This was one of the more thoughtful inquiries I've received. A reader called JY graciously agreed to let me publish this message and my response:
I don’t know how I found your blog but for the past couple of hours I have been intrigued with what you have written. I am currently a faithful Mormon and after reading your Rise and Fall of a Testimony post I have some questions for you. My questions are not intended to sway you to “come back to the light.” You have proven yourself as a critical thinker and I believe you have put in the time to establish your position. With that position, your ability to articulate clearly, and your LDS back ground I think you can share a very interesting perspective.
(1) If something of good fortune (the word miracle is too cliché) happens unexpectedly at the right moment…. Do you deem it as luck? After such an experience do you feel gratitude and if so towards what?
(2) The post right after October 31, 2009 you said, “…personal experience is not valid evidence of God…” I looked at the link you offered and it down played spiritual witnesses. I presume you follow that logic. What would a God need to do for you to devote yourself? If you want some kind of evidence, what constitutes as evidence?
(3) Being a parent, do you allow your children to believe in Santa Claus?
(4) Do you feel confident when you say an existence of God is impossible? Impossible is defined as incapable to having existence or of occurring.
(5) What do you miss about the church?
(6) Do you give merit to the Book of Mormon? If you have a patriarchal blessing do you give that blessing any merit?
I understand you do not represent the whole of atheism but I respect your point of view. I’m a fan of your writing and I am interested in what you have to say.All excellent questions. Thank you for writing!
(1) If some good fortune comes my way at exactly the right time, I do feel grateful, though not toward anything in particular. I don't see why gratitude needs a recipient in order to be felt. I choose to be appreciative of being alive, of my family and loved ones, of the serendipitous coincidences that come my way because it makes me feel more happy and peaceful, not because I think any external being is bestowing blessings on me and expects to be thanked.
(2) "If you want some kind of evidence..." I wouldn't say that I want any evidence of God, at least not the kind of God I presume you're talking about. I certainly don't miss the Mormon version of God, a personal being who requires obedience and devotion. I can't think of anything a God could do to convince me to devote myself to him. I don't think conceding one's autonomy to a God (or anyone else) is a healthy way to live, even if that God's intentions are completely benevolent. I think being centered in one's self, following one's own innate desires and motivations (without infringing on the right's of others, of course) is a more sure path to happiness.
(3) Yeah, we do the Santa Claus thing. It's fun. We don't use it as a "be good, or else" motivator, but putting out cookies Christmas Eve and rushing for the stockings in the morning makes for a fun family tradition and good memories, and I can't see the harm in it. Our kids will figure out it was make-believe soon enough.
(4) No, I don't think God is impossible, but I think God's existence is extremely unlikely, unlikely enough that I'm willing to risk eternity in hell in the event that there's an afterlife and I'm wrong.
(5) I miss the rituals and the reverence of the temple, the sense of holiness and importance there. That's what I miss most. Besides that, Sunday was a snore fest, but I miss the intellectual picking apart and digging for deeper meanings that took place in Institute classes. Sometimes I miss feeling like I was specially called for some higher purpose in life, but most of the time I think I prefer feeling that my life is mine to live as I choose instead of being under obligation to fulfill some divine mission.
(6) Do I give merit to the Book of Mormon? Yes and no. I don't think it has any divine origin. I think Joseph Smith just wrote it. (Yes, I know he had a sixth grade education, but have you read the Book of Mormon? I find nothing miraculous or sophisticated about the narratives or the writing structure.) That said, I think there are some good teachings to be found in it. Some I find reprehensible, like Mosiah 3:19, the notion that the way you naturally are is inherently wrong and needs changing, but then, for example, there's Mosiah 4:16 which encourages sharing with the poor (a verse that makes the conservative, "look out for number one" attitude that many Mormons have a head-scratcher to me).
I wrote recently about liking the stories of world religions. I don't personally relate to any of the Book of Mormon stories, mostly because they're almost all about wars and battles and are very male-centric. I don't think that means they're bad, worthless stories though, just not stories for me.
As for my patriarchal blessing, I found it interesting that you asked, because I had actually been thinking about it for several days before I received your email. I'm not sure what I think of it. The patriarch who bestowed it upon me quite obviously had some sort of powerful, numinous experience as he was speaking the blessing. (Though, as I've discussed before, I don't think this is proof that it came from God.) I wish I had kept it. I threw away a lot of my Mormon paraphernalia because I was angry right after I left (I've mellowed). Some of my blessing I think was 100% baloney (no way am I descended from Ephraim), some seemed pretty generic and horoscopish, but parts of it I really liked and seemed meant just for me. I don't care to go into the details on the internet (I've never revealed the New Name I received in the temple either; some things are still sacred to me), but there were phrases that I still repeat to myself from time to time. I've held on to the strands from the past that I feel help me live a better life, and I've left the rest.
Thanks again for your letter, and I'd love to hear any further comments or questions.
There's actually some significant evidence that the Book of Mormon was mostly written by Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery (and heavily plagarised from a Solomon Spalding manuscript which was never published). Based on their education and especially on Rigdon's religious views before joining Mormonism, I think this is the most likely source of the Book of Mormon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalding-Rigdon_theory_of_Book_of_Mormon_authorship
ReplyDelete"What would a God need to do for you to devote yourself? If you want some kind of evidence, what constitutes as evidence?"
ReplyDeleteA response to that line of questioning that I have found to be effective is the following: "If god is omniscient, then he knows exactly what it would take to convince me, and if he's omnipotent he can do it. So why does he choose not to?"
Just a quick question. Why do you spell god with a capital G?
ReplyDelete@Bob because when your are talking about the monotheistic deity the word becomes a proper noun.
ReplyDeleteSo because we are using the word to refer a specific god we capitalize it because we are using it as if it were a name or a title.
I skipped straight to your answer for number 3 cuz I was eager to find out what you do. It's the same as us. Isn't xmas and Santa fun? :)
ReplyDeleteNow, I'm off to read the rest of this blog post! tee-hee
For number 1, the grateful feeling we have can also be expressed as "Thanking goodness, for goodness sake."
ReplyDeleteIt need not be any deeper than that. We all appreciate kind acts, whether with intent behind them or arbitrary, and why not appreciate it by feeling grateful?
I really find it peculiar that so many believers do the whole self projecting of one's emotional mind onto a random act, because if something good happens to you ever so rarely then it must be destiny! your the focus of some puppet master behind the curtain. Although, it might be fate as well, and the next day the Fates may have it in for you.
As for me, I give about as much merit to the Book of Mormon as I do The Secret. Which is not very much.
Thanks for giving such thought and posting your answers.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated this set of answers. I view things a little differently myself, but I also agreed with some of your answers.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I'd have to agree with skepticmatt for number 2. Now, I agree with you that "personal experience is not valid evidence of God," but I also think that one doesn't need valid evidence of God to have personally persuasive reason to believe in a god (in which case, a personal experience would probably apply). Any supposed god out there would know what would persuade me (even if I don't), so heh, bring it!
I'm actually confused at the individual's question 4. "Do you feel confident when you say an existence of God is impossible?"
Who says this? As you pointed out, you don't say it. Most atheists I know don't say it. Not believing in God is not saying God is impossible. There are certainly many things that are *possible*, but that doesn't give us reason to believe they are *actual*.
So, I liked your response to that one.
"I think being centered in one's self, following one's own innate desires and motivations (without infringing on the right's of others, of course) is a more sure path to happiness."
ReplyDeleteBeing centered on one's self is a more sure path to happiness? Is that a general concensus amongst atheists?
@Patrik, you changed a teeny tiny word that makes a huge difference in the meaning. Being centered in one's self is not the same as being centered on one's self.
ReplyDeleteAnd, no, I didn't take a survey or consult any atheist handbook so this is not a consensus, just my opinion.
Really good answers to the email, Leah. Calm and even-handed.
ReplyDelete(I think I went to the wrong websites when I first started blogging. Only recently have I found clear and respectable conversations and discussions happening, through your site, and Sabio, and ASBO Jesus and so on.)
I'm so back-n-forth on Santa. Like so many stories, it just seems like one of those good things that can be done in a good way or a dangerous way. Myth as myth (and not myth as absolute truth) is really important to me. The fact that parents believe in Santa (just in a different way, of course), and get more 'joy' out of Christmas with Santa in it, has to be a sign of something. I think the way kids understand Santa stories is much more complicated than what we usually give them credit for.
godwillbegod, I was a lot more hostile when I first launched my blog. I wrote in my "So what DO you believe?" post about needing to be angry with religion for a while, but while anger can be an important stop along the way, it shouldn't be the endpoint of a journey. Our world is plagued with sick religion, and I'll continue to speak out against that, but I know longer think it's as black and white as many in the atheist community make it out to be. No, I don't believe in God, but I still find much of value in the various religions of the world, particularly in their myths (though as you importantly clarify, in myth as myth.
ReplyDeleteI always appreciate your thoughtful comments and enjoy your blog as well. Thanks for reading!
Leah, hmph. I was/am not trying to play a game of semantics by covertly changing one teeny tiny word so as to attempt to change the meaning of what you wrote. There was no forethought in the process. That is just the word that came out whilst typing. But just for kicks and giggles I looked up the word self-centered on dictionary.com and found the following definition: centered in oneself or itself. There...they use the word "in" and not "on". The American Heritage Dictionary III edition also uses the word "in".
ReplyDeleteMaybe a little clarification on what you meant by your statement would be helpful.
I can't speak for everyone (or perhaps, not for anyone more than myself), but I think the idea is that it's better to be yourself and be attuned with and to yourself, rather than to consider yourself an enemy and therefore reject, repress, or suppress yourself whenever something or someone says you should (especially in the name of God).
ReplyDeleteThis is a lesson that comes through several life lessons from several individuals. Especially with the many other applications of "innate desires and motivations."
For example, we can either look toward those homosexuals who have -- tragically -- become so miserable in rejection of themselves and their innate desires (because they listened first and foremost to whomever outside of themselves told them that acting on these desires was despicable and abominable), perhaps to the end of committing suicide....or we can look toward those who have been able to understand and accept their innate desires rather than trying to extinguish them.
From here, it's not so much a case of, "Anything goes." Rather, from understanding and accepting yourself, you still have to move forward -- in your shoes. You have to develop *yourself* (as opposed to trying to destroy yourself and become some other self instead.)
Does that make any sense? I guess it wouldn't necessarily make sense if you've never had to face such a dilemma (because it's not just about sexuality or religious beliefs...these are just some of the more noticeable examples), but if you have, I hope that you would understand self-acceptance is generally a better way to go than self-rejection.
My Answers:
ReplyDelete1) I feel fortunate, but not grateful. Most of my "luck" is the product of consistently responsible decision making.
2) If a particular faith could demonstrate repeatable, verifiable miracles (heal amputees, raise the dead) as a result of prayer and ritual, and I found it was reliable to live a certain way in order to be the recipient, the I would consider that way of life valid. The idea of the Christian God is self-contradicting and cannot exist in a universe with laws, therefore no evidence would be sufficient, because any evidence would contradict logic and reason, and thus be invalid. What evidence would you need for a cat that equals both 0 and infinity?
3) I have no children, but if I did, we wouldn't play Santa. I remember what it felt like, learning that my parents lied to me.
4) I am just as confident in saying that there is no god as I am in saying that there is no Darth Vader. God is an absurd concept:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Additionally, it is impossible to be both Omnipotent and Omniscient, since the ability to do anything involves being able to change both the past and present. Yet Omniscience would mean absolute knowledge of the future, which would create a paradox of destiny, God would be powerless to change the future since it would have knowledge of that future and would thus cease to be omnipotent. If god was not aware of the future, and thus able to decide how to change it, it would not be all-knowing, since it would actually be making a decision about the future. If god is not all-knowing, or all-powerful, then it is also not god.
5) I don't miss the church.
6) The Book of Mormon just isn't a very useful or entertaining piece of literature. It came to pass that when it came to pass it came to pass that it came to pass when it came to pass, and it came to pass. The blessing is a textbook example of a cold reading; they know just enough to make some credible assumptions, and then load it up with some fortune-telling pizazz. 10% of my income could buy a lot more tarot card and psychic readings.
So tell me, what happens if God does exist?
ReplyDeleteWhat will happen to you @dontskydive?
What if the Book of Mormon, is actually another testimony of Jesus Christ?
I believe, that the odds are 50%, 50%.
Ever heard of Schroedinger´s cat experiment?
I want to believe in God, because otherwise, what´s the reason of our existence?
We exist because Pikachu is yellow?
Tell me.
Do you really think you can defy a god?
Where are we humans going then?
(Megan/atheist)
ReplyDeleteBlack -
-- I honestly don't know regarding "if God exists"; I would be wrong in my belief that there is no such entity, but does that weigh upon me? Not at all. Religion has never clicked with me, even as a child. And once I chose to give up my "agnosticsm", I felt even more comforted.
--(N/A to me)
--It is not a testimony of Jesus. Archeologically/Genetically, nothing has been supported to lead a skeptic to think it has validity as a testimony of Jesus.
--Yep - paradox coined by quantum physicist E. Schroedinger.
--To appreciate the amazing miracle that we are sentient beings, cognizant of our surroundings and our fortune to have somehow managed to exist in this vast universe, to be aware of the vast universe, to marvel at the fact that billions of years ago, our home area (Milky Way galaxy) formed, that planets formed around a star (Sun) and that biochemically over time, life emerged to the point that sentient human beings came into existence; to appreciate and care for our home (Earth), to pass along our legacy and beauty to the offspring of the world. I marvel at the fact that I exist, that I interact with others, that I *feel*, that I love.
(If I did have to pick a "purpose", then idea of reincarnation/enlightenment makes much more sense than the judeochristian one soul/one existence)
--Pikachu, I belive, is more than just yellow. But, just like God(s), is fictional.
--Defy a god? Sure, according to tales, it has been done in the past in more than one civilization.
--Humans are going where they have always gone - to the next generation. Unless we are obliterated by some cosmic event or perform a galactic exodus to a new planet, we will be on Earth. (Hopefully, trying to improve our civility)
Wanting to believe in a God because it is more comforting than there not being a Creator at all saddens me. Think of religious fanaticism. Think of the violence within religious texts. Think of the way women/children are treated and ask yourself if a benevolent Creator would permit rampant suffering? I have personally always found the Old Testament God to be as impetuous as the Greek/Roman gods - throws fits, tests people, etc.
Wow! Leah Hauge, thank you for writing. This is my first read and it's very comforting to find yet, another critical thinker who is *mysteriously* attracted to *the spiritual*
ReplyDeleteAnd, Andrew S... self-acceptance, self-rejection... The latter I was awash in due to my religious experiences, the former is where I am headed now that I've stepped away from religion.
Thank you for your comments to this worthy blog.
Jennifer, great to have you! Thanks for reading. I'm finding more and more people who are both critical/skeptical and religious. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteWow! Leah Hauge, thank you for writing. This is my first read and it's very comforting to find yet, another critical thinker who is *mysteriously* attracted to *the spiritual*
ReplyDeleteAnd, Andrew S... self-acceptance, self-rejection... The latter I was awash in due to my religious experiences, the former is where I am headed now that I've stepped away from religion.
Thank you for your comments to this worthy blog.
Really good answers to the email, Leah. Calm and even-handed.
ReplyDelete(I think I went to the wrong websites when I first started blogging. Only recently have I found clear and respectable conversations and discussions happening, through your site, and Sabio, and ASBO Jesus and so on.)
I'm so back-n-forth on Santa. Like so many stories, it just seems like one of those good things that can be done in a good way or a dangerous way. Myth as myth (and not myth as absolute truth) is really important to me. The fact that parents believe in Santa (just in a different way, of course), and get more 'joy' out of Christmas with Santa in it, has to be a sign of something. I think the way kids understand Santa stories is much more complicated than what we usually give them credit for.
Thanks for giving such thought and posting your answers.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for everyone (or perhaps, not for anyone more than myself), but I think the idea is that it's better to be yourself and be attuned with and to yourself, rather than to consider yourself an enemy and therefore reject, repress, or suppress yourself whenever something or someone says you should (especially in the name of God).
ReplyDeleteThis is a lesson that comes through several life lessons from several individuals. Especially with the many other applications of "innate desires and motivations."
For example, we can either look toward those homosexuals who have -- tragically -- become so miserable in rejection of themselves and their innate desires (because they listened first and foremost to whomever outside of themselves told them that acting on these desires was despicable and abominable), perhaps to the end of committing suicide....or we can look toward those who have been able to understand and accept their innate desires rather than trying to extinguish them.
From here, it's not so much a case of, "Anything goes." Rather, from understanding and accepting yourself, you still have to move forward -- in your shoes. You have to develop *yourself* (as opposed to trying to destroy yourself and become some other self instead.)
Does that make any sense? I guess it wouldn't necessarily make sense if you've never had to face such a dilemma (because it's not just about sexuality or religious beliefs...these are just some of the more noticeable examples), but if you have, I hope that you would understand self-acceptance is generally a better way to go than self-rejection.
I don't know if this has been mentioned in your comments below, but I'm pretty sure you can write to the church and get a copy of your patriarchal blessing.
ReplyDeleteYes, I've heard that you can request a copy from the Church. I'm debating how much I want it though, because I worry that writing to the Church may open the doors to being contacted/harassed again.
ReplyDelete