In the Mormon church, the men are given what is called the "priesthood." The priesthood is believed to be the power/authority of God to administer church ordinances (sacraments), perform miracles, heal the sick, heck even create worlds. Mormons believe that this power was given to the apostles by Jesus, but was lost from the earth when all the original apostles died. They believe that it was then restored to the earth through angelic visitors (first, a reanimated John the Baptist, and later, Peter, James, and John) to Joseph Smith, the church's founder. The "priesthood" is a pretty big deal to the church and they take it very seriously. Needless to say, the actual events of the priesthood "restoration" are highly dubious, as discussed here.
Nevertheless, the priesthood plays a major role in the Mormon church today. Only men receive it. Women are (conveniently) assigned the task of child bearing and rearing, so that is their equivalent function. Mormons believe that the priesthood is required to receive special revelations on behalf of the church or congregations, and thus church leadership is dominated by men only. There is the concept of "honoring" one's priesthood, which essentially means serving in the church, doing what you're told, and following the rules. Mormon men will ascend the ranks of church leadership to the extent they are believed to "magnify" and honor their priesthood responsibilities.
Authorities in the church are highly respected. A bishop, for example, is a man called to oversee a single Mormon congregation (termed a "ward"), much like a pastor. He is generally highly esteemed by his members and other congregation leaders. Above a bishop is a stake president, who oversees a cluster of wards. He, in turn, is even more highly esteemed and respected by the members of these wards. Above the stake president are regional authorities, area authorities, and then the top echelons of church leadership: general authorities. These men are called "seventies" (of the first and second quorums of the seventy) and above them, apostles (the quorum of the twelve apostles). These men are revered and practically worshiped by faithful church members, many of whom believe that these men are in frequent, direct communion with God or Jesus.
Because church leaders are so respected, there is latent competition to aspire to leadership positions. This competition is reinforced by many Mormon women, who are taught from a young age that they should only marry a "worthy priesthood holder" who can take them to the Mormon holy temple for eternal marriage. Thus, Mormon women will often demand, either openly or privately, a mate who "honors his priesthood." (If you browse any Mormon dating websites, you will see language to this effect.)
Now all of this would be well and good if "honoring" the priesthood was the equivalent to being a good person. But that is not the case. Now, to be fair, there will be substantial overlap in the Venn diagram of "Honoring Priesthood" and "Being a Good Person," but the overlap is not complete. The two are not one and the same. To be a good priesthood holder, you must attend countless meetings which take away from time with your family, or time better spent fostering meaningful relationships with friends or the community. You will also be expected to frequently attend the Mormon temples, where "service" is done for dead people. (That's right: service....for dead people.) You will be expected to fulfill church assignments that may or may not be productive, needed, or useful (e.g. visiting people who have no desire to be visited).
One might object at this point and say that all the "negatives" I just mentioned are simply in addition to what it takes to be a basic, good person. A Mormon might say that honoring his priesthood means doing all the good things in the "Being a Good Person" circle in the Venn diagram, and then some. In their minds, perhaps, the "Honoring One's Priesthood" circle fully encompasses the lesser "Being a Good Person" circle. For the reasons stated above, I disagree. There is only so much time in the day, and aside from basic responsibilities such as work and living, a Mormon man will have a relatively small budget of time with which to do other things. Often, he will be forced to choose between tasks required to honor his priesthood responsibilities, or activities that might strengthen his bonds with family and friends. He cannot be in two places at once, so a choice must be made. And, needless to say, church assignments are not categorically more worthy of one's time than family activities. They also are certainly not automatically better than many other activities not related to family at all.
On a separate but related topic, the Mormon priesthood allows Mormon males to develop a certain aspect of their personality that is of limited practical value, but which still enjoys high artificial value in the minds of Mormons. This can be illustrated in the competitive world of mate selection. In the real world, men will compete for the attention of women based on looks, intelligence, personality, and sense of humor. All of these factors play a role in the Mormon world, as well, but there is one "trump" factor in the form of spirituality and the priesthood. A man may neglect to develop other real-world facets of his persona that might make a normal man attractive or competitive in favor of one that is only valuable within the Mormon religious context. So who cares if the Mormon man has let himself go physically and has the personality of a wet towel: at least he's spiritual and attends all his priesthood meetings! If Mormons were completely isolated from the real world, perhaps this warped values system would work out just fine; but they're not. And to the extent these less useful characteristics are reinforced and propagated to the next generation, they serve as a great disservice to Mormons trying to function in the real world. Outside of the church, no one cares that you attend your priesthood meetings or have hundreds of scriptures memorized. Such skills have little practical value.
I have often thought of Mormonism as a big bubble, just waiting to burst. People toe the line and keep reaffirming beliefs because they see everyone else doing it. The value attached to honoring one's priesthood is similarly a bubble. As more and more people come to realize how tenuous and preposterous this priesthood notion is, the bubble will eventually burst. Lord have mercy on the Mormon men at that time who have sunk so much capital into this worthless asset. For them, it may be too late to develop the skills and character necessary to make it outside of the church.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
"Church Leaders Aren't Perfect"
Critics of past or present Mormon church leaders are often met with this retort by believing Mormons or apologists. It is variously put as "Prophets are imperfect men when not speaking under the power and inspiration of the Spirit" or "the church is perfect but its members/leaders aren't." Okay, I agree that no Mormon "prophet" has ever been perfect. However, I don't know that this excuse has the explanatory power commonly attributed to it.
This justification might account for inadvertent mistakes. For example, a miscalculation of how long it might take to cross the plains, or how much food would be needed for the journey. That could be a product of well-intentioned but erroneous thinking. Another more 'innocent' mistake might be found in Joseph's loss of the 116 pages. He certainly didn't intend for them to be lost, but he ultimately ignored his reservations and allowed Martin Harris to take them; sure enough, they were never seen again.
But many (perhaps most) of the criticisms leveled against these imperfect prophetic personages do not involve innocent or inadvertent (negligent) mistakes. Rather, they are deliberate and calculated actions for which no apology is offered or expected. These are not "oops" moments. They are not "I used my best judgment, but things went awry" situations. You don't accidentally or carelessly marry 14-year-old girls. You don't mistakenly order the slaughter of hundreds of men, women, and children. You don't accidentally concoct a bunch of nonsense and call it a literal translation of ancient Egyptian papyri. You don't mistakenly ban the priesthood from a certain race for over 150 years. You don't accidentally teach false notions on the origin of Adam and God. Indeed, when it comes to spiritual matters, this is supposed to be the domain and expertise of the Lord's anointed. If there is documented proof that prophets taught concepts that are now declared false doctrine by the church, how does one trust anything else said prophet ever declared?
This excuse should never be used as a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card. Each incident should be evaluated individually to determine whether the man in question made an honest mistake in judgment, or whether he usurped his authority and deliberately did something deplorable. Some situations may be a combination of the two. This notion, like many others in the church, serves as a substitute for critical thinking and keeps naive Mormons in blissful ignorance. It needs to go the way of the dodo.
This justification might account for inadvertent mistakes. For example, a miscalculation of how long it might take to cross the plains, or how much food would be needed for the journey. That could be a product of well-intentioned but erroneous thinking. Another more 'innocent' mistake might be found in Joseph's loss of the 116 pages. He certainly didn't intend for them to be lost, but he ultimately ignored his reservations and allowed Martin Harris to take them; sure enough, they were never seen again.
But many (perhaps most) of the criticisms leveled against these imperfect prophetic personages do not involve innocent or inadvertent (negligent) mistakes. Rather, they are deliberate and calculated actions for which no apology is offered or expected. These are not "oops" moments. They are not "I used my best judgment, but things went awry" situations. You don't accidentally or carelessly marry 14-year-old girls. You don't mistakenly order the slaughter of hundreds of men, women, and children. You don't accidentally concoct a bunch of nonsense and call it a literal translation of ancient Egyptian papyri. You don't mistakenly ban the priesthood from a certain race for over 150 years. You don't accidentally teach false notions on the origin of Adam and God. Indeed, when it comes to spiritual matters, this is supposed to be the domain and expertise of the Lord's anointed. If there is documented proof that prophets taught concepts that are now declared false doctrine by the church, how does one trust anything else said prophet ever declared?
This excuse should never be used as a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card. Each incident should be evaluated individually to determine whether the man in question made an honest mistake in judgment, or whether he usurped his authority and deliberately did something deplorable. Some situations may be a combination of the two. This notion, like many others in the church, serves as a substitute for critical thinking and keeps naive Mormons in blissful ignorance. It needs to go the way of the dodo.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Two Problems with Christianity
During my journey out of Mormonism, I briefly courted the idea of reverting to regular Christianity. (Mormonism is a form of Christianity, although it is a topic of heated debate as to whether the church sufficiently focuses on Jesus.) This may have lasted a month or so.
But I found Christianity to be almost as easily dismissible as Mormonism. (And this was before I read books about how the New Testament was compiled and who the historical Jesus actually was.) Christianity, as I understand it, relies on a central premise that all of us sin and thus become unworthy to be in God's presence. To remedy this, we have to repent and forsake the sins. But for some reason, the Christian God either cannot or will not forgive sins without someone else suffering for them. And that's where Jesus' suffering and death come in. Apparently God needed to punish Jesus (or himself, if we're supposed to make any sense of the trinity) in order to be able to forgive mankind their sins (including the "original" sin of Adam).
If this is true, that God cannot (or will not) forgive sins without punishing someone innocent, then what does that say about him? Perhaps that he is petty, immature, cruel, and unjust? How is it that God, the all-knowing, all-powerful ruler of the universe, requires the punishment of an innocent person to "atone" for the sins of others? Why can't he do what we regular mortals do all the time: forgive and forget. Or, if a law has broken, sentence the wrongdoer to a punishment that is proportional to the wrong, and once the sentence is served, he/she goes free. If you wrong me, and then ask for forgiveness, I'll probably give it to you (depending on the wrong). Maybe I'll require you to make some sort of recompense in the process, but hey, that's fair, right? What I won't do is take out the "pain" of your wrong on some innocent third person, like my neighbor or my dog. If I can forgive without making anyone else atone for the "wrong," then why can't God? If God is concerned with our sins, there is nothing preventing him from just telling us the right way, and then independently deciding to forgive us (and/or punish) when we do wrong. No middleman necessary. Because Jesus is thus unnecessary, I don't believe he is a "savior" of anyone.
Mormonism tries to explain the need for an atonement by claiming that God's justice cannot be "robbed" by mercy. Apparently, there are some cosmic laws of justice God is subject to that not even he can abrogate. But in that case, God is no longer omnipotent, and how can we trust that he'll be able to "save" us at all? The Mormon explanation also seems to ignore the question of why God can't simply satisfy justice by punishing us directly and individually for our sins. Would that really be so hard?
That's the first problem I see. The second is hell. Traditional Christianity teaches us that hell is a place of endless torment for those who sin or don't believe in Jesus. Setting aside the criteria that determine whether one goes to hell or not (which I think is an unnecessary discussion, given the following), consider the concept of hell itself and how it squares with a just God. Our mortal existence is indisputably finite. But Christianity would have us believe that our souls will live forever. Therefore, being sent to hell represents an infinite punishment. That means that an infinite punishment is inflicted for actions/thoughts which are, by necessity, finite. That doesn't match up. If there is some system of morality that dictates the gravity of "sins," then theoretically there should be some corresponding system of punishment commensurate with the severity of such sins. It doesn't matter what sins you committed during your lifetime. Even Hitler's atrocious actions, while incomprehensibly abhorrent, were still finite. Thus, not even he deserves an infinite punishment. Surely there would be some punishment that would be commensurate with his bad acts. Maybe it requires him to suffer in hell for an equal amount of years as the cumulative amount of life that he took. God could figure out a proper number (he's all-knowing, after all). What is certain, however, is that a just God could not possibly sentence someone to any degree of infinite punishment for wrongs that are, by definition, finite. Thus, traditional hell is out of the question, and so is traditional Christianity.
Again, Mormonism tries to get around this obvious injustice by creating the three degrees of glory and then outer darkness. But that really doesn't solve everything. First of all, outer darkness would basically be the Mormon equivalent to Christianity's traditional hell. So again, if anyone goes there (indefinitely) for deeds done in this life, it flies in the face of justice and must be rejected. Also, the lesser degrees of glory don't really solve the problem, either. Mormonism believes that once you're sent to one kingdom, you cannot progress to any other. Thus, you are essentially "damned," in the literal sense of the word. It makes no difference that apparently the lesser kingdoms are still places of glory and wonder. They represent an infinite punishment for thoughts and actions done during a finite existence.
So there you have it. Two of the central doctrines of Christianity are faulty. It seems perfectly clear to me now, but when you're caught up in the system, you don't think to critically examine fundamental doctrines in this manner. In the Mormon church you'll hear people talk about how the atonement is such a mystery and is difficult to comprehend. The reason for this is, presumably, that it's such a deep doctrine. Well that's not the case at all. It's difficult to comprehend because it doesn't make any sense. It's counter intuitive. It doesn't match up with our real world experience. It's nonsense.
But I found Christianity to be almost as easily dismissible as Mormonism. (And this was before I read books about how the New Testament was compiled and who the historical Jesus actually was.) Christianity, as I understand it, relies on a central premise that all of us sin and thus become unworthy to be in God's presence. To remedy this, we have to repent and forsake the sins. But for some reason, the Christian God either cannot or will not forgive sins without someone else suffering for them. And that's where Jesus' suffering and death come in. Apparently God needed to punish Jesus (or himself, if we're supposed to make any sense of the trinity) in order to be able to forgive mankind their sins (including the "original" sin of Adam).
If this is true, that God cannot (or will not) forgive sins without punishing someone innocent, then what does that say about him? Perhaps that he is petty, immature, cruel, and unjust? How is it that God, the all-knowing, all-powerful ruler of the universe, requires the punishment of an innocent person to "atone" for the sins of others? Why can't he do what we regular mortals do all the time: forgive and forget. Or, if a law has broken, sentence the wrongdoer to a punishment that is proportional to the wrong, and once the sentence is served, he/she goes free. If you wrong me, and then ask for forgiveness, I'll probably give it to you (depending on the wrong). Maybe I'll require you to make some sort of recompense in the process, but hey, that's fair, right? What I won't do is take out the "pain" of your wrong on some innocent third person, like my neighbor or my dog. If I can forgive without making anyone else atone for the "wrong," then why can't God? If God is concerned with our sins, there is nothing preventing him from just telling us the right way, and then independently deciding to forgive us (and/or punish) when we do wrong. No middleman necessary. Because Jesus is thus unnecessary, I don't believe he is a "savior" of anyone.
Mormonism tries to explain the need for an atonement by claiming that God's justice cannot be "robbed" by mercy. Apparently, there are some cosmic laws of justice God is subject to that not even he can abrogate. But in that case, God is no longer omnipotent, and how can we trust that he'll be able to "save" us at all? The Mormon explanation also seems to ignore the question of why God can't simply satisfy justice by punishing us directly and individually for our sins. Would that really be so hard?
That's the first problem I see. The second is hell. Traditional Christianity teaches us that hell is a place of endless torment for those who sin or don't believe in Jesus. Setting aside the criteria that determine whether one goes to hell or not (which I think is an unnecessary discussion, given the following), consider the concept of hell itself and how it squares with a just God. Our mortal existence is indisputably finite. But Christianity would have us believe that our souls will live forever. Therefore, being sent to hell represents an infinite punishment. That means that an infinite punishment is inflicted for actions/thoughts which are, by necessity, finite. That doesn't match up. If there is some system of morality that dictates the gravity of "sins," then theoretically there should be some corresponding system of punishment commensurate with the severity of such sins. It doesn't matter what sins you committed during your lifetime. Even Hitler's atrocious actions, while incomprehensibly abhorrent, were still finite. Thus, not even he deserves an infinite punishment. Surely there would be some punishment that would be commensurate with his bad acts. Maybe it requires him to suffer in hell for an equal amount of years as the cumulative amount of life that he took. God could figure out a proper number (he's all-knowing, after all). What is certain, however, is that a just God could not possibly sentence someone to any degree of infinite punishment for wrongs that are, by definition, finite. Thus, traditional hell is out of the question, and so is traditional Christianity.
Again, Mormonism tries to get around this obvious injustice by creating the three degrees of glory and then outer darkness. But that really doesn't solve everything. First of all, outer darkness would basically be the Mormon equivalent to Christianity's traditional hell. So again, if anyone goes there (indefinitely) for deeds done in this life, it flies in the face of justice and must be rejected. Also, the lesser degrees of glory don't really solve the problem, either. Mormonism believes that once you're sent to one kingdom, you cannot progress to any other. Thus, you are essentially "damned," in the literal sense of the word. It makes no difference that apparently the lesser kingdoms are still places of glory and wonder. They represent an infinite punishment for thoughts and actions done during a finite existence.
So there you have it. Two of the central doctrines of Christianity are faulty. It seems perfectly clear to me now, but when you're caught up in the system, you don't think to critically examine fundamental doctrines in this manner. In the Mormon church you'll hear people talk about how the atonement is such a mystery and is difficult to comprehend. The reason for this is, presumably, that it's such a deep doctrine. Well that's not the case at all. It's difficult to comprehend because it doesn't make any sense. It's counter intuitive. It doesn't match up with our real world experience. It's nonsense.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Why a Rational Thinker Leaves the Mormon Church
I read the following letter/essay the other day:
http://pearceonearth.com/why_i_left_the_mormon_church.pdf
As I was reading this letter, I almost felt like I was reading my own thoughts. The first issue he tackled was the unreliability of "spiritual" experiences as indicators of objective truth. "Exactly!" exclaimed my mind.
And then on down the list of many of the bigger issues that expose Mormonism as a fraud. He made a few minor exaggerations here and there, but by and large I thought his treatment was fair. The letter wasn't long enough to give in-depth treatment of the issues, but he summed it up pretty well. I've been working on my own list of "issues" I have with the church. Maybe later I'll post them all.
In a past life, I might have looked at the similarity of thought patterns and conclusions between myself and this author and thought "Wow, there must be some guiding force [God] to our thoughts. This is inspiration!" I would often think things like this when reading the Ensign and seeing the apostles say certain things that I had previously thought up independently. I saw this as evidence of the Holy Ghost speaking the same thing to our independent minds. Now I think that people who think about the same topics long enough will come up with similar "inspiration" related to those topics. So now, when I read this letter, I just think "This must be how rational minds think their way out of the church." It makes sense that the rational path out of the Mormon church (or any religion) would be similar for most people. Conversely, it makes sense for the irrational path into the Mormon church (or any religion) to be similar for most people. This is the brilliance behind testimony meetings. Have people get up there and share their stories (which will often be highly similar to the stories of many others in the congregations), and you get a crowd of people thinking that they're interconnected by some higher being. Not at all. They're simply thinking in similar ways about similar topics.
http://pearceonearth.com/why_i_left_the_mormon_church.pdf
As I was reading this letter, I almost felt like I was reading my own thoughts. The first issue he tackled was the unreliability of "spiritual" experiences as indicators of objective truth. "Exactly!" exclaimed my mind.
And then on down the list of many of the bigger issues that expose Mormonism as a fraud. He made a few minor exaggerations here and there, but by and large I thought his treatment was fair. The letter wasn't long enough to give in-depth treatment of the issues, but he summed it up pretty well. I've been working on my own list of "issues" I have with the church. Maybe later I'll post them all.
In a past life, I might have looked at the similarity of thought patterns and conclusions between myself and this author and thought "Wow, there must be some guiding force [God] to our thoughts. This is inspiration!" I would often think things like this when reading the Ensign and seeing the apostles say certain things that I had previously thought up independently. I saw this as evidence of the Holy Ghost speaking the same thing to our independent minds. Now I think that people who think about the same topics long enough will come up with similar "inspiration" related to those topics. So now, when I read this letter, I just think "This must be how rational minds think their way out of the church." It makes sense that the rational path out of the Mormon church (or any religion) would be similar for most people. Conversely, it makes sense for the irrational path into the Mormon church (or any religion) to be similar for most people. This is the brilliance behind testimony meetings. Have people get up there and share their stories (which will often be highly similar to the stories of many others in the congregations), and you get a crowd of people thinking that they're interconnected by some higher being. Not at all. They're simply thinking in similar ways about similar topics.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Dumbo's Magic Feather
People on the inside (of religion) would look at me now and assume that I must be miserable, having given up an active belief in God. Surely they would dismiss my claim to being happier now than I have been in years.
But I really am glad to be done with all the contrived guilt and nonsense. When Mormons do things they are taught constitute "sin," whether by commission or omission, they experience guilt. Even when no one has been harmed by the "sin," they will feel guilty. Because after all, they've hurt Jesus, right?
Mormons are experts at contrived guilt. Consider the guilt a Mormon might feel for not having been to the temple for awhile. The temple is a place where Mormons perform vicarious ordinances for dead people, who allegedly need them to get into heaven. Such guilt is utterly contrived, for no one has been harmed by that person's failure to do some "service" for the deceased. Or consider the guilt of LDS parents who have some children that have strayed from the church. How they must agonize over what they did "wrong." Their children could be leading happy, productive lives, but they still feel guilt and anguish. For what? It's all entirely unnecessary. Or how about the guilt a Mormon might feel after masturbating? Again, no one has been harmed by this private act, but the Mormon is taught that his/her sins hurt Jesus. He/she now thinks that he/she is "unworthy" of the priesthood and/or holy spirit. Therefore: guilt, fear, repentance. It's all in the mind, and it's very silly.
Not only is religious guilt useless, it can be highly counterproductive. Mormons who feel intense guilt over their "sins" may be much less effective at work, in their social interactions, relationships, school, etc. Compromised performance in those areas, at certain critical times, can have devastating effects. Mormons might feel that because of their sins, they are unworthy of the holy spirit (which they believe to be a constant guide, strength, and companion, when worthy of it) and thus God won't support them. They might entertain self-fulfilling thoughts of failure. It's just like when Dumbo lost his magic feather and then thought he could no longer fly. Fortunately his little rat friend made him realize that he was the one with the power; it had nothing to do with magic feathers (God).
I personally find this reorientation of control to be an empowering perspective. For years my participation in the church was half-assed so I always felt unworthy and unable to reach my true potential (this because I was still a believer). Now that I've abandoned my belief in magic feathers, I feel like I've reclaimed a part of myself. That's why I consider myself happier now than I have been in years.
I wish I could help some people see this. They are the ones with positive energy, good attitudes, and inspiration. They are the ones responsible for this, not God. They don't give themselves enough credit. Many Mormons will often say things like "I don't know where I'd be without the church." They attribute everything they are to the church and/or God! It's a classic example of externalizing one's locus of control. Take it back, I say.
But I really am glad to be done with all the contrived guilt and nonsense. When Mormons do things they are taught constitute "sin," whether by commission or omission, they experience guilt. Even when no one has been harmed by the "sin," they will feel guilty. Because after all, they've hurt Jesus, right?
Mormons are experts at contrived guilt. Consider the guilt a Mormon might feel for not having been to the temple for awhile. The temple is a place where Mormons perform vicarious ordinances for dead people, who allegedly need them to get into heaven. Such guilt is utterly contrived, for no one has been harmed by that person's failure to do some "service" for the deceased. Or consider the guilt of LDS parents who have some children that have strayed from the church. How they must agonize over what they did "wrong." Their children could be leading happy, productive lives, but they still feel guilt and anguish. For what? It's all entirely unnecessary. Or how about the guilt a Mormon might feel after masturbating? Again, no one has been harmed by this private act, but the Mormon is taught that his/her sins hurt Jesus. He/she now thinks that he/she is "unworthy" of the priesthood and/or holy spirit. Therefore: guilt, fear, repentance. It's all in the mind, and it's very silly.
Guilt is proper when you've genuinely harmed another. That is the time and place to feel guilt, for that may prompt you to apologize, foster better relationships, and otherwise create goodwill. This kind of guilt may have productive effects. But contrived religious guilt is practically useless.
I personally find this reorientation of control to be an empowering perspective. For years my participation in the church was half-assed so I always felt unworthy and unable to reach my true potential (this because I was still a believer). Now that I've abandoned my belief in magic feathers, I feel like I've reclaimed a part of myself. That's why I consider myself happier now than I have been in years.
I wish I could help some people see this. They are the ones with positive energy, good attitudes, and inspiration. They are the ones responsible for this, not God. They don't give themselves enough credit. Many Mormons will often say things like "I don't know where I'd be without the church." They attribute everything they are to the church and/or God! It's a classic example of externalizing one's locus of control. Take it back, I say.
Friday, April 27, 2012
God is Lazy
April 27, 2012 7:22 p.m.
I’ve been reading Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” lately. He makes an interesting point in one of the chapters (I forget which one). Scientists will see something mysterious that they can’t immediately explain and will get very curious. This curiosity impels them to action and investigation. The religionist sees a mystery and stops his inquiry there: it’s a mystery--ascribe it to God.
I think this may illustrate a major difference between personality types of the religious and non-religious. In short: God is lazy. Godly thinking is lazy. Cryptic declarations such as “Everything happens for a reason” or “God’s ways are not our ways” or “We will only understand that after we die” are highly unproductive. They represent the end of inquiry, not the beginning. End of discussion. They are a cop out for real thinking. It’s lazy to examine moral questions and quickly conclude that “God just said so.” Claiming God endorses any particular course of action is a dangerous shortcut. It is much easier to look at things in black and white and use hard and fast rules to decide what is right and what is wrong. Good and evil. Them vs. us. In contrast, it takes energy and effort to painstakingly examine the moral implications or ramifications of any given act or category of acts. Seeing the world in shades of gray is difficult. The problem is that the wide spectrum of human experience doesn’t fit neatly into any religious worldview. Mormonism clumsily tries to cope with the issues and problems of a modern world. But much of the counsel in its scriptures is inadequate, at best.
Could it be that religion self-selects for less rigorous minds? That isn’t to say that there are no truly intelligent and religious people--at best my theory might just shift the bell curve to the left a bit. Perhaps the vast majority of people remain under the “fog” of the limited thinking and relative superstition of their day until the particularly scientific/curious outliers pave the way for more progressive thinking and greater open-mindedness.
But it seems that religion provides a simplified alternative to viewing the world. A very religious person doesn’t have to dwell on the implications of obliteration. Their minds are safely insulated from that scary proposition.
The lazy cognition that pervades religion also manifests itself in lazy outward actions. Religions stress repetitive rituals which can be done almost mindlessly. Mormonism has one ceremony where people change their clothes around and watch a movie for a couple hours (and do some weird handshakes with each other), and they call it “service” for dead people. It really doesn’t get much lazier than that.
Science, on the other hand, requires meticulous attention to detail and results. It cannot be done mindlessly. You cannot “go through the motions” in a scientific endeavor and expect meaningful results. It, too, can be repetitive, but for different reasons: to achieve reliable and consistent data that can better explain whatever phenomenon they are studying.
Mormonism touts the principle that God helps us “after all we can do.” So wouldn’t it make more sense to only look for God’s hand in our lives after we’ve eliminated every plausible alternative explanation? Science looks for solutions. Religion looks for reaffirmation of what it already believes.
I’ve been reading Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” lately. He makes an interesting point in one of the chapters (I forget which one). Scientists will see something mysterious that they can’t immediately explain and will get very curious. This curiosity impels them to action and investigation. The religionist sees a mystery and stops his inquiry there: it’s a mystery--ascribe it to God.
I think this may illustrate a major difference between personality types of the religious and non-religious. In short: God is lazy. Godly thinking is lazy. Cryptic declarations such as “Everything happens for a reason” or “God’s ways are not our ways” or “We will only understand that after we die” are highly unproductive. They represent the end of inquiry, not the beginning. End of discussion. They are a cop out for real thinking. It’s lazy to examine moral questions and quickly conclude that “God just said so.” Claiming God endorses any particular course of action is a dangerous shortcut. It is much easier to look at things in black and white and use hard and fast rules to decide what is right and what is wrong. Good and evil. Them vs. us. In contrast, it takes energy and effort to painstakingly examine the moral implications or ramifications of any given act or category of acts. Seeing the world in shades of gray is difficult. The problem is that the wide spectrum of human experience doesn’t fit neatly into any religious worldview. Mormonism clumsily tries to cope with the issues and problems of a modern world. But much of the counsel in its scriptures is inadequate, at best.
Could it be that religion self-selects for less rigorous minds? That isn’t to say that there are no truly intelligent and religious people--at best my theory might just shift the bell curve to the left a bit. Perhaps the vast majority of people remain under the “fog” of the limited thinking and relative superstition of their day until the particularly scientific/curious outliers pave the way for more progressive thinking and greater open-mindedness.
But it seems that religion provides a simplified alternative to viewing the world. A very religious person doesn’t have to dwell on the implications of obliteration. Their minds are safely insulated from that scary proposition.
The lazy cognition that pervades religion also manifests itself in lazy outward actions. Religions stress repetitive rituals which can be done almost mindlessly. Mormonism has one ceremony where people change their clothes around and watch a movie for a couple hours (and do some weird handshakes with each other), and they call it “service” for dead people. It really doesn’t get much lazier than that.
Science, on the other hand, requires meticulous attention to detail and results. It cannot be done mindlessly. You cannot “go through the motions” in a scientific endeavor and expect meaningful results. It, too, can be repetitive, but for different reasons: to achieve reliable and consistent data that can better explain whatever phenomenon they are studying.
Mormonism touts the principle that God helps us “after all we can do.” So wouldn’t it make more sense to only look for God’s hand in our lives after we’ve eliminated every plausible alternative explanation? Science looks for solutions. Religion looks for reaffirmation of what it already believes.
Dreadless
April 15, 2012 12:04 a.m.
One of the best things about leaving Mormonism behind was relief from a lurking sense of “dread” in my life. During my inactive but believing days, I would often stress out about getting my life “back in order” and repenting and getting myself temple worthy again. I would experience poignant feelings of dread and distress at the prospect of going through all that. What an unnecessary source of stress. It feels really good to leave all that behind. I no longer worry about being off track or not going down my life’s “true” path. I no longer stress about getting married and starting a family. If it happens, great. If not, no big deal. I’m trying to live my life honestly, responsibly, and enjoyably. I understand that having kids is both a source of happiness and stress. Not having kids would probably have similar trade-offs in the opposite ways.
The other day I told my cousin that I was agnostic. It didn’t come as a surprise to him--he had already suspected as much, and he said that his dad did, as well. I imagine others in the family probably do, too. It’s fine. We talked a little bit about some of the issues I have with the church. It’s apparent that he is at least basically familiar with most troubling church issues. But he seems to be taking an apologetic stance. He also expressed some pretty outlandish views on what this life is all about (something about this life being an imperfect projection/translation of something more perfect). He admitted that he’s kind of a hippy in this respect. My opinion is that while he has become superficially familiar with the problematic issues, he hasn’t really critically thought through them, or considered their real implications. With the BofM and BofA, for example, he said something about how his background in translation helps him understand how those issues can be explained. Again, it smacks of ridiculous apologetic rationalizations, but he didn’t elaborate enough for me to call him out on it. Toward the end of our conversation (this was on gchat), it seemed like he was trying to understand “all” my issues, just to make sure he had heard of them all. I guess he has compartmentalized these issues off to the side and marked them “resolved” in his mind. I think he’ll eventually make his way out of Mormonism. He’s too much of a free thinker to maintain the kind of narrow-minded orthodoxy the church requires. He may still retain a lot of his spiritual views, though (which is fine).
One of the best things about leaving Mormonism behind was relief from a lurking sense of “dread” in my life. During my inactive but believing days, I would often stress out about getting my life “back in order” and repenting and getting myself temple worthy again. I would experience poignant feelings of dread and distress at the prospect of going through all that. What an unnecessary source of stress. It feels really good to leave all that behind. I no longer worry about being off track or not going down my life’s “true” path. I no longer stress about getting married and starting a family. If it happens, great. If not, no big deal. I’m trying to live my life honestly, responsibly, and enjoyably. I understand that having kids is both a source of happiness and stress. Not having kids would probably have similar trade-offs in the opposite ways.
The other day I told my cousin that I was agnostic. It didn’t come as a surprise to him--he had already suspected as much, and he said that his dad did, as well. I imagine others in the family probably do, too. It’s fine. We talked a little bit about some of the issues I have with the church. It’s apparent that he is at least basically familiar with most troubling church issues. But he seems to be taking an apologetic stance. He also expressed some pretty outlandish views on what this life is all about (something about this life being an imperfect projection/translation of something more perfect). He admitted that he’s kind of a hippy in this respect. My opinion is that while he has become superficially familiar with the problematic issues, he hasn’t really critically thought through them, or considered their real implications. With the BofM and BofA, for example, he said something about how his background in translation helps him understand how those issues can be explained. Again, it smacks of ridiculous apologetic rationalizations, but he didn’t elaborate enough for me to call him out on it. Toward the end of our conversation (this was on gchat), it seemed like he was trying to understand “all” my issues, just to make sure he had heard of them all. I guess he has compartmentalized these issues off to the side and marked them “resolved” in his mind. I think he’ll eventually make his way out of Mormonism. He’s too much of a free thinker to maintain the kind of narrow-minded orthodoxy the church requires. He may still retain a lot of his spiritual views, though (which is fine).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)