Why isn't the Celestial Kingdom Enough?

[Rivendale]

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the Mopologists have been spending huge amounts of time lately dwelling on secular matters. For example, "SeN" features a repeating blurb entitled "The Christopher Hitchens Religion Poisons Everything File," which is devoted to showing how great/generous religion actually is. (It's almost always about charitable giving.) And then there are the links to "studies" which show that religious people are better off in terms of various measures--e.g., they're "happier," and so forth, though it's worth pointing out that these conclusions are about religion *generally*, and not about Mormonism specifically. Meanwhile, Kyler "Mr. Potato Head" Rasmussen is expending a Herculean effort in trying to show, via dishonest Bayesian analysis, that it's reasonable to believe that the Book of Mormon is real history. And let's not forget the endless name-dropping, the sad need to boast about their travels, and so on and so forth.

What I can't help but wonder amidst all of this is: Why? Midgley has said many times that he considers his mortal existence to be a probation. He's just biding his time until he gets summoned up to the "Great Beyond." And, of course, in what must be the most embarrassing thing he's ever admitted, Dr. Peterson is hoping that he gets to go on to a heaven that resembles Added Upon. That's all fine and good, but the reality is that, per LDS doctrine, none of this other secular stuff matters. Heavenly Father doesn't care how many academic degrees you have, or whether you've travelled to New Zealand. He cares about whether you've been through the temple, whether you pay your tithing, and whether you keep the commandments or not. So why fixate on things like half-assed sociological studies that "show" that being religious means that you'll be happier? What's the point of that?

To be honest, I think the answer is that the Mopologists have cracks in their faith. Deep inside, they are afraid that the Church isn't true, and that they won't get to go to Heaven, and that Christopher Hitchens was actually right. DCP is already insanely jealous of Hitchens's status as a Public Intellectual, but to think that he was *right* about the question of the afterlife, too? Well, it's enough for the Mopologists to scramble about madly, making sure that they haven't put all their eggs in one basket. Because even if the Church is a crock, hey: at least they're "happier," because these studies of religion say so! So take that, Hitchens! And even if atheists get to sidestep the anxieties that this situation no doubt causes, hey, screw you, because at least the Mopologists have PhDs!!!

I suppose there are other ways of looking at this. Perhaps they think, "Hey: we're stuck here until we die, so we might as well make the best of it," but even so, that's a compromise, because they are doing it on the secular world's terms. There really is no way around the fact that this offers up definitive proof that the Mopologists have doubts about the Celestial Kingdom.

In all seriousness: Why do the Mopologists have such an obsessive need to find validation for their choice in religion?

Even Holland seems intimidated by the rise of the new atheists.

But listen now to Richard Dawkins:
“Only the willfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all, of the violent enmities in the world today. . . . Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out.”[4]
And many have. After Sam Harris published his provocative The End of Faith in 2004, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Dawkins himself and their band of “New Atheists” have achieved near-celebrity status publishing a deluge of texts decrying belief in God. Hitchens spoke for most of them when he said, “One reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with ‘you’ in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits.”[5] (Of course, Hitchens passed away not long ago and may now have newer views on the idea of a divine plan. And never mind that militant atheism is the ultimate untenable position simply because it would take someone with God’s omniscience and omnipresence to be sure that nowhere in the universe was there such an omniscient and omnipresent being. Catch 22. But I digress with philosophical nit-picking.)

[drumdude]

Hitchens never realized he was asserting himself to be omnipotent and omnipresent. Holland really got’em! Mormonism is lucky to have such brilliant theologians at the helm.

[Gadianton]

Once you build a castle, you defend it.

Yeah, totally. It's this stubbornness, unwilling to give an inch or be wrong about anything. Can't stand the thought that somebody with a lower education than himself is laughing at his sacred beliefs.

I think Drumdude is correct that he believes in life after death at some level, that it doesn't make sense that this isn't all there is, and so there's got to be something "more" (than boring church meetings and being nice to people). I think he also really does believe in God and rejects evolution; heavily influenced by creationism. None of this really has much to do with Mormonism. In fact, as I've pointed out before, he never cites TBM NDEs that have details supporting the Church. Why is that?

As Dr. Scratch implies, he has faith in all this. He suspects it's true, and hopes it's true, but he really isn't certain. And beyond that, even if this minimal faith is true, there is no guarantee that Gemli will be punished for his irreverence. Gemli could get off Scott-free. He could wake up in the next life and say, "oops, guess I was wrong, my bad" and a non-sectarian God might not even care. And there might not be any mansion for himself per se.

Where I really don't think he believes at an operational level is in the specifics of the Church. The gold plates, the witnesses and all that; I think that's where we're talking hope at best, but for sure, we're talking about the castle built that must be defended.

[Philo Sofee]

Gadianton
As Dr. Scratch implies, he has faith in all this. He suspects it's true, and hopes it's true, but he really isn't certain. And beyond that, even if this minimal faith is true, there is no guarantee that Gemli will be punished for his irreverence. Gemli could get off Scott-free. He could wake up in the next life and say, "oops, guess I was wrong, my bad" and a non-sectarian God might not even care. And there might not be any mansion for himself per se.

This actually is closer to the truth than Peterson or Midge will ever concede, of course. All this bluster, human drama, pre-judging as if we know anything at all, etc., has just got to be hilarious to whatever God is in charge. She is probably looking forward to actually giving Peterson and Midge a real education once they shed their mortal coil. God cannot by any stretch of the imagination give a flying flip about what anyone thinks. Once one gets it, and wraps one's head around the really, startling triviality we image our knowledge actually is, it turns into a hilarity of dance as Alan Watts puts his unerring finger on it. His brand new book out "Just So," is remarkable "light and delight" reading on just this theme. No one is going to judge anyone, it's all just play and games and discovery. I have no idea whatsoever what is so offensive to these tightwad Mormons thinking otherwise, but oh well...

[Alphus and Omegus]

Once you build a castle, you defend it.

You reduced my argument down to one sentence. Nice!

[Dr Moore]

Plenty of smart people fool themselves into believing their skill matters in games of chance.

"That's why they call it gambling."

The incredible thing is that addicts will continue betting even when time proves, over and over, that they will lose. Because the house always wins.

Could this be a valid metaphor for Mopologetics? The "gambler" is the Mopologist. The "house" is science and the scientific method. The "bets" are arguments in favor of various Mormon truth claims.

If so, then it's reasonable to say that yes, these guys probably do believe, but of course they don't know for sure.

But their belief is not born from success or track record, in terms of winning bets. Their belief is born of desperation to be proven right, in spite of the evidence. That's what makes gamblers so dangerous to themselves. They're so desperate to rationalize the betting, they'll convince themselves of a pattern where none exists. They are "fooled by randomness."

And as any expert, or even a casual disinterested observer, can plainly see, the evidence goes against Mopologists. They should just leave the casino. But they don't and won't. Why not? Two reasons. First, they're gambling addicts, remember? And second, because their betting history is public: professionally, socially and academically. They've got big egos. Addicts with big egos.

[dastardly stem]

I've quoted before:

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”

Persig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

[Philo Sofee]

I've quoted before:

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”

Persig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Impeccably spot on! Indubitably accurate. A most masterful quote... the Mopologist way around it? Easy peasy, he wasn't Mormon, therefore this is just the philosophy of a man mingled with something else or other, therefore, we are still right, and the world is still wrong.

[Tinfoilhat]

Once you build a castle, you defend it.

Unless you're broke. Then you burn it down for the insurance money.

[Equality]

Even Holland seems intimidated by the rise of the new atheists.

But listen now to Richard Dawkins:

“Only the willfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all, of the violent enmities in the world today. . . . Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out.”[4]
And many have. After Sam Harris published his provocative The End of Faith in 2004, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Dawkins himself and their band of “New Atheists” have achieved near-celebrity status publishing a deluge of texts decrying belief in God. Hitchens spoke for most of them when he said, “One reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with ‘you’ in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits.”[5] (Of course, Hitchens passed away not long ago and may now have newer views on the idea of a divine plan. And never mind that militant atheism is the ultimate untenable position simply because it would take someone with God’s omniscience and omnipresence to be sure that nowhere in the universe was there such an omniscient and omnipresent being. Catch 22. But I digress with philosophical nit-picking.)

Leaving aside Holland's sophomoric "philosophical nit-picking," why is it the Mormon apostles can't seem to talk for more than five minutes without lying and misrepresenting facts? Hitchens was quite capable of speaking for himself (and, as far as I know, never claimed to speak for anyone else), as are Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris (each of whom has a unique perspective and none of whom is a carbon copy of another). Why does Holland feel the need to falsely assert that Hitchens spoke for a majority of "New Atheists"?

And why the oft-used adjective "militant" to describe these men who, as far as I know, have never taken up arms against anyone? I'm aware of many "militant" Mormons (the Laffertys, Orrin Porter Rockwell, Sampson Avard, William H. Dame, the Bundys, Mark Hofmann, Brian David Mitchell, et al.) but can't think of any violent military acts carried out by listeners of Sam Harris's podcast, for example.