Does ‘proof’ sway your belief either way?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.

Jonathan Swift

[Anonymous]

Sheldon wrote:

Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired

Jonathan Swift

Good one Sheldon. :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

Sheldon wrote:

Quote:

Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.

Jonathan Swift

Sort of… I prefer Charles Fort here (although don’t get me wrong I am a huge fan of Swift.):

Quote:

Almost all people are hypnotics. The proper authority saw to it that the proper belief should be induced, and the people believed properly.

This doesn’t just apply to religion or the people in religion.

[Anonymous]

DoubtingTom wrote:

As some others have stated, there are very few “proofs,” especially in the context of religion, or even of history. Proofs tend to occur in mathematics, but when it comes to religious or historical questions, we merely have evidences. We can weigh the data, and try to draw the most likely or logical conclusion. Sometimes that conclusion is wrong, and when new information becomes available we adjust our conclusions. That is essentially what the scientific method is.

For me, the evidence certainly does matter, both when it comes to spiritual issues and historical questions. I weigh the evidence and try to draw the most rational and logic conclusion. But I try to remain open to the possibility that my conclusions are wrong – and I look forward to new information that could cause to reevaluate and assess again. For me, this is one of the beauties of my faith transition – I no longer feel bound to only come to conclusions that church tells me to come to. I feel free to draw my own conclusions about things and that has been very liberating.

Good comments. I agree. I pickup in your comments how some areas have a bit more “choice” on what to use to draw conclusions, not that evidence doesn’t matter (historical evidence, for example) but that there is some understanding it won’t be the same as mathematics or other things. So we accept what we have and make a choice based on experience and feeling…then it seems some people long for that “proof” and so they search to attach those things that can do that for them (what we call “proof texting”, for example)…even if it is a bit futile for some things, like teachings or bible writings or things like that. They try to use more rigorous means…but…there really isn’t when things were written the way they were written, and the proof is sometimes not of this world, making it difficult to use tools of this world to apply to the mystical and spiritual side of things. But they try. Almost like a hobby, they want to try to do it. It is usually limited in it’s applications. I find that letting go of need for certainty is freeing and helpful. And instead, focus on the proof through experience…what works for me is good for me to listen to. I can also frame things in religious speak to make it feel good….like…saying God intentionally will hide things from this side of the veil from us so we have our mortal experience achieve it’s purpose…therefore…the proof will always be hidden intentionally.

Believe in God, or not believing God, either way…there is a design of no proof available for some things. That helps to embrace that.

Quote:

I sometimes wonder if Joseph Smith was still around today, how different our doctrines and teachings might be. He was very universalist in some of his approaches, and I wonder if he would be much more embracing of some of the evidence available and humble enough to change certain things. I tend to think he would on many issues.

I’ve often wondered that also. But, which Joseph do you think you are thinking about with that statement? The young prophet leader of the church, or the even younger prophet just starting the church…or perhaps…what would Joseph have thought if he lived to be a 90 yr old prophet like Monson? My guess is those are 3 separate responses.

[Anonymous]

I think the more coherent evidence you have the stronger your position is. If you have little to no evidence then you are operating on faith. Which is OK just don’t expect others to accept what you choose to believe

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Arguing “proof” can be counterproductive and actually cause people to further entrench their beliefs. There have been some interesting studies lately about the backfire effect. Most of these studies have involved politics, and I recently heard a study about smoking. I can’t remember if it was Freaknomics, or The Hidden Brain that tells of a curious case where people who had a belief about smoking, actually did a math correct if they weren’t told about the dangers of smoking. When they were told the dangers of smoking, (and they were a smoker), the did the math problem wrong.

There are multiple articles that address this issue. Arguing “Proof” can backfire and cause the person to further entrench themselves in “alternative facts.”

[Anonymous]

gospeltangents wrote:

There are multiple articles that address this issue. Arguing “Proof” can backfire and cause the person to further entrench themselves in “alternative facts.”

Especially if a “proof” is weak or biased or made under certain assumptions that others are not working under, and that isn’t clearly spelled out.

I think there are some logical fallacies at play often that lead to people talking past each other, even while both clinging to facts that they think prove their point.

Cadence wrote:

I think the more coherent evidence you have the stronger your position is.

I agree with this.

Cadence wrote:

If you have little to no evidence then you are operating on faith. Which is OK just don’t expect others to accept what you choose to believe

I also agree. Although…I think some people are wanting to believe in things that feel good, and want to live by faith in some areas of their life. For some people…living by faith produces some beautiful fruit in their life…and based on their past experience with that…they embrace faith over “proofs” which feel cold and boring to them. The problem for them is just doing a pivot when they find new information, but many find ways to weave that into faith and keep moving forward.

A proof in something is often so small in scope that it doesn’t satisfy the explorer or seeker or mystic side of our human experience.

Certainly…it shouldn’t be devalued. More proof certainly sways my belief. I just don’t need to disbelieve everything else.

[Author]

Posts