Anti-theists are against theism, which is a belief

I have seen…too many times…a sort of argument from certain theists that will go a little something like:

Why do any atheists ever speak out against God if they don’t believe he exists? Obviously, they must be in denial, because no one would argue so forcefully against something they don’t believe exists!

And then, I’ve heard this in several different permutations (e.g., “people who deconvert from a religion…like say, ex-Mormons or ex-Catholics or whatever…must argue against God because they “know” God exists and they are “mad” at God.”)

Now, I know that people sometimes don’t think through what they say…but it’s amazed me how long this “argument” (if it can even be called such) has circulated around with few people realizing what’s wrong with it.

Anti-theists of whatever stripe aren’t arguing against God. They are arguing against *at best* the actions of those who believe in God or *at worst* the belief in or the idea of God itself.

Mormonism and Christianity: the definition of things

I was listening to episode 5 of the Mormon Expressions podcast…what does it mean to be Mormon? …and I recall that the discussion turned to the LDS church’s (this is, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) efforts to “own” the term Mormon (first in order to tell people not to use it to describe the church [e.g., it's not the Mormon church, it's the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, thank you very much] and then to tell people not to use it to describe others [e.g., the FLDS are not "polygamist Mormons." They aren't Mormon.])

This issue of definition is interesting (especially to me…getting caught up semantics is a kryptonite.)

The naturalist God

I’ve been going back and forth on a post at Main Street Plaza (Grayer than thou?) about who stays Mormon, who doesn’t stay Mormon, and why that is the case. (Actually, I’ve been going back and forth about the same issue here, so how coincidental!) And with John C, I’ve been having a conversation in comments about the supernatural.

The very idea of the supernatural does not amuse me. Appeals and invocations to the supernatural do not register very well…I hear words, but they don’t mean anything.

The supernatural, to me, seems like something that is hypersterile. It can’t be touched by us in any way, shape, or fashion. So, in that sense, it actually doesn’t matter to me (and I don’t see how it does to anyone).

Adventures with The Unvarnished New Testament

The Unvarnished New Testament

A few weeks ago, I became interested in biblical translations. I was lamenting the high unlikelihood that we’d ever get an *authoritative* “modern” “retranslation” of the Book of Mormon. For one, we kinda don’t have any source texts whatsoever. For two, the church is kinda committed to believing that it is the most correct book on Earth (OK, so maybe that wasn’t said in a spirit of prophecy…but certainly, when we consider the 8th Article of Faith, notice how the Book of Mormon doesn’t have a “as far as it is translated correctly” caveat?)

So, the Bible, Old Testament and New, intrigued me, because we do have source texts (or, to be more specific, copies of copies of copies of what could be source texts). And so many groups have attempted varying translations.

Is Mormonism complacent? What about the rest of conservative Christianity?

Is the LDS Church becoming complacent? Does Mormonism need a revival or a reformation?

The trouble with the “cultural conservative” view in Mormonism is not that they take religion too seriously. The problem is that their religious beliefs are false. The problem is not that they advocate for strong morals. The problem is that they really did nothing to earn those morals.

…The modern generation of Mormons rest on laurels they have not earned, tout morals that are not truly theirs, and pray to a God that they cannot know – because their preconceptions keep getting in the way.

It appears Seth R posts more on my blog than on his (oh ho ho ho!), and he had a rather lengthy comment on a previous article of mine (please read it to get everything in context; I copy/pasted only a part). Today, I’m just going to pick at one part here.

Two-level ignorance

I touched upon ignorance and knowledge in a previous post, “Is knowing better than not knowing?” and also in a recent comment at Mormon Matters, but now I’m kinda scaring myself here. To preface, I am not a doctor. I am not a philosopher. I have no right to be talking about big-time stuff like epistemology and when they find out I am, they’ll come for me.

…It seems to me that we don’t know a lot of stuff. Even worse, we can’t even be comfortable enough to know we don’t know a lot of stuff. This leads me to think of a two-level concept of ignorance. First, a fun quotation:

There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.

And yet, I’m not sure. Even this categorization system seems light. I would add a new category: unknown knowns…and suggest that this is where many of us live. Rather than things we know that we know, we have things that we don’t know that we know.

What kind of person stays Mormon?

It seems like the strong, hardcore, rigid orthodox ones are not the kind.

I’ve been reading around (too many links to just list), and it seems to me that there are particular kinds of people, formed whether through their personality or through their life experiences. This shouldn’t be groundbreaking — we should already be able to imagine that people can have different personalities and life experiences. But one such peculiarity that I see that becomes important later on is how people are raised with relationship to the LDS church (or, I imagine, any church). This becomes important for how people will regard Mormonism and the church as an institution in the future, and what will happen to them if some troubling information comes their way. So, what drove me to write this post was one by Kevin Barney at By Common Consent.

Are science and religion compatible?

An age-old question, with attempts for answers from many, and Loyd at project mayhem has another answer.

I think that in most cases, asking if science and religion are compatible is like asking if mathematics and poetry are compatible. The question really doesn’t make sense. Sure, perhaps they can probably share the same room, but in most cases unless one is trained in both, they usually have no idea what the other is talking about.

To ask if the Genesis account of creation is compatible with evolution is to totally misunderstand the Genesis account. It was never meant as a scientific or literal account of creation. Anybody who goes through the LDS endowment should be acutely aware of that (though unfortunately most are still too obtuse to realize it). The seven creation periods are no scientific accounts, but is simply a means to use the numerically significant seven (which means totality) to break apart the known world into seven parts and show that for God the totality of creation was good.

…I think we could all find a greater use of our time if start recognizing the categorical differences between religion and science and realizing that in so many cases the question of their compatibility is simply nonsense.

Exciting. Another take on the non-overlapping magisteria approach.

Work-life Balance

Geez, where have I heard this before?

I was EQ president for a while and remember attending regional leadership meetings where we would get telecast talks from the bretheren. There were so many talks emphasizing how we needed to have less meetings, prioritize our lives and learn to delegate (the irony of having a meeting to say we need to have fewer meetings still gives me a chuckle). Then we would hear from our stake leaders about putting ourselves and family before the church etc. It all sounded good, but then came a visiting apostle or authority or someone other high ranker to the stake and it was a complete reversal of everything they had said publically [sic]. For instance, “PPIs are only being done every 3 months? Every Elder (there were 85 in my ward) needs to have one every month!” “Elders, why are your hometeaching numbers dipping down into the 80%?, Do you think you could spare some of your 20 hour a week TV time to do some home teaching?” The snarky remarks went on and on.

Currently the mantra it is getting to the temple more and more, and if the members do so, there will be 11 specific blessings that will follow (I love mormon reciprocity). Nothing says quality family time like the temple.

So my experience is that the church organization says the right thing from the pulpit, or even believes it offers plenty of time for self and family, but the translation of that on the ward level just doesn’t happen. Talks are given, but then pressure is put on behind the scenes and we end up with the staus quo, or even increased zealotry.

Change the acronyms and goals, and instead of the average Mormon ward, you have work-life balance at a professional services firm! Ta-da!

Hindus and Mormons: What does it mean to reject creeds?

Today, Mormon Soprano wrote about a mother (herself?) who had a daughter who was considering Hinduism. And as I read, I wondered…what this mother would be doing if her daughter were atheist instead?

The article was rather fair, and MoSop was rather calm and collected…She raised Proverbs 22:6 (a perennial favorite) and commented about the agony of what happens if a child does depart from what parents have taught her, but then she seemed to be contented by finding similarities between Mormonism and Hinduism. One such particularly caught my eye.

“What counts is not creed but conduct. By their fruits ye shall know them and not by their beliefs. Religion is righteous living. The Hindu view that every method of spiritual growth, every path to the Truth is worthy of reverence has much to commend itself.” -  The Hindu View of Life. Radhakrishnan – philosopher President of India (1962-67)