Anti-Mormonism and the Magic World View

[Uncle Dale]

...

How else can the act of "seeing" using a rock in a hat be described? There is no natural process for rock looking. On the religious side, there aren't any ordinances or rituals governing such a thing (that I know of of). Its just something incredibly weird that you can't explain. Magic is a good word for that.

...

I would explain it in a way that has nothing to do with magic -- other than the

fact that "magical impostors" sometimes make use of crystal balls, etc., to

perpetrate their own, individual frauds.

The phenomenon of disassociation, brought on through the media or catalyst

of some luminous object, has nothing to do with "magic." Ecstatic experience

may convince the crystal-gazer that it is the gazed-at object which is the cause

of the phenomenon, but that is a simple confusion of means with ends and

generally involves some prejudice or logical fallacy.

There is quite a literature built up over the centuries on scrying. I dismiss

most of the interpretation of what is involved in the phenomenon, but I do

not ridicule it as "magic."

Uncle Dale

[DrW]

What does that have to do with magic as a practice?

It doesn't. Pahoran was having problems with definitions of magical thinking. I stated that it was a term of art in psychology and the cognitive sciences and provided the Spock article as an example of how it is used.

And in any case, I would not say that this thread was a discussion of the practice of magic. It is a discussion about the role of magical thinking in the faithful Mormon worldview, and why that concept seems to be so annoying to Mormons.

We have determined, I believe, that there is a sound factual, historical and logical basis for applying the term, and that the main objection stems from a negative emotional response to it.

I, for one, would like to gain some insight into why that is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We have determined, I believe, that there is a sound factual, historical and logical basis for applying the term, and that the main objection stems from a negative emotional response to it.

Do you think?? I also think the term stupid also has a negative emontianl response as well.

I realise that is not what you mean when you say "magical", so we don't need to revisit that. I guess you could say that that much is obvious. I still maintain that it doesn't help your casue to use the term.

[Uncle Dale]

...I still maintain that it doesn't help your [cause] to use the term.

If the purpose is to scare some Evangelical Christian away from personally investigating the

possible validity of Mormonism, then use of words like "magic," "occult" and "cult" probably

have some substantial effect.

To some extent, pejorative use of the same words might effect the views of a non-Christian

who was investigating the Latter Day Saints as promoting an honest, respected religion.

They may also have a proper place in carefully thought-out scholarly writings.

But in discussions between Mormons and non-Mormons (such as internet MB arguments),

I still must go back to the OP here, and agree with Pahoran.

If the purpose of such discussions is to draw participants out, and have them freely express

and consider various viewpoints, it does little good to "poison the well" with terms such as

"the magic world view." I do not think that there is any consensus on what such a term

really means, and Mormons hearing it are unlikely to respond with anything like open minds.

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

It doesn't. Pahoran was having problems with definitions of magical thinking. I stated that it was a term of art in psychology and the cognitive sciences and provided the Spock article as an example of how it is used.

And in any case, I would not say that this thread was a discussion of the practice of magic. It is a discussion about the role of magical thinking in the faithful Mormon worldview, and why that concept seems to be so annoying to Mormons.

We have determined, I believe, that there is a sound factual, historical and logical basis for applying the term, and that the main objection stems from a negative emotional response to it.

I, for one, would like to gain some insight into why that is.

It's annoying to me because it seems to be an invented idea to compare my cognitive abilities to a 5 year old. It's even more annoying because people who employ it often have a rather shallow understanding of what magic is. Rather than having a sound "factual" or "historical" basis, as you say, it seems to be rather self-serving and made up after the fact. If by "factual" you mean that people like Harris and Dawkins believe it, and by "historical" you mean that people in the past have employed this definition, then I agree. As far as being a useful way to view religious belief? No.

[DrW]

It's annoying to me because it seems to be an invented idea to compare my cognitive abilities to a 5 year old. It's even more annoying because people who employ it often have a rather shallow understanding of what magic is. Rather than having a sound "factual" or "historical" basis, as you say, it seems to be rather self-serving and made up after the fact. If by "factual" you mean that people like Harris and Dawkins believe it, and by "historical" you mean that people in the past have employed this definition, then I agree. As far as being a useful way to view religious belief? No.

Fair comment. Thanks.

As has already been asked; what term would you suggest for the thought processes that allow one to hold on to an unfounded belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Also, one would get the impression from many of the comments here from faithful Mormons (including yours) that "people like Dawkins and Harris" (and probably me, as well) represent some kind of out-of-touch fringe minority. That may well be true here on this board, but it;s not the case in the wider world.

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchins, Michael Shermer, Karen Anderson, Bertrand Russell, Victor Stenger and others are authors who are willing to write and publish about the problems with religion that are held by most people in the developed countries of the world. They represent the thinking of hundreds of millions who do not write and publish.

In most technologically advanced societies in Europe, Russia, Japan, and China, etc., far more people think more like Dawkins and Harris than think like President Monson or Boyd K. Packer.

This kind of logical, rational thinking is fostered to a much greater extent at Dawkins' secular Oxford or my secular MIT, for example, than at Mormon BYU.

At BYU, there seems to be ongoing disagreements between the life sciences and religion faculties as to what students are to be taught in terms of cosmology and evolution.

If the University expects science students to simultaneously hold diametrically opposing beliefs in these areas, is the University not fostering magical thinking?

[DrW]

Do you think?? I also think the term stupid also has a negative emontianl response as well.

I realise that is not what you mean when you say "magical", so we don't need to revisit that. I guess you could say that that much is obvious. I still maintain that it doesn't help your casue to use the term.

Stupid does have a negative connotation, I agree. Stupid, to my knowledge, is not a term of art. The term might be something like low IQ or intellectually challenged. Nobody is calling anybody stupid here (I don't think).

Also, I would not say that I had any "cause" here. I did state a position on the thread subject (in post #7). Some other posters disagree with that position, and other seem to more or less agree with it.

As mentioned, I am interested in learning why magical thinking term has such a negative connotation and have seen several opinions on the matter. And again, I appreciate hearing what you have to say.

[DrW]

If the purpose is to scare some Evangelical Christian away from personally investigating the

possible validity of Mormonism, then use of words like "magic," "occult" and "cult" probably

have some substantial effect.

To some extent, pejorative use of the same words might effect the views of a non-Christian

who was investigating the Latter Day Saints as promoting an honest, respected religion.

They may also have a proper place in carefully thought-out scholarly writings.

But in discussions between Mormons and non-Mormons (such as internet MB arguments),

I still must go back to the OP here, and agree with Pahoran.

If the purpose of such discussions is to draw participants out, and have them freely express

and consider various viewpoints, it does little good to "poison the well" with terms such as

"the magic world view." I do not think that there is any consensus on what such a term

really means, and Mormons hearing it are unlikely to respond with anything like open minds.

UD

UD,

From the responses here by apparently faithful Mormons, I would say that you are right. I also believe, as you stated earlier, that the response is more emotional than intellectual.

And finally, I hope we are having an internet MB discussion instead of an MB argument. (I believe it is still a discussion because nobody is calling anybody names yet.)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Stupid does have a negative connotation, I agree. Stupid, to my knowledge, is not a term of art. The term might be something like low IQ or intellectually challenged. Nobody is calling anybody stupid here (I don't think).

Also, I would not say that I had any "cause" here. I did state a position on the thread subject (in post #7). Some other posters disagree with that position, and other seem to more or less agree with it.

As mentioned, I am interested in learning why magical thinking term has such a negative connotation and have seen several opinions on the matter. And again, I appreciate hearing what you have to say.

Hey at least you are agreeable.

I am not so sure that "people like Dawkins and Harris represent some kind of out-of-touch fringe minority. That may well be true here on this board, but it;s not the case in the wider world." I dont think this is a fair assessment. Most people are not athiests, it is true that eruope is becomming more secular, but I would wager a bet that most people believe in God or some form of God.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Fair comment. Thanks.

No sweat.

As has already been asked; what term would you suggest for the thought processes that allow one to hold on to an unfounded belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Why is a term needed? In terms of the discussion on this board, it seems you are positing that there is overwhelming "evidence" against the existence of God. This is simply not the case.

Also, one would get the impression from many of the comments here from faithful Mormons (including yours) that "people like Dawkins and Harris" (and probably me, as well) represent some kind of out-of-touch fringe minority. That may well be true here on this board, but it;s not the case in the wider world. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchins, Michael Shermer, Karen Anderson, Bertrand Russell, Victor Stenger and others are authors who are willing to write and publish about the problems with religion that are held by most people in the developed countries of the world. They represent the thinking of hundreds of millions who do not write and publish.

(Speaking of Hitchens, the man is an abysmal source on religion. Inaccurate, foolhardy, disrespectful, overconfident and under-informed. It's actually quite remarkable how much the man gets wrong, even on the little details.)

The new pop-atheism is smaller than you think. It's also very religious. It has prophets, scriptures, conferences, ordinances, priesthood, and all sorts of religious trappings.

Further, majority opinion does not equal truth. While you aren't expressly making this argument you are leaning precariously towards it. To respond I will simply cite the hundreds of millions or people who do believe in God, and now we are at a stalemate in that avenue. Or maybe we can take a vote on truth?

In most technologically advanced societies in Europe, Russia, Japan, and China, etc., far more people think more like Dawkins and Harris than think like President Monson or Boyd K. Packer.

I disagree with truth by numbers. Otherwise we would read a lot more about the geological tumult that occurred when the world shifted from being flat to round.

This kind of logical, rational thinking is fostered to a much greater extent at Dawkins' secular Oxford or my secular MIT, for example, than at Mormon BYU.

There is logical, rational belief in God.

There are logical, rational people at BYU.

There are logical, rational people at my secular U of U. Some of them believe in God, too.

At BYU, there seems to be ongoing disagreements between the life sciences and religion faculties as to what students are to be taught in terms of cosmology and evolution.

How do you know this? Did you attend any classes at BYU?

Further, see "The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution."

And further still, there is still scientific disagreement on evolutionary implications and particulars amongst "rational scientists."

There are "rational scientist" Mormons.

And so forth.

You seem to be buying into a superficial false dichotomy of religion being the benighted superstiocious idiots verses the atheist enlightened, rational wise ones. I disagree with that view entirely, and note that Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and others have done much to generate that stereotype in order to poison the well, as this thread was originally intended to argue.

Though I believe there are responsible, scholarly ways to employ the term "magic," I also believe it needs to be defined and explained in its sphere when being discussed. Not tacked on to whatever I think is stupid. So far I haven't seen a good definition of "magic" in the thread. I see self-serving definitions that basically say "you are stupid, I am smart."

Oh, you love your wife and family, and think they bring you happiness? I'm sorry, but that is mere "magical thinking." You're really a biological machine that wants sex and food. Sorry!

That sort of thing.

If the University expects science students to simultaneously hold diametrically opposing beliefs in these areas, is the University not fostering magical thinking?

A University is a place we go to get ideas. (And more so now it is becoming a place where people get pieces of paper that help them go make more money.) I'm not sure I understand your question in light of that fact. The university does not "expect students to simultaneously hold diametrically opposing beliefs."

UD,From the responses here by apparently faithful Mormons, I would say that you are right. I also believe, as you stated earlier, that the response is more emotional than intellectual.

In light of my responses to you, I have to conclude you are hampered by "magical thinking" in the way our conversation has played out. And by that term I mean you have "thought processes that are allowing you to hold on to an unfounded belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In light of my responses to you, I have to conclude you are hampered by "magical thinking" in the way our conversation has played out. And by that term I mean you have "thought processes that are allowing you to hold on to an unfounded belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

Interesting observation.

[juliann]

{Richard Bushman quotes Lucy:}

{Bushman comments:} Lucy's point was that Smiths were not lazy--they had not stopped their labor to practice magic--but she showed her knowledge of formulas and rituals and associated them with "the welfare of our souls." Magic and religion melded in Smith family culture. (Rough Stone Rolling, 50-51)

....

{Later Bushman writes:}

When he married Emma Hale in 1827, Joseph was on the eve or realizing himself as a prophet. He may still have been involved in magic, but he was sincere when he told Emma's father that his treasure-seeking days were over. Magic has served its purpose in his life. (Ibid, 54)

...

{and...}

He [Joseph Smith Sr] was a gentle, disappointed man with an inclination to compensate for his failures with magic and drink. (Ibid, 55)

etc.

I consider neither Quinn nor Bushman to be anti-Mormon.

Does Bushman ever accuse anyone of magical thinking? These quotes say nothing about magical thinking because magical thinking is a pejorative not a description of an act. It boils down to "I believe in religion/science/whatever" but "You believe in magic". (The publisher forced the word "magic" in the title of the book book not the authors)

Throughout the history of the modern academic study of religion and culture, as we have noted, the definition of â??magicâ? in relation to science and religion has been a major problem. At the root of the problem is the loaded, evaluative connotation of â??magicâ? as false, deceptive, discredited, or morally tainted, contrasted with both science (a correct, enlightened understanding of natural law and causation) and religion (a correct, enlightened understanding of the divine and spirituality). Thus, â??magicâ? is relegated to the â??theyâ? side of a â??we/theyâ? dichotomy. This is simultaneously unfair to the materials and practices studied under the heading of â??magic,â? and self-serving for the materials (mainly those we identify as â??our ownâ?) that are exempted from that label. It perpetuates a complacent double standard.

Marvin Meyer & Richard Smith, eds. Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994), p 13.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Looks like Marvin Meyer & Richard Smith said pretty much what I've been saying, only in one paragraph.

[DrW]

Hey at least you are agreeable.

I am not so sure that "people like Dawkins and Harris represent some kind of out-of-touch fringe minority. That may well be true here on this board, but it;s not the case in the wider world." I dont think this is a fair assessment. Most people are not athiests, it is true that eruope is becomming more secular, but I would wager a bet that most people believe in God or some form of God.

MRSR

Great. We can agree again.

I am not sure about the number of atheists in the world. Until recently, avowing atheism could get you killed in Islam, and it can still kill a political career in the US, so it is pretty hard to assess. I guess I would agree with you that belief in some kind of God is widespread.

However, in my view, magical thinking does not track one-on-one with religious belief. Religions vary widely in the amount of magical thinking required. In general, the more conservative and fundamentalist the religion, the more magical thinking it entails. Religions that do not insist on governing every aspect of life and labeling those who leave as apostates, for example, might entail less than those that do (such as Islam).

Deists and non-observant Jews do not seem to be much involved in magical thinking behavior patterns. What can we say about these two groups as compared to Mormons?

Here is something to think about in this regard:

The estimated world population of Jews is surprisingly close to that of Mormons. Both religions claim approximately 13 million adherents.

There have been some 178 Jewish Nobel Prize winners.

Would you care to guess how many Mormon Nobel Prize winners there have been? The answer is exactly 1.

And, like me, this one lone Mormon Nobel Prize winner eventually had to leave the Church because he no longer could believe its teachings. So in reality, the have been no Mormon Nobel Prize winners, 1 ex-Mormon Nobel Prize winners and 178 Jewish and Nobel Prize winners.

Two populations of 13 million: Nobel Prize ratio of 178 to 1.

With these kinds of numbers, it is clear that, even though Mormonism might pay lip service to science, there is little, if any, real accomplishmet.

I am not the only one who attributes this kind of underperformance at the top levels of science to the prevalence of magical thinking (or whatever you wish to call it) in Mormon Church education and culture.

[DrW]

Life OnAPlate said: In light of my responses to you, I have to conclude you are hampered by "magical thinking" in the way our conversation has played out. And by that term I mean you have "thought processes that are allowing you to hold on to an unfounded belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

Okay. But I try not to make a habit of it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Deists and non-observant Jews do not seem to be much involved in magical thinking behavior patterns. What can we say about these two groups as compared to Mormons?

Here is something to think about in this regard:

The estimated world population of Jews is surprisingly close to that of Mormons. Both religions claim approximately 13 million adherents.

There have been some 178 Jewish Nobel Prize winners.

Would you care to guess how many Mormon Nobel Prize winners there have been? The answer is exactly 1.

And, like me, this one lone Mormon Nobel Prize winner eventually had to leave the Church because he no longer could believe its teachings. So in reality, the have been no Mormon Nobel Prize winners, 1 ex-Mormon Nobel Prize winners and 178 Jewish and Nobel Prize winners.

Two populations of 13 million: Nobel Prize ratio of 178 to 1.

With these kinds of numbers, it is clear that, even though Mormonism might pay lip service to science, there is little, if any, real accomplishmet.

I am not the only one who attributes this kind of underperformance at the top levels of science to the prevalence of magical thinking (or whatever you wish to call it) in Mormon Church education and culture.

I have to say that this is a little bit of an odd post. Forgive me but I really dont care if there were 100 Nobel prizes or zero. For the record Al Gore got one of those and that is a joke, so what does that tell you about them now? Having Al Gore get a prize doesn't do your analysis of "I am not the only one who attributes this kind of underperformance at the top levels of science to the prevalence of magical thinking (or whatever you wish to call it) in Mormon Church education and culture." any good.

Thanks for the good dialogue though.

[ttribe]

Here is something to think about in this regard:

The estimated world population of Jews is surprisingly close to that of Mormons. Both religions claim approximately 13 million adherents.

There have been some 178 Jewish Nobel Prize winners.

Would you care to guess how many Mormon Nobel Prize winners there have been? The answer is exactly 1.

And, like me, this one lone Mormon Nobel Prize winner eventually had to leave the Church because he no longer could believe its teachings. So in reality, the have been no Mormon Nobel Prize winners, 1 ex-Mormon Nobel Prize winners and 178 Jewish and Nobel Prize winners.

Two populations of 13 million: Nobel Prize ratio of 178 to 1.

With these kinds of numbers, it is clear that, even though Mormonism might pay lip service to science, there is little, if any, real accomplishmet.

I am not the only one who attributes this kind of underperformance at the top levels of science to the prevalence of magical thinking (or whatever you wish to call it) in Mormon Church education and culture.

Wow...what a fine example of stripping all the other possible (and probable) variables from the comparison.

[wenglund]

As has already been asked; what term would you suggest for the thought processes that allow one to hold on to an unfounded belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

You mean like the belief that God doesn't exist?

If you are sincerely asking for a non-pejoritive, yet accurate and scholarly way of describing religious thinking in general, or LDS thinking in particular, and wish to avoid poisoning the well (whether you correctly understand Pahoran's point or not--I dont' believe you do), may I suggest "inductive thinking", where induction is defined as "reasoning which takes us 'beyond the confines of our current evidence or knowledge to conclusions about the unknown,'" (See HERE), and which simply entails reasonably drawing a general conclusion from specific observations.

You may also call it "religious epistemology" or "religious paradigm".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sethpayne]

Wow...what a fine example of stripping all the other possible (and probable) variables from the comparison.

Did DrW claim causation? I think he simply pointed out an interesting potential correlation.

Forgive me for speaking for DrW, but I seriously doubt that he would argue that this ratio is only explained by religious/ethnic tradition.

[ttribe]

Did DrW claim causation? I think he simply pointed out an interesting potential correlation.

Forgive me for speaking for DrW, but I seriously doubt that he would argue that this ratio is only explained by religious/ethnic tradition.

Oh, I think that is exactly what he was trying to imply.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Did DrW claim causation? I think he simply pointed out an interesting potential correlation.

Forgive me for speaking for DrW, but I seriously doubt that he would argue that this ratio is only explained by religious/ethnic tradition.

Why bring it up then? WEll I guess I will wait for his response.

[DrW]

Wow...what a fine example of stripping all the other possible (and probable) variables from the comparison.

I understand confounding variables. I can tell you that at a outcome ratio of 178 to 1, any interfering or confounding variable that would reverse the outcome would have to be a whopper (or whoppers) indeed.

And by the way I did not (and do not) offer this data as proof.

I offered it for your consideration (something to think about).

[sethpayne]

You mean like the belief that God doesn't exist?

If you are sincerely asking for a non-pejoritive, yet accurate and scholarly way of describing religious thinking in general, or LDS thinking in particular, and wish to avoid poisoning the well (whether you correctly understand Pahoran's point or not--I dont' believe you do), may I suggest "inductive thinking", where induction is defined as "reasoning which takes us 'beyond the confines of our current evidence or knowledge to conclusions about the unknown,'" (See HERE), and which simply entails reasonably drawing a general conclusion from specific observations.

You may also call it "religious epistemology" or "religious paradigm".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

You make good points about inductive reasoning which certainly has its value. However I, as one who firmly believes in God, must concede that any conclusions I may reach about God's existence or nature through inductive reasoning are very different from those conclusions reached regarding material, or scientific matters.

The difference is, that in many cases we get the opportunity to test and demonstrate the validity of our scientific inductive reasoning. For example, take Einstein's theory of relativity. He posited a theory based on inductive reasoning and then made a prediction about how this theory would explain planetary movement and indicated that an upcoming cosmic event would either support, or discredit his theory. (forgive me.... i can't remember the planet at the moment) In any case, what he predicted, happened. Of course you are correct, there are many parts of science that are more in the realm of faith because they are non reproducable and purely inductive -- non-demonstrable theories.

IMO, one may use inductive reasoning to conclude that there is a God. However, there is not a way to demonstrate the validity of this reasoning. No tests. No predictions that can be observed. To me, that makes a belief in God quite special. It really is a HOPE for something greater and better. It is faith.

Seth

[LifeOnaPlate]

MRSR

Great. We can agree again.

I am not sure about the number of atheists in the world. Until recently, avowing atheism could get you killed in Islam, and it can still kill a political career in the US, so it is pretty hard to assess. I guess I would agree with you that belief in some kind of God is widespread.

"Could get you killed in Islam."

This is another good example of the simplistic arguments you are making in general. Islam isn't a place. Islam isn't a singular phenomena without internal differences. There are some Islamic folks who would kill you for "avowing" atheism, Christianity, or whatever else. Do you think this is a widespread reaction? What is your source of information on this?

However, in my view, magical thinking does not track one-on-one with religious belief. Religions vary widely in the amount of magical thinking required. In general, the more conservative and fundamentalist the religion, the more magical thinking it entails. Religions that do not insist on governing every aspect of life and labeling those who leave as apostates, for example, might entail less than those that do (such as Islam).

Again, this seems like a terribly pieced together concept. As I have argued above.

Deists and non-observant Jews do not seem to be much involved in magical thinking behavior patterns. What can we say about these two groups as compared to Mormons?

We would have to find a meaningful outline of "magical thinking behavior patterns."

Here is something to think about in this regard:

The estimated world population of Jews is surprisingly close to that of Mormons. Both religions claim approximately 13 million adherents.

There have been some 178 Jewish Nobel Prize winners.

Would you care to guess how many Mormon Nobel Prize winners there have been? The answer is exactly 1.

And, like me, this one lone Mormon Nobel Prize winner eventually had to leave the Church because he no longer could believe its teachings. So in reality, the have been no Mormon Nobel Prize winners, 1 ex-Mormon Nobel Prize winners and 178 Jewish and Nobel Prize winners.

Two populations of 13 million: Nobel Prize ratio of 178 to 1.

Who was this winner?

Further, what on earth does Nobel Prize winning have to do with the existence of God? How many Nobel Prize winners have believed in God? This would be an important variable.

[juliann]

I am not the only one who attributes this kind of underperformance at the top levels of science to the prevalence of magical thinking (or whatever you wish to call it) in Mormon Church education and culture.

Wow, you sure got those Mormons with that one! I'll work on the part about "every scientist without a Nobel Prize is an underperformer" later....right after I finish up with counting all the underperforming atheletes without an Olympic Gold Medal....