How often do you think about the potential corollary to a statement you are making? A corollary is something that follows without requiring proof from a statement already proven, a deduction or inference, or a natural consequence or result. Does it even matter?
“I know I’m raising my kids right because they pray to Jesus every night.”
Is the corollary to that, “I know you aren’t raising your kids right because they don’t?”
As mad as it may make some die-hard anti-religionists out there, I’m going to say “No. The two have nothing to do with each other in the mind of reasonable people.”
I found myself thinking about corollaries today because I went to church. This is a somewhat rare occurence lately, and entirely by choice. Most of my friends and family (although not all unless they stumble across my blog) are aware that I’m actively non-theistic. I hesitate to use the word “atheist” because people assume that implies anti-religion, which I am not. I simply think that religion is irrelevant to my daily life, and has been for a very long time. Last August began letting my wife and close friends in on that fact.
Anyway, my daughter asked me to come because the “Primary” (an LDS church word for “babysitting and religious indoctrination for children 12 and under”) was going to be singing a couple of Father’s Day songs and she wanted to sing to me. I enjoyed the singing, and the winking glances sent my way by my daughter and son. I smiled and enjoyed their show of affection immensely.
The only unfortunate part is that I had to sit through some rather insufferable speeches. That’s part of the reason I stopped going, was simply that sitting through classes where they expect you to agree and not make waves when you disagree with the speaker’s opinion just doesn’t work for me. I’ve had people tell me that’s not true, and that the religion doesn’t discourage differing opinions when those opinions disagree with the official dogma. Try telling that to the Bishop who called me into his office to inform me that Church meetings were to be “faith-promoting”, and that my questions were not. Anyway, there were a couple statements that came from speakers that caught my attention:
“I’m so glad my child came to my husband and asked him to give her a Father’s Blessing. This shows that he’s a good father, and that I’m raising my children the right way.”
Is the corollary to that statement, “If my child doesn’t come to my husband and ask him for a Father’s Blessing, then he’s not a good father and I’m not raising my children the right way.”?
Initially, I thought so, and the only thing that kept me from being upset by the statement was once again reminding myself that, from the Latter-Day Saint perspective, even if I raise my children well, teach them to be moral and good people, spend time playing with them, help around the house, keep myself away from drugs, pornography, and other bad habits, and in every way try to set a good example for them, that’s not enough. Without “Temple” services, taking “sacrament”, participating in other “ordinances”, and avowing myself in front of two witnesses every two years to be free from sin (or at least as far as 14 questions can determine), I cannot ever measure up to the standard of a good father in the eyes of most Latter-Day Saints.
Once I remembered that, and that my perspective and the speaker’s perspective were completely different, I stopped being angry and began thinking about corollaries. If one assumes as fact that a God requires worship and supplication from His worshippers in order for them to be good fathers, then it follows that one who does not do that is a bad father. This is not an insult to the “bad father”, but a logical conclusion following from a completely different set of basic assumptions. Barring a dramatic opinion change on the part of the theist or non-theist, this gulf is quite difficult to cross.
Quite some time ago, I worked for a small company called “Talk2”. They were founded on the somewhat laughable proposition that internet-based speech-recognition technology would revolutionize the telephone industry, and they could make a fortune by so doing. They were partly right, but it’s turned out that voice services are just a small part of the standard suite of services with any cell phone these days. They’ve reinvented themselves as “Spontaneous Technologies”, and are focussing on VPN stuff now with maybe a dozen employees.
Anyway, a co-worker named Joel Hull, during one of our several religious discussions at work, made the statement one day that has stuck with me.
“Just because I think I’m right, doesn’t mean I think that you’re wrong.”
If we all approached life with this perspective, I think there would be fewer hard feelings and a lot more understanding in this world. I’m going to keep trying to remember this as I continue to explore Life Without Personal Religion.
I realize this is probably rather too intimate for a public forum, but a few months ago my wife and I had a discussion. She’s very actively Mormon. I’d been working very, very hard toward trying to be a better father and improving myself (exercise videos and all that), and I felt I’d made tremendous gains. In a late-night discussion, I asked her “Do you think I’m a better husband and father than I was back when I acted religiously?”
Her answer cut me to the core. “No,” she said. No explanation. I fumed, rolled over, and tried to go to sleep as that “No” echoed through my brain for hours.
The next day, she amended her statement of the night before. “In every way not involving religion, you are a better husband and father now than you were a year ago.” It felt lame, and too little too late, yet I’ve found that I can’t stop thinking about the statement for the last three months. It sent me into a bit of a downward, depressed spiral, thinking that my wife thought I was a worse husband and father, even when I practically bleeding out of the ears in my efforts to be one.
Now, I get it though. If your base assumption is that it’s impossible to be a good father without religion, then you’ll assume I’m a bad father for disavowing religion. My assumption is different — but it doesn’t make anybody else wrong. Now time to go be a good Dad.
Good father, Bad father
If I may offer a few observations. It looks to me like you are in the classic state of hearing what you want to hear and seeing what you want to see. Consequently, I am a risk when I submit these comments that you will only hear and see what you want and not what I am actually trying to say. Nevertheless, my genuine concern compels me onward.
I was flattered to see you quoting me but I think you have stretched the original context of our discussion too far, hence, my conclusion that you are seeing and hearing as you will.
There is a big difference between right and wrong and likes and dislikes. If I remember right our discussion was about likes and dislikes, such as football. I made the comment that just because I don’t like football doesn’t mean I don’t like everyone that does like football. In other words, we can have different interest in life and still have respect and friendship.
On the subject of right vs. wrong it really comes down to one thing, is there universal truth or not?
If there is in fact one set of laws for all mankind by which life’s purposes can be maximized then it would seem that the wise thing for us individually and collectively to do would be to seek an understanding of these laws and adhere to them.
If there is not such set of laws then it really doesn’t matter what we do. As the Cheshire cat said in “Alice in Wonderland”, if you don’t know where you are going then it really doesn’t matter which way you go.
There are a myriad of “middle-ground” philosophies in the world that suggest there is not a set of universal laws for all but a set of individual laws for each, in other words, there are many paths to heaven. Or in context of this discussion, there are many ways to be a good father. But is this really right/true?
As I understand it, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe in universal truth/law. A true disciple will learn these laws and willingly conform his life to them. The Church also teaches that each of use individually can discover that the universal law is in fact real and does apply to them if they are humble, open-minded, open-hearted, and willing to do those things required to discover it. Those who decide for themselves that the Church is “good for some, but not good for me” run the terrible risk of living there lives to completion only to discover they we wrong and it is everlasting to late to change their minds.
Matt, I pray you can humble yourself enough to seek our Father in Heavens guidance. He WILL help you.
Those that have ears to hear let them hear.
Thanks for the post
What you say doesn’t fall on deaf ears. The context of the original discussion varied across religion and other topics — or maybe I’m blurring many of these topics together? We talked a lot over lunch back at Talk2.
In any case, I’m preparing a longer reply than I can afford to type while I’m working. One thing I try to do with my life at this point is to attempt to honestly evaluate evidence and logic without having a foregone conclusion. To do otherwise is to fall prey to the same muddy thinking that sustained my “testimony” as an active LDS member. It’s a draining, but exhilarating mental exercise 🙂
Good Father, Bad Father
Joel,
You definitely stumbled across one of my earlier blog postings. Over the last year, I’ve been ruminating on my decision to acknowledge that I had no idea one way or the other regarding the existence of gods, and considered the available evidence insufficient to prove it to myself. I’m a bit more sure of myself now, and each day growing more happy to take individual responsibility for my actions. Although I don’t now agree with everything I posted in my original blog, I think human ethics are wonderful, particularly the fact that a naturalistic worldview allows us to change our minds.
As are we all. I daresay no person sees the world without some filtering of perception — even you. However, my return question for you is this: if you were presented with substantial evidence that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was established under false pretenses, and adheres to no universal law, would you be willing to change your mind regarding its truthfulness? Answer honestly, now — and if you are so sure of yourself that you would not be willing to change your mind in the face of overwhelming evidence, I invite you to cease reading right now and be happy in your belief.
I think my full opinion is best reserved for private conversation, if you choose to pursue it. My number is in the book, and my email is quite public. I suspect, though, that your concern is at least partly for your appearance of integrity and piety. I realize this allegation may make you angry, and acknowledge it may be incorrect. But, in fact, you were referred here by Googling and Yahooing for “joel hull spontaneous”; this leads me to believe that you were egosurfing, and at least partly concerned that this article shows up first or second in both of those searches. Your quote being used to support a position you deeply disagree with is probably disturbing, and I empathize. Yet, the quote is still pretty cool, and since I consider discussion of religion philosophical, and not one of universal truth, it seems applicable.
My skepticism with religion stems from my fundamental belief that yes, there is universal law, or order. But in my exploration of that theme, I’ve found simply that everything makes sense and has an ultimate explanation that is comprehensible by humanity. We may not have the computational ability, or the innate brain processing power, to accurately assess all the factors in any given phenomenon, but nevertheless the universe progresses in a majestic, stately order according to finite laws subject to discovery. My quest for truth is satisfied by incremental leaps of understanding, and I acknowledge I will not possess it all in my lifetime.
As far as spiritual, religious, or deistic truth goes, there are many religions claiming to have the only truth. From my vantage point, it appears I am considered a heretic by just one more religion than you are.
Unfortunately, you fall prey here to a logical fallacy that is difficult to pin down, and is often referred to as the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. That is, if someone asserts something exists a certain way, and another points out an exception to that rule, the first will caveat that “oh, then that exception is not a true (whatever)”. It is a combination fallacy that allows one to shift the meaning of a word, and perform ad-hoc support despite opposition.
Of course, if we drop the word “true” from your sentence, you appear to be arguing from supposition that I did not learn the laws as written, nor live life in conformity to them, and thus am not a disciple and not eligible for the blessings given to discliples. I assure you a dirt-digging expedition will turn up an occasional sin here and there in my life, but not any one which was at any point worthy of any form of official Church discipline or which was, in fact, not remedied with the appropriate authorities and overcome. I think I did learn what was required, and followed both the letter and the spirit of the law. Yet still I am a heretic, an unbeliever — an apostate.
I am a living exception to this assertion. You need assume me guilty of no sin, misdeed, or offense that led me to acknowledge a lack of belief in deity. I prayed 12 years, fervently, for a witness — and other than the occasional warm feeling, experienced nothing of the sort. The Church teaches that this warm feeling is the Spirit, yet I experienced the same feeling at ball games, rock concerts, recording secular music in my home studio, and reflecting on the teachings of other religions and Socratic method. At best, warm feelings are an inaccurate measure of truth. At worst, they are dead wrong.
Your unstated assumption seems to be that I was not humble, not open-hearted, and not willing to do what was required to discover this “universal truth” of which you speak. In fact, it was my humility and desire to open my heart to knowledge and inspiration that led directly to my decision to withdraw myself from the religion. I’ll spare you the lengthy story, but I was teaching Sunday School to the young men/young women, and the further I plunged into the scriptures and fervent prayer in search of enlightenment for each lesson, the more disturbed I became. I decided shortly thereafter, upon receiving no “answer” to my prayers, and only more questions on further study, the evidence for gods was contradictory and completely subjective. I’ve seen nothing since then in my frequent reading of Christian and Mormon scripture to indicate otherwise.
You reach a point where there’s no use beating the dead horse. I’m at that point now. The Brethren counsel more fasting, more prayer, more scripture reading, more temple attendance, and a constant list of ever-growing responsiblities that will lead to the answers one seeks. I pursued these venues fervently for twelve years. I think that should be time enough for a response of some sort, don’t you?
This is yet another logical fallacy: argument from adverse consequences. Just because the potential consequences of a thing are severe, does not mean it is true. I figure, if gods exist, they probably have sensible enough judgement to know if an individual has been true to his sense of right and wrong. Continuing to assert that I believed in God, when I believed no such thing, or that I “knew” the Book of Mormon was true or Joseph Smith was a prophet, when I knew no such thing, sure felt like a lie. I’d rather live an unpleasant, painful truth than a lie any day. Being honest with myself and others is exceptionally difficult, particularly in times like these when my public acknowledgement of my lack of belief is questioned and requires defending, but it is enormously more satisfying than living a pleasant lie.
At this point, from an agnostic viewpoint, I acknowledge that I have no concrete evidence for or against the existence of gods or an afterlife. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that there is no afterlife. However, considering that I can face the prospect of my own nonexistence calmly, any mythical “hereafter” would be only a perk as far as I’m concerned.
Been there. Done that. Got the eternal T-shirt and shorts. If God wants to talk to me, He surely has my phone number.
And, by the way, so do you. If you’re truly this concerned for my welfare, why not call or write? My email is quite public and easily figured out if you somehow miss the obvious links to my name. You also registered an account here, and can send a private message to me by clicking on my name.
If you regard any portion of this post as offensive, please feel free to send me a PM when logged in as yourself, or send an email, or call my number. I live in Tooele City, UT. I’m the only Barnson in the book for this area. I’ll be happy to remove it, or even this entire thread, at your request. But you posted, so I responded 🙂
I wish all the best to you and yours,
–Matthew
Extreme Centrism from you Know who.
One: Egosurfing can be fun. Broken glass surfing. now thats a problem.
Two: Matt, most of this email will not be directed at you, so these points will be.. chill with the fallacies… and.. there are flashes of emotion here that are interesting and far more important than we give them credit for. I will hit on those in my response to Joel. Needless to say, if one believes that God is real and that he desires a relationship with us, then yes, it is safe to say that that person would consider any lack of teaching in that department to be deficient parenting.
You shouldn’t take offense to this, because anyone who believes in an ideology WILL believe others are incorrect. It is the nature of ideology. That argument can go on forever…(go ahead and link our other fun discussion here)[So Linked – ed.]. If I believe as a fact XMEN are good for all children and you don’t give XMEN to your children, then I will feel your fathering skills lack proper XMEN focus. No harm, no foul.. hopefully all parents are doing what they feel is BEST for their children, and hopefully some of them are close to right. I don’t judge outside my own mind, and when I do so inside I feel pretty crummy.
Three: Joel, Joel, Joel. Now, your second sentence is: “It looks to me like you are in the classic state of hearing what you want to hear and seeing what you want to see”.
Your final statements are “Matt, I pray you can humble yourself enough to seek our Father in Heavens guidance. He WILL help you.”
Those that have ears to hear let them hear. ”
Dude, as an outside observer who doesn’t know you or have any subjective opinion here, if someone approached YOU with that line and finished with those, how could you react with anything but animosity?
Your “genuine concern” gets really bogged down in your opening and closing which aren’t going to make you or your cause any friends. Now, beyond that, you do really well arguing universal truth, but then lep suddenly to the assumption that the LDS truth IS that universal truth without even so much as a segue. You’re not really breaking new ground with the whole what you find at the end of life argument, either. If someone doesn’t believe in God, eternal consequences aren’t going to matter to them now. If someone doesn’t believe in “The Church”, then citing “The Church teaches” as any kind of authority won’t work.
Now, I truly do believe you saw this and saw it as an opportunity to react to something you’ve been thinking about. I’ll give your motives the benefit of the doubt. But your methods need tempering, man.
ALL that being said, I fall closer to you than Mr. Barnson on the belief scale. I am not LDS, though, and I find it interesting that you cite the authority of the “Church” three times and never once the authority of Christ. You cited in Matt a lack of humility (“I pray that you humble yourself”) and by doing so, you judge him. That’s not cool.
Splinters and planks, pots and kettles. I am not familiar with the book of Mormon, but in the Bible, I can’t find many examples of Christ going to one he loves and slamming them, and then they follow him. He rarely goes to those without faith and calls them out for lack of humility. He generally converts unbelievers and sinners through acts of giving and love.
There are a certain group of people he did have a tendency to call out. Those were believers who were trashing unbelievers. Teachers of the law who placed themselves above others.
I don’t want to call you a pharisee, man, and I only make the observation to say this. People like Mr. Barnson have seen far too many Jerry Falwells on TV and picketers outside Matthew Shepard‘s funeral, and ministers suffocating babies. Those who call themselves Christians are getting a reputaion of being holier than thou instead of humble. I’ll tell you straight up, I am the chief of sinners, and I rely on Grace a LOT. But I’m in good company. There are a lot of loving, giving Christ followers out there. Let’s not attack those who aren’t.
Peace and love.
Interesting
You have great writing; it’s interesting to read the points you bring up. I rarely scanned the converstation between you and the other individual.
You’re not a bad father for not being religious… it just sounds like your wife doesn’t want to be alone. She wants unity. I am not trying to step out of line by saying any of this, so disregard anything you find in any way uncomfortable. I am trying to give my opinon and of course you don’t have to take any of it.
I am not saying get baptized in the the church, not at all, I am just saying that’s what it sounds like. She may not say she wants you there, but I am a female and know the “language”. You sound like an understanding man, though, not bashing just understanding. That’s so important. I have had some encounters with Mormons because my nieghbors are. I have even sat through some of their “missionary meetings”; it was quite informative.
I am not completely interested, it was just neat to hear their opinons.
That may not be the answer for you, but before any meeting or arrangement for them to just explain not convert. I was very unsure and not oh so open minded to Mormonism. Maybe that would be a good solution who knows praying always helps though, helps you clear your mind and start out fresh with the lord, christ. Good luck to you my friend.
Meredith, an interested reader
EDIT by matthew: Large formatting, tpyo fixes.
Thanks, but no thanks
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. However, a “missionary meeting” is absolutely the last thing I need.
You see, I served a mission. I was on “that side of the fence” for ten years. I taught the discussions. I attempted to convert the unbelievers.
It’s not that I’m not “open-minded” to Mormonism. Heck, I was a Mormon for most of my life. It’s that fidelity to organized religion also seems to require a large degree of… what’s the best way to put it? Perhaps “selective understanding”. In order to accept a religion’s claims to divine truth as “true”, one must necessarily accept that there are things we’ll “never explain”.
That explanation, ultimately, is not acceptable to me. I think that, even with our obviously puny, underdeveloped brains, we can understand everything there is to understand, and a noble goal of humankind is to raise our understanding of everything there is, even though such knowledge may lead us to a certainty of the non-existence of a certain species of god. As climbing to the top of Mount Olympus reveals no homes of gods, so too has modern research invalidated many of the suppositions of the Bible.
Albert Einstein wrote a series of essays on cosmic religious feeling. I think his opinion summarizes it best. I think most mainstream organized religions in the USA are man-made artifices, with their genesis in exploiting man’s fear of the unknown.
That said, there are some which acknowledge no knowledge of the “truth”. It is those with which I most empathize.
The only path to divinity that I have found to be “true” (or as true as my small brain can discern), is “find your own way”. I’m still finding it, and expect to be on this journey the rest of my life.
—
Matthew P. Barnson