Posts tagged ‘mental gymnastics’
This WTF moment is brought to you by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints…
Ok, first, read this.
Here is my favourite part of the article:
“If a student prays and they think that the tight ‘formfitting’ clothing is accepted by the Lord, they have not asked, or have not asked the right question, or they have chosen an answer for their own gratification. I don’t believe the Lord would give approval to anyone to be disobedient to the CES Dress and Grooming Standards.”
Wow.
So let’s get this straight. You need to go and pray but if you don’t get the same answer I do then you’re either lying or you prayed wrong. (This is the same approach they apply to knowing whether or not the Book of Mormon, or the church for that matter, are true. Pray and if you get the right answer it’s true. If you get the wrong answer, you’re not deserving and you need to try harder.) Also, God is backing up the Rexburg dress code nazis because, hey, he’s not busy.
There are so many things I could say about this article. In some ways it made me laugh because it is just so ridiculous. It also makes me feel sad and angry. To me, this is exactly what comes from asking people to put critical thought up on the shelf and stop thinking for themselves. It’s scary and let’s be honest, it’s a fundamental building block of all religions. My husband went to BYU Idaho (formerly Rexburg College) and when he was there, part of the dress code was that they couldn’t wear shorts on campus. The only exception was the school issued gym strip that they had to wear whenever they worked out. Oddly enough, this gym strip included shorts..
One day hubby (Bri) decided to buck the rules (what a rebel!) and make the short (2 minute) walk from his dorm to the gym in his shorts. When he got there, the student behind the counter refused to give him his gym strip because he was wearing shorts. Bri pushed him and said “Let me get this straight, you’re not going to give me my shorts because I’m wearing shorts?” I think he assumed that when faced with how silly that was, the kid would just hand over the clothes. Nope…he still refused. Eventually, Bri stopped a guy who was also there getting his strip, asked if he could borrow his pants and then put the pants over the shorts right in front of the kid behind the counter. The kid promptly handed over the gym strip because Bri was now wearing pants. (Which he was about to remove and give back to their rightful owner and then change into another pair of shorts. You couldn’t even make this shot up it’s so crazy.)
Another interesting sidenote to this article is that BYU Idaho and the main BYU campus in Provo, Utah have different dress codes. So the Lord is cool with certain items of clothing in Utah, but not in Idaho. It doesn’t take a genius to stop and think about that for a moment and realize something is fishy. It does however take someone who isn’t afraid to think their own thoughts, and there’s the rub.
A Medical Miracle
We received a frantic phone call on Friday night from my MIL informing us that my little BIL (who is serving his mission in Arizona) “blew out his knee” and might have to be released from his missionary duties in order to come home and recuperate. She was upset for a few reasons; she is a mother and of course, she wasn’t able to speak to her son directly, she was surprised and didn’t have all the information she wanted and above all, she was upset about his mission experience being jeopardized. My BIL is loving his mission experience so far and part of the appeal for missionaries and their families is that it is such a long stretch. Two years is a long time to do anything consistently. It is a long time to not see loved ones, only talk to them on the phone 4 times and to commit yourself as a servant of the Lord. Doing the time is part of what makes it such a huge deal, so cutting it in half would have been very upsetting for everyone involved.
My MIL wasn’t totally sure what had happened but was told by the missionary President’s wife (who apparently is responsible for keeping other Mother’s informed of their kid’s accidents/injuries etc.) that they would call back on Monday with more information. There was much concern and worry and discussion about what this would mean.
We called today only to be referred to an email that she had forwarded to us. Basically, my BIL is the proud recipient of a genuine miracle of God. You can only imagine my frustration upon hearing his version of events. He hurt his knee playing soccer and knew right away it was bad. They took him to a doctor who felt it and told him that he thought he may have torn his MCL and to stay off of it for the next few days until he could get an MRI. The bishop came and did a blessing on BIL’s knee. The pain did not subside and it was still pretty bad. On Monday the Bishop came and did another blessing after which my BIL’s knee started to feel a bit better. At the very least, he felt better. When they got the results back from the MRI it showed a small tear in the MCL but there is no need for surgery and his mission won’t be affected. I could hardly stomach reading the email as he launched into his testimony and assurances that he has re-committed himself with even more fervor into bringing the Gospel to the people and that he knows this and that is true and how blessed he is to have been a witness to the glory and power of God’s miraculous love. Blah, blah, blah.
Here is what I would like to say but will not:
1. Your first doctor? Yeah, he misdiagnosed your knee. Not difficult to do when you’re just feeling around someone’s inflamed joint.
2. If the blessing was so effective, why did it take two of them?
3. Maybe the looseness that you attribute to a torn ligament was just loose ligaments that tightened up after you followed the doctor’s suggestions to ice and rest your knee.
4. And perhaps my biggest complaint with all claims of miraculous healing…who do you think you are?! Let me get this straight. This omnipotent and benevolent God who has the power to heal the sick and dying skips over the truly needy only to fix your knee? While you were receiving a priesthood blessing in Arizona, countless women were cradling dying infants and children in their arms, begging and pleading for their lives. Terminally ill people begged for mercy. Innocent babies lay in the dirt, listless from starvation and dehydration. By morning, thousands of people have died painful, agonizing and wholly undeserved deaths but God fixed your knee. Are you kidding me? This to me is the height of egotism.
I thought about saying something but this boy has drunk bathed in the kool-aid and is now handing out free samples, so he’s beyond reasonable debate at this point.
Evolution…
I recently read “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution” by Richard Dawkins. Being a neuroscientist, I obviously believe in evolution and need no convincing of its reality (or splendour for that matter) but I was curious to read how Dawkins would present it. It was an incredible book and if anyone you know has doubts about evolution or questions about the theory, I would recommend they read this book. Dawkins did a good job of staying away from the whole “angry atheist” persona he displays so beautifully in some of his other works, which is probably a good thing. For a believer it can be intimidating and it wasn’t the point of the book. The book outlines hundreds upon hundreds of sound scientific reasons why evolution is true and creationism or intelligent design theory is not. I’m not going to get into them here because Dawkins does it so much better.
However, I will venture to say that the growing trend of religions claiming that evolution and faith are not mutually exclusive is really starting to tick me off. The Catholics tolerate and now largely accept evolution, or as they call it, “theistic evolution” and according to my sister-in-law who is currently studying at BYU Idaho, she has been taught that evolution is true. The Mormon church, as far as I know, has not taken an official stance of the subject (they know not to touch this one with a ten foot pole) but there does seem to be an increasing tolerance towards evolution, at least anecdotally.
Faced with the overwhelming evidence for evolution, many churches are being forced to do back flips and have come up with all kinds of compromises to somehow allow for evolution within a religious framework; God used evolution as a tool, the belief of inner-species evolution but not inter-species evolution, and the general “evolution lite” that allows for some natural selection among lower vertebrates and invertebrates but denies any real connection between humans and any other species.
I’m going to say this plainly so that there is no room for confusion. One cannot be a believing Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jew, etc. and believe in evolution. Despite what ill-informed religious scholars and terrified atheists will tell you, faith and evolution are mutually exclusive.
I could get into all the scriptural inconsistencies, the carbon dating, the age of the earth, the problems with genesis and other creation myths and the fossil record but I won’t. The thing is, it is much simpler than that.
In order for religion to exist and to hold any power over the human spirit and consciousness, it must place us as separate and unique among all creatures. There is no religion that treats humans the same as dogs. In every religion, humans are precious, created by God in his image and chosen above all other living creatures.If this wasn’t the case, people would never have bought into it in the first place. We like to be prized.
Since evolution maintains that humans are in no way special, and despite our grandest of hopes, not the final outcome of the evolutionary processes, it is incompatible with any religious faith. There is no clear line between humans and those that preceded us. There is gradual change over time so that no scientist could ever pinpoint the one point or line in the fossil record where say, Home Erectus became Homo Sapiens as we know it today. So, if that is true (and to believe in evolution you must accept this as truth), did God love Home Erectus in the same way he loved us? How about the neanderthals? They were more human-like than the early Homo Sapiens were in many ways. Were they created in God’s image? What about their ancestors? It really all just starts to fall apart when you realize that we are living fossils on a continuum of life that goes back a very long time and (God willing – ha!) will continue for a very long time.
When things like this get too tough and believers are faced with having to make a rational jump into the abyss of non-belief or stay safely quaking on the ledge of faith, they usually sputter that “There are things that have not yet been revealed”, “Only God knows the truth”. And then we come all the way back to the beginning.
Much like the neanderthals that preceded us, believers are being faced with a changing world and more information than their brains can handle.
Word of Wisdom?
We went to Mormon-land for Easter this year and we had a wonderful time (all while tip-toeing around the ever-present elephant in the room). I was sent down the road for frozen peas (I was just surprised it wasn’t Jello) and so I took my little girl along with me. It only took us five minutes to get back to the house. We walked in the door and my little one (who is nearly 2.5) said “We went store” to which Grandma (naturally) responded “What did you buy?” My daughter, in her airy and soft voice, replied, “Beer.” The town we were in is a very Mormon town and is dry, so beer was not even an option.
Perplexed and obviously thrown, Grandma offered to take my daughter outside to play. I stood at the door watching as she got into the little toy car in Grandma’s yard and started to “drive”. She stopped the car at Grandma’s feet, leaned her head right out the window and said, “Coffee, bagel please.” Awesome. By that point she might as well have said “Grandma, me a heathen. Please, save me.”
This of course led me to thinking about the Word of Wisdom.
For those of you who aren’t familiar, the Word of Wisdom is a health code followed by Mormons and is found in their Doctrine & Covenants (a book with revelations from God).
Basically the WofW prohibits the use of tobacco, wine and “strong drinks” and “hot drinks” and includes a list of foods that should be eaten and how much (“wholesome herbs and every fruit in the season therof”, meat, sparingly and only in times of winter and famine, and the benefits of grains, including “mild drinks” made of barley) and of course, the spiritual rewards that will come with adherence to the Word.
Adherence to this piece of doctrine has become central to its current membership. In order to enter the temple (which, if you are Mormon is all you ever really want to do apparently) you must be compliant with the WofW and it has evolved to become a point of great pride within the church.
What is not discussed in the church is the obvious discretion between what was originally written and what has become doctrine. Umm…meat, sparingly? Have you ever been to a Mormon picnic? The only things more present than meat are jello and mayonnaise! This part of the WofW is basically ignored and like all great religions, the membership doesn’t seem to notice or care.
The other part that is weird (and there are many) is the prohibition on “hot drinks”. Mormons are great lovers of hot chocolate. They also drink cider, and more recently, are starting to drink herbal tea. While caffeine itself is never mentioned in the WofW, some Mormons have interpreted the doctrine as such and the Brigham Young University campus still only serves caffeine-free Coke. Other Mormons don’t worry about caffeine at all. Some Mormons drink herbal teas (which is really getting close to the line) while others wouldn’t dare.
The prohibition on drinking alcohol is even more confusing, while more universally followed. Mormons will tell you they don’t drink alcohol – period. (I’m not sure where they stand on using vanilla in their baking but I’m sure some where in Utah is a store selling de-alcoholized vanilla extract) What they won’t tell you is that the original text of the WofW was quite open to people drinking beer and likely mead or something similar. The prohibition is on “strong drinks” while mild drinks made of barley were permitted. Ummm, how many mild drinks made of barley are you aware of? In fact, even the apostle Brigham Young Jr. ascertained that beer was okay, unfortunately for millions of Mormons, that was later reversed by the church.
The Word of Wisdom, in my opinion is a shining example of what can happen when millions of people don’t think for themselves. Content to rely on church leaders and willfully ignorant of their changing opinions, most Mormons aren’t even aware that a discrepancy exists. They don’t read the original text in any kind of critical way because they are discouraged from doing so. They don’t stop and ask themselves why some of them drink caffeine while others don’t, or wonder why Jesus would drink so much wine and then ban it down the road. (Oh wait – the church actually teaches people that Jesus drank grape juice, not wine. I’m sure all those people in Cana were excited about the newly produced vats of grape juice. Sigh.) They seem to fail to see the problem with eating giant steaks, all summer long.
The ability of the human mind to perform logic-defying stunts of mental gymnastics is truly astounding.
irreconcilable differences
One of the reasons I became an atheist and continue to feel so strongly about it is because I don’t like fence-sitting. There are times and situations in life that call for indecision – you don’t know enough about the subject at hand or there simply isn’t enough reliable information to go on. When it comes to most things however, you need to decide what you believe and then take that decision to its logical conclusion. It is a matter or integrity and morality with me and although I try not to be judgemental, I don’t have a lot of respect for that type of behaviour. I know a lot of people who don’t “really believe” in the church but who stay, serve their ward and baptize their kids. Inauthentic and deceitful are the nicest nice terms I can think of to describe that.
When applying the same approach to science and evolution I can’t help but become frustrated and the new washed down version of Christian-Evolution. I have heard this argument made by many Catholics (mostly because that’s what the Dope Pope has suggested happened) and more recently, by Mormons. (The church used to be staunchly anti-evolution but in the face of overwhelming evidence, seems to be softening on this point as of late.) So the story goes something like this: “Sure, evolution happened, but it was God who orchestrated it. Why wouldn’t He, in his infinite wisdom, use natural laws to create and expand life?” It’s a great approach since it allows for the obvious evidence of evolution while holding tightly to the paradoxical theory of creation. (Its biggest flaw from a strictly religious standpoint is that it allows for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis…) Its biggest flaw from a general perspective is that it’s stupid.
This kind of approach shows a huge misunderstanding of evolution and how it all works. Evolution is built on a foundation of random mutation (along with drift, natural selection etc.). There was no goal to evolution, no end point. Had one or two minute things gone differently, humans wouldn’t exist and another species would be taking our place in the hierarchy of life. Religious people cannot, no matter how much they protest to, believe in two mutually exclusive theories. They would have to believe that humans are not chosen, special, created in God’s image or the ultimate purpose for the world. It would throw any religion into turmoil to suggest that we are loved merely because we are the end result of a random experiment as opposed to being created with purpose. Working backwards it is easy to see why some people would assume we are the natural and obvious result of a long line of ancestors. Then, you retroactively apply the theory of evolution and voila!…it was all leading to us. The most divine of creatures. Except that evolution isn’t finished yet – not even close. And like I already said, we ended up here by beating out our competitors in the race of life – no more, and no less.
Religious people fight atheism fiercely because they are afraid of what it represents. They are afraid of being un-important and without purpose. They are terrified that they are alone in a universe that has no stake in their individual life. What they don`t yet realize, is that by embracing the Christian evolutionist stance they are accepting the very things they claim to reject. Welcome to the dark side.
Edumacated?
Although I am a Canadian, I have many American friends and have spent a lot of time in the US. I recognize the power and influence that resides below our border and therefore, follow closely the political and religious (the line between which is increasingly blurry I’m afraid) ongoings of the country. I have to say that I am discouraged, bewildered and sometimes afraid at the state of affairs these days.
The anti-intellectualism exhibited primarily by the right-wing in the US is shocking. People seem to pride themselves in having faith over having knowledge and refuse to listen to any information coming from the other side, even if it is fact. They don’t believe in fact anymore it would seem – only nuance and semantics. Fox news will lie outright (a good example would be when they labelled disgraced Florida representative, Mark Foley as a democrat) and people don’t even notice. And when they do notice they somehow, don’t care! A true democracy relies on an informed base and I’m afraid that the American media and the American people have failed to do their job.
The question though, is where does this lack of critical evaluation and consideration come from? I would argue it is rooted in religion. When you are encouraged to take things on faith rather than evidence it is only a matter of time before that same approach seeps into the rest of your life. When your brain becomes habituated to shutting down, not questioning and ignoring evidence which does not support your world view, it starts to atrophy. This effect is crystalized by a society that celebrates this “fiction over fact” mentality and it perpetuates itself into homes, schools and the media. My mother-in-law, who is Mormon, has a sign on her fridge that reads “Character is higher than intellect.” Each time we visit, my husband and I are tempted to write “And intellect is higher than God.” but so far we haven’t touched the damn thing. What does character mean exactly anyway? Grrr…this could launch me into a whole other subject so I’m going to stop thinking about that sign on the fridge door. That damn sign that sets such low standards for a growing family.
The point is, people have been taught not to think. If you have to force yourself to accept that the world, contrary to so much evidence, is only 6,000 years old than I suppose it is not at all a stretch to believe that the President is a socialist. And if your Republican friends believe it too than it must be true. Don’t bother to pick up a dictionary and look up the term “socialist” (the dictionary is probably produced by some left-wing atheist publisher anyhow) or ask yourself what it must be like to truly live in a socialist country, or heaven forbid, actually read the health reform initiatives in their original forms, without interpretation. Why is it that the national newspapers are writing at a grade 4-5 level? How is it that so many people don’t know that Africa is a continent, or what “socialist” means or how the scientific method works? How is it that health reporting is so bad that experts now say it is causing more harm than good, and even “reporters” don’t check facts?
How did religion come to trump reason? And most importantly, how do we fix it?
changing the rules
I think one of the most frustrating things about religion for me is that fact that it is protected by its own set of cognitive rules. If people were to apply the same loose standards of evidence and reason to other areas in their life (admittedly some do) things would unravel very quickly. I know intelligent people who are otherwise skeptical in their lives. They don’t believe in quack medicine, they question media reports of current events and use fairly strict codes before they believe something as fact. Some of them are scientists who understand and accept Occam’s Razor while others are journalists, trained to question and seek sufficient information before telling a story. And yet, these same people have no trouble accepting that a man, born of a virgin birth, thousands of years ago was the literal son of God, a God who makes contradictory and sometimes duplicitous statements, performed miracles and spoke to donkeys, died and was risen from the dead only to disappear again in order to ascend to his rightly place next to his ethereal father in heaven. Wow.
The excuse for this ability to remove an otherwise functioning brain and put it on a shelf is called faith. How do you justify such mental gymnastics (and ironically, complete disrespect for our supposed “god given faculties”) with one little word? What kind of God would require that of you? I can understand believing in something – a higher power or supernatural force. There is no real reason not to believe in something like that. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that an omnipotent, omniscient God is an imagined father figure for an otherwise small and lonely planet.
It is often argued that god cannot be proved or disproved and in some ways this is true. What we rely on however is the things that make up a faith…the documents, the claims, the books, the church. If these things fail to hold water, it is a fair assumption that the god they claim to represent can be dismissed. In the real world this approach is used all the time. In a court of law it is often impossible to prove that someone did or did not do something. What you rely on instead is the evidence. The videotapes, the fingerprints, the probabilities and then, based on that, you decide. If the evidence is found to be lacking then people intuitively understand that the person cannot be found guilty. Why can’t we apply the same reasonable approach to claims of a religious nature?
Recent Comments