The news of Gordon Hinckley‘s death is bringing up some pretty complex feelings for me.
Hinckley was the president of the LDS Church for thirteen years. He was a likeable gentleman, a tireless traveller, and a savvy media handler. He was also considered by Latter-day Saints to be a prophet whose pronouncements were just as good as scripture, if not better. That’s pretty scary stuff. But he never seemed to be a megalomaniac, always seemed down to earth.
As a Mormon, I raised my hand to sustain him as prophet of a god that I now consider to be an elaborate fairy tale. So now part of me remembers a leader who seemed to be a genuinely kind man, and part of me struggles with the idea that here was someone falsely claiming to speak for a god. Someone who tirelessly promoted falsehoods, believing he was doing good.
Hinckley had a lot of control over the discourse for millions of Mormons. A common saying among conservative Latter-day Saints is “When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done.” Hinckley didn’t seem to use this power for evil, as a lot of people could have. But he never should have had that kind of power in the first place. No human should ever say, “God exists, and I know what he wants you to do” unless they can back it up with facts, which no one ever has. It was wrong for me to say that as a missionary, it was wrong for my parents and teachers to say it to me, and it was wrong for Gordon Hinckley to say it to millions of believing people. It was power unearned and unjustified.
To the end of his life, he believed that he would survive his death, that he would go to the spirit world to meet his family members, that he would give words and symbols to angels who would stand as sentinels to let him into heaven. And he probably thought his belief in the whole elaborate scenario ensured his eternal status. His life was spent in the service of beliefs that were almost certainly false. Even though he was happy with those beliefs, I still feel kind of sad for him, and glad for myself that I somehow managed to see through it all.
28 January 2008 at 2:48 pm
It can be confusing when you know good people who are trying thier best to do good in the world and whom you know have “good hearts” but are doing it all in the name of something that doesn’t exist. I try to remind myself that there are alot of people in this world trying to do the same thing but do it based on facts, not beleifs. I love people who stand out on thier own, and try to do good in this world not because God told them or because they want to make it to thier eternal reward but instead because they have thought through thier own morality and have made the choice for themselves.
29 January 2008 at 8:12 pm
I am fascinated when I read ex-Mormon statements about the church. I have deep reservations about whether any of them had any business being Mormon in the first place since their understanding of the religion seems so limited and superficial. Also, your attacks and quotes are childish and outright stupid. For example, “When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done.” is the dumbest thing I’ve heard. Mormons are truth seekers and we have a duty to question and discover the truth for ourselves. If a man claims to be a prophet of God, that by definition elects what he says to the utmost scrutiny and doubt by any true Mormon. Your problem is that you lacked any experience with God (hence – you really weren’t a Mormon in the true sense of the word – yes, you went through the motions but to what good?) and the fact you failed to be enlightened is really why you left. I feel truely sorry for you, but in the end – it doesn’t matter. You’ll realize and admit the truth in time (probably not in this life but eventually).
30 January 2008 at 2:41 am
The whole “thinking has been done” thing comes from a Church publication. It was repudiated by George Albert Smith (see here) but I still hear similar sentiments expressed by some of the more hardcore Mormons.
It might not be official policy, but there’s certainly a persistent culture of blind faith in the Church. I agree that it’s a pretty dumb idea, but you can’t blame Daniel for coming up with it.
30 January 2008 at 3:38 am
tobin: I’m glad you were spared some of the dumber parts of the Mormon Experience — if you’ve never heard that saying quoted approvingly among groups of Latter-day Saints, then maybe it truly is on the way out, and that would be a good thing. Or perhaps you’ve just never lived in Utah. I can tell you that in my experience there, the slightest preference, thought, or political inclination could be read as a loyalty test by the more ‘Iron Rod’ conservatives.
Which brings me to the substance of your comment. You say that Latter-day Saints have a responsibility to question and discover truth for themselves. But you only mean ‘as long as they don’t discover anything that contradicts Church teachings.’ If they ever do, then they’re open season for you to question their church involvement.
You’re way out of line with your baseless attacks on me. I was a faithful and believing Latter-day Saint for 38 years, and had many good experiences and many spiritual experiences. At all times I tried to get past ‘going through the motions’ and get to the essence of the gospel. Only when it became clear that the claims of the church were foundationally untrue, and the cognitive dissonance became too great did I find the stones to accept reality and learn to use the scientific method to discern truth from error.
You’re happy in church — that’s great. I hope you can someday manage to evaluate the statements of church leaders using real criteria, and not the phony ones you’ve been given.
30 January 2008 at 3:54 pm
I have to say that when Tobin says, “I have deep reservations about whether any of them had any business being Mormon in the first place since their understanding of the religion seems so limited and superficial.” it shows his own lack of understanding. I can also vouch for Danial that he is not limited or superficial in his handling or understanding of anything. Daniel is one of the most moral and purposful people I know. Having grown up with him, going to sunday school, primary and every other church function, being leaders in the church and preparing for missions together. Being raised by the best the church has (our parents have been bishops, stake presidents and patriarchs) I can say that Dan is being a truth seeker. And there is the very rub. As he has said in other posts it was the churches admonition to seek truth for yourself, to question and to search out the best ideas that has lead Daniel to his current position. So please think a little before posting. If you read Daniels post you will see he is being VERY kind to the LDS church and that the words he uses to describe the late prophet are something of a tribute.
30 January 2008 at 11:14 pm
Oh, what do we know, jeffrey — we probably didn’t have any business being Mormon in the first place. Except that we were born into it. We should have spoken up (as infants).
If you can stand it, try re-reading Tobin‘s comment slowly to yourself and feel the self-righteous smugness dripping off of it.
Thanks, jeffrey, you’re very kind.
31 January 2008 at 10:32 pm
Interesting. Personal criticisms aside. I’ve read through the comments, but I am unconvinced. The length of service in the church, and/or growing up Mormon is not relevant and in most cases a handicap since you think you understand Mormonism (but in fact your understanding is limited by the many silly traditions wrapped up in it – that is especially true in Utah). Conversion to the gospel is not the same thing as being born into it. I’d even venture that sense of entitlement is probably why you left. Once you discovered that the church (and the men that serve/served in it) are very human and very fallible – that basically rocked your little world and out you went. That is usually the case. I sympathize with your feelings and the reasons you left, but most of it was due to your superficial understanding of the church – the gospel – and God. I think what I said stands on its own, however. True Mormons QUESTION everything and discover truth for themselves. Our little worlds aren’t rocked by the superficial – and yes, I think their numbers are limited and very few live in Utah. That is the key and what few Mormons realize (hence my distinction between those that go through the motions and those that really truly get it – 38 years of going through the motions is still going through the motions btw). Here is what you missed – finding out the truth isn’t between me and some bishop, priest, prophet, apostle or anyone else, or what some stupid book says. Joseph Smith made it very atomic – it is ONLY between me and God. That’s it. To hell with everyone else. It is up to me to find out what is true and what is not, and once we know what is true (and don’t misunderstand me and think that I am claiming that Mormonism in whole is true. Certain things I affirm are true – other parts are false – and other parts I don’t know or have serious questions about.) And as a moral person, I have a duty to stand up and defend the truth as best you know what it is – and argue with those that are confused or have lost their way. I hear your criticisms of the church. I often sympathize so far as those arguments are not superficial or due to a lack of understanding. But, what I said is very atomic in its nature and logical.
In my experience, there are four types of Mormons: 1) You are born Mormon – you go through the motions, but you’ve had no real experience with God. 2) You join the church because you have had an life changing experience with God (this happens to Mormons that are born into the church too) and you simply must discover what that means. Being reasonably intelligent and sure that you are sane, you spend your life questioning and learning what that truth is. 3) You join the church but have no experience with God, but like the lifestyle, etc and that holds you for a while (or a lifetime). or 4) You are a pretty rotten person and no interest in the truth – just the money, wealth and power you can get by association and/or service in the church.
I believe you are type 1. I understand you think you’ve had spiritual experiences – but honestly I doubt it. A real experience like that makes you question your reality and shakes you to your core. I have had that experience and so I cannot sympathize with your position. That is the problem with ex-Mormons. You are simply broken and have lost your compass. I’m free to question anything and study it out. I can learn from the best books, journals and people about any topic, and humbly ask God to reveal the truth. But all you have is conjecture and have no way to gain insight into the reality of how things really are (unless inspired of God, but being that you are in denial of that God – I doubt you’ll be so inspired).
It is just that simple. Someday – you will be forced to face that fact. There is a God – that is truth and that is the source – and feel sorry you don’t know that. But that does not change the reality you must eventually face. And as I said before, the argument is not something I am overly concerned with either. It will happen. You will be forced to admit it when you are standing face-to-face with that reality in the next life. I think you’d be a whole lot happier to face that reality now and believe it is in your best interests to take time and find out for yourself, but I seriously doubt you’ll humble yourself to that point (few ex-Mormons can – hence my belief they are seriously broken).
1 February 2008 at 3:06 am
How’s that for arrogance, everyone? All that scientific stuff: facts, evidence, theories, all relentlessly peer reviewed — that’s just conjecture. But the stuff that God tells Tobin — pure and unvarnished truth! We’ll all know it when we’re dead, of course.
Do you see now why I keep going on about the whole ‘science and religion’ thing? This is the essence of the whole conflict, and there really are people who think this way.
Gee, Tobin, it must feel great to have everyone all figured out, and know what God wants you to know. One little question though: is it possible that you might be wrong on some of this? Or does God keep you pretty much sorted?
Seriously, Tobin: is it possible that you could be wrong? How would you know?
1 February 2008 at 8:34 am
Tobin, I can’t help but question your motivation for writing comments of this particular breed or writing such lengthy comments on this subject and in this manner.
Here’s my choicest picks:
1. You are attempting to reinforce your own beliefs by engaging in religious discussion and voicing your doctrines.
2. You enjoy arguing.
3. You believe that you’re enlightening Daniel, and other readers of this blog.
4. All of the above.
As for you beginning your last attack with ‘Personal criticisms aside’… I laughed, so at least you’re bringing joy to someone.
1 February 2008 at 9:22 am
Yes, yes, I get you. You are a man of science and all that. Got it all figured out huh? Got a question about anything, let’s turn to the big book of double-blind tests. The problem is though – that position is ludicrous. If you look carefully at what you are saying – the solution is that science can answer all your questions. I’d like to point out to you, however; that science is particularly bad at answering philosophical and theological answers (and in many other areas of study as well). It is kind of hard to point to the big double-blind study involving God, personal relationships and your own life experiences.
And like I said, I get you. It isn’t like you are the first guy of your kind I’ve run into before. You want your world antiseptic, safe, quantifiable, testable, peer-reviewed, etc. The funny thing about life and most facts though is they aren’t neatly packaged up that way. Take any area of study, like history for instance – hardly antiseptic, static or safe. In fact, let’s just look at the scientific understanding of the universe and how it has evolved over just the past 200 years. Certainly a man of science espousing his beliefs from 200 years ago would be laughed off the stage today. I would venture the same would happen to you in 200 years as well.
And since you brought arrogance into this, I have my own theory that it is the height of arrogance to imagine that man is the first intelligent being to evolve in a universe as old as ours is. Now if you can imagine (I know it is hard – it isn’t safe or antiseptic – but try to extend your mind just a bit here with me) that if such beings arose billions of year ago – how much further beyond us would they be than we are beyond an ant? Would they transcend our understanding? And certainly they would not be easy to quantify or measure. In fact, wouldn’t they seem much like Gods to us. Such is my passion for the debate and my reasoning as to the true nature of God.
Now to address your questions head on. Certainly I’m full of doubt. Comes with my limited facilities and mortality. Have I had experiences that lead me to think otherwise? You betcha. Have you not shared those same experiences? Yes. Are my experiences peer-review? No, are you kidding me? Am I particularly concerned that you believe me or would respond in a positive manner? No. You are much as a blind man that has no grasp of color. Can you exist in the world and function? Yes. But it is too bad and you are handicapped.
I prefer my position to yours though. You have only this life to look forward to. I’d encourage you to live a good one. Eternity is kind of long – especially near the end with a guy like me around saying I told you so (and people say there is no hell :)) J/K I shall endeavor to live a good life as well. Things are hard enough and people should try to be good to one another. I’ll continue to respond as long as you wish me to. After all, it isn’t out of dislike that I’ve been making my observations – but in an attempt to understand you and hopefully allowing you to understand me as well. We view the nature of the universe completely differently and that is alright. Like I said, it will work out in the end. I am sure of it.
1 February 2008 at 9:45 am
I didn’t see rebecca’s post before I responded. I love multiple choice (always did well on those) and good – I’m glad you are having a good time. I hope Daniel and others aren’t taking things too personally either. And I’m sorry about they length of my responses. As you can tell, I love to go on and really need an editor. As for my answer to your question, too often people go through life hearing things said by the vocal majority. Most of the time, I ignore them. This week I felt like having some fun and responding – just to show them that there is another side out there that passionately disagrees.
1 February 2008 at 2:07 pm
“if such beings arose billions of year ago – how much further beyond us would they be than we are beyond an ant? Would they transcend our understanding?“
I think I’ve heard of them.
1 February 2008 at 3:54 pm
This week I felt like having some fun and responding – just to show them that there is another side out there that passionately disagrees.
Good on you! And I’m glad you’re not just a drive-by.
Look, science isn’t about feeling comfortable or having the answers for everything. I’ll leave that to religionists — they’re good at improvising ad hoc answers that ‘feel good’. But if there is a question about our world, the scientific method can help us to at least figure out some kind of research path to work towards an answer.
Science is particularly bad at answering philosophical and theological answers.
No, it’s not. It’s the religious believers that are bad at finding empirical evidence to support their claims. Science is good at handling these issues — no evidence, no accepting the claim.
Science is really about having good reasons to make the claims you do. People do this all the time when they’re doing (e.g.) history. Yes, historical claims are tricky to examine, but all the same, historians don’t put up with evidence-free claims in their work. (I hope not — historians: correct me.) And around here, if you make claims, you should give evidence for them.
Here are claims you have made in your comments.
There is a God.
You will be forced to admit it when you are standing face-to-face with that reality in the next life.
Do you have any empirical evidence for these claims? Besides feelings and experiences, I mean. If you do, in all sincerity, I really do want to know. I’ll change my mind, and be very happy about it.
1 February 2008 at 4:12 pm
“(I hope not — historians: correct me.)“
We make shit up. Sorry.
(P.S. I’ll want to join in this debate as soon as I figure out which side I’m on, so keep it going!)
1 February 2008 at 6:01 pm
1 And now, I speak also concerning those who do not believe in Christ.
2 Behold, will ye believe in the day of your visitation—behold, when the Lord shall come, yea, even that agreat day when the bearth shall be rolled together as a scroll, and the elements shall cmelt with fervent heat, yea, in that great day when ye shall be brought to stand before the Lamb of God—then will ye say that there is no God?
3 Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a aconsciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?
4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your afilthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the bdamned souls in chell.
5 For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your anakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the bholiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you.
6 O then ye aunbelieving, bturn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, cpure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the dLamb, at that great and last day.
7 And again I speak unto you who adeny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the binterpretation of tongues;
8 Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the agospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not bunderstand them.
9 For do we not read that God is the asame byesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no cvariableness neither shadow of changing?
10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.
11 But behold, I will show unto you a God of amiracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same bGod who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.
12 Behold, he created Adam, and by aAdam came the bfall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the credemption of man.
13 And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the apresence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the bresurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless csleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal dband of death, which death is a temporal death.
14 And then cometh the ajudgment of the Holy One upon them; and then cometh the time that he that is bfilthy shall be filthy still; and he that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is happy shall be happy still; and he that is unhappy shall be unhappy still.
15 And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do ano miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles.
16 Behold, are not the things that God hath wrought marvelous in our eyes? Yea, and who can comprehend the marvelous aworks of God?
17 Who shall say that it was not a miracle that by his aword the heaven and the earth should be; and by the power of his word man was bcreated of the cdust of the earth; and by the power of his word have miracles been wrought?
18 And who shall say that Jesus Christ did not do many mighty amiracles? And there were many bmighty miracles wrought by the hands of the apostles.
19 And if there were amiracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he bchangeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.
20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do amiracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should btrust.
21 Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, awhatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this bpromise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth.
22 For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry, yea, and also to aall his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;
23 And he that abelieveth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be bdamned;
24 And athese signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out bdevils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay chands on the sick and they shall recover;
25 And whosoever shall believe in my name, doubting nothing, unto him will I aconfirm all my words, even unto the ends of the earth.
26 And now, behold, who can stand aagainst the works of the Lord? bWho can deny his sayings? Who will rise up against the almighty power of the Lord? Who will despise the works of the Lord? Who will despise the children of Christ? Behold, all ye who are cdespisers of the works of the Lord, for ye shall wonder and perish.
27 O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. aDoubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and bcome unto the Lord with all your cheart, and dwork out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him.
28 Be awise in the days of your bprobation; strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your clusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and dliving God.
29 See that ye are not baptized aunworthily; see that ye partake not of the sacrament of Christ bunworthily; but see that ye do all things in cworthiness, and do it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God; and if ye do this, and endure to the end, ye will in nowise be cast out.
30 Behold, I speak unto you as though I aspake from the dead; for I know that ye shall have my words.
31 Condemn me not because of mine aimperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.
32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the areformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been asufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no bimperfection in our record.
34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared ameans for the interpretation thereof.
35 And these things are written that we may rid our garments of the blood of our abrethren, who have dwindled in unbelief.
36 And behold, these things which we have adesired concerning our brethren, yea, even their restoration to the knowledge of Christ, are according to the prayers of all the saints who have dwelt in the land.
37 And may the Lord Jesus Christ grant that their prayers may be answered according to their faith; and may God the Father remember the covenant which he hath made with the house of Israel; and may he bless them forever, through faith on the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
1 February 2008 at 6:04 pm
Please look past the random a’s, b’s, c’s, and d’s and so forth in this last message. They are footnotes from the book I copied and pasted from.
1 February 2008 at 6:12 pm
that book happens to be the Book of Mormon…
1 February 2008 at 11:43 pm
Yeah, I know.
Was that supposed to be evidence?
1 February 2008 at 11:47 pm
I echo Daniel’s comments. The point of the C&P was? * drum roll please *
2 February 2008 at 2:23 am
What’s your evidence for the book of mormon being evidence for your claim?
2 February 2008 at 3:42 am
No, no… it really is evidence!
Look again. Anonymous instructed us to “look past the random a’s, b’s, c’s and d’s” which fill the quotation. So, if we only take those “footnotes” which appear at the start of each line (the non-random ones), we end up with a short list of words:
consciousness, interpretation, gospel, who, imperfection, means.
For those who are in tune with the Spirit, it is clear that those words contain a hidden message. Prayerfully rearrange the letters and you find the following phrases from the mouth of God:
“opportunistic, self-ignorant choice” and “omnipresent awesomeness”
God is clearly rebuking Daniel for his foolish decision by subtly contrasting it with his own divine greatness.
Given that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon over a century before Daniel was born, this is clear proof that the man was a genuine prophet and therefore: God exists and Daniel sucks.
(NB: This only works if you look at the One True Word-Wrapping, not the corrupted apostate format that appears when you post a comment.)
2 February 2008 at 4:46 am
I don’t think it’s going to be so agreat when the bearth starts to cmelt.
2 February 2008 at 9:06 pm
Why isn’t the quest to become a better more empathetic and loving, giving serving and humble human being good enough for some people. Or, if she existed, good enough for God. All I want for and from my children is that they try to do those things in the best way they know how.
Tobin, you seem like you may be one of those “pearls before swine” type mormons. I ran into mormons like that during my mission. They never understood the importance of treating everyone like children of god. They were only interested in working with people who would obviously want to join the church and looked at others like interactions with them would be a waste of time. Like they had “no business” being loved or worked with or being “true” members of the church. Shame on any mormon who thinks of their brothers and sisters like that. Shame for not getting the beatitudes. Shame for starting with condemnation instead of love and service.
And Anon sounds much more like a born again then a mormon. I was tought to never bible bash. And I think everyone in this conversation knows the book of mormon pretty well, so why the dramatic post (that was the book of mormon BTW. dun da dah…)
Alarik, even though we come to different conclusions you have definitly gained my respect. Thank you for your point of view.
3 February 2008 at 7:25 am
Jeffrey nails it. “Being a good person” is necessary but not sufficient in most versions of Christianity. I think that must be because religions don’t cohere unless there’s some kind of ‘loyalty meme’ where people that stick with the program are rewarded.
Unfortunately, the loyalty meme ends up cannibalising the ‘good person’ side of the religion, to the point where people wonder whether they’re doing the right thing in order to be a ‘good member’ or a ‘good person’. E.g. at BYU, faculty members need to ‘obey gospel principles’, which makes some wonder if tithing is a tax they pay to keep their job.
Hey, I think you’ve added a new class of Mormon to Tobin’s taxonomy. But I think there are actually six types. Type 6 is the type of Mormon who believes the whole thing, but then bit by bit comes to see how it’s no more true than a fairy tale. Then they have to decide if they’re going to keep going with something wrong, or else give up on the comforting fantasy. Call us ‘red pill’ Mormons.
Still waiting for that evidence, by the way. No hurry.
3 February 2008 at 2:19 pm
how are you so sure beyond any doubt that there is no spirit world, or after life or some level of consciousness after death? have you died and came back to life to tell us about it? if so, please do tell us..
you have no empirical evidence (i have a chem background my husband’s a doc we are both believing LDS) that there is no life after death. yet there are literally thousands upon thousands of various accounts across the globe of very credible, well-educated, even former atheists, who have clinically died and came back to tell us the experience of various descriptions that are similar across the board. It is not just “brain activity” especially when some have been declared “brain dead” as well.
THere are nearly 200,000 planets (ok, 196, ooo about) in our galaxy… are you absolutely sure none are inhabited with some kind of life form? how arrogant can we humans be to think WE are IT and there is no other science but our drop in the bucket knowledge of space, time, quantum physics…even the brain in mostly uncharted territory as well as some cellular processes like how does a protein molecule know how to form a specific strain of data from various inputs etc.? these are basics that noone on this planet can answer at this time.. but you somehow KNOW without at doubt that there is no god or afterlife. i’m curious to know your level of education in physics, math and the sciences..
well, just my 2cents
oh, ps the more exmo’s that turn atheists and badmouth the church just make the prophecy of “leave the church, can’t leave it alone” and “dwindle in unbelief” a reality.
kittywaymo
3 February 2008 at 5:25 pm
Daniel, Please correct me where I am wrong but I don’t think I have ever heard you said that You are certain that there is no afterlife. Nor that you have any empirical evidence that God does not exist. What you have said is that there is no empirical evidence that God Does exist, much the same as the FSM or blue fairies. Therefor logic and science dictate that for now we discount those theories until new empirical evidence is provided… still waiting.
I have no idea how Kitty’s second paragraph fits into the argument.
As for the third, self fulfilling prophasies have always been the bedrock of all religions. They are so useful in arguments like these.
4 February 2008 at 2:00 am
Quite correct. I don’t actually know that there’s no gods, devils, spirits, blue fairies, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
The various believers seem very confident about these things, but when asked for empirical evidence, they come up empty or disappear. (Someone call Tobin and make sure he’s okay, okay?) So I don’t consider the case for spirits to be made. There are much simpler explanations that don’t ask you to believe in ghosties.
As for near-death experiences, the evidence for them isn’t good. You might find this page interesting.
An excerpt:
What little research there has been in this field indicates that the experiences Moody lists as typical of the NDE may be due to brain states triggered by cardiac arrest and anesthesia (Blackmore 1993). Furthermore, many people who have not been near death have had experiences that seem identical to NDEs, e.g., fighter pilots experiencing rapid acceleration. Other mimicking experiences may be the result of psychosis (due to severe neurochemical imbalance) or drug usage, such as hashish, LSD, or DMT.
— end c&p —
That’s a phrase I heard a lot: “They can leave the Church, but they can’t leave it alone.” As I’ve said before, if you believe in the Church, you’re supposed to proclaim it far and wide, but if you don’t, you’re supposed to STFU. Well, a lifetime of evangelism has taken its toll on me, and now I’m sadly incurable. A personal failing, but it does mean that I tell the truth as best as I can, loud and proud. Please do the same, but do us the courtesy of sticking to what’s demonstrably true. You’re smart people, but smart people can be fooled. Use your training.
4 February 2008 at 5:58 pm
I’m just fine Daniel. Thank you for your concern. It was Superbowl weekend (What a game!!! Probably the greatest ever!) and I’m from New York so it was even more special watching them win over the Patriots. Anyway, I haven’t had time to consider all the comments since my last post, but I’ll put up something a little later in the week.
4 February 2008 at 10:31 pm
Congrats for your team!
Yeah, I was wondering why the dip in the web stats, but then I remembered.
5 February 2008 at 10:31 pm
Jeffery. I haven’t actually taken the time to address your comments before, but I will now. I agree with you somewhat. The best course if you truly believe something is to immerse yourself in it, live it, and let people be. That tends to be my general attitude as well and why I ignore the vocal majority most of the time. In fact, some of the people I think the most of do precisely that. They just live their lives and are happy setting a good example. Fred Rogers was precisely that type of human being and someone (if you ever had the pleasure of meeting him) that would always make you feel welcome and accepted – no matter your station in life. I, however, am not Fred Rogers. I’m comfortable in my own skin and that includes being prickly and confrontational at times and don’t feel ashamed of that. Diversity and differences in people and personalities adds spice to life. Deal with it.
5 February 2008 at 11:59 pm
Daniel. I don’t think you should STFU either. However, most of my discussions with ex-Mormons often diverge into the minutia of Mormon theology. I find their most impassioned arguments shallow and unappealing; especially since my chief interest is around the more nuclear reasons for them not being Mormon. I’m glad in our discussion it has quickly come down to what is important (at least to me) – and that is the question of “Is there or is there not a God?”
At one time, I was in your boat – a passionate atheist. The position is rather appealing in its simplicity and elegance. Occam’s razor (lex parsimoniae) is certainly a sound premise to analyze any phenomenon with (especially all important ones like God). I however cannot agree with your position simply because I have experienced God. That is why I said that you really had no business being Mormon. It wasn’t out of spite, but due to the fact I don’t think Mormonism is a good fit for anyone without having actually experienced God. It is a very frustrating religion with an interesting past and highly suspect claims, not to mention very human, flawed leaders, questionable traditions, and silly, misinformed believers that are often less than helpful.
Anyway, your challenge to me was this. Provide me empirical proof of God, and then I will believe. To answer your challenge, I will frame my answer with these thoughts. Do you know what gravity is? Now, you might answer – no, but I know it is there because things fall. In response, I’d say – but do you really know what it is and why things fall? Newton was able to describe how gravity works (F = Gm1m2/(r*r)), but when asked what is it? Why does it work that way? All he could answer is – “Ask God”. Einstein postulated an amazing idea of space-time and that masses warp space-time and that is why thing fall. But again, challenged as to why masses warp space-time, all he could answer is – “Ask God”. But, to this day, we still don’t know why gravity does what it does. We can’t see it. We can see its effects, but we don’t really understand it. I would pose to you that the same is true of God. You don’t see God right now, but you can see God’s effects throughout the universe, human history, and within our own limited experiences.
The next way I’ll challenge your thinking about this is by posing the question – “Have you ever met someone that denies the existence of the Sun?” Ridiculous you might say. Just take such a person out on a sunny day and show them it is there and I’d agree. Case closed. However, suppose that person lived deep underground all their lives. You might claim to such a person that the Sun exists, but even with your most emphatic claims – they could simply deny such a thing. Because to them, all they know is the dark underground and fiery flying objects sounds like a rather odd and suspicious claim to them (no matter how sane the claimant may seem). Unless they make the effort to actually climb out of their cave and take a look – there really is no way to settle the argument.
So, here is my challenge to you. Climb out of your cave. That is what I did. I was surprised by the result – even converting to Mormonism as odd as that would seem to some. The reason we don’t see God is because that is the structure of life and necessary for free-will and choice. It wouldn’t be an object of belief and debate if God were to be visible to all (your empirical proof). It would be much as my “Sun denier” on a sunny day. God must choose us – but we need to make ourselves available by conducting ourselves in such a way as to be in tune with that great intelligent being and ready for the challenge.
6 February 2008 at 1:56 am
Tobin: thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Essentially, you’re saying two things:
1) We don’t understand how gravity and space-time work, therefore God. (And, presumably, angels and gold plates.)
It doesn’t follow. If we don’t understand gravity, then we can use the scientific method to try to understand it better, and people are doing this work right now. We can’t really use supernatural beings to understand it. What do we do? Pray to them? What do they say? Oh, everyone’s god says something different. Not a very good research program!
Your argument goes by the name of “God of the Gaps“. There are things we don’t understand, and people try to fit God in there. But as we understand more, the role of God is going to shrink and shrink. It doesn’t give God much of a future.
2) Evidence for God comes from experiencing God. This is a problem because it assumes that your experiences can’t be wrong. In fact, our experiences turn out wrong all the time! Ask any officer who’s had to get statements from witnesses at the scene of an accident. Our experiences are shaded by our expectations, they get reconstructed according to our later needs, and our memories are unreliable. See this page for more on anecdotal evidence.
Our feeling and experiences, though important to us, are not good evidence for anything other than what we’re feeling. They’re certainly not good evidence for the existence of some being. When I began to understand the human tendency for self-deception, I wondered how it could be that all my spiritual feelings and experiences were just made up. Some of them seemed so powerful! But I had to be humble about it and realise that I’d been conditioned by years of religious training and group psychology. I was seeing and feeling what I expected to see and feel.
It shouldn’t be surprising that the things you choose to believe start seeming more believable. Anything will seem more believable once you choose to believe it, whether it’s right or not. That’s a very human tendency. The scientific method helps to control for this, so we can start to see things a little more like they really are.
6 February 2008 at 9:30 am
I feel the need to pipe up.
Tobin, a phenomena can have many causes. Simply picking a being who is invisible and allegedly in control of the entire universe is a really convenient, dead end, brick wall, waste of time, unproveable and completely horrific conclusion!
Sure, we can still work within that idea, but progress would be, umm, nil.
If you pretend to know the cause then you stop looking. If you stop looking you don’t find a better answer, you don’t even find alternative answers.
Evidence that we don’t know it all is not evidence for a God.
I was surprised you didn’t use the example that I would have. How did the universe come into existence? Theory: The Big Bang theory. Ok, How did the big bang occur? and where did the materials for that to occur come from?
But this question STILL doesn’t present evidence for a supernatural ruler of the universe, omnipotent, crazy awesome being. But, that is one of many causes that could be theorised.
If you’re going to bring it down to nuts and bolts, than religion is also a theory, a theory with an all knowing and all powerful being at its centre.
‘..but you can see God’s effects throughout the universe, human history, and within our own limited experiences.’ And end quote.
That’s right, limited experiences! Don’t forget that not only are we a pathetic dot in the universe, we’re also an insignificant smudge in time. How can we even begin to pretend that we ‘know’ that there is a God? How can we profess to believe in such a thing?
Easy. You’ve experienced God. Please elaborate. Please tell us of these experiences as I have done in years past myself, of things which felt so real, so honest, so true that I believed them to my very core.
6 February 2008 at 6:40 pm
Tobin,
I’ve been listening to you and yes, I DO think you are comfortable in your own skin.
Now lets see, If God exists one can experiance Him on a personal level. You have experianced God so you are a beleiver. I also have experianced “God”, but choose not to beleive (I find that there are simpler explanations for that experiance that CAN be reproduced.) Therefor your understanding of God is more valid and I am broken.
I think I just got whiplash from this logical loop I am in. I guess I just need to keep praying until I feel the same as you.
7 February 2008 at 7:09 pm
Tobin,
Your argument about cavemen and the existence of a sun reminds me of Flatland, a story by Edwin Abbott that was endlessly referenced by a maths lecturer and I never bothered to read.
It involves 3 dimensional creatures venturing into a two dimensional world (where they merely look two dimensional to the inhabitants) , and trying to prove the existence of a third dimension. They fail. Obviously, there is evidence for a third dimension, it is just completely out of the reach of the ‘flatlanders’.
So perhaps there is a set of people that have access to this evidence of God, in the form of ‘experiences’, unaccessible to those who have not ‘stepped out of their cave’.
But surely God can forgive me if i don’t buy into religion if he hasn’t provided me with this evidence from the beginning. And he’s provided no hint of this ‘religious experience’ which could possibly persuade me to take the big step of ‘coming out of my cave’ in search of the full deal. His bad.
7 February 2008 at 10:12 pm
I haven’t responded till now because I believe people should have an opportunity to reflect on what has been posted. Certainly if others wish to post comments to me or to others, please feel free. I’ll respond in due course. Anyway, I’m going to address my comments starting with the most recent and working back from there as I get time and after due consideration of what each person has said. So, without further delay, Anon:
Your observation is excellent. I’m an avid reader (something I believe people do entirely too little of now days) and am very familiar with Abbot’s work “Flatland”. I also like your succinctness in identifying the root of my argument. I passionately believe people should have “good” reasons for what they do and what they believe. I, for one, do not believe you should believe in God unless you have experienced God first hand. I think that is the key and then you go from there. All other jumping off points into religion seems to me to be a complete waste of time. However, if you have not had such an experience (and I mean something that is convincing, not transitory or easily dismissed), I would caution you to have an open mind about such things. I believe individuals close themselves off entirely from having such an opportunity because they preclude such a possibility (a reality in my case) and conduct themselves in such a way as to prevent this type of encounter.
So, ask yourself and look at your life and determine for yourself if that may be possible. If it is, change and be better. Be good to people, treat them kindly and with understanding. I certainly don’t have a problem with anyone that lives a good life, but doesn’t believe in God because they have not had any interaction with God directly.
7 February 2008 at 11:04 pm
Jeffery: Perhaps the word “broken” is too harsh in describing what I’m driving at. The mistake that people make is in believing all interactions with God are equivalent. I would pose to you that this is not the case. It is more a seismic scale of interactions with God from seeing God directly all the way down to warm “fuzzy” feelings. A lot of Mormons (and ex-Mormons) I encounter have had these feelings. Such feelings are easily dismissed. However, many Mormons (and it is clearly something you were taught from your comment) believe that to know God, all one needs to do is to blather to God about the insignificant stuff of their lives (err prayer) – get a warm “fuzzy” – and Walla, magic-presto “I’ve had an spiritual experience with God”. Personally, I hate that crap and see it as pointless. I get warm “fuzzy” feelings from indigestion and when I go to the opera. But I for one really don’t think one should base their relationship with God on feeling one gets because they ate something disagreeable a few hours before.
8 February 2008 at 1:19 am
But here’s the problem: let’s say you did have an ‘experience with God’. (And I do remember those — they’re amazing.)
How do you know that it was really God you were experiencing? It could have been Zeus. It could have been your own feelings. You could have been responding to some kind of pressure to feel that way. It could have been, as you say, something you ate. It could even be Satan trying to trick you.
How do you tell the difference? What makes you so sure that your feelings couldn’t be wrong? Are you infallible?
The only reason you have for thinking it was God is that you’re super-duper certain. That’s not good enough. You can be mistaken.
8 February 2008 at 1:21 am
Rebecca: Interesting. From your perspective, you find the existence of God not only debilitating, but a pointless excuse for explaining phenomena we currently don’t understand. And you know what? You are correct, from that point of view (which also seems to be a very traditional theological view of God too which I hate).
Now, look at it from my point of view. I view God as the instigator of human progress and endeavors. The inspirer and author of our yearnings to improve and find out really what is going on (the “truth”). It is God inspiring mankind to improve and investigate – putting magnificent people in place at key junctions in time who I’ll term prophets (“truth” seekers) to drive our understanding of not only the universe but of each other forward. Great men and women of science like Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Marie Curie to name a few. Great men of liberty like the framers of the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King in the United States. So to me, the fact there is a God is not debilitating at all. It is inspiring. It is also interesting that many of these people cited had a profound belief in God, these giants of intellect and courage upon whose shoulders we stand today.
Now, as to my experiences with God and not to sound arrogant (as I have been accused), but it really isn’t anybodies business. My passion is for people to obtain their own experiences with God since relying upon my experiences is not only short-sighted, but futile. Often Mormons feel the need to offer their most poignant and personal experiences up to derision as proof of their claims. I think they are idiots. However, to satiate your curiosity – I’ll outline one encounter I had for you in general terms (I have had others, but of a much lesser degree):
A) It involved a being other than any that had been known to be present in a locked apartment prior to the event. B) We weren’t praying, at church, or seeking an encounter. C) It involved more than one person and everyone present had the encounter. D) It was not a positive encounter – “a feel good” moment where we were being informed as to our great nature. E) There was not only a forceful physical impact, but a mental and emotional impact upon everyone present at the encounter. F) I don’t ever wish to repeat that encounter and it was so shocking to me – it is encoded in the genes of my long term memory. I can remember the encounter in crystal clarity (as can others present). And that is all I’m going to say about it.
8 February 2008 at 7:48 am
Aha! You extracted my feelings straight from my writing. You’re right, I do think that a belief in God is debilitating and a pointless excuse for explaining phenomena we currently don’t understand. You’ve summed up my thoughts eloquently and succinctly.
Your view of God is very poetic, very story-like, and very comforting. But you won’t be surprised to read me say that I think that religion is a very warm and comforting security blanket which you’re snuggled into.
It’s your prerogative whether or not you share in great detail your experiences with ‘God’, and I respect your decision to do so. It probably isn’t anyone’s business. However, you did use it as evidence and therefore it seemed fair to query it further.
8 February 2008 at 4:39 pm
Ugh. How about we not go there. Then it’s like: Thanks for telling me a very personal story that’s important to you. Now I will crap all over it and tell you it’s all in your head. No, thank you.
Suffice to say that Tobin has had very significant experiences in his life that he is certain are from God and not Zeus, and he also somehow knows that it’s the Real Deal, and not one of those lesser experiences that other people get where they think they’re hearing from God but aren’t really.
8 February 2008 at 6:58 pm
And Daniel, can I just add to that paragraph, And since we don’t see things the same way WE MUST be doing something wrong, otherwise we would also have experiences that would preclude our disbeleif.
8 February 2008 at 8:56 pm
Daniel: I know you’ve been waiting for me to respond to you with baited breath. Yes and no, in answer to your summation of my comment. Actually, backup and reverse that. No and yes. Let me explain:
I was not saying God is in the Gaps – not at all. What I was trying to say (and I apparently failed miserably at doing so) is that God’s influence is all around us (much like gravity). Whether we choose to perceive it and how we perceive is up to the observer but that does not change the fact it exists. Everyone has their own theories (including you I might add – being that it is all a delusion, mass hysteria, cats-sleeping-with-dogs type stuff) and it is my way of trying to explain to you that I have my own theories which I have shared liberally in the forum, but that I also fully recognize that I suffer from those same limitations. To be able answer all your questions about God to your satisfaction is simply beyond my abilities. In such instances, my fall back is the same as any of the great minds have done when perceiving truth about phenomena (gravity in my example) – and that is to ask God.
As to my caveman example, yes that is what I’m saying. If God exists, God must be able to demonstrate that God exists. If that is not the case, what is the point of believing in an impotent God? Now, to use your very own example, I fully concede that people’s perception of the same event may vary. That is a given and due to our own limitations. However, your example was that of a scene of an accident and I would point out to you that even though people’s perception of the same event may vary that does not change the fact that there was an accident.
8 February 2008 at 9:51 pm
getting a little tired of the lame examples. Tobin, in your real life example all you are proving is that “something” happened to you and a small group of people (That would be the same as “the crash” in daniel’s example)saying that it proves God exists would be the perseption part of your example and you’ve already conceeded that your (and everyone’s) perception is limited. and that is the very Good Reason that we use logic and science as our tools for understanding the reality we find ourselves in. These are the tools that bring us out of the cave, not a beleif in the supernatural.
9 February 2008 at 6:10 am
God is like gravity? No, we can do tests on gravity to show that it exists. These tests rely on empirical observation. Your test for God relies on the suspension of disbelief and on perceptual fallacies, including anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias, subjective validation, and selective sampling, to name only a few.
When Tobin began commenting, I asked him to do one thing: Give some kind of empirical evidence for his claim that a god exists. Given his confidence, this should have been easy.
Instead, he has given us an anecdote and lots of handwaving about how his experience should be counted as evidence on account of its being so amazing. It is not evidence. It is an anecdote, and more information on why anecdotes are not evidence can be found here.
No one ever gives good evidence for the existence of supernatural beings, yet they stride in and proclaim that it’s true, and we’ll all know it when it’s too late. Well, I call shenanigans.
I repeat: empirical evidence for your claim, not feelings or experiences.
11 February 2008 at 10:59 pm
Tobin,
To be kind, after re-reading your posts here, since you are a dedicated LDS member, I need to suggest that you talk with your bishop about your ideas of prayer and personal revelations. You may need a little guidance in this area before you stray into area’s considered apostacy by the leaders of the church.
12 February 2008 at 1:36 am
Jeffery: Thank you for your concern and I know what you are driving at. Fortunately, I don’t live in Utah and haven’t had the misfortune of having to deal with leaders there that have limited views to put it nicely. I don’t know how much of the church you experienced when you were a member, but there is a large range of members from the very conservative to the very liberal. And yes, I’ve had plenty for frank discussions with members and leaders of the church and we tend to understand each other. Note, I did not say we agree with each other, but they understand these are my perspectives and I don’t speak for the church as a whole. I’m happy to let others make up their own minds. Anyway, what did I say that troubles you? Maybe I can clarify.
12 February 2008 at 2:18 am
We had both kinds in our town. I feel lucky that we had a disproportionate share of liberal Mormons, but the few conservatives there were tended to take up all the oxygen.