A few months ago I blogged about Brandon Flowers’ interview with Richard Dawkins. In the interview, Dawkins launched a vicious and unprovoked attack on Brandon’s LDS faith. I’ve often thought of how I possibly could have responded to Dawkins. I respect him as a scientist, as he is an important pioneer of neo-darwinism, and I accept the theory of evolution. It bothers me that someone so intelligent would lump Mormonism in with all other religions, mocking the Book of Mormon’s absurdities in the same way he would mock the Bible’s absurdities. Mormonism is very different from other religions, and I think we deserve our own special critique from someone as smart as Dawkins, one that takes into account Joseph Smith’s unique views on the nature of reality, views which are at odds with the rest of the religious world.
My scientist brother-in-law once said “Joseph Smith was an atheist.” This is an absurd statement of course, but it is true from a certain perspective. Joseph Smith’s Mormonism shares many of the same philosophical views as atheism, views which differ significantly from traditional Christianity. These views include empiricism, rationalism, criticism, materialism, and realism. While Dawkins would certainly take issue with Joseph Smith’s views on science and philosophy, I think he should recognise that Mormonism is a worldview that cannot be as easily dismissed as traditional religious views which focus solely on supernatural belief.
LDS Empiricism
Empiricism is the theory that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience. It is the foundation of the scientific method: experimental observation and physical measurement. Joseph Smith’s religious experience was empirical: “I had SEEN a vision, I knew it and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it.” At the end of his life, Joseph Smith confessed: “If I had not experienced it myself, I would not have believed.”
This is a radical departure from Christ’s admonition: “blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed.” Belief in the face of doubt is a central Christian preoccupation. Yet in Mormonism we scarcely hear the word “belief.” Instead we hear people say “I know,” a claim based on individual empirical spiritual experience.
Richard Dawkins should appreciate the LDS commitment to empiricism. Joseph Smith didn’t ask his followers to follow blindly. He gave them formulae to receive their own spiritual witnesses, just as scientists do in their proofs. Dawkins would argue that “spiritual witnesses” are psychological delusions. If we are deluded, fine. But at least give us credit for approaching and interpreting our delusions with empirical integrity.
LDS Rationalism
Joseph Smith approached religious faith in the same way that a scientist would approach an experiment. Spiritual experiences came as the result of following a set of formulas or laws. Moroni’s promise is a formula: 1. read, 2. believe, 3. pray, 4. receive spiritual evidence. Alma’s “seed of faith” presents a similar formula: 1. desire to believe, 2. nurture the seed, 3. watch it grow. Oliver Cowdery had a similar formula for translation: 1. study it out in your mind, 2. ask if it be right, 3. feel a burning in the bosom, or 4. feel a stupor of thought. Ultimately, Joseph Smith believed that all blessings, including spiritual experiences, were contingent“upon obedience to the laws upon which they were predicated.”
Mormonism deemphasises the arbitrary and supernatural element of “grace.” Grace is simply the fruit of following a particular formula of obedience, not the superstitious grace of Christians who believe themselves to be saved if they accept Jesus as their Saviour. Mormons and atheists share a philosophy of individual autonomy, immune from arbitrary grace, with success in life given to those who know and follow the laws of nature the best. Both the atheist and the Mormon seek to discover these laws and obey them. The only difference between atheists and Mormons is that Mormons discover divine laws through a spiritual experiment “upon the word,” while the atheists discover natural laws through scientific experiments and observation.
The LDS Tradition of Conjecture and Criticism
A tradition of conjecture and criticism arose during the Enlightenment which challenged the secular and religious authorities of the day. This tradition gave rise to the scientific method which has completely transformed the world in which we live. Early Mormons shared their era’s ideals of conjecture and criticism and they applied these ideals to theology. I’ve blogged about the early LDS phenomenon of “debate clubs” where members met to speculate and argue about various points of doctrine. Joseph Smith famously said that Mormonism has no creed and even allowed members to challenge him on some of his theological views (although he became much more authoritarian after the Missouri debacle.)
Joseph’s revelations were not just dogmatic exercises in religious faith. He recognised that his “translations” could sometimes be wrong and he wasn’t shy about modifying previous revelations. He once wrote: “If you will listen to the first promptings, you will get it right nine times out of ten.” These are not the words of a Biblical-style prophet, but an Enlightenment era spiritual experimenter who was anxious to share the tools of the trade with all of his followers. (For better or worse, this culture of conjecture and critique has been largely abandoned by the mainstream church, in favour of correlation, which is not open to criticism. But I think the spirit lives on in LDS council meetings, where members sometimes engage in spirited debate regarding policy and procedure in their local ministries.)
LDS Materialism
When Joseph Smith claimed “all spirit is matter,” he divorced himself from nearly all the religious and philosophical views of the day. In traditional Christianity, spirit is intangible, immaterial, and mysterious. The existence of this Spirit allows religion to account for the mysteries of the universe without having to understand or explain them. Nothing infuriates atheists more than having to argue with someone who insists that the mysteries of the universe are evidences of an unknowable God. They retort: “But if God created the universe, then who created God?!” For atheists, the appeal to mystery amounts to a renunciation of progress and learning, an insistence on eternal ignorance, for if “God did it” there is no reason to question how or why it was done.
But Joseph Smith claims that God is tangible, measurable, and knowable. There is no “magic” in Joseph Smith’s universe. There is a man behind the curtain and that curtain can be pulled away and one can witness exactly how every mystery is accomplished. Indeed the whole purpose in life is to try and pull away that curtain (or pass through the veil in the LDS view). In Joseph Smith’s universe, one can only pull away the curtain by following a certain formula: “obedience to a law upon which it is predicated.” Atheists are also trying to pull away the curtain, and Joseph Smith would say that they only fail because they are not following the correct formula. But the goal of atheism and Mormonism is the same: the pursuit of universal truths in a knowable, material universe.
LDS Realism
Like Newton and Einstein, Joseph Smith was searching for a “theory of everything.” He believed in an ordered universe where “all truth could be circumscribed into one great whole.” In science, this pursuit is called “scientific realism.” Currently, one possible “theory of everything” speculates that every particle in the universe has a tiny little string inside of it. This string is wrapped around 26 different dimensions of spacetime. These dimensions, and the way in which the string wraps around them, give the particle its special properties.
This is all well and good, but there will never be a “theory of everything” unless it can account for the very real spiritual evidences that Mormons come across in their pursuit of truth. It is not enough to dismiss spiritual experiences as mere “psychological delusion.” Little by little, science is getting closer to seriously investigating spiritual phenomenon. The budding science of “emergence” investigates the mysterious interplay of neurons in the brain which somehow add up to create consciousness. What is guiding this process? Scientists don’t know. But they are working hard on the problem.
Mormons know the answer: each brain has a spirit inside of it. However we should not be content with that answer. Like Joseph Smith, we should ask ourselves: what is that spirit made of? How can it be measured? How does it work? In these questions, we share the same goal as atheistic scientists even if we don’t share the same approach. We are seeking “to become like God” and eventually to become creators ourselves. Atheists are seeking to understand consciousness so that it can be artificially created. Same goal, different approach.
In my mind, these similarities and common goals should give us more respect for one another. In many ways, atheism is closer to Mormonism than traditional Christianity is. It is time to put away our irrational prejudices and build on our common ground.
Questions:
- Do you agree that atheism is closer to Mormonism than traditional Christianity is?
- Do you identify with Joseph Smith’s brand of empirically-based, formulaic spirituality, or more with the traditional, grace-based model?
- Do you see the universe as knowable and measurable, or mysterious and immeasurable?
- How would you respond to Richard Dawkins’ dismissive and ignorant attack on Mormonism?
Wheat & Tares 
Well, I’ll start by saying that I don’t think you should expect nuanced religious opinions from Richard Dawkins or from folks who think similarly. Not saying there necessarily is anything wrong with that, just that you shouldn’t *expect* to convince them about some sort of value to religion.
But to answer your questions:
on this comparative level, I think this is absolutely true, and I think that’s why there’s often long-standing disagreement and distrust of Mormonism from traditional Christians. Mormons want to emphasize that Mormonism believes in God and Jesus, etc., but really, there are some big differences that can’t or shouldn’t be glossed over.
That being said, i don’t think that Mormonism can be described so neatly. Even if it has materialistic, empirical elements, it also has other aspects that definitely differentiate it from the sort of new atheism that Dawkins represents. (It’s also quite telling that you focus on early mormonism…because a lot of the things Joseph did are not how Mormons do things now.)
For example, asserting that spirit is matter more fine sounds materialistic, and the process of gaining a testimony can be framed in ways that sound quite empiricist…but at the end of the day, the existence or the connotations of a term like “spirit” are going to be seen as unjustified from a new atheist perspective. Mormonism still ultimately has to take such an assertion axiomatically. Or, on the empiricist point, the new atheist would challenge that Mormonism relies on things like emotional confirmation (which, of course, Mormonism would never reduce it to just that) in the absence of objective evidence.
recently, i’ve come to be more intrigued with grace-based models. not saying I am a traditional Christian, but just that it seems more interesting to me now.
I find this dichotomy to be somewhat unfair of the traditional Christian perspective in some ways. While yes, traditional Christianity does emphasize divine mysteries and things like that…there are also strong logically rigorous traditions that Mormonism (to my understanding) simply doesn’t have. See medieval scholasticism, Thomism, etc.,
In fact, when someone retorts, “But if God created the universe, who created God?” this shows that they simply do not have a good philosophical grasp of what exactly is going on with the first cause argument. In some sense, the first cause argument is a logical deduction. God in this argument is a “plug” for the being that is logically deduced as being the first cause. (Why can’t this just be the universe? Because of pesky things like matter, which don’t appear to be eternal.)
There is another sense too in that a lot of traditional Christians would point out that the universe’s regularity, knowability, and measurability is consistent with divine planning. Obviously, atheists can disagree that that is a necessary prerequisite, but this isn’t the case of Christians saying the universe is unknowable and atheists saying it is…rather, the Christians say, “To the extent the universe is knowable, this is consistent with God’s existence and a lot more difficult to explain without God”.
Unfortunately, on the level that Dawkins relates to religion at, I don’t think you can really respond. For however as much you want to make Mormonism as being concerned about empiricism, and rationalism and things like that, I think that if you define these things on secular terms, Mormonism simply won’t win. If you want to make Mormonism about historicity and literalism, I just don’t think it’s going to turn out very well.
Andrew, thanks for engaging with the post. I know I can’t expect nuanced opinions on religion from Richard Dawkins. But Dawkins is a missionary for atheism, and as a missionary, he needs to understand his audience. If he understood that Mormons interpret their spiritual experiences empirically, he would be able to offer a reasonable critique that might inspire Mormons to rethink the way they conceptualise a spiritual experience and draw them closer to his view. But by being so dismissive of Mormons, he simply makes more enemies of atheism, making them LESS likely to embrace anything like neo-Darwinism.
You are right that I have described Mormonism in an unbalanced way that emphasises its formulaic, empirical side. In a way it’s a bit strange that I found myself writing this post, because I generally disagree with formulaic, empirical Mormonism. It’s what Mormons share with traditional Christianity that moves me most, a more grace-based view. But I respect the rationalist side of Mormonism, and I use that side to connect to the science-loving side of my personality. Mormonism can probably be understood in many different ways. I offer this view as a way to connect with atheism and not see it as such a foreign enemy.
I don’t understand enough about the philosophy of “first cause” to respond to your comment, but it sounds very interesting, and I’ll have to look into it.
Nate, I agree Dawkins doesn’t appear to make much effort to understand different religious perspectives. He often paints as much a caricature of the religious as many religious paint of scientists I think. Unfortunate all round.
I do think the material aspects of Mormonism are somewhat dated, and don’t carry too much weight today though.
As a Mormon turned Atheist, my primary response to your post would be that while Mormonism has some elements of empiricism, Enlightenment thinking, and science, it is still very much a religion based on faith, the supernatural, and unprovable claims. Deepak Chopra may use sciencey words like quantum, consciousness, and energy, but he is in no way a scientist. And his use of sciencey words doesn’t bring him closer to science than what a witch doctor does. It just makes him a better salesman.
Take Moroni’s promise. It is not an empirical test. There are millions of people who have applied that promise, many of them tens or hundreds of times. In what percentage of those cases has the promise been fulfilled? I know we usually dismiss negative results as the person not having faith or real intent, but that’s what I mean about it being a non-empirical test. It is not a rigorous, definable experiment that can be consistently repeated. And when people fail the test, we do not question the test, we question the person. Even Mormons who are born in the church spend a lot of their youth trying to get a testimony of the Book of Mormon through Moroni’s promise. How many, after praying many times with no answer, have an epiphany where they realize that they already know the Book of Mormon is true and so don’t need a spiritual manifestation? Is that a successful application of the test? Merely structuring it in the language of a scientific test does not make it empirical.
When Joseph Smith called spirit more refined matter, he was using scientific terms. But matter has atomic mass. It exerts force on surrounding mass. It is observable. Even dark matter, which cannot be directly observed (yet), exerts a measurable gravitational pull. So calling spirit matter, yet matter that cannot be observed, tested, measured, is no different than Chopra’s quantum energy force. It is in the realm of faith, and trying to put it in the realm of science is sleight of hand.
Something I think a lot about is the difference between how Joseph Smith translated an ancient language, and the way modern linguists translate an ancient language. Joseph Smith, when he translated the Book of Mormon, did not work out the principles of the reformed-Egyptian language, try to understand its grammar, break it into its constituent parts. He supernaturally had the text transmitted to him. If you have the chance to watch “The Mayan Code,” it is an amazing documentary about how scientists, working over decades, slowly cracked the Mayan written language that was carved all over Mayan ruins. They worked for years, spending entire careers carefully copying the glyphs, making tiny breakthroughs such as deciphering the counting system and calendar, one scientist building on the breakthroughs of each previous scientist, and managed to crack a written language that had been dead for centuries. And today they can read the language. It was a feat like translating ancient Egyptian but without the Rosetta Stone. I think those scientists would be offended by someone claiming to translate an ancient unknown text in a couple years. At the very least, they would be extremely skeptical.
As an atheist, I don’t really care that much about claims that something is mysterious or unknowable or supernatural. But I do take exception to someone trying to take a spiritual claim and disguise it as a material claim, like dressing creationism up as intelligent design, or homeopathy as science-based medicine. I think Dawkins would react the same way. Mormonism should admit and embrace its supernatural foundation. It cannot and should not play by the rules of the empirical and scientific, because that is not its realm.
Nate,
Dawkins understands his audience: “new atheism” as a movement probably sees Mormonism (and other religions) similarly as he sees it, so he’s not alienating his actual audience. His audience is not Mormons or other religious people, because he has already dismissed those people as being hopelessly deluded/mistaken, and not worth seriously engaging. (As he would say: there is no reason to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…this idea is not worth seriously engaging and the only energy it requires is the energy to deride it.) If there is enmity between the two sides (as there is), that’s not his problem because he doesn’t really care about building bridges.
He doesn’t need to know anything about how Mormons view or conceptualize their spiritual experiences to assert that “spiritual experiences” in and of themselves are not empirically verified in a secular context. That Mormons assert otherwise (or assert that other things can be verified via secular methods, like the historical aspect of Book of Mormon events, and so on) doesn’t mean that they’ve actually done the work — just saying that spiritual experiences are empirical and the Book of Mormon is historical is not the same as doing the neurological or psychological work to replicate spiritual experiences as an external phenomena, or finding archeological evidences that support BoM events.
This, btw, is why I think there’s a lot of problems with disaffection. Mormons are raised to believe that the religion is empirical, rational, realist, etc., etc., etc., but then they run into issues justifying it from a secular context.
People should and need to realize that Dawkins is a very poor researcher and has bad judgment with reality. That being the case, it’s no wonder he is both an atheist and a staunch evolutionist because both mindsets do not require one to think rationally nor do proper research. Dawkins is the Devils advocate trying to destroy the good works of Christ.
Nate,
Respectfully, though I’m not an atheist, I agree mainly with Joel on this issue. I think when Mormons say “empirical evidence,” they mean what you claim they do: That they’ve had a subjective, highly individual personal, “spiritual” experience. This, of course, is not the same as “knowing” (it’s more like “feeling”, and thus, highly subjective) and I think one reason why Dawkins and others are dismissive of Mormons is that we don’t seem able to make that elementary and rather crucial distinction between subjective “knowing” and universally (or nearly so) accepted and understood actual, empirically verifiable evidence.
Also, I think your claim about Joseph Smith’s rationalism is specious at best. Yes indeed, he did apply the formula you mention, however, as Joel points out, he was not a trained linguist (hence, when Mormons claim he “translated” the Book of Mormon, that’s not actually what they really mean. Terryl Givens uses the word “produced” and I think that’s more accurate) nor an historian nor an archaeologist. These shortcomings means he relied solely on God’s grace (gifts) to do what he did, meaning he is quite far from rationalism, at least as I define it. Atheists and Mormons may both hold a belief in some sort of autonomy, but there is a chasm of difference between natural law and divine law, again, at least as Mormons talk about it and as someone in the 19th century would have understood natural law.
So to answer your questions, I think Mormonism is a religion that believes in a divine being and is thus not atheism. For all that Mormonism rejects “traditional” Christian trappings like an emphasis on grace or the liturgical calendar, it’s nonetheless, in my opinion, much more like most Christian sects than it is like atheism.
As far as empirically based or traditional “grace based” spirituality, I think it’s a false dichotomy. Both models rely on God’s grace, just in different ways. Mormons believe that we must do all we can to earn salvation, but even they admit that we would fall woefully short of earning Heaven without a substantial dose of God’s grace, so really, both models are grace-based, they just differ in terms of the mechanism of its application.
Definition of Empirical: “Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment”
While Joseph may have experienced a heavenly vision, it is hardly verifiable or provable by anyone else in history, or we would have other “First Vision” accounts. Instead, Joseph is in a special group of Moses and Mohammed. That is hardly verifiable by experiment. How on earth can you refer to the First Vision as empirical?
You really should learn the definition of the words you use Nate. This is just more jibberish.
For whatever it’s worth, empirical can also refer to something based on experience (as contrasted to something deducted logically)… So it’s not as if Nate is misusing the term. The first vision by definition is experiential, not deduced. Empirical evidence is sense data. Joseph Smith’s claims are either that he saw God with his senses as we would conventionally understand the senses, or that we gave alternative spiritual senses that should be regarded as operating similarly.
Certainly, this can be challenged as lacking replicability, but it’s really harsh to say Nate’s post is jibberish. I prefer how Joel and Brother Sky have put it.
Joel, I agree that Mormonism, from a scientific standpoint, is “bad science.” Everything you say is correct regarding the incompatibility of LDS truth claims with the scientific method. My point in the post was not that Mormonism was legitimate science, but that philosophically, it shares some of the same goals and approaches to truth.
You make some good points about atheists. Perhaps atheists would even disrespect Mormonism more than other religions because they “hijack”scientific language and philosophy to try to prop up a bunch of supernatural truth claims, instead of just admitting that it’s all about faith and belief.
Even though my post was directed at Dawkins and atheists, I am really speaking to an audience of fellow Mormons. Of course I don’t expect Dawkins to read my post. My true intention is to try to convince Mormons to respect atheism and recognise some of the common ground we have. Perhaps I should have rewritten the introduction to reflect this goal.
Thanks for commenting.
Andrew, I think it is unfortunate that people like Dawkins see Mormons as “hopelessly deluded/mistaken, and not worth seriously engaging,” on the same level as any Bible thumping creationist. I believe Mormons are in a different categor. There are many Mormons working in high level sciences and we have a strong cultural belief that true science and true religion are completely compatible. This makes us very different than typical creationist believers who are openly antagonistic towards science.
By carpet bombing religion in general, Dawkins does his cause a terrible disservice. Dawkins is EXTREMELY important in the scientific community, as one of the pioneers of neo-Darwinism which as radically transformed our understanding of evolution. But because of his side-hobby of attacking religion, he is loathed by believers, even believers who could be openminded enough to accept many of his scientific claims. Whenever his name is mentioned in a church setting, I’m surprised to hear that EVERYBODY seems to know who he is, and that he is our enemy. But scientifically, he is NOT our enemy. He is a great scientific pioneer, one who deserves the respect and admiration of Mormons for his achievements.
I agree with the point you make at the end: “Mormons are raised to believe that the religion is empirical, rational, realist, etc., etc., etc., but then they run into issues justifying it from a secular context.”
This is one of the big drawbacks of the “rational” LDS culture. Our faith is weak because we are overconfindent in the scientific viability of our experiences and truth claims. This is what happened to Brandon Flowers in the interview. He tried to defend the Book of Mormon by saying something like: “well many scholars have studied the Book of Mormon and they have found that it would have been impossible for Joseph Smith to….” Mormons don’t realise that this is completely untenable ground. Perhaps that is a subject for another blog post.
Nate,
I will actually respond to both your comment in 10 and 11.
I think that even if you address this to a Mormon audience, you have similar problems…just from the other side. To build a common ground with atheism, you have to somehow argue for a Mormonism that doesn’t require spiritual experiences as they are usually talked about, etc., But this differentiating factor is pretty important for Mormons, and as much as its presence is a dealbreaker for a new atheist, its absence would be a dealbreaker for a Mormon.
re 11:
While I can understand the desire to distinguish oneself from a “Bible thumping creationist” (especially since the most devout Bible thumpers tend to see Mormons as a non-Christian cult, so there is enmity there), I really have to emphasize:
Despite the church officially not taking a position on evolution, Mormons poll about the same as Evangelicals in terms of accepting evolution (on 22% vs evangelical 24%). Certainly, some other bloggers have commented that this could reflect the way the poll question was *worded*, but just from the data we have, it would be fair to say that Mormons have a lot in common with Bible thumping creationists because Mormons *are* bible thumping creationists. And yes, I agree that there are many Mormons with research goals in biology, evolution, etc., But you can also find evangelical Christians who are biologists who accept evolution, etc., That doesn’t change the fact that the median believer in either community is probably not going to believe.
You say that Mormons shouldn’t consider Dawkins an enemy, especially scientifically. But to the extent that only 22% of Mormons would answer a poll that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth, then something has to give.
I think your final paragraph really highlights the issue. For Dawkins and others, science, history, etc., entail certain conclusions about events, how things work, what we are as humans, and so on. Even Mormons who want to claim that they are for rigorous science, history, etc., have to admit that their faith espouses other conclusions about events, how things work, what we are as humans, that don’t appear to be supported or supportable from the dominant secular scientific or historical paradigms. This could certainly be discussed in another post in further detail, but it’s also VERY relevant to this post. As Joel and Brother Sky both pointed out — just claiming to be scientific doesn’t mean that your claims actually live up to that.
Brother Sky, good points, and again I concede that I am guilty of overselling the rationalist side of Mormonism in this post. This perspective is meant to investigate common ground we may or may not have with atheism. But as you note in several of your points, there are many insurmountable conflicts that Mormonism has with atheism and science in general.
Regarding the “subjectivity” and “objectivity” of spiritual experiences, I think you are correct that Mormons are taught to interpret their spiritual experiences objectively, and I think this can sometimes be detrimental, because spirituality is inherently subjective. I like what Nibley says of spiritual experiences: “in part self-induced…but it does NOT produce the thing that it hears.” In many ways it seems like Joseph Smith was objective in his interpretations of his spiritual experiences, but things like the multiple accounts of the first vision may give an indication that he saw them somewhat subjectively, as an experience open to reinterpretation.
MH, I concede that I sometimes am guilty of extending definitions and meanings. I had never read the words “LDS empiricism” until I wrote them, and I am aware that scientific empiricism is different from what Joseph Smith was experiencing. I use the word “empiricism” because I find it the useful in interpreting Joseph Smith’s emphasis on sensory experience as an essential element in a faith journey. I am not an educated philosopher or theologian, just a freewheeling blogger trying to make sense of my strange religion, and this takes me down some tenuous paths. I’m sorry if some of my observations are too “out there.” No doubt they sometimes are.
Andrew, alas, you are probably right. As you mentioned in a previous comment, this post relies more on early Mormon theological conceptions, which were probably more science-friendly, at least in their underlying telos. Mormonism has since moved on to be dominated by a more conservative, authoritarian worldview. This post is no doubt a fruitless attempt to project the Mormonism I WISH were more dominant.
(I haven’t read the comments, so be gentle.)
This is a topic that hits very close to home for me since these (misperceived) parallels between atheism and Mormonism were the well-paved path that led me out of the church. It’s taken me over 10 years to realize that I was, for very ideological motives, reading these parallels into my own religion more than I was perceiving what was actually there.
Empiricism: Empiricism is a refusal to accept sense data that is not publicly available. The idea that all, or even most of JS’s visions were third person available is doubtful. Also, Mormonism does not refuse to accept anything beyond this. All epistemologies, Mormonism included, accept sense data in some way or another, but this does not make them all empiricist.
Rationalism: The idea that there is one scientific method, let alone that Mormonism follows it, is pure ideology that doesn’t withstand “empirical” investigation. Different disciplines use different methods and the only motive for lumped some of them together as “scientific” is only aimed at rhetorically excluding others. That said, I’m not sure what any of this section has to do with “rationalism.” It seems much more concerned with the ideological reification of natural laws above all persons, even God – thus taking Plato’s side of the Euthyphro Dilemma. It is by no means obvious that this move truly is native to Mormonism.
Conjecture and Criticism: I agree that the school of the prophets had striking parallels with the salons, coffee houses and clubs of the enlightenment. That said, I think the differences are at least as striking as the similarities. Within JS’s school, everybody was NOT on the same level and JS definitely retained the right to open, trump and close debate on most subjects. He rarely presented careful arguments based in shared experience/premises, but instead would frequently say things like “that’s of the devil”, “thus saith the Lord”, etc.
Materialism: Yes, JS said that all spirit is matter, but he also said that all matter is intelligent. With that alone, any close parallel between scientific materialism and LDS doctrine evaporate into thin air. I would also repeat that the metaphysical status of “divine laws” is by no means clear. Were such things decided by the God Himself? The divine council of gods? Co-existing intelligences? Or do they just exist as timeless, Platonic forms? If anything, I think classical Christianity gets closer to atheism on this point.
Realism: The issue here does not seem to have anything to do with realism vs anti-realism so much as reductionism vs holism. If we are going to use “circumscribed into one great whole” as a proof text, then Mormonism does NOT fall on the same side as Dawkins’ science in this debate. Within this debate, we ignore JS’s strong admiration for the Germans at our peril.
In conclusion, the idea that Mormonism bares any resemblance to a Dawkinsian kind of atheism is based in a large number of highly questionable assumptions. The only reason why such assumptions go unquestioned by some people is because they’ve never been exposed to their alternatives. It is only when Dawkins and his gang of scientific popularizers are the only people we’ve read outside of Mormon literature that we are tempted to think that these parallels are deeper than they really are.
Wow Jeff, you have really dismantled my arguments.
Let me be upfront on exactly how I came to write this blog post, which might help me find a way to build myself back up. I had just finished reading David Deutch’s The Beginning of Infinity, and was quite impressed with it. Deutch is a scientific realist like Einstein, an extreme rationalist. Even though I’m much more existential in my views I found myself being won over by his arguments .Before I read Deutch, I had largely abandoned what I saw as Mormonism’s philosophical materialism and overly formulaic approach. But after reading, I did a rethink. This blog post is part of that rethink. It’s a way for me to re-explore this objective side of Mormonism which I had long ago abandoned. I was thinking that maybe I’d gone off too far into existentialism, and it’s time for me to work my way back to a more objective view of reality.
Existentialism has given me the mental space to stay in a church that has paradoxes and absurdities. But now that I am safely inside my existential bubble, perhaps I can wander back to see if there is anything to glean from Joseph Smith’s objective philosophical approach, even if I don’t come to the same literalist conclusions that he and most other Mormons make from them.
In any case, if Mormonism is “the truth,” then it is probably big enough to encompass a variety of paradigms, including my psudo-scientific one, AND Jeff’s anti-scientific one. I recognise that this blog post presents an incomplete paradigm designed to highlight a biased picture. But every paradigm is biased in some way. This blog post is my way of trying to understand the objective side of Mormonism in a compassionate way, because I’ve been perhaps too subjective in my approach to Mormonism for so long.
I’m just extraordinarily suspicious of science popularizers who are nowhere near qualified enough to act as cultural critics and philosophies, let alone prophets in our lives. When they write those books, they are not doing science, and thus, by their own reasoning, can safely be ignored.
Put differently, I see no reason why Dawkins, Darwin, Einstein or any other academic scientists has any more authority over my life than the Wright Brothers. They’re helpful, they do great things. But they are not the ultimate arbiters of truth, goodness and how I live my life.
I really like what the other commenters have said.
The main problem with experiental data is that physical sensations are untrustworthy. It’s all about how the brain interprets the data that’s been given, and many factors affect how the brain interprets any given data. Medications or tumors can elicit hallucinations. Amputees still feel the presence of lost limbs. Not everyone’s tastebuds work the same, not everyone’s eyes work the same, etc.
In the same way, we understand that not everyone feels the spirit the same way. There’s no scientific way to determine whether “burning in the bosom” is Holy Ghost vs. heartburn. Why do some hear voices, some hear visions, while others never experience those events? What about Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery standing in a room with other men, both privy to a vision that the others cannot see? There are too many variables in these experiences to be replicated in a scientifically valid way.
I see the universe as ultimately knowable, but I do not believe we are close to having the equipment and knowledge necessary to fully comprehend what are currently seen as mysteries (so it’s currently unknown and mysterious). For example, I could see mortal humans (on *this* side of the veil) creating the tools that could measure and empirically observe spiritual matter, but right now we don’t seem very close. The neat thing about science and religion, though, is that there will always be more to discover. It’s unwise to definitively rule anything out, because there’s a good chance a future discovery could prove you wrong. We use the data at our disposal to create hypotheses and theories, but we understand that future data should still be considered and brought into the equation. The church uses similar wording when avoiding calling previous leaders wrong on certain issues, describing them as merely working more “limited understanding.”
So I agree with others that we’re considerably closer to traditional Christianity rather than atheism. Because of that, I don’t know that I could respond a whole lot better than Brandon Flowers (especially with that impromptu level of attack). If Dawkins was looking for an archaeological response, I’d argue that everyone knows the lack of data cannot definitely prove a negative in this field due to the inherent difficulties with different types of artifacts surviving in different environments. But I agree that no data has been found to support the historical claims that we ascribe to the Book of Mormon. Ultimately, I don’t think scientific data *can* be gathered right now to provide definitive support to any religion, but I don’t rule out the possibility that it won’t be found in the future. My belief is admittedly irrational and based on personal experiences, which I cannot expect anyone else to replicate (though I freely encourage them to try).
“Mormonism deemphasises the arbitrary and supernatural element of “grace.” Grace is simply the fruit of following a particular formula of obedience, not the superstitious grace of Christians who believe themselves to be saved if they accept Jesus as their Saviour. Mormons and atheists share a philosophy of individual autonomy, immune from arbitrary grace, with success in life given to those who know and follow the laws of nature the best.”
Maybe the mormonism of BRM but not me. And I don’t see it as the fruit of obedience or see myself as being immune from “arbitrary grace”. Grace comes as a result of Christ’s atonement and is the help I need for salvation in “doing all I can do”.
“Mormonism deemphasises the arbitrary and supernatural element of “grace.” Grace is simply the fruit of following a particular formula of obedience, not the superstitious grace of Christians who believe themselves to be saved if they accept Jesus as their Saviour. Mormons and atheists share a philosophy of individual autonomy, immune from arbitrary grace, with success in life given to those who know and follow the laws of nature the best.”
I don’t see it as the fruit of obedience or see myself as being immune from “arbitrary grace”. Grace comes as a result of Christ’s atonement and is the help I need for salvation in “doing all I can do”.
When I first started blogging, one of my goals was to challenge the stereotype that atheists are jerks. I maintained that people perceive atheists as jerks because they are upset by having their cherished ideas challenged — but I set out to demonstrate that challenging ideas isn’t the same as attacking people, and that challenging bad ideas doesn’t make you a jerk.
Then Dawkins comes along and undoes my pitiful little amount of work by challenging religion — and being a humongous jerk in the process, in ways that have nothing to do with rationally challenging bad ideas.
Now, I have given up my mission — at least until the day that Dawkins mercifully decides to retire from Twitter and the rest of the public eye.
I was a believer until I began to study Mormonism. Now I am an atheist.
#22 chanson – “I set out to demonstrate that challenging ideas isn’t the same as attacking people, and that challenging bad ideas doesn’t make you a jerk.”
Still a worthy goal. No one gets a respite from sharing ideologies with at least one public in-your-face jerk.
chanson, with your long history of great blogging and commenting, you’ve convinced me, FWIW.
The analysis and thought in the comments has been striking.
I have just discovered this site, and found it quite interesting. Then I found this article and the responses. Fascinating !
I will leave a short comment because I’m not sure if anyone will read this long abandoned thread.
I think the author and many of the commentators don’t really grasp what atheism is.
There is only one characteristic of an atheist mind which makes it atheist. It’s actually nothing to do with science or philosophy at its most basic level. The best way to test for atheism in yourself is to answer this question: “Do one or more gods exist ?”. If you answer “yes” you are a theist, otherwise you are an atheist.
Notice that it’s the rejection of theistic claims which makes someone an atheist. That’s all there is to it really. So people when they are born are atheists, but of course ready to upload theistic beliefs, rather like language, if exposed to it.
Dawkins himself was a theist, praying as a young boy, but later went on to examine the main reasons why he was accepting of god claims, and reject them. Why did he reject them ? Because there is no evidence of any gods existing. Now I know this seems outlandish to many Mormons who have been so immersed in theism since childhood, but actually it is a scientific fact.
If you wish to continue this discussion, just reply with any questions, or do some research yourself.
You will find that almost all theism is based on the argument from authority, (believe me because I’m your parent or your teacher etc), or the argument from ignorance, (we don’t know how it happens so a god must have done it), two well understood logical fallacies.
Regards Peter