Indecision cannot last forever
Earlier I wrote about how I have been on a journey of discovery in an attempt to decide whether or not to stay in the church of my upbringing, and I likened this to the Amish practice known as Rumspringa.
I think my journey has ended. Without incredible evidence with which I am not yet familiar, my conclusion is that the church is false and that I would do better on my own. This is not an infallible conclusion, and so I leave the door 1% opened. Any more would be unnecessary and limiting.
Rene Descartes believed that our senses are inaccurate and not a good truth-measuring tool. He concluded that the only way to learn truth is to use reason. Descartes suggests removing all preconceived notions of truth, and adding back only those portions which can be proved reasonably and logically. “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”
I followed this model, as closely as I could. I doubted as much as possible. And I am left with the conclusion that the God hypothesis has some glaring holes.
Just saying.
19.11.2009(5:37 pm)
Seems like programmers and the church don’t mix well. I guess constructing logical arguments for a living makes any type of faith-based proposition a hard sell.
19.11.2009(7:36 pm)
That’s true, Mike. I always felt a disconnect between logic and the church. I never dared to think about it for years on end. I’m glad I did though, because leaving has been more liberating than I could have imagined.
By the way, do we know each other?
20.11.2009(5:37 pm)
I just started following you on twitter, which is how I found the blog. Not sure if we know each other in another capacity. It seems like there is a discrepancy between the objective truth the church presents and the subjective nature by which we are taught to “learn” that truth. Was I “blessed” because of my obedience or is it due to my ability as a person? Were my prayers answered or did I simply interpret events to conform with a particular viewpoint? The church says the answer is clear as long as your interpretation of events is restricted to the one defined by scripture(s). That’s a tough sell to people who for whatever reason are able to consider things multi-dimensionally.
21.11.2009(1:05 pm)
Thanks Mike, that’s very well put. It’s surprisingly refreshing to hear someone else talking like this. I always thought it was unfair to blame myself for my failures and God for my successes. As for always being aligned with scriptural “evidence,” well for me dogma is probably the most unacceptable part of any philosophy, and religious dogma seems particularly egregious. Sometimes we heathen have to band together to face the nightmare.
23.11.2009(9:45 am)
Well Nate, I know we’re not technically friends but I know how much I personally would like to vent some of these frustrations and I know how hard it is to do when you’re surrounded by well-intentioned people trying to get you to hold fast to the iron rod and all. Having an honest, though difficult, conversation about some of the problems inherent in the church, religion, and dogma is something I wish I could do with more of my peers in the church but as it stands, it seems like they would rather subject you to old conference talks or exhort you to pray more diligently. It’s really frustrating when people go into missionary mode because they leave you feeling devalued on a number of levels. Rather than trying to understand what you are saying and empathizing with your position they spend their energy trying to prove how wrong you are and discussing ways you need to change in order to “understand”. It’s draining and leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
26.01.2010(4:22 pm)
Nate… I too was going through a similar situation a few years ago. I was raised in the church, but honestly I’m not sure if I ever believed it. I don’t think I was given a chance to truly believe it because I was just expected too. Anyway to make a long story short, I officially removed myself from the church about 3 years ago, and I feel great about it. It feels good to feel like for once in my life I am able to decide my beliefs on my own. Right now I am ‘nothing’ and that is what I believe at this point. If I change my mind then I can make the decision to move forward with that belief. Are you thinking of removing yourself from the church or just not being a part of it anymore?
26.01.2010(5:03 pm)
Kaycee, I like the way you put it: “I don’t think I was given a chance to truly believe it because I was just expected to.” Such is the nature of dogma and child brainwashing. “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Choosing for a child how he should live and what he should believe is (in my opinion) a form of child abuse which has egregious consequences. And of course by ‘he’ I mean ’she’ as well.
Anyway, I’ve thought about deleting my name from the church records. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this takes a few interviews with the bishop, and ultimately a high counsel meeting to finalize your excommunication. I don’t think I care enough to go to all that hassle. So my name is on their records, and they never bother me, and I never bother them. Is there some other reason I’m not aware of to actually officially remove yourself?
03.08.2010(3:25 pm)
pardon my interjection. For such a rational and logical person, I’m curious to know what you think are the origins of the Book of Mormon. Having been in the religion your whole life and knowing the story behind where the book “supposedly” came from, and then removing yourself, I’m sure you have come to some sort of conclusion or alternate theory. Have you?
note: this is in no way a loaded question. just curious
06.08.2010(6:48 pm)
The Book of Mormon was one of the last things I “let go” in my pursuit of truth. Growing up with the book, there was a strong ideological imperative for me to never question its contents.
The basic answer to your question is that the Book of Mormon, like the Bible, was written by men, and not by any god. I believe it is no more sacred than any other book at the library. In fact, I believe it is less sacred than any factual book at the library, because it is in fact not factual. I cannot claim to know the exact motives or identities of the authors of the scriptural books that have led so many people away from actual truth, but I believe that in many cases they were fueled by improper motives like subjugating large groups of people, hiding the truth, inducing fear in other men, and in short controlling other people. Churches hold the most vile sort of power over a man: they ask you to manufacture the whip and to whip yourself. The system works because of the power a book like the Book of Mormon gives a church over a man. I can imagine that some of the men probably believed they were doing good, just as the vast majority of today’s church leaders are just trying to do what they think is right, but I also think that declaring falsehoods is declaring falsehoods. Intention is secondary.
Contrary to what most members of the LDS church believe, the Book of Mormon is full of contradictions as blatant as the Bible’s. Were I a god, I probably would not care to write a book for the world, but if I did choose to do so, it would not have a single contradictory statement. I would be able to assure that this was so, being a god. I would not allow any situations in the lives of men to contribute to any confusions in my book. It would be straightforward, simple, to the point, and filled with only the truth.
The Book of Mormon is filled instead with wars, bloodshed, atrocities, vagaries, confusing passages, grammar mistakes, historically inaccurate stories, and contradictions galore. How does such a ridiculous book have so many followers? It urges men to embrace unfounded faith rather than use their brains to discover the truth.
For a few years, even though the book seemed imperfect, I believed it was true because of the promise in the end of the book about praying to see if the book is true and getting an answer. More recently, I have decided that epistemology by physiology is an intentionally flawed method of “revelation.” I proved (sufficiently for myself, at least) that this is an insufficient evidence for the truthfulness of the book. I experimented on the magic truth-seeking formula in Moroni 10 by executing the same pattern (pondering, hoping, yearning, and eventually praying about the book) to a completely non-religious, non-spiritual, but interesting book I read. The bodily reaction I had to a mental exercise was just as strong with both books. I reject the idea of epistemology by revelation held by the LDS church, because “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart” (D&C
is just too loose a way to discover real truth! The foisting of this lie on millions of faithful church members would be enough to force its instigators, who are likely also the original authors of the book, to be sent to hell at the ends of their lives, if hell actually existed.
Jeremy (and anyone else in the church), I know you had been fence-sitting with regard to the church. If you are in the church, or still fence-sitting, for your own good I urge you to get the hell out of that wasteland of half-truths. You’ll have to make the journey alone, ultimately, and it will be hard, but can you imagine devoting your life to a farce?