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

Tacenda · February 4, 2020

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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."

🥰🤗💞👍🌝 :wub: :good: :friends:

smac97 · February 4, 2020

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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.

Well, you've made it the question by presupposing that to believe in God is to be mentally deluded.

Quote

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.

Well, she seemed to give that impression. In the end, I'm not sure it matters. I disagree with her advice either way.

Quote

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!"

Well, he doesn't speak for me. I literally believe my religion is true. Most Latter-day Saints of my acquaintance would say the same.

Quote

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.

With respect, I disagree.

Quote

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.

Again, I do not see DCP's remarks as cynical. Or sneering. I think atheism is deeply problematic, and substantively inferior to my belief system. However, I think such assessments can and ought to be made with respect and decorum.

Quote

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.

I agree. I don't think atheists should lie.

However, I think atheists will have a hard time making their worldview digestible for young children. I find it an inherently bleak outlook on life, hence the 2018 study in the American Journal of Epidemiology referenced in the article.

Quote

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.

Actually, I think I understand the movie quite well.

And your purpose in comparing us to the Johnny Depp character seemed pretty obvious.

Quote

The final takeaway of the movie was, "Is he really Don Juan DeMarco? Who cares? It doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. Mental illness matters. Truth matters.

Quote

He lives a more fulfilling and happy life thinking he is Don Juan, so let him be Don Juan.

Again, you are begging the question. You are equating religious belief with mental illness. You are equating religious belief with a disregard of reality and truth.

Quote

If he you doubt he is really Don Juan, then lie!"

I don't think we should enable mental delusions or lies.

Quote

Your arguments are along the same line.

My arguments are nothing like that. Not even close.

Quote

My beliefs are better for society than your beliefs!

Yes. I think religious observance is superior to irreligiosity. Better for the individual, and better for society. The data appears to be pretty solid on that point.

Quote

So if you care about the well-being of society, you should be disingenuous about your beliefs! Do it for the children!

Utter bilge. You are radically misrepresenting my position. I have specifically and repeatedly stated that I disagree with the article's author. I specifically and emphatically reject the notion that we should be disingenuous about our beliefs.

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: Some examples of me specifically rejecting the idea that we "should be disingenouos" about our beliefs:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72601-wall-street-journal-opinion-piece-if-youre-an-atheist-lie-to-your-kids/

Quote

I am often asked by parents, “How do I talk to my child about death if I don’t believe in God or heaven?” My answer is always the same: “Lie.” The idea that you simply die and turn to dust may work for some adults, but it doesn’t help children. Belief in heaven helps them grapple with this tremendous and incomprehensible loss. In an age of broken families, distracted parents, school violence and nightmarish global-warming predictions, imagination plays a big part in children’s ability to cope.

{MY RESPONSE}:

Not sure "lie" is the best solution here. In a choice between "Atheism and Nihilism" or "Atheism and Lies," isn't there a "Door Number Three"?

How about avoiding both the nihilism and the lies and choose . . . actual faith? "Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend." (Mosiah 4:9)

That seems like the best option.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72601-wall-street-journal-opinion-piece-if-youre-an-atheist-lie-to-your-kids/?do=findComment&comment=1209954845

Quote

Also there doesn't seem to be anything in the study that suggests if a sincere atheist or agnostic is better off lying to their children about their beliefs.

{MY RESPONSE}:

I don't agree with that advice.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72601-wall-street-journal-opinion-piece-if-youre-an-atheist-lie-to-your-kids/?do=findComment&comment=1209955073

Quote

I would like to see some stats on people raised by those with an insincere belief in God they pretend to have to see how that helps. Most kids are not stupid enough to fall for that.

{MY RESPONSE}:

That's a fair criticism of the therapist's approach.

I soft-peddled my reaction to it in the OP. Let me be more emphatic: I disagree with the therapist's recommendation for atheist parents to lie to their children.

Edited February 4, 2020 by smac97

MiserereNobis · February 4, 2020

22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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

I've read these before. In my experience, I think they are way too simplistic to count as a list of LDS doctrines. There's a lot of important stuff missing (temples, for example) and some stuff listed that no one really talks about (gathering of Israel). It could be a very tiny tiny starting point, but doesn't work for what I was asking.

And for those who dislike creeds (someone here has an anti-creed quote by Joseph Smith in their signature), it sure sounds like a creed to me

Edited February 4, 2020 by MiserereNobis

Calm · February 4, 2020

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

definitions. I'm looking at atheism at that level (rather than individualized perspectives

And did the atheists get together and vote that dictionaries were authoritative in their case? I find it rather strange that you are denying/rejecting the actual experiences of actual atheists in the favor of a book that has no evidence of input by atheists for a nuanced discussion.

Dictionaries don’t even deal with connotations, let alone nuances.

Seriously, smac...this is high school level analysis.

What do you think you want to accomplish with this route? Do you think you will better understand atheism?

smac97 · February 4, 2020

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

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

I've read these before. In my experience, I think they are way too simplistic to count as a list of LDS doctrines. There's a lot of important stuff missing (temples, for example) and some stuff listed that no one really talks about (gathering of Israel). It could be a very tiny tiny starting point, but doesn't work for what I was asking.

The Articles of Faith are the most concentrated expression of our beliefs. Accurate as far as they go, to be sure. And they cover fundamentals pretty well. But I agree with you about them being insufficient, hence my pointing you to "Gospel Principles." I think that manual strikes a good balance between concision and comprehensiveness.

Quote

And for those who dislike creeds (someone here has an anti-creed quote by Joseph Smith in their signature), it sure sounds like a creed to me

I've thought of that as well. From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

Although not a formal creed, the Articles of Faith are a marvelously abridged summary (less than 400 words) of the basic beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While there have been many variations published since Joseph Smith's day, a central core of beliefs stated in all these articles comes from the earliest years of the Restoration-a fact that testifies both to its internal consistency and its constancy.

See also this 1979 Ensign article:

Quote

But more than versatility, we find in the Articles of Faith a precious reflection of truth expressed with precision and purpose. Unlike creeds which are delimiting and dogmatic, the Articles of Faith are living and open. They invite further thought. They influence us in numerous ways, as they give our lives both clarity and breadth. They enhance our understanding of certain principles and give us simultaneously a commitment toward living the same. They belong in the scriptures perhaps more than any of us fully comprehend.

And this LDS Living article:

Quote

The Articles of Faith gained more notoriety with James E. Talmage's publication of Articles of Faith in 1899—a series of elaborations on these fundamental truths within our religion. While Talmage held the highest degree of reverence for these simple and sacred statements of belief, he acknowledged that Latter-day Saints "announce no such creed as a complete code of faith; for they accept the principle of continuous revelation as an essential feature of their belief."

And this Deseret News article:

Quote

Reluctant prophet

Meanwhile, some continued to ask for clarification about what Mormons believed.

"People wanted to know, what's the content of the revelations?" Bushman said. "What's new?"

Smith resisted because he was allergic to the formal statements of belief traditionally made by Christian faiths and known as creeds. One LDS leader at the time wrote that Mormonism is "the great leveling machine of creeds."

"Against this need to state what we believed," Bushman said, "there was the problem of a disillusionment with creeds for lots of Mormons, including Joseph, who didn't want nailed down exactly what we believe because of ongoing revelation, his belief that there would be growth and development. You could never say at one given moment a final statement on what we stood for."

Smith was grateful to supply a summary of the origins of the church or provide a list of grievances of church members abused in Missouri and Illinois, but he was reluctant to make a list of the new faith's beliefs.

After all, he had declared that God was speaking again through a prophet, restoring the pure gospel of Jesus Christ previously obscured by creeds. In fact, Smith said God told him in the First Vision that creeds were an abomination. For early Latter-day Saints, a creed or list of beliefs was useless and possibly dangerous; ongoing revelation was expected to provide new doctrine, and Smith intended to leave space for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 4, 2020 by smac97

smac97 · February 4, 2020

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

And did the atheists get together and vote that dictionaries were authoritative in their case?

"Atheism" is an objectively defined term. I've approached it on that basic/generalized level.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find it rather strange that you are denying/rejecting the actual experiences of actual atheists in the favor of a book that has no evidence of input by atheists for a nuanced discussion.

Where have I denied/rejected actual experiences?

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Dictionaries don’t even deal with connotations, let alone nuances.

Seriously, smac...this is high school level analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

What do you think you want to accomplish with this route? Do you think you will better understand atheism?

What route? I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Scott Lloyd · February 4, 2020

24 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I've read these before. In my experience, I think they are way too simplistic to count as a list of LDS doctrines. There's a lot of important stuff missing (temples, for example) and some stuff listed that no one really talks about (gathering of Israel). It could be a very tiny tiny starting point, but doesn't work for what I was asking.

And for those who dislike creeds (someone here has an anti-creed quote by Joseph Smith in their signature), it sure sounds like a creed to me

MN, did you examine the links Smac provided? I’m curious about what your take is on them.

Incidentally, though I love our Articles of Faith and have had them memorized since I was 11, I would never claim they amount to a comprehensive statement of our beliefs.

Calm · February 4, 2020

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What route? I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

Well, in part the continual ignoring of my asking you how an athiest parent finding meaning in their experiences with their child is so very different than yours in that moment of birth. I have asked this multiple times in the thread from Pogi and now you.

Instead what I can see of your method comes across as jumping back to the safety and laziness of simplistic declarations of a dictionary no less to describe a complicated reasoning system as if reducing something that takes pages or even books at times to examine can somehow effectively all be provided in one or two sentences... in a book that is meant to deal with simplistic labels for ease of communication, not a philosophical discussion.

The wrong tool for the purpose...if the purpose is understanding, not caricatures or stereotyping.

You provide multiple books for an defining of Doctrines of the Restored Gospel...usually used to start the conversation about doctrine, not to end it in my experience. But one entry in a dictionary is sufficient for you to understand and end an exploration of the belief system of atheism, so now you can just jump to tearing it apart.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Calm

mfbukowski · February 4, 2020

1 hour 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."

I get your point and agree with you.

Bit what you see as a flaw, I see as an advantage.

What qualifies as Doctrine is indeed complex in our church, and it is certainly not easy to find.

But I see that Spirit of " figure it out for yourself " to be a good one and important to our Salvation.

The statement that we are the only true and LIVING Church is an important one. We are not codified into little boxes, but on the contrary encouraged it to find what the spirit wants us to do on our own.

I am continually dismayed when those who seem to be the most "Orthodox" in our church choose opinions which in my opinion, totally miss the beauty of the forest when all those trees just keep getting in the way.

We really need to gravitate toward the big picture, which shows our Doctrine to be dynamic and incomplete. That's the way it should be in my opinion.

I think Humanity has a little bit to learn yet, from God don't you?

pogi · February 4, 2020

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, in part the continual ignoring of my asking you how an athiest parent finding meaning in their experiences with their child is so very different than yours in that moment of birth. I have asked this multiple times in the thread from Pogi and now you.

I ignored it because I felt overwhelmed with trying to explain my position. I had 10 responses from different people and I didn't feel like any of them were relative to my actual position. As I have noted, atheists demonstrably have the ability to create meaning in their lives. I am not saying that atheists can't have meaning.

One minor but important detail though. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don' t think atheists claim to "find" meaning in their experience (as you put it), rather, they create meaning from their experience. To find meaning suggests that it objectively exists independent of the person and is simply something they discover, or it is something that is objectively inherent to the person that they discover. I think atheists would reject both of those claims - sounds too theistic.

smac97 · February 4, 2020

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, in part the continual ignoring of my asking you how an athiest parent finding meaning in their experiences with their child is so very different than yours in that moment of birth. I have asked this multiple times in the thread from Pogi and now you.

I honestly didn't see these inquiries. Can you point me to them?

And if you are asking me now for the first time, how is it that I could have been "continual{ly} ignoring" you?

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Instead what I can see of your method comes across as jumping back to the safety and laziness of simplistic declarations of a dictionary no less to describe a complicated reasoning system as if reducing something that takes pages or even books at times to examine can somehow effectively all be provided in one or two sentences... in a book that is meant to deal with simplistic labels for ease of communication, not a philosophical discussion.

Hmm. I'm not often accused of laziness.

And as I said earlier in this thread: "Meadowchik has said some things in this thread that are making me re-assess my perspectives on atheism. For that, I am grateful to her."

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

The wrong tool for the purpose...if the purpose is understanding, not caricatures or stereotyping.

Again, I don't know what you are saying here. What caricature of atheism have I presented?

And if I find atheism to be nihilistic, are you saying I'm not allowed to say so?

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

A book for Doctrines of the Restored Gospel...usually used to start the conversation about doctrine, not to end it. But one entry in a dictionary is sufficient for you to understand and end an exploration of the belief system of atheism, so now you can just jump to tearing it apart.

I don't know what you are saying here.

Since when is critiquing a belief system off limits on this board? I've said nothing to disparage the character or integrity of atheists. I've made some observations and expressed personal opinions about it in broad, generalized terms. I find atheism to be an inherently nihilistic worldview. I've explained why I feel that way. Is this verboten?

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · February 4, 2020

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I get your point and agree with you.

Bit what you see as a flaw, I see as an advantage.

What qualifies as Doctrine is indeed complex in our church, and it is certainly not easy to find.

With respect, I disagree. "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are but appendages to it." (TPJS p.121)

The scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon, and living prophets and apostles, make "doctrine" relatively easy to find.

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But I see that Spirit of " figure it out for yourself " to be a good one and important to our Salvation.

Same here. But for me, that pertains more to application of doctrine, rather than the finding of doctrine per se.

Thanks,

-Smac

Calm · February 4, 2020

Imagine you are in a debate, Smac, and start to refer to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism along with your personal experiences of the Priesthood to discuss authority as viewed in terms of the Church and your opponent says “hold on a moment, that’s not the dictionary; we need to base the debate on an objective, generalized term. There is nothing in there about authority, that is your individual experience, this debate‘s purpose is to view the Church at the generalized, objective level.”

What is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints according to the dictionary:

Quote

a denomination founded in the U.S. in 1830 by Joseph Smith and based on the teachings of the Book of Mormon.

Yeah, that’s all we need to know to understand the Gospel. Says it all.

Back to the debate: out of frustration, you move on from a discussion about authority and your opponent starts arguing about how the Book of Mormon is a racist misogynist book and therefore the Restored Gospel is founded on racist and misogynist principles according to the dictionary (case closed in his view) and you protest with your list of Church talks, essay, personal experiences, etc. and your opponent says “that’s your personal experience and some

members’ ideas, I am talking about the objectively defined term here, skip the anecdotes.”

How is he doing anything, but packing those few words of the dictionary definition with his own arbitrary assumptions? Where is the objectivity in that?

If you are going to keep appealing to the dictionary as your authority on atheism, then stick to the dictionary, which is “lack of belief in God” and has nothing to say about meaning.

As soon as the discussion moves to meaning, you are out of the dictionary and into inferring your assumptions about atheism into the discussion, something you would never see as a valid argument against the Restored Gospel.

mfbukowski · February 4, 2020

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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...

What always bothers me about people who speak about reality being somehow "out there" and not man made, when all they are doing is TALKING, using man-made ideas and a human brain, man-made language, and and seeing whatever is out there from a human perspective, with our limited human senses.

But of course none of that matters because reality is "out there." You put on rose colored glasses and then you think that everything is "actually" rose colored! It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the way humans perceive things. 😎

How can humans know anything that humans cannot know?

We only know what we can know so all that we know is man-made. What color are cosmic rays?

We are the organizers of reality AS WE KNOW IT!

And we can totally say that as true and proper members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because we know that the organizer of the universe is a Man himself.

The Man of Holiness.

You can take it literally or you can take it as a parable, or philosophically but the bottom line is, one way or the other it's all MAN MADE as we know it.

We can't know anything, any other way!

If we postulate that God is human then Humanism becomes theology.

There's no way around it.

Calm · February 5, 2020

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don' t think atheists claim to "find" meaning in their experience (as you put it), rather, they create meaning from their experience

Either way, it is not a meaningless existence, is it?

pogi · February 5, 2020

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Either way, it is not a meaningless existence, is it?

No, it is not (thanks be to God). I never claimed it was meaningless for atheists. My argument was from the position that there really isn’t a God.

Calm · February 5, 2020

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Since when is critiquing a belief system off limits on this board?

I am talking about the value of your specific methodology here (not in general either, just this particular argument), not the value of critiquing a belief system.

What I am saying is a dictionary merely gives a label for a belief system. To expect it to explain it sufficiently to draw appropriate conclusions is to expect the definition of the Church of Jesus Christ tells us all the fundamental truths about our belief system we need to build an accurate analysis of it. That you begin your critique by appealing to the dictionary as the authority on complex belief systems is what I see as the methodology of a high school report.

Calm · February 5, 2020

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, it is not (thanks be to God). I never claimed it was meaningless for atheists. My argument was from the position that there really isn’t a God.

So if I understand you correctly, if the atheists were right, all would be meaningless, but they are not, so life has meaning even for those who don’t believe it had.

You are therefore in your view only arguing about the logical implication of their lack of belief in God.

You start, I assume, constructing their position with

1) there is no God...

From what I remember, from then on all other premises in that argument are your assumptions, “God creates meaning” for example, which means that is not an exploration their position, but yours.

So your commentary is about your worldview and not about the worldview of atheists, imo, and does not imo give insight into how atheists think, though there might be some who agree with you.

Calm · February 5, 2020

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not often accused of laziness.

Taking inappropriate shortcuts if you prefer.

SeekingUnderstanding · February 5, 2020

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Poppycock. I haven't made up anything.

I haven't made fun of anything, either.

Yes, I could do that.

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

Ok, let me take a crack at holding up a mirror to you. Mind, I am not making fun, and I am not attempting to be any more disrespectful or disingenuous than you have been.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Option A: "Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (Psalm 82:6) We are the children of God. We lived with Him before we came to earth, and we have the opportunity to return to Him after we die. Virtually all of God's children will receive a kingdom of glory, the least of which exceeds our present ability to comprehend. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Cor. 2:9)

Option B: "We’re, essentially, temporary cell colonies, doomed to annihilation." (DCP) We blinked into existence at birth, will blink out of existence when we die. "Morality" is whatever you want it to be.

Which of these has more "meaning"?

Option A: You are a slave to an all powerful all knowing being that is so hell-bent on justice that he sacrificed and tortured his own son for crimes he didn't commit. This being says you have free will, but he knows what you are going to do (strongly implying that free will is an illusion). He choose the circumstances of your birth, your parents, your dna, but if you mess up, well that's your fault, you will be tortured for eternity. Sacrifice your wants and desires in this life to him. If God made you gay, you are doomed to loneliness in this life, but don't worry there is a girl for you in heaven. The scriptures teach you are nothing (Moses 1:10). Per Amazing Grace, we are wretches. We must sing praises to this all powerful being or pay with eternal damnation.

Option B: You are a child of the universe, born in the belly of a star. This life is precious as its the only one you will ever have. Don't waste it living for someone else. Find and live in a manner that brings you the most happiness. History and science can guide you in this quest.

Which life has more meaning?

MiserereNobis · February 5, 2020

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

See also this 1979 Ensign article:

Quote

But more than versatility, we find in the Articles of Faith a precious reflection of truth expressed with precision and purpose. Unlike creeds which are delimiting and dogmatic, the Articles of Faith are living and open. They invite further thought. They influence us in numerous ways, as they give our lives both clarity and breadth. They enhance our understanding of certain principles and give us simultaneously a commitment toward living the same. They belong in the scriptures perhaps more than any of us fully comprehend.

This doesn't make sense to me. The creeds are limiting, but the articles of faith are open? The articles of faith invite further thought but the creeds don't?

Please explain this. How does the Nicene creed not invite further thought? The entire catechism is based on the creed, which means the creed invited the further thought of the entire catechism.

An example. Here is an excerpt from the Nicene creed about Jesus Christ:

Quote

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.

How does this not invite further thought? Statements like "God from God, Light from Light" ask us to ponder what exactly is the nature of God and Christ and the relationship of the two. I can spend my whole life thinking and pondering on the Nicene creed. That's a lot of further thought.

Also, how are the articles of faith living and open? When was the last time the articles of faith were revised, updated, renewed? The understanding of the Nicene creed has been opened and explored and studied and thought about and worked over through centuries of official ecumenical councils, culminating in today's catechism.

The dismissal of the Nicene creed as inferior to the articles of faith, for the reasons stated, truly makes no sense to me. If one argues that the Nicene creed is false and the articles of faith or true, that's a different issue. But that's not what was said.

MiserereNobis · February 5, 2020

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

MN, did you examine the links Smac provided? I’m curious about what your take is on them.

I bookmarked them but I haven't yet delved into them. I was happy to receive a link to an authoritative LDS source of LDS doctrine.

Meadowchik · February 5, 2020

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Atheism" is an objectively defined term. I've approached it on that basic/generalized level.

I don't think so. Atheism, objectively, is a lack of belief in God. From there, it can branch out into countless forms of thought and belief. From that broad definition, you've drawn facile conclusions or let others like Peterson draw them for you.

I thought we had gotten somewhere earlier in the thread. Oh well.

mfbukowski · February 5, 2020

8 hours ago, pogi said:

I ignored it because I felt overwhelmed with trying to explain my position. I had 10 responses from different people and I didn't feel like any of them were relative to my actual position. As I have noted, atheists demonstrably have the ability to create meaning in their lives. I am not saying that atheists can't have meaning.

One minor but important detail though. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don' t think atheists claim to "find" meaning in their experience (as you put it), rather, they create meaning from their experience. To find meaning suggests that it objectively exists independent of the person and is simply something they discover, or it is something that is objectively inherent to the person that they discover. I think atheists would reject both of those claims - sounds too theistic.

In general I think you are right, but there's a twist in there that favors the LDS view in my opinion, because our God is a Human who "constructs/organizes" reality - as we know it- thereby making reality itself a Human creation

As I have said before, I was attracted to the church, AS an atheist re-examining the ideas of theism, by the LDS idea of "organizing" reality including creating one's own meaning in life. For me the whole - at that time as I saw it- parable of a Council of Human Gods, organizing reality was a perfect match with the Pragmatism of say, a Rorty or John Dewey's ideas of Social Constructivism and Social Constructionism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

Quote

Social constructionism is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly-constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual.[1]

Social constructionism questions what is defined by humans and society to be reality. Therefore, social constructs can be different based on the society and the events surrounding the time period in which they exist.[2] An example of a social construct is money or the concept of currency, as people in society have agreed to give it importance/value.[2][3] Another example of a social construction is the concept of self/self-identity.[4] Charles Cooley stated based on his looking-glass self theory: "I am not who you think I am; I am not who I think I am; I am who I think you think I am."[2] This demonstrates how people in society construct ideas or concepts that may not exist without the existence of people or language to validate those concepts.[2][5]

There are weak and strong social constructs.[3] Weak social constructs rely on brute facts (which are fundamental facts that are difficult to explain or understand, such as quarks) or institutional facts (which are formed from social conventions).[2][3] Strong social constructs rely on the human perspective and knowledge that does not just exist, but is rather constructed by society.[2]

So if reality is CREATED by humans socially, it seems to me that there is less necessity for the existence of a God to do it, for most, thereby putting the idea "closer to atheism" IF and ONLY IF you look at God as creating the world ex nihilo, and God being transcendent and the world immanent.

In other words, If you see God as organizing the world and thereby being PART of it, having a body, etc. (an "immanent" God) then you are closer to the LDS position- AND ironically the idea that humans organize the world as their brains organize what they know, a position you are saying is closer to atheism.

If you see, on the other hand, God as a transcendent being without body parts or passions, who is totally OTHER compared to humans, who created the world ex nihilo and fills the universe you are closer to classical Christianity

But this question really shows the vast difference between the LDS view and that of classic Christianity. Thank God for the Restoration.

Some say God created man, others say man created God. But of course that is a simplistic way of seeing it, and we LDS folks come down right in the middle of that believing both and neither of those choices.

Edited February 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

smac97 · February 5, 2020

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

"Atheism" is an objectively defined term. I've approached it on that basic/generalized level.

I don't think so.

Well, I do.

Quote

Atheism, objectively, is a lack of belief in God.

From Dictionary.com:

Quote

atheism[ ey-thee-iz-uh m ]

noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

From Mirriam-Websters:

Quote

1

a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

I'm operating on these.

Quote

From there, it can branch out into countless forms of thought and belief.

Branches predicated on the affirmative rejection of the existence of God.

As I presently see it, "agnostic atheist" is a paradox. Like "square circle" or "dry water." But I'm reviewing this for myself. Give me some time.

Consider this article:

Quote

Over a year ago I wrote a post differentiating the agnostic and atheistic positions. I said that in the absence of empirical proof of the existence of god, the evidence for and against god is weighed. The agnostic thinks the evidence about even, and the atheist thinks it's weighted in favor of there being no god. But I recently thought about a recent post of mine regarding Christopher Hitchens' definition of atheism, and so I decided to create a scale with nine levels of belief and disbelief in god ranging from strong atheism, to strong theism.

On my scale shown above, the moderate atheist can stop short of saying "There are no gods," but can say "There almost certainly are no gods. I therefore don't believe in any gods." In other words, given the weak evidence for god, and the powerful explanatory power of science, moderate atheism can affirm a warranted belief in the ability of science to naturally explain the existence of everything in the universe, including the universe itself, without the need for a deity.

I 'm not sure gradations of atheism like this work. It seems to be too conclusory a term. But Let me think on that.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Tacenda

smac97

MiserereNobis

Calm

smac97

smac97

Scott Lloyd

Calm

mfbukowski

pogi

smac97

smac97

Calm

mfbukowski

Calm

pogi

Calm

Calm

Calm

SeekingUnderstanding

MiserereNobis

MiserereNobis

Meadowchik

mfbukowski

smac97

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse