Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Page 30 of 126

Why science is better than religion: The Hell Conflict

30 March 2011 / / Comments Off on Why science is better than religion: The Hell Conflict

Lots of Christian denominations try to downplay the doctrine of Hell, for obvious reasons. It seems inconsistent for a loving god to torture people for eternity, when their sins were of finite duration. Nonetheless, the Bible depicts Jesus teaching that people will be tortured in Hell for eternity. With lots and lots of fire.

One Methodist pastor has been let go because he was humane enough to question this doctrine.

A pastor at a Methodist Church in North Carolina lost his job after questioning traditional views on the nature of hell.

Chad Holtz got his walking papers after posting a note on Facebook supporting a controversial book by an evangelical preacher that rethinks hell as a place for billions of damned souls.

“I think justice comes and judgment will happen, but I don’t think that means an eternity of torment,” Holtz said. “I can understand why people in my church aren’t ready to leave that behind. It’s something I’m still grappling with myself.”

Because eternal torture is, you know, such an appealing notion.

The money quote for me comes from Alfred Mohler, discussing the book at the center of the conflict:

“I just felt like on every page he’s trying to say ‘It’s OK,'” said Southern Baptist Seminary President Albert Mohler at a forum last week on Bell’s book held at the Louisville institution. “And there’s a sense in which we desperately want to say that. But the question becomes, on what basis can we say that?“

That is a really good question: On what basis could we say that someone is, or is not, in Hell? Anyway.

Was it right for the church to oust its pastor? Usually you wouldn’t say that someone should be fired for their belief, but when their business is promoting a belief, then belief is no longer a matter of conscience; it’s a job qualification.

This kind of conflict is an inevitable consequence when these three conditions are met (and in most religions, they are all present to some degree):

1. Faith is touted as a supreme virtue
2. Uniformity of belief is considered desirable
3. Beliefs are unmoored from any empirical base

Point 3 ensures that someone will arrive at a different belief than the mainstream, since there’s no way to verify whether beliefs are true.
Point 2 ensures a conflict between believers who believe differently.
Point 1 makes it difficult to abandon beliefs blithely, so this can entail personal dramas and crises of conscience.

Compare what happens in the sciences.

1. Doubt is the modus operandi. Faith is considered an impediment, not a virtue.
2. The group eventually arrives at a consensus. This is different from groupthink, because innovation is also valued. Anyone who can topple an old established theory using evidence becomes famous.
3. The court of appeal is the world of empirical data, so conflicts can be resolved experimentally for well-defined questions.

This is how science can provide a way to answer well-defined questions, and why groups of scientists do not need to excommunicate each other or burn each other at the stake.

A chat with Dallin H. Oaks

27 March 2011 / / 34 Comments

I was talking to Mormon apostle Dallin H. Oaks just the other day, and for some reason, we started talking about gay marriage. He was able to clear up a few things for me.

Dallin H. Oaks has elaborated on these ideas from time to time.

Does going to church make you fat?

25 March 2011 / / 2 Comments

This is odd, coming from Time:

Why Going to Church Can Make You Fat

Maybe it’s all the church socials, but a new study finds that those who attend religious activities are more likely to gain weight than those who don’t go to church as often.
Religious involvement is linked to many positive health outcomes, such as happiness, lower rates of smoking and alcohol use, and even a longer life. But research has also suggested that middle-aged adults who are more religious are more likely to be obese. Past data have noted only a correlation between religiosity and weight gain, however; they did not show whether participating in religious activities leads to weight gain, or whether overweight individuals are more likely to seek support in their faith.

I say this is strange because there’s a more obvious correlation: both religious attendance and obesity are tied to poverty.

The link between poverty and obesity is fairly well-known. Unhealthy food is cheaper.

Also well-known is the correlation between poverty and religiosity. (Even the Book of Mormon complains about it.) People in poorer areas rely more on social networks and promises of a better world.

Education level may be driving this as well. Low education is tied to poverty, and there is a connection between education level and religiosity.

The correlation between poverty and religiosity is interesting to me for another reason. The fact that wealthy people are less likely to be religious tells me that religion is what economists call an ‘inferior good‘. Like the no-name brands in the supermarket, religion gets less demand when times are good. People pass it over and go for what’s better if they have a choice.

Proof is not in the eye of the beholder if they won’t show it to you.

22 March 2011 / / 9 Comments

I’m not a masochist, but I do check the Mormon Times occasionally. And Michael R. Ash’s latest column is a corker: Proof is in the eye of the beholder.

The next several installments will deal with evidence, proof, faith and Book of Mormon archaeology.

Evidence for the Book of Mormon? At last! Unfortunately, he then spends the entire column making excuses for why we shouldn’t expect evidence. That’s always a bad sign. If he had the evidence, he would rely on it. Instead, there’s tap dancing.

I should note two important points regarding the nature of evidence and the necessity of faith. First, I’m unconvinced that any critic would “convert” because of some alleged “proof” because I doubt that any “proof” could ever satisfy those who have truly hardened their hearts against Joseph Smith.

This is not quite right. When I deconverted, it was not because I had ‘hardened my heart’. In fact, I spent years making excuses for the church and trying to shoehorn the facts into my narrow religious belief. Only when I realised that it had no evidentiary basis did I abandon the religion I’d invested so much in.

Now, as someone who’s doing science, I will change my mind if the facts require. I can think of a few things that would make me reconsider the Book of Mormon. One would be evidence of Hebrew or Egyptian writing in Mesoamerica. Another would be if a Native American language showed good linguistic evidence of Hebrew or Egyptian loanwords — solid patterns of correspondence, not piecemeal lists of ‘similarities’. If Ash has this evidence, let him say so.

I might say that Ash’s presumption may be based on his own attitude. I wonder what evidence he’d accept that his beliefs are in error. I hope he shows up in comments, because I’d really like to ask him that one question.

Here’s his other point.

Secondly, the Lord doesn’t work via secular proofs because that would confound the primary principle of agency. While there are evidences that support religious convictions, there are no intellectually decisive proofs, and there will always be evidences that conflict with our beliefs
…
Non-LDS philosophers have argued that in order for us to have spiritual freedom — freedom to make choices — God cannot allow us to know — by secular proof alone — that he exists.
…
If humans had incontrovertible secular evidence for the existence of God, they would be unable to freely choose whether or not to accept God.

So God exists, but he’s not going to give any evidence. And then when I don’t believe in him, he’s going to punish me for not believing in him despite the lack of evidence. If that’s the case, then he values ignorance over knowledge, which is not the kind of being I’d want to worship.

There’s something odd about Ash’s post. Take another look at his two reasons for not giving evidence.

Point 1: If you gave someone evidence, they could still just reject it.
Point 2: If you gave someone evidence, it would destroy their agency because they’d be unable to reject it.

So which is it? Can someone reject evidence, or can’t they? He’s rested his case on two points that contradict each other.

Is this really the best the Mormon Times can do?

I’m in the Trib.

20 March 2011 / / 3 Comments

Well, hot dog. Good Reason has been noticed by the Salt Lake Tribune, with a snippet of the ‘Flame-Retardant Tabernacle Jesus‘ post appearing within its august pages.

Not everyone was so impressed. Former Utahn Daniel Midgley, an ex-Mormon atheist who writes the blog Good Reason — goodreasonblog.blogspot.com — argued that those who find anything miraculous in the fire are “cherry-picking” the facts.

“One might wonder why the Mormon god would allow a church building to be destroyed by fire as he watches, pitiless and indifferent to human affairs,” Midgley wrote. “One might even wonder what message he intends to send. Perhaps an Old Testament-style message of anger and vengeance! The fire and destruction symbolic of the wrath to come. … But wait! It’s a Christmas miracle!”

In Midgley’s view, those who saw God’s hand in the scarred painting of Christ were using the same sort of broken logic that would allow some to see a “miracle” in a plane crash in which hundreds die and one person survives. Believers are quick to make such connections, Midgley wrote, “because in the face of disaster, there are only two possible outcomes — either your faith is boosted or your faith is boosted more. You have to admire their optimism, at least.”

I like the sound of ‘Former Utahn’, but does it count if you were only going to BYU? Will my LDS relatives notice my name and discover I’m an ex-Mormon atheist? Of course not. They all read the Deseret News.

Anyway, a big hello to all Tribune readers! I hope you either chortle with unholy mirth, or are offended. Either way, have a look around and comment if you wish.

Why is BYU so important to the LDS Church?

18 March 2011 / / 4 Comments

Some interesting documents are coming out of Canada these days. Because it’s registered as a charity, the LDS Church is required to report statistics about its spending. (Love the transparency. America, you could work on this.)

This caught my attention:

3) In 2009, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Canada gave $40,000,000 to BYU Provo. In other words, 57.9% of the money received from the wards that year.

Wow. Forty mil per year going to BYU, and that’s just from Canada. I wonder how much it’s netting in total.

One might wonder why the Mormon Church sees fit to pour that kind of money into a university. You could argue it’s to promote the fiction that faith and science are somehow compatible. I know that sounds like a strange principle to spend so much money on, but the Templeton Foundation spends big money just to promote that view. But in BYU’s case, I don’t think that’s the reason.

I think it’s about ‘Bubble creation’.


This is a good intro to bubbles.

Beliefs don’t last long in isolation, especially false ones. They need constant propping up. Communities of belief typically use some form of communal reinforcement — they constantly affirm the group’s beliefs, telling each other how true they are, and to some extent controlling the information available to members of the group.

I call this “the Bubble”. Inside the Mormon Bubble, it’s comfortable and non-challenging. Criticisms from the outside are muted, and affirmations amplified. The Bubble is absolutely vital to maintaining religious faith, especially for uni students, who are just being exposed to new ideas and (le gasp) scientific inquiry.

So BYU functions as a Mormon Bubble for uni students who have just left their parents’ home (which is often a Bubble itself) or transitioning to or from the mission field (another Bubble). You also find yourself in a largely Mormon dating pool, from which you may select a mate and create another Bubble in the form of an LDS home. That kind of Bubble can last for the rest of your life, and serves to propagate LDS memes as more people are raised in Mormon Bubbles.

Without a Bubble Factory like BYU to take young Mormons through that transitional period in their lives, I don’t know if the Mormon Church would survive. Certainly its leaders see it as vital enough to pour millions into it, and I don’t think it’s all for the benefit of science.

Vegetarians disqualified for adoption?

17 March 2011 / / 1 Comment

Tentatively re-entering the world of the blog with this news item.

Vegetarian couple barred from adopting in Greece

A VEGETARIAN couple on the Greek island of Crete has been barred from adopting a child because of doubts about their diet, a local social welfare official said today.

The decision was taken because the would-be adoptive parents, who have gone to court to overturn it, eat no meat or fish and officials feared this regimen would be applied to the child as well.

I’m used to people wondering if I’m getting enough protein. (I am.) But do they think that a vegetarian diet is borderline abusive or something? I haven’t encountered this level of cluelessness in my travels.

But then they got an expert. Surely he’ll tell the authorities not to worry.

“It’s unreasonable not to be given the child for being vegetarian,” said Antonis Kafatos, a pediatrician and nutrition researcher.

“A child needs to eat fish, seafood and dairy products among other things, without meat being essential. But if the family has no intention of imposing its diet habits on the child, I don’t see where the problem is,” he said.

I give up. I guess I can cross Greece off my list of ‘places I can get a decent vegetarian meal’. They’ll just look at me and wonder what I mean.

On second thought, I should just send Oldest Son over to Greece. He’s 16, vegetarian, and muscly. He’ll beat some sense into them.

I dumped my World Vision kid

10 March 2011 / / 10 Comments

It had to be done.

‘Capsicun’ with an [n]: A QLD instance

9 March 2011 / / Comments Off on ‘Capsicun’ with an [n]: A QLD instance

I’m always looking for people who say ‘capsicun’ with an [n] instead of ‘capsicum’ with an [m]. But so far I haven’t found anyone who says it outside of Western Australia.

Until now. This is a clip from Seven’s ‘My Kitchen Rules‘. First, Peter says it the regular way, and then Johnny from Queensland says it with an [n], as clear as can be.

What I tell my children about sex

5 March 2011 / / 6 Comments

Sometimes you want to talk about sex, and sometimes it is thrust upon you. Like this week, when a BYU basketball player was nixed off the team for an ‘honor code violation’, which turned out to be consensual sex with his girlfriend.

Some people are congratulating the BYU for standing up for old-fashioned values like sexual repression. It ties in neatly with a recent article by K-Lo of the National Review about her longing for a new sexual revolution, except without the sex. Others are congratulating BYU for upholding their ‘honor code‘ at great cost to themselves. Of course, the BYU ‘honor code’ has as much to do with honor as an ‘honor killing‘ does — in both cases, it’s about social control.

And that’s the real thrust of this issue: The Mormon Church (and to varying degrees, the rest of Christianity along with many other religions) claims the right to control the sexual behaviour of other adults, and for some reason these adults allow them to have that right. The church claims this right in the name of moral purity or social order, but I think it’s really because sex competes with the church. Sex makes you feel good, and this is a challenge to a church that wants to be the only source of good feelings — indeed, a church which enshrines good feelings as the highest form of evidence. So they try to take over sex by controlling the conditions under which it occurs.

Sex is normal. Critters have been bonking each other since there was bonking. But if you do something perfectly normal that the church has prohibited, and you admit that what you did was wrong, then they’ve got you. You owe them now. They hold the keys to your forgiveness, your imaginary salvation, and your entry into Fictional Heaven. But only if you hand them the right to control that most personal part of yourself.

(Especially to young Mormons: Your bishop has no right to take you behind closed doors and question you about your sexual or masturbatory habits. This is creepy behaviour. Tell him it’s private.)

I endured a Mormon upbringing, which meant that I was loaded with messages about sexual guilt from since I was about yay-high. The messages were also strangely vague. When I asked my mom about sex, she threw me a book about animal reproduction, which was confusing. Was I supposed to have sex, or amplexus? My dad’s advice was gruff, but simple: “Don’t do the Marriage Thing.” He said sex was a priesthood ordinance. (I asked him if that meant that if you got the words wrong, you had to start again? He smiled at this, despite himself.)

My advice to my boys has been different. I hope that they get all the love they could ever wish for, both in body and heart. But the pursuit of love must be conducted with responsibility.

The responsibility I’m talking about takes four forms:

Take care of your body, and those of others.
Take care of your heart, and those of others.

The first two are related:

Take care of your body, and those of others.

This means if you’re sexually active, don’t have unprotected sex. Condoms are available at my place, and the boys know where they are. They know this because recently I was looking for something in a bathroom drawer, and hollered, “I can’t find anything in this drawer for all the condoms in here! I wouldn’t mind if they disappeared!” Clumsy, but effective.

Care for your body also means that if you are sexually active, you occasionally get tested for HIV, chlamydia, and all the other nasties that are out there. Don’t be Patient X.

Take care of your heart…

Taking care of your heart could mean a lot of things. I think of it as not getting involved with people who are bad for you, either because they’re using you at your expense, they’re mean or careless with your feelings, or they’re physically or verbally abusive. Value yourself enough to not have a sexual relationship with people who are wrong for you. The cost is too high.

…and those of others.

Look out for the feelings of other people. The philosopher Martin Buber described two kinds of relationships: ‘It’ and ‘You’. This applies to sex. You can have sex because you like the person (a ‘You’ relationship), or you can have sex because you like the sex (the ‘It’). I think either’s fine, but your goals have to match those of your sex partner.

That means taking the time to DTR. Define the Relationship before having sex, and make sure you both want the same thing. If she’s having a ‘You’ experience, and you just want ‘It’, then there’s a mismatch. Best to let it go. There are lots of people that you can find ‘it’ with. Otherwise, you’re just screwing someone over, and that’s not taking care of other people’s hearts. I’m pleased to say that I’m on good terms with people in my past because I took the time to DTR.

I think this advice is much more helpful than the ‘Never Never’ advice I got as a young man. Talking about sexual responsibility instead of sexual avoidance allows that young people are likely to engage in sexual behaviour, and reduces the likelihood of negative consequences.

So my message is: When you’re ready to have a sex life, have a good one. But do so responsibly. I’m here to help, but if you don’t want to talk to me, talk to someone you trust. And I hope you have some great experiences.

« Older posts Newer posts »

Meta

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑