Conversion Thread on MAD - Intellectual or Spiritual
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Conversion Thread on MAD - Intellectual or Spiritual
There's a current thread on MAD about converting and whether it is more successful through the spirit or through the intellect. It seems clear to me that a convert would need a spiritual confirmation. At least it appears that way to me, and isn't that how LDS go about converting?
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 30154&st=0
Anyway, from that thread I started thinking about all the people on this board (ex-Mos) that have told me I can just make a choice to believe in God. I've wondered about that sentiment a few times and found it lacking much thought or insight into how we go about making choices to believe in things.
Why do people believe you can just use your intellect to believe in something with no proof, and with no reason through sheer will power alone? Everytime someone has suggested this as being an option for me (to just choose) I've been surprised by the sentiment. Am I missing something here?
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 30154&st=0
Anyway, from that thread I started thinking about all the people on this board (ex-Mos) that have told me I can just make a choice to believe in God. I've wondered about that sentiment a few times and found it lacking much thought or insight into how we go about making choices to believe in things.
Why do people believe you can just use your intellect to believe in something with no proof, and with no reason through sheer will power alone? Everytime someone has suggested this as being an option for me (to just choose) I've been surprised by the sentiment. Am I missing something here?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5659
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

"I had only traveled a short time to testify to the people," said Brigham Young, "before I learned this one fact, that you might prove doctrine from the Bible till doomsday, and it would merely convince a people but would not convert them. You might read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and prove every iota that you advance, and that alone would have no converting influence upon the people. Nothing short of a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost would bring light and knowledge to them - bring them in their hearts to repentance. Nothing short of that would ever do."
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Re: Conversion Thread on MAD - Intellectual or Spiritual
barrelomonkeys wrote:
Why do people believe you can just use your intellect to believe in something with no proof, and with no reason through sheer will power alone? Everytime someone has suggested this as being an option for me (to just choose) I've been surprised by the sentiment. Am I missing something here?
Believing is something you adopt primarily through experience, not "empirical" knowledge. As Joseph Smith said, you can learn more by gazing five minutes into heaven, than by reading all the books ever written on the subject.
Even "rationalists" live by intuition more than they would like to believe. Have you ever heard of a rationalist approaching love through logic?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
I have never agreed that one can "choose to believe".
I suspect that people who so claim actually have come to the edge of loss of faith, and have pulled back from the edge by talking themselves back into believing.
I could no more "choose to believe" in Mormonism than I could "choose to believe" in Scientology.
It's impressed me, over the years discussing issues with internet apologists, that often their goal is to try and present enough evidence that they can say that the evidence for and against church claims are even. Hence, one gets to 'choose' which side to believe. To me, that is significant, in and of itself. If the church claims are true, why would there be just as much evidence against those claims as for those claims? (this says nothing of the fact that some of what apologists count as evidence towards the claims is extremely weak and strained)
It is LDS theology that one becomes a believer through the witness of the Holy Ghost.
I suspect that people who so claim actually have come to the edge of loss of faith, and have pulled back from the edge by talking themselves back into believing.
I could no more "choose to believe" in Mormonism than I could "choose to believe" in Scientology.
It's impressed me, over the years discussing issues with internet apologists, that often their goal is to try and present enough evidence that they can say that the evidence for and against church claims are even. Hence, one gets to 'choose' which side to believe. To me, that is significant, in and of itself. If the church claims are true, why would there be just as much evidence against those claims as for those claims? (this says nothing of the fact that some of what apologists count as evidence towards the claims is extremely weak and strained)
It is LDS theology that one becomes a believer through the witness of the Holy Ghost.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9947
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am
A conversion is anything that it needs to be, no one is going to be denied membership for an "intellectual" conversion. Just like Brigham's counsel that we pray to never see an angel, his advice here is to lower expectations, knowing full well no reasonable case for Mormonism nor evidence could ever be provided.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Re: Conversion Thread on MAD - Intellectual or Spiritual
Ray A wrote:barrelomonkeys wrote:
Why do people believe you can just use your intellect to believe in something with no proof, and with no reason through sheer will power alone? Everytime someone has suggested this as being an option for me (to just choose) I've been surprised by the sentiment. Am I missing something here?
Believing is something you adopt primarily through experience, not "empirical" knowledge. As Joseph Smith said, you can learn more by gazing five minutes into heaven, than by reading all the books ever written on the subject.
Even "rationalists" live by intuition more than they would like to believe. Have you ever heard of a rationalist approaching love through logic?
Ack! Well this was a nice swift kick in the tutee this afternoon. I think because I try (try being the key word here!) to approach things rationally (unless emotions -- as of late too often the norm -- over take rational thought) that this in effect makes it impossible to make a determination on the existence or nonexistence of God. I blame my limbic system with my going gaga and feeling passion and love. Unfortunately that can't be stopped. Or, perhaps, it is fortunate that I can't stop it?
Either way, I don't think I can just choose.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
beastie wrote:I have never agreed that one can "choose to believe".
I suspect that people who so claim actually have come to the edge of loss of faith, and have pulled back from the edge by talking themselves back into believing.
I could no more "choose to believe" in Mormonism than I could "choose to believe" in Scientology.
It's impressed me, over the years discussing issues with internet apologists, that often their goal is to try and present enough evidence that they can say that the evidence for and against church claims are even. Hence, one gets to 'choose' which side to believe. To me, that is significant, in and of itself. If the church claims are true, why would there be just as much evidence against those claims as for those claims? (this says nothing of the fact that some of what apologists count as evidence towards the claims is extremely weak and strained)
It is LDS theology that one becomes a believer through the witness of the Holy Ghost.
Hi Beastie, I think for most people to be converted into a belief that relies on feelings and sensing love (or whatever it is they sense) that it would not rely upon intellect. I agree with what you stated. Although the people that claim that I can just choose are some that left the Church some 20 years ago. So not really certain what they were advocating. Perhaps, they just thought I was a silly woman that chose every action by virtue of a 'feeling'.
Re: Conversion Thread on MAD - Intellectual or Spiritual
barrelomonkeys wrote:Ack! Well this was a nice swift kick in the tutee this afternoon. I think because I try (try being the key word here!) to approach things rationally (unless emotions -- as of late too often the norm -- over take rational thought) that this in effect makes it impossible to make a determination on the existence or nonexistence of God. I blame my limbic system with my going gaga and feeling passion and love. Unfortunately that can't be stopped. Or, perhaps, it is fortunate that I can't stop it?
Either way, I don't think I can just choose.
There has to be balance. But what I'm talking about are numinous experiences. These don't prove that God exists, and can be interpreted very differently. On the other hand there is a point, I think, where allowing passions to rule can be negative. I think passions and numinous experiences are different, at least that's the way I see it. Last night I was looking at some 46 year old pictures of me and my father, taken in London in 1961, feeding pigeons at Trafalga Square. It brought back a flood of memories about my father, and the experience could almost be described as "numinous". (Wiki: "In order to clarify the term in layman's language it may be viewed as "the intense feeling of unknowingly knowing that there is something which cannot be seen." And this knowing can "befall" or overcome a person at any time and in any place - in a cathedral; next to a silent stream; on a lonely road; early in the morning or in the face of a beautiful sunset.")
I don't think this is the same as passion - love or sexual. I think the numinous experiences have a longer lasting effect, and are different to "raw passion". In Climbing Mount Improbable Dawkins describes the numinous experiences he has had with nature and biology, where it brought him to tears, but he doesn't interpret that as God. I don't think he could choose those feelings any more than you or I can, but he can choose how he interprets it.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Re: Conversion Thread on MAD - Intellectual or Spiritual
Ray A wrote:barrelomonkeys wrote:Ack! Well this was a nice swift kick in the tutee this afternoon. I think because I try (try being the key word here!) to approach things rationally (unless emotions -- as of late too often the norm -- over take rational thought) that this in effect makes it impossible to make a determination on the existence or nonexistence of God. I blame my limbic system with my going gaga and feeling passion and love. Unfortunately that can't be stopped. Or, perhaps, it is fortunate that I can't stop it?
Either way, I don't think I can just choose.
There has to be balance. But what I'm talking about are numinous experiences. These don't prove that God exists, and can be interpreted very differently. On the other hand there is a point, I think, where allowing passions to rule can be negative. I think passions and numinous experiences are different, at least that's the way I see it. Last night I was looking at some 46 year old pictures of me and my father, taken in London in 1961, feeding pigeons at Trafalga Square. It brought back a flood of memories about my father, and the experience could almost be described as "numinous". (Wiki: "In order to clarify the term in layman's language it may be viewed as "the intense feeling of unknowingly knowing that there is something which cannot be seen." And this knowing can "befall" or overcome a person at any time and in any place - in a cathedral; next to a silent stream; on a lonely road; early in the morning or in the face of a beautiful sunset.")
I don't think this is the same as passion - love or sexual. I think the numinous experiences have a longer lasting effect, and are different to "raw passion". In Climbing Mount Improbable Dawkins describes the numinous experiences he has had with nature and biology, where it brought him to tears, but he doesn't interpret that as God. I don't think he could choose those feelings any more than you or I can, but he can choose how he interprets it.
Oh, I agree the feeling of eternal, or awe is something quite different, for me, than the rush of emotions. Yet, where does it originate? That would seem to me to be something I would have to understand. Do I equate the reverence of nature (that I am often overwhelmed by) to a deity or to brain chemistry? If I don't know where it originates how do I go about choosing? More so if I have evidence that the sublime of beauteous poetry, music, nature has this effect upon me and it is being traced to brain chemisty how do I go about rejecting that to make the choice to believe in a non-evidence based God?
How do I go about rejecting biological evidence to determine that God is responsible for my reactions to certain stimuli? I don't see that as an easy choice. Matter of fact I see that as rejection of all rational thought.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5659
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am