One Explanation For When Moroni 10 Doesn't Work

[Guest TheProudDuck]

As long-time posters know, I have a keen personal interest in explanations of why a person seeking a confirmation of the Book of Mormon's truth according to the process described in Moroni 10, sometimes doesn't get that confirmation.

One of the explanations I hear is that maybe God is withholding the confirmation for the petitioner's own good. That is, since we are accountable for what we do with the light and knowledge we receive, God, with His perfect knowledge of each person's weaknesses, might know that a particular person would not be capable of living up to the teachings of the Book of Mormon, and so withhold a confirmation of its truth so that person wouldn't be responsible for having sinned against this knowledge, and suffer the corresponding consequences.

I have a couple of objections to that argument. First, it sounds suspiciously close to what the Church teaches was Lucifer's plan for salvation -- that is, that men would be prevented from sinning, by preventing the exercise of their free will. I've always understood the Lord's plan as the opposite -- that men would have the freedom to choose whether to follow the truth or not.

Second, it seems uncomfortably close to the Calvinist doctrine of election, or predestination. It makes it seem as if God knew in advance who is destined for exaltation, and who is one of those whose best hope is to be shielded from real accountability, in a state which keeps them from truly damning themselves, but also keeps them in a kind of gray, lukewarm, spiritually anaesthetized state.

Third, and I think most significantly, if the plan were to keep people from sinning after having received a "confirmation," the Lord needs a better quality-control program. Because I know plenty of people who claim to have received undeniable confirmations, yet who've definitely stumbled after having received them. I know it's pointless to compare myself to others -- God's plan for each person is customized -- but it seems to me that if the Lord were withholding a confirmation from me because he knew I wouldn't be able to live worthily after having received it, He would also, according to the same logic, have withheld the confirmation he (purportedly) gave my friend -- who, upon returning from his mission, bedded three rather spectacular women in short succession.

What about the testimony-bearing real estate agent who cheats his clients and partners? What about the hard-core Stake President who's excommunicated for looting his company and running off with his secretary? If God doesn't consider these sins against testimony sufficiently grave to have withheld the confirmation these people claim to have received, it makes me wonder -- if a confirmation is being withheld from me, what monstrous future sin might I have in my future, that God should deem so damning if done with a testimony of the truth that it would justify making an exception to the Moroni 10 promise?

(Oh, right ... murdering my %$#$^% boss. But I wouldn't think it would be all that serious a sin, anyway. I've been trying to do the Elisha thing and whistle up some she-bears to maul him, but so far my apparently insufficiently faithful prayers have only been able to produce a couple of mildly aggressive rabbits.)

I guess the other possibility is that the people who claim to have received a testimony, but have stumbled anyway, might not have truly received the confirmation they thought they had. But it seems to me that if the Moroni 10 confirmation were to have any evidentiary value, not only would a person know, without any possibility of mistake, when she had received such a confirmation, a person should also know, without any possibility of mistake, when he had not. Otherwise, the true knowledge could never be distinguished from the false knowledge, and so the true knowledge would always be suspect.

I'm rambling. I guess the bottom line is that I don't find the argument that God withholds testimony for the benefit of the petitioner, very consistent or convincing.

[Guest Starsky]

It isn't convincing...nor is it even intelligent.....I think it just means that some have to work harder for it than others...maybe they haven't really let go of this world and are asking in a 'give me a sign' posture, instead of thy will be done... submissive ...willingness to wait and live by faith their whole life if necessary....attitude.

Anyway... that's what i think.

[Spencer]

Interesting post, thanks for shareing =)

Spencer

[Outshined]

I don't know if this fits this thread or not, but it reminds me of a story someone told me a while back.

A man was questioning Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet and demanded a sign to show that he was. Joseph replied, "Okay, which do you want; a withered hand or blindness?"

This ended the conversation, supposedly......

[Guest curvette]

Maybe God isn't withholding a testimony from anybody. Maybe it just never occured to Moroni that a "one size fits all" testimony gaining method just plain doesn't work for some.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 18 2004, 03:50 PM

I don't know if this fits this thread or not, but it reminds me of a story someone told me a while back.

A man was questioning Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet and demanded a sign to show that he was. Joseph replied, "Okay, which do you want; a withered hand or blindness?"

This ended the conversation, supposedly......

PD--thanks for the honesty. I don't think those responses that seem to accuse (perhaps too strong a term) you of "seeking for a sign" make any sense at all because....

The problem with argueing that God is reluctant to give "signs" is this: Moroni 10 is offering JUST THAT! Pray with sincerity and you will get a "sign"--a rose by any other name? So it is disingenuous to try to get out of the conundrum by accusing the person of "seeking for a sign", when a "sign" is exactly what Moroni 10 expects you to be asking for.

I have a slightly different question, but along the same line: If one reads the book of mormon, and before he gets to the end, starts having doubts based on things like DNA, anachronisms, bible quotations, unlikely submarine stories, resolving of nineteenth century religious conflicts with 2000 year old native american history, unrealistically specific prophesies of things that already happened at JS's time with no prophesies of any specificity after; and when the person gets to Moroni 10 he can't find any rational way around the above problems, should he pray for a "sign" anyway?

In other words--can the HG tell you to believe something that your rational mind says you can't?

[Outshined]

I believe when we say people are seeking signs, we mean big, public things like miracles, walking on water, etc...

The Holy Ghost speaks to people every day, but I wouldn't call that a sign.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 18 2004, 03:50 PM

I don't know if this fits this thread or not, but it reminds me of a story someone told me a while back.

A man was questioning Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet and demanded a sign to show that he was. Joseph replied, "Okay, which do you want; a withered hand or blindness?"

This ended the conversation, supposedly......

LOL! that would cool me on making demands...

[Guest Starsky]

The problem with argueing that God is reluctant to give "signs" is this: Moroni 10 is offering JUST THAT! Pray with sincerity and you will get a "sign"--a rose by any other name? So it is disingenuous to try to get out of the conundrum by accusing the person of "seeking for a sign", when a "sign" is exactly what Moroni 10 expects you to be asking for.

I don't see it as seeking for a sign...just a confirmation...answer from the Lord.

a sign to me is like Outshined stated:

I believe when we say people are seeking signs, we mean big, public things like miracles, walking on water, etc...

You don't believe you are seeking a sign when you pray in general do you? Because getting answers to prayers is sometimes an everyday kind of thing...

[Jason]

Looks Like Im Damned!

PD, I've felt the "warm fuzzy" many times. I ultimately came to the conclusion that that warm "spirit" feeling is no indicator of truth. I felt it praying about the Book of Mormon. I felt it praying about the Catholic Church. I considered praying about attending a strip club in SLC, but thought that a bit blasphemous. I'd say that the "sign" promised by Moroni and Missionaries around the world is rather worthless. Don't feel left out. You're not missing anything.

Jason

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 18 2004, 05:57 PM

Looks Like Im Damned!  

PD,  I've felt the "warm fuzzy" many times.  I ultimately came to the conclusion that that warm "spirit" feeling is no indicator of truth.  I felt it praying about the Book of Mormon.  I felt it praying about the Catholic Church.  I considered praying about attending a strip club in SLC, but thought that a bit blasphemous.  I'd say that the "sign" promised by Moroni and Missionaries around the world is rather worthless.  Don't feel left out.  You're not missing anything.  

Jason

Have you ever read the scripture found in D&C 46?

8 Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;

9 For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a sign that they may consume it upon their lusts.

10 And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your minds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church.

11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

15 And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men.

16 And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal.

17 And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom.

18 To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge.

19 And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed;

20 And to others it is given to have faith to heal.

21 And again, to some is given the working of miracles;

22 And to others it is given to prophesy;

23 And to others the discerning of spirits.

24 And again, it is given to some to speak with tongues;

25 And to another is given the interpretation of tongues.

26 And all these gifts come from God, for the benefit of the children of God.

[porterrockwell]

The Lord knows us better than we know ourselves. Let's not forget that. I'm not saying that he is withholding anything from you. But all of us must be tested to show whether or not we really faithfull. Jesus Christ himself cried out,"Father, why hast thou forsaken me." Jesus Christ, the Son of man, our Redeemer. He also had to be "without" at one moment, when he was bleeding on the Cross. So I don't think it is cruel, nor unusual that some don't get the "answer" right away. If we knew we could get the "answer" right away everytime, then how much of a sacred thing would we really think it to be. I believe a great deal would take it for granted. It's not a one size fits all, that's the point, if it were a "one size fits all", we'ed all get the answer in the same amount of, in the same way. I look at Moroni 10 as "lighting a fuse", some have longer, some have shorter. Some may even have to deal with opposition. Let's say one day you are reading and praying about Moroni 10, the next day a buddy comes over, sees the BOM and starts handing you Anti-Mormon material. You start reading, and now you've got doubts. Would you stave off those doubts to recieve that answer? Whether it be yes or no? The thing I have come to see, is that other Churches produce vehemant propaganda against LDS beliefs. I do not see us circulating pamphlets and movies about the fallacy of other religions. Instead we worry about promoting our truth. That is one thing that always stood out to me.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 18 2004, 05:02 PM

I believe when we say people are seeking signs, we mean big, public things like miracles, walking on water, etc...

The Holy Ghost speaks to people every day, but I wouldn't call that a sign.

Why? People are convinced of things ONE PERSON AT A TIME. Why does it matter how PUBLIC it is? IF the HG speaks to me, why is that any less a SIGN than if he speaks to a thousand other people at the same time? A rose is a rose is a rose.

[Cal]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 18 2004, 05:57 PM

Looks Like Im Damned!

PD, I've felt the "warm fuzzy" many times. I ultimately came to the conclusion that that warm "spirit" feeling is no indicator of truth. I felt it praying about the Book of Mormon. I felt it praying about the Catholic Church. I considered praying about attending a strip club in SLC, but thought that a bit blasphemous. I'd say that the "sign" promised by Moroni and Missionaries around the world is rather worthless. Don't feel left out. You're not missing anything.

Jason

I hate to admit it but I know exactly what you mean. The same thing I have felt about the church, I felt when I saw the movie Ghandi, and about many other unrelated things since. I really can't distinguish one from another. It's the same feeling every time. I guess I should just thank God that he gave me a brain that can feel such a nice feeling.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace+Mar 18 2004, 06:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Mar 18 2004, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Mar 18 2004, 05:57 PM

Looks Like Im Damned!  

PD,  I've felt the "warm fuzzy" many times.  I ultimately came to the conclusion that that warm "spirit" feeling is no indicator of truth.  I felt it praying about the Book of Mormon.  I felt it praying about the Catholic Church.  I considered praying about attending a strip club in SLC, but thought that a bit blasphemous.  I'd say that the "sign" promised by Moroni and Missionaries around the world is rather worthless.  Don't feel left out.  You're not missing anything.  

Jason

Have you ever read the scripture found in D&C 46?

8 Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;

9 For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a sign that they may consume it upon their lusts.

10 And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your minds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church.

11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

15 And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men.

16 And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal.

17 And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom.

18 To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge.

19 And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed;

20 And to others it is given to have faith to heal.

21 And again, to some is given the working of miracles;

22 And to others it is given to prophesy;

23 And to others the discerning of spirits.

24 And again, it is given to some to speak with tongues;

25 And to another is given the interpretation of tongues.

26 And all these gifts come from God, for the benefit of the children of God.

Peace--yes, you have just pointed out another of the contradictions in mormon scripture and religious lore. BY says you can't get to heaven on the "coat tail" of another--you have to have your own testimony.

Also, what kind of mush-head bases life changing decisions on the "word" of someone else. I say, find a rational basis for your faith, or move on. IOW--either get one of those "undeniable confirmations", find a rational basis for belief that doesn't require any emotional epiphany, or go out and find something else. But, please! Just believe because someone else says so? What is life? DOG OBEDIENCE SCHOOL?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 18 2004, 07:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 18 2004, 07:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Mar 18 2004, 05:02 PM

I believe when we say people are seeking signs, we mean big, public things like miracles, walking on water, etc...

The Holy Ghost speaks to people every day, but I wouldn't call that a sign.

Why? People are convinced of things ONE PERSON AT A TIME. Why does it matter how PUBLIC it is? IF the HG speaks to me, why is that any less a SIGN than if he speaks to a thousand other people at the same time? A rose is a rose is a rose.

Okay...it can be considered a sign to you. :)

So instead of working over the word...lets discover the 'attitude' it takes to get the promise in Moroni 10.

If you are praying with expectations ....giving the Lord the benefit of the doubt....asking for a sign/the promise to be fulfilled....

Then you may get it right away, or maybe you will get it later after being tried....after the trial of our faith...kind of thing.

I know that unless I repent, humble myself, shed all my worldly attitude, and strip myself of my own will, I never get answers...or signs.

I think the problem with most of us is that we really don't know how to put off the natural man enough to get the answers...

[Cal]

I believe when we say people are seeking signs, we mean big, public things like miracles, walking on water, etc...

The Holy Ghost speaks to people every day, but I wouldn't call that a sign.

Why? People are convinced of things ONE PERSON AT A TIME. Why does it matter how PUBLIC it is? IF the HG speaks to me, why is that any less a SIGN than if he speaks to a thousand other people at the same time? A rose is a rose is a rose.

Okay...it can be considered a sign to you. :)

So instead of working over the word...lets discover the 'attitude' it takes to get the promise in Moroni 10.

If you are praying with expectations ....giving the Lord the benefit of the doubt....asking for a sign/the promise to be fulfilled....

Then you may get it right away, or maybe you will get it later after being tried....after the trial of our faith...kind of thing.

I know that unless I repent, humble myself, shed all my worldly attitude, and strip myself of my own will, I never get answers...or signs.

I think the problem with most of us is that we really don't know how to put off the natural man enough to get the answers...

So, by definition, if you don't get the 'sign' then you didn't try hard enough? You are making one BiG assumption. That there is a 'sign' to be had.

Let's frame the issue this way: What if nobody had ever reported getting the 'sign'. Would there be any reason at all to believe there was one to be had? Answer truthfully, with real intent and a sincere heart! B)

Let's say the answer is, "no, I guess not". That would be an honest point of view, no?

Now let's say that, that the most rightous of us (that would be Paul), gets a sign. Are the rest of us (who don't et the sign) any more convinced that there is a sign' to be had? Paul already told me he can't share it with me, so as far as I am concerned there is still NO REASON to believe there is a sign to be had.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 18 2004, 04:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 18 2004, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Mar 18 2004, 03:50 PM

I don't know if this fits this thread or not, but it reminds me of a story someone told me a while back.

A man was questioning Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet and demanded a sign to show that he was. Joseph replied, "Okay, which do you want; a withered hand or blindness?"

This ended the conversation, supposedly......

PD--thanks for the honesty. I don't think those responses that seem to accuse (perhaps too strong a term) you of "seeking for a sign" make any sense at all because....

The problem with argueing that God is reluctant to give "signs" is this: Moroni 10 is offering JUST THAT! Pray with sincerity and you will get a "sign"--a rose by any other name? So it is disingenuous to try to get out of the conundrum by accusing the person of "seeking for a sign", when a "sign" is exactly what Moroni 10 expects you to be asking for.

I have a slightly different question, but along the same line: If one reads the book of mormon, and before he gets to the end, starts having doubts based on things like DNA, anachronisms, bible quotations, unlikely submarine stories, resolving of nineteenth century religious conflicts with 2000 year old native american history, unrealistically specific prophesies of things that already happened at JS's time with no prophesies of any specificity after; and when the person gets to Moroni 10 he can't find any rational way around the above problems, should he pray for a "sign" anyway?

In other words--can the HG tell you to believe something that your rational mind says you can't?

I would say that if the reader were to find himself noticing the reasons not to believe the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, he ought at least to give equal time to investigating the other side, which the apologists do such a good job of presenting. If he finds that the competing rational arguments are equally balanced, or that the preponderance of evidence in favor of one side is so slight that he could reasonably expect it to be within the margin of error built into his ability to judge the evidence, then it would be perfectly legitimate for him to pray for a confirmation.

Or, even if he found the evidence against the Book of Mormon being what it claims to be, to be compelling, but yet still felt some inscrutable impulse or desire to believe, he might still pray for a confirmation, along the lines of "Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief." The "spiritual evidence" of such a confirmation might well outweigh what would otherwise have been a compelling body of evidence for the opposing position.

Either one of these approaches would be to confess the inherent limitations of human reason, especially when dealing with matters where the evidence is necessarily limited. We never have perfect evidence. That's one of the reasons political liberals are generally uncomfortable with capital punishment; they worry about the possibility that the factfinders' judgment may be imperfect, or swayed by emotion. It seems that if this is a valid concern, then someone who entertained it shouldn't have any problem asking for divine input on another question, even if he believes that the rational evidence leans in one direction.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 18 2004, 07:14 PM

The Lord knows us better than we know ourselves. Let's not forget that. I'm not saying that he is withholding anything from you. But all of us must be tested to show whether or not we really faithfull. Jesus Christ himself cried out,"Father, why hast thou forsaken me." Jesus Christ, the Son of man, our Redeemer. He also had to be "without" at one moment, when he was bleeding on the Cross. So I don't think it is cruel, nor unusual that some don't get the "answer" right away. If we knew we could get the "answer" right away everytime, then how much of a sacred thing would we really think it to be. I believe a great deal would take it for granted. It's not a one size fits all, that's the point, if it were a "one size fits all", we'ed all get the answer in the same amount of, in the same way. I look at Moroni 10 as "lighting a fuse", some have longer, some have shorter. Some may even have to deal with opposition. Let's say one day you are reading and praying about Moroni 10, the next day a buddy comes over, sees the BOM and starts handing you Anti-Mormon material. You start reading, and now you've got doubts. Would you stave off those doubts to recieve that answer? Whether it be yes or no? The thing I have come to see, is that other Churches produce vehemant propaganda against LDS beliefs. I do not see us circulating pamphlets and movies about the fallacy of other religions. Instead we worry about promoting our truth. That is one thing that always stood out to me.

Porter -- I recognize that one size doesn't necessarily fit all, and that we shouldn't expect an answer "right away," and that we must be tested, and that the "fuse" may be longer for some than others.

That said, what would you figure to be a reasonable length for the fuse, or a sufficient test? And how much longer than "right away" is it appropriate to wait?

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 18 2004, 08:09 PM

I don't know if this fits this thread or not, but it reminds me of a story someone told me a while back.

A man was questioning Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet and demanded a sign to show that he was. Joseph replied, "Okay, which do you want; a withered hand or blindness?"

This ended the conversation, supposedly......

PD--thanks for the honesty. I don't think those responses that seem to accuse (perhaps too strong a term) you of "seeking for a sign" make any sense at all because....

The problem with argueing that God is reluctant to give "signs" is this: Moroni 10 is offering JUST THAT! Pray with sincerity and you will get a "sign"--a rose by any other name? So it is disingenuous to try to get out of the conundrum by accusing the person of "seeking for a sign", when a "sign" is exactly what Moroni 10 expects you to be asking for.

I have a slightly different question, but along the same line: If one reads the book of mormon, and before he gets to the end, starts having doubts based on things like DNA, anachronisms, bible quotations, unlikely submarine stories, resolving of nineteenth century religious conflicts with 2000 year old native american history, unrealistically specific prophesies of things that already happened at JS's time with no prophesies of any specificity after; and when the person gets to Moroni 10 he can't find any rational way around the above problems, should he pray for a "sign" anyway?

In other words--can the HG tell you to believe something that your rational mind says you can't?

I would say that if the reader were to find himself noticing the reasons not to believe the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, he ought at least to give equal time to investigating the other side, which the apologists do such a good job of presenting. If he finds that the competing rational arguments are equally balanced, or that the preponderance of evidence in favor of one side is so slight that he could reasonably expect it to be within the margin of error built into his ability to judge the evidence, then it would be perfectly legitimate for him to pray for a confirmation.

Or, even if he found the evidence against the Book of Mormon being what it claims to be, to be compelling, but yet still felt some inscrutable impulse or desire to believe, he might still pray for a confirmation, along the lines of "Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief." The "spiritual evidence" of such a confirmation might well outweigh what would otherwise have been a compelling body of evidence for the opposing position.

Either one of these approaches would be to confess the inherent limitations of human reason, especially when dealing with matters where the evidence is necessarily limited. We never have perfect evidence. That's one of the reasons political liberals are generally uncomfortable with capital punishment; they worry about the possibility that the factfinders' judgment may be imperfect, or swayed by emotion. It seems that if this is a valid concern, then someone who entertained it shouldn't have any problem asking for divine input on another question, even if he believes that the rational evidence leans in one direction.

How did this turn into a political debate on capital punishment? I guess you just can't resist a little dig at the liberals. By the way, God is a "liberal", or at least he "giveth" that way. Where in all the scriptures is the term "conservative"?

BTW--I have no doubt about the limits of human reason when I hear the conservatives defend the death penalty.

[Cal]

PD--I find that there are a lot more LIMITS when it comes to human EMOTION than when it comes to human REASON.

I would argue that most of the atrocities foisted on the world come from EMOTION and CONVICTION, than by cold calculated REASON! Reason demands facts, restraint, sketicism and the scientific method Greed, and self promotion and a need to be right, are all emotions that drive the vicious dictators and tyrants of the world, not REASON.

Reason gives us Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Shakespear, Einstein and the US Constitution. Emotion (hate, fear, prejudice, greed) gives us Hitler, the Crusades, the Catholic Inquisition and the MM Massacre.

Yes, there are good emotions which can motivate great and good works--but it has its LIMITS (those I have pointed out). Reason is by definition based on the need to operate on facts and accurate information. Decisions based on emotion, tend to have a hit and miss result. I like to think that governments are run on reason, not emotion.

Unfortuanately, the american people were sold a bill of goods (based on the emotion of "we hate Saddam") as to the REASONs we should attack Irak, instead of building an international coalition. We acted on emotion, and are now reaping the "reward". Reason said "there are no weapons of mass destruction", we can wait until more of the world is on board. But no, good old Georgie, has to avenge (emotion) his Dad at the expense of the rest of us.

Reason said Saddam must go. Emotion said, Saddam must go NOW! Reason was right, EMOTION...LIMITED.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal -- Maybe you and I should allow each other just one more post each on this tangent to keep an interesting thread from going all over the map. Here's my take:

What I was trying to say with my "death penalty" analogy is that very often, the same people who point to the limits of human reason, and its potential for being tainted by emotion, are the same people who insist that reason is so reliable that there is no need to turn to faith. If reason is reliable enough that we never need to give room for faith, it's a reliable enough basis to hang someone on.

As for my logic in defense of capital punishment, it's pretty simple: One of the essential attributes of civilization is proportionality between punishment and crimes. No other punishment than death is anywhere near proportionate to the premeditated killing of an innocent person, especially a child.

Unfortuanately, the american people were sold a bill of goods (based on the emotion of "we hate Saddam") as to the REASONs we should attack Irak, instead of building an international coalition. We acted on emotion, and are now reaping the "reward". Reason said "there are no weapons of mass destruction", we can wait until more of the world is on board. But no, good old Georgie, has to avenge (emotion) his Dad at the expense of the rest of us.

The completely different perceptions the two of us have on this issue is a perfect illustration of the limits of reason. I think, pace your argument, that reason called for the immediate removal of Saddam, and emotion (with a fair amount of reason as well) argued against it.

Reason told me, for example, that there was no way a unanimous international coalition was going to be built. Aside from the French and Russian governments' pecuniary interest in keeping Saddam in power (their exclusive oil contracts with the dictator) there were geopolitical forces in play, in which France, especially, was trying to enhance its diplomatic power by taking a contrary position to the United States -- kind of like how Bill Clinton brilliantly enhanced his political power by the "triangulation" strategy of playing off both Republicans and traditional Democrats.

Reason did not say "there are no weapons of mass destruction." That was the problem. All the best intelligence said that those weapons did exist. Hans Blix, John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton all thought so, and explicitly cited those weapons when they launched the air attacks against Iraq in 1998. They'd existed in the past, and Saddam hadn't accounted for their disposal, as he was obligated under the 1991 armistice agreement to do. He'd kicked out the weapons inspectors, and was generally acting like someone with something to hide. Given how easy it is to hide compact WMD (how hard is it to bury a few oil drums of anthrax in the sand somewhere?), it would have been unreasonable to take Saddam's word for it that they were gone. When an opposing lawyer tells me he's got my client's money, I don't release my mechanic's lien until I have it in hand. Same thing goes for dictators.

Finally, reason told me that when a brutal dictator has been stupid enough to violate a peace agreement and thus give the world a legal basis for removing him (remember UN resolution 1441 and "material breach?") you don't let that slide. First, because if you do, the hard men will consider you a "weak horse" and step up their attacks on you, and second, because you can.

Maybe my logical analysis is being swayed by emotion, in the form of my (apparently genetic) Republican leanings. Maybe emotion is influencing your logic. Most likely, it's a little bit of both. And therein lies the rub: how can we really tell when we're exercising pure reason free from passion, as Aristotle put it? Things seem more reasonable to us when they are emotionally agreeable to us.

Karl Marx, in formulating what he thought were the scientific laws of historical progress, didn't recognize that his thinking was probably being influenced by his bad experiences with Jewish bankers (they tended to insist on being paid back, the big meanies!), as well as his partiality for apocalyptic dreams. Much of the world accepted those "laws" as being reason incarnate -- which made it that much easier to commit atrocities in their name, since those who didn't accept them were to be ground under the wheels of history. The diplomats and generals who blundered into World War I based their decisions on what seemed to them to be eminently logical considerations. The people of Europe in 1914 weren't burning with any great hatred towards each other. Even the Third Reich, as shot through with ugly emotion as it was, did have its rational (if erroneous) basis -- essentially, "we Germans got shafted by the Versailles Treaty, and we wouldn't have lost the Great War if we'd had more national unity and less democracy, so let's make sure we get rid of the non-Aryans and the internal dissension, to make sure we don't get beat again."

You characterize fear and greed as emotions. Where does "fear" end, and the sound rational calculation we call "prudence" begin? Where is the line between "greed" and "economic rationality"?

It's ironic that you list Aristotle and Galileo next to each other as exemplars of the glory of reason. You are aware, of course, that it was precisely the Catholic Church's excessive embrace of flawed Aristotelian logic that led it to persecute Galileo? And to put Shakespeare exclusively in reason's corner? The man who reminded us that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy?

You mentioned the Inquisition. Check out the Spectator article (by an atheist) I posted in another thread. The author points out how the Inquisition, during the 16th and 17th centuries, was a force against the witch-burning craze of that supposedly rational time, and was far ahead of its time in its treatment of prisoners. (Secular governments were much nastier.) Religion's intellectual traditions, and particularly the Catholic tradition, too often get short shrift. I'll put up Aquinas or Pascal against Foucault or Derrida any day.

I think one key difference between faith and reason is that it's easier for faith to recognize its limitations than it is for reason to do the same. Faith recognizes that it is subjective; reason thinks it is infallible, and universal, and gets really mad when people disagree with it.

We're meant to learn by study and by faith -- by mind and heart. Nasty things happen when we let one entirely rule the other.

[Cal]

You said: All the best intelligence said that those weapons did exist.

We must be reading different reports.

Regarding 1998---point is Clinton destroyed them or Saddam did when he realized Clinton meant business. I guess we can credit Clinton, not Bush with having the best Intelligence, and knowing what to do with it.

I agree that the human mind cannot be segregated into an independent rational and emotional condition. Emotion affects reason and visa versa. However, at its core, faith doesn't require reason, and reason does require some faith, if faith is defined as a basis for action without access to all the relevant facts or at its extreme, ANY facts. Reason DOES require some connection to objective reality. Faith, as I understand it, does not so require.

[Snow]

PD,

Not sure what to say other than nice work with a few clever phrases in your post (she-bears and what not). Thinking about the larger issue of spiritual confirmation for a moment - I think it is somehow tied into the issue of pride, and the necessity to subjugate it. It seems, logically that since the glory of God is intelligence that therefore the more you learn, intellectually, and the more yu reason, logically, that the closer you would grow to God and thus the closer you would be to the spiritual confirmation you seek. Perhap the paradox is that you must apply all the mental faculties that make logical sense and then do just the opposite and humble your intellect - leap of faith - and then the miracle comes.

[Guest Starsky]

So, by definition, if you don't get the 'sign' then you didn't try hard enough? You are making one BiG assumption. That there is a 'sign' to be had.

Let's frame the issue this way: What if nobody had ever reported getting the 'sign'. Would there be any reason at all to believe there was one to be had? Answer truthfully, with real intent and a sincere heart! 

Let's say the answer is, "no, I guess not". That would be an honest point of view, no?

Now let's say that, that the most rightous of us (that would be Paul), gets a sign. Are the rest of us (who don't et the sign) any more convinced that there is a sign' to be had? Paul already told me he can't share it with me, so as far as I am concerned there is still NO REASON to believe there is a sign to be had.

Trying hard enough isn't the issue. State of mind and spirit is. I think snow said it best...

PD,

Not sure what to say other than nice work with a few clever phrases in your post (she-bears and what not). Thinking about the larger issue of spiritual confirmation for a moment - I think it is somehow tied into the issue of pride, and the necessity to subjugate it. It seems, logically that since the glory of God is intelligence that therefore the more you learn, intellectually, and the more yu reason, logically, that the closer you would grow to God and thus the closer you would be to the spiritual confirmation you seek. Perhap the paradox is that you must apply all the mental faculties that make logical sense and then do just the opposite and humble your intellect - leap of faith - and then the miracle comes.