lostsheep wrote:I'm ok in principle with the idea of us making choices based on limited knowledge and in the presence of uncertainity. That's describes a whole lot of the choices we actually make. The question with regards to Mormonism, Scientology, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or what have you is how reasonable these worldviews are. Does the weight of the evidence support their claims or undermine them? For me personally, I came to the conclusion that the Mormon faith is very implausible. For me its not a matter of some kind of balance between doubt and belief in which I freely choose Mormonism. It seems to me that the vast majority of the evidence points to Mormonism not being what it claims to be. Given that, it would be irrational to choose to continue to believe in the LDS faith. I might as well become a Jehovah Witness or or Scientologist, they all seem equaly compelling.
So I think Givens argument is basically a diversion from the real question which is: given what we know about the world, how plausible is the Mormon faith? Is it more plausible than other belief systems or less plausible?
That becomes an individual decision that one has to make. My concern, however, is that there are many who may make the choice prematurely.
Gadianton wrote:You consider the worldview you believe critics have adopted, and conclude that it is most likely wrong because it overstates the role of reason.
Not by a long shot. I don't exclude the importance of reason... at all. But I don't exclude well reasoned faith also. You have.
Gadianton wrote:Let me guess, since you read Givens's little apologetic, you're more secure in your beliefs, right?
He has traveled a path that in some ways parallels my own. When you can see that others have traveled or are traveling similar paths living a life of reasoned faith and also living with a certain amount of ambiguity, it does act as a support, yes.
The same could be said for you, I suppose. You are secure in your non-belief because of the apologetics of those that have chosen died-in-the-wool skepticism and/or secular materialism as their guiding light. You haven't developed your world view independently without any influence from others have you?
So I think Givens argument is basically a diversion from the real question which is: given what we know about the world, how plausible is the Mormon faith? Is it more plausible than other belief systems or less plausible?
All supernatural belief systems are equally implausible, in my opinion. To say that one, like Mormonism, is true while the others are false seems a bit silly.
Mental Gymnast:
You are secure in your non-belief because of the apologetics of those that have chosen died-in-the-wool skepticism and/or secular materialism as their guiding light.
Skeptical apologetics? Like as in “True Lies”?
Since you seem so certain about this, perhaps you'll tell us which specific skeptical apologist serves as Gadianton's guiding light.
So I think Givens argument is basically a diversion from the real question which is: given what we know about the world, how plausible is the Mormon faith? Is it more plausible than other belief systems or less plausible?
All supernatural belief systems are equally implausible, in my opinion. To say that one, like Mormonism, is true while the others are false seems a bit silly.
Belief systems don't have to be supernatural in nature. We all have beliefs, some of those beliefs may be more justified than others. My point was that relative plausibility should be the key consideration, not that we must make decisions in the face of uncertainty.