The God Delusion

[_keithb]

The biggest Achilles Heel of these books is their understanding of Christianity in my honest opinion. I would be wary of that Jason.

I have heard this argument before. However, it's not one that I'm buying.

For example, I don't know much about Mayan mythology. I know that they had a plethora of gods, including one that Hurricanes are named after, they believed that man was formed from corn flour, and they had a lot of incest between brother and sister gods. However, short of these facts, I don't know that much about their religious tradition. Even so, I don't believe that it's true.

Similarly, how much does Dawkins really have to know about Christianity in his book to disprove it, or at least to say that he remains unconvinced?

[_keithb]

I disagree, but for the sake of argument I'll grant the proposition.

I still don't think it explains why most Mormons leave the LDS church, therefore it doesn't explain why few ex-Mormons consider Christianity or theism in general. In my experience most people leave the LDS church for a set of highly specific Mormon reasons, such as: Book of Abraham problems, polygamy, Book of Mormon historicity issues, Mountain Meadows Massacre, General Authority fibs, multiple first vision accounts, etc. None of those is particularly generalizable beyond a Mormon context.

I'm sure some assume these problems are generalizable beyond the LDS church, but I don't think most delve into any specifics on the matter. For example, many ex-Mormons might delve into excruciating detail investigating Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon issues. Then they hear about problems associated with the Bible and assume that the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon investigation directly applies to the Bible. I have rarely, if ever, seen ex-Mormons apply the same level of effort to non-Mormon issues as they did to Mormon issues.

I would say for me that I stopped believing in Mormonism because of all the reasons that you cited, but I could just as easily point to Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, the Law of Moses, New Testament historical inaccuracies, unfulfilled New Testament prophecies, and theological problems with condemning non-Christians to an eternity of hell as starting reasons of why I don't believe that the Bible is divinely inspired either.

I somewhat mirror Sethbag here: once I identified the problems with my worldview that allowed me to believe in Mormonism, it wasn't much of a stretch to use my changed worldview to also exclude other religions like Christianity, Islam, Greek mythology, Mayan mythology, John Edwards, goblins, etc.

[_keithb]

That doesn't sound much like McGrath, this does:

http://www.testoffaith.com/resources/re ... spx?id=272

Note for him experience follows other evidence for God, it is not a proof of the existence of God. This is a very Anglican approach to faith.

Actually, if you listen carefully to his statement in the video, he says that he believes his experiences come from God because he "knows" that God exists. To me, it smacks of circular logic, as did several parts of his book The Dawkins Delusion when I read that.

And, even if I were to grant him that a god(s) could possibly exist, so what? Does that mean that some guy named Jesus walked on the water and then came back from the dead? I remain unconvinced.

[_MrStakhanovite]

And can one talk about Ricoeur in a catholic church and expect to be understood?

Sure. I imagine the Priest would at least know a little something about him, able to help his parishioner find more like it with a Catholic bent.

Does Ricoeur have any more business standing for Catholicism or any other Christian denomination than does Clark Goble re. the Mormon church?
Why do you bring him up as if he belongs to Chritianity any more than Gobel belongs to Mormonism?

Here is the point I’m trying to make:

When Ex-Mormons make their exit from the Church, they often end up exhausting everything the church has to offer, but I’m of the opinion that as religions go, Mormonism is fairly shallow. So the biggest and lasting impression Ex-Mormons have, is that religion tends to be pretty shallow, so they come out of the church with that impression and decide that religion isn’t for them. Cool.

But, as I think this message board more than amply demonstrates, a lot of Ex-Mormons carry their criticisms over to other world religions, and when people point out that they can’t even accurately describe what they seek to criticize, we get things like:

Ex-Mormon: HAHAHA GENSIS IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG, AND THE LITERAL INTERPETATION OF IT WAS THE STANDARD UNTIL SCIENCE CAME ALONG!

Christian: Huh? There are allegorical readings of Genesis that pre-date Christ….

Ex-Mormon: HAHAHA GENSIS IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG, AND THE LITERAL INTERPETATION OF IT WAS THE STANDARD UNTIL SCIENCE CAME ALONG!

Christian: Ooookay. But you are being anachronistic here…

Ex-Mormon: HAHAHA GENSIS IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG, AND THE LITERAL INTERPETATION OF IT WAS THE STANDARD UNTIL SCIENCE CAME ALONG!

So let’s go back to my comparison to Catholicism and Mormonism. Are there hyper-conservative Catholics who believe wild things, like geo-centrisism? Yes. Are there uber liberal Catholics who get arrested at Anti-War rallies and write monographs on biblical minimalism that make secular scholars look conservative? Yes. And both of those types actually have places within the Catholic Church.

A person has a lot more potential resources to exhaust before they have to make a painful exit from the Church. Mormons don’t even have a chance at those options.

[_keithb]

Sure. I imagine the Priest would at least know a little something about him, able to help his parishioner find more like it with a Catholic bent.

Does Ricoeur have any more business standing for Catholicism or any other Christian denomination than does Clark Goble re. the Mormon church?
Why do you bring him up as if he belongs to Chritianity any more than Gobel belongs to Mormonism?

Here is the point I’m trying to make:

When Ex-Mormons make their exit from the Church, they often end up exhausting everything the church has to offer, but I’m of the opinion that as religions go, Mormonism is fairly shallow. So the biggest and lasting impression Ex-Mormons have, is that religion tends to be pretty shallow, so they come out of the church with that impression and decide that religion isn’t for them. Cool.

But, as I think this message board more than amply demonstrates, a lot of Ex-Mormons carry their criticisms over to other world religions, and when people point out that they can’t even accurately describe what they seek to criticize, we get things like:

Ex-Mormon: HAHAHA GENSIS IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG, AND THE LITERAL INTERPETATION OF IT WAS THE STANDARD UNTIL SCIENCE CAME ALONG!

Christian: Huh? There are allegorical readings of Genesis that pre-date Christ….

Ex-Mormon: HAHAHA GENSIS IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG, AND THE LITERAL INTERPETATION OF IT WAS THE STANDARD UNTIL SCIENCE CAME ALONG!

Christian: Ooookay. But you are being anachronistic here…

Ex-Mormon: HAHAHA GENSIS IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG, AND THE LITERAL INTERPETATION OF IT WAS THE STANDARD UNTIL SCIENCE CAME ALONG!

So let’s go back to my comparison to Catholicism and Mormonism. Are there hyper-conservative Catholics who believe wild things, like geo-centrisism? Yes. Are there uber liberal Catholics who get arrested at Anti-War rallies and write monographs on biblical minimalism that make secular scholars look conservative? Yes. And both of those types actually have places within the Catholic Church.

A person has a lot more potential resources to exhaust before they have to make a painful exit from the Church. Mormons don’t even have a chance at those options.

Stak,

Isn't this just an example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy? Sure, you can always appeal to a figurative reading of the Bible, just like I could appeal to a figurative reading of the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or the Popol Vuh as evidence of their respective religions. I could take any supernatural claim and make that claim basically unfalsifiable.

However, I would propose that 1) Historically, most of the Christian world has understood the myths of the Bible to be literal, 2) most of the Christian world would still accept those myths as literal, if not for science, 3) I could take the same method and apply it to the claims of ANY religion to make that religion more palatable, and 4) who says that only part of the Bible is figurative and not the whole thing (including the part about Jesus coming back from the dead)?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Actually, if you listen carefully to his statement in the video, he says that he believes his experiences come from God because he "knows" that God exists. To me, it smacks of circular logic...

That isn't circular logic, it's hermeneutics. What he’s trying to convey is that God is part of the template he uses to understand his world and his experiences, sorta like a literary critic or a social critic has a strategy set up to evaluate a text or society before they begin their investigation.

It’s no different than someone saying, “I only believe Empirical evidence is the best evidence to form beliefs around” and then offering a critique of God based on the availability of poor empirical evidence.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Isn't this just an example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?

Not really.

Sure, you can always appeal to a figurative reading of the Bible, just like I could appeal to a figurative reading of the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or the Popol Vuh as evidence of their respective religions. I could take any supernatural claim and make that claim basically unfalsifiable.

Before you could do any of that, you’d have to make a case that your literal reading is the preferred or best reading of the given text.

However, I would propose that 1) Historically, most of the Christian world has understood the myths of the Bible to be literal, 2) most of the Christian world would still accept those myths as literal, if not for science, 3) I could take the same method and apply it to the claims of ANY religion to make that religion more palatable, and 4) who says that only part of the Bible is figurative and not the whole thing (including the part about Jesus coming back from the dead

Hey, make your case, I hope you do a better job than I could, because I tried. I cannot be intellectually honest and assert those four claims.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Actually, if you listen carefully to his statement in the video, he says that he believes his experiences come from God because he "knows" that God exists. To me, it smacks of circular logic, as did several parts of his book The Dawkins Delusion when I read that.

I did listen carefully to his statement. It's not a circular statement, but a fairly non-controversial statement that in some sense our presuppositions and theories of how the world works influence what we see and how we see it. He's saying that given his worldview, these particular sets of experiences are to be expected and fit it in with his worldview. He is emphatically not saying what the Mormon says, that the experiences generate and securely define a worldview. Mormons generally start with something like "I feel the Book of Mormon is true" and from that conclude things like Joseph Smith was a prophet, the priesthood is real, the LDS church is true, one should serve a mission and so forth. In other words, an entire worldview and course of action is based on a set of experiences and a faulty chain of logic.

Now I'm not claiming that something extreme like postmodernism is what is going on here. Merely that as limited beings the best we can do is identify our worldview, challenge our worldview, expand our worldview, try to fit things in our worldview, modify our worldview when it doesn't fit etc. That's what I see McGrath doing, based on what is in his mind good evidence that God exists and his believe in the truthfulness of Christianity.

And, even if I were to grant him that a god(s) could possibly exist, so what? Does that mean that some guy named Jesus walked on the water and then came back from the dead? I remain unconvinced.

In other words God doesn't exist and even if he does who gives a crap? I have to chuckle at that, it reminds me of Gorgias.

[_Jason Bourne]

Stak

I don't know that your view of Mormonism as shallow is fair. I would agree with you as far as the current watered down pedestrian elementary schoold correlated pablum that seems to come in the form of Sunday schoold, preisthood, youth, seminary, church magazines and so on that are the result of correlation.

However, historically there is much rich and thoghtful writings, discussions, books, papers and so on. From Joseph Smith forward there were many rich theological and philosophical ideas brought forward. Agree them or not the Pratts, Roberts, Widstoe, Talmadge even McConkie and JFS were thoughtful and deep in much of what they wrote.

Even today you have LDS writers and thinkers such as Blake Ostler (who I think could run past you in philosophy) David Paulsen, Terryl Givens, Eugene England (deceased) Richard Bushman, Greg Prince. You have dialogue and even some decent stuff in BYU Studies. Dialogue has thoughtful stuff. Even the Maxwell Institute has some good stuff in the non apologetic stuff.

My guess is you judge Mormonism to be shallow based on what the leaders are doing with it to the general membership. Perhaps since they run things and it is what most in pews consume your comments are some what accurate. Not having experience with other churches I cannot judge for sure. But the people I know that are members of other faiths don't show much depth in their religious knowledge either. So where is the deep theology lessons they are getting?

[_keithb]

That isn't circular logic, it's hermeneutics. What he’s trying to convey is that God is part of the template he uses to understand his world and his experiences, sorta like a literary critic or a social critic has a strategy set up to evaluate a text or society before they begin their investigation.

It’s no different than someone saying, “I only believe Empirical evidence is the best evidence to form beliefs around” and then offering a critique of God based on the availability of poor empirical evidence.

Thanks Stak, I just learned a new word today.

Still, I would say that it's circular logic and not hermeneutics. Hermeneutics would be if he simply assumed that god exists -- for the sake of argument -- and then tried to interpret the Bible, history, etc. through that lens -- somewhat similar to what people sometimes do when they critique Hamlet through a feminist perspective, etc. However, to me the circular part comes in because McGrath assumes that God exists and then uses events that could only be interpreted as evidence of god's existence by assuming that god exists to try to prove the initial assumption that god exists. To me, this is circular logic.