The problem with analogies is that they may not always include all of the whys and wherefores. They may make a point but the point is made at the expense of not actually having laid out all the surrounding variables that may not be included in the simple analogy. I have described and pointed out some of those whys and wherefores in this thread.Physics Guy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 7:09 amMG seems to be trying to defend the authenticity of Smith's claimed golden plates by demanding a position that includes hope and faith.
That doesn't follow. There might just not really be any hope of the kind MG wants. We have to face that possibility.
On the other hand I think it can be perfectly reasonable, not as a logical deduction but as a strategy for dealing with life, to decide to focus on a hopeful scenario and go on living as if it were certain, even though one knows it isn't. If you're trying to survive on a desert island or something you don't spend half of each day moping in despair because survival is realistically 50/50 and you need to give equal time to both scenarios. You think about the bad outcome as little as possible, squashing negative thoughts as fast as you can; you celebrate each bit of progress as if it were proof that you are definitely going to get through this. The negative outcome will take care of itself, if it is what's going to happen, so you may as well just ignore it, while if you're going to survive, there'll be a lot for you to do.
That analogy is meant to illustrate a general principle, that utility is a factor along with probability in deciding what theories to entertain. Neither the island survival problem nor the principle that it's meant to illustrate necessarily supports religious faith over atheism. You could even see the island survival analogy as supporting atheism rather than faith: it's in the scenario in which you die alone on the island that you need to make the place as decent as possible for all the years that you'll spend there, while the upbeat scenario in which a boat comes to rescue you is the one that will take care of itself anyway, so you might as well ignore it.
What I really don't get, though, is how the heck MG can sustain the false dichotomy between believing in Smith's golden plates and giving in to existential despair. Literally billions of people have firm hope and faith in eternal life with all their loved ones and a loving God, but also consider Joseph Smith's claims to be obvious fraud. MG has to know this. So how on Earth can MG keep harping back to defending the reality of Smith's ancient plates by declaring that rejecting them means abandoning faith and hope?
Rejecting the plates and the angel for many folks, let’s say other Christians, does not cause them to abandon hope and faith. For an active LDS person rejecting the plates and the angel might cause them to abandon their faith and hope in the core message of the restoration and even their belief in God. Two scenarios.
Earlier I referred to apples and oranges. Gadianton, and now you, like to paint others into a box of your own making. My thoughts and opinions cannot be boxed up into a container that you then put a certain label on, tape up the box, and send it off as though it actually contains MY thoughts/opinions/conclusions. I’m (we) are more complicated/nuanced than the caricatures that are often created and then presented as accurate representations of reality.
You can do that, but it doesn’t hold any real substance in fact or truth.
And then I’m left with the responsibility of trying to untangle a mess that is, at least in my mind as I see it, purposefully created without much thought. Or, on the other hand, maybe some real thought has been given but with the intent of misdirection or setting a trap.
That gets old.
The reasons for hope in a hereafter should be based on sound logic and evidence. That logic and evidence of course is going to be open for debate and acceptability based upon what various parties see as good logic and evidence. And that will be dependent on the biases and assumptions/presuppositions that are brought to the table. And don’t forget life experience, cultural influences, and the natural man (moral inclinations and desires, etc.)
You seem to have a ‘Wow!’ factor built into your estimations as to how I can believe in the plates. I understand that. You and I have different life experiences that put us in different places. The important thing is to try and understand and accept the other and their viewpoints as being valid without automatically casting them off as being nonsensical.
Although, truth be told, I so the same thing as I consider the rationality of Scientology and other what I see as false ideologies and beliefs. So each of us is subject to certain biases towards others and we believe that we’re more closely aligned with what is closer to the truth.
We really do work out our own salvation (path of enlightenment).
Regards,
MG
