The role of justification in forming beliefs

[Benjamin Seeker]

In dealing with a difficult subject, many church members gradually overcome the issues they have with it, and through an intellectual and spiritual process they come to a belief that it was in line with the will of God. Common problematic issues in Mormonism include polygamy and the abuses therein, the priesthood ban, the church’s recent policy that excluded the children of same gender couples from full participation, and the absence of full female participation in church leadership. Having been told these are or were the will of God or that they were the result of revelation, many though not all come to a belief that they were God-given or at the very least, resolved by God. For some, this process comes easily and for others it’s an arduous long fought struggle. 
 

This thread is an invitation to debate the pros and cons of this way of thinkng and forming belief. 

[bluebell]

I'm heading out of town so won't be able to respond much if at all if people reply, but whenever this kind of stuff comes up the verse "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord" pops into my head.

It reminds me that if God is always and only ever doing things that I agree with or understand, then I've gone off the rails somewhere.  

That doesn't mean that I don't believe sometimes our leaders have gotten things wrong.  It just means that me not agreeing with something, or struggling to understand it, is not a reason to assume it's wrong.

Edited November 4, 2022 by bluebell

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I'm heading out of town so won't be able to respond much if at all if people reply, but whenever this kind of stuff comes up the verse "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord".

It reminds me that if God is always and only ever doing things that I agree with or understand, then I've gone off the rails somewhere.  

That doesn't mean that I don't believe sometimes our leaders have gotten things wrong.  It just means that me not agreeing with something, or struggling to understand it, is not a reason to assume that God sees things the same way.

This is a great example of the kind of reasoning and belief forming I’m talking about. Thanks for sharing.

[InCognitus]

29 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

In dealing with a difficult subject, many church members gradually overcome the issues they have with it, and through an intellectual and spiritual process they come to a belief that it was in line with the will of God. Common problematic issues in Mormonism include polygamy and the abuses therein, the priesthood ban, the church’s recent policy that excluded the children of same gender couples from full participation, and the absence of full female participation in church leadership. Having been told these are or were the will of God or that they were the result of revelation, many though not all come to a belief that they were God-given or at the very least, resolved by God. For some, this process comes easily and for others it’s an arduous long fought struggle. 
 

This thread is an invitation to debate the pros and cons of this way of thinkng and forming belief. 

Read the book of Job.  When Job asks why things don't always turn out the way we think they should, God's four chapter response to the question is basically, "It's complicated."

In the history of this planet from the time of its creation, the process seems to be that God does a few little tweaks here and there, and then he lets things run on their own for a while.  And people misuse all kinds of things that God has given us.  So it's really complicated.

[Benjamin Seeker]

12 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Read the book of Job.  When Job asks why things don't always turn out the way we think they should, God's four chapter response to the question is basically, "It's complicated."

In the history of this planet from the time of its creation, the process seems to be that God does a few little tweaks here and there, and then he lets things run on their own for a while.  And people misuse all kinds of things that God has given us.  So it's really complicated.

I didn’t really include this more nuanced reasoning in OP. Correct me if I’m wrong, but another end result of struggling with a difficult issue is, ‘It’s complicated. Let God sort it out because I don’t fully understand it.’

[mfbukowski]

In philosophy lately, like the last hundred years or so 🤔, "justification" has become a substitute word for "truth", since many believe that truth cannot be defined, since postmodernism has taken over.

The belief is that within a specific community of believers, could be physicist proponents of a paradigm,  or a religious sect, certain beliefs are intellectually justified according to established modes of thought within that community.

[OGHoosier]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

In dealing with a difficult subject, many church members gradually overcome the issues they have with it, and through an intellectual and spiritual process they come to a belief that it was in line with the will of God. Common problematic issues in Mormonism include polygamy and the abuses therein, the priesthood ban, the church’s recent policy that excluded the children of same gender couples from full participation, and the absence of full female participation in church leadership. Having been told these are or were the will of God or that they were the result of revelation, many though not all come to a belief that they were God-given or at the very least, resolved by God. For some, this process comes easily and for others it’s an arduous long fought struggle. 
 

This thread is an invitation to debate the pros and cons of this way of thinkng and forming belief. 

I don't want to steal @Kevin Christensen's thunder, but this just seems to me to be an example of puzzle-solving within paradigms. The paradigm in this case is revelatory guidance for the Church, albeit imperfectly, and the difficult subjects are anomalies which are resolved because they don't represent a big enough anomaly to overturn the paradigm. 

This "way" of thinking or forming belief is pretty much universal, it just looks different depending on the paradigm in question. 

In general I think epistemic humility where God is concerned is pretty vital.

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

In dealing with a difficult subject, many church members gradually overcome the issues they have with it, and through an intellectual and spiritual process they come to a belief that it was in line with the will of God.

The antecedent to "it" being the "difficult subject?"  As in "a belief that {the difficult subject} was in line with the will of God?"

If so, it would seem that this represents a fairly mixed bag, as I suspect an itemization of such "difficult subject{s}" would involve matters that were/are "in line with the will of God" and others that were/are not.

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Common problematic issues in Mormonism include polygamy and the abuses therein, the priesthood ban, the church’s recent policy that excluded the children of same gender couples from full participation, and the absence of full female participation in church leadership. Having been told these are or were the will of God or that they were the result of revelation, many though not all come to a belief that they were God-given or at the very least, resolved by God. For some, this process comes easily and for others it’s an arduous long fought struggle.

And others adopt some measure of ambivalence about such difficulties, aware of and content with the reality that we "see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12), that while we know that God "loveth his children," we nevertheless "do not know the meaning of all things" (1 Nephi 11:17), that God "has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; {and} that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend" (Mosiah 4:9), that those who "receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day" (D&C 50:24), but that until that "perfect day" comes, we "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7), trusting that "all flesh is in {His} hands," and that our effort should focus on "press{ing} forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endur{ing} to the end," as those who do "shall have eternal life" (2 Nephi 31:20).  

Some others may remain unconvinced that a given issue was "God-given," instead retaining a belief that it was not, but nevertheless remaining true to their covenants through reliance on the foregoing concepts.

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

This thread is an invitation to debate the pros and cons of this way of thinkng and forming belief. 

A few thoughts:

1. There is a risk of navel-gazing here, of dwelling more on abstractions and past wrongs rather than on "weightier matters" (Matt. 23:23).

2. There is also a risk of unrighteous - and unnecessary - judgment.  "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."  (Mormon 9:31.)  It is generally better, I think, to neither condemn those who have have erred nor ignore such matters, but rather to learn from them.

3. I acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree about these sorts of things, including whether they are dealkillers in terms of keeping covenants.  For myself, though, I think I will keep going.  Joseph Smith was neither the first nor the last prophet to fail to meet others' expectations.  Nor, for that matter, am I.  In the end, I don't rely on Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young, or Moses, or Abraham, or anyone else.  Just Jesus Christ.  To do otherwise would be to put my trust in the "put my trust in the arm of flesh" (2 Nephi 4:34).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2022 by smac97

[Benjamin Seeker]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The antecedent to "it" being the "difficult subject?"  As in "a belief that {the difficult subject} was in line with the will of God?"

If so, it would seem that this represents a fairly mixed bag, as I suspect an itemization of such "difficult subject{s}" would involve matters that were/are "in line with the will of God" and others that were/are not.

And others adopt some measure of ambivalence about such difficulties, aware of and content with the reality that we "see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12), that while we know that God "loveth his children," we nevertheless "do not know the meaning of all things" (1 Nephi 11:17), that God "has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; {and} that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend" (Mosiah 4:9), that those who "receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day" (D&C 50:24), but that until that "perfect day" comes, we "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7), trusting that "all flesh is in {His} hands," and that our effort should focus on "press{ing} forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endur{ing} to the end," as those who do "shall have eternal life" (2 Nephi 31:20).  

Some others may remain unconvinced that a given issue was "God-given," instead retaining a belief that it was not, but nevertheless remaining true to their covenants through reliance on the foregoing concepts.

A few thoughts:

1. There is a risk of navel-gazing here, of dwelling more on abstractions and past wrongs rather than on "weightier matters" (Matt. 23:23).

2. There is also a risk of unrighteous - and unnecessary - judgment.  "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."  (Mormon 9:31.)  It is generally better, I think, to neither condemn those who have have erred nor ignore such matters, but rather to learn from them.

3. I acknowledge that reasonable minds can disagree about these sorts of things, including whether they are dealkillers in terms of keeping covenants.  For myself, though, I think I will keep going.  Joseph Smith was neither the first nor the last prophet to fail to meet others' expectations.  Nor, for that matter, am I.  In the end, I don't rely on Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young, or Moses, or Abraham, or anyone else.  Just Jesus Christ.  To do otherwise would be to put my trust in the "put my trust in the arm of flesh" (2 Nephi 4:34).

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for adding some more nuance. 
 

As far as this discussion goes, I didn’t want to dwell on past wrongs, but see what the community’s thoughts were on this kind of thinking that most people have to deal with, the pitfalls and the positive outcomes. I’ll do a better of getting the conversation started shortly.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm flattered to be the reason why a thread was started!  Excuse me while I bask in [at least the temporary glow of] the fame.  

[Tacenda]

IMO:

Pro: when prophets talk of God.

Con: when prophets speak for God. 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Tacenda

[Benjamin Seeker]

8 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I don't want to steal @Kevin Christensen's thunder, but this just seems to me to be an example of puzzle-solving within paradigms. The paradigm in this case is revelatory guidance for the Church, albeit imperfectly, and the difficult subjects are anomalies which are resolved because they don't represent a big enough anomaly to overturn the paradigm. 

This "way" of thinking or forming belief is pretty much universal, it just looks different depending on the paradigm in question. 

In general I think epistemic humility where God is concerned is pretty vital.

This last statement is exactly what I want to examine. What’s good and what’s bad about epistemic humility?

The good from my point of view:

- A stable way of perceiving the physical and spiritual world.

- A unified group of people that can easily and quickly feel strong bonds with each other because of shared beliefs.

- Highly functional family living, again based on shared beliefs and expectations. 

- I’m sure there is more that I’m not thinking of.

The bad:

- A dependence on others for your sense of truth and some questions of morality.

- For some, shutting down their critical reasoning in certain situations where their reasoning conflicts with their beliefs.

[Edit: turns out this info on the study I had heard in a podcast was BS. Go figure. Feel free to ignore this next bit entirely.] On a related side note, if you recall that interesting study done maybe 6 or 7 years ago where MRIs were taken of church members when they were feeling the spirit, one of the findings of the study was that many of the participants’ prefrontal cortex shut down when they heard the voice of a general authority. That’s the part of the brain responsible for critical thinking.

- A resistance to change in the overall group, even when that change would improve the group.

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Benjamin Seeker
Correcting bad info

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

7 years ago where MRIs were taken of church members when they were feeling the spirit, one of the findings of the study was that many of the participants’ prefrontal cortex shut down when they heard the voice of a general authority.

Link please 

[OGHoosier]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

This last statement is exactly what I want to examine. What’s good and what’s bad about epistemic humility?

The good from my point of view:

- A stable way of perceiving the physical and spiritual world.

- A unified group of people that can easily and quickly feel strong bonds with each other because of shared beliefs.

- Highly functional family living, again based on shared beliefs and expectations. 

- I’m sure there is more that I’m not thinking of.

The bad:

- A dependence on others for your sense of truth and some questions of morality.

- For some, shutting down their critical reasoning in certain situations where their reasoning conflicts with their beliefs. On a related side note, if you recall that interesting study done maybe 6 or 7 years ago where MRIs were taken of church members when they were feeling the spirit, one of the findings of the study was that many of the participants’ prefrontal cortex shut down when they heard the voice of a general authority. That’s the part of the brain responsible for critical thinking.

- A resistance to change in the overall group, even when that change would improve the group.

 

I don't think I'm using "epistemic humility" in the same way you are. When I use the term "epistemic humility", it means being humble about the extent of our knowledge and what our reasoning powers can actually do. The way you use it, the term seems to correlate just with "church" or "church epistemology." 

 I will say, however, that my belief in epistemic humility does lead me to believe that two of your "bad" points are only bad in certain degrees. First, I don't think it is really even possible to have a sense of truth and morality without others, because other people are the way we calibrate our intuitions regarding both. I can imagine no state of mind more futile than that of a moral solipsist. I am not a believer in pure reason.

Second, I think the prefrontal cortex is generally responsible for executive function, of which critical thinking is only a part. I don't have the study in question at hand, but I would ask if such "shutdown" is really just common when interacting with authority figures. Also, I doubt the "shutdown" is really a shut-down at all, probably just a decrease in FMRI-visible activity, since the prefrontal cortex also handles language processing. Seems rather necessary when listening to a General Authority, no? 

But anyways, I think our rationality is somewhat overrated because it is dependent on a) the information we have and b) the ideas to which we have been exposed, both of which are intrinsic limiters. I am a traditionalist because I see a lot of society's traditions as means-tested social technologies which have withstood the test of time, and I see a lot of modernity's social innovations as short-sighted. We don't see a reason for a certain custom or taboo, so we do away with it, only to release the hydras which we could not see it holding back. Hacksawing off the branch we sit on. So, to be honest, to a certain degree I think two of your "bads" are actually "goods." 

[Kenngo1969]

25 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

... - For some, shutting down their critical reasoning in certain situations where their reasoning conflicts with their beliefs. On a related side note, if you recall that interesting study done maybe 6 or 7 years ago where MRIs were taken of church members when they were feeling the spirit, one of the findings of the study was that many of the participants’ prefrontal cortex shut down when they heard the voice of a general authority. That’s the part of the brain responsible for critical thinking. ...

      

Oh. 

Wait.   

You were serious, weren't you.

Sorry.

My bad.

Carry on!

[Calm]

I tracked down the study I believe Benjamin is talking about, but so far none of the texts say anything about the prefrontal cortex shutting down, unless I missed it (and I read several reports about it).  I am now very curious.  Hopefully he can add details.

https://healthcare.utah.edu/publicaffairs/news/2016/11/religious-brain.php

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27834117/

Starting at about 1 min, he talks about brain activity…he states they were consistently showing elevated activity across all tasks..

Which seems to be the opposite of what Benjamin claimed.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Calm

[Benjamin Seeker]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Link please 

Good call. I remember learning about this study on a podcast, and they specially said that the prefrontal cortex shutdown when the participants heard general authorities. HOWEVER, I just read the whole damn study, and not only does it not say that, it specifically says that the prefrontal cortex is involved with feeling the spirit. Sorry about that. I was passing along false info. Here’s the link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470919.2016.1257437

[Calm]

Do you know what podcast it was?  My guess is the ones who claim it shut down looked at images and interpreted them themselves…incorrectly, or maybe they confused the statistical reading with the teaching section (specifically their use  of CS Lewis’ quotations to allow for consistency of teaching iirc).  It might be useful to have this documented even though the false interpretation doesn’t seem to have been picked up much as far as I can tell (a brief look at google).

Edited November 5, 2022 by Calm

[Benjamin Seeker]

49 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I don't think I'm using "epistemic humility" in the same way you are. When I use the term "epistemic humility", it means being humble about the extent of our knowledge and what our reasoning powers can actually do. The way you use it, the term seems to correlate just with "church" or "church epistemology." 

 I will say, however, that my belief in epistemic humility does lead me to believe that two of your "bad" points are only bad in certain degrees. First, I don't think it is really even possible to have a sense of truth and morality without others, because other people are the way we calibrate our intuitions regarding both. I can imagine no state of mind more futile than that of a moral solipsist. I am not a believer in pure reason.

I should clarify that I’m specifically pointing out the danger of giving your moral authority over to someone else. Your gut feeling may be to say something is wrong, but you feel strong armed to ignore your judgement because of an authority’s position on it. I think that can enable abuse in some situations.

49 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Second, I think the prefrontal cortex is generally responsible for executive function, of which critical thinking is only a part. I don't have the study in question at hand, but I would ask if such "shutdown" is really just common when interacting with authority figures. Also, I doubt the "shutdown" is really a shut-down at all, probably just a decrease in FMRI-visible activity, since the prefrontal cortex also handles language processing. Seems rather necessary when listening to a General Authority, no? 
 

Turns out I was passing on bad info. Sorry! Also, just a little embarrassing.

49 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

But anyways, I think our rationality is somewhat overrated because it is dependent on a) the information we have and b) the ideas to which we have been exposed, both of which are intrinsic limiters. I am a traditionalist because I see a lot of society's traditions as means-tested social technologies which have withstood the test of time, and I see a lot of modernity's social innovations as short-sighted. We don't see a reason for a certain custom or taboo, so we do away with it, only to release the hydras which we could not see it holding back. Hacksawing off the branch we sit on. So, to be honest, to a certain degree I think two of your "bads" are actually "goods." 

Sure. I can see that situation, but the result can also be holding onto traditions that are harmful.

[OGHoosier]

13 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Your gut feeling may be to say something is wrong, but you feel strong armed to ignore your judgement because of an authority’s position on it. I think that can enable abuse in some situations.

It can. It can also encourage growth. I can recall times where I acted a certain way out of deference to authority and found myself grateful, for that authority knew better than I did. I'm not talking about knowing how to fix a bike, either; they're personal, but on several occasions I was saved from rashly hurting people because I trusted authority over my gut. I've grown somewhat since, but I was only able to do so because I hearkened. Heck, I was only able to realize that I was wrong because I listened beyond myself. The mind and heart, believing themselves to be righteous, can excuse many cruelties.

I like Aristotle's concept of the Golden Mean in morals. A virtue is the middle space between two vices, a vice of excess and a vice of deficiency. Courage is the middle space between rashness and cowardice. Kindness is the middle space between fawning and cruelty. Generosity is the middle space between gratuitous open-handedness and miserliness. When deciding how to act rightly, one must take into account where they are in that middle space. As a whole, I think our culture leans into our individual intuitions too much, so I lean the other direction. God gave us our individual minds with the intention to use them, but He did not make us omniscient, thus our wisdom cannot be absolute.

18 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Turns out I was passing on bad info. Sorry! Also, just a little embarrassing.

I've been found unwittingly guilty of the same. No worries. 

26 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Sure. I can see that situation, but the result can also be holding onto traditions that are harmful.

Yes. That said, in many cases, better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Our innovations should be measured, responding to necessity but cautious in so doing.  

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Read the book of Job.  When Job asks why things don't always turn out the way we think they should, God's four chapter response to the question is basically, "It's complicated."

In the history of this planet from the time of its creation, the process seems to be that God does a few little tweaks here and there, and then he lets things run on their own for a while.  And people misuse all kinds of things that God has given us.  So it's really complicated.

The problem there is that the Book of Job doesn’t make it complicated. God and Satan made the divine equivalent of a bar bet on what Job would do if he suffered. Job cries out to know and God says it is beyond your comprehension…..except it is not. The prologue gives a really simple and understandable explanation. Honestly God’s pronouncements in that book come across as more evasive than divine. “Oh, well, you wouldn’t understand. Woah, look at the time. I gotta get home. I have to swing by Kolob on the way. K, thx, bye!”

I like to believe that the prologue to Job was added later because the prologue doesn’t fit with the theme of the book at all.

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Good call. I remember learning about this study on a podcast, and they specially said that the prefrontal cortex shutdown when the participants heard general authorities. HOWEVER, I just read the whole damn study, and not only does it not say that, it specifically says that the prefrontal cortex is involved with feeling the spirit. Sorry about that. I was passing along false info. Here’s the link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470919.2016.1257437

Damn!  I hate it when the authority I point to says the exact opposite of the reason why I alluded to it!!!!   (And I really hate it when people quote me before I have a chance to eat my words!)  Ah, well.  Don't mind me.

Carry on!

Edited November 5, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

IMO:

Pro: when prophets talk of God.

Con: when prophets speak for God. 

IMO:

Then why have prophets?   (And speaking of prophets, they need to watch what they say when they're talking of God, too!  I'm not interested in hearing anything about a God they say I should worship, or a God who is omniscient, or omnipotent, or who actually has any rules I should follow!  No, no!  The only god I want is the one I have created in my image, for whom I have no awe or respect and whom I can think of, instead, as everyone's ever-loving, all-accepting, never-judgmental Pal!*)

*Hat tip to @Daniel Peterson for providing me with that apt description of the god in whom so many "enlightened" 21st-century moderns believe.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

IMO:

Then why have prophets?

I read her “con” as “when prophets [insert their own opinion] for God”

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

IMO:

Then why have prophets?   (And speaking of prophets, they need to watch what they say when they're talking of God, too!  I'm not interested in hearing anything about a God they say I should worship, or a God who is omniscient, or omnipotent, or who actually has any rules I should follow!  No, no!  The only god I want is the one I have created in my image, for whom I have no awe or respect and whom I can think of, instead, as everyone's ever-loving, all-accepting, never-judgmental Pal!*)

*Hat tip to @Daniel Peterson for providing me with that apt description of the god in whom so many "enlightened" 21st-century moderns believe.

I think our conception of God can’t help but show our own bias. Can there even be an objective conception of God? JS’ evolving conception of God is a great example. His revelations and translations always reflect his then current idea of God. You have similar problems in traditional Christian perceptions as well. 
 

You can hardly blame 21st moderns for a conception of God that reflects their values, and why is that conception any less valid than one from the 19th century or any other time period? There is zero reason to give preference to one or the other from what I can tell. There are definitely plenty of spiritual experiences to back up elements of this more modern view, specifically countless near death experiences with the common theme that no one religion is true.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Benjamin Seeker