge increases agency, it doesn't limit agency. The more informed we are, the better we are able to make decisions. With less information our decisions are more like guesses.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

This starts to sound like confirmation bias to me.

There is another thread going on where a very active poster has obviously "prepared his soil" to believe that there was a global flood.

Sure, you can choose to look at evidence a certain way and probably get the answer you desire or hope for with real intent... but I submit that's a bad thing.

That's why I'm not a huge fan of the concept of "leading with faith" when exploring the issues. Or "leading with doubt". Both do the same thing... By definition they privilege evidence that leans a certain way. We shouldn't be "leading" with anything except the desire to know the truth.

It can be seen as "confirmation bias" only if one chooses (there's that word again) to ignore or reject the points that have been made here about the light of Christ and the Holy Spirit nudging an individual toward proper choices in the search for truth. Responding to such nudging is what I mean when I say "prepare the soil."

 

It's not confirmation bias if it is God who, through spiritual channels, is doing the confirming.

 

In this I'm inclined to apply the words of Mormon, who, in abridging the Book of Alma, wrote,:

 

"For every man receiveth ^awages of him whom he listeth to ^bobey, and this according to the words of the spirit of prophecy; therefore let it be according to the truth" (Alma 3:27).

Consider the analogy in Alma 32 about planting a seed (perhaps having at first no more than a desire to believe) and nourishing it (through faith).

 

Confirmation bias? Perhaps it could be seen that way, but only if one chooses to leave God and His influence out of one's understanding of the concept.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

For some odd reason, I find that the premise of this thread (Givens' original theory and Scott's support of it) has bothered me for the last few days.  It's like I've heard the worst idea ever, and I have to figure out what, exactly, makes it such a bad idea.

 

Yesterday in EQ, as we read the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith, I wondered what Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young, or other early Church leaders would have thought if someone had suggested that there is a 50/50 split in the evidence for and against Mormonism and it's up to a person's "choice"?  What a sad, strange place we find ourselves if this is the state of apologetics in the Church.   I don't know what the future holds, but if the Church ever does regress, I would definitely put this moment as a sign post on the road towards irrelevancy.

 

I suspect this "50/50" theory will only gain traction as the last resort in trying to salvage belief among members who are on their way out, only to be used after "put your doubts on a shelf" fails.  Because once you admit to someone who has doubts that even a faithful LDS sees 50% of the evidence regarding Mormonism as negative, they'll quickly see that it's only because you're trying to maintain "faith" that you overestimate the amount of positive evidence, and it's actually much worse than that from any objective measure.  Which makes the "choice" that much easier because it quickly becomes imperative.

[Brian 2.0]

It can be seen as "confirmation bias" only if one chooses (there's that word again) to ignore or reject the points that have been made here about the light of Christ and the Holy Spirit nudging an individual toward proper choices in the search for truth. Responding to such nudging is what I mean when I say "prepare the soil."

 

It's not confirmation bias if it is God who, through spiritual channels, is doing the confirming.

 

In this I'm inclined to apply the words of Mormon, who, in abridging the Book of Alma, wrote,:

 

Consider the analogy in Alma 32 about planting a seed (perhaps having at first no more than a desire to believe) and nourishing it (through faith).

 

Confirmation bias? Perhaps it could be seen that way, but only if one chooses to leave God and His influence out of one's understanding of the concept.

 

I think it comes down to this as well.  The main "choice" that makes all the difference is whether or not you believe God can and is communicating to you the truth of certain matters.

 

If one believes that, then they have a wealth of new "evidence" to put on the scales to lean towards belief, because "God told me it was true" is a very powerful piece of evidence.

 

I still don't see exactly how this "balance" and "equilibrium" and "enticed both ways" fits into the whole model.  

 

Does Givens, and/or you, believe that without spiritual experiences taken into account the scales are at 50/50, but that when you choose to believe God can speak to man then it tips to belief?

 

Or are you/Givens saying that without spiritual experiences taken into account the scale seems to tip towards it NOT being true (thus enticing you to disbelief), but if you believe in your spiritual experiences then the scales tip toward it being true (thus enticing you to belief)?

Edited March 10, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Scott Lloyd]

For some odd reason, I find that the premise of this thread (Givens' original theory and Scott's support of it) has bothered me for the last few days.  It's like I've heard the worst idea ever, and I have to figure out what, exactly, makes it such a bad idea.

 

Yesterday in EQ, as we read the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith, I wondered what Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young, or other early Church leaders would have thought if someone had suggested that there is a 50/50 split in the evidence for and against Mormonism and it's up to a person's "choice"?  What a sad, strange place we find ourselves if this is the state of apologetics in the Church.   I don't know what the future holds, but if the Church ever does regress, I would definitely put this moment as a sign post on the road towards irrelevancy.

 

I suspect this "50/50" theory will only gain traction as the last resort in trying to salvage belief among members who are on their way out, only to be used after "put your doubts on a shelf" fails.  Because once you admit to someone who has doubts that even a faithful LDS sees 50% of the evidence regarding Mormonism as negative, they'll quickly see that it's only because you're trying to maintain "faith" that you overestimate the amount of positive evidence, and it's actually much worse than that from any objective measure.  Which makes the "choice" that much easier because it quickly becomes imperative.

I am uncomfortable about trying speak for Givens, so I won't endeavor to do that.

 

But to reiterate, he said this:

 

I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, for only in these conditions of equilibrium and balance, equally “enticed by the one or the other,” is my heart truly free to choose belief or cynicism, faith or faithlessness. Under these conditions, what I choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who I am and what I love.

 

My reading of this is that the "equilibrium and balance" pertains only to physical, empirical evidence, pro and con.

 

But the message of the Church of Jesus Christ is that empirical evidence is not all there is to be considered. That the "equilibrium" is sufficient to leave the question open so that one may feel free to approach God in faith and prayer and ultimately receive a spiritual confirmation leading to a sure knowledge manifested by the Holy Ghost.

 

As I've said before, I believe the best hope for the apologists is to keep the playing field level, thus leaving open the option of seeking a spiritual witness.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it comes down to this as well.  The main "choice" that makes all the difference is whether or not you believe God can and is communicating to you the truth of certain matters.

 

If one believes that, then they have a wealth of new "evidence" to put on the scales to lean towards belief, because "God told me it was true" is a very powerful piece of evidence.

 

I still don't see exactly how this "balance" and "equilibrium" and "enticed both ways" fits into the whole model.  

 

Does Givens, and/or you, believe that without spiritual experiences taken into account the scales are at 50/50, but that when you choose to believe God can speak to man then it tips to belief?

 

Or are you/Givens saying that without spiritual experiences taken into account the scale seems to tip towards it NOT being true (thus enticing you to disbelief), but if you believe in your spiritual experiences then the scales tip toward it being true (thus enticing you to belief)?

I think my last post above (prepared before I had seen this one of yours) pretty much serves as a response to this one.

 

If not, feel free to follow up.

[CMZ]

Yesterday in EQ, as we read the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith, I wondered what Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young, or other early Church leaders would have thought if someone had suggested that there is a 50/50 split in the evidence for and against Mormonism and it's up to a person's "choice"? 

 

I don't think that's an accurate understanding of what Givens is getting at. I have only started to read the book but I haven't gathered from it that he's saying there's a 50/50 split in the evidence and a person then just makes some arbitrary guess about what to believe. What he seems to me to really be saying is that the Church is true (100%) but that in mortality we're not just pounded over the head with that evidence. This is really not that new of a concept. God is trying to develop beings like himself that are the living embodiment of faith and that therefore have faith in themselves independently. There's no growth in faith when one has no choice but to believe. This kind of thinking has been discussed in the Church for at least the whole 4.4 decades I've been on the earth, so it's nothing new. I just think Givens is focusing in on that point and explicating it a little more.

 

Also, as Scott is saying, the Spirit can (and does) step in and help someone to see the ultimate truth when, without that spirit, people could argue endlessly about some historical point. You could have a person trying to figure out everything intellectually (and there definitely is a place for that), but on that alone you will be left in the valley of indecision pretty much forever. Somebody could say, "President Kimball really loved Africans and had been hoping for a long time that they could receive the Priesthood," and somebody could look at that and say, "How wonderfully non-racist! Now I believe in the Church." Then somebody else could come along and say, "But did you know Elders Stapley and Peterson were racist and also were the only two members of the Quorum of the Twelve not present when the 'revelation' was given?" And then the prior somebody could say, "How despicably racist! Now I don't believe in the Church." Or one could receive a witness from the spirit as to the truthfulness of the gospel apart from all the historical bickering, and when they receive this witness they will also receive the motivation to live the gospel and thereby bless their lives and the lives of others, and at some point in time they will have even more information to judge the blacks and the Priesthood issue by and fully and completely understand what really happened in that regard.

Edited March 10, 2014 by CMZ

[Brian 2.0]

I am uncomfortable about trying speak for Givens, so I won't endeavor to do that.

 

But to reiterate, he said this:

 

My reading of this is that the "equilibrium and balance" pertains only to physical, empirical evidence, pro and con.

 

But the message of the Church of Jesus Christ is that empirical evidence is not all there is to be considered. That the "equilibrium" is sufficient to leave the question open so that one may feel free to approach God in faith and prayer and ultimately receiving a spiritual confirmation leading to a sure knowledge manifested by the Holy Ghost.

 

As I've said before, I believe the best hope for the apologists is to keep the playing field level, thus leaving open the option of seeking a spiritual witness.

 

Yeah... you were answering my question before I even asked.  If I understand you correctly, the balance and equilibrium is when weighing the evidence without taking into account your spiritual confirmations... so when looking at the physical/empirical evidence it's kind of at a toss up, pulling you one way and the other equally.

 

My issue with this is... really?

 

I agree that apologetics are trying to make the playing field level... but that seems like a fool's errand to me if that's really their goal (especially on certain topics).  If you try to battle out BOM historicity with physical and empirical evidence alone, do you really think it ends up looking like 50/50?  Far from it.

 

I'm not discounting the pieces of evidence put forth to defend BOM historicity, but those works of apologetics are just opening the door a little bit... showing that it's "possible" it could have happened.  It's makes room for belief, but not room to even approach 50/50 in my mind.

 

I like what my dad says on this (a believer).  When we discuss certain LDS truth claims from a logic/scientific/empirical evidence standpoint, he honestly says... "When looking at it strictly intellectually, I understand the probability of XYZ being true is low, but I believe that lower probability choice because of my spiritual witness that it's true."

 

I can't argue with that... and I respect his choice to believe that...   I have no beef when someone says... "I know that the likelyhood of a global flood having happened is pretty low given our current scientific understanding, but I choose to believe in that unlikely, but not impossible, reality because I feel God has told me the biblical global flood did indeed happen."

 

It's when people try to argue that certain positions are the most probable, even without a spiritual witness, that I often get into debate.  

 

For instance, if academic evidences alone actually indicated that the likelyhood of the BOM being historical were even close to 50% or over 50% then it would be used in academic classes as a reference, people would believe in the BOM without any type of spiritual experience just like how there are people today that believe the Jewish exodus and the existence of Jesus without being Christian themselves.   

Edited March 10, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[CMZ]

I don't think anyone should rest on it being a perfectly even 50/50 split. I think people here are just using those numbers for convenience in discussion.

 

As far as a "global flood" goes I've said it before and I'll say it again: one good possibility is that it was a local flood but with moments where the whole earth was being rained on. When a person is baptized some parts of them are significantly more under water than other parts. In fact some parts are often maybe only under a centimeter of water while other parts are under a couple of feet of water. With Noah's flood we don't need to presume that the only possibility is that every speck of land was 20,000 leagues under the sea. We especially don't need to think that and then say, "Yeah, I know that sounds crazy but the Spirit tells me that's what happened. So I'm just going to believe against all evidence."

[Brian 2.0]

I don't think anyone should rest on it being a perfectly even 50/50 split. I think people here are just using those numbers for convenience in discussion.

 

I think people are using those numbers because that's what it appears Given's is saying in the quote from OP:

 

...for only in these conditions of equilibrium and balance, equally “enticed by the one or the other,” is my heart truly free to choose belief or cynicism, faith or faithlessness.

Given's point of "choice" seems to rest on this split.

[CMZ]

Yes, even still I don't know if you can always take the "evidence" presented one way or another to a particular person and quantify it in a perfectly mathematical way. It's something that doesn't lend itself very well to numbers, even if a broad sense there is a fairly good equilibrium of evidence for and against for people to draw from. Wait, even that's hard to perfectly quantify. I guess that's my point: his point is a good general one; just don't make it too much about backbreakingly exact numbers.

[Brian 2.0]

Yes, even still I don't know if you can always take the "evidence" presented one way or another to a particular person and quantify it in a perfectly mathematical way. It's something that doesn't lend itself very well to numbers, even if a broad sense there is a fairly good equilibrium of evidence for and against for people to draw from. Wait, even that's hard to perfectly quantify. I guess that's my point: his point is a good general one; just don't make it too much about backbreakingly exact numbers.

 

I agree that there's no way to quantify perfectly, it's way too complex and different for each person.

 

I just don't buy that we live in the world Given's describes where the evidence lays like this even generally.  Do anyone here really think... "look at all the non-spiritual evidence for the church and it's kind of a toss up, you could go either way"?