Religion is dead...how can Mormonism survive?

[mentalgymnast]

MG, do you believe the account(s) Smith gave of the First Vision?

Prove it.

Should I have to?

Regards,
MG

[Themis]

MG, do you believe the account(s) Smith gave of the First Vision?

Prove it.

Should I have to?

Regards,
MG

You don't have to believe anything, but Mormonism truth claims are dependent on Joseph telling the truth. Unfortunately vital claims are demonstrably false.

[mentalgymnast]

MG, do you believe the account(s) Smith gave of the First Vision?

Prove it.

MG: Should I have to?

You don't have to believe anything, but Mormonism truth claims are dependent on Joseph telling the truth. Unfortunately vital claims are demonstrably false.

My response was in answer to whether or not I should have to prove that the First Vision occurred. I do believe it happened.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

MG, do you believe the account(s) Smith gave of the First Vision?

Prove it.

Should I have to?

Regards,
MG

No, my friend, you don't. I want you to leave that just as it is.

It's perfect.

Thanks.

Shulem

[dastardly stem]

What reality?


Quoted sections are Stephen Hawking.

I think you need to define exactly what reality is before continuing the discussion.

Regards,
MG

I'd agree that reality can be a tricky word to define at times. I think in context what I"m driving at is reality i]s the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.

It is not at all clear that that a creator God does not interfere with the process going on.

What are the hints you observe that indicates there is a creator God who does interfere? Why is that not clear?

An advantage of thinking of God as immaterial infinite and eternal is that the large spaces and times of the universe do not present a problem for such a God.

I don't think that's true. If we use prediction as a key to unravelling the immaterial infinite god notion, I think we end up with something quite opposite of what we have. If there is this unknowable, impassable thing out there, what is the purpose of large spaces and times? Our world encompasses the space of but a photon of space in an otherwise spacious and pointless home. Our time window is just as perplexingly imbalanced on the whole. On Mormonism there would be purpose and expectation for huge amounts of space and time, because the number of things, on the assumption, are so astronomical we can't fathom, as they say, anyway.

[dastardly stem]

Well. Tbf, Huck, I’m a fan of precise language and just wanted to see if you had any concrete and relatable ideas attached to the term.

Stem, that was a really good write up. Speaking of expanses, I just started watching The Expanse and it brings to mind your thoughts about the indomitable human spirit and our potential as a species to reach into the stars while at the same time destroying our most precious resource, the earth. Honor had some really good thoughts about humans replacing religion with other forms of worship, namely the Qtards and their worship of an anonymous prognosticator who preys on our ignorance and fear for the lulz. To whit, I don’t think religion is going anywhere any time soon despite our potential for progress because, ironically, our potential is also matched by our hubris and narcissism. We’re literally causing a mass extinction event and it seems we can’t help ourselves because *insert reasons here*. And we need something to worship that justifies our behavior, namely religion, whatever form it takes. Personally I think it boils down to tribalism, and religion predates on all of us, finding ways to exploit our us vs. them programming. It’s a real pickle, for sure.

- Doc

I think that's a good thought and leaves us with plenty worth considering. How built in is our penchant for religion? Why is it there? If it's a product of evolution or a product of God inserting a chip in us, doing his tricky hidden "I did something, and only those who can see will see" thing again.

[dastardly stem]

Oh it's always good when things are hashed out. Reason hashes out everything's faults, since everything has faults. Heck, religion itself hammers on its own faults, that's perhaps why it is thriving in so many areas in the world. Everything waxes and wanes, largely due to, I suspect, the very nature of our reality. We don't get to see the whole, and as particulars are revealed as we learn, so are things concealed simply because we have never been able to grasp the whole. We understand this for the most part. The cool thing is there is always something else to discover.

Yes, once reason defeats something and demonstrates its not viable, then we can easily dismiss that thing. In spades traditional religions have been shown to be not viable, as a matter of probability. As we learn more and apply what we observe more and more, that which was so precious (and of course still is to most) loses meaning and purpose. We need to maintain that adaptability and that means dropping the arrogance of religious preeminence.

[dastardly stem]

Atheists being closer to a more accurate worldview is possible, but it does not mean they're more accurate about everything. All atheism is is an absence of belief in God.

What I mean to do is identify the most harmful aspects of religion or any other dogma. I do think it's possible for religion to operate without authoritarianism and without presumed certainty, and I also agree that atheists are not immune from depending on them both. But what we're dealing with at this moment in history is a mostly religious world and, beyond that a very dogmatic world. It's better in my opinion to identify the specific problems because then it is more likely to correct these weaknesses surgically rather than wage stupid wars over them.

If we get better at managing uncertainty, all of us, then the better versions of human institutions, religious and non, will rise to the top.

Thank you, Meadowchik. Well said.

[Physics Guy]

It is a Mormon tenet to be able to prove the unprovable through the faith process described in Alma 33.

Other Christians and believers, not all, will also say that if we only exercised enough faith, we'd get the proof.

I think it's a particularly Mormon thing to speak of "experiment", as Alma does, and to assert that getting to like an idea after a while means coming to know that it's true. The canonical gospels do have Jesus emphasise acting upon what one has heard, rather than just listening to it; he makes out the difference between practice and theory to be the difference between a house being built on rock or on sand. It's hard to see any notion there, however, that practice brings certain knowledge. Knowledge might well be more stable than faith in a way that fits the rock/sand metaphor, but several other things also fit the metaphor—having stronger faith, for example, or withstanding God's judgement—and Jesus doesn't seem to talk about knowledge at all. That's one of those Book of Mormon themes that seems anachronistic.

There is definitely a thick strand of tradition in Christianity about receiving grace—seeing miracles, even—after exercising faith. Even miracles are not supposed to count as proof, though. Jesus often condemns the desire for miraculous signs as proof—and he doesn't say, "Proof is great and of course you'll get it, you just have to believe first." The idea is that wanting proof at any time, before or after, is wrong.

I don't mean to say that a lot of religions have pushed ambivalence and agnosticism. They do mostly want people to believe things confidently. What proof means to me, though, is more than that. If I can prove something, then not only should I believe it confidently: you should believe it as well. Even if it's a proof that I can't just show you, because you have to experience it yourself, if there's a reliable procedure by which anyone can have that experience and replicate my proof, then everyone ought to do that. If they don't, then that's not just an unfortunate decision on their part which leads to them missing a good chance, but a failing for which they can be blamed: there was an easy way for them to be sure and they just didn't bother to check it out.

There are undoubtedly strands of that attitude in many religions, but I really don't think it's predominant. At least as prominent are traditions about faith being difficult, even requiring divine help.

All atheism is is an absence of belief in God.

I sometimes wonder whether some atheists kind of slip back and forth about holding a definite belief about whether God exists or not. When it's time to claim epistemological high ground, it's nice to say that all atheism means is not believing, because the only way to object to that would be to prove God. But sometimes that sounds pretty wishy-washy, and then it's nice to sound more decisive by saying, "I'm not just one of those wishy-washy agnostics who doesn't know either way, I'm an outright atheist."

It can certainly be more principled than that. I like Isaac Asimov's explanation of why he called himself an atheist rather than an agnostic: he wasn't actually sure there was no God, but the possibility of God just didn't interest him. He thought, acted, and felt very much as he would if he had been certain that God didn't exist. He figured it was worth using a word to distinguish his state from someone who might be worrying a lot about God—and he convinced me that he had a good point.

Even with that kind of nuanced atheism, though, it seems to me that there's more to it than just not believing. Asimov's kind of atheism isn't a certainty that there is no God but it's a firm conviction that going through life without thinking at all about God is a sensible way to live. That's a position. It may not be as strong a position—in the logical sense of having many implications—as most religious convictions. But I honestly see it as in the same ballpark, just maybe in the outfield rather than the infield. Atheists can be confident, to a degree that I really don't think is logically warranted, that their position is in some way objectively preferred. I can see the distinction between that, and being sure of some dogma, but it doesn't seem to me like such an important distinction. It's just a variation on the theme of being sure one is right.

What I mean to do is identify the most harmful aspects of religion or any other dogma. I do think it's possible for religion to operate without authoritarianism and without presumed certainty, and I also agree that atheists are not immune from depending on them both. But what we're dealing with at this moment in history is a mostly religious world and, beyond that a very dogmatic world. It's better in my opinion to identify the specific problems because then it is more likely to correct these weaknesses surgically rather than wage stupid wars over them.

If we get better at managing uncertainty, all of us, then the better versions of human institutions, religious and non, will rise to the top.

I can't argue with any of that. I might just add that I'm not sure it's really useful to specify that harmful weaknesses in human culture are religious. Regardless of whether they are or are not religious, the important point may just be that they're harmful. If we can point out the harm, if we can even strengthen the weaknesses, then future historians can argue about how those old weaknesses could have been classified.

[huckelberry]

]

It is not at all clear that that a creator God does not interfere with the process going on.

What are the hints you observe that indicates there is a creator God who does interfere? Why is that not clear?

An advantage of thinking of God as immaterial infinite and eternal is that the large spaces and times of the universe do not present a problem for such a God.

I don't think that's true. If we use prediction as a key to unravelling the immaterial infinite god notion, I think we end up with something quite opposite of what we have. If there is this unknowable, impassable thing out there, what is the purpose of large spaces and times? Our world encompasses the space of but a photon of space in an otherwise spacious and pointless home. Our time window is just as perplexingly imbalanced on the whole. On Mormonism there would be purpose and expectation for huge amounts of space and time, because the number of things, on the assumption, are so astronomical we can't fathom, as they say, anyway.

Stem, I did not say it was clear that God intervenes I said is was clear that there is no way to be sure that he does not. If I think of some seeming miraculous moment I have no way of being sure if God intervened or not.

I am puzzled as to why you think large spaces and times are required to have a purpose. Perhaps one could consider that being is its own purpose. A rock can be a rock without serving a goal. One might also wonder why you imagine other galaxies serve no purpose. They could be full of civilizations as important or more important than the folks on this planet.

Perhaps God likes a large scene with lots of stars.