This blog marks the beginning of a series entitled, “Why I Don’t Believe“. Each installment will feature a specific reason why the LDS Church is most likely false. The goal here is to spark an on-going, honest, and civil conversation about Mormonism in particular and faith and reason more generally.
I know how sensitive a subject religion is and that I will probably offend (albeit unintentionally) a number of people. Before I proceed with this project, then, let me first explain my motivations and anticipate potential concerns.
The basest motivation behind my “Why I Don’t Believe” series is simply an interest in Mormonism. It’s said that you can leave Mormonism, but Mormonism can’t leave you. In Utah, at least, that’s pretty true. Mormonism is all around you and you can’t escape it even if you want to. Most days, though, I don’t want to escape it. I enjoy studying and discussing Mormonism; it’s a fascinating religion.
Perhaps the primary reason for this project is to get people to reevaluate their religious beliefs. While I disagree with several teachings of the LDS Church (the emphasis on obedience, the rhetoric against homosexuality, etc.), I don’t think Mormonism is a uniquely harmful religion. So my opposition to the LDS Church has less to do with any one particular doctrine, and is instead about the very nature of faith.
Our culture is wrong to venerate faith as a virtue. Believing in something for which there is no or little evidence—or worse, believing in something despite contrary evidence—is not admirable. In fact, beliefs untethered to reality are often dangerous (case in point: September 11th). To be sure, not all faith manifests itself as violence. The real danger with faith is that, by faith, anything can be justified.
In every other facet of life except religion, we demand evidence of people for their beliefs. Were I to tell you that I walked on water the other day, you would rightly be incredulous. Yet Christians—and I include Mormons here—profess that a man did just that (walk on water) nearly two millennia ago in the backwater of the Middle East and the only reports we have (the gospels) were written several decades after the alleged event by anonymous authors who were not themselves eyewitnesses. Why the double standard? Religious beliefs ought to receive the same scrutiny that other beliefs do. No, religious beliefs actually merit more scrutiny, because, as Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
I oppose any false belief and all dogmatic thinking. The reason I target religion is not that it’s necessarily the most dangerous dogma. The political dogmas of Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism claimed more lives during the 20th century than did religion. It’s just that religion, unlike other belief systems, remains largely unscrutinized. That’s why opening a frank and civil dialogue about religion is so important.
Also, that I give particular attention to the Mormonism in this series does not betray an animosity toward that religion. Mormonism is just more relevant for my group of friends and I’m in a better position from which to critique it given my familiarity with it.
If I don’t dissuade anyone from Mormonism, I hope that at least this conversation increases Mormons’ understanding of why people leave their church. Offensive misconceptions abound about “apostates.” The LDS Church tends to divide ex-Mormons into two camps: those who were offended by a church member and those who leave to pursue a life of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll. These descriptions may aptly describe why some leave, but, in my experience, countless more leave over legitimate concerns about Mormon history and doctrine—the very issues I will explore in later posts.
A good deal of people—those who most need to read my posts—will dismiss me outright as an “anti-Mormon.” I think believers are too quick to throw that moniker around. Just as it’d be unfair to call Mormons “anti-sinner” for disagreeing with sin, it’s equally unfair to call people “anti-Mormon” for disagreeing with the LDS Church.
Criticism is not a sign of hate. The opposite, in fact, is true. “The way you respect a person,” to quote secular philosopher Austin Dacey, “is not by agreeing with everything he or she says, but by holding that person to the same intellectual/moral standards to which you hold yourself. Anything less is not respect, it’s indifference. So sometimes in order to respect religion’s peoples, we must critique people’s religions.”
This point should not be lost on my LDS friends. Some Mormons spend two years of their lives proselytizing. And why? Because they sincerely want to share with people “the good news.” The truth is a gift; it would be selfish to keep it to oneself. Likewise, I don’t try to disabuse my friends of their faith in order to win debates or rob them of happiness. As a matter of principle, I just believe that people deserve the truth.
At times the truth may be difficult, like discovering that one’s faith is unfounded. Leaving the LDS church is a painful experience for many. Still, there is something liberating about the truth, about seeing the world as it really is.
I make no pretenses at being objective. I’m an ex-Mormon and atheist; my thoughts about the LDS Church are doubtless filtered through those lenses. But in recognizing my biases, I hope to temper them. To that end I could use your help. I want to hear your thoughts, questions, and (especially!) criticisms. Because absent your input, my “Why I Don’t Believe” series won’t be a dialogue, but a monologue. So hold me to the highest standard of fairness and accuracy. And where my arguments fall short of that standard, let me know and I will make the necessary revisions.
Most Mormons stay clear of such discussions for fear that they’ll engender a “spirit of contention.” I am going to do my best, however, to ensure that the discussions on my posts remain respectful (and I’m confident that they will). Personal attacks and comments that display undue antagonism will be deleted.
Another obstacle to having this dialogue is that the LDS Church has, especially in recent decades, cautioned members to avoid the “spiritual pornography” that is any literature critical of the church. But there is another, competing strain within Mormonism that allows for if not encourages inquiry. Consider the following quotes from church leaders:
“I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance even more than I fear cigarettes, cards, and other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion. Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. They have made it forbidding, shut it up in cold grey walls of monastery and nunnery, out of sunlight and fragrance of the growing world. They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white…”—Apostle Stephen L. Richards
“We should be scientific—that is, open-minded, approaching new problems without prejudice, deferring a decision until all the facts are in. Some say that the open-minded leave room for doubt. But I believe we should doubt some of the things we hear. Doubt has a place if it can stir in one an interest to go out and find the truth for one’s self.”—Apostle Hugh B. Brown
In this same spirit of inquiry, I hope that my LDS friends will consider the arguments that I’ll introduce over the course of the series and follow the evidence wherever it leads. The truth, after all, should have no fear of investigation.
The next post (technically the first of the series) will concern the validity of spiritual experiences/confirmations.
Good post. These are basically the “new atheist” arguments of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and others. Their applicability to Mormonism is interesting and obviously relevant for us living with Mormonism. I hope you do start some discussion and debate among believing Mormons, but I think most Mormons are not truly interesting in objectively examining the validity of their beliefs. The cost of changing beliefs for most Mormons is just too high- socially, emotionally, and even financially. They won’t or can’t do it. It is, in any event, a worthy effort.
I think one criticism I would have of the strong atheist position is that I don’t necessarily think all religion is bad and should be discarded. I honestly think there are many, many Mormons who are good and genuine people who do many things to make the world a better place. They are doing their best within the framework of their religion. Do I think they are wrong about the literal truth of their religion, yes, but I am probably wrong about a lot of things as well. It doesn’t mean I can’t be a good person and have an honest dialog.
“…unfair to call people “anti-Mormon” for disagreeing with the LDS Church.”
Just as it’s unfair to call people who don’t collect stamps “anti-stamp collectors.”
Hi Jon and USU SHAFT,
I’d like to include your group and blog in Outer Blogness and in the blogroll of our group blog Main Street Plaza. Please have a look and consider yourselves a part of our discussion community.
You write:
“Each installment will feature a specific reason why the LDS Church is most likely false.”
You probably need to take out the “most likely” from the sentence above.
Mormonism took an already silly and false religion and added more and more silliness and falseness to it. None of the Mormon precepts are true.
I once stood in the jungles of Nicaragua cursing the rain. It had been raining for 30 days straight. For 30 days I slept in a tent with water dripping on me as I slept. Every morning I had to put on wet clothes. Every place I walked I was knee did in mud. At that moment had someone tried to explain to me all the virtues of rain I would not have been receptive to any of them. In fact the only thing that I was mentally competent to do is curse the rain! I am no longer in such a place. In fact now that I am back in Utah, I value and even long for rain. I understand that rain is life sustaining. All that I love would be not possible without rain. The fact that I once despised it does not negate the wonder that it is.
I accept that religion affects people differently depending on what environmental, social and moral circumstances they find themselves in. People cling to religion to either find hope or repel religion to justify why they lost hope. Neither case proves or disproves religion. All the eloquent speech from either side will not resolve this therefore I do not see the value in the debate. If the intent of the discussion is purely to exchange ideas then there would be some value. But if the intent is to “dissuade” then I think it is petty and counterproductive. The foundation of Science is largely based on theory and very little fact. Theory is a temporary state waiting for conclusive evidence. This state is in constant revision whether it is the number of planets in the universe (8-10 depending who defines a planet) or the number of items on the Periodic Table (I was always taught there were 109 and now they have discovered 6 more making it 115). I believe that those people who chose to be religious should be allowed to do so; likewise those that chose not to believe should enjoy the same treatment. There are so many more issues of far greater consequence and benefit to society that people such as you should try to influence. I will assume that if you are reading this, you are an accomplished thinker. You have strong opinions and can usually formulate thoughts that provoke others into discussion. Use that talent and passion to tackle the negative culture leading to gang membership and violence. Become mentors to at risk kids and teach them that the power of the mind is far greater than the power of a gun or a knife. Tackle the decay of integrity and character in society. Start a discussion group that explores the benefit of honor and living the “Golden Rule”.
Jon, your intellect and writing achievements are impressive. But what will your legacy be? Will your accomplishment be that you convinced Mormon’s to become Atheists? Is that an accomplishment that has any true significance? I know you have other passions, explore those. Solve a problem that plagues society. Correct an injustice. Teach the future leaders of this great and unequalled country. Discover and write about the issues that unite this country. Figure out how we as a nation can unite so that our future leaders can represent an entire country rather than just 50% of us. Resolve what divides us. The debate over religion will resolve itself at death. The believers will either rejoice or experience absolutely nothing at all! In the meantime accomplish something that can conclusively be resolved while we are all still alive!
Thanks for visiting the blog and sharing your thoughts, dad. A brief response is forthcoming.
How did you know it was me? Am I the only Pete you know! Just kidding.
You clearly live by the motto of Floyd Little when he said “I choose not to be an ordinary man, it is my right to be uncommon if I can”
Ha ha. That is great that Jon’s dad posted that.
I would like to come to the defense of those that argue about ideas (and by extension, defend Jon). But first I want to validate Pete’s point. I think intellectuals should take criticisms like Pete’s quite seriously. For example: this issue came up in one of the last conversations I had with Chuck Johnson (philosophy prof at USU for some 37 years who died of cancer over the summer). He had recently purchased a book for $50 or so (and we were both attending a lecture). He rebuked himself (and by extension me and everyone else at the lecture) for “spending all of this money to satisfy our own curiosities when the same money could literally save hundreds of people from dying of malaria.”
The expense and apparently “unpractical” qualities of intellectual pursuits regarding the truth of things (like various religions) should, then, give us great pause. There does seem to be, at first glance, something selfish about spending hours on end arguing about Aristotle or Mormonism when there are, as Pete points out, so many concrete needs out there in the world.
So I think we can all agree that we all ought to spend more time going out into the world and helping people (Pete, stop blogging and go mentor some at-risk kids, and I don’t mean Jon!
). But I want to defend the engagement of ideas. Activities like Jon’s are not selfish and are not wasted time. In fact, I think they are ultimately quite practical and in fact basic. Why? In short, because IDEAS MATTER. As Aristotle tells us,
“If there is some end of the things we do, will not knowledge of it have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what we should? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is.”
In other words, there are few things as important as the “speculative” reflection on what we ought to seek in life and how we ought to seek it. These questions are basic questions about the nature of man and the nature of man’s destiny – both of which, upon coming to some kind of answer to such questions, will invariably inform our concrete daily activities and indeed our service to others. Truth, the truth about man, is not a pie in the sky sort of thing. It has concrete and immediate consequences on our politics, our social activism, our view of justice, and the manner in which we care for others.
This is not just a defense of philosophy (it is that), but also a defense of those that want to argue about religion. I am myself a religious person, but I disagree with Pete that the debate over religion will simply be resolved at death (by which I take Pete to mean that religion only matters at death and there are other things of much more consequence now). Contra that view, most religious people think religion matters now, not just later. Religion is not simply about the hope for an afterlife, it is about grace and meaning and the truth about the human condition – the human condition we live now. As a religious person, I think religiously informed ideas can help figth off the reductionism and the really vulgar utilitarianism that too often follow from reductionist materialism (this is where Jon is really wrong!).
Aquinas remarks somewhere that there is no greater sign of love for another than the desire to bring them to the truth. Truth is good, and our desire for truth is basic. But sometimes we must proceed “negatively”, backing our way into the truth by identifying the false. I take it that this is what Jon is doing. That said, I think Jon knows that it is important to not simply tear down but also to build up. That is why I challenged the SHAFTERs to develop a positive account of secular humanism. It would be a shame, I think, if SHAFT became little more than a Mormon-bashing club.
Soon I will be forced to enjoy this blog as an interested “reader” rather than an active contributor because I find myself nearing the limits of my mediocre intellect. I will not attempt to match the deep philosophical discourse. Before I gracefully bow out, I will say that I too am a religious person who cherishes my faith and what I believe to be true. However, unlike many of my fellow believers I can not say “beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I know that God lives” but I do have supreme hope. My hope (faith) is not based on intellectual discovery but rather on spiritual experiences and yes perhaps emotional reactions to experiences that I interpreted as spiritual. Jon believes that these “experiences” have scientific or physiological explanations. Perhaps that is true, nevertheless I am satisfied with my explanations. Perhaps a degree of ignorance is healthy for at least my spirit.
Unlike Jon, my intellectual curiosity is limited to those things that I can actually control. I am a very accomplished military officer. I have met all my career goals and to some extent even exceeded them. After having recently completed a combat tour in the Middle East as a helicopter pilot, I have come to understand that my focus should be on those things that I control. From a pilot’s point of view, I do not have to have a PhD in aerodynamics to be able to fly my aircraft in combat. But I sure hope that the person who designed my rotor blades had such a degree. I do not have to have a mechanical engineering degree to be able to hover my helicopter, but I do hope that the person who designed my GE turbine engines had such a degree. I do not mean to infer that knowledge beyond the basics is irrelevant. Quite the contrary, I have studied aerodynamics in great detail, I do have a working knowledge of the purpose of nearly every nut and bolt on my helicopter. This knowledge however is a bonus and was learned well after I had mastered the art of flying.
Moromonism makes some fantastic claims. Those claims have awakened my fantastic curiosity. I believe in the possibility of those claims. I will strive to live my life in such a way that someday my spiritual/emotional testimony is replaced with a sure knowledge/intellectual testimony. Until that time, my faith affords me comfort.
Perhaps the sure knowledge of God is locked up in the 80% of our brain that none of us have successfully gained access to yet!
I feel guilty know- I could have used the time it took to write this to mentor some kids in Kearns! (no hate mail from Kearns please!)
Sorry for the late response, dad. The reasons for the delay are two-fold. First, Professor Kleiner effectively made my case for me (though I hope to add a few thoughts). Second, we had this exact discussion just last weekend and, frankly, I’m disappointed to see your resurrecting those arguments that I felt were adequately addressed then.
Now, I’m not calling you stubborn—perhaps I just wasn’t terribly persuasive. But where I failed in our discussion, I had hoped to succeed with this article. Given your initial post, though, I don’t think you’ve given it a fair reading. I mean, my article dealt with a number of the objections that you raised in your post. They are legitimate objections, to be sure, but that’s precisely why I preempted them in my article.
For example, I agreed that there are better things to do than to criticize religion. But that something is less important does not mean that it’s unimportant. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
So it’s not enough to argue that criticizing religion is of paramount importance; your argument has to be that criticizing religion is bad. That’s a tougher sell.
The closest you get to making such an argument is the following: “I believe that those people who chose to be religious should be allowed to do so…”
But of course, my criticizing people’s beliefs don’t deprive them of their beliefs for the same reason that Mormon proselytizing doesn’t force anyone to believe in Mormonism. If people leave the church due to my arguments, it’s because they chose to. I’m no Jedi—I can’t simply compel people to believe or disbelieve something.
“Soon I will be forced to enjoy this blog as an interested “reader” rather than an active contributor because I find myself nearing the limits of my mediocre intellect.”
While I want you to continue to be engaged in the discussion at this site, I hope you do remain an interested reader. I’m really quite proud of this site.
“Jon believes that these “experiences” have scientific or physiological explanations.”
If you haven’t already, I’d ask that you read my article on the (in)validity of spiritual experiences: http://usu-shaft.com/2009/why-i-dont-believe-the-unreliability-of-spiritual-experiences/
“Perhaps the sure knowledge of God is locked up in the 80% of our brain that none of us have successfully gained access to yet!”
This is a digression, but you should know that the claim that we only use 10-20% of our brains is a long-debunked myth.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
And finally, a comment about Floyd Little’s quote: I actually credit your teaching me that motto as a kid for much of who I am. I’m sure I took to it more literally than you intended, though.
Love you, dad.
My comments weren’t so much directed to you or regarding the discussions we have had but for anyone else reading your blog that were not privy to our personal discussions. You have argued your point very well (although I am not ready to jump on the bandwagon!) thus I will continue to read your arguments. I will stay my course so that I am there for you, to guide you to the truth once you have reached the end of this path of discovery only to find that “truth is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow” and you rediscover faith! I say this light heartedly but you surely know that regardless of the fact that spiritually and intellectually we may never agree, I will always be your biggest fan and I will always be there for you.
Love, Dad
Now I don’t want to turn this into a family blog- I am interested what others think of this discussion.
Hi, Jon –
Hope it’s okay to write here … can’t find any direct way on the SHAFT web site. I enjoyed your award-winning article in September’s FFRF. I was in SLC in June for UUA General Assembly … we gave LGBT rights some good support, I think. A bus load of us will be in DC on October 11. Keep up the clear thinking and writing and your efforts to make the world better. Thanks! — Chuck
Chuck, that’s very kind of you to write. Thanks for your support; I’m glad you enjoyed my essay.
‘Dude’ wrote,
“I hope you do start some discussion and debate among believing Mormons, but I think most Mormons are not truly interesting in objectively examining the validity of their beliefs.”
The fallacy in Dude’s comment is that, quite honestly, it is impossible for anyone to examine their beliefs “objectively,” and Dude’s comment is an example of this impossibility. I say it is impossible because the very idea of being objective means completely removing yourself from any and all frameworks, belief systems, paradigms, etc. and examining something through the resulting lens, and we know that is impossible to do.
In other words, it comes down to this: when I evaluate my beliefs and determine what is truth, how does ‘Dude’ know that I am not doing so objectively? Simply because he/she disagrees with the outcome?
Indeed, to assert that “Mormons are not truly interest[ed] in objectively examining the validity of their beliefs” is nothing less than an insensible claim.
I think Dude’s feelings that most Mormons are disinterested in objectively examining their faith stems from his conversations with such Mormons. I’ve meet many Mormons who would refuse my invitation to dialogue because they don’t want to challenge their beliefs–it’s a sin, some think. My dad even recently told me that he won’t examine my arguments precisely because he’s afraid that he may agree with them. So while it’d be unfair for anyone to claim that all Mormons shrink from a critical examination of their beliefs, I do think it’s accurate to note that many do (though perhaps not most). And in fairness, this isn’t unique to Mormons by any means. A lot of people–atheists and theists, and Democrats and Republicans alike–don’t think critically about their beliefs.
Thank you, Jon, for your response to my comment. I think your response brings up some more interesting questions that further challenge Dude’s claims, as well as your own.
My first question: is it wrong, ignorant, or otherwise careless to not critically examine one’s beliefs? If you say yes, than I do indeed agree with you. However, who are we to so judge? I believe that virtually every human being can agree that one of the purposes of life is to find happiness. If, then, there are theists and atheists that find happiness in their beliefs, why should they need to challenge them or critically view them? Is it wrong not to? Are we more intelligent than they because we have a desire to? The answer, I think, is no. And I therefore find nothing irrational about your father’s unwillingness to examine your arguments.
Another question: what does ‘critically examine’ mean? Again, in the world of subjectivity, what to one might be a critical examination might not be to another. My point is that I think Dude and possibly yourself might be too presumptuous in assuming that because others are unwilling to engage in what you define a critical examination of something, they are shrinking from a higher intellectual plane.
Finally: I believe that many people are so sure of their beliefs that they see no need to examine other points of views. While I do not necessarily agree with such an opinion, I don’t think I can presume to judge their position as incorrect. Again, I think this all comes down to how impossibly subjective our views are, especially when it comes to what we believe in. For example, Jon, every day that you live as an atheist, believing that atheist views are correct, increases the likelihood that you will dismiss any theist or anti-atheist claims. Equally, every day I live as a theist and embrace theist thought strengthens my resolve to stick to those beliefs. Therefore, the more firmly we believe something, the farther we move from objectivity, and the possibility of viewing or examining something objectively. This is why atheist and theist thought, extremely contradictory in nature, can each attract a significant followership. Each group can view the same sentence, the same sample of evidence, and disagree about it! It is all subjective!
My appeal, then, is that everyone, atheists and theists alike, refrain from making personal attacks (e.g. ‘shrink from critical examination,’ most Mormons are not truly interest[ed] in objectively examining the validity of their beliefs’) because such attacks are insensible and absolutely subjective.
Just because it is subjects (individual persons) that make judgments does not entail that those judgments are “absolutely subjective” (in the sense Daniel means here).
Example: I say ‘Green beans are nourishing for human bodies.’ I claim that this is objectively true, not just “true for me and not true for you”. That statement, ‘true for me’, is absolute nonsense.
While I certainly applaud Daniel’s call for humility, this can become a vice when it turns us into wet noodles. I hate the Gospel of Nice whose only law is to “not judge”. Now ‘who is to judge?’ Well, no man is in a position of absolute knowledge, so our judgments always have something of a provisional character to them. But we must make judgments about what we take to be true, because we must act in accordance with beliefs about the good, the true, and the beautiful. Beliefs about such things are made more reliable the more they are reflected on, philosophically examined, etc. Beliefs about such things are less reliable (though not necessarily false) when they have not been subjected to any sort of examination. So who is to judge? Well, we are — but let’s be committed to humility and truth along the way. That some feel content (which is different that ‘happy’) and safe with their beliefs does not, it seems to me, justify not examining themselves. Quite to the contrary, as Socrates says: “An unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates seems to be saying here that even if those unreflective persons FEEL “happy”, they are in fact in a miserable state and have lives that are “not worth living”. That is really quite a claim.
I think we get carried away by our cult of individuality. We are all human beings. We all have the same nature (we are the same KIND of thing). What is good for the goose is good for he gander. When it comes to things like happiness (or at least any robust meaning of that word), I think we can only hope of a general sketch of things (Aristotle makes this point). But we should still be able to make general claims about what is good for man (most agree that ‘happiness’ is the good of man, it is that which we all pursue).
So perhaps Jon or Dude would want to defend the claim that: ‘Residing in the truth is a necessary condition for genuine human happiness, and in order to apprehend the truth a certain amount of self-reflection is necessary.’ That looks like a pretty good claim to me. It certainly does not appear “insensible” and “absolutely subjective”.
So Jon/Dude want to argue that Utah Mormons have a cultural tendency to “shrink” from self-reflection. This does not appear to me to be a “personal attack” but rather an observation. Frankly, it appears to be an accurate observation (though I think we could find any number of groups of people, of whatever religious or non-religious stripe, who are guilty of insufficient self-examination). The interesting question is not WHETHER people are sufficiently self-reflective (they clearly are not) but WHY are they not? To the case of Utah Mormons, are they not because of (a) the cultural homogeneity around here makes people comfortable or (b) there is something in the Mormon culture which actively discourages critical self-reflection or (c) there is something essential to Mormonism itself which discourages critical self-reflection.
But these are the ramblings of a man who genuinely believes that everyone would lead a better life if they took a good philosophy class (isn’t that cute, Harrison believes in what he does). There are, of course, more immediate needs (food, shelter, etc) and in light of any shortage of those (Haiti) philosophy can seem a luxury. But I think there is something necessary about philosophy.
Let me rework something a bit regarding Utah Mormons and the lack of self-reflection: We might ask, are Utah Mormons uniquely non-self-reflective? If so, then we would proceed to determining what it is about them that makes them so (my a, b, c options above – which are surely not comprehensive nor are they mutually exclusive). Or, to phrase it another way, we might ask whether there is something about Mormom culture/Mormonism which exacerbates the general [fallen] human tendency to reside in self-forgetfulness.
I couldn’t agree with your thoughts more, Kleiner. I rather like being on the same side of an argument as you. Quite the relief ha ha.
I appreciate your (Kleiner) wisdom and thoughtful comments. You are indeed an intelligent individual.
I think some of my comments may have been misunderstood.
Obviously, people can agree on objective truths: that green beans are nourishing; that gravity accelerates objects at the rate of 32 feet per second per second; or that an item costs $10. Therefore the focus of my previous comments was on religious claims, which I still argue are subjective. Example: I say the Bible is evidence of God’s existence. This is clearly a subjective truth, as an atheist might say that the Bible is nothing more than old stories or lies. So the statement ‘true for me’ is functional in at least this one subjective sense. Certainly, what the Bible teaches (in a general sense) can only be true or not true, just as God can either exist or not exist. In this objective sense, I agree that the statement “true for me” is absolute nonsense. However, since we have heretofore been unable to empirically prove those claims true or false, finding ourselves at an impasse, our judgments on such claims are inescapably subjective.
With regard to your comments on judgment, I absolutely agree with you. We certainly must judge “what we take to be true, because we must act in accordance with beliefs about the good, the true, and the beautiful.” Hopefully I’m not missing the point of your argument, but I hardly think that refraining from imposing those judgments on others turns us into a ‘wet noodle.’ I agree it is likely that many, if not most, people do not examine themselves and their beliefs to the extent which they are able, simply taking things for granted rather than studying and judging the truth for themselves. However, my disagreement is with the arrogance with which some say that other people have not sufficiently examined their lives. Again, I pose the question: Do I not overstep my intellectual bounds through making such an accusation? John 7:24 reads “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” I daresay that such accusations about Mormons are “according to the appearance,” as I am certain that none of the commentators know the Mormon group intimately enough (including myself) to make those claims. An appearance of a lack of self-examination does not necessarily confirm it. Additionally, as you point out, “I think we could find any number of groups of people, of whatever religious or non-religious stripe, who are guilty of insufficient self-examination.” So why single out the Mormons? As you said, “It would be a shame, I think, if SHAFT became little more than a Mormon-bashing club.”
I certainly agree that Jon and Dude could champion the argument: “Residing in the truth is a necessary condition for genuine human happiness, and in order to apprehend the truth a certain amount of self-reflection is necessary,” and I would join them in defending it, as I also agree that it is neither ‘insensible’ nor ‘absolutely subjective.’
Continuing the quoting of a great man and thinker, may we draw from Socrates’ humility: “All I know is that I know nothing;” and reflect on his approach to sharing his knowledge: “I was never anyone’s teacher. I merely offer myself to be asked and to answer questions.”
P.S. I also think everyone could benefit from a philosophy class. Why not convince the university to include a class in the GE requirements?