Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

[malkie]

Not sure how apt the oil gauge analogy is. For faith in the plane flying we have actual empirical evidence for slew of topic related to planes. their flying, and reliability.

For religious and god claims, we have anecdote. That is it.

Faith in one vs the other is really quite different. One truly is "evidence of things unseen".

Yes indeed.

And the empirical evidence you mention has not only repeatable experience to back it up, but (perhaps not 100%) a strong theoretical backing as well, where the theories (again, perhaps not 100%) are part of an interlocking and mutually-supporting set. Aircraft maintenance does not depend on a set of principles and practices that is totally at odds with those of, say, power station maintenance. Each has its own specifics, of course, but the underlying principles are the same for both. One result of this is that power station maintenance engineers do not proselytize aircraft maintenance engineers to 'convert' them to the one true maintenance engineering, nor does each 'side' feel that they have to denounce the other as heretics. I could go on, but I think I've already pushed this analogy to or past reasonable limits

The various religions are not only generally deficient in this respect, but are not in agreement about some of the fundamentals.

2 Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

3 First, The idea that he [God] actually exists.

4 Secondly, A correct idea of his [God's] character, perfections and attributes.

5 Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his {God's] will.

At the time, Joseph himself apparently did not satisfy the second "thing", as he later greatly revised his ideas of God's character and attributes.

Even today, some Christians reject Mormonism as Christianity based on the Mormon teachings about the character and attributes God.

[JohnW]

Probability. Honorentheos and Rivendale have hit upon the critical difference between trust (confidence in something for which one has repeated, positive experience such as the brakes in my car working when I need them to) and faith (confidence in something for which there is no empirical evidence--God and after-life). Trust is putting one's confidence in the probable; faith is putting one's confidence in the improbable.

That isn't how I defined trust originally. I said trust was confidence in someone else's experience. I'm not talking about confidence in the brakes in my car but confidence in the brakes of the bus when I first step on the bus. I'm assuming the driver or maintenance person did their job. This is different.

At that point, regular secular experiences with trust become just a little closer to religious experience, although I concede that there is still a medium-sized gulf between the two.

[honorentheos]

Probability. Honorentheos and Rivendale have hit upon the critical difference between trust (confidence in something for which one has repeated, positive experience such as the brakes in my car working when I need them to) and faith (confidence in something for which there is no empirical evidence--God and after-life). Trust is putting one's confidence in the probable; faith is putting one's confidence in the improbable.

That isn't how I defined trust originally. I said trust was confidence in someone else's experience. I'm not talking about confidence in the brakes in my car but confidence in the brakes of the bus when I first step on the bus. I'm assuming the driver or maintenance person did their job. This is different.

At that point, regular secular experiences with trust become just a little closer to religious experience, although I concede that there is still a medium-sized gulf between the two.

A bus you just watched come to a stop to let you on requires as much faith it's brakes will work now you are on the bus as, say, believing the Book of Mormon is a record of an ancient Hebrew migration to the Americas despite the immense amount of evidence to the contrary?

Are you sure?

To be clear, on of those sits on the side of probably so while the other is in the side of probably not. It's not a medium size gulf as it's a choice to ignore the probabilities for some other reason than evidence.

[JohnW]

Quantum mechanics might be an interesting example of faith. I think that learning quantum mechanics probably does require some faith, because it's so weird that few people would make the effort required to understand it if they didn't trust the teachers who tell them it's true. No doubt one could instead follow the bootstrapping, inductive procedure by which QM was first constructed, but this would be a lot harder and slower than just taking a course.

For many people there might even be an element of "credo ut intelligam"—the principle of believing first, before understanding, because it makes sense once you believe it, and only then. Suspending disbelief for a while, and going through the mental motions of following a quantum mechanical description of a real experiment right through to the end, may itself be the mental experiment that makes you begin to see how QM makes sense.

And you don't have to believe QM is perfect to understand it and use it. A lot of people including me suspect that QM must be significantly incomplete in some way, but we still believe that its calculations will be right in most circumstances, even if they seem weird. This willingness to trust a theory while admitting its flaws may be another aspect of faith.

So, okay, if somebody thinks they can stand on unassailably high epistemological ground by declaring that one should always trust science rather than faith, then maybe quantum mechanics can be a counterexample inasmuch as it's a case in which science itself is usually supported by faith.

The one case of quantum mechanics by no means establishes a universal counter-principle that one should always accept things on faith, however. Using QM as a counterexample for science-versus-faith is a bit like using Bill Gates as a counterexample to the statement that Silicon Valley real estate is unaffordable.

Quantum mechanics isn't just a family tradition. The evidence that supports it is enormously more substantial than personal anecdote. It's not just something that a few million people recite together each Sunday. It's molecules.

Non-believers may not be able to sustain a strict zero-tolerance faith policy, but I think they can put up one of those little clown signs that you see at amusement parks, saying, "You must be this tall to ride this faith train." Quantum mechanics will walk past that sign with its chin comfortably over the little clown's hat. Other beliefs may have to go for ice cream.

This captures what I think I experienced. I trusted my professors long enough to push past the counter intuitiveness and gain a better understanding of quantum mechanics through experience and familiarity. I did a similar thing with religion, I trusted what others said long enough to push past the difficulties and maintain a testimony through experience and familiarity with God.

I agree that quantum mechanics and religion are still quite different. I guess the approach I took to both was similar.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

That isn't how I defined trust originally. I said trust was confidence in someone else's experience. I'm not talking about confidence in the brakes in my car but confidence in the brakes of the bus when I first step on the bus. I'm assuming the driver or maintenance person did their job. This is different.

At that point, regular secular experiences with trust become just a little closer to religious experience, although I concede that there is still a medium-sized gulf between the two.

A bus you just watched come to a stop to let you on requires as much faith it's brakes will work now you are on the bus as, say, believing the Book of Mormon is a record of an ancient Hebrew migration to the Americas despite the immense amount of evidence to the contrary?

Are you sure?

To be clear, on of those sits on the side of probably so while the other is in the side of probably not. It's not a medium size gulf as it's a choice to ignore the probabilities for some other reason than evidence.

Yes, because QM is weird.

- Doc

[JohnW]

That isn't how I defined trust originally. I said trust was confidence in someone else's experience. I'm not talking about confidence in the brakes in my car but confidence in the brakes of the bus when I first step on the bus. I'm assuming the driver or maintenance person did their job. This is different.

At that point, regular secular experiences with trust become just a little closer to religious experience, although I concede that there is still a medium-sized gulf between the two.

A bus you just watched come to a stop to let you on requires as much faith it's brakes will work now you are on the bus as, say, believing the Book of Mormon is a record of an ancient Hebrew migration to the Americas despite the immense amount of evidence to the contrary?

Are you sure?

To be clear, on of those sits on the side of probably so while the other is in the side of probably not. It's not a medium size gulf as it's a choice to ignore the probabilities for some other reason than evidence.

Most people aren't using the Book of Mormon as a historical text. They are using it to draw closer to God. So yes, if they read a passage and feel a little closer to God, they might trust the missionaries and get baptized in an effort to start a journey toward God. That is similar to the bus analogy in that you have one data point on its brakes when you step on. The person has one data point on how the Book of Mormon can draw them close to God.

And yes, I periodically get on a bus in LA trusting they are in good mechanical condition despite all the visual evidence to the contrary. (smiley face)

[Doctor Steuss]

JohnW, I primarily wanted to thank you for being an example of congenial dialogue. It certainly helps my internal compass of curmudgeonality (not a real word, but I'm going to claim it).

I want to pre-empt the following that it is not only coming off-the-cuff from memory, but it is from a memory that has suffered a series of ongoing cognitive limitations. So, a grain of salt, and all of that jazz.

I think one aspect that may be missing in this, which doesn't carry over into modern Christianity/religious language is that faith in early Christianity (at least given the time, location, and language choice of the gospels) was potentially footed within the Greek reciprocity system, and a continuation of the God of reciprocity that Jews had a relationship with.

Faith in a religious context wasn't just a trust, or belief. It was faithfulness. It was emblematic of the relationship between a Lord and those under their charge. "Faith" implied loyalty. Faith in Christ wasn't a trust that He was God (or God's son), but rather loyalty to him as Lord, and the reciprocal relationship associated with that loyalty (i.e. "I can't provide myself with x, but my Lord can, and will provide me with x, if I am loyal and do y.")

Basically, I guess to extend this, somewhat loosely with your OP is that in a more direct sense, we all have a similar loyalty/faithfulness is relationships. I am loyal to _____. I trust that they will _____. I think that this type of "faith," that everyone has, is generally more in line with the faith of early Christians in regards to the divine. Similarly, it probably suffers from the same shortcomings of trying to draw a direct comparison (as the loyalty/trust reciprocity is physically measurable in the immediate in one instance, and not so much in the other).

[malkie]

A bus you just watched come to a stop to let you on requires as much faith it's brakes will work now you are on the bus as, say, believing the Book of Mormon is a record of an ancient Hebrew migration to the Americas despite the immense amount of evidence to the contrary?

Are you sure?

To be clear, on of those sits on the side of probably so while the other is in the side of probably not. It's not a medium size gulf as it's a choice to ignore the probabilities for some other reason than evidence.

Most people aren't using the Book of Mormon as a historical text. They are using it to draw closer to God. So yes, if they read a passage and feel a little closer to God, they might trust the missionaries and get baptized in an effort to start a journey toward God. That is similar to the bus analogy in that you have one data point on its brakes when you step on. The person has one data point on how the Book of Mormon can draw them close to God.

And yes, I periodically get on a bus in LA trusting they are in good mechanical condition despite all the visual evidence to the contrary. (smiley face)

I see the question as not whether people are using the Book of Mormon as a historical text (there being little evidence that they are - at least, not that I'm aware of) so much as people coming to accept the Book of Mormon as a religious text partly based on the teaching of the LDS church that it is historical, and that it was miraculously translated into English from gold plates that contained a genuine history.

Genuine science-based organizations like The Smithsonian make a good case (for me) that there is no scientific basis on which to claim that the Book of Mormon is a historical text.

Gedankenexperiment
Suppose that the missionaries taught that science-based case, but said that in spite of there being no good evidence for the Book of Mormon as a historical text, it can still be used to draw closer to God. What do you think would happen? Would it work in converting people to Mormonism? What would they then teach about Joseph Smith?

If the Book of Mormon is truly inspired by a real god, and Moroni's promise is still true, should it matter about the rest of the story? Should it not stand on its own merits?

[malkie]

JohnW, I primarily wanted to thank you for being an example of congenial dialogue. It certainly helps my internal compass of curmudgeonality (not a real word, but I'm going to claim it).
...

Seconded!!!

[Nimrod]

Most people aren't using the Book of Mormon as a historical text. They are using it to draw closer to God. So yes, if they read a passage and feel a little closer to God, they might trust the missionaries and get baptized in an effort to start a journey toward God.

JohnW, assuming there is a god, why do you assume that the Book of Mormon actually helps readers of it to 'draw closer to God' rather than to something other than the actual god? One has to not only believe that there is a god rather than no god at all, and secondarily that the Book of Mormon god is the actual god rather than such super being as described by thousands of other religions across the planet. But, why if the Book of Mormon does describe the actual god, why does that god need to imbue this 'manual to draw closer to god' with so many fabrications?