- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Don’t worry; I have a testimony – let me explain what I mean by the thread title. Perhaps someone here has heard of LessWrong, self-described as “a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality.” While much of its content comes from an atheist humanist, and indeed the concept of a testimony is considered too unlikely to be worth investigating when it’s mentioned at all, but it’s the best online community I know of that focuses on cognitive biases, psychological fallacies, proper statistical reasoning, etc. It’s possibly the best resource on rationality, period. What I envision is an LDS website, founded upon the premise that the Church, gospel, etc. is believed to be true, that documents and discusses Mormon-related thinking. For example, there’s the philosophy of testimonies, the availability of sources for official doctrine, and the biases and fallacies that come about from incorrect understandings of church doctrine (such as black-and-white thinking and confusing doctrine with LDS culture).
What do people here think? Interesting? Badly defined? Already something like this out there?
I don’t think religion fits very well into that type of extremely rational and logical paradigm. Those are fantastic tools for deconstructing religious faith. Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s natural and healthy for people to deconstruct their faith at some period in their life, when they are ready for that journey. People who take that journey deconstruct their views and drill down to various depths until they are satisfied they understand the clockwork of their faith. The natural conclusion is to end up with a big pile of broken pieces that no longer fit back together the way they used to. The rebuilding process is really cool though because THEN people own their new faith. They build it for their needs and depend much less on what is handed to them.
Could someone create a website for the rational exploration of the Mormon faith? Sure. But I don’t think it would increase faith (unless you take the longer view that you have to lose your faith to eventually find it). It’s still a good exercise. But IMO, religion isn’t logical or rational. It is a tool to access the transcendent and irrational (irrational is not bad, just beyond rational). Those things are too big to fit into our conscious mind. , so we create stories and experiences to engage in the “hero’s quest” to attempt to grasp them. Religion is more like art than science. It’s a tool to access the larger part of our mind and soul that is subconscious and expansive.
Don’t let me be a wet blanket though. If you wanted to start a community to explore LDS faith rationally, that would be cool. I am sure there’s an audience out there for it. You can start topics here too. We love that stuff.
Although the basis of our basis is beyond rational, the application of it and the eternal learning experience have everything to do with rationality. What Brian said. I take a very rational approach to a lot of things about religion and church, but the foundation is faith, not rationality. Pure and simple. That combination really bothers lots of people – both those who rely on rationality and can’t embrace faith and those who rely on faith and can’t embrace rationality. Each type of person isn’t sure, really, whether or not I’m going to agree with their view – since there are areas where my rationality influences and directs my faith and other areas where my faith influences and directs my rationality.
Our resident Spock might really like your idea, but I’m not sure – since a site devoted totally to rationality might end up shattering the foundation of faith that empowers “religious rationality”, so to speak – and rationality without faith is nothing more than traditional philosophy or pure psychology, imo. There’s a reason most small colleges have a department that is titled, “Religion
andPhilosophy”. I wouldn’t mind discussing these things in this forum. Start a thread on testimony, ask questions on the logic and rationality, and see how it goes. This can be explored rationally: Does my faith make me happy? Does obeying commandment X contribute to my living a better life? This can not be explored rationally: Does God exist? What is the Celestial Kingdom? What is the human soul? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (but all those can be addressed through irrational, symbolic, religious practice and contemplation)
+1 to what Heber13 said. Start some threads. We eat that stuff up (in a good way)!
Brian Johnston wrote:How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
5It can’t be 1, because 1 angel would be too lonely to dance by him/herself.
It can’t be 2, because that would be pairing off which is against “Especially for Angels” standards.
It can’t be 3, because it creates jealousy and when an angel starts to exhibit ungodly characteristics they fall (off the head of the pin).
It can’t be 4, because that is just a double date (see 2 above), still against standards.
It can’t be 6, or more because they start to create a mosh pit and then Angel chaperones (also known as cheribim and a flaming sword) stop the music and end the dancing.
Therefore, the only rational answer is 5
Brilliant, Heber. Simply brilliant. Old-Timer wrote:Brilliant, Heber. Simply brilliant.
Yes. Showing exactly how religious metaphor (like poetry) can explore an irrational question, even if the result is humor to make a point. But a “pure” rational approach has no grip on this question because it is essentially nonsense. What Heber13 said was true, even though it wasn’t true. It’s the beauty of irrational and transcendent thought, the power of paradox.
I guess I don’t understand the question. I think we are already doing here on this site, just what you are talking about. (Except some of us don’t necessarily believe the church is “true.”) Quote:What I envision is an LDS website, founded upon the premise that the Church, gospel, etc. is believed to be true, that documents and discusses Mormon-related thinking. For example, there’s the philosophy of testimonies, the availability of sources for official doctrine, and the biases and fallacies that come about from incorrect understandings of church doctrine (such as black-and-white thinking and confusing doctrine with LDS culture).
Maybe you need to explain a little more what it is you are interested in doing.
If this clarifies at all, what I envision is a very focused community that, through and alongside discussion, could become a kind of resource for LDS-related rationality. I’m not primarily talking about deconstructing faith. Again, I point (and perhaps this is the best I can do) to LessWrong. Except, instead of using scientific theories and logic as premises for discussion, a testimony of the truth of the Church’s official doctrine, and logic, are the premises. Zeno X wrote:… a testimony of the truth of the Church’s official doctrine, and logic, are the premises.
Hmmm? What happens when the church’s official doctrine and logic don’t match? What if it just doesn’t work — such as the 14 Fundamentals of the Prophet?
I mean, I like what you are saying, but, I couldn’t really be part of it if the goal was defend the church in spite or despite, reason and rational thought. I think you could go to lds.net and they would say they are defending the church using logic. I think many folks here would do the same. What I like about Staylds, is that it is okay to disagree, and even admit that it doesn’t make sense and one doesn’t believe….and yet we can still find a middle way to remain in the church.
What would be different in your online community Zeno?
Would the Prophets and the church manuals be the ultimate authority, and we would try to use reason and logic to prove it correct?
Let me give an example. I challenge anyone to use logic and reason to defend the 14 Fs of the Prophet. Anyone?
Some of the church doctrines just cannot be reconciled by some folks…logic and reason doesn’t play in the church’s favor. That is why John Dehlin envision this site — for folks to navigate a middle way and remain in the church.
I don’t mean to discourage you Zeno. I would like to see and example of what you want to do… Give it a shot here…I’m genuinely interested in the idea.
That’s not what I mean, cwald. I think my use of the word “logic” was a red herring. Here’s an example: something good happens to you. Should you thank God? Sure, we’re counselled to do that, and since we know that God already knows the thoughts and intents of our hearts, practicing gratitude is for our benefit. Should you assume the good thing happened because of divine intervention, thus strengthening your faith? My understanding is, no, such a good thing could happen to you whether or not you had the gospel in your life. Unless, of course, (a) you felt the spirit, or (b) there’s a piece of doctrine I personally am missing that should be a part of the site I’m proposing. It’s not something that can just be done here – in addition to being a community for discussion, it would potentially become a kind of resource. I’m glad you’re interested, but I’m not sure how best to have this started.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.