Showing posts with label Logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Logic. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

THE POWER OF CULTS - LDS Hymn Parody #5

After deciding on the title for this hymn parody (The Power of Cults), I realized that this one might turn out to be a little more difficult than the others.  But regardless of that possibility, I decided that I wasn't going to allow myself to be "intimidated" by the subject matter. 

When I was researching my way out of the Mormon Church, I began to realize that the church I had belonged to my entire life is actually a CULT.  Of course, I had heard it called that over the years, but I always responded very indignantly with, "Oh no, the Mormon Church is not a cult."  So to realize and come to the conclusion that it actually is a CULT was very upsetting to me. 

In doing my research on cults, I read the book by Steven Hassan entitled "Combatting Cult Mind Control."  I found this book to be fascinating as well as very enlightening.  This book helped to confirm my conclusions in recognizing that Mormon Church really is a CULT.  Also, when I visited the website http://www.cultwatch.org/, it became even more clear to me that the Mormon Church fits each description of a cult, right down the line.  Rather scary.

So without further ado, here is my latest addition to the ever-expanding ExMormon Hymn Book:

THE POWER OF CULTS
Sung to the tune of The Spirit of God, #2

The Power of Cults is a staggering problem,
The brainwashing process engaged in is strong.
As in most religions like in Mormonism,
The tactics they use are invasive and wrong.

(Chorus)
Like love-bombing, fear and stern intimidation,
Deception and lies are the name of the game.
Forbidden to do your own investigation,
Just close off your mind, believe what they claim.

It may make no sense, but that makes little difference,
Controlling your psyche, a method they use.
Resistance is futile, just maintain your silence.
But can’t this be classified mental abuse?

(Chorus)
With love-bombing, fear and stern intimidation,
Deception and lies are the name of the game.
Forbidden to do your own investigation,
Just close off your mind, believe what they claim.

The technique of high pressure selling is utilized,
For those who show interest, just MAKE them believe.
So hit them with bullshit until they are baptized,
And if luck should hold out, maybe they’ll be naïve.

(Chorus)
And then they will know the true danger of religions
That really are cults, it’s the name of the game.
In telling their lies, passing off made-up doctrines,
Deceiving the masses, but feeling no shame.

And so they control all the hyped information,
The members are busy, just don’t have the time
To question the issues or take any action,
As into a stupor they joyfully climb.

(Chorus)
And though we will shout that it just isn’t logical,
They’ll blindly hold on to whatever they’re told
By the Mormon Cult, and not anything will cancel
The faith that they cling to, much better than gold.

© Diane Tingen, 6/1/2011

So... as you may have noticed, I've been working my way through the list I made when I started this project.  I've now done 4 of the 6 that I had listed then (plus I Stand All Amazed, #193, which wasn't included in that list).  The ones remaining from that list (which are practically crying out to be satirized) are Dear to the Heart of the Shepherd, #221; and If You Could Hie to Kolob, #284.

Of course, after I finish those, I'm sure I'll think of others that need "revision" for inclusion in the ExMormon Hymn Book.

Stay tuned...

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

THE SKEWED LOGIC OF MORMON APOLOGISTS

Mental Gymnastics.  The way we twist ideas and experiences to conform to our preconceived views of the world.  In my opinion, that's what Mormon Apologists engage in to arrive at the conclusions they derive.  Skewed logic.  These types of mind games are precisely why I cringe every time I read any types of comments from the LDS FAIR website (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) as well as the BYU FARMS (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) which is now under the auspices of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU.

While looking at some blogs that I follow today, I came across a blog post on "Not Very Useful Truths" about Apologists, and in particular an Apologist named Michael Ash.  According to this blog post, Michael Ash had written a comment on the blog of a man named Stephen Bloor (a podiatrist) who resigned as a Bishop in a Mormon Ward in the UK earlier this year due to historical and doctrinal issues.  The blog contained the resignation letter that Dr. Bloor had written to his Stake President, resigning from the church.

In reading Michael Ash's comments, I was struck by the way in which he tries to diminish Steve Bloor's findings and opinions.  This is a common tactic for Apologists, apparently feeling that if they can discredit the questioning person's opinions, and make them feel small and stupid for their feelings, then the Apologist can somehow appear bigger, more important, more intelligent, and definitely more righteous.  This, of course, is a common tactic within Mormonism itself.  If a person doesn't understand something or doesn't believe it, then it is their own fault and not the fault of the Mormon Church itself.  They are missing something because they aren't righteous enough.  Very demeaning.

The letter to which Michael Ash was responding had apparently been posted by Steve Bloor on a blog, but unfortunately that post on Steve Bloor's blog is now "protected," and as such is not available to the general public on his blog.  However, his letter is still available in a thread on www.reddit.com at this link.  What he wrote in that letter is very poignant, and I can relate deeply and entirely to everything he says in it, mainly because all of what he wrote could have been written by me.

Here is the response by Michael Ash(Please note that I have added some of my own comments in bolded italics below).
I’m not one to publish frequently on blogs or message boards.  Quite frankly, life is too short, I have too many irons in the fire, and I have precious little time to work on projects that I feel are more worthwhile than arguing with others.  Having said this, however, I feel the need to comment on a few things discussed herein.  More worthwhile than arguing with others?  Why term it like that?  How about exchanging ideas with the purpose of arriving at a logical conclusion?  But then when a person believes he's always right regardless of any evidence to the contrary, there is usually no real exchange of ideas but rather an onslaught of overbearing rhetoric.

Steve, I honestly hope that you find happiness in your own personal spiritual quest.  In the end, each of us has to decide for ourselves what brings us true happiness.   Oh, so true.

I can imagine (with a touch of anecdotal recollection of my own) the emotional turmoil you must have gone through.  The phrase “cognitive dissonance” [CD] is thrown about loosely in discussions about LDS issues, but true CD is very hard on the emotions and mind, and can make you physically ill.  You cannot endure CD for long and your mind/body seeks a quick resolution.  Some people find resolution by brushing difficult issues aside, others by embracing the new difficulties and changing their paradigm.  Either way, the psychological tension is relieved.  This doesn’t automatically make one direction right and the other wrong, however.   Also true - people resolve cognitive dissonance in various ways.  For me, it was realizing that the Mormon Church is a pile of lies - and then leaving it behind.  At that point, I was way beyond the place where I could rationalize any of it out.

Common among those who leave the church are feelings of anger and betrayal, and those feelings can be so powerful that they can cloud any or all thoughts of accepting the claims made by the Church.  This comes from feelings of mistrust and are hard to overcome – and certainly influence a bias against arguments that support the Church.   Well, that says a lot.  And a bias against arguments that support the Church doesn't begin to describe it. 

Feelings of mistrust, as you note in your post, come most often from feeling that things have been “hidden.”  The simple truth, however, is that things are not nearly as “hidden” as some– who stumble upon such information [often painted in the worst possible light by critics]– would think.  There isn’t enough space in this blog to do this topic justice but I can refer you to information that demonstrates a) that most of the difficult issues have been discussed in Church-related publications for years, b) most people in general are blissfully unaware of significant historical/political etc., events.  In other words, it’s sad but true, that most people are simply ignorant of things they should know more about.  Yes, it is sad but true that most Mormons are ignorant of things they should know more about.  But why is that?  Could it be because the Mormon Church makes these things very difficult to find and highly discourages any sort of independent research?

When a believing member “discovers” such things, the Church is immediately held up as the culprit for “hiding” the information in a “cover-up” to control the minds of members.  This is simply not true.  Yes, Mr. Ash, it is true.  Lots of "cover-ups" going on.

Your post speaks of “solid, reliable, testable scientific data,” that supports your current religious views of Mormonism.  At the risk of sounding rude, I seriously doubt that you could produce such data.  Before you begin writing a list please keep in mind, that a large number of educated Latter-day Saints are fully aware of every single LDS-critical argument.  I, myself, have studied them for many decades.  There is absolutely no intellectual data that automatically compels an intelligent person to reject the Book of Mormon.  Of course there is no intellectual data that automatically compels an intelligent person to accept the Book of Mormon either.  In short, all the “scientific data” that is used to discredit the Church has an equally “solid, reliable,” and “testable” refutation (and, generally, vice-versa for pro-LDS claims).   Let's re-phrase portions of this letter.  "There is absolutely no intellectual data that TBMs and/or Mormon Apologists will admit automatically compels an intelligent person to reject the Book of Mormon."   "In short, all the “scientific data” that is used to discredit the Church has an equally “solid, reliable,” and “testable” refutation (and, generally, vice-versa for pro-LDS claims) - or so they would have you believe."  

The journey is yours, and yours alone.  No one can ride on the shirt tail of anyone else when it comes to matters of faith, so I have no dog in the race as to the outcome of your own decision on religious issues.  I merely wish to emphasize that you are not the only one to “discover” difficult issues.  Lots of intelligent people have examined them.  A number of these intelligent people are not only still believing members but recognize that there are rational and logical explanations that account for every criticism out there.  For me, this is probably the most offensive paragraph in Mr. Ash's comments.  To assert that "lots of intelligent people have examined" these issues and have been able to recognize that there are rational and logical explanations that account for every criticism out there" is basically telling Dr. Bloor that he is too stupid to arrive at the same conclusion as "lots of intelligent people."  How arrogant and self-righteous.

From what I have seen through years of reading exit stories is that the main factor which causes a person to leave is indeed “hurt feelings” and feeling “offended”– not offended by someone in the Church, but offended at the thought that they’ve been conned.  And the primary reason that such people feel they were conned is because they never really engaged “study and faith” in their gospel lives.  "Never really engaged 'study and faith' in their gospel lives."  Boy, Michael Ash just loves to generalize, doesn't he?  But then, that's the M.O. of most Mormon Apologists.  It was "study" that brought me to the conclusion that the Mormon Church is a pile of lies, and I refuse to believe anything on blind faith anymore. 

Like most people who fail to put their minds to full use as God intends, they often take a black-and-white approach to religious issues.  It’s either true or false. There either were horses in the New World, or the Book of Mormon is fictional. The Book of Abraham was either written by Abraham himself, or Joseph Smith created the text.  Such a fundamentalist attitude is anathema to a healthy paradigm of how God works through fallible humans.   Yes, Mr. Ash - it's either true or false.  Call it a "fundamentalist attitude" if you want, but truth is truth is truth is truth - and lies are lies are lies are lies. 

Good luck, and if you are ever open again to searching for answers, let me know.  Yeah, Michael... uh, if I were you, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Like I said...



In the post on Not Very Useful Truths, the blogger posts 5 items in addressing Michael Ash's comments.  Although similar to what I've inserted above, I found these items to be very insightful and thorough, and as such, I think his points bear repeating.

Dear Mr. Ash:

1.  Don't stereotype or lump or group-think your assumptions about anyones disaffection.  Your anecdotal "understanding" of why people leave is shallow and misguided.  I have read hundreds of exit stories as well, and listened to dozens more and NONE can mirror my own story.  No two disaffections are the same!  The reasons for leaving are complex, and emotional, and to have someone as grand as you try and cast this former bishop or anyone else into a neat little file shows your general lack of respect and insecurities regarding the matter.

2.  Don't throw something as superficial as "millions of others know these issues and believe" as some half-baked appeal to authority.  Millions of others know these issues and leave, too, Mike.  And if we are playing a numbers-count game, then we are all in the wrong religion.  

3.  Don't claim intellectual superiority as you talk down to those of us who simply could not live with the CD, (and thanks for clarifying cog-dis to begin with... wow... glad you helped me get beyond my misunderstanding of CD theory), and walked away. Oh, that we could all compartmentalize and truly understand at your levels. 

4.  The church has lied. Has lied about a number of things! Define "the church" however you want - a committee, a group of leaders, a prophet, a PR or legal department, a local ward leader... it doesn't matter much - the church has lied.  Period.  This, Mr. Ash, is a fact.  Well documented and indisputable in many cases - unless you really want to wade into the nuance of half-truths and what the meaning of "is" is.  To claim massive cover up and conspiracy may be harder/impossible to prove, but there are more than enough instances of lies and mistruths.  You claim the information is out there for those with intellectual integrity to find and study, but you also know that asking those tough questions, seeking details beyond the highly polished story line from the correlated manuals, and critical thinking is discouraged and even punished.  Tell both sides of the story, Mr. Ash. 

5.  If your arguments and comments in your reply to the bishop hold any water, why do apologetics exist in the first place?
Of course, from my own perspective, Michael Ash's response is filled with rationalizations as well as attempts to minimize Steve Bloor's findings, feelings and opinions.  In particular, the next to the last paragraph in his response is simply ridiculous.  "Like most people who fail to put their minds to full use as god intends, they often take a black-and-white approach to religious issues."  Clearly, I am one of those people who believes that the Mormon church is either true or false.  To me, there is no middle ground where rationalization can overcome the fallacies so obviously apparent to one who actually puts their mind to full use, using the brain with which they have been equipped.

Truly, the kind of mind games engaged in by most Mormon Apologists makes my brain melt...

And in closing, here's a few applicable quotes:

To treat your facts with imagination is one thing, but to imagine your facts is another.  ~John Burroughs

How many legs does a dig have if you call the tail a leg?  Four.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.  ~Abraham Lincoln

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought.  ~John Kenneth Galbraith

All the mind's activity is easy if it is not subjected to reality.
~Marcel Proust, Remembrance of Things Past: Cities of the Plain

Friday, March 4, 2011

FAITH vs. REASON


I've noticed the "vanity cards" that Chuck Lorre has put at the end of his TV shows over the years, but I recently became fascinated by them (during the time when 2-1/2 Men was cancelled for the rest of the 2010-2011 season, and the multiple interviews with Charlie Sheen).  Reading an article about Chuck Lorre in which it was stated that on 2/28/2011, a vanity card appeared at the end of the Mike & Molly episode, addressing rather esoterically the drama surrounding the "situation" led me to actually go to his website (http://www.chucklorre.com/) and read many of these vanity cards.  There's some very interesting thoughts on there, going back to 1999 when he first began writing them during the production of Dharma & Greg.  Most are humorous to a certain degree, and many are filled with some very thought-provoking statements.

On 11/2/1999, the following vanity card (#42) appeared after that evening's episode of Dharma & Greg.  It talks about faith, and in reading it, I began to consider the topic of faith in a broader sense.  Here's the wording from that vanity card:
Thirty thousand feet in the air. Strapped into a seat that doubles as a flotation device. Thinking about faith. Faith in airplanes. In jet engines. In pilots. Faith that the sullen, unshaven guy across the aisle isn't the mindless pawn of a master terrorist with a deep hatred for America, the Great Satan. Then, assuming a safe landing, faith that the cabbie didn't have a fight with his adulterous wife who hides her deceit behind sly jokes about his unremarkable sexual prowess forcing him to soothe his anguish with that fifth of Jim Beam he keeps stashed beneath the seat. And, of course, faith that the doorknob leading out of the public bathroom isn't tainted with a flesh-eating bacteria that came to Earth imbedded in a small, flat meteorite that some unsuspecting child picked up to skip across the surface of a lake. Yes, faith is a wonderful thing. Without it, this world would surely be a fearful place. Once again, thanks for reading my vanity card. Have a nice day.
Faith is a fascinating subject.  At first when I read Chuck Lorre's vanity card, I thought that what he was talking about wasn't really faith.  But actually, the word faith has a much broader meaning than I realized.

Here below is the definition for FAITH from Dictionary.com:
FAITH
- noun
1.  Confidence or trust in a person or thing; faith in another's ability.
2.  Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.  Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.  Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.; to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.  A system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.  The obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:  Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.  The observation of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.  Christian Theology.  The trust in God and His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Interesting.  So in Chuck Lorre's vanity card, where he talks about having faith in airplanes, jet engines, and pilots, as well as his talk about cabbie's dispositions or issues related to terrorism, are all a form of faith.  The word faith actually has a much broader definition that I realized.



Of course, the reason for my confusion probably has to do with the fact that my main connection with the word FAITH always had to do with Mormonism.  But of course, Mormons are are essentially told to have "blind faith" since they are to follow everything without question -- suspending all reason in the process.  To me, having "blind faith" is not wise in any sense of the word.

I believe that when facts are shown to contradict what you are being told to believe, it is not faith anymore, but rather denial.  That is where I found myself in relation to Mormonism.  Once I discovered the truth about Mormonism, having faith in it anymore became an impossibility.

The following quote by Patrick Overton denotes a form of blind faith:
“When you have come to the edge of all light that you know and are about to drop off into the darkness of the unknown, faith is knowing one of two things will happen: There will be something solid to stand on or you will be taught to fly.”
 
That type of faith is baseless, having no foundation in any kind of reality.  To me, it is unreasonable to have faith in that form.

On the other hand, the following quote by Galileo Galilei makes a lot more sense to me: 

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use."





This is  exactly how I feel about Faith vs. Reason.  Why would God give us a brain if he didn't intend for us to use it?  It simply does not compute for me.  Why does the Mormon Church even have any educational institutions (like BYU) if they don't want people to learn to use their brains?  What a paradox.

The following is an excerpt from an article entitled "Is Blind Faith Immoral?  On Faith vs. Reason" by Robert Kaiser, which is contained on the Religious Tolerance website, http://www.religioustolerance.org/
Many people, like this author, require a firmer basis for their beliefs than a blind appeal to authority. In fact, one can go further, and point out that it may well be immoral to have beliefs without a logical basis. Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn discuss why this is so:
'Everybody's entitled to their own opinion' goes the platitude, meaning that everybody has the right to believe whatever they want. But is that really true? Are there no limits on what is permissible to believe? Or, as in the case of actions, are some beliefs immoral? Surprisingly, perhaps, many have argued that just as we have a moral duty not to perform certain sorts of actions, so we have a moral duty not to have certain sorts of beliefs. No one has expressed this point of view more forcefully than the distinguished mathematician W. K. Clifford: 'It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.'
Others of similar stature have echoed this sentiment. Biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, for example, declared, 'It is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.' And Brand Blanshard has proclaimed that where great human goods and ills are involved, the distortion of belief from any sort of avoidable cause is immoral, and the more immoral the greater the stakes.
These men think it wrong for belief to outstrip the evidence because our actions are guided by our beliefs, and if our beliefs are mistaken, our actions may be misguided, As Blanshard indicated, the more important the decision, the greater our duty to align our beliefs with the evidence, and the greater the crime if we don't. Where not much hangs on the belief, it might be thought that what one believes has little importance. But Clifford claims that even in trivial matters we have a duty to proportion our belief to the evidence:
'Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence. We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to.... But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent.'
According to Clifford, responsible believing is a skill that can be maintained only through constant practice. And since responsible believing is a prerequisite for responsible acting, we have a duty to foster this skill.
["How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age (second edition)", p.102, Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn, Mayfield Publishing Co., 1999]

While this line of reasoning goes against what most religious people believe, I am firmly persuaded by the logic. Thus, we should not believe in God without reason. It seems, then, that we would be obligated to search for reasonable arguments to believe in God. Finding such reason we would be obliged to believe in God; lacking such reason we would be obliged to dismiss God's existence as a unproven hypothesis.
What Mr. Kaiser states here makes a lot of sense to me.  Finding a basis for belief through the use of such means as thought, research and analysis is a very reasonable approach for any person in arriving at a conclusion.  Simply believing because you are told to believe something is not reasonable to me.  It defies all logic. 

_________________________________

Naturally, in the end, my mind always turns to humor -- my defense mechanism, I suppose.  Can't be totally serious for too long.  So in a humorous vein, I also have to share these other great quotes about faith:

"Faith is what you have in things that don't exist."  Homer Simpson

"It ain't supposed to make sense; it's faith.  Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe."  Archie Bunker