There must be grounds for doubt.

[_mentalgymnast]

Oddly, this very thing came up in chat the other day. To reiterate my points there:

1) The idea that beliefs are chosen (doxastic volunteerism) at all is quite questionable and a view I'd happily argue against.

But what if one doesn't believe, in the classical sense as, "either-or", but one proposes and then points to a system of belief as being reasonable, and even more reasonable, from one's perspective, than any other system of belief that one has had the option of making choices between? In my case, I move forward with a plausible belief based upon available information and experience. Faith in its simplicity. I don't believe, in a concrete, black and white fashion, as if there aren't any other alternatives available. I recognize that I could be wrong.

But I chose to exercise plausible belief, conditionally. I am willing to accept the propositions of Mormonism as providing a reasonable framework for moving forward in faith/hope. And I am choosing to do so.

2) Suppose beliefs are chosen. How does having information reduce the freedom of those choices? What's the relationship? If it is because information makes one option irresistibly compelling, doesn't that argue point #1?

More information may restrict the easy/simple choices. More information may result in readjusting/altering, if necessary, previous choices that were made with less information. But that's not to say that the same core belief choices aren't still available as one gains and assimilates new/more information.

3) Suppose #2 is resolved. Further suppose we have a state of affairs where the case for and against a complicated set of propositions like Mormonism is perfectly balanced. Isn't the rational thing to do then to withhold judgement rather than pick one? How can such a choice be called anything other than random? The moral case Terryl attempts to fashion out of air and twigs is a case nonetheless. Either the balance is gone and one side ought to be more compelling or it isn't.

In a sense, that's what we do if we are exercising faith. We don't know for sure so in a sense we are withholding final judgment until the facts are known...we die. But until then, to make a choice based upon available knowledge, experience, and intuition, I don't see as being completely random. Only in the sense that you're making one choice over many that are available. But making a educated choice among many alternatives is not random. Making an uneducated or uninformed choice is.

4) Why is it a desirable thing to lack information sufficient to reasonably inform a choice? If I am to buy a car, I don't turn down the opportunity to look under the hood to achieve the greater good of being more "free" in my choice. Why would I? Even if we accept that knowledge harms one's freedom, that doesn't explain why such freedom is an overriding good that justifies withholding information.

It may not be desirable. But in fact, we do lack information, so we have to go with what is available. You seem to be second guessing why God would withhold information or let information become distorted over time. I'm not sure that this is a reasonable place to build a fort. I am of the opinion that if there is a God, I'm not the one to tell Him how to run the show. He knows what he's doing and I can only figure out as much as I am capable of. Then I have to either choose skepticism or plausible belief.

5) It's awfully convenient that whatever amount of information Terryl thinks exists as a case for Mormonism is enough to not be "will-damaging" in a bad way, but anymore would be even though what people know varies through time and place. It reminds one of God just happening to explain whatever our current gaps in knowledge are.

I think that becomes a judgment call from person to person. Everyone has a different threshold.

Finally, it's worth noting that Mormon mythology is replete with countless examples of God both supplying fairly strong evidence of things to people and also fairly severely curtailing people's freedom of choice. Reconciling this fact with the above free will defense is a daunting project to say the least. Laughable, really.

But that supports Givens' point, doesn't it? Doesn't this "repleteness" create a sense of doubt for you?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I believe it was Buzz Lightyear who said "into infinity and beyond," not Joseph Smith. But thanks for identifying your personal opinions as exactly that--personal opinions.

You're right! And, you're welcome. We're all expressing our personal opinions, aren't we?

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

It is so rude of me to call a spade a spade.

Of course, you haven't a rational defense of this "unsure=free" notion.
I wonder, do you have a context outside of religion where you feel that knowledge would make you less free? Or is it just that sometimes you can't get the knowledge and so you reasonably try to get by without it?

I get the sense that he is still having problems with doubt and is still trying to hard to convince himself.

[_mentalgymnast]

Okay, so where exactly does he go anywhere other than "that route"?

He goes that route because it makes sense for him. He's not mandating that it be the same for others. He as a matter of fact says so a number of times during the interview, if I recall correctly.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I get the sense that he is still having problems with doubt and is still trying to hard to convince himself.

That's the thing, Themis, it is OK to live with a certain amount of doubt. Givens admitted to doing the same. That doesn't necessarily make for flawed faith, though. Faith is what one lives with as one also lives a certain degree of doubt or questioning.

You're making doubt into an unnecessary evil. Which it isn't. Givens is proposing that is is actually necessary, at least for some. It results in deeper or more meaningful faith. Or at least plausible faith and/or hope.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

He goes that route because it makes sense for him. He's not mandating that it be the same for others. He as a matter of fact says so a number of times during the interview, if I recall correctly.

If that’s true then it’s an encouraging development, because it means that Mormonism has outgrown its juvenile and hubristic “one true Church” mindset. Mormonism is, after all, just another provincial sect in a world awash in provincial sects.

[_Themis]

That's the thing, Themis, it is OK to live with a certain amount of doubt. Givens admitted to doing the same.

I have no problem with doubt. It's not that I have doubts about many things. It's just not much of a problem for me as it seems to be to you.

That doesn't necessarily make for flawed faith, though. Faith is what one lives with as one also lives a certain degree of doubt or questioning.

I wouldn't use flawed to describe faith.

You're making doubt into an unnecessary evil. Which it isn't.

Could you point to where I said that. I must have missed it. :)

Givens is proposing that is is actually necessary, at least for some. It results in deeper or more meaningful faith. Or at least plausible faith and/or hope.

I think his and your reasoning is very flawed, and the result of someone who is struggling to maintain belief in something part of them realizes is not true. I have no problem with people who believe in LDS claims any more then the claims of other religions. I would say more, but I see others have already, and much better then I.

[_mentalgymnast]

He goes that route because it makes sense for him. He's not mandating that it be the same for others. He as a matter of fact says so a number of times during the interview, if I recall correctly.

If that’s true then it’s an encouraging development, because it means that Mormonism has outgrown its juvenile and hubristic “one true Church” mindset. Mormon is, after all, just another provincial sect in a world awash in provincial sects.

No, one doesn't entail the other. And your conclusion is based upon a faulty assumption. The church is true. Givens wouldn't dispute that. Not that others don't also have some truth, however.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I have no problem with doubt. It's not that I have doubts about many things. It's just not much of a problem for me as it seems to be to you.

It's not that it is a problem, per se. It just is. Again, it's the natural state of things. It can actually be for our benefit/growth.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I think his and your reasoning is very flawed, and the result of someone who is struggling to maintain belief in something part of them realizes is not true.

In making that assumption I can safely say, at least for me, you're wrong. Now, at one time in my faith journey, you would have been right, because that's where I was at. But, such as it is, life moves along and growth occurs, perceptions change, faith promoting/building experiences happen, and as a result I've been able to reach a "livable" equilibrium between faith and questioning. Yes, I have more questions than answers when it comes to some things, but I have enough "anchors", intellectually and spiritually,to keep me in the faith...and practicing faith by attending and remaining active in the church.

Regards,
MG