Anti-Mormonism and the Magic World View

[LifeOnaPlate]

Tu quoque arguments aplenty.

[DrW]

I wonder which word has been used to "poison the well" more often,

"magic"

or;

"anti-Mormon"?

I wager the term "anti-Mormon" could be dropped altogether without substituting anything in its place and nothing of value would be lost. To offer but one example, consider this thread. The author, Pahoran, makes a complaint worth hearing. There is probably some truth to his charge that terms like "magic" often are thrown out to stonewall a discussion and contribute little value. But, he takes the unnecessary and counterproductive extra step to draw this out as if it were an "anti-Mormon" conspiracy. This is what "anti-Mormons" do, everyone from the notable historian Michael Quinn to his latest online run-in from the Evangelical Christian community. Anti-Mormons are infamous for this kind of low, underhanded behavior. They can't be trusted. They can't be taken seriously...

It's an "anti-Mormon tactic" that anyone who knows anything is well familiar with.

Liberal,

You have said what I have been waiting to hear. (I didn't know it until I read it, but you are absolutely right.)

At various times, folks on this board have accused me of being smug, arrogant, dogmatic, elitist, narrow-minded, self-righteous, preachy, atheistic, unreasonable, anti-Mormon, unwilling to change my preconceived ideas about anything, and (believe it or not) a magical thinker.

With the exception of magical thinker, I would have to agree that at times I have probably been (or certainly appeared to be) all of these. (By the way, the term "evidence", when used in the definition of magical thinking refers to objective, verifiable reproducible physical evidence, not interpreted scripture, or divine revelations. Given this definition, I would not agree that I could be rightly termed a magical thinker.)

Since the facts of what I have said, and how I have said it, would probably warrant the use of all of these terms by an opponent (with the exception of magical thinker), it annoys me very little when they are used.

And by the way, I have never referred to anyone else on this board as smug, arrogant, dogmatic, elitist, narrow-minded, self-righteous, preachy, atheistic, unreasonable, anti-Mormon, or unwilling to change their preconceived ideas about anything.

So, having seen the light, I would like to propose the terms:

supernatural thinking and supernatural thinker

instead of magical thinking or magical thinker..

And instead of smug, arrogant, dogmatic, elitist, narrow-minded, self-righteous, preachy, atheistic, unreasonable, anti-Mormon, or unwilling to change their preconceived ideas about anything, how about referring to folks like me as:

secularists,

secular humanists,

rationalists,

non-believers

democrats,

liberals,

agnostics, or better yet,

low probability agnostics.

And in full agreement with Liberal, let's also please drop the term anti-Mormon, as well. It sounds defensive and has no real definition.

If I were really anti-Mormon, you can bet I would not be here talking with a bunch of Mormons, (or with my kids or my family, or my wife for that matter).

This thread has convinced me that it would be much better to try and find labels that those being labeled agree with and are willing to accept. I have provided a list of the labels I agree with and proposed what I think is a fair and certainly non-pejorative substitute for magical thinking.

What say ye?

[juliann]

And in full agreement with Liberal, let's also please drop the term anti-Mormon, as well. It sounds defensive and has no real definition.

Well then I think we should drop the term bimbo, too. And I can think of a really long list of other pejoratives that have not been used but need to be dropped in this thread about magicial thinkers.

[Joseph Antley]

I think that both "magic" and "anti-Mormon" are just fine, when used appropriately.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think that both "magic" and "anti-Mormon" are just fine, when used appropriately.

Agreed.

Further, it seems DrW is dodging at this point.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am a little more impressed by Brooke --

I found Brooke enormously disappointing:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?rev...um=2&id=151

[DrW]

Agreed.

Further, it seems DrW is dodging at this point.

What is it that I am dodging?

[DrW]

I think that both "magic" and "anti-Mormon" are just fine, when used appropriately.

I believe that the terms "magical thinker" and/or "magical thinking" are the ones at issue here.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I found Brooke enormously disappointing:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?rev...um=2&id=151

But Dan, Will Bagley pointed to the awards this book received. Are you telling me there is a problem with it?

[Joseph Antley]

I believe that the terms "magical thinker" and/or "magical thinking" are the ones at issue here.

My all-important opinion is that those are fine too--when used appropriately. I haven't read the objections that others have to them. Joseph Smith certainly demonstrated some magical thinking--but I'm not sure I would call everyone who does so as an exclusively "magical thinker". If Joseph Smith was a "magical thinker", he was also a "Christian thinker", a "biblical thinker", maybe an "ethical thinker" and possibly a "political thinker".

[Daniel Peterson]

But Dan, Will Bagley pointed to the awards this book received. Are you telling me there is a problem with it?

Will Bagley.

Now there's a name that carries commanding authority in my world.

[DrW]

My all-important opinion is that those are fine too--when used appropriately. I haven't read the objections that others have to them. Joseph Smith certainly demonstrated some magical thinking--but I'm not sure I would call everyone who does so as an exclusively "magical thinker". If Joseph Smith was a "magical thinker", he was also a "Christian thinker", a "biblical thinker", maybe an "ethical thinker" and possibly a "political thinker".

It appears that we agree that there are appropriate uses, even on this board. Several others who have posted agree as well.

But some do not agree and apparently are quite annoyed or even offended by the these terms, especially when applied to their worldview.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Will Bagley.

Now there's a name that carries commanding authority in my world.

But Dan, like Will was saying, those awards mean a lot more than the "Mormon Mythory Association" awards received by the new MMM book, for example. And this is the sort of thing DrW might appreciate given his earlier example of Nobel Prize winners which he has yet to explain the point of sharing. If you missed it I strongly urge you to revisit the thread, it was a golden one.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What is it that I am dodging?

An explanation of your strange Nobel Prize comments, and answers to all the other questions or resonses to the other sources we have shared with you.

[Brant Gardner]

If Joseph Smith was a "magical thinker", he was also a "Christian thinker", a "biblical thinker", maybe an "ethical thinker" and possibly a "political thinker".

Just as a bit of a shameless plug for the FAIR Conference, I am preparing a paper related to the topic of the thread: "Joseph the Seer--or Why Joseph Translated with a Rock in His Hat."

[urroner]

Just as a bit of a shameless plug for the FAIR Conference, I am preparing a paper related to the topic of the thread: "Joseph the Seer--or Why Joseph Translated with a Rock in His Hat."

Brent, you greatly disappoint me. I have been told over and over again that we LDSers don't talk about such things and that we wish everybody would forget about them.

[DrW]

An explanation of your strange Nobel Prize comments, and answers to all the other questions or resonses to the other sources we have shared with you.

Fair enough.

Here are responses to questions that have not already been answered in other posts.

The Nobel, Prize information:

From nearly equal world populations of Mormons and Jews (approximately 13 mission), there have been

178 Jewish winners, 1 ex-Mormon winner and no active Mormon winners of the Nobel Prize.

This information was provided as one indication that, although (according to a now discredited claim often made by Mormon apologists) Mormons turn out more scientists and engineers per capita than other religions (or Utah more than other States), Mormons (as a religious group, and contrary to apologist claims) are severely under represented in (the top tiers of) science.

The lone (ex-Mormon) Nobel Prize winner was

Paul D. Boyer

. He shared the prize in 1997 for the "elucidation of the enzymatic mechanism underlying the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)." Boyer had his name be removed from the records of the Church because he could not reconcile Church teachings with science.

There are articles discussing the disproportionately high number of Jews among Nobel Prize winners. The articles that I have read on the subject cite Jewish culture as promoting the kind of worldview and thinking required to excel in science. Assuming that this is the case, whatever those cultural influences are, they appear to be largely absent in Mormon culture. I thought it particularly telling that the one Nobel Prize winner associated with the Church had asked that his name be removed from Church records.

This (remarkably strong inverse) correlation does not prove causation, but it would certainly be the basis for a testable hypothesis as to the influence of culture on productive science-oriented thought and behavior. And given the Bayesian probability priors on this one, I doubt that I would be surprised at the outcome.

Wade Englund's proposal:

Wade Englundâ??s suggestion to substitute "religious epistemology" or "religious paradigm" for â??magical thinkingâ? completely misses the point. The problem is not religion. The problem is the assumption of an active and ongoing influence of the supernatural (or "magic" as far as secularists are concerned).

True deists, for example, would not be magical thinkers, They do not have a worldview in which a supernatural being monitors their daily acts and thoughts, and is standing by to help things work out right in response to prayer.

[DrW]

Those who may feel that I am unfair in characterizing Mormonism as not conducive to scientific enterprise should consider the following:

BYU set up a genetics testing facility with the intent of demonstrating the presence Semitic ("Hebrew") DNA in Native American populations. When it was found that there was none, the lab was shut down, and the extensive data obtained (from more than 3000 samples) was never published.

Sorry, my friends, but this type of action is considered highly unethical in science. If this work would have been on a government grant instead of privately funded, the perpetrators would have been charged with scientific fraud and severely sanctioned.

As it was, this highly unethical anti-science institutional behavior only came to light when Simon Southerton was asked by the Church to contact a researcher at BYU regarding his questions on Native American DNA. (Please see below).

Simon Southerton said the following in his DNA Genealogies of the American Indians and The Book of Mormon, March 17, 2000.

"They suggested I speak to a BYU professor who was an expert in this field. I was irritated by the fact that they trusted Mormon scientists at BYU more than non-Mormon scientists, but I guess I had grown accustomed to this prejudice in the Church. I corresponded with this BYU professor on about four occasions until I became even more convinced of the seriousness of the situation. He was a very nice man and he was very honest with me. In the midst of his lengthy defenses of the Church he acknowledged that greater than 98% of American Indians came from Asia and that this conflicts with current thinking in the church regarding the whereabouts of the Lamanites today. Not only did he confirm my conclusions, he strengthened them even further. He confirmed that scientists at BYU had tested 3000 American Indians from Peru and they came up with the same problem of virtually all the female DNA lineages coming from Asia. Now I knew that all three major civilisations in the Americas the Aztecs, Maya and Incas were comprised of people who trace their genealogy back to Siberia. Data from Peru had been conspicuously lacking in my research."

This is but one example of the damage that magical (supernatural) thinking can do to science, and has done to BYU's credibility when it comes to scientific research.

[littlechild]

To me, a magical thinker is one who believes that evolution is fact, or that all species descended from one another. While Mormons didn't start this fairy tale, they acquiesce to it in hopes they will be well-regarded in the scientific community. This magical thinking error is evidence that at least some Mormons are willing to suspend disbelief for whatever reason - which makes them no better and no worse than anyone else.

Then again, since there are records of miracles taking place, you can see there is room for believing nearly anything. I mean, if God can perform miracles, something I accept as a believing Mormon, then why should I not be at peace with other's belief in the miraculous.

While I don't go to the extent of believing that God would use evolution to create the world, (I mean, after all, if Jesus can turn water into wine, or resurrect the dead, all within moments of time, why should He then take millions of years to create the earth and its inhabitants?), I can see why certain people, lacking faith perhaps in other methods, would resort to that idea as a comfort to themselves.

[littlechild]

The Nobel, Prize information:

From nearly equal world populations of Mormons and Jews (approximately 13 mission), there have been

178 Jewish winners, 1 ex-Mormon winner and no active Mormon winners of the Nobel Prize.

I believe they had similar public relations policies in the body of Pharoah's court magicians. Could you see an Hebrew getting any awards from that group?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Let us start with the lab shutdown claim. CFR.

[DrW]

To me, a magical thinker is one who believes that evolution is fact, or that all species descended from one another.

There is a fatal problem with your use of the term magical thinker and with your view on evolution. The verifiable, reproducible physical evidence from observation and experimentation supports evolution. (Therefore, someone who accepts evolution is not a magical thinker.)

Evolutionary theory has has extraordinary predictive power in many fields of science, including biology, pharmacology, molecular biology, genetics, paleontology, and physiology, to name a few. The supernatural creation theory is not supprted by objective evidence, cannot be the basis of a scientifc hypothesis, has no predictive power whatsoever, and is of absolutely no value to science. In fact, it represents anti-science in one of its most virulent forms.

So, if you ever depend on a prescription medicine to save or improve your life, have an advanced surgical procedure, or obtained therapies for cancer or a myriad of other diseases, please remember that these advances are based on the theory of evolution. Without the theory of evolution, we would not have many or most of them.

A supernatural being that is believed by some to have created the earth did not bring these to you, evolutionary science did.

[DrW]

Let us start with the lab shutdown claim. CFR.

The lab shutdown is beside the point. Labs can be shut down and started up. There is no inherent problem in doing so.

What is unethical is the failure to publish substantial data important to science. And it is especially unethical when the data withheld from publication would be damaging to a political, or religious, or business position held by the research institution that generated the data.

What you need to properly address this issue is the peer-reviewed paper from BYU showing the results of the 3000 genetic tests that were described to Southerton.

Good luck.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The lab shutdown is beside the point. Labs can be shut down and started up. There is no inherent problem in doing so.

What is unethical is the failure to publish substantial data important to science. And it is especially unethical when the data withheld from publication would be damaging to a political, or religious, or business position held by the research institution that generated the data.

What you need to properly address this issue is the peer-reviewed paper from BYU showing the results of the 3000 genetic tests that were described to Southerton.

Good luck.

You've offered nothing but hearsay. CFR.

[DrW]

You've offered nothing but hearsay. CFR.

I have provided you with the reference to Southerton's statement about the analysis of 3000 samples at BYU. What he has written is not hearsay, because he is reporting a conversation he had directly with the BYU professor.

If BYU does not publish the data, it would be difficult to find documentation, other than that from Southerton, that they did the work. If they did the work (as reported by Southerton), they must have had a lab. If they have not published the work in the last 9 years, then the lab must be effectively shut down or be one of the most unproductive operating labs in all of science.

Again, unless you can find the published paper describing the results from the 3000 samples, I will stand by the published Southerton reference already provided as sufficient evidence that a lab existed, and has since been shut down (BTW, re-purposing of the facilities would clearly be the same as shutting down the lab with respect to the genetics work in question.)