"Have you ever honestly asked yourself what if it's not true?"It was a simple, albeit leading, question and yes it was designed to 'poke the bear'. In the social media era of Facebook those of us who have faithful friends of the LDS Church are frequently graced with testimonies of faith and the assertion that they "know the Church and the Gospel is true." These messages invade the inbox of my email as well as appear on the on the news feed of my Facebook page. So with out specifically calling out posters I asked the question. I really just wanted to know what is their basis for belief.
As a young teen I realized there were logical problems with the doctrine of the LDS church. The recent advent of the Internet and the ease in sharing information in the great information age gives the average seeker access to Mormon history. The push back, in the advent of easier access to information, by the 15 leaders of the church has been to obfuscate the definition of truth. Even prior to the internet the value of a full education was discredited as Boyd K. Packer told a group of Church Educators(edited to correct mischaracterization):
“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.So unless the teacher repents for telling the truth he will not obtain his highest degree of glory. In fact telling the truth is not about the real history or facts it is about undying adoration of those who founded and lead. There has been much progress made in the realm DNA research which has fully disproved Joseph Smith's claim that the Lamanites were descendants of Jewish or Israelites migrants. The lack of archaeological evidence that any of the great civilizations existed and battles ever occurred where Joseph Smith or the subsequent prophets of the church claim further diminished the claims of the restoration. But the real history of the world, and physics, and our understanding of how the natural world works not only diminishes the claims of Mormonism but of Christianity as well. In fact the scholars have enough information to deconstruct the entire Bible and the Koran. An understanding that not only challenges the divine origin of the LDS triple combination but relegates it to the lowly status of fictional literature and in the case of the Book of Mormon; poorly written fictional literature.
Some things that are true are not very useful.
That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities."
So back to my original Facebook post... I was asked:
Have you ever asked yourself what if it IS true?To which I responded:
I, at one point, thought it was. However, there is overwhelming evidence that says it is not... and none.... none that points to it being true. So yes I asked and the answer was provided in the facts.And the inquirer replied:
Most people can skew facts and data to prove what they want them to prove, so I will go with those fuzzy things called intuition and experiences that only prove something to the person who experiences them.That reply is the result that Boyd K. Packer et. al. was hoping for. By making truth seem ethereal many faithful members can engage in inane justification of the lack of evidence and more importantly the overwhelming damning evidence that proves the church's claims are not true.
It is in this debate that I struggle with the gist of the Mormon Stories conference recently held in Salt Lake. The idea that you can be at odds or just not believe in the teachings of the church but still want to participate in the weekly religious services and to attend the temple. If the plan of salvation and the plagiarized three degrees of glory are not based upon verifiable principles then why would you subject yourself to the droning sermons of sacrament meeting. If the church was founded upon a false book why would you go through temple rituals that have no real world meaning? They lead to nothing! There is a reality that much of the church's doctrine is harmful to the self esteem and self worth of its members. So I question why you would pay tithes to continue temple admission? I know many members who pay thousands and some tens of thousands to tithing and offerings each year. If it costs you that much wouldn't you want to know the truth? Once you know the truth why would you continue to participate?
There is not multiple truths. There is one truth. People's feelings have nothing to do with truth at all. The sun is hot no matter your personal feelings on the subject.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this post!
I am the inquirer that Kevin quotes here.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that the majority, if not all of the experiences we have only prove or disprove to us personally. That was my point. Going outside of a religious discussion on this, how can you prove to someone that you love them? Is that even possible? Can you provide tangible proof that you love someone with no self-serving or subversive motivations? You can't. You can say that your actions prove it, but your actions may be only to serve your purpose of deceiving the person into believing that you love them.
To discredit emotional response is to give a lie to the bonds of relationships. Do you love your family? Can you prove it logically and unemotionally in a way that leaves no doubts?
It goes back to my original statement. There is very little "evidence" that cannot be skewed, either way, to prove your point...especially when emotions are involved. And to site the internet as a perfect source of information is folly, at best.
As always, it's an interesting debate with you, Kevin. Not necessarily fun or enlightening, but interesting.
^^ But when factual information denies love, you can assume that the other person does not love you.
ReplyDeleteMost Happy Girl
ReplyDeleteLove is as hard to prove as it is to define. So might be "testimony" and "the spirit", though it is interesting that you ultimately trust your own testimony, but automatically discount say, Dan Lafferty's, when they both are equally sincere.
I don't doubt that Dan Lafferty believed what he said he believed. That doesn't mean I agree with his actions. You can believe or not believe whatever your want (Article of Faith 11). It's only when your actions try to take that right away from me that I might have a problem with it.
ReplyDeleteAre there people in most religions who want to force their beliefs and ideas on other people? Yes. Are there people outside of any religious affiliation who want to force their beliefs and ideas on other people? Yes. Do I find these actions wrong? Yes. I'm not trying to force my beliefs or ideas on anyone, but if you tell me I can't state them or stand up for them, then we have a problem.
@Most Happy Girl
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't equate "love" with an alleged objective truth - that the Church is true or that gods exist - because these are not like terms. You can compare subjective things to other subjective things.
Please provide us an example where you have used subjective "evidence" to know something that is objective.
In fact, if you do this, there's a good chance you could win 1 million dollars from James Randi's challenge.
-Chris
And, Big Lunch, you don't know me. It's presumptuous of you to tell me what I will "automatically discount".
ReplyDelete@philosophyofchris
ReplyDeleteI was comparing emotional experiences, such as gaining a testimony and being in love. Both are emotional, subjective experiences. You cannot discount my emotional experiences in either case without calling into question every emotional experience you have yourself.
But don't you see the difference between the alleged claims of both of those emotional experiences?
ReplyDeleteThey are not equal claims. One of them is claiming something that is objective. This is an important distinction because "love" exists only inside your mind whereas "gods" (and other alleged objective truths) are supposed to exist outside of our mind.
So you can't equate these two.
Please provide an example where you know something that can be verified to be objective with subjective feelings.
Most Happy
ReplyDeleteI did get the idea that you currently have a testimony of the LDS church. I'm sorry if that was not correct.
If I was correct, however,and if you believe in your own tesstimony than you must automatically discount Dan's, because they are completely in contradiction. (Dan does not believe the current LDS church is true. His testimony is of his own bizaare restoration.) If you believe that the source for truth is in emotional connections with God, then for some reason you also believe that your emotional connection is genuine, but Dan's is not (again because they directly contradict.) How do you know yours is the genuine emotional connection and his isn't?
@Big Lunch
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem with so-called revelations. There is no reliable standard to distinguish authentic gods-induced revelation from mere human ideas or delusions.
And I don't see how we could even begin to create a standard because all of the evidence is subjective!
We may always be wrong in our interpreting of evidence within the fields of Science but at least the evidence is objective and always there for future scientists (and anyone else) to evaluate. We have no such luxury with prayer.
I have asked many theists to confirm the prayer method by using it to tell us objective knowledge that can be verified by alternate means. This would be a stepping stone. But many have denied this challenge. No one is willing to put their faith to a real test. Their objections are eerily similar to the objections to James Randi's million dollar challenge.
@Big Lunch
ReplyDeleteDiscounting and disagreeing are two different concepts. To discount means to reduce or belittle. To disagree means to not be in accord or agreement.
I disagree with Dan Lafferty. But even with that disagreement, I still hold that he can believe that God is telling him all kinds of things. I also believe that people have the right to act as they wish, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of those actions. When our actions affect other people (such as Mr. Lafferty killing people), we have to be willing to accept the consequences (such as a prison sentence or even execution, depending on where you live).
Would I like it if everyone in the world was willing to live in peace and tolerance with each other? Yes. Am I willing to force people to think the way I want for that to happen? No.
@philosophyofchris
Scientific "evidence" is still based on a belief that we know how certain laws work, and yet our understanding of those laws changes so quickly that printing almost can't keep up with it. So, do you stand in awe of the men who came up with the scientific understanding that the world was flat, or do you chuckle a little to yourself when you think about it? They were only working with the knowledge they had at the time, yet it was wrong.
And while you say that I cannot prove to you that God exists, you also cannot prove to me that he doesn't.
No one is truly objective, because we bring all of our experiences with us into any argument we have. There is no getting around the fact that you are who and what you are because of all of your experiences: emotional, physical, intellectual, and spiritual (or lack thereof).
ReplyDelete@Most Happy Girl
ReplyDeleteThe mere fact that it's possible to evaluate whether or not the earth is flat puts the scientific method leaps and bounds above the so-called prayer method.
The evidence is the earth. It is objective. It exists outside of our minds.
The interpretation of whether it is flat or spherical is indeed subjective.
But let's not forget that the earth is outside of our minds. This is an important distinction.
The "evidence" that is used within the prayer is all subjective. It only exists within your mind. I cannot look at it directly. Therefore we are stuck. This is what separates reliable science from mere guess work. Nobody has any evidence or knowledge to reliably and accurately identify what an authentic spiritual experience should feel like, let alone to identify by name which god produced such a feeling.
Do you see the difference?
My bigger concern with all this are some of the claims in this post. When, for example, was the Book of Mormon disproved by DNA? I agree that DNA testing indicates that not every Native American is solely descended from Lehi and Ishmael’s families, but Hugh Nibley proved that in the 1950s, and he did it using nothing but the Book of Mormon. Claiming that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon is like claiming that George Washington’s election as President of the United States disproves that he was born a British subject: it only works if you make one or more erroneous assumptions that completely contradict the historical record.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, you claim that “the lack of archaeological evidence that any of the great civilizations existed and battles ever occurred where Joseph Smith or the subsequent prophets of the church claim further diminished the claims of the restoration,” when quite the opposite is true. Yes, there was once a popular belief in the Church that the Book of Mormon took place over the entire dual continent of America, but again, the Book of Mormon itself disproves this. (More than once, Mormon states that a Nephite could travel from one end of their land to the other in 24-36 hours.) Once we recognize that the Book of Mormon takes place exactly where Joseph Smith, Jr., opined (i.e. present-day Yucatán, Guatemala, and Belize), we suddenly find dozens of easily identifiable locations (including a couple of toponyms!).
Finally, your mischaracterization of Elder Packer’s instructions to Institute directors (not students, btw; BIG difference) shows that you either misunderstood what he was saying or are deliberately decontextualizing to make it easier to misconstrue. Either way, it’s not the truth you seem to want to share.
This returns me to your original Facebook post. The amount of physical, historical, cultural, geographical, and literary evidence for the veracity of the Church is so overwhelming that I can’t honestly understand how anyone could refute it. What’s interest is that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever really tried. Oh, sure, they’ll take issue with one tiny piece of evidence and try to disprove it, but they’ll never try to refute everything—not even collectively.
I completely agree with you, that relying solely upon prayer and intuition to form our testimonies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is pretty shortsighted. However, I find it even more shortsighted to just completely ignore the preponderance of evidence that, as you rightly pointed out, is readily available on the Internet. If you want to try to refute it, more power to you, but please don’t try to pretend it doesn’t even exist. I just makes you look ignorant.
HTH!
Sorry I meant to say: "I cannot look at your evidence (your spiritual experience) directly."
ReplyDeleteWe cannot swap experiences and independently look at them like we can with pictures of the earth, for example.
You never know. In another 500 years, scientists may prove that the earth is actually a hexagon that, to another race, is relationally the size of a pea to us based on information we don't have now.
ReplyDeletePlus, you cannot prove to me, from where I am standing right now (and from where you are standing right now) that the world is round. I can talk to scientists who can tell me why, according to their theories and experiments and findings, that the earth is round, but I have no personal, physical evidence that it is round. And neither do you, unless you are a scientist who has studied this (sorry, I shouldn't make assumptions about you; I don't really know you). You are going by the "proof" of someone else, and believing it because it agrees with your own philosophy and understanding of science.
I do believe the world is round, by the way. I just don't know it empirically for myself. I have to go by what others have told me.
You are still missing my point.
ReplyDeleteYes, our interpretations of the evidence change. This weakness in the scientific method does not help the case for the prayer method.
The mere fact that we can evaluate the evidence is what makes all the difference. If we had enough money, both you and I could travel to space and look at the earth. The earth exists outside of our minds and that means it is objective evidence.
Feelings are internal. They are subjective.
Both methods cannot get away from subjective interpretation but the quality of evidence is supremely different. One relies on objective evidence, the other on subjective "evidence".
Do you see why this is important?
@Jeff
ReplyDeletePerhaps the Church should adjust its Missionary discussions accordingly.
Happy Girl
ReplyDeleteFor getting on me about presumption, you seem to be presuming a bit yourself. I do not think Dan Lafferty was a righteous man, nor do I believe he really talked to God. No have I ever purported that forcing beliefs on anyone is ever a good idea.
But my mormon faith was utterly forced on me from the time I was three years old till nineteen. So yeah, there's a lot of forcing going on out there. I'm against it as well.
You didn't answer my question. Your testimony directly contradict's Dan's. Both come from an emotional connection with God...wonderful, beautiful, peaceful affirmation that they both may be, they cannot both be right. How do you know yours is? Moral judgements cannot apply here, because if Dan is right, he has done nothing immoral. (Nephi killed Laban right?) Please stop looking at this as an attack. I really would love to know a good answer to this, because this is where I lost my testimony.
@Jeff
ReplyDelete"The amount of physical, historical, cultural, geographical, and literary evidence for the veracity of the Church is so overwhelming that I can’t honestly understand how anyone could refute it"
It is interesting that none of this overwhelming evidence has led one non mormon archeologist to conclude "Maybe these Mormons are onto something..." But I would still love to review this overwhelming evidence that has somehow left me behind. Where is it? On FARMS? Do you have a reliable summary of this somewhere?
Big Lunch & Chris
ReplyDeletePictures of the earth can (and have been) altered. And it is still you believing that the person who presents it to you as evidence took it where and when they claimed.
It's still subjective. Every opinion is subjective. There is no way to separate your feelings and experiences from what you believe.
Big Lunch, you proved that by getting upset over the fact that you feel your parents forced the LDS faith on you as a child. You seem to be taking my responses very personally. I did not mean them that way. They are just my opinion (and yes, my opinion is subjective).
I don't believe Dan Lafferty is correct. I've already stated that. But I don't believe I have the right to tell him he can't believe it just because I don't believe it.
Do you see the difference between what I'm saying and what you are accusing me of? I don't think you are correct when you deny that God exists, but I still think you have the right to believe it.
@Most Happy Girl
ReplyDeleteBut the picture exists outside of ourselves. I can hold it. You can hold it. We can examine it. We can put it under a multitude of tests. I agree, it probably isn't wise to conclude anything certain from just one picture, but the fact remains: the evidence is objective.
When somebody comes to me with so-called "spiritual evidence". I have no luxury of testing that evidence and putting it under any kind of scrutiny.
Because these feelings are subjective (not just the interpretation), it is near impossible to even begin to create a subjective standard to distinguish the authentic spiritual revelations from mere human ideas or delusions.
Do you understand the difference?
@Big Lunch, actually, it has. There are several examples of archæologists who joined the Church after studying how the Book of Mormon geographical and historical record was confirmed by what they already knew, from their professional lives. Terry Neal (who wrote of his experience in the pamphlet “In Defense of an Obsession”) was an early one, joining the Church in the 1960s; and if you’ll indulge me long enough to peruse my library, I can hopefully track down the name of a Mexican couple who joined the Church in the 1980s, for the same reasons. (No promises, but I’ve read part of their story, as well.)
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not that archæologists have not concluded “Maybe these Mormons are onto something,” because they have. The problem, as Dr. William Hamblin pointed out in a 2006 discussion, is that:
“Even if 100% of New World archaeologists rejected the historicity of the [Book of Mormon], it would be irrelevant unless they had carefully read the [Book of Mormon], and studied the secondary literature. The vast majority of scholars have never read the [Book of Mormon]. Their opinions on the matter are therefore irrelevant. … Uninformed opinion, even in unanimously held, is still uninformed.”
@Most Happy
ReplyDeleteI am glad we all agree everyone has the right to believe as they see fit, so long as it doesn't mean cannibalism or pickles on Big Macs or other atrocities. "I would never force anyone to believe anything" is a nice declaration, but it doesn't seem to hold for our own children very often that I have seen. I only pointed out my force fed status as a reminder of that.
I presume you feel you communicate with God. You are Person A. God has told Person A "This church is true."
There is a Person B. She got a revelation that said "Person A has got it wrong. This church is true."
I am not asking if you should allow Person B to believe what she wants. It is not a matter of you even declaring that you are better than Person B. You sound like a very nice person, and not inclined to belittle other people's beliefs like this. I am presuming that you still believe that you are right, and that Person B is wrong. You still believe in your revelation. I am asking for some sensible reason as to why.
It would be nice to have a unique insight into this, as I said, this is a big stumbling block to me. Please do not think that I am trying to be disrespectful or insulting. You said you do not find such debates to be particularily insightful or enjoyable...so by all means you can always tell me "I'm done here." I on the other hand find such open discussion (and even debates) to be fascinating and fun. So thanks for putting up with me.
@Jeff
ReplyDeleteThanks for the pamphlet reference--I will definitely check this out. Any other tidbits like this would be welcome. I always believe in hearing both sides of the story, so...thanks
@Big Lunch
ReplyDeleteNobody has the answer to that objection as far as I have researched.
I have an idea of what MHG will say but I will withhold any assumptions until she comments.
@Jeff
I tried googling "Terry Neal" and "In Defense of an Obsession" but I could not find anything.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Chris
ReplyDeleteThanks. The OP is brilliant, and I enjoyed your contributions as well in the comments. I'm reserving judgement to "overwhelming, irrefutable evidence." Might as well have the gold plates on display in the COB with that kind of statement.
Jeff you came to my blog and dumped a load of crap here without citing a single source.
ReplyDeleteI will acknowledge the error you cited in my OP. The speech was given to the educators which is really an indictment of the integrity of both the CES and Boyd K. Packer. Your are right it is a big difference. The difference is in the conspiracy to withhold relevant information to students. It represent educational malpractice. You are welcome to challenge my arguments with tangible proof.
Nancy, feelings are not evidence. Evidence is verifiable and repeatable. Feelings without evidence may serve you and if they do fine. Your Facebook conversation was used an illustration not to discredit you.
@Big Lunch
ReplyDeleteThanks for the complement! I look forward to reading more from you on your blog as well!
Looks like we scared them off?
I wasn't scared off, but I had actual life things to do.
ReplyDeleteAnd after all, discussions like this end with either heated argument that may turn resentful or an agreement to disagree. I hope that we can be in the latter category.
Kevin, you used my post as the basis for your post, so I wanted to make sure that my intent was made clear, because it seemed to me that you did not fully understand what I meant when I put it on facebook.
Good night, and thanks for all the fish.
@MHG
ReplyDeleteWhat is there to agree to disagree? I was just pointing out the difference between subjective "evidence" and objective evidence. That shouldn't be a point of disagreement.
@POC
ReplyDeleteThe disagreement comes because I don't believe anything is objective, for reasons I stated in an earlier post but which you seemed to disregard.
Even if we were "experiencing" the same thing physically, we will not have the same "experience" because we are not objective creatures. We are the composite of everything that we have experienced and how we have internalize those experiences. Therefore, you will take "evidence" from a source you have come to a subjective conclusion is a reliable source and dismiss "evidence" from another source you don't have that same experience with.
Hence, while the earth may exist outside of our minds, it is only within our minds that we can come to any conclusions about the earth and its existence. To me, God exists outside of our minds, and I have many personal experiences that backup my conclusion, for me. You cannot have an experience to backup a conclusion for me, and I cannot have one for you.
If you are unclear as to the difference between subjective and objective, here are links to the definitions from the Merriam Webster dictionary online:
Objective -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective (definition 3a)
Subjective -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective (definitions 3b and 4a(2))
Based on the meaning of objective, you cannot bring ANY personal experiences or feelings into a conclusion. If you can tell me of one person you know personally (which means it won't be an objective relationship) who has every been able to do that, and we can continue this "debate".
Ok, I see.
ReplyDeleteI think we are operating with slightly different definitions of "objective" then.
I view a thing as objective if it can exist if nobody is alive. The earth still exists whether or not nobody is here to say that it is.
Can you expand your definition with that statement?
Well, it doesn't matter actually. I can use your definition for the time being.
ReplyDeleteSo you say that nothing is objective. Everything is subjective. And you say that we can't bring subjective experience into a conclusion. If nothing is objective what other option do we have?
Why do you trust, say, a doctor? (Or any other "scientist" of sorts.)
Would you trust a doctor if he prayed to know how to treat your illness (if you had one)?
I didn't say we can't trust a subjective opinion. I think that might have actually been you. We couldn't function in life if we didn't trust subjective opinions everyday. We just have to acknowledge that they are subject and not objective.
ReplyDeleteBecause even an educated opinion is subjective.
I said that for a conclusion to be truly objective, you can't bring subjective experience into it.
ReplyDeleteWe come to conclusions all the time.
Ok, I feel like I'm still being misunderstood or something.
ReplyDeleteI actually never claimed we can't trust subjective interpretations. If you read what I said I admit that our conclusion that the earth is spherical is a subjective conclusion. Did you miss that?
It appears that you are saying that it is entirely reasonable to conclude a god exists because it is no worse than making the conclusion that you love somebody. Everything is subjective. You are just as much justified believing in a god as I am believing that the planet earth is spherical.
Is this accurate?
Nancy, the longer you argue with POC and Big Lunch the more absurd the argument becomes. There are undisputed facts that are not subject to interpretation. 1+1=2. If you drive from point A to point B you arrive at point B. Gravity works. If I give you 5 dollars and you give me two in change I have two of the original five.
ReplyDeleteThe point of this blog post was to illustrate how the church and it's members are willing to ignore facts to chase a dream that has a snowball's chance in hell of being true. My illustration of our conversation on Facebook is a good example. I son't think you have really considered it might be true. I don't write for people like you. I write for people who may have some serious doubts. I write for people who are looking at the evidence and realizing it is all a hoax. The statements I have made, despite Jeff's insinuation, are factual. They may have been paraphrased and abridged but they are facts and the conclusions are accurate and based upon the evidence. In that they are objective.
If the church works for you I think that is great. I have never tried to sway your opinion on that. If you are not willing to discuss the facts that are the basis for my disbelief then you are right... We must agree to disagree. You are budding apologist if you can obfuscate the truth by appealing to the emotional state of the argument. In the end... you have a feeling and I have the truth based upon this history, science, and the evidence. I sleep better knowing that.
Kevin:
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want my words in your comment string, don't use my words in your blog posts.
Nancy, I never said or insinuated you were not welcome to comment. My point is you are unwilling to look at the evidence and evaluate it. You aren't engaging in the conversation and you talk around the evidence without addressing it. In short the interaction is not commensurate with your level of education and it does not represent you well.
ReplyDeleteIt is also rude to come to my blog or my Facebook page and attempt to tell me what I can do with that interaction.
Kevin, you attack by attempting to belittle the other person when the argument, no matter how presented, does not agree with you. It is a cowardly form of debating. Politicians do it well (just in case you are in doubt, that was not intended as a complement).
ReplyDeleteThe insinuation that I am not welcome here (that is until I change my views and start agreeing with you) came from you stating that this blog and the post (using my words) were not intended for me.
Nancy-
ReplyDeleteI am interested in fully understanding your point of view. I'm afraid that this conversation isn't going so well.
My basic point of contention was when you compared "love" to an objective, "universal" truth about reality - namely that a god exists, "he" loves us, has a plan for us, etc.
I realize that every interaction we have with the world is subjective. But that doesn't mean that all types of evidences are equal and that doesn't mean that all types of conclusions are equal.
I readily accept the subjective nature of science.
I have difficulty accepting feelings as evidence for a god just as much as I have difficulty accepting that abdominal pain could be evidence for evil telekinetic aliens.
The quality of evidence that is used in reliable sciences has been useful enough for us to cure diseases, fly people to the moon, and much more.
There is no self-correcting mechanism with the prayer method because of the absolute subjective nature (subjective interpretation and subjective evidence). I have no way of formulating a subjective standard to distinguish legitimate revelations induced by a god from mere human beliefs.
I don't care about the conclusions you make about feelings of love. Those conclusions are subjective in nature - that you love someone. It has no bearing in reality. You aren't making a claim about the nature of reality.
But when you say that a god exists, that has bearing on reality. Because apparently, there are eternal consequences that depend on the belief in this so-called "god".
It is a categorical error to compare a subjective thing like "love" to an alleged objective thing like a god.
Nancy, You were not belittled here or attacked. You did fail to really discuss the issues presented. I waited 3 weeks to discuss my thoughts on this topic. I did not use your name. I attempted to create distance from our interaction in some sensitivity to your feelings. Your words were an adequate illustration of my thoughts on the continued misrepresentations by the church. It was also a comment on those who know it's not true but still feel like they are getting something out of engaging in the inane rituals. It was the Mormon Stories Conference not your post that stimulated my thoughts on this topic. It was really not about you. It was about how the church gets it's hooks in people preying on emotion and encouraging its members to ignore the facts. In that, your words were an excellent illustration. You outed yourself. I did not. I, consciously, was careful at how I addressed your interactions here.
ReplyDeleteMy comment regarding the audience I write for was meant to serve as a definition of the focus of my material and its intended audience. In that... you should expect folks here to be less than accepting of opinions that are based upon feeling and ignore the facts. It again is not about you. This blog is really about me. If you are offended it is because you choose that path. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me. You however are arguing from another planet when you don't engage in a real give and take discussion regarding the topic.
I reserve the right to use all of my interactions on this blog or in the public spaces of Facebook as material for my blog. You knew that going in. I have respect for people not for religion.... because I think religion is harmful to people.
Calling Jeff? Insurmountable evidence waiting to be analyzed...one reference to some ungoogleable archeologist and some vague story about a Mexican couple aren't going to cut it. The claim was irrefutable evidence, correct?
ReplyDeleteKevin,
ReplyDeleteHave you considered that, because of the experiences that created your openly-stated bias against religion, you cannot be objective in a discussion about it? And if you cannot be objective, it seems a bit much to demand that someone who wants to defend it must be.
As to the facts that you stated are universally true:
1+1=2 only applies in decimal-based math. In binary, 1+1=10. (Please don't tell my that I have to assume that's what you meant.)
Driving from point A to point B only results in reaching point B if you have the correct information about the location of point B. For example, try following Google Maps directions to ELA.
And you only have two of the original five if you gave me five individual dollars and I give you your change from that original 5. If you give me a 5 dollar bill, and I give you two dollars back (in bills or coins), they will not be part of the original. In this case, you can only have part of the original if I cut up the sawback you gave me into five equal parts and I give you two of them, making the entire 5 dollars worthless.
Chris,
My argument was that all things (love, God, the existence of the earth as a physical thing) can only be experienced by each of us within our own minds. You state that scientists use the information formulated over centuries to continue creating their theories and formulas to prove and disprove what we understand as scientific fact today. I don't understand quantum mechanics, but I can appreciate how it has helped us understand more about our physical world. But my own, personal understanding of this theoretical branch of mathematics is very limited. I would never presume to be a master of it.
For millions of people, God exists. They use their own experiences and those recorded by the writings of people before them to come to this conclusions. It is the same process as a scientific experiment (Alma 32). If I put a certain religious practice into action in my life and have an outcome that shows me life is better, and I am a better, happier person when I'm doing it then before, how can you tell me that I don't have evidence it is true?
Nancy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for you response.
Even though it may not look like it, I do understand your argument. If you look over what I have written, you'll find that we actually agree on an important thing - the subjectivity of our interpretation of reality.
I'm not sure why you brought up quantum mechanics. I don't put all branches of science in the same category of reliability. Some science is better than other science. So if you did criticize a certain branch of science for being too theoretical or speculative, please don't assume that all sciences operate in the same way.
For millions of people, gods do not exist also. I don't think it's wise to play the numbers game. Both you and I already agreed that consensus does not necessarily imply reality with respect to the theories of the shape of the earth. Now we believe the earth is shaped differently.
But why do we believe differently?
This is what separates reliable scientific methods from the prayer method: the inherit self-correcting mechanism.
While it is true that we cannot escape the subjectivity of interpretation, the evidence remains always there to be evaluated by those willing and capable to do so. And so history has shown how and why our interpretations of reality change: largely due to new evidence.
And so what reason does anybody have to challenge a revelation? The evidence itself is internal. I have no way of distinguishing an authentic gods-induced revelation from a mere human idea. And the same problem exists if I try to pray to discern which revelation is true because I have no knowledge for deciphering what constitues a valid "spirit feeling".
And now you bring up the argument of utility. Utility or usefulness of a religion could be evidence that it is true but it's impossible to really come to any certain conclusion because mutually exclusive and incompatible religions have adherents that all claim the similar feelings of purpose, contentment, etc.
I am an atheist and, believe it or not, I am a happy individual. I do not conclude that this is evidence for atheism because I have recognized natural reasons as to why I am happy, content, etc.
Just to clarify:
ReplyDelete"Now we believe the earth is shaped differently." I mean to say, we believe that the earth is shaped differently than people did long ago.
One more thing,
ReplyDeleteIt appears that you want to justify using the prayer method because it shares similar useful qualities as the scientific method. But at the same time you are more than willing to criticize science and point out its flaws.
I think a better approach would be for you to gather evidence for the reliability of the prayer method instead of trying to disparage the scientific method to make the prayer method look like it is not any worse.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteI brought up quantum mechanics because, although it is considered (at least in the scientific community) to be a more reliable and provable form of scientific discovery and understanding than say, string theory, I don't have the experience to discredit or prove any of the findings of the scientists using it.
As for a self-correcting mechanism being absent from a subjective form of discovery, such as prayer, what proof do you have that it does not exist? We are all at difference places and stages in our lives. What to me may seem like an obvious truth may not to you yet, and vise versa, because we haven't fully engaged ourselves to allow for a self-correction to take place, much like the possibility exists that I could understand and contribute to quantum mechanics if I pursued it. People come to self-correcting conclusions about internal, subjective matters all the time. Wouldn't you consider it a self-correction if someone went from being a believer in God to being an atheist? Wouldn't I believe it to be a self-correction for the reverse to happen? Or do you consider it a self-correction if everyone comes to the same conclusion? Everyone didn't believe the earth was round simultaneously. According to Google, there are still some people out in the world who still believe it's flat. (No, I'm not talking about Terry Pratchett's books.)
I do believe you are a happy individual. I think we could probably be good friend outside of this virtual experience. But isn't part of a belief in no god also that it is up to you to do the best you can with your life? (Wow, that actually sounds like a tenant that I hold as a believer in God, doing the best I can with what I have). Do you believe that your happiness and contentment is a result of what you have done for yourself without the aide of a god? If you believe that, doesn't it help solidify that belief?
How can you discredit utility in the proof of a fact? Isn't utility the way that scientific "evidence" is proven? Why can a scientist use it but not me?
I hope you are having as much fun with this as I am. It really is only Kevin's lack of tack that makes debating with him an unpleasant experience for me. I know he doesn't think he's attacking or belittling when he tells you that your argument is absurd. I guess he doesn't know how he comes across to me, which isn't really his fault. I fully admit that it's just my perception of his intent. But what else can we go on besides our own perceptions? Oh wait, that's back to our debate...:)
Sorry if I seem verbose. I have a degree in English with a writing emphasis.
Oh, and Chris, as the scientific method has been brought up in this debate as the standard for finding evidence, it's flaws are open for scrutiny. Also, if you can show the flaws in the prayer method, why should I not be allowed to show the flaws in the scientific method?
ReplyDeleteHeh, well I'm glad that you are enjoying our conversation. I like to discuss things on the internet as well. I don't necessarily consider this as a debate... I do believe I am right with some things. But I am open to good reason and good evidence that would show where I err.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I'm no philosopher and I have a ways to go but exchanges like this help me with that process of understanding.
----
I'm not at all interested in proving that things do not exist because I do not know how to do that. Do you? So, I don't know how to prove that a self-correcting mechanism does not exist within the prayer method. All I have to go by is my experience with it (prayer), what others have taught me about it, and my perceptions of how religious knowledge differs from scientific knowledge.
It appears that we have slightly differing definitions of what "self-correcting" means.
"Self-correcting" doesn't necessarily imply that new interpretations are automatically deemed 100% infallibly correct. I think most scientists readily admit all the things they do not know and that theories are indefinitely open. And so I think many look at explanations for phenomena as probabilities. The more evidence we gather for a theory, its probability of being true increases.
And so a better way to think of self-correcting probably is: "we believe we're headed towards what is true because we are gathering new evidence for such-and-such theory which is increasing in its probability over the older theory."
And you and I agree that, in the grand scheme of things, this is not a very strong foundation. Like we both admit: It is subjective.
But science is all we have. UNTIL it can be shown that other methods have the same degree of reliability. So far nobody has done this.
I have not seen any evidence for a self-correcting mechanism in prayer. I do not know how there could be one because all the so-called "evidence" is internal. There is no way for me to evaluate anyone's evidence but my own. This poses a serious problem that the scientific method does not share. In science, the evidence is open for anybody to look at. In prayer, only I can look at my evidence.
And so thus we see theists using the same method to come at wildly different and incompatible conclusions (which isn't necessarily a problem). But nobody has yet offered a solution by which we can distinguish what constitutes a valid revelation. The Mormon solution is to pray about it. But that just takes the problem one level deeper.
---
Do I believe that my happiness aides my belief that gods don't exist?
No, I don't believe that my happiness is evidence that gods don't exist in the deist sense.
Quality of life could be evidence for or against specific gods and their religions, if those religions make specific claims that if you do "x" then you will be "y". But we allegedly have evidence of people doing "a, b or c" and still arriving at "y".
There are too many variables to be certain of causality. At the bare minimum, we'd have to run a an experiment with a control of sorts, which is impossible because we don't have a time machine - we'd have to have the same person live the exact same period of their life but only changing which religion they believed and lived.
---
Utility:
I think you are confusing technology for science. It is a mistake to say that you believe the earth is spherical because it makes you happy.
---
Criticism of science:
You are free to criticize science. Please note: it does not bolster the case for prayer. If you want me to change my beliefs about prayer, you need to argue for the case for prayer. Show me that it works. Show me that it is reliable. Tell me how to distinguish genuine revelation from mere human beliefs.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like the use of the word "utility" (you labeled as such first, remember?), how about a practicum? Science uses practicum all the time in taking something from hypothesis to theory. (As a side note, within the scientific community, do you know if anything moves from theory to fact? I don't mean general accepted fact but wholly, undeniable, un-discreditable fact? Just wondering. I've always heard things referred to as such-and-such theory.)
So here is my practicum:
1. I pray about something.
2. I receive a feeling that I should include it in my life.
3. I start doing this thing.
4. I notice that my life is better and I am happier since making that change.
(Please note that I did not say that I wasn't happy or had a nice life before beginning to implement this "new" practice in my life, only that doing it enriched my life. I never said that you couldn't be happy in your life as an atheist; I just wonder if you would be happier if you weren't.)
I understand that this is a very simplistic look at this process. There are many, many factors that go into our lives that cannot be controlled in an experiment like this because life is not lived in a vacuum (can everyone say "chaos theory"? Chaos Theory!). However, it is the only option I have open to me to test these hypotheses for myself.
Just curious, I know that you have stated that you are not into proving something wrong -- like that there is no God, even though you don't believe there is one. I was wondering what brought you to the conclusion that there is no god. Do you mind sharing?
And you are right. This is a discussion and not a debate. I don't think either of us is really trying to persuade the other. Just exchange ideas.
Kevin, sorry if we seem to be taking over your blog. At least it's just the one post! :)
ReplyDeleteChris, I'm not happier because the world is spherical. That wasn't the promised outcome of that experiment, whereas it is the promised outcome of a moral change in our lives. Just to clarify that point.
curmudgeon, I did cite a reference: the Neal pamphlet. And to be honest, I really am still looking for the name of that Mexican couple. I know what book it’s in, and am re-reading the entire thing in an effort to find it (and write it down, this time!). ;-)
ReplyDeleteIf you’d like specific archæological evidences, I’d suggest checking out V. Garth Norman’s *The Definitive Mesoamerican Book of Mormon Lands Map* (available from http://tinyurl.com/normanmap). It identifies over 75 locations based on archæological finds, modern toponyms, geographical similarities, etc.. Some of the locations are simply educated guesses, but the same can be said for virtually any ancient map of this complexity. (Note: the booklet available with the map is—shall we say—in desperate need of an editor, not to mention a decent page layout application. It does add some information to the map, but frankly, not that much.)
Another great resource is the FAIRwiki (http://www.FAIRwiki.org). It was started by a group of people (collectively known as FAIR) who were sick and tired of posting the exact same responses to the exact same questions/criticisms on hundreds of internet forums. They put together the wiki as a centralized repository so that instead of writing (or even just copying and pasting) a long and drawn-out explanation to yet another site, they could just post a link and be done with it. I’ve found that pretty much any concern you can imagine will be dealt with there.
HTH!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, curmudgeon: I forgot to deal with the Packer quote, but FAIR (which I have already mentioned) deals with that quote and another, similar quote attributed to him:
ReplyDeleteAgain, HTH!