From Wikipedia:
Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error or fallacy of the converse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the converse from the original statement. The corresponding argument has the general form:
- If P, then Q.
- Q.
- Therefore, P.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).
If you understand the above, now read the following and try to convince me that it is not a textbook case of affirming the consequent:
Moroni 10:4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
In proposition form:
- If you ask god if the Book of Mormon is true, god will confirm it through a feeling.
- You feel something.
- The Book of Mormon is true.
Could your feeling be due to virtually infinite alternative causes? Â Absolutely.
And if you don’t feel something? Â You did it wrong.
The irony of this just struck me: the core logic of the missionary message is a logical fallacy. Â 🙂
The only way you can get this simplistic reading of Moroni 10 is by reading that verse in isolation (the way, unfortunately, that the “scripture mastery” memorization program back in seminary encouraged us to do).
The rest of the chapter talks about a range of evidence, from study of history and theology, to evidence of miracles, to the internal witness and consistency of the ENTIRE Book of Mormon text. You have to weigh all that stuff into your analysis to be actually truly doing what Moroni was asking.
Saying this passage essentially means “pray for a feeling” is a reading completely ignorant of the rest of the chapter, and indeed – ignorant of the entire Book of Moroni, all of which is integral to the test being proposed.
Yeah, not buying it, Seth. At the end of the day, Mormonism is true or not based on receiving a “spiritual witness” that manifests in the form of a feeling.
The very next verse affirms what I said, “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” Is that scripture, Seth, or is it not? It doesn’t say, “Oh, examine all the evidence, weigh it out, use logic, reason, science, etc., then you’ll know.” No, it says, you’ll know through the Holy Ghost.
I don’t really care whether you buy this as an explanation of Mormonism or not.
My interpretation is more faithful to the actual text of the Book of Mormon than yours is. And my association with Mormonism is not based on a “feeling” or a “warm fuzzy” or a “burning in the bosom.” In fact, I’ve never had such a feeling in my entire life.
So, are you acknowledging that my version of Mormonism is more credible than the version you describe here in this post or something?
Besides, your interpretation completely ignores verse 3 – which is absolutely crucial, but often passed over – and pretty much ignores the entire chapter from verse 8 on.
Seth, verse 3 sets up a circular argument, “Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.”
Verse 8 completes it, “And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God.”
So, the book says, “read me” and then the book says “I’m true.” How do you know the book is true? Because it says so. How do verses 3 and 8 make the Book of Mormon more credible?
Your version of Mormonism is not orthodox Mormonism. It’s Seth-Mormonism. It doesn’t align with what the canonical works themselves say.
So, are you acknowledging that “Seth Mormonism” is more valid?
Ribbing aside, verse 3 isn’t actually circular.
It’s an invitation for the reader to look at the entire sweep of history and see how well the Book of Mormon fits into the knowledge we have of history and how God deals with humanity.
Yes, it does presume a belief in God – since God’s existence was a presumption in those days – even among Moroni’s enemies. But that doesn’t have to be a particular problem here. We merely view the argument as – “presuming a belief in God – study the history of his dealings with humanity and see how well this fits.”
That’s not a circular argument. It’s a logical and evidence-based argument that RESTS upon an assumption. Which isn’t the same thing.
You’re trying to say that the environment this argument exists inside is invalid, therefore the argument itself is circular. But the argument isn’t circular merely because it assumes the existence of God.
Because the argument wasn’t trying to prove God in the first place.
You keep running into this with atheists – they always seem to think it’s all about them…
And my views are, and always have been canonical.
It’s not my fault your view of the canon, and the view of many other Mormons, is defective.
Nice. Canon = What Seth Thinks.
Nice. Canon = What profxm thinks.
Aside from pointing out that this is equally just your opinion profxm….
I’ve mentioned this reading of Moroni 10, and explained it in detail in Gospel Doctrine and Gospel Essentials class in my current ward, and my previous ward on multiple occasions.
Never once did anyone in the class so much as bat an eye. Everyone was in complete agreement with this reading. I even made a point of stating that this passage is not just talking about a feeling as being evidence, and everyone agreed.
Apparently they had no problem with this reading.
And a challenge for you profxm (hypothetically, of course).
Next time you meet Jeffrey R. Holland, or Thomas S. Monson, or any of the general authorities… ask them the following verbatim:
“Do you think Moroni’s Promise in chapter 10 says we should just pray to get a spiritual feeling, or does it talk about reading the entire Book of Mormon, studying it, comparing it with God’s dealings with humanity throughout history, and seeing whether the evidence favors it?”
Ask them that. I’m willing to guarantee you they’ll pick option B. Your argument here is without merit – because my reading is explicitly based on the text itself. And anyone familiar with the text will recognize it.
But I will admit this argument does disappoint those who were eager to paint Mormons as a bunch of emotionally driven, anti-intellectual idiots.
I suppose they’ll just have to cope.
Even though Seth’s interpretation is canonical, the cannon begins with verse 1 where Moroni makes it plain to whom he is writing–his brethren the Lamanites. He tells them that the Lord is merciful, and they need to experience his mercy, and when they receive this message from him, if they will ask God with a sincere heart they will know that what Moroni says is true–the Lord is merciful to those who seek him. Moroni had a “few plates” on which he was writing basically to the Lamanites–he wasn’t ever referring to the entire BofM, nor was he saying to all who read the book they will know it is true if they engage the test, although it is convenient for missionary purposes to interpret it that way. But it is a clear case of isolating a verse and taking it out of context.
Paarker, doesn’t “few plates” simply refer to the abridgment that Mormon compiled? In which case it would actually refer to the entire Book of Mormon.
No, Mormon completed his abridgment and his writinigs, and gave to Moroni a “few plates,” to complete the story of the destruction of the Nephites. It is comparable to people who want the book of Revelation to refer to the entire Old and New Testament in the “do not add to or take away” verse in Revelation.
OK, that sounds right.
But in context – isn’t it the case that Moroni attached his “few plates” to the larger record? We know that the book Joseph described didn’t have any “loose plates” lying to the side. It was all one book.
Wouldn’t you say that Moroni wrote what he did intending it to be a part of the larger record from his father?
What evidence? Feelings?
Also, your question does assume a belief in god (i.e., “comparing it with god’s dealings…”). That presupposes a god who deals with humans. So, since I reject that assumption, what else you got?
“Wouldn’t you say that Moroni wrote what he did intending it to be a part of the larger record from his father?”
I can’t think of any reason right now that I would say that, any more than I would say, that John the Revelator knew that his book would be attached to a larger record, therefore he was warning against adding to (like a D&C or a BofM), or taking away from all the books of the Bible.
First: Moroni 10:1-23 is talking to the Lamanites alone. Verse 24 is where Moroni begins talking to the Gentiles.
Second: profxm is incorrect in his first listed point.
Moroni says, “I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true”.
There is a world of difference in the meaning of Moroni’s words between asking “if these things are not true” and asking “if these things are true.”
Right. Thank you. I agree. Or should I say I don’t disagree?
Oh come on Paarker.
He had the whole finished book sitting in his lap!
Did John the Revelator have the compiled New Testament sitting on his desk?
No he didn’t – it’s not an apt comparison.
Every atheist assumes that the moment a religious person walks into the room – that their first overwhelming concern in life is to prove the existence of God.
Well it isn’t profxm. And believe it or not – I don’t think the Book of Mormon is primarily concerned with proving God to you either.
Actually, I don’t know what he had in his lap. But I do know what I have in mine, and it says I, Moroni, am writing to my beloved Lamanites.
If it helps you to think that Moroni was writing to you, then that is fine with me. As far as I know you may be one of the Lamanites he was writing to, and you have accepted God’s mercy, and you know the truth of all things. I certainly wouldn’t want to argue with you about that.
Paarker, I have no real problem “likening the scriptures unto ourselves” as Nephi recommended.
It’s a long and venerable tradition in Mormonism. The Lamanites easily work as a stand in for any lost and fallen people.
Namely, for all of us dear readers.
Mormon wrote an epistle to his son Moroni, saying, “And if it so be that they perish, we know that many of our brethren have deserted over unto the Lamanites, and many more will also desert over unto them; wherefore, write somewhat a few things, if thou art spared and I shall perish and not see thee; but I trust that I may see thee soon; for I have sacred records that I would deliver up unto thee” (Moro. 9:24.)
Ever the obedient son, Moroni follows up that epistle by writing, “Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ. And I seal up these records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.”
Moroni 10 is Moroni’s way of obeying the prophetic commandment he received by epistle from his prophet father Mormon. Viewed in this light, it cannot be separated from the record written by Mormon, for Moroni’s duty was to finish the record of his father. This in what he did it Mormon 8 and 9. This in what he did in Ether (for it was Mormon’s intention to include the account.) And this is what he did in Moroni, filling in all the things that Mormon had intended to have in the book but never got a chance to because he was killed. But Mormon was a prophet, so his instructions to his son were also prophetic. In other words, it doesn’t matter that Mormon died prematurely for Moroni (another prophet) would finish the work.
Notice that Moroni also understood that the entirety of the work was Mormon’s, for the title page, written by Moroni, gave all credit to Mormon with no indication that Moroni had any part in it.
So, when Moroni writes, “Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things,” he is referring to the work of his father, which includes the writings of the son.
Correction. The title page does say that Moroni is the one who sealed up the record. What I should have written is this:
“Notice that Moroni also understood that the entirety of the work was Mormon’s, for the title page, written by Moroni, gave all credit to Mormon with no indication that Moroni had any part in its authorship.”
I think I understand what you are saying: Since Moroni wrote exactly what Mormon would have written if Mormon had survived it means that Mormon really wrote what Moroni penned. What I don’t understand is what that is suppose to now show, demonstrate, prove, or reveal.
And Seth, you have my weak imagination going–I can see you now, Seth the Lamanite, standing upon a figurative wall, speaking all truths to the fallen and disaffected. All the time they are throwing slings and arrows (oops, wrong document) at you, but you bravely withstand them.
Congratulations! You keep on trying to misunderstand what everyone writes and I must say you are getting the hang of it! I guess practice does make perfect.
I thought you were suppose to show increased love after you sharpness.
That’s me Paarker,
Hero of teh internets.
You may throw your rock now.
Sorry, I guess I should call you Parker now since you corrected the spelling?
@18 LDS Anarchist
Nope. The difference is purely stylistic (which is the area where Joseph Smith sucks the very worst, even more than in character and plot, where he sucks pretty hard).
There might be some substantive difference if Joseph had had Moroni negate the adjective instead of the verb, if, for instance, the character of Moroni had told people to ask “if these things are untrue.”
But he didn’t.
The proposition is set up as an either/or: “Ask if these things are true or if they are not true.” Because it’s a simple case of is/is not, and because we all understand each side of that either/or, you can safely leave one side out without changing the basic proposition.
Profxm chose to state the proposition with the either, while Joseph chose to have Moroni state the proposition with the or.
But it’s still the same proposition.
Profxm is right, and LDS anarachist is wrong.
seth @21:
Oh! It’s another episode of Seth’s comedy mind-reading act!
He’s back to tell us what “every atheist assumes” about every religious person, even though he’s never been an atheist and has no idea what “every atheist assumes” at any point in time, and even though plenty of the atheists here have been religious persons and can remember rather than assume what such people think when they walk into a room!
Parker, Seth’s not bravely doing anything. He hides his real identity and doesn’t want the people he associates with in real life to know the sorts of things he says here. He’s not standing on top of any wall, shouting his opinions; he’s hiding behind one. Big difference.
Holly, I think when you have spent a life time in a culture that “knows” things, and hear the statement repeatedly, and have a religious keystone that says if you are sincere and have real intent you can know the truth of all things, and the manifestation of truth is a warm heart, it is difficult to not speak in certitudes, even about things that fall in the epistemological shadows. As we have discussed before, when a person, or institution, can convince themselves that a one foot stepping stone is actually a continent, they tend to exercise a lot of bravado in their pronouncements.
Sure, whatever Parker.
And you’ll never hear any bravado over at Dawkins.net
Of course not.
I don’t think that’s a fair accusation. There absolutely exist people who hide behind anonymity, but everybody in the Bloggernacle and beyond knows Seth’s full name.
I think it’s reasonable to want to be able to recreationally comment on Mormon-themed blogs without having it come up for every professional contact who googles your name. I do the same, and there’s no reason for Seth not to.
@35. Maybe…. but Seth has made a big deal about the same matter when it comes to others, that it’s somehow less than honest. So I figure if he cares when others don’t blog under their full names, he must think it’s important that he doesn’t blog under his.
Thanks Chanson.
I’ve always been supportive of people’s right to remain anonymous online (like only using one’s first name for posting). I’ve made the observation before that anonymity incentivizes people misbehave online more. However, I accept anonymity as part of what our online communities are.
I’ve never said otherwise.
As I was saying, Seth has observed an action that he claims incentivizes not just misbehavior, but more of it. He has pointed this out to others when he thinks he sees it happening. So it’s entirely reasonable to point out that he does it as well. Right?
@31 Holly,
Joseph’s translation of the BOM was akin to a machine translation, which later was altered to make it more readable. So, “not true” (MT) means “untrue.”
What you and profxm fail to understand is that Moroni’s use of “not true” signifies that the reader already believes the text is true. The reader is asking God to confirm a belief, not asking God to negate a doubt. Like I said, a world of difference.
LDS Anarchist, you’re logic would seem to indicate that you and/or Moroni think everyone who reads the BOM believes it is true. That is, of course, not true.
And, if “not true” is not the inverse of “true” (which defies the rules of grammar and logic), then those who don’t already believe the BOM is true cannot actually find out by praying.
@39:
LDS Anarchist:
No. You can’t argue that. First of all, it’s not a translation; it’s a fiction. Second, even if it was a translation, you have no idea what the original language was like, and you have no basis for asserting that Joseph’s “original translation” from looking in the hat was “akin to a machine translation.”
You’re just pulling nonsense out of your ass. It’s plain old silly and it stinks.
I get that part of the conceit of Mormonism and Joe’s crappy novel is that its “true”ness and authenticity is somehow self-evident. However, the fact that so few people accept it as authentic and/or scripture is strong evidence that that’s not actually how it works.
Sure, as an RM, I recognize that that’s the formula the missionary discussions want people to use, so that just about anything–a pleasurable sneeze, a warmth in the chest, a lack of a stupor of thought–can be accepted as confirmation.
But a serious, genuine question would not ask God either to confirm a belief OR negate a doubt. A serious, genuine question would allow for either possibility and accept either answer as true. A serious, genuine question would accept an answer that was a surprise.
So that’s just one more way in which the Book of Mormon is an intellectually inadequate and dishonest book.
Continuing with @24 and @25:
The very first words that Moroni writes in the BOM are these:
@40 profxm,
So, believe for no reason, then god will give you a reason?
Yup, that makes sense.
If we’re not talking about just the Book of Mormon, but merely faith in God, then yes – it is a circular argument.
And that’s a good thing.
When logical fallacies are considered “good”, I’m pretty sure the conversation has come to an ignominious end.
Why? Love and friendship are circular arguments too. So are a lot of things that matter.
@43: In other words, the Book of Mormon is an intellectual scam and a spiritual lie that relies entirely on confirmation bias.
and somehow anyone is supposed to believe that this is a solid basis for a moral life, which is the greatest scam of all.
Love and friendships are not “arguments.”
Then neither is faith.
Nope. Never said it was. But the assertion that certain things deserve to be taken on faith IS an argument.
See how it works, Seth? You actually try to form a statement that makes sense and uses words the way other people do.
Love is a circular argument? I’m calling that bullshit.
I didn’t “love” my wife then “meet my wife.” I spent countless hours with her before the thought of “loving” her ever occurred to me. And that entire time she was interacting with me. Love didn’t come before the reason to love. Love was the result of the reasons to love.
Why did you spend countless hours and put in the time?
Because she was my dance partner. I knew her for over 6 months before we started seeing each other. Then an intimate relationship developed. I didn’t spend countless hours with her because I loved her. I spent them with her because I liked to dance and so did she.
OK, you got a warm fuzzy feeling inside?
From dancing with her? Sure. It’s called “internal body temperature rising from doing ballet”.
Or are you talking about now? Now I would say I “love” my wife (in quotes because love is so hard to define). I have feelings for her. But they are not unconditional. And they are reciprocated, coextensive, and autocatalytic.
Or are you talking about when we first started seeing each other? Then, I would say I was intrigued. Are you going to count that as “warm fuzzy feeling”?
Well, you do it to church-goers. So sure. Warm fuzzy feeling.
You’re an intelligent fellow, surely you see where this is going.
We’ve already dealt with Seth’s failed efforts to prove that something analogous to religious faith is the basis for most of our everyday actions. See this thread: http://mainstreetplaza.com/2012/06/22/two-interesting-news-items-mormons-secret-and-maxwell-institute-shake-up/
starting in particular with this comment:
http://mainstreetplaza.com/2012/06/22/two-interesting-news-items-mormons-secret-and-maxwell-institute-shake-up/comment-page-2/#comment-104005
So, this is going toward: At some point in time (perhaps a completely negligible and irrelevant point in time) I manifested “faith” in my now wife, which led me to express my “intrigue” in her, which resulted in her confirming my “intrigue”?
Um, yeah. Why would “faith” be required to express “intrigue”/”interest” in someone? That makes no sense. It’s not like I walked up to a completely random stranger and said, “Hey, you look interesting. Want to get married?”
I got to know someone over a 6 month period, found her intriguing, spent time with her, grew closer to her, and eventually fell in love with her. The entire time, she and I were reciprocating.
If there was no reciprocation, it would have ended. Why? Because love is rational. It’s empirical. At least for me it is. I don’t love people who treat me like shit.
This is part of the reason why I lack a belief in god. I made overtures. God didn’t reciprocate. Logical course of action: there is no reason to invest any more time in this useless enterprise. Moving on…
If by empirical – you mean you had positive experiences and drew conclusions from them – then Mormons do that with God and faith all the time. Does that mean our faith is rational?
Nice try, Seth. Your point here has been that you have faith, then god gives you those “positive experiences”. My point is that I had positive experiences, then began to love my wife. You are saying faith comes before the experience. I’m saying just the opposite is the case with love.
And, frankly, I’d concede that faith can appear rational when people base it on what they perceive to be divine experiences. The problem, of course, is that they have been taught to interpret those experiences as having a divine or supernatural origin. Independent, objective observers are likely to disagree with that interpretation.
No one is arguing you have to have complete faith before connecting with God anymore than anyone is claiming you have to have complete love before dating.
And you can talk yourself out of being in love with your wife just as easily as you can talk yourself out of believing in God.
People do it every day.
Well, maybe you can talk yourself out of being in love with your wife. Other people don’t find it so simple.
But then my wife is a real person.
Yes, that the reality of the person is exactly why you can talk yourself out of it.
bah, “the reality”…
I’ve fallen in love at first sight. There are people I love unconditionally, and there are people I cannot talk myself out of loving, and there are people I will love as long as I am able to feel anything at all.
Loving people has not required one iota of faith.
Building relationships, however, has required a great deal of trust.
I understand when people say they love the church. I don’t understand when they say they trust it or its leaders.
The leaders are not trustworthy. And why should they be? So much of what they say and do is based on the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith is not trustworthy. The book he tried to pass off as scripture is not trustworthy.
Sure, you can talk yourself into trusting all that. It’s probably especially easy for the type of people who are somehow able to talk themselves out of loving someone. Doesn’t mean it’s a wise decision or the basis for a moral life or an approach to life anyone else should take seriously or respect.
Ah, so this discussion has moved on to the “Oh, yeah, well love isn’t logical either,” phase. 😀
I agree with Holly @67. Logic and evidence may not be relevant when deciding who to love — simply because people don’t generally consciously decide who to love. However you can consciously decide who to trust and who to build a relationship with, and for those questions, evidence can be very helpful.
Talk out of? I think Elizabeth Bishop said it better, “The art of losing isn’t hard to master”
My cat is ashes on my bookshelf.
I first met her when she was a week old and she crawled up my chest and snuggled under my chin against my neck. And I knew I was buying her a house with a yard to explore.
She ruined my chinese rug, shredded my couches, sprayed my books.
When I was sick with pneumonia and she yowled for breakfast, I asked to sleep a little longer. She jumped up on me, gave the dirtiest look and opened the floodgates of her bladder. I got up washed my sheets, took a shower, but first I feed her.
And still, still if I could, I give her my life.
A very nice poem Suzanne, but doesn’t it apply to faith as well?
A clarification – my intent is not to say religion is logical, or love is irrational. My point is to say that the two impulses are both equally rational and irrational.
Actually, that doesn’t really capture what I think either. I think our working definition of what rationality is, is defective. And I think there is a massive double-standard being applied to faith, by people who use similar paradigms to those advocated by faith communities in their own daily lives in other contexts.
Maybe I didn’t pay enough attention to the discussion/too inexperienced in both areas, but I’m not quite getting the comparison of love to faith.
can someone spell this out? Maybe email me if this is too off-topic. I’m just thinking that you would never make Moroni 10:4 conclusions in a love type situation.
If I were inclined to do as Seth does and tell other people what they think, I would say that the reason he can’t really capture what he thinks is because on some level he realizes, as Andrew points out, that the comparison really doesn’t make sense.
Love itself–who we love, how long we love–may be irrational, but our reactions to it are dependent on specific cues from the object of our love–at least, they are if we’re not psychotic. We consider evidence for how those we love feel about us and, especially as we age, we make our decisions for what to do with and about our love based on that evidence and reasonable understandings about how likely we are to make each other happier, better people.
With faith, you’re supposed to have particular reactions regardless of the way the object of faith behaves.
For instance, to go back to profxm’s original point, and LDS Anarchist’s restatement of it:
In Mormonism, if you absolutely believe that what you absolutely believe is right, and you say to the universe, “Hey! All that stuff I believe absolutely is right, isn’t it?” then what you absolutely believe is right will find ways to let you know that you are, in fact, right to absolutely believe it. That circularity is how you know that you’re doing it right, despite the lack of externally verifiable evidence that you’re right, and in the fact of evidence that you’re actually wrong.
pause for people to shake their heads at how, um unbelievably messed up that is.
If you were to apply that approach to love, you would work hard to increase your love for whomever/whatever you love no matter what else you feel–fatigue, a persistent sense that having the crap beaten out of you isn’t really all that good for the relationship, resentment that they sold your computer to a pawn shop for drug money–and you would find ways to interpret ANYTHING–a restraining order (“their love for me is so great they can’t bear to be near me!”), declarations of indifference (“they can’t admit how much they love me!”), mere everyday politeness (“Wow! They smiled and said hi! That’s obvious encouragement”)–as evidence that you are right to love and, more importantly for this analogy, that your love is returned.
“Irrational” is a mild term for that sort of behavior.
My cat was a real tangible being who existence I verified through my senses. I could see her, physically feel her, definitely hear her vocalizations and most noticeably smelt her markings.
I suppose one could fall in love with fictitious online feline or a girlfriend. That leap of faith could well be a disaster.
I could also be moved by a great novel. I have faith that fiction can inspire. While the novel is real, the characters are not. I feel the book in my hand. Read the words on the page.
I’m not seeing a double standard. Nor do I think both are equally rational and irrational.
Any divorce attorney can tell you that people reach all those whacky and bizarre conclusions about their relationships – with regularity.
As it happens, Seth, I am related very closely to a divorce attorney, and I would bet I know more about the sorts of things divorce attorneys hear than you do.
I’ve mentioned this before, several times. It has influenced my own views on marriage and divorce. I don’t expect you to remember anything anyone else has said in a previous conversation, especially given that you so often can’t keep track of what you yourself have said in an on-going conversation, but you might seriously consider the possibility that hearing about the sorts of things people in divorces say to their lawyers is one reason I was able to come up with a list of the sorts of really stupid, destructive things messed-up people in messed-up relationships say.
But here’s the salient point, which you resolutely missed: those types of statements from those types of people are examples of what sane, healthy people should avoid, not what we should emulate.
Whereas, for your whole “faith and love are both equally rational and irrational” thing to work, those messed-up thoughts by messed-up people in messed-up relationships would have to serve as examples of appropriate behavior.
And they’re just not.
Years ago I remember some self-proclaimed love guru teaching that people fall in love with someone when they are not around that person. I can’t remember the exact quote but essentially it was based on the absence makes the heart grow fonder principle. When we think about someone who is not present, the concept of “falling in love” occurs. In other words, we do it to ourselves by constantly thinking about that person and imagining our lives with that person. The process occurs, according to this man, when the love interest is not present because our imagination focuses on the all the good qualities and creates the illusion of future bliss.
Any way, the same process can be applied to faith because scriptural faith is exercised by constantly looking to Christ, constantly praying to God in His name and constantly yielding to the enticings of the Holy Ghost. This constant mental and heart attention, while the object of the attention is not around, creates the same kind of bond that falling in love does.
What most people “of faith” do is give sporadic attentions to God, not constant as is required. Since “constant attentions” is the scriptural faith standard, the Lord, for His part, responds either sporadically, minimally or not at all. Like a lover whose professed love interest is neglectful, He withdraws from those who profess to love Him, but do not dedicate their attentions to Him, and He draws close to those who draw close to Him.
The gospel is designed around testimonies. So, a person hears someone testify of their experiences with God and how great and wonderful He is, or they read a testimony in the scriptures, and if they believe these testimonies and the descriptions of the witnesses of the qualities of God, they start to desire a relationship with God, too. They start to think of God, etc. Those who go through the faith process, dedicating constant attention to Him, suddenly discover the Holy Ghost manifesting, communicating some bit of information, or they get baptized with fire, an angel ministers, they hear the voice of the Lord speaking from the heavens, etc. In other words, they discover that God sends messengers and messages to those who dedicate all their thoughts and heart to Him, which is what lovers who have fallen in love do. These messages are accompanied by feelings of love, indescribable joy and bliss. So, it is the most satisfying of all possible relations.
My own experience with the divine exactly conforms to this pattern. When I have turned my attentions to the Lord, as is required, with constancy, the Holy Ghost manifests, the visions ensue, the angels are seen, the baptism of fire is experienced, revelations are received, prophecies are spoken, etc. In other words, life becomes real good, very satisfying. But when I have been remiss in my mental and heart attentions, becoming distracted by life’s many enticements, the heavens close and my prayers bounce off the ceiling.
So faith and love do have something in common.
I might also add that testimonies work for mortal lovers, too. So, a woman enters a room and begins to relate about her new lover to all the other women in the room. Her descriptions get their imaginations rolling and some start saying that “he sounds dreamy.” They begin voicing the opinion that “I wish I had a man like that.” They begin to fantasize about this man they’ve never seen or heard. It’s all a similar process.
Like I said, the messed-up behaviors of messed-up people in messed-up relationships–which LDS anarchist describes so well in terms of his own relationship with the object of his faith @76–are examples of what sane, healthy people should avoid, not what we should emulate.
Yeah, I was about to say, LDS Anarchist is describing any type of extreme fixation on an object of devotion. If I spent all day, every day for a month, staring at a piece of shit on my doorstep, I’m guessing it would start talking to me by about the third day. My slavish devotion to it would eventually result in me hallucinating and even feeling warm fuzzies about it, but it’s still a piece of shit.
Turn that kind of attention to any object and eventually you’ll convince yourself that it’s communicating back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(psychology)
profxm, that’s not even worthy of a response.
That’s foul-minded MADB talk. You’re going to have to offer something more than bitterness and cynicism if you want to be persuasive.
OMG! We were just laughing about this facebook: how pathetic people are when, in response to something that offends them, they make comments like, “That’s not even worthy of a response.”
If it’s not worthy of a response, Seth, why did you respond? You do realize that you just demonstrated that for you, it was not only worthy of a response, it demanded one? It’s not worthy of a response–but Seth R felt it was too important to ignore? What’s up with that?
Come on, Seth. That’s a cop out. My point was that you can fixate on anything. Fixate on god. Fixate on a cat. Fixate on a piece of poo on your doorstep. It doesn’t matter. Slavish devotion will result in hallucinations.
You can dismiss it by claiming it’s “foul-minded”, but it’s true.
Obviously religion isn’t comparable to this profxm. Like human relationships, it has a lot more going for it than an inanimate object.
It’s basically a different version of the “flying spaghetti monster” stupidity that plays well on atheist echo chambers, but just sounds ridiculous everywhere else.
it has a lot more going for it than an inanimate object.
Like… an invisible object? An object you can’t see or smell or touch?
At least you can see and smell and touch the shit. You might not want to, but you can.
profxm is actually exactly right about the inanimate objects–people often invest them with an almost if not explicitly religious importance.
Think about statues and images of gods. The bible wouldn’t have any reason to forbid them if people didn’t treat them as actually powerful, if they didn’t have relationships with them, if they didn’t have faith in the specialness of the images and the things that happened when they worshiped them.
Or think about groves of trees or pillars of rocks in special locations. The bible wouldn’t have any reason to say they should be cut or torn down if people didn’t treat them as actually powerful, if they didn’t have relationships with them, if they didn’t have faith in the specialness of the place and the things that happened there.
Or think about a kid with a beloved blanket or teddy bear he’s really emotionally attached to, that he believes has some sort of mystical significance. He has a relationship with it; he has faith in its ability to comfort and protect him. Sometimes kids love their blankies more than their siblings.
So actually Profxm is exactly right about the extent to which faith can be focused on inanimate objects, and Seth is wrong that religion “has a lot more going for it than an inanimate object.” Not only is the relationship with an entity that can’t talk to you because it’s invisible and/or incorporeal basically analogous to a relationship with an entity that can’t talk to you because it’s inanimate, but a lot of religion is focused on inanimate objects–and it has been for millennia.
Seth, I’m not trying to be demeaning. Truth is, meditation, if done long enough and intensely enough, can induce hallucination. This has been known for quite some time:
http://www.psyn-journal.com/article/S0925-4927(01)00116-0/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2552427/pdf/jnma00036-0033.pdf
All I was suggesting is that any object of devotion can lead to altered states of consciousness, hallucinations, and warm fuzzies if attention is focused on it sufficiently. Pray long enough and eventually something will happen – you’ll fall asleep, you’ll hear voices, you’ll see things, etc. That’s just the way the mind seems to work.
This discussion has veered (not that it shouldn’t or isn’t interesting) from the direction Seth was heading way back where he was trying to compare the confirming “burning in the bosom” with the emotive experience we label love, to somehow argue that an emotional experience is a sufficient test of a religious proclaimed truth. I am with Andrew #71 that that analogy doesn’t work in addressing profxm’s original assertion “that the core logic of the missionary message is a logical fallacy.”
I keep wondering, since I am enjoying the discussion, that is, loving it, is that a sign verifying religious faith, and confirming the existence of God? Sorry, it is early in the morning and I haven’t had my cup of postum.
No, it doesn’t confirm the existence of God. (Don’t ask why not. That’s not important. I don’t care about that. Which translates into “I said so,” but I’m not willing to admit to being that arbitrary. So just don’t press me on the point, because I don’t want to have to make up some justification for something I can’t justify.) But the fact that you love and enjoy the thread and have warm feelings about it does prove that the thread is true–and, by extension, everything else in your worldview related to the thread. (Except the existence of God, of course.)
Also by extension, because it’s related to this thread, the current silence of LDS Anarchist and Seth R PROVES that THEY KNOW that this thread is true.
The thread proves all this despite the fact that logically it really doesn’t prove anything at all–they could be busy, or dead, or too frustrated with the thread to bother anymore, or unable to formulate a response to recent comments even though unwilling to cede that they’re wrong, or have lost their internet connection, or any number of things. But logic isn’t what really matters here, because this is the realm of faith, and in that realm, we can KNOW what LDS Anarchist and Seth are thinking. We don’t need to ask them what they think or listen when they tell us, flat out, what they think, because we have this nifty little epistemological trick that confirms for us our own perceptions–about faith, about the unseen world, and about what’s going on in their minds. If their statements contradict our knowledge of what they think, they’re obviously lying.
I love the world of faith! It’s so easy here–the circle keeps you safe; the circle tells you to keep believing what you believe, because why would you believe it if wasn’t true?
Why would anyone live anywhere else?
Holly,
This is likely the last time I’ll address you since you’ve shown yourself to be a pompous ass with all the condescending mocking you’ve done. I don’t mind discussing things with civilized people who can carry on a conversation with someone they disagree with, but your mocking rants reveal that is is not worth the time or effort to respond to you. I am only doing so this once so that you know my silence doesn’t indicate that I concede your case, only that I concede your foolishness.
In the short time I’ve spent on this blog, profxm and now you have come across as mockers. If the blog had a way to rate it, I’d give a thumbs down just based on the performance of you two. Perhaps that is the standard for ex-mo’s? I don’t know. I certainly hope not because mocking is a sign of the fool and I don’t want to think that all ex-mo’s are fools. If and when you and profxm learn to be diplomatic and civil, I may engage you again, but until then, I’ll just sit out of your bitter, condescending rants.
Continuing on with @24,
The Book of Mormon is a redaction, Mormon being the redactor who selected the material. Some of that material was written by Mormon himself, while other parts were written by other individuals. In the case of the material that Moroni wrote, he makes it plain that what he wrote was done under his father’s commandments. So even the material that Moroni engraved on the plates was redacted by Mormon before his death.
The instructions given to Moroni could have been prioritized. In other words, “Be sure to include this, that and the other. If there is still some room on the plates and you have a chance to write more before sealing them and burying them, include this, that and the other.” Etc.
We don’t know the instructions Moroni received, only that he received them. This shows why Moroni didn’t list himself as an author, choosing instead to ascribe the whole work to his father. So the “and when you shall receive these things” phrase must have been talking of the whole work because Moroni did not see his own writings as separate from Mormon’s work.
You clearly are very good at reading into the Book of Mormon, without reading the book itself. Why don’t you carefully read the Book of Moroni. Moroni finished his father’s book–the last two chapters of the Book of Mormon (small book not total book). And then he begins his book, by saying I thought I would be dead, but I’m not so I’m going to write a few more things, and I’m writing to the Lamanites. If he was writing his father’s prioritized list of topics he would have just continued his father’s book.
Now if your interpretations have come by an angelic visitation, then say so. Otherwise simply list it as speculation on your part. There are all sorts of could have beens, but at some point you have to stay with what is given. Unless, of course, as I say, an angel took you beyond what the book actually says. And while you are at it, go back and read the D&C 121.
profxm, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that your bit about meditation creating altered states of mind is true and there’s a neurochemical explanation for this.
So what?
You’ve gotten no closer to proving or disproving God at all. Perhaps the neurochemical explanation is simply the method for interfacing with a valid divine reality. If that’s the case, this atheist quest to explain away God with biology and chemistry is an utter pipe dream.
By the way, how did we get onto the topic of whether faith in general is a valid and rational approach to life? The original topic was Moroni’s argument, right? Did I get us off track here?
@90: Oh, LDS Anarchist, did I hurt your fragile feelings so badly that you have to go away? Ohhhh…..
You are welcome to believe that mocking is the sign of a fool, though of course, you would have to include yourself in that category, since you have been guilty of mocking. Consider this comment from you on a previous thread that I was not involved in: http://mainstreetplaza.com/2013/02/19/questions-mormons-cant-answer/comment-page-2/#comment-113031
That’s mocking, my little anarchist friend. It’s not especially sophisticated, but it’s mocking.
I don’t hold it against you, however. After all, the sort of mocking you’ve engaged in is a natural response when someone feels threatened by something they cannot understand or comprehend or which they never heard of before and do not believe to be true. I truly am sorry if I have made you feel bad. My intention was to teach, not to make you look like a fool–I mean, you did a good enough job of that all on your own, with your own ridiculous comments.
Enjoy your Sunday! You’ve certainly brightened mine.
Seth @92:
Short answer: yes, this is pretty much your fault.
Long answer: You certainly helped, way back in @7:
You can’t very well “see how well the Book of Mormon fits into the knowledge we have of history and how God deals with humanity” without considering whether the approach to god and faith advocated by the BOM is actually a valid one, can you?
Or @11:
the OP wanted to make it just about the BOM. You stressed that it’s about so much more than that. You stressed that the promise is about “God’s dealings with humanity throughout history”–or in other words, all of human life throughout all of human existence.
or look at @44 from Profxm and @45 from you:
@44
@45
which of course you followed up @47:
So, “whether faith in general is a valid and rational approach to life” and all of God’s supposed dealing with humanity throughout all of human history is the direction you were always steering.
thanks for proving so clearly my point about you @75:
You really ought to review your own comments before you ask a question about them.
How are warm fuzzy feelings calibrated?
Back when I was in primary, I would ask–Maybe the Holy Ghost is a liar? It seemed to me back then, there was no way to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Sitting through endless testimony meetings, it struck me while listening to people who testified to knowing all sorts of contradictory things, that it wasn’t a particularly useful way to ascertain the truth.
I am skeptical of information that comes from toking on a pipe.It can, however, be beautiful.
Oh, and don’t forget @60, Seth:
That’s the point at which you, Seth, made the thread explicitly about whether faith is rational, after moving it that direction all along.
Like I said, you really ought to read your own comments before asking about them. At least you seemed to suspect that you were at fault, given the way you phrased your question: “Did I get us off track here?”
So, you did fully expect someone to come along and confirm that you were indeed the one responsible for the change in direction, right?
Not that anyone else especially seemed to care about the twists and turns the conversation has taken…. This is something you’ve done more than once: derail a conversation, then wonder how on earth the conversation strayed so far afield from the OP.
Considering for @96 the way Seth formulated his question @92 got me to thinking about LDS Anarchist’s claim @39:
Profxm and I insisted that the question was an either/or. LDS Anarchist wanted to say that it’s not either/or, that one of those possibilities has been removed.
So then I actually stopped to think about how we ask and answer a question like, “Are these things not true?”
I mean, what’s the right answer? What would God actually say?
Neither answer is unambiguous.
If he says, “Yes,” he’s affirming that the things are not true, but because it affirms a negative, it’s confusing.
If he says “No,” he’s denying that they’re not true–he’s saying that they are not not-true–but that’s not the same as affirming that they are, in fact, true, as George Orwell, who loathed the not-un construction, would point out. Something that is not-not true could be still be a distortion, a misunderstanding, a statement out of context that, although not-not-true, still doesn’t accurately capture the full truth. Their Orwellian not-not-true-ness doesn’t automatically render them true.
If someone asks you, “Are these things not true?” the best way to fully and intelligibly answer that question is to restate it as a statement, with or without the not: “These things are not true” or “These things are true.”
So really, if LDS Anarchist is going to insist that there’s something special about this question, that it matters that it’s phrased precisely this way, that it’s not really an either/or, we’re left with the fact that, sadly, it’s a really bad question. It’s the wrong question. It’s a dumb question, written by someone who doesn’t understand good writing or good logic.
RE #92: Seth, I’m not trying to prove or disprove the existence of god. My whole argument about the brain’s ability to hallucinate and have conversations with invisible and inanimate objects of adoration was in reference to LDS Anarchist’s post about how one must have slavish devotion to god in order to receive “witnesses” and “experiences” that confirm the existence of that god.
My point was that you could expect the same “witnesses” and “experiences” from pretty much anything if you gave it enough attention and focus. Maybe his experiences are god communicating with him. But the likelihood of that is the equivalent of the likelihood that that my hypothetical piece of shit on my doorstep is also a god. Your god is just as likely to exist based on LDS Anarchist’s argument for how “evidence” is derived as is my shit-god.
I’m not saying your god doesn’t exist. I’m just saying that my shit-god is equally likely to exist.
No, I don’t think it is “just as likely” to exist. The evidence for the Christian God may not be conclusive in your mind, but there’s an awful lot more of it than there is for your example.
@99: Once again, Seth spells it out: “I’m right to believe what I believe without any real evidence because so many other people also believe it without any real evidence. That makes it superior to anyone else’s competing claim that they’re right to believe without any real evidence something that contradicts my beliefs, because they don’t have nearly as much completely inconclusive evidence for their beliefs as I do.”
Nice!
Seth, if your evidence boils down to (and I’m drawing on LDS Anarchist here): “I spent hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks focusing all of my mental attention on object X and then I began to hear voices and felt some funny feelings,” then my shit-god is just as likely to exist as is your Mormon-god.
Another bit of evidence that focus can drive you to hallucinate:
http://www.odditycentral.com/news/worlds-quietest-place-lets-you-hear-your-internal-organs.html
@91 Parker,
You are still trying hard to misunderstand everything, or at least to make it appear that you misunderstand. Moroni called the entire work “the book of mormon” in the title page. Both these statement, then, are true:
“Moroni finished his father’s book–the last two chapters of the Book of Mormon (small book not total book).”
“Moroni finished his father’s book–the last two chapters of the Book of Mormon (small book not total book), the Book of Ether and the Book of Moroni, in other words, he finished the total book, not just the small Book of Mormon.”
Your attempt to narrow down everything to just the small Book of Mormon takes Moroni’s words out of context because after Moroni wrote the Book of Moroni, he then wrote the Title Page which indicates that the entire Book of Mormon was ascribed to the father, not the son.
The evidence points to Moroni receiving commandments concerning what was written in the Book of Moroni, too. For example, Mormon had always intended that the information written in Moroni 2 was included in the record, as demonstrated by 3 Nephi 18:37, so to say that the Book of Moroni was just Moroni doing his own thing doesn’t hold water. Moroni was still fulfilling his father’s commandments in the Book of Moroni, but they were conditional commandments. In other words, “If this condition, then write that.” The writings of Moroni in the small Book of Mormon and in the Book of Ether were unconditional commandments.
These things aren’t difficult to understand, but I am sure you will find a way to make it all incomprehensible.
Re: D&C 121, which you keep bringing up, does that go both ways in your mind, or do you see it as only applying to me and not to you? What I see on this forum is a lot of bitter, vindictive, condescending comments, so I presume that the principles in that scripture only applies to practicing Mormons, huh? At any rate, since some of my comments have been interpreted as “reproofs with sharpness,” regardless of whether they were intended that way or not, I will say that I hold no hard feelings against anyone here, regardless of whether they mock or not. Friendly conversationalists will be treated as friends, whereas fighting and mocking words will simply be ignored. Doesn’t mean I love them any less. When the behavior of the mockers improves, I may engage them again, as I already said in a previous comment, but until then I will avoid them, for in the immortal words of Holly, “the messed-up behaviors of messed-up people…are examples of what sane, healthy people should avoid.”
Cue the misconstruction, misunderstanding and misunderstanding…
Also cue the typos…
No, it doesn’t boil down to that. It boils down to looking at what the religion has actually produced, the effects it’s had on my life and the lives of others, the art, music, literature, ideas, and so forth that it has produced.
You know – empirical stuff.
@102:
Well, at least you know better than to expect anyone to find your comments coherent and intelligible, LDS Anarchist.
I liked this part:
Very resourceful and cute! You engage with “the mockers” by announcing that you won’t engage with them. It’s a more pompous and aggrieved version of the old “your statement doesn’t deserve a response” response.
fyi: When your logic improves and you quit making stuff up and quit expecting people to accept your nonsense as doctrine (because even if we don’t believe LDS doctrine, we can still recognize it when we see it), people will be more likely to respond in ways you find more “friendly.” Try it and see!
So, you’re rejecting LDS Anarchist’s position?
I’m fine with that, I just want it to be clear.
And I can’t help but point out that what we now have is two apologists who disagree as to what indicates whether or not Mormonism is “true”: LDS Anarchist says it’s divine interactions that results from slavish devotion while Seth says it’s his interpretation of the influence of Mormonism on his life.
My response, then, Seth, is two words: confirmation bias.
@106: Yes. As I wrote @48:
So is the play Medea by Euripides empirical proof for Helios and dragon-drawn chariots?
Euripides has been inspiring people a whole lot longer than Mormon or Moroni.
Just about anything could be called confirmation bias by those who disagree with it.
Actually Suzanne, Euripides’ notion hasn’t had the sort of success I was talking about. I doubt he’s really inspired much of anything from you – any more than any other story.
Bingo! That’s why we need evidence, Seth, and a rational approach to truth claims. That’s why faith as you describe it isn’t rational or a valid approach to decision-making.
Well Medea has had more success than the Book of Mormon.
I could link to many representations of her in Art.
I don’t know if any great artists painting Mormon or Moroni.
Unless you count Arnold Friberg.
Now if Ray Harryhausen had only made a Book of Mormon movie, then I’d agree.
As it is, Medea by Euripides has played on the great stages.It is taught in top universities and ordinary High Schools.
It’s endured for 2500 years.
And gave me an emotional wallop. But I guess you know better than me, the impact on me.
I think that what Seth is getting at is that people base their entire lives and livelihoods around God and religion. This is not something that happens with the flying spaghetti monster or crap on the sidewalk.
I think the challenge of alternate religions that have been popular in the past (or even mutually exclusive current religions) is a good response – but someone could just respond that they think that these had/have an element of truth revealed to them as well… In other words, even if Helios isn’t empirically proven, that doesn’t matter because “Helios” is just a vehicle for (insert the poetic truths, values, and ideas that are associated with Helios and that do resonate with people). An “emotional wallop” is probably not going to impress Seth on this point… But if you or others changed the way you live your life as a result, I would think that is more what Seth is getting at.
…But, you know, I guess an issue is that not every religious person is even clear on what exactly is the nature of religious truth. If we’re talking about resonating values, that is different than people who are very much talking about literal existence claims.
Additionally, different people are inspired by different things, and not necessarily inspired in ways that we all should or will concede are for the better. I am, for one, not impressed with the way that Mormon theology “inspires” many folks to defend patriarchy, heteronormativity, etc. But I also recognize that perhaps patriarchal religions are so popular precisely because people (especially the ones who benefit from it) already identify with it. So, just because something is well accepted doesn’t necessarily mean that it is for the better.
Suzanne, if you have specifics to recommend to Euripedes, I’d be happy to hear about it and be enriched by it.
Andrew, on your point about patriarchal religions – I don’t feel any particular need to defend the patriarchy – in or out of the LDS Church. It’s not something I particularly have a “testimony” about one way or the other.
But I would just make the observation that one of the reasons patriarchal models may be popular is not so much because they are benefiting “old rich white guys” or something. It’s because the modern fad is one of limitless human freedom of thought and action, an to be honest, such freedom is oppressive to many people. The old patriarchy may not be the best way to combat the tyranny of modern libertinism – but it is unquestionably available at the moment. And that may be why it is popular among those seeking refuge from the ideological bullying of the popular culture.
Andrew @113:
Well, what Seth actually wrote @104 was that you could find “evidence for the Christian God” that
People base their entire lives and livelihoods around death and destruction. How much effect has war had on the lives of the people of the world? How many novels, movies, plays, epics, romances, songs has war produced? Does that mean we should worship it?
Other people base their entire lives around astrology–their are people who make their livings as astrologers, and others who consult astrologers regularly. It has produced lots of art and was for many years even part of christianity. So, is that evidence of its spiritual and intellectual validity and rationality?
How do you know? Honestly, how do you? Charles Manson heard God talk to him in Beatles’ albums. How do you know someone hasn’t based their life on a hallucination inspired by a pile of shit or the FSM?
If one of the issues on the table is faith in the possible but not obviously manifest, why deny these things that are possible but not obviously manifest?
After all, as Seth himself has argued, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I agree. Slavery and not educating women were both once well accepted. I don’t think either was for the better.
Seth #114:
and once again, Seth rails against straw beliefs pretty much no one actually holds. I’m not saying there’s no one anywhere on the planet who believes that human beings are unlimited in thought and action; there might be people foolish and crazy enough to actually believe it. But pretty much everyone I have ever interacted with realizes that there are limits to what we can do and limits to what we should do–and most definitely limits to what we can think.
That is one of those things that is manifestly true: we can’t think ourselves to the answer of the question of “How do we prove, conclusively, the existence of god?” Most of us admit as well that our minds are limited in that we cannot know the thoughts of other people or other creatures.
Come to think of it, Seth and LDS Anarchists are the only ones here who seems to think that there is no limit to their thoughts, who feel free to make up any old thought that pleases them–including the utter fiction that they can know the motives and thoughts of people they’ve never met, and people who, if they lived at all, still died hundreds of years ago.
In other words, Seth, the only reason you know about this “modern fad” is because YOU have bought into it. You demonstrate that on just about every thread you comment on.
LDS Anarchist, alright, Moroni only wrote precisely what his father Mormon instructed him to write. So Mormon says, “Moroni, write a passage directly to our beloved Lamanites, telling them of God’s great mercy, and promise them if they ask God they can know for themselves that God is merciful. But what he meant to say rather than beloved Lamanites was “all people.” And rather than knowing I Moroni/Mormon speak the truth about God’s mercy, he meant to speak about the truth of Mormon’s collection of edited and dictated plates.
I do understand how important it is to you, and of course all missionaries, to have such a promise, otherwise you would be required to accept the book entirely on faith, but now you can “know.” It is unfortunate, for obvious reasons, that the editors and redactors of the Bible didn’t include a similar promise.
re 114,
Seth,
Yeah, maybe I’m overstepping in my armchair analysis, but it seems to me that there’s a lot of things you don’t necessarily “feel any particular need to defend”…and then you end up defending them anyway in roundabout or not-so-roundabout ways. And more and more, it seems that the reason you change positions on any sort of issue and get a sense of fervency/urgency/testimony is usually from a negative reaction with the “opposition.”
But the thing I’m saying is that Mormonism really gives you ready-made reasons and points to justify the positions you come to. (even if you don’t always admit to it.)
Like, “tyranny of modern libertinism” and “ideological bullying of the popular culture”…these sound pretty informed by Mormonism to me (especially *what* you consider to be ideological bullying of the popular culture…what you consider to be the dominant elements of popular culture that is doing the bullying).
note that when *other* minority groups are “bullied by the popular culture” (because, you know, said popular culture has many facets) — usually because of things like patriarchy, heterosexism, etc., you may or may not be so willing to support their attempts to combat these things. Like…if we’re talking about where patriarchy fits in this scheme, it would not be in the box “minority’s tool to fight against the popular culture.”
This is definitely a different conversation than the one at hand, however.
re 115,
Holly,
I’m sure that Seth believes there are far more positive outcomes to religions than for war and destruction, and that makes the difference between the Christian God vs. war. (that’s a disputable point, of course, but I’m just saying…it’s easy for someone to say that’s not comparing apples to apples.)
Again, I think that the point on astrology is a good comparison…but I think many people would say, ‘yes, absolutely, there is *something* to these things, even if science hasn’t figure out how to replicate it.’ Especially if we’re including ‘spiritual’ validity along with ‘intellectual’ validity and rationality…
I see Seth’s argument as being about movements — groups of people, not pockets of individuals. So, even if “someone” has based their life on a hallucination inspired by a pile of shit or the FSM, that’s not the same as 1 billion Catholics, etc.,
maybe there is a vast contingent of FSM worshippers living their lives by the noodly appendage in a way that is not so visible to armchair internet analysis, but for major religions, this is not the case.
I don’t think that Seth’s argument here is that the changed lives of worshippers can be “possible but not manifest.” Rather, even if (insert deity here) seems not to be directly manifest, he/she/it/they manifest through the changed lives of the adherents.
(again, though, I’m not saying this is necessarily a valid argument. For a number of reasons. And of course, if I’m not channelling Seth’s intentions properly, I fully concede to any corrections he may have.)
Andrew–
You are probably right in your analysis of Seth’s argument. I think it is very kind of you to make his argument more intelligibly and coherently than he ever bothers to do.
” he/she/it/they manifest through the changed lives of the adherents.”
But does this make the fictional entity tangibly real? Does it provide empirical proof?
Have you seen the movie, “Candyman” Can people beliefs create a monster? Can urban legends become real? ” You are not content with the stories, so I was obliged to come.” and ” Our names will be written on a thousand walls. Our crimes told and retold by our faithful believers. We shall die together in front of their very eyes and give them something to be haunted by. Come with me and be immortal.”
And there’s the novel. “American Gods” Can a belief take materialized form?
Star Trek is a popular.Talk about changed lives, a movement. People voted overwhelming to name a moon of Pluto after the fictional planet, “Vulcan”. A belief taking material form?
But whether the moon is named Vulcan or not, the moon is still there and the fictional planet is not.
A moon on Pluto named Vulcan does not provide empirical proof for the reality of Star Trek.
It does provide evidence of how popular a fictional world has become.
And if Mormonism ever moves from being a regional dominant religion into a major religion, and impact the lives of billions, the Book of Mormon is still not historical.
And Moroni’s promise is still a logical fallacy.
@120: Yes. Thank you.
Andrew, I don’t really have a “testimony” of the corporate LDS Church and a lot of its trappings.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t think that some of the criticisms being made against it are completely retarded. Especially when certain echo chambers are all enthusiastically back-slapping each other over the same retarded argument.
In which case, yes, I’ll probably come in on the defense of “the corporation” out of sheer irritation at human online stupidity.
The City Creek Mall being a good example. Just because I don’t support “the corporation” doesn’t mean that argument is not still completely idiotic.
@122: There you go. Seth doesn’t bother to create a decent argument of his own; he merely responds with irritation to the statements of others. He’ll defend positions he doesn’t really hold, just because he’s so motivated by pique and spleen.
What a nice, concise summary of the collective act of testimony bearing! What a terrific indictment of his attempts to validate faith because a lot of people invest in it! Thanks, Seth, for hoisting yourself on your own petard!
120,
Suzanne,
I’ll quote Seth from an earlier comment:
^Interestingly, this goes both ways. Seth was meaning it the other ways (finding neurochemical explanations doesn’t disprove God)…but I would point out this way: the lived experiences of religious believers get us no closer to proving God at all. [of course, i imagine that when seth says that the christian god has more proof than the FSM or insert any other challengers…he’s not *just* thinking about the changed lives of believers…but I don’t think he wants to get into that argument on such a discussion as this.]
*Perhaps* the changes in lives is method for interfacing with a valid divine reality (thus, the “fictional entity” is “tangibly real”)…but perhaps…there’s a different explanation [fictional, intangible things can still be valuable.].
I don’t think it matters for Seth’s point. The underlying point still stands. Regardless of whether God actually exists or not, the effect of God beliefs is still more influential and powerful than (insert competitor beliefs).
Comparisons to Star Trek trivialize the influence and power of religion. Yes, you have a lot of star trek fans. And yes, many of them will become very involved with the fandom (cosplaying, learning conlangs like Klingon, etc., etc.,) but where are the Star Trek charities? How much money have they raised? How many people have they served? Where are the Star Trek schools? How have Star Trek inculcated morality for the future generation in a systematic socialization process?
^Even the most dedicated of fans don’t have anything like the institutional cachet of most religions.
And I’m not saying religions are perfect, or even all that great. BUT they do much “more” than even a fandom does.
Like, let’s turn it from the flip side.
So, there are often criticisms of institutional problems of religions…but this *also* shows how “big” and “influential” they are…where is the star trek “office building”? Where is the star trek “temple”. How many people are disaffected from star trek because of all the time and money they put to a fraud? How many people commit suicide because of the restrictive repressive beliefs of Star Trek? How many people are shunned for disagreeing with Star Trek tenets?
It’s simply not comparable. This is even if God is not actually, tangibly, physically existent. Even if God does not exist, the fictional concepts and the (tangible) things built around it/him/her/them are different than the fictional concepts around Star Trek.
re 122
Seth,
The corporate LDS church isn’t the only thing people have problems with. The reason why some bloggers think you are a “rape apologist” is not because of your position w/r/t the corporate LDS church.
…but I would say that here’s still something to think about. you willingly come to the defense of “the corporation” out of sheer irritation at human online stupidity. But when it comes to other minority groups (say, LGBT), then you aren’t coming to that defense…because instead you see gay marriage proponents as being part of the source of “human online stupidity.”
…the issue is that “human online stupidity” exists everywhere. But what I’m saying is that your group memberships predetermine which stupidities you will let slide, which you will rationalize away, and which you will rail against. And to be fair, this is true for like…everyone…but I’m just saying, when you’re a member of a group that kinda does perpetuate (unabashedly) things like patriarchy, heterosexism, etc., etc., then that’s what you will be defending at some point or another…unless your group identification changes. But you aren’t quite a New Order Mormon or anything like that, so I don’t see that.
Suzanne Star Trek may be more popular. But objectively, it doesn’t have the same strength of ethics, inspiring human narrative, longevity, transfromative power, or any of that.
The best it can boast is a heavily-devoted population of hobbyists.
There’s a reason hobbies are popular – because they offer an escape from reality and demand nothing of people. World of Warcraft demands nothing more than time from people – you log on, forget your job, your relationship worries, the mortgage, and bombings in Syria and escape for a while. It’s meant as an escape from reality.
Christianity has never been an escape from reality in the slightest. Yes, I know Christopher Hitchens begs to differ. But he never understood Christianity in the first place.
Christianity is probably one of the most unflinching face-to-face confrontations with human reality ever concocted. The bible is brutally honest about the depths to which human beings – even beings allied with God – can descend to. It looks the problems of the human condition full in the face and doesn’t blink.
Star Trek doesn’t really do that and never has except in rare moments (and even those are highly sanitized). This is why it has no real life beyond the hobby world.
People are passionate about their hobbies – to be sure. But it’s an acknowledged given that they don’t have the rigor to be taken seriously. No one ever wrote an ageless work of social relevance from their engagement in online gaming. But people have done so, and will do so from Christianity.
Because Christianity is not an escape in the end. It’s about responsible engagement in reality.
In fact, it engages reality probably more responsibly than a great deal of our modern secular fantasy of a future of uninterrupted human progress and betterment.
In the end, entertainment conceptualized as entertainment is simply different than thought systems originally conceptualized as a serious engagement with the reality of the human condition. The tooth fairy was never meant to be real in the first place – consequently, it has no depth of engagement with any important human themes. That makes it an irrelevant comparison to religion. Same for Star Trek.
Then why don’t YOU do this, Seth? Lashing out at others as “retarded” and defending immoral corporations because their critics irritate you is NOT “responsible engagement in reality.”
Your Christianity doesn’t seem to make you a better person. It seems to make you a bitter, mean, hypocritical person who announces with pleasure as you did @122 that you like being a troll.
Andrew, it’s a matter of the company I keep. I don’t encounter anti-gay pig-headedness that often these days.
I do however encounter a lot of pro-gay marriage pig-headedness. I imagine if I were on a different online venue, I’d be railing against what people call homophobia.
In fact, last year I had an extended debate with a conservative Evangelical on a now-defunct Christian forum that lasted nearly a week telling him why the Bible does not clearly condemn homosexuality, and confronting his attempts to character-assassinate one of the local gay commenters. Granted, I highly disliked the gay commenter’s online style myself. But I wasn’t going to sit there and let some bigot imply that he was only a homosexual because he’d been molested as a boy, and that he was trying to molest young boys himself.
It just depends on what I’m confronted with. And I don’t hang out in hives of conservative bigotry. Although a lot of my Mormon Facebook friends are starting to get on my nerves….
Seriously, if I see one more stupid NRA propaganda jpeg….
Seth @125:
Give it time. Plenty of “ageless works of social relevance” have emerged from someone’s engagement with “a hobby.” As an example, check out Aristotle’s “Poetics,” one of the most widely read works ever written, borne of Aristotle’s fondness for Greek drama.
re 125,
Seth,
I’m going to challenge your argument here that hobbies are escapist and religions aren’t.
First of all, religions offers dubious solutions and comforts to problems of reality. So, faced with the starkness of death, religion isn’t saying that people should confront it…people are saying that death can be conquered if only you will believe/do x/y/z.
To the extent these comforts and solutions are dubious (which is definitely a main contention here), the religions are escapist.
Secondly, hobbies (but more important, aesthetic media) aren’t necessarily escapist. (And for both religions and for hobbies/aesthetic media…it doesn’t have to be either/or…it can be both/and.) In other words, aesthetic media resonate with people to the extent that they are relatable and identifiable. You can’t do that unless you interface with reality. When media do not do this, they do not gain followings. They are seen as “out of touch,” “inaccessible,” etc., [Note that the realities being interfaced may nevertheless be *different*. In other words, the reality of aesthetic style is a different reality than that of content. At best you can argue that hobbies are tapping into truths about human enjoyment and nothing more…but I think this is an overstated case.]
re 127,
Seth,
I would also note that as a result of your group members, you have a different idea of what would constitute “anti-gay pigheadness” than someone else. Think about the times that you have denounced the use of the term “homophobe” — because per you, people aren’t necessarily afraid of homosexuality…to the contrary, they can have “rational” reasons for perpetuating heterosexism, and really, it’s the gay marriage supporters who are often (insert negative descriptors here).
I don’t deny that you probably call out excessive arguments when you see them — arguments that maybe even you could call “homophobic”…but the thing is that your current position defines what you will see as excessive.
Oh, I think homophobia exists.
I think there are guys (mostly guys) out there who really are repulsed by gay people, afraid of being hit on by them, and maybe even subconsciously worried they’ll actually LIKE being hit on.
I just think the term is misapplied.
I have to call foul on this statement:
There are many, many elements of Christianity that are escapist.
Matthew 11:28 “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
The concept of heaven is escapist. The Mormon Celestial Room in temples is escapist. The belief that sinners will be punished by god is escapist.
All of these “deny reality.”
Also, I just have to mention, since no one else has: the reason Star Trek doesn’t motivate people to create hospitals and charities is because everyone KNOWS it is NOT real. We recognize it is a fictional universe, which relegates it to hobby status. Aside from this one difference, it is precisely the same thing as religion. Religionists either don’t know religion is not real or believe it’s real.
Interestingly, we just let my son watch Star Trek for the first time in the last week. When we let him watch the first video, we explained to him that it was not real. When Mormons take their kids to church, do they explain to them that it’s not real? No. My many nieces and nephews really believe that they are praying to some dude in the sky at 3, 4, and 5 years old. My son doesn’t know what they are talking about and I’m sure in the next year or so he’s going to ask us why all of his cousins pretend to talk to a make believe person every so often. In all likelihood, I’ll explain it by saying, “You know how you have an imaginary friend. Yeah, they all do too. Yes, they’re old enough that they probably should have grown out of it by now. But they haven’t. And just like Mommy and Daddy let you pretend you had an imaginary friend, we let them pretend they have one too.”
profxm, you are only identifying one of two competing narratives found in the Bible.
The idea of zionist utopia and messianic delivery is in the Bible, to be sure. But even this is merely an extension of the rather hard-nosed practical conclusion that humanity is ultimately incapable of sorting itself out. A conclusion which has, as GK Chesterton pointed out, a lot more evidence for it than any starry-eyed secularist fantasies about neverending human progress. The idea that we need outside intervention isn’t so much an escape as an acceptance of human limitations.
But the messiah narrative isn’t the only one in the Bible. It’s constantly juxtaposed against the Exodus narrative. Contrary to popular belief – the story of Exodus is not one of God fixing everything for the children of Israel. It’s about the children of Israel being offered a chance by God, and repeatedly rejecting it. Only when actually putting in the hard work of becoming a civic society, do they get the “Promised Land.” And even then, its not a utopia on a platter, but something they are commanded to work for, to reform themselves for – to create their own heaven, rather than having it given to them. The rest of the Old Testament is about their failure to take these PRACTICAL measures to reform their society, rise up above the bloodthirsty cultures surrounding them, and become something better.
There’s a reason Martin Luther King Jr. picked the Exodus narrative to motivate his own people to the promised land of God-given human dignity. It’s a practical story about hard work and human confrontation with life’s difficulties. It’s not about God fixing everything. In fact, on each occasion God does miraculously intervene, it doesn’t fix things, but merely presents a new set of challenges. The focus is always on how the Israelites have problems and THEY have to fix them.
You can’t just focus on the concept of Messiah without acknowledging this practical civic component of the City of God as Augustine termed it.
I would like to take this opportunity to link to my most recently uploaded video from the days when I was actively practicing this hobby. And the last few from the series are coming soon!!!
I’m not going to disagree with you, Seth. But was I right to call you out on your statement? Put simply, Christianity very much has “escapist” elements in it. Your statement said it did not. While it may be a matter of interpretation, the escapist elements are clearly there.
re 131,
Seth
One thing to note is that most people don’t use homophobia exclusively in the “gay panic” sense. It’s kinda like how people will protest that they are not racist because they would never burn a cross in some black dude’s yards…well, racism has many facets.
re 132,
profxm
So, if we wanted to inculcate certain behaviors (e.g., creating hospitals and charities), then it would behoove us to keep people in the dark about the nature of religions, and to even convince them that it is totally real?
Even if religions aren’t very efficient for creating hospitals and charities, they would at least be more efficient than hobbies, which as you point out, don’t motivate people to create hospitals and charities because people know they are not real.
So, if someone like seth is talking about things like hospitals and charities, then that would be a meaningful difference between religions and hobbies…
You say.
“Aside from this one difference, it is precisely the same thing as religion”
But that difference makes a difference when it comes to hospitals, etc…
no, because they want mormonism to inspire their kids to create hospitals (so to speak) instead of just cosplaying. If the meaningful difference is, “When you think something is real, then you will be more inspired to do more for it,” then it seems like one would want to make as many people think that thing is real.
…and of course, that’s assuming that the parents “know” that it’s not real…but that’s the thing…the parents don’t “know” that. Because of all of these fruits, they “know” that it’s real too.
Andrew: Yep.
Or remove financial incentives for starting hospitals from religions so all hospitals are run by the government. That would work, too. 😉
profxm, it seems to be a popular notion in atheist circles that all charitable work and public service ought to be handled by the government.
I have some real problems with that kind of ethical neutering of the citizenship.
Andrew, I don’t want to tangent this discussion into gay issues, so I’m simply going to say I disagree with your analogy and leave it there.
profxm, it’s quite a different thing to say that Christianity is fundamentally escapist in the same sense World of Warcraft is, than it is to say that Christianity has some escapist elements in it.
And as I pointed out, even the “escapist” elements aren’t really so escapist as you suppose as first glance. They’re actually rather realistic in light of the human condition.
Oh, and I’ll allow that it’s completely possible to make a hobby out of your religion. People do that all the time.
Seth @139:
Surely there’s room for more discussion of gay issues here…. I would love to see Seth try to respond in more depth to Andrew’s critique of Seth’s homophobic behavior and statements. Given how prominent a feature it has been in many of Seth’s comments here, it seems worth exploring.
“No, it doesn’t boil down to that. It boils down to looking at what the religion has actually produced, the effects it’s had on my life and the lives of others, the art, music, literature, ideas, and so forth that it has produced.”
If one is to judge Mormonism by what it has produced art, music, literature, ideas, and “so forth” it must be an abysmal failure. Nor can the works of other religions be attached to LDS, Inc. as all those other denominations and their works are abominations. In terms of the corporal works of mercy, the percentage of money distributed as charity is laughably parsimonious when compared to its income. Additionally, the effect on individuals is not reliably verifiable. The good, kind, generous person may have those qualities irrespective or even in spite of her beliefs.
Actually vajra, the LDS Church distributes a fairly good amount of the proceeds as actual charity. Profxm did a blog post on this a while ago where he tried to compare the percentage of actual charitable aid donated by the LDS Church with that donated by one of the major Protestant national bodies.
What his numbers neglected to note was that the Protestant body in question didn’t pay for any of the building and local administrative costs. Those were handled by the local units.
Once you factor in the massive amount the LDS Church has to fork out in simply paying rent and utilities, their outlays are comparable to other churches in the US.
So are the Shriners a hobby or a religion?
And I can think of two science fiction religions. One is based in Hollywood, and the other, I can not disprove, went on an away mission on a spaceship in the Hale-Bopp comet.
And buying a telescope and looking at the comet is not empirical evidence of your theological claims, even if Heaven’s Gate believed it.
Or are they too small to count. They certainly were not around long.
What about Jainism? It’s one of the oldest religions, but there are only 4 million of them. But maybe it’s the influence it’s teachings has had on other religions that are more populous. I’m fond of non-violence and that blind men and the elephant story. Here’s my favorite version–“Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared, ‘Men are flat.’ After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.”
I don’t think that the fundamental doctrine of Anekantavada is dependent on financing archaeological expeditions to find the tombs of the Six Blind Men or on asking God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Jesus Christ.
Isn’t the fact that they’re all dead, and their predictions didn’t happen empirical evidence to be considered as well?
I’d say Jainism has done pretty well in the credibility department, considering, as you say – it’s effect on other world religions.
Heaven’s Gate is a complex topic. Hard to navigate.
The Body is only a vessel. I cannot disprove they are not on an away mission.
Rio DiAngelo was chosen to stay behind and spread the truth. Last I heard, he still believed.
And considering the current climatic shifts, the Earth, I cannot disprove, is being recycled. Clearly, this is empirical evidence that Do and Ti are the two.
Or perhaps there is a simpler explanation.
Whether you pick the simpler explanation or not is going to be determined by how convincing you find the rest of the movement and its work.
#117 @Parker,
Accepting the Book of Mormon entirely on faith is the requirement. Moroni is teaching the Nephite doctrine of faith confirmation. First you have faith, then you approach God in that faith and then He confirms your faith. “Ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.” This is the doctrine of seeing eye-to-eye. See the following for more information:
http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-role-of-angels-in-nephite-preaching/
Reading the Book of Mormon, disbelieving its veracity, and then asking God if its true with the expectation that God will prove you wrong is not the process Moroni was teaching, yet that is what many missionaries mistakenly believe.
The gospel given to the Nephites was complete and the BoM restores all the points that are missing from our Bibles.
They ought to make an easier and quicker way to format text…
LDS Anarchist @148:
Nope. That’s not what I was taught growing up, that’s not what I was taught at the MTC, that’s not what we taught investigators in my mission, that’s not what anyone I have ever known was taught.
You have it exactly backwards, Mr. Anarchist. How did you get it so wrong?
And if you can manage to be so very, very wrong about what the missionary discussions actually teach, why should anyone believe your claims and opinions on any other matter?
“First you have faith, then you approach God in that faith and then He confirms your faith.”
If I have faith, why do I need confirmation that I have faith?
To strengthen (or further develop) your faith. The gospel generates faith, maintains faith and further develops it.
That’s why it’s called exercise. Exercising faith develops it, just as exercising a muscle develops the muscle.
I read your remarks in that thread. I don’t think your argument holds water. That is all.
@152:
It’s so often invoked in situations like these that it’s too easy, really, but I must nonetheless cite Lewis Carroll, who easily sums up the anarchist’s basic approach:
Given how prodigiously the anarchist exercises his ability to believe the impossible, I have every confidence that he never stops believing impossible things. It’s the only thing that explains the bravado with which he asks others to accept his assertions as anything approaching sense.
Particularly since he exercises his faith at the neglect of his reason. It’s not much use to be someone with massively powerful legs and utterly puny arms.
In response to comments 113 & 114.
You guys need to check out Zoe Caldwell’s kick ass portrayal of Medea.
Among other things, ” Medea” to me pointed out the shallowness of Mormon scripture. Other patriarchal cultures noticed there were woman. Yet in the Book of Mormon, the PoGP, and D&C, there is no one remotely like Medea.
I wonder what would have happened if Joseph Smith would have told Medea that she needed to cleave unto Joseph or she shall be destroyed.
Now there’s some Church History I would have enjoyed.
I’ll try to find that, Suzanne. Thanks for the recommendation.
Not only is there no one like Medea in any of Mormon scripture, there’s no one like Jael or Rahab or Deborah, to name just a few women from the OT. It’s pretty strong proof to me of the fictional nature of Joseph’s works–women aren’t there because it didn’t occur to him to incorporate them into his story more often, or to give them names when he did mention them.
It’s also proof of his unfitness to lead. A decent prophet of a decent god would not be so oblivious to women as human beings.
http://www.okakaku.com/Super-Copy-5983.html
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????}}}}}}