Three Questions (Split from, ‘Vogel Responds …’)

[MG 2.0]

The two are not mutually exclusive. I can ride a bicycle and chew gum at the same time. Priorities can coexist.

The Sorites Principle dictates, at least to me, that one should never be in a hurry to make an absolute judgement when variables/factors are subject to change at an alarmingly slow rate.

Regards,
MG

You're arguing that folks should not join the LDS church until the evidence becomes a heap in support of the church, then? Until then they have too much to lose by converting based on the current state of the evidence? Or do you think this only applies to folks questioning the church claims as a member?

I would argue, as I said in my last post, that conversion is a natural process that takes time, experience, knowledge, with a bit of wisdom thrown in. Conversion should ideally be balanced between contrasting ideas/opinions and alternate points of view available from various sources.
(The missionary program in some instances encourages the opposite. Conversion can then be built on shaky/sandy ground.)

Line upon line and precept upon precept accumulates bit by bit in a granular fashion until a person determines whether or not ‘this is a good seed’. The size of a pile composed of the granular bits of conversion and whether or not it can be considered a pile/composite that is worthy of continued trust is going to be in the eye of the beholder. The individual. The Savior’s parable of rocky/sandy soil comes into play.

The Sorites Principle applies to both those investigating the church and those in the church. When does ‘evidence’ that runs counter to opposing evidence stack up to the point that it is recognizable as a pile…and obviously so? One person’s pile is going to accumulate data points that sow doubt. Another person’s pile is going to accumulate data points…bits…that sow faith.

And there are so many variables involved. Family history. Cultural predispositions and beliefs. Abusive relationships while growing up. Etc.

I find it a bit disconcerting that there seems to be a ‘one size fits all’ in regards to the reasons critics have for rejecting the church’s message. They often define when the pile becomes a pile of doubt. In reality it my not even be a pile. It may be an accumulation of grains that may or may NOT develop into a definable pile of doubt.

And often faith runs into the same problems if it not built on a sure foundation. Knowledge, understanding, faith, logic, and belief in a higher power than themselves.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

I find it a bit disconcerting that there seems to be a ‘one size fits all’ in regards to the reasons critics have for rejecting the church’s message. They often define when the pile becomes a pile of doubt. In reality it my not even be a pile. It may be an accumulation of grains that may or may NOT develop into a definable pile of doubt.

I get it. The earlier conversation tried to keep information off the pile by claiming it was peripheral. Failing that, it's now about minimizing the importance of the evidence. Archeological evidence contradicts the original claims about the Book of Mormon being a record of the Native Americans? Don't worry, that evidence doesn't belong on the pile because we don't know enough to put it there. FV issues? We weren't there so keep that off the pile, too.

The Church isn't what it claims to be, MG. The heap is one of its own creation even if you refuse to see it for what it is.

[MG 2.0]

Um...are you sure you have thought that one through? Including all the parts of your statement?

@MG - good Lord, man. Please, for the love all that is holy, explain just how the heck Mormonism can at all rightly fall under the Sorites paradox?

Just when I think a Mormon can't possibly get any more absurd ...

A while back I purchased and read a book called, “Black and White Thinking” written by Kevin Dutton. As I read the book it triggered a number of exploratory avenues of thought. Probably…no surprise…somewhat different than what rabbit trails your mind would go down while reading the same book.

The Sorites Paradox/Principle was referred to throughout the book, and what I say and refer to now as I’m communicating is the residual ‘stuff’ left over in my memory from having read the book.

Not quite sure why you’re saying that members of the church can’t refer to and apply principles learned (even if residual) from having read a book. And make their own application. It’s called thinking, my friend.

I readily admit I may not ‘have it all right’ (in objective fact) in what I retained or even in its application. But my thoughts are nonetheless influenced by what I read.

But of course, you will come back and say I never read the book at all…

Your purpose/intent seems to be to simply come into a thread and smack away. Not have a civil discussion.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Same.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I find it a bit disconcerting that there seems to be a ‘one size fits all’ in regards to the reasons critics have for rejecting the church’s message. They often define when the pile becomes a pile of doubt. In reality it my not even be a pile. It may be an accumulation of grains that may or may NOT develop into a definable pile of doubt.

I get it. The earlier conversation tried to keep information off the pile by claiming it was peripheral. Failing that, it's now about minimizing the importance of the evidence. Archeological evidence contradicts the original claims about the Book of Mormon being a record of the Native Americans? Don't worry, that evidence doesn't belong on the pile because we don't know enough to put it there. FV issues? We weren't there so keep that off the pile, too.

The Church isn't what it claims to be, MG. The heap is one of its own creation even if you refuse to see it for what it is.

I know you have rather strong opinions in this regard.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

I get it. The earlier conversation tried to keep information off the pile by claiming it was peripheral. Failing that, it's now about minimizing the importance of the evidence. Archeological evidence contradicts the original claims about the Book of Mormon being a record of the Native Americans? Don't worry, that evidence doesn't belong on the pile because we don't know enough to put it there. FV issues? We weren't there so keep that off the pile, too.

The Church isn't what it claims to be, MG. The heap is one of its own creation even if you refuse to see it for what it is.

I know you have rather strong opinions in this regard.

Regards,
MG

Compelling and overwhelming evidence tends to lead to that if you don't insist on closing your eyes to it.

[Marcus]

@MG - good Lord, man. Please, for the love all that is holy, explain just how the heck Mormonism can at all rightly fall under the Sorites paradox?

Just when I think a Mormon can't possibly get any more absurd ...

A while back I purchased and read a book called, “Black and White Thinking” written by Kevin Dutton. As I read the book it triggered a number of exploratory avenues of thought. Probably…no surprise…somewhat different than what rabbit trails your mind would go down while reading the same book.

The Sorites Paradox/Principle was referred to throughout the book, and what I say and refer to now as I’m communicating is the residual ‘stuff’ left over in my memory from having read the book.

Not quite sure why you’re saying that members of the church can’t refer to and apply principles learned (even if residual) from having read a book. And make their own application. It’s called thinking, my friend.

I readily admit I may not ‘have it all right’ (in objective fact) in what I retained or even in its application. But my thoughts are nonetheless influenced by what I read.

But of course, you will come back and say I never read the book at all…

We already went through this with you several years ago. You listened to an interview Shermer had with Dutton about his book, and then you implied you read the book. The discussion of your 'non-reading' was extensive.

You need some new material if you're going to continue.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Once again MG takes an opportunity given to him to actually lay out a proposition, and he chooses to stray from the point.

MG, please "explain just how the heck Mormonism can at all rightly fall under the Sorites paradox."

[Everybody Wang Chung]

MG, please "explain just how the heck Mormonism can at all rightly fall under the Sorites paradox."

[Gadianton]

I get it. The earlier conversation tried to keep information off the pile by claiming it was peripheral. Failing that, it's now about minimizing the importance of the evidence. Archeological evidence contradicts the original claims about the Book of Mormon being a record of the Native Americans? Don't worry, that evidence doesn't belong on the pile because we don't know enough to put it there. FV issues? We weren't there so keep that off the pile, too.

It's a subtle admission that the Church is false.

It is never the case that somebody with a serious theory advocates by playing defense fulltime with arguments from extreme skepticism. Even MG's positive arguments for his faith are really just arguments from skepticism masquerading as evidence.

"Yes! we can detect Cesium with this filter but how/when/who/etc. do we really know/long do we wait/is observing/etc may explain a variety of results from it's never going to happen to it's a sure thing. It really comes down to what do we believe?

The Sorites Paradox tells us a couple of important things. No matter how many "strikes" against the "Pile" of faith/knowledge it's still a pile. A couple of things could be misunderstood/wrong/unclear but even if we throw those "grains" out it's still a pile. If we throw out a hundred grains and its a pile, then 101 grains won't matter either. Keep it in the Father's perspective of faith/understanding/logc. On the other hand, the "pile of doubt" can't be made from two or three "grains". And if a hundred grains of doubt aren't enough to say ABSOLUTELY FOR SURE that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet then surely 101 grains don't either."