Really great conversation. I’m a dad and physician living in Phoenix, AZ, a faithful member of the Church; I appreciate all of these concepts, and am grateful for the fact that our religious claims stand up confidently to intellectual rigor. We really do have the best paradigm out there to understand ourselves and the world. What a beautiful thing to share!
the religious claims of the church do not stand up intellectually. in fact, one finds that the claims do not add up and are provably false. I have yet to see why disobeying God is a good thing, but that is precisely what is taught in 2nd Nephi 2.
@@sertinduhm6378 disobeying God is not in and of itself a good thing. Neither is obeying God. The action divorced from moral context is neither good nor evil. It is intent that defines righteousness: whether one desires good or evil, independent of the completeness or perfection of one's understanding of and compliance to God's commands. Adam and Eve, so the story goes, had no conception of morality before partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and so could not yet act morally or immorally. They are no more worthy of condemnation than any ignorant child. Whether the fall was desirable for God's purposes may perhaps be determined from its consequences. The thrust of 2 Nephi 2 is that "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy." It demonstrates a belief that the fall was prerequisite to the proper beginning of the human race and, more importantly, that God made humankind so that it might find joy. Why transgression was prerequisite to the creation of men, and whether this story is best understood as historical, allegorical, mythical, or some combination thereof is open to discussion (that is not to say that it is discussion that determines the truth of the matter; I'm not promoting relativism). It may be fruitful to ask why transgression precedes wisdom and progression in this narrative. If you follow an Abraham's religion, you may do well to ask "why did God permit the fall to come to pass if it was evil or undesireable? Did Adam and Eve thwart God's plan, or did He mean for them to fall? If God meant for them to fall, and the fall was evil, what is God's purpose in requiring such an evil to come to pass?" If you are not from an abrahamic religion, then it may be sufficient to note that this narrative (and the commentary in 2 Nephi 2), historical or otherwise, makes clear our the role of agency in our growth in wisdom, even though it leads to transgression, and attempts to show that all things, however hard or miserable they may be, will be turned to a righteous purpose in the end: the joy and peace of God's children. As well, the fortunate fall is a concept found in more than just our church. For example, it was argued by Mary Wollstonecraft before Joseph Smith was born. It is important in our faith, but not exclusive to our faith. Whether the claims of the Book of Mormon add up is largely a matter of subjective interpretation and understanding. No two people glean the same message from the same text. No two people look at truth (singular though it be) from the same angle. We do not hold that any text in the hands of men is infallible; the preface of the Book of Mormon implies as much. God's perfect truth cannot be bound by imperfect human language, or properly grasped by human understanding. Though scripture is inspired of God, it is written by the faulty hand of men. Once it is written, it is again subject to the finite and faltering understanding of the reader. Scripture cannot offer the reader an infallible basis for belief and action; it can give us wisdom, inspire questioning and thought, and facilitate the exercise of faith in Christ
@sam mcgee. so you are saying it is o.k. to kill everybody just because your intentions are to do good? I don't think so. furthermore, there were plenty of ways to start the human race. in fact, God could have commanded Adam and Eve to partake the fruit. But instead, God chose to force sin into the world by telling them not to (thus creating two contradictory commandments if you follow BOM logic.) There should never be a justification to disobey God. if there is, then why should we follow His commandments, or even go to church?
Terryl hit the nail on the head when he answered the radio interview. To me, the great distinction of our Church is that we understand God's plan for ALL, not just those presently in mortality, but ALL who have ever, and will ever, live.
I loved this episode so much I just listened to it twice :) - Thanks for interviewing Terryl Givens on this interesting topic. He is one of my favorite Latter-day Saint authors. I have read his book 'The Crucible of Doubt" and absolutely love it! I also bought a copy of Julian of Norwich's revelations and am about half way through that. It was translated from Middle English to Modern English.
Yes, humans don’t make decisions purely on logic and reason alone…BUT it’s important to temper your emotions/feelings when making higher-level decisions. Poor decisions oftentimes find themselves enveloped in emotions.
I can act by no reason but my own. If I decide to acquiesce to the reason of another, or to abandon reason entirely, I do so in accordance with my own reasoning that it is wise to do so. Where my reason conflicts with the reason of another, there is cause to question, but not cause to reject either my own reason or the reason of the other out of hand. As for facts, all facts are subject to interpretation, to reason. Facts without interpretation are of little use. Facts are a proper fuel for reasoning, but no substitute. We cannot circumvent reason.
Just a point I noticed from one of your Come Follow Me lessons was that there was long pause wherein folk were supposed to Dian item of reading. Sorry it in my view, alluding should have took place prior to the lesson? Large pauses in the lesson is not an ideal situation in teaching?
22:49 "me? No I never have thoughts. Honestly they kind of scare me, I'm not real sure about what to do with them once I've had them. Do I act on them? Store them in a box somewhere? Can someone help me please? Please?"
Are you saying you're scared to think about church history and unsure what to do with them? If this is the case, I would say before you study the church's history or anything that you feel may challenge your faith, you should ensure you know why you choose to believe and never forget it. You should have a firm testimony of the Restoration because of the blessings you've recognized as you've lived the Restored Gospel. Faithful questions can lead to increased testimony if studied with the Lord. Doubtful questions will place the voice of others over the Lord's voice and make you question your blessings and experiences.
My thought: because science has as its object the development (by a methodologically materialist approach) of models for understanding the world, while religion (for many people, at least) has as its object the development by any means necessary of the individual relation to the sublime or transcendent-what we would term divinity. Thus, science (as a practice and body of knowledge, without consideration for subjective interpretations) is relatively mundane and objective, where religion (or more precisely religious experience) is miraculous (bearing heavily upon the emotions, with force to alter the course of one's life) and highly subjective. Science is the means by which we attempt to formulate our best estimate of what is (and I do not denigrate the consistency and accuracy of those estimates), while religion is concerned with interpretation of human experience: meaning, purpose, value, relation, and our efforts to engage with that which appears to surpass human understanding-all highly subjective, and not scientifically discernable. Religion usually maintains that the subjective experiences upon which it is based derive from some transcendent, objective truth, but it has no business approaching any such truth except through subjective means, which don't really exist in the same domain as scientific efforts. They are apples and oranges. Science, at bottom, is strictly instrumental; it does not set its own ends, though the intellectually honest do not attempt force Science to ends it cannot reach. Religion is properly concerned with ends: whether we are living for a proper purpose, what such a purpose might be, how we might fulfill such a purpose. Of course, such exercises are not limited to Religion. Some might call it philosophy, others art, others spirituality. Some do not call it anything, but simply do it. Nevertheless, whatever one might call it, it is not an end that can be reached by Science alone. No logical system (and Science is a logical system) can prove the validity of its own logic (basically Gödel's incompleteness theorem, if I am not mistaken). I cannot prove the integrity of my own reason; I can no more than believe in it. Science can argue from a set (or from any number of sets) of foundational axioms, but it cannot set those axioms for itself. Something outside of pure reason must govern the exercise of pure reason. That, I believe, is a proper concern of religion. Where religion (considered as a collection of codified beliefs and doctrines) collides with science, there is cause to question religion (though not to reject it without question; that would be intellectually irresponsible, if occasionally unavoidable, as it is impossible to properly question everything). A religion grounded in dogma denies faith, and erects for itself an idol of certainty; it claims certitude where it should practice humility. I believe the truly religious must be the first to say "I don't know." They must be willing to engage sincerely with all questions. Proper faith is the courage to act, to think, to choose with full accountability in spite of, but with full recognition and acceptance of uncertainty. Nevertheless, there are times when one must trust in what one believes to be right in spite of doubt. I believe that conscience must never be dethroned, even if it seems foolish at times. There are no strict protocols for this. One must simply do one's best. One thus cannot rightly impose one's own conclusions on others. TLDR: Proper religion isn't really a matter of material evidence; it is not primarily concerned with material truths, but rather subjective ones (subjectivity here describing not relativity or pluralism, but intuition, personal experience, and interpretation: what any given data really mean to the individual, the significance they bear in the individual's life, the individual's response to the data, the relation this engagement implies; I think Kierkegaard is relevant here). If one refuses to believe anything that cannot be demonstrated materially, one cannot in full honesty accept even the existence of matter. The only self-evident is the experience of consciousness. Religious experience-as a function of its subjectivity-may be accepted and pursued, or denied and abandoned. I believe that there is nothing to compel one to choose one way or the other. If one strives to found one's own religion, or faith, on a foundation of objective truth, then one neglects entirely the purpose of religion. It isn't about merely knowing what is, but finding how to live one's life meaningfully, purposefully, and faithfully, pursuing in all things one's relation to the sublime, the transcendent, the divine, perfecting one's love for one's neighbor and one's God (or gods, in polytheism, or the universe, in pantheism, or whatever else one holds to embody all that is good, true, and beautiful). Side note: Take care not to denigrate the emotions. Though they cause havoc when unregulated, they are the foundation of all human agency and morality. We do not strictly reason out right and wrong; to begin with, we must have some feeling for it, though our actions upon that feeling be shaped by reason. No "ought" statement can be derived solely from an "is" statement (Hume). We must have foundational moral axioms to reach moral conclusions.
@@sammcgee8726 First off, the length of your TLDR made me laugh. In response to something you said: If the truly religious should be the first to say, “I don’t know,” why wouldn’t that be the correct answer to questions like, “Did Jesus calm a storm by verbal command?,” “Did Jesus walk on water?,” “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” “Did Joseph Smith translate an ancient record with a peep stone?” or “Is there a god?”
@@mikefoxtrot1314 Sorry about the length of my first response; I tend to be a bit verbose. To answer simply, I think we should certainly be careful about expressing certainty-especially about claiming an empirical basis for certainty. Though I may have a strong conviction of the divinity of Christ, of the truth (historical, theological, or otherwise) of scripture, and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, I don't have any quantifiable, empirical justification to say that I know. In that sense, then, "I don't know" would be an appropriate answer to those questions. However (to complicate the matter), when many people say "I know," they do not mean to say that they have an empirical basis for certainty, but that they have a strong conviction. My earlier statement that the religious should be the first to say "I don't know" was perhaps overzealous; I feel very strongly that attempts to conjure up a sense of empirical or rational certainty-such as is occasionally expressed by means of the phrase "I know"-amount to nothing more than self-deception tantamount to idol worship, and may be utterly destructive to meaningful faith; I believe that we must acknowledge and accept uncertainty, and remember that we have not been compelled to believe or to follow, but have chosen to*. Only then can we begin to act in faith, grow in understanding through sincere and humble questioning, and seek to know the divine not merely for what we imagine it to be, but for what it truly is. Only then can we find the faith, humility, and reverence necessary to obtain peace, and a love for our neighbors and our God. Because of my conviction, I am perhaps somewhat over-sensitive to anything that smacks of overconfidence (though perhaps I, too, exhibit overconfidence in this conviction). There are appropriate senses in which one may say "I know." Insofar as knowing may be conceived of as conviction and trust, it may be appropriate to claim knowledge with only the subjective evidence of personal experience. The knowledge one may seek in religion is not empirical or scientific, but it holds far greater meaning to the individual than does mere intellectual awareness. Though I cannot claim empirical certainty of the existence of God, and though I cannot say my conviction is constant and unfailing, I can say that there are moments when my relation to God is more real and more meaningful to me than anything else. Nevertheless, in these moments all things seem to be made far greater and more meaningful through Him. As I have trusted in these feelings, though falteringly, I have found greater clarity, peace, and meaning in life and have found (I believe) greater humility, reverence, and charity. I believe that this is worth living for, and so I strive to properly devote myself to it. In this sense, subjective though it may be, I may perhaps say "I know my Heavenly Father loves me." *Again, nothing is self-evident but consciousness, and all is subject to interpretation. Therefore, no evidence is sufficient to compel belief one way or another. All systems of reason or belief are founded on axioms taken on faith. Some faith is well placed, and supports consistent and workable systems; some isn't, and doesn't. The careful, thoughtful, and sincere exercise of any particular strain of faith generally demonstrates its viability or treacherousness (as the case may be), though this demonstration is again subject to interpretation. Considered from a different angle: For those who have been compelled by another to believe or to follow, that compulsion should be overthrown; no choice is meaningful that is not made freely, and a restriction of one's ability to seek truth for oneself is an obstacle in one's relation to God. True faith cannot be imposed by outside force, but rather is likely to be strangled by it, no matter how well-intentioned it may be.
@@sammcgee8726 Thank you for elaborating. A couple of points stuck out to me. First, on the topic of compelled belief versus belief freely chosen: In my experience, beliefs are not and cannot be chosen. Someone may be introduced to a claim, and they either accept it or they reject it based on how well it fits with their knowledge of the universe, and how convincing any surrounding data is. They are compelled by the holistic data as they understand it. If someone were to attempt to consciously decide to believe that grass grows on the moon, they wouldn’t just flip a mental switch and start believing it. The claim would need to be compelling in its supporting data. Am I mistaken here? As for “knowing,” I appreciate your stance on saying, “I don’t know.” It’s one of my most-used phrases. I like not knowing, because learning releases my good brain juices. That said, if I pause my response, hold out my phone at an arm’s length and drop it, I know what will happen. It will proceed toward the center of the earth. I could run this experiment a thousand times, and I’d have a thousand examples of my phone descending toward the ground. Is there an experiment I can try to raise my confidence levels to where I can say, “I know my Heavenly Father loves me” or “I know Jesus died for my sins and rose three days later,” etc.?
Tertullian - You make comments but don't provide any sources. It is not the readers' responsibility to prove or disprove your statements. At least the author provides sources in his books.
I have found something simple, at the end of the first 7 words of Bible, in different languages, the last 7 letters are either 1 or 2 whole words! New King James Version, the normal Ukrainian Bible and the English Transliteration of the Hebrew : "b'reshit bara elohim et hashamayim v'et ha'aretz" !!! Go check for yourself, and compare with ordinary books. Ivan Panin 1855-1942 found many more patterns of 7, among the Hebrew and Greek ancient Scriptures, but the possible results from the extra information, has meant that none of the Intelligent Design advocates will show this! Because they think it will disturb their control and management of their parent Churches! The Seventh Day Sabbath is Saturday as recognised by the Jews, and when the end times come, ignoring this fact, will be the Mark of the Beast, as the Power of the Sunday Churches comes back with machines taking too much of Humans work. The actual Hebrew, has many more patterns. Jesus in Matthew 5:18, said not a single letter would be missing for ever, which suggests that there could be more information, than only the meaning of the words!
Faith Matters and Maxwell Institute the best two organizations to help in faith issues? Hmmm? I love Teryl Givens and his work. However, not sure though I agree with his comment. Faith Matters deals with tough questions indeed. But, the trajectory of its content and emphasis seems to lean towards social justice in the lens of post modern critical theory. At times the hosts and guest are not siding on the GA’s of the church.
What would we do without Terryl? God bless the Givens family and the work they do.
All humankind is invited to the wedding feast!!!!!!! 🤯Thank you Teryl for that beautiful insight!!!!❤❤❤
Terryl Givens is a gift to the church
Really great conversation. I’m a dad and physician living in Phoenix, AZ, a faithful member of the Church; I appreciate all of these concepts, and am grateful for the fact that our religious claims stand up confidently to intellectual rigor. We really do have the best paradigm out there to understand ourselves and the world. What a beautiful thing to share!
the religious claims of the church do not stand up intellectually. in fact, one finds that the claims do not add up and are provably false. I have yet to see why disobeying God is a good thing, but that is precisely what is taught in 2nd Nephi 2.
How does our religious belief withstand common everyday sense (ces)?
@@sertinduhm6378 disobeying God is not in and of itself a good thing. Neither is obeying God. The action divorced from moral context is neither good nor evil. It is intent that defines righteousness: whether one desires good or evil, independent of the completeness or perfection of one's understanding of and compliance to God's commands. Adam and Eve, so the story goes, had no conception of morality before partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and so could not yet act morally or immorally. They are no more worthy of condemnation than any ignorant child. Whether the fall was desirable for God's purposes may perhaps be determined from its consequences. The thrust of 2 Nephi 2 is that "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy." It demonstrates a belief that the fall was prerequisite to the proper beginning of the human race and, more importantly, that God made humankind so that it might find joy. Why transgression was prerequisite to the creation of men, and whether this story is best understood as historical, allegorical, mythical, or some combination thereof is open to discussion (that is not to say that it is discussion that determines the truth of the matter; I'm not promoting relativism). It may be fruitful to ask why transgression precedes wisdom and progression in this narrative. If you follow an Abraham's religion, you may do well to ask "why did God permit the fall to come to pass if it was evil or undesireable? Did Adam and Eve thwart God's plan, or did He mean for them to fall? If God meant for them to fall, and the fall was evil, what is God's purpose in requiring such an evil to come to pass?" If you are not from an abrahamic religion, then it may be sufficient to note that this narrative (and the commentary in 2 Nephi 2), historical or otherwise, makes clear our the role of agency in our growth in wisdom, even though it leads to transgression, and attempts to show that all things, however hard or miserable they may be, will be turned to a righteous purpose in the end: the joy and peace of God's children.
As well, the fortunate fall is a concept found in more than just our church. For example, it was argued by Mary Wollstonecraft before Joseph Smith was born. It is important in our faith, but not exclusive to our faith.
Whether the claims of the Book of Mormon add up is largely a matter of subjective interpretation and understanding. No two people glean the same message from the same text. No two people look at truth (singular though it be) from the same angle. We do not hold that any text in the hands of men is infallible; the preface of the Book of Mormon implies as much. God's perfect truth cannot be bound by imperfect human language, or properly grasped by human understanding. Though scripture is inspired of God, it is written by the faulty hand of men. Once it is written, it is again subject to the finite and faltering understanding of the reader. Scripture cannot offer the reader an infallible basis for belief and action; it can give us wisdom, inspire questioning and thought, and facilitate the exercise of faith in Christ
@sam mcgee. so you are saying it is o.k. to kill everybody just because your intentions are to do good? I don't think so. furthermore, there were plenty of ways to start the human race. in fact, God could have commanded Adam and Eve to partake the fruit. But instead, God chose to force sin into the world by telling them not to (thus creating two contradictory commandments if you follow BOM logic.) There should never be a justification to disobey God. if there is, then why should we follow His commandments, or even go to church?
@@mjk1014 I’d recommend the TH-cam series called LDS Truth Claims.
The Givens are a national treasure.
Terryl hit the nail on the head when he answered the radio interview. To me, the great distinction of our Church is that we understand God's plan for ALL, not just those presently in mortality, but ALL who have ever, and will ever, live.
Thank you!
Thank you for your insights!
Love it and it’s mind expending. Thank you.
Thanks for watching!
I love this episode! I love Terryl Givens and I love Saints Unscripted! ❤️ these discussions/episodes are awesome!
We're so glad you enjoyed it!
I loved this episode so much I just listened to it twice :) - Thanks for interviewing Terryl Givens on this interesting topic. He is one of my favorite Latter-day Saint authors. I have read his book 'The Crucible of Doubt" and absolutely love it! I also bought a copy of Julian of Norwich's revelations and am about half way through that. It was translated from Middle English to Modern English.
You know what they say, third time's the charm. So go ahead, listen to it one more time 😊
I love how he puts it: A God that is worthy of adoration more than any other god. That's the God of the Latter-day Saints.
Yes, humans don’t make decisions purely on logic and reason alone…BUT it’s important to temper your emotions/feelings when making higher-level decisions. Poor decisions oftentimes find themselves enveloped in emotions.
one's reason can conflict with another's reason so whose reason would we take? we will most likely label one crazy. so it's best to go with facts.
I can act by no reason but my own. If I decide to acquiesce to the reason of another, or to abandon reason entirely, I do so in accordance with my own reasoning that it is wise to do so. Where my reason conflicts with the reason of another, there is cause to question, but not cause to reject either my own reason or the reason of the other out of hand.
As for facts, all facts are subject to interpretation, to reason. Facts without interpretation are of little use. Facts are a proper fuel for reasoning, but no substitute.
We cannot circumvent reason.
Just a point I noticed from one of your Come Follow Me lessons was that there was long pause wherein folk were supposed to Dian item of reading. Sorry it in my view, alluding should have took place prior to the lesson? Large pauses in the lesson is not an ideal situation in teaching?
Such a great interview!
Thank you!
Ooooh encore!
22:49 "me? No I never have thoughts. Honestly they kind of scare me, I'm not real sure about what to do with them once I've had them. Do I act on them? Store them in a box somewhere? Can someone help me please? Please?"
Are you saying you're scared to think about church history and unsure what to do with them? If this is the case, I would say before you study the church's history or anything that you feel may challenge your faith, you should ensure you know why you choose to believe and never forget it. You should have a firm testimony of the Restoration because of the blessings you've recognized as you've lived the Restored Gospel. Faithful questions can lead to increased testimony if studied with the Lord. Doubtful questions will place the voice of others over the Lord's voice and make you question your blessings and experiences.
@Aaron Smith nah nothing specific, he just asked if I ever have thoughts
Why do you think it is so difficult to find people who are converted to theism-let alone Mormonism-by way of scientific evidence?
My thought: because science has as its object the development (by a methodologically materialist approach) of models for understanding the world, while religion (for many people, at least) has as its object the development by any means necessary of the individual relation to the sublime or transcendent-what we would term divinity. Thus, science (as a practice and body of knowledge, without consideration for subjective interpretations) is relatively mundane and objective, where religion (or more precisely religious experience) is miraculous (bearing heavily upon the emotions, with force to alter the course of one's life) and highly subjective. Science is the means by which we attempt to formulate our best estimate of what is (and I do not denigrate the consistency and accuracy of those estimates), while religion is concerned with interpretation of human experience: meaning, purpose, value, relation, and our efforts to engage with that which appears to surpass human understanding-all highly subjective, and not scientifically discernable. Religion usually maintains that the subjective experiences upon which it is based derive from some transcendent, objective truth, but it has no business approaching any such truth except through subjective means, which don't really exist in the same domain as scientific efforts. They are apples and oranges. Science, at bottom, is strictly instrumental; it does not set its own ends, though the intellectually honest do not attempt force Science to ends it cannot reach. Religion is properly concerned with ends: whether we are living for a proper purpose, what such a purpose might be, how we might fulfill such a purpose.
Of course, such exercises are not limited to Religion. Some might call it philosophy, others art, others spirituality. Some do not call it anything, but simply do it. Nevertheless, whatever one might call it, it is not an end that can be reached by Science alone. No logical system (and Science is a logical system) can prove the validity of its own logic (basically Gödel's incompleteness theorem, if I am not mistaken). I cannot prove the integrity of my own reason; I can no more than believe in it. Science can argue from a set (or from any number of sets) of foundational axioms, but it cannot set those axioms for itself. Something outside of pure reason must govern the exercise of pure reason. That, I believe, is a proper concern of religion.
Where religion (considered as a collection of codified beliefs and doctrines) collides with science, there is cause to question religion (though not to reject it without question; that would be intellectually irresponsible, if occasionally unavoidable, as it is impossible to properly question everything). A religion grounded in dogma denies faith, and erects for itself an idol of certainty; it claims certitude where it should practice humility. I believe the truly religious must be the first to say "I don't know." They must be willing to engage sincerely with all questions. Proper faith is the courage to act, to think, to choose with full accountability in spite of, but with full recognition and acceptance of uncertainty. Nevertheless, there are times when one must trust in what one believes to be right in spite of doubt. I believe that conscience must never be dethroned, even if it seems foolish at times. There are no strict protocols for this. One must simply do one's best. One thus cannot rightly impose one's own conclusions on others.
TLDR:
Proper religion isn't really a matter of material evidence; it is not primarily concerned with material truths, but rather subjective ones (subjectivity here describing not relativity or pluralism, but intuition, personal experience, and interpretation: what any given data really mean to the individual, the significance they bear in the individual's life, the individual's response to the data, the relation this engagement implies; I think Kierkegaard is relevant here). If one refuses to believe anything that cannot be demonstrated materially, one cannot in full honesty accept even the existence of matter. The only self-evident is the experience of consciousness. Religious experience-as a function of its subjectivity-may be accepted and pursued, or denied and abandoned. I believe that there is nothing to compel one to choose one way or the other. If one strives to found one's own religion, or faith, on a foundation of objective truth, then one neglects entirely the purpose of religion. It isn't about merely knowing what is, but finding how to live one's life meaningfully, purposefully, and faithfully, pursuing in all things one's relation to the sublime, the transcendent, the divine, perfecting one's love for one's neighbor and one's God (or gods, in polytheism, or the universe, in pantheism, or whatever else one holds to embody all that is good, true, and beautiful).
Side note:
Take care not to denigrate the emotions. Though they cause havoc when unregulated, they are the foundation of all human agency and morality. We do not strictly reason out right and wrong; to begin with, we must have some feeling for it, though our actions upon that feeling be shaped by reason. No "ought" statement can be derived solely from an "is" statement (Hume). We must have foundational moral axioms to reach moral conclusions.
@@sammcgee8726 First off, the length of your TLDR made me laugh.
In response to something you said: If the truly religious should be the first to say, “I don’t know,” why wouldn’t that be the correct answer to questions like, “Did Jesus calm a storm by verbal command?,” “Did Jesus walk on water?,” “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” “Did Joseph Smith translate an ancient record with a peep stone?” or “Is there a god?”
@@mikefoxtrot1314 Sorry about the length of my first response; I tend to be a bit verbose.
To answer simply, I think we should certainly be careful about expressing certainty-especially about claiming an empirical basis for certainty. Though I may have a strong conviction of the divinity of Christ, of the truth (historical, theological, or otherwise) of scripture, and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, I don't have any quantifiable, empirical justification to say that I know. In that sense, then, "I don't know" would be an appropriate answer to those questions.
However (to complicate the matter), when many people say "I know," they do not mean to say that they have an empirical basis for certainty, but that they have a strong conviction. My earlier statement that the religious should be the first to say "I don't know" was perhaps overzealous; I feel very strongly that attempts to conjure up a sense of empirical or rational certainty-such as is occasionally expressed by means of the phrase "I know"-amount to nothing more than self-deception tantamount to idol worship, and may be utterly destructive to meaningful faith; I believe that we must acknowledge and accept uncertainty, and remember that we have not been compelled to believe or to follow, but have chosen to*. Only then can we begin to act in faith, grow in understanding through sincere and humble questioning, and seek to know the divine not merely for what we imagine it to be, but for what it truly is. Only then can we find the faith, humility, and reverence necessary to obtain peace, and a love for our neighbors and our God. Because of my conviction, I am perhaps somewhat over-sensitive to anything that smacks of overconfidence (though perhaps I, too, exhibit overconfidence in this conviction). There are appropriate senses in which one may say "I know."
Insofar as knowing may be conceived of as conviction and trust, it may be appropriate to claim knowledge with only the subjective evidence of personal experience. The knowledge one may seek in religion is not empirical or scientific, but it holds far greater meaning to the individual than does mere intellectual awareness.
Though I cannot claim empirical certainty of the existence of God, and though I cannot say my conviction is constant and unfailing, I can say that there are moments when my relation to God is more real and more meaningful to me than anything else. Nevertheless, in these moments all things seem to be made far greater and more meaningful through Him. As I have trusted in these feelings, though falteringly, I have found greater clarity, peace, and meaning in life and have found (I believe) greater humility, reverence, and charity. I believe that this is worth living for, and so I strive to properly devote myself to it. In this sense, subjective though it may be, I may perhaps say "I know my Heavenly Father loves me."
*Again, nothing is self-evident but consciousness, and all is subject to interpretation. Therefore, no evidence is sufficient to compel belief one way or another. All systems of reason or belief are founded on axioms taken on faith. Some faith is well placed, and supports consistent and workable systems; some isn't, and doesn't. The careful, thoughtful, and sincere exercise of any particular strain of faith generally demonstrates its viability or treacherousness (as the case may be), though this demonstration is again subject to interpretation.
Considered from a different angle:
For those who have been compelled by another to believe or to follow, that compulsion should be overthrown; no choice is meaningful that is not made freely, and a restriction of one's ability to seek truth for oneself is an obstacle in one's relation to God. True faith cannot be imposed by outside force, but rather is likely to be strangled by it, no matter how well-intentioned it may be.
@@mikefoxtrot1314 these are important questions, and I thank you for asking them.
@@sammcgee8726 Thank you for elaborating. A couple of points stuck out to me.
First, on the topic of compelled belief versus belief freely chosen: In my experience, beliefs are not and cannot be chosen. Someone may be introduced to a claim, and they either accept it or they reject it based on how well it fits with their knowledge of the universe, and how convincing any surrounding data is. They are compelled by the holistic data as they understand it. If someone were to attempt to consciously decide to believe that grass grows on the moon, they wouldn’t just flip a mental switch and start believing it. The claim would need to be compelling in its supporting data. Am I mistaken here?
As for “knowing,” I appreciate your stance on saying, “I don’t know.” It’s one of my most-used phrases. I like not knowing, because learning releases my good brain juices. That said, if I pause my response, hold out my phone at an arm’s length and drop it, I know what will happen. It will proceed toward the center of the earth. I could run this experiment a thousand times, and I’d have a thousand examples of my phone descending toward the ground. Is there an experiment I can try to raise my confidence levels to where I can say, “I know my Heavenly Father loves me” or “I know Jesus died for my sins and rose three days later,” etc.?
Terryl is such an articulate educated man, i feel like a dope in comparison with simple vocabulary 😂
Tertullian - You make comments but don't provide any sources. It is not the readers' responsibility to prove or disprove your statements.
At least the author provides sources in his books.
I have found something simple, at the end of the first 7 words of Bible,
in different languages, the last 7 letters are either 1 or 2 whole words!
New King James Version, the normal Ukrainian Bible and the English Transliteration of the Hebrew :
"b'reshit bara elohim et hashamayim v'et ha'aretz" !!!
Go check for yourself, and compare with ordinary books.
Ivan Panin 1855-1942 found many more patterns of 7, among the Hebrew and Greek ancient Scriptures,
but the possible results from the extra information, has meant that none of the Intelligent Design advocates will show this!
Because they think it will disturb their control and management of their parent Churches!
The Seventh Day Sabbath is Saturday as recognised by the Jews, and when the end times come, ignoring this fact,
will be the Mark of the Beast, as the Power of the Sunday Churches comes back with machines taking too much of Humans work.
The actual Hebrew, has many more patterns.
Jesus in Matthew 5:18, said not a single letter would be missing for ever,
which suggests that there could be more information, than only the meaning of the words!
Faith Matters and Maxwell Institute the best two organizations to help in faith issues? Hmmm? I love Teryl Givens and his work. However, not sure though I agree with his comment. Faith Matters deals with tough questions indeed. But, the trajectory of its content and emphasis seems to lean towards social justice in the lens of post modern critical theory. At times the hosts and guest are not siding on the GA’s of the church.
I could much more easily listen to this dude if he would stop the silly constant hand motion sign language as he speaks.