Happy Birthday, Irresistible (Dis)Grace!

One year ago today, I got this crazy idea…what if I could start a blog about my thoughts of being a Mormon, but of not being a Mormon…my lack of understanding of my culture and heritage, but my forced and ingrained living of my culture and heritage. I wondered if I could meet a different kind of believer than the ones in my ward (no offense to them), and I wondered if I could meet a different kind of nonbelievers than the ones in the…well, I don’t know what non-believer wards are (but I mean no offense to them either.)

And so, I started Irresistible (Dis)Grace. I didn’t really know what I was doing, how far I’d get, or how long I’d even last (after all, this blog had a specific niche, and I thought I would run out of “topics”).

Well, apparently, if nothing else, at least I reached the 1 year mark!

Dale McGowan’s Unconditional Love of Reality

This is a snippet from Dale McGowan’s recent article, “The Unconditional Love of Reality.”

I was unconditionally smitten with reality and began at some point working on the Big Question: Does God exist?If I had any predisposition, it was the usual human one: a desire that it all be true. How could I have stood at that casket and wished for anything but the existence of God, since that might continue the existence of my father? But my love of reality naturally came with a serious distaste for self-deception. The truth itself is more beautiful than an illusion, even when that truth is uncomfortable. I would be thrilled if there was a God; I would be thrilled if there wasn’t. I just wanted to know.

In short, I took the question seriously.

Three obstacles presented themselves immediately. The first was the claim that the question simply can’t be asked. “It’s not that kind of question,” I remember a Sunday school teacher telling our class, without explaining what that could possibly mean. For the sake of the inquiry, I had to assume that was untrue and see what would happen if I asked it.

The second obstacle was the wrath of God. Doubt is a sin, probing questions an offense to the divine. After some thought, I decided that God was unlikely to be so insecure or frankly egotistical as to punish me eternally just because I was honestly wrong about him.

The third hurdle was the notion that even if it were a question like any other, there was simply no way to answer it. You can neither prove nor disprove God.

I was in high school before I surmounted that one. I realized I didn’t have to answer the question “Does God exist?” Must we believe all assertions that can’t be disproven? Russell’s Teapot says no. So a perfectly askable and appropriate question was “Why do other people believe in God, and are those reasons convincing?”

This is really the deal. Many people confuse the question at hand. It’s not whether something exist…but whether we are persuaded to believe something exists.

Christmas: When truth is not useful

This is a quotation from a commenter and guest podcaster, Brian, at the Mormon Expression podcast on Fowler’s Stages of Faith (speaking of which, I need to listen to this when I have the chance!).

The transition from 4 to 5 is often prompted by being tired of the flatness of the color and flavor of faith caused by hyper rationalism, from deconstructing everything into pieces, and from constantly pointing out that the great and powerful Oz is “just” a man behind the curtain.

I think one of the best examples is the Christmas holiday. Why would a grown adult participate in the Christmas holiday when they know that Christ wasn’t actually born on December 25th, and there really isn’t a man named Santa Claus that flies around delivering presents? It’s either true or it’s false, right? It’s false. But then we might find out that participating in all the holiday fun actually brings us “peace on earth, goodwill towards man.” (whatever that means). We end up experiencing the “Spirit of Christmas.” We loop right back around to Christmas being true still, even though we know that Santa Claus isn’t real.

This quote’s interesting to think about (true =/= useful…and false =/= useless). I’d simply disagree is on the applicability and usefulness of untrue things.

Evolving a God?

This semester, I have been part of a religious discussion group as part of one of my scholarships. In this group, our mentor has given us the challenge of trying to come up with an answer to the question: How can we promote universal harmony among the major religions? We base our discussion on sections of Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God.

We aren’t anywhere near finished (we’ve just finished the sections relating to Judaism and we will be moving to Christianity and Islam in future discussion groups), yet I already seem to be drawing some things from the book.

I can understand why my professor appreciates this book…he has shared with us parts of his personal philosophy that just make sense why he enjoys it. However…this also provides my contention with the book.

Wright’s arguments rely on several interpretations and assumptions…Wright often sets up novel re-interpretations of the stories surrounding religions (although I guess I shouldn’t say novel…these re-interpretations represent some of the research in the various fields, but often times, they don’t necessarily represent what the main stream believer would believe.) Without the interpretations (sometimes which are “what ifs”, Wright’s argument ceases to leave the ground.

What’s so good about personal branding?

Nearly all of the trendy career, networking, interviewing, and job seeking websites will talk about the need to establish a personal brand. It is essential for a candidate to put his or her best foot forward.

Some of the ways to improve or establish a personal brand are intuitive, but at some point…I have to ask, what is the point?

When I was preparing to network and interview for internships with my school’s professional program last spring, my professors taught all of us the basic “rules.” These rules aren’t rocket science; I think everyone knows some of the basic rules for what to put vs. what to leave off on the resume. What to discuss vs. what to avoid. And so on. For example, religion is off limits. It’s a liability; it exposes you to possible discrimination or, at the very least, some kind of change in perception. Why expose yourself to that? The simple answer is don’t. In most cases, it is not important to your brand, so don’t bring it up and they won’t ask about it. Something like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…

Life is when we do it

I guess this is a “sequel” to the post: Value cultivation in a world without magic.

I was thinking about how to improve…how to get better…how to do more…

Wouldn’t it be cool if we could just pray? We could just spend twenty minutes…or an hour…or three hours…meditating and praying…secluded from the rest of the day…and that would be it to “center” and “focus” and we’d be able to take on the rest of the day?

It would be cool. That would be magical.

But what I’ve realized is that things don’t work like this. This is a shortcut. This is an unrealistic expectation.

When do we improve? When do we get better? When do we do more?

Life is when we do it. Every day. In public. On the spot. We have 3 seconds — or even less — from the time someone angers us to decide whether we will escalate in anger or whether we will count to three and walk away. We can’t meditate at the beginning of the day and then be “buffered” from what comes up on the spot. We have to be vigilant at the moment of impact.

The Problem with Contemporary Christianity

I recently read a post, The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity, at Experimental Theology, and I was quite frankly refreshed by the attitude that Richard took. His analysis was:

The trouble with contemporary Christianity is that a massive bait and switch is going on. “Christianity” has essentially become a mechanism for allowing millions of people to replace being a decent human being with something else, an endorsed “spiritual” substitute. For example, rather than being a decent human being the following is a list of some commonly acceptable substitutes:

Going to church
Worship
Praying
Spiritual disciplines (e.g., fasting)
Bible study
Voting Republican
Going on spiritual retreats
Reading religious books
Arguing with evolutionists
Sending your child to a Christian school or providing education at home
Using religious language
Avoiding R-rated movies
Not reading Harry Potter.

The point is that one can fill a life full of spiritual activities without ever, actually, trying to become a more decent human being. Much of this activity can actually distract one from becoming a more decent human being. In fact, some of these activities make you worse, interpersonally speaking. Many churches are jerk factories.

While I’d like to call for a round of applause for Richard, what I fear is that his thoughts won’t go very far because he’s not exactly on the safe side of Christian doctrine here.

Beauty: A case for subjectivity

I’ve been having a very active conversation with shematwater in the comments of one of my posts: Verbal laziness and beliefs. My response comments have become outrageously long…so long that they actually deserve new posts.

I won’t address everything I was trying to get at in the comments because I think I have talked over and over about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity for me…and what they represent. (Although, maybe I have not…and I just think I have…perhaps I will have to write a post after all).

Many times, I get the impression that people think that subjectivity is “cheapening” or “demeaning”. If someone suggests morality is subjective, people think the worst. If meaning and purpose are subjective, then people have this gut reaction that they don’t matter (because if they don’t objectively matter, then they don’t ultimately matter. Right?)

I disagree. I don’t think we need to cling to objectivity as we so often want…and in some cases, I think that we make the case most stronger when we acknowledge subjectivity. I’ll give an example with beauty.

Please, listen to this song by Sleepytime Gorilla Museum:

Whoa…it’s like I’m looking at a mirror

I got a couple of hits from Mark Rathbun’s blog the other day, and I thought I’d click into it. Here was one article that somehow has been getting me traffic (I don’t know how…I don’t see a link to or a trackback…although I suppose once I link it here, I’ll get one).

Read it, please. Since I’m not going to write a whole lot.

Mark Rathbun, you see, is actually influential in the scientologist community…but as a result of one thing or another (I obviously haven’t heard much of him, since I don’t research scientology), he has left the church.

Does this mean he has nothing to do with scientology, dianetics, auditing, and other scientological concepts? No. Rather, he forges a tenuous path independently of the Church of Scientology with these things…the tools of his heritage.

Can you explain these things to me?

I’ve been thinking of a couple of things that I know meant a whole lot to the writers of these things…but I cannot understand what point they are getting across. It’s not that I disagree or agree, think they are wrong or right. It’s that I can’t even comprehend what they are saying or if they are even saying anything at all.

Yet, I know that the things they have written are very meaningful…so I can’t just wave them off as being non-statements…

The first is Adam F’s “A thank you to my atheist friends: One reason why I’m a believer”. The second is the two-page patheos post by Sam Bhagwat — Thinking Myself into Mormonism.

It’s actually somewhat funny…I’ll admit that I haven’t been writing as much in recent days for a few reasons. First is that I’ve been busy with school. Second is that I haven’t had many topics that are relevant to the blog to write about. But actually, that second point is untrue…really, I have had ideas to write about, but I’ve been paralyzed because I can’t even begin to address them.