Terryl Givens Vs. Alister Mcgrath On Doubt

[stemelbow]

As a primer, the Lectures on Faith provide a workable explanation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Can we each approach our questions raised by doubts to God in faith?  Do we approach our personal prayer in the sacred grove with faith in a church that is not God's or do we approach it doubting such a thing?  Doubt need not always be negative, no?

[wenglund]

Is faith inherently virtuous, and doubt inherently vice?

 

Does it matter what one is faithful to, or what one doubts?

 

Do we celebrate the faith of a man to evil ideals?

Do we castigate the man who doubts wicked ways?

 

Good point. It isn't inherently or necessarily one way or the other, not just in terms of where the faith or doubt is placed, but also in terms of emphasis or priority. Generally speaking, doubt becomes a vice when it predominates and rules over faith. Progress is built on systems of faith and belief and knowledge, not doubt.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Can we each approach our questions raised by doubts to God in faith?  Do we approach our personal prayer in the sacred grove with faith in a church that is not God's or do we approach it doubting such a thing?  Doubt need not always be negative, no?

 

See my post above. Doubts can be healthy when they motivate us to diminish the doubts and progress in faith and knowledge, just as pain is healthy when it motivates us to reliving the pain and progress in peace and joy. So, in this sense it is positive.

 

However, doubts, as with pain, become unhealthy or negative when they predominate and/or stop being a motivation towards growth in faith and knowledge and joy, and become instead ends in themselves.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tsuzuki]

The "vice" of doubt predominating and ruling over faith gave us the scientific method. Progress is built on systems that make us challenge our assumptions, rather than defaulting to confirmation bias.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Tsuzuki

[mfbukowski]

When I have time, I'm going to check to see whether or not there are any instances in the Standard Works where doubt, unbelief and lack of faith are ever spoken of in positive ways. At the moment I can think of none, but only seem to recall references that speak of doubt and lack of faith as negatives that need to be overcome. Should we celebrate lust, greed and dishonesty simply because they stand in opposition to chastity, unselfishness and honesty? It seems highly probable that the only positive thing about negative spiritual traits and behaviors is that our lives become more happy, enlightened and spiritually meaningful as we overcome them. Or has Givens discovered that the spiritual negative of doubt is an exception to the rule?

And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief

Mark 9:24

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

 

Why do you think we learn that way?

[Scott Lloyd]

Is faith inherently virtuous, and doubt inherently vice?

 

Does it matter what one is faithful to, or what one doubts?

 

Do we celebrate the faith of a man to evil ideals?

Do we castigate the man who doubts wicked ways?

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is inherently virtuous.

 

The first principle of the gospel is not just faith, but faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (see Article of Faith 4).

Edited August 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Tsuzuki]

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is inherently virtuous.

And yet, there are cases in history where evil has been done in the name of faith in Jesus Christ, so I would say that not even that is inherently virtuous.

[Scott Lloyd]

Mark 9:24

Here, unbelief is presented not as something to be celebrated but as something to be overcome, with the help of the Lord.

 

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

 

Why do you think we learn that way?

 

Perhaps because we can't assimilate everything at once -- the milk-before-meat imagery.

[Scott Lloyd]

And yet, there are cases in history where evil has been done in the name of faith in Jesus Christ, so I would say that not even that is inherently virtuous.

If evil is done in His name, it is not truly faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[mfbukowski]

Here, unbelief is presented not as something to be celebrated but as something to be overcome, with the help of the Lord.

 

Perhaps because we can't assimilate everything at once -- the milk-before-meat imagery.

You mean we move from doubt to belief?

 

Is it virtuous to have faith in Bigfoot?

[Scott Lloyd]

You mean we move from doubt to belief?

 

Is it virtuous to have faith in Bigfoot?

Did you miss my posts about faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?

[mfbukowski]

Did you miss my posts about faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?

No, but I am not following your reasoning.  Yes the first principle of the gospel is faith in Christ, but one must have heard about Christ, wondered about Christ, have the idea make sense that there might be a savior, see the need for a savior to overcome sin in one's personal life, before one can have "faith" in Jesus Christ and start on the path to the gospel- with the first step in the gospel which is Faith in Christ.

 

Maybe you were born with Faith in Christ, but I certainly was not.  I was taught it at an early age, and later developed my own faith.

 

So for me, having faith in the person Jesus was at one point in my life about equal to having faith in Bigfoot.   I got better.

[Tsuzuki]

If evil is done in His name, it is not truly faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

You are right. Crusades and inquisitions aren't motivated by faith at all. And unjust excommunications? Totally not faith-based. Or maybe you have a different definition of faith than I do.

 

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

[Scott Lloyd]

No, but I am not following your reasoning.  Yes the first principle of the gospel is faith in Christ, but one must have heard about Christ, wondered about Christ, have the idea make sense that there might be a savior, see the need for a savior to overcome sin in one's personal life, before one can have "faith" in Jesus Christ and start on the path to the gospel- with the first step in the gospel which is Faith in Christ.

 

Maybe you were born with Faith in Christ, but I certainly was not.  I was taught it at an early age, and later developed my own faith.

 

So for me, having faith in the person Jesus was at one point in my life about equal to having faith in Bigfoot.   I got better.

One might not be acquainted with Jesus Christ as a person at first, but one can still have faith in things that are good, true, right and decent, which, whether or not one recognizes it at first, flow from Jesus Christ and His gospel.

 

The Light of Christ is a gift that is given to everyone who is born into mortality. That light can be the focus of faith, even before one learns who Jesus Christ is.

[mfbukowski]

I probably should not participate in this thread anyway really, I don't have the time.

 

But of the choices given, with the protestation that the representation of Kierkegaard is not accurate, I would go with Givens.

 

We ARE after all fallen, and after all the plan of salvation tells us we are here to walk by faith- not be born with it, but to develop it through testimony.

 

To me, that implies that we are SUPPOSED to move from a fallen, carnal state of doubt, toward acceptance and then faith in Jesus Christ.  But as I originally said, probably those distinctions are all linguistic confusions anyway, and as usual, we will find that after 83 pages of arguing about it, that we all agree anyway and the only reason to argue it out is to learn that.   I just feel like cutting to the chase and saying it now.

 

I am sure we are all on the same page really but the words are getting in the way.  Enough said!  It's a chicken/egg distinction in the final analysis.

[Scott Lloyd]

You are right. Crusades and inquisitions aren't motivated by faith at all. And unjust excommunications? Totally not faith-based. Or maybe you have a different definition of faith than I do.

 

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

Whatever faith injustice is motivated by, it is not truly faith in Jesus Christ.

 

Why do you insist on ignoring my qualifier, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (not just faith)?

[mfbukowski]

One might not be acquainted with Jesus Christ as a person at first, but one can still have faith in things that are good, true, right and decent, which, whether or not one recognizes it at first, flow from Jesus Christ and His gospel.

 

The Light of Christ is a gift that is given to everyone who is born into mortality. That light can be the focus of faith, even before one learns who Jesus Christ is.

Yep.

 

See?  I told you we would agree! 

[mfbukowski]

Or maybe you have a different definition of faith than I do.

 

TA DA!

[Scott Lloyd]

I probably should not participate in this thread anyway really, I don't have the time.

 

But of the choices given, with the protestation that the representation of Kierkegaard is not accurate, I would go with Givens.

 

We ARE after all fallen, and after all the plan of salvation tells us we are here to walk by faith- not be born with it, but to develop it through testimony.

 

To me, that implies that we are SUPPOSED to move from a fallen, carnal state of doubt, toward acceptance and then faith in Jesus Christ.

I don't dispute that.

 

But in doing so, we don't celebrate the "fallen, carnal state of doubt," we encourage and celebrate the moving from it.

 

But as I originally said, probably those distinctions are all linguistic confusions anyway, and as usual, we will find that after 83 pages of arguing about it, that we all agree anyway and the only reason to argue it out is to learn that.   I just feel like cutting to the chase and saying it now.

 

I am sure we are all on the same page really but the words are getting in the way.  Enough said!  It's a chicken/egg distinction in the final analysis.

 

I'm sure this is all true. I just don't like Givens's phrasing about "celebrating doubts." I find it imprecise and misleading. And that's why, given the choice, I prefer the second option in Hamilton Porter's OP, however you choose to label it.

 

I'm fairly sure that, given time enough to study and digest his treatise, I would find myself in agreement with Givens. But to do so, I would have to get past his chosen  verbiage. As a receiver, I shouldn't have to do that, not if the sender is doing an optimal job of communicating.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

The "vice" of doubt predominating and ruling over faith gave us the scientific method. 

 

Nonsense. You need to ramp up doubting (though not to the unhealthy point that it predominates) in challenging your own assumption here so as to avoid confirming this absurd and non-scientific bias.

 

Epistemology is not the science of doubt.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Nonsense. You need to ramp up doubting (though not to the unhealthy point that it predominates) in challenging your own assumption here so as to avoid confirming this absurd and non-scientific bias.

 

Epistemology is not the science of doubt.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Once more, you hit the mark (bukowski)

 

It didn't even hurt. 

 

 

The Omphalos hypothesis is the argument that God created the world recently (in the last ten thousand years, in keeping with Flood geology), but complete with signs of great age. It was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable. The idea saw some revival in the 20th century by some creationists, who extended the argument to light that appears to originate in far-off stars and galaxies (although other creationists reject this explanation^[1]). Many creationists believe that Adam and Eve had no navels, and that the trees in the Garden of Eden had no growth rings.^[2].....

Five-minute hypothesis

The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell that proposes that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included. It is a commonly used example of how one may maintain extreme philosophical skepticism with regards to memory.^[10].....

 

Bertrand Russell wrote, in The Analysis of Mind: 'there is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past'. 'Human beings', posited in being five minutes ago with built-in 'memory' traces, would not be human beings. The suggestion is logically incoherent.^[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Other_formulations

 

Of course Russell was only partially right because we presume we know that that is not the case.

 

Nevertheless such an idea is totally useless, even if possible to conceive.

 

That is why I don't care much about historicity and all this silly speculation, because none of this makes any difference in anyone's life.   If the universe sparked into existence 5 minutes ago, none of us would know it, and we would still wonder what we should make for dinner, and remember what we had for breakfast.  Nobody can prove anything about anything.  So what?  Life goes on!

 

THAT is why epistemology is important- to explore what we know and why we know it, and most importantly what difference any of that makes! 

 

Everyone has doubt, but doubting doesn't get anything done!  Every step we take requires faith and belief.  You turn the car key, you have faith the engine will start.  You walk across the room, your legs don't turn into jelly.   You plant a crop, you have faith you will reap the results.  You go to school, you hope you will get a job.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure that Hamilton Porter's paraphrase of Givens quite captures what Givens is saying in his Letter to a Doubter. Here is the actual quote:

 

"My main purpose in writing this letter is not to resolve the uncertainties and perplexities in your mind. I want, rather, to endow them with the dignity and seriousness they deserve. And even to celebrate them. That may sound perverse, but I hope to show you it is not."

 

As Givens makes clear, uncertainties and perplexities (doubts) aren't to be celebrated for their own sake, but only insofar as they provide the impetus for spiritual growth. Referring to a stanza from Wordsworth's "Ode on Intimations of Immortality," Givens writes: "You see, it was in the midst of his perplexity, of his obstinate questions, uncertainties, misgivings, and shadowy recollections that almost but don’t quite pierce the veil, that he found the prompt, the agitation, the catalyst that spurred him from complacency to insight, from generic pleasures to revelatory illumination, from being a thing acted upon to being an actor in the quest for his spiritual identity."

 

Givens doesn't urge anyone to complacently "live with . . . [and] even celebrate" doubt, but rather to answer the call of faith in spite of doubt and uncertainty.

I haven't read Givens's entire treatise yet, but I'm acquainted with the quote and its context, and I still don't care for it.

In a way it reminds me of Hugh Nibley's waggish remark about being thankful for anti-Mormons because they "keep us on our toes." While being on our toes is a good thing, I'm nevertheless not disposed to valuing or cherishing -- or celebrating -- anti-Mormonism.

[Hamilton Porter]

You are right. Crusades and inquisitions aren't motivated by faith at all. And unjust excommunications? Totally not faith-based. Or maybe you have a different definition of faith than I do.

 

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

 

Kids get violent from watching Mighty Morphin Power Rangers or Captain Bucky O'Hare. Neurotic people can turn anything into crusades and inquisitions.

[Nofear]

I'm reminded of two quotes from Joseph Smith

God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. (TPJS p 256)

 

Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me. (as recalled by Parley P. Pratt)

We are welcome to simultaneously both trust and doubt our current understanding of things. But lack of understanding should not translate to doubt in the sense that it lessens our faith/trust in God.