How Confident Are You That Your Beliefs Are True?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm willing to die for my beliefs. That's how much I believe in them.

[duffman]

I don't think it's possible to KNOW 100% that Mormonism is true, or anything that requires faith for that matter. I know the church brings goodness into my life (also some bad), so I find it worthwhile. Do I have doubts? Absolutely. Have I also had wonderful spiritual experiences? Certainly. I like Alma 32 bcuz it says once the seed swells, we don't have a perfect knowledge, but we know its good. The gospel is good (not necessarily the church).

[SmileyMcGee]

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?

That's because no one can assert objective certainty about a religious belief. The scenario described gut checks the probabilities that a person subjectively assigns to beliefs against a statistically or objectively certain scenario (the probability that the sun is shining when you can see that the sun is shining or the probabilty that you will draw a red marble out of a bag in to which you only put red marbles). A person stating 100% confidence in the truthfulness of the gospel (ie, a 1.0 probability) would expect a billion dollar payout (implying no probabilty of a negative outcome) from either scenario mentioned in my prior post and would be indifferent between the two when asked to choose one. Anything other than indifference would indicate less than full confidence in the belief being tested. Seeing risk in betting on your belief implies the assignment of a probabilty of less than 1.0 to that belief.

PS: do you believe intelligent people aren't capable of overstating their level of confidence?

Edited April 10, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Gray]

Most of my beliefs that aren't based on scholarship or science are more about my world view, which isn't something that is "true" or "false" in the way those words are used in the OP, but rather an approach that works for me and helps me to be my best self. 

[Storm Rider]

I have few beliefs that are absolute truths.  The older I have become the more grey areas are identified.  I am more of a natural skeptic than a believer; I constantly review my beliefs, which solidifies my beliefs to the core concepts.  Further, I am can usually table an area of conflict until a later time after I have done more studying, praying, and contemplating. 

[Avatar4321]

I'm willing to die for my beliefs. That's how much I believe in them.

I'm willing to live for them. That's how much I believe

[Avatar4321]

I'm willing to die for my beliefs. That's how much I believe in them.

I'm willing to live for them. That's how much I believe

[ERayR]

Why harbor them if you don't have any confidence in them?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

PS: do you believe intelligent people aren't capable of overstating their level of confidence?

Intelligent people frequently overstate as well as understate their level of confidence, perhaps based more on mood than careful assessment of fact.  Such judgments might tell us more about which side of the bed someone got up from this morning than which epistemology they adhere to (at least for the nonce).

[Robert F. Smith]

I've found that a personal conviction of truth starts off with core fundamentals and then branches out from there. I

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

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.

So it's kind of like learning Plane Geometry in high school, with its definitions, postulates, and axioms, which lead to inexorable conclusions?  And, if we don't learn it well, we can find ourselves with an unstable command of geometry?  At least insofar as Euclidean Geometry is concerned.  However, what if someone comes along and teaches us a very different set of foundational concepts, say for non-Euclidean Geometry?  What does that do to our smug assumptions?

[CCRW]

mfbukowski, you started here shortly after me ... holy cow 23k post!

 

As to the OP ... I found the HBO presented documentary "Going Clear" at the end of last month very disturbing.  What ever I would have bet before that would seriously be rethought afterwards. 

[CCRW]

BTW, I'm pleasantly surprised that anything short of 100% might not be bannable here anymore.  It's scary to admit/talk about doubt.  I hope that this is a trend in the church and that the danger/fear of individuals being able to express doubt and speak about it among even a ward family continues and grows.

[SmileyMcGee]

Intelligent people frequently overstate as well as understate their level of confidence, perhaps based more on mood than careful assessment of fact. Such judgments might tell us more about which side of the bed someone got up from this morning than which epistemology they adhere to (at least for the nonce).

I don't understand why you continue to separate confidence from feelings. Confidence is a feeling and feelings are difficult to measure. This exercise aids in measuring a feeling. Whether someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed or didn't have a proper breakfast has no relevance to the thought experiment. You can't say "Robert feels a lack of confidence because he slept poorly but his confidence is actually 100%." That's like saying "Robert is happy right now, even though he feels unhappy at the moment." Clear contradiction.

Also, the thought experiment does not imply that confidence is static. If you feel that one instance of the experiment does not accurately represent your average confidence level then by all means increase the sample size.

Edited April 11, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[DBMormon]

I am 100% certain that the fruits of living Christ's gospel are good and that divine grace and mercy are real - KNOWLEDGE

I am 95% sure that God is real - KNOWLEDGE

i am 75 % sure that Christ was real and that his atonement is real  FAITH

I am 40-60% (depending on the day) sure the restoration is true and that Joseph really did communicate directly with the divine in a face to face way HOPE

I am 40 - 60% sure that our church is lead by God directly today.  HOPE

 

And I live faithful to my knowledge, faith, and hopes.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm willing to die for my beliefs. That's how much I believe in them.

Thou hast answered well, My Young Padawan.   On the flip side of that coin, Bishop Glenn L. Pace (he may have been "Elder," of the Seventy, at the time; not sure) once told a story of a man who told him, "I would've died for Joseph Smith," whereupon Bishop Pace responded, "What are you doing for President Gordon B. Hinckley today?"    President Hinckley himself told a story of his encounter with a young man who had been disowned by his family, had lost his job, had lost social standing, and had made other sacrifices for the Restored Gospel, and President Hinckley asked him how he could do that, whereupon the young man asked him, "It's true, isn't it?"  Moral of the stories?  Most of the time, we're not asked to die for our beliefs; most of the time, we're asked to live for them.

[Kenngo1969]

BTW, I'm pleasantly surprised that anything short of 100% might not be bannable here anymore.  It's scary to admit/talk about doubt.  I hope that this is a trend in the church and that the danger/fear of individuals being able to express doubt and speak about it among even a ward family continues and grows.

One's motivations make a huge difference.  If one wishes to resolve one's own doubts (or at least to make peace with them), that's one thing: I support such efforts.  Conversely, if one wishes to sow doubt among his fellow members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (as well as among others), that's entirely a different thing, and that I don't support.  

[Kenngo1969]

I am 100% certain that the fruits of living Christ's gospel are good and that divine grace and mercy are real - KNOWLEDGE

I am 95% sure that God is real - KNOWLEDGE

i am 75 % sure that Christ was real and that his atonement is real  FAITH

I am 40-60% (depending on the day) sure the restoration is true and that Joseph really did communicate directly with the divine in a face to face way HOPE

I am 40 - 60% sure that our church is lead by God directly today.  HOPE

 

And I live faithful to my knowledge, faith, and hopes.

I won't quibble with your approach.  Personally, however, I believe, if you really think about it, I would be surprised if you were to conclude that  all three categories/levels of devotion that you list (knowledge, faith, and hope) have all borne good fruit in your life.

[CCRW]

One's motivations make a huge difference.  If one wishes to resolve one's own doubts (or at least to make peace with them), that's one thing: I support such efforts.  Conversely, if one wishes to sow doubt among his fellow members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (as well as among others), that's entirely a different thing, and that I don't support.

Once upon a time, the problem with this were the self appointed judges of what others motivations were. Outside these walls this can currently be seen in recent NAMI events. Old timers here will recognize the problem of the fifth columnist.  These wolfs in sheep's clothing span a wide spectrum from the more obvious likes of the JD's of the world to the new NAMI staff. 

[DBMormon]

I won't quibble with your approach.  Personally, however, I believe, if you really think about it, I would be surprised if you were to conclude that  all three categories/levels of devotion that you list (knowledge, faith, and hope) have all borne good fruit in your life.

you believe you know whether fruits have demonstrated in my life or not?  sounds like quibbling.  by the way true principles have borne good fruit.  false ones have not.  some I am undecided.

Edited April 11, 2015 by DBMormon

[CCRW]

deleted

Edited April 12, 2015 by CCRW

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't understand why you continue to separate confidence from feelings. Confidence is a feeling and feelings are difficult to measure. This exercise aids in measuring a feeling. Whether someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed or didn't have a proper breakfast has no relevance to the thought experiment. You can't say "Robert feels a lack of confidence because he slept poorly but his confidence is actually 100%." That's like saying "Robert is happy right now, even though he feels unhappy at the moment." Clear contradiction.

Also, the thought experiment does not imply that confidence is static. If you feel that one instance of the experiment does not accurately represent your average confidence level then by all means increase the sample size.

It will take more than an increase in sample size to bring precision to wishy washy responses.  For that you would need a control group, and some very sophisticated scientific sampling techniques.  You would also need some very good algorithms based on calculus in order to track your moving targets (rising and falling moods and hormones).  Moreover, your research design would have to include some way to theoretically falsify the results.  Even at that, I predict that it would get away from you.

[Robert F. Smith]

Once upon a time, the problem with this were the self appointed judges of what others motivations were. Outside these walls this can currently be seen in recent NAMI events. Old timers here will recognize the problem of the fifth columnist.  These wolfs in sheep's clothing span a wide spectrum from the more obvious likes of the JD's of the world to the new NAMI staff. 

So, near as I can make out, the National Alliance on Mental Illness is somehow threatened by lawyers (juris doctors) as wolves in sheep's clothing?  And this has what to do with McGee's thought experiment?

[CCRW]

So, near as I can make out, the National Alliance on Mental Illness is somehow threatened by lawyers (juris doctors) as wolves in sheep's clothing?  And this has what to do with McGee's thought experiment?

That cheers my heart ... to see that as an unknown here in such a short time!

 

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/

[SmileyMcGee]

It will take more than an increase in sample size to bring precision to wishy washy responses.  For that you would need a control group, and some very sophisticated scientific sampling techniques.  You would also need some very good algorithms based on calculus in order to track your moving targets (rising and falling moods and hormones).  Moreover, your research design would have to include some way to theoretically falsify the results.  Even at that, I predict that it would get away from you.

The purpose of the thought experiment is not to objectively determine a feeling, assuming that is even remotely possible. Think about what you are saying about feelings. It's like saying, "Robert feels happy right now, but happiness is a feeling and feelings can't be determined by how one feels. To determine whether he feels happiness, Robert would need a control group, and some very sophisticated scientific sampling techniques.  He would also need some very good algorithms based on calculus in order to track his moving targets (rising and falling moods and hormones).  Moreover, his research design would have to include some way to theoretically falsify the results." This is nonsense! How someone feels is how someone feels. The goal of the thought experiment is to see if statements and feelings are congruent; i.e., does a statement reflect feelings, not does a feeling reflect feelings. If someone asserts certainty regarding a religious belief but feels "wishy washy," then they are not certain. I reiterate why below.

 

Scenario 1:

In a bag you put 10 red marbles. You shake the bag and draw a marble from the bag. If the marble is red you will receive $10,000. If the marble is green your closest loved one will die.

 

Scenario 2:

In a bag is contained the answer regarding the truthfulness of the restored gospel. You draw the answer from the bag. If the answer is "True" you win $10,000. If the answer is "False" your closest loved one will die.

 

Which scenario would you prefer?

 

Only a person who feels complete indifference between the two scenarios has certainty that the gospel is true. A person whose confidence is "wishy washy" is not certain, because "wishy washiness" and certainty cannot exist at the same time regarding the same belief. Now, you may feel uncomfortable with that, or not like it, and you can raise all of the invalid objections that you want, but people can't feel differently than how they feel at any given moment. Ask them tomorrow and they may feel differently or they may not. Ask them repeatedly over an extended period of time and you may see a trend.

 

The expected outcome of the first scenario is statistically and objectively $10,000, since only a red marble can be drawn from a bag containing only red marbles; Expected Outcome = (probability of drawing a red marble)*(outcome for drawing a red marble) + (probability of drawing a green marble)*(outcome for drawing a green marble) = 1.0*($10,000) + 0.0*(death of loved one) = $10,000. 

 

Indifference between the two scenarios must imply that a person expects the same outcome from both scenarios, and a person would only expect the same outcome if they have subjectively applied the probabilities in scenario 2 that exactly mirror the objectively determined probabilities in scenario 1. Expected Outcome = (probability of gospel being true)*(outcome for "True") + (probability of gospel being false)*(outcome for "False") = 1.0*($10,000) + 0.0*(death of loved one) = $10,000 = (probability of drawing a red marble)*(outcome for drawing a red marble) + (probability of drawing a green marble)*(outcome for drawing a green marble). 

[JLHPROF]

 

The purpose of the thought experiment is not to objectively determine a feeling, assuming that is even remotely possible. Think about what you are saying about feelings. It's like saying, "Robert feels happy right now, but happiness is a feeling and feelings can't be determined by how one feels. To determine whether he feels happiness, Robert would need a control group, and some very sophisticated scientific sampling techniques.  He would also need some very good algorithms based on calculus in order to track his moving targets (rising and falling moods and hormones).  Moreover, his research design would have to include some way to theoretically falsify the results." This is nonsense! How someone feels is how someone feels. The goal of the thought experiment is to see if statements and feelings are congruent; i.e., does a statement reflect feelings, not does a feeling reflect feelings. If someone asserts certainty regarding a religious belief but feels "wishy washy," then they are not certain. I reiterate why below.

 

Scenario 1:

In a bag you put 10 red marbles. You shake the bag and draw a marble from the bag. If the marble is red you will receive $10,000. If the marble is green your closest loved one will die.

 

Scenario 2:

In a bag is contained the answer regarding the truthfulness of the restored gospel. You draw the answer from the bag. If the answer is "True" you win $10,000. If the answer is "False" your closest loved one will die.

 

Which scenario would you prefer?

 

Only a person who feels complete indifference between the two scenarios has certainty that the gospel is true. A person whose confidence is "wishy washy" is not certain, because "wishy washiness" and certainty cannot exist at the same time regarding the same belief. Now, you may feel uncomfortable with that, or not like it, and you can raise all of the invalid objections that you want, but people can't feel differently than how they feel at any given moment. Ask them tomorrow and they may feel differently or they may not. Ask them repeatedly over an extended period of time and you may see a trend.

 

The expected outcome of the first scenario is statistically and objectively $10,000, since only a red marble can be drawn from a bag containing only red marbles; Expected Outcome = (probability of drawing a red marble)*(outcome for drawing a red marble) + (probability of drawing a green marble)*(outcome for drawing a green marble) = 1.0*($10,000) + 0.0*(death of loved one) = $10,000. 

 

 

Indifference between the two scenarios must imply that a person expects the same outcome from both scenarios, and a person would only expect the same outcome if they have subjectively applied the probabilities in scenario 2 that exactly mirror the objectively determined probabilities in scenario 1. Expected Outcome = (probability of gospel being true)*(outcome for "True") + (probability of gospel being false)*(outcome for "False") = 1.0*($10,000) + 0.0*(death of loved one) = $10,000 = (probability of drawing a red marble)*(outcome for drawing a red marble) + (probability of drawing a green marble)*(outcome for drawing a green marble). 

 

 

Reducing religious belief to playing the odds seems wrong.

If the person is truly certain of their beliefs then they are equally certain that their bag only contains red marbles, no green ones.

I have no doubt the beliefs I claim certainty in will be proven true.  There are beliefs I have that I am not 100% on, but they are not the issue.

The ones I claim I believe with 100% certainty don't allow for a green marble in my bag of faith.