The Last Stage of Apologetics: It's your fault.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Well, at a certain point, one needs good evidence to form a rational opinion.  However, to each his own I guess.

There seem to be plenty of intelligent and reasonable and informed people who are Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, atheist, and so on. These religious viewpoints coincide in some pretty big ways and contradict each other in some pretty big ways.  I think the presence or absence of evidence is not necessarily the ultimate or dispositive factor.  At the end of the day, I think it comes down to faith. Even for atheism.

[Stormin' Mormon]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Also for what it is worth, I think we should decide what to believe based on what evidence we see, not based on what we want.

That begs the question (hat tip: Scott Lloyd).  We still have to choose what weight we give to each piece of evidence.  That evidence is varied and includes both personal spiritual experience and scholarly research. 

Since the type and nature of the evidences are so varied, we are left comparing apples to crankshafts.  There's no way to weigh the various evidences without some predetermined ideology or worldview.  And that worldview is a reflection of our choices and the things we hope are true. 

In short, it's not a question of dispassionately weighing evidence to come to a rational conclusion.  We apply our values to our worldview, which then determines how we weigh each piece of evidence which then leads us to walk away or walk by faith.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

Duplicate post.  Sorry.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Stormin' Mormon

[Exiled]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There seem to be plenty of intelligent and reasonable and informed people who are Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, atheist, and so on. These religious viewpoints coincide in some pretty big ways and contradict each other in some pretty big ways.  I think the presence or absence of evidence is not necessarily the ultimate or dispositive factor.  At the end of the day, I think it comes down to faith. Even for atheism.

Religion is part of one's upbringing.  If it all of a sudden wasn't taught any more by parents to children, then it would die out as it now exists.  Maybe something would rise up to take its place as people are interested in what lies beyond and there is always some enterprising person that wants to make a buck on claiming to have the answer to the unanswerable.  However, current religious speculation would not continue in the present form if we took a holiday from it for a few generations.  Additionally, I know that the religious desire to believe that atheists are part of some atheist religion.  However, I think an atheist just doesn't believe that there is a God, period.  Any resemblance to religion is just a counter to the religious' evangelizing practices.  I think that if the religious would keep to themselves, one wouldn't see atheist missionaries knocking on doors, etc.

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

That begs the question (hat tip: Scott Lloyd).  We still have to choose what weight we give to each piece of evidence.  That evidence is varied and includes both personal spiritual experience and scholarly research. 

Since the type and nature of the evidences are so varied, we are left comparing apples to crankshafts.  There's no way to weigh the various evidences without some predetermined ideology or worldview.  And that worldview is a reflection of our choices and the things we hope are true. 

In short, it's not a question of dispassionately weighing evidence to come to a rational conclusion.  We apply our values to our worldview, which then determines how we weigh each piece of evidence which then leads us to walk away or walk by faith.  

So, do you think someone could be wrong in their worldview?  Surely the worldview that contained God as author of the race ban was a wrong worldview.

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Wow. Glad to know someone thinks what I have to say is worth reading! I increased the font size 2 pts, and broke it into 3 paragraphs. It is not my finest work - reading back on it I seem a little disjointed, but hopefully you can now get at least some gist of what I am saying.  

Thank you.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There seem to be plenty of intelligent and reasonable and informed people who are Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, atheist, and so on. These religious viewpoints coincide in some pretty big ways and contradict each other in some pretty big ways.  I think the presence or absence of evidence is not necessarily the ultimate or dispositive factor.  At the end of the day, I think it comes down to faith. Even for atheism.

I don't think faith has much to do with it. Most people end up with a set of religious beliefs because of sociological and psychological forces. Your initial religious beliefs are based upon childhood impressions and what you are taught as a trusting child. They are then molded and shift depending upon who your friends are, the nature of your tribe, who your love interest is, and whatever psychological bagage you develop over the years. Psychologists are learning a ton about the human capacity to believe things that simply aren't true. This isn't a symptom of irrationality so much as a natural and normal suseptibility to a wide range of cognitive biases.

Lots of otherwise intelligent and reasonable people believe there was a worldwide flood that happened about 5,000 years ago. This doesn't indicate that believing in the flood is just as reasonable as not believing in the flood, nor does it indicate that whether or not you believe in the flood is a matter of faith.

Some people are less suceptible to cognitive biases than others. And some people recognize that attempts to have faith in this or that often play right in to known cognitive biases, and that relying on cognitive biases to believe what you want to believe is the polar opposite of a sincere endeavor to overcome cognitive biases so that you can form beliefs based upon an objective evaluation of the evidence.

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

With all due respect, he is mis-framing the focus of his methodology.  The second sentence would be clearer and more honest written this way:

Because in the end, that's what he is talking about, and that's what he is encouraging others to seek as an antidote to "difficult questions."  Because when there are no answers to the difficult questions, that's all you can hope for.

I know the Church can never stop defending itself, even against the indefensible.  But when you start telling people that the ultimate goal is to get yourself into a mindset where you "will not need to ask!", it's really time to start thinking about who's going to turn the lights off and lock up, because the show's just about over.

2

In other words, telling people to live by faith is too much to ask?  Hmm, you would have thought Jesus would have worked that out better while he was on earth.  Of course, the alternative works out so much better - put your faith in the arm of flesh.  I guess because man can provide answers to everything and there is no need to live without answers. 

Got it.  

[ttribe]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

This phrase hit home for me. The single biggest factor in these things, I have found, is: what do you want to believe? All else pales in comparison. I find that the difference maker between people who find a way to make it work, and those who lose their belief is whether or not they want to believe it. Richard Bushman, in responding to some of Wesley Walters' claims in the early 1970s (about Palmyra/Manchester tax records, the location of the Smiths, and revivals), made the point that claims like this anger and scare believers initially, but they are good for them in the long run by challenging people to seriously examine  their beliefs. He said that if, in the end, some sort of smoking gun were to be found, believers (including believing scholars) would "move heaven and earth" to defend that belief before surrendering. My experience is that people who struggle in faith either hold on or they don't. And the decisive factor is whether they wanted it to be true, or whether they didn't (not making a value judgment, just an observation). 

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps the better phrase would be "It's your own choice if you don't believe."

That's pretty hard to dispute.

I'm sorry, but this just makes me furious.  Over the year+ I could feel my testimony slipping away, I prayed, I fasted, I plead for a reaffirmation of my faith.  I wanted so badly to keep believing.  I wanted to experience the whisperings of the Holy Ghost.  No matter how many times I asked, all I got was silence and...nothing.  I reached the point where I was so convinced that I had committed some grievous sin or there was something so terribly wrong with me that I would sob myself to sleep fighting against the only thought that would dominate my mind at that point - I was worthless, I was harming my family's salvation, and the only answer lay in sending a 9mm round through my own head.  I suspect neither one of you have the first clue what that feels like and for you to pass judgment on me, and others like me, to suggest I didn't want to believe anymore goes way beyond insulting.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Exiled said:

Religion is part of one's upbringing.  If it all of a sudden wasn't taught any more by parents to children, then it would die out as it now exists.  Maybe something would rise up to take its place as people are interested in what lies beyond and there is always some enterprising person that wants to make a buck on claiming to have the answer to the unanswerable.  However, current religious speculation would not continue in the present form if we took a holiday from it for a few generations.  Additionally, I know that the religious desire to believe that atheists are part of some atheist religion.  However, I think an atheist just doesn't believe that there is a God, period.  Any resemblance to religion is just a counter to the religious' evangelizing practices.  I think that if the religious would keep to themselves, one wouldn't see atheist missionaries knocking on doors, etc.

This has kind of happened before.  Pagan explanations for how things work and how God works was replaced by a set of answers that seemed to make more sense.  Those that worshiped Zeus and his pack were just as devoted in their worship as any modern day worshiper.  Now, those beliefs are no longer taught to children going up.  It is gone.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I suspect neither one of you have the first clue what that feels like and for you to pass judgment on me, and others like me, to suggest I didn't want to believe anymore goes way beyond insulting.

Oh yeah

And that very premise is NOT insulting, right?

Others who may have been to the brink of suicide may disagree.

[SouthernMo]

7 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

That begs the question (hat tip: Scott Lloyd).  We still have to choose what weight we give to each piece of evidence.  That evidence is varied and includes both personal spiritual experience and scholarly research. 

Since the type and nature of the evidences are so varied, we are left comparing apples to crankshafts.  There's no way to weigh the various evidences without some predetermined ideology or worldview.  And that worldview is a reflection of our choices and the things we hope are true. 

In short, it's not a question of dispassionately weighing evidence to come to a rational conclusion.  We apply our values to our worldview, which then determines how we weigh each piece of evidence which then leads us to walk away or walk by faith.  

Additionally - I’ve found that as I encounter evidence, I need to be flexible and shape my faith - and not view evidence as binary - either supporting or refuting a fixed idea.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

 

   9 hours ago,  smac97 said: 

Perhaps the better phrase would be "It's your own choice if you don't believe."

That's pretty hard to dispute.

I'm sorry, but this just makes me furious.  Over the year+ I could feel my testimony slipping away, I prayed, I fasted, I plead for a reaffirmation of my faith.  I wanted so badly to keep believing.  I wanted to experience the whisperings of the Holy Ghost.  No matter how many times I asked, all I got was silence and...nothing.  I reached the point where I was so convinced that I had committed some grievous sin or there was something so terribly wrong with me that I would sob myself to sleep fighting against the only thought that would dominate my mind at that point - I was worthless, I was harming my family's salvation, and the only answer lay in sending a 9mm round through my own head.  I suspect neither one of you have the first clue what that feels like and for you to pass judgment on me, and others like me, to suggest I didn't want to believe anymore goes way beyond insulting.

I read with fascination how Snowflake defended young earth beliefs despite the mountain of physical evidence that the world is older than 6000 years, death has been going on for millions of years. man and dinosaurs never lived on earth at the same time, and there was no universal world wide flood.  

"It's your own choice to believe."

That's pretty hard to dispute.

We should all be fine with that..  Why wouldn't we be.  He obviously has figured out what works for him.  Who am I to judge his choice?  Who am I to take on the job of convincing him that he is completely wrong and that he must hold the same view as me.   Obviously he finds personal value in that choice.  Many members commented on Snowflakes beliefs to prove with physical evidence how his beliefs can not possibly be true.  Yet, I find just as strong of physical evidence that proves to me the Mormon Church is not what it claims either.  

It is really unimportant who is right and who is wrong.  We only have one life to live.  I believe people should make the most of it and live it in a way that they find the most happiness.  "Adam fell that men might be, men are that they might have joy,"  

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah

And that very premise is NOT insulting, right?

Others who may have been to the brink of suicide may disagree.

What are you trying to say, Mark? I'm not following. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah

And that very premise is NOT insulting, right?

Others who may have been to the brink of suicide may disagree.

Not everyone experiences despair in the same way.  Probably no one does given the variety of life.  I don't think anyone can know the full complexity of motivations for beliefs and choices, especially when it involves the emotions we prefer not to bring into the light because it hurts too much.

 And since many, many choices are made without realizing it, if one thinks of choices as planned decisions, I can understand why they wouldn't say "they chose to believe" while those who think of choice as anytime we are given something to respond to, they would see choice being made every time we act because that action is a choice to act.

-----

 When I say I chose my belief, what I mean is every choice I've ever made has led me to where I am in the here and now.  That means everything that I am is because I have chosen, every belief follows from choice. But I cannot accurately say I chose my beliefs, but rather my beliefs came to me because I opened the path to them through my choices without realizing in most cases.   My choice for my belief is not one choice at one time, but all the tiny myriad of butterfly choices whirling around each other that nudged me here and there, pulled the covers off of new and old ideas so I could see what they meant to me, showed me what was important to me...

not sure if this makes sense, eyes are finally fading...so may finish the thought later.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Perhaps the better phrase would be "It's your own choice if you don't believe."

That's pretty hard to dispute.

I'm sorry, but this just makes me furious. 

Okay.  I get that as a preliminary, knee-jerk response.  If that reaction abides, however, it becomes a choice.

I go through this all the time on this board.  I really take my faith seriously.  Some people on this board say insulting and profane things about matters which I hold near and dear to my heart, and which I hold to be sacred.  Sometimes my immediate response is irritation, and I act accordingly.  Often, however, I contemplate what is being said and try to get past the initial response (irrigation, anger, etc.) and into a more measured and reasoned one.  I choose my response.

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

Over the year+ I could feel my testimony slipping away, I prayed, I fasted, I plead for a reaffirmation of my faith.  I wanted so badly to keep believing.  I wanted to experience the whisperings of the Holy Ghost.  No matter how many times I asked, all I got was silence and...nothing.  I reached the point where I was so convinced that I had committed some grievous sin or there was something so terribly wrong with me that I would sob myself to sleep fighting against the only thought that would dominate my mind at that point - I was worthless, I was harming my family's salvation, and the only answer lay in sending a 9mm round through my own head. 

I am sorry to hear about these things.  

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

I suspect neither one of you have the first clue what that feels like 

You have never met me, don't know me, and don't know what struggles and challenges I have faced in life.

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

and for you to pass judgment on me, and others like me,

With respect, I ask that you calm down.  My remarks were very general.  I wasn't passing judgment on anyone, let alone you in particular.

You have taken offense at what I said, even though I didn't reference you, and wasn't responding to you.  What you are doing here is . . . a choice.  I ask that you reconsider that choice.  Look at my remarks again (including these and these and these), with special emphasis on these:

Quote

I acknowledge that.  But loss of faith is not the only option.  There are plenty of rational, intelligent, informed people who accept the truth claims of the LDS Church.  And there are plenty of such people who do not.  

...

Reasonable minds can disagree about the truth claims of the LDS Church.  Adopting a faithful perspective over a skeptical/faithless one is eminently reasonable (the inverse proposition is also true).

...

I am able to accommodate the possibility that reasonable minds can disagree with my assessment of Mormonism, and that they can do so without being accused of needing to fabricate their own "reality" as part of the process.

...

If you can ditch the my-way-or-the-highway, either-you-agree-with-me-or-you-are-a-delusional-moron approach to Mormonism, things start to make a lot more sense.

I am specifically and expressly acknowledging, over and over again, that reasonable minds can disagree about the truth claims of Mormonism.  That is the very epitome of not passing judgment on those who have reached conclusions different from my own.  Can you see that?

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

to suggest I didn't want to believe anymore goes way beyond insulting.

Again, I ask you to re-read my remarks, including this:

Quote

Rejection of the Restored Gospel is not a foregone conclusion (neither is acceptance/retention of it).  It's a matter of choice.  What informs that choice varies from person to person, but at the end . . . it's a choice."

I can't (and haven't, and won't) speak to your personal experiences (other than to acknowledge that they may have varied substantially from my own).  I don't know you.  I have no stewardship over you.  If I were to speak about your experiences, it would be based on ignorance.

But if you are suggesting that acceptance or rejection of the Restored Gospel is not a choice, that rejection of it is a necessarily foregone conclusion (akin to 2+2=4), that reasonable minds cannot disagree about the truth claims of the LDS Church, that the only plausible and rational conclusion about such things is yours, and that anyone and everyone who disagrees with you about is deluded and/or stupid, well . . . I'll have to disagree with you about that.

Again, I think that reasonable minds can disagree about the validity of the truth claims of the LDS Church.  Do you?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Exiled said:

Religion is part of one's upbringing. 

Or not.  I have a sister-in-law who grew up with no religion in her life.  Then she joined the church in college.

14 hours ago, Exiled said:

If it all of a sudden wasn't taught any more by parents to children, then it would die out as it now exists. 

No way to know, really.  The fact remains that religion is taught by parents to children.  I think that speaks to a generalized sense amongst mankind that there is something . . . more out there.

I have previously taught courses on the law at a local university, including a course on legal research which includes an extensive review of basic legal vocabulary. One of the terms I test on is "malum in se," a Latin phrase "used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct." It is often juxtaposed against "malum prohibitum," which refers to "conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute."

Every semester I provide the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I ask the class to give me three or so examples of conduct that is, in their view, malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, I received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes varied ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts were always volunteered by students.  I then ask my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are."

What are your thoughts about this?  Are things like "murder" and "rape" and "theft" only deemed "wrong" because "religion" says so?  Or is it possible that there is something more basic going on?  How do you account for the existence of a concept like malum in se?

14 hours ago, Exiled said:

I know that the religious desire to believe that atheists are part of some atheist religion. 

Not for me.  I just think that they are operating on faith, just a different flavor of it.  I believe that God exists, and atheists believe He does not.  Neither of us has any way to prove or demonstrate our respective positions.  Both of us are operating on . . . faith.

14 hours ago, Exiled said:

However, I think an atheist just doesn't believe that there is a God, period. 

I can't accept the "period" bit.  I can respect agnostics, who posit that we don't know whether God exists.  But atheists affirmatively deny that He exists.  That position is both unproven and unprovable.  Thus, it's a matter of faith.  Faith that God does not exist.

14 hours ago, Exiled said:

Any resemblance to religion is just a counter to the religious' evangelizing practices. 

That was not my intention.  I don't mean to disparage atheists.  But I think atheists are dealing squarely with us when they deny that their affirmative rejection of the existence of God is a matter of belief/faith.  Of course it is.  It's nothing but that.

14 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think that if the religious would keep to themselves, one wouldn't see atheist missionaries knocking on doors, etc.

Well, we can't really claim that atheists don't evangelize:

Thanks,

-Smac

[Reuben]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Belief and choice don't always work together. I cannot, by the force of my will and choice, believe that 2 + 2 = 7. Or that the earth is flat. Or lots of things where my belief is not dictated by my choice. Belief is a web and you cannot simply pluck one belief out by choice. Often the beliefs around it have anchored it too strongly.

This is true for my religious beliefs. I cannot right now simply choose to not believe Catholicism. I imagine the same is true for you and Mormonism.

Thanks for this. I was about to make the same point.

From my perspective, I did everything Mormon to the best of my ability, and tried to believe as long as I could. I woke up after one awful night with the Mormonism torn out of me. I didn't choose that. Nobody would.

I've come to believe that trying to choose belief against the evidence you've collected over the course of your life is dangerous to your mental health. Anyone who insists that you must do so, on pain of losing everything important to you in this life and the next, is abusing you.

Faith is something else entirely: an decision to trust in spite of being uncertain. That's a choice.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Belief and choice don't always work together. I cannot, by the force of my will and choice, believe that 2 + 2 = 7. Or that the earth is flat.

I agree.  There are some things that are beyond reasonable dispute.  There are some things that are irrational to accept, or not accept.

It is irrational to claim that 2+2≠4.

It is irrational to claim that Donald Trump is not the current president of the United States.

My point, though, is that there are some things that are within reasonable dispute.  You strike me as a fairly reasonable and informed and intelligent person.  You are also Catholic.  To me, your faith is well within the parameters of reasonableness, even though I myself do not fully share your faith.  I'm quite okay with that.  

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Or lots of things where my belief is not dictated by my choice. Belief is a web and you cannot simply pluck one belief out by choice. Often the beliefs around it have anchored it too strongly.

I'd like to understand this better.  Could you give me an example?

If reason and evidence lead me to reach a conclusion, I can "believe" something without unequivocally knowing it.  But I still think there is choice involved there.

Example: Were the moon landings real or a hoax?  For me, the evidence overwhelmingly weighs in favor of "real," so much so that I think this is beyond reasonable dispute.  But do I "know" the landings were real, do I or simply "believe" it?

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is true for my religious beliefs. I cannot right now simply choose to not believe Catholicism. I imagine the same is true for you and Mormonism.

Well, I have a hard time conceptualizing a situation where I would turn from my faith.  That is true.  But I've read dozens upon dozens of "why I left Mormonism" narratives which posit the very same assurance.  So it seems like people can and do "choose to not believe," since they transition from believing to not believing, while others do not transition.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Analytics said:

I don't think faith has much to do with it.

I have read many, many "Why I Left Mormonism" and "Why I Joined Mormonism" narratives.  The loss of faith, or the finding and fostering of faith, or the re-discovery of faith, are commonly-found components of such narratives.

14 hours ago, Analytics said:

Most people end up with a set of religious beliefs because of sociological and psychological forces.

I acknowledge that these forces have influence.  But so does faith.  I've met many people who bucked "sociological and psychological forces" to join (or leave) the LDS Church.

14 hours ago, Analytics said:

Your initial religious beliefs are based upon childhood impressions and what you are taught as a trusting child. They are then molded and shift depending upon who your friends are, the nature of your tribe, who your love interest is, and whatever psychological bagage you develop over the years.

For me, Mormonism is too immersive a lifestyle choice.  To be honest, but for the spiritual experiences in my life, I would probably not have stuck with it.  It's a lot of work.  It requires a lot of time, effort and means to be a faithful Latter-day Saint.  The social pressures for me to remain Mormon are simply not sufficient.  I do so by choice.

14 hours ago, Analytics said:

Psychologists are learning a ton about the human capacity to believe things that simply aren't true. 

But the truth claims of the LDS Church are not demonstrably untrue (or true).  They are open for reasonable debate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kevin Christensen]

So the same seeds fall on different soil, and receive different nurture, and lo, the harvest varies from nothing to a hundred fold, all from the same seeds.  Of the parable, Jesus said, "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?" 

The lesson is not "Everything is subjective" but rather, there is a broader set of variables to consider when evaluating why the harvest varies from person to person.  It's not just the seed, but also soil, reception, nurture, and time.  Even when we read the same books, we don't process them in the same ways.  And if we consider more variables, then clear patterns begin emerge from the chaos.

Jesus also says we ought to start with self-criticism, removing the beams from out own eyes, and "then shall ye see clearly."  Narratives can be grievance stories,  casting blame, or survival stories, about dealing with obstacles, which are very different things.  Grievance stories are self-centered, and outward directed.  Survival stories include self-criticism and empathy for self and others, and describe an ongoing process of creation from destruction.

What counts as a viable seed?   "Very small rocks?"   What counts as soil?  Very large, impenetrable rocks?   A spring flood?  An arctic ice flow?   A desert with no water?  A barren cave with no sun?  A bird feeder, inviting not growth but predators?

We all start with a world view from our individual upbringing and education, leading to a self-awareness of What we think.  If we are at all self critical, we ought to acknowledge that we don't know everything, so everything we think ought to be subject to ongoing review and revision, rather than defense at all costs.

We all deal with human desires.  What we want.  If we are all self critical, we ought to acknowledge that we all want things that may not be good for us in the long run, we want things that may cost far too much, cause to much conflict, or bring consequences that if we had a clearer vision, we would choose to forgo in favor of something better.

So in order to pass from what we think and what we want, to enter the Real, we all should be willing to offer up a sacrifice of a broken heart, a willingness to forgo our current desire, and the sacrifice of a contrite spirit, a willingness to let go what we currently think, in order to find what is Real.   These turn out to be the same temptations that the Buddha faced under the Bo tree, when tempted by Maya, God of Illusions, Fear, and Desire.    Joseph Campbell observed that ancient Temples had two guardians representing Fear and Desire, which patrons of the Temple had to pass in order to enter.  I studied over 70 arguments by Biblical peoples given towards rejecting true prophets, and they all fall into these two categories.  It's not what I want.   "There is a prophet, but I hate him, for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil."  "Have any of the rulers, or of the pharisees believed on him?"  "Surely, if he were the Son of God, he could have caused that this man would not have died."  "This is a hard saying.  Who can hear it?"  And the man went away sorrowful, for he had great wealth, or great lusts, or grievances, or simply had better things to do than associate with people who were not perfect enough, not hassle free enough, not enabling enough.

So proper expectations matter.  Which means, a willingness to test one's own expectations, which is why I keep having to quote D&C 1 on "mine authority, and the authority of my servants" which bluntly states that "inasmuch as they erred it shall be made manifest..." that they are capable of sin, and that revelation on all topics has not been given and is conditional on continued asking and seeking, and not already on the self, guaranteed and certified.   Picking fault with others is not necessarily a sign of superior intellect and higher understanding, and greater discernment.  It can simply be a means of self-justification, a Trump-like way to avoid self-criticism. 

Ian Barbour explains that “the possibility of assessing a religious paradigm must in practice be compared with the possibility of assessing alternative religious or naturalistic paradigms — regardless of what the possibility of assessment in science may be. The most one can expect of any set of beliefs is that it will make more sense of all of the available evidence than alternative beliefs. ... self-criticism of one’s own basic beliefs is only possible if there are criteria which are not totally paradigm dependent."

Those criteria turn up in Kuhn and Alma 32.

Discussing Derrida's work, Sarup observes:

 

Quote

One of the ruling illusions of Western metaphysics is that reason can somehow grasp the world without close attention to language and arrive at a pure, self-authenticating truth or method. Derrida’s work draws attention to the ways in which language deflects the philosopher’s project. He does this by focusing on metaphors and other figurative devices in the texts of philosophy…

His method consists of showing how the privileged term is held in place by the force of the dominant metaphor, and not, as it might seem, by any conclusive logic.

It turns out that one of the meanings of the word "parable" is "rule over."  So constantly telling a story about some one somewhere believes that Noah's Flood was universal as a paradigmatic example of how an entire religion is thereby fatally flawed and therefore Imperfect (not to be Feared) and Not Desirable does not give a picture of Reality, but does give a picture of how such people construct the Map they use to navigate reality.  But where do such inadequate maps actually lead?

I turned to studies of comparative religious experience to see if there might be something a bit more reliable for evaluating the seeds available for faith than the presence of some people interpreting one particular narrative, of which Nibley observed:

Quote

The stories of the garden of Eden and the Flood have always furnished unbelievers with their best ammunition against believers, because they are the easiest to visualize, popularize, and satirize of any Bible accounts. Everyone has seen a garden and been caught in a pouring rain. It requires no effort of imagination for a six-year-old to convert concise and straightforward Sunday-school recitals into the vivid images that will stay with him for the rest of his life. These stories retain the form of the nursery tales they assume in the imaginations of small children, to be defended by grownups who refuse to distinguish between childlike faith and thinking as a child when it is time to “put away childish things.” (1 Corinthians 13:11.) It is equally easy and deceptive to fall into adolescent disillusionment and with one’s emancipated teachers to smile tolerantly at the simple gullibility of bygone days, while passing stern moral judgment on the savage old God who damns Adam for eating the fruit he put in his way and, overreacting with impetuous violence, wipes out Noah’s neighbors simply for making fun of his boat-building on a fine summer’s day.

 

 

Rather than letting a selected set of interpretations that clearly do not represent "wisdom out of the best books", serve to "rule over" my world view, I have suggested looking elsewhere, to a more viable and productive and varied handful of seeds.

 

Quote

From responses to external impressions regarding:
(a) Order and creativity in the world
The common mythic symbols and patterns underlying most religious traditions
Key historical events that define separate traditions and bind individuals
(b) Through the innermost experiences of the individual:
Numinous awe and reverence

Mystical union
Moral obligation
Reorientation and Reconciliation with respect to personal sin, guilt, and weakness, the existence of evil, suffering, and death, and tensions between science and faith.
(c) Then returning to the external world as human action:
Personal dialogue where you begin interpret external events as God speaking to you, and you answer through your own actions.
Social and Ritual behavior

These matters cannot objectively prove the existence of a God (whether personal or impersonal), but, as I hope to demonstrate, they do constitute the core of religious experience for believers. They provide the ground of experience on which reasoned and feeling assessments of the validity and worth of faith are based. They encompass the ways in which spirituality is manifest in history and symbol. They are the wine — and doctrine the wine bottles.
To argue and contend about doctrine is to emphasize the wine skin over the wine. In Alma‘s terms, it is to emphasize what you think you know over
what ultimately gives "cause to believe (Alma 32:18).

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/model_of_experience.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Kevin Christensen
Format issue

[CA Steve]

15 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

That begs the question (hat tip: Scott Lloyd).  We still have to choose what weight we give to each piece of evidence.  That evidence is varied and includes both personal spiritual experience and scholarly research. 

Since the type and nature of the evidences are so varied, we are left comparing apples to crankshafts.  There's no way to weigh the various evidences without some predetermined ideology or worldview.  And that worldview is a reflection of our choices and the things we hope are true. 

In short, it's not a question of dispassionately weighing evidence to come to a rational conclusion.  We apply our values to our worldview, which then determines how we weigh each piece of evidence which then leads us to walk away or walk by faith.  

 I am not sure we disagree. I am fine with those who see evidence from different sources than I do. My objection was to fitting that what evidence we use to our beliefs, not the other way around.

 

By the way I think both "raise the question" or "begs the question" works here, depending on how you phrased your answer.

I could be question begging if I am assuming something about the evidence that is not necessarily true, or

you could be raising the question about how much weight we give the evidence.

 

 

[Reuben]

15 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

That begs the question (hat tip: Scott Lloyd).  We still have to choose what weight we give to each piece of evidence.  That evidence is varied and includes both personal spiritual experience and scholarly research. 

Since the type and nature of the evidences are so varied, we are left comparing apples to crankshafts.  There's no way to weigh the various evidences without some predetermined ideology or worldview.  And that worldview is a reflection of our choices and the things we hope are true. 

This is spot-on. There's really no such thing as objectivity in any colloquial sense. It's pretty much impossible to pull off even in limited domains. Knowing this should make us more compassionate and understanding.

Which is why I found this confusing:

15 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

In short, it's not a question of dispassionately weighing evidence to come to a rational conclusion.  We apply our values to our worldview, which then determines how we weigh each piece of evidence which then leads us to walk away or walk by faith.  

"Walk away or walk by faith" is a divisive and dismissive false dichotomy.

I walked away and I still walk by faith. My new faith suits me better, not in a way that allows me to give in to every desire, but in a way that allows me to grow. I assume your faith does the same for you.

The Brethren use exactly this false dichotomy all the time - for example, it's the central assumption in Elder Ballard's "To Whom Shall We Go?" - so believing members need to be extra careful to not follow suit.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Reuben said:

Thanks for this. I was about to make the same point.

From my perspective, I did everything Mormon to the best of my ability, and tried to believe as long as I could. I woke up after one awful night with the Mormonism torn out of me. I didn't choose that. Nobody would.

I've come to believe that trying to choose belief against the evidence you've collected over the course of your life is dangerous to your mental health.

I don't understand.  Are you saying faith is a choice ("trying to choose belief...") or not ("I woke up...with the Mormonism torn out of me...")?

30 minutes ago, Reuben said:

Anyone who insists that you must do so, on pain of losing everything important to you in this life and the next, is abusing you.

Who is doing this "insisting?"

30 minutes ago, Reuben said:

Faith is something else entirely: a decision to trust in spite of being uncertain. That's a choice.

I don't understand.  "Faith is something else" from what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Reuben said:

This is spot-on. There's really no such thing as objectivity in any colloquial sense.

Sure there is.  "2+2=4" is an objectively true statement.  "Donald Trump is the current president of the United States" is an objectively true statement.

8 minutes ago, Reuben said:

It's pretty much impossible to pull off even in limited domains.

I think it's possible to attain objectivity, or strive toward it.

Thanks,

-Smac