Why LDS do not change their minds with new evidence

[_mentalgymnast]

Pascal's Wager isn't logically compelling, but it's not just a bluff. It makes a serious point. When we choose the assumptions on which we will base the rest of our life's decisions, there are risks but there are also rewards, and so intelligent play is not necessarily to believe only that which is most likely to be true. Sometimes long shots are worth playing.

And often they're not. Pascal's further claim, that theism should be played even at infinitesimal odds because it offers infinite payoff, is debatable to say the least. His more basic point, about including rewards as well as risks in the analysis, is really wise, though. We're not judges of the universe. All we really have to bet is the way we choose to live our lives. We should bet as shrewdly as we can.

Here's the thing though, Physics Guy. Yes, using logic we might say the the possibilities for a "god" are many and we might ask ourselves the question of how do we narrow it down to the 'right one'. For me, however, it's sorta just common sense. If we are God's creations, might we not expect that we are created in His image? That whittles down the possibilities to a very narrow list of choices. At least the way that I see it. I'm not convinced that choosing the God in whose image we are created, i.e.,the Judeo-Christian God and also Mormonism's God is a 'bad' choice at all.

by the way, what are your thoughts in regards to John Polkinghorne and his work? Ever since I listened to him here:

http://www.onbeing.org/programs/john-po ... -creation/

I've always thought he was kind of a 'cool cat'.

Thanks for your input on this thread. Interesting stuff.

Regards,
MG

[_Xenophon]

Here's the thing though, Physics Guy. Yes, using logic we might say the the possibilities for a "god" are many and we might ask ourselves the question of how do we narrow it down to the 'right one'. For me, however, it's sorta just common sense. If we are God's creations, might we not expect that we are created in His image? That whittles down the possibilities to a very narrow list of choices. At least the way that I see it. I'm not convinced that choosing the God in whose image we are created, i.e.,the Judeo-Christian God and also Mormonism's God is a 'bad' choice at all.

by the way, what are your thoughts in regards to John Polkinghorne and his work? Ever since I listened to him here:

http://www.onbeing.org/programs/john-po ... -creation/

I've always thought he was kind of a 'cool cat'.

Thanks for your input on this thread. Interesting stuff.

Regards,
MG

Bolding mine.

MG, you make a pretty huge assumption with that line, although I don't necessarily disagree with the idea. In theorizing that there is something out there that exists outside the laws of the universe capable of anything it is illogical to apply any thoughts on how you "would do it". As much as I hate to admit it, the notion that we are created in God's own image is 100% faith based. There is absolutely zero evidence and logic that can lead you to that.

[_Physics Guy]

Up to a point I like Polkinghorne, but past that point he baffles me, by accepting traditional Christian doctrines with fewer qualms than I can understand someone like him having. I read his book on the Apostles' Creed and felt that he was doing a reasonable job of taking the issues seriously, until I got to the "born of the virgin" line. Polkinghorne somehow justified this as perfectly plausible within just a few sentences, which seemed ridiculous to me.

The Virgin Birth is actually one of the less physically impossible miracles, although parthenogenesis of a primate would be unprecedented, but the New Testament's violently conflicting accounts of Jesus's early life are weak textual evidence. It's hard to understand why God would even want to be born of a virgin. It's a worse than pointless miracle that undercuts the whole idea of Incarnation.

Nonetheless it gave Polkinghorne no trouble, and this changed my perspective on the rest of his book, as well. It made me feel that he had really just decided to believe the whole orthodox party line, come what might, and all his appearance of sober scientific thinking was pure charade.

If only he had said frankly in his Virgin Birth chapter, "All right, this one I do not quite get. The scientist in me takes the theologian out of the room for a man-to-man talk and when we come back in I just have to sit down. I'm very sorry. Next chapter." I'd have stood up and cheered, and really liked his book, even if all he actually said about this doctrine was that he didn't understand it, and even if all his other points were painfully orthodox.

But okay, I guess I'm really just saying that I'd rather his book had been more like the book I would have written.

[_Themis]

You're right in pointing out that I haven't explored all the 'in's and out's" of Pascal's Wager. There are decision matrices and philosophical offshoots and/or branches that a person with great intellect can wander down. You probably have. For me it's a bit more simple when all is said and done.

Again, I realize...look at the wiki article for starters...that the 'wager' can be a bit more complex than my simple application. It's a matter of 'choosing' God...or not. For me, I go with the traditional God that has been around for centuries and we have record that we are created in His image. The Judeo-Christian God. It fits in rather nicely with the 'restoration story' and 'dispensations'. The doctrines of Christianity and the restoration, on the whole, make sense to me. Yes, there are things here and there that are the 'hard' doctrines and are difficult to wrap my mind around...but I like the whole concept of atonement in the sense that over the long haul...eternity...everything will be made right and progression and happiness are available for all and we will live as corporal/independent beings that will take the knowledge learned here and make application of that knowledge/experience and continue to progress in the afterlife. Yes, there are conundrums. Yes, there are things that are like, "How in the heck is that going to pan out?"

You didn't use pascal's wager at all. Pascal's wager eliminates Mormonism completely since you cannot say it's rewards are better then other religions, Christian or not, and Mormonism has more reward then punishment for almost everyone. They don't even have a position about whether almost everyone can eventually get the highest reward. It's makes sense to you because you are very biased to see it that way. You choose, logically I might add, to believe in the Mormon God because it would make you the happiest IN THIS LIFE. I suspect there are a good number of people sitting in the pews each week at church who don't really believe, but pretend to, so they can live a happy life within their tribe. Many like you may just choose to believe to have less conflict in their mind that may lessen their overall happiness in life. It's not a choice for truth, but what you think will make you the happiest, and that is a logical choice.

But I realize that it's to each his/her own. We should each be free to choose what to believe or not believe. It is interesting, however, that the non-theists...in many cases...seem to be intent on destroying the faith of 'believers'. Whether or not that happens in other traditions besides Christianity...and particularly Mormonism...I can't say. But within Christianity and Mormonism there seem to be a lot of folks that diss the whole thing as being a 'fantasy' or a child's dream, etc.

I think you should be careful in making assumptions about how intent atheist or agnostic's here are about destroying faith outside of their forum. This forum is about Mormonism in particular, so it is a place people can express these opinions, and no one is forced here. I recall an atheist who went to Utah to spread Atheism door to door to annoy Mormons for annoying him. Reality MG is the church does more to get it's message out to non-Mormons then they do. The motivations for doing so are really the same.

That will probably continue...for whatever reason. Which I actually have sort of a hard time wrapping my mind around. Why ARE people...such as yourself...so intent on either dissing other people's beliefs and/or making them out to be something that the educated 'elite' could never believe. And always wanting EVIDENCE from those that subscribe to belief. "SHOW ME!!!...or I have no reason/motivation to believe."

It's interesting to observe/watch.

Try to observe it in the future with a more open mind. I doubt each side views what they do as dissing, and they view changing other's views as a positive thing. No religion will think someone changing their members views as a positive thing.

That seems to be the common refrain among folks such as yourself...don't take that as a personal insult, it's not meant to be. I'm sure that there are many atheist and/or agnostic folks that lead happy and productive lives. Of that I have no doubt. I do take issue with you, however, when you are making an accusation implying that I wouldn't also choose to live a happy/productive life without the influence of my beliefs in a creator/God who loves me and is interested enough in my eternal welfare to share commandments and other principles of goodness (think Beatitudes, etc. given through Jesus) that can act as guideposts along the way.

I am not in anyway afraid of the hellfire or punitive actions of a vengeful God as you would seem to imply and/or predict.

But when it comes to these discussions it's the one you choose to put forth. I realize if you became atheist you would probably choose to still be a good person. I know this just from observing all those who become atheist or agnostic.

Themis, I think we are still able to carry on a civil conversation... ...even though you seemed to jump in on the 'troll accusing' band wagon (although in mild form) a bit recently. That whole shtick is just a waste of bandwidth and time.

I am not aware of any post I accuse you of trolling, but maybe I did. I don't consider you a troll, but then my definition may be less diverse them some people.

[_malkie]

Sorry if I'm saying something that's already been said on the thread - I haven't done my homework by reading every post.

I originally joined the LDS church based on the idea that if the church was "true" and I didn't join, that was a bad mistake, but if it was "not true" and I joined, all that happened was that one day I got rather wet for nothing. (I was young and foolish at the time - the Mission Pres told the missionary and the DL that if they ever pulled a trick like that again he'd send them home)

But a lot more happened than a dunking - some very good, and some definitely not good.

However, the normal kind of wager (horses etc) generally has a resolution that is quantifiable in a reasonable timeframe, otherwise I suspect that people would simply not participate. Moreover, there's usually some kind of public information history on which to base your willingness to make a bet.

The "resolution" of religion in general, and Mormonism specifically, cannot be evaluated based on publicly available information, since nobody who has died came back to tell us about it. In fact, AFAICS, the most reliable information about my personal post-death self is that it will simply not exist. I have no reason at all to believe otherwise.

So, lets see - there's a horse race coming up in which nobody knows anything for certain about the horses, the course, the conditions, etc. I will stick with the horse that my dad used to bet on, even though in the 40 years since he died he has never told me that he made a good choice, that his equine god was happy with him. I'll put everything I own on that horse, not even think about any other horse. Not even think that perhaps I can just keep all my "stuff" and have a happy life.

Bookie, here's my life. On the Church of Scotland to win, please.

(Well, at least my dad wasn't a scientologist )

[_Themis]

There is no bootstrap procedure that is THE correct way to assign probabilities based on evidence alone without prior assumptions. You can't tell Pascal that he has to consider all the possible detailed theories of God as separate cases. He can't tell you that you can't consider all the detailed Godless alternatives as distinct, either.

Also what are the odds the person claiming to represent God A really does, or how accurate their information is.

Pascal's Wager isn't logically compelling, but it's not just a bluff. It makes a serious point. When we choose the assumptions on which we will base the rest of our life's decisions, there are risks but there are also rewards, and so intelligent play is not necessarily to believe only that which is most likely to be true. Sometimes long shots are worth playing.

And often they're not. Pascal's further claim, that theism should be played even at infinitesimal odds because it offers infinite payoff, is debatable to say the least. His more basic point, about including rewards as well as risks in the analysis, is really wise, though. We're not judges of the universe. All we really have to bet is the way we choose to live our lives. We should bet as shrewdly as we can.

The problem with this kind of thinking is it really opens up people to religious cons. I will just scare you into following me and giving me your hard earned money and your women.

I choose to go wit the evidence and not worry about what other PEOPLE's claims about God and what God wants. I wouldn't be interested in hanging out with a hidden God who punishes people for not believing in him, her, or it.

[_Nightlion]

Obviously you people cannot get over how wonderful your own minds are. I dare not call it narcissism. Who am I kidding? I certainly do so dare, and deign thusly.

[_malkie]

Obviously you people cannot get over how wonderful your own minds are. I dare not call it narcissism. Who am I kidding? I certainly do so dare, and deign thusly.

These are the minds that some people tell us that god gave us.

Are you suggesting that we not use that gift?

[_spotlight]

As I mentioned earlier in a conversation recently on this board, the turning point for me a number of years ago in regards to my returning to faith rather than doubt and in the hopeful reality of a creator/God was coming across the Anthropic Principle.

Anthropic principle? On what time scale? For what percentage of the history of the universe are conditions just right for life?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... far_future

http://www.universetoday.com/11430/the- ... verything/

[_Nightlion]

Obviously you people cannot get over how wonderful your own minds are. I dare not call it narcissism. Who am I kidding? I certainly do so dare, and deign thusly.

These are the minds that some people tell us that god gave us.

Are you suggesting that we not use that gift?

Use it wisely. Do not make the gift greater than God who gave it.