Am I anti-Mormon?

This question has been handled more exhaustively by other bloggers, but I want to take a stab at it. The question is personal to me, because I have occasionally been accused of anti-Mormonism (with this blog being cited as evidence).

In a recent Facebook discussion about racial insensitivity in the Book of Mormon, one of my cousins called me a “confused” and “angry” apostate. He said this site is “one-sided”, and full of “half-truths” and “war room spin.” My immediate family and several LDS friends came to my defense, saying that they’ve always found me sincere, well-meaning, and respectful. But I suspect that many others who read that Facebook thread quietly agreed with my cousin. So in this post, I hope to explain why I blog about and criticize Mormonism. Then we’ll discuss whether I satisfy the definition (or rather, definitions) of anti-Mormon.

My first project at this blog was the “Why I Don’t Believe” series. I anticipated people dismissing it as anti-Mormon, so I began the series with an explanation of my motives. I’ll quote them here, because they also apply to why I blog about Mormonism more generally.

Continue reading

This is your brain on god

The science of spirituality intrigues me. One of my first posts at this blog was about that topic. When I was a Mormon, I was very prone to powerful spiritual experiences. I’d often cry during prayer or scripture study, I saw ghostly apparitions, and, on several occasions, I experienced what I then thought were demonic possessions. These phenomena anchored my testimony for years until I discovered naturalistic explanations for them. (That isn’t to say, though, that all spiritual experiences are necessarily reducible to the brain.)

Neuroscientist Dr. Michael Persinger has done a lot of pioneering research concerning the brain and spiritual experiences. He is perhaps best known for his ‘God helmet’, an electro-magnetic device that is able to induce spiritual and out-of-body experiences in patients.

Continue reading

My apology to Pastor Ted Haggard

Not long ago, Ted Haggard was arguably the most powerful evangelical Christian pastor in the United States. His megachurch, the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, boasted a membership a 14,000. Haggard was also president of the 30 million-member Nation Association of Evangelicals. This influence won him the ear of President Bush, with whom he spoke on the phone every Monday.

You may remember Haggard from his appearances in Richard Dawkin’s The Root of All Evil and the documentary Jesus Camp.

In late 2006, Ted Haggard’s world came crashing down. Mike Jones, a male prostitute, alleged that Haggard paid him for sex and drugs. Haggard confessed to some of the allegations, and was forced to resign from the church that he founded. More than that, his church exiled him from the entire state of Colorado. How very Christian.

For the next two years, Haggard was periodically homeless and unemployed. He and his family moved in and out of hotels, and stayed with strangers who were willing to taken them into their homes. To support his family, he applied to be an online representative for Phoenix University, hung up thousands of door-hangers, and worked as a traveling insurance salesman. He also went back to college for the first time in 30 years to study psychology.

Quite the fall from grace.

Continue reading

BYU censors letter to the editor critical of Prop 8

Take note of the update near the bottom.

Yesterday, Brigham Young University’s student paper The Daily Universe featured a letter to the editor that argued that the legal case for Proposition 8 is “indefensible.” Its author, BYU student Cary Crall*, also asked Mormons to admit that their only opposition to gay marriage is religious. The letter attracted enormous attention and praise from both the Mormon and ex-Mormon online communities. People were most impressed that BYU—in a refreshing display of academic freedom—published it.

But shortly after the letter was posted to the Universe‘s website, it was quietly pulled**. This is disappointing, but not terribly surprising; the letter nearly didn’t get published at all. Crall told me in a Facebook message that he submitted the letter to the Universe a few weeks ago, but it was rejected by the summer editor who felt it was inappropriate for a “newspaper funded by the LDS Church.” It wasn’t until after some edits and the approval of a new editor that it was published, albeit briefly.

Thankfully, Crall was kind enough to email me the original copy of his letter with permission to reproduce it here. (The bracketed sentences did not appear in the Universe.)

Continue reading

Extremism in the Muslim world

In the debate over the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” (which is actually a multi-cultural community center), you might have come across this illustration:

There are some who mistakenly believe all Muslims are terrorists. The illustration at the left lays bare the absurdity of that belief. Islam boasts nearly 1.6 billion adherents; Al Qaeda, less than 10,000. Put another way, only .00063% of Muslims belong to Al Qaeda.

The majority of Muslims preach and practice peace. American Muslims are especially moderate. So I appreciate the illustration insofar as it disabuses people of the “all Muslims are terrorists” stereotype. However, I think the illustration is itself overly simplistic. It downplays the very real, dangerous, and widespread extremism in Muslim world.

Continue reading

Why Mormons should be thankful Third Nephi is not history

Informed by the comments, some revisions have been made to the original post.

This post begins my series-long critique of the Book of Mormon. And to kick-off the series, I’m going to focus on what I consider to be the most problematic part of the Book of Mormon: Third Nephi, chapters 8 and 9. These chapters record the events that immediately followed the crucifixion of Christ.

And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land. And there was also a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder. And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land. (3 Nephi 8: 5-7)

Whirlwinds, three days of darkness, and the wholesale destruction of many ancient American cities are described in 3 Nephi 8 as well. Amidst this chaos, the Nephites and Lamanites might well have asked, “Where is our god?” Well, we find out in 3 Nephi 9 that god was behind it all. Indeed, he seems to boast about it:

Continue reading

Humean, all too Humean: The Problem of Induction

The most enduring challenge to science has come not from religion, but philosophy. David Hume, an 18th-century Scottish philosopher, articulated what we now call “the problem of induction,” and it has wreaked epistemological havoc on the foundation of science for centuries.

Induction, for the purposes of this post, is a form of reasoning that makes inferences about what will happen from what has happened. Science relies heavily on induction in making generalizations and predictions. But Hume believes that we can reason absolutely nothing about the future from the past. To do so presupposes the uniformity of nature—that the future will resemble the past.

There is a temptation to respond that we know that the future will resemble the past, because past futures have resembled past pasts. This begs the question, however. It assumes the very thing it attempts to prove, and is thus circular.

Atheists need to understand the implications of Hume’s argument. Hume is not saying that we cannot know with a certainty that, for example, the sun will rise tomorrow. He instead says something far more radical: that we have no reason whatsoever to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. The fact that the sun has risen every day of recorded human history is immaterial; again, the future need not resemble the past.

So are we atheists who trust science guilty of the same faith that we accuse religious people of having? In a later post, I’ll introduce a few possible solutions to the problem of induction. But I’d first like to hear your thoughts.

What is USU SHAFT, really?

Old MainLike, totally good question dude. But before I get to that, I want to thank all of you who stopped at our table on the Quad the other day, and am glad for the questions and great feedback. If you left with some unanswered questions, this post is meant to help a bit.

The USU part of the acronym is Utah State University, of course. The school’s most famous building, Old Main, is at the right. (Shout-out to the CS department on the 4th floor!) Established in 1888 as a land-grant institution in Logan, Utah, USU is a strong engineering school with long-standing ties to NASA, the Department of Defense, and aerospace companies such as Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. Interesting fact: USU has developed the highest number of cooperative space experiments with NASA compared to any other university, and has been nicknamed “Space University” by NASA. Pretty cool.

SHAFT stands for “Secular Humanists, Atheists, and Free Thinkers.” I’m giong to break down what each of these means.

Secular Humanism (also called Scientific Humanism) is a philosophy that upholds reason, evidence, and a rejection of supernatural explanations as a basis for moral thought and decision-making. Tenets of the philosophy include:

  • Reason, evidence, and the scientific method are better methods than faith, mysticism or authority for gaining an understanding of ourselves and the world, and for creating human solutions to human problems.
  • A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that all knowledge is subject to revision and improvement as more evidence is gathered.
  • Political, social, and religious beliefs ought to be tested by each individual and not simply accepted because of faith or tradition.
  • A commitment to bettering this life through better understanding of ourselves, our history, and our human achievements.
  • Building a better world for ourselves and our decendents through an open exchange of ideas, goodwill, tolerance and hard work. We understand that no one is looking out for us except us.

Atheism, in the broadest since, is simply the absence of belief in deities. It’s not really a position or developed philosophy on its own. The word originates from Greek “atheos” meaning no gods, and interestingly enough was originally applied to anyone who didn’t believe in the classic Olympians of ancient Greece. This included believers of other so-called false gods, or anyone with beliefs that went counter to doctrine. The term has narrowed somewhat to mean someone who has no belief in any god(s).

In practice, many atheists also reject any supernatural explanations or magical thinking, and do not believe in ghosts, leprechauns, psychic phenomena, souls, “magical auras,” or Tom Cruise. While the definition of “atheist” doesn’t strictly preclude any of these ideas, many of the same thought processes that lead to atheism leads to rejecting these others as well. I personally would prefer to simply say “I don’t know” rather than have an evidence-free explanation that doesn’t mean anything.

Finally, the “Free Thinkers” portion refers more or less to just a general open-mindedness. SHAFT has many members who are in fact religious, but value the free exchange of ideas and discussion that SHAFT attempts to produce. While this term is often used to refer to atheists alone, I prefer it to mean essentially “anyone who actually gets what freedom of speech is really for.” If you are religious and not offended or threatened by the mere existence of people who disagree with you, go ahead and claim yourself as a free thinker. And then come to SHAFT meetings.

Please feel free to ask any questions or say whatever else in the comments.