The Beginning of the End of Mormonism?

[Jersey Girl]

I think there's a disconnect here.

There is.

[Some Schmo]

I think there's a disconnect here.

There is.

If so, it's a semantic disconnect, like I mentioned before.

[Jersey Girl]

There is.

If so, it's a semantic disconnect, like I mentioned before.

I disagree. I think it's a conceptual disconnect. I'll try to engage that as the day goes on and I take little breaks from in real life.

[Jersey Girl]

When and how did you find out the truth?

Did you forget that you're not supposed to be talking to me?

Who said that? I sure didn't.

[Some Schmo]

I think there's a disconnect here. Jersey Girl asked about value other than comfort.

Now that I have some distance from this comment, I think I better understand what you were trying to say, RI. If we define "faith" as "a framework by which someone lives their life," its value is self-explanatory. Tools have value as well.

I'm starting to go down a rabbit hole here, though, because I'm thinking that assuming a framework that's not your own sounds comforting, or at least, pain avoiding. But is assuming a framework what you're really doing, or just contextualizing your own thoughts, feelings and actions within the parlance of that framework? That would mean you're only really using the framework to justify your own thoughts and feelings, which means... well, comfort.

And then I balk at all of that because, wtf? Everything we do is either avoiding pain or looking for pleasure. Why would assuming a faith be any different?

Here's the larger point, as far as I'm concerned. Faith can be useful. It has a value to people. No doubt about it. That doesn't give it one iota of credibility when it comes to claims about reality. It's value does not extend to understanding the mysteries of the universe. When people try to claim it does, that's when I think they're nuts.

[Some Schmo]

Did you forget that you're not supposed to be talking to me?

Who said that? I sure didn't.

I don't think ajax understands the difference between talking to someone and actually engaging someone. He only knows how to talk.

[Jersey Girl]

Who said that? I sure didn't.

I don't think ajax understands the difference between talking to someone and actually engaging someone. He only knows how to talk.

Thanks. It's good to know that someone (you) understood that previous post of mine. I didn't know if anyone even read it, including ajax.

[Res Ipsa]

Yeah, I know it's a controversial subject among us nonbelievers. I believe that most people see themselves as good people and aspire to be better people. I'll bet you are one of them. Is there anything or anyone that you think helps you be a good or become a better person? Or do you just tap some inner reservoir of innate goodness?

My family helps make me a better person, but only because I'm motivated to have solid relationships with my family, so ultimately, I'm making me a better person to the extent I can.

If I learn something new, it's because something in me wanted to learn that thing. If I practice something, it's because something in me wants to become more skilled.

Just think of the infinite number of lessons you could learn in a day just by living your life, the things you are exposed to each day. What do you actually learn from each day? Only the things to which a certain something inside of you told you to pay attention.

That's why a religion is just an intellectual buffet; people pick up what they want to put on their plate and leave the rest for others.

Let's just start with "my family helps make me a better person..." I think that's equivalent to "my family has value because it helps make me a better person." Some people have role models that inspire them to be better people. Some have books. Some have friends. Some have music. What I'm saying is that those things that inspire people to be good people or better people have value. And for many people, religion is one of those things.

Religion doesn't have to be the ultimate cause of goodness or a unique cause of goodness to have value. If I told you that a particular book had changed my life and helped me to become a better person, would your first impulse be to say "Nawww, it was all you. The book had nothing to do with it. It could have been anything. The book itself has no value?" I think that sometimes we nonbelievers judge the value of religion using a harsher standard than we apply to secular things that we ordinary recognize as having value. It's almost as if we're afraid that to acknowledge that religion has value is to somehow admit that there are Gods. But I see no connection between the two. I fully believe that religion has value in that it helps Jersey Girl be the best Jersey Girl she can even though I don't adopt her religion as "true."

Open any book and look at the acknowledgments. The author is listing people who had value to her in the creation of the book. People who inspired. People who encouraged. People who nagged. Did the author do the actual writing? Sure? Could someone else have been the source of inspiration? Sure?
Could someone else have been a cheerleader? Sure. And, of course, anyone can nag. Does that mean that the efforts of all those people had not value? Hell no. I don't think it makes sense to deny the reality of what happens by talking about what could hypothetically happen.

[Res Ipsa]

I think there's a disconnect here. Jersey Girl asked about value other than comfort.

Now that I have some distance from this comment, I think I better understand what you were trying to say, RI. If we define "faith" as "a framework by which someone lives their life," its value is self-explanatory. Tools have value as well.

I'm starting to go down a rabbit hole here, though, because I'm thinking that assuming a framework that's not your own sounds comforting, or at least, pain avoiding. But is assuming a framework what you're really doing, or just contextualizing your own thoughts, feelings and actions within the parlance of that framework? That would mean you're only really using the framework to justify your own thoughts and feelings, which means... well, comfort.

And then I balk at all of that because, wtf? Everything we do is either avoiding pain or looking for pleasure. Why would assuming a faith be any different?

Here's the larger point, as far as I'm concerned. Faith can be useful. It has a value to people. No doubt about it. That doesn't give it one iota of credibility when it comes to claims about reality. It's value does not extend to understanding the mysteries of the universe. When people try to claim it does, that's when I think they're nuts.

Okay, our thinking is closer together than my last response indicates. Although I would substitute "wrong" for "nuts" in your last sentence.

[Jersey Girl]

So while I'm feeding my face here (Minestrone!), I want to go back to the beginning of where I intersected the discussion and why. I was reading the comments late last night by Gunnar and Schmo. I don't know if either of you guys are aware of it or not but you tend to cast an LDS light over your thinking and comments, which is understandable because I would call that your "orientation". So I'm sitting here reading all that (and the gross infraction that Gunnar committed that I want to engage whenever we both show up for it) and asking myself if I want to challenge the comments or just ignore them. More often than not, I choose to ignore them. I didn't want to dive in with both feet (holiday plans backing up here) and so I posed questions trying to see if you guys understood that there are other ways of thinking about what faith means. So I did that much.

As I started reading some of the replies (which I wasn't sure I'd even get but I like that I did) I see that RI jumps on something. He sees something about what I stated and I don't know why he sees it, but he does. I don't know when RI disconnected from Mormonism or what his life experiences are regarding folks of differing religious perspectives or if he's just a careful reader. He saw what I was trying to draw out, I know that much.

Anyway, as I indicated earlier, I will be in and out of here. My "to do" list got derailed yesterday on account of errands/appointments and I need to get back on track so I'll reply when I take breaks from the mundane stuff I have to get done. It would be far too easy for me to ignore in real life and let myself get sucked into a discussion so I'm going to try for some self discipline.