MY MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE BEATS YOUR DNA FINDINGS?

In previous posts about Mormonism I have suggested that it is a religion based not on evidence or reason but on fideistic blind faith. For example, just this morning I posted a response to a radio show listener which said:

[There is] an important distinction between Christianity and other religions like Mormonism and Islam. Mormons and Muslims are told to believe their "holy" books because they are holy. The Koran and Book of Mormon are revered first as the very words of God handed down to his supposed prophets and only after that are they accepted as true historical documents. There is no outside test for their validity – it simply must be accepted on blind faith that these books are from God and that any claims made within them are true. Any questioning of their authority is seen as a lack of faith.

I went on to say

There is only on objective truth regarding the nature of reality so claims regarding that truth should stand up to scrutiny in any discipline of knowledge. Truth that we discover using the scientific method should match up with truth discovered through reasoning as well as truth revealed from prophets, etc. If claims made by any of them are in conflict, at least one of them must be wrong.

Religions like Mormonism and Islam do not accept this assertion. A perfect example of that comes via Column One in today's L.A. Times. It seems DNA evidence repudiates Mormon claims that Indians are the lost tribes of Israel and therefore Middle Eastern descendants of Abraham. However, although this rightly shook the faith of some, and others have rightly tried to reconcile the evidence with their sacred teachings, most Mormons simply don't care.

"This may look like the crushing blow to Mormonism from the outside," said Jan Shipps, a professor emeritus of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, who has studied the church for 40 years. "But religion ultimately does not rest on scientific evidence, but on mystical experiences. There are different ways of looking at truth."

Well, whatever she means by "there are different ways of looking at truth", it clearly has nothing to do with objective truth about reality at all. If your mystical experiences tell you something about reality that is the opposite of what scientific inquiry tells you about the nature of reality, one of them has to be wrong. There is no middle ground. To try to hold on to both is irrational, which is what I have claimed Mormonism is. This is just one more example.

 

QUESTIONS ABOUT CHRISTIAN TRUTH CLAIMS: A RESPONSE TO LISTENER EMAIL

I received this nice email from a listener to the podcast (click here for iTunes) of some of my radio show debates and thought it was worth posting here. My response follows.

Dear Mr Johnson,

The evidence you proposed, as far as I understood it, was that it is more conceivable that Jesus rose from the dead than that certain people chose to follow the teachings of Jesus through persecution and to their eventual deaths. I must admit that although this seemed an absurd argument to me at first, I have thought about it quite considerably and I dismissed it less lightly than I did originally. Haven't many people been willing to die for other faiths and beliefs, this doesn't prove that their beliefs were correct. What other evidence proves that Christianity is the true faith or indeed that there is a creator at all?

If it is true that Jesus performed all these miracles and if I witnessed them then maybe I would believe too. However the only reason for believing this is based on scripture, which is part of Christianity and christian writings. There is no impartiality there, nothing to prove that stories weren't embellished or even made up. I am sometimes confronted by stubborn and ignorant people who claim that there is no evidence for evolution because I haven't seen evolution occur, in a sense I'm not there as it  Happened and yet these same people expect me to believe something on the basis of a testament from witnesses far removed from myself.

Is Christianity more rational than Judaism, or Islam?

I am also surprised by your views about science and religion, I wouldn't argue that there can be an intelligent conversation about faith and god within the context of religion, but it is a self contained system (like having a debate within the lord of the rings universe). That doesn't mean that nothing can be gained from religious debate, especially when it comes to understanding between different beliefs and exploring one's own beliefs.

You seem to think that we shouldn't separate faith and science, but we have to because there are many faiths but only one science. As much as religion can be rationalized it must still have certain elements of faith, the only faith that science requires is a faith in the scientific method to yield results and you wouldn't argue with that would you?

Finally I notice you class atheism as a religion and I can agree that it is a faith in a sense because you have made a decision on what to believe (although it isn't a religion in that it isn't an organized set of laws by which to lead your life). What is your view on agnostics? In my opinion science is more akin to being agnostic, taking the view that we cannot form definite opinions on a subject where evidence is too thin.

Here is my response:

Continue reading "QUESTIONS ABOUT CHRISTIAN TRUTH CLAIMS: A RESPONSE TO LISTENER EMAIL" »

BLIND FAITH vs. EVIDENCE AND REASON: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN AND MORMON EPISTEMOLOGY

I thought a couple of comments on my post about the Newsweek Mormon story deserved at least a brief response. (For a more comprehensive discussion of this topic I recommend everyone attend our open forum panel discussion on faith vs. reason and evidence in religion this Thursday at Chapman University in Orange, CA.) Both substantiate my claim that Mormons have no good reason to believe what they do. From Amanda:

Well, it's certainly a good thing for this blogger that the acquistion of the Ten Commandments, the Burning Bush, the parting of the Red Sea, and all of the other million "insubstantiated" miracles in the Bible can be proven. As soon as carbon dating on that bush is available, I'll understand why he doubts Smith's, or any prophet's, spiritual promptings. A religion is sometimes called a faith. Why would that be if we used only our minds to analyze and not our hearts to ponder God? Do you think you can just figure God out? He might be a mite more advanced than you or I...

And from Mason:

How could you know the Bible to be true by itself alone? Its hard too. The Book of Mormon is another testiment of Jesus Christ. Because of the Book of Mormon, we know the Bible to be true. Because of the Book of Mormon it shows that God loves all of his children. Now you know, as we all know, that if there was really hard evidence that the Book of Mormon was true you still wouldn't believe it. It is by the Spirit itself to testify to you that it is true. No one can make that decision for you. If you haven't already, you should try to read the Book of Mormon and see for yourself, and then pray about it. I don't understand how people say that Mormons aren't Christian and bad talk about their faith, thats just not very Christian like.

I don't have time to dissect and address every weak aspect of these comments. I copied them here simply to show how openly these followers admit irrationality and fideism and to point out that this is not the orthodox Christian approach to epistemology. Biblical Christianity does not ask you to "pray about it" or accept its teachings without presenting any evidence for them. Just the opposite, in fact.

The commentators above seem to think that, just as they accept the Book of Mormon on the unverifiable testimony of an ancient figure, everyone must accept the Bible on the same basis. This is false. One of the main differences between the two texts lies in the fact that Joseph Smith's claims about reality were always unverifiable. He came to the people one day with a story about revelations from God that were simply unfalsifiable. People had to trust him on blind faith then just as they do now.

Now compare that with the claims by Jesus and the apostles in the Bible. They traveled around claiming to speak for God as well, but they based their claim on the hard evidence of the miracles they were performing, the prophecies that were being fulfilled, and most importantly, on the fact that Jesus died and rose again, appearing to hundreds of people to prove that he was alive. Paul rests the entire Christian religion on the fact that Jesus was verifiably alive after he had been verifiably dead (1 Cor 15) and that there were people around at the time he was writing his letters who could testify to this.

The Bible presents claims that were verifiable and falsifiable at the time of writing and therefore are the type of historical accounts that are worthy of more examination. Joseph Smith's are not. It is not a leap of blind, irrational faith to believe the resurrection. In fact, there are many very good reasons to accept it. The same cannot be said of Joesph Smith's story of revelation.

Mormonism and orthodox Christianity operate on two different epistemological fields. While Christianity accepts reason and evidence (there are many many more reasons to accept Christianity than just the one simple example of verifiability I mentioned in this post), Mormonism sees those things as hindrances to true "faith". That is simply ridiculous. It results in self-contradictory nonsense like these sentences written by Amanda:

A religion is sometimes called a faith. Why would that be if we used only our minds to analyze and not our hearts to ponder God? Do you think you can just figure God out? He might be a mite more advanced than you or I...

It seems that Amanda is saying that she hasn't figured God out; she doesn't understand Him because He is beyond rationality. She doesn't analyze Him, she just "ponders" Him in her heart. If that is the case, why is she writing to me to tell me that I am wrong about God? Does not her attempt at argumentation and communication imply that reason (without which argumentation and communication are meaningless and impossible) is something of value and that she has used her mind to analyze and comprehend enough about God to know that I am wrong about Him?

Perhaps I need to pray about it some more.

NEWSWEEK ON MORMONISM

This week's Newsweek cover story on Mormonism produced some hilarious lines. (I assume it was unintentional given that the author is Mormon). Among the best:

For Mormons, [Joseph] Smith's importance is singular. "He stands alone as a source of doctrine," says Dallin H. Oaks, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, one of the church's highest governing bodies. The characteristic features of the LDS Church—sacred temple rites, personal revelation, tithing and a history of polygamy—come directly from Smith. So does the emphasis on high moral standards, family ties and community service...

Now let's get this straight. Joseph Smith is the source of truth about God, who is the standard for morality. That would make everything Smith said regarding ethics, by definition, the highest standard of morality. How could it be, then, that polygamy is not of the highest moral standard? Just wondering. There's more:

After explaining that "Smith knew that his testimony required a leap of faith", the author (knowingly or not) describes why that was by recounting some Mormon history and beliefs. She concludes,

Central tenets of Mormonism seem confusing—even literally incredible—to those outside the faith.

Uhh...ya. That is because Mormon beliefs are confusing and incredible and they should be to even those inside the faith. Their teachings are simply unsupportable. Unfortunately, as the author readily admitted to Newsweek's editor, many Mormons don't know much about the central tenants of Mormonism.

Although she is a lifelong member of the Mormon Church, Elise Soukup was surprised to discover in reporting this week's cover story how much she didn't know about her own faith. In her congregations in Utah and in New York, they studied Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as much as Jesus, but she had never read a non-church-approved account of Smith's life. And when she met with Mormon historians Richard and Claudia Bushman, Richard encouraged her to address the "tough stuff" in church history: the questions about Smith's character, the validity of the Book of Mormon and the once encouraged practice of polygamy. "I must have looked shaken," Elise recalls, "because as we wrapped up the meeting Claudia squeezed my hand and said, 'We'll pray for you'."

Those last few words expose another problem. Not only do Mormons not know all of the religion's beliefs, but they accept the ones they do know on blind, unthinking faith. They don't analyze the teachings, they "pray about them." Rather than rational, objective truth seeking, they look inside themselves. Every time I have asked a Mormon why I should believe Mormonism is true I have been told to "pray about it" and wait for some type of inward "burning" that will confirm what they tell me. This is ridiculous. One would be better to pick a religion based on the roll of a dice - at least it would be less subjective.

Before I digress too far, one more funny section of note. In it Soukop explains how one of the Mormon doctrines teaches that man can become a god. She quotes Lorenzo Snow, fifth LDS prophet: "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be." The great part is that she follows this heaping pile of heresy with the understatement of the year:

Because of Mormonism's unique theology, some of which challenges early Christian creeds, many Christian denominations don't consider the LDS Church to be Christian.

No kidding. At least she quotes Norman Geisler, who rightly points out

"There is no rightful claim by historic Mormon doctrine to the name Christian, because they deny almost every one of the major fundamental doctrines of Christendom,"

But then she follows up with this beauty

for Latter-day Saints, who believe in the Jesus Christ of both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, the cold shoulder from other denominations is baffling. "I am devastated when people say I am not a Christian, particularly when generally that means I am not a fourth-century Christian," says Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Let's be clear that Mormons believe in the Jesus of the New Testament only as far as they can misinterpret and ignore the text. What is surprising to me is that they want the label Christian at all, given that, according to Joseph Smith, every other "denomination" in existence is supposed to be part of the apostasy and headed for hell. Why are they suddenly so eager to be associated with them? Just one more thing to wonder about.

Speaking of wondering, the last paragraph of the story is a mystery.

Smith founded cities, built temples and ran for president. But his most meaningful contribution was as "prophet, revelator and seer," as he called himself—and as the architect of a church that tends to nurture the bonds between its members in a spirit of charity. Smith's vision—optimistic, vigorous, a source of continuing personal growth for all who accept its blessings—in many ways echoes the American Dream. Millions around the world now see in their own lives what a young man found for himself in that New York grove.

I guess the "found for himself" part sounds about right, although perhaps "made up for himself" might be better (not that I would completely rule out the role of spiritual deception in these cases.) But what is all this other stuff? So what if people find a source of "personal growth" (whatever that means) in Mormonism if it isn't true? And so what if it nurtures bonds in a spirit of charity (whatever that means) if it isn't true. The bottom line question for any religion is always "Is it true?" Mormonism gives us no good reasons to answer that affirmatively.

New Book Now Available!

Preaching

Apologetics Resources

Some Good Stuff I've Been Reading Lately

Blog powered by TypePad