I guess I’m just an ‘open’ person, and, really to be honest, I can be empathetic to a fault, taking on to myself the pain and angst of others through our communications.

I love to see the world through new eyes, to really get a sense of how others interface. I just have to be careful to stay self-aware and keep an eye on the ‘creep’ of my synthesis, and feed it appropriate antitheses to keep it on track.

Science does present a challenge to religious faith, though. Every once in a while, beliefs systems (yes, even LDS) teach ideas that run counter to facts. (Old Testament literalism comes to mind; take your pick.) When that happens, and some tactless scientist points out that the evidence is against some belief, then the believer has to decide what to do.

I’m going to guess that not one time in a thousand will a believer dump the belief because of a fact. Probably 950 times, the believer will keep the belief, reasoning that the evidence comes from an ‘imperfect knowledge of science’. Maybe another 49 times, if the evidence is very strong, the believer may need to modify the belief a bit, but can’t bear to part with it. Some intelligent Latter-day Saints I know now go with ‘theistic evolution’; they admit that the case for evolution looks pretty solid, so… maybe God’s actually in control of evolution. Theistic evolution doesn’t hold water scientifically, but losing faith in a cherished belief is painful, so this is what believers do.

And so we ask questions, as you have: how can we have contact with conflicting views without having to go through the pain of having our beliefs challenged or modified? It hurts! I depend on those beliefs! I can’t imagine what my life would be like without the Gospel! I’d probably be dead in the gutter! and so on.

Well, when your standard is observable reality, the conflict evaporates. If someone shows you contrary facts, you say “Oh. I didn’t know that. Cool.”

What I hope Latter-day Saints (and indeed all Christians) will be able to do is to value facts, and let go of beliefs that are clearly counterfactual. But I’m afraid people aren’t very good at it because it is very very difficult.

Fontor, your comment started out so well, only to tank at the end! :)

I’m sure it’s not surprising to you that I disagree completely with what you said here. Remaining open to correction and instruction is key, but arguing that science and reason are the antithesis of faith (and as a corollary, religion in whole) is, in my opinion, erroneous.

I suppose my stance is best summed up in the following words by Rulon S. Wells:

The apparent conflict, and let me say it is only apparent, between religion and science, arises from two definite causes. An imperfect knowledge of science on the one hand and an imperfect knowledge of religion on the other. True science is knowledge classified and must be true, hence it is a part of true religion which embraces and accepts all truth. How I rejoice in the wonderful development of science and invention, and I hope I may ever have an open mind ready to receive all knowledge let it come from whence it will, for it has but one source; it comes from God who is the fountain of all truth. (Conference Report, April 1929 p. 104)

I think I used to have this idea that people with other opinions or beliefs could somehow reach into my mind and affect me (perhaps even with the aid of malevolent supernatural beings) just by expressing their opinions, and then I’d change my mind and not believe the Gospel. It worried me. Looking back, I now see that there was no danger of that. I had a variety of cognitive defenses that I used to protect my belief system. You do too.

Since becoming more aware of these defenses, and realising the value of a scientific approach, my view has flipped completely. Now I seek out people who will try to oppose my views because if can they show where I’m wrong, I say ‘Thank you!” and I change my mind. I love when people can show me where I’m factually in error. Now I don’t have to believe that wrong thing anymore! I still have to watch out for my own dogmatism though, and stay open to change, because I know that I can be really certain about wrong things.

This may seem like a weakness, but it’s actually a strength. If I have the facts to back me up, I know I can go to the wall for an idea. And I’m not afraid of being wrong anymore! Cause I probably am on lots of things. So show me the facts and I’ll join you. It’s so much better than worrying, “Ooo, will this person influence me from my currently-held view?” like I used to do.

So I guess my message for True Believers would be: Don’t worry. Exposure to other beliefs won’t necessarily change your mind, especially if changing your mind would be especially threatening. You’ll be able to revert to whatever you want to believe. People are good at that. Keep in mind also that Mormonism has a strong tradition of taking that which is of good report, wherever it comes from. All truth is part of the same great body of knowledge, words to that effect. So hearing other opinions can be a good thing and shouldn’t necessarily be threatening. As long as you hold on to the idea that you can believe what you like, your beliefs are safe.

What you should worry about, in my view, is science and reason. Reject those, and you can believe what you like. Accept them as valid, and you can’t. Once you are aware of critical thinking and the scientific method and you decide to apply them to your life, including your belief system, without being afraid of the consequences, then — in my view — loss of faith is the likely outcome. It just so happens that I now think that’s the right answer, but it’s not an easy one to accept.

I don’t expect someone to change their mind because I said something that makes more sense than what they believe in, that would make me sick, I don’t expect anybody to change their mind after a conversation they had with me, but if they choose to do so I hope it’s because they think about the things that have been said and realize for themselve what is best.

I would hope that everybody would work that way and then it would be very beneficial because people would start doing things because they came up with the answer themselves instead of having been given the answer. There is a stronger base when one does the first.