How Confident Are You That Your Beliefs Are True?

[mfbukowski]

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?

Which of course all goes back to all the different definitions of truth, doesn't it?

[mfbukowski]

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.

It limits agency for very practical reasons.

Suppose God was standing in front of you, and you knew for absolutely sure that he was God.

Would you sin deliberately, standing in front of God Himself?

Remember this is a test, and we are not supposed to have a cheat sheet. Making "more beneficial" choices when you knew they were beneficial would not be a fair test of your character.

Edited April 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

Years ago, a Mormon lawyer wrote a book in which he placed the Book of Mormon on trial, following the rules of evidence.  He "proved" the Book of Mormon true.  Of course, later he apostatized.

 

One has to ask whether one's protocol for "proving" something is adequate to the matter under inquiry.  Are there canons of proof which would be universally acceptable?  And, in line with your comment, is it possible to declare the LDS Church authentic in its major claims without any evidence?

[JLHPROF]

Years ago, a Mormon lawyer wrote a book in which he placed the Book of Mormon on trial, following the rules of evidence.  He "proved" the Book of Mormon true.  Of course, later he apostatized.

 

I had a copy as a kid, used it as a coloring book.  I loved the story.

[SmileyMcGee]

It limits agency for very practical reasons.

Suppose God was standing in front of you, and you knew for absolutely sure that he was God.

Would you sin deliberately, standing in front of God Himself?

Remember this is a test, and we are not supposed to have a cheat sheet. Making "more beneficial" choices when you knew they were beneficial would not be a fair test of your character.

Sure, but I wouldn't deliberately sin with my mother present but even though I have seen her and know she exists, I have deliberately sinned without her around. Likewise, we could see God and know he exists and we'd probably be tempted by many of the same things that we are now and may even indulge in sin when he's is not standing in front of us. At the same time, seeing him and knowing he is real would validate the eternal consequences of sin, helping us to make better choices.

At the same time, I admit that a lack of knowledge may help us to be more real than we would be if God were in our face.

Edited April 18, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[mfbukowski]

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?

I understand your point, but what I think he means that he feels 100 percent emotionally certain, but he still accepts the correspondence theory which implies that there is a "fixed and certain" world of truth to which he is not sure his emotional cerainty "corresponds."

He feels that truth can only be truth by corresponding to this realm which is fixed and certain, but unknowable.

My solution is that in religious discourse, saying that you are certain of truth MEANS that you have emotional certainty, and that no other kind of certainty can exist, making any other definition of certainty a total illusion.

So the problem arises in his attempt to answer a question which is self-contradictory.

It is like asking how certain you are that your compound fracture actually "hurts", because one might be wrong that it does.

Religious beliefs are subjective, not objective. Certainty is as subjective as pain. Only you can know that you are in pain, or certain about your beliefs.

Religion is about making our lives MEAN something to us for ourselves, and only we can be certain about what explanation of our lives is meaningful to us. We cannot be wrong about what beliefs do that for us.

[mfbukowski]

Sure, but I wouldn't deliberately sin with my mother present but even though I have seen her and know she exists, I have deliberately sinned without her around. Likewise, we could see God and know he exists and we'd probably be tempted by many of the same things that we are now and may even indulge in sin when he's is not standing in front of us. At the same time, seeing him and knowing he is real would validate the eternal consequences of sin, helping us to make better choices.

At the same time, I admit that a lack of knowledge may help us to be more real than we would be if God were in our face.

But this is a test of how WE solve problems. There are no right or wrong results, there is no way to measure if the results are right or wrong.

The test is about how we solve the problem, not what solutions we find.

Are we obedient in the face of uncertainty because it feels good to be obedient?

Do we follow and seek after inspiration?

Do we follow our own understanding of righteousness? Do we try to become "better"?

It is a test of our desires to follow what God teaches us personally.

[Monster]

To quote Socrates. "All I know is that I know nothing" To have faith or believe something may lead us to a better life. But to say we know something without imperial evidence we cross the line into dogmatic belief even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That said I have some faith that God exists. That he has at least some general interest in humanity as a whole. JS may have had some insight to the nature of god, but it has been mostly downhill since then.

[Bobbieaware]

To quote Socrates. "All I know is that I know nothing" To have faith or believe something may lead us to a better life. But to say we know something without imperial evidence we cross the line into dogmatic belief even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That said I have some faith that God exists. That he has at least some general interest in humanity as a whole. JS may have had some insight to the nature of god, but it has been mostly downhill since then.

So I guess, according to your re reckoning, God is just an ordinary schlub. Even if he does exist, he's nothing to get excited or motivated about. Kinda like uncle Morty.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Stargazer]

To quote Socrates. "All I know is that I know nothing" To have faith or believe something may lead us to a better life. But to say we know something without imperial evidence we cross the line into dogmatic belief even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That said I have some faith that God exists. That he has at least some general interest in humanity as a whole. JS may have had some insight to the nature of god, but it has been mostly downhill since then.

 

I believe the term you're looking for is "empirical evidence":

 

 

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).

 

But to have knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation does not exclude knowledge of God.  Consider, if you will, the principle embodied in "...empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment." 

 

Jesus did not ask anyone to simply dogmatically accept what he taught.  In John 7:17 he is recorded as having said: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

 

And consider also, Alma 32, particular verse 27: "But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words."

 

And the final arbiter, so to speak, of the whole matter, Moroni 10:4: "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."

 

Now, how many people have made these experiments upon the word and have gotten an answer which satisfies them?  The answer is: Lots.

 

I'm one of them.  Just like you actually cannot feel MY pain (thankyou mbukowski), the results of MY experiment do not do you any good.  You must make your own experiment.  Now, if you have done so, and your results are the opposite of mine, or indeterminate, then you have an answer, but I must believe that you got it as a result of experimental error.

[CCRW]

 

I had a copy as a kid, used it as a coloring book.  I loved the story.

That explains A LOT!