Three Questions (Split from, ‘Vogel Responds …’)

[malkie]

I get it. The earlier conversation tried to keep information off the pile by claiming it was peripheral. Failing that, it's now about minimizing the importance of the evidence. Archeological evidence contradicts the original claims about the Book of Mormon being a record of the Native Americans? Don't worry, that evidence doesn't belong on the pile because we don't know enough to put it there. FV issues? We weren't there so keep that off the pile, too.

It's a subtle admission that the Church is false.

It is never the case that somebody with a serious theory advocates by playing defense fulltime with arguments from extreme skepticism. Even MG's positive arguments for his faith are really just arguments from skepticism masquerading as evidence.

"Yes! we can detect Cesium with this filter but how/when/who/etc. do we really know/long do we wait/is observing/etc may explain a variety of results from it's never going to happen to it's a sure thing. It really comes down to what do we believe?

The Sorites Paradox tells us a couple of important things. No matter how many "strikes" against the "Pile" of faith/knowledge it's still a pile. A couple of things could be misunderstood/wrong/unclear but even if we throw those "grains" out it's still a pile. If we throw out a hundred grains and its a pile, then 101 grains won't matter either. Keep it in the Father's perspective of faith/understanding/logc. On the other hand, the "pile of doubt" can't be made from two or three "grains". And if a hundred grains of doubt aren't enough to say ABSOLUTELY FOR SURE that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet then surely 101 grains don't either."

Is it OK to keep a pile of grains on my shelf?

[MG 2.0]

I get it. The earlier conversation tried to keep information off the pile by claiming it was peripheral. Failing that, it's now about minimizing the importance of the evidence. Archeological evidence contradicts the original claims about the Book of Mormon being a record of the Native Americans? Don't worry, that evidence doesn't belong on the pile because we don't know enough to put it there. FV issues? We weren't there so keep that off the pile, too.

It's a subtle admission that the Church is false.

If the pile was static, one could make that argument. I’m suggesting that when studying by learning and also by faith, and continues to do so, the pile is dynamic. Sure, if there is nothing to add to the pile in the way of learning and faith that doesn’t compensate for the grains of doubt and disbelief that are added to the pile then Houston, we have a problem.

In other words initially, starting at ground zero, there is no pile. Grains are added bit by bit from various sources/means. Gradually we might come to see a pile develop. For some people that pile might be composed mainly of faith grains with doubt grains basically non existent. For others the pile that gradually comes into being may be a composite of faith but also grains of skepticism and doubt.

For some that pile will develop and then remain rather static. It doesn’t really change. For others the grains of doubt and faith may be constantly added and subtracted and the pile is more or less a composite of (or recognition of) elements of faith/hope/skepticism/doubt.

So the grains may, for some, be coming and going and the pile is dynamic. Ebb and flow.

As this process continues, however, there may come a time when the fluidity of the ebb and flow of the grains coming into and out of the pile might become more or less static. One recognizes a pattern emerging in which a certain amount of ‘trust’ develops in regards to the steady state of the pile either showing an average of more grains of faith or more grains of doubt composing the majority of the pile.

From that point/transition faith and doubt coexist, the doubt evolves into questions that are put on a shelf. A morphing of the composition of the what were once grains of doubt. One can live with questions as long as there are valid reasons/logic to believe (of course, that is where we diverge).

The Sorites Paradox tells us a couple of important things. No matter how many "strikes" against the "Pile" of faith/knowledge it's still a pile. A couple of things could be misunderstood/wrong/unclear but even if we throw those "grains" out it's still a pile. If we throw out a hundred grains and it’s a pile, then 101 grains won't matter either. Keep it in the Father's perspective of faith/understanding/logc. On the other hand, the "pile of doubt" can't be made from two or three "grains". And if a hundred grains of doubt aren't enough to say ABSOLUTELY FOR SURE that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet then surely 101 grains don't either."

Again, I would suggest that the pile is dynamic rather than static although over time that can change. The pile can be overwhelmingly composed of grains of doubt and skepticism or overwhelming composed of grains of faith and hope in something greater than ourselves and the here and now. The pile that develops over time can also be a result of an ebb and flow of grains coming in and grains going out of opposite polarities.

In that case a person may ‘choose’ faith over doubt or visa versa.

Obviously this is a very simplistic and somewhat uneven description of trying to lay out the complexity of all the variables and/or conditions that go into producing faith or doubt. I don’t doubt for a minute that my rather spontaneous/quick response to your post has some flaws in logic. But overall I think the point I’m trying to make is rather clear.

Black and white thinking results in a gradual development, over time, of a pile that remains rather static in its composition. Black and white thinking either by way of skepticism OR faith.

That’s why, as I said earlier, I try to keep a sense of balance in my own spiritual/intellectual life. By study and also by faith. But with eyes wide open. It has served me well.

One can be a believer and yet agnostic in regards to some things. But the core doctrines are adhered to as being true. As long as the composition and state of being of ‘the pile’ permits it.

YMMV.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
MG

[canpakes]

The Sorites Paradox tells us a couple of important things. No matter how many "strikes" against the "Pile" of faith/knowledge it's still a pile. A couple of things could be misunderstood/wrong/unclear but even if we throw those "grains" out it's still a pile. If we throw out a hundred grains and it’s a pile, then 101 grains won't matter either. Keep it in the Father's perspective of faith/understanding/logc. On the other hand, the "pile of doubt" can't be made from two or three "grains". And if a hundred grains of doubt aren't enough to say ABSOLUTELY FOR SURE that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet then surely 101 grains don't either."

Is it OK to keep a pile of grains on my shelf?

As long as it’s a Sorites shelf. Then, no matter how many grains you pile up on it, it cannot ever break.

[Marcus]

It's a subtle admission that the Church is false.

If the pile was static, one could make that argument. I’m suggesting that when studying by learning and also by faith, and continues to do so, the pile is dynamic...

You really, really don't understand the Sorites paradox, do you.

But to address your ill-made point,

...One can be a believer and yet agnostic in regards to some things. But the core doctrines are adhered to as being true. As long as the composition and state of being of ‘the pile’ permits it...

You have stated that the core doctrines are believed in by you, as a matter of faith. Which requires you, by your above analogy, to 'see' your 'pile' as supporting that belief. In other words, you see what you need to see to support your beliefs, and you do not actually attach any weight to the evidence that does not.

...That’s why, as I said earlier, I try to keep a sense of balance in my own spiritual/intellectual life. By study and also by faith. But with eyes wide open...

No you don't. By your own words, you don't. It doesn't really matter, except when you come here and try to preach how your 'sense of balance' and 'open-mindedness' have led you to believe in the LDS church. That is just not true, based on your own words. But it is interesting to see the pretzel thinking you require in an attempt to support your points.

[Marcus]

Is it OK to keep a pile of grains on my shelf?

As long as it’s a Sorites shelf. Then, no matter how many grains you pile up on it, it cannot ever break.

Not quite. Going the other direction, since an unlimited number of grains would clearly break a shelf, then even one grain would.

[canpakes]

As long as it’s a Sorites shelf. Then, no matter how many grains you pile up on it, it cannot ever break.

Not quite. Going the other direction, since an unlimited number of grains would clearly break a shelf, then even one grain would.

.spoO .sdrawcab taht evah I ,hoO

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Once again MG takes an opportunity given to him to actually lay out a proposition, and he chooses to stray from the point.

MG, please "explain just how the heck Mormonism can at all rightly fall under the Sorites paradox."

Sigh. We'll try this one more time.

MG, please "explain just how the heck Mormonism can at all rightly fall under the Sorites paradox."

[Physics Guy]

The relevance of the "Sorites Paradox" to faith might be real, depending on how one thinks about how the paradox is resolved.

The standard resolution is to call heap/no-heap a false dilemma and introduce an intermediate range from "almost getting to be a little heap, there", just above a few grains of sand, up to "a pretty good heap" for a heap that's just a little scanty, with as many shades of heap-ness in between as one wants. Alternatively one invokes so-called fuzzy logic and defines a probabilistic "degree to which this set of sand grains counts as a heap" that can range between zero and one.

I think that if you take either of those interpretations of how to think about heaps, then heaps don't have much to say about belief versus evidence or arguments. No grain of evidence is just irrelevant because adding or removing it has zero effect on the heap status. Rather, each grain moves you one way or the other through the range of shades of heap-ness. It might not move you far, but it counts. Just how far it does move you is an ordinary matter of judging evidence, and the "Sorites Paradox" is irrelevant.

Another idea about heaps might indeed be relevant to belief, though. Suppose that your psychological perception of whether sand is a heap works like this.

You start with just a few grains of sand, and add grains one by one. After each added grain, you peer at the pile and conclude that it still for sure isn't a heap. Then at some point, say 205 grains, you start to wonder, and two grains later it's suddenly clear: at 207 grains of sand, this is a heap now, all right. It won't get much more heap-ish from here, no matter how many grains you add.

But instead now you start taking away grains of sand, again one at a time. You can now get well below 205 grains of sand, and with that picture in your mind of the sand being a heap, darn it, they still look like a perfectly good heap to you, until you get down to, like, 53 grains. Bang, at 51 grains, you're once again sure: this is by no means a heap. In the whole range between 53 grain and 205 grains, you can be equally clear that this pile is, or isn't, a heap. Whether it's a heap or not doesn't depend, in this range, on how many sand grains there are. Instead it depends on whether you're coming from the heap or the non-heap side.

In technical terms, that kind of way of judging heap-ness has a "fold catastrophe".

[Marcus]

I assume that is something like the straw that broke the camel's back, or, to stay within the mornon paradigm, the one thing that broke your shelf.

Also, you are assuming that grains are evaluated on their actual content. Many mopologists admit quite freely that the conclusion they are looking for is the same as their (non-negotiable) starting assumption. Adding or subtracting grains is irrelevant if the grain is mis-interpreted, ignored, or arbitrarily devalued based on the requirement that it must support one's starting position.

[malkie]

The relevance of the "Sorites Paradox" to faith might be real, depending on how one thinks about how the paradox is resolved.

...

Another idea about heaps might indeed be relevant to belief, though. Suppose that your psychological perception of whether sand is a heap works like this.

You start with just a few grains of sand, and add grains one by one. After each added grain, you peer at the pile and conclude that it still for sure isn't a heap. Then at some point, say 205 grains, you start to wonder, and two grains later it's suddenly clear: at 207 grains of sand, this is a heap now, all right. It won't get much more heap-ish from here, no matter how many grains you add.

But instead now you start taking away grains of sand, again one at a time. You can now get well below 205 grains of sand, and with that picture in your mind of the sand being a heap, darn it, they still look like a perfectly good heap to you, until you get down to, like, 53 grains. Bang, at 51 grains, you're once again sure: this is by no means a heap. In the whole range between 53 grain and 205 grains, you can be equally clear that this pile is, or isn't, a heap. Whether it's a heap or not doesn't depend, in this range, on how many sand grains there are. Instead it depends on whether you're coming from the heap or the non-heap side.

In technical terms, that kind of way of judging heap-ness has a "fold catastrophe".

I would call it a "heapsteresis".

If I'm reading this properly, and if you were to plot this process, I think that you will end up with a graph with a couple of discontinuities on the "load grains" curve and the "unload grains" curve:

As you can see, I'm a bit uncertain exactly where to draw the horizontal sections of the "load" and "unload" curves.