I'm trying to construct an argument against these flawed sorts of experiments, and I figured y'all would appreciate something that directly addresses these commonly used scriptures.

Alma 32:27 proposes an experiment for the growth of your faith. Ignoring the fact that something being convincing does not mean it is true, Alma states, "even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you". This is clearly unscientific. There is a reason we fail to reject rather than accept a hypothesis. You don't start with a belief and look for evidence of it. That's backward. Confirmation bias will take root if you do this. Rather, you should start with the data and draw a conclusion from that data.

Alma continues, comparing "the word" to a seed. The seed can be a true/good seed or a false/bad seed. He argues that you can tell from the "swell[ing] within your breasts" the type of seed it is. He also argues that you should not resist the "Spirit of the Lord". Again, this seems like a way to induce confirmation bias. It is difficult for me to see a real relationship between the way an idea makes you feel and its being true. Accepting any other belief simply because it makes you feel good is commonly rejected as foolish. For most other beliefs, we are told to think logically and rationally and to come to a conclusion with our heads, not our hearts. Thinking about things with our heads rather than our hearts prevents us from becoming victims of manipulation and mental biases. There is no good reason supplied that this experiment should be an exception from the rather sensible norm.

Additionally, many other religions justify belief in them through a similar process, a similar feeling. You can't just ignore all the times this same process worked to achieve a different conclusion. You need to address this if you want your argument to be strong. I'll get back to this later.

In verse 30, Alma says that as the seed swells and sprouts, as your belief begins to grow, you will know the seed is good and it will strengthen your faith, which Alma earlier defined as the "hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Of course, this definition conveniently ignores that we don't know what truth is when we begin to hope, so you're tricked into thinking you're coming closer to the truth whenever faith is mentioned.

I struggle to see the correlation between belief growing and truth. The ability of a certain idea to take root and grow in your mind does not say anything about it's truthfulness, but only how convincing it is. Many ideas are popular yet false. See the Monopoly Man's monocole for a lighthearted example. Or alternatively, look at the antivax movement. Any seed/idea can grow and spread regardless of its verity. Despite what verse 32 says, both weeds and roses grow.

> 32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

In verse 33-34, Alma says that because your seed has grown, "Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant" But both weeds and roses grow. For the reasons before, these verses are idiotic.

This type of experiment is what I call a faith experiment. Your belief in something grows through irrational means, namely subjective emotional experience. This increase in belief is understood by those who perform these experiments as a discovery or realization of the truth. Of course, an idea being convincing says nothing about its verity, and when you are asked to give up your capability for logical thought in favor of a burning bosom or light or some other spiritual mumbo jumbo, you are allowing yourself to be manipulated.

These experiments are not falsifiable. If you don't get the answer you're meant to, it is always attributed to the devil or a change needed in your life. In scientific experiments, hypotheses are falsifiable, but it seems that the devisors of these faith experiments are unwilling to be proven wrong. They will always find a way to fit any answer into their framework, which is the calling card of pseudoscience.

I would recommend this pdf for a bit more on how every single piece of evidence that is contrary to mormonism ends up being used in its favor by its advocates: https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/hermetically_sealed_stacked_deck/hermetically-sealed-systems-in-lds-thought.pdf

Good stuff.

Usually I just say my standards are higher for determining truth than for faith based believers. I'm not going to play games with seed analogies and "the word" scripture meanings. People can present facts in a straightforward way and I should be able to externally verify them.

The problem comes when the seed does not grow.

True fanatics can't accept this and shame the person into saying their fath grew.

chez Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> These experiments are not falsifiable. If you
> don't get the answer you're meant to, it is always
> attributed to the devil or a change needed in your
> life. In scientific experiments, hypotheses are
> falsifiable, but it seems that the devisors of
> these faith experiments are unwilling to be proven
> wrong. They will always find a way to fit any
> answer into their framework, which is the calling
> card of pseudoscience.
>

This is where I have a hard time wrapping up my thoughts on this. Because everything you said is correct, about confirmation bias, about feelings not being a dependable method for determining facts or truths about reality. But then we get to the actual core of the "equation" structure of the experiment and why it is flawed and I start getting fuzzy on how to explain why the equation isn't actually a good one.

"If you want to confirm the validity of this claim, you must do X. If you get Y, then this is the correct answer. If you get Z, then this is the wrong answer."


Like, I wish I had an example of this experiment where we present it as "if it WERE falsifiable, it would instead be written like this..." Because I very often get muddled up trying to explain why the current structure is not in fact a good or solid experiment, aside from appealing to the lack of reliability in feelings and the logical fallacy inside the test.

It's extremely difficult for me to think of a way to make it falsifiable. The experiment isn't really testing anything. It can't be called an experiment really. It's just a method to increase conviction.

The fundamental concept the entire method rests on(edit: feelings being used as proof) is flawed, so even if you fixed all the other problems, it would still be useless.

It isn't designed to bring you to the truth, it's designed to trick you using clever wordplay and fallacious arguments into believing more strongly something you already believed at some level deep down.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2023 09:29AM by chez.

"But both weeds and roses grow."

Exactly. And you don't even have to water weeds. Or the "seed of doubt". Doubts crop up on their own. It's their job.

Roses on the other hand need fertilizer and water. The seed of faith also needs a lot of fertilizer. A lot. And we know what that is.

Chez I think I speak for most parents here in saying I’d be proud to call you my child. You sound a lot more intelligent than most adults and your reasoning is sound. Hopefully your parents appreciate your ability to think independently from the herd mentality of the tribe you were born into. I was born into Mormonism too and didn’t start asking the questions you are asking until I had my own kids asking me serious questions about the tribal myths we all inherited.
I served a mission back in the 80’s and probably relied on that experiment in Alma 32 more than any other tool in my tool bag. I was in Australia, which is extremely secular and skeptical of religion, especially one being peddled by door to door salesmen, so most people saw right through it. The problem with that experiment is that it is an equally effective method of convincing yourself of any absurdity. If you want to believe it bad enough and you shut off your ability to think critically and independently, you can convince yourself of anything and ignore even the most compelling evidence.
Flat Earth, No problem. Oh all the other planets are round? Nonsense!
Trump beat Biden in 2020, no problem. No he didn’t? Fake News!
Joseph Smith was a prophet, no problem. Oh he ‘married’ his followers wives after sending them off on missions? King David killed Bathsheba’s husband so he could keep having sex with her and his star is on the Israeli flag, so Praise To The Man!

Thank you, that really does mean a lot. I feel like I've been emotionally messed up because of my upbringing, so I don't really feel things the way I should. I feel better hearing you say that than I do when I hear my parents say they love me.

I really care about this subject. I've always hated going to church, and it's always been immensely annoying to hear people peddle nonsense over the pulpit. I was always the kid who asked questions that stumped the teachers. The teachers would reply with some nonsense, but I was never content with their answers, so I researched more. My parents don't really appreciate me criticizing the church, but they do call me "highly analytical", and I'm not sure if that qualifies as appreciation or not.

I'm glad you liked my post :)