Mopologetics and Religious Surveys

[Doctor Scratch]

Over the past few years, I've noticed an aggressive reliance on "well-being" surveys over at SeN in order to justify Mormonism--not directly, mind you, but as a defense of religion or "religiosity" more generally. But the use of these surveys is almost entirely polemical: it's not an occasion to think deeply about the benefits that religion ("in general") offer to people, nor is it an invitation to thoughtful discussion. Rather, these surveys are skimmed over in the most cursory way possible so that they can be used as battering rams against "critics."

Honestly, the ways that these surveys are read/interpreted by Dr. Peterson comes across as either knuckle-draggingly stupid, or downright dishonest. Does he really not understand what he's reading? In his latest posting, he thanks John Perry for directing his attention to an article from a website called "WalletHub", authored by Adam McCann, who, per his author photo, looks like he's about 12 and who lists among his qualifications the facts that he "enjoys playing tabletop and video games with friends, consuming British and Japanese media, and finding the best places for pizza." Nice! Why should DCP bother going to an actual expert when he can just cite the undergrad who's a big fan of Doctor Who? Hey: if McCann says that Utah is the happiest state, that's got to be cause for rejoicing, no?

In any case, there are all kinds of problems with what he's doing, chief among them is that fact that these surveys are, at best, generalizations--something that he apparently doesn't understand. But the point should be obvious: if religiosity in general is so great, then why choose the one that was founded by a philanderer who practiced polygamy and which charges you 10% of your income for the privilege of being a member? Why not jump ship for the Community of Christ? Or Evangelicalism? Or Calvinism? Of course, DCP has had extraordinarily unkind words for these faith traditions--I believe he said that he found Calvinist beliefs "disgusting" or something to that effect. But if religious participation / belief / practices is so great for health, they why not go with another faith? How/why is Mormonism any better than the next one? Dr. Peterson is more than happy to toss out these silly generalizations, but where are his *specific* surveys that clearly show the benefits of LDS participation? As I recall, there was a survey fairly recently that showed that Mormonism is one of the most *unpopular* of all faiths in the US. Funny how that survey can be brushed away with a wave of the hand, but the survey posted by Mr. Adam McCann, the pizza connoisseur, is a great affirmation of his belief? Can it really get any stupider than this?

Meanwhile, the comments below are hilarious, with Ideeho, The Last Danite, and the rest of the sociopath/zealots erupting in rage over David Sanders's remarks.

There is zero secular basis for objecting to plural marriage. None. Unless love is not love after all. Also, please explain in detail how investing is the same as hoarding.

Right: all of Joseph Smith's and BY's plural wives were sealed to them on the basis of *love*? Is that really TLD's understanding? As for the last point: one involves putting money *out there* into the stock market, whereas the other involves socking the money away (or hiding it) for a "rainy day," as it were. That's clear enough, isn't it?

[hauslern]

It seems he is on his usual hobby horse about the benefits of religion and happiness. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... ealth.html

The world happiness report continues to report that the happiest countries are the Nordic countries where religion precipitation is low.
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/t ... the-world/

On the suicide issue:

"Second, there is a myth that in addition to high happiness metrics, the Nordic countries have high suicide rates, a seeming paradox. However, even though the Nordic countries, especially Finland, used to have relatively high suicide rates in the 1970s and 1980s, these rates have declined sharply since those days, and nowadays the reported suicide rates in the Nordic countries are close to the European average, and are also similar to rates in France, Germany, and the United States, for example.[8] Although wealthy countries, such as the Nordics, tend to have higher suicide rates than poorer countries,[9] in general, the same factors that predict higher life satisfaction tend to predict lower suicide rates. For example, higher national levels of social capital and quality of government predict both higher subjective well-being and lower suicide rates, while higher divorce rates predict more suicides and lower life satisfaction – although quality of government seems to have a bigger effects on life satisfaction and divorces on suicide.[10] Thus this seeming paradox seems to be based on outdated information,[11] as Nordic suicide rates are not especially high and are well predicted by the theoretical models where the same factors contribute to both higher life satisfaction in the Nordics and to lower suicide rates.

[Doctor Scratch]

DS: "I'm wondering on what you base your motivation, if not by an eternal reward?"
I re-read The Abolition of Man, by C. S. Lewis, on the flight from London to Salt Lake City yesterday. My answer to your question would be pretty much the answer that Lewis gives.

So, yes, then: he *does* base his behavior on an “eternal reward,” or Lewis’s “natural values”: what “God wants you to do,” in other words. Quite a disingenuous reply to DS, in my opinion, but typical for someone who takes actual moral and intellectual guidance from someone whose most important literary creation (or imitation?) was a talking magical lion.

But there is a problem in DS’s question and it’s in the assumption that DCP actually ever even *tries* to do any good that isn’t selfish. If he has, I’ve never seen it. The vast majority of his publicly visible actions are either vindictive attempts at retribution/revenge, or else ego-driven grasping for attention or “status.” If he has ever actually been legitimately kind or decent, then where’s the evidence? There is proof all over the internet of him being a grade-A jerk. Where is the evidence of the Church helping him to be a good, generous, Christ-like person?

[Gadianton]

Thanks Dr. Scratch, you're absolutely right that for all his pretentious scholarly talk, name and Phd dropping, the number of times he's questioned the credentials of critics and said he only does real research in the Oxford Library, or other sources that non-scholar critics don't have easy access to, he's the undoubted king of pretentious scholars who quotes junk sites and self-published books to bolster his cause for religion. It's entirely without surprise that he's quoting a 14-year-old on Nerd Wallet. One of the other apologists will quote his quote, and then in the future he'll quote that apologist and the quality of the information will have plus oned.

I'd like to point out another gaping problem with his analysis. Joseph Smith said that a religion that doesn't require the sacrifice of everything is worth nothing (I think he did, at least). Was religion good for Joseph Smith's health? Was it good for the 12 apostles' health? Was it good for the health of all those who crossed the plains and froze to death? Was it good for Jesus Christ's health?

I question the standard. Since when was only true church such a good-times club, where members prosper with wealth and enjoy the good life of travel and food and good health? I think these kinds of apologetics started out as a defense of the Word of Wisdom -- see! Mormons live longer proving Coffee is bad for you! But then how often are we told the WoW isn't a health code, just as paying tithing isn't a get-rich-quick scheme. If a member becomes vegan to get even healthier and talks about it all the time, it will garner negative attention from stalwart members.

And so, the two main contributors to Peterson's false gospel of faith = prosperity are 1) Mormon anecdotes that try to justify tithing and the word of wisdom to prove they work, and 2) the inflection with right-wing politics and EV prosperity gospel. If you go to church and listen to Rush Limbaugh you can't help but have a great material life, just like Jesus Christ did.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Speaking of psychometrics, just yesterday I read, over lunch, ‘Survey Scales: A Guide to Development, Analysis, and Reporting (the Annotated Edition) by authors Robert L. Johnson & Grant B. Morgan. I couldn’t help but be reminded of this thread and the shear amount of callous use of surveys the Mopologists employ in an attempt to legitimize their nonsense. A good friend of mine, who’ll remain anonymous due to the vindictive doxxing done by Dopey Dan and his cult-like readers, was attending a seminar at the University of South Carolina, and had an opportunity to work with Professor Johnson, the co-author of the book named above, on an ethics-metrics paper that measured an educator’s ethical approach to teaching, and, interestingly applied his research to Dan’s Internet posting and academic career. Unsurprisingly, the dowser failed miserably across virtually all of the ethical metrics used in the study. Methinks DCP should spend less time criticizing British pundits and more time cleaning the cobwebs and skeletons out of his own closet.

- Doc

[Doctor Scratch]

I'd like to point out another gaping problem with his analysis. Joseph Smith said that a religion that doesn't require the sacrifice of everything is worth nothing (I think he did, at least). Was religion good for Joseph Smith's health? Was it good for the 12 apostles' health? Was it good for the health of all those who crossed the plains and froze to death? Was it good for Jesus Christ's health?

These are great points, Dr. Robbers. If "health" was really the key thing, then why not ditch Mormonism in favor of 7th Day Adventism? Isn't Loma Linda, CA one of the "blue zones" of planet Earth--i.e., places with a high percentage of people who live to age 100--because of its high percentage of 7th Day Adventists and their healthy dietary habits?

Meanwhile, where is the *sacrifice* being made by the Mopologists? I'm hard pressed to think of a single instance of such a thing ever being described on "Sic et Non." Instead, it's all self-indulgence: travel, staying in nice hotel rooms, and stuffing one's face with falafel and cheese fondue. Is that the big "benefit" of religion, as the proprietor sees it? "Gosh, I'm way happier than those dopey atheists! Just look at all the travel I get to do!" Part of the reason why DCP keeps making that disclaimer about how his travels aren't funded by Interpreter is because he nonetheless *wants* his readership to think that his traveling, dining, etc. is connected to his Church membership and apologetics. He doesn't ever want to say the obvious, which is that it's all pure self-indulgence.

In any case, I think it would actually be a lot more impressive if the Mopologists could drum up surveys showing that religion helps folks to be better people--like, kinder, more tolerant, more generous, more patient, etc. I've seen then point to "charity" in the past--i.e., claiming that religious people give more money to charity, but then when pressed they revealed that they consider *tithing* to be charity! LOL! I don't think that's what most people have in mind when they think of "charitable giving." It's hardly "charitable" if you've been literally commanded by God's authorities on Earth to do it; it's hardly "charitable" if your eternal salvation depends on you obeying this commandment.

But it's interesting to think about: Can you cite a single incident, in all of "SeN" or FARMS or all the message board posts, where there is a sign that Mormonism has helped the Mopologists to be better people? I bet you could comb through all 10+ years of SeN and you wouldn't be able to find one shred of evidence to support this idea. Instead, it seems more like they've been warped by Mormonism: it has turned them into liars, vindictive bullies, and mule-headed pedants who can't ever admit when they're wrong.

[Gadianton]

Can you cite a single incident, in all of "SeN" or FARMS or all the message board posts, where there is a sign that Mormonism has helped the Mopologists to be better people?

No, not a single incident. Every evidence is that Mopologetics makes a person insensitive, angry, and tribal.

[I Have Questions]

The survey referenced by Peterson and expanded upon by the OP, measured three categories - Community & Environment, Work Environment, Emotional & Physical Well-Being.

Utah scored 1st for Communuty & Environment, and Work Environment. But scored only 16th for Emotional & Physical Well-Being. If, as Peterson wants people to conclude, that religion (more specifically Mormonism) is responsible for the first two top scores, then it also has to be responsible for the relatively low ranking of Emotional & Physical Well-Being.

In other words, Mormonism is great for your sense of community, and Utah specifically is great for its environment and job prospects (the survey notes that Utah reports the lowest ‘mean’ work hours of all the states). However, Utah and Mormonism will make you ill - emotionally and physically.

A further point would be Peterson’s irritating habit of conflating ‘benefits of community’ with ‘benefits of religion’. The survey makes no reference to religion as a metric or consideration in this survey. Given we know that Utah is no longer majority Mormon, we could equally reasonably conclude that it’s the influx of non Mormons that’s made Utah a happier place…

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Can you cite a single incident, in all of "SeN" or FARMS or all the message board posts, where there is a sign that Mormonism has helped the Mopologists to be better people?

No, not a single incident. Every evidence is that Mopologetics makes a person insensitive, angry, and tribal.

Well, let’s not be so hasty. This morning over a cup of coffee (my apologies to the obsessive types over yonder at SeN) I read The Passions of the Mind: A Novel of Sigmund Freud by Irving Stone, cover to cover, and was reminded of a mopologist’s love of (especially the kind with asses in it), art, and cinema - so much so some even attempt to make art!

As a child I once had the opportunity to marvel at Trajan’s column, a glorious masterpiece of Carrara marble, and was inspired, so much so, that I demanded of my parents some clay so I may too create art. As it turns out I created not a miniature facsimile of Trajan’s column, but a lethargic dildo reminiscent of the feeling one has when watching General Conferences.

Ah, the aspirations of a simple mind! The hubris!The gall! To think that I, too, possessed the power of God to create such a masterpiece! I suppose it’s as if I were to make a period piece movie, set in the 19th century, and I included a cavalcade of anachronistic errors. I suppose I would burn with shame! How must it feel to have the clay in one’s hands only to find your mind and body can only produce an earthen dildo!

Anyway, I digress. Just as a prominent Mopologist might enjoy Vivaldi and a snifter of Dr. Pepper, I too enjoy an orange soda as I page through my copy of Le Plus Beaux Villages de France.

- Doc

edit: Speaking of Mopologists, why did the academic refuse to play hide and seek? Because tenure already made them a master at hiding from real-world responsibilities!

Forgive me, I dare say I’m the spell of a sugar rush right now.

[Rivendale]

One of the studies that DCP pointed to had an obvious disclaimer towards the end of the paper quoted below. It has long been known that humans are social animals. Hijacking the benefits of human interaction to support the truth claims seems disingenuous and desperate.

An interesting aspect of the religious participation research is that it suggests that it is religious service attendance, rather than self-assessed spirituality or religiosity, or private practices, that most powerfully predicts health and well-being. Private practices, spiritual or religious identity, and religious coping are all more weakly associated with health (Musick et  al., 2004; VanderWeele et al., 2017).