I learned that a problem can be big or small, and the diference is how i see him.
A coin or the sun, you can chose what is bigger just putting the coin in the front of our eyes.

I learned that the sun is bigger.

What would be left of the world if we deleted the entire footprint of all religion from the beginning? In other words any influence that it has had on the world.

What would be left?

My guess is that you for one would be gone…..poof!

Regarding falsification: I do not have time to fully articulate the arguments here, but here are two examples right off the top of my head.

1) I think scientific understanding about the universe (from astrophysics to carbon dating) pretty well demolishes anyone who has a literal creation interpretation of Genesis.

b) I think Mormonism is false, and I think a fair amount of falsification on essential beliefs is possible. Now I will immediately grant that my arguments (drawn largely from Aquinas) hardly get universal assent. You’d have to sign on to a few propositions for me to get going. Of course I think the propositions are pretty intuitive (and it is worth noting that hundreds of lds students in my Intro courses over the years have readily signed on to them — until I showed them what follows!). Also worth noting that this is a complicated affair since it is often not clear exactly what Mormonism is committed to. My target is (at least) “McConkie Mormonism” (which I take to be “main street mormonism”). Sherlockian Mormonism (Prof Sherlock of USU) would be better off against my arguments — mostly because Sherlock is willing to grant many of them!

A quick list of arguments I would/could/have made (again, I won’t defend any of them here because I don’t have time): I think we can demonstrate that God cannot be both the sort of thing that can change (a temporal thing) and be the ultimate cause of all things. I think we can demonstrate that there cannot be more than one god. I think we can demonstrate that humans and god are of different species. Basically I’d appeal to a laundry list of things Aquinas thinks natural reason can demonstrate about God – that he is simple, one, immaterial, perfect, and immutable (unchanging). Sherlock and I debated some of these points in a public debate, I think it was two years ago.

I wasn’t trying to make an argument about imposing beliefs in the sense that you defended. Indeed, I agree with you that it is our duty to proclaim the truth as we understand it to be, and attempt to persuade others to believe as well. What I was trying to get at was the tendency we have to make erroneous snap judgments based on limited observations, and I think your last paragraph clearly captured what I’ve been trying to prove: that I believe Jon’s and Dude’s claims that Mormons are not sufficiently self-reflective is an erroneous judgment. Clearly I’ve done a poor job in expressing my disagreement and providing evidence, since it’s still been unclear what I’ve been trying to do!

So here, hopefully, is a better case for my argument against their claims:

Sample size: In order to make a sweeping statement such as “most Mormons shrink from self-examination,” a sufficient sample size is necessary, meaning, not only a sufficient number of people, but from a variety of locations as well. For example, characteristics common among Mormons in Utah (a small part of the overall Mormon membership) may not hold true for Mormons in Alaska (where I’m from), Brazil, Africa, or Russia. Without taking into consideration those differences, any conclusion would likely (if not definitely) be flawed.

Depth and breadth of information: In order to make a claim such as Dude and Jon have (by the way, I think it’s hilarious that we all still have to refer to this mystical person as ‘Dude’), it seems logical that, beyond a sufficient sample size, Dude and Jon would have to conduct some sort of interview or survey asking detailed and searching questions to each individual to determine whether or not they had sufficiently reflected on their beliefs and why they do what they do [and of course, there are two disclaimers here: (1) that an unwillingness to submit to such an interview or survey (symbolic here of Jon’s or Dude’s attempts to get a Mormon to discuss their faith with them) does not necessarily indicate a lack of self-reflection, and (2) that even with the kind of information available to them after surveys or interviews, it is still possible (and likely) to reach a subjective conclusion].

Logic: Anyone who is familiar with the Mormon religion (as Jon appears to be) understands that it is a religion that requires a great deal (comparatively speaking) of its members. I think logic would tell us that people would only submit themselves to such a lifestyle and religion if they had sufficient reason to do so. Contrary to what may seem ‘apparent,’ my experience tells me that most diligent Mormons are not people who follow their religion simply because that’s the way they were raised or because of some other external factor, but because they believe that what they practice is true. For example, as a teenager I rebelled against the Church and its teachings because I felt like it was all just a bunch of senseless rules. This caused me to reflect on the Church’s teachings and determine for myself what I should do. That reflection caused me to develop my own belief, and gave me the conviction necessary to do what Mormons who live their religion do. Maybe Jon’s and Dude’s frustration come from many Mormons’ inability to give any explanation about why they believe what they do beyond the good feelings that they have about it. Then the question must be asked: is simply feeling that something is right sufficient cause to do it? Atheists (and possibly other groups) have a hard time with the whole ‘feeling’ argument, because it isn’t ‘logical’ or ‘can be explained scientifically.’ However, as humans, we are so intimately connected with our emotions that we actually often can’t distinguish between emotion and logic (studies in communication have shown this). So while I agree that, for myself, self-reflection beyond feeling good about something is beneficial and essential to staying power, I’m not sure that, for others, it is absolutely necessary (though I could be wrong, of course :).

In conclusion, I think it would be fine for Jon or Dude to say they “think” Mormons are insufficiently self-reflective (and support that claim with some sort of evidence). To claim that concretely or absolutely, however, is where I think they are off target.

I am very curious about your words “I do think it is possible to prove that some faiths cannot be true. (For instance, certain faiths might have claims that simply conflict with what natural reason can apprehend about the nature of God, man, and world).” I think I agree, and wonder if you could/would share some examples?

If what you mean by “true for me” is “I take X to be a sufficient ground for believing Y, even if others do not”, okay. That certainly seems true – some people find certain evidence/experience/grounds compelling and others don’t. Though we should have conversations and arguments about what counts as sufficient ground for believing something. I would still quibble on one point: just because we cannot empirically prove that a certain religion is true or false does not make the matter inescapably subjective. (1) Empirical demonstration is not the only way of knowing things. (2) I think we can falsify some religious or moral claims. For instance, while I don’t think I could positively prove my Catholic faith, I do think it is possible to prove that some faiths cannot be true. (For instance, certain faiths might have claims that simply conflict with what natural reason can apprehend about the nature of God, man, and world).

Now I must confess that I don’t really know what it means to “impose” a belief on someone. I hear all the time that “imposing your beliefs on other people” is this horrid thing to do, but I don’t see why. It is not like Jon and Dude were holding a gun to the head of Mormons, “converting them by the sword” to their claim that Mormons are insufficiently self-reflective. And when Mormon students come to my office with their BoMs and try to convert me (this happens all the time), I don’t think they are “imposing their beliefs on me”. Absent some kind of oppressive totalitarian regime or threat of violence, what does it mean to “impose” your beliefs on someone, and why is this a bad thing to do?

To my mind, all dialogue is an invitation, never an “imposition” in this rotten sense. If I am convicted that X is true, I should feel free to share that with others . In fact, I might even have something like a moral obligation to share it, for “to bring a man to the truth is a great act of charity”. When I argue that something is true, I invite others to consider it. They have free minds. They are free to not consider my claim at all, to consider it and then reject it, or to consider it and accept it. I don’t think I need to be a wet noodle about it. Quite to the contrary, I think I should be forceful if I am really convicted. I should use all proper means of persuasion in the service of the truth. Again, I don’t see this as trying to “impose” something on others. After all, the truth is not mine, as if I am imposing something that is reducible to me onto you. Insofar as I have true beliefs, there is a sense in which the truth has me rather than me having it.

And I think we need to be careful here to not misunderstand Socrates. Yes, Socrates is humble and declares that he “knows nothing”. But his mind is not empty. An empty mind is a starving thing. As Chesterton says, the mind is like an open mouth – it is meant to close down on something. Socrates has all sorts of beliefs – beliefs that he is so incredibly convicted about that he is willing to die for them. He believes that reason can deliver truth, that misology (hatred of reason) is the “most pitiable thing” that can befall a person. He believes the gods called him to philosophy. He believes a good man cannot be harmed by a worse one. etc etc etc Socrates goes to great lengths to “impose” these beliefs on others – because he loves others and wants the best for them (in the Apology he says that the “Olympian heroes make you think yourself happy, I make you happy”). Of course he fails to persuade the jury, but it is certainly not for a lack of trying! Socrates does not subscribe to the gospel of nice that says ‘be nice and don’t impose your judgments on others’.

In short, I think a refusal to try to “impose” your beliefs on others is a sign of disrespect or at least cowardice. If Jon and Dude think Mormons are not sufficiently self-reflective, they are free to make that claim (and I don’t think it is simply anti-mormon to pick that group out, they are simply responding to their environment). If you think they are wrong (they have mistaken an appearance for truth), then make an argument or provide evidence to show their claim is false. They are then free to consider your objections and then respond. This is how things go, right? When I visit with my friend Prof Huenemann (we disagree on most things), I don’t passively say “I think the world is teleologically organized, but I don’t want to impose that on you”. Nor does he say “I think the will to truth is simply a derivative of the will to power, but I don’t want to impose that on you.” Rather, we both busy ourselves trying to “impose” our views on the other person – we try like hell to persuade each other! The point of the exercise is not to “win”, but to discover what is true, because the truth is where the mind is at home.

I think some of my comments may have been misunderstood.

Obviously, people can agree on objective truths: that green beans are nourishing; that gravity accelerates objects at the rate of 32 feet per second per second; or that an item costs $10. Therefore the focus of my previous comments was on religious claims, which I still argue are subjective. Example: I say the Bible is evidence of God’s existence. This is clearly a subjective truth, as an atheist might say that the Bible is nothing more than old stories or lies. So the statement ‘true for me’ is functional in at least this one subjective sense. Certainly, what the Bible teaches (in a general sense) can only be true or not true, just as God can either exist or not exist. In this objective sense, I agree that the statement “true for me” is absolute nonsense. However, since we have heretofore been unable to empirically prove those claims true or false, finding ourselves at an impasse, our judgments on such claims are inescapably subjective.

With regard to your comments on judgment, I absolutely agree with you. We certainly must judge “what we take to be true, because we must act in accordance with beliefs about the good, the true, and the beautiful.” Hopefully I’m not missing the point of your argument, but I hardly think that refraining from imposing those judgments on others turns us into a ‘wet noodle.’ I agree it is likely that many, if not most, people do not examine themselves and their beliefs to the extent which they are able, simply taking things for granted rather than studying and judging the truth for themselves. However, my disagreement is with the arrogance with which some say that other people have not sufficiently examined their lives. Again, I pose the question: Do I not overstep my intellectual bounds through making such an accusation? John 7:24 reads “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” I daresay that such accusations about Mormons are “according to the appearance,” as I am certain that none of the commentators know the Mormon group intimately enough (including myself) to make those claims. An appearance of a lack of self-examination does not necessarily confirm it. Additionally, as you point out, “I think we could find any number of groups of people, of whatever religious or non-religious stripe, who are guilty of insufficient self-examination.” So why single out the Mormons? As you said, “It would be a shame, I think, if SHAFT became little more than a Mormon-bashing club.”

I certainly agree that Jon and Dude could champion the argument: “Residing in the truth is a necessary condition for genuine human happiness, and in order to apprehend the truth a certain amount of self-reflection is necessary,” and I would join them in defending it, as I also agree that it is neither ‘insensible’ nor ‘absolutely subjective.’

Continuing the quoting of a great man and thinker, may we draw from Socrates’ humility: “All I know is that I know nothing;” and reflect on his approach to sharing his knowledge: “I was never anyone’s teacher. I merely offer myself to be asked and to answer questions.”

P.S. I also think everyone could benefit from a philosophy class. Why not convince the university to include a class in the GE requirements?

While I certainly applaud Daniel’s call for humility, this can become a vice when it turns us into wet noodles. I hate the Gospel of Nice whose only law is to “not judge”. Now ‘who is to judge?’ Well, no man is in a position of absolute knowledge, so our judgments always have something of a provisional character to them. But we must make judgments about what we take to be true, because we must act in accordance with beliefs about the good, the true, and the beautiful. Beliefs about such things are made more reliable the more they are reflected on, philosophically examined, etc. Beliefs about such things are less reliable (though not necessarily false) when they have not been subjected to any sort of examination. So who is to judge? Well, we are — but let’s be committed to humility and truth along the way. That some feel content (which is different that ‘happy’) and safe with their beliefs does not, it seems to me, justify not examining themselves. Quite to the contrary, as Socrates says: “An unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates seems to be saying here that even if those unreflective persons FEEL “happy”, they are in fact in a miserable state and have lives that are “not worth living”. That is really quite a claim.

I think we get carried away by our cult of individuality. We are all human beings. We all have the same nature (we are the same KIND of thing). What is good for the goose is good for he gander. When it comes to things like happiness (or at least any robust meaning of that word), I think we can only hope of a general sketch of things (Aristotle makes this point). But we should still be able to make general claims about what is good for man (most agree that ‘happiness’ is the good of man, it is that which we all pursue).

So perhaps Jon or Dude would want to defend the claim that: ‘Residing in the truth is a necessary condition for genuine human happiness, and in order to apprehend the truth a certain amount of self-reflection is necessary.’ That looks like a pretty good claim to me. It certainly does not appear “insensible” and “absolutely subjective”.

So Jon/Dude want to argue that Utah Mormons have a cultural tendency to “shrink” from self-reflection. This does not appear to me to be a “personal attack” but rather an observation. Frankly, it appears to be an accurate observation (though I think we could find any number of groups of people, of whatever religious or non-religious stripe, who are guilty of insufficient self-examination). The interesting question is not WHETHER people are sufficiently self-reflective (they clearly are not) but WHY are they not? To the case of Utah Mormons, are they not because of (a) the cultural homogeneity around here makes people comfortable or (b) there is something in the Mormon culture which actively discourages critical self-reflection or (c) there is something essential to Mormonism itself which discourages critical self-reflection.

But these are the ramblings of a man who genuinely believes that everyone would lead a better life if they took a good philosophy class (isn’t that cute, Harrison believes in what he does). There are, of course, more immediate needs (food, shelter, etc) and in light of any shortage of those (Haiti) philosophy can seem a luxury. But I think there is something necessary about philosophy.

My first question: is it wrong, ignorant, or otherwise careless to not critically examine one’s beliefs? If you say yes, than I do indeed agree with you. However, who are we to so judge? I believe that virtually every human being can agree that one of the purposes of life is to find happiness. If, then, there are theists and atheists that find happiness in their beliefs, why should they need to challenge them or critically view them? Is it wrong not to? Are we more intelligent than they because we have a desire to? The answer, I think, is no. And I therefore find nothing irrational about your father’s unwillingness to examine your arguments.

Another question: what does ‘critically examine’ mean? Again, in the world of subjectivity, what to one might be a critical examination might not be to another. My point is that I think Dude and possibly yourself might be too presumptuous in assuming that because others are unwilling to engage in what you define a critical examination of something, they are shrinking from a higher intellectual plane.

Finally: I believe that many people are so sure of their beliefs that they see no need to examine other points of views. While I do not necessarily agree with such an opinion, I don’t think I can presume to judge their position as incorrect. Again, I think this all comes down to how impossibly subjective our views are, especially when it comes to what we believe in. For example, Jon, every day that you live as an atheist, believing that atheist views are correct, increases the likelihood that you will dismiss any theist or anti-atheist claims. Equally, every day I live as a theist and embrace theist thought strengthens my resolve to stick to those beliefs. Therefore, the more firmly we believe something, the farther we move from objectivity, and the possibility of viewing or examining something objectively. This is why atheist and theist thought, extremely contradictory in nature, can each attract a significant followership. Each group can view the same sentence, the same sample of evidence, and disagree about it! It is all subjective!

My appeal, then, is that everyone, atheists and theists alike, refrain from making personal attacks (e.g. ‘shrink from critical examination,’ most Mormons are not truly interest[ed] in objectively examining the validity of their beliefs’) because such attacks are insensible and absolutely subjective.

The fallacy in Dude’s comment is that, quite honestly, it is impossible for anyone to examine their beliefs “objectively,” and Dude’s comment is an example of this impossibility. I say it is impossible because the very idea of being objective means completely removing yourself from any and all frameworks, belief systems, paradigms, etc. and examining something through the resulting lens, and we know that is impossible to do.
In other words, it comes down to this: when I evaluate my beliefs and determine what is truth, how does ‘Dude’ know that I am not doing so objectively? Simply because he/she disagrees with the outcome?
Indeed, to assert that “Mormons are not truly interest[ed] in objectively examining the validity of their beliefs” is nothing less than an insensible claim.

Hope it’s okay to write here … can’t find any direct way on the SHAFT web site. I enjoyed your award-winning article in September’s FFRF. I was in SLC in June for UUA General Assembly … we gave LGBT rights some good support, I think. A bus load of us will be in DC on October 11. Keep up the clear thinking and writing and your efforts to make the world better. Thanks! — Chuck

Love, Dad

Now I don’t want to turn this into a family blog- I am interested what others think of this discussion.

Now, I’m not calling you stubborn—perhaps I just wasn’t terribly persuasive. But where I failed in our discussion, I had hoped to succeed with this article. Given your initial post, though, I don’t think you’ve given it a fair reading. I mean, my article dealt with a number of the objections that you raised in your post. They are legitimate objections, to be sure, but that’s precisely why I preempted them in my article.

For example, I agreed that there are better things to do than to criticize religion. But that something is less important does not mean that it’s unimportant. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

So it’s not enough to argue that criticizing religion is of paramount importance; your argument has to be that criticizing religion is bad. That’s a tougher sell.

The closest you get to making such an argument is the following: “I believe that those people who chose to be religious should be allowed to do so…”

But of course, my criticizing people’s beliefs don’t deprive them of their beliefs for the same reason that Mormon proselytizing doesn’t force anyone to believe in Mormonism. If people leave the church due to my arguments, it’s because they chose to. I’m no Jedi—I can’t simply compel people to believe or disbelieve something.

“Soon I will be forced to enjoy this blog as an interested “reader” rather than an active contributor because I find myself nearing the limits of my mediocre intellect.”

While I want you to continue to be engaged in the discussion at this site, I hope you do remain an interested reader. I’m really quite proud of this site.

“Jon believes that these “experiences” have scientific or physiological explanations.”

If you haven’t already, I’d ask that you read my article on the (in)validity of spiritual experiences: http://usu-shaft.com/2009/why-i-dont-believe-the-unreliability-of-spiritual-experiences/

“Perhaps the sure knowledge of God is locked up in the 80% of our brain that none of us have successfully gained access to yet!”

This is a digression, but you should know that the claim that we only use 10-20% of our brains is a long-debunked myth.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

And finally, a comment about Floyd Little’s quote: I actually credit your teaching me that motto as a kid for much of who I am. I’m sure I took to it more literally than you intended, though.

Love you, dad.