Secular Anti-Mormonism: Comments for DCP on You Tube Address
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 4:16 am
Hi Daniel,
I agree with your statements here and in other places that theistic ‘anti-mormonism’ is illogical. In my own case, the critical items which falsified Mormonism also falsified all the Abrahamic religions, and over a period of years, all of my supernatural inclinations were examined and dropped. So I am a naturalistic secular humanist. Because the religion of my youth was Mormonism, and I respond to parental attempts to ‘reactivate’ me with research and counter-information, apparently I am a secular anti-Mormon.
So I was quite interested to see you had a lecture addressing secular anti-Mormons on You Tube. I have had it bookmarked for ages, and finally got enough time to watch the whole lecture this weekend. I ended up with some comments that I would like to raise if you have time (started a comment on You Tube, but I am too pedantic to fit all my verbiage into the little space provided).
The first issue is the contention that secularists have no foundation for morality. The idea that morality can only be bestowed by a deity, and that secularists are therefore devoid of morality, cannot be justified I think. As a social species we have evolved well tuned traits for justice, fairness, altruism, and empathy which provide a firm basis for a rational morality. A counter argument to your one may be made that without an understanding of evolution as a highly intelligent social primate, a fundamentalist theist has no basis for understanding secular morality.
Likewise with ‘meaning’. Why must ‘meaning’ be received from some higher intelligence?
If morality and meaning must be bestowed by deity, the question becomes “whose deity?” All theists cannot be moral, since most of them believe that a large proportion of their number have invented their deity – or are following an evil adversary. Only those theists who were lucky enough to select the real god from the multitude of options will actually have the real morality.
One could also argue that theism actually leads to lower morals – confusion of religious morality seems to result from the deity specifying ‘exceptions’ to the rule which then serves to highlight the arbitrariness of the moral in question. As an example I have an extract from the latest Ensign:
Without making any comment on abortion itself, the official LDS policy on abortion is lacking in a logical and moral basis. In this Ensign article, LDS policy, effective from conception, is described as ‘divine doctrine’. This doctrine is apparently underwritten by D&C 59:6 – thus the stated moral basis is ‘do not kill (or do anything like it)’. However the exceptions to the doctrine for rape and incest make a mockery of the supposed divine moral basis – it is actually OK to kill (after prayerful consideration) if the mother is ‘innocent’. Since serious mental issues may also arise from unwanted pregnancy following contraception failure or other maternal ‘mistake’, and abortion is not permitted in the case of even serious non-fatal handicap – maternal mental damage and possible foetal abnormality cannot be the basis for the moral exceptions. The only way to consistently interpret the moral basis is if the principle is to punish female illicit sexual intercourse (short of killing her) in conjunction with an implication that children are priesthood property, and preservation of that property. I doubt anyone will be declaring these last as doctrine anytime soon.
The second point I wish to raise is your depiction of our thinking apparatus requiring a ‘ghost in the machine’.
You state, “On a completely secularist, naturalistic view, it seems that thoughts are really merely neurochemical events in the brain, able in principle at least, to be described by the laws of physics. But the laws of physics are deterministic”
You then continue by explaining that if one brain state is causally determined by the preceding brain state, then logic is not possible, and physics, not logic must determine things. Horrors!
Regardless of the metaphors one uses to describe the brain, modern cognitive science has no need of dualism. There is no need for a separate ephemeral ‘mind’, and no need to lose sleep over the existence of logic. Yes- one neural event follows another, but this is horrendously simplistic. Thoughts are an emergent property of neural events, and by emergent I mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is a natural phenomenon, and an interesting area in not only physics and its emergent discipline chemistry, but a number of other disciplines. A simple and common example of emergent states is that the properties of water are emergent from the combination of two basic gases – and emergence produces amazingly more complex phenomena than this.
In summary, your reflections on secular anti-Mormonism are an attack on atheism using arguments that could only be considered valid by a theist. I am pretty doubtful that there are many who could be considered secular anti-Mormons who would not be better described as secular anti-theists (for example); although there may be the odd secularist who has a particular bone to pick with only Mormonism. But, from observation most are indifferent to what others choose to believe; a significant minority are anti-pseudoscience and opposed to harmful or exploitative faith-based groups (the skeptics); and only a very small group are anti-theists (like Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens) and they tend to attack any and all religion.
I agree with your statements here and in other places that theistic ‘anti-mormonism’ is illogical. In my own case, the critical items which falsified Mormonism also falsified all the Abrahamic religions, and over a period of years, all of my supernatural inclinations were examined and dropped. So I am a naturalistic secular humanist. Because the religion of my youth was Mormonism, and I respond to parental attempts to ‘reactivate’ me with research and counter-information, apparently I am a secular anti-Mormon.
So I was quite interested to see you had a lecture addressing secular anti-Mormons on You Tube. I have had it bookmarked for ages, and finally got enough time to watch the whole lecture this weekend. I ended up with some comments that I would like to raise if you have time (started a comment on You Tube, but I am too pedantic to fit all my verbiage into the little space provided).
The first issue is the contention that secularists have no foundation for morality. The idea that morality can only be bestowed by a deity, and that secularists are therefore devoid of morality, cannot be justified I think. As a social species we have evolved well tuned traits for justice, fairness, altruism, and empathy which provide a firm basis for a rational morality. A counter argument to your one may be made that without an understanding of evolution as a highly intelligent social primate, a fundamentalist theist has no basis for understanding secular morality.
Likewise with ‘meaning’. Why must ‘meaning’ be received from some higher intelligence?
If morality and meaning must be bestowed by deity, the question becomes “whose deity?” All theists cannot be moral, since most of them believe that a large proportion of their number have invented their deity – or are following an evil adversary. Only those theists who were lucky enough to select the real god from the multitude of options will actually have the real morality.
One could also argue that theism actually leads to lower morals – confusion of religious morality seems to result from the deity specifying ‘exceptions’ to the rule which then serves to highlight the arbitrariness of the moral in question. As an example I have an extract from the latest Ensign:
Early in his presidency President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) said: “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the Church in unalterably opposing all abortions, except in two rare instances: When conception is the result of forcible rape and when competent medical counsel indicates that a mother’s health would otherwise be seriously jeopardized.” Current policy now includes two other exceptions—incest and if the baby cannot survive beyond birth, as determined by competent medical counsel. Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. It “should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.”
From Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless [sic], By Elder Russell M. Nelson, Ensign, October 2008. http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?v ... &hideNav=1
Without making any comment on abortion itself, the official LDS policy on abortion is lacking in a logical and moral basis. In this Ensign article, LDS policy, effective from conception, is described as ‘divine doctrine’. This doctrine is apparently underwritten by D&C 59:6 – thus the stated moral basis is ‘do not kill (or do anything like it)’. However the exceptions to the doctrine for rape and incest make a mockery of the supposed divine moral basis – it is actually OK to kill (after prayerful consideration) if the mother is ‘innocent’. Since serious mental issues may also arise from unwanted pregnancy following contraception failure or other maternal ‘mistake’, and abortion is not permitted in the case of even serious non-fatal handicap – maternal mental damage and possible foetal abnormality cannot be the basis for the moral exceptions. The only way to consistently interpret the moral basis is if the principle is to punish female illicit sexual intercourse (short of killing her) in conjunction with an implication that children are priesthood property, and preservation of that property. I doubt anyone will be declaring these last as doctrine anytime soon.
The second point I wish to raise is your depiction of our thinking apparatus requiring a ‘ghost in the machine’.
You state, “On a completely secularist, naturalistic view, it seems that thoughts are really merely neurochemical events in the brain, able in principle at least, to be described by the laws of physics. But the laws of physics are deterministic”
You then continue by explaining that if one brain state is causally determined by the preceding brain state, then logic is not possible, and physics, not logic must determine things. Horrors!
Regardless of the metaphors one uses to describe the brain, modern cognitive science has no need of dualism. There is no need for a separate ephemeral ‘mind’, and no need to lose sleep over the existence of logic. Yes- one neural event follows another, but this is horrendously simplistic. Thoughts are an emergent property of neural events, and by emergent I mean that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is a natural phenomenon, and an interesting area in not only physics and its emergent discipline chemistry, but a number of other disciplines. A simple and common example of emergent states is that the properties of water are emergent from the combination of two basic gases – and emergence produces amazingly more complex phenomena than this.
In summary, your reflections on secular anti-Mormonism are an attack on atheism using arguments that could only be considered valid by a theist. I am pretty doubtful that there are many who could be considered secular anti-Mormons who would not be better described as secular anti-theists (for example); although there may be the odd secularist who has a particular bone to pick with only Mormonism. But, from observation most are indifferent to what others choose to believe; a significant minority are anti-pseudoscience and opposed to harmful or exploitative faith-based groups (the skeptics); and only a very small group are anti-theists (like Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens) and they tend to attack any and all religion.