Yes, but since your mind is what processes both of them, all you're really saying is that the two experiences feel different to your mind, not that you can actually tell which thought originates outside your mind.
quote:I think the fact not all adherents to Catholicism are slathering idiots is indicative of important truths existing in the faith.
Really? So a given belief must be at least partly true if its adherents have some positive character traits?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but since your mind is what processes both of them, all you're really saying is that the two experiences feel different to your mind, not that you can actually tell which thought originates outside your mind.
Do your thought processes feel so different a less intelligent person might conclude one of those processes wasn't originating from themselves?
quote:Really? So a given belief must be at least partly true if its adherents have some positive character traits?
Segregation had an element of truth in it. The reason blacks were looked at as inferior was in large part because they were forced to live substandard lives with substandard resources. It was virtually impossible to rise above the mediocrity. It's easy to believe somebody is racially inferior if they as a race are kept down. So a single idea having overall good people who believe it does not mean that idea is good.
If a system of beliefs has adherents that you find admirable or worthy of respect than you are in part reverencing that belief system as that system is part of who they are.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you are saying that prayer is a very poor way of finding religious truth, because it is expected to yield false negatives, even if you are doing everything exactly right?
No, I am saying that prayer must be done correctly, and if it is not, it does not work. It's no different than any other process except that personality affects the outcome.
But that's not what you just said. You said God might choose not to reveal himself.
But if you really want to stick to your "you have to pray correctly" argument, then, for the hundreth time, how does one determine that one is praying correctly?
You brough up the biology lab as a appropriate metaphor, so surely you understand that a lab uses controls to determine if an experiment is being carried out correctly. So if your own metaphor is appropriate, you must have controls. What are they?
quote:And you came to this conclusion by reading a few bits of the Koran?
You think that is a fair study?
quote:No it isn't, I've already conceded that I would happily read the entirety of the Koran if presented with a copy. That I have not gone out of my way to purchase every single religious book from every single religion is not indicative of disinterest, it's indicative of the fact I couldn't afford to, and it's not a reasonable request anyway.
You can't think that this is a serious counter-argument. You just graduated from college, yes? They have libraries there. You can read whatever you wish for free.
quote:I speak with God everyday, if he wants to lead me to another religion He knows where to find me, and most likely knows how to go about it better than anybody else.
Maybe God has "deemed it inappropriate" to reveal that he wants you to change religions until you take the first step of trying?
quote:If I'm wrong about there being a God in the first place, I hope experience, and good people will set me aright.
You can hope, but people are generally extremely resistant to being told they are wrong. Just look at your own post "I can't afford to buy a Koran"? That's a lame excuse, and you know it. Waiting around to change your mind pretty much doesn't work. Agressively seeking and taking criticism to heart, that can work. Reality testing, like sincerely trying to be Muslim, that can work. Remember, there are millions of Americans who think the Saddam was behind 9-11, and they believe this despite all the evidence and good people telling them they are wrong.
quote:I've said many times I can conceive of a God who confirms to somebody that it is good for them to be a Muslim, without attempting to lead them astray.
Is this really the argument you want to make? That God might confirm in someone the belief that Mohammad was the last and best prophet, even though it wasn't true?
If you can pray, and God can confirm in you a false belief, then prayer doesn't support the accuracy of any belief, does it?
quote: I can tell the difference between my own mind and something outside of it telling it something.
There are a million ways that we could test that assertion of yours, but it would fail every test.
A novel malaira drug, for one... that would definately not come out of your head, were you to produce one, we'd know it came from somewhere eles.
quote:I disagree, Mormonism being true is so important to me, I've dedicated my life to uncovering every single tenant of the religion and will spend the rest of my life studying it until it leads me to salvation or until I conclude it's wrong.
Well, there is the problem. The more important you hold X to be, the more impossible it is that you will ever decide that X is false. Read your own post...the reason you won't consider Islam is beucase you can't afford to buy the Koran? You won't consider Islam becuase your dedication to the LDS chuch and its beliefs prevents you from putting it to a test it could fail.
quote:But I do have objective evidence. I think determining whether I am actually a free thinker and not a brainwashed zombie could definitely be evidence that one can believe in Mormonism without being mentally coerced into doing so.
No, I meant evidence that the beliefs of Mormonism are accurate.
quote:If I am not a zombie than there must be something genuine and extraordinary that has happened, that lead me to conclude that my religion was true.
You can say that, but it's not true. Ordianry brain activity can be wildly misinterpreted.
quote:edit: What objective evidence could I produce in any case? For one thing it could not infringe on your free will by putting the question of God beyond dispute.
Cough up the reactions to synthesize the next blockbuster anti-malaria drug. My illusion of free will is a small price to pay to help ease the suffering of millions of innocent children.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
If a system of beliefs has adherents that you find admirable or worthy of respect than you are in part reverencing that belief system as that system is part of who they are.
I completely disagree with this.
However I guess I can see how one might believe this if one felt that morality stemmed from god and any moral action performed could be in part attributed to the belief in god.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do your thought processes feel so different a less intelligent person might conclude one of those processes wasn't originating from themselves?
It has nothing to do with intelligence.
My brain is a black box. I have no idea what goes into it. I don't even know what comes out of it, since my consciousness lives inside it. I have absolutely no reference for what constitutes one of "my" thoughts versus a thought I'm having that came from somewhere else.
quote:If a system of beliefs has adherents that you find admirable or worthy of respect than you are in part reverencing that belief system as that system is part of who they are.
Here I disagree. I've had a lot of experience with admiring people whose belief systems I think are regrettable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2: I never said I couldn't afford a Koran, I said I couldn't afford to purchase every religious book from every single religion. More importantly there just isn't enough time to study every single religion down to the bones. Even Mormonism recognizes that it needs to present its' case to everybody, rather than just waiting around for God to personally proselyte to everybody. My door has always been open to missionaries from other faiths, my friendships involve people of many religious persuasions, and much of my time is committed to seeking after truth and goodness.
But you didn't respond to my concern that you hold me in contempt and that that unfriendly attitude makes it impossible for either of us to prevail on the other. I don't feel inclined to discuss these sorts of issues with you until something changes.
----- Natural Mystic:
quote:I completely disagree with this.
However I guess I can see how one might believe this if one felt that morality stemmed from god and any moral action performed could be in part attributed to the belief in god.
Even if a person grows up in a faith and later abandons it, that belief system by sheer nurture impresses in their mind certain attitudes that typically cannot be totally cleansed. ---- Tom:
quote:Here I disagree. I've had a lot of experience with admiring people whose belief systems I think are regrettable.
Unless you can successfully divorce all the things you admire about them from their belief systems, I'm not sure how you can say you don't admire anything about those systems if you indeed admire the believer.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless you can successfully divorce all the things you admire about them from their belief systems...
That's not all that hard to do. I think many people inappropriately credit their religious beliefs for their positive traits.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:My brain is a black box. I have no idea what goes into it. I don't even know what comes out of it, since my consciousness lives inside it. I have absolutely no reference for what constitutes one of "my" thoughts versus a thought I'm having that came from somewhere else.
Blackblade, this is an issue for me as well. What attribute of these thoughts unambiguously define them as originating from outside yourself?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless you can successfully divorce all the things you admire about them from their belief systems, I'm not sure how you can say you don't admire anything about those systems if you indeed admire the believer.
Well, for one thing, I don't think people's belief systems really inform their moral character all that much; I'm perfectly capable of acknowledging the utility of a belief system that says "love your fellow man" without assuming that everyone who loves his or her fellow man does so in order to more closely hew to that belief system.
More importantly, I can see some value in a belief system even if it's totally false. If you believe that you should not kill me because I am a sacred and wonderful manifestation of the Divine Om, I am grateful that you do not kill me whether or not I'm an Om.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to make an interesting observation here:
Not all religions have the same view on prayer. I've been reading along and this notion of "praying on something" and "communicating with God" the way people are describing it is foreign to me, and foreign, I believe, to my community.
I pray to God, but it is more about me and less about Him. I praise Him to remind myself that He deserves praise. I ask from Him to remind myself that all things come from Him. Prayer is a meditative experience in which we are meant to reorient our perspectives to align with our true humble place before God, and to align our wills with His will.
I don't feel that God leads me to make one choice or the other. He leads me the same way he leads atheists. God is the creator of nature, of human psychology and the like. I also believe that He personally wills the outcomes of our lives - but not in such a heeby jeeby way.
-----------
BlackBlade, I admire your religious conviction. But if our entire purpose in the world is about our relationship with God, then the fact that you cannot afford religious material is no excuse. And even still - This is the information age. You could likely find out all about the major religions without spending a dime.
As for your statement on letting God find you - don't you see how that comes off? You were given a world of opportunity. Would it not be a crime if you did not seize it and come and find Him?
I think your best argument is that you are secure in your faith. There is a concept in Judaism called Chazakah - it literally means "Strengthened" or something like that. It basically means that certain things can be assumed to be true and in a position of strength, and that the onus is on its challengers to take it down from that position. I suppose you have a Chazakah on your faith. But I don't know how compelling of an argument that is since everyone has a Chazakah on their own faith.
Jews are commanded (at least in the Oral Law), "Dah ma liheshiv" - "Know what to respond". The should be taught how to respond to the arguments of the different religions.
As a religious person myself, I need to defend myself from the same charges leveled against BB. I have looked seriously into Christianity. I know a little bit about LDS, I know a fair amount of Islam, some Buddhism, and not really all that much on Hinduism. But I am confident in choosing my own faith respective to the others based on their fundamentals.
While 90% of Islam may be foreign to me, that 90% is an explication of the basic fundamental 10%. If you know you can reject the foundation, then you know you can reject the house it is built on.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And don't their fundamentals require a different mode of evaluation? Aren't you evaluating them according to metrics that will only confirm the fundamentals of your religion as valid?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: swbarnes2: I never said I couldn't afford a Koran, I said I couldn't afford to purchase every religious book from every single religion.
You can afford to read every religious text found in every library in your area. There are even inter-library loans which expand the number of books you have access to. I'd be shocked if there weren't at least a few online Koran translations, and obviously, you have access to the internet.
quote:More importantly there just isn't enough time to study every single religion down to the bones.
For the tenth time, studying anything "down to the bones" is not what anyone is asking of you. You keep placing a premium on how prayer confirms your current beliefs, the true test is for you to sincerely pray to feel the truth of other religions, yes, even in those beliefs that contradict the ones you currently hold.
This is what you refuse to even entertain.
quote:But you didn't respond to my concern that you hold me in contempt and that that unfriendly attitude makes it impossible for either of us to prevail on the other. I don't feel inclined to discuss these sorts of issues with you until something changes.
It's not your beliefs that I am contemptuous of, but your lame rationalizations of them.
If you'd said "I don't dare to think about alternate religions, because I might be tempted away from my beliefs", that would at least be honest. Or if you'd said "I know I'm right, and the whole rest of the world is wrong, I don't have to investigate what I know is poppycock", that would be honest.
But "The only reason I haven't given Islam a serious, honest trial with prayer is because I can't do so without getting a PhD in the topic, and I can't afford to read a book for free at the library" is ridiculous.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Judaism has a massive advantage in that it is the mother-religion to many Western religions. That means that other religions have the burden of explaining why Judaism is no longer good.
Judaism began with a mass revelation (please don't quote this and say that it is claimed. I understand if you don't believe it that I am claiming it.) If God wanted to change His mind, I think He'd best do it with a mass revelation. The prophets that came after the desert merely added things within the general rubric of Judaism as revealed at Sinai. If God was gonna change the whole thing, He'd best tell more than one guy.
Secondly, the OT talks about a false prophet and also says that these are the commandments to be followed. A prophet who will lead you from the commandments is a false prophet. Christianity rejects a lot of OT commandments.
quote:You keep placing a premium on how prayer confirms your current beliefs, the true test is for you to sincerely pray to feel the truth of other religions, yes, even in those beliefs that contradict the ones you currently hold.
And then keep doing it until you believe them.
---------
quote:Judaism began with a mass revelation (please don't quote this and say that it is claimed. I understand if you don't believe it that I am claiming it.) If God wanted to change His mind, I think He'd best do it with a mass revelation.
Do you understand why this is a ridiculously weak argument for Judaism?
I mean, I hesitate to point out the problems with this. But you recognize that surely the first step to legitimately testing the validity of the Jewish faith would be to stop taking this mass revelation as a given, and proceed as if it may not have happened? Otherwise you're literally just preaching to the choir; you're saying "well, when deciding whether Judaism is the one true religion or not, keep in mind that God descended to tell people it was." I think it's safe to say that no one believes in this revelation if they're not in a Judeo-Christian religion in the first place. At best, then, your argument only establishes the primacy of Judaism over its "children."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: And don't their fundamentals require a different mode of evaluation? Aren't you evaluating them according to metrics that will only confirm the fundamentals of your religion as valid?
Nope. That's why I find Buddhism very attractive. Evaluated according to same fundamentals in which I evaluate Judaism, Buddhism comes in second place. See above for why it is easier for Judaism vs. Christianity and Islam.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evaluated according to same fundamentals in which I evaluate Judaism, Buddhism comes in second place. See above for why it is easier for Judaism vs. Christianity and Islam.
But Mormonism, for instance, isn't evaluated by attempting to reconcile the scriptures of the New Testament with the scriptures of the Old Testament. It's evaluated by a process of reading their scriptures and praying for confirmation. Once God has told you personally that this is the correct faith, then it doesn't seem all that hard to dismiss arguments based on written and oral traditions.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom - I was explaining Judaism over other religions. Not Judaism in the first place. Yes I agree - that would be the place to start an undermining of Judaism.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evaluated according to same fundamentals in which I evaluate Judaism, Buddhism comes in second place. See above for why it is easier for Judaism vs. Christianity and Islam.
But Mormonism, for instance, isn't evaluated by attempting to reconcile the scriptures of the New Testament with the scriptures of the Old Testament. It's evaluated by a process of reading their scriptures and praying for confirmation. Once God has told you personally that this is the correct faith, then it doesn't seem all that hard to dismiss arguments based on written and oral traditions.
But then the burden is on Mormons to explain why praying for confirmation is a valid method of finding the truth of something. Which is exactly where we are in this thread, right?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Judaism began with a mass revelation (please don't quote this and say that it is claimed. I understand if you don't believe it that I am claiming it.) If God wanted to change His mind, I think He'd best do it with a mass revelation. The prophets that came after the desert merely added things within the general rubric of Judaism as revealed at Sinai. If God was gonna change the whole thing, He'd best tell more than one guy.
Suffering of innocents, evil ... who am I to question why an omnipotent, perfectly good god would let these happen?
God decided not to go with mass revelation? Please, like an omnipotent god would really not go the mass revelation route.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was explaining Judaism over other religions.
Yes, but even there you have to understand that these spin-off religions have developed their own justifications for their beliefs that rationalize what appear to be unequivocal statements from God into something else. And these justifications are in a handful of cases far less tortured than, say, some of the logic used to determine what is or is not permitted on the Sabbath.
I think you can fairly judge a religion based on its internal logical consistency, but it's not fair play to say "your Christian excuses for this don't count, because the Jewish interpretation of this event precludes that possibility."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair argument. But flawed. When it comes to fundamentals, you cannot use tortured logic.
Even if I were to agree to you that the permissibility of what is allowed on Sabbath was tortured logic - that is a detail. Not a fundamental. So you have not proven that a religion should be evaluated on it's internal consistency.
But bear in mind that Judaism is PART of Christianity's internal consistency.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you'd said "I don't dare to think about alternate religions, because I might be tempted away from my beliefs", that would at least be honest. Or if you'd said "I know I'm right, and the whole rest of the world is wrong, I don't have to investigate what I know is poppycock", that would be honest.
Except that it wouldn't, that isn't how I fell, that is how you think I feel. We ran into this exact same problem when discussing same sex marriage, you placed extremely poor motives on everything I said, when those motives do not exist.
quote:the true test is for you to sincerely pray to feel the truth of other religions, yes, even in those beliefs that contradict the ones you currently hold.
So if I made an addendum to every prayer, "And let me know if another religion is in reality the true one." Then I'd be doing enough to seek out the truth? Fine.
quote:You can afford to read every religious text found in every library in your area. There are even inter-library loans which expand the number of books you have access to. I'd be shocked if there weren't at least a few online Koran translations, and obviously, you have access to the internet.
That does not give me access to every religious book ever written. It does not account for lost texts, or lost religions. As a Mormon I don't believe the true religion of God existed in its' proper form for a some years short of two thousand.
--- Armoth:
quote:As for your statement on letting God find you - don't you see how that comes off? You were given a world of opportunity. Would it not be a crime if you did not seize it and come and find Him?
You've got me all wrong. I don't see my attitude as letting God do all the work. I, like you, feel that God has already answered this question for me. To continue to bate and rehash the question seems kind of disrespectful. Also, I don't really think that if I made the subject of every other major religion being true the subject of intense prayer, that swbarnes2 for example would suddenly change the tenor of his remarks towards me.
I feel that the crux of the oppositions argument is that prayer is useless for anything but making somebody feel good about something they want to believe in. Unless we make everything a matter of prayer we don't really believe in it, and unless we can turn prayer into some sort of bat computer like process it does not work.
I am secure in my belief systems, but I don't fear that other religions might be right. I'm don't feel pompous about being a Mormon, other religious systems have some things that I do not accept as right, just as my own church has made decisions I am not completely at peace with. But again, say I go out and read the entire text of the Koran, what then? Where do you draw the line? I am comfortable at the pace that I investigate other religions, others are not.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
The only problem is that I'm secure in my beliefs too. Luckily, you don't seem to be the sort who'd a priori condemn me for not believing in Yahweh, Christ, etc. At least, that's what I've gauged.
Yet I've met far too many others who disagree with both of us on what the truth on God is, and whose disagreements are perhaps just as great a gulf, who'd say that both of us either deserve or will end up suffering eternal torment.
My own family, for example, including my mother, have explicitly stated such things.
I suppose my point has nothing to do with whether you, I, or my family is correct on God.
But our beliefs, yours, mine, theirs, and Islam, tend to be so... mutually exclusive to each other, if you know what I mean. If one is true, the others can't be true, after all.
Yet you, I, my family, and the Muslims are all just as certain of our beliefs. I'm comfortable and fairly sure of my beliefs, as are you. And so are they.
What are we to make of it, that people seem to be so clearly and fully convinced of faiths that are mutually contradictory to yours and mine?
Further, that there are billions of people who believe so, and who seem clearly to have quite strong strength in what they affirm to believe, as you and I both do.
Well, of course you can't automatically assume you're wrong, and I wouldn't recommend that. But it is good to realize that though you feel God has answered your question for you, and affirmed your faith as correct, others feel the same about other faiths.
Personally, I can't believe, from what I've seen both on the inside of faith and outside (albeit, in a faith you don't affirm to be completely true!) that this certainty is all that different. People of such different faiths talk of God speaking to them, giving them signs, in various ways, or just knowing, or however many ways. I just can't imagine God could be talking to all of them, and telling, well, in any case the majority who feel that God is talking to them, total or partial lies.
Well, I could imagine it, but the God doing that wouldn't generally be the God most of these faiths would affirm exist.
At the same time, I could be no less wrong in my atheism. I fully accept that.
But deep down, the facts of the matter preclude me taking such a feeling, even if I felt it myself, as anything like good evidence for any of the faiths which make the claims.
Bah, forgive my rambling, it really has no point in the end, because I'm not truly trying to tell you you're wrong or anything, not really. I don't dislike your beliefs, or the faith you hold.
Now, if you were like some people I know, even in my own life... well, changing beliefs might not help. Because even if I managed to do the impossible and make them believe as I did, they might turn out to be the sort of atheist who gets really annoying, like the loudmouth obnoxious ones in AOL chatrooms.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:An extension of the tobacco argument would be to observe predictions and see if they come true. For example Smith's prediction that the US civil war would begin with the secession of South Carolina.
I must say this one would impress me a lot more if South Carolina hadn't been openly discussing secession for the thirty years preceding the civil war. It's a bit like predicting that the Great War would start over "Some damn silly thing in the Balkans." Well yeah, it did, but...
quote:Archeological evidence that confirms statements made in key historical texts i.e the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, etc.
That would be evidence, yes, if any such confirmations existed.
quote:But your point ignores the MANY people who fall away from the church because no matter how hard "they tried" they just couldn't get a testimony of the truthfulness of it.
I have not claimed that these brain mechanisms are perfect, as you well know; but really, this is just as much an argument against your own position, if not more so - because you have claimed that your procedure is perfect. As indeed it dang well should be, your god being involved with all that is claimed for him.
quote:Failure to obtain a spiritual confirmation is expected, both because an applicant isn't actually (despite believing) worthy to receive one, and because God has yet to deem it appropriate to reveal himself.
Again, this boils down to "Try until you get the right answer; that will happen when you are worthy". Surely you must see that this is a really excellent way to get people to convince themselves that whatever they felt was, in fact, the right answer? Because if they got that, then they are worthy!
quote: But clearly many people fall away from Mormonism, why aren't they kept into the fold by pure social pressures? I still summoned the will to not be strongly involved in my religion for some time despite having the same spiritual confirmation I constantly cite now. You also are not accounting for those who convert without any significant social pressure to do so, i.e. people who convert despite the protestations of their family, friends, and neighbors.
Again, social pressure is not perfect; it does not have to account for 100% of human behaviour to be a good explanation of your behaviour.
quote:Because I disagree with the fundamental premise that they are exactly as likely.
Really? You genuinely believe that a hypothetical alien, never exposed to human religious beliefs, would hear about your experience and categorise "Powerful outside source" as more likely than "Internal brain function"? When he had never seen any other evidence of the powerful external source, and knew that other humans had other explanations? I suspect this is not the belief of your heart, if you really think about it.
quote:I do believe it's more likely that my experiences come from God and not from myself. The behavior of my experiences has not been consistent like a learned behavior.
Why is this an argument for god-sourcing and not BB-sourcing? An unchanging god should give the same result every time.
I don't feel overcome by the spirit every time I bear testimony. I don't get emotional every time I read the scriptures. I've prayed many times and spiritual responses are more the exception rather than the rule. Most often nothing happens and I continue going about my day, once in a while distinct thoughts of action come to my mind that I attribute to God, no other act produces that result, not even long period of pondering.
quote:I honestly have not heard that mechanism discussed in my myriad experiences with other religions.
quote: Mormons are notable for constantly bringing it to the front of their proselyting, but other religions just...don't. I believe you get a Christian to verify that prayer to God can reveal the truth of a matter, but beyond that I just haven't heard it. I wouldn't apply the Mormon concept of prayer to Islam because there is reason to believe it does not work.
Have you tried actually asking an imam about this? Notice also that my point on conversion experiences was intended to be limited to converts, not to people born into the faith; I include here people who have had a sort of 'born-again' experience, that is, who were nominally of (whatever faith) until some age, but then did a round of prayer/meditation/whatever and suddenly became much more involved. (You are yourself an example of the pattern.) These are much rarer in Islam than in Mormonism, but they certainly do exist.
quote:Islam and Mormonism can't both be true. If prayer is merely me telling myself what I want to hear, than an appeal concerning Islam could never work anyway as I should expect the same experience as when I prayed about Mormonism.
Then you have nothing to lose by testing this theory, yes?
quote:Look KOM, I get it that it's astronomically improbable that I just happened upon the right religion coincidentally by being born into a family that just happened to practice it. I get that there are certainly explanations that are plausible that can explain who I could mistakenly believe what I do. Yet it's not impossible that what I said happened actually happened. What reasons do you have for believing there is no chance that I am speaking the truth, or that my interpretations of events are in fact correct?
There is a difference between 'no chance' and 'a chance so small it can be ignored'. Analogously, consider the man whose financial planning consists of buying lottery tickets. "Yes," he tells you, "I know my chances of winning are really terrible, but they're not zero, right?" You would not consider this a rational approach to personal savings, and I suggest that this excellent principle should be extended to epistemology as well.
quote:I confess I made that point and part of my mind said I wasn't thinking very hard, and I hit submit anyway, for that I'm sorry. Point of order, Mormonism professes to be the original and correct version of Christianity taught to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and that many of it's distinct features are actually ones that have always been true but have been lost in history due to apostasy. Mormonism is a restored version of Christianity not an original concept created by Joseph Smith. Thus if it is what it claims to be that would make it the oldest major religion, and possibly the one with the largest number of adherents if we tally up throughout history.
This would only be convincing to a man who already believed Mormonism true; it is, therefore, circular reasoning. I suggest therefore that you should drop this argument. And, by the way, let me make you aware of another problem with the human mind: If you argue in favour of a position, no matter how bad your arguments, even if you explicitly made up your arguments, your belief in that position is strengthened. I repeat: This is true even if you are consciously aware that your arguments are bullshit made up on the spur of the moment. It takes a conscious effort to overcome this tendency. I suggest you take a moment to apply it to this argument, and to all others where you say something and have no good response for the counter. Otherwise you will find that even bad arguments, which you yourself come to disbelieve, strengthen your faith. I feel convinced you would not want that to happen.
quote:Look I guess what I had in mind is that Joseph Smith clearly felt that there was something amiss in the fractured sectarianism of Christianity, and he just happened to make extraordinary claims about what the correct conclusion was to that dilemma. He restored a church and claimed that it would stand until Jesus comes again. If the Mormon church disappears for whatever reason then you will be proven absolutely correct on every single point we debate about.
A safe argument for you to make. Organisations do not die in a year. But consider that already there are many schismatic movements all calling themselves the Church of Latter-Day Saints and claiming to be the true successors of Joseph Smith. You cannot tell me this was his intention.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB - I now understand and respect your perspective. I think you're a really cool person.
Mega - I believe Mormonism and Judaism are mutually exclusive. But I don't believe that Mormons are going to hell. One of the major doctrines of my faith has to do with potential and fulfillment. I think that someone who is born ignorant of the faith I was educated about cannot possibly be held to the same standard as I am.
I hope it occurs to people who aren't religious and to non-believers that they should not judge a religion based on the practice of its followers. Maybe religion sounds so cheesy, so stupid, and so obviously pop-psychology because a lot of its adherents are doing it all wrong.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hope it occurs to people who aren't religious and to non-believers that they should not judge a religion based on the practice of its followers. Maybe religion sounds so cheesy, so stupid, and so obviously pop-psychology because a lot of its adherents are doing it all wrong.
I don't agree entirely - I think discussions like this one demonstrate that atheists and other non-believers often find religion unconvincing when viewing it merely as a theory. It's mostly when you see how it changes the lives of its followers for the better that the value of religion becomes pretty apparent. Other than actually accepting/experiencing a religion oneself, I'd suspect looking to religious followers as examples is probably the best way to appreciate it.
Having said that, I think the problem you are getting at is that people often judge a religion by its followers' worst practices, when they should be judging it by their best practices. It's a bit like judging the potential of science fiction as a genre based on Star Trek fan fiction rather than Ender's Game - something people who don't read sci-fi often do actually. In the case of Christianity, I've found that the ones often presented as supposed examples of Christianity are those who don't really follow Christian principles at all. That doesn't mean people shouldn't look to religious adherents to see the value of religion; it just means they should look to the ones who are succeeding with it, rather than those who aren't. After all, if a non-believer were to convert to a religion, I'd assume he'd choose to model his practices after the most admirable religious followers rather than the least admirable.
I think it's clear that if you approach religion in all the wrong ways then it can and most likely will cause problems. The question is, will it help you if you approach it in the right ways - and is it possible to figure out what the right ways are?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Fair argument. But flawed. When it comes to fundamentals, you cannot use tortured logic.
Even if I were to agree to you that the permissibility of what is allowed on Sabbath was tortured logic - that is a detail. Not a fundamental. So you have not proven that a religion should be evaluated on it's internal consistency.
But bear in mind that Judaism is PART of Christianity's internal consistency.
Not, for me at least, the way you seem to understand it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the problem you are getting at is that people often judge a religion by its followers' worst practices, when they should be judging it by their best practices.
I know people who swear colloidal silver cured their asthma.
Should I judge those medical claims by the best claimed results, which may or may not be related to this treatment? Or should I judge them by the people who've died and/or turned themselves permanently grey in pursuit of other health benefits?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Seems the nazis were late to the party as Mormons were saying tobacco was harmful for you back in 1833. It looks like scientific consensus began to form early in the 1900s. Of course it's likely there were doctors before that with pet theories that tobacco was bad for you.
quote:I must say this one would impress me a lot more if South Carolina hadn't been openly discussing secession for the thirty years preceding the civil war. It's a bit like predicting that the Great War would start over "Some damn silly thing in the Balkans." Well yeah, it did, but...
He still put his money where his mouth was in picking a state. 32 years before the fact is still of interest, further the prediction that the South would solicit help from Great Britain was also noted. It's not the craziest prophecy I've heard, but it could have easily turned out wrong.
quote:That would be evidence, yes, if any such confirmations existed.
There is alot of archeological research being done on pre-columbian America. As far as science confirming religion I'd say it's the front line for whether the Book of Mormon scientifically true.
quote:I have not claimed that these brain mechanisms are perfect, as you well know; but really, this is just as much an argument against your own position, if not more so - because you have claimed that your procedure is perfect. As indeed it dang well should be, your god being involved with all that is claimed for him.
It is perfect. Perfection does not mean it always gives a positive result. Prayer is designed to bring a person closer to God if that person truly wishes it. If they say they do and pray, but in their mind they don't, God typically remains aloof. It puts the results in God's hands rather than saying "If you just try hard enough it will work," A charge you have frequently brought to religion's door.
Just so we can get this out of the way, sometime ago we were both speaking with KarlEd and as I was new I did not know his background, and I did not guard my advice as much as I should have and so I questioned how hard he had really tried to pray about Mormonism. You pounced on that and concluded that if I encounter unbelief I just assumed they haven't tried hard enough. I don't believe that.
quote:Really? You genuinely believe that a hypothetical alien, never exposed to human religious beliefs, would hear about your experience and categorize "Powerful outside source" as more likely than "Internal brain function"? When he had never seen any other evidence of the powerful external source, and knew that other humans had other explanations? I suspect this is not the belief of your heart, if you really think about it.
What's this got to do with anything? Why say he hasn't been exposed to religious belief when you could just as easily say that he was never exposed to socially enforced learned behavior either.
quote:Why is this an argument for god-sourcing and not BB-sourcing? An unchanging god should give the same result every time.
You're conflating unchanging with inflexible. A God can avail himself of the infinite circumstances that could surround a spiritual experience and still be unchanging. God perfectly responds to every situation He is presented with, and hence is unchanging. He responds to every prayer through the power of the Holy Ghost, and yet that could entail a vision, a voice, a feeling, etc. Our personalities have a huge impact on how God deals with us, it has nothing to do with God being unchangeable.
quote:Have you tried actually asking an imam about this?
No, the next time the opportunity arises I'll let you know what they say.
quote:Then you have nothing to lose by testing this theory, yes?
It would seem so.
quote:There is a difference between 'no chance' and 'a chance so small it can be ignored'. Analogously, consider the man whose financial planning consists of buying lottery tickets. "Yes," he tells you, "I know my chances of winning are really terrible, but they're not zero, right?" You would not consider this a rational approach to personal savings, and I suggest that this excellent principle should be extended to epistemology as well.
Yes but if the man went on to win the lottery, say four times during the period he was buying lottery tickets, would you investigate further as to what else might explain his success?
quote:This would only be convincing to a man who already believed Mormonism true; it is, therefore, circular reasoning. I suggest therefore that you should drop this argument. And, by the way, let me make you aware of another problem with the human mind: If you argue in favour of a position, no matter how bad your arguments, even if you explicitly made up your arguments, your belief in that position is strengthened. I repeat: This is true even if you are consciously aware that your arguments are bullshit made up on the spur of the moment. It takes a conscious effort to overcome this tendency. I suggest you take a moment to apply it to this argument, and to all others where you say something and have no good response for the counter. Otherwise you will find that even bad arguments, which you yourself come to disbelieve, strengthen your faith. I feel convinced you would not want that to happen.
I wasn't trying to submit that as evidence, merely to remind you of how Mormons see their own religion. Unbelievers often think of it as a church Joseph Smith started, but that was never the intent. That is why the church is modeled after the one outlined in the New Testament, it also colors our interpretation of many Old Testament events. So for example the argument that Judaism began as a polytheistic religion and evolved into a monotheistic one is completely wrong to Mormons.
I do understand that having a framework of arguments no matter how flawed still strengthens a conviction when compared to a belief that has none. As a younger person I had all sorts of beliefs that existed purely because they hadn't been challenged and I took my cues from my parents. Capital punishment good, abortions bad, socialism bad, capitalism good, etc. Those beliefs all changed dramatically by being exposed to ideas with more solid grounding in reason. It could also be argued that since you believed in Christianity and found it wanting, that that might also be tainted in your judgment. Admitting you made a mistake could be grating to the point that you would continue to reject Christianity because it would force you to face your own infirmities and the conclusion that you were could be so completely wrong. Fortunately I'm sure neither of us are guilty of letting emotion have uncontrollable reign on our beliefs, but one of us keeps suggesting that the other has beliefs that are grounded in strings not rope.
quote:A safe argument for you to make. Organisations do not die in a year. But consider that already there are many schismatic movements all calling themselves the Church of Latter-Day Saints and claiming to be the true successors of Joseph Smith. You cannot tell me this was his intention.
There are not that many, but there are a few, none even enter the ballpark as being as big as the LDS church. No that was no Smith's intention but it's hardly different from history. Every major idea has splinter groups. Mormonism has shown growth every year since its' founding. I do not expect that trend to continue forever. I believe eventually it will reach a point where membership declines as people go inactive or apostatize. Heck the book of revelation insists that Christianity will be close to its' last gasps before Jesus comes again. There are plenty of sects that have already died off the shakers are one such example. But in any case you don't even have to wait for Mormonism to die, just wait for one of prophets over the whole church to get caught stealing, or commit adultery, or publish a book about not living a lie anymore.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I "judge" a religion by all of its practices. Selecting only positives is just as bad as selecting only negatives when it comes to "judging" the true value of something.
That said, the value of a myth (as it is to me) does not undermine the fact that it is a myth. Many non-religious myths and legends have served all kinds of positive and negative roles in the past (for example: nationalism/patriotism, creating hope, causing genocide etc.). Even if a myth has a massive impact on a population, it still doesn't make it true.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seems the nazis were late to the party as Mormons were saying tobacco was harmful for you back in 1833. It looks like scientific consensus began to form early in the 1900s.
quote:In 1604, British monarch James I increased taxes on tobacco 4,000 percent. His 1604 tract "A Counterblaste to Tobacco" denounced smoking as being not only harmful to the brain and lungs, but "in the black stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."
quote:Should I judge those medical claims by the best claimed results, which may or may not be related to this treatment? Or should I judge them by the people who've died and/or turned themselves permanently grey in pursuit of other health benefits?
I would look at whichever particular uses of silver seems to get the best results - and then determine if those results are worthwhile, and whether it appears they came from the silver. I would not look at the people who ingest a pound of silver one day and then are dead by the next morning; that death fails to prove there isn't a better and less foolish method of using silver.
Similarly, if you want to know if aspirin is a good solution for headaches, study the person who uses the correct dosage, not the person who swallows the whole bottle.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seems the nazis were late to the party as Mormons were saying tobacco was harmful for you back in 1833. It looks like scientific consensus began to form early in the 1900s.
quote:In 1604, British monarch James I increased taxes on tobacco 4,000 percent. His 1604 tract "A Counterblaste to Tobacco" denounced smoking as being not only harmful to the brain and lungs, but "in the black stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... I hope it occurs to people who aren't religious and to non-believers that they should not judge a religion based on the practice of its followers. Maybe religion sounds so cheesy, so stupid, and so obviously pop-psychology because a lot of its adherents are doing it all wrong.
To be honest, in my case as a non-believer, I'm not entirely sure if that makes too much sense from my POV.*
See, in the case of the Jewish god, I can kind of understand how a Jew might think there is some form of "ideal" Judaism that could be practised if only one understood the Jewish god better, that the human practise of religion is non-optimal.
But as a non-believer, if there's no Jewish god, then there really is no "ideal" Judaism. There is simply Judaism as practised by this group of people (say Reform) or this group of people (say Conservative) or even Judaism as practised by a certain group of Jews at a certain point in history.
It basically looks to us as an outsider that there is this constantly evolving collection of religious beliefs and cultural practises that we deem Judaism (perhaps a meme for lack of a better word).
So from this POV, if we don't judge a religion based on its believers, there's nothing else really there.
(I guess one possible answer to this is that you can judge a religion based on its literature as "divorced" from its actual followers. But from our POV, since the text is merely something created and slowly updated by people practising that meme, it doesn't make too much sense either. At best we could consider it a lagging "snapshot")
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess one possible answer to this is that you can judge a religion based on its literature as "divorced" from its actual followers.
That's particularly problematic with Judaism, as they assert that its literature must be interpreted through the oral traditions of its followers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I just picked an example that was easily to relate to, but I thought it would have been one of the easier ones.
See, in the case of those borderline Chinese religions, where each community may have its unique mix of Taoism, Buddhist, and superstitious beliefs which is characterized pretty much entirely by actual practise in that community, the problem becomes even more difficult.
And in what sense can you judge, say, ancestor worship as separate from the practise of its followers, when those very followers may croak the next day and join that very hierarchy of worship?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. But this makes the task more complex. I have never met Lisa or Rivka before, but it seems clear that we subscribe to the same form of ideal Judaism, even though we may all have our basic human flaws.
Actually, I could give you a very limited group of texts that would describe this idea Judaism and keep things relatively simple.
We are the people of the book - not the authors of the book. I'll not deny that our interpretations evolve - but they do not change. They adapt. New situations demands new laws, and the core principles in the Talmud are extended and adapted to new situations.
That's the religion I keep trying to present as a contrast here. There is such a thing as an ideal form and an adherent who has it all wrong.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is alot of archeological research being done on pre-columbian America. As far as science confirming religion I'd say it's the front line for whether the Book of Mormon scientifically true.
Agreed on both points. But you listed this as evidence, not as a search for evidence. Back off on that, please.
quote:Pff like we can believe anything a British monarch says!
So when it's your guy, then it is divine inspiration and true prophecy, but if it is someone you don't like it can be passed off with a joke? Is this the way you like to see yourself arguing?
quote:No that was no Smith's intention but it's hardly different from history.
Quite so, but that is just the point. Smith apparently did claim that his Church would be different, would indeed stand until Jesus returned, in contrast with every church before his. You cannot shrug and say "Just like the others" of an entity that is claimed to be unique!
quote:It could also be argued that since you believed in Christianity and found it wanting, that that might also be tainted in your judgment.
I do not know where you got this idea; I have never been a Christian.
quote:Yes but if the man went on to win the lottery, say four times during the period he was buying lottery tickets, would you investigate further as to what else might explain his success?
If he had bought a hundred tickets and won 4 times twenty dollars? Well no, I would not be particularly surprised. But you are overstraining the analogy here, because you cannot claim to have won the Grand Prize of complete proof that you were right all along. I remind you of what I was responding to: You claimed that there was some chance you were correctly interpreting your subjective feelings, even in the face of the counterevidence I had put to you. I compared this to the chance of winning the lottery: You would disdain a man who said there was some chance he would win the lottery, and planned his finances accordingly. You cannot then turn around and once again count your subjective feelings as lottery wins! Your interpretation of those feelings are buys of lottery tickets; the drawing will occur when you are dead.
quote:What's this got to do with anything? Why say he hasn't been exposed to religious belief when you could just as easily say that he was never exposed to socially enforced learned behavior either.
Very well, he knows nothing of how human brains malfunction. Do you still really believe that he would rather look for an outside source, undetectable by any other means, rather than look for internal causes? Especially when he is told that no two humans interpret such feelings the same way?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why are you taking as a given the idea that an ideal form must be changeless? Perhaps one of the highest virtues of God is constant evolution.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Sure. But this makes the task more complex. I have never met Lisa or Rivka before, but it seems clear that we subscribe to the same form of ideal Judaism, even though we may all have our basic human flaws.
On the other hand, its quite clear that there are Jews that do not ascribe to quite the same form that you do and champion decidedly different interpretations.
Without a belief in a divine tie-breaker, its not really up to us to pick a "winner" faction. And beyond even picking a faction, having to abstract out what they say as opposed to what they do is a different task too.
quote: That's the religion I keep trying to present as a contrast here. There is such a thing as an ideal form and an adherent who has it all wrong.
And what algorithm should a non-believer use to determine which is "ideal" and which is "wrong"?
For example, in the case that BB and KoM are discussing, its not immediately obvious how we can establish from a secular point of view whether the mainline LDS church is ideal or whether its splinter groups are ideal.
At best we can treat them as two religions which happen to have a common ancestor.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: swbarnes 2:
quote:If you'd said "I don't dare to think about alternate religions, because I might be tempted away from my beliefs", that would at least be honest. Or if you'd said "I know I'm right, and the whole rest of the world is wrong, I don't have to investigate what I know is poppycock", that would be honest.
Except that it wouldn't, that isn't how I fell, that is how you think I feel. We ran into this exact same problem when discussing same sex marriage, you placed extremely poor motives on everything I said, when those motives do not exist.
Then make an argument that makes sense and stick to it. Arguing that the reason you didn't give Islam a sincere try is because you can't afford to read free books is stupid. And when that was pointed out, you said "Oh, that's not my real reason, my real reason is that I don't have time to get a PhD", which is also a stupid argument, becuase no one asked that of you. And then you changed to another argument, that you won't study Islam, because there are other religions which have died out, and there's nothing to read, which is still a stupid argument against reading extant texts, like Islam and other religions have.
Do you see the pattern? You make a stupid exucse, it's pointed out how dumb that excuse is, and then you come up with another excuse, it's pointed out how dumb that is, and out comes another one. When the excuses keep falling like flies, but your resistance remains, it's pretty clear that the orignal excuses weren't sincere. A person who sincerely wanted to read extant religious texts, but couldn't afford to buy books would read them at the library. You did not do this, hence you were insincere when you said that money was the reason.
If my suggested reasons for your resistance are wrong, fine. I'm wrong. But there are plenty of people who sincerely believe them. There are no sincere people who can't afford to read free books.
quote:
quote:the true test is for you to sincerely pray to feel the truth of other religions, yes, even in those beliefs that contradict the ones you currently hold.
So if I made an addendum to every prayer, "And let me know if another religion is in reality the true one." Then I'd be doing enough to seek out the truth? Fine.
No, a mere addendum for form's sake would not be enough. How many times does one have to rephrase the same thing? You have to sincerely and persistantly listen for God to tell you "What you believed yesterday was wrong. What your family and friends beleieve is wrong. This is the truth".
And if you hear nothing, assume that you were doing it wrong, and try again tomorrow. It's not like you have controls to tell you otherwise.
quote:As a Mormon I don't believe the true religion of God existed in its' proper form for a some years short of two thousand.
Good grief, you are dense. The whole point of the exercise is that you might be wrong in what you believe! The whole point is that if you prayed hard for God to tell you that Islam is the true faith, and didn't stop praying until you felt that God had told you this, you eventually would feel it, and conclude that your old beliefs were simply wrong.
But really, you already destroyed your argument that prayer can reveal religious truth, when you admitted that you think that God might lie to people, by confirming religious falsehoods in them. I suppose you figure that God only lies to other people, and not to you.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you establish the correct dosage for religious belief?
That's a tricky part of religion. But the short answer is: You use your judgement.
But having said that, I think it's considerably easier to recognize some of the people who are using the wrong dosage - you can tell because they tend to constantly be grumpy or hateful or rather violent, to the point where it is damaging their life.
----
Edit: I'll add that usually that's one of the functions of the church. Experienced spiritual leaders guide other followers so they hopefully use the correct "dosage", so to speak. And in the case of Christianity, at least, the religion has a model (Christ) for appropriate behavior, to compare against. Other religions tend to have their own models for ideal behavior.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
That was uncalled-for. Why the heck would you insult somebody who's willing to have this conversation with you? Do you think abuse is the best way to get your point across?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you see the pattern? You make a stupid exucse, it's pointed out how dumb that excuse is, and then you come up with another excuse, it's pointed out how dumb that is, and out comes another one.
Fair's fair; BB has now agreed that he will ask an imam about confirmatory prayer "next time he has a chance", and also that he has nothing to lose by attempting the prayer. This is as far as an internet discussion is going to get. Whether he actually does these things is under his control, but he is not making excuses anymore, at least not in public.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I highly recommend at least looking into go many different religions and, if at all possible, going to events, services, meetings, celebrations or what have you before settling on one (or none).
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Point of order, Mormonism professes to be the original and correct version of Christianity taught to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and that many of it's distinct features are actually ones that have always been true but have been lost in history due to apostasy. Mormonism is a restored version of Christianity not an original concept created by Joseph Smith. Thus if it is what it claims to be that would make it the oldest major religion, and possibly the one with the largest number of adherents if we tally up throughout history.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
