Nauvoo Neighbor

Learning to think…about faith

Dan Ellsworth

If we are serious about learning, we need to be mindful of our reasoning. It’s a process that adds a lot of work to all of our learning, but it’s absolutely essential if we want the best possible outcomes in our learning process.

When evaluating the truthfulness of a particular claim, we need to understand some basic rules of inference in order to sidestep fallacies that muddle our thinking. It’s common for those without this kind of training to focus exclusively on whether or not a particular claim is factual and disregard whether that claim logically supports the conclusion being drawn.

If you have never studied logic, here is a brief primer on some basic concepts (thanks to Meagan Kohler for her assistance!). Or, you can skip down to some concrete examples for Latter-day Saints.

A Lesson in Logic

An argument (a collection of claims and the conclusion they support) is said to be valid if the premises (the claims in support of the conclusion) cannot be true while the conclusion is false. Notice that validity has nothing to do with whether the claims being made are actually true; it’s only concerned with whether the conclusion must be true whenever the premises are true. For example:

All lions are reptiles (Premise 1)
All reptiles wear clothes (Premise 2)
Therefore, all lions wear clothes (Conclusion)

None of the premises (individual claims) are factual. Yet, the structure is valid because if the premises were true (even though we know they’re not), the conclusion would have to be as well. The logical form of the premises (not their accuracy) implies the conclusion.

Even though the argument above is valid (the structure of the premises implies the conclusion), it is not true. An argument is sound when it is both valid and the claims being advanced are factually accurate. Here’s an example of a sound (valid and factually accurate) argument:

All lions are mammals
All mammals have hair
Therefore, all lions have hair

Another example, look at this simple syllogism:

Oranges are fruit
I am holding an orange
Therefore, I am holding a fruit

Here the logic of my argument is valid and my premises are true, so my conclusion (3) is factually true. In logic terms, we would say that my argument is sound.

Now, let’s try another example.

Oranges are vegetables
I am holding an orange
Therefore, I am holding a vegetable

In this case, my logic is valid, but I’m operating with a bad premise: oranges are not vegetables. Even though my logic is valid, my argument is not sound.

How does this apply to faith, to gospel learning?

Well, if our assumptions are bad, then our thinking will be based on faulty premises and our conclusions will be wrong. Below are some examples of statements we commonly hear about the church and gospel concepts, followed by assumptions that are employed to support those statements.

It’s important to emphasize here that these statements are not always wrong; sometimes some of these statements can be true. And likewise, sometimes some of these assumptions can be true. How can we determine whether our assumptions are well-founded or not? Well, that is a question of epistemology, the choices we make in our pursuit of knowledge.

Examples for Latter-day Saints

  1. Prophets are wrong about X

Assumptions:

  1. My god wouldn’t do X

Assumptions:

  1. So-and-so couldn’t have been a prophet because X

Assumptions:

  1. X church teaching/policy is unfair because it does not apply in the same way to everyone

Assumptions:

  1. X church teaching/policy shouldn’t be binding on me because it doesn’t make sense

Assumptions:

  1. X church teaching/policy isn’t loving

Assumptions:

  1. X church teaching/policy doesn’t allow people to be their true selves, the way God created them

Assumptions:

  1. X church teaching/policy isn’t canonized, so it’s not binding in any way

Assumptions:

  1. X church teaching/policy is unreasonably difficult

Assumptions:

  1. The church isn’t true because X

Assumptions:

  1. The church is failing because people are leaving

Assumptions:

  1. The church shouldn’t have large financial reserves

Assumptions:

Note: for a book-length treatment of assumptions about our faith, I highly recommend Terryl and Fiona Givens’ The Crucible of Doubt.

Quotes:

We all inhabit geographical, linguistic, and social worlds that shape our vision and our impressions of what is normal, what is real. Our worldview is a collective set of assumptions we carry with us that condition every question we ask. These “paradigms” make it possible to guide inquiry, but they can also limit and impede our inquiry. They can get us off on the wrong foot, obscure our line of sight, or simply misdirect our focus. This is because, all too often, we don’t realize the limiting assumptions with which we are working. We can’t easily step outside most such preconceptions. Even recognizing the extent of our unexamined assumptions can be the hardest thing of all. It is like asking a fish what it is like to be wet. “What is wet?” even a miraculously verbal fish would reply. Our assumptions, like the ocean in which a fish swims, are the invisible background to our thinking, waking existence. Only when we have left a misguided assumption behind are we able to see it clearly.

…The important point, however, is that those frameworks are not just themselves error-laden. Erroneous assumptions do not just forestall truth and progress, although that would be cause enough to lament their malign influence in our lives. They are like the dummy lock of Mossman’s home. They point us in the wrong direction, limit our understanding, and even warp the questions we ask. Worse, they create the conditions for faulty reasoning and disastrous conclusions.

…In the realm of religion and spirituality, as in the areas of science, medicine, and public order, wrong assumptions can provide invisible deterrents to a life of religious devotion. Such flawed paradigms have been known to trouble even stalwarts of the faith.

Exit mobile version