The unreasonable propositions in our lives

[dastardly stem]

Is it reasonable to have faith in Jesus Christ? What are the reasons? And do those reasons fall in the realm of rational?

Those talks by Bednar that were critiqued by RFM and BYP make me wonder if Bednar has an explanation that deems faith in Jesus Christ as reasonable. I'm skeptical that he'd have good reasons. But does anyone? It seems to me anytime we invoke faith as the reason we are simply tracing a circle in our reasoning. Can we really escape that circle for things that are claimed by faith?

[Res Ipsa]

Interesting topic, Stem.

I don't think Bednar was attempting to show that faith in Jesus is reasonable. It looked to me more like he was arguing that "reasonableness" is irrelevant when it comes to faith, which leaves room in the lives of students for both reason and faith. I've seen similar stances taken by former members who still believe in the supernatural. For example, If neither "side" can carry the burden of proof to show that belief in life after death is reasonable or unreasonable -- putting the burden of proof on which ever side is making a claim -- then there is nothing unreasonable about believing in life after death. That's not my personal stance, but I've run into it enough to be familiar with it.

I think that's why Bednar went with the somewhat clumsy formulation: it's unreasonable to say that faith in Jesus is unreasonable. And that's consistent with what the LDS apologists do. They aren't interested in using reason to arrive at a more probable than not explanation of evidence -- they are interested in preventing reason from slamming the door shut on their faith.

Given the audience for both devotional -- university students -- perhaps Bednar's purpose was to help keep the door of reason from slamming shut.

[malkie]

There's a requirement of "faith in Jesus Christ" in a common feature of Mormon missionary work, that selects for people who are already Christians:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

A non-Christian is unlikely to be able to fulfill the conditions of Moroni's promise.

[Rivendale]

Is it reasonable to have faith in Jesus Christ? What are the reasons? And do those reasons fall in the realm of rational?

Those talks by Bednar that were critiqued by RFM and BYP make me wonder if Bednar has an explanation that deems faith in Jesus Christ as reasonable. I'm skeptical that he'd have good reasons. But does anyone? It seems to me anytime we invoke faith as the reason we are simply tracing a circle in our reasoning. Can we really escape that circle for things that are claimed by faith?

This reminds me of former supreme court judge Antonin Scalia's reaction to a reporters question about belief in the Devil.

You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.

I was under the impression that faith and reason are diametrically opposite.

[huckelberry]

As best as I can see reasoning in a situation of ignorance is quite a bit less reliable than reason with knowledge.

[huckelberry]

I was under the impression that faith and reason are diametrically opposite.

I was under the impression that faith and reason were cooperating partners.

Rivendale , I think there is a variety of different things in the basket of stuff called faith. It is quite possible you and I I thinking of different varieties and you may be quite right about some.

[Res Ipsa]

As best as I can see reasoning in a situation of ignorance is quite a bit less reliable than reason with knowledge.

I think that gets at the important question for me: what stance should a reasonable person take in the absence of evidence or in the face of an untestable claim?

[Rivendale]

I was under the impression that faith and reason are diametrically opposite.

I was under the impression that faith and reason were cooperating partners.

Rivendale , I think there is a variety of different things in the basket of stuff called faith. It is quite possible you and I I thinking of different varieties and you may be quite right about some.

I prefer levels of confidence rather than faith. Is it reasonable to believe something when the threshold of confidence is low? I would say no. The problem is in the weighting of the evidence. Since everyone processes the world differently it is hard to have a concensus on what is considered valid evidence. However, there is an aggregate of information that can be said to form justified true belief. Is there evidence that there is a supernatural world? Does that evidence comport with our shared reality? Does the world and universe behave as if supernatural beings are interacting in any demonstrable way? Does pareidolia play a part in discrepancies between our shared reality?

[dastardly stem]

As best as I can see reasoning in a situation of ignorance is quite a bit less reliable than reason with knowledge.

I think that gets at the important question for me: what stance should a reasonable person take in the absence of evidence or in the face of an untestable claim?

I think "I don't know" is probably the most reasonable response or position to take.

I don't see it reasonable to believe something is true if there is not good reason to think it true.

[Res Ipsa]

I think that gets at the important question for me: what stance should a reasonable person take in the absence of evidence or in the face of an untestable claim?

I think "I don't know" is probably the most reasonable response or position to take.

I don't see it reasonable to believe something is true if there is not good reason to think it true.

I don't claim that my own stance is reasonable; I simply don't think it makes sense for me to assume the existence of entities without good reason. Otherwise, it all just looks like making things up.