In her talk “The Evolutionary Roots of Religious Adaptation” for the Mormon Transhumanist Association, Chelsea Strayer hit on one of the fundamental sources of tension between devout and academic perspectives on faith: the distinction between process and purpose. She gave the example of evolution, emphasizing that when she teaches evolution it is fundamentally a discussion of process rather than purpose. Despite this, however, she recounts that:
Every time I teach an evolution class… I have one student walk away and say, “Hey, you just told me that God doesn’t exist. You just proved that.” And I’ll have [another] student say, “You just proved that God is the smartest person ever.” I’ll have two students, same lecture, walk away with both of those [impressions].
The whole talk is fascinating—and definitely worth watching in its entirety—but it’s the tension between process and purpose that I want to focus on.
Let me give another example of this. Walter van Beek’s excellent piece A temple, a temple, we already have a temple has been persistently on my mind since he posted it a few weeks ago. The meat of the post is this comparison of the dimensions of the Temple of Solomon and the Second Temple with the Book of Leviticus:
The Second Temple would have the same dimensions. It is this structure that, on close reading, does inform the book of Leviticus. The rules and prescriptions fall into three unequal categories: the chapters 1 – 17 pertain to all the rules of purity and cleansing for the public, the sins and their forgiveness: this is the public section, the Outer Court. Chapters 18-24 handle the duties of the priests, details on the sacrifices, this is the holy place. Finally, the last part, 25-27, handles the law of the Jubilee, when special sacrifices are offered up to the Lord, when slaves are freed and debts cancelled: the Holy of Holies: Leviticus has the structure of the temple plan.
But there is more to that. The 17 chapters constitute a reading tour around the Court of the Sacrifice, from the entrance seven to the right, seven to the left, and three mediating the transition to the Holy Place. Chapters 18-24, another seven, form a virtual tour of that rectangle, while the three last chapters form the apex of the meeting with the Lord. The symbolism of the numbers is clear: 3+7+7, 7 and 3. This may sound farfetched, but in the worldview of post-exilic Jews is not: Leviticus is a temple in words.
This is, to use Strayer’s terminology again, an analysis of process. And, like Strayer, I affirm that “the process is fascinating in and of itself.” But, just like the student who concluded from Strayer’s lecture on evolution believing that God must not exist, there seems to be a potential attack on historicity that lurks beneath all close analysis. Quoting van Beek again:
Exodus gives a wonderfully detailed description of the ark and especially of the tabernacle, richly decorated, with lots of gold and silver, rich tapestry, and intricate construction of the ark and a tent made of dugong or badger skins. The description of the tabernacle takes up almost half of Exodus and does raise a lot of questions. Dugong or badger, the skins of which should cover the temple, the discussions on the meaning of tahash (tabernacle, but that is a Latin term for tent) is still raging, but both animals are equally unbelievable inside the Sinai desert, especially in the numbers of skins needed for such a tent cover. But the whole description of Exodus 24 – 40 is highly questionable: the idea that all these metals, rare fibers, special woods, and exotic dyes could be found in the desert is, to say it in correct academese, ‘extremely improbable’. The tent was probably much simpler and smaller, and a description of the Tent of Meeting (Exodus 33:7-10) would fit in with that notion, but there we are in an E part of Exodus, the older source. The exuberant description is a P text, Priestly, much later, in effect post-exilic; as I said earlier the description of the temple in Exodus should not be read as a blueprint for building, but as a reminiscence of a lost temple; in exilic times this would evidently be the Temple of Salomon, as remembered in Babylon, projected into the pre-history of Israel in the desert. A temple in words is what they created.
We now have the phrase “a temple in words” being used—or at least being capable of being understood—in two distinct ways. In the first passage I quoted, it conveys a sense of surplus: there is a temple in words in addition to the physical edifice. But in the second passage it can be read in a way that is supplanting rather than adding: a temple in words instead of the physical edifice. The Tabernacle was, to at least some degree, fictional. Solomon’s temple was, to at least some degree, fictional. What we really have is just a text, and the text is enough. Does it really matter, then, if the Tabernacle or Solomon’s temple were entirely fictional? I don’t know that this critique was intended. It seems innate.
This represents the greatest threat and greatest promise of intellectual Mormonism. You can see profound beauty when you dig deeper, but there’s always a risk that—rightly or wrongly—you will come to believe that you have unmasked the magician for the mechanic that he really is. Can we recognize the beauty and power and mystery of words and ideas without giving up on the dream of God made real? Of God imposing—not symbolically, but literally—His presence into our world? Of Jesus as a literal man who literally walked among us, who healed real, physical infirmities and in some meaningful sense enacted an Atonement that is a profound, powerful symbol but also something more?
Here are some thoughts, but no final conclusions.
First, there seem to be lots of people for whom wholesale substitution of symbols for historical or literal truths isn’t a problem. I am not one of those people. It’s like the cliché in movies where someone dies and the survivor is told that it’s OK because the person isn’t really dead. As long as you remember them, they will live on in you. This is true and beautiful as far as it goes: our actions will continue to ripple out after our deaths. But my reaction is still: That’s not good enough. Ripples fade to nothing and in the end the result is the same: eternal silence. We were promised something more.
Second, Mormonism seems designed in a way that is fundamentally hostile to symbolic reductionism. As often as people may say that the Book of Mormon is just as spiritually profound even if it’s totally ahistorical, the position seems discordant. Joseph Smith peered into his hat to translate, so why go to the trouble of having gold plates at all? Why the insistence on a physical artifact, found in a stone box next to other physical artifacts, buried in the dirt? Why the witnesses to testify to the physical reality of the plates: their dimensions and heft? As Terryl Givens observed in By the Hand of Mormon, the narrative of the Book of Mormon translation process seems calculated to frustrate symbolic reduction. It’s almost as though ahistorical symbolism had been anticipated and preemptively rebutted.
Mormons have carried this stubbornly simplistic view into all aspects of our theology. Why else the insistence on literal baptism by immersion by proxy for those who have passed on? Every other denomination seems content to deny the total necessity of baptism, deny the physicality of baptism, or write off a large proportion of the human population as unsaved. Only the Mormons viewed physicality as so axiomatic that the entire problem became essentially logistical rather than theological.
Third, the peril of intellectualism may function as a reminder that though the glory of God may be intelligence, being lucky enough to be born with high IQ and access to education do not constitute shortcuts to righteousness. Scripture study for the gifted may present greater possible benefit, but it has a great accompanying risk. We are all trapped, no matter how smart or educated we happen to be, between the rock of simple-minded, nonsensical literalism and the hard place of over-intellectualized, meaningless symbolism.
Fourth, it’s possible that this problem may be an aberration of contemporary culture. We live in a highly materialist culture. Not materialist as in “consumerist” (although that may also be true), but materialist as in a belief that material reality is fundamental. Thus: scientism and physics envy. Some of these problems more or less evaporate in an idealist paradigm. And that’s a real possibility, as examples like this one illustrate: Is Information Fundamental?
What if the fundamental “stuff” of the universe isn’t matter or energy, but information? That’s the idea some theorists are pursuing as they search for ever-more elegant and concise descriptions of the laws that govern our universe. Could our universe, in all its richness and diversity, really be just a bunch of bits?
The ontological status of symbolism changes radically in a world where it is information and not matter/energy that are truly fundamental. In such a world we would no longer be talking about a physical temple or a temple of words because those would be just two different medium for the same information, like writing the same text as a series of 1’s and 0’s on a hard disk drive or as a series of hand-written alphabetic characters on a piece of notebook paper.
I don’t know if the problem of process crowding out purpose is an elemental aspect of the human condition, an equalizing handicap of intellectualism, a byproduct of materialist ascendency, or if it is something altogether different. I do believe, however, that the text of the scriptures and the narrative of the Restoration enact an aversion to symbolic reduction. It is impossible to know exactly what is literal and what is allegorical or symbolic or poetic or exaggerated in scripture, but that there is a kernel of literal, historical truth seems non-negotiable. Symbolism alone, at least in our current paradigm, is really not good enough.
I loved this line: “It’s almost as though ahistorical symbolism had been anticipated and preemptively rebutted.”
I have never thought of it that way before, but now that you put it that way it seems obvious. Where I struggle is the question of the degree of ahistorical symbolism found in the Book of Mormon (if any). For example, to me it seems most likely that at least some of the Book of Mormon was inserted by Joseph Smith himself. (I suppose it’s possible that the Book of Mormon just happened to touch on every theological question of Joseph’s day, but like I said, it seems more likely…)
What I’m trying to say is that while the Mormon narrative certainly resists complete ahistorical reduction, I think SOME reduction is still possible (though not guaranteed).
Literal vs symbolic? Isn’t everything but oneness with God symbolic?
“Seeing is believing” we like to say but seeing is just a representation, a symbol of what we are attempting to engage and that image looks different to different species! So which of those images is the only true image? Material is the illusion of far more substance than than actually exists given the vast space that exists between particles. So what is “literal”? It is a pacifier concept that we derive the illusion of security from. What is the LDS church? It’s a church based on ” literal” belief designed for people who are more comfortable with a mortalized version of “spirituality” than spiritual spirituality. Isn’t the church is a “literal” symbol that substitutes for a personal one-on-one relationship with the divine?
IsaacH-
I definitely agree on that. We’re stuck. Literalism doesn’t work. but complete symbolic reductionism doesn’t work either. We’re stuck in the middle, with a constant temptation to over-literalize or over-symbolize.
Two comments about my earlier comment:
1) I overstated how much I actually think this is true. It’s more of just a thought I have had.
2) Second, even if it is true, I’m not saying that these are not prophetic additions. Joseph spent much of his prophetic career revising and adding to ancient texts, and doing so in a way that revealed truth. We actually know of one instance in the Book of Mormon where he did this, by adding the phrase “or the waters of baptism” to 1 Nephi 20:1. So it doesn’t seem a stretch to me to think that this may have occurred in other places.
“The ontological status of symbolism changes radically in a world where it is information and not matter/energy that are truly fundamental.” You are suggesting that there is a difference between information and matter/energy. That position, IMO, is a product of our limited natural understanding.
According to scripture, the earth was created via Jesus Christ, also called “The Word” (book of John) or “The Spirit of Truth” (D&C 93), likely related to biblical concepts of wisdom, knowledge & understanding (Proverbs). In D&C 93, truth is defined as “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.” We would state in everyday language that it was through Priesthood Power that all things were created, but according to scripture, it would appear that priesthood power is derived from divine knowledge. Further, because the difference between spiritual and temporal appears to be a product of our natural understanding (to God, all things are spiritual — D&C 29), it would seem that divine knowledge of “things as they really are” would give a radically different understanding of the mechanics of the universe, one where understanding of divine truth becomes the creating power and all elements are obedient to spiritual laws.
Nathaniel,
I think the our cultural materialism is much more material than you do. Its about food and sex and guns not science and theology. We aren’t aware of any information that is not instantiated in a way explained by physics.
I wish Strayer would have linked back to selective pressure within religion. There is competition between religions but also always reproductive competition within religion. Evolutionarily speaking it is always variation and differential reproduction that matter not just needs being met.
Its a double sided coin for religion to expose its selective advantages because the evolutionary logic for a a low reproductive religion or non-religion is to commit religicide. This is part of the end-game for why evolution has always been a dangerous concept. Once the mechanism of differential reproduction is well-understood and hard to disguise, those lacking a particular genetic advantage have a strong incentive to reduce its prevalence in others by any means they can.
Evolution understood as evolution is the interesting new cultural force in the world now.
Great post and agree almost precisely with your point of symbolism vs. literalism. Particularly when it comes to death. Persistent memories or persistent atoms just don’t do much for me.
Many years ago in college I had an epiphany. “God is math!” Later I disabused myself of that idea. But I have found myself in a cycle my entire life thinking I understand, realizing I don’t, thinking I understand, realizing I don’t.
I’ve gone round enough times that I’m grateful for new insights, but wary of every thinking I’ve got it all figured out.
P.S. Sam and I joined the MTA last summer. One of my favorite outings every month!
One of my main concerns lately (that I think is relevant to Nathaniel’s post) is this concern for literal, logical, and cognitively consistent truth. I think this is a western academic/positivistic biased. I debated a philosophy professor this year at sunstone on this very topic [Sunstone 2014: Session 355 “Shades of Faith: What is Truth?” Audio file:https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/audio-files-from-the-2014-salt-lake-symposium/%5D Why I think this topic is important is because the process can be “true” regardless of the purpose. What of the “truth” of the social and emotional realities of being LDS. I’m not jaut talking the symbolic meaning. Believe me, as an anthropologist, this is an important distinction. I’m speaking of the psychosocial reality of belonging to a group, having an explanatory model, making meaning in misfortune, a system of acceptance, boundary maintenance/rejection, restitution, etc. These are all “true” biosocial realities of process that exist regardless of purpose; regardless of symbolism. Religions were never about logical consistency. In fact, the opposite is true. The less intuitive, the more sacrifice, the longer a religion lasts. It is the peculiar that increases costly signals and group commitment. I guess what I am trying to say is to evaluate the process or purpose of religion in cognitive terms is a modern lens and probably the least informative. We all know what you’ll find. If, however, we can begin understanding the real- material if you will (because we can’t escape our western paradigms religious social or psychological “truths” we arrive at quite different conclusions. And not less inspiring, scientifically significant or personally applicablecss, I might add.
Brilliant post, thank you. This captures the vexing dilemma perfectly:
You can see profound beauty when you dig deeper, but there’s always a risk that—rightly or wrongly—you will come to believe that you have unmasked the magician for the mechanic that he really is.…Can we recognize the beauty and power and mystery of words and ideas without giving up on the dream of God made real?
So what, precisely, makes religion different from drugs in that when we under stand the mechanics of drugs, we still get high, but apparently for some of you, when you understand the mechanics of religion you don’t get high anymore. That’s weird and cool.
So csstrayer, who has the evolutionary advantage in seeing themselves as an instrumental and material and still reproducing at a high rate? You mentioned that we weren’t built for this type of environment, but are there any signs of people who have had more reproductive success under this new environment – that use their knowledge of evolution in an evolutionary way? (other than the people who defrauded people at infertility clinics by using with their own genetic material- nasty business that one.)
Martin, that is probably a better question for Nathaniel and another post maybe as its not super relevant here except that religion as adaptive also functions for survival and not just reproduction, i.e., group belonging, costly signals of group commitment, making allies, in-group loyalty and individual sacrifice, dominance and status hierarchies, medicinal healing, judicial and familial conflict resolution, etc. As we become more complex, gene and individual selection have to compete with group selection. Nathaniel is a proponent of this theory. I have more reservations but there is a lot to be said for religion’s role in social selection (much like sexual selections) where seemingly maladaptive traits (like the peacock’s elaborate tail) are advantageous to success in another realm (i.e., top religious big man= social, plumage= sexual), which leads to increased fitness and the frequency of one’s genes in subsequent generations.
#10 Martin, a good portion of a “religious” high is the brain causing chemical changes to your body as a reaction to psychological stimuli (music, ritual, literature, etc.). For drugs, the majority of the effect is found in the predictable reaction of the foreign chemicals to the body’s receptors (although placebo effects indicate that psychological elements can play a role). It actually makes a lot of sense why psychological “letdown” would impact someone’s religious experience.
Yes, but why is it a “letdown” to know how it works?
“Psychological” elements are also chemical.
Or said differently, why does our enjoyment of some stories depend on whether it is a “true story” and others not? What is the difference between Nathaniel’s pleasure in the Book of Mormon and his pleasure in science fiction?
Horror movies seem to be less of a scary thrill when they are based on fact. I mean who sees movies about the holocaust for kicks?
To me, mormon literalism demands us to understand the psychological process in all its chemical detail, but I seem to be the minority opinion on that one.
Also did any one else find it odd that Nathaniel referred to jesus as a literal man? What did his DNA look like literally?
Why is CZ or glass valued less than diamonds? To the naked eye, CZ & glass can look identical to a diamond and both serve the same purpose in adornment. Why does anyone care about the difference? It comes down to what we value as a culture. We value time (millions of years for diamonds to form, CZ and glass can be produced almost instantly). We value rarity (CZ can be mass produced, glass is easily produced from common sand). We value human labor (effort required to to extract and cut the diamond is much more than CZ or glass). Like Nathaniel mentioned above, our modern Western society currently values material reality — “facts” that can be empirically proven and repeated in controlled experiments. Along with this “enlightened” thinking, proven historical fact has gained in value at the expense of unverifiable “myths.”
When watching a movie on the holocaust, the characters depicted hold inherent value — they represent real people, real facts. When watching a fictional horror movie, the cheap thrills come because the characters don’t hold any inherent value. If a character dies in a horror movie, you can laugh or recoil from the graphic content, but nothing of value has been affected. In a movie based on a real story, when a character is killed, you are watching the representation of a thing of value being mistreated. How many times have people been killed in fictional TV shows? But when a terrorist releases a video of a journalist being beheaded, even the news media recognizes this is too real to share comfortably. This affects us because that reporter represents something real, something of value, that has been treated in a shocking manner.
If the scriptures are based on historical fact, they become “real.” Even if they are not meant to be taken literally in every sense, that kernel of historical truth instills them with value to most people in our modern culture. They testify that deity interacts with humans — if true, that is an incredible fact. It is a fact that has the power to change someone’s life. If untrue, can this interesting collection of stories and myths from ancient peoples far removed from our modern culture still have value to me? Parables are understood to be fiction, yet they can teach important truths. If I were to understand all scriptures as just elaborate parables, could I still value them in the same way I do when I believe them to contain a least a little historical fact?
Can I still value my belief in Jesus Christ and the Atonement if he never actually existed? Can I still find value in the Atonement if Jesus Christ was actually the biological son of Joseph instead of deity? For me personally, I need to believe in the historical fact of Jesus Christ’s divine conception in order to have faith that he really has the power to make me “at-one” with the Father.
Mary Ann,
Wow. That was a well thought out reply and I appreciate it.
I appreciate your perspective. It makes sense to me. However, for me, saying that there is an historical fact of a divine conception only has meaning if we have some concept of what a divine conception and what kind of biology it involves.
So, either it doesn’t “really” matter that its an historical fact and we just say “oh that’s a mystery we’ll find out in the afterlife” (in other words, if we have no idea what kind of “fact” a divine conception is in its particulars, then it just can’t be that important that its historical. Nothing really hangs on it.) Or else the “facts” do matter and then we shouldn’t prioritize some facts over others in terms of what counts as evidence of what. If historical facts matter, then the whole thing needs to hang together.
That’s the dilemma to me – everyone has a really hard time keeping a story straight – a story that lines up with the facts and with their beliefs. People say they want facts to matter, yet for the most part the belief is mainly what matters. Its what I liked best about C. Strayer’s talk – that people aren’t that logically consistent but what does appear to be consistent is that we all cheat and apply tests of logical consistency to others compared to ourselves. Our truths are self-evident truths. The other person’s truths – well, they have to prove it.
Great post Nathaniel!
I believe the existence of plates and angels helped Joseph and his followers exercise faith in what was happening. As mortals, we often need tangible, material things, crutches upon which we prop up our faith. Do our bottles of consecrated oil contain real healing power? No. But the oil is a tangible token in which to place our faith, which does have power. Joseph Smith’s seer stone was just a worthless rock he found in a ditch. But because he believed in it, it became a portal to receive heavenly messages. As Joseph Smith matured, he stopped using the seer stone, because he was mature and experienced enough to access heaven without it.
Nathaniel, i don’t view nonliteral mormonism as discordant as you do. Ask this question: “If our Joseph Smith was in a different world, where, like this one, he believed his calling was to translate an ancient record that would heal sectarian strife and bring the native inhabitants of this land to Christ, but unlike this world, he was unable to obtain the actual plates, would he have felt justified decieving people about whether he possessed the record in order to increase their faith in this scripture?”
I can’t think of anyway to draw a moral matrix in which it is okay to kill someone to bring forth scripture (1 Nephi 4) or to lie to them about the existence of hell, or it’s duration (Section 19), but not okay to deceive people about whether you were in the immediate possession of the record you were translating. It’s not a very brave leap to say that Joseph was sometimes willing to break a few ethical eggs to make an omlet.
Having said this, i do like the post. Literal Mormonism has a lot of strengths that nonliteral Mormonism lacks. But I don’t see nonliteral members holding views discordant with the historical record.
#19 Dave Richards, I think you are right, if you’re willing to accept the possibility of deception, it opens up a lot of possibilities — ones that don’t sit well with me, but I can see where you’re coming from.
But if the answer is just “Joseph lied about that” it seems difficult not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Assuming Joseph’s sincerity has always seemed important to me ; and relatively easy, actually. Certainly people can (and do) claim Joseph was delusional and manipulative, but it seems harder to claim he was insincere — the martyrdom and all that.
It may not have been deception, all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure. Joseph may have been in the possession of the plates but in their spirit form.
I get the sense that Mormon doctrine was originally preached mostly as literal truth, and this is the case with many other religious doctrines. However, as the world’s population grew and Mormonism spread and Mormons came into contact with different cultures and philosophies, many intellectuals wanted to have their Mormonism and eat it too. So they turned many of the hard-to-swallow doctrines into symbols in order to assuage the pangs of cognitive dissonance that comes with modern education and its seeming irreconcilability with Mormon teachings. But you’re right that there are many teachings that just can’t be reduced to symbols and have to understood as literal truth in order for Mormonism to be sustained. Hence, intellectual Mormons, as long as they want to remain intellectual, can last only so long in the Mormon church. They either have to engage in some pretty major mental gymnastics to reconcile traditional doctrines with modern science, or just abandon intellectualism altogether in order to remain an active believing Mormon. The future Mormon rank-and-file will not have a strong intellectual class among them. An increasing number of intellectuals will leave the Mormon church during their teens, twenties, and thirties, and the stalwarts will be literalists.
Modern science knows a decent amount from practical observation, but it still doesn’t understand anything on a fundamental level, as such, we are no closer to being able to understand many scriptural miracles than someone 400 years ago. However, on the bright side, we are able to look at things so much better with technology that it is starting to foster a new generation of observational progress that will hopefully refute a lot of the mental gymnastics of the universe abstract mathematicians created in the 20th century.
As the scripture says, to be learned is good if one hearkens to the commandments of God. If you’ve been lazy about living the Gospel and have not warranted any confirmatory experiences, then I agree you are very likely to be shaken in the harsh climates of public education. On the other hand, spiritual experiences help one to see through hollow false dichotomies and be patient in acquiring understanding.
Still spiritual confirmation doesn’t make nonsense true or why do we study it out in our minds and ask if it’s true?
To clarify my above comment, I’m not insinuating that anyone who questions their faith is lazy, but I do think that a lot of people are shocked when they learn things about the scriptures and history because they haven’t been learning or studying all along.
Steve Smith,
Since a significant share of intellectuals have always felt it was important to deceive the masses, why would mormon non-literalist intellectuals have to leave the church?
It all depends on what you “believe” in.
Dave R-
Well, as I said in the original post, some aren’t bothered. I am. To get to your specific question:
I would contest the idea that anyone was deliberately lying about the existence of hell or it’s duration. More importantly, however, I do not think it is reasonable to assume a univariate ranking of immoral actions and then apply the transitive property willy-nilly. They idea that murder < deception, so if someone murdered they must be willing to deceive is, frankly, absurd. The moral matrix you posit is quite brittle and unrealistic, and it's connection to human motivations tenuous at best. But there's a more important concern for me: even if I posit the notion that Santa Claus deceptions may very well be a part of God's plan, the idea that I'm so clever I don't need the deception doesn't follow at all. In short: if my best reading of the scriptures and words of the prophets is that we're expected to treat certain things as if they were literal, than I consider myself (1) honor bound by covenant and (2) dependent enough on God to go along with it. There’s some ambiguity there, of course. Perhaps only lesser, dumber Saints than me needed the fairy tales to keep their flickering candles of faith and I’m so sophisticated and scientific that I don’t need their crutch. In other words: I need not believe that there is a normative injunction to be simple-mindedly literal about things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon or of Christ. But, as my sarcastic tone indicates, the real problem I have with that line of reasoning is the smug and self-congratulatory nature of its underlying assumptions. The idea that I’ve outgrown my faith, either historically (we’re smarter today) or demographically (I’m just really clever relative to the teeming masses) is a big, flashing, warning symbol that triggers some pretty serious evasive maneuvers in my spirit. If that’s the nature of the road of symbolism, I don’t want to go down that road. Let me put it very simply: if the God I worship wants me to be deceived, then–even if I were too clever to be fooled by the deception or too sophisticated to need it–I would go along anyway. (However, the notion that I’m too clever and sophisticated relative to the other, lesser, weaker Saints is seriously troubling in and of itself.)
Steve Smith-
That’s an objectively false statement.
I’m not denying that there are tensions between intellectualism and faith. Intellectualism is a form of power. There are tensions between all forms of human power–wisdom, physical, monetary, political, military–and faith. I’m just pointing out that the Church can and does maintain it’s share of intellectuals, just as it does maintain good-looking members, rich members, and politically well-connected members. The temptations of power are potent, but not irresistible.
Perhaps Santa Claus deceptions are actually myths or maybe one reading of a parable or a pacifying explaination offered to the people of a simpler time.
#17 Martin – “Its what I liked best about C. Strayer’s talk – that people aren’t that logically consistent but what does appear to be consistent is that we all cheat and apply tests of logical consistency to others compared to ourselves.” I don’t disagree with you. I admit that there are some things that I need to be historical “fact” (even if I don’t understand the mechanics) in order for *my* belief system to work, but I don’t have the misconception that everyone will agree with me. I agree that adherents to religious systems will fudge a lot of stuff logically, it goes back to what #8 csstrayer said, “the less intuitive…the longer a religion lasts.”
My comment explained why we value historical “facts” or literal truths in order to better understand or justify our belief systems (hence the popularity of apologetics). Taken to an extreme, people who desire to believe only those things which can be justified by observable facts will tend towards scientific explanations and reject notions of deity. At some point, intellectual Mormons fall short of that, which means they must decide to take something on faith. However, no two individuals will choose to accept all the same notions as historical vs. myth, literal vs. symbolic, understandable fact vs. mystery.
It made majoring in anthropology at BYU really interesting. The professors there all have an obligation to teach their fields of expertise, but the LDS ones also feel a responsibility not to threaten the faith of their students. Like in the example at the beginning of the post, many students see no logical inconsistency with the theory of evolution and their belief system. Some students, though, really struggle because it conflicts with whatever “fact” they’ve previously decreed to be fundamental to their belief system (consciously or subconsciously). One of my LDS anthropology professors devoted an entire class lesson to fringe science topics, to help the kids see examples of scientists who didn’t necessarily buy the theory of evolution as currently explained (“See? You can still go into your field of expertise and have doubts about this issue”). Most LDS anthropology professors supported the view that if a student couldn’t reconcile the issues in their mind, they should go with whatever best helps them keep their faith (but they needed to learn the scientific theories anyway to pass the tests). And yet, all these guys were vile apostates according to one of my BYU religion professors. ;)
Slifo-
That kind of recentism is exactly what I’m trying to avoid. I think the image of people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago as credulous dupes is (1) false and (2) dangerous. We enjoy massively superior standards of living, but it’s not because we’re massively superior as individuals go, or superior at all.
Gosh I didn’t mean anything like credulous dupes!
Perhaps an example will help. Today we are regularly exposed to a virtual world and a knowledge based economy that brings value to our lives. As we were being introduced to it many struggled to wrap their minds around those intangible concepts that brought tangible rewards. So after going through that learning curve we now have better parallels to aid our understanding of the intangible concept of spirituality or of a spirit “world”. So as we progress in our understanding of these things our frame of reference expands allowing the use of different metaphors than would have been successful in the past.
I’m skeptical of the idea that we’re necessarily progressing on all fronts. Obviously our scientific prowess, on a societal level, is superior to past generations. But on an individual-by-individual level most people still basically use Aristotelean physics as their gut intuition (not Newtonian, let alone Einsteinian). Tremendous advances like computers and space shuttles do not, to my mind, function very well as evidence that your average man on the street is in any way more sophisticated now than 2,000 years ago. There are exceptions, of course. I’d say widespread literacy is a huge differentiation, but then again: how many adults are literate but never actually read a book? And there’s a flip side, too. You can make a solid case (many have) that the concept “virtue” has all but atrophied out of existence in modern society.
I’d wager that a lot of the apparent progress of civilization has to do with subtle, distributed changes (e.g. norms concerning efficient functioning of markets) that leave almost no trace whatsoever on individuals who benefit from those formal and informal institutions.
In short: society changes rapidly. People do not.
csstrayer-
I’m having a hard time understanding the different conceptions of truth you have at play here. I’m familiar with one set of competing definitions (e.g. correspondence vs. coherence vs. pragmatic), but I don’t know what fundamental distinction you’re drawing between, for example, “literal, logical, and cognitively consistent” vs. “the psychosocial reality of belonging to a group.” Is this a simple distinction between material or objective truths (e.g. mass and velocity) vs. truths that are intrinsically interwoven with human experience and perception? Because if that’s the case, I don’t understand why truths that depend on human perspectives (e.g. group status) are necessarily non-literal, non-logical, or cognitively inconsistent.
It seems like no matter which variant you pick (correlation, coherence, pragmatic), you’re going to be able to fit objective, scientific truth claims and subjective, social claims in the same over-arching paradigm. I’m not saying the two are identical (obviously), but merely that both seem like subsets of the abstract definition of “truth.”
Maybe I need to listen to your linked podcast.
Nathaniel,
It’s clear we disagree but just to be clear I’m not making the case that we’re *necessarily* progressing on *all* fronts rather I’m suggesting that today citizens of developed nations have access to grater (more specific) vocabularies, an understanding of more sophisticated (mortal) concepts and broader cultural experience (ways of doing things) than their 19th century or Biblical social equivalents. This increased (mortal) sophistication amounts to a broader and more sophisticated frame of reference from which a foreign concept may be contrasted, compared and considered for understanding. On an individual-by-individual basis the majority routinely use computers and cell phones but might find bridling a horse a challenge. Today Google is driving driverless cars and flying drones as are men and their children for fun in the park near my house. The 19th century and earlier were not simpler times? Today’s expanded and enriched concept-vocabulary has little advantage in understanding?
Slifo-
I think the crux of your argument is this:
And no, I do not agree with that assessment. It’s possible that an average human in the first world nation might have a more sophisticated vocabulary, but I do not believe that this necessarily deepens understanding, especially when you consider the offsetting negatives. For example: moderns are absolutely clueless when it comes to some pretty profound concepts like mortality. We don’t care for our own sick and elderly as they die, we don’t prepare the bodies for burial, and we don’t bury them ourselves. We have specialists for all of that, and it all takes place behind layers and layers of separation and sanitation that shut off and diminish the reality of loss, suffering, and death. We don’t hunt or butcher or slaughter our own animals. Don’t you think this near total isolation from morality might create a much more shallow cultural conception of death, no matter how sophisticated our vocabulary might be?
I’m not arguing the reverse of your position: that the people who lived 2,000 years ago were all wise sages and today we’re superficial dolts. I’m just arguing that people are, by and large, people. It’s possible that, on balance, we’re smarter, more sophisticated, etc. today than in the past, but I’m highly skeptical of that notion. I’m skeptical that it’s even possible to make such a broad comparison in any meaningful sense. And I’m especially skeptical of the breezy attitude that assumes our mere proximity to gadgets makes us better or smarter than the ancients, as though we could absorb by osmosis the finer points of electrical engineering or operations research or global supply chain management just by having an iPhone in our pockets.
People, as a collective, are certainly much smarter and more clever today than 4,000 years ago, but I see no strong evidence that, taken as individuals, we’ve got any substantial leg up in pondering the imponderables just because we’ve got flush toilets and HBO.
Nathaniel,
So I think it’s interesting that as a nonliteral Mormon, I can easily respect your views, but as a literal believer, your first instinct was to demagogue mine. Serious, why the sarcasm and rudeness?
I didn’t say anything in my comment that indicated I considered literal Mormons to be lesser than me, or dumb. I attend church each week because I’m enriched by the association with my ward members and don’t care if they do or do not believe in physical plates. I’m not ‘smug’ or ‘self congratulatory’ that I’ve arrived at a different conclusion about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I’ve held the orthodox view, and the change to a less orthodox position was not driven by an increase of intelligence.
I never said God wanted to deceive us. I did say that Joseph, like all people, acted with deception in some cases when he thought it was in people’s best interest. No credible scholar would argue otherwise. The examples are many and include misleading those whom he loved most. I don’t reject him for it, but it’s not a sin to factor such circumstances when evaluating historical claims.
If I misrepresented Section 19, tell me how. Does Joseph not imagine a God who intentionally deceives his followers about hell so that people would sin less? Did he not command Martin Harris to continue the deception?
Is it really absurd to think murder is far more serious than misrepresenting one’s possession of an ancient artifact? That when Joseph imagined Nephi in an impossible situation, he couldn’t have also been pondering his own ethical conundrum? I can see how that wouldn’t be very convincing to you, but it’s not ‘absurd’ for members like me to reach that conclusion.
I’m not looking to change anyone’s mind on this. I’m saying show a little hospitality to those members who love their Mormon community and heritage, but can’t believe in a one true church. Yeah, I’ve reached different conclusions, but my views aren’t discordant with the historical record nor am I a smug jerk. There are several strengths and weaknesses to both literal and nonliteral belief. One’s not better than the other. Or at the least, one position isn’t occupied by better people.
Hi Dave,
I think it is possible to read section 19 without calling it a deception, although I’ll readily admit that at this point it’s all semantics. There are times when, as a parent, you describe something to a child in a way that is not literal, but still communicates the truth — indeed, depending on the sophistication of the child, the non-literal analogy may BETTER communicate the truth than if you were to just explain it literally. I think there is ample reason to belive that this is what the Lord means when he says that He phrased it this way to work on the hearts of men — not because it is a lie, but because it is the most true way to communicate the principle.
Dave R-
First, I don’t think the term “nonliteral Mormon” makes any sense. All Mormon are non-literal about at least some things. I don’t think Job or Jonah are literal stories. Where does that put me?
Second, I don’t have anything against nonliteral Mormons per se if, by “nonliteral Mormon” one means “A Mormon who doesn’t believe X or Y are literal.” There are all kinds of reasons why someone might believe that X or Y is a nonliteral statement, many of which I might respect even if I disagreed with them.
Third, the bee you placed under my bonnet derives from the implicit dichotomy you drew with your rhetorical question: “Would he [Joseph Smith] have felt justified decieving people about whether he possessed the record in order to increase their faith in this scripture?”
Since you’ve already categorized yourself as a non-literal Mormon, it goes without saying that there are a category of people who do not need and/or cannot be fooled by Joseph Smiths prevarications. And then there is a category of people who do need–or at least are gullible enough to benefit from–same deception.
If there’s some way you think you can take the smug superiority back out of that implicit dichotomy, I’m all ears, but from where I’m standing it’s pretty much baked in.
Of course no credible scholar would argue otherwise. There is not an adult man or woman alive who has not “acted with deception in some cases when he thought it was in people’s best interest.” It doesn’t follow from your vague and uncontroversial generality (“sometimes deception is OK”) that Joseph Smith (1) fabricated angelic visitations and spiritual powers or that (2) those specific deceptions would have been moral.
What’s the actual principle you’re relying on here, Dave, that any lie is moral as long as it gets good results?
I do not think it is at all clear that Section 19 is an example of deception in the conventional sense of the word. I take it you’re referring chiefly to verse 7: “7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.”
In isolation, this verse would seem to lend credence to your argument: it’s the divine equivalent of God telling people not to masturbate or they would go blind. Threaten an unrealistically harsh punishment just to get good behavior, right?
Wrong.
15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
I’ve added some emphasis above to underscore an alternative reading. God wasn’t fabricating an unrealistically harsh punishment. He was, instead, giving the most accurate possible representation of the truth constrained to the limits of human understanding. You may as well argue that the scriptures were lying when they talked about the flames of hell. I don’t know if you’ve been burned or not, but I’ve had 3rd degree burns myself. They hurt. A lot. And so if I was trying to convey to someone that something was really, really, really awful I might reasonably pick the next-best approximation available and use that as the reference point. Similarly, by talking about punishment that went on forever in duration, God was attempting to impress upon the minds of His children the gravity of the pain they faced if they did not repent and rely on His Son.
I think only a pedant would try to argue that this is garden variety deception.
You don’t have to take this as 100% accurate, by the way, to recognize that it at least demonstrates an alternative view of D&C 19 that doesn’t reduce to God threatening us with the bogeyman to get more compliance.
That is not absurd. It is also not what I actually wrote. As a reminder: “They idea that murder < deception, so if someone murdered they must be willing to deceive is, frankly, absurd." By this logic you're saying that as long as a person did something really bad (no matter what the particular circumstances) they must be willing to do something less bed (no matter what the particular circumstances). So, for example, if I stole a car (because I needed to get my son to the hospital before he died of an allergic reaction) I must necessarily be willing to steal money from a lemonade stand (where a child is trying to raise money for his mother with cancer). Because stealing a car is worse than stealing a $2.00, right? That's your argument, isn't it? That we can categorically say X is worse than Y, ergo anyone who does X must be willing to do Y? Here's the final analysis, Dave. I'm not interested in attacking you or judging you personally. I don't have any opinion on whether or not you are smug, or anything else relating to your personality or character. What I am annoyed by is your argument, which--to my mind--logically entails a kind of smugness that I find dangerous and wrong. But I draw a big, huge, important distinction between a person's arguments and their character. Not the least because I've found myself on the other end of this: embracing arguments that had pretty vicious consequences I didn't realize when I embraced the arguments. So if I accuse your argument of being smug, it doesn't mean I think you, personally, are smug. I will frankly admit, however, that I'm skeptical of your "live and let live" approach to Mormon theology. Big tents are great, but even big tents have an inside and an outside. If Hyrum Heber Kimball Snow VII is born and raised in Utah of good, pioneer stock and memorizes the lyrics to Saturday's Warrior and goes to seminary and EFY and serves a mission and then joins the Catholic Church and becomes an ordained priest, then he isn't a Mormon anymore. It doesn't matter how much he identifies with his cultural heritage, and it doesn't mean that he's not a nice, great, awesome, smart, kind person. In accepting the claims that the Catholic Church has the authority to act in God's name and therefore the Restoration didn't happen, that Hyrum Heber Kimball Snow VII cannot be said to be Mormon. Same applies if he converts to Islam (which denies the divinity of Christ) or Judaism (same). Boundaries matter. So some different conclusions fall within Mormonism. Some fall outside. I would strenuously argue that rejecting the divinity of Christ is non-negotiable. But, even in that stark case, terms like "divinity of Christ" can be fuzzy and subject to interpretation. We don't have creeds, so our borders will always be nebulous. And I have zero interest in trying to force you (or anyone else) outside the tent. I want to welcome everyone in. But that doesn't mean that anybody's definition of Mormonism is equally valid. So if what you're asking for is a blank check to believe whatever you want and call it Mormonism and have nary a whisper of disagreement: I can't sign on to that. But if you really just want to say "one position isn't occupied by better people," well, I can sign on to that just fine.
OMG, I can’t believe I wrote that much.
Cameron N, we are also no closer to being able to explain reincarnation and the wonders of Lord Vishnu than someone 400 years ago. Modern science (and I mean science in the broader sense of empirical observation and reasoning) isn’t necessarily disproving the claims of religion, it is just making them appear all the more implausible and unworthy of serious attention. And its impact is strong enough to make more religious folks wonder if propping up the traditions of the past is really worth so much time and money.
To reiterate my comment, “intellectual Mormons, as long as they want to remain intellectual, can last only so long in the Mormon church,” what I mean is that the future generation of intellectuals (intellectuals in regards to matters Mormon, not intellectuals on all subjects) are much more likely to leave the Mormon church than remain in it. The apologetics of the past has died out. Nibley is dead, not just literally, but also figuratively. The new strains of apologetics may make a good run for a few years, but I don’t have high hopes that they will last long. In fact, I believe that many of the posters on T&S and other so-called ‘believing’ Mormon blogs are closeted doubters who stay active in the church simply because that is easier for them socially than falling away. Of course, I’m quite convinced that you, Nathaniel, are a strong believer. But Mormon apologists are also quite divided among themselves, and that significantly curbs their impact. It is becoming more common and more accepted to leave the church. Doubting Mormons (at least in the Mormon corridor or associated with it) of the past bottled their doubts up and played the game. The doubting Mormons of today just up and leave. Social media makes it known to them that they are not alone and gives them courage to do so. Of course, Mormonism will live for quite some time. The literalists tend to repopulate faster than the skeptics. Plus, they tend to occupy themselves with so many things that they don’t have time to question. Strongly literal believers are the life source of Mormonism. If a large wave of them in the Morcor become just questioners at a fast enough pace, the Mormon church will collapse.
Well thanks Steve for that comment. I, like you, now know it all.
Steve, I don’t disagree that many leave because of doubts or that literalists are probably the life source of Mormonism, but I do disagree that modern science is making religious claims seem increasingly implausible.
Steve, you are funny. Many Mormons outside the Mormon Corridor would be less than heartbroken if Utah Mormons left the church en masse. The church wouldn’t collapse. (Take a financial hit? Yes. Lose a significant number of the missionary force? Yes. Collapse into oblivion? No.)
Steve Smith-
Your analysis is about a century out of date. At the pinnacle of Einsteinian physics it might have made sense to say that modern science was providing such a comprehensive understanding of the universe–and one that didn’t seem to admit miracles or supernaturalism–that science was in effect crowding religion out. But then we get quantum mechanics, a field whose results–more empirically validated than that of any other field–are so truly bizarre as to make us fundamentally question whether we have any idea what the universe is really like at all. To say nothing of the epic steady state vs. Big Bang debate. It’s been pretty well swept under the rug at this point, but while the debate was raging everyone pretty well accepted that the Big Bang theory was basically a proxy of theism. And, you know, it sort of won. Based on the evidence. The fact that most people don’t even realize that a debate took place underscores the fact to which this isn’t really a matter of science vs. religion, but of cultural interpretation of science. Because when, as with evolution, religion seems to lose out everyone emphasizes the religious vs. science narrative. But when, as with the Big Bang, religion seems to win the topic gets quietly and emphatically dropped.
Meanwhile we’ve got scientists thinking seriously about the universe being a simulation and about information rather than matter/energy being the fundamental element (either of which are perfectly amenable to a kind of God-centric idealism instead of the currently vogue atheist materialism).
What you’re actually pointing out is that scientism, not science, is a threat to religion. And that is true. We have a generation of humanities majors who flout their devotion to evolution and science as a way of looking cosmopolitan and sophisticated. This isn’t the triumph of science. It’s the triumph of unintentional irony.
I think your hunch that the Bloggernaccle skews significantly away from ordinary membership is as true as it is obvious. Everyone knows that Mormon bloggers run towards liberal, both religiously and politically, relative to ordinary members. Your supposition about their motives seems an inaccurate as it is unkind, however.
I, for one, am relieved to hear that.
Nathaniel,
You make a great point in 36 regarding the sanitation of death in society today but if we want to know about say embalming or how to bridle a horse we can easily Google it, so while we may lack some of their in depth lived experience with some subjects like a closer proximity to and working relationship with death, an intellectual understanding of that basic subject is generally available to us. So on balance we have a *greater understanding* because it largely includes much of their understanding as well.
How does one explain a concept like “bandwidth” or “drone” or “airplane” to someone from the 19th century without attempting to describe something they can’t really relate to? Obviously you must start with something they can relate to. A big hollow bird that you can ride in is coming? It’s beginning to sound like a myth isn’t it? Shall we use the image of people walking into a big bird on our temples? Should we take that revelation as literally being a bird? Was Noah’s ark literally built to the dimensions found in the Bible? If so did it literally hold two of each? If so was it actually a global flood in the year claimed? Since those possibilities taken together are mutually exclusive given the diversity of animal life on the planet and the time that’s passed since the flood was supposed to have taken place something “literal” has to give here, doesn’t it?
What is the value of literal belief in the impossible?
When God speaks I believe he tailors it to our level of understanding and as the story goes Joseph was an uneducated farm boy. What frame of reference did an uneducated farm boy bring to the table to restore the gospel? How might have God explained an airplane to Joseph and how might Joseph interrupt and record it? Was a Tapir described or interrupted as a horse? Or should we insist on a literal belief of BoM horses? So perhaps I used the wrong words thereby implying some kind of global superiority in *all* things to you, if so that wasn’t what I meant, rather I meant we have a *different* understanding of things than they did and since our understanding *includes* at least intellectual understanding of much (not all) of their understanding it must more complete than theirs was.
Sorry, interpreted not interrupted.
Slifo-
The notion that we can Google “embalming” and somehow become acquainted with the reality of mortality in the same way as our ancestors understood it pretty much says everything I need to say about what I think is misguided in your argument.
First, because the “greater understanding” you speak of is, in cases like this, obviously superficial and shallow. Watching an instructional YouTube video about bridling a horse isn’t the same as working with a horse day in and day out as your primary source of livelihood. Second, because when you say “we” have a greater understanding, you’re referring to some kind of nebulous, abstract collective. The information is there, so to speak, on the ‘Net, but that doesn’t mean that actual, living, breathing, human beings possess it.
Sound far-fetched? Just check out the famous essay, “I, Pencil” (or any of its numerous, numerous reinterpretations) which makes a simple point: no one at a pencil factory knows how to make a pencil. Not a single person. Everybody only knows how to handle their particular, specialized task. So, in one sense, you could say “We know how to make a computer.” And it’s obviously true: we must know because we make them. But in another, very accurate sense, no one knows how to make a computer. There is not a single individual alive on the planet today who could tell you how to make a s single computer mouse from raw components.
So when you look at all the sophisticated inventions we have in modern society and attribute that sophistication to modern individuals you are making a grave category failure. Our society is advanced. We, as individuals, are not. We’re the same as we always were.
This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. You act as though someone from the 19th century couldn’t possibly fathom an airplane, when in fact people from the 19th century invented the airplane! Orville was born in 1871 and WIlbur was born in 1867. Their first successful manned flight was in 1903, but you can be pretty confident that they were working on it–and therefore understood the basics–back in the 19th century.
So there are two main points:
1. You’re drastically over-estimating the difficulty of explaining so-called “modern” concepts to people from earlier ages. The Wright Brothers started with kites, moved to gliders, and then created self-propelled flight. So any culture with kites has a pretty good referecne point to understand planes (but not to build them, of course). Earliest known example of a manned kite, by the way, dates to the 6th century. Way more than 1,000 years earlier than your proposed limit.
It’s not just flight, by the way. Check out the Babbage Analytical Engine which Babbage first described in 1837. If it had been built (it was too expensive so the British government refused to fund it), it would have been the first general-purpose computer way back in the 19th century. So not only could we explain airplanes to Joseph Smith, we could explain computers, too. This is because Babbage and Ada Lovelace (often referred to as the first computer programmer in the world) were visionaries, but the basic concept of a logic gate that forms the foundation of all computers is just not that difficult to understand, for once thing, and need not be electrical, for another. You can build a Turing machine (that’s a generalized, abstract model for any possible computation device) out of Legos. It won’t be very fast, true, but it will get the concepts across.
2. Sure, if you go back far enough then some modern technologies will seem like magic (especially if you don’t try to explain them), but the really key fact you’re missing is that it’s not that people have changed, it’s that our environment has changed. The Wright brothers were successful because they had access to cheap, light engines. Which have nothing directly to do with flight. Babbage was unsuccessful because he didn’t have access to cheap, fine-tuned mechanical gears. Which have nothing directly to do with computation. So the timing of an invention (like the airplane or the computer) has nothing to do with the intellectual capacity of the people living at a given time in history, and everything to do with their access to material components. This means that invention is not a product of individual genius, but of group-characteristics like interconnectivity.
This has been experimentally verified, by the way. The more tribes in the Pacific islands trade with each other, the more sophisticated their technology become. The more insular they are, the more simplistic. Since we’re talking about tribes that lived at the same period in history this showsthat technology is a function of aggregate variables (like network density) rather than individual characteristics (like intelligence, education, language, etc.)
Hi IsaacH,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my question. Section 19 has given me a little heartburn, so I appreciate your perspective.
I think your argument may work for those verses, but i don’t know if it matches the entire context. If i were to summarize it in the most critical way, i would do it like this:
1) Martin is not happy that his $1,500 loan is unlikely to get paid back because no one wants to buy a Book of Mormon
2) Martin is not happy that his life fortune is going to support a book which argues strongly in favor of an eternal hell — a belief he strongly rejects
3) The Lord says, ‘Martin, congratulations. You figured it out. There is no eternal suffering for sinners. Let me explain this mystery that I usually only share with my apostles’
4) ‘BTW, I didn’t lie, because my name is also ‘endless’, but I used this phraseology so that it might work upon the hearts of men (scare the crap out of them)’
5) ‘But, just because there isn’t an eternal hell, doesn’t mean things can’t get really, really bad for you if you stop funding this project. Joseph needs another $1,500′
6) Don’t tell this secret to anyone’ (the ‘until’ clause in verse 21 was added years later)
If my reading is reflective of Joseph’s thoughts, than I suspect he was not correct to imagine a god who thinks this way. I could have already been primed to see deceipt here, but telling Martin not to reveal the secret seems to match more closely to the skeptical interpretation. Whoever is right, I do think your interpretation is the more charitable, so i appreciate your invitation to consider it a different light
Nathaniel,
Umm . . . I really don’t know how to respond to that. I’m glad my initial question was thought provoking for you?
Nathaniel,
It’ becoming clear that your goal is just to refute my comments rather than consider and discuss their concepts. I acknowledged you observations regarding their/our knowledge of death but death is only one example and so that basic argument doesn’t seem scale up very far.
So you found 19th century exceptions so what? Substitute Biblical for 19th century and where is your rebuttal?
I’m quite familiar with “I, Pencil” BTW and the fact that you can refer me to it demonstrates our quick access to shared information that could easily be used to help us interpret revelation regarding pencil parts, pencil assembly or global commerce.
What is the value of literal belief in the impossible? I’d love to hear your answer and with that request I will back out and leave you to your literal beliefs.
Dave R and Slifo-
Someone I trust just brought it to my attention that my comments today and yesterday have been over the top. I want to thank both of you for contributing to the conversation and replying thoughtfully to a post I wrote. I also want to apologize for my ill-tempered responses. I’m venting some frustrations that you are not the cause of, and that’s childish and unfair on my part. Good, thoughtful comments are the lifeblood of any blog, and right now I’m not really contributing on that front.
Have a great day Nathaniel! Thought provoking OP btw.
Dave R,
This has been fun, and has made me reread D&C 19 more closely, something I haven’t done in a long time. That’s one of the reasons I like these discussions (which, I might add, I hope never rise to the level of “debate,” as I feel those aren’t super helpful, at least to me).
I’m not going to claim that my reading of the section is the only possible one, but that it is possible for a more generous and less “cynical” reading.
Regarding your points:
1 & 2: I freely concede. You appear to know more about the history of this section than I.
3 & 4: I don’t sense that tone from the Lord when I read it. Rather I see the Lord trying to explain a very difficult and nuanced doctrine to someone who has asked a prophet about it. The Lord reveals more, but again, in a nuanced way.
He doesn’t say, “You’re right! I totally made up that phrasing to scare people off. I guess the game is up. Hell doesn’t last forever.” Instead he gives a very nuanced view of Hell. And I think the wordplay of “Endless/Eternal” is important here, and is more than just a cheap self-justification to avoid a lie. Let’s look at this line:
“For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name.”
God here is telling us that Endless isn’t just his “name,” but an self-defining attribute. It is something innate about Him. He, and his actions, are Endless by their nature. He says “I am endless,” as a quality of himself, before he states it is his “name.” It isn’t his name in that sense, but an attribute so thoroughly true about Him and His actions that we can accurately say that “Endless/Eternal” is a name/title for God.
In the next verses where he says “Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. Endless punishment is God’s punishment.” I again see a God trying hard to explain something difficult for mortals to understand. He is teaching a paradox, telling us that both things are true: God’s punishment does not last forever, but in some very true and real sense it is Endless. It is Eternal.
Go proceeds from this point to immediately plead for repentance, because He is the one who actually understands how difficult the punishment is — apparently both difficult for Him to give, and for us to receive.
So I see this wordplay / revelation as a time where God is cautious about giving us more information, because he (rightly, I think) fears that understanding the truth will immediately lead us to false assumptions. And I don’t think the wordplay is a cheapshot. I think it is integral to understanding this revelation, that it is the truest way for Him to describe this punishment.
5) I see where the Lord tells him to continue to contribute to the Book of Mormon, but not where He threatens Martin with this newly-revealed “eternal punishment” if he doesn’t follow through. Did I miss that?
6) To me this part seems more a specific instruction to Martin. He is called to preach “nothing but repentance,” a common injunction in the D&C to missionaries. And even though the “until” line was added later, it was already implicit in the next verse (22) which implies that once we have a group of people who are ready for “meat,” let ’em have it. And besides, many of the Lords’ commandments like this one (“don’t speak of this”) come with an implied “until I say so.” In fact, I would say all of God’s commandments come with that caveat, yes?
The Lord here isn’t saying this is a “secret,” but is saying that it is a difficult doctrine to understand (and it is), and that sharing it with others might lead them to false conclusions.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. :)
Nathaniel,
The historical development of science seems to show that what we believe to be truth is not stable. You are trying to use that to say that science is not disproving God which it can’t do.
But there is a major difference between saying science is compatible with some possible religion and saying that science is compatible with any of the actual religious beliefs currently in existence. I have never met a person who was converted to religion because of the Big Bang or held it to be fundamental to their belief system.
The fact that quantum mechanics is not intuitive to humans and is mysterious for that reason seems to be much better evidence that all of our concepts, including concepts of God and religion, are problematic in the extreme in terms of being made consistent with our experience, than it is evidence that religion is anything other than an historical psychological phenomenon.
Yes, it’s a mystery and that creates room for religion, but only in a way that is tautological in that a person believes what they believe.
Damn good essay.
Not to seize on aside, but I loved this part:
“First, there seem to be lots of people for whom wholesale substitution of symbols for historical or literal truths isn’t a problem. I am not one of those people. It’s like the cliché in movies where someone dies and the survivor is told that it’s OK because the person isn’t really dead. As long as you remember them, they will live on in you. This is true and beautiful as far as it goes: our actions will continue to ripple out after our deaths. But my reaction is still: That’s not good enough. Ripples fade to nothing and in the end the result is the same: eternal silence. We were promised something more.”
Amen, and amen. Being particularly prone to symbolic flights of fancy myself, I am particularly allergic to them when I see them used by other people.
Nathaniel,
Thanks for the kind gesture. I can’t imagine how hard it would be to post interesting religious thoughts on a blog, and then have to respond thoughtfully to a dozen critics all at once. You do a much finer job at it than I could. Thanks for continuing with it.
IsaacH,
Wow. I really enjoyed your response and I appreciate the time you put into that. As I said, i’ve used that revelation as an example that Joseph could sometimes justify deceipt if it accomplished higher aims. However, you’ve nicely demonstrated that there’s always another light in which to view something. Thanks, and I’m looking forward to reading it again.
Whether or not this was part of your “over the top,” I agree wholeheartedly. As a humanities major (a combined business/musical theater degree — I know, right?) married to a PhD in electrical engineering (and daughter of a math professor and…) I have spent my life surrounded by real scientists who were/are devout Mormons. Perhaps that’s why I was able to escape. :)
The phenomenon Nathaniel addresses is not only real, but baffling. And quotable!
Nathaniel, at the pinnacle of Einsteinian physics, worldwide education systems were still small and relatively undeveloped compared to what they are today. Modern science has become more internalized by a much larger segment of the human population. The effect of that has been damaging to traditional religions. Major religions, particularly in the developed world, have consistently revised their belief systems (and have almost even subtly rejected many of their traditional beliefs) in order to adapt to scientific discoveries (and more particularly the widespread internalization of these discoveries as truth by large segments of the public) that challenge their traditional belief systems. What we have in much of the developed world today is religion lite, which is not nearly emphatic about its miraculous claims as it used to be.
“What you’re actually pointing out is that scientism, not science, is a threat to religion. And that is true. We have a generation of humanities majors who flout their devotion to evolution and science as a way of looking cosmopolitan and sophisticated. This isn’t the triumph of science. It’s the triumph of unintentional irony.”
OK, first the term “scientism” is nothing but a straw man created by religionists who try to reduce some trends in modern scientific communities, particularly ones that challenge traditional religious claims head on, to just another religion, which it is not. Whatever tribal like attachment to ideas and philosophies exists in scientific communities is far outweighed by the tribalistic attachment to old doctrines in religious communities. Your comment about “scientism” and attachment to evolution being fueled by hip-looking humanities majors is just bizarre. You have it completely backwards. It is the trends in humanities that are providing religionists with the clever philosophical tricks to prop up their traditional claims. Oddly enough, postmodernism, which originally emerged with an anti-religious bent since religions have historically been absolutist in their truth claims, has been adopted by many theologians and apologists as a rhetorical tactic against rationalist arguments. When the evidence is unfavorable to your claim about truth, just relativize truth to save your position. (The postmodernistic trend in Mormon apologetic narratives, I might add, is extremely cynical). The theory of evolution (which is widely acknowledged in the scientific community as just a theory and not an unquestionable doctrinal truth, which many religions, including the Mormon, claim their beliefs to be) is mostly supported because of the hard sciences, not the humanities (who study human behavior, not prehistory). Traditional religion is far from thriving in the hard sciences. It is moribund.
Scientism may not be an official religion, but it is a belief system which posits the physical sciences as the most authoritative worldview. By declaring the physical sciences as the only valid source of knowledge, it is at odds with the fundamental tenets of most major religions.
“Traditional religion is far from thriving in the hard sciences. It is moribund.” While it is true that scientists tend to be less religious than the general public, recent surveys indicate that about half of scientists still believe in God or the concept of a higher power. Religion is not dead among the scientific community (http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/).
Earlier the argument was made that since we are no closer to explaining religious claims after 400 years of scientific thought, that those religious claims must therefore be invalid. Given the rate of scientific discovery, is it realistic to believe that no progress can be made in another 400 years of scientific endeavors? Advanced medical imaging technologies (which revolutionized the study of the brain) have only been available in the last 50 years. Can anyone claim that they have revealed all that they will ever reveal about the relationship of religious belief to the human mind? Placebo effects prove that human belief (via deception) can produce chemical reactions in the body that mimic those of foreign drugs. No scientist in their right mind would claim to know exactly how this happens. The thrill of science is discovery — “We do not know what we do not know.” Humans are just scratching the surface of what they are capable of discovering. The claim is made that science has declared religion “unworthy of serious attention,” but it is not unusual that items previously written off as inconsequential produce the most exciting breakthroughs. There is no reason to sound religion’s death knell for those who earnestly seek after truth.
“Traditional religion is far from thriving in the hard sciences. It is moribund.”
That wasn’t my experience as a student at the top science/technology institution in Britain. Plenty of religious folk of all persuasions, and thriving student societies catering for them. I’ve no reason to believe that’s changed since. On the other hand there is a small but very vocal section of the science community who seem bent on pitting science against religion, and vice versa. It can be both exhausting and frustrating to watch.
In our home New Scientist and Professional Engineering share space with church magazines in the magazine rack, and our kids can be found reading all of them.
Mary Ann, that very poll that you cite confirms what I’m saying. 83% of the American public professes belief in God vs. only 33% of scientists. There are also a couple of things to point out in my phrasing. Note how I said traditional religion and not just religion. The religious belief that is extant in the scientific community is generally stripped down from elaborate belief systems of traditional religion. It is one thing to believe in God, it is a completely different thing to believe in all sorts of inexplicable miracles associated with divine power. A second thing that I must point out is that I said that religion in the scientific community is moribund, meaning gradually dying and not progressing, not dead. It is quite unbelievable that a couple of you are actually standing up for the idea that traditional religion is somehow thriving in the hard sciences. Yes, there are religious scientists. They are in an ever dwindling minority.
Steve, it’s actually quite easy for some of us to claim that traditional religion can thrive in the hard sciences, because we see it in our own families and acquaintances. It has not been unusual for me to see someone who wears a lab coat in a research facility during the week bearing their testimony in a Mormon fast & testimony meeting on Sunday. People are attracted to the sciences because they earnestly strive to discover truth. People are attracted to religion for the same reason, although they are usually looking for a different type of truth. It will never be unusual to find overlap between the two camps. There is only tension when people claim that religious truth should be telling scientists what to believe, or when people claim that scientific truth should be telling religious adherents what to believe. Science and religion pursue truth through different processes and for different purposes – even Mormon intellectuals can appreciate that.
Mary Ann,
You have a point but it’s a partial one in that math and electrical engineering are sciences that don’t that often compete with religion in explanatory space mainly because we have a very underdeveloped science of thought. We don’t have a scientific understanding of what the difference is between believing different mathematical propositions for example. So, from that point of view we don’t have the science that would tell us what is going on when we believe in free will or if we do not. No one is a scientist yet in ways that answers some of the questions we care about. Even among religious believers the scope of what religion seeks to explain has been shrinking.
It’s not scientism to see that the truths some people want answered with religions are questions that some other people don’t ask or that most people are non-believers of religions that aren’t their own.
Support for religion amongst scientists is part and parcel of scientists having very narrow claims for the scope of both religion and science. Thus your partial truth: in both spheres we have no “truth” as understood by our ancestors.
Mary Ann, it may be that traditional religion does end up thriving in the scientific community. Anything can happen. It also may be proved by science that we are reincarnated into a different form after we die and that cows, as tens if not hundreds of millions of Hindus maintain, are beings that have accumulated many lives of good karma during their past lives and should not be killed. It would then make sense to pass laws that prohibit the slaughter of cows throughout the world as is the case in many Indian states. (Such a discovery would be hard for Mormons whose beliefs are not compatible with reincarnation, and of course beef lovers). However, judging by current trends in the scientific community, it is highly unlikely that an increasing number of scientists will embrace the tenets of traditional religion. Again, I am well aware of scientists who do embrace traditional religious beliefs, including Mormonism. But they are exceptions to the prevailing trend. I wonder if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. Would you find it to be a worthwhile investment to buy up property around major scientific communities for the purpose of churches and other houses of worship with the expectation that traditional religious belief would increase in the scientific community, and that scientists would be increasingly willing to give of their time and money to the practice of traditional religion?
RE literalism versus symbolism, my own experience is the more often I attend the temple, everything in the gospel/life seems ever more symbolic and ever less literal.
Martin, “Support for religion amongst scientists is part and parcel of scientists having very narrow claims for the scope of both religion and science. Thus your partial truth: in both spheres we have no “truth” as understood by our ancestors.”
I suppose that’s one way of saying we recognise the limitations in the questions addressed by each. Bygone eras were sometimes more expansive in their views – victorian interests in science and spiritualism spring to mind on that one. I suppose we could be viewed as less holistic now. But the fact is there is so much we are required to learn and understand, that even within science, specialism in fields of study is necessary for progress to occur. Though good collaboration also occurs between specialist fields.
Steve, where I studied I was already surrounded by places of worship. Other religious communities rented space in the institution for their worship. And in this country at least scientists are also part of the communities in which they reside, which tends not to be adjacent to their place of employment. What communities did you have in mind with your question?
To add Steve, the school my kids attend is, as the cathedral school, very much traditionally religious. It is also a Maths and Science specialist school.
Hedgehog, you’re just mentioning anecdotal evidence and what are most likely exceptions to the prevailing trend. Do you have any statistical data to back your claims? The Pew Poll mentioned in comment 61 does not support your claim that religion is experiencing growth in the sciences. Also, a recent study shows that compulsory schooling laws in Europe has led to a reduction in self-proclaimed religiosity: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20557. Throughout the world at large, the most technologically advanced countries, who also excel in the hard sciences, are among the least religious countries. I think you and Mary Ann are in denial of what should be patently obvious.
Steve, if you read my comments you will see I was making no claim that support for religion amongst scientists was increasing. I am well aware my experiences are anecdotal. They are nevertheless my experiences. I haven’t seen what you are describing. And I find it hard to believe scientists are any less religious than the general population, though I am quite prepared to believe they don’t lay claim to religious beliefs they don’t practice (which is where they may differ with the general population). So we are perhaps not so far apart as you are imagining. Still, as a religious person studying science myself (in a science/tech university), I had no difficulty finding other religious folk to talk to, and it was actually far easier to do so than I’d found it as a teenager at school.
“compulsory schooling laws in Europe has led to a reduction in self-proclaimed religiosity”
That might be true of Europe generally, I don’t know, but in England at least, there can be quite a battle to get your children into a ‘faith’ school (which seems to be preferred by parents), and so religious observance by parents requiring ecclesiastical endorsement applying for places at those schools for their children has gone up.
“I find it hard to believe scientists are any less religious than the general population”
Please just click on the Pew Poll referenced in comment 61. It clearly shows that scientists are significantly less religious than the general public.
“if you read my comments you will see I was making no claim that support for religion amongst scientists was increasing”
And yet you suggest that religion in the scientific community is increasing in your observation about ‘faith’ schools in England.
I’m not denying that your personal experiences are true, but they don’t tell us anything about the general trend. I’ve already acknowledged several times that there are scientists and scientific communities who have a deep attachment to traditional religion, but according to several statistical studies and a look at overall trends in religion in scientific communities throughout the world, they are shrinking group. Are we in agreement on that point?
Steve, I looked at the pew survey. In the first place it’s a survey of “scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science”. That’s hardly global. I don’t even know how representative it would be of all American scientists. I’m in Britain, and we don’t see anything like the religious opposition to teaching evolution here, for instance, that is seen in the US. For all we have outspoken atheist scientists here, I don’t think we experience the same polarisation.
“And yet you suggest that religion in the scientific community is increasing in your observation about ‘faith’ schools in England.”
? No.
My first point connected to faith schools #69 was that the particular faith school my kids attend is a science specialist school.
My second #71 was a response to your assertion “compulsory schooling laws in Europe has led to a reduction in self-proclaimed religiosity”, not particularly connected science, in which I pointed out that in Britain faith schools are very popular with parents and have led to an increase of involvement in religious communities in order to get the necessary ecclesiastical endorsements.
So a survey by a reputable research center of the religious beliefs of members of a >100,000 member organization in a country with a population of over 300 million people tells us nothing about differences in attitudes towards religion between scientists and the general public? I think that your position that “scientists are [no] less religious than the general population” may be true in areas of the world where the general population is largely irreligious, such as China, Russia, and Western Europe, but there is a clear difference in the US, which clearly challenges your point, that you are failing to acknowledge. Are you arguing that the UK is a good case in point about how science is in perfect harmony with religion simply because your kids attend a religious scientist specialist school and because it seems to you (without providing any numbers) that faith schools are popular in the UK? Last I checked, attachment to traditional religion is in rather rapid decline in the UK: http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html. The number of people who claim no religion rose from 15% in 2001 to 25% in 2011. The number of people who claimed to belong to a religion and attend religious services decreased from 74% in 1964 to 31% in 2005. Clearly a number of factors not related to the spread of science (cultural and economic trends) explain this decline in religiosity. But I find it hard to believe that science doesn’t have something to do with this. Education systems and technology have improved drastically in the UK since the 1970s, and with it has come a better public understanding of science.
Look, we’re clearly in agreement that there are scientific communities who are religious. But could you please tell me what your main point is beyond that? You originally took issue with my claim that traditional religion in the hard sciences is in decline. If you are not arguing that religiosity is increasing or staying the same in the hard sciences, then what is your argument exactly? Practically every study and trend that I can find indicates that religion (or at least traditional religion, for religion can be defined in many different ways) is in steady decline in communities that have a widespread knowledge of the hard sciences.
Steve, I don’t doubt that Pew are reputable organisation, but a survey is inherently limited by the group it chooses to survey. All surveys are subject to limitations. Now I might be wrong, and call me cynical if you wish, but I would suspect that an organisation called “Association for the Advancement of Science” might disproportionately attract those who would like to push science instead of religion, which is not to say it wouldn’t also attract religious folk too, clearly, but I’m not convinced the membership would a be representative cross-section so far as religion is concerned. That doesn’t mean either, that the association doesn’t do a lot of good.
I have never been to the US. If you are speaking simply of the US, you may well be right. I have no experience of the level of religiosity there, so we may well be talking past each other. I don’t think you can extrapolate that scientist v. non scientist comparison globally though. Also it is a mistake to band Western Europe together as some kind of monolith. Cultures vary widely between countries. I can’t speak for education in Europe, but your comment didn’t make sense in Britain.
An article showing some of the arguments surrounding faith schools here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/simon-goulden/faith-schools-twenty-million_b_3401607.html
Now I’m not arguing that parents fighting to get their children into faith schools actually have greater religious beliefs, but there is certainly an increase in parents self-proclaiming religiosity and attending church and participating in religious communities, in order to get places at the schools.
Hedgehog, you keep migrating away from the central point that you seem to originally have taken issue with, which is that traditional religion is declining in scientific communities. The Pew Poll is but one of many indicators that this is the case. The idea that the Association for the Advancement of Science is pushing the fabled boogeyman of ‘scientism’ is absolutely ludicrous. Such a claim is made highly unlikely by the fact that over 30% of its members professed belief in God. This doesn’t sound like much of a ‘scientism’-agenda pushing organization to me, but one that represents a diverse array of backgrounds. Hence it can be taken as a good indicator of where scientists in the US are at large on the issue of religious belief, and it shows that scientists (meaning those who have pursued years of specialized training in the sciences and use it in academic and business settings, not just anyone who has taken a class in science) are more likely to be irreligious than the non-scientist general public. This also seems to refute your earlier point that scientists are no different than the general public (at least a highly religious general public, such as the US) in regards to religious belief. I’ve been looking for similar polls in other countries, but cannot find them. However, there are plenty of other indicators that science is eroding traditional religious belief around the world, which you appear to be conveniently ignoring thus forcing me to repeat myself over and over.
I read the article about faith schools in the UK in full. While faith-based schools are certainly popular, they do not appear to be increasing the public’s attachment to traditional religion, which is steadily in decline, as I indicated in an earlier comment. They appear to be like Catholic schools in the US, which are good at attracting parents to enroll their children for the discipline and good scholastic results, but struggle to increase long-term religiosity, for the students get into good universities where they are highly likely to become or remain irreligious.
But when you formulate your next reply, and I get the sense that you will reply, please, I beg of you, tell me what your main point is. I’ve already asked you several times, and you seem to keep dodging me. Is traditional religious belief declining in scientific communities? This is beginning to remind me of a debate that I had with a 9/11 truther sometime ago in which I asked repeatedly his hypothesis about who was behind 9/11 if it wasn’t 19 Arab hijackers, but he could never give me a straight answer. So I think it is high time that we simply call a spade a spade and call it a day. Or are you just someone who likes to be aimlessly disagreeable?
I simply said that it isn’t my experience (#62). And it isn’t. And I don’t think pitting science and religion against each other is helpful. That is all. I am not seeing what you are seeing. And since we obviously aren’t going to agree on this, and are seemingly perpetually talking past each-other, I don’t see any point in this constantly going round in circles. It wasn’t my intention to be disagreeable.
The problem for me is that you appear to be willfully twisting my comments to mean something I did not say, and then expecting me to defend something I did not say, and now accuse me of retreating when I don’t.
For example this time you say: “The idea that the Association for the Advancement of Science is pushing the fabled boogeyman of ‘scientism’ is absolutely ludicrous.”
This is not what I said or meant. My view is simply that I imagine a society with the aims of advancing science, which I think is a good aim, would be particularly attractive to those for whom scientism is a thing, it fits with belief, and whose time is not otherwise occupied with religion. My only point is that I don’t believe the membership to representative of scientists in general. I don’t think there is anything sinister in that. And it does not mean the society itself is pushing scientism. My *only* point is that I don’t believe the membership to representative of scientists in general.
I’m not pitting science against religion. I’m simply describing what is a well-evidenced trend. Traditional religion is not thriving in the hard sciences but is in decline. It is what it is. We’re not talking past each other either. I have simply proved your points wrong. You initiated this discussion by taking issue with the idea that traditional religion is declining in the hard sciences by saying that it wasn’t your experience and even boldly, and erroneously, proclaiming that religiosity among scientists is no different than the general public, citing no evidence. I pointed you to ample evidence that backed my claim. In response you tried to engaged in series of red herrings. What’s even worse is you accuse me of going around in circles. I’m sitting here sticking to my central point playing whack-a-mole with someone who appears to lack the courage to actually confront the central issue at hand, and you still have the gall to dodge my question.
“I don’t believe the membership to representative of scientists in general”
A scientific organization with over 100,000 members is not representative of scientists in general? Then what is? Are scientists such a diverse community to you that you cannot possibly understand belief trends among them? Are we to be so cynical as to believe that statistics tell us nothing of society? You’re being intellectually dishonest. I’m done, I’ll let you have the last word (which I won’t read), but I will mention a crucial difference between our approaches to the question of religion in the hard sciences. You seem to base your beliefs on this question on intuition and limited personal experience. You seem to believe what you want to believe in spite of evidence. I, on the other hand, am letting evidence guide my beliefs on the issue.
Steve, it was only ever my intention to share my, yes anecdotal, experience (you yourself admitted you had not been able to find data regarding the religiosity of scientists outside the US), and this would seem to be where your frustration lies. Doubtless I’d have been better served to follow the example of MaryAnn, and leave it there. Not doing so is a mistake I’ve made before.
Regarding the AAAS and the Pew survey. I don’t deny it’s a lot of (US) scientists. No doubt using the AAAS gave Pew simpler access to a large number of scientists. However, it can no longer be regarded as a truly random sample, and the results are therefore subject to bias, however large or small that bias might be. I don’t know how big or small it is, but I don’t think you can just wave that away.
Finally, the US is not the rest of the world. A sample of US scientists cannot be taken to be representative of scientists elsewhere.
I only raised my kid’s school in the first instant, as a personal anecdote that there isn’t the same conflict of science v. religion in education here that I see reported for the US. I do think a perceived conflict has the potential to do harm to kids who may grow up feeling they must either reject science to accept or religion or vice versa..
However, apparently hot off the press at the end of last month: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140924134941.htm
It seems Rice University are in the process of making a survey of the religiosity of scientists in nations outside the US, and just released their initial findings for the UK and India. I’ll admit I’m surprised by the UK results (not dissimilar to the US in terms of religiosity of scientists). My counter to that is that my university experience was very international (the institution received the Queen’s Award for Export Achievement while I was there), with a lot of students from India, the Middle East, Malaysia and so on, so that would be my bias. The results for India certainly make my point that US results cannot be extrapolated globally. An initial finding from a comparison of UK and India results being:
“There is a vastly different character of religion among scientists in the U.K. than in India — potentially overturning the view that scientists are universal carriers of secularization.”
Another interesting point raised by these results is:
“Although there appear to be striking differences in the religious views of U.K. and Indian scientists, less than half of both groups (38 percent of U.K. scientists and 18 percent of Indian scientists) perceived conflict between religion and science.
“”When we interviewed Indian scientists in their offices and laboratories, many quickly made it clear that there is no reason for religion and science to be in conflict; for some Indian scientists, religious beliefs actually lead to a deeper sense of doing justice through their work as scientists,” Ecklund said. “And even many U.K. scientists who are themselves not personally religious still do not think there needs to be a conflict between religion and science.””
I do think it is interesting that only seems to be the US doing this kind of research, and would venture to suggest that this might be because the perception that science and religion are in conflict is greater there than elsewhere.
Finally, an attempt to actually answer my question. No study or writing is bias-free, but some are closer to an objective reality, and thus less-biased than others. Let us not be so cynical to believe that everything that anyone says is so colored with bias that we can just believe whatever we want to. There is an answer to the question of whether traditional religion is thriving in sciences and we can find that out through rigorous engagement with the question at hand, which the Pew organization has done. The problem is that its result was something that you didn’t like, so you just cynically dismissed it as biased and went on believing according to your misguided intuition.
Now as to the study that you do mention about scientists in the UK and India, that is a fascinating study, and I’m willing to concede because of it that ‘moribund’ was an overstatement in my description of the status of traditional religious belief in the hard sciences. It would have been more apt for me to say that traditional religious belief is ‘in decline’ in the hard sciences, so essentially heading towards moribund. However, the study most certainly does not confirm your assertion that “scientists are [no] less religious than the general population.” From the article:
“According to available data, only 50 percent of the general U.K. population responded that they did not belong to a religion, compared with 65 percent of U.K. scientists in the survey,” Ecklund said. “In addition, 47 percent of the U.K. population report never attending religious services compared with 68 percent of scientists.”
“According to the India survey, 73 percent of scientists responded that there are basic truths in many religions, 27 percent said they believe in God and 38 percent expressed belief in a higher power of some kind. However, while only 4 percent of the general Indian population said they never attend religious services, 19 percent of Indian scientists said they never attend.”
In both cases, scientists were less attached to traditional religion than the general public by 15%.