Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[baron]

This person was into vampires and dark stuff. She wore skull earrings and read Anne Rice novels. She was pretty far from God as you can get.

I'm sure Satan would beg to differ.

My more serious question is; briefly, what would cause you to stop believing in God?

 

[Scot Ferre]

Subjective experience works for everyone... but it isn't consistent (see above) so it's a bad way to know actual truth. Subjectively, the earth looks flat. All the inner knowingness in the world can't prove otherwise. It's slow and steady accumulation of evidence and testing of evidence that leads us to the truth. Subjective truths are as valid for reality as delusions, illusions, lies, misperceptions, mirages, and all things that need to be believed to be true.

Religions and other woo make people confuse axiomatic facts with opinion, conjecture, feelings, beliefs, spin, "higher truths", mystery, legends and every thing else. You guys have such a poor understanding of what constitutes evidence... what constitutes a fact that is the same for everyone no matter what they believe. They aren't "revealed" by feelings-- though many people believe they are... but their beliefs do not validate eachothers beliefs... much less correspond with known facts. And they do miserably when subject to double blind tests and the like.

Yes, yes, yes, I'm aware of all that - so? Are you talking about all this for the benefit of other people or for me? I'm aware of all this, thank you.

Again, you run the risk of classifying the LDS Church's subjective evidences in a general sense, to be grouped with all other unsubstantiated subjective evidence *without* even trying to verify if their subjective experiences are valid or not.

 

[Scot Ferre]

So you think you are coming across as humble?

It doesn't matter what I think - what really matters is that I do my best and help and love people. That's really the best way to improve society in my community. Humility is a reminder to me that I need to learn more and keep working at being a better person. I have a long way to go.

As a psychologist, you are aware of the placebo effect. It can work. And I presume you understand why we use double blind studies to tease out such affects so we can know what we can attribute to medicine. Why is subjective evidence of the "supernatural" different? Why not subject it to double blind tests. If you make a claim, we can devise a way to test the claim and see if it's a "placebo" effect or a "noticing the hits" effect or not.

Yes, placebos are extremely useful. The problem is - *how* can you test something that's associated with God? If we can't even have scientific evidence that God exists, how can we do likewise with any other God-related phenomena? It's impossible.

This is why I don't like ID or creationists trying to set up an agenda in public schools - because their science is very shaky. Leave God and religion to Sunday school, and leave good science to public education. ID is not a scientific theory - it cannot be one, not without evidence that there is a supernatural being out there.

 

[Scot Ferre]

And if damage to a certain part of the brain, changes a persons ability to reason morally-- then your beliefs come further into question... more stuff for you to assign to the category of "only god knows the reason"...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html

What sort of revelations is your prophet getting about these studies... or does he just ignore current research as you do with the assumption that you already "feel" the TRUTH?

Interesting article - I appreciate that. One thing, though - many times in my life, I've gotten answers immediately or where blessings worked immediately after I've asked for such. The article can't explain that - it can try, but not across cultures and *especially* first-time converts to the LDS Church.

Interestingly enough, the prophet that we have in this world today is remarkably well-informed, even at the age of 97! So he may or may not have heard of this study, but even then, it is of little spiritual concern because for many members of the LDS Church, just getting feelings doesn't explain strong devotion to goodly and health principles of living and of morality. There is much more than a simple scientific explanation that is being offered here.

I propose a challenge to you - contact your local LDS ward and attend their Sacrament meetings. See what motivates them - see what makes them tick. Find out why they believe in the things they do. Are they genuinely satisfied? Are they reasonably intelligent people? Do they look brainwashed to you? Keep an open mind - as a skeptic, surely you appreciate the value of getting information, do you? Particularly information from both sides of the aisle, eh? How about it?

Now I must go to a family dinner - have a good evening!

 

[Scot Ferre]

We suggest that this inability stems in part from the way that science is traditionally presented to students: Students are taught what to think but not how to think."

The last sentence so obviously applies to you.

And all this without having met in person or known me in depth. You can actually tell from a few posts on an Internet forum?

Please, don't presume to know about me - it's rather insulting when you don't know that much about me and are not fully informed about who I am as a person. You can only guess, and you know how guesses can end up - often wrong!

 

[Scot Ferre]

My more serious question is; briefly, what would cause you to stop believing in God?

Again, briefly, since I have to go - quite a few things can. Ultimately, it's up to the individual to decide what to do with the knowledge and revelations that are given by God to the individual. Once the individual is quite clear that the source is indeed God, then the individual has a responsibility to the truth. You cannot deny the truth because it came from an unimpeachable source (hundreds of times, I might add). Repeated confirmations only serve to strengthen that what you know is actually true, not to mention family and friends' own similar and individual experiences.

That's where I am - having possession of the truth, and there is absolutely no good reason to turn my back on the truth.

 

[articulett]

Maybe so - but are people willing to be open to all kinds of possibilities?

Absolutely. But we want to make sure they reflect truths not the known ways people delude themselve.

LOL - reminds me of what Paul endured in New Testament times.

Except I don't think he went to Kolob and got lots of wives afterwards.

I *know* what confirmation bias. The trick is - I didn't set this up - God did. If you have a problem with the way he is choosing to reveal himself or his truths to people, take it up with him. I'm just one of many messengers from his church who say that you can find out for yourself. Whether it's confirmation bias or not - it's *still* your choice on whether to ask God about the veracity of our claims.

I have trouble with this whole paragraph-- it assumes facts not in evidence-- such as... there's a plan in place... that some one named god set up... that there are "divine truths"... that Mormonism is the way he reveals these truths... that you are a messenger of divine knowledge... that asking god about what is true makes god real or what is "revealed to me" true... that revelation is a way to know something true.

These are all claims that should be testable. Is there a "plan"-- why isn't it clear? Why are people willing to die and suffer for varying plans they believe are true? Why is revelation indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion? Why are the stories of how your religion came to be on par with all myths and the story of how Kim Jong Il came to be and the story of L Ron Hubbard -- or Johnny Appleseed... or even the myth that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree? Or that weird things happen on full moons? Or that Betsy Ross made the first flag? There's lots of myths people believe.

I happen to be disabled - and it makes perfect sense. Each one of us have weaknesses that we must deal with. In order to grow and develop an understanding of joy and sorrow in this life, and to have character development, one must have a weakness and try to improve, to be a better person than before. In my case, I'm always striving to be a better person, despite my weaknesses.

Everyone has weaknesses. Some people are born with sexual preferences that cause family members to disown them. Some people have no legs. Some people are born into religions where they must profess belief or be killed. Some people spend their lives in fear. Some people have their child raped and killed despite pleas to god. Some people believe that prayer heals and then their kid dies because medicine heals, not prayer. Some females have their genitals mutilated. There are disabled atheists. Some people can't make themselves believe this silly crap just like they can't make themselves believe in Santa even though presents magically appear under the tree each year. What you think of as a better person isn't better to me if you are teaching people to delude themselves in the same way you've been deluded. What Randfan is doing is much better. He learned that his trust had lead him to fool himself and he does his damndest to keep others from making the same mistake. I think we all are striving to be better people. We evolved to "add" to humanity. See article above.

You cannot detect the power of God - you just can't, not with science. We lay our hands on people to bless them to have better health, and often they do get better, sometimes immediately. All you have is a cause and effect - but no mechanism to determine *how* it happened.

By the same token you can detect demons and so you can exorcise people who actually have epilepsy or schizophrenia or Tourette Syndrome. You can't detect "engrams" (Scientology negative energy globules that keep you from success). You can't detect astrological influences. You can't prove aliens aren't doing studies on humans and then covering their tracks. You can't tell that Zeus didn't exist and that he's not responsible for lightening bolts or that bad vibes don't make tornadoes. I would say that the reason you can't detect it-- is because it isn't true. But you can invent ways to prove to yourself that all these things are true-- especially if you felt like you would be rewarded for believing it... that faith was a gift and that doubt pissed off an invisible overlord and lessened your chances to rule your own planet.

I find this quite amazing to believe, since you have never met me, or the satisfied clients I've had (where I *don't* bring religion into the workplace). You are making some very erroneous assumptions, but of course you don't even need to see me as your psychologist. As far as I can tell, I have a good reputation in my community, so it's your word against many others'. I *could* choose to go to court over your "libel" or "slander" on my professional qualifications (although I honestly don't care, since it's just a forum) and probably prosecute successfully. But it's all a waste of time, since I have much better things to do than worry about one person's opinion on whether I'm professionally qualified.

To a skeptic you are like all believers... the Jehovah Witnesses that come to the door, the Muslims that claim that letting women wear pants is immoral, the Falwell's who blame 911 on feminism and Hurricane Katrina on secularism... I'm sure they all think they are making the world better or happier or more moral...

(Oh, it's not slander or libel if it's true.)

If you have a good reputation in your community... and you suggest that someone's angst might be due to them not being Mormon or from demons-- I would hope that you would lose your license. In other countries they would. All soldiers and proselytizers and woo profferers who come to this forum tell us the same kinds of stories as you do... they all seem to think that they are humble and have knowledge we should be grateful for... they all think that they are fighting a good cause... just as all soldiers do... even the one's you think are deluded or bad guys. Lots of smart and/or professionally qualified people believe wacky things. Heard of the Alien abductee supporter at Harvard? Heard of our President? Maybe even the majority do. But that doesn't make their beliefs true or them right-- though of course they ALL think it does make it true and them right. They all are certain they are making the earth better. And with faith, evidence and testing aren't necessary. You just have to believe-- and then you will know that it is so. Millions spent on abstinence education-- on the belief that it would work. It doesn't at all. We know what does work... education... other countries make great models.

Those hijackers surely believed they were doing Allah's will by teaching those immoral Americans a lesson... and their afterlife is just as likely to be true as yours. We know the passengers prayed... but God was answering to "Allah" that day.

Again, you are running the risk of making assumptions without having met me or known me in depth. And I'm telling you - you are incorrect, and if you keep persisting in these assumptions, you are only going to look like a fool who doesn't have the facts about a person whom he's never met.

Excellent. So you are going to provided evidence?1? Does it occur to you that you have judged all those who believe differently than you as "wrong", "deluded", "misguided", "insincere in their request", "less chosen by the invisible creator of the universe"...? Have you contributed one speck of what Randi has contributed to the world. You fool people. He fools people to show them how they really fool themselves... and how they can avoid it.

As I said earlier, there's absolutely no scientific evidence or facts that will prove God's existence or any God-related items. God intentionally did that so he can know who is willing to work for it and push away the "crap" and strive to find out for themselves. Faith is important in this process.

Yes, as the hijackers prove. As Andrea Yates proves. As Kim Jong Il proves. As Sylvia Browne and "The Secret" prove. The same goes for devils, demons, fairies, engrams, incubi, and visitors from other planets... and ESP... and astrology. That's why we're skeptics. And how come god appeared before Satan and doubting Thomas? It seems he is fickle in regards to proof, eh? And who wrote about Adam and Even... what language did they speak? Was god just a voice in their head? Doesn't the whole talking snake story reek of entrapment... and incest... and a not so loving god-- or at least a not so omniscient one. What kind of heavenly anybody would make kids with the smallest possibility that they could suffer forever?

Science measures knowledge. Religion measures truths, particularly of an eternal nature.

Woo makes you feel like you have a truth when you really have a delusion that makes you feel like you know something and feel like you are in on a special secret of the universe. I'm sure Tom Cruise feels identically about his Scientology. And I bet he's more successful than you.

Religion seems to measure "subjective truths" (lies). Science measures the truths that are the same for everybody-- you know, the spherical earth, DNA, the fact that the earth rotates towards the sun... etc.

You're correct. I just happen to be a psychologist who knows about God as well. I've met quite a few.

So have I. But they know a different god... some know Allah... many are agnostic or atheistic. I'm sure Utah pumps out a lot of Mormon psychologists... I suspect the majority are Jewish... or secular Jews. Or maybe that's psychiatry. And Tom Cruise says there's no such things as "chemical balances" and that "if you knew what he knew", you would see how evil your profession is.

But that is not evidence that god exists or that the mormon god is real. Sorry to get you in a tizzy. But Tom Cruises good looks and stellar success doens't mean Xenu is real either. Osama's riches and education and many followers doesn't give him a magic tether to "divine knowledge" either. First there has to be evidence that there is such thing as divine knowledge. And so far, the concept doesn't even make sense... much less that some religion or prophet or singled out man would get it because he wanted it enough. None of it makes sense. Your belief system has softened your ability to reason and think critically.

BTW, all my Mormon friends from childhood were not virgins when they married... but all of their husbands think they were. Judgment doesn't change behavior-- it just changes who finds out about it.

 

[articulett]

A skeptic is just someone who explains away your beliefs the same way that you explain away all those that conflict with yours. However you explain away Scientology or Greek Myths or catholicism-- that's how we explain away your beliefs (unless you're using Satan and the like for explanations, of course--we don't believe in that either).

 

[articulett]

Also, if you knew things about Joseph Smith that were unsavory and suggested fraud (for example, he told women who were already married that he had a revelation that they needed to leave their husbands and marry him which they did)-- would you begin making excuses? Pray for god to give you more faith? Or explore more? If you could know for certain rather Joseph Smith was fraudulent or not-- that is, that much of his messages were twistings of other old texts with his own fanciful additions-- would you want to know? Or would you avoid finding that out because you were afraid it might be a satanic trick or a test of faith or something?

 

[Mid]

To determine whether the person is capable of the responsibilities and privileges of godhood. I'd imagine that it's hard work, and requires humility in all areas, including those things which are unseen or not yet understood. Humility is a required trait in order to learn all there is to know. Just waiting for scientific knowledge to come *might* indicate that the person isn't willing to go the extra mile beyong the limits of science to find what they want to know.
...snip...

Well it's interesting to learn a bit more about Mormon belief, but I still can't say I'm particularly convinced that a god would require such a rigid test. I suppose it runs up against my problem with all organised religion in that they posit an all powerful god and then impose doctrinal restrictions on him. Still as I said it's always interesting to find out new stuff and hopefully we can continue our conversation.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Scot, I've spent my time reading this thread in more or less its entirety and have to tell you that articulett has presented the arguments I would have if I was as articulate.

But I must ask the question I ask of all Christians. How do you know that the New Testament is true? That Jesus is the Son of God? Given the joke that Satan and God played on Job, how do you know that Christianity is not just another trick to test your faith. To turn you from the true religion of Judaism?

 

[articulett]

Scot, I've spent my time reading this thread in more or less its entirety and have to tell you that articulett has presented the arguments I would have if I was as articulate.

But I must ask the question I ask of all Christians. How do you know that the New Testament is true? That Jesus is the Son of God? Given the joke that Satan and God played on Job, how do you know that Christianity is not just another trick to test your faith. To turn you from the true religion of Judaism?

Thanks. But it is interesting to watch the spin... the cognitive dissonance. The questions that are avoided or answered oddly... the little winking emoticons...

The whole story of Jesus was not written any time while he was alive-- but many years after the fact... mostly from memory and revelation... and he has a lot in common with prior gods and saviors. There is no account of him in the writings of the time while he was alive. And look at the stuff the people of North Korea believe about their leader (his dad was god and was alive in recent history-- he wasn't this invisible god person...)

Here's another question I want to ask-- if faith and feelings were NOT a good way to know the truth, how would you come to learn this?

If the book of Mormon was as untrue as the books about Kim Jong Il, how would you come to know it?

How is your religions way of know it is true different from the way budding Scientologists are told they can know their beliefs are true (clearing)?

If Scientologist Psychologist used clearing to get rid of engrams in his practice and people showed psychological improvement and/or their Scientologists Narconon anti drug program works-- would it be slander to note that it was based on a false, unproven premise and that it was unprofessional and possibly damaging to use such techniques as a counselor?-- That such a person's liscence should be revoked. What about counselors that believe their clients are possessed?

If you were wrong, what mechanism do you have for finding out and why wouldn't you want to remain deluded since you get to see yourself as special and more moral without having to do anything special or more moral? You get to assert authority over your wife-- and oppress her per god's instructions... make her into a baby maker and homemaker even if she has knowledge and wisdom that she can use to better the world of people who already exist in a world full of an abundance of people?

I have so many questions, but they are just answered obliquely with whatever fairytale they've been told which assumes facts not in evidence as all woo does. And when they can't answer it's "arrogant to question god".

 

[articulett]

And if science confirmed any of this... religions and woo would twist it and use it to prop up their stories...they always have...

Science shows caffeine is bad (it doesn't), so Mormonism is true. 9-11 proves that America is going to hell in a handbasket... Science can't explain "x", therefore my woo is true.

It's a long way from lights in the sky you can't identify and aliens from other planets doing anal probes without leaving evidence. We are still looking for simple life forms... we know that most of the life on our planet is not interested in space exploration... we are bizarrely egocentric to begin to imagine other such creatures visiting us for undetectable reasons and leaving not a single clue. None are even caught on cell phone cameras.

First demonstrate that consciousness of some sort can exist absent a living brain. And then we'll proceed to step 2.

 

[articulett]

I've always been curious about how it is people can see all these weird religions and delusions and mistaken notions that clearly are not true... and see that such things are believed very strongly by very many-- and not wonder the same about their own beliefs. The second I learned that there were OTHER belief systems, infallible leaders, heavens, hell, reincarnation, gods, myths-- I started see how easy my justifications for something being true could readily be used by beliefs that couldn't be true if mine were. Reincarnation feels right-- resonated with me-- made so much more sense than "this life is a test thing"-- more fair and less sexist. I wanted it to be true-- and I had a lot of mental experiences that convinced me along these lines-- but I also knew that wanting something to be true couldn't really make it true... believing something to be true... clearly couldn't make it true. People would say, "what did it matter what you believe, as long it makes you a better person..."-- But, to me, it does matter!

If there is no afterlife-- then this one matters, and I want to learn and share all I can of what is true and experience and savor this life. And if there is no divine knowledge I don't have to worry about which guy god is revealing it to and who is a false prophet and all the silly mental good guy/bad guy goofiness that comes with that. I don't want to waste this life on some unknowable next one that scientists ought to have come up with some evidence for it it were real. I don't need threats and promises not to hurt others. I, myself, hurt when I hurt others-- and I feel good when I make others lives better-- when I make people laugh or think or know something valuable and useful and true.

 

[articulett]

Oh... and here's a lie that Mormons and other religionist spread-- they'll say that people don't believe in their "truth" because they "love to sin" or "they're mad at god"... To a non believer... that's like saying, you don't believe in Santa because you are mad at Santa or you don't believe in hell because you dig genocide.

Lots of people have lots of opinions about what is and isn't a sin-- Jesus is big on "thought crimes"-- but when it comes to measurable ways people are known to hurt others--or themselves-- religious societies do worse than secular societies. What are these imagine "sins" that non-believers do and what exactly is sinful about them? I think brain washing people (even with good intensions) is more sinful than drinking caffeine and not swearing-- but hey, that's just me. We're all going to hell in somebody's religion... and reincarnating as an insect in another's.

 

[Scot Ferre]

But I must ask the question I ask of all Christians. How do you know that the New Testament is true? That Jesus is the Son of God? Given the joke that Satan and God played on Job, how do you know that Christianity is not just another trick to test your faith. To turn you from the true religion of Judaism?

Ask away - how do you know? Well, there's a variety of sources - scriptures, revelations, prophets, and most importantly, the Holy Spirit, whose role is to confirm the truth of all things.

As for which parts in the Bible are true, some have been supported by other sources, and others have not. Nevertheless, for the most part, it's all secondary to the fact (to me) that God inform me about the most important thing of all - that he exists and that he does have a church to represent him. Everything else flows from that knowledge. This is how I know, for example, that Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[articulett]

And that is how Muslims know that Mohummed is the prophet of Allah and the Quoran the true word of the creator of the universe. And we can prove Mohummed existed. And there are more Muslims than Mormons... and they are willing to die for their beliefs.

Interesting.

 

[The_Animus]

Again, you run the risk of classifying the LDS Church's subjective evidences in a general sense, to be grouped with all other unsubstantiated subjective evidence *without* even trying to verify if their subjective experiences are valid or not.

Don't you do the same for every other religion and church's subjective evidence? The reason we don't verify it is because it cannot be verified. It is impossible. You cannot verify a subjective experience with another subjective experience.

Have you ever seen the movie: "The Wave"

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVRXXbU-z7U

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXi71XBdh1o

 

[articulett]

Don't you do the same for every other religion and church's subjective evidence? The reason we don't verify it is because it cannot be verified. It is impossible. You cannot verify a subjective experience with another subjective experience.

Have you ever seen the movie: "The Wave"

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVRXXbU-z7U

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXi71XBdh1o

Great film. Based on a real experience. Scot Ferere is hard of hearing, so I'm not sure he will watch the film-- but he could read about the experiment if he's interested.

Philip Zimbardo's new book The Lucifer Effect is also very telling about how good people can come to do things they couldn't imagine themselves doing do to authority and the feelings of "rightness".

Understanding faith and how people come to think that it leads to truth... and how to fix that... could have prevented the 9-11 tragedies. It just seems so easy to get people to believe things once they believe that faith is a good way to know something. Most such beliefs are harmless. But how do you prove faith? By doing something you wouldn't normally do to show allegiance or deference to the faith. And this builds further allegiance. It's really twisted and scary... and I think Randi is right about the solution being education and critical thinking and the dismantling of this inane notion that faith is a good way to know anything.

Faith is a good way to make you feel like you know something and shielding you from own ignorance without giving you any real knowledge or useful verifiable information. That makes one faith based claim on par with all others-- on par with delusions, and mistakes, and opinions, and misperceptions. And equally likely to be true. If something is indistinguishable from the imaginary, it's safe to treat it as imaginary, I figure. The human mind is great at inventing and confabulating explanations. But science shows us that this is so prone to error and faith held notions have no error correcting mechanism. I'm not sure belief is even a choice. Especially when you are told as a trusting kid. I don't think I could make myself believe any of this stuff-- I know too much about how such techniques work... and why people believe that faith can lead to truth. And I know the fears put in heads to make people afraid to doubt.

Scot acts like his education shields him from making errors in thinking-- yet most of our scientific nobel laureates do not believe in a personal god... none believe in the Mormon god-- if education or intelligence is what is supposed to guide you-- then lack of belief in the supernatural is the increasing norm.

I plan to tell as many kids as I can that faith is a bad bad way to know the truth... people have been using it to full themselves for eons. Our brains evolved to make sense of our world. That is why the earth appears flat. But we figured out tools to distinguish the truth form the know quirks in human reasoning. And it wasn't through any holy text of any sort.

 

[The_Animus]

Oh Zeus mightiest of gods we worship you and pray to you. The thunder of the heavens sings your truth and the mighty light from the sky is able to be seen by all. Thus do we believe in you.

And now no one does.

The same is true of all religions. The oldest of the old religions have had their day and fallen to nothing in the face of newer religions. The newer religions had their day and have fallen to yet newer religions. And what of the day a few thousand years from now when people look back upon our time and see the followers of the Church of Mormonism as we see the Greeks and their Gods today. As myths.

There is a show called Moral Oral about a Christian family. In the first episode while they are riding in the car to church they are listening to a Christian station. The lyrics from the song are as follows, and while insulting, are pretty accurate.

--------------------------------------------

Reason is the enemy of Faith, my friend
A head that's filled with knowledge soon is too bloated with its own weight to fit through heaven's gate
So, think with your heart
It's the only organ for salvation
Think with your heart
Don't deduce yourself to eternal damnation
Think with your heart cause you know the almighty sees us.
Think only with your heart
whoever heard of the bleeding brain of Jesus