Making Molehills out of Mountains

I recently had a long conversation with a good friend who is tbm.  I talked about my qualms with the LDS faith and with faith in general.  His advice to me was to stop sweating the small stuff and have faith in the simplest way, the way a child believes.

More recently, I talked with my mother about a similar subject.  She mentioned that she thought that I find fault in things that LDS leaders have said and with specific points of doctrine. 


I understand where both of these people are coming from.  Not seeing the forest for the trees, I could miss a lot of good things in life if I were to reject anything and everything that did not seem perfect to me.

However, I am not convinced that it is wrong to heavily consider details in this situation.  The is absolute truth we're talking about, it's a big deal if one religion happens to be true (making the others all false to various degrees).
So I guess I probably shouldn't attack the church because Brigham Young was misogynistic and racist in his personal opinions... nobody's perfect, but they can still be right about some things even if wrong about others.  However, when church doctrine seems unlikely or patently false, I think that this is relevant.  And when the so-called prophet speaks to the church, he is supposed to be standing in for god.  So I could care less what Ol' Brother Brigham said to friends, family, and acquaintances.  However, when he spoke in general conference or wrote things down for the church, that is the stuff that is supposed to be guaranteed.  What's the point of a prophet when he could always be "speaking as a man?"  (And he always turns out to have been when he said something wrong.)

I countered that the prophet is pointless if you are never sure of the validity of what he's saying.  The reply that I got asserted that one does not need to believe the prophet necessarily, that one can receive one's own confirmation of what the prophet has said.  I think this is a refreshingly liberal thought from members of a faith that is sometimes frighteningly dogmatic and protective of its leaders.
However, I think that this argument puts the final nail in the coffin of the "necessity of prophets."  If we are not to believe anything they say until we go ask ourselves, why not just ask god ourselves in the first place?  I mean, the whole "stewardship" thing, where you need a certain calling or priesthood to be able to reveal things for a certain group, is useless if nothing they say is to be trusted anyway.

 So if I'm a little upset about what they didn't tell me about the Book of Abraham, is that me throwing the baby out with the bathwater?  (frankly, as an atheist, I would never waste a perfectly tasty baby in such a way)  I don't think so!  The book is fraudulent.  The "translation" is fiction.  The facsimiles are inaccurately reconstructed and  the symbols on them wildly misinterpreted.
And then people try to tell me "Joseph Smith was just a man!"  Well, I never doubted the fact, but what happened to "the prophet will never lead the church astray?"  The fact that millions of Mormons believe that the Book of Abraham is a direct translation of some papyrus that Smith got from mummies being sold (the tiny little archaeologist inside me cringes) on the American frontier seems to fall within the realm of "astray."


There is a great analog of this from the world of physics.  The Michelson-Morley experiment performed in the 19th century failed to confirm what it was designed to confirm: that since the Earth is moving through the fixed "ether" of space, there should be an "ether wind" that makes light travel faster in some directions than others (because the ether is what the waves propagate through).  The physics community was puzzled, and kept building bigger and better experiments to try to figure out how they'd missed the ether wind.  Then, a bored patent-office clerk named Albert Einstein decided to take this seemingly-small discrepancy out to its weird logical conclusion: that light propagates at the same speed in all directions as observed from any reference frame.  Thus the theory of relativity was born, a theory which has repeatedly been confirmed by various experiments, has fundamentally changed our view of the structure and behavior of the universe, and without which GPS navigation devices would be accurate to within tens of miles instead of tens of feet.

Did Einstein err by making a mountain out of what so many regarded as a molehill?  If by "err" you mean "make the most important discovery made by the physical sciences in centuries," then yes.

Near the end of the 19th century, Rutherford (the physicist responsible for hiring the grad students who discovered the atomic nucleus) noted that the Physics community had solved nearly every problem about how the world works.  He described two little dinky things, two discrepancies that were about all that remained:  The Michelson-Morley experiment and the behavior of black-body radiation.
Rutherford is frequently mocked for his assertion that physics was almost "done,"  but I think he was quite astute.  As I've already mentioned, the M-M experiment's results led to the development of the theory of relativity.  Black-body radiation is one of the very first things that made certain physicist start noticing that quantities which were assumed to be continuous only came in certain discreet values, an idea that led to the development of quantum mechanics.  Thus, 19th-century physical science was completely swept aside by radical, powerful new theories that arose from curious investigation from the last, dinky little discrepancies that seemed to exist in the models of the day.  These are not just abstract physics, either.  Relativity and quantum mechanics are essential to things from NASA's calculations of spaceship trajectories to the operation of the tiny electronic circuits printed on silicon microchips.


I think that the "put it on the shelf" attitude is misled.  Just ignore anything I have qualms about, because ultimately the gospel is something much bigger?  Just because lots of parts of it are consistent with each other (which I readily admit... I would have become atheist quicker if I had been of a denomination other than LDS,
I suspect) does not mean that the entire structure is not misled, as was the case of 19th-century science.
Disregarding things like the Book of Abraham and the inconsistency of church doctrine through the years is not a path to truth.  It is making molehills out of mountains, keeping the bathwater sitting in the bath forever (yuck) just in case the baby's in there, and missing the ravenous tigers for the forest.

Email Address

Since I get a reasonable number of hits on this blog, I thought I would create and email address that anyone reading it can use to contact me:

davewithoutgod@gmail.com

I welcome all emails, whether they be condemnation, praise, spam, offers for enlargement pills, or the entire text of the Bible! (that might not fit...)

If you're having doubts about your faith and need someone to talk to, email me.  I promise not to try to talk you out of your faith, I just know what it's like to feel like there is no one to listen.

We Hate Thee, Oh God, For Your "Prophet"

Someone who I have come to consider a good friend approached me today and told me that, in a nutshell, he no longer believes in Mormonism or Christianity, and god isn't looking too hot either.  I have been pretty open with this friend about my own beliefs (or lack thereof).  I was surprised, because he was always debating me with the more Christian/Mormon stance, and while I had no intention of attacking his faith, I have always enjoyed a good debate.

We talked for a while today.  He told me about the hurt feelings he has, the immediate rift that has seemed to form between him and his family.  It was like I was listening to myself from just a few months ago.  To be honest, I'm still quite shell-shocked, and I hope things go better for my friend.

My feelings are mixed.  I am delighted at the prospect of having a friend around who thinks like me.  I remember how lonely I was all those months ago.  I'm also glad that myself and another friend were around and known to this friend of mine, so he can hopefully feel a little less alone.
At the same time, I feel a little sad.  I know it's stupid, but I feel like I helped get my friend into this process by being vocal about my own qualms with faith.  I don't want to destroy anyone's faith if it makes them happy, so I try to be careful.  In addition, I know how hard the process can be.  My life has gone to pieces in the last year, in some respects, and I wouldn't wish the emptiness and confusion I've felt on anyone.

I know I cussed and ranted about this recently, but this is what I feel the most anger about toward the church.  The fact that it lied to me for 20-something years, and I gave it everything, and now I can't even be open with the people around me because of the church.  There is a whole huge part of what I was that is gone, and I've spent the last several months gradually picking up the pieces.  I still have a long way to do.  How dare they do that to me?  How dare they do it to anyone?

Can I blame disillusionment on the perpetrators of the illusion?  I guess I can't really, since they are operating under the illusion themselves.  Except for Joseph Freaking Smith, and his freaking friends who helped him start a freaking false religion that would one day make so many miserable.  And even the credulous fools who followed them.
I was brought up to believe... I was trained pretty hard-core.  Those people?  My ancestors who joined the church?  They believed all the insane stuff the church claims after reaching adulthood and having a decent amount of experience.  Believed that charlatan Smith and his henchmen.

But... I guess we're all looking for something in life, and I can't fault someone who tries to find it.  After all, I held out for decades against frequent doubts, because it was all I knew to rely on.
So... I guess my ancestors did what was right by them, which is all we can ever ask.
Smith?  Power-grubbing deluded liar?  He sucked, and he was a scumbag.

Where the Hell is Hell?

Mostly I liked that title.  I actually want to write about: where is god?

So... it doesn't seem that god has done anything in a while.
Sure, there are anecdotal stories about god's intervention.  But I've written before about how god's interventions does not happen to come along in the majority of cases.

And, of course, we're told that bad things are all god's wrath.  Seriously, Japan, god has tolerated your low crime rates and refusal to engage in warfare long enough!


I think god's greatest show of power must be his amazing ability to influence events without ever leaving a statistical fingerprint.  Run an analysis on earthquakes, and they seem to occur randomly along stressed fault-lines.  God sure is clever to kill a lot of nice people, and occasionally hit barren wilderness.  We'll never be able to tell that the earthquakes were related to him at all!

In addition, god sure is sneaky when he miraculously saves as many heathens as Chrisitians, while allowing most Christians who have contracted terrible diseases to die, just like everyone else.  The fact that he conceals his hand in all of this is incredible... you'd think there would be some kind of pattern if these things were deliberate.


You know what one of the most fun passages of the Bible is?  1 Kings 18:26-27
The priests of Baal and Elijah have a mountain-top showdown to settle once and for all who's god is the real one.  The Baal guys dance and sing and cut themselves, and nothing at all happens.  Elijah makes fun of them while they do this:
"Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked."

After this, Elijah douses the sacrifices and prays, and the fire of god comes down and burns up not only the animals, but all of the water and the stone altar.  Pretty persuasive, no?

But wait!  Where the heck is that god now?  Hunting?  Sleeping?
Or maybe we need to get with the times:  he spends all his time on World of Warcraft! 
Or Minecraft (if that's the case, I'm very Christ-like).

Seriously, where is the guy?  Remember how the Mormon church started on the principle of "God is not silent?"  The whole continuing-revelation thing?
And yet, nothing significant has been said for decades by modern-day "prophets."  It's all basically the same as it was, doctrinally, as the way Brigham Young left it.  Sure, we get a couple more tiny bits of D&C after this, but it's really nothing new.

Pretty much, god is dead.  He does nothing.  He can't even get the "faithful" to all be on the same page!

I think it's time to stop waiting for god to fix things for us.  Maybe we should give up on the jerk until he decides he'll start being consistent (or even just apparent).

Damn, I get sick of the self-righteous we-know-everything attitude of some of the religious folks around.

Meaningful Dialogue Impossible with Religion?

I have been going back and forth on my opinion of religion lately.  Fundamentalism bothers me, but I am a big fan of free speech, so I guess the religious should have their say as well.  Cencorship, even of falsehood, seems criminal to me. 
I think I just hit upon one of the major problems with religion in the public square.

To make the right decision as a group, a good way to go is to spend time discussing options and weighing outcomes.  Open discussion is huge: even if I have a great idea, you might point out a flaw in this idea and we'll have to further plan before we proceed.  Once we've discussed thouroughly, we can put it to a vote.  If the vote is divisive enough, we can discuss and vote on compromise.
This is supposed to be the idea behind democracy, right?  And I think sometimes it actually happens this way.

But when you put stubborn dogmatism into the mix, everything breaks down.  Dialogue is impossible with fundamentalists, because they will not even listen to the opposing viewpoint:

"Hey, don't you think we should let same-sex couples marry?"
"No!  Person X, who I believe speaks for god, says that that is wrong and evil and terrible and an attack on the institution of marriage, which GOD INVENTED."
"I understand your point of view.  But consider-"
"No!"
"Well I thought if we could discuss-"
"No!"
"Perhaps then, if we can never agree on this matter, we could compro-"
"No! NO! NO! NO!"

This is not dialogue.
I am aware that there are many things that destroy dialogue in this way.  Even stubborn atheism might.  Opinions are okay, and values are okay, and worldviews are okay, but in a society which is populated by a variety of people, we can't afford not to have meaningful dialogue and open, honest exchange of ideas.

Still, it seems like religion really does this a lot.  Like when a church leader says that atheists are only rabidly fighting the level-headed Christians because they are sinning and can't face their own indecency.
...ahem...
A.  I'm behaving quite well, even by your standards. 
B.  That is ad hominem, and has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand.
C.  I'm willing to discuss things calmly with you, but you keep shouting me down.


So I guess I can't, through this line of reasoning, condemn open-minded religion, if there is such a thing.

I'd like to discuss my philosophical questions with people around me, but they're all LDS, and after a certain point discussion breaks down.  Usually it ends up with them saying "I feel sorry for you."
I hate that line.  I said something similar to a friend once in high school, and he angrily called it "unwarranted pity."  That has stuck with me.
The thing is, "I feel sorry for you" means "you obviously don't understand, are too pigheaded to understand, and I pity you for not being as humble and enlightened as I am."
Discussion over.  It's like playing tic-tac-toe, but the fundamentalist gets to place as many Xs as she wants, and I only get to place one O.  I can't win, not because of my strategy, not because of my mental capacities, but because the outcome is already decided by the other party's unwillingness to play by any rules that make the game a game at all.

In the Way of the Spirit

There seems to be some sort of concensus that depression is capable of completely blocking the spirit of god.

I have pretty bad depression, especially for the past year.  I'm on several medications and still not doing great.  And I understand where people get this idea that valid religious experiences are impeded by depression; I have trouble feeling joy or even interest in anything.

I'm pretty sure my parents, who have stopped trying to convince me to cling to my former faith (for the moment), expect that I'll be somehow spiritually viable again once my depression is under better control.  I know some other people think this of me.  My father-in-law has severe depression and left the church years ago, and I know people think the same of him.

I don't know what to think about this... It's certainly better than having people say that I'm either sinning or offended, I guess.

The thing is, I'm pretty convinced in my atheist ways.  I don't know if I could ever go back to the doublethink of my former self, holding conflicting ideas in my mind simultaneously.  I'm addicted to thinking clearly and completely, now.  So if I'm ever in better shape at some point, I don't know that I'll be returning to my previously pious self.


The other thing is, my mom always assures me that the way I see things is tainted by my depression, and I could see things more accurately if I weren't depressed.
I'm skeptical.  The fact that depressed individuals are unhappy is unrelated to the question of whether or not they have an accurate view of the world.
In fact, it's been shown that most people have a "personal fable," a view of themselves that is better than the reality of the situation.  Nearly everyone will list themselves as "above-average" in categories that they value.  Guess who doesn't do this?
You got it, people with depression.  They tend to pretty accurately assess themselves, turns out.

The world around us is a terrible place.  The human race is on the fast-track toward its own destruction, people are killing each other brutally all over the world, and the human condition is based on the concept of living in hope of whatever comes next, ending finally in death and probably-false hopes of an afterlife.
I mean, damn, we live in hell!  So is it the happy people who are really accurately viewing the world, or is it the unhappy?

I actually really enjoy entertaining the concept that the most "well-adjusted" and happy are actually victims of some kind of insanity that is built into human beings to keep us from dying of despair as a species.
So your religion makes you happy.  So what?  Yeah, me losing my faith coincided with the worst depression of my life so far, but what of it?
Does you being happy about something make it true?  If so, how exactly does that make any sense?

Blasphemous Blogging?

So none of this that I'm about to write is really very kosher by any Christian's view, I'd imagine, but if there's a hell I'm probably on the way there in any case, so I thought I'd vent a little.

What would Jesus do?  We're supposed to ask ourselves that, right?
Well... based on what we know abou the guy, my guess is he'd utter a lot of platitudes, intentionally confuse people, piss off basically everybody, and then die.

But honestly, what would he do in most situations?  Would he pirate MP3s?  Would he drive 5 mph hour the speed limit?  Would he make pizza sauce himself or buy it canned?
Basically, all I can say is, I have no friggin' clue, and as far as I can tell, neither do you.
The guy has been dead now for a couple millenia, and all we have are inconsistent accounts of dubious authorship that were written, as near as we can tell, about a century after the purported events took place.

Okay, so I know it's supposed to be "Christ lives," right?  But does he really?  I mean, how many people that died 2000 years ago are alive now?  There are exactly zero documented cases.


In church, someone talked on Sunday about how meek and kind and forgiving and understanding Jesus is.  Right?  Well, except for him killing random fig trees out of spite (it was symbolic, right?  Oh, wait, then why kill the poor tree instead of giving another cryptic parable about a tree?).  And being really, really mean to most of the people around him.  Saying downright mean and dissmissive things to his mom, family and friends.  How about racism?

Like seriously.  Jesus said some things that are salve for the soul or wise or cool, but he also said a bunch of inconsistent, unkind, and nonsensical things.  If, that is, we trust the record at all.


So, clearly, I'm the worst blasphemer ever, but I just don't get it.  I don't even know why I'd need a savior... not that I don't make mistakes, but I can't understand how god can be such a wacko that he can't figure out a way to forgive people without throwing his son out to die at the hands of "his" people.  And great job, by the waty, on those people.  Seems like nothing you told them made any difference, god.


Maybe there's a god.  Maybe there's a Christ.  Maybe I'm going to rot in hell, and all the evangelicals out there will happily dance upon my grave just before being raptured up to paradise.
But in that case, god is insane.  He makes no sense at all.  Have fun in heaven with your psychotic overlord.


A few days ago, the Provo Tabernacle burned to the ground.  Except for the severely-damaged outside walls, the thing is just gone.  But, there's a painting inside where everything except the picture of Jesus in the middle is burned.
"A Miracle!" they call it.  Clearly, all pictures of Jesus are fireproof.  We should just build all our houses out of pictures of him, then fire would never be a problem!
So... what I'm thinking is, if god was intent on performing a miracle that night, couldn't he have just put out the fire?  It would have saved the church a bundle, Provo a lot of hassle, and would have prevented the destruction of a beautiful historic building. 

Seriously, do people really believe it when they say every single slightly-good thing is a tender mercy of god, and every horrible thing is, of course, god's will?  Thanks god, for the mostly-burnt painting.  Maybe next you can work on saving the starving orphans of the world, or maybe the polar bears.  I'd trade the damn painting for the polar bears.

I got terrible grades this semester.  I'm sure some would attribute it to my utter rejection on god, recently.  But you know, if prayer really worked, you'd expect the devoutly religious to have consistently higher test scores.  Plently of failing students at BYU are perfect Mormons, and plently of straight-A students everywhere find the idea of a personal god laughable.
Anecdotes are not data.  Your friend may have prayed and gotten her wish of a smooth day at work on the same day that many, many people prayed for a dying loved one, and the loved one died.

Game over.  Thanks for playing.