For what it is worth, I label myself a “skeptical believer” (as opposed to “faithful skeptic” (or as I’ve heard elsewhere “faithful doubter.”) The emphasis is on “believer.”

I can relate to what you are saying about how some of us (I include myself) just don’t feel the same feelings of complete certainty sometimes expressed in testimony meetings. At one time I felt out of place, though I don’t any more.

But don’t we skeptical types feel certainty in other circumstances? I think we do. It’s built into our biology so there are no exceptions. A person that never felt “certain” about a basic set of beliefs in life would have to be institutionalized and would be non-functional as a human being, even if they were actually more “correct” technically speaking. This is because “certainty” is a necessary thing to act and “acting” is always faith.

Because of this, I have learned to not see expressions in testimony as anything problematic or concerning. They are expressions of faith and they are an accurate description of how the person really feels – certain – before they acted on that faith. At a biological level, what they are saying is completely accurate. You could find equivalent statements in any religion or political party because that’s just the way it is.

And I note that those that have concerns over testimonies are always guilty of some equivalent offense of “non-rational” certainty, but just in some other aspect of their lives. It’s easy to find examples in everyone.

Oh, one more thought for you. If you do choose to bear testimony via expressing “faith” rather than “knowing” it, why would you feel compeled to also express “doubt?” If you were to say “I have faith Jesus is the Christ” it would say it all. A few people might wish you had said “know” but not many. And it implies a lack of complete certainty by definition. I’m not sure a testimony meeting is the best place to be expressing “doubt” as that goes against the proclaimed purpose of the meeting.

That being said, it would be nice if we could culturally catch up to the teachings of our leaders and allow for people to express “faith” rather than “knowledge” without any perceived inferiority of the testimony. The GA’s have taught this for many years as an acceptable alternative, but culturally it’s not accepted as the same and seems to be looked down upon sometimes. But I think it’s getting more acceptable to use words like “faith” or “belief” all the time.

“I wonder if its a stonger predispostion in some, than in others.”

It is, according to the current scientific thinking. But then again, I doubt science will ever figure out a way to make this solely nature. It will always be partially nurture, partially nature, and partially choice.

I consider myself a faithful skeptic. I acknowledge this label makes me more irrational than most. Why would someone devote so much time and effort to a cause that they don’t firmly believe in?

Testimony meeting is a time when its very uncomfortable being a skeptic. The discomfort comes from the combination of my own doubts and the certainty of belief expressed by others. I’ve heard very few testimonies where the person expresses their desire to live by faith in spite of their doubts.

It’s actualy comforting to think that people have a genetic or biologically driven predispostion to believe. I wonder if its a stonger predispostion in some, than in others. The concept somewhat mirrors the principle that knowledge of truth is a spiritual gift. It is something I will ponder during testimony meeting.

Of this, I have no doubt. And I completely agree.

But what I was indirectly wondering out loud in #5 is why you picked that group (i.e. Mormons in a testimony meeting), and that alone, as your target when this is a problem in abundance everywhere and with everyone.

Seldom, I don’t know you or your religious leanings, so can I use you for an honest experiment? I mean no offense by this, just honestly curious.

You see, if I were a betting man, I’d guess you don’t self identify with being “typical Mormon in a testimony meeting” because upon hearing that all human beings are irrational, the first think you indicated was that “typical Mormon in a testimony meeting” were irrational. Thus my doubts that you were actually speaking of yourself or people like yourself.

But then again, maybe you do. Maybe you really did, upon hearing that people were irrational, immediately think of yourself and people that believe like yourself. It’s fully possible, though admittedly rare.

Can I do a quick experiment without offending? (You can always just choose to not answer.)

Here is the experiment:

Let’s, for the sake of this experiment, define “a typical Mormon in a testimony meeting” as being someone that believes that Joseph Smith actually had golden plates of ancient origin written by ancient Nephites and that the Book of Mormon is in some sense a “translation” of that record written by ancient Nephites that was then quite literally and physically taken away by an Angel afterwards.

If you do believe this, congratulations, you are one of the rare few (or at least your having a rare moment) in that you are questioning your own beliefs and religious convictions first, and not someone elses.

If you can’t answer the above in the affirmative, then you were actually just questioning other people’s beliefs — that you don’t actually share — as irrational and not your own. You were literally fulfilling this statement from the quote above: “I’m not irrational –- it’s those other idiots who can’t see the obvious.”

Would you be willing to honestly tell us which it was?

Again, I’m not saying this in a bad way. I think it would be a good example and there is no shame, in my mind, of falling into a trap (or seeing others as irrational) that we are all guilty of a lot of the time. Heck, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m guilty of it too more times than I can possibly conceive or count, so no worries if you were too.

I just wanted to make a not so subtle point that emotional, illogical thought is rampant in our religous convictions. We should probably be aware of motivated reasonsing when we consider our own religous beliefs and the way others react when we share them.

Why wait? Ponder it right now while reading the newspaper, or listening to Fox News/CNN. Or during a lecture at a university. Or at a Sunstone symposium. Or while listening to conservative or liberal radio.

Heck, think of it while reading Mormon Matters right now!

* general avoidance – unpleasant, not equipped to deal with
* ego – pride cometh before the fall because it is so blinding.
* selective listening – confirmation bias
* emotional overinvestment – unwilling to face the risks to success
* wishfull thinking
* false dichotomy

I am always looking for practical ways for leaders to better ‘confront reality’. The key elements I have observed so far are: 1. humility – recognize that these tendencies are natural, 2. courage – the willingness to see thing as they are rather than as we would prefer them to be and 3. a safe environment for sharing information and a willingness to be influenced.

This doesn’t bode well for the Prop 8 debate.

http://www.believermag.com/issues/200508/?read=interview_haidt

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.the-moral-emotions.manuscript.html

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html