A PEACE OF MY MIND

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance."
—ERIC HOFFER

"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish."
—ANONYMOUS

A couple of months ago I received an email from a ward clerk (record keeper) for a local branch of the
Mormon church. Basically, they want to know if they have my correct address, phone number etc, so that they can appropriately fellowship me (in other words, harass me until I begrudgingly come back to church). I promptly deleted the email in part because I don't want that kind of harassment, and also I don't want to make this too easy for them.

Honestly, I don't oppose the idea of having some missionaries or a home teacher or even a bishop track me down for a lengthy, in-depth religious conversation. I just want them to work for it...

A couple of weeks later I received another email from Mormon church headquarters asking me to take a survey to help them determine "general trends" within the church. Suspecting this to be a mildly clever ploy to pick up where the last email had failed, I declined the invitation. Two weeks later, a reminder email was sent inviting me, the randomly selected church member who's regular church attendance is not necessary for participation, to take this survey. 

While I haven't actually followed the link as of writing this sentence, I have been debating whether or not I should click it. After all, faults aside, the church is often as clever as it is non-random. Not to mention my curiosity often gets the better of me.

But first, I recently came across a new (to me) podcast called "Thank God I'm Atheist" which, being based in Mormon-friendly Salt Lake City, Utah, often discusses Mormon topics and issues. And it turns out that the Church sent out a survey to 1000 random members to see how the general membership feels about the recent excommunication of one Kate Kelly. 

For those who don't know, Ms Kelly is the founder of the "Ordain Women" movement, which consists of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Mormon women who go to the General Conference Priesthood Session (a male-only, world-wide church meeting) and, being denied admittance to the meeting, walk away peacefully. Now, the reason for Ms Kelly's expulsion from the church's membership is evidently for merely not doing as The Brethren (old, rich, white men) told her to do, namely stopping the quietest protests ever. 

Coincidentally, John Dehlin (about whom I have written before) is also facing possible excommunication from the church for his podcast "Mormon Stories", which addresses difficult issues within Mormonism. Again, his crime is simply not doing as The Brethren have asked, which in his case is to cease bringing up such touchy, disconcerting topics in such a public and accessible way. 

No theocracy would be complete without ample censorship...

Well, let's see if the link to the survey still works (the email specifically asks that I do not share the link, but, meh. Click it if you feel especially dickish). 

Ok, the link works and I have finished the survey (which rather disappointingly had nothing to do with Ms Kelly) and I will post screen shots of the survey along with my responses below: 

Welcome screen:

Starting easy...

Vague preliminary stuff.

 Basic, but getting meatier.

Hmmm, they sure do like to assume I believe in god, even though the very first question was whether or not I consider myself Mormon (nope)...

Eh, more of the same.

More loaded questions assuming a belief in god.

Believe it or not, I still occasionally read scripture passages, although, not for the usual reasons...

Bleh.

More bleh.

Straightforward.

Funny how the first option for reasons not to go to church is being offended by people at church. I could have selected more, but I want my primary reasons to be concise and clear.

Just a repeat of the last screen ("is that your final answer?")

It seems that they really want me to admit I don't go to church because of people. Weird.

Ah, a pertinent question.

Ok, ok.

Finally a chance to clear the air a bit. And I had to squeeze in a little Hitchens at the end. 

Trying to fish out other possible reasons for my leaving church. But they don't allow me to explain that the two "life changes" were a direct result of my desire to stop going to church, not the other way around. 

See what I did there?

Come on, really? Given my earlier responses, why would you even ask?

Surprise! There isn't much money in atheist blogging.

More loaded questions. Man, I really want to elaborate on a few of these.

Check.

Brown chicken, brown cow.

Pretty sure...

Kind of disappointed that they didn't ask me if I'm living in sin here.

Not sure why this is relevant.

From "god's university" no less.

Suck it.

I actually clicked "yes" at first, which took me to a screen to provide them with a bunch of personal information (sly dogs). So naturally I went back and selected "no", again not to make things too easy.

Not sure if "uncomfortable" is the right word... maybe "sickly", or "bloated".

Yay, another chance to clarify things a bit.

Quid pro quo, if you dare. Buahahaha!

Of course they did.

GUILT FREE

Just a quick thought.

So, the bishop of my ward as a teenager posted the following on Facebook today:

""Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy". I was thinking that that is so profound, how could anyone make that up?"

Let's ignore the obvious argument from ignorance about Joseph Smith making up such a profound statement, and cut to the chase. I heard this verse from the Book of Mormon dozens of times while growing up, but today I saw it in a new light. This verse implies that Adam fell (that is, he sinned against god by eating fruit from a tree which was forbidden--albeit conspicuously placed--by god, and for this all of mankind must endure certain consequences which vary between denominations) so that men might have joy. In other words, it is through sin that men have joy.

Bam!

I only chuckled a little...

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 

BELLY ACHE

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
--Scott D. Weitzenhoffer








Many times when I challenge the beliefs of religious people they will accuse me of being cynical and closed-minded. The problem is not that I dismiss their beliefs out of hand, as some claim, but that the evidence which they present for their extraordinary claim is laughable upon inspection.

Most often, they are simply committing the "argument from ignorance" fallacy, and figure that if I cannot offer a more plausible explanation than "god did it" (or "aliens" or "ghosts"), then they are justified in their belief. Never mind the fact that "I don't know" is always a more tenable position than asserting unverified supernatural forces.

I will admit that on some occasions I have literally laughed out loud at a person's supernatural claims, but I do at least try to hear them out first.

A couple of months ago a childhood friend of mine posted a story on Facebook with the following comment:

"The more I read about this story the more incredible it is. . Miracles do happen!"

Intrigued, I read the article which inferred that a dead Catholic Saint (my friend is Mormon, by the way) appeared at a car accident scene, said a blessing with a woman trapped in a car, immediately following which the firefighters were finally able to open the car enough to get the woman out, and then vanished without a trace. 

Now, the facts of the claim are that a man dressed as a Catholic Priest showed up and said a prayer, and the firefighters got the woman out shortly after. These are facts confirmed by several eye-witnesses, including the firefighters and medical personnel. But a dead saint?

Other articles claimed that the man was an angel, which, depending on who you ask, isn't that far from a dead saint.

One of the reasons so many people are convinced this priest was an angel is that the road had been blocked for "quite a few miles", according to the local sheriff deputy (video below), and no one saw how he got to the scene or how he left. Intriguing to be sure, but does this imply, much less prove, supernatural powers?

Furthermore, witnesses add that no one recognized the priest from the local parish of the small nearby town.

Oh, and he had an unrecognizable accent (which raises the question, why would an angel have an accent?).

So far it seems that there are a lot of unanswered questions about this priest. But do unanswered questions and astonishing coincidences equal a miracle? Perhaps to those eager to believe.

In the days following the incident, but still before the article was published, no one had come forward as the mysterious priest, thus adding fuel to the speculative fire. Not surprisingly, the local Catholic Church said that they had no interest in conducting an investigation of the priest's identity, and neither will the local sheriff deputy (who is also convinced of a miracle).

This seems especially telling to me. These people are more interested in maintaining their comfortable belief, that an angel saved a woman's life, than determining the truth about what happened. As I have said before, once you accept a wrong answer, however comforting it may be, you stop looking for the right answer.

Well, as it turns out the mystery priest did turn himself in, er... he came forward and answered all the questions that people were using to posit this as a miraculous angel sighting. Not only is he not an angel, but he was also past the road block before police put it up, thus allowing him to slowly approach the scene until he got about 150 yards from the car where he stopped to help. Also, he was visiting the local parish because the regular priest was ill, and he was more or less subbing. And the accent? Irish or something; I couldn't quite place it (therefore, he's an angel, right?)

So, that's it. No more miracle. Everyone sees that it was a regular priest doing what regular priests do, and this is no more miraculous than any other accident with a survivor. Right?

I was hoping that my friend who had originally posted this story would post an article about the mystery priest coming forward. He did not. Even if he had been made aware of the priest of earthly origin, this would still not be a notch against god's track record for him. He is the kind of believer who holds the preservation of faith as more important than truth. Although, I doubt he sees it this way.

What about the eye-witnesses who started all the commotion in the first place? One firefighter had this to say:

"My initial reaction was kind of two-fold: One side of me was absolutely ecstatic that I'm now gonna be able to physically meet this individual that was there to provide the comfort. And the other side of me was kind of sad because I know there was a lot of people that were touched by this story that were grasping on to the thought that this mysterious priest was placed there by god in a form that they had their interpretation of. He was my angel either way and I'm gonna still stick to that."

(Note: even the priest admits that the woman was saved by expert response of professionals who have trained for this very thing. It's too bad he also asserts that they did so with god's help. But if god is going to help professionals in this way, why train in the first place?)

So, what did the priest actually do other than occupy the time and attention of police and firemen attempting to save the life of a woman trapped in a car and offer reassurances? Where is the miracle? That personel were able to pull the woman out after the priest offered a prayer? She was trapped in the car for over an hour, not to mention had barely survived a horrific accident. Where was god then? More importantly, if god really had caused the firefighters to open the car only after the priest showed up, how would you demonstrate this? It is one thing to point to the coincidences of the event; it is quite another to offer verifiable evidence of supernatural intervention.

If the priest had not come forward and clarified the issue, would anyone still be justified in believing he was an angel or that it was a miracle from god? How would such an answer really answer anything? Wouldn't it simply confound the issue with more unanswered questions?

A comfortable delusion is still a delusion.



BONUS MATERIAL:

"News" segment on the mysterious priest:

Sheriff's deputy describes mysterious priest:

The priest comes forward:

PREACHING TO THE CHOIR

"It is wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true."
--Dallin H. Oaks (Mormon Apostle)

"Some things which are true are not very useful."
--Boyd K. Packer (Mormon Apostle)








So, this weekend is the General Conference of the Mormon Church. A talk was given this morning by a Mormon Apostle, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, which caused many faithful Mormons to go straight to their Facebook accounts (or blogs) and post comments and quotes from the talk, such as:

"Can't love Elder Uchtdorf's compassionate and nonjudgemental talk enough."

“Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended, or lazy, or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations. Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question of whether they should separate themselves from the Church. In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly that it was restored by a young man that had questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth.”

"If you seek truth, meaning, and a way to transform faith into action, if you are looking for a place of belonging, come, join with us. If you have left the faith you once embraced, come back again. Join with us. If you are tempted to give up, stay yet a little longer. There is room for you here."

To those who are currently struggling with doubts about the Church, this admonition may very well seem positive and encouraging. This may even help some come back to the Church. But I have a few problems with what Mr Uchtdorf said (surprise!).

But first, if he really is so concerned about those with doubts, shouldn't he provide reliable, credible sources for people to investigate and resolve their concerns? All he does, really, is acknowledge that legitimate concerns exist. In no way does he even attempt to address these concerns or provide a way for doubters to address their concerns on their own.

Next, he followed the above quote with this bit of "logic":

"Sometimes questions arise because we simply don't have all the information, and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn't make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction."

In other words, "We may not know how it all fits together now, but the Church is true, therefore there must be a reasonable, rational explanation. We just shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the Church isn't true before we get that explanation which resolves everything."

Not only have I addressed this type of reasoning in other posts, but it is rather ironic that he should be suggesting such a skeptical and moderate view with regards to doubts when he represents an organization which tells people to accept as true things for which they do not have evidence, simply because they pray and have faith that they are true.

It is interesting that he does not admonish doubters to use this same method of seeking truth and knowledge concerning issues of Church History, Joseph Smith's translation capabilities outside of the Book of Mormon, Jewish DNA in Native Americans, the utter lack of archaeological support for the Book of Mormon, or anything else Mormon apologists have been wrestling with for decades. It seems that in matters of fact and evidence, it is best not to pester god with prayer. He's probably busy watching 5 million children under the age of 5 die of starvation this year...

Next up, this little nugget of "wisdom":

"Doubt your doubt before you doubt your faith."

This was a popular phrase passed around by some of my Mormon friends on Facebook. It carries the sound of poignancy and wit, without actually possessing either. As philosopher Daniel Dennett would describe it, it is a "deepity", meaning it sounds deep and meaningful on the surface, but lacks any real substance upon close inspection.

What Mr Uchtdorf would have you, the doubter, do is to continue believing despite your doubts. Again, he offers no way to legitimately resolve your concerns, and seems to suggest that your faith should be enough to override any concerns you may have. Meaning, "The Church is true, therefore your questions are invalid or in error." This is as absurd as it is dishonest.

And what about those, such as myself, whose primary doubt is the very nature, reliability and veracity of faith? How is faith a path to knowledge? Isn't believing something to be true without evidence to support it intellectually lazy? How is faith a virtue?

Personally, I am less concerned with the historical problems of Mormonism. When I was a believer, I was much like Mr Uchtdorf in that I had unresolved questions, but I told myself that an explanation must exist because the Church is true. I was more or less fine with the fact that I didn't know how everything worked out because I had faith that everything must and would work out once god endowed us with the proper understanding. This never happened for me, and I have yet to hear of it ever happening to anyone else.

Once I left the Church, based primarily on the idea that faith is not a path to knowledge, I was finally able to relish all of the anachronisms and historical issues of Mormonism.






BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Mr Uchtdorf's full talk:

YouTuber Flackerman addresses "following the Prophet":

Flackerman also addresses the current method of resolving concerns about Mormonism (repost):

 

And one of my personal favorites "Top 10 Mormon Problems Explained":

 



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: