In true Mormon form, allow me to introduce this blog (talk) by giving the definition of the topic:
Mormon – 2. LATTER-DAY SAINT (LDS); especially : a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1)
Inquiry - 1: examination into facts or principles : research
2: a request for information
3: a systematic investigation often of a matter of public interest (2)
Author’s definition of Mormon Inquiry: Investigating the possibilities of religious thought, interpretation, and interactions within and outside of Mormonism. (Emphasis on the word, possibilities.)
It is easiest to introduce and explain the purpose of this blog in terms of the LDS belief, “The Plan of Happiness”. Where did Mormon Inquiry come from, why is it here, and where is it going?
Where did Mormon Inquiry come from?
There was once a Mommy Mormon Inquiry and a Daddy Mormon Inquiry, they got together and… scratch that, lets try this again.
I try to live as an open book. I try not to be convoluted (most of the time). With an understanding of my background I hope we’ll be able to better communicate with each other.
My Name is Colin Faux. I was born in Boston, MA and raised in Des Moines, IA. I was raised in an LDS family. My Father has LDS heritage dating back to the Mormon Hand-Cart pioneers. My Mother and her family are 1st generation members. My first religious experience occurred when I was five years old. At the queue of my primary teacher, I bore testimony about The Book of Mormon as she wrote what I said on the inside cover. At 8 I was baptized and began to develop a love of studying religion and especially arguing religion. On a regular basis I would sit down at the lunch table during elementary school and argue with Evangelical Christians, defending LDS positions, theology, and thought.
My Father, S. Faux (aka Fox Goku. foxgoku54@gmail.com), who is a Professor at a private institution in Des Moines and also the blogger of the recently closed “Mormon Insights”, prepared my mind to think critically and NOT accept concepts at face value. With my Mother and Father’s preparations I served in leadership positions 20 of the 24 months I served in the Utah Salt Lake City South Mission under the direction of Brad and Elaine Risenmay.
I returned to Des Moines after serving in Utah and attend Drake University. I graduated with a BA in Religion and a BSBA in Entrepreneurial Management.
OK I’m tried of typing background stuff…
Elder Terrence Smith (recently added to the Sixth Quorum of the Seventy), spoke to the Young Single Adults (YSA) of the Des Moines, IA stake on June 11, 2010. I am impressed with Elder Smith’s insights from that night. He spoke with deep understanding. The purpose of this blog is designed from some of the statements he made that night, “Questions are a good thing. The best answers come from the best questions. I would like to write a response to the book, ‘Answers to Gospel Questions’ titled, ‘Questions to Gospel Answers’”.
Why is Mormon Inquiry here?
We are here to question. To discover the possibilities of Mormon thought, to develop the “best questions”.
It is my intention to blog about different subjects within Mormonism and inquire (not the tabloid) about those subjects. Readers can take the discussion and try to develop the “best answer” or further develop the “best question”.
I recognize some LDS individuals will be uncomfortable with this blog and the possible subjects raised here. Religious philosophy is not for everyone, but it IS certainly found within Mormonism and the Mormon experience.
Not that I feel philosophy is unsafe, but it does have the possibility of changing an individuals opinions on the matter it is investigating. So, religious philosophy may do the same. Religious philosophy may strengthen an LDS individual’s testimony, weaken it, or do nothing. It is not my intention to weaken an LDS individual’s testimony, only develop the best questions, but consider this a fair warning :).
Mormon Inquiry is also here for my own selfish reasons. I need an outlet to deposit my thoughts and research. At some point I would like to further develop my religious studies. Also, I’d like this blog to somehow motivate my Father to maintain his blog and begin writing his religion/evolution book.
Where is Mormon Inquiry going?
I don’t know!
I recognize faith differently now than a few years ago. I recognize faith as having a desire to believe something is real, so acting as if that something is real.
My faith is a desire to believe, rather than a knowledge of truth.
So, I have faith (desire to believe) that Mormon Inquiry will begin to develop the best questions, but I am not certain.
Let us test my approach to this blog with an inquiry!
Is there a “best” way to recognize faith?
Respond to the question, provide an answer, develop the question further, or just smile. Those are your (only) options :).
References:
(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mormon
(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inquiry
DISCLAIMER: Although the subject of this blog is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this blog is not affiliated with the LDS organization and should not be taken as official statements from the LDS Church.
© Colin Faux 2011, All rights reserved. Request permission for distribution: Colin.e.faux@gmail.com
Faith is a confidence that there is an unseen purpose to our lives that is larger than ourselves. Faith extends and adds upon logic and science by declaring that most of the operations of nature are unknown. False faith dips into magic. Pragmatic faith is more humble, as it is based in the realization that only trivial questions have full answers.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. There IS knowledge to be had. And it doesn't do us any good to sit here pondering, thinking "isn't life mysterious?" and jumping to conclusions without evidence.
ReplyDeleteLife and nature of full of mysteries, but one's thinking wing is clipped from the very beginning if driven by "faith."
Faith cheapens the discovery of knowledge that is otherwise obtained only through rigorous hypothesis, testing, experimentation, and repetition.
Science adjusts its view based upon whats observed.
Faith is (often) the denial of observation so that belief may be preserved.
You'll likely disagree but the first question - I cheerfully submit - should be "why have faith?"
Brent:
ReplyDeleteExcept for my first sentence (perhaps), I would argue that the type of faith expressed in my remaining statement is ESSENTIAL to science. So, I cannot understand your claim that "faith cheapens."
Everyone operates on some level of faith.
ReplyDeleteTrue Story; My friend worked at Pizza Hut but his first check bounced and he quit. So why did he work there to begin with? Well he had faith that he would be paid.
Faith doesn't have to be religious oriented word, I think faith is the actions a person takes based around their understanding of their situation. I think expectations and faith is the same thing. Both are developed by experience and understanding your situation.
I also don't believe faith is the denial of observations. Scientists research the unknown because they have faith they will learn something.
I don't think having faith is an option. We all operate on faith on some level. Instead I think the more interesting questions is where do people place their faith, and why?
I especially like Son#1's comment. Of course, I am biased, but I have faith I would have liked it in the blind.
ReplyDelete@Brent - All researchers jump to conclusions without evidence. To form a scientific hypothesis is to take on faith that an assumption is correct, and then endeavor to prove it. To subscribe to the laws of nature and the cosmos that build the foundation of scientific thought is a form of faith. We can only be certain of our observations based on our limited set of senses. That which we can touch, smell, see and hear is a fraction of a fraction of reality. Even through the use of tools, we are still only able to observe one millionth of our universe. Established scientific thought is disproven every day, but was once considered absolute. Similarly, spiritual discovery operates on faith. As a scientist might, the spiritual explorer develops a hypothesis based on established thought. Unlike the scientific process, however, spiritual discovery is open to individual interpretation. The same process for one spiritual explorer may yield entirely different results for another based on their religious upbringing, life events, and inherent cultural biases. The only common factor that a majority of the religious community agrees on is that there is something more than what we can perceive with our limited sense. Science has proven those limitations. Unfortunately, majority rule operates as a limiter in both the scientific and spiritual schools of thought. Newton and Galileo before him were thought to be madmen for challenging established scientific law. As were Joseph Smith, Jesus and Shakyamuni Buddha for challenging the rule of religious law. To wit, our thinking wings are enabled by faith - faith both in something greater than what is known, and in our ability to discover the nature of that unknown through earnest study and wild leaps of faith.
ReplyDeleteFaith is a power that, according to Christ, moves mountains. Is there scientific basis for this? No. Is it possible? According to the Bible and other LDS scripture, it actually happened. Spiritual matters can only be discerned by spiritual evidence. We interpret that as the Spirit, and it is a real definable experience, as real and definable as anything we may see or hear. If we rely so much on the senses of sight and hearing for scientific truth, why can't we rely on real definable experience with the Spirit for religious truth?
ReplyDeleteI had an experience when I was 17 years old that left unerasable impressions of my LDS faith, that I cannot deny to this day -- despite the difficult questions that we cannot always answer. Before that prayer, I always felt a little alienated or disconnected from the Jesus Christ story. Is this real? Does he really exist? In a single experience that I cannot explain, that darkness and confusion was dispelled and replaced by light and clarity. This was independent of myself. I did not create the feelings. That's why I can say I know Jesus Christ lives and the LDS faith is true.
ReplyDeleteMy argument about faith is a religious one, not to be confused with the type of "rational expectation" that working at Pizza Hut entails. They are very, very different things.
ReplyDeleteAs an employee, you are contracted for pay. There is plenty of precedence that workers are paid for their labor. You also have certain protections under law. This to me is just as cliche as claiming that flipping a light switch is faith-based. It certainly is not. Either the light switch completes an electrical circuit, or it does not. We understand how electrons flow and how circuits work. This isn't an endeavor requisite of faith.
Religious faith is, without question, unscientific. Faith as it's taught today insists certain things, which we simply CANNOT know for a fact, to be true. Faith in - to just cherry-pick an example - the resurrection, is at its very core unscientific because it makes claims about biology and physics that simply are not true.
Yet those that believe - those that surrender their reason and discard healthy skepticism - can be convinced otherwise. This is the plague of faith.
This is why observation and evidence are so vital. Who wants to be duped, anyway? So long as you surrender your reason and piggy-back mere belief, you can be convinced that every one of Noah's animals actually fit in the ark, or that a sea was split in half, or that certain of our mammalian brothers speak with deity. These are all explorable claims by science and not one of them, while testable, would pass.
Science doesn't require faith. Not the type I've defined. Science has no investment in a hypothesis that proves untrue; instead, it is disregarded and the process for understanding the world starts fresh.
Could you picture a religion in the world today that, after obtaining more knowledge about the world (which science has a pure monopoly in), simply changed its core doctrine to comply?
The mere fact that people still have this type of faith and belief in Harold Camping is about all I need to say about faith.
@B Coombs: "According to [insert your holy book here], which we wrote, faith has moved mountains." Do you expect this to withstand criticism?
ReplyDeleteAlso, and I don't mean to stomp on any precious experiences, but feelings simply do not convey objective truth. They cannot. These are brain-related activities that we are only recently beginning to understand. How do you guage your feelings of truth versus those of a devout Muslim, or a convinced witchdoctor? How do you know that, EUREKA!, you've stumbled upon the answers to everything?
Thank you everyone for reading the post and commenting.
ReplyDelete--- --- ---
@Brent, thank you for submitting the first question! I appreciate that you are willing to provide an opposing view to what you perceive to be a pro-faith blog (or at least I make that assumption from your first post). It takes a certain degree of faith and confidence in one’s own understanding to oppose :).
Let us take faith outside of the religious tone for a moment. Is it POSSIBLE (sorry just emphasizing the word) that science uses a different type of faith (similar to the sentence I used to describe your confidence)? <-- Faith that science has the answers
What about individuals who do not have access to the observable data, or who do not understand it, do they have to accept scientific conclusions on faith? <-- Belief that science has the answers
If yes to any of those questions above, then, is scientific-faith rather than religious-faith the best way to recognize faith?
Or do you still hold true to your first submission, “Why have faith?”
(Also in another train of thought, is modern day science/technology motivated by science fiction?)
--- --- ---
@Son #1, thank you for the #2 submission. Son #2 asks, why is your question more interesting? Why is it that you believe faith is an absolute (“I don’t think having faith is an option.”)?
Is it POSSIBLE that faith is not an option to all people?
--- --- ---
@ S. Faux, what is it about trivial questions that have full answers? (do you like my trivial question?)
--- --- ---
@ The_Spaces_Between, how can scientific hypothesis be equated to faith? Is this a scientific-faith or religious-in-nature type of faith?
“Established scientific thought is disproven every day, but was once considered absolute.”
Is it possible to consider the changes that occur within religion that were once considered absolute? Do changes to ideas that were once considered absolute, weaken the source of the knowledge (science, religion, etc)?
Why does everyone operate on a level of faith? Well because we don't have all the answers, and we naturally proceed in life hoping to succeed.
ReplyDeleteSo I believe my question is more interesting, because everyone operates on faith. Therefore, where people choose to emphasize their faith I believe is more interesting.The Harold Camping example above is my point.
I think some people are better with religious faith then others, when it comes to learning scientific facts. Some people and their religious faith feels it necessary to attack science.. While other people have Religious faith which can incorporate scientific facts, and find no contention between the two.
Now I recognize there are people who feel it necessary to say you can't have both science and religious faith, but the fact is there are people who have both. So who has the real problem; people who have both, or the people who tells them you can't?
Great last comment Son #1. "So who has the real problem; people who have both, or the people who tells them they can't?" I would have to say the latter--because they would tend to be too narrow minded in one area or the other.
ReplyDeleteMother of Son#1 and Son#2
@Son #1: A well-known psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance allows people to maintain conflicting viewpoints simultaneously. Those that find no conflict between religious literalism and science, by very definition of the two, suffer from this condition.
ReplyDeleteWhat gets tricky is the details. "Well I know what it says about the earth being 6,000 years old, but IIII don't believe that."
I propose that faith is not the same as hope, and not knowing all the answers does not NECESSARILY introduce faith.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it, people who believe in Harold Camping are stupid, and they probably don't deserve to vote or have kids. Ok ok that sounds harsh, but I think 99.999% of our country can see the obvious lunacy in faithfully following Camping. You or I might say "there is no reason to have faith in that position." This is where my argument comes in.
You can't just have faith because because. There has to be underlying cause. Otherwise, what is suggested without evidence can be likewise rejected without evidence.
So if I decide to have faith in making it to work safely tomorrow, I don't have to try very hard because I have ever reason - evidence - to suggest that's just the case.
Faith in god, though? Why is the only sustainably producible shred of evidence a feeling, which at that, is highly subjective and never correlates between individuals?
Also, Colin, science has answers because science produces answers. Repeatedly. Correct science also predicts things one would expect to be true about nature.
ReplyDeleteHaving faith in science, I think, is not correctly understanding the word science.
I also don't think you have to have access to observable data to know the science works. And obviously most people don't understand our current understanding through science. I understand, generally, how my phone works but nothing that would pass as terribly scientific. But I know THAT it works, and that it's not magic. I don't need faith to fill in the gaps but rather time to properly study what is known based upon, again, observation and NOT faith.
@the_spaces_between:
ReplyDelete"Established scientific thought is disproven every day, but was once considered absolute."
No thinking person today with a correct understanding of science would actually propose that what is learned today through science is absolute. This is why science will always win, it's self-critical and is based upon never-ending skepticism and improvement.
Brent:
ReplyDeleteNot everything in life is completely structured and spelled-out. Faith is what moves us forward. And, I am speaking of science. Imagine being a new Ph.D. and having to take a poorly paid post-doc job until a "real" science job comes along. This happens all the time in science. The post-doc must have faith that she or he can discover something worth publishing in order to attract future employers. It takes a real act of faith to move your entire family to an unknown city, like Boston, in hopes that you can get a few pubs out. I know BECAUSE I did it.
Guess what? Most hypotheses in science are not verified. Most experiments go wrong. It takes a lot of hard work (and faith) to get the right kind of scientific data that will pass scientific review for publication. A new scientist, who has invested years in training, is really taking a lot of chances that she or he might fail. Somehow, I don't think FAITH is the wrong word to describe what transpires in the real life of a scientist.
Faith involves trust. It happens in both religion and science, and I believe there are a lot of similarities. I have lived both -- for many decades.
When's #2 Bro?!?!
ReplyDelete:D
@Brent I appreciate your responses, sorry for my slow response.
ReplyDeleteNot all faith has to be a literal interpretation of scripture or religious history. Some stories are meant to be fictitious, only to be interpreted and applied to one's life (example, many of Jesus' parables).
Going to my second train of thought in my first response to you, there are scientists and those in research and development within technology firms that say Star Trek was their motivation for becoming a Scientist (mostly Astronomers) or developing technology similar to what is seen within Star Trek. Although Star Trek is not real, it has influenced our reality.
Now lets put religion in the place of Star Trek. Religion and belief is powerful. It influences actions.
Those who are motivated by Star Trek to practice Science are influenced by something VERY similar to faith in reality. It is not necessarily that what faith is teaching is real, but that it has real results.