I have linked to The Atheist Experience in many of my posts, and it really has been an integral part of my own de-conversion from Mormonism. I love just about everything about the show: the topics, the open call-in format, the hosts. It's all good stuff. I have even considered visiting Austin, Texas just to sit in the audience and meet the people who put on the show.
Well, it turns out that the show has been gaining some notoriety, which is unusual for public-access content. The show is all over Reddit, which is great since r/atheism is one of the most popular atheist sites on the internet, with over 2 million subscribers just to that sub-page. Even more exciting is that now big name celebrities, such as Ricky Gervais (creator of "The Office"), are becoming fans of the show and promoting it (btw, Matt Dillahunty is the main host on the show):
Did you notice the 108 "retweets" at the bottom there? And that's just on the first day of posting.
At any rate, the most recent show (below) had a caller who starts a conversation about people using the show as a tool for de-conversion. And since this was the case for myself (I have literally watched almost every single episode from the last 8 or 9 years), I thought it fitting to pay a tribute and promote the show in a post as a way to show my gratitude.
"26 And after that he came men also were saved by faith in his name; and by faith, they become the sons of God. And as surely as Christ liveth he spake these words unto our fathers, saying: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is good, in faith believing that ye shall receive, behold, it shall be done unto you."
--Moroni 7:26 [emphasis added]
There is a common myth within Mormonism of two missionaries stranded in the middle of the desert, standing beside a car with no gas, and one says to the other: "Hey, let's pour some water in to the gas tank and ask god to turn the water into gasoline." After a brief comparison to a similar miracle performed by Jesus turning water into wine, the other missionary pours some water in to the gas tank, utters a heart-felt petition to god and viola! the car starts and they drive off to save more souls.
Many religious people have probably heard similar types of stories as this one (which should tell you something of the nature of such tall tales...). Well, in my mission a couple of sister missionaries actually tried this. One might think that this would be the perfect opportunity for god to reveal himself, and flex his supernatural muscles, but the result was exactly as one would expect if some one had poured water in to a gas tank without asking god for a miracle--not only did the car not start, but they had to send it to a mechanic for major repairs.
So, why didn't god answer the prayers of these young women who were supposedly on his errand? Surely, they demonstrated great faith, and their request would have been worthwhile by god's standard. Why such negligence from an omnipotent being who promises his faithful adherents that they can move mountains if they just believe?
In retrospect, the most interesting thing to me is not that the sister missionaries failed to receive an answer to their prayer, but how the rest of us missionaries responded to the story: belly-aching laughter. Every one of us laughed hysterically when we heard about the faux pas, and some even made misogynistic claims of the ineptitude of women behind a wheel, etc. Not a single one of us thought it would have been reasonable to expect god to answer their prayer. Why not?
The truth is, I, and many like me, are implicitly skeptical of miracle claims, if only with regards to the claims of others. I can't tell you how many times I have heard miracle claims and thought, some times aloud, "That's a little far-fetched, or just too good to be true. Why should I believe such a claim?"
Generally speaking, I think most people are pretty skeptical, if a little under-practiced. Skepticism is a skill set. It is very similar to logic, the scientific method, and the Socratic method. Each methodology has a set of fairly well-established rules which help us reduce bias and increase potential understanding. Applying these methods of thinking to our own biases and beliefs is one of the most difficult, yet most necessary forms of self improvement.
Like most salesmen, religious missionaries try to convince anyone with a listening ear that they are missing some essential thing in their life which can only be acquired through adherence to the missionaries' religion. For instance, while on my mission I would regularly compare temporary happiness with lasting joy. I would explain that things like sex, drugs and alcohol, etc, may allow a person to feel happy during certain moments, but in the long run the happy feelings do not last. By comparison, those who have a real relationship with Jesus Christ through Mormonism will have lasting joy and peace of mind. However, not once did I ever explain how this "lasting joy" actually occurs through such a relationship. I never even thought to ask.
A comfortable delusion is still a delusion. If believing that you have a personal relationship with a "still small voice" inside your head makes you happy, congratulations. I have no doubt that some one, somewhere is comforted by the fact that they are the real Napoleon Bonaparte (and I'm still single because my rugged good looks intimidate women... and I'm rich). By the way, if you do, in fact, hear a "still small voice" in your head you are not crazy. But if you think it is anything other than your own mind, you very well may be (or you have been trained through religious indoctrination to call your conscience "god").
The fact is, I made it up. Well, in all honesty, I borrowed the argument from someone else who made it up. It is a common concept. People want to feel special. They want to feel like they have some bit of truth or knowledge which makes them special. And to show how special they are, they try to pass it on to other people so they can feel special, too. That way they can reassure each other of their mutual specialness.
Before his death, Christopher Hitchens challenged theists often to present any moral action or benefit of religion which can only be done or acquired through religion. In his public debates he never recieved a satisfactory answer, most of which would involve saving people from an unsubstantiated place of eternal torture after their death for the finite crime of disbelief (which, by definition, is an infinitely unjust punishment). Mr Hitchen's refutes this by pointing out that this is a made up solution to a made up problem, and therefore, does not qualify as an answer to his proposition:
BONUS MATERIAL:
A group of Christian kids claiming they are persecuted:
And an atheist YouTuber responds (warning: explicit):
"But both in theory and in practice, religion uses the innocent and the defenseless for the purposes of experiment.... By all means let Abraham offer to commit suicide to prove his devotion to the Lord or his belief in the voices he was hearing in his head. By all means let devout parents deny themselves the succor of medicine when in acute pain and distress. By all means--for all I care--let a priest sworn to celibacy be a promiscuous homosexual.... But the conscription of the unprotected child for these purposes is something that even the most dedicated secularist can safely describe as a sin."
--Christopher Hitchens (author, "god Is Not Great")
Like most religions, Mormonism has some unique cultural traits. Green Jell-o, road shows and knowing someone who was saved from Ted Bundy by the Three Nephites are all common in Mormon culture. Also like other religions, there is a push within Mormonism to have children give talks in church and bear their testimonies of things which they cannot know. Few people seem to have a problem with this; that is, until they see children of another faith engaging in this practice...
This is fairly common, actually. In my home ward it occurred at least once a month during sacrament meeting (the main congregational meeting). Usually it would play out as follows: a young mother or father escorts their 2-6 year old child to the pulpit, holds them up to the mic and whispers into the ears of the child statements of fact, such as "I know the Church is true; I know Joseph Smith was a prophet; I know the Book of Mormon is true" and so on. Very often the parroting child receives praise from the both the parents and members of the congregation, despite the fact that they just lied in front of dozens of people by saying they know things to be true which they do not know, simply because their parents told them to say such things.
Now, I can appreciate the general adorableness of a 3 year old speaking into a microphone over a large crowd as much as the next cold-hearted cynic; but does no one else see the inherent problem of teaching a child through positive reinforcement to lie about their beliefs? What will happen when that child grows older and the social pressure to acquire a "genuine" testimony of the things they have been mindlessly repeating for years increases? How many Mormon teenagers have a real testimony and how many are simply lying or repeating platitudes and assertions from their childhood? How many adults are in the same position?
I can recall one instance when I gave a talk in church at about the age of 8. I was too old to be expected to just repeat the words of my parents, so I had to come up with something to actually talk about. I don't know how much my mother helped me prepare my talk, but I do know that I delivered it by myself--a fact that I was quite proud of at the time. The talk itself was about the "first" time I ever received an answer to a prayer:
My mother's side of the family gets together about every 3-5 years at a campsite out side of Fresno, California. There are two barrack-type buildings (one for the boys, and one for the girls), a kitchen, and a rec hall, all along-side a river just a couple of miles from a large lake. It has been a family tradition for 50+ years. On one side of the camp is a rather steep, rocky hill which goes up about 100 feet or so to the service road.
Well, when I was about 3 years old, my 5 year old brother and I decided to hike up that hill. As we reached a large boulder about half way up the hill, we decided that we were lost, despite the fact that we could still see the barracks. My older and wiser brother decided that we should say a prayer so that we could make it back to the camp safely. He offered the benediction. After a little exploring around the rock, and deciding that we were still lost, we continued up the hill until we reached the road. We turned left.
A little ways down the road (approximately 50 feet), we found a small convenience store (full of candy and ice cream) where one of the employees very quickly figured out that we had wandered away from the nearby camp. They escorted us to the camp down the hill, where our grateful, albeit slightly confused mother was getting out of the shower.
In my 3 year old mind, we had gone on a wild adventure and had received an answer to prayer. In reality, two young adventurous boys had wandered around the outside edge of a campsite for about 15 minutes.
BONUS MATERIAL:
An ex-Mormon expresses her feelings on indoctrinating children:
The Atheist Experience on Indoctrination (part 1):
"Tolerance is a virtue, but like all virtues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the “tolerance trap” so that we are not swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequence that is the result of the violation of God’s law of chastity."
--Boyd K Packer (Mormon Apostle)
I'm not really a political person, yet people often think that I am. I freely acknowledge my own ignorance on most political issues, and I generally withhold commenting on things I know little about. But there are a few issues which can really stir me, such as gay marriage.
A couple of weeks ago Right-wing nut job Glenn Beck released a concession that "they" have won the gay marriage battle because "they" made it about freedom:
As much as I want to believe that the tides are turning for political conservatives, this concession seems all too opportunistic. Maybe I'm being cynical. Maybe Beck, a self-proclaimed libertarian, really has had a change of heart and really does see that conservatives have no legal basis to deny gay people the right to marry, no matter how icky or immoral they may find it. I just have to ask "Why, Mr Beck, has it taken you so long to look at this issue through the libertarian lens of freedom? Why the change of heart?"
I suppose that even if Beck is a hypocritical opportunist, this is still a sign of progress. If he is merely appealing to his constituencies, then this means his constituencies are changing their minds. This would be very good news.
Similarly, the Boy Scouts of America have recently changed their policy on gays in their organization. While the change is not as inclusive as some had hoped (gay adults are still not allowed), and it seems to be the result of monetary pressures from donors rather than doing the right thing on moral grounds (like the organization professes), it is still a step in the right direction.
With all the recent advances in gay rights, many are making predictions that gay marriage will be allowed in most states in X number of years, etc. A while back, I made a similar prediction that eventually even the Mormon Church will soften its policies on gay members, just as they did with black members in 1978. So, today I will reiterate that, like Glenn Beck, the BSA and the Mormon Church in 1978, all of whom changed their minds to reflect the social and political climate at the time, one day the Mormon Church will allow gay civil marriage in their churches, and gay men in openly gay relationships will hold priesthood offices in the church. All we have to do is wait for Mr Packer to die.
BONUS MATERIAL:
Here is Bryan Fischer chastising Glenn Beck for changing his mind on gay marriage:
"Stepped into a church I passed along the way
Well, I got down on my knees and I pretended to pray
You know the preacher likes the cold, he knows I'm gonna stay"
--Mamas and the Papas (song "California Dreaming")
One of the things which fascinates me most about the Book of Mormon story of Korihor and Alma is the rather ironic lesson in tricking yourself into believing falsehoods. You see, the Mormon Church teaches that if a person has a desire to believe in the Church but as of yet has not received the spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost testifying of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, then that person can gain a testimony "through the bearing of it". That's right, the Church actually teaches that if you don't know the Church is true, just say you do in front of other people over and over again--eventually you will start to believe it.
Here are a couple of quotes from various Church authorities (source Mormon Think):
"A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it. Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that 'leap of faith,' as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and step into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two."
--Boyd K. Packer (Mormon Apostle)
"Another way to seek a testimony seems astonishing when compared with the methods of obtaining other knowledge. We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them."
--Dallin H Oaks (Mormon Apostle)
The implication that these men are trying to convey to their members is that by saying one knows the Church, etc. is all true, one will finally receive the witness from the Holy Ghost. But, as I have asked before, how does one reliably discern between a genuine divinely-caused burning of the bosom and an emotionally-charged, self-induced sensation reflecting one's desire to believe (aka confirmation bias)?
Furthermore, Joseph Smith once told Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery that he had received revelation through the same process he had used to allegedly translate the Book of Mormon (a seer stone in a hat) that they should go to Toronto, Canada to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon, in order to expedite the publishing process and get the books made more quickly. Returning empty handed, Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery inquired of Joseph why the Lord had seemingly given him a false revelation. Joseph received yet another revelation, again through the same process, that "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil". This presents a perpetual problem for believers, as such potential sources of revelations are apparently indecipherable in their similarities--even to Joseph Smith:
"Be ever on guard lest you be deceived by inspiration from an unworthy source. You can be given false spiritual messages. There are counterfeit spirits just as there are counterfeit angels. Be careful lest you be deceived, for the devil may come disguised as an angel of light.
"The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that it is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary."
--Boyd K. Packer
Now, to a true believer this is important information, although the Church has yet to offer a reliable way to discern between these "false spiritual messages" and genuinely divine messages. For someone such as myself who thinks all three options are of the same man-made origin, this apparent conundrum is very telling.
For those of you positing the possibility that Joseph Smith just made a one-time mistake, consider the fact that the same thing happened to the Muslim prophet Mohammad, which is the origin of the "Satanic Verses" in the Koran. If Joseph Smith was admittedly deceived by Satan once, is it not possible that it could have occurred more than once? Could it have happened every time? Is it only possible to tell if a revelation is true by it coming to pass? Is this method the least bit rational or reliable?
"To me religion is like Paul Rudd. I see the appeal, and I would never take it away from anyone. But I would also never stand in line for it."
--Excerpt from "Community"
Last July I wrote a verse by verse deconstruction of a chapter in the Book of Mormon wherein Joseph Smith really shows his lack of understanding of atheism by portraying Korihor (anti-Christ) as one of the most cliche-ridden depictions of an atheist I have ever seen. He also seems to have confused the Law of Moses with the US Constitution...
At any rate, at the end of the story Korihor reveals that he only disbelieved in god because a demon disguised as an angel told him there is no god, and he repeated the lie in his mind over and over again until he eventually believed it. To me this is the only thing of value in this story.
The concept of repeating falsehoods until you believe them is a well known psychological phenomenon, and I think many people fall victim to it within the realm of religious conviction and spiritual experiences. Furthermore, and this is the real point of this post, religious people are encouraged to get together regularly (sometimes even daily) to reaffirm each other's experiences and opinions as truth.
In my youth I was taught that the path to apostasy starts with inactivity. This is why the Mormon Church puts so much effort in to their "Home Teaching" program--so they can catch apostasy early on and bring people back to the Church. (Note: No Home Teachers have tried to contact me since I graduated from BYU, so clearly that's why I'm an atheist....)
I will admit that there is some truth to the notion that if you stop attending a church you will gradually become disenchanted with its teachings. But unlike religious people, who will tell you that this method of apostasy is just Satan gently leading you away from god, I say this shows the weakness of religious arguments. Conversely, biologists don't get together weekly just to tell each other that evolution is still true, because evolution does not rely upon subjective experiences interpreted through the lens of a book of questionable holiness and origin.
There are atheists who admire religions for their social networks, and some have even tried to start "atheist churches" to mimic this, but by and large most atheists do not feel the need to come together en masse on a weekly basis to reaffirm their logically sound, empirically based arguments. If anything, they want the occasional potluck and game-night.
Well, this coming weekend the Mormon Church is hosting their semi-annual General Conference and will broadcast it around the world. For those interested in seeing what group-think is really all about, or if you are just curiously masochistic, feel free to check it out. I, on the other hand, will be getting paid overtime as I work during each session of the conference. If anything interesting happens I am sure Facebook will let me know on Monday.
BONUS MATERIAL:
Christopher Hitchens on the strength of atheism:
And a cheeky advertisement for Britain's first atheist church:
