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

[Ryan Dahle]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

After seeing how the true history wasn't as cut and dry or as heroic as portrayed, I tried to look at it as an outsider would and it just didn't add up.  The more I look at it the more it seems man-made, from any angle. Really, in the back of my mind I always questioned why God would need a blood sacrifice prior to being able to forgive. That power to forgive seems natural to us all.

Thanks for the response. Obviously, for the sake of space and probably time, you didn't want to rehash every issue that plays into your current faith status. And that's good, because I wasn't looking for a summary of the CES letter or whatever other compendium of arguments probably contribute to your current perspective. I guess I was more interested in why certain types of evidences are valued and others are discarded. 

For instance, you wrote:

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The more I look at it the more it seems man-made, from any angle.

I'm wondering why "angles" that intelligent and qualified scholars and thinkers in their respective fields feel supply good evidence for the Restoration don't seem (from your perspective and others who share it) to have any substantive countervailing force against the evidences which oppose the Restoration. In my experience, it is because people naturally gravitate toward certain categories of evidence or issues that are the most important to them, and most other "angles" of evidence sort of drift more or less unexplored in the background. This happens on both sides of the faith aisle.

For example, if someone has had what he or she interprets as repeated experiences with inspiration, revelation, or other spiritual phenomena, and if this hypothetical person strongly values these perceived spiritual experiences over other types of evidences--including the psychological arguments that could potentially call into question the legitimacy of those perceived experiences--then that person will probably not care very much about lines of evidence that could cast doubt on his or her faith. Likewise, if someone strongly values transparency and honesty, and they discover that the Church has not gone out of its way to publish controversial historical material that is potentially faith-deterring, then that person may not care very much what other angles or perspectives are out there. Sure, the exploration of issues continues, but it is an exploration that mostly revolves around the the issue(s) that are most disconcerting/faith-promoting to the individual--in other words, the issue(s) that he or she has subconsciously chosen to prioritize. 

Of course, there are individuals on both sides (and in the middle) of the faith spectrum who truly do have a wide-ranging grasp of many of the relevant lines of evidence. But even then, the decision to believe or not to believe is often a product of how we prioritize evidences. I think most of us haven't really thought through why we set up our belief structure in the way that we have. I'm still trying to sort out my own faith schema, and so hearing from other people helps me clarify my own system of belief. 

One thing I can say is that in my experience those who so often feel intellectually compelled to disbelieve aren't really that interested in many of the "angles" of evidence that I am interested in, and they often prioritize the larger categories of evidence in a way that is opposite, or at least different, to the way I have done it. So I think it really is about choice, but it is often about choices that most of us aren't fully aware that we are making. At least that seems to be one important layer in all of this. 

  

[Exiled]

19 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Thanks for the response. Obviously, for the sake of space and probably time, you didn't want to rehash every issue that plays into your current faith status. And that's good, because I wasn't looking for a summary of the CES letter or whatever other compendium of arguments probably contribute to your current perspective. I guess I was more interested in why certain types of evidences are valued and others are discarded. 

For instance, you wrote:

I'm wondering why "angles" that intelligent and qualified scholars and thinkers in their respective fields feel supply good evidence for the Restoration don't seem (from your perspective and others who share it) to have any substantive countervailing force against the evidences which oppose the Restoration. In my experience, it is because people naturally gravitate toward certain categories of evidence or issues that are the most important to them, and most other "angles" of evidence sort of drift more or less unexplored in the background. This happens on both sides of the faith aisle.

For example, if someone has had what he or she interprets as repeated experiences with inspiration, revelation, or other spiritual phenomena, and if this hypothetical person strongly values these perceived spiritual experiences over other types of evidences--including the psychological arguments that could potentially call into question the legitimacy of those perceived experiences--then that person will probably not care very much about lines of evidence that could cast doubt on his or her faith. Likewise, if someone strongly values transparency and honesty, and they discover that the Church has not gone out of its way to publish controversial historical material that is potentially faith-deterring, then that person may not care very much what other angles or perspectives are out there. Sure, the exploration of issues continues, but it is an exploration that mostly revolves around the the issue(s) that are most disconcerting/faith-promoting to the individual--in other words, the issue(s) that he or she has subconsciously chosen to prioritize. 

Of course, there are individuals on both sides (and in the middle) of the faith spectrum who truly do have a wide-ranging grasp of many of the relevant lines of evidence. But even then, the decision to believe or not to believe is often a product of how we prioritize evidences. I think most of us haven't really thought through why we set up our belief structure in the way that we have. I'm still trying to sort out my own faith schema, and so hearing from other people helps me clarify my own system of belief. 

One thing I can say is that in my experience those who so often feel intellectually compelled to disbelieve aren't really that interested in many of the "angles" of evidence that I am interested in, and they often prioritize the larger categories of evidence in a way that is opposite, or at least different, to the way I have done it. So I think it really is about choice, but it is often about choices that most of us aren't fully aware that we are making. At least that seems to be one important layer in all of this. 

  

My problem with the "choice" model is that it can be used to justify beliefs that shouldn't be justified. I don't think there is a volcano god acting up in HI right now although some native hawaiians choose to believe so. Some choose other religions and some choose to believe in a flat earth or in young earth creationism. It doesn't make it so just because someone chooses to believe in these things.

So, how do we come to the right answer? Well, I think we should use logic and reason, use the brains that god supposedly gave us. I think we should be weary of good intentioned yet delusional people, wherever they are. We also should be weary of those who make claims for fraudulent reasons. Having a choice model seems to increase the risk of being led down the wrong path. Sometimes there needs to be a break with tradition and sometimes tradition is where we should be.

I also, don't like the feeling model as well. It too is subject to abuse. It is subject to manipulation. I might feel something different than the group but then the group doesn't want their feelings invalidated so the group invalidates the different feeling. Then again feelings seem to be like a car accident where there are 10 witnesses and 10 different views. This is where a good accident reconstructionist is needed to show those feeling people what really happened and this is based on reason and logic. Whether or not I choose this conclusion or that has nothing to do with what really happened.

In the end, I just don't buy into religion being any different than anything else. As science finds answers to formerly religious questions, we shouldn't resist as maybe this is what "god" wanted all along - that we find him, if he is out there, through science and reason. He did supposedly give us brains to use.

[rodheadlee]

This thread reminds me of this song.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by rodheadlee

[Ryan Dahle]

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

My problem with the "choice" model is that it can be used to justify beliefs that shouldn't be justified. I don't think there is a volcano god acting up in HI right now although some native hawaiians choose to believe so. Some choose other religions and some choose to believe in a flat earth or in young earth creationism. It doesn't make it so just because someone chooses to believe in these things.

So, how do we come to the right answer? Well, I think we should use logic and reason, use the brains that god supposedly gave us. I think we should be weary of good intentioned yet delusional people, wherever they are. We also should be weary of those who make claims for fraudulent reasons. Having a choice model seems to increase the risk of being led down the wrong path. Sometimes there needs to be a break with tradition and sometimes tradition is where we should be.

I also, don't like the feeling model as well. It too is subject to abuse. It is subject to manipulation. I might feel something different than the group but then the group doesn't want their feelings invalidated so the group invalidates the different feeling. Then again feelings seem to be like a car accident where there are 10 witnesses and 10 different views. This is where a good accident reconstructionist is needed to show those feeling people what really happened and this is based on reason and logic. Whether or not I choose this conclusion or that has nothing to do with what really happened.

In the end, I just don't buy into religion being any different than anything else. As science finds answers to formerly religious questions, we shouldn't resist as maybe this is what "god" wanted all along - that we find him, if he is out there, through science and reason. He did supposedly give us brains to use.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[Exiled]

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I started out as an outsider and it very much did add up.  I've had sufficient intimate experience with the Spirit since then to have lost pretty much all my doubts about it being man-made.

And the blood sacrifice issue makes perfect sense, once you have an understanding of the nature of sin and law. And where God intends for us to end up.  We can each forgive all we want, but can forgiving erase the fact that you did wrong?  You can't change the past and what's done is done.  What intercedes to change this is the sacrifice of a being who had no sin.  It's rather mathematical.  

Well, in order for the system to work, one has to assume that erasing the past is necessary. Is it true that no unclean thing can enter god's kingdom? Why? Why can't he just forgive and let his children in? He can make up whatever conditions he wants but he always had the power to forgive on his terms. Of course, he could be subject to the above and christ could have been necessary. So, does that make god a gambler with our souls? If the atonement was a sure thing, then why do it in the first place? If it wasn't then god was gambling with our souls and unnecessarily so. He always had the power to forgive us and make whatever reward he gives on his own terms. He supposedly is powerful, right?

[mfbukowski]

On 5/22/2018 at 12:32 PM, Exiled said:

So, how do we come to the right answer? Well, I think we should use logic and reason, use the brains that god supposedly gave us. I think we should be weary of good intentioned yet delusional people, wherever they are. We also should be weary of those who make claims for fraudulent reasons. Having a choice model seems to increase the risk of being led down the wrong path. Sometimes there needs to be a break with tradition and sometimes tradition is where we should be.

I also, don't like the feeling model as well. It too is subject to abuse. It is subject to manipulation. I might feel something different than the group but then the group doesn't want their feelings invalidated so the group invalidates the different feeling. Then again feelings seem to be like a car accident where there are 10 witnesses and 10 different views. This is where a good accident reconstructionist is needed to show those feeling people what really happened and this is based on reason and logic. Whether or not I choose this conclusion or that has nothing to do with what really happened.

In the end, I just don't buy into religion being any different than anything else. As science finds answers to formerly religious questions, we shouldn't resist as maybe this is what "god" wanted all along - that we find him, if he is out there, through science and reason. He did supposedly give us brains to use.

I have added the  bold.

This seems very confused to me and illogical.

It is full of "shoulds" with no basis but feelings about why we "should not" use feelings. Every instance of "should" is based on a feeling, not logic.

And then you admit that choosing a conclusion has nothing to do with what really happened.

And yet God gave us "brains to use" and the implication is that feelings are not based on using our brain- and yet throughout the post you are using feelings.

Very confusing and full of contradictions in my opinion.

Choosing by feeling is not using the brain?  So what were you using here- feelings or the brain?

[Ahab]

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 12:35 PM, Exiled said:

How would you propose to answer the difficult questions?  For me, all the arrows point to non-belief.  So, where does one go to defend?  I can see why one would want to discount the questioner's queries by calling the questions dishonest as the last apologetic, in your words, seems to be doing.  There is nowhere else to go but to redefine reality to include mormonism's truth claims as being truthful and blaming the victim for not wanting to change perspective.  In my reality and many others' realities, mormonism isn't true and obviously so.  Therefore, just redefine reality to include nephites and book of abraham missing scrolls and inspiring Clarke to help out a tired prophet finish his "translation," etc.

if by redefining reality you mean replacing an erroneous view of reality with a correct view of reality then yes that is what is needed when someone doesn't grasp what reality really is.  The question of what is true can be answered by anybody, with most people thinking they have the right answers, but I think it's important to determine who we should go to for our answers.. whoever writes the best books and can determine the truth that is written in them.  Finding flaws can help too, though, I suppose, when you can correctly determine what the flaws truly are.  Whatever works to determine whatever reality really is, correctly.

[Ahab]

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 12:45 PM, Exiled said:

Well, in order for the system to work, one has to assume that erasing the past is necessary. Is it true that no unclean thing can enter god's kingdom? Why? Why can't he just forgive and let his children in? He can make up whatever conditions he wants but he always had the power to forgive on his terms. Of course, he could be subject to the above and christ could have been necessary. So, does that make god a gambler with our souls? If the atonement was a sure thing, then why do it in the first place? If it wasn't then god was gambling with our souls and unnecessarily so. He always had the power to forgive us and make whatever reward he gives on his own terms. He supposedly is powerful, right?

Assume?  No, but you could consider that as a possibility.  The why to your question is because God can't tolerate evil.  Do you know what evil really is?  A: the opposite of anything that is good, such as deliberately doing something that isn't good while knowing that it isn't good.  The A to your next question is that mercy can't/shouldn't rob justice, otherwise there wouldn't be any need for justice.  He told Adam and Eve not to do something and they did it anyway,, even after telling them what the consequences would be.  To overcome those consequences there needed to be some way to satisfy justice while allowing for mercy.  And no God was not gambling with our souls by providing a way for us to be saved.  The way is prepared and all you have to do is accept it.  Better to just believe that and do all the good that you can.