How Confident Are You That Your Beliefs Are True?

[Robert F. Smith]

I've been saying that this whole time! Do you even read my responses or are you just wanting to create some nonsensical straw man? Like I've been saying, the experiment assists the participant in applying probabilities, subject to their feelings. It does not assist outside experimenters in objectively determining what those feelings are. The participant can know their feelings because they are feeling them (something you apparently think is near impossible). An outside observer has no objective way to know what the participant is feeling, making any outside observer irrelevant.

I think you take for granted that we do this all of the time without even being concious of it. why select particular investments? Why do you vote for a particular political candidate? No one can objectively assign probabilities to your beliefs regarding the success of a particular investment or political candidate. Only you can do that subjectively, and you do it all of the time, subconciously.

On the contrary, Smiley.  I have read everything you have said, and I still don't see the point of the thought experiment, since it provides nothing of value except a moving opinion target which can never be pinned down in time or space.  Opinion polls, to be of any value, must represent actual scientific samples of the target population, and they must be carefully written so as not to influence that opinion through manipulation (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle obtains here).

 

You are conducting a very loose, subjective poll of subjective opinion, and the result is necessarily absurd.  Serious pollsters deal with subjective opinion all the time, but they do so with scientific objectivity.  They are thus able to pin down shifting opinions in a target population both accurately and understandably over time.  This allows them to predict within a specific percent the way in which people will behave (in an election, in gaming, on juries, etc.).  You might want to explore decision theory and game theory to see how this is applied in real life.  It is big business.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[SmileyMcGee]

On the contrary, Smiley. I have read everything you have said, and I still don't see the point of the thought experiment, since it provides nothing of value except a moving opinion target which can never be pinned down in time or space. Opinion polls, to be of any value, must represent actual scientific samples of the target population, and they must be careful written so as not to influence that opinion through manipulation (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle obtains here).

You are conducting a very loose, subjective poll of subjective opinion, and the result is necessarily absurd. Serious pollsters deal with subjective opinion all the time, but they do so with scientific objectivity. They are thus able to pin down shifting opinions in a target population both accurately and understandably over time. This allows them to predict within a specific percent the way in which people will behave (in an election, in gaming, on juries, etc.). You might want to explore decision theory and game theory to see how this is applied in real life. It is big business.

This is not an opinion poll. This is not an attempt to determine whether a sample is representative of a population. In the thought experiment the population is 1 (unless you define the population as a single person's belief over time). If I were asking several people to participate then attempting to project my results onto a larger population, then yes, the statistically techniques that you described would be required. But as this is not an attempt to get a feel for the church in general, and instead a little test for people to do on their own, no sampling techniques are required.

I admit that the scenarios are rather messy and I have attempted to refine them throughout the thread. But I don't feel that your criticism of the essence of the thought experiment is relevant.

[Robert F. Smith]

This is not an opinion poll. This is not an attempt to determine whether a sample is representative of a population. In the thought experiment the population is 1 (unless you define the population as a single person's belief over time). If I were asking several people to participate then attempting to project my results onto a larger population, then yes, the statistically techniques that you described would be required. But as this is not an attempt to get a feel for the church in general, and instead a little test for people to do on their own, no sampling techniques are required.

I admit that the scenarios are rather messy and I have attempted to refine them throughout the thread. But I don't feel that your criticism of the essence of the thought experiment is relevant.

Tu quoque, brother.  I guess the relevance is in the eye of the beholder.

[SmileyMcGee]

Tu quoque, brother. I guess the relevance is in the eye of the beholder.

Just one other question for you. Suppose I proposed the following experiment:

Two 19 year old missionaries give you a Book of Mormon and ask you to read, ponder and pray about it and then promise that you will feel the Holy Ghost confirm that it is true.

Would you put as little weight on your own "wishy washy" feelings in this scenario as you have on feelings mentioned in prior posts? Why or why not?

Edited April 14, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Kenngo1969]

Hey Ken,

 

I notice that you seem to pretty purposefully use the term “Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ” verses more common terms?

Whether it's common or not depends on where one is looking, I suppose.  It's part of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that an apostasy occurred, thus necessitating a restoration that began with the calling of Joseph Smith as a Prophet of God.  Hence, my use of the term "Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ."  (While perhaps use of the simple word gospel is more commonly used to refer to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and while we do have much in common in terms of belief with our brothers and sisters who adhere to other Christian traditions, the more specific term serves to convey the notion that there are teachings unique to Mormonism that are part of the Restored Gospel. )

[CCRW]

Well FWIW, from this old apostate ... I find it a wise statement, and refreshing compared to the more common/automatic attribution to "The Church".  I hope its infectious.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just one other question for you. Suppose I proposed the following experiment:

Two 19 year old missionaries give you a Book of Mormon and ask you to read, ponder and pray about it and then promise that you will feel the Holy Ghost confirm that it is true.

Would you put as little weight on your own "wishy washy" feelings in this scenario as you have on feelings mentioned in prior posts? Why or why not?

I was proposing above that your and others' approach to this thought experiment is wishy washy, and that it consequently is a meaningless exercise.  You are certainly entitled to have fun with such nonsense, but not under the illusion that it means anything.  Indeed, you are claiming here what already has to be proved, QED, rather than asking a truly open-ended question.  You prejudice the results before the fact.  Why?

 

If two missionaries enter a home and do as you suggest, that will only be one of many homes they and other missionaries enter.  I am more interested in the actual results of such encounters en banc.  For example, in how many cases do the people approached testify later that they experienced the power of the Holy Ghost?  How many of those were baptized?  What were the mechanics of the feelings they had?  Within LDS tradition, one is told again and again that it is the witness of the Holy Ghost which is most efficacious in such conversions.  Does this mean that mere electro-chemical "feelings" generated solely within the brain are responsible for such effects?  Or is there an outside entity supplying that feeling?  What is the detailed nature of it?  Can one sort of feeling be distinguished from some other?  Does it require an fMRI?  What is the epistemic correlate here?

 

Thus, when Jesus congratulated Peter (Simon Bar Jona) for in effect knowing who he really was by the power of the Holy Spirit, was Jesus dependent on merely common human feelings, and not on divine revelation?  How would you and I be able to tell the difference?  If at all?  Was Jesus merely delusional?  Human feelings and revelation being indistinguishable . . .

[SmileyMcGee]

I was proposing above that your and others' approach to this thought experiment is wishy washy, and that it consequently is a meaningless exercise. You are certainly entitled to have fun with such nonsense, but not under the illusion that it means anything. Indeed, you are claiming here what already has to be proved, QED, rather than asking a truly open-ended question. You prejudice the results before the fact. Why?

If two missionaries enter a home and do as you suggest, that will only be one of many homes they and other missionaries enter. I am more interested in the actual results of such encounters en banc. For example, in how many cases do the people approached testify later that they experienced the power of the Holy Ghost? How many of those were baptized? What were the mechanics of the feelings they had? Within LDS tradition, one is told again and again that it is the witness of the Holy Ghost which is most efficacious in such conversions. Does this mean that mere electro-chemical "feelings" generated solely within the brain are responsible for such effects? Or is there an outside entity supplying that feeling? What is the detailed nature of it? Can one sort of feeling be distinguished from some other? Does it require an fMRI? What is the epistemic correlate here?

Thus, when Jesus congratulated Peter (Simon Bar Jona) for in effect knowing who he really was by the power of the Holy Spirit, was Jesus dependent on merely common human feelings, and not on divine revelation? How would you and I be able to tell the difference? If at all? Was Jesus merely delusional? Human feelings and revelation being indistinguishable . . .

.....Thank you for your feedback.

[Mystery Meat]

I was proposing above that your and others' approach to this thought experiment is wishy washy, and that it consequently is a meaningless exercise.  You are certainly entitled to have fun with such nonsense, but not under the illusion that it means anything.  Indeed, you are claiming here what already has to be proved, QED, rather than asking a truly open-ended question.  You prejudice the results before the fact.  Why?

 

If two missionaries enter a home and do as you suggest, that will only be one of many homes they and other missionaries enter.  I am more interested in the actual results of such encounters en banc.  For example, in how many cases do the people approached testify later that they experienced the power of the Holy Ghost?  How many of those were baptized?  What were the mechanics of the feelings they had?  Within LDS tradition, one is told again and again that it is the witness of the Holy Ghost which is most efficacious in such conversions.  Does this mean that mere electro-chemical "feelings" generated solely within the brain are responsible for such effects?  Or is there an outside entity supplying that feeling?  What is the detailed nature of it?  Can one sort of feeling be distinguished from some other?  Does it require an fMRI?  What is the epistemic correlate here?

 

Thus, when Jesus congratulated Peter (Simon Bar Jona) for in effect knowing who he really was by the power of the Holy Spirit, was Jesus dependent on merely common human feelings, and not on divine revelation?  How would you and I be able to tell the difference?  If at all?  Was Jesus merely delusional?  Human feelings and revelation being indistinguishable . . .

 

Owned.

[SmileyMcGee]

Owned.

If you reject subjective probabilty theory...but why continue the debate, we'll only go in circles.

[williamsmith]

 

 

How Confident Are You That Your Beliefs Are True?

 

99.99%.....

 

I don't say 100% because I'm human and heck you never know.

However, I absolutely know for sure my beliefs are true.

 

Many years in various religions and not being religious, converted to the church seeing it as the only one that made sense.

Later left the church and was anti-religion and anti-mormon.  Humbled myself to let go of that judgment since religion was good in the world.

Eventually studied again, again eliminated other religions as possibly being true, that left mormonism.  Studied it again, was active again also to understand it.

Compared anti-mormonism with LDS scholarship, saw anti-mormonism as nothing but lying in every issue.

 

My mind and spirit opened, and I knew the Church was literally true, not another man-made religion which I have no interest in.  Truth or Die.

I have not a single problem with the Church, save the rare human error, which isn't the church, just human falibility, but certainly not even close to the degree as other religions, which is evidence for it being of God.

Because of my experiences in life, my in depth study, my observation, I clearly understand human fallibility and the church, and see clearly where anti-mormons falsely portray it in everything.

Edited April 16, 2015 by williamsmith

[Stargazer]

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.

 

Golly. 

 

I see God so very involved in everything.  But He's very discreet about it, and leaves room for plausible deniability.  Because if He didn't we would lose our free agency -- or be condemned for not seeing the sun at noonday.

 

He's been very involved in my life, and I would have a hard time denying it.

 

But everyone's got a different set of glasses, I guess.  Some see, while others do not.

[Tacenda]

Golly.

I see God so very involved in everything. But He's very discreet about it, and leaves room for plausible deniability. Because if He didn't we would lose our free agency -- or be condemned for not seeing the sun at noonday.

He's been very involved in my life, and I would have a hard time denying it.

But everyone's got a different set of glasses, I guess. Some see, while others do not.

This was a running thought throughout my life. I'd think HF wasn't helping me, then it would hit me that maybe without His help, it could be far worse in my life and He was there after all. Thanks for the reminder.

[bcuzbcuz]

 

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.

 

 

.

Is the church true until proven untrue? Or is the church untrue until proven true? If evidence were to be submitted to a jury of twelve peers would their verdict be untrue or true? Can anyone make a statement of 100% confidence in the church being true without any evidence?

[SmileyMcGee]

I see God so very involved in everything. But He's very discreet about it, and leaves room for plausible deniability. Because if He didn't we would lose our free agency -- or be condemned for not seeing the sun at noonday.

i struggle to see how a knowledge that God exists limits agency. For one, the lds idea of a premortal war in heaven goes against this idea. We're taught that "a third part" chose against God and in favor of satan while being in the presence of God. Second, it implies that knowledge weakens agency when it appears the opposite is true. Think also of you're own decisions: would not knowing the word of wisdom or the health risks of smoking really give you more agency when deciding whether or not to smoke? Having a greater idea of the real consequences of a choice would only improve your ability to make a beneficial choice.

But who knows, maybe that is how God operates, I just think it's strange.

Edited April 16, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Senator]

 

I don't say 100% because I'm human and heck you never know.

However, I absolutely know for sure my beliefs are true.

 

[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?

After some thought I think I'm starting to agree with you. There is a key assumption in the exercise that perhaps is too far removed from reality: the assumption that pulling a red marble out of a bag containing only red marbles is a rational bet. While in the world of models a rational agent would have 100% confidence in this bet, in the real world, and perhaps paradoxically, it may be more rational to avoid this bet, since we likely never experience scenarios where such easy money is to be made. In the real world, we are probably better off being suspicious of such bets since, again in the real world, such bets may entail some trick. It's the same reason we would suspicious of a deal offering a brand new Mercedes for $1. In short perhaps it is rational to be suspicious of sure things since they rarely, if ever, exist in real life. And since we can't pull ourselves out of the real world when participating in a thought experiment, our response in such a scenario as the one proposed may be fueled not by a lack of confidence but a justified suspicion.

[williamsmith]

 

No need to be unsure, it's simple.

I have full 100% certainty of what I know, but I also know that I'm a human being, thus potentially subject to error, and/or believing the errors or sins of others, thus it would be unwise of me to say 100%.

However, I'm always studying, all religions, all ideology's fairly and objectively, to make sure of what I know, and/or to improve/expand my understanding even more.

 

20 years now or so, and Mormonism is only proving itself to be more true, even though when I finally had my full conversion knowing for sure, it was all that time ago.

Back then, there was plenty enough to know the truth.  Today the evidences of the work have only quadrupled in all fields of study.  False religion is only proven false as time goes on, which is why most intellectuals end up leaving their religions from youth.  Mormonism the opposite is true.  The more learned the Mormon is as time goes by, the more we know it's true.  (there is a study those showed this btw).

[carbon dioxide]

Is the church true until proven untrue? Or is the church untrue until proven true? If evidence were to be submitted to a jury of twelve peers would their verdict be untrue or true? Can anyone make a statement of 100% confidence in the church being true without any evidence?

We all look at evidence differently.  A jury of 12 people can hear and see the exact same evidence but arrive at different conclusions (hung jury).  The evidence that I have seen that has show me that the church is true probably would not do much for someone else.  The evidence that people us to prove the Church is not true I see to be unimpressive.   I can read an anti-Mormon book and see one dumb assertion after another while another might see is a fountain of truth. 

[pogi]

I don't say 100% because I'm human and heck you never know.

However, I absolutely know for sure my beliefs are true.

 

No need to be unsure, it's simple.

I have full 100% certainty of what I know, but I also know that I'm a human being, thus potentially subject to error, and/or believing the errors or sins of others, thus it would be unwise of me to say 100%.

However, I'm always studying, all religions, all ideology's fairly and objectively, to make sure of what I know, and/or to improve/expand my understanding even more.

 

I am so confused.  I am glad to hear that you are a believer, but I'll be honest, you have my head spinning. 

 

If it is "unwise to say 100%", and you say that you have "100% certainty"...what does that make you?

Edited April 17, 2015 by pogi

[DBMormon]

I suppose it's up to any individual observer to determine how much weight he wishes to apply to this thought experiment's (in)ability to arrive at an objective result.  As for me, I can only speak to my personal experience.  Whatever my life might leave to be desired, my the ongoing results of my personal test lead me to believe that it's much better with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ than it would be without.  To each, his own.

so not that you know the historical narrative of the church that it puts out about itself is true but rather that you know the fruits of the gospel are true and it has blessed you?  It seems that is what you are implying which would be similar to what I said early on

Edited April 17, 2015 by DBMormon

[SmileyMcGee]

delete

Edited April 17, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Tacenda]

so not that you know the historical narrative of the church is true but rather that you know the fruits of the gospel are tru and it has blessed you?  It seems that is what you are implying which would be similar to what I said early on

I believe the historical narrative of the church is true, that's why I struggle with belief, if we're talking about the history of the church that is.  

[Stargazer]

i struggle to see how a knowledge that God exists limits agency. For one, the lds idea of a premortal war in heaven goes against this idea. We're taught that "a third part" chose against God and in favor of satan while being in the presence of God. Second, it implies that knowledge weakens agency when it appears the opposite is true. Think also of you're own decisions: would not knowing the word of wisdom or the health risks of smoking really give you more agency when deciding whether or not to smoke? Having a greater idea of the real consequences of a choice would only improve your ability to make a beneficial choice.

But who knows, maybe that is how God operates, I just think it's strange.

 

In the premortal existence we could not be kept from beholding within the veil, because there was no veil.  Yes, knowledge of God at that time did not prevent us from choosing wrongly in the Lucifer-Jesus debate.  That was the entire point. 

 

In that premortal time God winnowed out those who would openly defy Him, and those who would choose to use force to guarantee obedience.  We've already been tested to see if we would obey in the face of God.  We passed.  Now, in the second estate we are being tested differently: what will we do if we have no knowledge of God.  In other words, what will we do when God can see us, but we cannot see God.  If we retained our pre-existent knowledge we would simply continue our first estate behavior, and there would be no test because there would be no practical agency.  We would continue to obey.

 

In LDS theology we are being tested to determine if we are worthy of receiving all that the Father has.  Will we choose to be like Him, or not?  Some of us will demonstrate that we will.  Some of us will demonstrate otherwise.  Some of us, who die before we pass into the age of accountability, apparently demonstrated it adequately in our first estate, and are not called upon to confirm it, though we must still receive a body, however briefly.  Unless such spirits will be given the opportunity in the Millennium, something that isn't clear to me.

[Stargazer]

I believe the historical narrative of the church is true, that's why I struggle with belief, if we're talking about the history of the church that is.  

 

Well, for what it's worth, I don't have a testimony of church history.  I have a testimony via the Spirit that the church is true, despite everything else.  It's Christ's restored Church, despite its blemishes.  The Primitive church, in the days of Peter, James and John, was likewise not without its blemishes, yet it was true nevertheless.

 

Humans cannot avoid being fallible, with one exception, that is.