Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece: If You're an Atheist, Lie to Your Kids

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't have much of a "specific take" on theism.  Just a generalized one.

Thanks,

-Smac

Um, you seem to have a specific take on theism when you give your very LDS-specific testimony. Am I wrong?

[Kenngo1969]

I wrote something like this elsewhere once (paraphrasing, not quoting, because I'm too lazy to look it up even though I wrote it, so sue me ).  "As difficult as it is for me to conceive of a workable moral framework without some form of deity at its center, If you are an honest, upright, decent, caring human being who happens to derive your morality from a source other than religion, but who is determined to do as much good as you can possibly do for (and to) others and to make life as good as you can make it for those within your circle of influence before (from your perspective) succumbing to the void, more power to you."

Edited February 4, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

I don't have much of a "specific take" on theism.  Just a generalized one.

Um, you seem to have a specific take on theism when you give your very LDS-specific testimony. Am I wrong?

No.  I have a generalized take a theism, and a specific take on the Church.

The latter is a very small subset of the former.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

There is an authoritative source that we can look to for the doctrines of the Church: The Church.  

There is no comparable authoritative source for defining atheistic worldviews.  To the extent there is such a source, it's generalized and broad, like dictionary definitions.  I'm looking at atheism at that level (rather than individualized perspectives).

My jaw is on the floor, this seems so disrespectful and disingenuous.

Nonsense.  Nothing I said above can be reasonably construed as "disrespectful and disingenuous."

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The comparison to what you are doing in this thread is for me to say there is no authoritative source in the world for theistic world views, so I as an atheist am going to make up my own.

Poppycock.  I haven't made up anything.

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Then I’m going to make fun of them.

I haven't made fun of anything, either.

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Alternatively, you could, I don’t know, go talk to atheists of various persuasions and maybe ask them?! It’s a very novel concept, I know. 

Yes, I could do that.  

But that doesn't preclude me from having a generalized perspective on a generalized topic (theism, atheism, whatever).

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Memes are not a conversation.

So you are saying that atheists are simply more passive-aggressive, throwing punches when your back is turned rather than addressing issues to your face?  

[Analytics]

This thread reminds me of the 1994 movie, "Don Juan DeMarco." In that movie, Johnny Depp plays the role of a young man from an abusive broken home who has pretty extreme psychiatric issues. To deal with his issues, he lives in a fantasy world where he has an exotic backstory and is really Don Juan, "the world's greatest lover." Marlon Brando plays his psychiatrist, who gropes with the issue about what is better: to give Don Juan psychiatric treatment and force him to confront and deal with mundane reality, or to allow him to live in his personally satisfying and glamorous fantasy world where he is on a series of romantic conquests.

On the one hand, I can see the appeal in lying to your kids and making them believe in a made-up fantasy world where they are the center of the universe. Everyone is a winner, all dogs go to heaven, and if you fall in line and obey the authorities, you'll be a God someday! 

On the other hand, there is something deeply fulfilling about accepting reality and making the best of it with the resources you have. But I readily admit that the latter approach might not be for everyone.

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

This thread reminds me of the 1994 movie, "Don Juan DeMarco." In that movie, Johnny Depp plays the role of a young man from an abusive broken home who has pretty extreme psychiatric issues. To deal with his issues, he lives in a fantasy world where he has an exotic backstory and is really Don Juan, "the world's greatest lover." Marlon Brando plays his psychiatrist, who gropes with the issue about what is better: to give Don Juan psychiatric treatment and force him to confront and deal with mundane reality, or to allow him to live in his personally satisfying and glamorous fantasy world where he is on a series of romantic conquests.

I don't see the connection.  Your comparison presupposes that the atheistic paradigm is objective reality ("mundane reality").  It begs the question.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

On the one hand, I can see the appeal in lying to your kids and making them believe in a made-up fantasy world where they are the center of the universe. Everyone is a winner, all dogs go to heaven, and if you fall in line and obey the authorities, you'll be a God someday! 

Again, you are just begging the question here.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

On the other hand, there is something deeply fulfilling about accepting reality and making the best of it with the resources you have. But I readily admit that the latter approach might not be for everyone.

Again, just begging the question.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  I have a generalized take a theism, and a specific take on the Church.

The latter is a very small subset of the former.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's what I am talking about. You have a specific take on your version of theism. And so, just apply that to others: an atheist can have their specific take, too, which may only represent a small subset of atheism. Would say that the (LDS) Gospel is an adequate representation of the best of theism?  An atheist might say that of theirs, and reject many of the other diverging versions of atheism.

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

So you are saying that atheists are simply more passive-aggressive, throwing punches when your back is turned rather than addressing issues to your face?  

I am saying that if you actually engage in conversation and people want to know an LDS perspective, they''ll ask you yours if they know they have that opportunity to ask an LDS person. That was my experience.

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My jaw is on the floor, this seems so disrespectful and disingenuous. The comparison to what you are doing in this thread is for me to say there is no authoritative source in the world for theistic world views, so I as an atheist am going to make up my own. Then I’m going to make fun of them. Alternatively, you could, I don’t know, go talk to atheists of various persuasions and maybe ask them?! It’s a very novel concept, I know. 

Just a new twist on the straw man fallacy.

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

No.  I have a generalized take a theism, and a specific take on the Church.

The latter is a very small subset of the former.

That's what I am talking about. You have a specific take on your version of theism.

No.  I have no specific "version of theism."  I subscribe to a much smaller, much more specific subset of it as found in the Church.

If I talk about my Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, I am speaking of my dog.  That's all.  Not all mammals.

Conversely, if I make generalized observations about mammals, I am talking about all mammals.  Not specifically my dog.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And so, just apply that to others: an atheist can have their specific take, too, which may only represent a small subset of atheism.

I acknowledge that.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Would say that the (LDS) Gospel is an adequate representation of the best of theism? 

I don't know what this means.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

An atheist might say that of theirs, and reject many of the other diverging versions of atheism.

Okay.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There is an authoritative source that we can look to for the doctrines of the Church: The Church.  

Hmmmm, not so much. 

I guess I am just dumb but I sure can't figure it out.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

""

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined. 

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ""

Edited February 4, 2020 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet another comment re Kant, from Wikipedia. Kant believed that morality originated in the very rules of rationality itself. I accept these principles 

 

""Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (German: Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten; 1785; also known as the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals and the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals) is the first of Immanuel Kant's mature works on moral philosophy and remains one of the most influential in the field. Kant conceives his investigation as a work of foundational ethics—one that clears the ground for future research by explaining the core concepts and principles of moral theory and showing that they are normative for rational agents. Kant aspires to nothing less than this: to lay bare the fundamental principle of morality and show that it applies to us. In the text, Kant provides a groundbreaking argument that the rightness of an action is determined by the character of the principle that a person chooses to act upon. Kant thus stands in stark contrast to the moral sense theories and teleological moral theories that dominated moral philosophy at the time he was writing. Central to the work is the role of what Kant refers to as the categorical imperative, the concept that one must act only according to that precept which he or she would will to become a universal law.""

Exactly. So atheism does not equal lack of meaning and morality. It can be found in the fabric of rationality.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

There is an authoritative source that we can look to for the doctrines of the Church: The Church.  

Hmmmm, not so much. 

I guess I am just dumb but I sure can't figure it out.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

""

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined. 

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ""

I don't understand your point.  Elder Andersen summed things up pretty well here:

Quote

“There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church,” he said. “The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in a obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't see the connection.  Your comparison presupposes that the atheistic paradigm is objective reality ("mundane reality").  It begs the question.

Again, you are just begging the question here.

Again, just begging the question.

Thanks,

-Smac

If this thread were about whether theism or atheism is true, then sure, I'm begging the question. But that isn't what this thread is about.

The OP itself presupposes that atheism is objectively reality and that we should "lie" to our children about it because that is more likely to produce healthy mental outcomes. You then parlay that into a discussion about what paradigm has more meaning and provides a better basis for morality. 

My point is that I'm just not cynical enough to do that. I'd rather find meaning and morality in reality rather than in made-up fantasies. Maybe your story about the meaning of life is more glorious than DCP's derisive story about the meaning of life for atheists. But I'm not cynical enough to say which one is better without considering which one is more likely to be true.

[mfbukowski]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

Exactly. So atheism does not equal lack of meaning and morality. It can be found in the fabric of rationality.

Yep.

 It's pretty obvious. Many many many atheists find a lot of meaning in their lives taking on social causes, and often are the first to point out how traditional values can be unjust.

 And I think it's obvious that they often have their own view of morality,  looking at their carbon footprint, worrying about the abuse of animals, quite frankly the whole AOC plan

I disagree with their morality In a lot cases but that doesn't mean they have no morality, and therefore lack meaning in their lives.  To me that just makes no sense

 

 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand your point.  Elder Andersen summed things up pretty well here:

Thanks,

-Smac

In other words read every Source written by all of the 15 on a particular question, and see whether they agree or not.

Please know that most discussions on this board are exactly about that ambiguity on that precise question, including this one.

And then of course we are commanded to gain a testimony testimony of each principle for ourselves.

Clearly just a bit of wiggle room there.

[smac97]

Just now, Analytics said:

If this thread were about whether theism or atheism is true, then sure, I'm begging the question. But that isn't what this thread is about.

Your comparison to Don Juan Demarco presupposes that "atheism is true."  You're begging the question.

Just now, Analytics said:

The OP itself presupposes that atheism is objectively reality and that we should "lie" to our children about it because that is more likely to produce healthy mental outcomes.

I don't think that's correct.  The write is apparently an observant Jew.  She doesn't presuppose that atheism is objectively real.  Instead, her treatment of atheism is predicated on the perspectives of the parents.  The "lie" she encourages them to tell is not about "objective reality," but about their atheistic worldview.

Just now, Analytics said:

You then parlay that into a discussion about what paradigm has more meaning and provides a better basis for morality. 

I also cited Daniel Peterson's articles: What Difference Does It Make and How religious faith benefits society.

I think DCP does a pretty good job of marshaling evidence for the proposition that "religious faith benefits society."

Just now, Analytics said:

My point is that I'm just not cynical enough to do that.

Nor am I.  Cynicism?  What does that have to do with this discussion?

Just now, Analytics said:

I'd rather find meaning and morality in reality rather than in made-up fantasies.

So would I.

But again, you are begging the question.

Just now, Analytics said:

Maybe your story about the meaning of life is more glorious than DCP's derisive story about the meaning of life for atheists. But I'm not cynical enough to say which one is better without considering which one is more likely to be true.

Again, there is no cynicism in view.

And of course DCP is "considering which one is more likely to be true."  He's staked out a position on that, and is arguing from it.

And I guess you're doing the same thing.  For you, the non-existence of God is objectively real.  To believe in God is to deny reality.

I don't subscribe to that.  I think reasonable minds can disagree about the existence of God.  I think atheists are fundamentally wrong in their assessment, but I don't presume them to be deluded or stupid (which you apparently do, since you are comparing religionists to Johnny Depp's character).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

I don't understand your point.  Elder Andersen summed things up pretty well here:

In other words read every Source written by all of the 15 on a particular question, and see whether they agree or not.

Not quite.  I was speaking of doctrines, not "particular question{s}."

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Please know that most discussions on this board are exactly about that ambiguity on that precise question, including this one.

I don't know what this means.  What "ambiguity"?  

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And then of course we are commanded to gain a testimony testimony of each principle for ourselves.

Clearly just a bit of wiggle room there.

Wiggle room about what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand your point.  Elder Andersen summed things up pretty well here:

Quote

“There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church,” he said. “The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in a obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.”

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you point me to an easy to find list of LDS doctrines?

I can point you right to the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you want to know what the Catholic Church believes.

Remember, I want to read doctrine that "is not difficult to find."

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'd rather find meaning and morality in reality rather than in made-up fantasies. 

This is where some misunderstanding happens, I think, between atheists and theists on this matter.  You speak as if meaning and morality is something that you can "find" out there in "reality" (whatever that is), as if there is some objective source out there somewhere that we can tap into (sounds more theistic to me), and everything else is "made-up fantasies".  Now, I don't have a problem with atheists claiming to create their own morality and meaning, but I will contend if they claim it is something that they can find out there existing in "reality".   Nope, doesn't work like that.  The irony is that meaning and morality for an atheist is just as "made-up" as anything else.  It is simply made up meaning/fantasy generated from the foundation of a different kind of ism...

Edited February 4, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Can you point me to an easy to find list of LDS doctrines?

Sure.  Here you go: Gospel Principles

And another: Basic Doctrines

Here's another (not quite a primary authority on what we believe, but really persuasive, IMO): Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Quote

I can point you right to the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you want to know what the Catholic Church believes.

Remember, I want to read doctrine that "is not difficult to find."

You asked a member of the Church for "an easy to find list of LDS doctrines," and that member was immediately able to provide an authoritative source that is published online to the world.  Not "difficult to find," I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 4, 2020 by smac97

[Analytics]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your comparison to Don Juan Demarco presupposes that "atheism is true."  You're begging the question.

Whether or not atheism is "true" isn't the question.

Quote

I don't think that's correct.  The write is apparently an observant Jew.  She doesn't presuppose that atheism is objectively real.  Instead, her treatment of atheism is predicated on the perspectives of the parents.  The "lie" she encourages them to tell is not about "objective reality," but about their atheistic worldview.

Just because she is an observant Jew doesn't mean she is a believing Jew. Once I told a Jew that I left my Mormon faith. He was aghast and asked why I would do that. I explained it was because I didn't believe it was true. That startled him even more. He replied, "So? Nobody literally believes their religion is true!"

 

Quote

I also cited Daniel Peterson's articles: What Difference Does It Make and How religious faith benefits society.

I think DCP does a pretty good job of marshaling evidence for the proposition that "religious faith benefits society."

Nor am I.  Cynicism?  What does that have to do with this discussion?

Cynicism is defined as being "bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic."  That is a precisely accurate characterization of DCP's sneeringly contemptuous representation of atheism. 

Quote

Again, there is no cynicism in view.

It comes across as cynical to me. Juxtaposing what you like best about your religion with your (or DCP's) sneering, derisive view of atheism is in fact cynical. 

Quote

And of course DCP is "considering which one is more likely to be true."  He's staked out a position on that, and is arguing from it.

Arguing that Mormonism is true is different than arguing that atheists should lie to their kids because it is an unimaginably bleak and depressing world view without any possible basis of joy or morality.

Quote

And I guess you're doing the same thing.  For you, the non-existence of God is objectively real.  To believe in God is to deny reality.

I don't subscribe to that.  I think reasonable minds can disagree about the existence of God.  I think atheists are fundamentally wrong in their assessment, but I don't presume them to be deluded or stupid (which you apparently do, since you are comparing religionists to Johnny Depp's character).

No, you misunderstand me and the movie. The final takeaway of the movie was, "Is he really Don Juan DeMarco? Who cares? It doesn't matter. He lives a more fulfilling and happy life thinking he is Don Juan, so let him be Don Juan. If he you doubt he is really Don Juan, then lie!"

Your arguments are along the same line. My beliefs are better for society than your beliefs! So if you care about the well-being of society, you should be disingenuous about your beliefs! Do it for the children!

Exploiting the scruples of others this way is cynical.

 

Quote

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Analytics

[MiserereNobis]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  Here you go: Gospel Principles

And another: Basic Doctrines

Here's another (not quite an primary authority on what we believe, but really persuasive, IMO): Encyclopedia of Mormonism

You asked a member of the Church for "an easy to find list of LDS doctrines," and that member was immediately able to provide an authoritative source that is published online to the world.  Not "difficult to find," I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks. I'll book mark it for future reference.

[Kenngo1969]

40 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Can you point me to an easy to find list of LDS doctrines?

I can point you right to the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you want to know what the Catholic Church believes.

Remember, I want to read doctrine that "is not difficult to find."

Probably, these are included in what Smac97 linked to.  However, if not (and even if they are, it might be useful to have them separated out) ... : https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng