Becoming a Skeptic -- Were You Always?

[_BishopRic]

Growing up in the church, I followed the thinking Pres. Hinckley mentioned in his talks (paraphrasing), "either Joseph was a prophet and one of the greatest men to have lived on earth, or he was a fraud." This approach led to very black and white thinking on my part. I was able to spin the little bit of contradictory information I had heard about to conclude that "well, we just don't know the whole story...."

So when there was enough evidence against the core claims, and I was sufficiently convinced they were more likely true than the opposite, I quickly saw it all more clearly from the "other side," and it was amazing how I had believed it all as long as I did!

Today, I'm not as black and white. I don't see any religion or even spiritual tradition as "the one true way," even if they claim to be. Nor do I see them as totally wrong, because in order to survive today, they usually need to have some redeeming qualities. I cherry-pick from many, and don't fault another for following what works for them. Certainly this is much easier for the ones that are consistent with this approach, but even those that are staunchly religious, I mostly let them be, as I really don't know their plight or if another path would work better for them. I've only walked in my own shoes.

[_BishopRic]

I don't know if there is such a thing as congenital skepticism, but I do believe that the process of maturation tends to engender at least some measure of skepticism in most all of us.

The question I find most interesting on the subject is: "are there healthy and unhealthy levels of skepticism, and if so, how does one distinguish between the two, and is it in one's interest to determine the distinctions and act according--I.e. if needed, adjust one's level of skepticism to a healthy level?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It seems to me that we are skeptical of the things we don't already believe, and not very skeptical of what we do. I find many mopologists obsessively skeptical of any negative claims about Joseph, but hardly skeptical of the few bits of information that might show the Book of Mormon to be historical; they are skeptical of new science that is damning about the church claims, but swallow anything said from the pulpits about miracles due to priesthood blessings, for example.

Of course, I'm just making a judgment....

[_Scottie]

I know that TBM's hate when exmo's use the term brainwashed, but I can't think of a better word to use.

I have always had an intellectual mind. Often times, I would question how the Greeks could be so certain that Zeus was a real god!! Lighting was OBVIOUSLY caused by his throwing lightning bolts around. Now, centuries later, we laugh at what is now a simple explanation for lightning.

The thought was always right on the edge of my mind...what centuries from now they laugh at the Christian God the same way we are laughing at Zeus? What makes us think that we are so special that we're immune to believing in a false higher power when all throughout history mankind has believe in false gods??

These thoughts would creep in for about 2 seconds and I would be filled with fear of punishment for doubting God! I would profusely apologize and repent.

Now, explain how that isn't brainwashing??

When I finally found out about Joseph Smith and his polygamy, it was a rapid loss of faith. I went from believer to exmo in about 2 weeks.

[_wenglund]

I don't know if there is such a thing as congenital skepticism, but I do believe that the process of maturation tends to engender at least some measure of skepticism in most all of us.

The question I find most interesting on the subject is: "are there healthy and unhealthy levels of skepticism, and if so, how does one distinguish between the two, and is it in one's interest to determine the distinctions and act according--I.e. if needed, adjust one's level of skepticism to a healthy level?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It seems to me that we are skeptical of the things we don't already believe, and not very skeptical of what we do. I find many mopologists obsessively skeptical of any negative claims about Joseph, but hardly skeptical of the few bits of information that might show the Book of Mormon to be historical; they are skeptical of new science that is damning about the church claims, but swallow anything said from the pulpits about miracles due to priesthood blessings, for example.

Of course, I'm just making a judgment....

Could your judgement of mopologist be a function of the same alleged disparate skepticism you ascribe to them--though in reverse? ;-)

Is it possible that the differences of opinion between mopologists and former members may have more to do with different ways of weighting the evidence and little or nothing to do with the alleged disparate skepticism?

In other words, might both parties have rationally (having employed a healthy level of skepticism each way) arrived at their different conclusions?

I tend to think so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_BishopRic]

Could your judgement of mopologist be a function of the same alleged disparate skepticism you ascribe to them--though in reverse? ;-)

I thought about that when I observed it many years ago and spoke with a few ignostic lawyer friends of mine. They laughed at me when I gave them the examples I mentioned above..

Of course one who is committed to a religious philosophy will see any challenge as meritless. One who has no dog in the fight is much less biased. I would see your point if it involved one religion against another, but most of us (in my experience) don't "switch sides" to another dogmatic religion; and I don't view us as on opposite sides, contrary to much of what I have heard. The burden of proof with regard to religious claims always lies on the claimant. As an ignostic, I have no side to defend.

[_Moniker]

And this is why I'm glad that the LDS church still publishes things like that article several years ago confirming Noah's Flood to have been real, and global, and things confirming LDS beliefs about the Fall of Adam. I'm happy that the church hasn't seen fit to stop teaching things that are so obviously disproved by scientific evidence, because these are the kinds of things that might open up the first crack in someone's faith edifice, as they did for me. If the church lets go of the specifics regarding the Fall of Adam, and lets go of the Global Flood, and other similar such science-related things, what then will someone like me, in the future, recognize as not true, that will serve to allow them to see through the ultimate illusion of truth regarding the rest of the church?

Sethbag, I've heard science talked about a lot as a way people found their way out of the Church. I was actually questioned (the person was skeptical of my posts;) 'cause I didn't use any sort of science to dismiss God. I, too, think some of the more literal things in the Bible being pushed as truth certainly does leave open the Church to easy criticisms. I mean, I'm not a scientific person and some of the things people talk about on MAD we're a "WHOA doggie!!" sort of a moment. :)

[_Moniker]

You've got to be kidding, Mon! Every girl I ever dated hated two things about me (one was that was an atheist) and I never brought up religion with them...

You need to gather all your like-minded friends and head for the golden state ;)

What's the other reason? :)

That movie looks funny, I'll have to rent it one night. Or I could just post on MDB? :)

[_Moniker]

Growing up in the church, I followed the thinking Pres. Hinckley mentioned in his talks (paraphrasing), "either Joseph was a prophet and one of the greatest men to have lived on earth, or he was a fraud." This approach led to very black and white thinking on my part. I was able to spin the little bit of contradictory information I had heard about to conclude that "well, we just don't know the whole story...."

So when there was enough evidence against the core claims, and I was sufficiently convinced they were more likely true than the opposite, I quickly saw it all more clearly from the "other side," and it was amazing how I had believed it all as long as I did!

Today, I'm not as black and white. I don't see any religion or even spiritual tradition as "the one true way," even if they claim to be. Nor do I see them as totally wrong, because in order to survive today, they usually need to have some redeeming qualities. I cherry-pick from many, and don't fault another for following what works for them. Certainly this is much easier for the ones that are consistent with this approach, but even those that are staunchly religious, I mostly let them be, as I really don't know their plight or if another path would work better for them. I've only walked in my own shoes.

I felt sort of guilty the last few hours about my OP. I've never voiced some of my reactions to certain religious beliefs. I don't disparage those that have beliefs, or that find what works for them. Just the beliefs themselves are, at times, something that makes me uncomfortable. I feel sort of bad just typing that.

You know I saw on MAD a lot where there was talk about ex-Mos being very black and white in their thinking. Yet, it appears, to me, that practicing LDS are, as well...

[_Moniker]

The question I find most interesting on the subject is: "are there healthy and unhealthy levels of skepticism, and if so, how does one distinguish between the two, and is it in one's interest to determine the distinctions and act according--I.e. if needed, adjust one's level of skepticism to a healthy level?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know what, Wade? I find that an interesting question, as well. What would you say would be an unhealthy level of skepticism?




Scottie, that was a fast transition! You know I've heard that people felt bad for saying God's not real -- or denying God. I wonder if that's really that difficult to do for people because of the fear indoctrinated in them. I suppose it was for you.

[_GoodK]

You've got to be kidding, Mon! Every girl I ever dated hated two things about me (one was that was an atheist) and I never brought up religion with them...

You need to gather all your like-minded friends and head for the golden state ;)

What's the other reason? :)

That movie looks funny, I'll have to rent it one night. Or I could just post on MDB? :)