DiscussMormonism.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzt88xt3i1g

The philosophical insights into atheism and faith are incredible in Martin Gardner's "The Why's of a Philosophical Scrivener," and have helped me see some astounding insights into faith. Come and see why.

Thank you. I will watch this over the weekend. I'm always interested in your journey.

Jersey Girl wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 24, 2022 3:07 am

Thank you. I will watch this over the weekend. I'm always interested in your journey.

Well thank you. I hope it will be informative, though I am sure it certainly is. Oh, I lost another pound too... but my legs are sore from riding the bike. Tough guy syndrome here I come...

One thing I agree with your video on is if you’re going to believe you have to accept there’s no good reason to believe except for you’re own desire to want more for yourself. “I believe because my heart wants more for myself”. If believers left it there any discussion on the matter would at least make sense and would be an honest one.

As it is this type of move works for any and all religion. This is the move behind Mormonism and it’s testimonies. Mormonism is not true for people, because it makes them happy, whatever that may mean. It’s not true because there is good reason to accept it. It’s true because people look to their hearts and see there a hope it is true, and as they contemplate that hope they feel good about it and they interpret that as god. There is no difference switching out Mormonism and god on this reasoning. If we think it good to allow this reasoning for god why stop there? The reading seems to leave it there due to special pleading and nothing more. The reading assumes it’s best to believe in god because we want it, but objects to religionists playing that game because religion is obviously lacking reason… as is belief in god, but we really want to believe in god. That turns silly really fast, if you ask me.

Mormons want it to be true. This is no difference for god generally, as discussed in your video, or a move to apply Pascal’s wager generally. it doesn’t make one happier to believe, it simply satisfies one’s internal hope that she has and gets more. Some interpret that as suggesting it really makes them happier. Whose not happier when they selfishly claim exaltation? They must wonder. I feel happier when I move away from such moves, it seems to me. And yet with this type of reasoning for god, a desire to believe is all we have. To some Mormonism isn’t true or isn’t from god because as we apply our reasoning to it it fails. But somehow applying reasoning to god and seeing the failure doesn’t matter. We ought to believe because doing so satisfies our selfish desire to have more or be seen as special. Hello? That’s the whole point behind Mormonism too.

Pascal’s wager, even the generalized rendition of it, is foolish not only because believing inauthentically or tricking god is silly but also because not believing should be considered the more honest or genuine move and that should never be seen as something that loses anything. Pretending that people ought to find god by exulting in our own hopes and desires as if our hopes and desires are god isn’t accomplishing much of anything, it seems to me. It’s not granting individuals more love, as the reading suggests, nor more joy. It’s simply giving them an outlet to embrace their hope that they have more. Too often it feels like their hope for more works best because it’s seen as they have more than others. It’s as if they are saying “as long as I have more than others, I’m happy”. To that I say no thanks.

Humble non-belief still feels like a much better approach.

In my hasty and over wrought reply, I forgot to include my appreciation for your video and your bringing up positions from Kierkegaard, Kant, and James.thanks. Well done.

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 24, 2022 1:31 pm

In my hasty and over wrought reply, I forgot to include my appreciation for your video and your bringing up positions from Kierkegaard, Kant, and James.thanks. Well done.

Well thank you, no worries! I am enjoying just sharing ideas and discussions.

I decided to move my previous post to a different thread

What insights into faith were new to you, Philo?

msnobody wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:20 pm

I decided to move my previous post to a different thread

What insights into faith were new to you, Philo?

None. I just enjoyed seeing such a stellar debunker of nonsense and pseudo-religion, pseudo-science, and pseudo-history maintain his faith all the while helping atheists with their own work.

The dogmatism of atheism can be an issue.. however.... I can't change my non belief until someone or some thing swoops in and gives me that information. I am open and willing but every single god presented has been inconsistent with justified true belief. Even a non god superior intelligence is lacking in this day and age. Until we gain more information I am comfortable with the naturalistic explanation. I wish people would get a little bit more comfortable with I don't know......

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 25, 2022 12:50 am

The dogmatism of atheism can be an issue.. however.... I can't change my non belief until someone or some thing swoops in and gives me that information. I am open and willing but every single god presented has been inconsistent with justified true belief. Even a non god superior intelligence is lacking in this day and age. Until we gain more information I am comfortable with the naturalistic explanation. I wish people would get a little bit more comfortable with I don't know......

Very down to earth rational and hard to argue with...