JUST USE YOUR BRAIN - LDS Hymn Parody #18

Although I left the Mormon Church a little over 7 years ago, there are many aspects of it that still puzzle me. After doing my own independent research, and discovering that what I once thought was the "one and only true church on the face of the earth" is actually built on a stack of lies, I have continued to find it very puzzling as to why there are so many intelligent people who strongly believe in its tenets. And that is one of my main remaining fascinations with Mormonism and its hold on people. Why do they continue to believe when it is seems to be very clear that it is not true? Why do they simply accept it, right down the line, relying on blind faith rather than actual reasoning? Why do they cite "feelings" as a supposed valid reason for their belief when there is a mountain of evidence against it being true? Why do they assume that "Anti-Mormon Propaganda" is the explanation for whatever negative stance is taken against the Mormon Church when in actuality what is being stated is valid information against Mormonism? Why don't members do their own independent research instead of just going along and deciding to "just believe"?  Very puzzling.

The membership of the Mormon Church is made up of a diverse array of people - and includes a wide spectrum of very educated people with advanced degrees (undergraduate, Master's Degrees, Ph.D's, Juris Doctors, Medical degrees, etc.) and people whose professions include doctors, lawyers, teachers, professors, and so on. So if the church is actually an elaborate web of lies, why do these types of obviously intelligent people continue to believe in it? For me, that is the ultimate question - and it fascinates me.

What it seems to come down to is that these types of people, who are true believers, apply one type of reasoning to their lives in general, and another one to their religion. Although they obviously apply critical thinking skills to situations in their careers and lives in general, the same degree of scrutiny is not applied to their religion. They very simply "just believe" without examining and/or analyzing their belief system. One example of that is a Mormon man who I have exchanged several messages with on Facebook - first in commenting on a friend's thread, and then in several PMs. He is a lawyer, and is obviously very intelligent. He writes very well, and obviously puts a lot of thought into his comments and messages. But he is also a very devout Mormon who does not, by any stretch of the imagination, apply the critical thinking skills that he was taught in law school to his religion. He cites the Mormon Party Line down the line, and defends each and every precept as if his life depends on it. I have asked him why, since he was taught critical thinking skills in law school, he does not give Mormonism the benefits of such skills and look at it with an examining eye.

In fact, in one of my comments, I asked him, "...you're obviously a very intelligent man, evident not only from your writings but also from the fact that you have a law degree and a clerkship at the USDC. I'm sure in law school you learned how to analyze and dissect information... to scrutinize ideas and concepts. I'm curious as to why you haven't applied that scrutiny to Mormonism, particularly since from the evidence, it appears to have been a hoax from the get-go."

And this was his reply: "@Diane: Well, someone did their homework. There are two answers to your question: When it comes to my unquantifiable testimony, I can’t scrutinize it adequately. If you can’t tell, I’m obsessed with having good information and properly identifying what assumptions are being made to make a premise hold or fail. Regardless of what you believe, there are some real complexities to the human experience that simply can’t be analyzed rationally because the occurrences that happen would otherwise be irrational, except that they really happen. What that means for me is there is information that is unavailable. There’s stuff that I can’t sort out in my head. And in all the teachings of the Church, etc., I have found a certain degree of comfort that all these unquantifiable happenings accurately translate into a testimony. Now, that means nothing to you. I get it. But it means something to me, and it’s very persuasive. Second, if you want to examine truth apologetically, I am intellectually convinced the Church is true. That’s not to say there are no holes. But taking everything together and looking at all the evidence, my judgment is that the preponderance of the evidence swings toward a conclusion of truth. Now, the important part is that although we can disagree on the result, we cannot, however, disagree on the presentations of the evidence. And a big problem in the critical arguments against the Church is that they are premised on bad assumptions. For every issue you can raise, there is a bad assumption (I think). For example: Why did God change his mind about black people? There are multiple major false assumptions in that statement. And so applying “my scrutiny,” I take a step back, analyze the question, dissect it, and realize that the question is a bad one because it improperly begs a variety of questions. Once I can identify the fallacious portions, the analysis is actually really easy. So the question is: can you see the false assumptions? Something that magnifies the problems of this critical analysis is that Mormon culture really, really gets in the way. If we take Brigham Young at his word that most Mormons are going to hell, then we can’t very well rely on the idiosyncrasies of the membership to accurately reflect doctrine. And if we are critically analyzing practice instead of doctrine, the conclusion is wholly illusory. Problem is that many of these idiosyncrasies take on a life of its own. I think a perfect example is the Salt Lake City Council and how close they were to throwing the gay-rights ordinance to curb before the church stepped in and said it should pass. The same thing has happened on immigration, etc. Church members have misinterpreted the church’s (conservative) actions in one sphere, and become zealots for a false cause in another. As far as affirmative apologetics, there is a lot. But since I’m in the court system, let me give one example that resounds quite strongly for me: The three witnesses. Now, I’m aware of the holes (generally based on false assumptions and contexts). But the uncontroverted evidence is that each died with a dying declaration that what he said about the Book of Mormon was true. And that includes Whitmer, whom never came back to the church. Sure – they generally disliked (if not hated) Joseph Smith at some point, and even thought of him as a fallen prophet. But they never denied their experiences and affirmed what they had previously seen with their dying breath. As a policy matter, such evidence is very reliable. And the critics have been completely unable to explain it away. Being part of a team that sits, listens, and weighs evidence, I can’t objectively conclude anything else except to say there’s probably something to it."

Interesting response - very well thought out and expressed. The fact is that this man is obviously very intelligent, but the way in which he analyzes information about the Mormon Church seems to always end up putting him on the side of belief, even though there are (it seems to me) some very flawed methods in his "analysis." Circular Reasoning. Beginning from the pre-conceived notion that the church is true, and framing everything that he "analyzes" to that end. After this, we exchanged a few PMs, and his take on it all continues to puzzle me.

So although I've put Mormonism behind me, I still like discussing it and blogging about it, mainly because I am puzzled by why so many obviously intelligent people buy it, lock, stock and barrel. But I am convinced that if these people would just use their brains and their critical thinking skills instead of simply accepting the Mormon Party Line, they might actually see the lies, deceptions, cover-ups and contradictions embodied within Mormonism.

And this is the theme of my latest hymn parody.

JUST USE YOUR BRAIN

Sung to the tune of Do What is Right, #237

Just use your brain,
Your reasoning powers,
Inquiry with your own mind just makes sense.
Don’t follow blindly and simply accept it,
Don’t be a sheep, let your thinking commence.

(Chorus)

Just use your brain,
Let your reasoning powers
Tell you what’s right and what you should believe.
It makes more sense to use critical thinking,
Blindly obeying, don’t be that naïve.

Just use your brain,
Your rose-colored glasses
Simply obscure what reality shouts.
If you believe it without proper study,
All you are doing is squelching your doubts.

(Chorus)

Just use your brain
Let your reasoning powers
Tell you what’s right and what you should believe.
It makes more sense to use critical thinking,
Blindly obeying, don’t be that naïve.

Just use your brain,
Don’t just shelve your issues,
There is no wisdom in stifling yourself.
Don’t stuff it down, and then suffer in silence,
As you place more and more there on your shelf.

(Chorus)

Just use your brain
Let your reasoning powers
Tell you what’s right and what you should believe.
It makes more sense to use critical thinking,
Blindly obeying, don’t be that naïve.

© Diane Tingen, 6/19/2011

CIRCULAR REASONING

I've been doing some research about this topic lately, and I find it to be a very interesting subject.  Of course, since beginning my journey away from Mormonism, the process of reasoning, thinking, analyzing, evaluating and arriving at my own conclusion has become much more vivid in my mind.  For so many years, I just went along - and I was sadly caught in the never-ending cycle of Circular Reasoning.  Breaking away from that vicious cycle was difficult, as was leaving the Mormon mindset behind, but the benefits have been numerous.  Knowing that I am thinking for myself now, and that I am living an authentic life, is a huge reward.

When looking at the FAIR and FARMS websites, I can now see just how deeply Mormon apologists are caught in a cycle of Circular Reasoning.  Since their initial premise which underlies everything they say or think is that "the Mormon Church is the only true church on the face of the earth," they bend each fact to that end.  And when they seem caught, they simply bear their testimony.  Now that solves everything, doesn't it?

Independent, unbiased deliberation requires abandoning all preconceived notions, but since they do not leave anything on the table before beginning their studies, it is not possible for them to reach an unbiased opinion.  They close their minds before even beginning the process of "studying" the question - and they have arrived at their conclusion before beginning the "analysis" as well. 

A classic example of Circular Reasoning was apparent to me when I told my very TBM brother that I was no longer going to church.  Of course, his first response was that "it's never too late" to return to the fold.  When I told him that I didn't want to "return," he said, "Well, it all boils down to whether or not you believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.  If you believe he was a Prophet of God, then the church is true.  But if you believe that he wasn't a Prophet of God, then the church is not true.  That being said, I believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, and therefore the Church is true."  Circular Reasoning in a capsule.

On the Logical Fallacies website, the following is said about Circular Reasoning:

Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning

Explanation

An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.

Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.

Example:

(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.

(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.

Therefore:

(3) The Bible is inerrant.

This argument is circular because its conclusion—The Bible is inerrant—is the same as its second premise—Whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would reject the argument’s conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a whole.

Real-World Examples

The above argument is a straightforward, real-world example of a circular argument. Other examples can be a little more subtle.

Typical examples of circular arguments include rights-claims: e.g., “I have a right to say what I want, therefore you shouldn’t try to silence me”; “Women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, therefore abortion should be allowed”; “The unborn has a right to life, therefore abortion is immoral.”

Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you to have X, so each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly what it is trying to prove.

Of course, religion is an area in which Circular Reasoning is used to try to explain much of its rhetoric.  The statement that the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible tells us so, and since the Bible is infallible it is obviously the Word of God is a great example of Circular Reasoning. 

Naturally, though, when caught in the web of Circular Reasoning, particularly in a religious discussion, it is very difficult to make the other person see the errors in his/her line of thinking.  Knowing that the Bible is the Word of God simply because the Bible tells us so, and since the Bible is infalliable, it is therefore true is a mind-boggling statement.  Of course, many Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is true because they have been told it is true by their leaders, and since they believe their leaders are lead by God, they assume that nothing those leaders say or do could possibly be wrong.  Getting in these types of discussions can be very frustrating for a thinking human being.

On Yahoo Answers, the following question was asked:  "Is it circular reasoning to quote the Bible as proof of God?"

Here was the answer:  "If they could quote a verse of the Bible that describes an occurrence or a phenomena (that mere mortals could not have known) that was only later confirmed by an extra-biblical source, then the Bible may serve as evidence. But to date, I've only heard outrageous interpretations ("See this verse that says rivers don't fill up, that's clearly a reference to the complicated water cycle we only now understand") or blatant ignorance ("See this verse written a few years after this war, it predicted that war")."

Here's a few very good examples of Circular Reasoning, which I found on a discussion board on http://www.camaroz28.com/forums:

We're doing 10 minute presentations in English and I'm doing mine on fallacy number 21: Circular Reasoning.  For those who don't know what circular reasoning means, here's an example:

And one of the responses:

Is there a God?  Yes.
How do you know?  Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?  Because it was inspired by God.

In other words - God is because God is.

And here's one of the responses:

Why don't atheists believe in God?
Because they have no faith.

Why do they have no faith?
Because they don't believe in God.

Hence, atheists don't believe in God because they have no faith, or they don't have faith because they have no belief.

Okay, here's another less inflammatory example.

I am rude and discourteous to women.
Why?  Because women are evil.

Why are women evil?
Because men are rude and discourteous to women.

Or how about this?

Did your significant other cheat on you?  When you ask them if they cheated, they said they didn't.  But you knew they were lying because all cheaters lie.

Basically assumption or conjecture is the mother of circular logic.

Interesting statement.  "Basically assumption or conjecture is the mother of circular logic."  Without any type of "proof," some religious people try to argue that God exists through circular logic.  It's one thing to say that they believe in God because they have faith in his existence, but it is another thing entirely to try to "prove" his existence through use of the Bible or other religious-based "evidence."  But Mormon apologists go several steps further in trying to "prove" that Mormonism is true.

While I overlooked the circular arguments for a very long time, and bought into Mormonism lock, stock and barrel, eventually I realized that the whole thing makes no sense.  And after doing extensive research, I finally realized that everything I had been taught since childhood was filled with lies and deception, as well as contradictions and cover-ups.  At that point, it felt as though my head was going to explode.  Since I had never really thought about it all before, I came to realize that those feelings were simply mind opening up to real thinking, examination, evaluation, interpretation and analysis.  Deciding for myself - not relying on what others had told me to believe.  At this point, I consider myself to be an Agnostic because I do not know one way or the other whether God exists, and I don't feel comfortable taking the leap to atheism because it may very well be that God does exist.  But whether he exists or not, I know for certain that the Mormon Church is NOT his "only true church on the face of the earth."

While I was doing research on Circular Reasoning, I came across some interesting information on http://www.urbandictionary.com/, which gives examples of Circular Reasoning as:

"I'm right because I'm right."

"There isn't a problem with the rule, because if everyone obeyed it there wouldn't be a problem."

"Piracy is wrong because it's against the law, and it's against the law because it's wrong."

"X is stupid because he's an idiot."

The Urban Dictionary website also gives a definition for "Circular Logic," reiterating the religious argument of:

Atheist: How do you know God exists?Believer: The Bible says so. Atheist: How do you know the Bible is the absolute truth?Believer: Because it came from God.Atheist: How do you know God exists?

and so on...

Some closing thoughts:  

It may have been better to say, "Circular reasoning"; circular logic strikes me as oxymoronic.

 

I don't use circular reasoning in my arguments. I know this because my arguments are never circular.

(Both of the above quotes were by "Wandering Soul," posted on http://www.religiousforums.com/, 1-23-2011, 2:30 pm).

And just remember:

Circular reasoning is not logically valid because it isn't.