Runtu wrote:It just seems to me that, among believers, the testimony is the one unassailable fact of reality.
Perhaps. I'd say that nobody is born with a testimony--each must discover one for onesself based on their experiences (or evidence). This in turn colors how evidence is viewed.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Runtu wrote:It just seems to me that, among believers, the testimony is the one unassailable fact of reality.
Perhaps. I'd say that nobody is born with a testimony--each must discover one for onesself based on their experiences (or evidence). This in turn colors how evidence is viewed.
Of course no one is born with a testimony (though my brother said he always knew the church was true). What I mean is that once someone gains a testimony, through whatever means, that testimony seems to be inviolate and is the reality against which all evidence is judged. When people start questioning the validity of their testimony, they are already on their way out, in my opinion.
Some Schmo wrote:Actually, when it comes right down to it, the toughest thing that any apologist has to defend is their own intellectual honesty.
That's why it's difficult to take them seriously and not view them as liars, in denial, or simply stupid (or at least, intellectually deficient).
I don't think it's a question of intellectual dishonesty or stupidity. I made it work for me for many years, and I didn't consider myself in denial or stupid or dishonest, and I still don't think I was. The issue for me was that all evidence was seen through a prism of belief and testimony. To steal from Thomas Kuhn, my paradigm worked because I was able to account for all the evidence and dismiss the anomalous. It wasn't until the anomalies were too numerous and too undeniable that the accumulated weight of the proverbial "shelf" collapsed.
Maybe I'm presuming too much, but I assume that The Nehor and other believers simply see the evidence in light of their testimonies instead of evaluating their testimonies in light of the evidence.
You just defined what I meant by a lack of "intellectual honesty."
Asbestosman, I would also say that intellectual dishonesty is about letting your feelings and desires override what you're rational self is telling you.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:Actually, when it comes right down to it, the toughest thing that any apologist has to defend is their own intellectual honesty.
That's why it's difficult to take them seriously and not view them as liars, in denial, or simply stupid (or at least, intellectually deficient).
To be fair, religion and politics are two areas where once a person chooses a side, they will defend it to the death. No matter what evidence or logical argument you give them, they will try to come up with some way to defend their belief. It's just the way humans are. How many people change their political party of religion once they've converted? It's very rare, and it takes a long time. It doesn't make someone a liar or deceived, they just want to be right.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
Some Schmo wrote:Toughest thing for any Mormon to defend, in my opinion, is the first vision. All other BS flows from that. It is the root of all Mormon BS. Throw that one out the window, and there's no need to even touch the other stuff.
People who claim to have seen angels, ghosts, deities, or whatever are locked up, and for good reason.
No one has locked me up yet and I've claimed all of the above.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
..It seems to me that a "testimony" is the result of being able believe in something that is unprovable, and being able to believe it as though it was fact. Not everyone has the ability to do that. If there is a God, I don't understand why He would make have that ability as a requirement of being "saved".
..The characteristics that scriptures ascribe to God.... Would you want a mortal father that had thoughs characteristics? I wouldn't. A God/father that would tell would tell you that he would kill you if you don't don't go and steel anothers mans wife. AGod that would tell you "though shalt not murder" and that "though shalt not steel" then tells you to go Kill Laben and steel his property. Is this really the type of personage you want to worship? Sorry, not me.