How to Answer Questions about Church History

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Sure - who has?

But, would you believe a general authority if he told you that he had lied?

yeah, he knows better than I would his thoughts and actions

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you are right about Dr. Harper, that makes me feel better.  But I question why a more clear approach wouldn't be better.  This seems to suggest that the nuanced language is being used to hide the implications of this way of thinking from the orthodox member that couldn't handle it.  That seems disingenuous to me.  

When I listen to Steve Harper it is quite clear to me what he is saying and what is behind what he is saying,

He is a teacher of religion who studies history- his prime directive is to teach religion from a specific point of view

Point of view is everything.

He gets historicity and what it is and what it is not- but history is his passion.  It's quite clear- but he has no illusions about the "truth" of what he believes about history.

And "orthodox" is not a word I would use in this context.  I consider myself totally "orthodox".

Some people are educated in philosophy and others are not.  It's not about anything other than understanding the limits of scientific thinking and what it does and does not apply to.

From my perspective  those who think that science and objective evidence is everything are no different than a fundamentalist Christian who believes that a literal Bible is science.   Both positions accept a paradigm dogmatically and will not stray from it even when shown its weakness they persist in following their a priori assumptions toward Eternal Truth, in one case the Eternal Truth of Objective Evidence, in the other the Eternal Truth of God's Word.

The most extreme cases of "confirmation bias" I have seen are those who see "confirmation bias" everywhere and take it as ananthema and those who accept other views should be burned at the stake before the god of "Reason" which they cannot even see is a set of assumptions from which they are unable to deviate.  In other words parroting "confirmation bias" is itself a confirmation bias.   Yes we are all biased and objectivity is impossible.  Let's get beyond the myth, already. 

Today "reason" is synonymous with "objective evidence"

Either its a six day creation or nothing.

Either it's objective evidence or nothing.

Dogma.  Same thing. 

You can't just come out and tell these folks that philosophy has moved beyond that because they are not informed in other ways of thinking.

So to me Steve is being kind to Biblical fundamentalists and I am trying to be kind to those who are scientific fundamentalists.

I can relate.  

It is saying "No, sir you are blatantly wrong" in the kindest possible way.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

yeah, he knows better than I would his thoughts and actions

Check out Paul Dunn’s apology. He apologizes for lying to members about stories he told for years:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseretnews.com/article/190407/ELDER-DUNN-OFFERS-APOLOGY-FOR-ERRORS-ADMITS-CENSURE.amp

There are more instances you will find in the Quinn article I sent you earlier.

I hope this clarifies my claim that general authorities have lied in the past.

[carbon dioxide]

30 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Check out Paul Dunn’s apology. He apologizes for lying to members about stories he told for years:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseretnews.com/article/190407/ELDER-DUNN-OFFERS-APOLOGY-FOR-ERRORS-ADMITS-CENSURE.amp

There are more instances you will find in the Quinn article I sent you earlier.

I hope this clarifies my claim that general authorities have lied in the past.

."I confess that I have not always been accurate in my public talks and writings," Elder Dunn wrote. "Furthermore, I have indulged in other activities inconsistent with the high and sacred office which I have held. "For all of these I feel a deep sense of remorse, and ask forgiveness of any whom I may have offended."

General authorities are not perfect and some may have made mistakes.  I am sure you have done the same.

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

."I confess that I have not always been accurate in my public talks and writings," Elder Dunn wrote. "Furthermore, I have indulged in other activities inconsistent with the high and sacred office which I have held. "For all of these I feel a deep sense of remorse, and ask forgiveness of any whom I may have offended."

General authorities are not perfect and some may have made mistakes.  I am sure you have done the same.

Totally. I have sinned in FAR worse ways than Elder Dunn. Happy to accept them in all their mistakes, but I refuse to ignore their mistakes or pretend it doesn’t happen - especially when it comes to telling the truth.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It is not a question of what "really" happened to Jesus' body it is a question of the difference in your life that belief in the resurrection gives you when you put that faith into practice in your life

It is not deference to authority- it is you deciding that there are benefits in believing what cannot ever be proven either way.

It's committing your life to a cause to make the world better.

Suppose you decide that some secular cause gives you purpose in life and changes your life for the positive.

Maybe "save the whales" or cutting down your CO2 footprint.

Let's say the benefits of whatever it is cannot be proven proven by science in principle nor can it be disproven.

You dedicate your life to it and your life changes.  You understand a "bigger picture" of the world that gives you purpose in life where you had none before.

It's kind of like that, but in my opinion- a couple of more magnitudes of importance.

I’m not sure exactly how to put a belief in a literal resurrection into practice in my life?  How would a person do this exactly.  Sounds almost like the transhumanists.  It seems to me that there is no explicit practice of saying you believe in a literal resurrection.  All the practices of religion, rituals and ethics about how to live, don’t seem to have any direct connection to a literal resurrection belief.  

If there are benefits associated with this kind of belief, couldn’t we quantify what those benefits are to some extent?  

I don’t think dedicating your life to an unprovable proposition is a wise course of action.  I think dedicating your life to principles of goodness, whether those principles have a relationship to some esoteric underlying traditions or not, will yield the results that matter most.  

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, I don't disagree with anything you've said here.  So if God can be distilled down to a sense of wonder about the universe, then that is very compatible with my non-theistic view of God.  But all of this doesn't make any of the exaggerated myths of Mormonism or Christianity true in a material/tangible sense. 

Thank you for sharing your views. 

Clarifying my views: I do not in any way believe that God is just a distilled down sense of wonder.  Rather I believe that He is a real tangible being.  I do get a great sense of wonder marveling at the things He's done.  

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So I'm trying to steer clear from the Santa analogy since you don't like it.  But how would you describe what happens when primary aged kids are taught in very concrete terms that the BoM is a real history of ancient Americans, and that Joseph Smith received tangible golden plates from a flesh and blood resurrected angel Moroni who was one of these ancient American's who buried these plates in a hill in upstate NY.  You claim that the church is teaching truths that don't change.  In what sense are these simple primary stories actually true?  

I thought I did a decent job addressing this question with the creation example earlier.  Rather than repeat the same mistake twice, could you let me know what part of the creation example wasn't clear?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

How is a 'tangible visitation from Jesus' any different? Are you sincerely telling me that if you met some guy who claimed to be the resurrected Jesus, touching his body would be enough to convince you?

You mean like having an angel tell you about a buried ancient record in a nearby hill and then going to the hill and finding the buried record?

Cos that's exactly how this all works. Exactly.

Pick any artefact that exists in the present. Which would be a more fruitful course of inquiry: reading what people who didn't agree with each other wrote about it 100 years ago OR actually picking up the artefact and forming your own conclusions?

I’m speaking for me personally, a physical encounter where I could with some level of confidence determine I wasn’t asleep or unconscious, would have greater merit.  Of course there are many additional questions that would need to be asked before I would believe the person’s claims.  

And if I personally had an angel visit me and tell me the location of some buried treasures, and then I went an found those buried treasures in that location, yes that would make me personally have a stronger belief than just a visionary experience alone.  Still more questions would need to be asked of course. 

For your hypothetical about an ancient artifact, there would be advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.  The more information, the better.  The risks that as an uniformed person you draw the wrong conclusions about the artifact are high though, especially if you don’t have education and training with those specific kinds of artifacts.  

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m not sure exactly how to put a belief in a literal resurrection into practice in my life?  How would a person do this exactly.  Sounds almost like the transhumanists.  It seems to me that there is no explicit practice of saying you believe in a literal resurrection.  All the practices of religion, rituals and ethics about how to live, don’t seem to have any direct connection to a literal resurrection belief.  

If there are benefits associated with this kind of belief, couldn’t we quantify what those benefits are to some extent?  

I don’t think dedicating your life to an unprovable proposition is a wise course of action.  I think dedicating your life to principles of goodness, whether those principles have a relationship to some esoteric underlying traditions or not, will yield the results that matter most.  

Would your life change if you were CERTAIN that you would live again?

Let's leave the question of IF you could accept that alone now for a second.  At least that will tell you the benefits.

And then how do you define "goodness" in dedicating your life to a cause?

What defines "goodness"?  Can it be defined empirically?

Maybe we start there.

No empirical definition of "goodness" = accepting a definition "in your heart".   You know what it is when you see it- definition and empirical evidence not necessary

That would be step one.

Now suppose "God" is "goodness" since that is where both words came from. If you accept that the undefinable concept of "goodness" is valuable in your life, what is the difference between that and and accepting that "God" as an undefinable concept in your life?

Kind of like Santa Claus

If Santa Claus is the "spirit of giving" and you believe in the "spirit of giving" as a special feeling does that mean you believe in Santa Claus in a symbolic kind of way?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No it doesn't MAKE it historical- it is an option among paradigms some of which are more fulfilling to your life than others.

Accepting its historicity on FAITH despite uncertainty- might for example- make you more peaceful in interaction with relatives who are believers.  You may find "wisdom" which you might have rejected before because it was not "historical" that now you might accept because it "could be" historical.

(I actually don't care either way- I know that wisdom is not science but you perhaps have not yet seen that)

In that list I reviewed listing things like finding your wife and where to go to school, what decision could you have made which would have been "erroneous" and how would you define that criterion?

Would you have an "erroneous wife" or "erroneous" occupation?

How would that differ from your present wife or present occupation?

Does such a classification even make sense? 

Yes people change careers and get divorces but is the criteria for those changes truth or falsity or what works better for the individuals?

Objective evidence just does not exist in the most important decisions we make in life.

I pretty much agree with all this, especially your first statement that some paradigms are more fulfilling than others.  I think it all boils down to that.  The merit of the paradigm with which we approach life seems to be important.  

I also agree that not all of these classifications make sense or even translate well to discussions about love and relationships.  

I think we are in closer agreement, but we may place emphasis on different points that we feel are important.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

When I listen to Steve Harper it is quite clear to me what he is saying and what is behind what he is saying,

He is a teacher of religion who studies history- his prime directive is to teach religion from a specific point of view

Point of view is everything.

He gets historicity and what it is and what it is not- but history is his passion.  It's quite clear- but he has no illusions about the "truth" of what he believes about history.

And "orthodox" is not a word I would use in this context.  I consider myself totally "orthodox".

Some people are educated in philosophy and others are not.  It's not about anything other than understanding the limits of scientific thinking and what it does and does not apply to.

From my perspective  those who think that science and objective evidence is everything are no different than a fundamentalist Christian who believes that a literal Bible is science.   Both positions accept a paradigm dogmatically and will not stray from it even when shown its weakness they persist in following their a priori assumptions toward Eternal Truth, in one case the Eternal Truth of Objective Evidence, in the other the Eternal Truth of God's Word.

The most extreme cases of "confirmation bias" I have seen are those who see "confirmation bias" everywhere and take it as ananthema and those who accept other views should be burned at the stake before the god of "Reason" which they cannot even see is a set of assumptions from which they are unable to deviate.  In other words parroting "confirmation bias" is itself a confirmation bias.   Yes we are all biased and objectivity is impossible.  Let's get beyond the myth, already. 

Today "reason" is synonymous with "objective evidence"

Either its a six day creation or nothing.

Either it's objective evidence or nothing.

Dogma.  Same thing. 

You can't just come out and tell these folks that philosophy has moved beyond that because they are not informed in other ways of thinking.

So to me Steve is being kind to Biblical fundamentalists and I am trying to be kind to those who are scientific fundamentalists.

I can relate.  

It is saying "No, sir you are blatantly wrong" in the kindest possible way.

While I agree with you that dogmatists exist in both arenas (scientists and religionists), I don’t see the history of this kind of thinking to be equal on both sides.  There is clearly a much stronger tradition for appeals to authority and tradition in the religious arena.  The scientific method has mechanisms and incentives to help counter balance these natural human tendencies.  Religions don’t.  

As for Dr. Harper, I would be able to respect his approach much more if he made some kind of a statement like this.  “I have had a personal witness that the BoM is true and my faith is based on that testimony of the book.  However, when it comes to historical inquiry, I don’t let my faith in the religious truth of the BoM inform my scholarly research.  I keep the two things separate.”  

He wouldn’t even have to make any statement about the quality of the scholarly evidence for BoM historicity, which isn’t strong at all.  He could leave that whole can of worms for someone else to discuss.  That would be my preferred way of handling it, and I hear some scholars handle things this way in the Mormon Studies world.  Those are the kinds of scholars that I respect the most, and I trust their opinions the most because of how much more open and honest those kinds of statements are.  

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I pretty much agree with all this, especially your first statement that some paradigms are more fulfilling than others.  I think it all boils down to that.  The merit of the paradigm with which we approach life seems to be important.  

I also agree that not all of these classifications make sense or even translate well to discussions about love and relationships.  

I think we are in closer agreement, but we may place emphasis on different points that we feel are important.  

That pesky word "important" again!  Who knows for anyone else?

And what empirical evidence do we have for who is right?

Could that mean that we have to "follow our own testimonies" in determining that??   

 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

While I agree with you that dogmatists exist in both arenas (scientists and religionists), I don’t see the history of this kind of thinking to be equal on both sides.  There is clearly a much stronger tradition for appeals to authority and tradition in the religious arena.  The scientific method has mechanisms and incentives to help counter balance these natural human tendencies.  Religions don’t.  

As for Dr. Harper, I would be able to respect his approach much more if he made some kind of a statement like this.  “I have had a personal witness that the BoM is true and my faith is based on that testimony of the book.  However, when it comes to historical inquiry, I don’t let my faith in the religious truth of the BoM inform my scholarly research.  I keep the two things separate.”  

He wouldn’t even have to make any statement about the quality of the scholarly evidence for BoM historicity, which isn’t strong at all.  He could leave that whole can of worms for someone else to discuss.  That would be my preferred way of handling it, and I hear some scholars handle things this way in the Mormon Studies world.  Those are the kinds of scholars that I respect the most, and I trust their opinions the most because of how much more open and honest those kinds of statements are.  

Well I suggest you write him a letter and straighten him out!

Half seriously- if that would help you it might help others but I am sure he has his positions and what he says to whom well defined.

BYU signs his pay check you know.

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Thank you for sharing your views. 

Clarifying my views: I do not in any way believe that God is just a distilled down sense of wonder.  Rather I believe that He is a real tangible being.  I do get a great sense of wonder marveling at the things He's done.  

I thought I did a decent job addressing this question with the creation example earlier.  Rather than repeat the same mistake twice, could you let me know what part of the creation example wasn't clear?

Thanks for clarifying your position on God, which I respect and I’m assuming you’d admit that it is a position of faith, not supported scholarly evidence. 

I re-read your other post and I guess those examples make some sense, but it seems like you’re still making assumptions that you claim are true and wouldn’t change for different audiences as they get more sophisticated in their understanding.   You mentioned in the creation example that God created us and God loves us.  You also inferred that other elements of the story are symbolic, like being created out of dust, or I’m guessing you’d say the 6 literal days, or a rib taken from Adam’s side, or the dome above the sky and below the ground were also symbolic.  But did the writers of this story consider those same elements symbolic? What about early Christians or early Mormons, what did they consider symbolic vs. literal?   

My point is that depending on your time and culture, there are many various ways of interpreting what these stories mean and what’s symbolic and what’s literal. With respect to the BoM, you said that God helped Joseph to understand the language of ancient American people to translate the BoM.  I would say that’s symbolic, and what literally happened was Joseph creatively crafted a narrative that expressed his 19th century informed religious views.  Which position is true, using your criteria?  Is my interpretation compatible with your view that the things we teach kids in primary are truths that get built upon later in life as people grow?  

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Would your life change if you were CERTAIN that you would live again?

Let's leave the question of IF you could accept that alone now for a second.  At least that will tell you the benefits.

And then how do you define "goodness" in dedicating your life to a cause?

What defines "goodness"?  Can it be defined empirically?

Maybe we start there.

No empirical definition of "goodness" = accepting a definition "in your heart".   You know what it is when you see it- definition and empirical evidence not necessary

That would be step one.

Now suppose "God" is "goodness" since that is where both words came from. If you accept that the undefinable concept of "goodness" is valuable in your life, what is the difference between that and and accepting that "God" as an undefinable concept in your life?

Kind of like Santa Claus

If Santa Claus is the "spirit of giving" and you believe in the "spirit of giving" as a special feeling does that mean you believe in Santa Claus in a symbolic kind of way?

I could argue that a belief in an afterlife might make me a worse person in this life, rather than a better one.  The idea of retributive justice that cleans up messes made in this life and rights all wrongs is one example of a belief that I can see as having a negative benefit.  

I think goodness can be discussed and debated by societies.  It’s a cost benefit exercise of sorts.  Our intuitions often fail us when it comes to doing good.  Are you familiar with studies they’ve done on how people are more likely to help small numbers of people who are suffering than when people find out larger numbers of individuals are suffering their empathy and desire to help large numbers goes down.  

I’m fine with connecting God and goodness.  That still doesn’t tell us what we should do, there are plenty of people that associate God with judgment and vengeance, and that kind of concept for an authoritative God seems to have more negatives for society as a whole, even though those concepts do have some positives for group identity and conformance in tribes.  

Whether God as a symbol of goodness or Santa as a symbol of the spirit of giving, I have no problem with either of those metaphors.  The problems happen when literalists come in and associate other attributes and commandments to these symbols that have negative consequences.  

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That pesky word "important" again!  Who knows for anyone else?

And what empirical evidence do we have for who is right?

Could that mean that we have to "follow our own testimonies" in determining that??   

 

I think we’re expected to make judgments about these things in life.  Not all outcomes or paradigms are equal as you said earlier.  Just following our testimonies is not enough by itself.  Study, knowledge, critical thinking, emotion, use all the tools, make the best decision you can.  

Make mistakes, learn from those mistakes, try to do better.  

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I could argue that a belief in an afterlife might make me a worse person in this life, rather than a better one.  The idea of retributive justice that cleans up messes made in this life and rights all wrongs is one example of a belief that I can see as having a negative benefit.  

I think goodness can be discussed and debated by societies.  It’s a cost benefit exercise of sorts.  Our intuitions often fail us when it comes to doing good.  Are you familiar with studies they’ve done on how people are more likely to help small numbers of people who are suffering than when people find out larger numbers of individuals are suffering their empathy and desire to help large numbers goes down.  

I’m fine with connecting God and goodness.  That still doesn’t tell us what we should do, there are plenty of people that associate God with judgment and vengeance, and that kind of concept for an authoritative God seems to have more negatives for society as a whole, even though those concepts do have some positives for group identity and conformance in tribes.  

Whether God as a symbol of goodness or Santa as a symbol of the spirit of giving, I have no problem with either of those metaphors.  The problems happen when literalists come in and associate other attributes and commandments to these symbols that have negative consequences.  

Suppose you believed the LDS view that you would be eternally happy as long as you are doing your very best?

I am not sure why you associated it with punishment- I don't.

Even the telestial kingdom is said to be far above the joys of earth, we do not teach hellfire and brimstone

We are virtually universalists

I did not ask a question that could be answered about goodness being sociologically based....  

Edited July 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for clarifying your position on God, which I respect and I’m assuming you’d admit that it is a position of faith, not supported scholarly evidence.

As I said earlier, the scientific method is just one tool in the epistemological toolbox.  It does not have the capabilities to address the question of "whether or not there is a God".  For that question, and many others, we must utilize a different tool in the toolbox.

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I re-read your other post and I guess those examples make some sense, but it seems like you’re still making assumptions that you claim are true and wouldn’t change for different audiences as they get more sophisticated in their understanding.   You mentioned in the creation example that God created us and God loves us.  You also inferred that other elements of the story are symbolic, like being created out of dust, or I’m guessing you’d say the 6 literal days, or a rib taken from Adam’s side, or the dome above the sky and below the ground were also symbolic. 

My view: yes all of those things you list here (dust, days, rib, dome) are symbolic.  

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 But did the writers of this story consider those same elements symbolic? What about early Christians or early Mormons, what did they consider symbolic vs. literal?   

Frankly, that answer doesn't matter at all.  We all learn and grow in our faith and understanding of God.  And having a more sophisticated understanding (of lack thereof) of the mechanisms behind process doesn't relate to one's spiritual understanding at all.  

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My point is that depending on your time and culture, there are many various ways of interpreting what these stories mean and what’s symbolic and what’s literal. 

Sure.  We all learn and grow in our faith and understanding of God.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I think we’re expected to make judgments about these things in life.  Not all outcomes or paradigms are equal as you said earlier.  Just following our testimonies is not enough by itself.  Study, knowledge, critical thinking, emotion, use all the tools, make the best decision you can.  

Make mistakes, learn from those mistakes, try to do better.  

Yes ok

"We are expected..." ??

By whom/what??

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I suggest you write him a letter and straighten him out!

Half seriously- if that would help you it might help others but I am sure he has his positions and what he says to whom well defined.

BYU signs his pay check you know.

I like him just fine, he does a lot more good from what I can see than the negatives I pointed out.  I think he’s probably pushing boundaries a little already considering who pays him.  I get a little impatient because I’m hoping for more progress so that people like me aren’t ostracized as much from the group.   I have a long life to live yet.  

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Suppose you believed the LDS view that you would be eternally happy as long as you are doing your very best?

I am not sure why you associated it with punishment- I don't.

Even the telestial kingdom is said to be far above the joys of earth, we do not teach hellfire and brimstone

Well, its not just the judgment and punishment angle to a belief in the afterlife that I see as limiting.  It’s the idea that we should focus on the future so much that we miss what’s right in front of us.  On a personal note, I think losing my belief in the afterlife has made me a better Dad and better spouse.  I take every interaction with people more seriously than I did before.  At least that’s how I see it.  

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, its not just the judgment and punishment angle to a belief in the afterlife that I see as limiting.  It’s the idea that we should focus on the future so much that we miss what’s right in front of us.  On a personal note, I think losing my belief in the afterlife has made me a better Dad and better spouse.  I take every interaction with people more seriously than I did before.  At least that’s how I see it.  

It occurs to me that if there is no afterlife, we will all die believing we are right. Somehow that’s comforting. 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

As I said earlier, the scientific method is just one tool in the epistemological toolbox.  It does not have the capabilities to address the question of "whether or not there is a God".  For that question, and many others, we must utilize a different tool in the toolbox.

Are you implying that these different epistemological tools also have some basis in scientific evidence?  If so, can you elaborate?  

6 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Frankly, that answer doesn't matter at all.  We all learn and grow in our faith and understanding of God.  And having a more sophisticated understanding (of lack thereof) of the mechanisms behind process doesn't relate to one's spiritual understanding at all.  

Did you intentionally skip my question about the BoM evidence where I have a very different interpretation of what is symbolic than the traditional orthodox interpretation.  Is my view about 19th century origins not just a more sophisticated view of the truth about BoM origins?  

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes ok

"We are expected..." ??

By whom/what??

Where much is given, much is required.  I think this has to do with our awareness as conscious beings that can comprehend our own existence and our relationship to the existence of other living things.  I consider this kind of understanding to include a level of responsibility along with the awareness.  

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It occurs to me that if there is no afterlife, we will all die believing we are right. Somehow that’s comforting. 

Seems like a decent bet, but Pascal would disagree with us on that.  😀