USER FRIENDLY

I have heard religious people use the following scripture as an argument against atheism: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." This is the theological equivalent schoolyard name calling. If by "fool" they mean a person who does not believe the same unsubstantiated nonsense as they believe, well, it seems to be more of a compliment than an insult. Such provocations only serve to expose the weakness of their arguments. If there was anything of substance to be presented, they would not fall upon insults to rattle their opponent. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, as Matt Dillahunty points out. Name calling is not an argument.

It is in this vein of "I know you are, but what am I?" that I have a hard time stomaching some of the ideas promoted in the most recent General Conference of the Mormon Church. One leader, Mr. Dieter Uchtdorf, flat out said that skepticism is the easy path and lacks the moral courage and integrity that a faith-filled life requires. This is absurd and condescending to anyone who has wrestled with difficult topics while a believing Mormon.

Problems and inconsistencies in the Mormon narrative, especially regarding history and the veracity of Mormon scripture, have caused many people over the years to question whether the church is true. This phenomenon has only accelerated with the advent of the Internet, which has increased the layman's access to information. In the past, when someone heard disconcerting information they would have to pour through volumes of books in order to find the truth. Now, most people can fact check claims they hear in church on their phones as they sit in the pews. Pulling wool over the eyes of the average Joe has become more challenging to charlatans everywhere.

  

The accessibility of information and the effect of raising doubts in members has become a growing problem for the Mormon church. Many people have speculated that this problem has caused the church to be more open about their history in recent essays published by the church, in an attempt to get ahead of the curve of dwindling membership.

Surely, amid the commotion, Mr. Uchtdorf has spoken to sincere believers who struggle with their new-found doubts. Surely, he has heard their pleas for satisfactory and comprehensive answers to their questions. Surely, he has seen the alienation that comes to members who doubt and the strength of character it takes to step away from the church of their family and friends. How dare he call it the "easy way." There is nothing easy about it.

I have a hard time believing that someone in Mr. Uchtdorf's position could make such a statement naively. Which implies that he made a conscious decision to ostracize a growing segment of the population of the church.

Another idea promoted in this conference is that true-believing members should only read church approved sources for historical information. In particular, members should avoid the Internet when researching the church. This is obviously a response to the problem described above that members are coming across information on the Internet which disproves the user-friendly version of church history promoted by the church itself. The more the church can control the narrative, the more they can insulate members from facts which challenge faith.

This is done out of necessity, of course. Without resorting to such totalitarian tactics, the church would likely continue to lose members--especially young adults--which directly threatens their coffers. And without ever-inflating tax-free money bags, how else would the church buy another multi-billion dollar high-end mall?

THE NONES HAVE IT

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things--that takes religion."
--Steven Weinberg, Physicist and Nobel Laureate








Another friend of mine has ventured down the mind-numbing rabbit hole of discussing religion on Facebook. The main focus of the conversation is on an article which suggests that raising children without religion may have better outcomes than raising children with religion. This is an interesting proposition. Religions often claim to offer exclusive benefits to adherents. If such benefits are not exclusive--or, as the article suggests, come from the opposite direction--then what good is the religion? In my experience, anything good which a religion does can just as easily be done through purely secular means.

I recall a similar conversation from my youth, wherein a Mormon referred to an article which claimed that Mormons are healthier than other denominations. At face value, this seems to confirm the Mormon claim that god blesses members of their sect more than others. However, one must also consider variables which are not exclusive to Mormons.

For instance, Mormons prohibit alcohol and tobacco. These two things alone put Mormons at a lower risk of several conditions, including liver and lung diseases. It isn't Mormonism, per se, which is beneficial, but rather the indirect--and non-exclusive--benefits of a particular emphasis within Mormonism. Similarly, Hindus often tout the health benefits of their vegetarian/vegan diet, which Mormons tend to discount.

A non-religious person, on the other hand, can look objectively at the potential health benefits of any diet and make an informed decision as to which aspects they wish to adopt. Meaning, there is nothing which stops a non-religious person from abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, or meat. And they don't need a religious mandate to do so. They can make a decision based on evidence. They can even decide that moderation--rather than dietary abstinence--is right for them, which is a luxury not afforded by divine fiat.

Most of the "benefits" of a non-religious upbringing are actually simply an absence of the negative effects of religion. A non-religious child does not grow to fear hell or eternal punishment; they are not set back sexually by an aversion to contraception or comprehensive sex education; generally, they do not learn that homosexuals are deviants from whom children should be shielded; the love of their parents is not set on conditions of religious obedience. The list goes on, and to be fair, not every negative point on the list applies to every religion, and I'm sure that some points do not apply all non-religious people.

Other benefits fall more into socioeconomic metrics of society as a whole. For instance, more secular nations tend to have better healthcare and welfare programs and prison systems.

It seems clear to me that a non-religious upbringing offers many people a better life than a religious one. But what happens when an adult, especially one which has built their worldview and morality upon the premise that god will punish or reward them after death, transitions from religion to non-religion?

Many people struggle to make this transition, which is one reason some people avoid it at all costs ("There must be a god! There just must be!"). The idea that god may not exist truly terrifies them. Religions, and in particular more fundamental sects, teach members that if there is no god to issue postmortem justice, then there is no reason to do good, and no reason to refrain from doing bad.

The sort of dirt bags who really believe that the only reason they should not kill or rape or steal is because god will punish them can only be described as amoral sociopaths. However, I have found such people to be rare, and most people who have bought into this philosophical drivel simply do not give themselves enough credit. They are better than their religion would have them believe. Still, navigating through the quagmire of morality is daunting, especially for people reconsidering their tenuous faith-based reasons for pro-social behavior.

As for myself, I choose to not act like a jerk because I don't want people to treat me like I'm a jerk. This is my version of the golden rule, I guess. It doesn't always work in every situation, but, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out, it is about as good a rule of thumb for morality as any.

Some of the responses to my friend's post irked me something royal. One person accused my friend of being ungrateful to his religious grandfather by leaving and criticizing religion. This appeal to emotion is significant in two ways. First, it is fallacious to the point of nonsense. Second, it reveals the basis upon which my friend's detractor has built his worldview: emotion, rather than reason.

It is this coercive core of religious belief which traps many would-be defectors. Even I fell victim to Mormonism's entrancing concept of eternal families, and for many years I feared what my disobedience or apostasy would mean for my family in the eternities. This kind of emotional blackmail upsets me a great deal. I don't have a strong enough adjective to describe my disdain for this kind of manipulation. It is pure evil. Holding relationships hostage in this way is reason enough to dismiss out of hand any worldview which utilizes it. 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Tim Minchin, If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out:

TERRIBLE LIZARD

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
--Richard Dawkins







Through a conversation, which started innocently enough, I learned that a nurse with whom I work believes that dinosaurs are not real. She admitted to me that she holds "some strange beliefs" before explaining her "theory" that dinosaurs are a man-made conspiracy. So, on some level, perhaps, she recognizes that this belief is ridiculous.

When I challenged her on this point (by pointing out that evolution and the age of the earth have been confirmed independently through multiple scientific fields), she began spinning her reconciliation wheels at full throttle. Dinosaurs, she explained, cannot be real because that would mean that the earth is millions of years old, and that, in turn, would mean that the bible is wrong.

Oh, the bible. What else could screw up a person's perception of reality so magnificently?

This thirty-something woman not only attended nursing classes, which surely would have included biology, but she passed with high enough scores to be allowed by the nursing community to administer medical care.

Why is this a big deal? Is a belief in evolution and dinosaurs and an "old earth" really necessary to be an effective nurse? I don't know. But I do know that the antibiotic pill she gave to a patient two minutes prior to her ludicrous admission would not have been developed without those scientific theories being understood by the scientists who developed it.

Furthermore, this nurse is a member of the medical community, yet, she rejects a founding principle of one of the most basic fields of science. She believes that scientists are engaged in a global conspiracy to make the earth appear older than six thousand years. Think about this. An airtight, decades-old global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists across multiple fields--in multiple countries and cultures and religions--is more plausible to this woman than the possibility that the bible might not be literally true. And we allow her to give antipsychotic medications to children...

This is the power of religious faith. This is the power of beliefs based on feelings rather than evidence. Not only must the believer protect their beliefs from criticism, but at times they are forced--usually through exposure to evidence to the contrary--to concoct outlandish and baseless ideas to barricade their core beliefs.

It is this powerful corruption of one's reasoning faculties which drives an otherwise reasonable woman, who has studied science and medicine, to throw out her reason when it conflicts with her belief that a Bronze Age holy book is literally true. When I caught myself doing this very same thing in college, I realized my error and rejected faith altogether.

Without evidence-based support, beliefs should be tentative. When beliefs are supported by evidence, they are not based on faith. When evidence conflicts with a belief, it should be reevaluated, and possibly rejected. In either case, faith is useless. And no amount of conviction makes faith evidence.

MAGIC ERASER

"Given this overwhelming tendency to stupidity and selfishness in myself and among our species, it is somewhat surprising to find the light of reason penetrating at all. The brilliant Schiller was wrong in his Joan of Arc when he said that "against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." It is actually by means of the gods that we make our stupidity and gullibility into something ineffable. 

--Christopher Hitchens, god is Not Great

In recent weeks I have been overwhelmed by the stupidity which surrounds me. Sure, I am often surrounded by ever-dimming light bulbs in the cluttered shelf that is my job. I expect this; I can manage this. What I am referring to is an influx of stupidity from people who should really know better.

Those who have read my posts from the last few weeks will note my struggle on Facebook in dealing with Mormon friends and family who oppose gay marriage. It has been exhausting.

One of the more distressing annoyances has been people throwing clever-sounding one-liners at me, as if it should automatically shut me down. Inane lines such as "hate the sin, not the sinner," or "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith," or "I find more and more that I am not allowed to criticize those who oppose traditional values," or "The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center," or “I know that [God] loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.”

My blood boils further when I address their comment intelligently, or simply ask them to explain their position in more detail (i.e. The Socratic Method), and they drop out of the conversation all together. What does it say about a person's argument if they turn tail and run when asked to explain themselves?

Having thought a while longer about the phrase "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith," which was popularized in Mormon culture a couple of General Conferences ago, I realize that many people do not really understand what is being said by it. "Doubt your doubts" implies a level of investigation.

For instance, if I hear that the Book of Mormon contains archaeological inconsistencies which fly in the face of what scientists say about ancient America, I might begin to have doubts about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an accurate historical record. To "doubt my doubts" in this instance would mean that I would look at the research on the subject and then draw a conclusion. It may be that such anachronisms are not really in conflict with known history; but if they are, research should reveal this. If a conflict exists, I would want to know.

Many believers reject such troublesome inquisitions out of hand. They have a knee jerk reaction to opposition. I think this is where the sound-bite arguments come in to play. They build up a superficial wall around their pet beliefs. When their shallow wall starts to crumble, they cower.

One underhanded argument which is occasionally presented to me is that "one can leave the church, but one cannot leave the church alone." This is meant to be insulting. This is meant to get under the skin of the doubter. In this way, it attempts to validate the believer's scripture-based assumption that non-believers do not exist--they are merely rebelling against god's commandments, which are written on the hearts of men.

This is childish. This is no better than non-believers claiming that believers only believe to make themselves feel better. This is no way to live in a civilized society.

The accusation that people who leave religion, such as myself, continue to criticize it because they are trying to convince themselves that they don't believe, when, in fact, they really do, is nonsensical. In a strange way, it reminds me of a trend I have noticed at my work. I have worked in social services for many years, and every so often troubled teens admit to me that when they grow up they also want to work in social services.

Many of them are victims of physical, emotional, verbal or sexual abuse, usually some combination of all of them. As the kids understand how therapeutic practices can help abuse victims find peace and methods of coping, they feel the need to assist other victims in the process. Their desire to be a therapist or psychologist or counselor is motivated by their empathy.

This is analogous to people who leave religion with a bad taste in their mouths. I do not continue to criticize Mormonism because deep down I believe it is true. I criticize Mormonism because I believe it is a harmful ideology. I have seen the harm of Mormonism in my own life and in the lives of those close to me, many of whom are still entrapped by it.

The harm of Mormonism may not be as overt as the psychological trauma caused by abuse. But the way such a life-encompassing theology warps a believer's perception of reality and confuses sound methods of attaining knowledge with subjective feelings attributed to god, thereby fooling believers to accept as true ridiculous claims for which they have no evidence, suggests a pervasive corruption of the mind every bit as deep as abuse. And it will take more than clever soundbites to expunge this smiley-faced evil from society.

BONUS MATERIAL:




Christopher Hitchens on the harm of religion:

Christopher Hitchens responds to a stupid question:

COMPLEX PERSECUTION

Subtitle: THE WORST DAY SINCE YESTERDAY

The other day I had a conversation with a distraught psychiatric patient. She was concerned that she would be unjustly "punished" by her therapist for breaking a facility rule. This patient has repeatedly broken this rule over the last few months and has zero trust with her therapist on this matter.

As I discussed the situation with her, she weaved together a fairly believable story in her defense wherein another patient with an equally nefarious track record was actually responsible for the infraction. I don't know who the instigator was, but I was willing to give this patient the benefit of the doubt, if only for the sake of argument.

As I pointed out to this girl, she had broken this rule so many times in the past that even though she may not have intended to do so this time, it would be very difficult for anyone--especially her therapist--to believe her. I shared with her the story of another patient who had been in a similar situation a couple months earlier. This other patient rather maturely responded to the accusations, "I didn't do it. But I have done it several times before, so I understand why no one believes me. That's why I'm not fighting it."

In these situations, even mentally unstable teenage girls understand that when trust is lost it can be difficult to earn back. Sometimes, due to repeated poor decisions, one just has to bite the consequential bullet and suck it up. If these teenage mental patients can grasp this concept, why is it so hard for a grown man like Glenn Beck to wrap his head around it?

In the wake of the recent shooting in South Carolina (a young male white-supremacist shot and killed several black people in a church), many vocal conservatives have expressed their view that this atrocity was an attack against religion, rather than manifest racism. Fortunately, many people seem to be quick to point out that this bigoted monster did what he did for purely racist reasons, as he shouted these purely racist reasons just before he opened fire.

This seems pretty straightforward. But when someone sees everything that happens on the world stage as an affront against their group, or a sign of the times, or some grand-scale conspiracy (I'm looking at you, Mr. Beck) it can be hard to see the nose on Plain's face (you're welcome, AD fans).

You see, Glenn is preparing to "call the attorneys" because he feels that a newspaper in Miami has "smeared" his good name. The article in question has accused Beck, along with several other conservatives, of shying away from the heart of the issue: racism. Quotes from a surprising number of pontificating pundits seem to indicate a fear of talking head on about the real issue. Claims of conspiracy, anarchy and attacks against religion, all avoiding the racism at the core. The quote from Beck indicates a similar misunderstanding of the motives behind the attack:

“I don’t know why the shooter shot people. He might shoot people because he’s racist. He might have shot people because he’s an anarchist. He might have shot people because he hates Christians.”

Beck defends himself by claiming that his statement was timestamped a mere 12 hours after the attack, which he claims was too soon after the attack to have any reliable information about the shooter--not even his name. As soon as information was provided, Beck clarified his position and called the shooter a racist.

Because he was lumped together with other narrow minded conservatives (gasp!), presumably over a clerical oversight or just sloppy journalism, Beck is claiming intentional slander and is rounding up the attorneys. Seriously? This is what tipped the scale for Glenn? This straw broke his camel's back? Really?

I have heard many far worse indictments against Glenn Beck, some go so far as to accuse him of faking his positions in order to dupe gullible and rich patrons.

It occurs to me that the only reason Beck is making a fuss this time is because he can actually prove this detractor to be wrong. He never threatens legal action against Jon Stewart or MSNBC or the countless other newspaper writers who have accused him of pulling thoughts directly out of his anus; this reporter writing this article in this obscure newspaper has crossed the line against this freedom-of-speech toting, hypocritical self-made victim.

As with my patient, who found herself caught in an awkward situation of mistrust and perhaps being forced to face the music for something she didn't do, Glenn Beck is facing his own music for years of crying wolf. No one trusts Beck outside of his close-knit group of equally persecuted conspiracy-minded donors--a "woe is me" circle-jerk.

At times I am tempted to accuse Beck of "faking it," as others do. I have made similar comments about some of Beck's contemporaries on Fox News (which I don't consider a legitimate news source, and even they have distanced themselves from the inane yapping of Beck). I hesitate to lump Beck with other conservative charlatans for one very simple reason: everything I have heard Beck say, being as fatuous as the mental-diarrhea of a retarded dingo, all falls in line with Mormon thinking.

A convert to Mormonism who literally wants to build a large libertarian compound as a sanctuary from the tyranny and oppression of the Obama administration, Beck placates to the worst-case-scenarios of Mormon theology. He sees today--the worst day since yesterday--as a sign that Mormon Armageddon is coming and that Mormon Jesus will soon be ushering in the Mormon millennium along with a host of posthumously baptized Mormons (and you thought the Mormons were just playing around by baptizing all those dead people; during the thousand year long Mormon millennium, baptized dead people will come back to Earth to help baptize more dead people—zombies baptizing zombies).

Mormons are masters at rationalizing the craziest of religious beliefs, because, you see, anything that god commands is necessarily good and must be defensible. The next time you watch Mr. Beck draw up patronizing tears of joy or turmoil, pay close attention to the spinning wheels in his superstitious mind as he spitballs conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. And know that, while I believe he is sincere, I also believe he is bat-shit crazy mothballs. 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Glenn Beck argues against Gay Marriage:

Glenn Beck counters Glenn Beck on Gay Marriage:

Is Glenn Beck Completely Nuts?

THOUGHT PROVOCATEUR

My direct supervisor, inspired by her need to be optimistic, just told a rather down-and-out patient that "hope is eternal." I assume she meant for this to inspire the patient. Perhaps it did. But upon hearing my light snicker in the background, my supervisor directed her attention towards me: "Matt, I'm serious."

I replied, "It's just a silly thing to say, is all. You see, if hope is eternal then it will never end, which means that the thing you hope will happen, will never actually happen. This means that 'eternal hope' is useless."

She turned around and went to a meeting. I, on the other hand, got to thinking. This phrase, "hope is eternal," is common in Mormon circles. And like my supervisor, many Mormons only think superficially about the over-the-pulpit drivel many share in faith-inspiring optimism.

If, per chance, a proposed warm and fuzzy saying is only inspiring on the surface (meaning, it inspires only inasmuch as you don't think about it too much), then the over-thinker is labeled a pessimist.

Forgive me if I only find inspiration in things truly inspiring and thought-provoking. Telling me that I am "thinking too much" or "taking it too far" only serves to undermine any superficial meaning which may have been left.

May I propose a counter argument? You think too little. If you decide to withhold "thinking" in order to shield a pet belief or favorite saying from criticism, then perhaps it isn't worth defending. This type of willful ignorance has only ever stood in the way of real progress. Let it go and be done with it.

SEIZURE SALAD

"It is best to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain."
--Mark Twain 

The first time I witnessed a seizure I was on a Mormon mission in Bulgaria. I had been in the country for about a year and I was living in the Capitol, Sophia. The man who had the seizure was a quirky and likable thirty-something with epilepsy. Aside from a sometimes overpowering body odor, which was common in the economically distressed post-communist country, I can't think of anything bad to say about him. With an ear to ear smile and an eagerness to please anyone willing to look passed his embarrassing stutter, he had found an accepting community in Mormonism. Everyone liked Pepe.

As you might expect, when Pepe fell to the floor in a convulsive fit during a church function (Family Home Evening), everyone present went on high alert. Save Pepe! A small army of young Mormon missionaries surrounded Pepe, frantically trying to decide what to do. None of us knew whether Bulgaria had an emergency system set up like America's "911" program. The only thing we could think to do was to pray.

One missionary put his hands on Pepe's head and commanded Pepe to be healed and made whole. In a matter of seconds, Pepe stopped shaking and after a couple of minutes he was on his feet apologizing for the inconvenience. We were amazed.

If this was all the information I had about the situation, I might still wonder if I had witnessed a miracle. But, education has a tendency to thwart the miraculous and the supernatural. As I came to find out, seizures rarely last longer than a few minutes. Whether we prayed for Pepe, called for medical help, or sprayed cheese whiz on our faces and tickled each other, Pepe would have snapped out of it on his own in about the same amount of time. It was my ignorance which kept my faith alive.

A few years later, after I had learned a thing or two in college about the human body and seizures, I found myself at a get together with some fellow young adult Mormons (BYU students). We were staying at a ranch in Blackfoot, Idaho (Utah junior). While one of the girls was riding a horse in the corral, the horse spooked and began galloping. The fenced-off area was only about a quarter acre--not much room for a horse running at full speed. When the horse was about fifteen feet from the fence, it abruptly stopped, causing the girl to fly over the horse's head and roll--ribs first--in to a large wooden fence post. She was unconscious.

As with Pepe, a swarm of young true-believing Mormons rushed to aide her. Seeing her convulsing to and fro and gargling bloody foaming spit from her mouth, I gently held her head out of the thick mud and kept her airway clear. I knew that her seizure would only last a few moments, but my concern grew when she did not regain consciousness after her convulsions ended.

One of boys, also a returned missionary, handed me a small viol of consecrated oil. This extra special magic healing oil is very important to Mormons, who bless the oil in advance and keep it in a viol on a key chain for just such an occasion. I didn't feel comfortable asking god for a blessing (this was around the time I started to quietly acknowledge my doubts about Mormonism, and for all I knew, god had spooked the horse in the first place), and I told him to do the blessing himself. Besides, I was focused on not letting her suffocate on her own spit.

His prayer was typical of Mormon blessings: "Please, god, heal her, don't let her die, etc." Hardly inspired. Hardly helpful.

I held her head for 10 minutes or so until EMTs arrived (it was an isolated area), all the while keeping her airway clear and her neck and spine straight (she tried to roll around a few times), and talking to her positively about the situation in case she could hear me, despite her inability to respond. Once the EMTs arrived, they put her on a stretcher and airlifted her to a hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. There, she stayed in a coma for a few days. After awaking, she had a few cracked ribs, some amnesia and loss of some motor skills.

Expectedly, everyone left the ranch somber and worried for their friend. They "kept her in their prayers" and rushed to visit her when she regained consciousness. In the minds of many, god had responded to the young man's blessing with oil in a positive way. Even the injured girl was grateful to god for "healing" her.

As I pointed out, this second incident occurred around the time I first acknowledged my doubts about Mormonism. I was still attending BYU--surrounded by Mormon culture--and I had an inner struggle with the situation. Part of me wanted to chalk up the whole thing as yet another example of superstitious religious folk reading into situations and assigning divine intervention to make them feel better (my current position). But being on the cusp of a faith crisis, I was truly worried that the real reason I refused to offer the blessing was because deep down I felt unworthy to do so.

Mormons have several "rites of passage" for youth and young adults, the most well-known of which is the mission. Before one can go on a mission, however, one must first complete another rite called a "patriarchal blessing." I received my blessing a couple days before I left on my mission. The Mormon Patriarch assigned to my area was an elderly man, who had been a bishop, a stake president and a mission president--all highly respected positions in the Mormon community. As I recall, he and his wife had recently returned from Haiti on a mission trip.

He brought me into his study and explained the process to me: he would put his hands on my head, say whatever words he felt god tell him about my future life in Mormonism, and he would mail me a transcript. It would be my life's horoscope. This sounds like a great deal--direct revelation from god concerning my entire life. However, like most things which sound too good to be true, this life-changing blessing comes with a catch.

Should I disobey god, the deal is off. Should I leave the church, the deal is off. Should anything specified in my blessing not happen, it is because I sinned or did something wrong. You see where this is going.

The reason I bring this up is because in my patriarchal blessing is a clause, which I later found to be rather common in these sorts of blessings, where I was promised that I would be allowed to heal sick and infirmed people through god's power. During my faith crisis, this really messed with my head. Had I simply been unworthy at the time this girl needed a blessing to save her? Would god really make her suffer more because of my sins, stubbornness, or disbelief?

I know now that no matter what the outcome had been for this poor girl, Mormons would find a way to call god merciful. Even if she had died, some would have said "Well, it was her time to go. She is now in a better place. God needed another angel in heaven to help people come to Christ. He allowed her to die as a mercy. Had she lived she would be in pain." And so on. God cannot lose. And because he cannot lose, he cannot be supported through reason and logic. If he cannot be supported through reason and logic, how can I believe he exists and base important life decisions on this belief?

When I realized that I had no good reason to believe that god exists, my faith crisis became less of a crisis and more of an intellectual adventure. My decisions mattered on a more intimate scale. The world became infinitely more fascinating and complex. Natural explanations for creation, to me, are more satisfying and honest than "god did it." Magic doesn't explain anything. It only raises more questions. I would rather admit my ignorance and say "I don't know" than accept an unsupported answer as true because it makes me feel good.

These days, my conscience is not clouded with concerns about my "worthiness" when I help someone in need. I no longer feel bad about refusing to ask god to save that girl. I feel that focusing on first aid and helping her breath was far and away the right and moral choice. 

DR. FEELGOOD

The following is a video of Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, on "
Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God":

This video was posted by a sibling of mine on a communal family blog. Rather than picking bones and potentially starting an argument where one is not needed and would not be productive, I decided to respond to the video here. There will be less collateral damage this way.

Dr. Collins is defending faith. He claims that science and religion are Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), or that they are unrelated responses to different types of questions, and as such they do not conflict with each other. Before I get to how this is an excuse educated people often employ in order to preserve their pet beliefs, I want to point out a few things about Dr. Collins' position and his own sincere, deeply-held beliefs.

First, Dr. Collins is defending a comforting belief he came to accept for irrational reasons. While on a hike, Dr. Collins came across a waterfall which split into three parts. This reminded him of the Trinity and he became an evangelical Christian on the spot. There was no rational reason for his conversion. He did not come to his belief through "sound" arguments, like those he touts in the video. He became a Christian because a common natural phenomenon reminded him of a supernatural claim he was taught as a child. Who, but the Trinitarian god of evangelical Christianity, could do this?

Second, none of Dr. Collins' arguments defend his specific Christian beliefs anymore than competing Jewish or Hindu or Muslim or pagan beliefs (or, for that matter, other Christian beliefs, such as the non-Trinitarian Mormon view of god). He is using deistic arguments for a generic god, which may or may not care about its handiwork after setting the universe in motion.

Ultimately, his arguments (the argument from design, the anthropic principle, NOMA, etc.) are logical fallacies which fall neatly under the massive umbrella of "arguments from ignorance." Dr. Collins doesn't know what caused the universe, he doesn't know why there is a specific order to things, therefore god did it. This is a classic "god of the gaps" mentality. Coincidentally, "god of the gaps" arguments crumble with each scientific advancement, thus slowly squeezing out the breath of these fatuous claims.

The intellectually honest thing for someone to say when they don't know how something came to be is not to insert the unfounded superstitions of their youth, but to admit their ignorance. Why does the universe exist? I don't know. Why do the cosmological constants exist? I don't know. Could life exist if the cosmological constants were slightly different? I don't know. See? It's easy.

Asserting supernatural explanations without evidential support does not help the discussion and it does not get us any closer to an answer. It serves only to muddy the waters and build complacency with a wrong answer. In turn, this causes people to stop looking for the correct answer. It is an attempt to solve the biggest mysteries in life by appealing to an even bigger mystery: god.

Dr. Collins would have you believe that religion does not make testable claims, and, therefore, cannot be confirmed or discounted through evidence or a lack thereof. This is simply not true.

In as much as science and religion do overlap (i.e. Asserting the existence of divine beings which interact with people; The efficacy of intercessory prayer; The creation of the universe and the order of events; A supreme being "tinkering" with cosmology, biology, and physics in order to ensure our existence; The age of the earth/universe/man; The earth being a flat disc in the center of the universe and being created before the sun, moon and stars, which all revolve around the earth; The star/planet "Kolob" being both where god lives and being the source for our sun's energy and light), the two seem to be at perpetual odds.

In most serious studies of prayer, for instance, prayer offers no benefit to the infirmed. The only exception to this seems to be when people are aware of such supplications made on their behalf. These slight morale boosts, however impressive they may seem to believers, can easily be chalked up to the placebo effect.

In as much as science and religion do not overlap (i.e. questions like: "Why are we here?"; "What happens after death?"; "From whence cometh evil?"; "How many angels can fit upon the head of a needle"; "What is the airspeed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut?"; OK, maybe not that last one...), science defers to philosophy. In fact, I cannot think of a single question to which religion offers an unsubstantiated answer which cannot be answered, at least in part, by either science or philosophy. But, if such questions are presented, "I don't know" is always a more tenable response than claiming to know a supernatural answer is true by faith.

Dr. Collins criticizes the ability of the scientific method to answer certain questions and claims that faith is an alternative methodology to finding answers. How could one possibly hope to demonstrate that their faith-derived answer is correct if not by supporting it with evidence? Faith does not explain anything. The very definition of faith indicates that beliefs are held without--in some cases despite--evidence.

To answer the question which Dr. Collins attempted to answer in the video, scientists generally don't subscribe to a higher power to explain the mysteries of the universe because the insertion of "god" as a de facto answer does not actually answer anything. Anything that we know to be true has been demonstrated through the scientific method--not religion. As Aron Ra puts it, "Science can't answer everything, but religion can't answer anything!"

Bald assertions of the ilk Dr. Collins advocates do not require evidence. This is the whole point! And without evidence you cannot demonstrate accuracy or efficacy or consistency or any ability to explain the heretofore unexplained. Faith is an excuse--a cop out. Faith is an attempt to shirk accountability in order to spare precious and weak beliefs from critique and ridicule. It is nothing to be admired. It is not worth defending.

BONUS MATERIAL:


Christopher Hitchens responds to NOMA:

Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson rebutting the "God of the Gaps" argument:

MORONS AND MEATHEADS AND BOOBS, OH MY!

Lately I have been focusing my blogging on my "Textual Analysis of the Book of Mormon" (click at top of the page or here) where I examine the book from a critical perspective. I have powered through several chapters in the past couple of months. In fact, I have almost finished the second "book" in the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi. Here is my latest entry:

Chapter27: "Morons and Meatheads and Boobs, Oh My!"

Chapter Summary:

Darkness and apostasy will cover the earth in the last days--The Book of Mormon will come forth--Three witnesses will testify of the book--The learned man will say he cannot read the sealed book--The Lord will do a marvelous work and a wonder--Compare Isaiah 29. About 559–545 B.C.

For those who thought that Nephi was done with Isaiah, I have some bad news. Nephi goes back to ripping off Isaiah's work in this chapter.

However, when I read the chapter summary, which gives some pretty specific predictions about the Book of Mormon, I was intrigued. So, I skipped over to the chapter in Isaiah to which Nephi refers (Isaiah 29), and I noticed that the incredible specificity Nephi uses is absent in Isaiah.

In fact, as with most of Isaiah's prophecies, there is no indication that Isaiah is speaking about our day or the Book of Mormon at all. But you wouldn't get this from reading the Mormon-added chapter summary of Isaiah 29:

"A people (the Nephites) will speak as a voice from the dust--The Apostasy, restoration of the gospel, and coming forth of a sealed book (the Book of Mormon) are foretold--Compare 2 Nephi 27."

Basically Nephi (or Joseph Smith) takes a few key points from Isaiah 29 and extrapolates upon them in 2 Nephi 27. Nephi adds his own spin, which is painfully obviously retrofitted and self-fulfilling prophecy. We'll get in to that later.

Nephi returns to the sealed book mentioned in the previous chapter. But before we get to Nephi's interpretation, let's go over what Isaiah actually said:

"11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:"

"12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."

It is unclear what is meant by the "vision of all." But the metaphor of a sealed book (not a literal book) is presented to a learned man and an unlearned man, both of whom state that they cannot read the book.

Perhaps this is means that highly educated people will miss the point of Isaiah's vision, and uneducated will be overwhelmed by it. It could mean that in order to understand Isaiah one must be humble enough to set aside their formal education and wise enough to not be intimidated by its content. Whatever the meaning, Isaiah most certainly is not speaking about a literal book presented to a literal educated man and a literal uneducated man.

Nephi seems to think that such is the case, however, as he describes a book being taken to an educated man who cannot read it, and then to an uneducated man who can read it through the power of god:

"15 But behold, it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall say unto him to whom he shall deliver the book: Take these words which are not sealed and deliver them to another, that he may show them unto the learned, saying: Read this, I pray thee. And the learned shall say: Bring hither the book, and I will read them."

"16 And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain will they say this, and not for the glory of God."

"17 And the man shall say: I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed."

"18 Then shall the learned say: I cannot read it."

"19 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that the Lord God will deliver again the book and the words thereof to him that is not learned; and the man that is not learned shall say: I am not learned."

"20 Then shall the Lord God say unto him: The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee."

Well, it turns out that just such an event occurred exactly like this!

During the "translation" of the Book of Mormon, Joseph sent one of his scribes, Martin Harris, to linguistic expert, Dr. Charles Anthon (the learned man), to verify the Book of Mormon as authentic. But rather than allow Dr. Anthon to see and hold and examine the gold plates (which is the only way to legitimately verify authenticity), Mr. Harris was allowed to bring a piece of paper with a few lines from the the gold plates scribbled on it. The Mormon version of what happened next is strikingly different from Dr. Anthon's account.

According to Harris (and Mormons at large), Dr. Anthon viewed the characters and announced they were authentic characters from specific ancient languages. Dr. Anthon asked Harris from where the characters originated, as he drew up a certificate of authenticity. Harris answered that an angel had given a young man named Joseph Smith (the unlearned man) gold plates containing an ancient history of Native Americans, and through the power of god Joseph was translating it in to English.

In a fit of anti-religious rage, Dr. Anthon tore up the certificate and told Harris that such things are impossible. But if Harris would just give Dr. Anthon the gold plates, he would translate the record. Harris refused and told the doctor that the book was sealed, and Dr. Anthon withdrew his offer to translate the plates because he cannot read a sealed book.

It should be noted that Joseph claimed that a large portion of the gold plates was sealed off--even to him--and the Book of Mormon is derived from the unsealed portion. This unsealed portion would have been accessible to Dr. Anthon.

According to Dr. Anthon, the events were much less animated. Harris presented the characters to the doctor, who said they were from various incongruent languages arranged in a random and insignificant manner. He then described Harris as a superstitious pushover who was likely being had financially by the charismatic charlatan, Joseph Smith.

It is interesting to me that Mormons still cling to this story as though it proved through prophecy the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. You see, whatever really happened in Dr. Anthon's office some 170 years ago doesn't really matter.

As a quick google search will show, we still have Harris' original paper with the characters from the gold plates. Modern linguists and experts in ancient languages have studied the characters and have concluded that the characters are nonsensical gibberish. Funny how the experts seem to agree more with Dr. Anthon's account.

This far, all of the prophecies in the Book of Mormon can be placed in to one of three categories: self-fulfilling, retrofitted or yet to happen. The Anthon incident appears to be self-fulfilling. Clearly Joseph set up the whole shebang to prove his prophetic prowess. But there are more self-fulfilling prophecies within this very chapter equal to the Anthon incident in terms of transparent charlatanism.

Nephi claims that when the sealed book is revealed to the unlearned man, god will allow three people to witness the book to testify to the world that it really does exist:

"12 Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein."

As you might have guessed, Joseph Smith had three such "witnesses" to the gold plates! You can read their "testimony" (which Joseph wrote beforehand and had the men sign) in the introduction of the Book of Mormon.

The three men Joseph Smith chose to be witnesses are Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. I have given you some context as to the caliber of Martin Harris' character. Let me just add that when Joseph had the men witness the gold plates, they had trouble getting the angel to appear with the plates. Harris thought that his sins might be the reason for the angel's trepidation, and offered to step out so the other two men could go through with it. This sounds noble, but Joseph needed three--not two--witnesses.

So, Harris prayed and prayed until the angel came to him individually (a detailed skipped over in their formal signed testimony) and Harris described the event as a spiritual experience, rather than a physical or literal experience.

He said he saw the plates with his mind's eye the same way a clairvoyant person could see a far-distant city through a mountain. He was a superstitious man hell-bent on seeing this angel. How much stock would we give his testimony today?

David Whitmer is also compromised in that he had family ties to Joseph and a financial stake in the successful publishing of the Book of Mormon. In fact, all of the three witnesses had invested large amounts of money in the publishing of the book. Talk about a conflict of interests.

Mormons love to point out that Oliver Cowdery left the Mormon Church, yet never recanted his angelic experience with the gold plates. He was also very superstitious and had a financial stake in the book. A lesser known fact about Mr. Cowdery is that he used the Book of Mormon to start his own religion after leaving Joseph Smith's cult. So, naturally he would not undermine the Book of Mormon.

As much as I enjoy discrediting the character and intentions of these men, they still may have seen an angel with gold plates. Who knows? But one of the most glaring failings of these men, which they all share, is that not a single one of them was educated or trained in ancient languages or artifacts. Therefore, not a single one of them was qualified to "testify" to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon--angel or not.

Who cares if these three superstitious men with vested interests saw the gold plates? They were unable and unqualified to distinguish an authentic ancient record from a hoax. And I'm willing to bet Joseph Smith knew and counted on this.

The real question for me is why would god rely on such tenuous methods of authentication? Especially when god warns us in verse 14: "wo be unto him that rejecteth the word of God!" If these are god methods, whereby he expects me to take his true and living church seriously, how could I possibly know that these three men weren't completely off their collective rocker. If this is the best god can do to appease skeptics and doubters, color me unimpressed.