Robert Ritner's Decimation of Mormon Egyptology

[_SteelHead]

Are any religious beliefs true?

Not sure if any of the objective ones are, but many of the subjective ones would be like stealing is bad.

Is that a religious truth?

[_sock puppet]

Are any religious beliefs true?

Factually true, no. Some religious platitudes are proclaimed as "true" just because they make people feel good.

[_sock puppet]

Are any religious beliefs true?

Not sure if any of the objective ones are, but many of the subjective ones would be like stealing is bad.

So anti-social behavior, like stealing, is bad, and not stealing is good.

It seems that since governments were secularized, the need for religion has withered and continues to do so.

[_sock puppet]

I'd like to know what characteristics an experience has to have in order for it to count as a 'genuine religious experience'.

And later ...

I'll answer your question if you answer mine, what do you mean by a "genuine religious experience"?

So a small queue is forming ...

Since people are talking in terms of whether Joseph Smith had a 'religious experience', it would be really good to have that term explained.

If all the people in the discussion were believers in an Abrahamic religion (one of Judaism, Christianity or Islam), then some answer such as 'an experience involving contact with God' might do. But since some of us are plain atheists (or else theists who want to draw boundaries between scholarship and theology, such as Kishkumen), what do we do? Maybe the only 'scholarly' answer to the question would be in terms such as 'an experience to which the person recounting it ascribes a religious value'.

But then that would essentially mean that we can say that Joseph Smith had a religious experience because ... well, in effect, Joseph Smith told us he had a religious experience. Somehow that seems to empty the term 'religious experience' of significance. Perhaps it won't do as a 'scholarly' term after all, and will only work in a community consisting wholly of theists - which is not what this board is, by any means.

Drawing boundaries between scholarship and theology is itself suspect. Scholarship, like the scientific method, invites critical review to expose the frailties of the methodology used. The resulting refinement is that readers are left with only that which can withstand the scrutiny.

If theology is to be given an exemption from this, it is because it can only exist if its methodological frailties are protected from criticism. That in and of itself should be sufficient indictment of theology having any validity.

Now, I find religion and religious beliefs to be an interesting topic, sociologically speaking. An interesting, even if waning, phenomenon in the human experience. But as a method of providing "truth", theology is sorely inadequate and suspect.

[_Themis]

Is that a religious truth?

Yes. That does not mean it cannot be a non-religious truth.

[Guest]

Drawing boundaries between scholarship and theology is itself suspect. Scholarship, like the scientific method, invites critical review to expose the frailties of the methodology used. The resulting refinement is that readers are left with only that which can withstand the scrutiny.

If theology is to be given an exemption from this, it is because it can only exist if its methodological frailties are protected from criticism. That in and of itself should be sufficient indictment of theology having any validity.

Now, I find religion and religious beliefs to be an interesting topic, sociologically speaking. An interesting, even if waning, phenomenon in the human experience. But as a method of providing "truth", theology is sorely inadequate and suspect.

Very well said, and I couldn't agree more! I have long ago concluded that there is no more inadequate or unreliable method of providing "truth" than the theological, faith based approach to discerning truth. It is, however, arguably the most effective method of acquiring and maintaining certainty about what we most fervently wish were true, whether it actually is or not, and dismissing uncomfortable realities. It is no wonder, therefore, that this approach has such an irresistible appeal to many people. When we don't require hard evidence for what we believe, it becomes possible to justify belief in whatever we most want to believe, however false or nonsensical.

[_sock puppet]

Drawing boundaries between scholarship and theology is itself suspect. Scholarship, like the scientific method, invites critical review to expose the frailties of the methodology used. The resulting refinement is that readers are left with only that which can withstand the scrutiny.

If theology is to be given an exemption from this, it is because it can only exist if its methodological frailties are protected from criticism. That in and of itself should be sufficient indictment of theology having any validity.

Now, I find religion and religious beliefs to be an interesting topic, sociologically speaking. An interesting, even if waning, phenomenon in the human experience. But as a method of providing "truth", theology is sorely inadequate and suspect.

Very well said, and I couldn't agree more! I have long ago concluded that there is no more inadequate or unreliable method of providing "truth" than the theological, faith based approach to discerning truth. It is, however, arguably the most effective method of acquiring and maintaining certainty about what we most fervently wish were true, whether it actually is or not, and dismissing uncomfortable realities. It is no wonder, therefore, that this approach has such an irresistible appeal to many people. When we don't require hard evidence for what we believe, it becomes possible to justify belief in whatever we most want to believe, however false or nonsensical.

In psychological terms, religious belief then might be termed mild neuroses.

[_Gunnar]

Agreed! Though in extreme cases, it can be much more than merely mild neuroses!

[_Kishkumen]

I'll answer your question if you answer mine, what do you mean by a "genuine religious experience"?

He had a personal, sacred experience that he believed originated from God. That is how I use the term in his case. Others may be better suited to other belief systems.

By false beliefs I mean a belief that is factually untrue. Such a false belief (if Joseph actually held it) would be that Native Americans descended from lost white Israelites and that they were communicating with him. I personally find it interesting to consider the extent that Joseph Smith's misconceptions influenced what he was doing from his early treasure seeking days, to him starting his Book of Mormon project, to the decision to start a Church and then to him taking upon himself the role of prophet. The extent to which he believed in what he was claiming to others about such things is interesting to think about in addition to the consequences and implications of such.

It seems like you are concerned that Smith's myths are likely not literally true. Personally, I think there is very little riding on that, or at least there ought to be. Myths are myths. They are part of how a culture grapples with meaning. Some myths are less obtrusive than others, less fantastical, but the literal truth of any of them (are all men created equal?) is always debatable. Still, they serve an important function in human communities.

[Guest]

-