To Serve Man

[_Bret Ripley]

Why does god need a starship?

~James T Kirk

Zounds, man. ST V is the Trek canon's "Book of Abraham".

[_Kent]

EA, I don't think experiences of God's love are self-evident, of course, but those who do might defend that line. I've seen some smart people try. If we know the experience comes from God, then it's at least some evidence of his nature. I don't know if making an inference based on that defeats the unknown purposes response to the problem of evil, in that it's supposed to only explain the possibility of God being good.

But my own main argument is independent of that. It's almost always possible we're deceived, in principle, but that's no reason not to act on the best evidence we have. And given what we know about how emotions work, we should find it unlikely that a being with the ability to have any psychology would choose to have one that appears so unsatisfactory next to the alternatives. So there would have to be some further argument to establish that we shouldn't trust such a being, based on what we know. I suggest one possible line below, but I'm not sure how probable it is. And it would also have to overcome the practical advantages of faith over doubt in this scenario.

This is something Stephen Hawkins' concerns about advertising ourselves to aliens don't take into account, as far as I know. The technology to visit here from another part of the universe would surely be accompanied by the power to take your pick of psychologies. What would be the point of a malevolent one? Why would fellow beings even allow that, given the danger to them?

There are related arguments here about a possible natural origin for God, or a possible reason to think people could never become that powerful. Even if intelligent life started in puny conditions like ours, very powerful beings might eventually come about from it. What would they have to be like in order to avoid destroying themselves? There's a case to be made they'd have to have benevolent personalities, or someone would eventually kill everyone off by some single act (big bomb, self-replicating microbots or whatever). A counterargument would be that an effort to make people benevolent would make it all the easier for a malevolent member of the group to take advantage and dominate the rest. Which would be more stable, though, able to persist given the great destructive power involved? Can any degree of malevolence be consistent with power great enough to destroy the entire group in the long term, and can malevolence be entirely avoided? Etc.

[_Maksutov]

EA, I don't think experiences of God's love are self-evident, of course, but those who do might defend that line. I've seen some smart people try. If we know the experience comes from God, then it's at least some evidence of his nature. I don't know if making an inference based on that defeats the unknown purposes response to the problem of evil, in that it's supposed to only explain the possibility of God being good.

But my own main argument is independent of that. It's almost always possible we're deceived, in principle, but that's no reason not to act on the best evidence we have. And given what we know about how emotions work, we should find it unlikely that a being with the ability to have any psychology would choose to have one that appears so unsatisfactory next to the alternatives. So there would have to be some further argument to establish that we shouldn't trust such a being, based on what we know. I suggest one possible line below, but I'm not sure how probable it is. And it would also have to overcome the practical advantages of faith over doubt in this scenario.

This is something Stephen Hawkins' concerns about advertising ourselves to aliens don't take into account, as far as I know. The technology to visit here from another part of the universe would surely be accompanied by the power to take your pick of psychologies. What would be the point of a malevolent one? Why would fellow beings even allow that, given the danger to them?

There are related arguments here about a possible natural origin for God, or a possible reason to think people could never become that powerful. Even if intelligent life started in puny conditions like ours, very powerful beings might eventually come about from it. What would they have to be like in order to avoid destroying themselves? There's a case to be made they'd have to have benevolent personalities, or someone would eventually kill everyone off by some single act (big bomb, self-replicating microbots or whatever). A counterargument would be that an effort to make people benevolent would make it all the easier for a malevolent member of the group to take advantage and dominate the rest. Which would be more stable, though, able to persist given the great destructive power involved? Can any degree of malevolence be consistent with power great enough to destroy the entire group in the long term, and can malevolence be entirely avoided? Etc.

Regarding malevolence among aliens, I would offer Charles Pellegrino's and Douglas Adams' visions of dispassionate beings reaching practical conclusions which forego our species' existence. Malevolence not required, just a disregard for human life. Are we malevolent when we kill ants? We might be seen as an infestation.

[_Kent]

I don't think truly dispassionate beings would care to do anything, but would operate like machines. Hard to see the point of being like that.

[_Kent]

Meant to post this earlier. Honorentheos, the clues given in the temple are pretty sketchy. I think LDS are aware of the limits of their understanding of God. But they do trust God.

I've never encountered a view among LDS about the sacrament prayers that regards them as operating like incantations, though it wouldn't be inconsistent with ideas about passwords and such. It's probably primarily more of an authority thing. God said do it this way. Same with baptism, required to be exact in full immersion, even though the intent is understood to be symbolic.

[_honorentheos]

Meant to post this earlier. Honorentheos, the clues given in the temple are pretty sketchy. I think LDS are aware of the limits of their understanding of God. But they do trust God.

We'll have to disagree on that point, then, Kent. I've known too many Mormons who have transposed their image of an ideal Father over the concept of God to believe whatever lack of detail they admit to is relevant as a defense to the points made in this thread.

But we do agree that they feel they can trust God, and given that the OP is questioning how justifiable is this trust given the mind of the alien god shares no common biological brain structure with our own then we ought to be able to agree there is some point of concern here for believing LDS. If the worst EA argues for is healthy skepticism, it seems to choose an opposing position is a strange one for an atheist such as yourself. I get you want to defend your Mormon friends, but it wears like someone else's clothes on you. Clearly you've found it healthy to be skeptical of Mormonism's faith claims. Why not just own that and explore your own position as then you won't be making up guesses for what LDS may believe or may know about a subject?

I've never encountered a view among LDS about the sacrament prayers that regards them as operating like incantations, though it wouldn't be inconsistent with ideas about passwords and such. It's probably primarily more of an authority thing. God said do it this way. Same with baptism, required to be exact in full immersion, even though the intent is understood to be symbolic.

I actually don't have a clue what the rational is for this, and I'm not entirely sure why the thought came to me just recently to even think about it let alone question it. I don't think any Mormon you ask will know, though you will likely get some form of confabulated answer. I'm going to stick with the participation-myth-as-ritual explanation myself. Given the sacrament is a participation myth it only makes sense that the exactness of wording is intended to be part of the act and heighten the sense of transcendence required to experience the proper feeling of making a solemn promise to God.

[_honorentheos]

As an aside, Kent, about 15 years ago or so I read a book by Marc Galanter that included a discussion about the conversion paths into the Moonies.

One of those paths was outlined in the story of a young man who, rooming with a Moonie, initially found their ideas to be completely hooky. But, as his roommate came under fire from outsiders making fun of the "cultish" religion, his sense of loyalty to his roommate combined with many, many sessions of defending his roommates position eventually led him to join. In the interview, Galanter reported the man describing how arguing in defense of his roommate lead him to reason out plausible explanations for his roommate's beliefs that eventually came to make the roommate's beliefs seem right.

Choose your psychology well, friend.

[_Kent]

Honorentheos, in pointing out that most LDS don't think they understand the nature of God all that fully, I'm not offering a defense against what EA is talking about. I'm just saying they don't think they understand it very fully. I've given a separate response to EA's argument. I don't think it should be high on the list of causes for skepticism of LDS beliefs, but it's interesting in its own light.

I've believed for a long time that it's rational to be a believing Mormon (or Catholic, etc), in the sense that there's room for faith in it and that it's a good choice given people's goals in life. I'm not worried about such a belief drawing me back into Mormonism. Why would that prospect bother me, given my view of it? But I don't think that's going to happen either. My psychology has its limits.

[_Tobin]

I like this thread. At least Kent is rationally discussing the type of God I believe in and some of you are actually capable of responding coherently about it. Every time I bring these points up, the trolls just come out and start personally attacking me.

[_honorentheos]

Honorentheos, in pointing out that most LDS don't think they understand the nature of God all that fully, I'm not offering a defense against what EA is talking about.

That question about trust is more critical. Would you really argue there is room within most faith traditions for reserving faith in God's trustworthiness? It's one thing to say one doesn't understand God. Another entirely to suggest they aren't willing to fully trust.

We're not going to agree on the subject of how much Mormons believe they know about God, clearly. The supposed first act of the Mormon play was supposedly God the Father revealing himself to Joseph Smith along with Christ, putting Joseph's firsthand knowledge of God light years ahead of the religions of his day that believed in a Trinitarian Godhead. They pray to Him as if talking to a Father figure. They go to temples to enact a play that depicts God interacting with Adam in a way that is supposed to be a pattern for all.

When you say they don't think they understand the nature of God all that fully, you're glossing over a lot that they think they do know. And know better than anyone else.

I don't think it should be high on the list of causes for skepticism of LDS beliefs, but it's interesting in its own light.

On this we agree.

I've believed for a long time that it's rational to be a believing Mormon (or Catholic, etc), in the sense that there's room for faith in it and that it's a good choice given people's goals in life.

Maybe this deserves its own thread, but in what way do you see it being rational? Rational as in pragmatic? Rational as in there is justified reason to believe in Mormonism's truth claims and it's a good choice if it aligns with one's goals in life?