Tarski wrote: The smart move for a Mormon is just to accept that the word faith is multivalent. There is faith and then there is faith.
I think that that's ultimately what the Mormon view has to be. There's a sense of faith for which truth is not a condition. It's the faith that Catholics have that their church's teachings are true, for example. Then there's also a sense of faith for which truth is a condition. It's the faith that Mormons have that their church's teachings are true. A Mormon's faith that their church's teachings are true is not the same kind of faith as the Catholic's, and the difference is that the object of the former type is true.
Tarski wrote:The smart move for a Mormon is just to accept that the word faith is multivalent. There is faith and then there is faith.
I find that is indeed the case, but not realized. Mormons try to distinguish faith from belief. However, we use the same word for both concepts in Dutch. I also see, and even use, faith to mean something more akin to belief at times, and something more akin to trust at others.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
brade wrote:...And If you pop over to MAD, where I've posted the same thread, you'll discover that my worry wasn't unfounded.
This is what stopped my “Faith of the Gaps” argument from coming about, Alma 32 and related passages can get so convoluted, with so many divergent paths, I didn't think it was worth my time.
So, my interest is in investigating (2) as a Mormon belief. But, to investigate it as a Mormon belief I need to ground it as a Mormon belief. And, to do that I need people to see and accept that (2) follows from (1). Of course, I assume that most Mormons accept that (1) is true. But, I have a worry that a lot of people will not see the inference from (1) to (2), and so I decided to start my discussion of (2) in this way to check who actually gets the inference and who does not, so I can gauge how much work I need to put into fleshing out the inference before even addressing (2) for it's own sake...
...And If you pop over to MAD, where I've posted the same thread, you'll discover that my worry wasn't unfounded.
Right. Which is why I declare both statements FALSE. (1) can't be TRUE while (2) is FALSE, which I think is what's happening over at MDD (I haven't checked this morning, but it was leaning that way last night). In fact, I can't see how (2) can ever be TRUE, but that's probably another story.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
brade wrote:...And If you pop over to MAD, where I've posted the same thread, you'll discover that my worry wasn't unfounded.
This is what stopped my “Faith of the Gaps” argument from coming about, Alma 32 and related passages can get so convoluted, with so many divergent paths, I didn't think it was worth my time.
Quitter.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
brade wrote:...And If you pop over to MAD, where I've posted the same thread, you'll discover that my worry wasn't unfounded.
This is what stopped my “Faith of the Gaps” argument from coming about, Alma 32 and related passages can get so convoluted, with so many divergent paths, I didn't think it was worth my time.
Let us join minds and boldly face the gordian knot which is Alma 32.
The discussion isn't going so well at MAD. Several folks don't seem to accept that (2) follows from (1). And at least one person seems to believe that (2) implies that I think there's a causal relation between somebody having faith that something is true and it being true.
MrStakhanovite, I'm beginning to reconsider and regret this little venture, but not anymore because I think Alma 32 is too difficult to untangle, but because I think that the audience to which this sort of investigation would be useful does not have a good enough grasp on elementary logic, how to infer conditions of a thing from a conditional about it, and things like when a conditional does or does not imply a causal relation. This little experiment is beginning to give me a giant headache because, for example, of how many times I have to correct people on the fact that 'If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true' does not mean that I'm saying that Bob's faith that P is true causes P to be true.
brade wrote:how many times I have to correct people on the fact that 'If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true' does not mean that I'm saying that Bob's faith that P is true causes P to be true.
Bob believes P. If P is true, then Bob's belief is faith. If P is false, then Bob's belief is faith.
Bob desires to have faith, but since he's a Mormon he's stuck with faith.
Bob is a sucker.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond