It's impossible to deeply live every alternative viewpoint on anything, or become experienced in every alternative method for dealing with anything. And yet, on most subjects, most people don't therefore decide that all viewpoints or methods are equally bad or good. Instead we form the best opinions we can, from whatever inconclusive evidence we may have.Gadianton wrote: ↑Sat Oct 25, 2025 1:03 pm... it's unrealistic to expect anybody to deeply live every faith or even a random sample of faiths, therefore you can't consistently expect anybody to investigate Mormonism at the expense of investigating anything else.
This is why people with a little bit of wisdom either shrug off religion as all the same and wrong, or embrace relativism and say all religion is basically good, and no faith is better than another.
The opinions we form from our insufficient evidence are usually not judgements of good versus bad, or true versus false. Usually the opinions we form from the insufficient evidence are just guesses about whether an option is worth investigating more thoroughly. And when we make these triage guesses about further investigation of a viewpoint or method, we don't only consider how likely the viewpoint is to be correct, or the method is to be effective. We also take into account how much effort the investigation will take, and how much difference the result is going to make for us.
If it seems as though an alternative is unlikely to be much better than our current default, and if thorough investigation will be difficult, then we usually decide not to bother. This isn't the same as being sure that our current default is the best, even though it may well lead to the same behaviour, of ignoring alternatives.
I think that kind of approach to deciding among alternative viewpoints and methods is not only common but wise. I think it's rational, in a game-theory sense, as a strategy for decision making when evidence is limited and expensive. And I don't see a priori why it is likely to lead to broad-brush agnosticism or relativism about religion, any more than it does about any other kinds of alternatives.
(It does presuppose a certain basic agnosticism, since it pretty much rules out from the start the possibility of achieving certain knowledge of the truth. I may well agree with Gadianton that this kind of agnosticism is both wise and widely applied by human beings in practice, whether they know it or not.)
This meta-approach could make it rational to stick with the Mormonism into which one was born. It would be a matter of deciding to stick with the devil one knows, because it's good enough that the effort of finding anything better is unlikely to make enough difference to be worthwhile. If you don't grow up Mormon, however, or if you did but do not really like it, then I think this progressive triage approach is likely to make you ditch Mormonism and never look back. You will not have to devote years to thoroughly living Mormonism before you reject it. It may be perfectly wise and legitimate to dismiss Mormonism completely at the first whiff of polygamy, or as soon as you find yourself counting the bogus archaisms in the Book of Mormon.
Arguing that you can't dismiss Mormonism without living it thoroughly first is absurd. Nobody can afford to make important decisions that way. Life's too short. The (meta-)alternative to "thoroughly live before deciding" does not just lead to non-committal relativism, either in religion or in anything else. You don't have to spend a whole month of breakfasts on every single cereal brand in order to determine your favourite. You also don't have to conclude that all cereals are equally bad, or equally good.
If those knock-off Corn Flakes were starchy and cardboard-y at the first spoonful, you don't ever have to have another bite. You can try different cereals and find some that you like. It may not be until your third or fourth box that you get around to reading the nutritional content information. If that spurs you to resume trying different cereals, that may also be wise.
