Posted by Gunnar on March 04, 1999 at 23:40:04:
In Reply to: Proving the unprovable posted by Heisenberg on March 04, 1999 at 01:36:12:
I know it may sound trite to the former believers, but part of the purpose in life is to exercise faith in God even though we have no proof, "for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."
I am more convinced than ever that one of the silliest notions ever conceived by mankind is the idea that one doesn't necessarily have to have conclusive, objective evidence for something before believing and even insisting that it must be true. This notion makes it possible to justify belief in almost any nonsense imaginable. When we accept this notion, we are in extreme danger of stagnating, perpetuating error and becoming intolerant of honest differences of opinion. This is the kind of mindset that has, in the past, made possible such abominations as religious inquisitions, murderous political purges, the Nazi Holocaust and ethnic cleansing!
In Gospel Doctrine class one Sunday, one of the prominent leaders in our Ward made the stated that only those who already believe and have faith are entitled to any proof. I should have called him on that right away. Surely, even he would admit that it would be unreasonable to suggest that in scientific and criminal investigations, only those investigators who had already decided what the truth is could obtain or recognize the proof of that truth, and that in any criminal trial, any jurors who admitted to having already decided the guilt or innocence of the accused before hearing and seeing the evidence would be justifiably dismissed. Why is it any less unreasonable or dishonest to insist that belief must come before proof in investigations of religious doctrine?
: I think there are many evidences of God; for me, the most persuasive is that the evolution of ever more sophisticated and intelligent life forms seems to run counter to the second law of thermodynamics.
One of the more important factors driving me towards agnosticism is the unreasonable and dishonest insistance of so many true believers that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This argument was devastingly refuted almost immediately after it was first used, and has been convincingly refuted every time it was repeated. The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most firmly established and thoroughly tested principles of modern science. Do you really believe that so many prominent and highly respected scientists and educators would be so foolish and/or dishonest to believe in and teach evolution if it really violated that law? To suggest that would be highly insulting!
In priesthood class one Sunday, the same brother I mentioned above said that no amount of intellectual discussion or argument, whether pro or con, no matter how incontrovertible the evidence supporting it, has any bearing whatsoever on whether the BoM or Mormon Doctrine is true. I was astounded to hear such illogic coming from him, of all people--a retired biochemistry professor from a respected university! He might as well have come out and admitted that he was bound and determined to believe what he believed whether it was true or not! This was conclusive evidence to me that purely subjective faith, untempered by objective evidence and reason can befuddle the thinking of even the most intelligent of us. Nevertheless, I love this man, and greatly value his friendship. I would hate to lose that.