To Serve Man

[_honorentheos]

It can be treated as prudential or pragmatic.

God save us.

[_honorentheos]

Kent,

Out of curiosity, would you say the justification you apply above to religion generally holds for Mormonism specifically?

My opinion is that you lose something essential to Mormonism when you base it on pragmatism. There have been numerous discussions on the topic here in the past, as an occasional poster here championed this view of Mormonism.

ETA: I'll be the first to admit I don't know a lot about philosophy having only a couple of classes in college and dabbling here and there in personal reading. So, keep that in mind.

But the link here is something I had found a while back through some personal interest. When I read your previous post, it was what I thought might capture what seems more legitimately Mormon than pragmatism that includes a certain level of relativism I think is necessary for your statement. in my opinion, pragmatism is too relative in focusing on results over process to be a legitimate justification for religious belief, but even less so for Mormonism. Anyway, for consideration:

http://web.missouri.edu/~johnsonrn/deon.html

[_Kent]

Honorentheos, sorry that was ambiguous. I'm not using pragmatic in a technical sense. I just mean faith can be justified in part by its usefulness. That doesn't imply relativism, or that usefulness makes something true, as pragmatism might hold. What I'm talking about is having faith in something that you think might be true in the usual, objective sense, and choosing to have faith because of the value of faith in one's life.

Yes, I think that applies to Mormonism. You're right that grain of Mormon thought probably doesn't go so well with the philosophy of pragmatism in general, though I can see how some might read Alma 32 to fit with it. Deontology is associated with duty in a way that does go well, but it's about morality in particular, and this is more about belief, which falls under epistemology.

[Guest]

-

[_LittleNipper]

Thanks EA, that was a great episode. Stephen Hawking also says we should not try to contact alien life. So even if there is a God, here is a sober lesson to avoid prayer.

That brings up an interesting point wherein the LDS Church has the advantage. In the rest of Christianity and other religions, God is essentially an alien being. In LDS theology, God is a homo sapiens, one of us and one we can relate to and who can relate to us.

Perhaps then, it is Gadianton who is listening to an alien being:

"for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray."
2 Nephi 32:8

To the rest of Christianity God is the Creator of everything and the offspring of nothing. God is Supernatural as opposed to bound by nature established apart from Him.

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities,
Colossians 1-16

[_honorentheos]

Kent,

I've been thinking about this statement you made -

... faith can be justified in part by its usefulness.... What I'm talking about is having faith in something that you think might be true in the usual, objective sense, and choosing to have faith because of the value of faith in one's life.

- and I'm curious if you see it as cohesive, or just an intuitive statement about plausibly accepting faith?

Can a person really have justified faith in something they think might be true in some objective sense, if they are only choosing to maintain that faith based on its usefulness rather than on the hope in the thing they might think is real?

It seems a more cohesive way to frame this would be to say the person who has faith in these hoped for objective truths feels justified in their faith by the evidences of the usefulness of that faith. It's a small distinction, but it seems significant in what it says about the person and their beliefs.

I'm also not sure where we cross over from epistemology to ontology given we seem to be talking less about how to determine truth and more about how one chooses the truths to live by. But if you say it is so, so be it.

[_Themis]

What if an alien race found they shared more similarities with another species on earth?

Like Ants.

[_Kent]

Can a person really have justified faith in something they think might be true in some objective sense, if they are only choosing to maintain that faith based on its usefulness rather than on the hope in the thing they might think is real?

I'd say "and" instead of the "rather than" part. What I have in mind in particular is a case where the evidence isn't considered good enough grounds for belief by itself, but doesn't rule out hope. In that case, the value of faith in one's life and of hope for the future can be decisive for whether one has faith.

It seems a more cohesive way to frame this would be to say the person who has faith in these hoped for objective truths feels justified in their faith by the evidences of the usefulness of that faith. It's a small distinction, but it seems significant in what it says about the person and their beliefs.

That's good too.

Analyzing the general conditions or rationality of belief, of which faith is generally one kind, fall under epistemology. Analyzing what people believe in, God, etc, may cross over into ontology.

[_Bazooka]

Can't see how that's called for.

I concur with you that calling you a troll was unnecessary and not valid.

Also, Jesse Pinkman, whoever you are.... , you totally misunderstand what my *crickets* referred to......Dudette.....

[Guest]

-