HIGH-MINDED HIVE MIND

There has been a long-winded debate among Mormons and ExMormons about the Church's influence over politics. I first came across this argument when GOP primary winner, and man whose political career died trying, Mitt Romney ran for US president in 2012. The question came up of whether or not the Church might try to influence Mitt's policies as president or outright tell him what to do. A similar concern arose of JFK in relation to the Vatican. At the time, Mitt assured voters that he would represent his constituents and not be bullied into submission by a church which has had a sordid political history.

In the past the Mormon Church has sought to influence politics in very direct ways. As early as their first settlements in the American frontier, Mormon founder, and man who repeatedly takes your 14 year old daughter behind the barn to "just talk about God and stuff," Joseph Smith had gathered thousands of followers in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri. These small communities which relied almost entirely on local government were soon overrun by apocalyptic "Latter-day Saints" with a single religious mind who all voted according to their prophet's conscience (a prophet who was convicted of fraud in his youth for convincing other men to dig for buried treasure by staring at a magic stone in a hat, and who later started a religion based on an ancient gold book he found in the dirt which he "translated" by using a magic stone in a hat, and wouldn't let anyone with a background in linguistics touch it).

It is no wonder, then, that the locals responded with violence to oust their hive-minded new neighbors (who also happened to be stealing their wives and daughters as polygamous sister-wives, which is also why the Church was so in favor of a woman's right to vote since it would effectively give Mormon polygamous households several more votes).

The Church has learned over the years to be more subtle in their political influence. But as we have seen over the past few decades, the Church still can't keep its greasy fingers off of certain issues. We still don't know the full extent to which the Church has actively sought to thwart the gay rights movement in Hawaii and California. In Hawaii they kept to the shadows when gay marriage was proposed, but became much more brazen when the issue came up as Prop 8 in California, issuing an official statement from the Church to be read over the pulpits asking members to donate their time and as much money as they could to fight this societal evil. And many people took the Church seriously, sacrificing their children's college education to help fund the anti-gay marriage agenda (the Church teaches that members will face a choice like Abraham sacrificing his son Issac as a show of good faith to God, and people look for such sacrifices in their lives believing God is testing their faith).

For years the Church has denied any wrong doing regarding Prop 8 (among other things), and claims that most of their donations, like their humanitarian efforts, came in the form of faithful members volunteering their time. Maybe this is true, but many sources (such as the documentary "8: A Mormon Proposition") have shown that the Church has donated a metric butt-load of money as well.

More recently the church has sought to influence politics in Utah, where they have the strongest foothold. Around the time the US Supreme Court legalized gay marriage (2015), the Church successfully got the Utah legislature to incorporate protections for "religious liberty" in a bill which offered housing and employment protections for LGBT people. In other words, the Church successfully pleaded for the right to discriminate against gay people.

They have also successfully changed votes in the state senate regarding other issues, such as medical marijuana, liquor laws and comprehensive sex education. And despite their long history of breaching the bounds of tax exemption, officially the Church has maintained that they DO NOT tell their members how to vote (see video below).

Next they'll be telling me the Church no longer practices polygamy.

Well, in recent news--yesterday, in fact--the Church sent out a mass email to members in the state of Utah asking ever so politely that they vote "NO" on a bill which would legalize medical marijuana (see left).

It seems that no one told self-proclaimed prophet of God, and nonagenarian who's pretty sure today is a weekday, Russell Nelson that there are some things a prophet just can't do (should we tell him God is supposed to be omniscient?). I guess this is what happens when you send a self-righteous heart surgeon to do an attorney's job.

And, of course, the IRS will do nothing regarding the Church's tax exempt status. The best we can hope for is that enough ExMormons petition the Freedom From Religion Foundation to sue the Church.

The thing I don't understand is why the Church gets involved at all. They have a long list of prohibitions for their members which include many legal things, such as tobacco and alcohol, coffee and tea, premarital sex, watching R rated movies, dating before the age of 16, wearing revealing clothes, swearing, shopping on Sundays, etc. Yet, when issues come up in American politics (notably, not the rest of the world), the Church shoves itself into the conversation where less than 2% of the population (at best!) adheres to their worldview. Why not stay out of it and if it becomes legal, like gay marriage and alcohol and everything else, just issue yet-another prohibition for members. This is how the system is supposed to work.

Sigh...




BONUS MATERIAL:




Former Mormon prophet, and nice young man just trying to pay for college by selling magazine subscriptions, Gordon Hinckley reassuring the public that the Mormon Church does not tell members how to vote.

GIVE MY REGARDS TO SOUTH PARK

"In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith,
who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad golddigging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the "Book of Mormon."
--Christopher Hitchens, god is Not Great

Remember that one time when the Mormon Church apologized for excommunicating church historians who exposed various unflattering aspects of the church's history? Remember that other time when the church admitted that Joseph Smith married underage teenage girls by threatening them with the eternal damnation of their entire families, and that he shipped off men to the other side of the world so he could steal their wives? Remember the time the Mormon Church admitted--finally--that the reason they bought the fake historical document "The Salamander Letter" (wherein Joseph claimed that the angel Moroni appeared to him in the form of a salamander) is because there exist legitimate historical documents detailing Joseph's claim that the angel Moroni appeared to him in the form of a toad?

Yeah, me neither...

You can imagine my surprise, then, when I heard that the Mormon Church would be releasing a photo of the fabled "seer stone" which Joseph tried and failed to use to find buried treasure and claimed to use to "translate" the gold plates.

I first heard about this magic rock while on a two-year Mormon mission. I didn't believe it. I thought it was a hoax. The other missionary assured me that their seminary teacher knew for a fact that stone existed, but I could see no reason to believe it. It was one of my first moments of religious skepticism.

Traditionally Mormons have taught that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim (small clear stones attached to a breastplate, often described as primitive glasses, which is yet another example of technology of Joseph's day bleeding into his version of the ancient world) to translate his mystical plates.

For over a century the scene has always been described in church meetings and in published paintings and drawings as Joseph sitting at a table looking through the Urim and Thummim reading the gold plates word for word (the idea was that the reformed Egyptian on the plates would appear in English when looked upon through these magical spectacles). A cloth partition separated Joseph from his scribe (a position filled by various people who had a vested interest in the success of the Book of Mormon) so that they could not see the plates, which Joseph was quick to remind them was coupled with a curse: should they look on the plates without god's permission, they will surely die and go to hell. Considering the credulous culture in which Joseph's scribes lived, it is no wonder that none of them ever saw the plates with out a cloth cover (with the exception of 3 of Joseph's most superstitious patsies, none of which were qualified to verify the authenticity of the record). To a thinking person, this is a gigantic red flag.

With the admission of the existence of the magic treasure seeking stone comes a whole new story about the translation process. Joseph would put the stone in a hat (to block out light) and read the illuminated words on the stone. Ya know, like a magical iPad. Often the gold plates were not in the same room as Joseph. In other words, it turns out the scene of Joseph Smith doing this folk magic in South Park's episode "All About Mormons"--a scene which many Mormons dismissed out of hand as a preposterous, slanderous and "anti-Mormon"--was correct!

One of the more concerning aspects of this admission is that the Church has had this stone for at least several decades, and yet, until now they have done nothing to correct the misconception--which they helped to create--that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates directly. Apparently, all the ancient artifacts which Moroni carefully preserved and then directed Joseph to, were not even necessary for Joseph to translate the plates!

On the other hand, now that the seer stone is public and the top 15 leaders of the Church claim to be seers, we now have an opportunity for them to put their claim to the test! You see, one of Joseph's more gullible scribes, Martin Harris, was tasked to a take a scrap of paper with some of the characters from the gold plates to a linguist, Dr. Charles Anthon, to verify that the language was authentic. The story goes that Dr. Anthon wrote a certificate of authenticity for the paper, but upon learning of the supernatural origins of the paper, he torn up the certificate and demanded to see the gold plates himself.

For over a century Mormons have claimed that this story proves that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record, while critics have claimed the opposite. Well, here is the test. Give the seer stone--the same one Joseph used--to one of the Mormon leaders and have them translate the paper given to Dr. Anthon (which according to his account, is nothing short of gibberish). Once we have the characters decoded, which would have a chapter and verse citation for comparison, we can finally understand reformed Egyptian (the language which Joseph claimed to be on the gold plates, and which modern linguists claim is not a real language).

This kind of linguistic support would surely bolster the claim that the Book of Mormon is an authentic historical record. The fact that the Church has had the characters from the Book of Mormon, several men who claim to be "seers," and a seer stone for at least several decades and no one has done this test reveals quite a bit to me about the Church's confidence in their bald assertions.

This appears to be an attempt by the Church to distance themselves from the hokey folk magic Joseph practiced. Unable to bury the connection between the origins of their religion with superstition and crude magic which educated people generally dismiss as ignorant--in large part due to the advent of the internet--the Church is now being forced to face their history. Of course, now some Mormons are claiming to have been forthcoming on the subject of magic rocks all along.

BONUS MATERIAL:

Flackerman discusses the Church's history on the seer stone (among other things):

South Park explaining the translation process of the Book of Mormon:

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:

CANON FODDER

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted."

--Christopher Hitchens, god is Not Great

Few things seem to offer as much comedic fodder as religion. Brian Dawson, a Mormon Sunday School teacher (until recently, that is...), in an attempt to answer a difficult question asked by one of his students, found himself in ecclesiastical hot water after he taught a group of Mormon teens facts about the church discriminating against black members--an area of history the church has long minimized.

This sort of thing has happened before. Several instructors from the church's education system (if you can call it that) have been reprimanded, and in a few cases left the church entirely, due to issues brought on by teaching people less flattering facts about the church. High profile cases, such as the famed "September Six" of the 90s (six historians were kicked out of the church for exposing historical documents confirming Mormonism's polygamist past), and the more recent excommunication of the founder of the podcast "Mormon Stories," John Dehlin, have received national attention.

What makes this particular instance ironic and even funny is that the teacher used sources provided by the church itself. That's right. He was reprimanded by church leaders for using church sources to talk about church history. You can't make up this crap.

The Mormon Church has been spinning the truth about their history since it first had a history. Before Mormonism became a recognized religion, Joseph Smith laced his life with controversy.

Most people nowadays are aware of Joseph's polygamist relationships, for instance. But many people do not know about the truly messed up tactics he used to manipulate people into those relationships. Horrible things such as telling 14 year old girls that if they don't marry Joseph or if they tell anyone about it, their whole family will be damned. Or Joseph sending men on missions to the other side of the world, and then marrying their wives while they are gone. Or Joseph telling his first wife, Emma, that if she objects to his philandering behavior then god will destroy her (this one is actually in canonized Mormon scripture: D&C 132).

Even fewer people are aware of Joseph's treasure hunting enterprises with his father. They were so bad at finding treasure via magic rocks that on more than one occasion Joseph was sued and convicted of fraud. By the way, these magic rocks used by Joseph to swindle poor farmers out of their money are the same rocks he used to "translate" the gold plates in to the Book of Mormon. This is no different than divining rods or psychic mediums--nothing more than parlor tricks and gullible sorcery.

The only "treasure" Joseph ever found was the gold plates, which no one without a vested interest in the Book of Mormon's success ever saw without a cloth over it. No one with anything close to a real academic credential ever saw--much less examined--the purportedly ancient gold plates to determine their authenticity. No one thought it suspicious that these mysterious and elusive gold plates were found by a convicted fraudulent treasure hunter with magic rocks?

Over the last few years (starting around the time of Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, curiously enough) the Mormon Church has quietly released a series of essays clarifying controversial historical issues. The Church finally admitted in these essays, which are available for all to read on the Church's official website (lds.com), that Joseph was a polygamist and that he married over 30 women, some of which were well under the age of eighteen (he was twice their age), and some were married to other men.

They also admitted that Joseph used his treasure-hunting magic rocks (in a hat!) to "translate" the Book of Mormon, contrary to the traditionally more-palatable (i.e. "whitewashed") version of Joseph using in tandum the gold plates and the biblically-referenced Urim and Thummim (according to some accounts, Joseph didn't even have the plates in the same room during the "translation" process).

They admitted--finally--that the policies started by the Church's second president, Brigham Young, which until 1978 were used to exclude black people from being able to receive the priesthood, were inspired by Brigham's own racism, rather than revelation from god.

The admissions made in these essays were ground-breaking in one way or another. The remarkable thing to me is that the Church is finally admitting to things over which they have excommunicated historians in the past. These essays, although clearly not enough to undo the Church's wrongs, is something of an apology.

There are still many things to which the Church has yet to come clean, and they still whitewash much of their history in an effort to make it more faith-promoting. But perhaps we have seen the last of the Church's efforts to buy up historical documents with embarrassing information in order to control their public image, such as the "Salamander Letter," even if those documents turn out to be fraudulent.

All of this public relations management dished out by Mormon HQ has me thinking: Why the sudden admission of issues long covered up?

The hypothesis circulating around some Mormon circles, that the Church is attempting to help Mitt Romney's next campaign, is intriguing. There may even be some truth to it. But I see a much deeper motive than seating the most powerful man in the world (which, surprisingly, is not the Mormon prophet who claims to talk directly to, and for, god). In a covert and never-to-be-admitted way, the Mormon Church seems to have stumbled upon one of modern society's great truths: The internet is where religions go to die.

For centuries religions have relied on a monopoly of information to control their public image and divert doubters and naysayers. Mormonism, being no different from any other fundamentalist religion, teaches its members to only read from Church-approved sources--especially on matters of the Church's history. Anything which challenges the Church's official story is deemed "anti-Mormon" and should be avoided at all costs.

This monopoly of information, however, has become increasingly difficult for the Church to maintain, due in large part to the Information Age. The internet provides questioning Mormons a means to discreetly research controversial issues of the church. Open forums give doubters a voice among other doubters. Historical documents cannot be purchased and hidden as easily as in days passed.

The members are finding this information and because the facts seem to contradict the Church's storybook version of their own history, the Mormon Church is being forced to face their historical problems in a public way in order to "get ahead" of the flood of people stumbling on this information and leaving the Church. And they are leaving. The Church is seeing its greatest era of apostasy ever and no amount of contraception bashing and over-breeding will stop this flood from surging now that the dam holding back their true history has been cracked.

BONUS MATERIAL:

YouTuber, Thunderf00t on religion and the internet:

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.

OUIJA SQUEEGEE

"...it is surprising how petty some of the "supernatural" miracles now seem. As with spiritualist seances, which cynically offer burblings from the beyond to relatives of the late deceased, nothing

truly interesting is ever said or done."

--Christopher Hitchens, god Is Not Great

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

--Mark 9:42

Let me tell you of a few incidents I have had with a co-worker. Easily one of the largest people I have ever met, the stature of this native of Samoa is surpassed only by his religious assumptions. Not only does he (let's call him Stephen) assume everyone with whom he comes in to contact is religious, Stephen also seems to have forgotten every conversation we have had on religion and super-nature. I have both stated my skepticism of religious claims and challenged his personal beliefs. Yet, he still assumes I pray...

Just before Halloween of last year, another co-worker (let's call her Stephanie) announced that she had seen a super scary movie: Ouija. As she described her terror, which she assures only worsened when the movie ended, and how she had to sleep with the lights on for fear of dark forces assembling against her, Stephanie pointed out that films about monsters and slashers don't scare her as much as dark supernatural movies. Films about demons and black magic and the dead communicating with the living via a children's toy made by Mattel are totally different and much scarier because they "could actually happen."

Since this occurred before any patients were awake (I generally avoid these conversations in front of patients), I poked fun at Stephanie's pronouncement that such magical things could really happen. This led to an interesting conversation with several co-workers who all seem to think black magic and Ouija boards are real. Seriously, I was literally the only person who did not believe that Ouija boards could relay messages from the dead.

I explained group-think mentality and how one's desire to believe a proposition influences one's perception of events. I explained how the ideomotor effect can lead a group of people to believe that their collective involuntary movements are really a demonic influence.

I even pointed them all to a specific episode of Penn and Teller's B.S., wherein the two veteran magicians thoroughly debunk Ouija boards by blindfolding participants and changing the position of the board. The test subjects collectively moved the board piece to where they thought certain words were located on the board--not where the words actually were. If the board was communicating with dead spirits, the testers would have moved to where the words actually were, rather than where they thought the words were.

To put it simply, there is ample evidence that Ouija boards do not communicate with the dead. So, I asked the rational follow up question: if there is a reasonable natural explanation for a given phenomenon, why would you accept a supernatural explanation?

Not to be out done by reasoned argumentation, Stephen shared an experience he had within his own family. Stephen's cousin, who is also quite large, went on a visit to Samoa. Upon returning, Stephen's cousin was "not himself". He was distant, and full of rage. Stephen's aunt swore that while on his trip, Stephen's cousin had been possessed by a demon. Stephen offered to help, and, with another cousin, he attempted to exorcise the demon.

During the ritual, Stephen's cousin thrashed about and threw Stephen and his other cousin across the room a few times. Stephen reported that his cousin's eyes were pure black and he couldn't focus on Stephen or anyone else in the room. It was all very intense. I do not doubt that the facts of the story (Stephen being tossed around and his cousin's eyes being black and vacant, etc.) all happened more or less as Stephen described.

You see, Stephen works with mental patients. He witnesses rage and vacant eyes in patients at work and doesn't immediately assume it is demonic in nature. It seems that the main reason Stephen assumes demonic possession in the case of his cousin is because his cousin tossed him across the room--something which rarely happens to a man of Stephen's size. But, as I pointed out, Stephen's cousin is also quite large. It would be more impressive if Stephen had been thrown by a small child, rather than another 350 pound Samoan.

I shared an experience I had with a patient who claimed to be possessed (she also had black, vacant eyes, and was quite strong). After her ordeal (she stabbed her wrist with a pencil over 40 times and bit off chunks of her arm, which she either spit at me or swallowed--all while asking to be taken to a church), a debriefing was called for staff with the resident psychiatrist.

The doctor explained the psychological process of mental dissociation (becoming completely disconnected with one's surroundings, often hallucinating). The patient was not actually possessed and there is a clearly understood scientific explanation for her behavior and physical symptoms. So, again I asked: if there is a reasonable natural explanation for a given phenomenon, why would you accept a supernatural explanation?

Stephen never responded to my counter argument, but clearly he understood that I do not agree with him on supernatural claims. Surely he would not be so quick to assume in the future that my position on supernatural phenomena is the same as his. Surely...

A few weeks ago, Stephen got in to an argument with a patient about god. The patient, who is a minor, revealed that she doesn't pray because she doesn't believe in god. Stephen took it upon himself to convince her that there is a god (Mormons...). To be clear, the company for which we both work frowns on this.

Stephen asked her why she doesn't believe in god. The patient responded that for the first ten years of her life she was abused physically and sexually. She prayed every day for god to save her, but nothing happened.

Undeterred, Stephen pointed out that god answers prayers in different ways: yes, no and maybe. He then looked right at me and said, "Isn't that right, Matt?"

With a tone of surprise and fluster, I responded, "Don't ask me!"

I was furious, but I did not intervene because I had confidence that the patient could hold her own. After all, platitudes are small comfort to victims of abuse.

The patient responded that she still wasn't sure of Stephen's assertion. So, Stephen offered the following anecdote to further prove that god answers prayers:

A man is stranded on top of a house during a flood. As the water rises to dangerous levels, a boat approaches the man and offers to save him from certain death. The man declines the offer and says, "Don't worry, god will save me!" Another boat comes and offers to save the man, and the man declines again in the same way. "God will save me!" A third boat comes and the man declines yet again. The man dies.

Entering heaven, the bewildered man approaches god and cries, "god, why didn't you save me?"

God replies, "Save you? I sent three boats after you!"

This is the evidence Stephen offers a seventeen year old girl who doesn't believe in god because, for the first ten years of her life, she cried to god to save her from daily sexual and physical abuse, but never received an answer.

She was unimpressed by Stephen's story, and seemed to just want the conversation to end. In essence, Stephen told this young woman that god did answer her prayers; she just didn't recognize it. This is classic blaming the victim.

If I had knowledge of a child being raped right now, and I had the power to stop it, I would be under a moral obligation to intervene. If I did not do everything I could to stop it, I would be a monster worse than anything in Stephanie's scary movies.

God allegedly sees every child being raped at this very moment and he has the capacity to end it. Yet he doesn't. Why does god get a pass? His ways are higher than ours? He is mysterious? Our morality doesn't apply to god? He has a greater purpose in mind? To preserve the free-will of the offender? What about the free-will of the child being raped?

Basically this line of reasoning suggests that god uses rape to teach children valuable life lessons. Disgusting. Ah, but god will help you find your misplaced car keys, or align all the traffic lights to be green on your way to work...

I admit that there is a difference between the morality of Stephen's god and my own morals: my morals are better.

There is only one moral answer to a child suffering this kind of daily abuse. It is not "no, you will learn a lesson which will make you stronger"; nor is it "maybe, we'll see"; it isn't even sending metaphorical "boats" which the child must recognize in order to be useful. There is only one ethical, acceptable answer to a child asking an all-powerful being to spare them abuse: "yes, I will stop it immediately." Anything short of this is evil.




BONUS MATERIAL:

Penn and Teller debunking Ouija boards:

SERENDIPITY-DOO-DA

"...and 'thank you' to god for making me an atheist."
--Ricky Gervais (hosting the Golden Globe awards)







The other day on my commute to work I heard a rather interesting story on NPR. I don't recall all of the details, of course, but the following is the gist of the story:

During World War I there was a great battle between a British battalion and a German battalion. As the battle progressed, a British soldier noticed a German soldier who had been injured so gravely that he estimated that this foe was effectively out of the fight, and in an act of mercy, decided not to kill him. The two men were close enough to make eye contact and the extremely grateful German soldier never forgot the face of the man who spared his life.

Fast forward several years to when the now very prominent German soldier, who had recounted this experience many times as an act of God, recognized the face of a British man in a photo in a newspaper as the same man who spared him. The German man felt so overwhelmed with gratitude that he was compelled to send a letter of thanks to the British man, but not knowing how to get a hold of him, instead sent the letter to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who then forwarded the message on his behalf.

The British man was awe-struck by this message and replied by issuing a statement that if he had known who the German man would one day become, he would have shot him on the spot. The German soldier was (if you haven't figured it out by now) Adolf Hitler.

I kind of chuckled at this when I heard it. It reminds me of so many similarly serendipitous accounts that one has to ask, "are all seemingly miraculous events justifiably attributable to God?" Nowadays, my answer is a flat "NO"; but even when I was religious I would ask similar questions.

I always found it odd that whenever someone would tell a story of god helping them, or of a miracle of some kind, no one in the audience ever asked them for justification. They always just nodded in agreement and took the story at face value. I suppose this might make sense if one believes that god controls everything. But wouldn't this also mean that god gave the person the hardship, thus necessitating divine intervention, in the first place? So really what they are saying is that god gave them a problem and solved it for them, so that they would recognize his hand in their life. Really?

The very idea of such a proposition being made by people who also believe in a god of omniscience and omnipotence is laughable. As far as I can figure, an omniscient and omnipotent god who created everything stands in opposition with the notion of freewill (as many Calvinists will point out).

Consider it this way: god created this universe knowing in advance everything that would happen, and chose to create this specific universe in which billions of people would fail to meet his standard and join him in heaven, and knowing who those people would be before he created them, despite having the ability to create a different universe in which everyone would be saved. Therefore, either god chose your eternal path for you before he even created you, and is responsible for every action you take, especially the evil ones for which he judges and condemns you, thus negating any illusions of freewill you might have, or an omnipotent and omniscient god does not exist and freewill remains intact.

He also could have created a universe in which I believe in his existence. Therefore, god made me an atheist.



BONUS MATERIAL:

Mr. Deity and the Evil