LDS Apologetic Response to Atheistic Materialism

[MistahStokes]

Implicit in the question, it seems, is the assumption that, for "Science," God is an irrelevant conjecture. Now, that's certainly a common and time-honored view.

I'm with you on this, the God of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the God of Joseph Smith is not a Neo-platonic abstracta like the God of the Philosophers (for most, pardon to PvI). I'm all for a Mormons jumping into some kind of materialism, but the consequence of that is God becomes a thing among things.

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

That was not the question. The question was how the LDS view it. I answered as a LDS.

Quit frankly if there is a Christian God, and if he loves his children then I'm sure that he will do nothing evil or unrighteous to me. I've lived a good life, and tried to do some good in this world, tried to leave it a slightly better place for my being here. So I'm comfortably safe there.

If the Hindi are correct. I get the opportunity to come back as a cow, and drink from the Ganges. That isn't so bad for a cow.

The Buddhists give up all passions, and desires. Not my cup of tea, but I'll still exist. So is is kinda a win there.

If the Atheists are correct neither one of us will know any different anyway.

[cksalmon]

Here is Pratt's Absurdities of Immaterialism. Way dated, but influential.

Again, good link. I do very much admire Pratt (not just here) for owning the courage of his convictions.

But, does the following describe a generally-accepted principle among the Latter-day Saints?

"The followers of Joseph Smith," says this author [Good], "hold the doctrine of the materiality of all existence in common with the ancient academics." This, sir, we admit. Our belief, however, in this doctrine, is founded, not on any modern supernatural revelation, unfolding this doctrine, as this author insinuates, but on reason and common sense. The doctrine of immaterialism, in our estimation, is false, and in the highest degree absurd, and unworthy the belief of any true Christian philosopher.

That is to ask: Is a thorough-going materialism assumed by Mormons on the bases of reason and common sense, and not on the basis of supernatural revelation?

[WalkerW]

WWalker,

I believe it was Stephen J Gould who made the case that the biggest misconception about evolution is that it is a matter of progression TOWARDS something. Most people consider that something directionally as "up" or progressive.

The reality of evolutionary change is that it first - favors diversity, and then second - sustains individuals fitted to survival in a given environment in order to pass on their genes and continue life.

We see order in this process, whether we view it mythologically as the creation towards which Man is the pinnacle or a the progression of fish to homosapian sapian made so famous in the cartoons.

Blake Ostler had some thoughts on order and disorder in Mormon cosmology:

"[W]hile the apparent design in the world points to an intelligent designer, the world's equally apparent disorder and evolutionary development point to an intelligent designer who is not absolutely unlimited or unconditioned...it seems perfectly acceptable to regard the material universe's existence as not needing an explanation. For example, uniform motion does not need an explanation in Newtonian physics. What needs explanation is change of motion. To remain in motion is natural given the Newtonian system of physical explanation. Similarly as the conservation laws of modern science demonstrate, existence is the natural state of mass/energy. Given conservation laws, the existence of mass/energy does not need an explanation. Given Mormon cosmology, the existence of mass/energy needs no explanation

[WalkerW]

I'm with you on this, the God of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the God of Joseph Smith is not a Neo-platonic abstracta like the God of the Philosophers (for most, pardon to PvI). I'm all for a Mormons jumping into some kind of materialism, but the consequence of that is God becomes a thing among things.

An eternal will among many eternal wills, including your own.

[Nofear]

That is to ask: Is a thorough-going materialism assumed by Mormons on the bases of reason and common sense, and not on the basis of supernatural revelation?

If it wasn't for D&C 131:7 (or his historical equivalent) it may be argued that Pratt would not have argued against immaterialism. As it is, we do have that expression "There is no such thing as immaterial matter," and so we Mormons frequently take to a strict materialist cosmology. I do. But that is not to say our physicalism is the physicalism of contemporary science. Indeed, we need at least one, if not two, other kinds of matter above and beyond our physical matter (currently best described by the standard model).

In short, the answer is basically no ... our materialist leanings are not reason based so much as revelation based.

Disclaimer: D&C 131:7 is not a specific "revelation" so much as a recounting of a principle Joseph Smith gave as way of correction to a Methodist preacher after listening to one of his sermons. Nonetheless, we deem it a true principle revealed from on high.

[mfbukowski]

I think Mormonism embraces a form of physicalism given the anthropomorphic view of God. I would say that Christianity as a whole should embrace it due to the centerpiece of the Resurrection and future resurrection state. I guess this would be theistic materialism compared to atheistic. Sterling McMurrin viewed Mormonism as ultimately materialistic.

And he was right.

My life is very busy at this time, and I cannot really take on this topic, but the pragmatism of William James and John Dewey are clearly the answer- harmonizing science with the nature of spiritual experience.

I haven't read the thread, but in my opinion, this is the way to go for Mormonism. The view that man is god is in fact correct as affirmed in humanism, what it misses is that God is a Man.

[Lars Umlaut]

N.B.

What's that mean?

[WalkerW]

And he was right.

My life is very busy at this time, and I cannot really take on this topic, but the pragmatism of William James and John Dewey are clearly the answer- harmonizing science with the nature of spiritual experience.

I haven't read the thread, but in my opinion, this is the way to go for Mormonism. The view that man is god is in fact correct as affirmed in humanism, what it misses is that God is a Man.

Oxford psychologist and philosopher Daniel N. Robinson had this to say on James:

"William James, as noted earlier in this essay, has been seen as protecting religious experience against the critical resources of scientific positivism. But this is a far too defensive way of understanding his overall project. The overall project is addressed to the nature of human nature and, therefore, to the methodological and explanatory orthodoxies likely to frustrate and mislead the honest inquirer. It goes without saying that contemporary psychology, philosophy of mind, "cognitive neuroscience," evolutionary psychology, and sociobiology have virtually nothing to say on this subject beyond what James's Varieties put on notice a century ago. In their more "scientific" projections, these specialist disciplines, slavishly attached to positivistic modes of inquiry and explanation, have so depersonalized the person as to be unable to make contact with much that is constitutive of real, individual, personal being.

It is not solely the religious dimension of life that is either neglected or rejected by this perspective but whole realms of significant motives, sentiments, aspirations, and thought. Little in cognitive psychology, for example, avails itself of the selective nature of perception where the selectivity is grounded in beliefs of consequence. The "brain sciences," in their merely correlative modes of inquiry, can offer no more than some connection in time between belief or sentiment and activity here or there within the nervous system. Together, "cognitive neuroscience," as with sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, serve up scripts and stories-call them objective accounts, if this is what they are-that never quite reach the level of lived life. Thus, one is tempted to say that religious experience "works" in just that way that conceptual analysis and reductive science do not.

James was no machine wrecker and surely not one to turn off the laboratory lights. He has no theory regarding abstract tools. Tools are there for purposes, and questions regarding the quality of a given tool require a specification of the task at hand. Science and philosophy are tools, as are thoughts and sentiments and actions. None of these is the ultimate tool; none is beyond or above critical appraisal, further refinement, transient shifts in status. It is only within that delusional "Block Universe," whose properties have been philosophically set and catalogued once and for all time, that everything is assigned to a fixed place, won at a fixed price, used according to a fixed book of rules. This is the universe of the idle, sometimes the mad. It is not the place in which the healthy and robust life proceeds. In this latter place, there is constant interaction between what the real world affords and what the percipient selects from it in real attempts to render life intelligible, successful, at least tractable. For this task, the place to look is in the handbook of physics and chemistry; for that task, look to settled law; and for that task, only one's dominant experiences and foundational beliefs are serviceable. Where these lead determines the trust the actor will have in them. Unlike the Block Universe, however, where for each question there is some experimentum crucis to supply an answer, real habitats are the laboratories of the moment, and the data eve'r subject to revision.

It is in the very doing that one records faith in faith itself; belief in belief. It is in the very doing that one acknowledges that there is a point to life, even the life of the moment. It is a point within what is felt to be a larger and ever more inclusive point, belief in this being no less arresting than belief in the moment itself. This is how religious experience works. Where nothing like it is available to the actor, a radically different world of options arises, offering quite different ways of understanding oneself, one's life. As James understood these two worlds, no set of antagonistic beliefs could be more alive, less avoidable, less momentous." ("How Religious Experience "Works": Jamesian Pragmatism and Its Warrants," Review of Metaphysics 56:4, June 2003)

Truman G. Madsen has a good article entitled "William James: Philosopher-Educator," BYU Studies 4:1 (1961).

[Spurven Ten Sing]

What's that mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nota_bene

[changed]

materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter...

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8 We cannot asee it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

- (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 131:7 - 8 )

LDS believe in materialism, we just think matter can be a whole lot more glorious than others do .

[Greg Smith]

The most compelling LDS argument is probably the potential for on-going revelation from God, both to others and to oneself. And, this has an experimental vibe to it that appeals to many moderns of a scientific cast (if they have not ruled out a priori the idea of a Divine).

This has been mentioned.

The LDS response also has some burdens under which it does not labor vis-a-vis the classical Christian stance:

* LDS don't posit creation ex nihilo, especially for spirit intelligences. Thus, one is spared having to defend God creating beings in his image who should be bound my moral law but who universally act in ways not to be so bound (and will suffer, in many Christian formulations, eternal unending torment if they don't).

* The lack of ex nihilo creation of free agents also dispenses with the Calvinistic version of pre-destination (which many people find morally reprehensible, and which even motivated some of the 19th-century shift from belief to agnosticism). Also, being uncreated, LDS moral agents are not the result of a causal chain that in a materialistic deterministic view would make free will an illusion.

* The LDS God is not the victim of various philosophical burdens like aseity, impassible, immutable, timelessness, etc., which make His engagement with the world, or decision to create, etc. opaque at best.

* Not holding the Nicene creed avoids some of the philosophical difficulties of that (i.e., some have argued that this formulation is inherently self-contradictory). Regardless of the merits of this argument (which I think substantial), the sorts of people who adopt a reductionist materialism are going to have little if any patience for that type of "mystery." :-)

* The LDS view that mortals had a pre-mortal existence in which they acceded to and rejoiced in the telestial mortal experience also provides both an aspect of a robust theodicy (this is being done with our permission and informed consent, as opposed to being ex nihiloed into existence) and explanation for why God does not reveal himself in the way in which materialists think he ought to. That God is, in a sense, "hidden" from scientific searches by His and our own choice makes a great deal of sense in this view. [Even if God exists in time and space and as a 'regular' material object amenable to study, this does not mean that he can be 'controlled for' or 'detected' if he didn't wish to be. This would rather be like a bunch of Neolithic hunters convinced that if they watch the lake long enough, the diver (if there is one) will have to come up for air--completely unaware that the diver has a SCUBA suit. He exists, but can evade their detection if necessary by natural means that they can probably not conceptualize.]

In short, I think the LDS view has everything the "conventional Christian" response has, plus revelation as a real option, and without a few major stumbling blocks for a modern/post-modern investigator. [unsurprisingly, since these aspects are those relying on Platonic et al philosophy, from which the world has moved on. So, it's hard to also swallow Platonic ideals, say, in the theology on offer when you've given up a Platonic universe in every other sense.]

GLS

[elguanteloko]

Fair enough. I guess it would depend on the god and the ideas that accompany its existence.

Can you provide an example of how this would occur, please?

[changed]

I fail to see how God can help establish meaning and purpose.

I would say that God establishes the greatest meaning and purpose. There are many different meanings/purposes you can live for:

you can live for cars

you can live for science

you can live for art

you can live for music

you can live for pleasure

you can live for power

of all the things you can live for though, living for God, to become perfect - perfectly loving, perfect family, to become like God - that's the biggest, greatest, grandest, most glorious thing you could live for. God gives meaning a capital "M". All other meanings/purposes are temporary and shallow in comparison.

[WalkerW]

The most compelling LDS argument is probably the potential for on-going revelation from God, both to others and to oneself. And, this has an experimental vibe to it that appeals to many moderns of a scientific cast (if they have not ruled out a priori the idea of a Divine).

This has been mentioned.

The LDS response also has some burdens under which it does not labor vis-a-vis the classical Christian stance:

* LDS don't posit creation ex nihilo, especially for spirit intelligences. Thus, one is spared having to defend God creating beings in his image who should be bound my moral law but who universally act in ways not to be so bound (and will suffer, in many Christian formulations, eternal unending torment if they don't).

* The lack of ex nihilo creation of free agents also dispenses with the Calvinistic version of pre-destination (which many people find morally reprehensible, and which even motivated some of the 19th-century shift from belief to agnosticism). Also, being uncreated, LDS moral agents are not the result of a causal chain that in a materialistic deterministic view would make free will an illusion.

* The LDS God is not the victim of various philosophical burdens like aseity, impassible, immutable, timelessness, etc., which make His engagement with the world, or decision to create, etc. opaque at best.

* Not holding the Nicene creed avoids some of the philosophical difficulties of that (i.e., some have argued that this formulation is inherently self-contradictory). Regardless of the merits of this argument (which I think substantial), the sorts of people who adopt a reductionist materialism are going to have little if any patience for that type of "mystery." :-)

* The LDS view that mortals had a pre-mortal existence in which they acceded to and rejoiced in the telestial mortal experience also provides both an aspect of a robust theodicy (this is being done with our permission and informed consent, as opposed to being ex nihiloed into existence) and explanation for why God does not reveal himself in the way in which materialists think he ought to. That God is, in a sense, "hidden" from scientific searches by His and our own choice makes a great deal of sense in this view. [Even if God exists in time and space and as a 'regular' material object amenable to study, this does not mean that he can be 'controlled for' or 'detected' if he didn't wish to be. This would rather be like a bunch of Neolithic hunters convinced that if they watch the lake long enough, the diver (if there is one) will have to come up for air--completely unaware that the diver has a SCUBA suit. He exists, but can evade their detection if necessary by natural means that they can probably not conceptualize.]

In short, I think the LDS view has everything the "conventional Christian" response has, plus revelation as a real option, and without a few major stumbling blocks for a modern/post-modern investigator. [unsurprisingly, since these aspects are those relying on Platonic et al philosophy, from which the world has moved on. So, it's hard to also swallow Platonic ideals, say, in the theology on offer when you've given up a Platonic universe in every other sense.]

GLS

Excellent summary, especially that last bit about the pre-mortal existence.

[WalkerW]

Can you provide an example of how this would occur, please?

A god that seeks to make you a god is quite different from a god that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

[elguanteloko]

I would say that God establishes the greatest meaning and purpose.

God can't establish any purpose for others; He may only presents one option and WE choose it if we want to follow it. His contribution is really no more than me telling you to live a "good and meaningful" life: YOU have to choose, among the options, what such "good and meaningful" consists of.

[Bill Hamblin]

My article on Hitchens

[elguanteloko]

A god that seeks to make you a god is quite different from a god that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Let's say a powerful King wants to make me a King, too. Does that mean my purpose suddenly becomes to be a King? I don't get how you can jump from one to the other like you are implying we can.

[changed]

God can't establish any purpose for others; He may only presents one option and WE choose it if we want to follow it. His contribution is really no more than me telling you to live a "good and meaningful" life: YOU have to choose, among the options, what such "good and meaningful" consists of.

Without God, we would not be able to choose it....

I could go tell some poor starving kid in africa "go to school" but that is not a choice for them unless someone places a school within reach.

some choices are not there without God.

ultimate meaning and purpose - not there without God.

[changed]

Let's say a powerful King wants to make me a King, too. Does that mean my purpose suddenly becomes to be a King? I don't get how you can jump from one to the other like you are implying we can.

you can choose not to, but why would choose not to?

something better? is there anything better than becoming a God?

[elguanteloko]

Without God, we would not be able to choose it....

If you did not know the option then you would neither reject nor accept it since there is no "it" in the first place. If you know the option but it's impossible to reach then you could choose to follow or reject it but at the end you would not have it regardless. If you know the option and you can realize it plus you follow it, then at the end you may have it. Only in the first context does your statement makes sense.

I could go tell some poor starving kid in africa "go to school" but that is not a choice for them unless someone places a school within reach.

If the kid has other 40 schools close to him and you tell him to go to one of those it does not mean that your option is the best and it does not explain it is the best school. It also does not mean, even if your option is full of "glory", that it is the good school to follow. Indeed you are portraying here God since he just tells you to do something, may provide the means, but he never tells you why it is good to go there.

some choices are not there without God.

Sure.

ultimate meaning and purpose - not there without God.

HIS meaning and purpose would not be there without God. Calling it "ultimate" really does not contribute anything we can use.

[elguanteloko]

you can choose not to, but why would choose not to?

something better? is there anything better than becoming a God?

Is there anything better than becoming a King and having absolute power on earth?

...What about being good and moral as we consider what this implies with our sincere efforts?

[Greg Smith]

Let's say a powerful King wants to make me a King, too. Does that mean my purpose suddenly becomes to be a King? I don't get how you can jump from one to the other like you are implying we can.

A better analogy would be something like you're a feral child, raised by wolves or some such. You don't have language beyond a few inarticulate grunts and yelps. You spend your days naked, stalking prey, fighting over scraps, and sleeping huddled up to keep warm.

Then, one day, you meet an actual human. But, this human is clothed, is clean, is free from parasites, has technology, science, art, literature, etc. He takes you under his wing, and with a lot of work teachings you to speak and understand his language.

He then tells you that you're his son, and he's your father. You were lost, but now you're found. And, it's going to take a great deal more expense, time, and energy on his part, and a willing engagement on yours, to get you out of this feral state. You can, if you insist, go back to the wolf pack. But, what you really are--he tells you--is human. And, that has a destiny far more noble, and you will be far more happy, than what you were doing before--even though it had its simple pleasures and moments of excitement. By becoming human you also open yourself up to the risks of pride, jealousy, and the need to keep social and moral norms. But, in the long run, he promises, you will like it better.

In the LDS view, to discover God is to make contact with the sort of being we are in embryo. It gives a purpose because now we see who we are, and what we cost Him. As we trust Him, we get glimpses of it, and continue on.

===

So, the king just doesn't show up and make you a king. The ugly duckling learns that it is, in fact, a swan. And so, all the things it thought it wanted as a duck are less important, "once you know who you are."

GLS

[Bill Hamblin]

A better analogy would be something like you're a feral child, raised by wolves or some such. You don't have language beyond a few inarticulate grunts and yelps. You spend your days naked, stalking prey, fighting over scraps, and sleeping huddled up to keep warm.

Then, one day, you meet an actual human. But, this human is clothed, is clean, is free from parasites, has technology, science, art, literature, etc. He takes you under his wing, and with a lot of work teachings you to speak and understand his language.

He then tells you that you're his son, and he's your father. You were lost, but now you're found. And, it's going to take a great deal more expense, time, and energy on his part, and a willing engagement on yours, to get you out of this feral state. You can, if you insist, go back to the wolf pack. But, what you really are--he tells you--is human. And, that has a destiny far more noble, and you will be far more happy, than what you were doing before--even though it had its simple pleasures and moments of excitement. By becoming human you also open yourself up to the risks of pride, jealousy, and the need to keep social and moral norms. But, in the long run, he promises, you will like it better.

In the LDS view, to discover God is to make contact with the sort of being we are in embryo. It gives a purpose because now we see who we are, and what we cost Him. As we trust Him, we get glimpses of it, and continue on.

===

So, the king just doesn't show up and make you a king. The ugly duckling learns that it is, in fact, a swan. And so, all the things it thought it wanted as a duck are less important, "once you know who you are."

GLS

I like this analogy.

But have you read the Jungle Book?