Theism, Atheism, and Mormonism

In the 1990s cartoon show Animaniacs, there was a carefree toddler character named Mindy. She would often annoy other characters by repeatedly asking "Why?" until the characters became flustered and gave up trying to answer. She was annoying because she wasn't asking "why?" to gain understanding, but because she enjoyed pushing people's buttons. Unlike Mindy, genuinely curious people ask "why?" to arrive at an explanation. To explain something is to show why certain effects follow from certain causes. If we ask why enough, we will eventually arrive at an explanation that does not have any explanation itself. It seems all explanations bottom out in some cause that itself did not have a cause. Some have referred to this final explanation as the uncaused causer. "Who or what is the uncaused causer?" is the same question as "Where do all explanations end?" Atheism gives one answer, Traditional theism gives another. Mormonism seems to give an answer that is a hybrid of both atheism and traditional theism.

Volitional vs. Non-volitional explanations
There are two ways to answer the question, "Where do explanations end?" Traditional theists such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that all explanations end in a volitional explanation. I am using the word "volition" to refer to that which is caused by some being or agent.

Atheists, on the other hand, believe in a non-volitional explanation. Explanations end in something like the laws of physics, or nature in general, (or even just gravity according to Stephen Hawking). Some atheists say that they simply don't know how to explain existence in general, but still hold that no volitional being could be the uncaused cause of the universe.

For example, if we ask the question "why is the sky blue?". We will come to some explanation that describes the behavior of lightwaves when they interact with particles in the atmosphere. After we come to that explanation we can ask, "Why do lightwaves behave that way?" Describing the laws of quantum electrodynamics might constitute an explanation for that question, but then we could just ask, "why are the laws of quantum electrodynamics like that?" An atheist will answer that nature is just that way and that is where explanations end. A traditional theist would answer that God created the laws that way and that is where explanations end.

Where do explanations end for Mormon theology?
According to Mormon theology, some explanations end in non-volitional causes and some explanations end in volitional causes. How can this be? Mormon theology agrees with both Aristotle and Plato who argued that the world always existed and that God organized the world out of pre-existing unorganized matter. That pre-existing matter was not created out of nothing. It has no cause. It has always existed and therefore has no explanation. On this point, Mormon theology agrees with the belief of most atheists.

The first prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, taught that God did not and in fact could not create the universe:

God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end. (King Follett Discourse)

According to the LDS scholar Sterling McMurrin who wrote Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion:

“It is a basic article of Mormon theology that God is related to a world environment for the being of which he is not the ultimate ground and by which he therefore is in some sense conditioned. This means that God is a being among beings rather than being as such or the ground of being, and that he is therefore finite rather than absolute.” (Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion)

Orson Pratt who was an early Mormon church leader wrote:

“God [in LDS thought] is described in non-absolutistic terms as a being who is conditioned by and related to the world of which he is a part and which, because it is not ultimately his creation, is not absolutely under his dominion … God’s environment is the physical universe, the minds and selves which exist but are not identified with him, the principles under which reality is structured, and perhaps even the value absolutes which govern the divine will,”

“There are some things that cannot be performed, although we had the power of working great and mighty miracles; indeed, the great God Himself who has power to control the heavens over our heads, and the earth upon which we stand has NOT the power to do that which would be naturally impossible, or in opposition to the great, necessary, and fundamental truths of nature, which are eternally unalterable, and cannot be otherwise than they are,” (JD 3:300).

There are many other quotes that confirm the Mormon belief that these explanations do not end in God, but instead end in the elements and principles of nature. No volitional being did or could have created them.

However, according to most accounts of Mormon theology, volitional beings (spirits or intelligences) also were not created. All volitional beings are coeternal with the elements that have always existed. According to Joseph Smith:

I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. (King Follett Discourse)

If volitional beings are also uncreated, then their actions cannot themselves be reduced to non-volitional causes. Volition is simply part of uncreated nature. Therefore, some explanations end in the choices of volitional beings. For example, when we ask why a painting of the sky is blue, it is not satisfactory to appeal to the laws of  quantum electrodynamics. Any explanation for why a painting is blue must account for the intentions of the painter who organized the paints on the canvas. The painting is blue because of the laws of nature AND because of the intentions of the painter. In Mormon theology, the answer to the question "where did matter come from?" ends in a non-volitional explanation. And, the answer to the question "why was matter organized in a certain way" can end in a volitional explanation. Concerning the latter question, God organized the pre-existing matter that we experience on this earth to fulfill His eternal purposes. On this point, Mormon theology sides more with theism than atheism.

Conclusion
Traditional theists believe that all explanations end with a volitional being such as God. Atheists believe that all explanations end in non-volitional causes. Mormon theology is a hybrid belief system that asserts that some explanations end in God and some do not. Because of these beliefs, members of the Mormon church are in a good position to resolve many contentions between atheism and traditional theism.

Philosophical Analysis of the LDS Sacrament

In this post I want to show how Searle's philosophy of social ontology helps clarify the ritual of the LDS Sacrament. This post will be easier to understand if you read my post on Social Ontology:

Many religions believe in and perform a sacrament ritual which is often referred to as Communion. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints participates in a Sacrament meeting every week during their worship services. During the sacrament, bread and water are blessed and passed out to the congregation who eat and drink the bread and water.

Typically two young men who hold the priesthood (at the level of priests) bless the bread and water in front of the congregation. Before they bless the bread and water they break the bread into small pieces and pour water into small plastic or paper cups. At the appropriate time, one of them blesses the bread by saying the following prayer:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen. (D&C 20:77)

After they bless the bread, several other young men who hold the priesthood (at the level of deacons) pass the bread to each member of the congregation. When everyone in the congregation has eaten a piece of bread, one of the two young men then bless the water by saying the following prayer:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this [water] to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen. (D&C 20:79)

Then the water is then passed to the congregation and the sacrament ends.

What does it mean to "bless"? 
To bless means to make something holy. In my last post, I wrote that "holiness" is not a physical characteristic of an object. Rather, "holiness" is a status that is assigned to an object. Therefore, when we bless the bread and water we are assigning a status to them. We are more specifically asking God to recognize a specific status, but we are not asking God to change the molecular structure or physical substance of the bread and water. Catholics on the other hand believe that the physical substance does change. (see transubstantiation)

What is the purpose of the status that is assigned to the bread and water?
 The purpose of assigning a status to anything is to give that thing a function. The intended function of the bread and water is to cause the partaker to remember the Son and His atonement. The bread that we eat for breakfast does not have that function. Even if we did think of Christ every time we ate our morning toast, it would still not count as performing the function of the sacrament, because the assignment of that sacrament function must be recognized by both the partaker and by God. The bread and water are often called "emblems" because they are supposed to act as representations of Christ and His atoning sacrifice.

Why must the sacrament be recognized by both the partaker and by God?
 The Sacrament ritual is a covenant that we make with God. More precisely, the sacrament is a renewal of covenants that were already made when the partaker of the sacrament was baptized. Not only do we make a promise to God, but God makes a promise with us. Therefore, the sacrament must be recognized by both parties.

What counts as covenanting with God? The act of partaking of emblems, or the act of remembering?
 In order to answer this question I need to make a distinction between two types of complex actions. The first type of complex action involves doing something "by way of" doing something else. The second type of complex action involves doing something "by means of" doing something else. These types of complex actions are summarized by John Searle:

 So, for example, if the chairman says, “All those in favor of the motion raise your right hand,” and I raise my right hand, I am not only raising my right hand but also voting for the motion. These are not two separate actions—raising my right hand and voting; rather, they are one action with two levels of description of the two different features of the action. Raising my right hand in that circumstance constitutes voting. I vote by way of raising my hand.

Another type of a complex action is where one intentionally does something that causes something else to occur. For example, I fire a gun by means of pulling the trigger. Here again there are not two actions—pulling the trigger and firing the gun—but only one action with two different levels of description. At the bottom level I intentionally pull the trigger. My pulling the trigger causes the gun to fire. My pulling the trigger does not cause me to fire the gun; in that context it just is firing the gun. But firing the gun is a complex act, where I intentionally achieve the effect that the gun fires by the causal “by means of” relation, whereby my bottom-level intentional movement causes the higher level effect, and the combination is the total action. (Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization p36)

The act of partaking of the sacrament emblems has a "by means of" relationship with the act of remembering of Christ and His atonement. The partaking is intended to be the cause, and the remembering is the effect. Eating the bread and drinking water is also an outward sign of an inward activity.

The act of remembering has a "by way of" relationship with the act of covenanting. The remembering does not cause us to covenant with God. The remembering constitutes covenanting with God. Therefore, the intentional act of remembering is a speech act that counts as promising just as raising one's right arm counts as voting for a motion.

What do we promise to God?
 The partaker of the sacrament promises to (1) always remember Christ, and (2) be willing to take upon the name of Christ, and (3) keep His commandments.

What does it mean to be willing to take upon us the name of Christ?
 According to the apostle Dallin H. Oaks, the phrase "willing to take upon them the name of thy Son" has multiple meanings. In this post I will only focus on one of those meanings. To be willing to take upon the name of Christ is to be willing to accept a certain status that comes with the name. With that status comes a specific function, and with that function comes certain deontic powers such as rights and authorizations, and obligations and requirements. This pattern was illustrated to me a few days ago when my wife took the Oath of Allegiance and became a citizen of the United States of America. She essentially took upon her the name of America and became an American. She swore that she would be willing to freely take upon her certain obligations such as serving and fighting for America. Because she made this oath, she is entitled to all the rights and entitlements that come with being an American citizen.

The difference between the sacrament and the oath of Allegiance is that in the sacrament, we do not take upon ourselves the name of Christ; we only express that we are willing to do so. This implies that at some future date we will be eligible to actually take upon ourselves the name of Christ. According to Dallin H. Oaks,

Scriptural references to the name of Jesus Christ often signify the authority of Jesus Christ. In that sense, our willingness to take upon us his name signifies our willingness to take upon us the authority of Jesus Christ in the sacred ordinances of the temple, and to receive the highest blessings available through his authority when he chooses to confer them upon us. (see D&C 109:26)

This understanding thus connects the ordinance of the sacrament with the ordinances in the temple. This suggests that only those who have been to the temple can understand the deeper meaning behind sacrament because they can understand the rights and authorizations as well as obligations taken when they take upon His name in the House of the Lord.

What does God promise to us in the sacrament?
God promises to give us "His Spirit".

What is His Spirit?
 It is commonly understood that His Spirit refers to the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why do we make promises in this ritualistic way?
 A promise is a commissive speech act. As such the speaker of the promise commits herself to perform some course of action. In the case of the sacrament, the eating of the bread is a speech act. It is an act of language without the use of phonetic utterances.

The sacrament emblems could be anything because human beings can assign status functions to anything. Instead of blessing and eating bread we could bless gummy bears. Or we could have performed some bodily movement such as a dance. Or we could have simply filled out a check box on a form. But I believe that the activity of eating has symbolic significance that can more deeply and vividly help us understand the meaning behind the sacrament.

Why do we need to make promises at all?
 All institutional facts are extensions of language or "speech acts" that are designed to effect behavior. Institutional facts affect behavior by locking into human rationality by providing "desire-independent reasons for action." The natural desires of mankind are contrary to the will of God. These desires tend to be immoral and promote chaos. Institutional facts can promote order and morality by giving us reasons to act that are different from our natural desires. For example, when we make a promise to do something, we have engaged in a commissive speech act that gives us a reason to do that which we promised even when we do not want to follow through with our promise.

In the LDS sacrament, members covenant to continue to always remember Christ and to obey God's commandments. This gives us a reason to act independently of our natural desires. Thus, making promises gives us added motivation to follow the commandments by giving us desire-independent reasons for acting.

What does holiness mean?

The purpose of this post is to answer the question: 

What is the meaning of holiness? 

Recently, I have been studying John Searle's philosophy of institutional facts. I find that his philosophy answers many interesting questions in a clear and precise way and relates to many different fields of study including religion and theology.

Searle's philosophy shows how new facts can be created by collectively recognizing the assignment of functions to objects that cannot perform those functions by themselves alone. A useful mnemonic device for logically analyzing these social facts is the formula: X counts as Y in context C as in the example "This piece of paper (X) counts as money (Y) in the United States (C). I introduce these concepts in more detail here. I find this philosophy very useful in understanding the concept of "Holiness".

The word holy is synonymous with the word sacred. Holy is an english word that has Germanic roots. Sacred is an english word that has Latin roots. In the scriptures there are several different things that are described as "holy" such as the following:

• Spoken Words and Texts such as scriptures

• Rituals and Ordinances such as the activities performed in the temple.

• Objects such as the Menorah or the Arc of the Covenant

• Art and Architecture such as temples

• Time such as the sabbath day

• People such as priests

• Institutions or communities such as Zion or the Church

Generally speaking, Holy means that which belongs to God or associated with God. Using the language of Searle's philosophy of institutional facts, something is holy if God recognizes it to have a certain status and by virtue of that status, the object can perform a specific function. Here are a few applications of this concept:

Prophets
 A person counts as a prophet when they are recognized by God as being a prophet. The person alone is not sufficient to constitute being a prophet. You need the person plus God's recognition. Someone claiming to be a prophet that is not recognized by God is a false prophet. The status of "prophet" gives certain authorizations and obligations to the rightful bearer of that title. Such authorizations include the right to act in God's name and receive revelation on behalf of other people. Since they are recognized by God, prophets are holy. The Holy Prophets are still prophets even if no one but God recognizes their status.

Emblems of the Sacrament
 The Sacrament is blessed (is made holy) if God recognizes it as being blessed. The bread and water count as a symbols of Christ and the act of eating those symbols and remembering Christ count as performing a covenant with God. The bread and water alone are not sufficient to be symbols of Christ by themselves. You need the bread and water plus God's recognition and the recognition of those engaging in the sacrament ritual. The covenants renewed during the sacrament are holy because they are recognized by God.

Priesthood
 The priesthood is the authority to act in God's name and use His power. A person counts as having the status of priesthood holder when they are authorized to perform specific functions such as blessing the Sacrament or healing the sick. A person only has the priesthood when they are recognized by God as having that priesthood. God recognizes a person's priesthood when they are righteous and have been given the priesthood by someone else who has the priesthood who has been authorized by a church official such as the Bishop.

Temple
The temple is holy because it is God's house. Temples are centers for creating, preserving, and transmitting other Holy symbols. By itself, the physical building that constitutes a temple is not Holy. You need the building plus God's recognition that it is a temple for it to be holy.

I could describe many more religious concepts using these terms. There is a general formula that comes out of these examples:

X counts as something holy if it has a status that is recognized by God in order to perform a specific function that it cannot perform without God's recognition of that status. That status always comes with deontic powers such as rights, authorizations, and permissions, or obligations, duties, and requirements.

Nothing is holy in this context unless God recognizes it as being holy and sacred. And, nothing is holy unless it is assigned a certain status in order to perform a specific function. These concepts should be thought about with an attitude of reverence and we should treat these concepts as God treats them. That which is unholy is that which has a status such that we are obligated to avoid it. God does not dwell in unholy temples. We should likewise not enter unholy places or situations.

Holy objects are different from other social objects (like money) in that an object can be holy even if God is the only person that recognizes them as being holy. Whereas all other social objects exist only if there is a large amount of people that recognize them as existing.

Sources: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/ancient-temples-and-sacred-symbolism-video/ The Construction of Social Reality by John Searle

God, Language, and Reality

In the beginning of the Old Testament, we read "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." It appears in this verse that God caused light to appear through the use of language. How can language cause the world to change? What would reality have to be like for the language to change reality?

Direction of fit
 To explore these questions, I want to introduce the concept of direction of fit. Direction of fit refers to the relationship between words and reality. In many cases, words can be used to fit the way the world is. These cases have a " word-to-world direction of fit". In other cases, the world changes in order to fit the words that we use. These cases have a "world-to-word direction of fit". These distinctions will be clearer as I describe the possible uses of language.

5 types of speech acts
  There are 5 and only 5 things that can be done with language. There are assertives, expressives, directives, commissives, and declarations. These uses of language are called speech acts. Assertives state the way the world is and thus have the word-to-world direction of fit. Assertives refer to statements, descriptions, classifications, explanations, and clarifications. Eg: "The earth rotates around the sun". Expressives do not have a direction of fit but they rely on presuppositions that do have a direction of fit. Eg: "Thank you for passing the guacamole" (which presupposes that the hearer did in fact pass the guacamole).

Directives, commissives, and declarations all have a world-to-word direction of fit. Directives change the world by causing the hearer to do something. Directives include orders, commands, requests and refer to pleading, begging, praying, insisting, and suggesting. Eg: "Go to your room." Commissives change the world by committing the speaker to do something. Commissives refer to vows, threats, pledges, guarantees, contracts, promises, covenants, and oaths. Eg: "I promise to uphold the constitution." Declaratives actually have a dual direction of fit. They change the world by representing the world as being so changed. Eg: "This meeting is adjourned," or, "I now pronounce you husband and wife." A declaration can fail if no one recognizes the declaration. For instance, if I declare that a meeting is adjourned, and the meeting just keeps going on because no one recognizes my speech act, then I have failed to change reality. Therefore declarations are dependent on collective recognition if they are to actually change the world. For a more slightly more thorough introduction to speech acts, check out this post.

Let there be light
 So what type of speech act is the utterance, "Let there be light"? It doesn't have a word-to-world direction of fit so it cannot be an assertive. It does not seem to be expressing an emotion that assumes another fact so it cannot be an expressive. It doesn't commit the speaker to a specific action so it is not a commissive. The only possibilities left are directives and declarations, or it might not be a speech act at all. I will examine each of these remaining possibilities.

Is it a declaration?
 If the speech act, "let there be light" is a declaration, then God is changing the world by representing it as being so changed. However, when human beings make a declaration they can only change social reality. For example, the declaration, "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private" only applies to the status function of money which is a social fact that requires collective recognition. Human beings cannot change the brute facts of reality through declarations alone. For example, we cannot change reality by saying, "I hereby declare that I am a billionaire." Nor can we change reality by declaring something like, "Let there be good weather." No amount of collective recognition is going to change those brute facts because beliefs alone cannot cause anything to happen without physical action. If the utterance "let there be light" is a declaration, then I cannot make sense it for the reasons just stated. It would presuppose a type of metaphysical idealism which I believe is self-contradictory.

Is it a directive?
 Directives are supposed to change the world by causing the hearer to perform some action. The utterance "Let there be light" could be a command to the light itself or it could be a command to an unspecified hearer who is being commanded to create the light through the use of some sort of light-generating technology. If light could be commanded, then that would imply that light has some sort of conscious awareness such that it could understand the meaning of the words and volitionally respond to the directive. In Helaman 12: 8-22, it seems as though Nephi is suggesting that matter obeys God's word which seems to imply that it is conscious. Orson Pratt is said to have more explicitly supported this hylozoistic view. However, I think there is enough room for interpretation to question this interpretation of the scriptures. If light does not have conscious awareness, then some unspecified hearer such as an angel turned on the light after being commanded by God.

Maybe it isn't a speech act at all
 The last possibility is that the phrase, "Let there be light" is not a speech act at all but just a soundwave that triggers a preprogrammed event that causes the lights to turn on. For example, when I ask Siri (on my iPhone) to launch an app, I say something like "launch Angry Birds." But the meaning of my words did not cause Siri to open the app. It was merely the soundwave that caused Siri to open the app. Siri could have been programmed to launch the app when it heard the soundwave, "Do NOT launch Angry Birds". Or it could have been programmed to launch the app when it heard the sound wave, "Boom Shakalaka!" Likewise some light generating technology could have been preprogrammed to respond to God's words. It could have been programmed to respond to a particular vibration of his vocal cords, or some bodily movement, or perhaps the technology could have responded to some form of thought detection.

Conclusion
 In this post, I have not been as interested in what God caused to be with His words. I am more interested in how God uses words to cause things to be. Understanding how words can change reality can give us insights into the metaphysical nature of reality. Using the example of light, God's words could have been a declaration, a directive, or they could have been a soundwave that triggers a non-volitional technology. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense that the words could be a declaration for the reasons stated above. I am also skeptical of the speech-as-a technology-trigger explanation because I am not aware of any example where God's words are used this way. Intuitively, it does not seem Godlike for God's words to not have any meaning in this way. Therefore, I believe that the utterance, "Let there be light" was a directive. Either matter volitionally obeyed God's words or God was commanding another volitional being (or beings) to cause a series of events to take place in order for earth to have light.

---

Scriptures about the power of God's words: Jacob 4:9 Helaman 12:7-21 1 Ne. 17:46

Why I believe in God

In this post I want to give reasons for believing in God. This post is prompted by comments from my friend Bennion in a previous post. I will first provide reasons for believing in God that I do not accept. Then I will give some reasons why I do believe in God.

Reasons for believing in God that I do not accept
 1. I do not believe in God as a matter of some scientific hypothesis. Some atheists ask for evidence for the "God Hypothesis". I don't like that phrase because it implies that the believer is supposed to make some scientific claim about why there is a God. I don't believe that one comes to know God by looking around and finding gaps in our scientific knowledge, and then invoking God as an explanation for those gaps. That is not the right way to think about reasons for believing in God. I think the right way to think about knowing God is to think about how one knows that they love their spouse. I don't have a "Wife Hypothesis" to explain why I experience my wife's existence.

2. I do not believe in intelligent design arguments for the existence of God. Although I believe that there is probably some intelligent influence in the process of evolution, I do not think that influence can be proven scientifically. There are some well thought out philosophical arguments that involve intelligent design, and I do not think they are all as bad as naturalists claim they are. However, I still do not find them convincing enough to count them as evidence for believing in God.

3. I do not believe in any of the traditional theistic philosophical arguments for God. For instance, I do not believe in the ontological argument or any cosmological argument for the existence of God. Concerning these arguments, one famous LDS philosopher, Truman Madsen, once said,

Many of you will encounter, if you haven't, traditional rational arguments for the existence of God. They are all of them afflicted with fallacies. They presuppose in the premises what they claim to demonstrate in the conclusion. And, further, they presuppose in their premises something about the very nature of God.

4. I do not believe that belief without evidence is an appropriate reason for believing in God. Atheists often claim that faith is just belief without evidence, or it is just a way to protect a weak hypothesis. I do not accept these mischaracterizations of faith. Faith is belief with evidence. As Orson Pratt, an early apostle of the LDS church said,

"Faith or belief is the result of evidence presented to the mind. Without evidence, the mind cannot have faith in anything...As evidence precedes faith, the latter should be weak or strong in proportion to the weakness or strength of the evidence … The weakness or strength of faith will, therefore, in all cases, be in proportion to the weakness or strength of the impressions, produced upon the mind by evidence."

Reasons for believing in God that I accept
 I believe that there are several reasons for believing in God. I could tell many personal stories, but I will just give one story or example per reason.

1. I believe in God because of personal experiences There are several simple experiences that give me reason to believe that there is loving Heavenly Father looking out for me. One time my mother and I were driving home from Lake Tahoe and our van was stuck in the mud. I don't know exactly where we were, but I remember there were a lot of trees around. We were far away from help at a time when people did not have cell phones. We tried for a long time to get out of the mud by driving back and forth. Finally, we prayed for help, tried again, and immediately got out of the mud and travelled home safely.

2. I believe in God based on answers to prayer When I was around 18, I read the book of Mormon and prayed to know if it was true. I had an overwhelming powerful experience that confirmed to me that it was a true. I have had similar experiences, but that time it was particularly powerful and it has stayed with me throughout my life.

3. I believe in God because of revelation.There have been times in my life when I have received powerful insights similar to my experience when I prayed about the book of Mormon. What was unique about these experiences is that I wasn't praying or asking for the insights that I received. Due to the personal nature of some of these experiences (there are at least 2 that I remember clearly), I would rather not share the specific stories that relate to this reason. I will simply convey that I arrived at some conclusions about secular issues through spiritual means. Only after those experiences did I learn of secular evidence for those conclusions.

4. I believe in the testimony of witnesses I believe Joseph Smith's testimony that he did in fact see God and Jesus Christ. In Joseph's own words, 

I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me...I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it."I believe in the testimony of the living apostles and prophets that have a special witness of the living Christ.

5. I believe that the Book of Mormon provides evidence for Joseph Smith's story.The Book of Mormon is an incredible book. It is evidence that anyone can read and examine. It is available for anyone to scrutinize and many have tried. If one is sincere and open to truth, I believe they will be truly moved by its contents. I think that it is impossible that Joseph Smith could have made it all up.

6. Many other reasonsThere are dozens of other reasons for my belief in God including intuition, pragmatic considerations, logical consistency, and other personal experiences.

Concluding remarks
 In most cases, people cannot choose their convictions. For example, if I offered to give you $1000 if you could believe that you were 20 feet tall, you would not be able to do it. When I examine my beliefs and convictions, I find that I do believe in God. The fact that we do not choose our convictions does not mean we can never change our beliefs over time. Nor does certainty imply incorrigibility. For example, I changed my mind about the theory of evolution after sincerely considering the evidence. I have documented that experience here.

In writing these reasons for believing in God, I know that I am opening myself up to scrutiny. I often consider the possibility that God does not exist and I am open to the possibility that I could be mistaken about my beliefs. Many skeptics will think that many of these arguments are easy targets and perhaps not even worth addressing. Since most of the books I read are written by atheists (that is just the nature of philosophy), I encounter many arguments against my belief in God. I consider those arguments carefully and sincerely. After examining and scrutinizing those arguments, I find intellectually and spiritually satisfying responses and I find that I still believe in a loving, personal Heavenly Father and the truthfulness of His gospel.

I want to end this post by recommending reading the testimony of one of my philosophy professors at BYU. You can find a link to her testimony here.

Theism, Atheism, and Mormonism

Mindy

In the 1990s cartoon show Animaniacs, there was a carefree toddler character named Mindy. She would often annoy other characters by repeatedly asking "Why?" until the characters became flustered and gave up trying to answer. She was annoying because she wasn't asking "why?" to gain understanding, but because she enjoyed pushing people's buttons. Unlike Mindy, genuinely curious people ask "why?" to arrive at an explanation. To explain something is to show why certain effects follow from certain causes. If we ask why enough, we will eventually arrive at an explanation that does not have any explanation itself. It seems all explanations bottom out in some cause that itself did not have a cause. Some have referred to this final explanation as the uncaused causer. "Who or what is the uncaused causer?" is the same question as "Where do all explanations end?" Atheism gives one answer, Traditional theism gives another. Mormonism seems to give an answer that is a hybrid of both atheism and traditional theism.

Volitional vs. Non-volitional explanations
There are two ways to answer the question, "Where do explanations end?" Traditional theists such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that all explanations end in a volitional explanation. I am using the word "volition" to refer to that which is caused by some being or agent.

Atheists, on the other hand, believe in a non-volitional explanation. Explanations end in something like the laws of physics, or nature in general, (or even just gravity according to Stephen Hawking). Some atheists say that they simply don't know how to explain existence in general, but still hold that no volitional being could be the uncaused cause of the universe.

For example, if we ask the question "why is the sky blue?". We will come to some explanation that describes the behavior of lightwaves when they interact with particles in the atmosphere. After we come to that explanation we can ask, "Why do lightwaves behave that way?" Describing the laws of quantum electrodynamics might constitute an explanation for that question, but then we could just ask, "why are the laws of quantum electrodynamics like that?" An atheist will answer that nature is just that way and that is where explanations end. A traditional theist would answer that God created the laws that way and that is where explanations end.

Where do explanations end for Mormon theology?
According to Mormon theology, some explanations end in non-volitional causes and some explanations end in volitional causes. How can this be? Mormon theology agrees with both Aristotle and Plato who argued that the world always existed and that God organized the world out of pre-existing unorganized matter. That pre-existing matter was not created out of nothing. It has no cause. It has always existed and therefore has no explanation. On this point, Mormon theology agrees with the belief of most atheists.

The first prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, taught that God did not and in fact could not create the universe:

God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end. (King Follett Discourse)

According to the LDS scholar Sterling McMurrin who wrote Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion:

“It is a basic article of Mormon theology that God is related to a world environment for the being of which he is not the ultimate ground and by which he therefore is in some sense conditioned. This means that God is a being among beings rather than being as such or the ground of being, and that he is therefore finite rather than absolute.” (Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion)

Orson Pratt who was an early Mormon church leader wrote:

“God [in LDS thought] is described in non-absolutistic terms as a being who is conditioned by and related to the world of which he is a part and which, because it is not ultimately his creation, is not absolutely under his dominion … God’s environment is the physical universe, the minds and selves which exist but are not identified with him, the principles under which reality is structured, and perhaps even the value absolutes which govern the divine will,”

“There are some things that cannot be performed, although we had the power of working great and mighty miracles; indeed, the great God Himself who has power to control the heavens over our heads, and the earth upon which we stand has NOT the power to do that which would be naturally impossible, or in opposition to the great, necessary, and fundamental truths of nature, which are eternally unalterable, and cannot be otherwise than they are,” (JD 3:300).

There are many other quotes that confirm the Mormon belief that these explanations do not end in God, but instead end in the elements and principles of nature. No volitional being did or could have created them.

However, according to most accounts of Mormon theology, volitional beings (spirits or intelligences) also were not created. All volitional beings are coeternal with the elements that have always existed. According to Joseph Smith:

I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. (King Follett Discourse)

If volitional beings are also uncreated, then their actions cannot themselves be reduced to non-volitional causes. Volition is simply part of uncreated nature. Therefore, some explanations end in the choices of volitional beings. For example, when we ask why a painting of the sky is blue, it is not satisfactory to appeal to the laws of  quantum electrodynamics. Any explanation for why a painting is blue must account for the intentions of the painter who organized the paints on the canvas. The painting is blue because of the laws of nature AND because of the intentions of the painter. In Mormon theology, the answer to the question "where did matter come from?" ends in a non-volitional explanation. And, the answer to the question "why was matter organized in a certain way" can end in a volitional explanation. Concerning the latter question, God organized the pre-existing matter that we experience on this earth to fulfill His eternal purposes. On this point, Mormon theology sides more with theism than atheism.

Conclusion
Traditional theists believe that all explanations end with a volitional being such as God. Atheists believe that all explanations end in non-volitional causes. Mormon theology is a hybrid belief system that asserts that some explanations end in God and some do not. Because of these beliefs, members of the Mormon church are in a good position to resolve many contentions between atheism and traditional theism.

Stephen Hawking, Gravity, and God

When people claim there is a conflict between science and religion, they are often referring to some alleged conflict between the theory of evolution and a belief in a designer God. Sometimes an argument is put forward that is supposed to show a conflict between the laws of physics and a belief in God. Stephen Hawking puts forth such an argument in his 2010 book The Grand Design. His arguments makes several philosophical mistakes that ought be addressed.

Part 1: Hawking, Gravity, and God
In The Grand Design Stephen Hawking along with his co-author Leonard Mlodinow put forth a controversial candidate for a theory of everything called M-theory. The bulk of the book is spent explaining this theory which is really just a collection of various theories that try to explain the universe. In the book, Hawking and Mlodinow conclude “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” (pg 180). Anyone with a little training in philosophy can immediately identify the self-contradictory nature of this claim. If we say that X creates Y, then we are already presupposing the existence of X in order to account for the existence of Y. In the first part of the above quote, Hawkings is presupposing the existence of gravity (X) to explain the existence of the universe (Y). Therefore the universe is not created from nothing, it is created from gravity.

Hawking then piles another contradiction on top of his first. In the second part of the above quote, he asserts that, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing." If we say that X creates X we already pressupose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. This also is logically incoherent. If any scientific theory makes such as obvious error, then that theory ought to be revised or abandoned. 

Throughout his book, Hawking suggests that there is no God because the laws of physics explain the existence of the universe. He writes, “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” (pg 180). But how then does Hawking explain the existence of his metaphorical "blue touch paper" that set the universe going? How does Hawking explain the existence of gravity in the first place? He doesn't! He simply presupposes that it exists. Hawking does not know how to explain gravity. To him that is simply where explanations come to an end.

Then why is he so confident in suggesting that God does not exist? Perhaps he has this argument in mind:

Some would claim the answer to these questions is that there is a God who chose to create the universe that way. It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. (pg 172)

This is the same argument that Richard Dawkins put forward in The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. I offered a rebuttal to that argument in my previous post. Hawking and Dawkins seem to suggest that using God as an explanation for the universe is somehow invalid because it cannot explain the existence of God himself. But if that is true then Hawking's argument is also invalid. One can equally use Hawking's argument against him. Below is Hawking's same quote but I replaced the word God with Gravity:

Some would claim the answer to these questions is that there is Gravity which created the universe that way. It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is Gravity, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who or what created Gravity.

Believing that all explanations end in gravity is not logically incoherent nor is it intellectually unacceptable. But, believing that all explanations end in God is likewise NOT logically incoherent nor intellectual unacceptable. Certain beliefs about gravity (like the one mentioned above) or certain beliefs about God may be shown to be fallacious, but the general belief that all explanations end somewhere is not. What is intellectually unacceptable is pretending that one's scientific conclusions show that God does not exist.

Part 2: Hawking, Scientists, and Philosophy
 Hawking's logical errors can be explained by his ignorance of philosophy. In the beginning of The Grand Design Hawking lays out some questions about reality including the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Referring to these questions, Hawking writes, “Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” (pg 5)

The irony of this statement is not only that Hawking uses philosophical arguments throughout his whole book, but that the statement "philosophy is dead" is itself a philosophical proposition. Hawking cannot be making a scientific claim here. He is making a metaphysical claim about science. Therefore even when Hawking is trying to dismiss philosophy, he is contradicting himself. I agree with the philosopher Daniel Dennett who said, "There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.” (Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea)

Scientists like Dawkins and Hawking hurt scientific progress when they mingle their own philosophical assumptions with science. Their philosophical pronouncements cause confusion because it gives lay people the false impression that they must choose between God or science when the clash really exists between the scientist's philosophical assumptions and God.

Rebutting Richard Dawkin's Argument Against Theism

The purpose of this post is to give a rebuttal to one atheist argument against theism. This argument was suggested by Richard Dawkins in the book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design and in the book The God Delusion. The argument was also repeated by my friend Bennion in the comments of my previous post. The argument goes something like this: Any attempt to explain the astonishing variety of life by a hypothesis involving design is misguided because any being able to create life would itself have to be just as complex. In other words, one cannot explain life by invoking a designer or creator, because that does not explain the life of the creator. In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins puts it this way:

Organized complexity is the thing that we are having difficulty in explaining. Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized complexity, if only the organized complexity of the DNA/protein replicating machine, it is relatively easy to invoke it as a generator of yet more organized complexity…. But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself… To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.

Bennion echoed a similar point:

If you posit, for example, that life was created by God, that doesn’t solve the problem at all because you haven’t explained how God came to exist, and that problem is far bigger than how life came to exist, because God is so much more complicated than a simple chain of self-replicating chemicals.

I will offer rebuttals for this argument from the perspectives of traditional Christianity and LDS theology (Mormonism).

Point 1
Dawkins' argument makes the mistake of trying to discredit one explanation for a particular manifestation of life by saying that it doesn't give an ultimate explanation of life in general. Alvin Plantinga illustrates this point with the following thought experiment.

Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet—look at those tractors.” A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!” No doubt we’d tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two.

The point is that the leader was not trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity. He was only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it—the tractors. In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.

Point 2
Well, what about that ultimate explanation? Wouldn't Dawkins' argument apply to a theist's ultimate explanation of God? What is the explanation for God?

There are certain questions that are simply incoherent to ask. For instance the question, "What is the proof for rationality?" This question is incoherent because any argument for rationality must already presupposes rationality. One cannot say that science proves that rationality is valid because science already uses rationality to assimilate evidence and come to conclusions. Also, the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is incoherent because all explanations already presuppose that something exists. All explanations end in existence. There just can't be any explanation for it. It just is.

Similarly, the question "What explains an eternal being?" is an incoherent question. If God exists then there couldn't be any ultimate explanation for God because God is an eternal being. Atheists likewise don't have any explanation for elementary particles or the laws of nature. They must simply take it for granted that all explanations eventually bottom out in brute facts. The God hypothesis does not explain the existence of God, and naturalistic physicalism does not explain the laws of physics.

Point 3
Dawkins' argument is circular because it assumes what it is trying to prove. Dawkins simply starts with the assumption that nature is the way he thinks it is, then tries to show that nature is the way he thinks it is. He assumes that nature is such that any being that exists would have to be created according to the physical laws as he sees them. Then he uses that assumption to show that any explanation for life cannot invoke God since God would have had to be created according to the physical laws as Dawkins sees them.

Dawkins' argument does not apply to theists because he arbitrarily assumes that God is created. Therefore, theists do not believe in the God that Dawkins is calling into question. His argument does not apply.

Conclusion
In this blog post, I have attempted to rebut one of Dawkins' primary arguments against God. I have argued that it confuses an explanation for a particular manifestation for life with an explanation for an ultimate explanation of all life (including God). I argued that Dawkins' argument is trying to address a question that is not coherent. And I have argued that Dawkins' argument is circular.

Richard Dawkins' laments the fact that roughly 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution. I share this concern since it seems to me that the science behind evolution is quite solid and has been useful making medical advances and understanding the history of our beautiful planet. When I personally study about evolution and the variety of life, I feel a sense of awe at the beauty and wonder of nature. Sometimes, I feel closer to God when I study the theory of evolution. So I am concerned that many American's are missing out on this understanding and experience.

Dawkins is a wonderful biologist. I have read his book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution several times. I own the audiobook and the hardcover. I highly recommend it. Dawkins' descriptions of orchids, bats, moths, and fish are just a delight to read.

While Dawkins is a very good biologist, he is a poor philosopher. Dawkins pretends that his arguments are scientific when they are really philosophical. The subtitle of Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker says that the purpose of his book is to show how evolution reveals a universe without design. Dawkins inevitably fails because the theory of evolution has nothing to say about the existence of God or a designer.

I believe that one of the reasons why many people don't believe in evolution is that they are constantly told by the "experts" like Dawkins that evolution shows that God doesn't exist. I think these pronouncements by the atheists like Dawkins are harmful for 3 reasons. (1) They confuse philosophy and science, (2) they cause many well-meaning religious people to close off to scientific claims about evolution, and (3) they cause many well-meaning people to close off to atheists in general—many of whom are quite reasonable and have important things to say. If more theists understood that evolution does not threaten their faith, but can possibly enhance their faith, then more people would embrace the theory of evolution.

Atheism and Evolution

I recently wrote about whether or not the theory of evolution was compatible with Christianity. I argued rather briefly that the theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity. In this post I will try to address the question: Could the theory of evolution be incompatible with atheism?

The philosopher Alvin Plantinga has a very interesting response to this question. He does not argue that evolution is incompatible with every form of atheism. But, he does argue that the theory of evolution is incompatible with certain forms of naturalism commonly assumed by many atheists. I am still not sure if I am fully convinced, but It is a very interesting argument and worth examining. Before one can understand this argument they need a few conceptual tools.

Conditional Probability
The first tool is the idea of conditional probability. Conditional probability is the probability of something happening, given something else. For instance, the probability that a person named Brigham is a Mormon given that he lives in Utah is high. On the other hand, the probability that a person named Mohammed is a Mormon given that he lives in Kuwait is low.

Defeaters for belief
The second conceptual tool is the idea of a defeater. A defeater is a reason for not believing something else. So for example, if I see a spider on the wall of my grandma's house, then I will form the belief that there is a spider on the wall. But if my grandma then says that it is just a halloween decoration, then I have a defeater for my belief that there is a spider on the wall.

There can also be defeaters for other defeaters—defeater defeaters. So for example, if I believed that my grandma might be a bit senile and that it is June, then I have a defeater for the belief that the spider is a halloween decoration. This process could continue with defeater defeater defeaters and so forth.

Definition of naturalism
Naturalism is the view that that there is no God, nor is there anything like God. A person can be an atheist without being a full blown naturalist. Naturalism implies materialism. According to a materialistic view of the human mind, both behavior and beliefs are caused by neural firings in the brain. A materialist believes that consciousness is really just the neuronal firings of the brain.

So with these conceptual tools, one can understand Plantinga's argument.

Premise 1
Beliefs are part of our cognitive faculties along with memory, perception, and rationality. Beliefs are true if they correspond to reality. Beliefs are reliable when they are true most of the time. Perhaps we can say that beliefs have to be true at least 3/4ths of the time to be considered reliable. Now we can use the conditional probability tool. What is the probability that our beliefs would be reliable given evolution and naturalism?

The theory of evolution claims that all species descended from a common ancestor through a processes of descent with modification via natural selection. Natural selection is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

According to a naturalistic conception of evolution, the human brain would have evolved to produce certain survival-enhancing behaviors. If evolution and naturalism were true, then it doesn't matter if beliefs are true or false. All that matters is the behavior. If that is true, then the probability that our beliefs are reliable is at best 50/50. Beliefs could be true, they could be false, it really wouldn't matter given naturalism and evolution. Therefore, the probability that our beliefs are reliable given evolution and naturalism is low.

A year before his death, Charles Darwin expressed this same concern. He wrote:

“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

A rather influential atheist philosopher Patricia Churchland has echoed a similar point:

Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive…. . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.

In summary, the first premise of Plantinga's argument is that the probability of our beliefs being reliable given evolution and naturalism is low. Plantinga summarizes this premise as such: P(R | N&E) is low where "P()" is probability, "R" is the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable, and "N&E" refers naturalism and evolution.

Premise 2
If one believes premise 1 and she is a naturalist, then she has a defeater for the belief that her beliefs are reliable. Remember that a defeater is a reason not to believe something. That means that a naturalist who also believes in evolution has a reason for believing that her cognitive faculties are not reliable.

Premise 3
If one has a defeater for the belief that beliefs are reliable, then she also has a defeater for any other belief she thinks she has including naturalism and evolution itself. According to Alvin Plantinga:

If you have a defeater for R, you will also have a defeater for any belief you take to be produced by your cognitive faculties, any belief that is a deliverance of your cognitive faculties. But all of your beliefs, as I’m sure you have discovered, are produced by your cognitive faculties. Therefore you have a defeater for any belief you have.

Premise 4
The proposition that naturalism and evolution are both true is a self-defeating proposition. Why? because it creates its own reason not to believe in naturalism and evolution.

Conclusion
Naturalism and evolution cannot be believed at the same time. In other words, if you believe in evolution, then you cannot rationally accept naturalism and vice versa.

Summary
Plantinga's argument does not try to argue that naturalism is false, nor does it try to argue that evolution is false. It simply shows that one cannot rationally believe the theory of evolution and believe in naturalism at the same time. Alvin Plantinga summarizes his whole argument as follows:

(1) P(R | N&E) is low. (2) Anyone who accepts (believes) N&E and sees that P(R/ N&E) is low has a defeater for R. (3) Anyone who has a defeater for R has a defeater for any other belief she thinks she has, including N&E itself. (4) If one who accepts N&E thereby acquires a defeater for N&E, N&E is self-defeating and can’t rationally be accepted. Conclusion: N&E can’t rationally be accepted.

Making the argument even stronger
Earlier in the post I mentioned the idea of a defeater defeater. Could there ever be an argument that defeats the defeater for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable? If we can't believe that our cognitive faculties are reliable given evolution and naturalism, then there could never be any other belief that could act as a defeater defeater. That means that a belief in evolution and naturalism creates an undefeated defeater for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable.

Concluding remarks
Some people claim that there is a conflict between science and religion. The alleged conflict between science and religion focuses on a superficial conflict between religion and evolution. In my last post on evolution I argued that there is no serious conflict between evolution and religion (at least regarding Christianity). However, according to Alvin Plantinga there is deep conflict between evolution and naturalism. Since biological evolution is a respectable field of science, the conflict really lies between science and naturalism.

If you find this interesting, I highly recommend the book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalismby Alvin Plantinga.

Evolution and Christianity

Is Christianity incompatible with the theory of evolution?

Some people claim that Christianity is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins—a prominent atheist—said that he lost his faith in God when he learned the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not always defined in precisely the same way and the theory contains several different theses. I will attempt to explain the different theses of evolution, and I will argue that there is no inherent conflict between Christianity and evolution. The 4 general theses that constitute the theory of evolution are:

1. The ancient earth thesis

2. The descent with modification thesis

3. The common ancestor thesis

4. The theory of natural selection (aka Darwinism)

If any of these theses are incompatible with Christianity then evolution is not compatible with Christianity. Each thesis must be examined separately, but first I have to define what I mean by Christianity.

Christianity can refer to a wide variety of beliefs and organizations such as the Catholic church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Lutheran Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention. Adherents of these organizations share a common belief that God exists, that Jesus Christ is divine, and that God played some role in our creation. C.S Lewis refers to Mere Christianity which is what all Christian faiths have in common. Mere Christianity could perhaps be thought of as the intersection of the Christian creeds such as the Nicene Creed, the apostles creed, the Heidelberg Catechism etc.

1. The ancient earth thesis

The first thesis of evolution is that the earth is very, very old. There are several different clocks that scientists can look at to measure the age of the earth. There are various kinds of radioactive decay clocks (such as Potassium argon, Carbon 14, and dozens more), tree ring clocks (which measures widths and thicknesses of tree rings), and molecular clocks (which measure the time when species diverged). When all of these clocks are calibrated to each other, each acts as a stopwatch that measures time from some starting point such as the solidification of molten rock, the death of an animal, the formation of tree rings, or the separation of one species into two. The scientific consensus is that these different clocks all confirm that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

Is the ancient earth thesis incompatible with Christianity?
Since the Christian creeds have nothing to say about the age of the earth, there is no conflict between Christianity as defined and this thesis of the theory of evolution. There are some individual sects within Christianity that teach that the earth was created within the past 10,000 year. They teach this because the book of Genesis says that God created the earth in 6 days. This literal interpretation is unnecessary since other parts of the bible use the word day figuratively. (See Genesis 2:17 and Gen 5:5) Christians don't lose anything essential to their faith by abandoning a fundamentalist belief in a 'young' earth.

2. The descent with modification thesis

Parents pass on traits to their children. This process is called heredity. The traits of an organism are expressions of genes. Genes in offspring tend to vary slightly from the genes of the parent. Given enough generations, the descendants of a given species may have very different traits from its ancestors. For example, all dogs from the chihuahua to the great dane are descendants of wolves. We know this through genetic evidence as well as the records of domesticating and breeding dogs. This leads to thesis 3.

3. The common ancestor thesis

Brothers and sisters look alike. People of the same race have the same skin color. Looking alike and sharing the same skin color are evidence for biological relationships. Similarly, the bone structures of different species provides evidence of relationships between species. This evidence suggests that different species share common ancestors. There is a mountain of evidence that every living thing is descended from a common ancestor. Perhaps the most powerful evidence is genetic evidence. Genetic evidence is accepted as sufficient to decide court cases. It can also be used to show the family relationships between different species. Given the scientific evidence, it is clear that every organism is a cousin to each other. Not only are we cousins with chimpanzees, but we are cousins with dung beetles and turnips. Here is a detailed phylogenic tree of life on earth.

Are theses 2 and 3 incompatible with Christianity?
Although Christianity teaches that God created us, there doesn't seem to be anything in the major creeds that suggests how God created us. These two theses of evolution and the belief that God created us can be reconciled by believing that God created us through a process of descent with modification from a common ancestor.

4. The theory of natural selection

The theory of natural selection or “Darwinism” is a theory that tries to demonstrate one way of how descent with modification happens. The theory goes something like this: 

1. When an organism has offspring, most of the traits of the parent are passed on to the children.

2. Traits vary within a given population of organisms. Some are tall, short, fast, slow etc.

3. Some traits give organisms a reproductive advantage over other organisms. E.g. Organisms that can avoid danger better than their peers will likely have more offspring compared to their peers.

4. Traits that enhance reproductive advantage are passed on to offspring more often than less effective traits.

For example, Angler fish are deep sea fish that have nasty sharp teeth and a glowing lure attached to their head. This glowing lure is the last thing that many fish see before being gobbled up by the Angler fish. In a given population of Angler fish, some will have brighter lures than others which are better at attracting hungry fish. The Angler fish with brighter lures might tend to survive more often than Angler fish with dimmer lures. The Angler fish with brighter lures will be “naturally selected” to pass on their genetic traits to their children causing modification of the species over time. On an interesting side note, if the lure gets too bright, it could possibly attract larger fish that would just eat the whole Angler fish. Natural Selection could work in the other direction to make the lure a bit dimmer until some economic equilibrium is reached between attracting smaller fish and avoiding larger fish.

There are plenty of examples of natural selection. Many examples have even been observed such as Lenski’s experiments with e. coli.

Is the theory of natural selection incompatible with Christianity?
Natural selection doesn’t appear to conflict with Christianity either. I think there are several possible explanations that could bring the 2 beliefs into harmony. Here are a few suggestions:

1. God could have started the process and let natural selection run its course knowing that man would eventually evolve in the image of God.

2. The whole process started and ended without God’s interference and then God chose an Adam and Eve out of the existing homosapiens and taught them His Gospel—perhaps gave them the ability to understand it as well.

3. God could have directly influenced natural selection. If man can effect natural selection intentionally by altering genes or unintentionally by building wind turbines that kill thousands of birds, then surely God could have selected species quite deliberately to reach the outcomes He intended. Current scientific understanding shows that natural selection is the primary means of evolution, but it doesn’t rule it out as the only means.

4. God could have created Adam and Eve and then Adam and Eve’s children could have mixed with other homosapiens that did evolve from a common ancestor, thus giving us the genetic relationship with other species.

Some of these explanations will be more or less palatable to a Christian based on how literally they tend to translate the Bible. There will certainly be other explanations that are perhaps better or more nuanced; the limits of my own creativity leads me to think that it is something like one of the explanations mentioned above.

Conclusion

I used to think that evolution and Christianity were incompatible. I have briefly documented how my own beliefs evolved here. Christians don’t claim to know exactly how God created us and the “how” of creation is not essential to Mere Christianity. Some might object that the definition of Christianity that I have used is too broad. To answer the question I posed at the beginning, the definition needs to be broad in order to avoid the fallacy of concluding that the theory of evolution is incompatible with all of Christianity because it may be incompatible with some individual sects within Christianity.

The superficial contradictition between Christianity and evolution lies not in the theory of evolution itself but in the philosophical baggage that people attach to evolution or the philosophical baggage that some attach to Christianity. Once one discerns between the actual beliefs and the philosophical add-ons, the conflict between Christianity and evolution dissolves.

An LDS view on the nature of God's laws (part 2)

This is a continuation of my last post. I started the recent string of posts with a distinction between observer-independent (OI) facts and observer-relative (OR) facts.These words probably cause more confusion than clarity. Unfortunately I have not yet thought of better terms to describe my thoughts. I will try to use them very carefully. Reviewing my post on these terms is recommended.

After the last post I received this thoughtful comment from my friend:

“If God’s laws are observer-relative, then He is not subject to them, but rather created them. If He created them, He should be able to determine the consequences of breaking those laws.”

To respond to this comment let me clarify again the way I am using the terms observer-independent and observer-relative. The fact that conscious agents exist is an observer-independent fact. Also, the fact that social norms can cause an increase or decrease in happiness among conscious agents is an observer-independent fact. For instance, conscious agents do not actually decide what makes them happy in reality. (This is a whole other conversation that I would rather address in a later post.)

I will come around to tying this back into the comment above. Please bear with me. Let me use another example. Money is created by conscious agents. It is an observer-relative (OR) creation. However, the fact that money decreases transaction costs among conscious agents is an observer-independent (OI) fact. Conscious agents cannot decide whether or not money decreases transaction costs.

Let us imagine that (within an LDS context) that God’s laws did not exist. According to the LDS view, consequences for our actions would still exist. Those consequences are (OI). God cannot choose those consequences. He has no power over them. But he institutes (OR) laws to help us avoid (OI) consequences.

Let me invoke 2 metaphors that I hope will clarify this point.

The Hot Stove Metaphor—In reality, my daughter would burn her hand if she touched a hot stove. I institute the household law—“Thou shalt not touch hot stoves.” I cannot choose the consequences, but my (OR) law is instituted within the framework of the laws of reality(OI).

The Dangerous Street Metaphor— Children who play in the street are likely to get hit by moving vehicles. Therefore I institute the household law—“Thou shalt not play in the street lest I execute punishment by grounding.” In this case, I did choose the (OR) punishment, but it was only to protect my daughter from (OI) consequences of which I have no control.

In the Hot Stove metaphor, I did not set a punishment for breaking the law. The blessing for obeying my law was not getting burned by the hot stove. I could have changed my law because it was (OR). But, I had no control over the (OI) consequences. I believe that the majority of God's laws reflect the principles in the Hot Stove metaphor. God does not actively set the punishment, he lets us learn from reality ourselves if we choose to disobey.

In the Dangerous Street metaphor, I did set an (OR) punishment for breaking my law because I wanted to give my daughter extra disincentive against playing in the street. I could have chosen a different punishment such as removing all of the marshmallow shapes from her Lucky Charms cereal. Some of God's laws are instituted as such. According to LDS theology, every spirit willingly agreed to these laws and conditions in a pre-mortal existence.

Another quick point before I conclude. The purpose of God's laws are to help us learn and progress to become like Him. Human beings learn differently based on different social contexts. If adjusting or changing a law would help us learn better based on a certain social context, then it would make sense to adjust the law to fulfill a higher purpose. For example, the Law of Moses was customized for the ancient Israelites to help them learn in their own way, but eventually the Law of Moses was replaced with a higher law. Likewise a law against drinking was not necessary at the time of Jesus. This law was "given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints" (D&C 89:3)  So in within social contexts laws must change and evolve to fulfill their purpose. God will not give us a law that we are not ready for because it would condemn us more than it would help us.

In conclusion, yes, God could change the consequences of His laws, but his laws are just because they conform to observer-independent law.

Early LDS views of God and Law

Just 3 months before his death, when his theology and beliefs were most mature, Joseph Smith gave a sermon to 20,000 early Latter-day Saints. The sermon took place shortly after the funeral service of a man named King Follett. That sermon is commonly known as King Follett's Discourse. In this sermon Joseph Smith said,

"God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits."

What is a law?

I will invoke a distinction made in my last post—the distinction between observer-independent facts and observer-relative facts. There can be observer-independent laws and observer-relative laws . An observer-independent law is a universal law or regularity in nature that exists independently of any conscious being or intelligence. Examples of observer-independent laws include the laws of thermodynamics, the law of non-contradiction, the Pythagorean Theorem, Boyle's law, etc. An observer-relative law refers to rules of conduct and behavior to be enforced by social institutions. Examples include traffic laws, contract law, the law of Moses, etc.

These two uses of the word "law" are very different and using the single word “law” interchangeably can be a source of confusion.

Are the laws instituted by God observer-independent, observer-relative, or both?

Let me reference some of the laws of God from a latter-day saint perspective. In this context, I think "law" and "commandment" are the same. Here is a partial list:

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. …
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. …
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. …
“Honour thy father and thy mother. …
“Thou shalt not kill.
“Thou shalt not commit adultery. (The law of chastity)
“Thou shalt not steal.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness. …
“Thou shalt not covet.”
The law of tithing
The law of consecration
Love God
Love thy neighbor
Care for the poor

All of these laws are observer-relative because they only exist because a conscious agent declared them to exist. Observer-relative laws can be adjusted for different social contexts. For example, the law of Moses served a purpose in one social context, but was replaced with a higher law through Christ. But, did God institute any observer-independent laws such as the law of thermodynamics, or the pythagorean theorem? Since God is an observer himself, it would be contradictory to say that God instituted laws that were independent of him. But some might argue that those laws of nature are independent to everyone but God.

All the laws that God has shared with us have been observer-relative laws. There is no reason to believe that God created any laws that appear to humans to be observer-independent.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith taught that God himself cannot transcend any law that is independent of Him. The apostle John A. Widsoe in his book Joseph Smith as a Scientist: A Contribution to Mormon Philosophy wrote:

"The interesting fact about this matter is, naturally, that in this conception of God, Joseph Smith was strictly scientific. He departed from the notion that God is a Being foreign to nature and wholly superior to it. Instead, he taught that God is part of nature, and superior to it only in the sense that the electrician is superior to the current that is transmitted along the wire. The great laws of nature are immutable, and even God cannot transcend them."

These immutable laws are not the laws that God instituted. His laws are observer-relative laws are instituted within the framework of the immutable laws of reality. That means that observer-relative laws are based on observer-independent laws. For instance, the fact that God's observer-relative laws help us grow in knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence is an observer-indepdendent fact. This is a more complex subject which I will address in a later post.

In conclusion, God's laws are observer-relative; they are not observer-independent. Latter-Day Saints can be confident that their beliefs will not conflict with any of the observer-independent laws that can be discovered by science.

Reason and Faith

Is there any conflict between reason and faith? According to one epistemological position known as fideism faith is independent of and hostile toward reason. How does fideism define faith? It defines faith as belief without evidence. According to some philosophers such as Kierkegaard, reason cannot fully comprehend God and so one must take a "leap of faith". Martin Luther said, "Reason receives life from faith." Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates concepts as derived from man's senses. The thinkers mentioned above did not categorically reject reason, but they clearly believed that faith has primacy over reason. That means that faith is primary and reason is secondary. There are 2 problems with this way of thinking:

The first problem comes from their definition of faith—"belief without evidence". As I wrote in my last post, this definition is incorrect. I will argue here that it is also dangerous. It is dangerous because any belief without evidence will insulate the believer from feedback from reality. If one holds the view that faith has primacy over reason, then if they must choose between reality and religion, they will choose religion over reality. They will not be able to identify truth when it contradicts with their beliefs. They will be blind and their spiritual and physical growth will be stunted. Islamic theocratic fascism is an extreme demonstration of the consequences of this view. Terrorists commit violent acts that reason would otherwise prevent them from doing.

The second problem is revealed by asking a simple question: How did they come to the conclusion that faith has primacy over reason? The answer is that they used reason. Therefore, they primarily rely on a concept that they regard as secondary. Therefore to say that faith has primacy over reason is self-refuting because they used reason to come to that conclusion.

Evidence and Faith

Some religious adherents believe that faith is "belief without evidence". The religious philosopher Kierkegaard said, "Without risk there is no faith, and the greater the risk the greater the faith … [to understand faith] is to understand that faith cannot be understood ... must not be understood … and this absurdity, held fast in the passion of inwardness, is faith, the earnestness of facing the absurd." His picture of faith was as follows:

false-evidence-and-faith

This picture argues that faith has primacy over evidence. I believe this interpretation is incorrect. I think this misinterpretation partly comes from scriptures that suggest faith is believing withoutseeing. Seeing is one type of evidence. Hearing, smelling, touching, feeling may be other types of evidence. I think that any scripture referring to "belief without seeing" really implies "belief without directly seeing."

Faith is belief with evidence. It simply excludes evidence that comes from direct observation. Why does it exclude direct observation? Because if we have direct observation, then we have no need for faith. Direct observation leads to a perfect knowledge.

We have evidence for many things that we cannot directly observe. We have never seen an atom but we infer that they exist based on evidence. According to my definition of faith, it is appropriate to say that we have faith that atoms exist.

Orson Pratt, one of the original leaders of my religion, said, "Faith or belief is the result of evidence presented to the mind. Without evidence, the mind cannot have faith in anything …Faith in every fact, statement, truth, or proposition which we have confidence in, is, in all cases whatsoever, derived from evidence. Therefore, without evidence, faith can have no existence."

This picture of faith is as follows:

evidence-and-faith

This picture shows that evidence has primacy over faith. Only this type of faith can lead us toward a correct picture of reality.

Miracles and Reality

This post is part of a series of posts on Reality and Mormon theology.

"For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God’s existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it followed laws, was worthy of awe."

—Walter Isaacson from Einstein: His Life and Universe

I like this quote about Einstein's convictions even though I believe that he makes the mistake of misidentifying the divine. I define miracles as those surprises that violate the law of cause and effect. A belief in supernatural miracles is incompatible with a belief in a mechanical universe. It is only compatible with a belief in a magical universe.

According to Brigham Young:

“There is no miracle to any being in the heavens or on the earth, only to the ignorant. To a man who understands the philosophy of all the phenomena that transpire, there is no such thing as a miracle...A miracle is supposed to be a result without a cause, but there is no such thing. There is a cause for every result we see; and if we see a result without understanding the cause we call it a miracle. This is what we have been taught; but there is no miracle to those who understand.”

—Journal of Discourses 13: 33, 14:79

Note: Because of the imperfection of language, some might still use the term miracle even though they believe in a mechanical universe. 

Reality and Traditional Christianity

This post is belongs to a series of posts on Reality and Mormon theology.

As I mentioned in a previous post, traditional Christianity believes in the Absolutism of God. Some believe that the Absolutism of God implies that God could literally do anything, including making murder good, or making contradictions exist.

This is debatable whether this view was part of original Christianity. Some early church fathers such as Justin and Origen of Alexandria rejected the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. So where did this belief come from? According to some biblical scholars, it entered Christianity in the first century by a jewish philosopher from Alexandria named Philo Judeaus. He attempted to reconcile Hellenistic metaphysics with Hebrew scriptures. "Philo rejected the Aristotelian concept of the world as uncreated...By the end of the second century the ex nihilo doctrine was accepted almost universally in the church..."

This view is generally rejected by LDS teaching. According to Joseph Smith,

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

In other words God did not create reality ex nihilo nor could He. In contrast to Traditional Christiatinty Joseph Smith taught that God is bound by law and not a law unto himself. Some LDS scriptures suggest that those who seek not to be government by law, but seeketh to become laws unto themselves, cannot be sanctified by the law. Becoming a law unto oneself is the ultimate goal of Satan. For example, he wants to choose how to act and he wants to choose the consequences for actions (D&C 88:34-39).

Reality, Sin, and Commandments

This post is belongs to a series of posts on Reality and Mormon theology.

"Sin is not harmful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is harmful."

—Benjamin Franklin

This quote assumes the absolutism of reality. Certain acts are harmful regardless of what any consciousness wants (including God). These acts undermine happiness and we simply call these acts "sin". Wickedness is consistently choosing sinful behavior. According to LDS scriptures, "Wickedness never was happiness." (Alma 41:10) This verse implicitly defines wickedness as that sort of lifestyle that consistently makes people unhappy in reality.

The commandments of God show what will make people happy in reality.  According to D. Todd Christofferson, "[God's] Commandments are the voice of reality." (April 2010 General Conference) They are instructions for how to navigate reality. When one obeys God's commandments he/she can see reality more clearly, because reality will give them positive feedback. This is the reason that Christ said, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God." (John 7:17)

If one believes that the commandments are burdensome, he/she does not understand the relationship between the commandments and reality. Consistently following the counsel of any religion will show whether or not that religion corresponds to reality.

The Zeroth Article of Faith

This post is belongs to a series of posts on Reality and Mormon theology.

The first 4 articles of faith of LDS theology logically depend on the previous article. Faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost (Article 4) are brought about by the Atonement (Article 3) which was necessary because of our sinful nature and the fall of Adam (Article 2) which we must overcome to live again with Heavenly Father (Article 1).

If there were to be an even more basic article to precede article 1 what would it be? It would describe those things that are more basic than the God. What is more basic than the God? Reality with its eternal laws. God's power comes from his knowledge of these laws (D&C 93:36).

If LDS theology did have a zeroth article of faith then it would be something like: "We believe in reality (that existence exists)," or, "We believe in eternal laws," or, "We believe that reality has primacy over consciousness." This assumption distinguishes LDS theology from all other religious organizations in the world. self-evident axiom

But is their anything more basic than reality? No, the existence of reality is the most basic premise. All other beliefs ultimately rest on a belief in reality. It is a self-evident axiom. A belief is self-evident if one must assume the belief in order to try and deny it. Any argument trying to denying reality would be self-refuting. Axioms cannot be proven because "proof" is a concept that presupposes reality.

Ontological Frameworks

This post is belongs to a series of posts on Reality and Mormon theology.

Aristotle said, “A small error in the beginning will lead to a huge one in the end.” If this is true, then the starting point of any belief system is the most important point to identity and examined. The study of the ultimate starting point, or most fundamental belief of any belief system is called metaphysics. Ontology is the central branch of metaphysics which is an investigation into the fundamental categories of existence and their relationships to each other such as the relationship between reality and consciousness. Ontology provides a framework for understanding theology.

Western religions can generally be divided into 2 different ontological frameworks concerning the relationship between God and reality.

The most common ontological framework asserts that God comes before reality. This ontological framework is called The Absolutism of God. Since God comes before reality, God created reality out of nothing. Traditional Christianity, Islam, and Judaism begin with the absolutism of God and develop their theology with that starting premise. This ontological framework asserts the absolutism of God represented as follows:

absolutism-of-god

A less common ontological framework is the absolutism of reality which asserts that reality exists and God is subject to that reality. This view is held by the Mormon Theology and can be represented as such:

absolutism-of-reality