08.18
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.
By the way, Jon, thanks for setting up pages like this. I’m thoroughly enjoying the conversation. I love throwing around ideas and learning from others’ views.
As do I. Thanks for participating, Daniel.
Daniel, I am probably a bit guilty of over-interpreting your last post. Your clarifications were helpful.
If what you mean by “true for me” is “I take X to be a sufficient ground for believing Y, even if others do not”, okay. That certainly seems true – some people find certain evidence/experience/grounds compelling and others don’t. Though we should have conversations and arguments about what counts as sufficient ground for believing something. I would still quibble on one point: just because we cannot empirically prove that a certain religion is true or false does not make the matter inescapably subjective. (1) Empirical demonstration is not the only way of knowing things. (2) I think we can falsify some religious or moral claims. For instance, while I don’t think I could positively prove my Catholic faith, I do think it is possible to prove that some faiths cannot be true. (For instance, certain faiths might have claims that simply conflict with what natural reason can apprehend about the nature of God, man, and world).
Now I must confess that I don’t really know what it means to “impose” a belief on someone. I hear all the time that “imposing your beliefs on other people” is this horrid thing to do, but I don’t see why. It is not like Jon and Dude were holding a gun to the head of Mormons, “converting them by the sword” to their claim that Mormons are insufficiently self-reflective. And when Mormon students come to my office with their BoMs and try to convert me (this happens all the time), I don’t think they are “imposing their beliefs on me”. Absent some kind of oppressive totalitarian regime or threat of violence, what does it mean to “impose” your beliefs on someone, and why is this a bad thing to do?
To my mind, all dialogue is an invitation, never an “imposition” in this rotten sense. If I am convicted that X is true, I should feel free to share that with others . In fact, I might even have something like a moral obligation to share it, for “to bring a man to the truth is a great act of charity”. When I argue that something is true, I invite others to consider it. They have free minds. They are free to not consider my claim at all, to consider it and then reject it, or to consider it and accept it. I don’t think I need to be a wet noodle about it. Quite to the contrary, I think I should be forceful if I am really convicted. I should use all proper means of persuasion in the service of the truth. Again, I don’t see this as trying to “impose” something on others. After all, the truth is not mine, as if I am imposing something that is reducible to me onto you. Insofar as I have true beliefs, there is a sense in which the truth has me rather than me having it.
And I think we need to be careful here to not misunderstand Socrates. Yes, Socrates is humble and declares that he “knows nothing”. But his mind is not empty. An empty mind is a starving thing. As Chesterton says, the mind is like an open mouth – it is meant to close down on something. Socrates has all sorts of beliefs – beliefs that he is so incredibly convicted about that he is willing to die for them. He believes that reason can deliver truth, that misology (hatred of reason) is the “most pitiable thing” that can befall a person. He believes the gods called him to philosophy. He believes a good man cannot be harmed by a worse one. etc etc etc Socrates goes to great lengths to “impose” these beliefs on others – because he loves others and wants the best for them (in the Apology he says that the “Olympian heroes make you think yourself happy, I make you happy”). Of course he fails to persuade the jury, but it is certainly not for a lack of trying! Socrates does not subscribe to the gospel of nice that says ‘be nice and don’t impose your judgments on others’.
In short, I think a refusal to try to “impose” your beliefs on others is a sign of disrespect or at least cowardice. If Jon and Dude think Mormons are not sufficiently self-reflective, they are free to make that claim (and I don’t think it is simply anti-mormon to pick that group out, they are simply responding to their environment). If you think they are wrong (they have mistaken an appearance for truth), then make an argument or provide evidence to show their claim is false. They are then free to consider your objections and then respond. This is how things go, right? When I visit with my friend Prof Huenemann (we disagree on most things), I don’t passively say “I think the world is teleologically organized, but I don’t want to impose that on you”. Nor does he say “I think the will to truth is simply a derivative of the will to power, but I don’t want to impose that on you.” Rather, we both busy ourselves trying to “impose” our views on the other person – we try like hell to persuade each other! The point of the exercise is not to “win”, but to discover what is true, because the truth is where the mind is at home.
Thank you for your comments, Kleiner. I value them, and I learn a great deal from them.
I wasn’t trying to make an argument about imposing beliefs in the sense that you defended. Indeed, I agree with you that it is our duty to proclaim the truth as we understand it to be, and attempt to persuade others to believe as well. What I was trying to get at was the tendency we have to make erroneous snap judgments based on limited observations, and I think your last paragraph clearly captured what I’ve been trying to prove: that I believe Jon’s and Dude’s claims that Mormons are not sufficiently self-reflective is an erroneous judgment. Clearly I’ve done a poor job in expressing my disagreement and providing evidence, since it’s still been unclear what I’ve been trying to do!
So here, hopefully, is a better case for my argument against their claims:
Sample size: In order to make a sweeping statement such as “most Mormons shrink from self-examination,” a sufficient sample size is necessary, meaning, not only a sufficient number of people, but from a variety of locations as well. For example, characteristics common among Mormons in Utah (a small part of the overall Mormon membership) may not hold true for Mormons in Alaska (where I’m from), Brazil, Africa, or Russia. Without taking into consideration those differences, any conclusion would likely (if not definitely) be flawed.
Depth and breadth of information: In order to make a claim such as Dude and Jon have (by the way, I think it’s hilarious that we all still have to refer to this mystical person as ‘Dude’), it seems logical that, beyond a sufficient sample size, Dude and Jon would have to conduct some sort of interview or survey asking detailed and searching questions to each individual to determine whether or not they had sufficiently reflected on their beliefs and why they do what they do [and of course, there are two disclaimers here: (1) that an unwillingness to submit to such an interview or survey (symbolic here of Jon’s or Dude’s attempts to get a Mormon to discuss their faith with them) does not necessarily indicate a lack of self-reflection, and (2) that even with the kind of information available to them after surveys or interviews, it is still possible (and likely) to reach a subjective conclusion].
Logic: Anyone who is familiar with the Mormon religion (as Jon appears to be) understands that it is a religion that requires a great deal (comparatively speaking) of its members. I think logic would tell us that people would only submit themselves to such a lifestyle and religion if they had sufficient reason to do so. Contrary to what may seem ‘apparent,’ my experience tells me that most diligent Mormons are not people who follow their religion simply because that’s the way they were raised or because of some other external factor, but because they believe that what they practice is true. For example, as a teenager I rebelled against the Church and its teachings because I felt like it was all just a bunch of senseless rules. This caused me to reflect on the Church’s teachings and determine for myself what I should do. That reflection caused me to develop my own belief, and gave me the conviction necessary to do what Mormons who live their religion do. Maybe Jon’s and Dude’s frustration come from many Mormons’ inability to give any explanation about why they believe what they do beyond the good feelings that they have about it. Then the question must be asked: is simply feeling that something is right sufficient cause to do it? Atheists (and possibly other groups) have a hard time with the whole ‘feeling’ argument, because it isn’t ‘logical’ or ‘can be explained scientifically.’ However, as humans, we are so intimately connected with our emotions that we actually often can’t distinguish between emotion and logic (studies in communication have shown this). So while I agree that, for myself, self-reflection beyond feeling good about something is beneficial and essential to staying power, I’m not sure that, for others, it is absolutely necessary (though I could be wrong, of course
.
In conclusion, I think it would be fine for Jon or Dude to say they “think” Mormons are insufficiently self-reflective (and support that claim with some sort of evidence). To claim that concretely or absolutely, however, is where I think they are off target.
I am very curious about your words “I do think it is possible to prove that some faiths cannot be true. (For instance, certain faiths might have claims that simply conflict with what natural reason can apprehend about the nature of God, man, and world).” I think I agree, and wonder if you could/would share some examples?
Fair points, Daniel. Any claim like “group X is Y” will almost invariably be anecdotal. This is why I think the more interesting question is: is there something about the beliefs Mormons have that makes them less self-reflective? I think there is something to this – particularly the distrust of “philosophies of men” (though I certainly don’t think Mormonism is the only faith with anti-intellectual tendencies).
Regarding falsification: I do not have time to fully articulate the arguments here, but here are two examples right off the top of my head.
1) I think scientific understanding about the universe (from astrophysics to carbon dating) pretty well demolishes anyone who has a literal creation interpretation of Genesis.
b) I think Mormonism is false, and I think a fair amount of falsification on essential beliefs is possible. Now I will immediately grant that my arguments (drawn largely from Aquinas) hardly get universal assent. You’d have to sign on to a few propositions for me to get going. Of course I think the propositions are pretty intuitive (and it is worth noting that hundreds of lds students in my Intro courses over the years have readily signed on to them — until I showed them what follows!). Also worth noting that this is a complicated affair since it is often not clear exactly what Mormonism is committed to. My target is (at least) “McConkie Mormonism” (which I take to be “main street mormonism”). Sherlockian Mormonism (Prof Sherlock of USU) would be better off against my arguments — mostly because Sherlock is willing to grant many of them!
A quick list of arguments I would/could/have made (again, I won’t defend any of them here because I don’t have time): I think we can demonstrate that God cannot be both the sort of thing that can change (a temporal thing) and be the ultimate cause of all things. I think we can demonstrate that there cannot be more than one god. I think we can demonstrate that humans and god are of different species. Basically I’d appeal to a laundry list of things Aquinas thinks natural reason can demonstrate about God – that he is simple, one, immaterial, perfect, and immutable (unchanging). Sherlock and I debated some of these points in a public debate, I think it was two years ago.
Atheism has always intrigued me because of the absurdity of it.
What would be left of the world if we deleted the entire footprint of all religion from the beginning? In other words any influence that it has had on the world.
What would be left?
My guess is that you for one would be gone…..poof!
Huh? You don’t need religion to procreate…human beings would have existed with or without religion. At best, religion is evolutionarily advantageous, but I don’t see why it’d be necessary.
When I remember that it has often been said in the LDS church, “obedience is the first law of heaven,” I question “obedience to what?” The ultimate answer for me had always been my conscience. But sometimes attention to conscience – my own moral judgment based on compassion and reason – was suspended in favor of obedience to ecclesiastical authority. I suppose this is what it means to be dogmatic. I recall with sadness my own hurtful thoughts, words, and actions. I yearn for a time when people will no longer feel obligated by God and religion to hurt one another, or withhold compassion and acceptance. My departure from traditional faith has been painful at times, but it has also been spiritually rewarding. It is hard to express the growing appreciation and understanding of religion too, when you feel you can search freely. Ironically, Joseph Smith’s words encourage my natural inclination to explore and re-examine.
“The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=86d720596a845110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD