belief or trust in someone or something; belief in the existence of
God; strong religious feelings or beliefs; a system of religious
beliefs". A belief, in turn, is defined as "a feeling of being sure
that someone or something exists or that something is true; a feeling
that something is good, right, or valuable; a feeling of trust in the
worth or ability of someone".
So, at least according to the dictionary, faith is based on feelings.
How does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints define faith?
Well, the Book of Mormon says that faith is the belief in things that
are not seen, but which are true. But how does one know that they are
true?
For many unseen things, we have evidence. Air, for example, is
virtually invisible to human eyes. But we can see the effects of wind,
and we know what happens when we are deprived of air. So we can make
observations and perform experiments as evidence for the existence of
air. We can have faith in air. But, how do we gather evidence for
other unseen things, such as God?
The Church teaches that a testimony can come from a witness of the
Holy Ghost. So, there is an empirical test. The Holy Ghost can be used
to test for the existence of God. How does the Holy Ghost communicate?
Well, for most people it is a warm, peaceful feeling. So, it would
seem that the Church agrees with the dictionary -- faith is based on
feelings.
Are feelings a reliable method of obtaining truth? In comparison,
science has given us indoor plumbing, electric lights, automobiles,
antibiotics and vaccines, jet aircraft, electronics, wireless
communication, and even moonwalks. How did these technologies come
about? Did NASA engineers design the Saturn V rocket based on
feelings? Would you rather ride to the moon in a rocket designed by a
scientists doing what they felt would work, or by scientists testing
the laws of physics and performing calculations on the forces
involved? Why?
History has shown us again and again that humans are fallible. Members
of the Church sometimes mock science because scientists once believed
that the Sun orbited the Earth. Yet, that is science's very strength!
Scientists only believed that the Sun orbited the earth because the
evidence was lacking. As soon as better evidence was available,
science was able to admit that it was wrong and come closer to the
truth. The ability to admit error is an essential first step to
approaching truth.
So, what makes feelings so unreliable compared to science? Humans are,
unfortunately, notorious for their cognitive shortcomings -- the
famous scientist Richard Feynman said "The first principle is that you
must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." Are
we really that easy to fool? Well, if we look as Islam vs
Christianity, these two religions are mutually exclusive -- if one is
true, the other must be false. Either way, hundreds of millions of
people have been fooled. So many people are so wrong about something
so important as the correct religion -- this cannot be disputed.
Science has identified a number of human cognitive and logical
failures called fallacies. It's become readily apparent that our
brains are not perfect machines, and make a lot of mistakes. A good
example of this is sleight-of-hand magic: we are always surprised or
amazed at the tricks a magician performs, because we don't know how
they do it. Magicians fool our brains into incorrect expectations.
When we see them appear to saw someone in half, our brains say that
the blade must be passing through the unlucky assistant's body. But we
are fooled. Fallacies go beyond magic tricks, too: we often experience
them in our daily lives. Fortunately, you can learn to identify your
own mental mistakes and as you do so, you can find ways to work around
them.
This isn't a new concept. You've been discovering your own broken
thought processes and fixing them since you were a child. The first
time you found out someone lied to you, you became less trusting of
that person. The first time you injured yourself, you learned that you
were not invincible, and took steps to protect yourself from the same
injury in the future. As we grow into adulthood though, the fallacies
tend to become more subtle and hard to notice. Fortunately, we have
lots of scientists doing empirical tests to identify these fallacies,
so we don't always have to learn the hard way -- hopefully, we can
avoid being swindled by a con man by spotting his tricks before we
invest in his scheme.
I'd like to explore one of these fallacies (there are a lot more).
This fallacy, called Circular Reasoning, is fairly obvious when the
circle is small: someone might claim that Joe is a good speaker,
because he has a knack for effective communication. Even though the
word "because" is used, it is followed by a simple repeat of the same
claim rather than any real supporting evidence.
It gets harder when the circle gets bigger. If I claim that "Ford
makes the best cars because they have the best engineers working for
them", that seems reasonable. It's not until I go on to make a
separate claim that "those engineers are the best in the business
because they work at Ford", that the circular fallacy is revealed. And
when the chain of reasoning gets to be 3 or more separate links deep
before coming around to the beginning again, it becomes easier to miss
the connection.
Let's ask a few questions of a hypothetical member of the Church:
Why do you have a testimony of the Church? "Because I prayed and had a
warm, peaceful feeling."
What makes you think that a warm, peaceful feeling is an answer to
prayer? "That's what the scriptures teach."
So how do you know the scriptures are true? "Because I have a
testimony from the Holy Ghost."
And how did you get a testimony from the Holy Ghost? "Because I prayed
and had a warm, peaceful feeling."
What makes you think that a warm, peaceful feeling is an answer to
prayer? "That's what the scriptures teach."
Did you see the answers start to repeat? Can you see the error in
reasoning? All the above is saying is "The scriptures are true because
the scriptures are true". Nothing there actually supports the
conclusion that the scriptures really are true.
Circular reasoning isn't a problem if at least one of the claims can
be verified outside the circle. There's nothing wrong with the above
member's belief if he or she can confirm through other sources that
the scriptures are true, or show through other methods that feelings
are valid answers to prayers.
Let's take the second one -- feelings. I've already mentioned that
hundreds of millions of Christians and Muslims have opposing feelings
on what the correct religion is, so there are at least several hundred
million examples of why feelings are not reliable tests for truth.
Now, a member of the LDS Church might claim that his or her feelings
are somehow different, stronger, better, or more real. This is hard
for me to accept, given the large numbers of religiously-motivated
suicide bombers that Islam has produced. Of course, I do not agree
with the bombers, but no-one can question the strength of their
convictions. (Ah, but, maybe those Muslims were deceived by Satan.
Okay -- but Muslims think that Mormons are deceived. How can someone
on the outside tell which side is right? Neither Mormons nor Muslims
can claim a superior argument. If anything, position of Islam is
stronger, as they vastly outnumber Mormons.)
How about the other one -- can we confirm the scriptures are true from
sources outside of the scriptures? From Wikipedia: "Archaeological
discoveries in the nineteenth and twentieth century have supported few
of the Old Testament's historical narratives and refuted many of the
others." "...the only two events subject to 'almost universal assent'
are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by
the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. There is a significant
debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings..." "Many
scholars doubt that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses as their
attributions seem to suggest: there is too much evidence of reworking
oral traditions and of straight borrowing from other Gospels to make
this likely." "The Pauline epistles are the thirteen New Testament
books which present Paul the Apostle as their author. Six of the
letters are disputed. Four are thought by most modern scholars to be
pseudepigraphic, i.e., not actually written by Paul." "...Mormons hold
the book's connection to ancient American history as an article of
their faith. However, this view finds no acceptance outside of
Mormonism. The theory that the Book of Mormon is an ancient American
history is considered to fall outside academic credibility." "The Book
of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies for which
there is no evidence in pre-Columbian America." "...no Semitic
language is spoken natively in the Americas today and there is no
evidence that any Native American language has been influenced by any
Semitic language at any point in its history." "Several authors have
published works that suggest that current studies of genetic
anthropology using DNA evidence do not provide support for the Book of
Mormon." "The Book of Abraham papyri were thought lost in the 1871
Great Chicago Fire. However, in 1966 several fragments of the papyri
were found in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New
York, and in the LDS Church archives. They are now referred to as the
Joseph Smith Papyri. Upon examination by professional Mormon and
non-Mormon Egyptologists, these fragments were found to bear no
resemblance to Smith's interpretation, and were identified as common
Egyptian funerary texts, dating to about the first century BC."
It seems that there is little evidence supporting the Bible, none
supporting the Book of Mormon, and some actually refuting the Book of
Abraham. However, in my experience, most members of the Church are not
aware of these facts (I was not, until recently), and thus appear to
believe in the Church without evidence.
Can one still believe in something without evidence? Certainly.
Scientists do it every time they propose a new hypothesis. But this is
a temporary situation; the hypothesis is then followed by observations
and tests. To remain in the belief stage without bothering to search
for evidence is to remain ignorant. (What harm is there in holding
beliefs that have no evidence to back them up? Well, if you believe
things without evidence, then I have a bridge to sell you, and after
that, aliens are standing by to abduct you. You will constantly find
yourself in trouble if your standards for belief are set so low. A
healthy dose of skepticism will help protect you from all manner of
blunders. All skepticism means is, "I refuse to believe without good
evidence". Skepticism is to default to disbelief, unless and until
there is a clear reason to believe. We are all already skeptics at
some level -- take, for example, Santa Claus. You are already don't
believe in Santa, though you might believe if you saw his sleigh
flying behind reindeer with your own eyes and you could be sure there
wasn't a holographic projector nearby. So, you are a Santa skeptic.
This is healthy, because it means you aren't gullible.)
Moving forward, if the evidence supports the hypothesis, and if the
observations and tests are repeatable, the hypothesis becomes a theory
and the belief is justified. On the other hand, if evidence refutes
the hypothesis, the belief must be discarded, no matter how attractive
it may have been.
The belief in an afterlife is comforting -- it brings a warm, peaceful
feeling. But without supporting evidence, this feeling is no more
"true" than the warm, wonderful feeling one gets when thinking about
having a million dollars.
Good feelings after praying is not the only source of faith. The Book
of Mormon teaches that faith is like a seed -- plant it, water it, and
see what grows. If the result is good, the Church is true. If the
results are bad, the Church is false. It's an invitation to try out
the religion, and see how it changes your life. It's an entirely
reasonable and, I daresay, even scientific approach. But does it hold
up?
Before we look at the evidence, we need to be aware of another
fallacy: confirmation bias. That is, if you have a pre-existing
belief, you tend to give credence to evidence supporting your belief
and low (or no) credibility to evidence refuting it.
To give you an example, Church members love to tell "warm fuzzies"
about how they lost some money, prayed, and found it. These reinforce
the belief that Church is true because a prayer was answered. But
somehow, if the prayer was not answered, this negative result is
quietly ignored! Everyone seems to forget that the unanswered prayer
was ever said. This is confirmation bias: only evidence that supports
the pre-supposed conclusion is paid any attention. This leads to
incorrect conclusions, because the evaluated results are not the same
as what actually happened in reality. (There is also a double
standard: when the lost money fails to turn up, excuses are made. "Oh,
God is just testing us." A good scientific test either supports or
refutes a belief based on the same standard. A double standard means
that prayers being answered cannot be used as a method of determining
truth, because none of the possible outcomes can ever possibly refute
the truthfulness of the Church.)
How do we combat confirmation bias? In addition to looking for
evidence that supports your belief, look for evidence that refutes it.
"A good reporter gets at least two sides of every story". When you're
looking to buy a Ford, you don't just talk to the Ford dealership --
you don't even just talk to people who own and love Fords. You talk to
people that have owned and hated Fords. Why? Well, the dealership and
people who love Fords are biased, and the people who hate Fords are
biased -- but if you get the viewpoint from all parties, you can start
to see through and eliminate the bias and get closer to the actual
truth about Ford automobiles.
The same goes for the truth on any matter. To suggest that only
"approved" Mormon sources can be used to get the truth about Mormonism
is fallacious, because those approved sources are all biased. Is
"anti-Mormon literature" also biased? Yes. That's why you should
examine both pro- and anti- material: only then can you begin to see
the bias present on both sides. And once the bias is detected and
accounted for, you can make a more objective choice given the two
bodies of evidence.
Honest investigation does raise the scary possibility that you're
wrong -- but that's exactly how science has gotten to where it is
today. If you've flushed a toilet, flicked on a light switch, traveled
by car or airplane, ever been to a doctor or hospital, or used a
computer/tablet/smartphone, you have already seen the "good fruits" of
science and the progress that results from the ability to throw out
outdated beliefs.
The fact is, the methodology of science has succeeded in truth-seeking
every area of life. If you seek truth as well, you can use it as a
tool to your advantage.
LDS are taught that they should not study "anti-Mormon literature"
because they might "lose their testimony". On the contrary, Mormon
testimonies will be forever weak if they only have half the
information -- that's a whopping big blind spot. The only way to
"know" the Church is true is to investigate ALL of the available
evidence.
"If we have the truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we
have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." -- J. Reuben Clark,
counselor in the First Presidency
So there you have it -- you have permission from the First Presidency
to look at all of the available evidence, pro and con. If the truth is
that the Church is true, great! You will have cemented your testimony.
Full investigation is required if you are to make any claim to honesty
when you say "I KNOW the Church is true". Without fully investigating
all the information about the Church, the best you can say is "I
BELIEVE the Church is true."
There's one more problem with the human brain I need to mention.
Whenever you try to hold two conflicting ideas at the same time, the
brain feels something called "cognitive dissonance." For example, if
you believe that smoking is bad, but if you keep smoking anyway, you
will feel bad about it. Similarly, if you believe that the Church is
true, but you find compelling evidence that says it's false, you will
feel bad. That's not because of the presence of Satan, it's because
your brain has a hard time reconciling two opposing ideas. The good
news is, this cognitive dissonance can be resolved: simply continue to
gather evidence until you see a clear answer, either way. And if there
is no clear answer, consider the skeptic's creed.
As for me personally, I see that the Church requires huge investments
in time and money. It also controls every aspect of life -- even down
to what to eat and what to wear. This is a serious level of
commitment, so I require comparable levels of clear and compelling
evidence before I believe (a few subtle hints here and there are not
enough). Of course, how high you set your own personal standards is
your choice.
If you wish to be sure about the Church, may I suggest some places to
search for evidence? I'll admit that these do have some bias, but I am
not aware of any outright falsehoods.
http://www.lds.org/topics/
http://www.lds.org/topics/
http://www.lds.org/topics/
http://www.MormonThink.com
http://cesletter.com/
