Looking for Truth, a sure way out of Mormonism?

[_thews]

I've heard a lot of these claims, uninnoculated as it were, hearing them for the first time in hostile situations, and yet I don't disbelieve. I've investigated every one of these criticisms and found them to be, well, unfounded.

Do you have any concept of what “truth” is? It isn’t based on what you want it to be, or need it to be. If you lack an ounce of critical thought and everything is looked at using the mindset that it has to be true, and then finding some way to create a theoretically plausible scenario that it could be true by rejecting what is actually true, then I understand why you claim to have resolved what is not true and turned it into your truth… but it still rests on the premise that your theoretically plausible scenarios would play out as what actually happened, and your rejection of the facts is simply denial.

Case in point bcspace, you claimed Brigham Young was not a racist based on “your research” and failed to respond when I asked for a CFR. Can you prove you are in fact objective and admit that Brigham Young was in fact a racist? If not, can we see your research data to understand your point?

[_Trevor]

Yet you believe in things you cannot see or prove exist. Interesting. Truth exists independent of language. Yep, you are definitely a Neoplatonist. Do you like transubstantiation too?

I do hope you are merely being sarcastic. Just what were you hoping to accomplish in writing that? Blow off a little steam? Vent your frustration?

[_Some Schmo]

Is this what passes for intellectual discourse these days? Whoever coined the phrase "mental masturbation" certainly had this kind of conversation in mind.

Unbelievable and ridiculous.

[_Chap]

Is this what passes for intellectual discourse these days? Whoever coined the phrase "mental masturbation" certainly had this kind of conversation in mind.

Unbelievable and ridiculous.

I think what we are seeing here is an example of the following kind of dialogue:

Critic: Certain propositions advanced by your religion seem to be either obviously not true or very likely not to be true except on apparently very implausible assumptions.

Religionist: Ah, but what exactly do you mean by "true"?

Critic: Oh, I'll just settle for the way you and I both use "true" when we say things like "It is true that in 2010 Washington is the capital of the USA".

Religionist: How unsophisticated you are! Go and read <insert references to online encyclopedias etc.> then you will see how crudely you are thinking.

Sometimes the resultant to and fro is mildly interesting. Usually not.

But it is rare for the religionist simply to end up admitting that the propositions of his religion are not "true" in the sense that he commonly uses "true" in important questions of everyday life - such as "is there gas in the car's tank?" or "is my wife cheating on me?". Nevertheless that is the obvious if uncomfortable implication of the flight from the common language usages of "true" and "truth". MFB seems unlikely to do that, so let's give up and go home.

[Guest]

I didn't know you were religious.

Yet you believe in things you cannot see or prove exist. Interesting. Truth exists independent of language. Yep, you are definitely a Neoplatonist. Do you like transubstantiation too?

After all , that relies on an underlying "substance" which no one can see or measure also, which exists independently of anything else.

I am not really religious and yet I am quite comfortable with the concept of faith. Let me give you an example.

Suppose I trust Alice who gives me a box. She says the box was empty, but then she put two red apples in it. Later she put two green ones in there. Then she closed the box and gave it to me. Together with my super-duper powers of reasoning and my faith both in Alice's word and in the predictive powers of math I am confident that when I open the box there will be four apples in it. The Truth was that the apples existed in the box without my direct knowledge beforehand. Although I am open to the possibility that something might have happened to change the Truth about the box, I have faith that I know it's current state.

Here's an even simpler one: Like Annie I have faith that tomorrow the sun will come out.

Also, I believe that when a tree falls down in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it does in fact make a sound anyway.

It's odd to me that some people think only religious people are capable of having faith. I can't imagine getting through the day without exercising faith of some kind. Even though I don't know how it works exactly, I have faith that this keyboard will send precisely what letters I want to type to this forum. My faith in many things has served me well.

Others, not so much.

Religious faith in something whose details are wholly incompatible with my apprehension of the world is another animal entirely.

[Alf'Omega]

Here's an even simpler one: Like Annie I have faith that tomorrow the sun will come out.

I like what Dawkins said about this, which was essentially, we shouldn't use the word "faith" when what we really mean is "trust."

I trust the sun will come up tomorrow because I've seen it happen every day. I don't need faith for that, because faith is unnecessary when I have supportive empirical evidence. I can't be 100% certain that the sun will rise in the morning (anything could happen), but I trust it will happen based on massive evidence.

I think that's a useful way to distinguish evidence and non-evidence based beliefs.

EDIT: changed 'should' to 'shouldn't' in the first sentence (what I meant to say)

[_Euthyphro]

Here's an even simpler one: Like Annie I have faith that tomorrow the sun will come out.

I like what Dawkins said about this, which was essentially, we should use the word "faith" when what we really mean is "trust."

I trust the sun will come up tomorrow because I've seen it happen every day. I don't need faith for that, because faith is unnecessary when I have supportive empirical evidence. I can't be 100% certain that the sun will rise in the morning (anything could happen), but I trust it will happen based on massive evidence.

I think that's a useful way to distinguish evidence and non-evidence based beliefs.

Works for me. In the paper today more bad news from the Gulf. BP's broken well is still not fully contained. Perhaps if we turn off all the cameras that are watching that oil gush out of the ocean floor the Truth about the well's bad state will cease to be. Problem solved. Actually, I know mfb is a smart chap, probably smarter than me and certainly more knowledgeable about philosophy. I wonder in what way I have misunderstood him. What other conclusions about Truth can one draw when you suppose that it isn't there unless you're watching it?

[_Chap]

Actually, I know mfb is a smart chap, probably smarter than me and certainly more knowledgeable about philosophy.

I speak only for myself here, but I don't care if MFB is the Wykeham Professor of Logic in the University of Oxford.

I just want to hear him explain himself plainly and consistently, here and now, without appeals to outside authority for his positions.

If being "knowledgeable about philosophy" does not enable a person to do that, what is the point of it?

[_Markk]

In visiting with a friend who is faithful LDS we got on the topic of 'TRUTH' and The Church. There were a few of us there who have known each other since before High School, all now in our 60's. Highest Church calling on the regional Rep level with many Temple,Stake, Ward, Mission and Branch callings from teaching to leadership/administration.

The basic agreement was that faith is needed because TRUTH seems to be changing with the times and historical Truth, even as written by past LDS Church officials is ignored, swept under the carpet or outright changed. Past teachings in manuals is now hidden in too many instances.

Those still faithful said Faith is the reason, they have Faith that 'something is there' even as the Truth in The Church is changing, being denied and ignored. Gordon B. Hinckleys 'I don't know that we believe that' and Polygamy is Doctrinal hit a few very hard. One a former BYU and Seminary teacher said that one hit his trust in Leadership hard and has him questioning anything that comes out of Church Headquarters. Add in the Mall, various business ventures and corporate thinking rather than serving the members in too many ways and those still active and participating find themselves backed into FAITH because reason and TRUTH does not support what they have been taught and in too many instances what Church publications plainly show from the past.

What it came down to with most, even if unsaid, was that The Church the grew up with and taught as missionaries( a couple more than once) is not what it says it is. A couple chalk this up to 'men making mistakes' but question how inspired leadership can be so far away from what has been taught as Truth for so long. Prticularly troubling for some was the practice of teaching from stories that are not true, the falsity having been shown, and these stories still in use. As one said," I can't teach Truth by telling fables. They aren't parables, they are outright false." The feeling was that Paul Dunn style lies are still there and accepted with an 'anything for faith' attitude.

A frustrating visit with them to hear their discovering what they have been taught just isn't right and 'unchanging Truths' are not really that.

Hi Joseph,

Faith is only ‘as good’ as what one puts faith into, if you have faith that a airplane with enough fuel to take you 200 miles will take you 1000 miles, your faith is misplaced.

That said, with your friends and many others, what is their faith in? It is clearly not in the hierarchy or the teachings…so what is their faith in? I believe it is in “the church”. “The church” is replacing the prophet, teaching, and the standard works.

Another argument can be made that for the internet Mormon, more faith is put into scholarship ( like FAIR and FARMS) than into the prophet or standard works. People like BC go to these sources and quote their talking points and “apologetic arguments” far more than they quote the prophets or the standard works.

Thoughts
MG

[_mfbukowski]

Hey mfbukowski, if truth is relative and is nothing more than a linguistic artifact anyway, what's the point of being a Mormon?

What does that have to do with anything?

That's like asking if truth is relative, why be a scientist?

Have you ever seen a "true brick" or a "true house"? I have only seen true sentences.