How Confident Are You That Your Beliefs Are True?

[why me]

When it comes to matters of faith, confidence can come and go because doubt can always be present somewhere in a person's faith. Faith has been defined as believing in something when common sense tells you not to. If we go by this definition, confidence can be strong and fleeting when it involves belief.

 

So, one must continously guard faith and one's confidence. I must say that the mormon story is a great one. New scripture that has not been refuted by the people involved, nor by the witnesses who witnessed the new scripture coming forth. And it seems that these witnesses were confident in what they saw and experienced. And I am confident that if it were all a fraud, one of those witnesses would have contradiced the story of how the book came about or retracted their statements.

 

However, faith, doubt and confidence seem to be very related when it involves faith and confidence with what one believes.

Edited April 8, 2015 by why me

[why me]

I'm going to say I don't believe that God spoke with JS on a continuous basis like in the D & C. I don't believe God does a whole lot of hands on. But I do want to believe in angels or spirits that may have inspired JS.

It seems that god does do a lot of hands on for those who are listening. For example, we have the church's teachings on chasity, charity, word of wisdom, the showing of love, kindness to neighbors and guidelines for the family and for the youth etc. It seems pretty hands on. But we humans do have free agency or free will. Also, the church has been under a relentless attack regardless of the goodness it does. All this can impact confidence in many believers. And this is what such information is supposed to do: make people more unconfident.

[Maestrophil]

I'm not even 100% certain that gravity exists as we understand it.  Or at least that there are ways to see it that I currently don't understand.  How much more true for spiritual things? 

Edited April 8, 2015 by Maestrophil

[BlueDreams]

I have 98% confidence in my beliefs (2% for clarifications and minor changes....because that's just life). But that isn't really the problem. The problem is that I wouldn't trust some random person making this gamble with me. So I would be hesitant to putting anything of value up for the chopping block. The guys sounds like a swindler. If it is true, I doubt he/she would be up for the idea that shady sounding bets are a great way to gain favor from God. It make more sense that the guy would say that it isn't true. Which makes him either and imposter or a sociopath who enjoys toying with people's prized possessions.

 

Not a great choice, in my opinion.

with luv,

Bd 

Edited April 8, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Teancum]

 

(Sorry Bukowski, this thread may violate your views on truth and knowledge)

 

How confident are you in your beliefs in the essence of the restored gospel? By essence I mean the key points of the restored gospel: that Jesus is the Christ and he restored his gospel, church, priesthood, etc through Joseph Smith, we have a living prophet, etc. Initially I wanted to ask you to assign a confidence level to your belief or lack thereof, between 0% and 100% confidence. However, I find that quantifying confidence is rather tricky and sometimes arbitrary. Instead, let's imagine a hypothetical scenario that can act as proxy for quantitative measures.

 

Imagine that you encounter a person who can objectively determine the truthfulness of the restored gospel. They know the truth. Also assume that you are willing to entertain this person in a little challenge they propose. They ask you state your belief, either that the restored gospel is true or false, and to offer something of value that would be lost if your belief turns out to be wrong. However, should your belief turn out to be correct, the value of your bet would be doubled. What thing, if any, would you not risk in this challenge?

 

For many of us the thing of greatest worth in our lives is a family member or other loved one. I would imagine that for most people, risking the life of a child or grandchild would require a confidence level at or near 100%. For many who feel they have less than 100% confidence a sum of money that they can put up may offer a nice proxy for a percentage. Some may be so unsure that they may only be willing to risk very little.

 

It is often easy to say "I know without a shadow of a doubt" that the restored gospel is true, but when you really imagine losing something or someone of value in a challenge of your beliefs I think we may sometimes be taken back by our initial feelings and reactions. We may also appreciate what we don't really know and may be inspire to learn more to better cope with our uncertainty.

 

Since I am giving the challenge I will participate first. My feelings towards the restored gospel run all over the spectrum. There are things that I love, things that I don't love so much, things that I think are vital, and things that I think are worthless. There are parts of the gospel and church that I find fascinating and other things that I love to criticize. In the end, the balance in my mind is currently tipped in favor of a belief that the restored gospel is not true. However, I would not be willing to bet the life of a loved one on this belief. I think I would be willing to risk 20-30 years of healthy/happy life in this challenge. Years of healthy/happy life are important to me since I'm unsure of the existence of an afterlife. But I would bet 20-30 years on my belief for the chance to gain an additional 20-30.

 

PS: I realize this challenge is by no means scientific, and likely could see many improvements to better achieve its objective, but I think it may be a fun, enlightening exercise nonetheless.

 

 

 

I think maybe 50% of Mormonism is inspired.... not revealed.  I am suspect of any self proclaimed revealed religion that claims to be The Only True and Living Church or doctrine. But there is much in Mormonism I find uplifting and inspiring as well as much that seems man made and oppressive.

 

I would not bet anything that it is really from God as the Church teaches.  I am about as certain as I am about anything the Mormonism is not what JS claimed it is nor what the Church promotes itself as.  85% let's say.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Teancum

[Avatar4321]

100% sure it's true which is why I wouldn't take any bet. Sure I'd win the money but the Lord has commanded us not to bet. It's better to obey than to make a profit.

[Senator]

I think maybe 50% of Mormonism is inspired.... not revealed.  I am suspect of any self proclaimed revealed religion that claims to be The Only True and Living Church or doctrine. But there is much in Mormonism I find uplifting and inspiring as well as much that seems man made and oppressive.

 

I would not bet anything that it is really from God as the Church teaches.  I am about as certain as I am about anything the Mormonism is not what JS claimed it is nor what the Church promotes itself as.  85% let's say.

 

50%?

 

Oooo.... not good.

 

Best be 0% than 50%

 

50% will get you spewn out

[Teancum]

50%?

 

Oooo.... not good.

 

Best be 0% than 50%

 

50% will get you spewn out

 

 

Yea I know it!  But are you telling me the cold ones aren't going to get warmed up in hell?  

[mfbukowski]

Enough to jump off a cliff for them though admittedly I just like cliff jumping.

Uh,I noticed you forgot to mention you would also have a hang glider at the time.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not even 100% certain that gravity exists as we understand it.  Or at least that there are ways to see it that I currently don't understand.  How much more true for spiritual things?

Everything exists as we understand it, it's the part that we don't understand that gets me.

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................................................    

 

It is often easy to say "I know without a shadow of a doubt" that the restored gospel is true, but when you really imagine losing something or someone of value in a challenge of your beliefs I think we may sometimes be taken back by our initial feelings and reactions. We may also appreciate what we don't really know and may be inspire to learn more to better cope with our uncertainty.

 

Since I am giving the challenge I will participate first. My feelings towards the restored gospel run all over the spectrum. There are things that I love, things that I don't love so much, things that I think are vital, and things that I think are worthless. There are parts of the gospel and church that I find fascinating and other things that I love to criticize. In the end, the balance in my mind is currently tipped in favor of a belief that the restored gospel is not true. However, I would not be willing to bet the life of a loved one on this belief. I think I would be willing to risk 20-30 years of healthy/happy life in this challenge. Years of healthy/happy life are important to me since I'm unsure of the existence of an afterlife. But I would bet 20-30 years on my belief for the chance to gain an additional 20-30.

 

PS: I realize this challenge is by no means scientific, and likely could see many improvements to better achieve its objective, but I think it may be a fun, enlightening exercise nonetheless.

The entirely subjective nature of the premises of your bet disqualify it from serious consideration.  However, there is merit in observing that people from almost any religious background could participate in discussion of the relative level of certainty they posit for their particular system of belief.  Thus, whether Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Jew, one might very well claim a general level of comfort with certain values and traditions.  That the faithful of any tradition find very strong attachment to that belief system is a psycho-social factor which has nothing at all to do with epistemological issues.  Certainty under such circumstances becomes little more than a reflex.

 

More interesting still would be the scenario you imagine could activate the claim of objective demonstration of the truthfulness of any particular faith tradition:  How would you construct that theoretical scenario?  Can any of us even imagine it?

[Robert F. Smith]

Everything exists as we understand it, it's the part that we don't understand that gets me.

Yes, we understand everything based on the mode of social construction we are heir to.  But what is actually, objectively true outside that socially constructed edifice of belief?  Can we get beyond our first and second levels of naivete?  How do we do that?

[SmileyMcGee]

The entirely subjective nature of the premises of your bet disqualify it from serious consideration. However, there is merit in observing that people from almost any religious background could participate in discussion of the relative level of certainty they posit for their particular system of belief. Thus, whether Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Jew, one might very well claim a general level of comfort with certain values and traditions. That the faithful of any tradition find very strong attachment to that belief system is a psycho-social factor which has nothing at all to do with epistemological issues. Certainty under such circumstances becomes little more than a reflex.

More interesting still would be the scenario you imagine could activate the claim of objective demonstration of the truthfulness of any particular faith tradition: How would you construct that theoretical scenario? Can any of us even imagine it?

Ya, the more I think about the scenario the more flaws I see in the design. While it may not be effective at approximating all confidence levels, I think that some derivative of this scenario may be effective at addressing the claim of absolute certainty (100% confidence) that the restored gospel (or any belief) is true or false. However the challenge still exists that people may refuse to participate due to some moral objection to risking what they value most, such as a loved one. however, I believe that claiming 100% confidence and calling the scenario a "bet," or objecting on moral grounds, is contradictory . Someone with absolute certainty would not see the scenario as a bet, since certainty removes all risk and they would therefore be risking nothing. This would be an amazing arbitrage opportunity--a no risk high return scenario. It would be like standing outside at noon on a clear day and someone proposing that you bet your mother's life that the sun is shining, while offering a billion dollars if your bet is correct. I would argue that many would not have any moral objections to such a scenario.

In short, I think if you claim 100% confidence that the restored gospel is true and still see the original scenario as a bet then you don't have 100% confidence.

Edited April 9, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[mfbukowski]

Yes, we understand everything based on the mode of social construction we are heir to. But what is actually, objectively true outside that socially constructed edifice of belief? Can we get beyond our first and second levels of naivete? How do we do that?

We can't. There is a segment of psychology which is devoted to how people in different cultures perceive "reality". It's not old Bukowski making stuff up again.http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/45975_Chapter_3.pdf

We literally all live in different worlds.

As an undergrad, I had two majors, philosophy and psych. At the same time I was studying social constructivism, I was learning about some of this kind of evidence that gave the philosophy legs. I didn't have a chance to see it any other way.

There are actual brain differences.

We look out at the world and all we see is our own brain looking back at us.

Science is actually just a chronicle of human perceptions.

Edited April 9, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And the key is that spiritual experiences are just as valid in their sphere as objective experiences are in theirs.

They are different language games and different contexts, that's all.

Context is everything.

[BCSpace]

I approach it from a different angle. How confident am I that everyone else's beliefs are wrong?  Quite.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, so enjoyed this honest post.  I am so  on the edge as to whether God is involved in anything anymore..but knowing the you and others share some of he same thoughts keeps me open..and searching..thank you.

Thanks Jeanne. I am going through that. I guess that's where faith comes in. Before while a TBM I didn't need it as much, believing came easily. I wish it were that way, I relied on so many others' testimonies. Now it's up to me.

[why me]

Thanks Jeanne. I am going through that. I guess that's where faith comes in. Before while a TBM I didn't need it as much, believing came easily. I wish it were that way, I relied on so many others' testimonies. Now it's up to me.

Confidence comes with what we read too. For example, if I spend my time reading crtical sites of mormonism, my confidence can drop. If I read more faith promoting sites, confidence can increase. But this is true for all faiths. If I read anticatholic sites that stress catholic history the same will result. It is easy to tear down all religious faiths. This was the effect of Dawkins' book The God Delusion or Hitchens' book God is not Great. There is a reason why confidence in religion is dropping in the west but increasing in many other parts of the world. And it doesn't have to do with intelligence and reason.

[Kenngo1969]

If "true" = "bears abundant good fruit in my life," then I'm 100% confident my beliefs are true.

 

"But Ken," you say, "that does nothing to resolve the question of the ultimate truth of religious belief, because surely, other people whose beliefs differ from yours can say the same thing."  Touché.  

 

But my response to that is, "And so?  Ergo, what?"

 

I do not believe that God gives me good fruit, bread, and fish when I ask for them while giving the devout who adhere to other religious traditions thorns, thistles, stones and serpents when they ask for fruit, bread, and fish, or giving them "fruit" that's actually kinda thorny and thistly, "bread" that's actually kinda stony, and "fish" that's actually kinda "serpenty."  Good fruit is good fruit, bread is bread, and fish is fish, period.  I am a practicing Latter-day Saint because I believe such adherence is the best way to receive the most bounteous harvest of good fruit, but all harvests aren't created equal.  If someone's adherence to another religious tradition bears good fruit in his life, more power to him.  If, on the other hand, he would like to know if it's possible for him to get a more bounteous harvest (e.g., to get an hundred fold rather than thirty fold or sixty fold), perhaps I have some ideas about that.

 

And I don't believe God is going to tell devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Congratulations!  You get the Grand Prize," while telling the devout adherents to other religious traditions (and even good people of no particular religious stripe), "Oh, so sorry.  You were mostly wrong.  Here's what you should have done instead."  Rather, I think he'll tell them, "Congratulations!  You were mostly right.  Here are some other things you might want to consider."  It's less about what we believe (or don't believe) than it is about what we do: "Inasmuch as men do good, they shall in nowise lose their reward" (Doctrine & Covenants 58:27).

[Kenngo1969]

I approach it from a different angle. How confident am I that everyone else's beliefs are wrong?  Quite.

I don't think that's a particularly productive approach, but to each, his own, I guess.    (See my answer to the opening post's question, above.)

[churchistrue]

Ya, the more I think about the scenario the more flaws I see in the design. While it may not be effective at approximating all confidence levels, I think that some derivative of this scenario may be effective at addressing the claim of absolute certainty (100% confidence) that the restored gospel (or any belief) is true or false. However the challenge still exists that people may refuse to participate due to some moral objection to risking what they value most, such as a loved one. however, I believe that claiming 100% confidence and calling the scenario a "bet," or objecting on moral grounds, is contradictory . Someone with absolute certainty would not see the scenario as a bet, since certainty removes all risk and they would therefore be risking nothing. This would be an amazing arbitrage opportunity--a no risk high return scenario. It would be like standing outside at noon on a clear day and someone proposing that you bet your mother's life that the sun is shining, while offering a billion dollars if your bet is correct. I would argue that many would not have any moral objections to such a scenario.

In short, I think if you claim 100% confidence that the restored gospel is true and still see the original scenario as a bet then you don't have 100% confidence.

I've seen this question introduced several times over the years.  It's always met the same way.  Either people say they're 100% rock solid or they hem and haw and say the question is flawed.  The aversion to taking this experiment seriously has always confused me.

[SmileyMcGee]

I've seen this question introduced several times over the years. It's always met the same way. Either people say they're 100% rock solid or they hem and haw and say the question is flawed. The aversion to taking this experiment seriously has always confused me.

To be fair I think the initial scenario I proposed was kind of muddled. That said, I am fascinated by the refusal to entertain the thought experiment and the justifications for such refusals.

[ttribe]

I approach it from a different angle. How confident am I that everyone else's beliefs are wrong?  Quite.

 

Because you've gone and dutifully studied, pondered and prayed about "everyone else's beliefs"?  That had to take a while.  Do tell.

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................

In short, I think if you claim 100% confidence that the restored gospel is true and still see the original scenario as a bet then you don't have 100% confidence.

It sounds so silly to see you put it in just that way, while realizing that a number of very intelligent respondents on this board actually gave a figure of 100%.  None of them was asserting objective, scientific certainty, but apparently were merely asserting an emotional response.  Where does that leave us?

Edited April 9, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Gillebre]

I've found that a personal conviction of truth starts off with core fundamentals and then branches out from there. I believe that someone's testimony of a secondary principle of truth would ideally never be greater than something of primary value.

In our day, in this dispensation, I believe that the priority of truth flows like this:

1. God is our Eternal Father and Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world.

2. The Church and Gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith (meaning modern revelation, Priesthood authority, and the Plan of Salvation). We have a living Prophet on the earth today who is the only one that speaks for God to everyone as a whole.

3. Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel: faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. The higher law of principle based obedience. Temple ordinances.

4. Specific commandments such as Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, the Law of Tithing, and keeping the Sabbath day holy.

As I perceive it this order of truth's progression means that each number is dependent upon those that came before it for a foundation of sorts. The branch and the vines which spring from it. When we have a partial testimony it brings with it the challenge of instability.

These are just some of my thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. Take them for what you will.

As far as an answer to the original concept in the opening post, I want to share one more thought before I answer. Faith is like a sliding scale that everyone starts on at some point. Our faith increases and decreases as we encounter challenging life experiences which either build us up or tear us down. I believe that there are actually two scales: belief, and knowledge. Just food for thought.

As to my own answer I will say this of myself:

I have an absolute certain awareness that God actually lives, that Christ is literally resurrected and is in fact our Savior and Redeemer. He is my Savior, my truest friend and my greatest ally. He is my strongest supporter. This Church and Gospel is exactly what it claims to be. Although I am so far from perfect and have great weaknesses, neither my imperfections or my struggles can change what I have learned to be true. 100%