DUMB IT DOWN

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."
--Dilbert

Some of the more convoluted religious discussions I have participated in have been on the topic of salvation for the mentally disabled. Many religions claim that entrance into heaven is conditional upon certain acts of contrition and ritual manifestations of belief. Arbitrary acts of compliance, such as baptism, confession, communion, sacraments, endowments, and so on, are meant to show an all-knowing god that you really mean it--that you really do super-duper believe.

The question becomes, "since many mentally disabled people do not fully understand the meaning behind religious ceremonies, or are incapable of understanding what a god even is, are they required to go through these rites of passage in order to make it into heaven?"

I first encountered this question while on my mission, when a middle aged woman requested that her mentally retarded 20 year old son be baptized. As missionaries, we looked forward to any baptism. Even so, it seemed unnecessary to baptize a grown man with the mind of a five year old. Surely god would allow him into heaven based on his condition, which surely god had imposed on him in the first place.

A few years ago autism was reclassified and broadened to a spectrum disorder, which allows for gradation of symptoms and severity of the condition. Still, there are many things which are in common of autistics as a whole. For instance, autistics tend to be analytically minded, and black and white in their thinking. This makes nuanced social and moral situations difficult for them to process. Because of these attributes, autism is especially interesting when discussing the salvation of the mentally challenged.

A Mormon associate of mine has an 11 year old autistic son (let's call him Peter) who told his mother that he doesn't want to go to church anymore because he hasn't seen any evidence for Jesus. In contrast, a Mormon relative of mine also has an 11 year old autistic son (let's call him John) who loves going to church and often makes decisions concerning social interactions based on lessons he has learned at church. Peter is very independent—almost to a fault—and John depends greatly on his parents and younger brother for guidance.

When Peter's mother told me about his decision to stop going to church, several people in our group reassured her that "he will come around." In Mormonism this means that at some point Peter will have a spiritual experience, or a "burning in his bosom," which Mormons believe is a sign that god is talking to them.

This burning sensation, as far as my ex-Mormon mind can understand, is no different than a "burning" desire for a proposition to be true. Meaning, Mormons believe that because they "have a good feeling" about Mormonism, this means that Mormonism is true. But to me, this is hardly a sound reason to assume the supernatural.

Based on other encounters Peter's mother has shared with me, I don't see Peter "coming around" to Mormonism solely based on feelings. Mormons will likely dismiss his unbelief as a symptom of his mental state, and claim that god will (probably) forgive him accordingly. This makes heaven a consolation prize for those inconvenienced by god's extra-strength cruelty in this life, leaving those who only experience god's regular-strength cruelty to fend for themselves.

If god can so easily forgive a mentally disabled person predisposed to unbelief, why can't he do the same for the rest of us unbelievers? Why is belief in something for which there is no evidence so important for our eternal salvation? What kind of plan is this?

John, on the other hand, has come to rely on church lessons for moral context and pro-social behavior. Mormonism has become his “Rosetta Stone” into social interactions. He is one of the few people I have met who really values and thinks about phrases like "What Would Jesus Do?"

John will likely remain in Mormonism as an adult because he has developed a comfortable routine out of it--another attribute of many autistics. Mormonism helps him understand right and wrong. I have discussed in other posts how difficult it is for many people who have based their moral standard on a belief in god to reconsider their morality after realizing god doesn't exist. For an autistic person who has made religion a social barometer and a routine, this becomes exponentially more challenging.

It will be interesting to see how John turns out, especially considering his affinity for science and space exploration. I wonder how his mind will process a potential faith crisis after, say, praying for someone to get well and waiting in vain for a response from god. After all, the scriptures are clear in the chain of events: pray in faith for something righteous and god will grant it. Will he so easily accept the inconsistent ad hoc rationalizations offered by believers for god's apparent negligence? I can't say. I hope that if that day comes, he finds a secular worldview to be just as useful in determining his morals and social behavior.

BONUS MATERIAL:





South Park weighing in on the subject:

I DISSENT

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."

--Chapman Cohen

It seems that I am not the only person having fun arguing with religious people on Facebook. A friend of mine, who has also left Mormonism, recently posted his thoughts on the current debacle between the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the fallout of which has devout Mormons squirming.

For years the BSA has been wrestling with its policies which discriminate against gays. Some revisions came down the pike a year or so ago, thus allowing openly gays kids to participate in the program without being kicked out. This caused a bit of a stir among Mormons at the time, but now, apparently, they are claiming that they were in support of this revision all along. I have some gay ex-Mormon friends who might challenge this claim...

At any rate, the question now is whether or not openly gay men can be leaders in the organization. In typical religious fashion--standing in opposition to facts and reason--Mormons are upset that the BSA has recently reversed their outdated discriminatory policy, which will allow gay men to be scout leaders.

Their objection, which they hold to be doctrinal, and therefore, a form of religious liberty, is that it is inappropriate for gay men to be leaders of youth groups. Apparently Mormons still think that gays try to "recruit" teens and that homosexuality is closely linked to pedophilia--both of these misconceptions are dispelled by science.

As my friend points out, Mormons have no problem with straight men overseeing Girl's Camp (the lesser-funded female version of Scout Camp). Nor do they object that these same men ask male and female teens--behind closed doors--intimate questions about their sex lives. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Although I have huge problems with religious-based bigotry, I do agree that the Mormon Church has the right to exclude gays from their organization (for the same reasons that the KKK can refuse to allow black people in their group). Unfortunately for Mormons, however, the BSA is not justified in their discrimination since they are a multicultural organization which receives government kickbacks, and financial stipends.

For instance, the BSA is allowed free access to hundreds of military personnel and millions of dollars of equipment--paid for with tax dollars--for their annual national jamboree. Also, many of the Boy Scout facilities and camps are on government-owned property and the BSA is charged a lowly $1 a year for rent.

These are major perks which other youth programs and nonprofits are not afforded by the government. This kind of support is the reason so many people are calling for a revision in the BSA's discriminatory policies. The Mormon Church is free to discriminate, but the government is not.

In response to all the hubbaballoo, the Mormon Church has issued a statement that, should the BSA go through with this change (allowing gay Scout leaders), then the Church will withdraw from the BSA and start their own scouting program. This will be a major blow to the BSA since the Mormon Church is their single largest supporter (approximately 25-30% of all scout troops are Mormon-run). This has been one major reason why the BSA has been so reluctant to change their policy.

The magnitude of the Mormon-BSA relationship is precisely what the Mormon Church relies upon when making the threat to withdraw from the BSA. Mormons are known for many things (some less favorable than others), one of which is sticking with their principles. They are also known for managing money well.

Should the Mormon Church withdraw all support and sever all ties with the BSA (a relationship about 100 years old, by the way), then whatever scouting substitute the Church devises will NOT receive the same government support as the BSA. This means that Mormons will spend significantly more money to run their scouting program.

It is because of this unavoidable monetary spike that I think the Mormon Church is bluffing. I think they will not pull the trigger on their threats of disassociation. I think they are trying to create a power play to strong-arm the BSA. Should the BSA go through with their policy change, I strongly doubt the Mormon Church will make good on their promise to withdraw--the financial stakes are too high. But, only time will tell.

In the post my ex-Mormon friend wrote on his Facebook page he mentioned that he had left the Church. And from out of the woodwork crawled some of his devout Mormon friends, hellbent on defending Mormonism and, if possible, saving my friend in the process.

One Mormon devotee wrote an especially pretentious and closed-minded response to my friend, [N]:

Sam:

"I know that somewhere deep down inside of you, [N], that you remember why you "used" to believe. I know that you remember feelings and promptings that you had, I remember perfectly hearing you talk about them. I remember listening to you testify of the very things that you try to tear down with logic. I know that you know, however buried that may be by emotions, pain, or whatever else it could be that God does exist. The bottom line is something convinced you that there was a God and that everything you taught as a missionary was true. You had a testimony and still do. If you choose to bury those memories than that is fine. But just as you desire to point out your opinion so do I. I cannot deny the very real feelings that I have had in my life. The confirmations that there is a God and he loves us. No matter what information someone provides. I will always know. I love you [N], and I hope that you know that I always have your best interest in mind."

I have never heard a more condescending, presumptive, or closed-minded testimony. Not only does this person claim to "know" that there is a god and that my unbelieving friend likewise "knows" this, but this person states that "No matter what information someone provides," he will always know that god exists.

This is the definition of closed-minded. But in Mormon culture this phrasing is seen as admirably strong conviction. Too bad he doesn't support his claim that his super strong feelings are indicative of god. Too bad no one ever has.

Another Mormon friend of my friend wrote a rather wordy response, so I won't post it here. In his word-salad, he made an interesting point I have not heard in a while. He related the struggle for gay rights to the 1978 change which allowed black Mormons to attain the priesthood.

He said that a possible reason why blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood before 1978 is because members were not yet ready for such a drastic change. To him this is more plausible than the common criticism that the Church only made the change because of societal pressures, as they seem to have done on the issue of polygamy (polygamy was endorsed by the Church for decades; it was not until the Mormons sought to make Utah a state that they abolished the practice; also, the US government threatened to confiscate millions of dollars of Mormon assets should they continue polygamy, much like they currently threaten Fundamentalist Mormons who still practice polygamy). 

The idea that Mormons were "not ready" to allow blacks to have the priesthood before 1978 does not speak favorably of Mormons at the time. The civil rights movement picked up a lot of steam in the 50s and 60s. What does it say about Mormons if they were behind the times by over a decade? Now that gay marriage is legal, how long will it take for the Church to catch up and once again claim moral superiority and exclusive access to divine revelation and prophecy?

Aron Ra was right; god moves in mysterious and delirious ways...

BONUS MATERIAL:

Coheed and Cambria performing Supreme Court Justice Scalia's "dissent" on gay marriage:

THE AFTER-MATTHEW

"The church is always trying to get other people to reform; it might not be a bad idea to reform itself a little, by way of example."
--Mark Twain








In my last post, "FUDGE PACKER," I wrote about my frustrations in dealing with my Mormon friends and family over the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. In my frustration, I changed my Facebook profile picture to a satirical photo of an anti-gay Mormon leader, Boyd K. Packer, whose words have contributed to prejudice against homosexuals which has forced many gay Mormon teens to live on the streets and, in some cases, to suicide.

The conversation which has resulted from my picture has been exhausting and frustrating. In the instances where I was misrepresented and stereotyped by people I care about, which were many, I became angry. Like, "screaming at the top of my lungs while riding my motorcycle to work" angry. But amid the madness and anger I was also bolstered by the supportive words of many people.

I want to share some of the more positive comments I received, some through private messages for fear of a similarly deteriorating conversation on their own pages.

[friend from high school]:

"Matt you are awesome, from the time I first got to know you, you are a hell of a wrestler and even more, a hell of a man! I agree with you who are we to judge how another human being lives their lives"

[friend]:
"Thank you Matt! You're what's right with the world"

[friend from high school]:
"Matt, may I just say, your bravery is remarkable. Thank you."

[same person, private message]:
"I need share my sincere gratitude for you. You get it. Life, God and all that we are here for. I never really knew you before as young people, but I am so glad to know you now. I guess I didn't understand me either then. Sad to see him say he think he knew me in high school...and to see him be a victim of circumstance. You truly have remarkable things to say and I've shared them with my Wife tonight. Keep it up friend."

[friend from BYU]:

"Matt! This pic is genius! You are hilarious. It's the perfect mix of pointed and poignant!"

[friend from BYU, private message]:
"Yeah, I was just reading the great debate and thought it was pretty crazy that he passed away in the middle of it. I'll say the conversation has been interesting. I took the picture more as satire, as you explained but I don't usually get offended (or dissappointed) by facebook posts"

[friend from high school]:
"I have to admit that I have been reading your profile pic discussion and I think it's really nice to see that you are willing to stick with your own beliefs and you provide very sound reasoning to back it up. I know that you are facing a lot of opposition regarding your profile pic choice but the discussions that have resulted from it can only be a good thing. The evolution of change regarding peoples views on these types of subjects is a very slow process but an open dialogue, with well thought responses, will only speed up the process of love and acceptance for all. Thank you."

[a religious leader from my youth]: 

"The whole discussion has definitely been interesting. I tend not to get too wrapped up in stuff like this. I like to keep up on current events, how the world turns and how we are responding to it. I can definitely see both sides of the discussion. I really think that when it comes down to it we have to remember we are children of a loving father in heaven. With that said we also need to remember that we need to treat others as such. - - - I will also add that I have fond memories of my interactions with Matt. He is a hard worker, dedicated and loves his family, friends and (I am sure not much has changed) always shown respect for those around him. In this case some have chosen to be offended. As [F] has said it has opened up a line of discussion and I do believe that in any instance that can not hurt. One of the beautiful things about this country is that you can stand toe to toe and discuss / argue different points of doctrine, policy, law and what have you without retribution. I think that Matt has some points that are worth looking into. I may not agree with his stance but I can respect it and show respect to him as he has owned it. That takes a certain type of courage and shows fortitude. Lastly - I will add that the doctrine has not changed. The attitudes of society and the members of the church has changed in recent years. I think as a whole the members of the church are slowly able to look past peoples short comings and see them as people. I think as a whole we are becoming more honest and less apt to discriminate. I despise the phrase "hate the sin love the sinner". I will in this instance say that the gospel doesn't define people by their struggles. We we define people by who they are. What they do. We all struggle with something. Our daily choices and how we choose to live with/ overcome what pulls us in different directions is what defines us. Are we compassionate, are we accepting, are we humble, are we teachable, are we kind, are we trying to be like Christ? Matt you definitely opened a can of worms, There is still a lot to be discussed with regards to doctrine, culture and how things are changing."

[friend from high school, private message]:
"I'm not a religious person and would not venture to take a stance in the conversations happening regarding your profile picture. However, I've read the threads and would like to commend you. Not just for taking what I believe to be the just position, but for eloquently articulating your thoughts to an audience who disagrees with your sentiment, and maintaining a level of civility while doing so."

[relative, private message]:
"First of all, I friggin love your profile pic. Second of all, thanks for not taking it down. I think it's actually makin a lot of people think, me included. Anyway, it's been pretty epic reading your discussion thread, it's pretty crazy how insensitive a lot of people have been, in the name of good Christianity. I'm not commenting on the picture just because I know [C] doesn't want anything to blow up before the wedding and all... It's taking a lot of will power.... But anyway, just wanted to let you know that I think the pic is some awesome satire and really I appreciate you not backing down. Me personally, I absolutely do not have the guts to post a picture like that. So thanks for saying things a lot of people like me don't have the courage to say. I think you've really shown a lot of character, it's just a Facebook post, but it seems that a lot of your close friends are letting it completely warp their perspective of the quality of individual you must be. I've read nothing but respectful comments from you and obviously it's a subject you've taken time to actually educate yourself on, both sides of the issues. Anyway, this subject hits a personal note with me for a lot of different reasons but seriously, just wanted to say thanks for starting an insightful discussion and absolutely not backing down."

[relative, private message]:
"Nice! Yeah, ive seen a lot of posts of people being offended by being called bigots and use that to say our side is the unloving one. Your picture is about as 'in your face' as his homophobia is. People call out public statements of public figures all the time so its hypocritical to say his church power makes his opinions immune to debate. Plus the picture was relevant to the world views he stood for and opened up a discussion about the significance of his influence. it wasnt just making fun of him for being an old fart or something so its not even a personal ad hominem attack."

I have no regrets.

BONUS MATERIAL:





I posted a link to this on a post a while back, but I feel it applies to this post as well. For those of you who want to see truly offensive satire of religion, click here [WARNING, very graphic. NSFW].

And, I'm just gonna leave this here...:

MORAL LANDSCAPING

"Their leader, Mahmoud al-Zahar, has announced that all inhabitants of the Islamic state of Palestine will be expected to conform to Muslim law. In Bethlehem, it is now proposed that non-Muslims be subjected to the al-Jeziya tax, the historic levy imposed on dhimmis or unbelievers under the old Ottoman Empire. Female employees of the municipality are forbidden to greet male visitors with a handshake. In Gaza, a young woman named Yusra al-Azami was shot dead in April 2005, for the crime of sitting unchaperoned in a car with her fiance. The young man escaped with only a vicious beating. The leaders of the Hamas "vice and virtue" squad justified this casual murder and torture by saying that there had been "suspicion of immoral behavior." In once secular Palestine, mobs of sexually repressed young men are conscripted to snoop around parked cars, and given permission to do what they like."

--Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great.

The discussion of gay marriage started to take off while I was attending BYU (a Mormon university) in the mid 2000's. By the time the infamous "Prop 8" scandal exploded, as it became known that the Mormon Church had milked millions of dollars from members to fight against gay marriage by changing the California state constitution, several arguments for and against gay rights began to circulate around campus.

Those advocating for gay rights (the minority) usually came from a place of equality and agency and the "right to choose." Those against gay rights, in particular gay marriage, usually argued from godly mandates, ill-defined morals and that "butt sex" is gross. As the issue has progressed through each passing presidential election, and now that over half of the states in the US have legalized gay marriage--including Utah--I hear Mormons crying out one argument more than ever: "We have a right to vote according to our conscience."

Yup, you do. Much like the equally vacuous idea that atheists have taken god and prayer out of schools, no one can stop you from doing so. 

While I would prefer a world wherein everyone just agreed with me on every point (seriously, the most peaceful societies are those which produce mass conformity; or so I hear...), I have to concede that voting according to one's conscience is a basic right. But so is abstinence before marriage and suppressing the urge to masturbate--neither of which reflect a healthy attitude towards sexuality, and both are preached by Mormons. Just because someone is exercising a right does not mean they are good at making decisions.

My concern with the argument that one should vote their conscience is that the conscience of these religious fundamentalists (and Mormons are certainly fundamentalists) is telling them that it is OK to impose their religious restrictions on to people not of their faith. Interestingly, Mormons also prohibit the consumption of alcohol, and some would call it immoral and damaging to families (a much stronger case can be made for this than the notion that gay marriage will destroy the family unit); and yet, I don't see any Mormon leaders raising money to universally prohibit alcohol. Their conscience, it seems, only imposes itself on to others selectively and when it is politically advantageous. 

The legal precedent known as the "Lemon Test" requires that all laws must serve a secular purpose (meaning, any given law must be religiously neutral, not favoring or advocating one religion over another, including non-belief). And since all arguments against gay marriage of which I am aware stem from religious prohibitions and serve no established secular purpose, any laws restricting gay marriage are illegal. This is the whole point of the current Supreme Court hearings concerning gay marriage. 

The issues of bigotry, ignorance, sexual repression (which is a form of abuse when forced on to minors), and the moral quagmire of using the argument of "voting one's conscience" to oppress unwilling people not of a particular faith, are all dismantled through education. Teaching people how to process a moral situation (by evaluating potential harm and benefits), rather than listing vague or arbitrary restrictions, will always better serve society. Education is always better than perpetuated ignorance. 

I understand the way many Mormons feel about gay marriage. They are in a tough spot. On the one hand Joseph Smith famously said that he teaches his people correct principles and lets them govern themselves, implying that people--even god's people--should have the ability to make a good or bad choice. 

On the other hand, Mormons are taught to follow their leaders and to not openly criticize or challenge the Church on important matters--even if the criticism is valid. So, when a leader asks members to help fund a campaign to make gay marriage illegal in another state, members are expected to comply and give as much money as possible. Remember, the more a sacrifice hurts, the more god will reward you (look up the documentary "8: The Mormon Proposition" to see what I am referring to). The Mormon principle of agency is being challenged by Mormon leadership and members are caught in the crossfire. 

My own struggle with this led to my leaving Mormonism. I suspect that as the Church continues to take the hard stance that gays should not be allowed to get married, and as the general population of the US and members of the Church “come around” to legalized gay marriage, more and more people will question and leave the Church. And when their pocketbooks are hit hard by declining member donations, the leaders of the Mormon Church will be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century and, much like the issue of blacks and the priesthood in 1978, they will find a way to be "inclusive" of homosexuals. When this public relations move finally happens, they will call it a revelation from god.

BONUS MATERIAL:

Gay couples watching anti-gay ads:

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 

GOOOOOOOOOOAL

"Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?"
--Karen Owens

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof"
--Christopher Hitchens







On two recent occasions I have walked down a hall at work and heard a Pastor talking to a group of children about science and the Bible. The first occasion was a rant against Bill Nye the Science Guy for his view that people who believe in Creationism are stupid. Of course Dr Nye said nothing of the sort, but actually said that teaching Creationism to children as fact is inappropriate because of the lack of evidence supporting it. See for yourself:

The second occasion was a lesson on Noah's Ark and the Great Flood. According to the pastor, before the Flood there was a canopy of water in the sky with enough water to cover the whole earth. Even the highest mountain was under at least 35 feet of water.

A rather astute kid asked "Was Mt Everest covered in water?" 

The pastor realized how absurd it would be for him to say that even Mt Everest was covered in 35 feet of water and came up with the following explanation: "You know, I think that at this time in history the mountains were not as high as they are today. So, I think Mt Everest probably became taller after the flood."

That's right folks, this pastor actually believes and teaches children that Mt Everest was hundreds, if not thousands of feet shorter just 4000 years ago, and god flooded the whole earth with a canopy of water, which has since dissipated.

Now, I don't really care if he believes in the Flood or not. The thing which interests me the most is his reasoning for saying that Mt Everest was not as tall 4000 years ago. This is an ad hoc rationalization which he uses to justify a belief which he has taken on faith, rather than evidence. And upon being presented evidence which would challenge his sincere belief (namely that Mt Everest is really freaking tall, so that would require a lot of water to cover), he has to come up with some explanation to keep his belief at least somewhat tenable within his conflicted mind.

But does his view that Mt Everest grew hundreds or thousands of feet in such short order sound any less ridiculous than any other assertion made about a global flood? How does this claim stand against current geological evidence of how mountains form?

These sorts of rationalizations are common among religious people. For instance, it is generally accepted by scholars that there is no evidence which corroborates with the Book of Mormon assertion that Native Americans are descendants of Ancient Jews. None. But this doesn't stop some Mormons from coming up with explanations of how the Jewish DNA got mixed up with the Mongoloid DNA (actual Native American ancestors) and now it is really hard to find their Jewish ancestry. 

Or that the Book of Mormon explanation of the Hill Cumorah does not fit the geological description of the hill which Joseph Smith claimed to be the Hill Cumorah (where the Book of Mormon was allegedly found), so there must be a second Hill Cumorah somewhere in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico.

You see how this works, right?

This method of argument is called "moving the goal post". As a claim is refuted, an additional claim is added which explains away any refutation. This can go on indefinitely, and it can be as difficult to detect as it is dishonest.

This brings me to logical proofs for the existence of god, such as: the Ontological argument, the Kalam Cosmological argument, or the Teleological Argument for god (aka "TAG"). I will not go through each of these arguments in detail for the sake of time (maybe another post), but the gist of these "proofs" is that one can show through logical reasoning that a god must exist.

Setting aside any flaws in these arguments (such as unsupported premises), is such a proof genuine evidence for the existence of a thing? Is presenting an argument which describes a need for some thing to exist equivalent to demonstrating that that thing actually exists? 

If I present an argument that the only way for me to get to work is through teleportation, does this prove that teleportation is possible? If I present an argument that the only way for shoes to be made is by fairies entering my home and crafting shoes, does this prove the existence of fairies? The answer to all these questions (and more!) is a resounding "No".

Ultimately, logical arguments can be fun thought exercises, but they cannot prove the physical or metaphysical existence of anything.




BONUS MATERIAL:



Brittish Creationists Versus American Evolution (Full Documentary) 

Mr Deity on Creationism:

Bill Nye on Bill Maher:

SLIGHT OF MIND

What is the difference between a miracle from god and a magic trick? Scientific ignorance? Deception? Misdirection? An emotional need to believe? I wonder how many people would be convinced by Jesus' miracles if he did them today...

Consider the Indian Guru, Sathya Sai Baba, who performed miracles on par with any supposedly done by Jesus in front of millions of eye-witnesses, many of whom are alive today. Is 'divinity' really the only explanation for a proposed miracle? Does the number of believing eye-witnesses really matter? If you can't explain how some one does a particular feat, does that mean they are magical? If some one were really capable of bending the natural order of things, don't you think they should use that gift for something more worthwhile than just proving their power and authority (or spreading platitudes)? Why not cure cancer?

If you have witnessed a 'miracle', how do you know your interpretation is correct?



BONUS MATERIAL:

Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) reading from the New Testament:

Mr Deity and the Magic:

Mr Deity and the Magician:

AND I'M A FORMON

The latest video from Mr Deity is a response to the "And I'm a Mormon" ad campaign. It is neither ubiquitous nor information-free! Here are some of my favorite lines which are particularly relevant to my own apostacy:

"I no longer believe that a burning in my bosom is any indication of truth or value."

"I no longer give 10% of my gross income to a multi-billion dollar corporation."

"I no longer believe that homosexuality is a sin."

"I no longer believe that a stone knife is a good substitute for what the Book of Mormon very specifically calls a "steel sword."

"I no longer believe that an ordinary Egyptian funerary text from the Common Era contains the writings of Father Abraham."

"I no longer believe that dark-skinned people can become light-skinned people by living the Mormon gospel."

"I no longer believe that placing one's face in a hat containing a "seer-stone" is a reliable means of translating an ancient language."

"I no longer believe that my happiness is enhanced by my obedience to other men's ideas of how I should live my life."

Here is the video:

MR ATHEIST PANTS

New episode of Mr Deity:

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

A few weeks ago I came across an ongoing series of videos in which "real actors" read posts made on Christian Internet forums (the same people who made "Real Actors Read Yelp"). The videos reminded me of a website which posts funny and outrageous things said by fundamentalist Christians called "Fundies Say the Darndest Things". Anyway, I was going to post the videos then, but I forgot about them until today. Enjoy!

#1

#2

#3 (My favorite)

#4

#5

BONUS MATERIAL:

This is one of my favorite clips from the series "Real Actors Read Yelp" (this guy kills me every time):

THE "H" IS SILENT

I was going to write a serious post about something or other, but I'm tired and blah blah blah. Anyway, here is a recent bit from Saturday Night Live about a new Quentin Tarentino movie:

VERY NAUGHTY BOYS

The following is from a 1979 BBC talk-show on Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is one of the most profound and influential satires on Christianity ever produced. I find it interesting that so many of the topics John Cleese and Micheal Palin address are still thrown into the arena of intellectual debate by religious folk.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

BLAS FOR ME, BLAS FOR YOU

Here is Eddie Izzard on the history of the Church of England:

And one on Popes:

CRIME SANS VICTIMS

"Indeed, what is startling about the notion of a victimless crime is that even when the behavior in question is genuinely victimless, its criminality is still affirmed by those who are eager to punish it. It is in such cases that the true genius lurking behind many of our laws stands revealed. The idea of a victimless crime is nothing more than a judicial reprise of the Christian notion of sin."
--Sam Harris, author "The End of Faith"




What happens when someone uses science incorrectly? First, it has the potential to mislead people. Second, it opens the floodgates of scrutiny.

Now, I don't read the newspaper often, but I am aware that some newspapers are politically, and in some cases religiously biased. For instance, I have heard a number of my more conservative friends and family bash the New York Times for being too liberal or progressive. This may be true of the opinions shared in the paper, but I don't think anyone has shown the NY Times completely and utterly misusing science. This is, however, something which the Deseret News (a pro-Mormon newspaper in Utah) has been caught doing recently.

The headline from an article published yesterday reads: "Link found between porn use and supporting same-sex marriage". The article itself shamelessly and inaccurately tries to show how support for gay marriage "may be, at least in part, a byproduct of regular exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts." In other words, if you watch porn, you will start to favor gay marriage, two things which the Mormon Church has spent countless time and money fighting against, perhaps more so than any other social issues.

This article is intended to strike fear and alarm in the minds of faithful, chaste and not the least bit perverse Mormons. What better way to scapegoat one condemned activity than by "linking" it to another? Why not apply this to other things, while we are at it? Masturbation is linked to bank robbing, and swearing is linked to stabbing puppies in the eyes with rusty soldering irons on Christmas Eve. See? It's easy.

Well, the claim is so outrageous and fallacious and completely unfounded by any actual science that some rather clever people have been issuing responses to the article, such as "Link Found Between Pedophilia and Reading the Deseret News". This blog response has some good points and useful links which show how the Deseret News is as bad at social science as they are at moral crusades.

One point the blog makes, which occurred to me as I read the news article, is that Utah has the highest porn use per household in the US (interestingly, porn use goes down temporarily on Sundays). This means that if the hypothesis is true that viewing pornography changes your views to be in favor of gay marriage, then Utah should also be at the forefront of the gay marriage movement. But, as anyone who is the least bit familiar with California's Proposition 8 can tell you, Utahns (at least Mormons) vehemently and monetarily oppose gay marriage. So, which is it, Deseret News?

There is one thing in common between porn and gay marriage which I can think of, and that is that both are opposed exclusively for religious reasons. All arguments against homosexuality and pornography seem to come from religions and their own moral codes. Ultimately, I don't have a problem with them denying science in order to condemn whatever they want. But I do have a big problem when they try to legislate against such things for people not of their religion. It is wrong and immoral to do so.



On a lighter note, today I came across a site which outlines the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Note: everything they say is scientifically verifiable, if a little exaggerated.


BONUS MATERIAL:

And here is Penn and Teller on the War on Porn (warning: very explicit):

Part 1

Part 2

SUBTLE TEASE

So, I just got back from a company party (with wall to wall trampolines), and a couple was talking about a dilemma they were in: whether to go see The Hobbit or go to the (Mormon) Temple. To which I chimed in, "Look at it this way, how long will The Hobbit be in theatres? And how long will temples be around?" After 2 seconds of delicious awkwardness, all the guys laughed and the wife said, while holding back laughter, "That's a horrible way to look at it." I think I just inspired her next Sacrament Meeting talk.

Little do they know...

APOCALYPSE NOW-ISH

This is all I'm going to post about the Mayan calendar ending this Friday (12/21/12), seeing how it is so ridiculous (warning: explicit):

Part 1

Part 2

NEW ZEAL

So, this is what a church with a sense of humor looks like:

 

 

Only in New Zealand.

WAY OF THE MISTER

So Brian Dalton (aka Mr Deity) was once a Mormon. John Dehlin (still a Mormon (so he says...)) runs a group called "Mormon Stories", which interviews various people who have struggled with Mormon theology, culture or history, some of whom have left the church. A while ago I came across a Mormon Stories podcast where Mr Dehlin interviewed Mr Deity:

More recently (like, two days ago) I came across a second video from Mormon Stories of Mr Deity speaking at the Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium (Sunstone was sort of a predecessor to mormonthink.com). This video is fantastic. It includes back stories to some of the Mr Deity videos and even live performances by Mr Deity and Lucy. Enjoy!

DEBUNK-A-DUNK

For those who don't know, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) has issued a fabulous prize of one million dollars (see left) for anyone who can provide conclusive evidentiary support for any paranormal or supernatural claim. It doesn't matter if it is telepathy, homeopathy, dowsing, astrology, mindreading, bending spoons or keys, talking to the dead, or proving the existence of god, ghosts or invisible pink unicorns; if it is paranormal or supernatural and you have proof that it is real, the JREF will give you one million dollars. So, how many people have won this prize? Zero people...

Despite having some form of this challenge since 1964, the JREF has never had anyone provide indisputable proof of anything supernatural or paranormal, but not for lack of applicants. Here is James Randi explaining the challenge:

James Randi, a successful magician himself, has ruffled feathers for years among his colleagues as he has exposed a number of them as charlatans and frauds, who willfully deceive gullible audiences with claims of being true-blue mystics and psychics and the like. Just as he did to psychic Uri Gellar on the Johnny Carson Show (on live TV!), and a few years later, the imfamous Christian Evangelist Peter Popoff:

Mr Randi is not the only magician seeking to expose opportunistic frauds who prey on the credulous. Here is Criss Angel (successfully) taunting "paranormalist" Jim Callahan with his own money on live television (note: Uri Gellar, who was previously exposed as a fraud by James Randi, is also on the show, and wouldn't you know it, he believes Mr Callahan is the real deal...):

Good stuff, and even better television. One more: Here is dynamic-duo, Penn and Teller, debunking astrology (explicit):

So, why am I spending all this time on debunking supernatural mumbo-jumbo, malarcky, and jibbery-joo? Because the same tactics used by illusionists to defame charlatans can be used to debunk many, if not all, religious claims. For me, atheism is a logical extension of my skepticism. I have no more reason to believe in god than ghosts, star alignment, or the boogey man. Provide me with a rational, empirical reason to believe in god, and I will not only believe, but I will submit your proof to James Randi and give you the money you deserve. I may even eat my hat.


BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is musician, comedian, and atheist extraordinaire Tim Minchin pretty much agreeing with me:

And one more from Mr Minchin on confronting a "New Ager":