The Beginning of the End of Mormonism?

[Some Schmo]

Oh, I understand the "things of the spirit." That's a euphemism for "the nonsense that's important to me."

I do pity you. It must be a depressing world to live in with such a lack of faith.

It is a depressing world without the placebo of faith. Sure. We've got this whole group of people willing to believe BS because it comforts them, which is very depressing. We can delude ourselves into happiness all day long. No doubt.

Doesn't mean faith has any correlation with reality, however.

And yeah, like Icarus, the world was a far more depressing place when people were attempting to brainwash me into believing moromonism had the answers. I can't think of a more depressing idea. At least I got rid of that crap.

[Gunnar]

I am not one to deny that there is anything useful or worth while about faith or having faith. Without faith or, at least hope, that whatever we attempt will make a difference, we would probably give up trying. Faith is ultimately what motivates us to strive and makes it possible to accomplish anything significant, whether good or bad. According to the Apostle, Paul:

HEBREWS 11:1 KJV "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” King James Version (KJV)

I think he was only half right. I can go along with the "faith is the substance of things hoped for" part, but I totally reject the notion that faith is in itself "evidence of things not seen", nor an acceptable substitute for evidence. At best faith is something based on evidence, and must give way to evidence that conclusively shows that the faith is mistaken or baseless. Faith can be a useful place holder, much like the number zero, that can lead to or amplify real evidence and sound reason. I liken it to our place value numerical notation system, giving evidence and reason the value of one, and the comfort or assurance of faith a value of zero. If we have both the "one" of evidence and reason and the "zero" of faith (that is "10") we have more than if we have just the "1" of evidence and reason. But, if we do have only the "1" of evidence and reason, we still have something. On the other hand, if we have only the "0" of faith, without the "1" of evidence and reason, we really have nothing at all, no matter how many "0s" we have.

Consider this: There are thousands of mutually contradictory religious belief systems available, all or most of which claim to be based on subjective faith in divine revelation and authority. This is the strongest possible evidence we can have of the unreliability of the subjective faith approach to discerning truth. Even if one of these mutually contradictory religions really were the infallible, divinely revealed truth its devout proponents or prophets claim it to be, the unreliability of that approach to discerning truth is still established beyond all reasonable doubt! Again, see my signature line!

[Some Schmo]

I am not one to deny that there is anything useful or worth while about faith or having faith.

Great post Gunnar. I think I intimated in my last post an acknowledgment of faith's utility. A placebo has value.

Some of it is just a semantics argument. I've noticed one of the most reliable tools in the religious apologist's toolbox is false equivalence. That's one of their favorites. I could say something like, "I have faith my daughter will pass her college exams." It's serving as a euphemism in that sentence, because it's not really faith. It's more about trust, based on evidence. She's done well in the past and nothing has changed to make me think she won't continue to do well. I don't know conclusively that she will, but I have excellent reason to believe she will based on her scholastic history.

Someone might hear me say "faith" in that sentence and interpret it to mean I'm relying on a god to guide my daughter, or that I feel like if I just believe hard enough, my daughter will do alright. They may even hear that and accuse me of being just as much a person of faith as they are (but in denial about it). They may even go farther and say something like, "You know you're daughter will do well just like I know god exists."

It's a classic false equivalence, so I'm pretty careful never to use the word "faith" when what I really mean is either "hope" or "trust."

[Res Ipsa]

I am not one to deny that there is anything useful or worth while about faith or having faith.

Great post Gunnar. I think I intimated in my last post an acknowledgment of faith's utility. A placebo has value.

Some of it is just a semantics argument. I've noticed one of the most reliable tools in the religious apologist's toolbox is false equivalence. That's one of their favorites. I could say something like, "I have faith my daughter will pass her college exams." It's serving as a euphemism in that sentence, because it's not really faith. It's more about trust, based on evidence. She's done well in the past and nothing has changed to make me think she won't continue to do well. I don't know conclusively that she will, but I have excellent reason to believe she will based on her scholastic history.

Someone might hear me say "faith" in that sentence and interpret it to mean I'm relying on a god to guide my daughter, or that I feel like if I just believe hard enough, my daughter will do alright. They may even hear that and accuse me of being just as much a person of faith as they are (but in denial about it). They may even go farther and say something like, "You know you're daughter will do well just like I know god exists."

It's a classic false equivalence, so I'm pretty careful never to use the word "faith" when what I really mean is either "hope" or "trust."

Interesting, Schmo. I’ve always thought of it as equivocation, but it’s the same concept. Like you, I reserve the word “faith” to mean “religious faith.” For other meanings of “faith,” I use words like “trust” or “confidence.”

[Gunnar]

Interesting, Schmo. I’ve always thought of it as equivocation, but it’s the same concept. Like you, I reserve the word “faith” to mean “religious faith.” For other meanings of “faith,” I use words like “trust” or “confidence.”

I have no argument with that at all.

[Moksha]

The Church will be around long after the statues to Trump and Joseph Goebbels have been torn down.

[Jersey Girl]

I am not one to deny that there is anything useful or worth while about faith or having faith. Without faith or, at least hope, that whatever we attempt will make a difference, we would probably give up trying. Faith is ultimately what motivates us to strive and makes it possible to accomplish anything significant, whether good or bad. According to the Apostle, Paul:

HEBREWS 11:1 KJV "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” King James Version (KJV)

I think he was only half right. I can go along with the "faith is the substance of things hoped for" part, but I totally reject the notion that faith is in itself "evidence of things not seen", nor an acceptable substitute for evidence. At best faith is something based on evidence, and must give way to evidence that conclusively shows that the faith is mistaken or baseless. Faith can be a useful place holder, much like the number zero, that can lead to or amplify real evidence and sound reason. I liken it to our place value numerical notation system, giving evidence and reason the value of one, and the comfort or assurance of faith a value of zero. If we have both the "one" of evidence and reason and the "zero" of faith (that is "10") we have more than if we have just the "1" of evidence and reason. But, if we do have only the "1" of evidence and reason, we still have something. On the other hand, if we have only the "0" of faith, without the "1" of evidence and reason, we really have nothing at all, no matter how many "0s" we have.

Consider this: There are thousands of mutually contradictory religious belief systems available, all or most of which claim to be based on subjective faith in divine revelation and authority. This is the strongest possible evidence we can have of the unreliability of the subjective faith approach to discerning truth. Even if one of these mutually contradictory religions really were the infallible, divinely revealed truth its devout proponents or prophets claim it to be, the unreliability of that approach to discerning truth is still established beyond all reasonable doubt! Again, see my signature line!

Gunnar how do you interpret the entire chapter from which you extracted that one verse? In your mind, how do you interpret the list of examples in that chapter? What's the overarching message of the chapter?

[Jersey Girl]

I do pity you. It must be a depressing world to live in with such a lack of faith.

It is a depressing world without the placebo of faith. Sure. We've got this whole group of people willing to believe BS because it comforts them, which is very depressing. We can delude ourselves into happiness all day long. No doubt.

Doesn't mean faith has any correlation with reality, however.

When you write here about the value of faith, why is it that you mention one benefit--that of comfort? Do you think that faith has any other impact on a believer? If so, what would that be?

And yeah, like Icarus, the world was a far more depressing place when people were attempting to brainwash me into believing moromonism had the answers. I can't think of a more depressing idea. At least I got rid of that crap.

I'd find that depressing, too. You know what? As I was reading the comments here about faith and belief, I realized that in all my experiences with LDS on the ground and on these boards (that's about 40 years total) there is one statement that I've never heard come from a member of the LDS Church.

"I don't know".

[Jersey Girl]

And you know I kind of agree with this. I was wondering whether Jill Biden was a heart surgeon or oncologist. Then I found out the truth.

When and how did you find out the truth?

[Jersey Girl]

I am not one to deny that there is anything useful or worth while about faith or having faith.

Great post Gunnar. I think I intimated in my last post an acknowledgment of faith's utility. A placebo has value.

Some of it is just a semantics argument. I've noticed one of the most reliable tools in the religious apologist's toolbox is false equivalence. That's one of their favorites. I could say something like, "I have faith my daughter will pass her college exams." It's serving as a euphemism in that sentence, because it's not really faith. It's more about trust, based on evidence. She's done well in the past and nothing has changed to make me think she won't continue to do well. I don't know conclusively that she will, but I have excellent reason to believe she will based on her scholastic history.

Someone might hear me say "faith" in that sentence and interpret it to mean I'm relying on a god to guide my daughter, or that I feel like if I just believe hard enough, my daughter will do alright. They may even hear that and accuse me of being just as much a person of faith as they are (but in denial about it). They may even go farther and say something like, "You know you're daughter will do well just like I know god exists."

It's a classic false equivalence, so I'm pretty careful never to use the word "faith" when what I really mean is either "hope" or "trust."

Or you could simply say, "I have confidence in my daughter's ability to pass her college exams."