Is there any degree of self-persuasion involved in faith?

[_tagriffy]

Ugh. This is what I would consider self-persuasion of the worst sort. This sort of approach to me basically says disengage your brain entirely and fool yourself into believing.

[_LittleNipper]

Ugh. This is what I would consider self-persuasion of the worst sort. This sort of approach to me basically says disengage your brain entirely and fool yourself into believing.

How so? I needed a car. God knows my needs. I prayed for a good mode of transportation. I had a dream where a voice asked me for what color car do you like. I said any color. And again, I was asked what color. I stated red. My mechanic told me that the Buck dealer nearby had a nice Mercury Sable it got in on trade. He knew nothing except that I needed a car, and he did not know the color (he saw it in the paper). The dealer started to show me around. I wanted something cheaper and I saw this red car. Seems it was the very car my mechanic friend was speaking about. This car was a God send. It has given me very little trouble. I tend to keep cars until they die. I have to believe God provided this car. I have no other explanation. And this isn't the only thing. This has happened again and again at very strategic moments in my life's journey. I would be a fool not to believe that God was involved.

[_tagriffy]

So what happens when the right coincidences stop happening?

[_Fence Sitter]

So what happens when the right coincidences stop happening?

The rote answer is somehow God is not responsible.

God seems to be a God of convenience for some.

One always hears about people who are caught in natural disasters who were spared by some divine intervention. I always wonder how many of those that died were hoping for the same divine help?

I am curious Tim, is there anything you would consider as evidence that God does not exist? Or at least some sort of evidence that he does not exist in the manner you believe him to exist?

[_tagriffy]

Geez, that would mean trying to figure out what manner I believe Him to exist. That's something I really don't sweat the details on. Again, there is more "not" than there is "is" ("Little Nipper, God is not Santa Claus"). The only hard-and-fast "is" I hold about God is that God is.

Okay, even mud is clear that that kind of statement. Let me try a different approach.

Talk about God necessarily uses the language of mythology (mythos), not the language of logic or science (logos). I bring these languages together to a certain extent in doing theology ("faith seeking understanding"), but I avoid confusing mythos with logos. So if you are asking whether there is any sort of logical or scientific evidence that would prove God does not exist, then I would say no, there isn't. You could (possibly) replace the myth, but I don't think that would quite mean disproving God's existence per se.

[Guest]

...

[_Tyresias]

Is there any kind of mental processes that help you guys put doubt aside?

At the Mormon Discussions and Dialogue board, several active mental processes help in formulating apologetic responses, mainly denial, suppression and confabulation. However, leaving doubt intact ultimately leads to a more reasonable and satisfying version of faith.

This is really interesting. Could you elaborate? Why does having doubt lead to a more reasonable and satisfying version of faith? Do you have any examples of this? Or what you mentioned about about denial, supression and confabulation? ...rationalization is an important one too.

[_Tyresias]

self-persuasion? seriously? exactly what self-generated argument is being presented in the OP premise?
Besides most self persuasion arguments are positive outcome arguments, not as positioned by Moroni's promise.
The widely accepted theory behind self-perception has been that:
1. forced advocacy decreases agreement with the position advocated
2. advocacy in the absence of external pressure results in agreement with the advocated position
3. forced advocacy results in attitudes held by similar others.

What is this "widely accepted theroy" you speak of? I'm going off Daniel Goldman, Maio and Thomas, and Robert Trivers. I'd like to understand what you're saying and get a broader grasp on the topic- but it's difficult to concentrate because I don't think you are going to agree with me- no matter what evidence I provide.... So, basically, I'm falling into the same trap as I'm proposing leads one to construct faith. Namely self-persuasion through a selective attention to the details that confirm your desired beliefs...

[_Tyresias]

There was an article in Dialogue or Sunstone (I've lost my collections and I'm too lazy to look it up online right now) that talked about how talk of "knowledge" in testimony bearing can be a detriment. In a sense, saying something like "I know the Gospel is true," is about sharing a sacramental language; probably most of the people who say "I know" really just mean something like "I believe." I've used the language of "knowledge" in bearing my testimony, but usually the context was an attempt to counter someone else's "knowledge." I don't think I ever had the courage to simply say, "I believe ...." Usually, I preferred something like, "I have a testimony of ...." I my mind at least, that basically split the difference.

This idea of sharing a sacramental language is really interesting- can you give me any more information so I can look it up?

What do you think about reinforcing ones testimony through repeated public displays of faith during testamony meetings? It wondering if the act of pronouncing your faith, belief, knowledge, etc actually solidifies it? ... there's got to be some psychological studies on public pronouncements and the effects of propaganda on the producer of the propaganda... Im thinking 1984 here.

[_Fence Sitter]

Geez, that would mean trying to figure out what manner I believe Him to exist. That's something I really don't sweat the details on. Again, there is more "not" than there is "is" ("Little Nipper, God is not Santa Claus"). The only hard-and-fast "is" I hold about God is that God is.

Okay, even mud is clear that that kind of statement. Let me try a different approach.

Talk about God necessarily uses the language of mythology (mythos), not the language of logic or science (logos). I bring these languages together to a certain extent in doing theology ("faith seeking understanding"), but I avoid confusing mythos with logos. So if you are asking whether there is any sort of logical or scientific evidence that would prove God does not exist, then I would say no, there isn't. You could (possibly) replace the myth, but I don't think that would quite mean disproving God's existence per se.

When you say "God is"

1. Do you assume that statement always means the same thing to others?
2. How would you respond to someone who flatly states "God isn't"? (or someone who states He isn't in the way you think He is?)
3. How does one follow a God without some sort of understanding beyond "He is"?

I am not just asking if there is any "sort of logical or scientific evidence" that you would consider evidence against his existence (though there may be some), I am asking if there is ANY evidence at all that would convince you that God is not, or at least he is not as you think he is. For example one might consider a complete lack of any responses to persistent sincere prayer as such evidence, or one might consider a consistent lack of blessings being poured out to a faithful life long tithe payer, or perhaps a burning the the bosom that tells you the Joseph Smith was a false prophet, maybe a spiritual encounter with a disciple of Hinduism or Buddhism that might convince you your concept of who God is, isn't correct, this sort of thing.