Skepticism in the Church

Is skepticism antithetical to the Church? I think that the answer is a qualified no. Obviously the Church makes claims that lay mainly in the realm of faith. Also, Church members come from diverse backgrounds and have different levels of tolerance for free-thinking and skepticism, especially when applied to Church history, leaders, or doctrine. However there is a significant amount of official Church discourse that encourages members to eschew radical claims or fads. Policy statements on medical issues often include the admonition to consider the judgment of "competent medical authority." And although the Church teaches that God communicates with man, it does so with caution. For example, the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith wrote:

Continue Reading

In secular as well as spiritual affairs, Saints may receive Divine guidance and revelation affecting themselves, but this does not convey authority to direct others, and is not to be accepted when contrary to Church covenants, doctrine or discipline, or to known facts, demonstrated truths, or good common sense. No person has the right to induce his fellow members of the Church to engage in speculations or take stock in ventures of any kind on the specious [deceptive] claim of Divine revelation or vision or dream, especially when it is in opposition to the voice of recognized authority, local or general.

Consider these examples of skepticism displayed by Church leaders or official publications:

1. I've noted previously a couple of instances of skeptical treatment of Old Testament stories in the CES OT manual.

2. Joseph F. Smith:

The danger and power for evil in witchcraft is not so much in the witchcraft itself as in the foolish credulence that superstitious people give to the claims made in its behalf. It is outrageous to believe that the devil can hurt or injure an innocent man or woman, especially if they are members of the Church of Christ—[unless] that man or woman has faith that he or she can be harmed by such an influence and by such means. If they entertain such an idea, then they are liable to succumb to their own superstitions. There is no power in witchcraft itself, only as it is believed in and accepted.

3. Dallin H. Oaks:

Another category of miracles, so-called, are the tricks that some magicians and religious practitioners stage in order to produce astonishing events in aid of their professions or ministries. You will remember that the magicians in Pharaoh’s court duplicated some of the miracles Moses produced through the power of God (see Ex. 7–8). Perhaps these magicians were servants of the devil, using his power, but I think it more likely that they were simply skilled practitioners of magic tricks that they used to reinforce their position in Pharaoh’s court.

Religious practitioners have employed similar deceptions in our own day....Before we are too critical of such techniques, we should remember that we engage in similar deceptions whenever we exaggerate a happening in order to dazzle an audience into thinking we have experienced a miracle or to enhance our stature in other ways. Warning!

4. While the Church has not taken an official position on the matter, Church leaders are apparently comfortable referring interested people to publications by FARMS and others that emphasize the limited geography model of the Book of Mormon and backpedal on the words "principal ancestors" from the introduction.

Other issues that we are encouraged to be skeptical about include:

Speculative doctrines--even those taught by Church leaders
"Faith-promoting stories"--particularly those that circulate as rumors
Excessive (relative to the mainstream Church) religious practices

Most of these examples don't really involve "scientific" skepticism. However what I want to establish here is that skepticism is not necessarily a bad word, even in the realm of LDS religion.

(If you can think of additional examples, please add to my list in the comments.)

Continue reading...

I Shall Henceforth Be Known As...

It has come to my attention that there is a least one other person in the bloggernacle going by the name of "Jared." Obviously this could lead to some confusion in the various comment threads. Although I think I was the first to claim the name in the bloggernacle, it's not in my nature to tell the others to change their screen-name or get lost.

I see two options:

1. Change nothing. Having raised the issue, the bloggernacle regulars will be on notice and figure it out.
2. Append a signifier to my name.

If I were to do the second, my proposals are:

1. Jared LDSSR
2. Jared LSR
3. Something simple like, Jared*
4. I'm open to suggestions, but I'm ruling out Jared the Jerk, or variations thereof.

I am soliciting comment from the community.

Continue reading...

Permission to Speak Freely?

STOP: This exhibit is about animal thinking. It contains some things you may agree with, some you may disagree with, and others that may even trouble you. Come explore and see what you think.

That is the text of a disclaimer that is posted at the Smithsonian National Zoological Park, according to this Geotimes article, which describes the challenges of communicating science to the general public. (via EvolutionBlog)

Coincidentally, this makes for a nice introduction for something I was planning on mentioning here. A couple of weeks ago my wife took our daughter to the zoo and they made their way to the apes. A woman on staff brought out some skulls (human, gorilla, orangutan) for them to look at and compare. When my wife asked a question about them the woman said, "In order to answer your question I have to talk about evolution." My wife chuckled, gave her consent, and the discussion proceeded.

You just know that the warning is due to people getting irate and argumentative about being exposed to evolution. I can just hear it: "My tax dollars should not be spent on indoctrinating my children when we're just trying to have a nice day at the zoo. The zoo shouldn't favor one particular view."

(And just for the record, my little sunbeam's general refusal to say prayers began before she went to the zoo!)

Continue reading...

Pluto: No Pizza for You!

Pluto is no longer a planet. In a reversal from a week ago, when we came close to adding several planets to the solar system, Pluto has been re-classified as a "dwarf planet." The Bad Astronomer has more info.

My Very Excellent Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas.

Continue reading...

ID Propaganda in My Mailbox

Because of where my wife used to work, we had a free subscription to Human Events, a politically conservative newsletter. I wouldn't say it is total-nutball conservative, but definately partisan. Anyway, we got a renewal ad in the mail a couple of weeks ago. It offers (with renewal) a free copy of Jonathan Wells's new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Wells, of course, is part of the Discovery Institute and author of Icons of Evolution--a book that has received harsh reviews. I thought the ad was entertaining so I've scanned it and posted it below. This paragraph is pretty representative:

Dr. Wells, a biologist and senior fellow at the respected Discovery Institute, begins by explaining the basic tenets of Darwinism, and the evidence both for and against it. He reveals, for instance, that the fossil record, which according to Darwin should be teeming with "transitional" fossils showing the development of one species to the next, so far hasn't produced a single incontestable example.

The rest of the ad is like that; it's littered with distortions. I haven't seen the actual book, but it apparently makes the following mind-numblingly stupid argument: That influenza virus is designed to be killed by UV light. I'm not making that up--you can read about it at Aetiology. And these people want access to public schools!

So if you get a kick out of reading this kind of stuff, have a look at the actual ad. It's below the fold.

Continue Reading

Click to enlarge

Continue reading...

Dark Matter Observed

New evidence for dark matter was announced yesterday. From MSNBC.com:

Clowe and colleagues used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to study the galaxy cluster 1E0657-556, which contains a bullet-shaped cloud of superheated gas. X-rays show the shape was produced by cosmic winds created in a high-speed collision of two clusters of galaxies.

Other telescopes were used to locate and quantify the mass of the clusters. They measured the effect of gravitational lensing, in which gravity from the clusters distorts light from background galaxies, as predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

The dark matter is not seen, but its gravity has a predictable effect on the observations. The resulting blue color in a composite image released Monday represents the gravity fields observed by noting how the light from each background galaxy is distorted.

Here's what the image reveals:

The hot gas — normal matter — was slowed by a drag force described as the cosmic equivalent of air resistance. But the dark matter was not slowed by this effect, presumably because it does not interact with normal matter, as theory had predicted.

So the normal matter and dark matter became separated.

So to be clear, the pink is the normal observable matter and the blue represents the gravity fields. You can't have gravity without matter, so this is further evidence for dark matter.

Continue reading...

Skepticism of the Churches

Within the broad domain of religion there is much to be skeptical about: faith healers, speaking in tongues, mystical experiences, weeping statues, stigmata, demonic influences, mystical types of energy, reincarnation, oracles, predictions of the future, doomsday preachers, and holy books. The claims to supernatural power and knowledge are so many and varied, it is no wonder that they are treated with skepticism. The skeptical view has been reinforced by the failure of many such claims to withstand scientific scrutiny. (Others have either not been tested or are not testable.)

Our own religion has varying degrees of conflict or consonance with such phenomena. When I read or listen to the debunking of such phenomena I feel a little bit like a kid, laughing with the cool kids at the nerds, yet a little uneasy because I recognize some qualities of the nerds in myself.

Sometimes the discussion turns specifically to Mormonism. When it does, I take some consolation in the fact that portrayals of Mormonism usually miss important details. For example, the eleven witnesses who claimed to have seen the golden plates are often overlooked; the story is thus reduced to the claim of a single person. Not that such people would likely find the story any more believable, but if Mormonism is to be debunked it should at least be done accurately. Unfortunately it is not uncommon that, as Daniel Peterson has observed, "...Mormon history and doctrine are plainly deemed too patently absurd to justify much effort at accuracy." Furthermore, Peterson writes:

I believe that secular anti-Mormonism, which I often find much more interesting and intellectually challenging, will constitute the real locus of action in coming years....

...secularist anti-Mormonism is doing real damage to many fragile testimonies...and an adequate response has still not materialized. This is a challenge that apologists...urgently need to address.

I think that he is right. I don't think that we can deny that scientific skepticism has a legitimate role to play in investigating religious claims. Even from a purely theological view we have a stake in seeing that false religious teachers and miracles are revealed for what they are. The challenge is trying to convince others that the foundational claims of Mormonism are not a priori part of the bathwater.

Continue reading...

Prudence and Skepticism

With the "baloney detection kit" in hand, it can be tempting to approach the world with the enthusiasm of a boy who gets a hatchet for Christmas and begins to chop everything in sight. Scientific skepticism can also be used as cover for poor behavior; some people are basically jerks posing as skeptics. Carl Sagan recognized this potential.

Continue Reading

Have I ever heard a skeptic wax superior and contempuous? Certainly. I've even sometimes heard, to my retrospective dismay, that unpleasant tone in my own voice. There are human imperfections on both sides of this issue. Even when it's applied sensitively, scientific skepticism may come across as arrogant, dogmatic, heartless, and dismissive of the feelings and deeply held beliefs of others....When someone comes along who challenges our belief system as insufficiently well-based--or who, like Socrates, merely asks embarrassing questions that we haven't thought of, or demonstrates that we've swept key underlying assumptions under the rug--it becomes much more than a search for knowledge. It feels like a personal assault....

There is some cost-benefit analysis which must be applied, and if the comfort, consolation and hope delivered by mysticism and superstition is high, and the dangers of belief comparatively low, should we not keep our misgivings to ourselves? But the issue is tricky. ...if we offer too much silent assent...we abet a general climate in which skepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom. (The Demon-Haunted World, p. 297-298)

The cost-benefit analysis must surely include whether the topic under scrutiny is a public issue or merely private belief--although when private belief becomes widespread it can become a public issue. The Enlightenment gave us science, and it also gave us the Constitution, which provides certain guarantees to the exercise of personal belief. But I think it is quite reasonable to expect that where private beliefs affect the general public, that those beliefs should be born out by public methods of investigation, ie. science. (Since this bleeds into the political and legal arena I will leave it where it is.)

Nevertheless, ideally the process of skeptical investigation should be an exercise in respect and persuasion.

Continue reading...