I spoke with my home teacher the other day, and he actually admitted to me that a happy life was more important to him than truth.
Is it just me or does an admission of this kind raise a huge red flag in your mind?
I spoke with someone yesterday. I asked them why they believed. They told me they believed because they would be dead if it wasn't for the church (paraphrased of course). I asked if I could show her alternative possibilities as to why she is alive would she consider that possibility? Her IMMEDIATE reply was "NO!"
Again, is it just me or does an admission of this kind raise a huge red flag in your mind?
I spoke with my wife many moons ago (we are separated now because of my new understanding of reality: the church is not true). She admitted to me that "even if the church wasn't true, it is STILL a great way to live and I choose to live that way."
I really don't think I should have to point out why these positions regarding their beliefs will not allow for greater truths to be easily accepted when they conflict with your religious beliefs. But lets try anyways.
For Mormons to consider:
If you take the position that truth is less important than happiness, you are likely to throw out truth to retain happiness. In the process however, you will not experience how happy you will feel with ACTUAL truth. How can you possibly judge whether you will be happy knowing the truth or not? I suggest opening your mind and being honest with yourself to find first what truth is, then how happiness is achieved through that truth.
This would be more convincing if most of the ex-Mormon atheists I encountered online didn't seem so distinctly unhappy.
ReplyDeleteAs an ex-mormon speaking about my previous beliefs, I would expect that my tone and demeanor may not be my normal happy self (even though online you may not be able to see my face I am sure you understand what I mean). If you want to see how happy a person is, meet them. If you believe you can judge a belief system on the happiness of their adherents, how would you like to explain the high depression rates in Utah?
ReplyDeleteAlso, as a side note, which is more important to you? Happiness or truth? Perhaps, given your premise, that ex-mormon atheists seem less happy, it is because they have stopped deceiving themselves. Perhaps a requirement for the happiness you speak is deception, to which I would reply that an honest person would rather be less happy to have the truth.
Another thing to consider. If someone is happy in their non Mormon religion, and happiness is more important than truth, then why persuade anyone to change to the Mormon faith? The answer is that truth is more important than convenience.
I would explain high depression rates by noting that the rates are pretty standard for all rural states in the Intermountain West.
ReplyDeleteI realize that I don't get the full measure of a person online. But perhaps atheists should consider how they are coming off to a lot of religious people online.
I'm not talking about the in-your-face religious folk like me who debate frequently on the Internet. I'm talking about the religious people who are quite reasonable and decent folk - and who get nothing but constant stereotyping, slurs, and insults from online atheists.
You cannot judge how happy a person is based on their online persona and communications. That's just silly.
ReplyDeleteSure, some atheists could be more fair, and less polemic, but so could many religionists. If every atheist were sweet and nice in their criticisms of religion, who would even notice them?
It's true - a good fight definitely attracts more comments.
ReplyDeleteJust like a reality-show trainwreck attracts more viewers than a well thought-out documentary.
Seth R.,
ReplyDeleteYou entirely and interestingly avoided the question about truth and happiness. Care to share your reasons for that? Care to answer that?
Mostly because I've had these debates many times before and wasn't all that interested in opening the entire thing up again.
ReplyDeleteI think the fact a person is happy does indicate that they possess a level of truth.
I think the simple explanation is that a belief in something greater than yourself can produce results (such as happiness) that are not attainable in other ways. An atheist might believe in humanity, or the universe in order to obtain this same effect. When we have opposing belief systems with happy people, I find it very plausible to say that the belief system itself can differ widely, but happiness can still be found in living with integrity and success, even by those who are greatly deceived. The examples in this post indicate a problem with believing something is true because they are happy. Surely you can understand the question I raised earlier. I think we can both agree that a person with great happiness living in the church of Scientology is deceived. Would you agree? I hope we can both agree here. Therefore, if they are approached with additional truths, in your case you believe Mormonism to be greater truth, they would likely be unwilling to listen. This is the ultimate flaw in pretending happiness is more important than truth (or somehow on equal grounds). Would you agree Seth R?
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about Scientology, so no comment on that really. Given the misrepresentation I've experienced as a Mormon, I'm not exactly quick to take seriously everything said on the Internet about the Scientologists.
ReplyDeleteI would say discovering true happiness - and not merely the fake pretended kind - does indicate possession of truth. The trick is determining where the truth lies in that person.
People can be possessed of all the factual data in the world and still have crappy lives.
And it's important to make the distinction that "fact" does not equal "truth."
I suppose I can somewhat agree with you - someone who has "true happiness" must have stumbled upon some sort of truth. I would contend that this "truth" you speak of is simply the truth that you can deceive yourself into happiness. Do you think if you deceive yourself it would therefore not be "true happiness"? As we delve deeper into our scientific understanding of our brains, a conversation like this will eventually have a definitive answer. I hope you are ready for what science has to say about these issues. If I am right, we will find that your definition of "true happiness" can be placed on those who have deceived themselves, and we can compare the happiness of believers world wide. I think you will find it to be universal, in believers and unbelievers at varying levels. Religion does not have a monopoly on happiness and never has.
ReplyDeleteScientology could have been any religion, and I think you understood my question regardless of whether you understand Scientology. So lets rephrase the question to something else.
Someone is greatly deceived. Lets say they are any religion that has opposing doctrines than yours. Lets say this person has achieved "true happiness." They are unwilling to accept more truth because they are already happy. Will you agree that this would be a poor situation to be in?
Opposing my religion how?
ReplyDeleteI don't begrudge a Southern Baptist "truth" merely for having discovered how have a happy life just because he's not in my religion.
This is not a zero sum game.
You seem to be trying to get me to say "my religion is right, and those other ones are wrong." But that's not really how I interact with the world. Maybe some other Mormons do, but I don't really.
I am guessing you look at other religions the same way I used to. I believed that they had some truth in them, and that is how the "spirit" was able to enter their lives. I understand this point of view and it makes the most sense in order to retain your belief. When it comes down to believing Christ is our savior for instance, that is a truth that should always ring true, from the Mormon point of view. So now lets talk about someone who believes Christ is not the messiah. In order for such a person to consider that Christ is the messiah, they would need to overcome the idea that they need nothing more because they are happy. I am simply pointing out the flaw in the belief system that happiness should be considered truth. You might argue that when someone is exposed to truth then they will feel greater happiness and then build upon the previous truth. However, this is simply not always the case. Sometimes truth will bring happiness, sometimes great sorrow. For instance, as I came to grips with the reality of no God, this was not an easy thing to accept. I wanted the church to be true, and an all poerful being to look after me. Likewise, someone may want to know if their spouse is cheating on them. This truth may not bring happiness. Perhaps in the long run it will. I think truth CAN bring happiness, but not always. Someone who believed in Santa Clause may not find happiness in finding out he is not real. The same goes for a child believing in Superman.
ReplyDeleteIf all religions are false, we have scientific explanation as to why our minds can psychologically become manipulated and have hallucinations or misinterpret feelings. I hope you are willing to understand and look into how our minds can be biased and manipulated. You might be able to see it more readily in other religions and superstitious beliefs. A few documentaries I recommend that helped me understand the mind and how we are unwilling to let go:
BBC Documentary "God on the Brain"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7991385426492181792#
End of the world Cult:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2117623167408994521#
BBC Westboro Baptist church documentary:
http://vimeo.com/8389642
Enemies of Reason Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047#docid=-7218293233140975017
Enemies of Reason Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047#docid=-7218293233140975017
Other videos that I found very enlightening on the subject of religion you might be interested in are the following:
Jesus Camp (part 1 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqGhcwwE1s
The story of Marjoe:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-178629120699935619#
Here are some short and powerful videos on the psychology of belief that I found very enlightening as well:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1A9vrsw6Hw
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkJc6c3nKMw
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoCqftOYHX4
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJic51MeVaU
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x19z5Jb_pg
Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwJsNTZFdcU
It seems I am on a roll, so I might as well share some other favorites:
This is a series on youtube I enjoyed very much, here is the youtube channel to watch all of them if you like:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#g/c/A0C3C1D163BE880A
Here is one of my favorite videos by QualiaSoup (he has many great videos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqerbz8KDc
Great little speech by Sam Harris:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMSwQJr-mhc
Well, if you actually watched one or two I am impressed. If you watched all of them, I might just pee my pants in admiration! I would love to hear your thoughts on these videos if you watched any of them!
Saying that there is a psychological or chemical correlation or explanation for spiritual phenomena still says nothing about their legitimacy. Merely explaining that the brain's synapses fire thus, or emit a certain chemical reaction does not constitute a "why" for any of it.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it just as valid for a person to claim that "God put us in bodies chemically capable of responding to his presence"?
This is the general problem I have with atheistic arguments from science - they don't really explain anything ultimately. You can find a naturalistic explanation for the world, yet still have all the room in the world for a divine reality behind it all. Just establishing the "how" does not automatically establish the "why." This is a distinction that many atheists I encounter fail to draw. They think the "how" is equivalent with the "why." But science has never ultimately been concerned with the "why." In fact it openly acknowledges that it has little to say about that topic.
I'll see about watching some of those videos.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteI had this all written out but lost it. This is a much shorter, terser version. My apologies for that.
Granting your premise that God could work through the natural means, and ignoring the issues that this raises, how can one determine which of these legitimate experiences to act on? Joseph Smith's, Ellen White's, Mohammed's, etc... Yours? The person who believes Jesus is not divine? The person who killed his/her children because of one of these legitimate experiences?
Even if they are legitimate experiences, they are in no way a good way to derive truth and in no way are a good thing to base one's life off of. Anyone who says otherwise is decieving themselves and ignoring the issues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteExample of it not being good. Because I had a feeling, I am going to believe that homosexuals are sinners and that the way they experience love is wrong, and I am going to support a church that invests millions to keep them seperate but equal. If I encounter a homosexual, I am told by my religion that I should tell them that their lifestyle is displeasing to an unknowable being and that they therefore need to change so they stop offending him.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe what I believe about homosexuals because the scriptures, or church leaders told me so. I believe it because I reached those opinions on my own.
ReplyDeleteAs for acting on Joseph Smith's, Ellen White's, Mohammed's experiences, that really depends on what you are proposing to do and what you consider their message to be, and whether you are correct in that assessment.
So you are okay with the church's prop 8 monetary investments and of asking members to contribute to it? So you are okay declaring that homosexuals are 2nd class citizens based on your research?
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how far you are having to deviate from the actual doctrine of the church to defend it. Does that really not raise a red flag for you?
Dustin:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nine-moons.com/?p=813&cpage=1
Note the date I wrote that.
So I can't just feel the spirit, know that Joseph was a prophet and believe the church implicitly? You mean I have to then evaluate it more and figure out which parts are true of not? I repeat my red flag question again relating to this.
ReplyDeleteThe Spirit rarely operates in an information vacuum. Mormon scripture demands an informed view to feel the spirit about.
ReplyDeleteIts almost like the spirit is just how the human mind responds to information......hmmmmmmm.
ReplyDeleteSeth, I really like what you wrote. In fact, without having given it an appropriate amount of thought, I would tentatively call it moral. Interesting, that a very knowledgeable god with a spokes person on earth can't come up with something this good. What sin has the prophet committed that he has withdrawn himself from the spirit so far that god cannot reveal this? Or, perhaps as you and then I said, the spirit is just the human mind interacting with available information, which would be a good explanation of why the prophet has not come up with something this good.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteYou should ask Mormon's are silly about his brother's experience with the spirit and the metina books if he doesn't have it linked or blogged already. Fascinating story. And I fully grant that it is only one anecdote and one should not rely on anecdotes, but it should give one pause about relying on the spirit, especially after the founder of the church said that 'some revelations are of God, some are of man, and some are of the devil'.
Dustin, I should note that my own personal theology (which I think has a solid grounding in both Mormon thought and scripture) highly emphasizes human free will.
ReplyDeleteAs such, there is no room in my worldview for a God who takes direct control of a prophet to such an extent that you can be guaranteed that no screw-ups will occur. So the idea of a prophet not getting it right is not particularly problematic for me. It just means you need to use your discernment and not automatically accept everything claimed - no matter who is saying it.
Dan, when I first start reading your blog, I'll admit that I thought it was way extreme.
ReplyDeleteBut you got me thinking. Got me thinking about what the church actually believes, and discovered that it wasn't in line with my core beliefs.
At first I wondered why you picked apart everything, but when you're being told a lie your entire life, it's hard not to pick everything apart! I understand that now.
I, for one, value truth. Truth should bring happiness not suppress it, and if it can't do that, then it's obviously a lie.
Anyway, just letting you know that I love your blogs. They do get me thinking, even if I don't agree with everything. They're definitely food for thought.
-Karen