What would it take for you to leave Mormonism?

[_asbestosman]

I wasn't really trying to be funny - I was serious.

I only meant it as a figure of expression.

The quotes you provided basically say that.

Religion is not pseudoscience - it can be tested.

You're right. However, I think the support of how it is testable is important to bring up. In other words, it's more than just is not vs is so argument--at least from my point of view

So let's test it. Let's get 100 random people in a room, have them read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and see what kinds of answers they get. What do you say?

I think one can only prove it to onesself and not to another person. That, I believe, is the nature of faith. I think it's something like a Zero Knowledge Proof in the sense that one can know for ones self that God has access to certain hidden knowledge but will not be able to prove it to someone else because the one who learned it did not actually obtain God's source of hidden knowledge. Furthermore I believe that God will not be tempted in such a manner as to demonstrate this under scientific controls. Rather He will answer the sincere in His own time in His own way. Sorry, but I can't command God any more than I can command the President of the United States or any other dignatary.

[_asbestosman]

Believers recognize the source of their belief as experiential—based on direct involvement with the sacred. Among Latter-day Saints, the traditional arguments for God are practically nonexistent. However, we find in the writings of Joseph Smith an argument for the existence of God—he obtained that knowledge from direct experience.

What total BS. What's the difference between the claim of Joseph Smith's first vision and people who claim to have been picked up by flying saucers? This review is just a special plea: "Our religious belief is different, in just IS! Okay?"

This experimental aspect of religion, highly emphasized in Mormonism, is neglected completely by Sagan and by many scientific thinkers. Sagan seems to think that religious belief is only supported by emotion, that we persist because it feels good, and we wish it to be true. To the contrary, the results of experiments of faith provide the same kind of rational basis for belief as science.

Sorry, that's more garbage. If experiments of faith provided a basis for rational belief, then Jason Bourne wouldn't be wondering what use it is to pray for confirmation when the test is loaded with only one right answer.

See my previous post. Not that I claim to have fully addressed Jason Bourne's legitimate concerns.

[_The Dude]

You're right. However, I think the support of how it is testable is important to bring up. In other words, it's more than just is not vs is so argument--at least from my point of view...

I think one can only prove it to onesself and not to another person. That, I believe, is the nature of faith..

Yes, it's important to bring this up as a demonstration of how it is nothing like science.

Henry Eyring is wrong about this:

The same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion.

The basic point of Sagan's book is that the same pragmatic tests don't work for religion.

[Analytics]

You're right. However, I think the support of how it is testable is important to bring up. In other words, it's more than just is not vs is so argument--at least from my point of view...

I think one can only prove it to onesself and not to another person. That, I believe, is the nature of faith..

Yes, it's important to bring this up as a demonstration of how it is nothing like science.

I'm pretty sure that Zero Knowledge Proofs are something like science--they are quite useful in computer science.

(edited because I don't want to sound snarky).

[_Who Knows]

So then Zero Knowledge Proofs are nothing like science? I coulda sworn it was an useful part of computer science. Must be my BYU education.

From what extremely little I understood of this 'proof', it appears to follow the scientific method - in other words, it's testable/proveable - statistically speaking.

ABman - maybe you can help me here - the only thing I did to get an understanding of this is read the Peggy/Victor example. Is the example missing something? I don't understand something - is someone (other than Peggy or Victor) on the other side of the door verifying the secret word so that Peggy can open it? It appears that way, but the example doesn't specifically mention that.

[_maklelan]

You say that like its a bad thing.

Its not a reductionist argument (I think). Its based on living your life based on the evidence given to you.

1 - What then makes the evidence given him better than the evidence given me?

2 - How does he presume to decide exactly what evidence has been given me, and then judge it?

[_maklelan]

Mac, that's just one example. Its a busy day here in Tennessee and im going home. I'll get some more together.

Its like shooting fish in a barrell.

Well, the first shot went wide.

[_maklelan]

I'll second what Seth wrote.

Mak - if the church brings you joy - great. If it brings you spiritual witnesses - great. But you do realize that this says absolutely nothing about the truth of the church. Like Seth said, millions of people experience these sorts of things in various religions. Do you really think they provide even a shred of evidence for any sort of truth regarding religion? Sure, it may be 'true' for that individual, but saying it's somehow universally true is just plain wrong.

Like I said - if it makes you happy - good for you - just so long as you know that it means absolutely nothing in terms of real/universal truth.

So you believe in absolute truth?

I believe your 'knowledge' of truth is only applicable to yourself, and tells us nothing about it's applicability to people in general. Likewise for Tom Cruise, Bin Laden, etc. I believe their 'knowledge' of truth is about as valid as yours - in other words - it has zero value to me.

The fact that these 'truths' contradict each other tells me that either they've all got it wrong - or they're all right (in some way).

Anyways, what I was trying to say is this: I may believe the FSM and his 'gospel' is true - but I'm sure you'd agree that my knowledge of this 'truth' says nothing about it's 'universal' 'truthiness'.

So the validity of an individual's faith is decided by the integrity and cohesiveness of the combined whole of all faith?

[Analytics]

So then Zero Knowledge Proofs are nothing like science? I coulda sworn it was an useful part of computer science. Must be my BYU education.

From what extremely little I understood of this 'proof', it appears to follow the scientific method - in other words, it's testable/proveable - statistically speaking.

ABman - maybe you can help me here - the only thing I did to get an understanding of this is read the Peggy/Victor example. Is the example missing something? I don't understand something - is someone (other than Peggy or Victor) on the other side of the door verifying the secret word so that Peggy can open it? It appears that way, but the example doesn't specifically mention that.

The Cave Story only has Peggy and Victor. Peggy is trying to demonstrate to Victor that she knows the secret to open the door without actually giving that secret to Victor--at least not when proving that she knows it. How the magic word opens the door is an unimportant detail for the illustration. It might be a computer with word recognition. It doesn't matter.

Now I grant that this is not immediately applicapble to faith. If I am not Peggy. I am more like Victor. I (Victor) know that God (Peggy) knows the secret to happiness, but since I do not, I cannot prove it to you. There are some other technical details I haven't worked out, but I think this is more or less how it works. I think each of us (Victor) must go to God (Peggy) and learn for ourselves that God does indeed posess the hidden knowledge.

[_maklelan]

Does he speak of my personal faith, or does he reduce the faiths of millions to one easy to handle formula that he then takes apart?

"The faith of millions..." ah, you're so close Maklelan!

The real problem is millions of faiths.

Read my quote just a little harder.