On Wednesday, USU philosophy professor Richard Sherlock explained why he left Mormonism and converted to Roman Catholicism. For those of us who couldn’t make the presentation, we are indebted to my friend Will for recording it. You can download the audio file of both the lecture and the Q & A period below.
Dr. Sherlock’s conversion story
Dr. Sherlock began his talk by saying that one should only belong to and believe in a religion if that religion is true. And by true, Sherlock means that which comports with a “mind-independent reality.”
So for a religion to be true, then, it cannot simply be useful and invoke warm feelings. Religion should be rational. There needs to be a conversion of the heart, sure. And Sherlock shared a few profound, emotional religious experiences he enjoyed within a Catholic context. But there must also be a conversion of the mind—something he always felt was lacking in his testimony of Mormonism.
Those who knew Sherlock well weren’t terribly surprised at the news of his becoming a Catholic. He joked that he was among the last to know of his own conversion! Sherlock had long been familiar with and largely convinced of Catholic theology. Because he subscribed to several Catholic tenets, Sherlock, even as a self-identifying Mormon, rejected the corporeality and plurality of gods (beliefs many Mormons regard as essential).
Why then did he ever identify as a Mormon, given these heresies? “Life intervened.” he said. Family and career—these things forced him to shelve his doubts. Only in the past year or so has he been able to fully attend to that critical inquiry. And from it, he’s concluded that Catholicism makes better sense of religious and scientific questions alike, from the problem of evil to the Big Bang. That’s more or less the thesis of his talk.
I’d encourage you to listen to his entire talk. SHAFTers will appreciate many things Sherlock said, like his exhortation to believers to read atheist thinkers like Dawkins and Nietzsche. I agreed with a number of his criticisms of Mormonism, like that—at least in its popular iteration—Mormonism is too emotional and anti-intellectual.
I was underwhelmed by some of Sherlock’s arguments, however. I don’t, for instance, think that Catholicism fares better on the problem of evil than Mormonism. If anything, it probably fares worse. I think Sherlock was also guilty of cherry-picking Bible verses to make the case for the Catholic god; a Mormon could just as easily adopt a similarly selective reading of the Bible to defend their understanding of god(s). And finally, he was too quick to make definitive statements about Mormon doctrine, saying “Mormons have to believe X” (which is ironic, given how unorthodox a Mormon he was).
Those minor disagreements aside, I really enjoyed the talk and wish Sherlock well in his new faith tradition.
I look forward to your take on his talk and conversion.
One of the comments near the end, I believe Kleiner brought it up, was about the issue of Mormon Doctrine. Sherlock basically said that if Mormonism has no orthodoxy (set of internal beliefs, whereas orthopraxy is more concerned with the ritual and habitual I believe), then it isn’t “true or false, it just is.” He used the issue of McConkie’s book and some people may disagree with it, but then why is he wrong? If he is wrong, that must mean there is a standard somewhere, or rule. For Sherlock (and for many), it seems that if there is a rule, based on what we have with us, then Mormonism is untrue. If there is no rule than there is no truth or falsity about it at all. Your mormon views would be like buying a hat, irrelevant.
Mormon culture seems torn about this because it wants to play open-minded relativist who has the right path to salvation, both at the same time. I agree with Sherlock that this is a tension that is too often just disregarded.
Ryan tried to call him to task for your other concerns I think, but he became very upset and I think it was inappropriate to get so heated in a discussion forum, it was probably right to end there.
Otteson and I and another (Micah?) had dinner with Eli and his girlfriend after the presentation, they all really enjoyed it.
I haven’t listened to the talk yet, but I too am surprised that he regard the Catholic faith being able to better resolve the problem of evil. I haven’t done extensive reading on the issue (and, frankly, philosophy is not my cup of tea), but from what I have read (from LDS and non-LDS sources alike), I’ve personally felt that Mormonism resolves the problem of evil better than any other religion (at least of the Western tradition).
I’ll have to listen to it when I get the time. I’m sure it was very interesting.
His basic idea was this:
Mormonism’s only real response to the problem of evil is a “character building” defense. But this defense is woefully inadequate in the face of horrendous evils (child molestations, genocides, etc), because these horrendous evils are soul destroying, not character building.
While atheists may not be much moved by it, Sherlock finds in creedal Christianity (this response would not be uniquely Catholic) the possibility of providing the “solution” found in Job. “Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” Sherlock’s argument is that the only being in whom you could have this kind of absolute trust is an Absolute Being (eternal, transcendent, perfectly good, etc). The Mormon god is not transcendent or eternal or any of these other qualities, so it cannot be the God of Job. If Job provides the only real “response” (I won’t call it a “solution”) to the problem / mystery of evil, then you have to go that way.
For a treatment of this position, Sherlock strongly recommended Marilyn McCord Adams’ book, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God.
kleiner, Mormonism has an even stronger defense: God is not omnipotent. This follows from the Mormon idea (I won’t say doctrine) that we are co-eternal with God. We existed as intelligences forever, so God organized us, he didn’t create us. If God didn’t create us, then it is possible that our evil is an inherent flaw that God had no power over.
In regard to natural disasters, diseases, etc., the Mormon God is constrained by natural law which is also co-eternal with God. The Book of Mormon says that under certain conditions, God would cease to be God. Also, God wasn’t always a god. For these reasons, godhood isn’t an essential part of the Mormon God’s nature. He has to play by the eternal rules that allow him to be a god. Those laws might dictate that he cannot prevent natural disasters and disease.
Perhaps we live in the least evil world possible given the constraints placed on God by our own pre-existent evil and by natural law.
N.B. I am an atheist, so please don’t respond as though I were a believer.
Good point, Jonathan, Mormonism can also make that move. My response above stemmed in part from my my experience with LDS students. What I usually hear from them is the “character building” / “mortal life is a trial” response. But you are right to point out that they have a unique move to make by denying that God is uniquely eternal.
I am not sure I would call the move to co-eternality a “stronger defense”, because making that move is extremely costly. This in two senses:
a) This is related to the “inconsistent triad” from Sherlock’s talk. Making this move means accepting the physical god but rejecting that God is creator. Sherlock’s argument in his talk was that, in making this move, you have to accept that the universe is fundamentally meaningless.
b) I think the view Jonathan expresses is essential to Mormonism (that man is co-eternal with god, and that god himself is subject to something else). Saying this might ease the problem of evil (since you can shuffle blame away from God), but in doing so one has to admit that, in a sense, god is not God. He is not what most people think “God” signifies – something that is absolutely ultimate. In short, it is an absolutely decisive break with the god of the philosophers. I don’t think Sherlock was ever willing to bear that cost, which is probably why he never quite fit in with Mormonism.
I suppose I should listen to his talk, but I’m not encouraged to do so if he really holds that a universe without a creator god is fundamentally meaningless. I’m no philosophy major, but where does Existentialism fit in? Meaning doesn’t necessarily derive from some absolute god.
The existentialist (I presume you have in mind some kind of French, Sartrean existentialism) would admit that the universe is fundamentally meaningless. There is little cheery and optimistic about existentialism. That is why Sartre wrote a novel called “Nausea”. Roquentin (the main character) gets physically nauseous when he realizes the universe is meaningless. Existentialism is characterized by anxiety and despair. Check out some of Sartre’s titles: Nausea, No Exit, The Wall, Troubled Sleep, etc.
Many undergrads are attracted to existentialism (isn’t every 20 year old?) and latch on to the idea of “creating your own meaning” (which is a part of Sartre’s view of course), but they do so in a glib way. If you read Sartre and Nietzsche (the two most brutally honest atheistic existentialists), it is a very dark, disturbing, and frankly unattractive worldview. Yes we are “free”, but it is the kind of freedom to which Sartre says we are “condemned.” Sartre admonishes (in Existentialism and Human Emotions) those who say god is dead but then carry on as if that doesn’t change everything (and make despair the fundamental attitude of the authentic man).
My rather belated response, stepping outside the question of Mormon theodicy a bit, is that I don’t find this line of reasoning very compelling. The idea that life is meaningless without God could be more accurately stated as life would feel meaningless for some people without God. Even the depressing tone of some Existentialist writing is more a matter of personal reaction to the idea of a Godless universe than it is an inherent property of Existentialist thought.
In other words, this seems like an argument from aesthetics (again, not a philosophy major, so forgive me if I’m using the jargon informally). Saying the world is meaningless without God is like saying it isn’t beautiful without God. Personally, I don’t accept the existence of a God, but I find my life meaningful. I don’t see how my feelings of meaningfulness are inconsistent with my beliefs in re God. Maybe other atheists do feel their life is meaningless, but that is more a matter of personal taste than rational thought.
And so if I, an atheist, could find a Godless world meaningful, I expect that a Mormon who believes that they are co-eternal with a less-than-fully-absolute God can also find their life meaningful without loss of world-view consistency.
The only way that I can see this being a rigorous argument is under a loaded definition of meaning that presupposes that we need an absolute God to have meaning.
Sigh. I suppose I should listen to his story.
OK, having listened to his story, I’m not impressed. Of course, he was addressing Mormons and explaining why he left, not why he believes in Christianity at all, so perhaps he has better arguments to make in a context of explaining his Christianity that he didn’t offer here. All the same, his arguments against Mormonism didn’t persuade me either.
Regarding his arguments about Mormonism’s inconsistent triangle, as Blake Ostler pointed out, while Mormons believe that God is currently a material being, they do not believe that he has always been so. In other words, materiality is not a necessary condition for godhood. This completely invalidates his inconsistent triangle.
To salvage it, he appeals to the cosmological argument saying that everything must have a cause and defines God as the Creator and first cause. He seems to feel that believing the cosmological argument is essential to Christianity because he scoffs that his Mormon students believe that God is only sovereign over part of the universe and don’t believe in a “top God” who could fit the description of First Cause. Mormonism therefore doesn’t use the cosmological argument because many Mormons accept an infinite regress of gods, chalking it up as one of the mysteries.
However, the cosmological argument suffers from the same infinite regress but simply ignores the problem through special pleading. His comments did not address the problem. To scoff at Mormonism’s infinite regress while not explaining why he isn’t troubled by the same problem in the cosmological argument seems hypocritical.
Dr. Sherlock was very brief in his treatment of the theodicy that he finds compelling. I heard nothing special about it from what he said. I heard it to say that we must have faith in God because He had a benevolent purpose in creating the universe. If the question is whether or not we should believe in and place faith in God given the apparent evils in the world, then this theodicy begs the question. I must assume there is more to it than that.
As I had guessed, his problem with a meaningless life stem from the assumption that true meaning can only happen in a universe that has a purpose. I grant that the universe taken as a whole lacks purpose in the atheistic world view. That isn’t really the question, however. The question is how can we have meaningful lives. This question occurs at a much smaller scale: the scale of individual human lives. Dr. Sherlock asserts without justification that a life in a purposeless universe cannot itself have a true purpose.
As Existentialism has it, in my understanding, we give our lives purpose and meaning. The criticism that our lives don’t have meaning at the scope of the whole universe amounts to saying that we are not satisfied with locally meaningful lives. In that case, religion functions as wish fulfillment, giving us a narrative that tells us something that we want to hear: that our lives have meaning for the universe. Of course, wanting something to be true is not an argument for its truth (contrary to what C.S. Lewis would have us believe).
Also, I have to question his repeated assertion that his experiences with what he calls the Holy Spirit are more than an emotion. I’m a little unclear what he meant by this because on one hand he said that emotion should be backed up by reason. At other times, he said that these experiences where a transmittal of eternal truth. If he meant the latter, I wonder how he believes that an experience can be a transmittal of eternal truth that cuts through all associated epistemological problems with subjective experience. How can a personal experience be more than a personal experience?
All in all, his story confirmed my admitted prejudice that Dr. Sherlock was trading one form of incoherent religiosity for another based, not on an inherent rationally justified superiority of one over the other, but on personal preference. I’m sure that he has better arguments, but they weren’t presented here.
The problem with trying to discuss Mormon doctrine is that there is no official Mormon doctrine. Joseph Smith resisted the idea of creating a Mormon creed, and that tradition has continued. I think the current leaders of the church, who for the most part are not theologians, take advantage of this uncertainty. That way, they can distance themselves from concepts that don’t shine favorably on the church. Like when President Hinckley said about polygamy, “I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.”
That being said, I think the “mortal life as a trial” concept is much more commonly taught in the Mormon Church than the whole idea of us being co-eternal intelligences and god once being a man and becoming a god. I think these ideas mostly come from the King Follett discourse by Joseph Smith. It is a great speech, but I don’t hear it quoted much from the LDS pulpit. A more common Mormon response to the problem of evil is found in the Doctrine and Covenants:
“My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; and then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high…. Know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good. The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he? Therefore, hold on thy way,…fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever.”
While I understand where people are coming from when they say that there is no official Mormon “doctrine,” I must disagree. Things like the physical nature of God, our being his literal children, salvation being through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and many other things are clearly official tenets of doctrine in the LDS Church. What frustrates people, and makes them think that no such “official” doctrine exists is the lack of an official, systematic theology that ties all of those doctrines together.
The result is every individual member develops there own “personal” theology; that is to say, everyone has there own way of explaining how all those loose doctrines of Mormonism come together. Some people’s “theologies” are more coherent then others, but all (along with all theologies of other faiths) have there problems. I personally do not see this as problematic for Mormonism because the “truth” of something is not dependent upon our ability to understand it or reconcile it with other perceived “truths.” Furthermore, anyone who accepts the claims of religion accepts that some claims must be accepted on faith, despite apparent logical or rational difficulties.
The theologies of popular Mormon teachers and thinkers, such as Joseph Smith, or Bruce R. McConkie, have helped form what could be called “mainstream” LDS “theology,” put the popularity of these “theologies” does not make them “official.”
While I can understand the frustration that non-LDS have, caused by the ambiguity of not having an “official theology,” personally find in this lack of official theology a humble admission that we simply cannot systemically reconcile or harmonize everything we believe as doctrine – simply because we don’t believe we have all the necessary information. We believe God ought to be free to impart further knowledge and instruction if he feels such is necessary, and a belief in continuing revelation is at odds with having a systemic theology. Additional information (whether revealed by God, or discovered by man) will always require one to make changes and adjustments to how they understand and reconcile other “truths” and bring all available information together.
In sum, I believe a distinction between “doctrine” and “theology” ought to be made. “Doctrine” being things accepted as “true,” and “theology” being an intricate system that harmonizes and ties together those “doctrines.” The LDS Church does have official “doctrines” (that is, there are things the Church officially recognizes as “true”), but unlike on religious traditions, the Church does not provided its members with an official “theology” (that is, the Church does not provide a system for reconciling all its “doctrines”). This sort of “open theology,” if you will, is required by the Church’s stance on the possibility of additional revelation being given at any point in the present or future.
How do I then, as an example, verify that “We are God’s literal children” is in fact an official LDS tenet? In the King Follett discourse I referred to, Joseph teaches that our spirits are co-eternal with God. Has his view, as prophet, been officially corrected somewhere?
I understand and appreciate the idea of being open to additional revelation. But in practice, this perspective seems to do away with the need for revelators. Revelation becomes relative, and claims made by earlier prophets can cease to be considered true. If we can’t take Brigham Young’s teachings regarding Adam/God as truth, then why should we take any claim by the current prophet as true?
“How do I then, as an example, verify that “We are God’s literal children” is in fact an official LDS tenet? In the King Follett discourse I referred to, Joseph teaches that our spirits are co-eternal with God. Has his view, as prophet, been officially corrected somewhere?”
I’m certainly no expert in the natural sciences, so anyone is welcome to correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that all matter can not be created or destroyed, but simply transformed into a different form of matter. If that is true (as I understand it to be), then I existed before my parents conceived me. That is, the matter that developed into my physical body already existed.
Having studied the King Follett discourse and other LDS teachings which endorse that view, I understand them to be saying essentially the same thing. We have eternally existed as intelligences, and are thus “co-eternal” with God, but when God had his children, our intelligences were developed and formed into our spirits.
As such, I do not see a problem with either view (or us being co-eternal and being literal children of God).
Of course, this is all just an example of what I am talking about in my previous comment. I have accepted two different teachings as “truth,” and provided a sort of “theology” or belief system by which to reconcile the two. Other Mormons may view that issue, or reconcile those two doctrines differently. And that is fine.
The parameters of official doctrine are defined by standard works, and to a lesser extent official statements by the Church (I won’t go into it right now, but another on of the nuances of Mormonism that makes people feel like there is no official doctrine is what could be considered a “spectrum of officialness”) . I consider my above “theology” acceptable because it is consistent with what is taught on the standard works (that we are children of God), but expands on how that is, and what it means.
God, this poor sap. Scripture didn’t even have eternal burning hellfire torment until Rome got ahold of it in 600AD and translated the greek into latin, that specific way. And from someone who’s seen Vatican City, and watched people “kiss” the pope’s ring, I really have a problem understanding how Christianity from one cult can make a leap to another one. Throw in a few thousand pedophiles, and he must be right at home.
Will, I think your assessment is fair, but please do be sure to consider exactly how often Dr. Sherlock and I have debated these issues, and how far these debates go back (you were in “Kant and his successors” three years ago). He knows precisely when and where he’s bending and misrepresenting “truth” in his, as you put it (though somewhat ironically), honest critique. That, more than anything, is what bothered me. He has no excuse. He knows it; I know it. I know that he knows it; he knows that I know it. His “well, it may not be exactly true, but it gets the conversation started” excuse that he’s used privately with me (on many of these exact issues) simply isn’t good enough when those in front of him aren’t in on that fact. It’s no coincidence that the students there who took issue (admittedly after the presentation rather than during — I am who I am) were also the ones with discerning ears when it came to the specifics of what he was discussing. Make no mistake, he can have his arguments and his views– those belong to him– as does his right to answer and not answer the contradictions and tough questions asked of him (see: the animal suffering question and those related to wasted life during the grand evolutionary process).
Yes, he can laud religious experience when it’s convenient; he can criticize it when it’s convenient. He can appeal to mystery instead of explain the unexplainable when he chooses; he can deny other religions the right to appeal to mystery when they find themselves in the same position. Maybe the difference between an “inconsistent triad” and a “mysterious triad” really can be cleared up by claiming allegiance to a specific faith, but I doubt it. Is science really the kind of thing that can be shut off when it contradicts the claim of a resurrection, or routinely consuming the transformed flesh of a Jew/God who died 2000 years ago? Can science be brought out like a pit-bull and exalted when it seems to do violence to an opposing religion? Can it be put back in its cage and ignored when it gets too close to it’s “owner’s” valuables? Is that honest or fair methodology? I don’t buy it, and neither did a number of students in the room, but then again, we didn’t go to Harvard. (Though Dr. Barlow did; I suspect he may have one or two of the same questions.)
Here’s what I do buy: Dr. Sherlock is my friend, and in many ways my mentor; I want him to be happy. I genuinely don’t think he’s worked out the details of his new faith yet (at least one really big one, according to my friend, Mike), and his arguments reflected that. I don’t think that’s a brash statement on my end. I think it was pretty clear. But like I said, that belongs to him and his life. But when he starts making truth claims about what does and does not appear in a specific sermon or book — those things to which the tools of history can stake claim — then I have every right to cry foul, especially when I know he’s banking on us not knowing. I’m writing a paper on a prominent Protestant anti-Mormon right now and have, in the process, developed an ill-titled and soon to be discarded term “the Protestant slight-of-hand” to identify faulty descriptions of whatever “cult’s” faith is being examined (Catholics included) and used by counter-cultists. This misrepresentation or exaggeration of a point –or importance of that point to the tradition– is done to bolster their argument in an effort to effectively “touch” the reader. Since souls are at stake, the ends are seen to “justify the means.” Seems fishy, but I get it. Souls are at stake . They are to Dr. Sherlock as well. He’s told me that. I respect that. I will give his the benefit of the doubt that whatever liberties he took, he took with our best interests in mind.
I don’t think there’s anyone who really knows me that won’t tell you that I’m not up front and honest about Mormonism. Likewise, I think you’d hear that I have an above-average working knowledge of it. Is that arrogant of me to say? Absolutely. Dr. Sherlock has asked people in the past to leave religious philosophy to him; that’s his bag. And he’s told me personally not to pry, that he’d “nail me to the wall” (playfully, I hope), but I’ve been increasingly annoyed by the overarching idea that now that I’ve been trained to question –by him– those skills shouldn’t be used to question or further examine the claims of an individual who is “top of his class” or “brilliant.” I’m not talking about Sherlock specifically, though he does fall under the umbrella, but the overall Wizard of Oz mystique that some feel should surround “the literature” or “the tradition.” Yes, there’s is a man behind the curtain — there’s always a man behind the curtain; you can always trace it back to a man (whether that man can be linked to God is a separate issue). I want a look for myself at the literature, tradition, and the man. I felt to do that with my own tradition. Many on here have no doubt done the same.
While I suspect I’ve come out on differing ends of the spectrum of belief than most here, I none-the-less respect the inquiry. But what I don’t appreciate the boogie-man mentality that seems to be propped up by some and aimed at undergraduate students who seem to have discovered a truism that no wall of words can ever fully conceal: If you are religious, the chances are you are committed to believe in some really, truly, and completely stone cold crazy stuff; no matter how much it’s dressed up — no matter where your church is based and no matter how rich your tradition is. No, the Mormon’s aren’t the ones holding all the “crazy cards.” (Quite frankly, I think they’re holding less.) Neither are the Protestants, Jews or Muslims. But that’s not the point; this is: Religion is a matter of faith, a matter of belief in the unbelievable, unprovable and unscientific. Sure, talk of “using your head” as well as your heart sounds great, but at the end of the day you’re still left with crazy. Dead men do not come back from the dead, eat broiled fish, walk through walls, spook their friends and fly through the sky, though both I and Dr. Sherlock believe precisely this. Are gold plates really any less probable than having the actual flesh of 2000 year old deceased Jew rolling around in your mouth? And should I really find it MORE comforting or inspiring to know that the “good” fellow in the sky created me to be his everlasting inferior? That the idea that we’re really just all in this together, God included, attempting to overcome an evil that God didn’t create is really just unbelievable and is the one of those two which leaves us, as Dr. Sherlock said “without real purpose”? Should I believe that there can actually be anything other than imagined freedom without actual risk in this universe with an all-sovereign God who created (and planned) everything from the beginning to end? Is is just the way Mormonism all came about that makes it more crazy? Maybe. People do like their religion old, mysterious and concealed and nothing that still smells of the earth will do — usually. But picturing what it must have looked like to witness the book of Job actually being written (spoiler alert: there probably wasn’t an historical Job), or the writing (and amalgamation) of the various Genesis accounts in surprisingly contemporary 680 BC coming forth challenges my notion of how crazy it all really is. Seems more like par for the course.
Look, I’m a kettle man, and the pot wasn’t playing nice. Yes, I could have and should have toned down my criticisms. I felt horrible that they came out as being as agitated and angry, rather than agitated and excited. But never-the-less, I’ll own those words, as much as I lament the fashion in which I presented them. I gave Dr. Sherlock a hug afterward, and privately spoke with him in the hall right before he left. He knows that I respect him, his path, and his intellect. I was completely sincere when I expressed to him my hope that he becomes one of the happiest members the Catholic church has even known.
“I don’t think there’s anyone who really knows me that won’t tell you that I’m not up front and honest about Mormonism.”
That’s hilarious.
R
Ryan -
I would want to introduce the following distinction between a contradiction and a mystery. A mystery cannot be explained by reason; mysteries go beyond the scientific and more generally are beyond the horizon of reason to fully understand. But that is different than their being contrary to reason. Let us take one of your examples: take the Christian claim about resurrection. Does science (or more generally reason) “contradict” this claim? No, not in any logical sense. One does not contradict oneself in some logical sense if they say “science has no evidence of bodily resurrect-ability” and “Jesus resurrected Lazarus.” One can hold both of these views simultaneously without inviting a hard logical contradiction. It is logically possible to believe both, though doing so invites mystery (how does the natural relate to the supernatural, etc). But holding both of those beliefs is not like holding these two beliefs: “circles are round” and “circles are square”. That is a contradiction (not a mystery). (I grant that most readers of this blog don’t think you should believe these mysteries either, but that is not the point here. I am just trying to draw an important distinction).
Sherlock’s claim about the “inconsistent triad” is that there is a contradiction if you try to hold all three beliefs. Here Sherlock means to be identifying a contradiction in the hard sense. It is not just a mystery how these three propositions would hang together, the point is that it is logically impossible to believe all three at the same time. His point is pretty plain: if Mormons believe in a physical god (a god who is by nature extended), then they have a pretty big problem on their hands from the point of reason.
I don’t mean here to re-hash Sherlock’s argument. But I did think you moved rather fast and loose above when you essentially collapsed logical contradictions and mysteries into the same class. There is a very important difference. The former requires a rejection of reason outright, the latter requires a move beyond reason but not a rejection of reason per se.
Let me provide an example from Aquinas. Aquinas has a very thick commitment to both reason and faith. In his view, truth cannot contradict truth. Truths of reason could never contradict truths of [a true] faith. As he say, “[I]t is impossible that truth of faith should be opposed to those principles that the human reason knows naturally.”
But Aquinas pushes this even further. He says,
“From this we evidently gather the following conclusions: whatever arguments are brought forward against the doctrines of faith are conclusions incorrectly derived from the first and self-evident principles embedded in nature. Such conclusions do not have the force of demonstration; they are arguments that are either probable or sophistical (fallacious). And so there exists the possibility to answer them.”
Aquinas is making a very strong claim here. What he is saying is that ANY argument (from science, reason generally) made against Christianity has some rational error in it. As such, ANY argument against Christianity could be answered by REASON ALONE. This does not mean that one could positively prove every article of faith. But it does mean that Aquinas thinks you could, from natural reason alone, disarm any objection to the Christian faith.
So the question is this: if the Mormon is going to have a thick commitment to reason, can they disarm Sherlock’s inconsistent triad problem? We are not talking about “mysteries” here, we are talking about logical contradictions.
By the way, what I have said is not opposed to what Hume says about miracles. He admits that they are not contradicted by empirical evidence, because empirical evidence (science) is never universal and necessary. Empirical evidence makes miracles unlikely, so extremely unlikely that Hume doesn’t think you should ever believe in them. But miracles are not, even in the eyes of the great skeptic Hume, contradictions.
But logical contradictions are another matter altogether.
Logical contradictions are funny things when discussing God. You’d think most would want a God who would have the ability to solve what humans deem to be logical impossibilities, or at least leave the door unlocked for this to be a possibility. Our fundamentalist friends don’t seem to have this limited God who can’t solve our logic problems.
Besides, let’s not overlook the fact that it did take the Catholics (and some really sweet heretics) over 250 years to finally figure out your “Holy Trinity.” (Sorry, brother, not buying your “natural extension” out of the New Testament argument.) So I ask in all sincerity, what’s the rush? Seems like the Mormons are still far ahead of your schedule, comparatively.
… Ok, you seem to have stepped away. C’mon, man, take a step back with me. We’re having a good time here. I referenced an inconsistent triad that Sherlock did — that of “evil.” My point was on the “evil” triad Dr. Sherlock felt he could wave the flag of faith and that settled it. His take was: I don’t have to explain it, I have faith. Splendid! But he can’t then go demanding others explain their inconsistencies with with something other than faith if he’s not willing to be consistent himself; neither can you. That’s neither cool nor fair. If you are going to “plumb the mystery” of an inconsistent triad such as we have with evil, be prepared to take your foot off the pedal when it comes to others inconsistencies.
Are you having a good time here, Ryan? Things seem a little hot under the collar.
I have no intention of engaging in a long debate about this; I frankly am not sufficiently interested in Mormon theology to spend loads of time debating it. (There are lots of other things I would rather spend my time thinking about). I simply wanted to distinguish between contradictions and mysteries. You made it sound like resurrection questions are on par with the logical contradictions Sherlock was identifying, and that was misleading.
A clarification: Sherlock’s “inconsistent triad” was not the problem of evil. The problem of evil came up in the Q&A. Sherlock’s inconsistent triad that causes problems for Mormonism is: 1) God created the world (is the source of its meaning), 2) The Big Bang is the best scientific explanation of the universe origins and 3) god is a physical being.
You rightly point out that, with respect to evil, the creedal Christian will have a problem that Mormons don’t have. Fair point. So then the question is this – can creedal Christians disarm the apparent contradiction between this inconsistent triad: God is good, God created the universe, and there is evil in the world? I happen to think that inconsistent triad can be disarmed, without having to simply make an appeal to Job’s trust (I’d make an appeal to human freedom, the fall, original sin, and the solidarity/vicariousness of both suffering and redemption). I don’t think we can fully understand evil from natural reason (so in some sense have to make Job’s move at some point), but I think we can disarm the “problem of evil”. I would have said more about that than Sherlock did (and Sherlock might have more to say, I don’t know).
My view: instead of Mormons being really defensive about these arguments, they should get to work. I have always told my students – go into LDS apologetics. The LDS Church needs you to do it. Go, get to work solving genuine problems (don’t shuffle away from the problems by saying they aren’t any worse than someone else’s).
So admit there is a problem with the inconsistent triad, and see if you can disarm it. Do you have the same robust commitment to philosophical reason that Aquinas expressed above? Do you want to engage in that task (of trying to disarm all arguments against your faith using reason alone)? What can philosophy tell us about God? Is that consistent, or even possibly consistent, with LDS teachings? Sherlock seems to think not. I happen to agree.
Dr. Kiener, you engaged me on this. Please feel free to walk away; I’m certainly not keeping you. Evil was one of the 4 points in Sherlock’s paper, and discussion of the problem of evil is naturally going to revolve around that classic triad. I don’t think I made a leap. I’m sorry that you do. And I apologize for not being clear: Mike and Ryan both told me that you claimed not to have an answer to the inconstant triad of evil; they told me you simply chose to “plumb the mystery.” That’s fine. But that also leads to problems if you’re not allowing others to do the same.
Look, imposing alien metaphysics on Christianity is your deal; it’s your history. You view it as fortuitous. Fine. I believe Christianity was doing just fine before Greek philosophy came along. We’re at an impasse. Who cares?
1) God created the world (is the source of its meaning) — This is false. In Mormonism we gave the world its meaning in choosing in a prior life on how to best combat fight evil which was not God made. The universe was organized out of extant chaos, not created — as per the Hebrew scriptures.
2) The Big Bang is the best scientific explanation of the universe origins. — Of course Mormon’s have no position on this, but Dr. Sherlock has a friend who believes this, so…
3) god is a physical being. — Physical in that he is eternal, much like your physically embodied Jesus who emerged from the universe and who I presume is still out there in space somewhere with with his white robe and multiple natures.
Why are we defensive? Because we’re good at being defensive.
For as much as Dr. Sherlock disparaged feelings (again, when convenient), it sounded very much like he placed a premium on them; he stated very clearly that he had experienced God through them. The Mormon question is (in a play of your clever bit you share in your class): Why go to philosophy when I can go to God himself? You changed the playing cards by imposing a foreign philosophy upon Jewish piety. Forgive us if we’re not interested in playing your new game.
I can speak for myself on matters of grave importance (problem of evil, the quality of the Red Sox rotation, etc). It is generally not a good idea to take second hand accounts as a complete telling of someone’s view of things.
We are at an impasse. Frankly I don’t think some of your remarks here even make sense (“physical in that he is eternal”?). I think you mischaracterize the Christian position, and are not particularly charitable about it either (in fact, your comments here show some hardly masked contempt). I think I have been fair to your view and I strive to be charitable, but perhaps I have managed neither. If so, my apologies. Anyway, I think I will excuse myself. If I may, I think a cooling off period might be in order for you as well.
Best.
Really, the victim card? If I’m frustrated about anything, Dr. Kleiner, it’s that my philosophy teachers seem to now be in the business of preaching and not teaching. (Medieval philosophy has been one big pitch for Catholicism this semester.) There’s no place for that at a state university — no matter the faith. The fact that you would not only laud but embrace such blatant misrepresentation of an opposing religion as we saw last night but then have the nerve to express outrage at even the hint of it here (when it’s your own faith) leaves me both bemused and disappointed in you. That, my friend, is what true contempt for a religion looks like.
I never lauded the whole of Sherlock’s talk. I agree with some of it, disagree with other parts of it. I think on the big problems of Mormonism (physical god, god and man having the same nature), he accurately presented Mormonism. But I thought he was downright dodgy when it came to answering certain questions. In fact, he simply didn’t answer a number of questions (some of which would have been very difficult to answer). Why didn’t he answer them? I don’t know, ask him. He was speaking for himself, not for me nor for any other Catholic. I am not Richard Sherlock. I am not responsible for (nor am I responsible for defending) a single thing he said the other night.
I don’t preach in my courses; I work incredibly hard to be as fair as possible to Mormonism when it comes up in my classes. In fact, I never raise a question about Mormonism without at the same time pointing out some other problem that those who reject Mormonism would have to deal with. I bend over backwards to be charitable, understanding, and to never show contempt when God questions come up in my classes. I can’t speak for what Sherlock is doing in Medieval philosophy. I hope he is presenting Augustine and Boethius and whoever else in a way that is both charitable and challenging to students and to those thinkers. I do that with every philosopher I teach, even those that I seriously disagree with. So kindly do not lump me in with anyone who is allegedly “preaching” in their classes. I might note – the Religious Studies Club asked me to share my conversion story last year (atheism to Christianity), but I refused precisely because I did not want to even invite the possible idea that I was preaching or witnessing to students.
And I am never mocking, derisive, or sarcastic about Mormonism when I engage Mormons on their faith. You are being that way. I am not playing the victim card here. With all due respect, Ryan, your dismissive attitude about Catholic metaphysics is not sufficient to make me feel “victimized”. I’ll sleep just fine tonight. I am simply pointing out that your tone has been pretty out of control during and ever since the presentation, and the contempt is just below the surface. I think you would be well advised to “sit the next couple of plays out” until you calm down a bit and can engage in a respectful way. But you are a grown man, free to ignore my advice. But please don’t drag me into whatever things you are upset about (justifiably or unjustifiably).
Hey, I’m a passionate man, Dr. Kleiner. But I’ve also really respected you over the years. I’ll take your advice and take a step back from this for a while.
I recognize that these are issues which, on all sides, are close to the heart. As such, your passion is proper and understandable. You are a sharp guy, more than capable of engaging these questions in a careful and thoughtful way. Often times tone gets misheard, so perhaps you’ve been misinterpreted or misunderstood in your comments stemming from Sherlock’s presentation. I just did not want to get drawn into the scope of a critique that I think was misapplied to me (the “preaching instead of teaching” remark – I am so careful about that, though it is tough to manage some of the unique religious sensitivities when teaching philosophy at Utah State).
No ill feelings. I just want you to put your best foot forward. My office door is always open to you, if you want to discuss these things.
Dr. Kleiner, I wanted to drop you a few quick and scattered thoughts before I leave the house. First and foremost, I think very highly of you; I don’t really know you well (at all), but you’ve meant the world to Mike — and I trust his opinion. Minus the one line (that you quoted) in which I shifted thoughts midway and neglected to erase the first portion, I do think I addressed some fairly serious issues; ones that have led (perhaps unfairly) several of your current and former students to question the consistency of both you and Dr. Sherlock in your criticisms of other faiths peculiar tenants in light of your own.
My printed response to Dr. Sherlock is pending a transcript of the Q&A, which is where I, and I think most, feel that he became careless in both his history and his designations of what is, isn’t, must be, should be, and can’t be Mormon doctrine. Any issue I had with his actual presentation revolved around prior discussions with him where I felt he fully recognized the limitations of the arguments. My initial post (where I mention his “not entirely true but it gets the conversation started” approach) covered my thoughts on this accurately. I was disappointed as far as I felt he was playing to the audience rather than being the careful critic he should have been. Had I written a paper and made the claims he did, I would have received a failing grade. That’s not hyperbole; that’s a fact. I would be surprised if Jon Adams (not exactly an apologist) wouldn’t agree with that assessment, IF we’re just critiquing Dr. Sherlock’s usage of Mormon scripture, history and doctrinal development.
As far as my thoughts on classroom etiquette, I want to be extremely careful. In the interest of full disclosure, here’s where I’m coming from: I’ve had a number students come to me (as if I’m anybody) regarding your intro class. To be clear, I took intro to phil. at another university, and not from you. However, I cannot imagine any professor, at any university saying, as it is said that you did, “why worship the mayor of Logan instead of the God of the universe” in their intro class. If you didn’t say such a thing, then I have been terribly misinformed and apologize. If this is the case, please please please correct me so that I can correct others. As far as Med-Phil goes, covering great Catholic thinkers in Medieval phil. certainly isn’t the objection. Repeatedly (taking several class periods) informing students that they can’t believe in a physical god because of the above triad is. Dr. Sherlock’s no fool, and there’s a reason for him doing so. Cutting into Jewish thinkers to return to Catholic thinkers looks suspicious too, in light of the above. There’s a balance to be had. Yes, for me this is a little personal; here’s why: I watched Dr. Barlow get turned in by a Catholic student last year for merely mentioning the fact that creatio ex nihilo wasn’t in the Hebrew bible, but only after the class read a Stephen Davis article on evil which claimed as much, and ONLY after a christian student –Ryan– asked him about it. This Catholic student didn’t seem to understand that that wasn’t just a Mormon claim; he felt his faith was being persecuted and he went in and complained to the head of the dept.. Now, Dr. Barlow didn’t frame it in a way that was trying to undercut this kids faith, but it sure looks, at least on the surface, like this is happening elsewhere. So you have to understand my frustration when I see and hear of the above in light of Dr. Barlow’s experience. I’m not trying to pick a fight here. I respect the hell out of you. I’m just trying to figure out not just what’s going on, but what’s really going on. If anything, it may be a positive that I’m bringing this up to you here. I agree with the poster below. There seems to be a better way to do this. I took hours out of my study time this week trying to get the Sherlock presentation back on track with various offices only to find out later that I’d been blamed by him for sabotaging it. (A claim only later proven false … but what if it hadn’t been?) So I can’t honestly be accused of not caring about the guy or his career. I’m interested in your thoughts here and honestly not looking to come off as anything but respectful.
Ryan, as part of your writing above, I’ll affirm something. I’ve taken Kleiner’s Intro class (my first phil class during my freshman year) and I’ve sat in on it in more recent years. My first class he made the brief mention of Aquinas’ views not lining up with Mormonism, and apparently that led to him being reported to the Dean and accused of being “dangerous” and whatnot. It was nothing, nothing mocking or dehumanizing or even all that challenging forth and yet there was this huge reaction.
The time I sat in on the class he used the “mayor of logan instead of the president of the cosmos” claim. I didn’t think it was mocking then either. It basically followed from the Thomism that was being taught at that point. If you are going to call something God, why this thing instead of that thing? One girl said “Well we worship the president of the united states.” She was challenged for that, I would have and I think you would have as well. You’ve mentioned before that you think its unfair to challenge such young people, but isn’t that what Missionary work should do? Shouldn’t the benefit of such empirically unserving work (no building bridges or helping raise crops) be the spiritual health of one but also the growing of the missionary, to have to confront questions on a radically deeper level than a used car salesman? If you are going to take an intro to PHILOSOPHY class, isn’t that what you ought to be expected to do? Sherlock, by your account, appears to be doing things wrongly but that should also be a lesson to do better when you teach others.
Kleiner can be a pusher, many times in class he’s kicked my ass around the room for asking stupid questions or for trying to be cute and clever, and I’ve seen mormon students receive the same treatment, and atheists and martians and whatever else. I never saw him disrespect people as people or as religious people, but correct them as thinking persons, because he expects a lot. This isn’t high school, and these kids are going to have to grow up one day. I’ve had to do a lot of growing.
I’ve sat in class when Kleiner has gone on a tangent, perhaps as you were with Sherlock that night, and had to bite my tongue hold my rage at what he was saying, in part because I thought the time and place made a reaction inappropriate, and in part because I respected him as a mentor and a friend and didn’t want to ruin that over something perhaps I didn’t understand.
People have complained about their Human Sexuality class having naked pictures, a girl pitched little fits over the internet when Sherlock said what Psychology meant, students complain about stupid shit. Maybe someone lied to try and take advantage of your emotions and hoped to make you and Sherlock real enemies. People are fucked up. A kid complains about what Barlow says, people do walk out protests in Kleiner’s class, it goes both ways. Belittlement and real disrespect are problems, but asking students who might not have thought so much about their faith to answer a serious question (or at least ponder it) is neither of those things, nor is calling a fool and their arrogance out on to the floor (and many times I’ve been that fool, and no one has a history of conflict with Catholics more than Pagans do).
I realize, Dr. Kleiner, you can speak for yourself, but even Curt Schillig and his staple had a relief pitcher. I just wanted to throw my hat in the bullpen
Will, thanks. I think the larger concern at hand here is that of propriety. I’m not a Utah native and grew up in an area settled by Catholics and lived in the shadow of a historic Catholic mission. Religion was taboo there as well. Honestly, there is always a fine line, wherever you may be. We’ve talked enough for you to know my thoughts on the regional culture, my likes and dislikes. We probably share a majority of them. But even if a student at USU is asking for a spanking (and I’ve handed out my share to my own people mind you — I’m equal opportunity), judicious restraint is still in order. I’m not saying that as much for my personal comfort as I am concern over what I perceive to be a potentially career damaging move for some were it taken beyond those boundaries, wherever and whatever they may be. The low hanging fruit here is to identify LDS students as being too defensive and thin-skinned; too unwilling to be challenged. My point is that that is a people thing; people are too shin-skinned and defensive. One of our mutual friends was denied tenure at a religious school (the religion will remain nameless) simply because he was LDS. There’s a concern here, and it goes beyond one or two classes by one or two teachers. And it certainly extends beyond the boundaries of just one or two religions.
Thank you for the kind remarks, Ryan.
Just to set one thing aside: I don’t care to defend Sherlock’s talk or his general approach. Part of me actually thinks it was a mistake for him to do the presentation at all (I think that more with every passing day). His talk and his thoughts are his and not mine, so you should direct any points of correction and complaint to him. For my part, I have my views on Mormonism but am less passionate about them every year that I live here (I am not all wrapped up in proving Mormonism is false). For the most part, I have moved on from the temptation to get sucked into the whole thing. If you are to live here happily in Utah as a non-Mormon, I think you have to move on and let it go.
This may be perceived as a dodge, but I do not want to engage in a specific defense of my teaching on a blog. Blogging is just too prone to misinterpretation, mischaracterization, and misunderstanding. Students with questions or concerns should come to my office; I have one of the most open door policies on campus. I think I can proudly stand by my record of teaching here while readily admitting that I’ve probably messed up a few things along the way and have plenty of room for improvement. I will just say this:
I was rougher around the edges in how I handled “the Mormon question” a few years ago as compared to now (some students have been disappointed with how tame I am about Mormonism now). Given the uniquely religious student body and the unique religious sensitivities around here, it takes some time to learn how to teach well here. (I am not picking on Mormonism here, this would be the case in any other similarly homogenous place and because many people are thin skinned). I am sure I have botched it in the past, and there are some things I have said that I wish I could have back. One lives and learns. But on the whole I think I have handled the issue delicately enough (unless there is more mumbling in my classes than I am aware of, I think Will seriously overstates the number of complaints in my classes; there have been only a few some years ago and my evaluations certainly do not suggest any widespread dissatisfaction).
Philosophy has always challenged popular religion and conventional opinion (see Plato), and I don’t think it should stop. I try to be an equal opportunity challenger, no one has a “get out of jail free” card. I teach great books and do my level best to push every position with equal fervor. (Believe it or not, I have been accused of being an atheist because of how passionately I defend Hume and the vigor with which I present the problem of evil, existentialism, and other material). When Mormonism comes up it is difficult for it to not be contentious, if only because Mormonism has a pretty contentious relationship with western philosophy. After all, Mormonism rather uniquely (from the point of view of western religious traditions) rejects what most philosophers (ancient, medieval, modern) have thought about God and his attributes. The idea that God is a physical being is a tiny minority opinion (frankly it is not really on the radar) in western philosophy. But one could just as easily see that as more of a count against western philosophy than as a count against Mormonism. I take it that this is precisely what you say, Ryan. (Of course, saying that does invite the charge that your view does not have a thick faith-reason synthesis).
Bottom line: It is a delicate balance – philosophers should hit people where they live but they also need to exercise restraint and not abuse their position. One cannot ignore or avoid the LDS elephant in the room, nor should one dedicate himself to pulling out every big gun they have to shoot the elephant dead. So it is a balance and I do my best. I am open to constructive criticism, but would take umbrage at anyone suggesting I “preach” in my classes. I will be frank, Ryan, I did not appreciate that accusation.
Kleiner,
I’ll admit to taking the walk out example from a second hand source, bad idea on my part. I just remember the disturbance caused by the 06 intro class (the one I took) but aside from that, and a friend who called you “a roach” its amazed me how big a fan base you have (not so much in ‘why’ but wherever I work on campus people have encountered you and just rave, its almost twilight zonish). Its why I suggested to Eric in the first place to pursue more RSC stuff with you because it would quality and a draw. Enframing at its best
Ryan, I agree that thin skin doesn’t just apply to mormons, I don’t know if you brought that up to me as a general point or not. I run into plenty dogmatic liberal atheists on campus who could use a good kick in the balls, the mormon thing just comes up more because of the local demography. If it were San Francisco or my origin of Northern Louisiana (the “pot luck protestant” capital of the world) it would be different.
Also I’ll try to work on the transcript later on.
“Of course, saying that does invite the charge that your view does not have a thick faith-reason synthesis.”
You’ll have to understand what strikes me as tough about this claim is that you have such a body of high-quality religious literature (the Old and New Testaments among others) that stem from a period prior to the advent of philosophy’s “full” marriage to Christianity. We pour over the writings (or probably more correctly, words and/or thoughts) of uneducated, blue-collar Jews; I struggle with the idea that we can (or should) take and impose high-powered metaphysics on a document such as, say, the gospel according to Mark. One could and probably should argue that Jesus and his disciples didn’t. The question is: why do we? What are we think of, say, Second Temple Judaism? Not to pit you vs. them, but they certainly enjoyed a rich and intellectual faith as well; tough for to call it inferior to Catholicism (or any faith) in that regard. I suspect we’ve probably read a few of the same books on this period. It may be interesting at some point to sit down and discuss the writings of Raymond Brown and John P. Meier — two men I’ve had an ongoing love affair with for a while now. Either way, thanks for the thoughtful response.
“I will be frank, Ryan, I did not appreciate that accusation.”
I completely understand. But I will be frank as well, I called it exactly how I and others saw and see it. I am truly sorry if I offended you. And I’m sorry if I’m wrong (about you). Not much more I can say on that. I certainly hope we can move forward.
And just in case there’s any doubt, because I can’t write worth crap, I’m neither agitated nor contemptuous. I’m genuinely just interested in the subject.
I think this is a really interesting exchange. I think the problem is with professor’s weighing in on someone’s religion. If that is philosophy of religion, then I think philosophy of religion needs to be purged from the academy. What do y’all think? (Now if a professor can restrict himself to the historical philosophical arguments, then that sounds like a secular classroom.)
I would like to hear students’ thoughts on this. I will be teaching Philosophy of Religion next fall and am conflicted about how to approach it. Philosophy of Religion is a pretty standard part of the curriculum in most philosophy departments around the country. The course is meant, in my view, to teach historical philosophical arguments on both sides of the God question. Arguments for and against god’s existence, the problem of evil, the question of miracles, the veracity of religious experience, the possible ways of thinking about faith-reason, etc etc.
The reality is that Mormonism (or generally the idea that god is a physical being) is not on the landscape of these questions or courses. I have been reviewing 5 different textbooks for possible use next fall, and not one of them considers that viewpoint. The idea of God is not, among philosophers, all that contested. Atheist and theist philosophers alike seem to agree that “God” signifies a perfect, immaterial, eternal (timeless), infinite being. The philosophical question is whether you can prove that such a being exists from natural reason, and if the existence of such a being is compatible with other things we know (the reality of evil, scientific discoveries, etc).
As I have been thinking about how to teach the course, I have been considering just teaching the textbooks (which are usually anthologies of historical philosophical arguments) and simply ignoring the “Mormon question”. There is some value to that, you avoid what Anonymous says should be avoided (having a professor weigh in on a person’s religion). But there are problems with that approach. First, that means you simply aren’t engaging the students. If Socrates taught us anything about philosophy, he taught us that philosophy should hit people where they live. Secondly, you frankly cannot avoid the Mormon question even if you try. Since the arguments about God’s existence and attributes in standard Phil of Religion curricula revolve around ideas that Mormon’s reject, it invariably comes up when you teach the class here at USU.
Something similar is hard to avoid in Medieval. The reality is that a medieval philosophy course is going to spend a fair amount of time on philosophers who are flagrantly Catholic (Augustine, Aquinas, Boethius, Anselm, etc). You can’t ignore the Catholic flavor to those thinkers. That would be like studying bread and ignoring wheat. From my point of view, the best approach is just to be up front about it. Say something like: “These thinkers are operating out of a particular tradition, and it will be hard to engage the thinker without operating, in some sense, within the context and confines of that tradition. But let’s just be aware of that as we press forward. We’ll still end up finding, in the course of our readings, arguments that are of interest to a non-sectarian audience.” (I don’t know if that is how Sherlock has approached it, it is his class and not mine).
I am leaning in that direction for Philosophy of Religion. Respectfully consider the LDS point of view when students bring it up, but keep turning to the texts and to the historical philosophical arguments since that is what the course really should be about.
Anyway, thoughts?
I’m not sure if it should be outright purged due to the actions of individuals. I don’t think we should purge a linguistics program because a Chomskyite decided to keep adding his left wing paranoid nonsense to the class. I’ve taken Philosophy of Religion from Sherlock and he would sometimes go into “if you believe x, then you have to square it with y” I didn’t think it was forceful or rude. I thought especially with most of what he was saying he was trying to get mormon students to either a) seriously reconsider their beliefs (those were the most common he’d do this with) or b) try to understand what their beliefs are, as if he knew they probably didn’t know their beliefs very well. Now I think maybe I was wrong. He never preached to us (Ryan was there).
My problem with the class comes from my love of ritual. Its why I love music and visual arts, I love to be immersed. Theater comes from religious ritual, and I take Aristotle’s Poetics very seriously in his thoughts on art as a catharsis or channel of emotion for the observer. In terms of a class, sometimes you do things to get minds going by setting up a narrative without explaining it. Sometimes Sherlock did this, but sometimes he would say “I’m just trying to raise question” and I thought that was a mistake. It would be like watching King Lear and someone coming out saying repeatedly “Remember he’s just acting.” I agree with you Kleiner about philosophy hitting you where you live, sometimes that means you let the students figure out what happened today on their own.
Of course you also mentioned today the problem of the wrong people doing philosophy and that can happen too.
Our book I think had the most general and accepted stepping stones of material, Anselm Aquinas Kant Hume and some Sherlock mentioned in the talk who went over mathematical probability. My silly opinion was that I didn’t like the parts about scientifically proving the resurrection or miracles, they seemed to miss the point.
More important I think is that Kleiner might have the right idea, to let the issue rest until the students make it an issue. I’ve still never gotten over how you (kleiner) said the students in my intro class were trying to have you fired. Nothing you said in that class seemed at all antagonistic or hostile, they were arguments and people threw a fit. Hopefully if its a higher level class these students will act more maturely and you have only the snobby atheists to worry about ;) but I also wondered when I was with Sherlock if he was being more forward and challenging because he knew there were a few mormons in the class and knew they wouldn’t respond to his criticisms (they didn’t, it blew me away).
Where I worry though is the same worry, they won’t engage. I remember that three man panel from a few years ago with Kleiner, Sherlock and a protestant priest, and Kleiner joked about how the mormons watching (good chance they were, population here etc) would nod in agreement they clearly don’t agree with theologically. That might happen here too, so perhaps the course could be set in a way that wasn’t directly challenging but pointed out specifics that also contrasted the mormon view so there is clarity that “the two sides” are using different words and those words need definitions now. Maybe that would be productive?
Kleiner, as a student I remember questioning Robson on his beliefs during phil of religion (’97,’98?) and bringing up a bunch of issues that led to him affirming ideas about god that other mormon students were ashamed of. At one point a mormon student waited for me after class to apologize for Robson’s views. That was hilarious. Robson also had us reading the King Follett Discourse in an Ethics class — not as hilarious. Around the same period Michael Ballam was teaching mormon theology in his Music class — ridiculous.
There’s no doubt in my mind that you bring a much needed religious counter-voice and greater care to your teaching. Picking and choosing idiosyncratic “scholarship” that isn’t broadly accepted by the academic community seemed to be too often the norm for many LDS profs –> faith seeking understanding^H^Hconfirmation-bias.
In the end I don’t think Catholicism (or any other form of Christianity) is better off than Mormonism and that there’s much to be learned about the problems with Christianity by looking to the obvious problems with Mormonism and extrapolating. But yes, the problems with Mormonism are more obvious. Imagine if you were teaching early mormon history and trying to be “fair”… at some point bullshit is just fundamentally at odds with good scholarship.
I remember talking with Sherlock about Stanley Hauerwas a number of years ago, I think they went to school together at some point. I knew he (Sherlock) was a Catholic back then. IIRC, he even mentioned how Hauerwas couldn’t convert to Catholicism because his (Hauerwas’) mother was still alive. Reminiscent of Sherlock’s remarks about “life getting in the way” of his conversion.
I have just listened to Dr. Sherlock’s talk and found it to be thought-provoking and a great catalyst for discussion, which is appropriate at an institution of higher learning, so I wonder, Dr. Kleiner, why you declined to share your personal story of conversion? I was a student at USU and as a non-Mormon it did feel frustrating at times to be steered away from some discussions that are actually appropriate at a university. I thought universities were suppose to be where ideas could be tossed around without the fear of disciplinary action.
I hope you will reconsider and share your story – I am not a Christian, but I would love to hear of your experience.
Heather – why did I decline to share my conversion story? Three reasons:
1) I think it is inappropriate to “witness” on a public university campus. Now I am not sure that Sherlock was “witnessing”, but there is only a fine line between “sharing your conversion story” and “witnessing” (this line is blurry because any sharing of a conversion story will involve claims about what one finds to be true and false, etc). I didn’t want to invite the misreading, nor did I want to invite a certain reputation. I’d like to be known as a “passionate and effective teacher” rather than as “that Catholic teacher”.
2) Another reason, every bit is motivating, is that I am not a tenured professor and I did not want to invite the kind of criticisms that have been levied against Sherlock. Instructors at universities can and have been dismissed for what are ultimately unjustified student complaints. One has to be careful. You can probably tell that I am unhappy with Ryan’s accusation, because these sorts of things can start to take on a life of their own. Now you might say that these sorts of lively debates are just the sort of thing we should be doing at college , and I would tend to agree. But without tenure, it did not and still does not seem like it is worth the risk. After all, Sherlock is the one who gave the talk and is teaching medieval, but somehow I got roped into the scope of complaints about what he is [allegedly] doing. If I were to ever share my conversion story, I would do so off-campus at the Newman Center.
3) One final reason for why I have not shared my conversion story – I don’t think I am particularly interesting! If students want to be exposed to a profound conversion story, I would point them in the direction of Augustine’s Confessions.
A reply here first to Mike and then Ryan.
Thanks, Mike, for your words. I had never heard of Robson using the King Follett discourse in an ethics class, and it would be interesting to hear the defense for using it. And one wonders where the outcry is about these sorts of things. I cannot help but wonder – if a professor had presented his conversion to Mormonism from something else, would we be hearing about it? Do we hear outcry about the sorts of classes Mike mentions? I have heard of many such classes, but I hear relatively few complaints about them.
That said, I am not making a defense of inappropriate material or approaches. “He’s doing it too” is a 4 year old defense and does nothing to provide a justification. Let me be clear: IF (I put that as an IF) Sherlock is “preaching” in his medieval class, then I think that is wrong. The issue of God and specifically the Creedal Christian God is sure to come up in a medieval class, but I would expect lots of time would be devoted to debates in metaphysics (realism, nominalism, etc) as well as epistemology and philosophical anthropology.
Let me say something about my Intro course. The readings I use are pretty mainstream (in fact, I developed the class out of a class I TA-ed with a prof at Purdue, another public university). The readings are mainstream enough that I have a contract to do an anthology textbook of my readings for use in Intro courses around the country. Sure, not everyone would use Aquinas in their Intro class. Not surprisingly, people tend to design their Intros (and courses in general) around their areas of interest and expertise. But my readings are not at all idiosyncratic: Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume. There is nothing overtly theological in any of the readings. And I would guess that the majority of Intro courses around the country take up some of the arguments for God’s existence.
And what I say about Aquinas’ argument is pretty standard fare. The whole point of the cosmological argument is that there is an Uncaused Cause of everything else that is and that only this entity is deserving of the name “God”. A corollary point is that it would be misplaced and misguided to call “God” (and to worship) any intermediate cause. I would think that just about any philosopher teaching the argument at any university would make this point; it is, after all, the basic thrust of the whole argument. The point happens to hit home a bit more around here than other places, but that does not mean that one is inexcusably “picking on” Mormonism when ones teaches the cosmological argument. The same thing could be said of the treatment of Descartes’ ontological argument (which revolves around a claim Mormons reject – that man as finite is essentially different than God who is infinite).
And most of the Aquinas we read in my Intro course does not concern God. We read Aquinas for the hylomorphic metaphysics, the epistemological theory of abstraction, and the philosophical anthropology (arguments about the soul and body). Again, pretty standard fare. I use Aquinas instead of Aristotle to teach these positions because Aquinas provides a tighter and more systematic presentation of them. But much of what is found in those selections from Aquinas can be found in Aristotle.
The only class I teach where I use more overtly theological material is Contemporary European philosophy. But this is not because I am aiming to advance something; rather, this is simply the direction a good part of continental philosophy has taken (philosopher Dominique Janicaud calls it the “theological turn” of phenomenology). Questions of religion and philosophy are deeply intermingled in contemporary continental philosophy. In my class, we mostly read an “atheist” (if Heidegger is an atheist). Jewish thinkers (Levinas, Derrida, sometimes Buber) are as well represented as Christian. We do read some Catholic authors – Jean-Luc Marion (perhaps the brightest light in continental philosophy today) and John Paul II (yes, he was Pope, but first he was a philosophy Phd and college professor trained in moral phenomenology).
So the more I think about it, the more unfair I think Ryan was in his accusation that I “preach” in my classes (particularly since Ryan has never taken one of these classes from me!). I think he has retracted the accusation, so we can probably move on. If I am belaboring the point, it is only because I do not want an inaccurate depiction of me or my courses to get traction in the rumor mill of student discourse. Now if Sherlock is doing something of a different order in his classes, and the accusation sticks there, then that is something to be taken up with him.
Last point. In case everyone did not know, Sherlock’s talk was just the first in a series of conversion stories. There is another USU professor who is going to give a similar talk on his conversion from something else to Mormonism. So I think the conversion series seems sufficiently balanced. I hope we can get many other accounts shared from various traditions, since conversion is an interesting subject for Religious Studies scholars.
Ryan –
Of course I don’t think that Catholics or Christians generally have some kind of monopoly on philosophy. After all, for example, some of the great Aristotelians of the middle ages were from the Islamic tradition. Here is my view: while you are right that the Gospels do not explicitly put forward a “high-powered” metaphysics, there is a metaphysics latent in them. How could there not be? Now one can of course be a pious believer without being a metaphysician, but for some of us unpacking the implicit metaphysics is of interest.
The question then is this: does Greek philosophy help us to unpack and articulate the metaphysics of the OT and NT, or does it introduce an “alien” element? Obviously this question is a matter of debate. Mormons have, in this sense, a generally hostile attitude toward western metaphysics (it introduces something “alien” or “foreign” or is “high powered” in some obviously derogatory sense). Other traditions (notably Christian and Muslim) have during their history embraced the encounter with western philosophy as an occasion for positive development. Thus you see Pope Benedict saying things like this: “In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance.”
Both positions will have their problems. By decisively embracing the god of the philosophers, historical Christianity will have some serious problem of evil and problem of miracle issues. There have been many responses, but are they coherent and satisfactory? Some say yes, some say no. On the other hand, by denying the god of the philosophers, Mormons have to try to sort out a metaphysical view that does not involve serious philosophical problems (see Sherlock’s inconsistent triad). Can Mormons develop a coherent metaphysics? I think it is far from clear that they can.
My view: If I am in a boat heading toward a giant waterfall, I don’t want my rescuer in the boat with me saying “Don’t worry, I am here with you.” I want my rescuer to be, in some sense, not in the boat so that he can haul my sorry ass out of the boat before it reaches the falls. Likewise, the “metaphysics of Christian salvation” requires, I would argue, that the Rescuer of the world not himself be of this world. Already then, with the plain point of the Gospels (that Christ is the Savior of the world), you have put radical transcendence on the table and are knee deep in “high-powered” metaphysics (whether you like it or not).
Dr. Kleiner,
I haven’t taken a class from you in which you did this? This is completely false. See, now this really sucks because through all of your protesting, I have yet to hear you actually deny that you’ve said exactly what multiple former students of yours have stated — only that I can’t use what they stated because I wasn’t there … and how unfair that is of me. I’m beyond dismayed that you’re pushing this, especially given you promising comments above that indicated you were now going in another direction.
As for the later, I respect your view (and your intellect) but forgive me for finding the God that pushed you down the waterfall (whether you like it or not) in the first place neither cool nor compelling. It strikes me as theological Stockholm syndrome to argue differently. I’d rather have a God willing to, along with man, go down with the ship. Is that a possibility in Mormonism? Maybe. Without genuine risk you can’t have genuine freedom, and I’d rather have something in the universe that’s truly wild and which God needs our help to vanquish, not merely a contrived obstacle course designed by an omni-complicit God who grants us as much freedom, at best, as a prisoner in a cage. The God that demands to be worshiped because of his power, not his goodness, fairness, or ethical wherewithal (and doesn’t demand that we redefine those terms just when we’re talking about … Him). That may be philosophically satisfying, but it strikes me wanting in the “I’m not a complete tyrant” department. Maybe I’m simply too dumb to understand that a holy God who is all-powerful and all-knowing and planned everything out in advance — before he hit the “go” button– isn’t all-responsible for the storm He so “lovingly” dropped us in without our permission. Give me the God that asks us for loyalty (B.H Roberts’ definition of worship in Mormonism) because he’s loyal to us — not just because he’s the biggest kid on the playground and he’ll beat the hell out of us if we don’t. Who doesn’t want to worship a God who intentionally created everlasting inferiors to worship Him forever? I don’t. Give me the God whose glory is attached to ours any day, even if we fail. But, hey, you’re the doctor. This conversation’s over.
Best
Probably best to end it with that rant. All the best, Ryan.
Indeed. I wouldn’t want to respond to that either. Much love, Dr. Kleiner.
Thank you, Dr. Kleiner, for the explanation and I completely understand the tenure issue – my husband is going through that process right now and he is definitely careful not to cause any rocking of the boat.
As a person who attended USU, it saddens me to hear that Dr. Sherlock’s talk has caused negative furor. I did not feel his talk was at all an act of witnessing, but again, a chance for students – many of whom have never had their religious beliefs challenged – to hear of a person’s experience and engage in thoughtful dialogue. Don’t students attend a university to expose themselves to a variety of cultures, beliefs, and lifestyles?
I hope that the department is standing by Dr. Sherlock – that is one thing I find very discouraging at many colleges/universities – people are so scared of being punished they do not stand up for their colleagues and what is right.
I find it hard to believe that most Mormon students haven’t had their beliefs challenged. Its Mormonism! Religulous, Eli, South Park, Jon Adams, courses on Mormonism (particularly those taught by the Mormon Studies Chair), Prop 8 protests and the accompanying documentary shown on campus, a slew of professional anti-Mormons, the SHAFT website, youtube, their buddies at lunch, etc. And none of these require a professor inviting their student’s to follow them into their new faith.
Heather, my apologies – you said many and I said most – that wasn’t your assertion – sorry about that.
1) Dr. Kleiner, have you in the past put aside part of a class to question the theological premises of Mormonism under the idea of “helping the majority think?” If so, does this include the teaching of the students beliefs under the category of Mormonism and then the dissecting of problems within those beliefs?
2) Did Dr. Sherlock offer extra credit to his students that would attend his conversion story?
On a side note, I agree with Dr. Kleiner’s teaching philosophy on his upcoming course. By asking his students to realize they are speaking about philosophical questions presented by midievel Catholic thinkers allows them to keep their heads on straight.
I come from Mormon stock. I had the same reservations about the conservative Mormon’s view of a physical god of flesh and bone living on a planet near the star Kolob. By the end of college I had embraced Protestant Christianity and I remain a credal Christian. After 35 years of thinking about Mormons from the outside I have come to the conclusion that Mormonism isn’t a monolith of a single theological creed. The theological views are diverse. Instead, I see different components of Mormonism that make Mormons Mormons. Mormons are a community — a People.
What defines this People?
First, a living prophet.
Mormonism is a dynamic faith, which has been a moving target of beliefs. More fundamentally it is based on the belief that there is a living prophet and that their god dynamically educates his people. The current living prophet can override previous revelation. The revelation is progressive just as the people and their god is progressing. This should not really be a problem for even the thinking Christian. It seems apparent in Jewish/Christian scripture that the g-d of the Jews and the Christians has evolved revelatory knowledge through 2000 years from Abraham to Jesus. It can be assumed that god condescends to his people and leads them into better knowledge through the ages. The Mormon distinctive is that they have a living prophet that provides a current and continuous update. Traditional Christianity has frozen in their revelatory creed.
Second, the bound of an exodus and separation to their god.
The Mormon people are not glued together by a creed as in traditional Christianity. They are glued together by the foundation of their calling as a special people by their god. This is more like being Jewish than Christian. Jewish theology is even more diverse than Mormon theology. In fact, Jewish theology does not matter as much as ‘just being the people of the Jewish g-d’. They don’t need to believe a certain thing to be Jewish. However, they should to act like they belong in their relationship to their g-d, which is related to just living. Mormons have a similar history of exodus that makes them ‘a people’. They have a similar sense of moral distinction as a people.
Third, family and community binds them as a people.
Creed matters less. Being a people matters more. They must recognize that families are primary, that they have an important responsibility to their Mormon community (ward), and that there is a living revelatory voice among them. They are a People — not a group of like-minded believers.
Given this view of Mormonism, I no longer agree with Dr. Sherlock that the King Follett discourse defines Mormonism. It may be a foundation for the conservative element of the Mormon community, but they don’t define the whole Mormon community. Perhaps if I had run across some thoughtful liberal Mormon thinkers in my high school years I might still be one of the Mormon People.
Anonymous,
I stand corrected – and am happy to hear that people are having their beliefs challenged, though I would say that some of the sources you listed as challenging are attacking – and that is a problem. I would rather people of the Mormon religion – and all religions – have their beliefs challenged in a format that encourages thoughtful discussion, such as Dr. Sherlock’s presentation.
My viewpoint comes from questions I have asked my Mormon friends to which I’ve often been given the response, “I’ve never thought of it like that.” I think attacks put people on the defense, but a thoughtful question can give a person pause and greater insight into why they believe what they do.
I really like Dr. Sherlock’s point that one’s choice in religion should not be because of a warm feeling, but should also include reasoning.