Today, I heard somebody use the phrase, "near infinity" or "nearly infinite" or something like that. I don't remember who said it or what the context was, but that phrase jumped out at me.
If you think about it, it's impossible for any finite number to be nearly infinite. Take any finite number you want, be it ever so large. If you double that finite number, you still will not have reached infinity. If you multiply it by a thousand, you still will not have reached infinity. So no finite number is near infinity.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
ad hominem, no true Scotsman, and arguments from authority
I just thought I'd write a quick note on the ad hominem and no true Scotsman fallacies, because I've noticed a lot of people being confused by them.
A lot of people confuse an insult for an ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominems do often involve insults, but they don't necessarily, and not all insults are ad hominems. If I said that you're a man, and therefore your opinion on abortion cannot be trusted, I'm using an ad hominem argument, but I'm not insulting you. Calling you a man is not a criticism. It's just an observation about you that is irrelevant to the soundness of whatever argument you have for or against abortion. If you gave me an argument against abortion, and my reaction was to call you an idiot, that is not an ad hominem. That's just an insult. It only becomes an ad hominem if I say something like, "Since you are an idiot, you must be wrong about abortion." An ad hominem is when you point to something about a person that is irrelevant to the soundness of their argument or the truth of their point of view, but you offer it as evidence against their point of view or the soundness of their argument.
A lot of people lately have been accusing Bart Ehrman of the No True Scotsman fallacy, but they are confused about what the fallacy is. A fellow named Jason Goertzen had this to say in the comment section of Ehrman's piece called "Acharya S, Richard Carrier, and a Cocky Peter (Or: "A Cock and Bull Story")":
Ehrman doesn't dismiss people as being serious scholars because they deny the existence of Jesus. A fellow named Steve Bollinger said on his blog:
Ehrman doesn't dismiss these people because they deny the existence of Jesus, so this is not the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Here is an illustration of the fallacy:
Jim: No Scotsman would ever tell a lie.
Bob: But Dan is a Scotsman, and he tells lies.
Jim: Dan is not a true Scotsman.
Bob: Why do you say that?
Jim: Because no true Scotsman would ever tell a lie. The fact that he tells lies proves that he's not a true Scotsman.
The No True Scotsman fallacy trades on a distinction between an analytic truth and a synthetic truth. If being honest were part of what it meant to be a Scotsman, then when Jim says no Scotsman would ever tell a lie, he's not making a synthetic statement. He's making an analytic statement. He's giving us part of the definition of a Scotsman. If he's right, then Bob is stating a contradiction. Saying that Dan is a Scotsman who tells lies is equivalent to saying, "A person who tells no lies, actually does tells lies."
The No True Scotsman fallacy only comes into play when statements like "No Scotsman would ever tell a lie" is a synthetic statement. Jim isn't saying that it's part of the definition of a Scotsman that they don't tell lies. He's saying something that happens to be true about Scotsmen, but it's not a necessary truth. It's not part of the definition. In fact, it's possible that a Scotsman could tell a lie even if none ever have. In that case, Jim is committing a fallacy when he objects to Dan being a Scotsman merely on the basis that Dan tells lies and no true Scotsman tells a lie. If you reason that way, then you're basically just dismissing the possibility of counter-examples to your claim. Jim is treating a synthetic statement as if it were an analytic statement.
In the case of Bart Ehrman, he has claimed that most of the mythicists who deny the existence of Jesus are not credentialed scholars. For that, he is being accused of committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy. But to be guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy, Ehrman would have to be saying that the reason these mythicists are not credentialed scholars is because they deny the existence of Jesus. It would have to go something like this:
Bart: No credentialed scholar of the New Testament would ever deny the existence of Jesus.
Robert: But D.M. Murdock is a credentialed scholar, and she denies the existence of Jesus.
Bart: The fact that she denies the existence of Jesus is precisely why I say she is not a credentialed scholar.
But that is not how Ehrman has been arguing. Rather, he's been saying that she and most mythicists are not credentialed scholars because they do not have advanced degrees in the relevant areas, they are not published in peer reviewed academic journals, and they don't hold teaching positions at any colleges or universities on the relevant subjects. A person might still accuse Ehrman of the No True Scotsman fallacy on the basis that every time somebody comes up with a counter-example, Ehrman changes his definition of what counts as a "credentialed scholar" so as to dismiss the counter-example. But so far, to my knowledge, this has never happened. These are not arbitrary criteria for what counts as an expert meant to exclude people who deny the existence of Jesus. I remember when I had to write papers in college, pretty much all of my professors, whether in philosophy or history, demanded that our secondary sources be academic. I remember one of my philosophy professors specifically said that we could not quote from a web page called "Joe's Automotive and Existential Philosophy." Credibility in our sources mattered, and we had to use scholarly sources.
But let's suppose it turns out that Ehrman argues something like this: Since most mythicists are not credentialed scholars, their opinion on the existence of Jesus is false, or their arguments against the existence of Jesus are unsound. If he argues that way, then he's not committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Rather, he's committing an ad hominem fallacy. A person's credentials are irrelevant to whether their point of view is true or their argument is sound.
A person's credentials are not completely irrelevant in this whole debate, though. They are relevant only in cases of arguments from authority. If you cite Richard Dawkins as an authority on the cosmological argument, then that is a fallacious appeal to authority because he has no expertise in the subject. But if you quote Richard Dawkins as an authority on the subject of gene replication, then that is not a fallacious appeal to authority. He actually is an expert in the subject of biology. An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority you appeal to is not an expert on the subject you cite him on. If somebody is actually an expert in the subject of the New Testament or historical Jesus studies, then their opinion is relevant.
But some people will claim that any appeal to authority is a fallacy since it's the argument the authorities use that count, and not the mere fact that they are authorities. I vaguely remember Robert Price going so far as to say there are no authorities when it comes to the historical Jesus. I think he may have a point. The opinions about Jesus in academia are diverse. If the experts disagree, then it's fallacious to quote one of the experts to support a view that's actually controversial among that expert's peers. On the other hand, there are a handful of things about Jesus for which there is a strong consensus among experts, e.g., he was baptized by John the Baptist, he had disciples, he preached about the kingdom of God, he used parables in his teaching, he was known for being a miracle worker, and he was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate.
In his recent podcast, Price said he had written a pieces called "Paradigm Policemen," where he criticized Bart Ehrman for vociferously defending the status quo. Price made what I thought were some good points, but I think he went too far. It is true that the mere existence of a consensus does not mean the consensus is right, and it's true that if we stick to consensus and never dare to challenge it, that we stifle progress. After all, we can point to moments in our history when paradigms were overturned, often with much difficulty. The Copernican Revolution is one of the most famous examples. Price thinks it's a mistake for Ehrman to criticize mythicists merely on the basis that they are going against the current consensus on the existence of Jesus. I think he's right, but on the other hand, I do think consensus counts for something.
Most of us are not experts in any field. We're armchair theologians, armchair philosophers, armchair historians, armchair biologists, etc. Most of our education comes from reading books, not doing our own research. Many of us read books and think that counts as doing research. But really, for the majority of our educations, both formal and informal, we rely on the findings of experts. If consensus counted for nothing, then our educations would be worthless. We could read a dozen books on the historical Jesus or evolution and still not know anything.
Sometimes, if you're writing on a historical point of view, it is too tedious to spell out the arguments for every little piece of evidence you bring forth. Even scholars, when writing on the historical Jesus, will appeal to studies that other scholars have done on some small point, then use that small point as part of their case for their point of view. It helps when there's a consensus because then you can use that piece of information in your case without too many people raising objections about it. If consensus didn't matter, or if expert opinion didn't matter, then we would never be able to build on information discovered by other people. Everybody who wrote on any subject in history or biology would have to start from scratch.
I think we should lean in favour of the experts, especially when there's a consensus, but we should not do so dogmatically. We should be willing to go against consensus when we ourselves have done enough research or have been adequately persuaded to hold a differing opinion. I can't tell you what's adequate. You have to judge that on a case by case basis, and in a lot of cases, it's subjective. But I don't think we should fault mythicists merely on the basis that they are in the minority.
However, I think it is appropriate to point out that there is a strong consensus among experts on the existence of Jesus to people we run into on the internet because most of them haven't done any research. They've watched Zeitgeist and just took their word for it. If they're going to just take somebody's word for something, then they should take the word of those who are actually credentialed scholars. It's appropriate to bring up the consensus for a lot of those people because they may just not know any better. Two or three years ago, I got an email from somebody who had just seen Religulous with Bill Maher. Apparently, Maher had brought up the whole myth thing, which was completely new to the person who emailed me. She did a quick google search, found a short article on Religious Tolerance about Jesus and Horus, and was convinced. This was all new to her, and she wanted to see what I'd think. I think she half expected me to be surprised. I think it was perfectly appropriate for me to point out that almost every single New Testament scholar or historical Jesus scholar believed that Jesus really existed, and that it wasn't even a serious debate in academia.
I'm rambling, aren't I? Okay, I'l stop.
A lot of people confuse an insult for an ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominems do often involve insults, but they don't necessarily, and not all insults are ad hominems. If I said that you're a man, and therefore your opinion on abortion cannot be trusted, I'm using an ad hominem argument, but I'm not insulting you. Calling you a man is not a criticism. It's just an observation about you that is irrelevant to the soundness of whatever argument you have for or against abortion. If you gave me an argument against abortion, and my reaction was to call you an idiot, that is not an ad hominem. That's just an insult. It only becomes an ad hominem if I say something like, "Since you are an idiot, you must be wrong about abortion." An ad hominem is when you point to something about a person that is irrelevant to the soundness of their argument or the truth of their point of view, but you offer it as evidence against their point of view or the soundness of their argument.
A lot of people lately have been accusing Bart Ehrman of the No True Scotsman fallacy, but they are confused about what the fallacy is. A fellow named Jason Goertzen had this to say in the comment section of Ehrman's piece called "Acharya S, Richard Carrier, and a Cocky Peter (Or: "A Cock and Bull Story")":
I lost count of the number of times you felt the need to point out that "no serious scholars" (a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy, given how strenuously you define what you mean) believes x, or y; to the person who wants to be convinced, this isn't adequate.
Ehrman doesn't dismiss people as being serious scholars because they deny the existence of Jesus. A fellow named Steve Bollinger said on his blog:
But it's not merely that Ehrman declares the discussion to be over; he states as well, on no firm basis whatsoever if you ask me, that no accredited professor in the Western World "who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics" disagrees with him. That already puts Ehrman into no-true-Scotsman territory.
Ehrman doesn't dismiss these people because they deny the existence of Jesus, so this is not the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Here is an illustration of the fallacy:
Jim: No Scotsman would ever tell a lie.
Bob: But Dan is a Scotsman, and he tells lies.
Jim: Dan is not a true Scotsman.
Bob: Why do you say that?
Jim: Because no true Scotsman would ever tell a lie. The fact that he tells lies proves that he's not a true Scotsman.
The No True Scotsman fallacy trades on a distinction between an analytic truth and a synthetic truth. If being honest were part of what it meant to be a Scotsman, then when Jim says no Scotsman would ever tell a lie, he's not making a synthetic statement. He's making an analytic statement. He's giving us part of the definition of a Scotsman. If he's right, then Bob is stating a contradiction. Saying that Dan is a Scotsman who tells lies is equivalent to saying, "A person who tells no lies, actually does tells lies."
The No True Scotsman fallacy only comes into play when statements like "No Scotsman would ever tell a lie" is a synthetic statement. Jim isn't saying that it's part of the definition of a Scotsman that they don't tell lies. He's saying something that happens to be true about Scotsmen, but it's not a necessary truth. It's not part of the definition. In fact, it's possible that a Scotsman could tell a lie even if none ever have. In that case, Jim is committing a fallacy when he objects to Dan being a Scotsman merely on the basis that Dan tells lies and no true Scotsman tells a lie. If you reason that way, then you're basically just dismissing the possibility of counter-examples to your claim. Jim is treating a synthetic statement as if it were an analytic statement.
In the case of Bart Ehrman, he has claimed that most of the mythicists who deny the existence of Jesus are not credentialed scholars. For that, he is being accused of committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy. But to be guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy, Ehrman would have to be saying that the reason these mythicists are not credentialed scholars is because they deny the existence of Jesus. It would have to go something like this:
Bart: No credentialed scholar of the New Testament would ever deny the existence of Jesus.
Robert: But D.M. Murdock is a credentialed scholar, and she denies the existence of Jesus.
Bart: The fact that she denies the existence of Jesus is precisely why I say she is not a credentialed scholar.
But that is not how Ehrman has been arguing. Rather, he's been saying that she and most mythicists are not credentialed scholars because they do not have advanced degrees in the relevant areas, they are not published in peer reviewed academic journals, and they don't hold teaching positions at any colleges or universities on the relevant subjects. A person might still accuse Ehrman of the No True Scotsman fallacy on the basis that every time somebody comes up with a counter-example, Ehrman changes his definition of what counts as a "credentialed scholar" so as to dismiss the counter-example. But so far, to my knowledge, this has never happened. These are not arbitrary criteria for what counts as an expert meant to exclude people who deny the existence of Jesus. I remember when I had to write papers in college, pretty much all of my professors, whether in philosophy or history, demanded that our secondary sources be academic. I remember one of my philosophy professors specifically said that we could not quote from a web page called "Joe's Automotive and Existential Philosophy." Credibility in our sources mattered, and we had to use scholarly sources.
But let's suppose it turns out that Ehrman argues something like this: Since most mythicists are not credentialed scholars, their opinion on the existence of Jesus is false, or their arguments against the existence of Jesus are unsound. If he argues that way, then he's not committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Rather, he's committing an ad hominem fallacy. A person's credentials are irrelevant to whether their point of view is true or their argument is sound.
A person's credentials are not completely irrelevant in this whole debate, though. They are relevant only in cases of arguments from authority. If you cite Richard Dawkins as an authority on the cosmological argument, then that is a fallacious appeal to authority because he has no expertise in the subject. But if you quote Richard Dawkins as an authority on the subject of gene replication, then that is not a fallacious appeal to authority. He actually is an expert in the subject of biology. An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority you appeal to is not an expert on the subject you cite him on. If somebody is actually an expert in the subject of the New Testament or historical Jesus studies, then their opinion is relevant.
But some people will claim that any appeal to authority is a fallacy since it's the argument the authorities use that count, and not the mere fact that they are authorities. I vaguely remember Robert Price going so far as to say there are no authorities when it comes to the historical Jesus. I think he may have a point. The opinions about Jesus in academia are diverse. If the experts disagree, then it's fallacious to quote one of the experts to support a view that's actually controversial among that expert's peers. On the other hand, there are a handful of things about Jesus for which there is a strong consensus among experts, e.g., he was baptized by John the Baptist, he had disciples, he preached about the kingdom of God, he used parables in his teaching, he was known for being a miracle worker, and he was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate.
In his recent podcast, Price said he had written a pieces called "Paradigm Policemen," where he criticized Bart Ehrman for vociferously defending the status quo. Price made what I thought were some good points, but I think he went too far. It is true that the mere existence of a consensus does not mean the consensus is right, and it's true that if we stick to consensus and never dare to challenge it, that we stifle progress. After all, we can point to moments in our history when paradigms were overturned, often with much difficulty. The Copernican Revolution is one of the most famous examples. Price thinks it's a mistake for Ehrman to criticize mythicists merely on the basis that they are going against the current consensus on the existence of Jesus. I think he's right, but on the other hand, I do think consensus counts for something.
Most of us are not experts in any field. We're armchair theologians, armchair philosophers, armchair historians, armchair biologists, etc. Most of our education comes from reading books, not doing our own research. Many of us read books and think that counts as doing research. But really, for the majority of our educations, both formal and informal, we rely on the findings of experts. If consensus counted for nothing, then our educations would be worthless. We could read a dozen books on the historical Jesus or evolution and still not know anything.
Sometimes, if you're writing on a historical point of view, it is too tedious to spell out the arguments for every little piece of evidence you bring forth. Even scholars, when writing on the historical Jesus, will appeal to studies that other scholars have done on some small point, then use that small point as part of their case for their point of view. It helps when there's a consensus because then you can use that piece of information in your case without too many people raising objections about it. If consensus didn't matter, or if expert opinion didn't matter, then we would never be able to build on information discovered by other people. Everybody who wrote on any subject in history or biology would have to start from scratch.
I think we should lean in favour of the experts, especially when there's a consensus, but we should not do so dogmatically. We should be willing to go against consensus when we ourselves have done enough research or have been adequately persuaded to hold a differing opinion. I can't tell you what's adequate. You have to judge that on a case by case basis, and in a lot of cases, it's subjective. But I don't think we should fault mythicists merely on the basis that they are in the minority.
However, I think it is appropriate to point out that there is a strong consensus among experts on the existence of Jesus to people we run into on the internet because most of them haven't done any research. They've watched Zeitgeist and just took their word for it. If they're going to just take somebody's word for something, then they should take the word of those who are actually credentialed scholars. It's appropriate to bring up the consensus for a lot of those people because they may just not know any better. Two or three years ago, I got an email from somebody who had just seen Religulous with Bill Maher. Apparently, Maher had brought up the whole myth thing, which was completely new to the person who emailed me. She did a quick google search, found a short article on Religious Tolerance about Jesus and Horus, and was convinced. This was all new to her, and she wanted to see what I'd think. I think she half expected me to be surprised. I think it was perfectly appropriate for me to point out that almost every single New Testament scholar or historical Jesus scholar believed that Jesus really existed, and that it wasn't even a serious debate in academia.
I'm rambling, aren't I? Okay, I'l stop.
Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier
With those two names in the subject line, I'm bound to get a huge boost in readers in a short amount of time. I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said, though, so I'm just going to post links to the back and forth. This is mostly for my own benefit so I don't have to go hunting around later if I want to read it all again.
Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman
"Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic" by Richard Carrier (I'm going to include a link to page 16 so I don't have to click through 16 pages to get to the comment section. Yeah, I know there's a link directly to the comment section on each page, but the link isn't working for me.)
"Acharya S, Richard Carrier, and a Cocky Peter (Or: 'A Cock and Bull Story')" by Bart Ehrman
"Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier" by Bart Ehrman
"Ehrman's Dubious Replies (Round One)" by Richard Carrier
There are also some other blogs responding to each of them.
In response to Bart Ehrman
"The historicity of Jesus: Bart Ehrman responds to Richard Carrier (sort of)" by Jerry Coyne
"The Bible Geek" by Robert M. Price. <--this is a podcast.
In response to Richard Carrier
"A Look at Richard Carrier's Critique of Bart Ehrman: Part One" by Eric Chabot
"A Look at Richard Carrier's Critique of Bart Ehrman: Part Two" by Eric Chabot
"The Death of Richard Carrier's Dying Messiah" by Thom Stark
"The Torturous Death of Richard Carrier's Dying Messiah" by Thom Stark
Mythtic Pizza and Cold-cocked Scholars" by R. Joseph Hoffman. This one isn't really much of a response to Richard Carrier. I included it because it's entertaining reading, but it's really just a snarky commentary on mythicists reactions to the Carrier/Ehrman drama.
There are others that I didn't include because I didn't think they contributed as much to the conversation or they lacked entertainment value. If there are others you'd like to include, put them in the comment section.
Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman
"Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic" by Richard Carrier (I'm going to include a link to page 16 so I don't have to click through 16 pages to get to the comment section. Yeah, I know there's a link directly to the comment section on each page, but the link isn't working for me.)
"Acharya S, Richard Carrier, and a Cocky Peter (Or: 'A Cock and Bull Story')" by Bart Ehrman
"Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier" by Bart Ehrman
"Ehrman's Dubious Replies (Round One)" by Richard Carrier
There are also some other blogs responding to each of them.
In response to Bart Ehrman
"The historicity of Jesus: Bart Ehrman responds to Richard Carrier (sort of)" by Jerry Coyne
"The Bible Geek" by Robert M. Price. <--this is a podcast.
In response to Richard Carrier
"A Look at Richard Carrier's Critique of Bart Ehrman: Part One" by Eric Chabot
"A Look at Richard Carrier's Critique of Bart Ehrman: Part Two" by Eric Chabot
"The Death of Richard Carrier's Dying Messiah" by Thom Stark
"The Torturous Death of Richard Carrier's Dying Messiah" by Thom Stark
Mythtic Pizza and Cold-cocked Scholars" by R. Joseph Hoffman. This one isn't really much of a response to Richard Carrier. I included it because it's entertaining reading, but it's really just a snarky commentary on mythicists reactions to the Carrier/Ehrman drama.
There are others that I didn't include because I didn't think they contributed as much to the conversation or they lacked entertainment value. If there are others you'd like to include, put them in the comment section.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Affirming the consequent and predictive value
In the hard sciences, the ability of a theory to make accurate predictions is taken to count in favour of that theory. Let's use gravity as an example. Although on earth, nobody had ever dropped a feather at the same time they dropped a heavy dense object and observed them falling at the same rate, the theory of gravity predicted that they should fall at the same rate if you eliminate all the forces (especially air friction) and drop them in a vacuum. Since then, the theory has been tested by dropping feathers and bowling balls together in vacuums and found to be true. The feather and the bowling ball do drop at the same rate in a vacuum where there is no air resistance. That counts in favour of the theory of gravity.
Criminal investigators use this kind of reasoning, too. For example, when somebody flees, that's taken as evidence of their guilt because fleeing is exactly what we'd expect from somebody who's guilty.
Historians also use this kind of reasoning. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but if I did, the scenario would be pretty much just like the criminal investigator scenario above.
This type of reasoning appears to commit one of the most basic formal fallacies called "affirming the consequent." It takes this form:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q
3. Therefore, P.
In the case of gravity, the reasoning would look like this:
1. If the theory of gravity is true, then a feather and a bowling ball should drop at the same rate in a vacuum.
2. A feather and a bowling ball DO drop at the same rate in a vacuum.
3. Therefore, the theory of gravity is true.
This whole principle of predictive value seems to depend on this fallacy:
1. If theory X is true, then effect Y should be observed.
2. Effect Y is observed.
3. Therefore, theory X is true.
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not trying to argue that the predictive value of a theory does not count in its favour. What I suspect, instead, is that it's not a deductive argument, and it's a mistake to characterize it as such.
Criminal investigators use this kind of reasoning, too. For example, when somebody flees, that's taken as evidence of their guilt because fleeing is exactly what we'd expect from somebody who's guilty.
Historians also use this kind of reasoning. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but if I did, the scenario would be pretty much just like the criminal investigator scenario above.
This type of reasoning appears to commit one of the most basic formal fallacies called "affirming the consequent." It takes this form:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q
3. Therefore, P.
In the case of gravity, the reasoning would look like this:
1. If the theory of gravity is true, then a feather and a bowling ball should drop at the same rate in a vacuum.
2. A feather and a bowling ball DO drop at the same rate in a vacuum.
3. Therefore, the theory of gravity is true.
This whole principle of predictive value seems to depend on this fallacy:
1. If theory X is true, then effect Y should be observed.
2. Effect Y is observed.
3. Therefore, theory X is true.
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not trying to argue that the predictive value of a theory does not count in its favour. What I suspect, instead, is that it's not a deductive argument, and it's a mistake to characterize it as such.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Historical Jesus and evolution; mythicism and intelligent design
I just finished reading Did Jesus Exist by Bart Ehrman yesterday. There is an interesting parallel between the intelligent design vs. evolution debate and the mythicist vs. historicist debate.
99% or more of the experts in the field of biology and evolution subscribe to the theory of evolution, and although intelligent design advocates would like to be taken seriously, the overwhelming consensus among credentialed scientists in the field prevents it. People often point out the strong consensus in an effort to discredit intelligent design as "going against science." Intelligent design advocates think we should "teach the controversy" because intelligent design should be judged on its merits, not a false appeal to authority or consensus.
More than 99% of the experts in the field if New Testament history think Jesus existed, and although mythicists would like to be taken seriously, they can only gain a foothold on the internet among laymen. Christian apologists point out the strong consensus among experts in an effort to discredit mythicists, but mythicists insist that you can't arrive at truth by counting noses, and their arguments should be taken seriously.
There are a couple of differences, though. First, there are more peer reviewed academic articles published by mythicists (almost exclusively by Robert Price) than there are by intelligent design advocates. Second, while there is only one credentialed scholar in New Testament studies (Robert Price) who currently subscribes to the mythicist position, there are several credentialed biologists who currently subscribe to intelligent design. There are some people who are experts in related fields, though. Richard Carrier is an expert in ancient history, and Steven Meyer is a philosopher of science.
The reason I'm writing this is to try to get people to be consistent. If you think a strong consensus matters in the case of Jesus' existence, then don't casually dismiss the significance of the consensus when it comes to biology. If you think your case should be judged on its merits when it comes to intelligent design, then then judge the mythicist position on its merits, too.
If you think intelligent design should not be taught in school just because it hasn't gotten a foothold in the scientific community and that the predominant scientific view should be taught on a given topic and that time shouldn't be wasted on obscure theories that hardly anybody believes, then you should be consistent and say the mythicist position should not be taught either since it hasn't gotten a foothold in New Testament historical studies, and the predominant historical view is that Jesus existed, and teachers shouldn't waste time addressing obscure theories that hardly anybody believes.
99% or more of the experts in the field of biology and evolution subscribe to the theory of evolution, and although intelligent design advocates would like to be taken seriously, the overwhelming consensus among credentialed scientists in the field prevents it. People often point out the strong consensus in an effort to discredit intelligent design as "going against science." Intelligent design advocates think we should "teach the controversy" because intelligent design should be judged on its merits, not a false appeal to authority or consensus.
More than 99% of the experts in the field if New Testament history think Jesus existed, and although mythicists would like to be taken seriously, they can only gain a foothold on the internet among laymen. Christian apologists point out the strong consensus among experts in an effort to discredit mythicists, but mythicists insist that you can't arrive at truth by counting noses, and their arguments should be taken seriously.
There are a couple of differences, though. First, there are more peer reviewed academic articles published by mythicists (almost exclusively by Robert Price) than there are by intelligent design advocates. Second, while there is only one credentialed scholar in New Testament studies (Robert Price) who currently subscribes to the mythicist position, there are several credentialed biologists who currently subscribe to intelligent design. There are some people who are experts in related fields, though. Richard Carrier is an expert in ancient history, and Steven Meyer is a philosopher of science.
The reason I'm writing this is to try to get people to be consistent. If you think a strong consensus matters in the case of Jesus' existence, then don't casually dismiss the significance of the consensus when it comes to biology. If you think your case should be judged on its merits when it comes to intelligent design, then then judge the mythicist position on its merits, too.
If you think intelligent design should not be taught in school just because it hasn't gotten a foothold in the scientific community and that the predominant scientific view should be taught on a given topic and that time shouldn't be wasted on obscure theories that hardly anybody believes, then you should be consistent and say the mythicist position should not be taught either since it hasn't gotten a foothold in New Testament historical studies, and the predominant historical view is that Jesus existed, and teachers shouldn't waste time addressing obscure theories that hardly anybody believes.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
If there is no God, then there are no objective moral values
I tried to find some really old posts I made on beliefnet back in the day, and I found this thread: "The use of reason in religion" on the UU section of beliefnet. This was one of my earliest attempts to defend the premise that God is necessary for objective morality, going all the way back to 2001. My thoughts really haven't changed on the subject, although I might present the arguments a little differently. Anyway, this begins on post 25, and later in the thread I get into a debate over it with somebody named ksagnostic. Here it is:
I really don't know how to approach this situation or even if I should. I'm afraid that in my effort to explain myself, I'll end up saying even more things that will need explanation. I'm not even sure what it is you're not seeing. I'm going to try, though.
First, what is the difference between saying, "If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist," and saying, "If we don't believe God exists, objective moral values do not exist"? The difference lies in the fact that it's possible to believe something and be wrong. It's possible to believe God exists and yet God does not exist, and it's possible to believe God does not exist, and yet God exists. So if God and objective moral values exist, a person who does not believe in God can believe in objective moral values and be right. What I am saying is that it is possible to believe in objective moral values and to actually be moral without believing in God, but it is not possible to be moral if God does not exist because if God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values. If there are no objective moral values, then nobody is moral. I am not claiming that God's existence creates a moral authority. I am claiming that for objective moral values to exist, God's existence is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. It's possible for God to exist and yet there are no objective moral values, but it's not possible for objective moral values to exist and yet there is no God.
I think if I explain what I mean by objective moral values, it should answer some of your other questions. In general, an objective truth claim is a claim about the object, and a subjective truth claim is a claim about the subject. I have a little thumb rule to help me tell the difference between a subjective truth claim and an objective truth claim.
If two statements that contradict each other can both be true, then the statements are subjective. If two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true, then the statements is objective.
Lemme give some examples. Take the two statements, "Ice cream tastes good," and "Ice cream tastes bad." These two statements contradict each other, but they can nevertheless both be true. Why? Because one statement is made by a person who likes ice cream, and the other statement is made about a person who does not like ice cream. Furthermore, the statements are not about the ice cream; the statements are about the tastes of the people making the claims. When a person says, "Ice cream tastes good," he's saying that he likes the way ice cream tastes. It's a subjective statement. The person making the claim is the subject, and the ice cream is the object.
Now take another two statements, "Blue Bell makes ice cream," and "Blue Bell does not make ice cream." These two statements are objective because they cannot both be true. No matter who makes the statements, they cannot be true because they are about the object, Blue Bell, and not the subjects making the claims.
Another test you can use to figure out whether a statement is objective or subjective is by asking whether or not it's possible for the statement to be false. You see, subjective statements can never be false; only objective statements can. That's why we think it's silly for people to argue over whether or not ice cream tastes good. There's no objective truth to it. One person likes it and the other doesn't. But it makes perfectly good sense for two people to argue over whether or not Blue Bell makes ice cream. Any argument two people have presupposes that there is some objective truth to the matter because if there is not, then the argument is pointless and silly.
So you see, claiming that people disagree on their moral views does not prove that there is no objective truth to the matter. In fact, it would be pointless for people to argue over a moral issue unless both parties agree that there is some objective truth to the matter. You can test yourself to see whether or not you think morality is objective or subjective by picking some moral position you feel very strong about and asking yourself if those who disagree with you are wrong. If you say they are wrong, then you believe in objective moral value. If all you can say is that they are different, but not wrong, then you probably do not believe in objective moral value. Furthermore, take whatever that moral position of yours is and ask yourself if it's possible for you to say, "A is right," and another person say, "A is wrong," and yet neither of you is incorrect. If you say that you cannot both be right, then you believe in objective moral value. If you say that you can both be right, then you do not believe in objective moral value.
Take rape for example. If I say "rape is wrong," and another person says, "rape is right," is it possible that neither of us is wrong? Is the statement about the act of rape, or is the statement about our personal preferences? If you say it's about rape, then you're a moral objectivist. If you say it's about our personal preferences, then you're a moral relativist. If it's about rape, then they cannot both be true. If it's about personal preferences, then they can both be true for the people making the claims.
I totally agree that if God doesn't exist, societies and individuals can nevertheless form moral standards to live by, but those moral standards would not be objective. You claim that societies and cultures determine right from wrong, which is a statement of moral relativism some call "society says" relativism.
Here's a question to consider, though: If societies set moral standards, what if two societies have moral standards that contradict one another? For example, what if one society says rape is right and the other society says rape is wrong? Can they both be right? If one of them is wrong, then there is some objective truth to the matter, and it is not determined by the beliefs of either society. That's the nature of objective truth claims. They are not determined by our beliefs because it's possible for us to believe things that aren't true.
If you believe the moral set by society are objective, then how do you deal with the fact that different societies contradict one another in their moral truth claims? More basic than that, though, what determines what the moral law of the society is? Does it depend on some guru the society invests with authority to make moral claims? What if some people in the society disagree? Are they wrong or just different? Does the majority rule?
Another thing to consider is that if the morals of societies are objective, that means moral revolutionaries, people we have historically considered heroes, are actually immoral people. Everybody who has tried to put an end to the values of their society were immoral people because they went against the morals of their society. That includes people like Martin Luther King Jr. It includes abolitionists. That's another thing to consider. Almost every society in history has had some form of slavery. Do we say they were wrong or just different?
If "society says" relativism is true, then there's no moral principle that transcends cultures, and therefore, there's no basis upon which to condemn moral atrocities in other societies. That was the argument the nazi's used during the Nuremberg trials. They were acting in accordance with the morals of their society. But you see, even they were inconsistent, because while claiming moral relativism, they were at the same time saying that those who were judging them were wrong. Moral relativists are often inconsistent. They'll say something like, "Stop pushing your morals on me," and you might ask, "Why?" Then they'll say, "Because everybody defines morality for themselves, so it's wrong for you to push your morals on other people." But do you see the contradiction there? First the person says that everybody defines morality for themselves, but in the same breath they claim it's wrong for one person to push their morality on somebody else, and they mean it's objectively wrong. You might want to respond with, "If it's wrong for one person to push their morality on somebody else, then why are you pushing that moral view of yours on me?" You see, the person who claims that morals are relative is trying to push their moral on the other person that it's wrong to push morals on other people. So it's almost impossible for moral relativists to live consistently with their views. That's why I really doubt that most people who claim moral relativism really are moral relativists. I think almost all people believe in objective moral values. It's just a matter of finding something they feel strongly about. That's why I asked you to think of something you feel strongly about - especially something you get emotional about. Then consider those who disagree with you and ask yourself if those people are wrong or merely different.
So if objective moral values exist, in other words if statements like, "rape is wrong," are objectively true, and if they are true even though some think they are false, then why is God's existence necessary? Why is it necessary for God to exist in order for objective moral values to exist? Why is it that if God does not exist, that objective moral values do not exist? This is one of those things that seems intuitively obvious to me, but is nevertheless hard to explain. It's like trying to prove that the law of non-contradiction is true. It's perfectly obvious and easy to see, but it's hard to make it clear to somebody else who doesn't see it. Having heard my explanation of what it means for moral values to be objectively true, you may already see it, but I'm going to try to explain it anyway.
A moral law is prescriptive. Rather than describing what is the case, moral laws prescribe what ought to be the case. They are imperatives that are in the form of a command. To say that something is right is to say that you ought to do it. You have an obligation or duty to do it. Feed your children. Likewise, to say it is wrong is to say that you ought not do it. You have an obligation or duty not to do it. Don't drown your children.
Whenever people have a moral disagreement with one another where each thinks the other has a moral obligation to behave in a particular way, there's a tendency for them to respond with the question, "Sez who?" This is a legitimate question. It's a challenge. The person asking the question is challenging the other person on their authority to make moral imperatives. He's saying, "Who are you to tell me what to do?" I think this challenge betrays an understanding on the part of the person making the challenge that without a legitimate authority there simply is no moral imperative. We're free to live autonomously. If no one "sez," then we have no moral obligation.
Morals have oughtness. Only persons impose duty and obligation on other persons, so there must be a personal being over us. Otherwise, there are no objective moral values. Without God, we are left with nihilism or relativism, both of which are forms of moral non-realism.
Moral oughtness implies purpose. There is a goal to which we are obligated to aspire, so our lives have purpose. The purpose of our lives is (at least in part) to obey moral imperatives. But for there to be purpose to our lives, there must be a personal being whose purpose it is for us to obey the moral laws.
But what kind of authority would be required for an imperative to be morally binding on us? Obviously, this authority must be higher than the government because we all have, at one point or another, a disagreement with what the law sez. We all think the law is wrong at some point. But the law can't be wrong if the government is a legitimate authority for deciding right and wrong. They would, by definition, always be right. So we see that things are not morally wrong simply because they are illegal, and they are not morally right simply because they are legal. If that were the case, then we'd all be immoral to ever try to change the law. Therefore, if there is an objective moral law, there must be a moral lawgiver whose authority is higher than that of any human government.
To say that something has meaning, value, or worth is to say that it means something to somebody, is valued by somebody, and that it's worth something to somebody. If there is no God, then whatever meaning and value we attribute to life is only relative. It only has meaning and value to us, but it has no objective or intrinsic meaning and value. Only persons ascribe meaning, value, and worth, so if people have intrinsic value and worth (meaning that we'd have value and worth whether other people cared about us or not and whether we cared about ourselves or not), then there must be a necessary transcendent personal being who invests us with value and worth.
I really don't know how to approach this situation or even if I should. I'm afraid that in my effort to explain myself, I'll end up saying even more things that will need explanation. I'm not even sure what it is you're not seeing. I'm going to try, though.
First, what is the difference between saying, "If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist," and saying, "If we don't believe God exists, objective moral values do not exist"? The difference lies in the fact that it's possible to believe something and be wrong. It's possible to believe God exists and yet God does not exist, and it's possible to believe God does not exist, and yet God exists. So if God and objective moral values exist, a person who does not believe in God can believe in objective moral values and be right. What I am saying is that it is possible to believe in objective moral values and to actually be moral without believing in God, but it is not possible to be moral if God does not exist because if God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values. If there are no objective moral values, then nobody is moral. I am not claiming that God's existence creates a moral authority. I am claiming that for objective moral values to exist, God's existence is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. It's possible for God to exist and yet there are no objective moral values, but it's not possible for objective moral values to exist and yet there is no God.
I think if I explain what I mean by objective moral values, it should answer some of your other questions. In general, an objective truth claim is a claim about the object, and a subjective truth claim is a claim about the subject. I have a little thumb rule to help me tell the difference between a subjective truth claim and an objective truth claim.
If two statements that contradict each other can both be true, then the statements are subjective. If two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true, then the statements is objective.
Lemme give some examples. Take the two statements, "Ice cream tastes good," and "Ice cream tastes bad." These two statements contradict each other, but they can nevertheless both be true. Why? Because one statement is made by a person who likes ice cream, and the other statement is made about a person who does not like ice cream. Furthermore, the statements are not about the ice cream; the statements are about the tastes of the people making the claims. When a person says, "Ice cream tastes good," he's saying that he likes the way ice cream tastes. It's a subjective statement. The person making the claim is the subject, and the ice cream is the object.
Now take another two statements, "Blue Bell makes ice cream," and "Blue Bell does not make ice cream." These two statements are objective because they cannot both be true. No matter who makes the statements, they cannot be true because they are about the object, Blue Bell, and not the subjects making the claims.
Another test you can use to figure out whether a statement is objective or subjective is by asking whether or not it's possible for the statement to be false. You see, subjective statements can never be false; only objective statements can. That's why we think it's silly for people to argue over whether or not ice cream tastes good. There's no objective truth to it. One person likes it and the other doesn't. But it makes perfectly good sense for two people to argue over whether or not Blue Bell makes ice cream. Any argument two people have presupposes that there is some objective truth to the matter because if there is not, then the argument is pointless and silly.
So you see, claiming that people disagree on their moral views does not prove that there is no objective truth to the matter. In fact, it would be pointless for people to argue over a moral issue unless both parties agree that there is some objective truth to the matter. You can test yourself to see whether or not you think morality is objective or subjective by picking some moral position you feel very strong about and asking yourself if those who disagree with you are wrong. If you say they are wrong, then you believe in objective moral value. If all you can say is that they are different, but not wrong, then you probably do not believe in objective moral value. Furthermore, take whatever that moral position of yours is and ask yourself if it's possible for you to say, "A is right," and another person say, "A is wrong," and yet neither of you is incorrect. If you say that you cannot both be right, then you believe in objective moral value. If you say that you can both be right, then you do not believe in objective moral value.
Take rape for example. If I say "rape is wrong," and another person says, "rape is right," is it possible that neither of us is wrong? Is the statement about the act of rape, or is the statement about our personal preferences? If you say it's about rape, then you're a moral objectivist. If you say it's about our personal preferences, then you're a moral relativist. If it's about rape, then they cannot both be true. If it's about personal preferences, then they can both be true for the people making the claims.
I totally agree that if God doesn't exist, societies and individuals can nevertheless form moral standards to live by, but those moral standards would not be objective. You claim that societies and cultures determine right from wrong, which is a statement of moral relativism some call "society says" relativism.
Here's a question to consider, though: If societies set moral standards, what if two societies have moral standards that contradict one another? For example, what if one society says rape is right and the other society says rape is wrong? Can they both be right? If one of them is wrong, then there is some objective truth to the matter, and it is not determined by the beliefs of either society. That's the nature of objective truth claims. They are not determined by our beliefs because it's possible for us to believe things that aren't true.
If you believe the moral set by society are objective, then how do you deal with the fact that different societies contradict one another in their moral truth claims? More basic than that, though, what determines what the moral law of the society is? Does it depend on some guru the society invests with authority to make moral claims? What if some people in the society disagree? Are they wrong or just different? Does the majority rule?
Another thing to consider is that if the morals of societies are objective, that means moral revolutionaries, people we have historically considered heroes, are actually immoral people. Everybody who has tried to put an end to the values of their society were immoral people because they went against the morals of their society. That includes people like Martin Luther King Jr. It includes abolitionists. That's another thing to consider. Almost every society in history has had some form of slavery. Do we say they were wrong or just different?
If "society says" relativism is true, then there's no moral principle that transcends cultures, and therefore, there's no basis upon which to condemn moral atrocities in other societies. That was the argument the nazi's used during the Nuremberg trials. They were acting in accordance with the morals of their society. But you see, even they were inconsistent, because while claiming moral relativism, they were at the same time saying that those who were judging them were wrong. Moral relativists are often inconsistent. They'll say something like, "Stop pushing your morals on me," and you might ask, "Why?" Then they'll say, "Because everybody defines morality for themselves, so it's wrong for you to push your morals on other people." But do you see the contradiction there? First the person says that everybody defines morality for themselves, but in the same breath they claim it's wrong for one person to push their morality on somebody else, and they mean it's objectively wrong. You might want to respond with, "If it's wrong for one person to push their morality on somebody else, then why are you pushing that moral view of yours on me?" You see, the person who claims that morals are relative is trying to push their moral on the other person that it's wrong to push morals on other people. So it's almost impossible for moral relativists to live consistently with their views. That's why I really doubt that most people who claim moral relativism really are moral relativists. I think almost all people believe in objective moral values. It's just a matter of finding something they feel strongly about. That's why I asked you to think of something you feel strongly about - especially something you get emotional about. Then consider those who disagree with you and ask yourself if those people are wrong or merely different.
So if objective moral values exist, in other words if statements like, "rape is wrong," are objectively true, and if they are true even though some think they are false, then why is God's existence necessary? Why is it necessary for God to exist in order for objective moral values to exist? Why is it that if God does not exist, that objective moral values do not exist? This is one of those things that seems intuitively obvious to me, but is nevertheless hard to explain. It's like trying to prove that the law of non-contradiction is true. It's perfectly obvious and easy to see, but it's hard to make it clear to somebody else who doesn't see it. Having heard my explanation of what it means for moral values to be objectively true, you may already see it, but I'm going to try to explain it anyway.
A moral law is prescriptive. Rather than describing what is the case, moral laws prescribe what ought to be the case. They are imperatives that are in the form of a command. To say that something is right is to say that you ought to do it. You have an obligation or duty to do it. Feed your children. Likewise, to say it is wrong is to say that you ought not do it. You have an obligation or duty not to do it. Don't drown your children.
Whenever people have a moral disagreement with one another where each thinks the other has a moral obligation to behave in a particular way, there's a tendency for them to respond with the question, "Sez who?" This is a legitimate question. It's a challenge. The person asking the question is challenging the other person on their authority to make moral imperatives. He's saying, "Who are you to tell me what to do?" I think this challenge betrays an understanding on the part of the person making the challenge that without a legitimate authority there simply is no moral imperative. We're free to live autonomously. If no one "sez," then we have no moral obligation.
Morals have oughtness. Only persons impose duty and obligation on other persons, so there must be a personal being over us. Otherwise, there are no objective moral values. Without God, we are left with nihilism or relativism, both of which are forms of moral non-realism.
Moral oughtness implies purpose. There is a goal to which we are obligated to aspire, so our lives have purpose. The purpose of our lives is (at least in part) to obey moral imperatives. But for there to be purpose to our lives, there must be a personal being whose purpose it is for us to obey the moral laws.
But what kind of authority would be required for an imperative to be morally binding on us? Obviously, this authority must be higher than the government because we all have, at one point or another, a disagreement with what the law sez. We all think the law is wrong at some point. But the law can't be wrong if the government is a legitimate authority for deciding right and wrong. They would, by definition, always be right. So we see that things are not morally wrong simply because they are illegal, and they are not morally right simply because they are legal. If that were the case, then we'd all be immoral to ever try to change the law. Therefore, if there is an objective moral law, there must be a moral lawgiver whose authority is higher than that of any human government.
To say that something has meaning, value, or worth is to say that it means something to somebody, is valued by somebody, and that it's worth something to somebody. If there is no God, then whatever meaning and value we attribute to life is only relative. It only has meaning and value to us, but it has no objective or intrinsic meaning and value. Only persons ascribe meaning, value, and worth, so if people have intrinsic value and worth (meaning that we'd have value and worth whether other people cared about us or not and whether we cared about ourselves or not), then there must be a necessary transcendent personal being who invests us with value and worth.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Mormonism: What would Pascal say?
This is not an argument against Mormonism. It's just an observation I thought was interesting.
Pascal argued that in a situation where a person was 50/50 on whether God exists or not, that the safer bet would be to believe God exists since you have much to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God, and you have much to lose and nothing to gain if you don't believe in God.
According to LDS theology, there are three levels of glory--the Celestial Kingdom, the Terrestrial Kingdom, and the Telestial Kingdom. The Celestial Kingdom is the highest kingdom, and that's the one Mormons shoot for. It allows them to progress and become more like the Father. But to get to the Celestial Kingdom, you have to "live the fullness of the gospel," which entails partaking of all the ordinances of the LDS Church.
The Terrestrial Kingdom and the Telestial Kingdom are for most everybody else. Hardly anybody goes to hell, or what Mormons call "perdition." The only way you can go to perdition according to LDS theology is if you absolutely know that Mormonism is true and you reject it anyway. So you've got to basically be visited by Jesus or an angel, or have some kind of experience like that that tells you beyond all doubt that it's true. But since most of us never get that kind of confirmation, we're in no danger of perdition. We're going to go either to the Terrestrial Kingdom or the Telestial Kingdom.
The Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms are unimaginably better than this world. Those of us who are basically decent people, whether we are Christians, atheists, or whatever, will go to the Terrestrial Kingdom, which is a groovy place. All the rotten people (Hitler, etc.) go to the Telestial kingdom, and even they are going to experience a wonderful eternity there. It turns out that even some Mormons will go to the Terrestrial kingdom because you have to be married and have your marriage sealed for eternity before you can go to the Celestial kingdom. So Mormons who are in good standing and who live faithfully according to their religion will go to the Terrestrial kingdom as long as they remain single.
So let's suppose you're an ordinary protestant Christian trying to decide whether to convert to Mormonism or not. And let's suppose you're sitting on the fence. What would Pascal say?
Well, if conventional Christianity is true, and you believe in it, then you'll be saved. But if you convert to Mormonism, you'll suffer the wrath of God for your sins because the Mormon gospel is a false gospel that can't save. So if conventional Christianity is true, and you convert to Mormonism, you have a lot to lose.
But if Mormonism is true, and you don't convert to Mormonism, you're still going to spend an eternity in heavenly bliss. You're not in any danger of suffering the wrath of God. The only thing you lose out on is becoming a god and populating other worlds. If Mormonism is true, and you believe in it, you STILL may not ever become a god and populate other worlds. First, you have to tie the knot for eternity before you can go to the Celestial kingdom and progress to godhood. That seems like a high price to pay. But even if you get married for eternity and enter the Celestial Kingdom, it's not an easy road to godhood. Going to the Celestial Kingdom only gives you the opportunity to continue on the road of progression. It still takes a lot of effort once you get there.
So if you're happy with what conventional Christianity has to offer--an eternity of bliss free from sickness, suffering, and sorrow--then you might as well stick with that because if Mormonism happens to be true, that's what you're going to get in the Terrestrial kingdom anyway. There's little advantage to converting to Mormonism--especially if the idea of eternal marriage does not appeal to you, or if the idea of being responsible for a whole universe and billions of people does not appeal to you, or if you just happen to like coffee and Dr. Pepper.
Pascal argued that in a situation where a person was 50/50 on whether God exists or not, that the safer bet would be to believe God exists since you have much to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God, and you have much to lose and nothing to gain if you don't believe in God.
According to LDS theology, there are three levels of glory--the Celestial Kingdom, the Terrestrial Kingdom, and the Telestial Kingdom. The Celestial Kingdom is the highest kingdom, and that's the one Mormons shoot for. It allows them to progress and become more like the Father. But to get to the Celestial Kingdom, you have to "live the fullness of the gospel," which entails partaking of all the ordinances of the LDS Church.
The Terrestrial Kingdom and the Telestial Kingdom are for most everybody else. Hardly anybody goes to hell, or what Mormons call "perdition." The only way you can go to perdition according to LDS theology is if you absolutely know that Mormonism is true and you reject it anyway. So you've got to basically be visited by Jesus or an angel, or have some kind of experience like that that tells you beyond all doubt that it's true. But since most of us never get that kind of confirmation, we're in no danger of perdition. We're going to go either to the Terrestrial Kingdom or the Telestial Kingdom.
The Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms are unimaginably better than this world. Those of us who are basically decent people, whether we are Christians, atheists, or whatever, will go to the Terrestrial Kingdom, which is a groovy place. All the rotten people (Hitler, etc.) go to the Telestial kingdom, and even they are going to experience a wonderful eternity there. It turns out that even some Mormons will go to the Terrestrial kingdom because you have to be married and have your marriage sealed for eternity before you can go to the Celestial kingdom. So Mormons who are in good standing and who live faithfully according to their religion will go to the Terrestrial kingdom as long as they remain single.
So let's suppose you're an ordinary protestant Christian trying to decide whether to convert to Mormonism or not. And let's suppose you're sitting on the fence. What would Pascal say?
Well, if conventional Christianity is true, and you believe in it, then you'll be saved. But if you convert to Mormonism, you'll suffer the wrath of God for your sins because the Mormon gospel is a false gospel that can't save. So if conventional Christianity is true, and you convert to Mormonism, you have a lot to lose.
But if Mormonism is true, and you don't convert to Mormonism, you're still going to spend an eternity in heavenly bliss. You're not in any danger of suffering the wrath of God. The only thing you lose out on is becoming a god and populating other worlds. If Mormonism is true, and you believe in it, you STILL may not ever become a god and populate other worlds. First, you have to tie the knot for eternity before you can go to the Celestial kingdom and progress to godhood. That seems like a high price to pay. But even if you get married for eternity and enter the Celestial Kingdom, it's not an easy road to godhood. Going to the Celestial Kingdom only gives you the opportunity to continue on the road of progression. It still takes a lot of effort once you get there.
So if you're happy with what conventional Christianity has to offer--an eternity of bliss free from sickness, suffering, and sorrow--then you might as well stick with that because if Mormonism happens to be true, that's what you're going to get in the Terrestrial kingdom anyway. There's little advantage to converting to Mormonism--especially if the idea of eternal marriage does not appeal to you, or if the idea of being responsible for a whole universe and billions of people does not appeal to you, or if you just happen to like coffee and Dr. Pepper.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Conversation With a Mormon Missionary
I just went to mormon.org where you can chat live with a Mormon missionary, and I had the most interesting conversation with a nice girl named Melody. I thought you might be interested in listening in...
Agent [Melody] is ready to assist you.
Melody: Hi, I'm Melody
Melody: How are you today?
Me: Hi Melody.
Me: Sorry, I was looking at a different web page.
Melody: no worries. :)
Melody: how can I help?
Me: Okay, I got a visit from a couple of missionaries a couple of days ago...
Me: And I've been thinking about some of the things we talked about.
Me: And it has raised a question for me.
Melody: great! I'd love to help. :)
Me: When we were talking, I was asking them what distinguished them from other people who consider themselves Christians but who are not Mormons.
Me: I was wanting to know what advantage there was to becoming a Mormon instead of just remaining a Christian, assuming that Mormonism is true.
Melody: ok
Me: One of them started talking about different levels of glory.
Me: He showed me a book with an illustration of the Celstial Kingdom, the Terrestrial kingdom, and the Telestial kingdom.
Me: So my question is about the Celestial kingdom.
Me: Although I don't remember what all was said, I remember getting the impression that becoming a Mormon would be the first step toward eternal progression--becoming more like the Father.
Me: So my first question is this: Do you have to become a Mormon before you can enter the Celestial Kingdom?
Melody: that's a good question. A person has to believe in and live (the best they can) the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints (mormon) and which church has been given authority from God to perform ordinances such as baptism.
Melody: Many people who are members of the church, but who aren't fully committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ won't enter the celestial kingdom,
Me: So, becoming a Mormon is part of living the fullness of the gospel?
Me: So it's possible to be a Mormon, but NOT enter the Celestial kingdom. Is that right?
Melody: "Mormon" is a nickname for members of the Church of Jesus christ of Latter-day saints.
Me: Yes, I understand that. That's how I'm using the word.
Melody: right, but that term would not have applied to the first Christians during Jesus's time, or the faithful members of God's church in Old testament times. That's why I feel like stressing that it is the part about obeying the fulness of the gospel, rather than being a "mormon".
Me: I like your name, by the way. I used to know a girl named Harmony. Wouldn't it be funny to have twin girls and name them Melody and Harmony?
Melody: :) good times.
Me: Oh, I see your point.
Melody: we believe that it's the same church, though
Me: Okay, wel for the sake of discussions, let's just assume that when we use the word "Mormon," we're referring to people who faithfully live out the gospel.
Me: That'll just make the dissuasion more simple, I think.
Melody: and we also believe that God will give all of His children the opportunity to learn the gospel, the fulness of the gospel and have the chance to accept or reject it before they are judged. So there are many people who will enter the celestial kingdom who didn't have the opportunity to join the church during their lifetimes.
Melody: sounds good. :)
Me: Yeah, we talked about that. They read me a passage in the Book of MOrmon that basically said if you hear the gospel int his life, you won't get a second chance in the after life. But if you never hear in this life, you'll get a chance in the after life. So everybody gets a chance, but they don't get two chances.
Melody: God will be fair. and He will judge our desires and our actions. :)
Me: But anyway, we're straying a little bit from where I wanted to go. Lemme ask you another question.
Melody: alright
Me: So, a person must live consistently with the fullness of the gospel to get to the Celestial kingdom...And only Mormons (though not all Mormons) live consistently with the fullness of the gospel (since only the LDS Church has the priesthood authority, etc.)...So, it seems to follow that you must convert to Mormonism (either in this life or the next) before you can go to the Celestial kingdom.
Me: Is that right so far?
Melody: I'd say that sounds pretty accurate. :)
Me: Hold on, I have to get my train of thought back. LOL I'm a little skater-brained.
Melody: no worries. take your time. :)
Me: Oh yeah. So, is going to the Celestial kingdom necessary for eternal progression? I other words, it is possible to go to one of the lesser kingdoms and still continue to progress in the afterlife?
Me: Scatter-brained, I meant.
Me: Or however you spell "Scatter"
Melody: hmm...that's a good question. I imagine that people in the lesser kingdoms will still be able to learn and grow in some ways, but they will be limited. They will not inherit a fulness of God's glory, so they won't be able to eternally progress.
Melody: no worries.
Me: I wish I knew a little more about what it means to eternally progress, but that would get us into a long discussion, probably. The way the missionaries put it, progression is all about becoming more and more like the Father.
Melody: exactly. let me see if I can find a verse that may help.
Me: Okay, so let's say that people in any kingdom can progress, but you have to go to the Celestial kingdom before you can progress all the way and become JUST LIKE the Father. Is that right?
Melody: 55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given aall things—
Me: What is this a verse from?
Melody:
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are agods, even the bsons of cGod—
59 Wherefore, aall things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
60 And they shall aovercome all things.
61 Wherefore, let no man aglory in man, but rather let him bglory in God, who shall csubdue all enemies under his feet.
62 These shall adwell in the bpresence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
Melody: 69 These are they who are ajust men made bperfect through Jesus the mediator of the new ccovenant, who wrought out this perfect datonement through the shedding of his own eblood.
70 These are they whose bodies are acelestial, whose bglory is that of the csun, even the glory of God, the dhighest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.
Melody: It's from Doctrine and Covenants section76
Melody: it's part of a revelation received by the prophet Joseph Smith
Me: Okay. I'll have a look at that later. I sometimes have to read things more than once before they sink in. But I have a copy of the D&C, so I can look at it.
Melody: I like analogies a lot, they help me to understand the concepts better. The kingdoms of Glory are compared to the Sun, the moon and the stars
Me: So, what other requirements are necessary to enter the Celestial Kingdom? Is it just living the full gospel? Or is there more?
Melody: and in 1 corinthians 15 we learn that we will be resurrected to different kinds of glory
Melody: I use this analogy to help correlate the two
Melody: when we are living the fulness of the gospel, our souls become full of light
Melody: but when we sin, or reject our faith, our souls can't hold as much light
Me: Yeah, I've heard the 1 corinthians 15 connection, but that isn't where this doctrine comes from, is it? I mean Paul talks there about celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies, but there's no mention of telestial bodies. So the Telestial kingdom must come from some other source.
Melody: not exactly. I don't know why Paul doesn't mention it. It is possible that consequent transcribers made a mistake and left it out, or that Paul had other reasons
Melody: but he does mention sun, moon and stars, as an analogy for the "brightness" of different kingdoms
Me: But is there another source in LDS scriptures that talks about this? I'm assuming there's a D&C somewhere that talks about these three separate kingdoms. I mean Paul doesn't even mention kingdoms. It sounds like he's just making an analogy between different heavenly bodies and the resurrection bodies.
Melody: right, because there is a correlation between the two. The judgment is not arbitrary. our actions have a direct consequence on the state of our souls, which consequences will be made obvious in our resurrected bodies
Melody: we are the greatest record of our lives
Melody: you know how sometimes you meet a person
Melody: and they are so good, you can just tell by looking at them?
Me: You mentioned earlier that baptism was part of living the fullness of the gospel and that there are other ordinances. Can you mention what other ordinances there are? You don't have to mention all of them if there are a lot. I'm just curious what a few others might be.
Melody: they shine a little
Me: I don't know if I can tell by LOOKING at somebody who good they are. I mean people thought Ted Bundy was a pretty swell chap. But you can tell by observing the way they behave. Is that what you mean?
Melody: I don't necessarily mean literally, and of course, people aren't perfect
Melody: I mean that some people seem to glow a little. They know who they are. they are confident, and happy. They have joy in their lives, even when things are hard.
Me: Yes, I've met people like that.
Melody: its kindof like that.
Me: Hmm.
Melody: and people who have had rough lives, who have committed all kinds of sin, they can seem like they are clouded by darkness
Melody: or a hardness
Me: Yeah, I see what you mean.
Me: It's like some people have an aura about them that you can sense when you're around them.
Melody: exactly. We will be the same person after we die--and I think that we'll still carry that "aura" with us.
Melody: does that make sense in terms of the resurrection and judgement?
Me: A little. It does raise a question, though. Are you saying the different kingdoms aren't actually different places or domains, but that they just represent different groupings of people--people who have different kinds of "aura's"?
Me: That's something else I've wondered about. Do people in different kingdoms mingle with each other? Do they all get to experience the presence of Christ? Or are they isolated from each other?
Melody: I think it's both. No unclean thing can dwell with God, so there will be a physical separation between God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, and those who have rejected them. (That is why Christ can visit the terrestrial kingdom and the Holy Ghost can visit the telestial kingdom).
Me: When you say they can visit the kingdoms, it makes it sound like the kingdoms actually ARE different places, and not just a way of talking about different states of being.
Melody: that's why I said it was both. :)
Me: Okay. Did you see the question I asked about ordinances?
Me: If you didn't see it, I can ask again.
Melody: yes. Baptism is the first ordinance, along with receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Men are ordained to the priesthood. Temple ordinances follow in time, ceremonies called the initiatory, and the endowment. the sealing ordinance is the final ordinance, which seals a couple together for eternity, and their children to them so they can be a family unit in the eternities
Melody: (Also in the temple)
Me: Are these ordinances part of what it means to "live the fullness of the gospel"?
Melody: yes.
Me: So eternal marriage is part of living the fullness of the gospel?
Melody: right. However, God also understands the circumstances that we are in. Marriage is not always an opportunity for some people. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all things that are unfair about our mortal lives may be made right. God will not deny eternal opportunities for those who sincerely follow Him.
Melody: basically, that means that if we dont' have the opportunity to get married in this life, God will give us the opportunity
Melody: to be sealed
Me: I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that if a person lacks an opportunity to fulfill one of the ordinances of the gospel, that they can enter the Celestial kingdom even without living the fullness of the gospel?
Me: Oh, so you're saying that after death, we still have an opportunity to get married?
Melody: the ordinances of the gospel are step by step, line upon line. A person must be baptized to get the priesthood, and must have those before going to the temple.
Melody: God will make all things that are unfair about life fair in the eternities
Me: Does a person have to go through ALL of the ordinances before you can say they lived "the fullness of the gospel"? Or only some of the ordinances required?
Melody: that's a good question. It goes back to the fairness of God. He will judge us according to our faithfulness and the opportunities we were given. For example, suppose a young woman dies when she is 17. She has been baptized, and has been as faithful as she can be. She loves the Lord and desires to follow Him.
Melody: but she hasn't been through the temple because she's too young
Melody: God will make it fair for her
Melody: I don't know all of what that means,
Melody: but I do know that god will deny none of His children who love Him and want to be faithful
Melody: and he will provide a way
Me: When you say God will make it fair for her, does that mean God will treat her as if she had gone through all the ordinances, or does that mean God will give her the chances to perform the ordinances in the afterlife?
Me: Okay, I'm with you.
Melody: or provide a way for those who are on earth to do the work vicariously for her
Melody: that is why we do work for the dead
Me: Well, let me ask you another hypothetical question, and if you need to speculate, that's okay. Or if you just want to say, "I don't know," that's okay, too.
Melody: ok
Me: Let's say you're a Mormon, and you go to a church where there aren't a lot of other singles...
Me: But there's one single girl who really digs you, but you don't dig her that much.
Me: And let's say that this girl would marry you if she had the chance. That means YOU have the opportunity to get married. But you choose not to.
Me: Would that satisfy God's fairness? If you don't marry this girl, and if she was your only chance, does that mean you won't enter the celestial kingdom? After all, at that point, God could say, "I gave you the chance to get married, and you chose not to."
Melody: that's a good question. It all goes back to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We are to do our best, and He will make the "rest" possible. As for this hypothetical young man and woman, it depends. Did he try? Did he seek the Lord's counsel through prayer and scripture study on the subject? Did he choose to not pursue a relationship with this woman because he honestly felt that he couldn't honestly have a relationship with her? or did he not because he just didn't really feel like it? There is a bit of a difference between someone who never finds the right person, and those who let opportunities pass by.
Melody: God teaches us to be honest in our dealings with our fellow men. I think it would have been much worse if the young man had married her dishonestly, saying that he loved and was committed to her when his heart wasn't in it
Me: In this scenario, let's say there's nothing really wrong with the girl. She's a descent person, a faithful Mormon, etc. The guy just isn't the least bit interested in her. Either he's not attracted to her, or he's gay, or he prefers being single, or whatever.
Melody: And again, God understands our hearts and our limitations.
Me: Does that mean God will treat the person as if he had gotten married and let him go to the Celestial kingdom?
Melody: Not exactly, because God is not a hypocrite. He teaches honesty because He is perfectly honest. But through the atonement of Jesus Christ, He can provide opportunities to His children to reconcile themselves
Me: Or does it mean that some way or some how, God will see to it that you will meet somebody you WOULD want to marry and who WOULD want to marry you, either this life or the next?
Melody: I'm not really sure how it works, but I imagine that it would be something akin to the latter.
Me: So, if a person decided to join the Mormon church, was beginning to get old, and was beginning to despair that he'd never find somebody suitable to marry, he shouldn't suffer any anxiety about not making it to the Celestial kingdom since God will give that person more opportunity in the afterlife?
Melody: exactly. let me quote one of our current apostles on the subject:
Melody: But what of the many mature members of the Church who are not married? Through no failing of their own, they deal with the trials of life alone. Be we all reminded that, in the Lord’s own way and time, no blessings will be withheld from His faithful Saints.32 The Lord will judge and reward each individual according to heartfelt desire as well as deed
Melody: from:
Melody: http://lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/celestial-marriage?lang=eng&query=celestial+marriage
Me: That makes it sound like marriage isn't even necessary to go to the Celestial kingdom, unless I'm misunderstanding him.
Melody: I think you're misunderstanding him. :)
Melody: it's because they are not married "through no failing of their own"
Me: Melody, let's say a faithful Mormon dies single, and he has to find somebody in the afterlife to marry if he wants to eternally progress...
Me: Between the time he dies and the time he marries, will he be able to hang out in the Celestial kingdom, or must he stay in one of the other kingdoms until he finds said wife and gets married?
Melody: neither. When we die, our spirits go to a place called "the spirit world." it is like a waiting room for the resurrection. All such things will be resolved before the resurrection. Again, I don't know how it works, because God hasn't revealed all things to us, but we do believe that sometime in the future, when we need to know, He will teach us.
Me: So all the ordinances have to take place while in the spirit world before the resurrection?
Melody: right. the final judgment is final
Melody: and that happens after we are resurrected
Me: That's why you have proxy baptisms?
Melody: exactly!
Me: Is there such a thing as a proxy marriage?
Melody: yes. we do perform proxy sealings
Me: INtersing.
Melody: :)
Me: Does a couple have to be married here on earth before they can have a proxy sealing?
Me: Like say two people get engaged, and one of them goes off to war and dies in battle. Can they be sealed?
Melody: that is typically how it works--we seal deceased married couples. If there are exceptions, they have to be approved by church leaders.
Me: Or what if only one of them has died?
Melody: I'm not sure
Melody: I think it would still require special permission
Me: That's an interesting question because what if there's a Mormon couple, and one of them wants to be sealed for eternity, and the other doesn't. The one who doesn't, dies. Then, the one who does has a proxy sealing. So the one who doesn't, doesn't have a choice. LOL
Me: It's like an eternal shotgun wedding.
Melody: oh, there's always a choice. work that is done for the dead can be accepted or rejected by the individuals that it is done for. :)
Me: Oh, I see. I'm sure that's a relief for some people.
Melody: I'm sure it is! haha...
Me: Give me a second to think. I think you've answered all my questions, but give me a second.
Melody: no worries. I'm in no rush.
Me: Okay, so let's say Jesus is going to return tomorrow, and I still haven't found somebody to marry. And I get in a car accident and die today. That leaves me one night in the afterlife to find somebody to marry for eternity, because once Jesus returns and the resurrection happens, my chance is over. Does mean if I don't married within that short amount of time, I have no chance of ever going to the Celestial Kingdom and becoming just like the Father?
Melody: not exactly. You are right that there will be many who are resurrected when christ comes again, however, not all people are resurrected at the same time. If God is merciful and just, He will give His children what they need.
Me: Oh, I see! That is very interesting.
Me: So, God could leave us in the spirit world indefinitely to give us time to perform the ordinances, right?
Me: Which means there is no one judgment day. There's different judgement days for different people depending on when they are resurrected.
Melody: not indefinitely, since ordinances (and proxy ones) require living people who have bodies
Melody: God will give you what you need
Me: Body those who are resurrected are living people with bodies, right?
Me: Body = but
Melody: :)
Melody: yes, however, while God is fair, there aren't loopholes
Me: I'm curious if people who have been resurrected and who live in the Celestial kingdom are able to perform proxy ordinances on those who are still in the spirit world and haven't been resurrected yet.
Melody: I don't think so
Me: OKay, well this has been really interesting, Melody, and I appreciate your time.
Melody: I'm glad we were able to chat today! you had some tough questions!
Me: In case you're interested, the reason I'm asking these questions is because I'm wondering if it's worth it to even look into Mormonism.
Melody: what do you mean?
Me: Okay, lemme explain.
Me: Let's say that Mormonism is true in everything it asserts.
Me: And let's say that I never get married.
Me: That would mean that if I convert to Mormonism, I'm really no better off than if I don't convert to Mormonism. Because from what I understand, as long as somebody is a fairly decent person (especially if they're a Christian attempting to follow Christ), then they will probably go to the Terrestrial Kingdom. But that's exactly where I'd go if I became a faithful Mormon and never got married. So if I'm never going to get married,it doesn't really matter for all practical purposes whether I ever convert to Mormonism or not. And if it doesn't matter, there's no point in expending a lot of effort in trying to find out if Mormonism is true.
Melody: ok. let me explain something to you really quick. because it doesn't seem like you've been understanding
Melody: 23 For we labor diligently to write, to apersuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by bgrace that we are saved, after all we can cdo.
Melody: if you accept the fulness of the gospel, and live it to the best of your ability, you will enter the celestial kingdom. period.
Melody: marriage in this life or not
Melody: the point is that you have to do the best you can
Me: Melody, i question whether anybody, Mormon or not, ever lives the fullness of the gospel to the best of their ability. We're all lazy from time to time. We all slack off.
Melody: yes, and then we can repent of our sins and be forgiven
Melody: that is why we need Jesus christ
Melody: Don't make the mistake that so many christians and mormons make in underestimating or undervaluing the saving power of JEsus Christ
Me: But if you must live to the best of your ability, then a person who slacks off can't go to the celestial kingdom simply because they haven't met the requirement. They actually have NOT lived to the best of their ability.
Melody: no. the best of your ability means that you do the best you can, and when you mess up, you do your best to repent and move forward
Melody: we aren't going to be perfect
Me: So you don't think anybody has the ability to be perfect?
Melody: Jesus christ was the only person to live a sinless life
Me: Let me back up. You said earlier: "if you accept the fullness of the gospel, and live it to the best of your ability, you will enter the celestial kingdom. period. marriage in this life or not. the point is that you have to do the best you can."
Melody: yes
Me: But you're not saying here that a person who tries but fails to get married will still be able to enter the celestial kingdom, are you?
Melody: I'm not sure I understand the question
Me: AFter all, I'm sure I could be trying a lot harder. I could be proposing to every woman I met. I could be breaking out the charm. So I'm not giving my best effort. I'm not doing all I can do.
Melody: haha. I don't think that's what it means. :)
Me: Well, you said as long as we do our best, we'll make it to the celestial kingdom. My question is: What if I do my best to get married, but fail. Will i make it to the celestial kingdom anyway?
Melody: ok. let me simplify everything that I've already said.
Melody: we are on this earth to do our best
Melody: we have to have faith in God and in Jesus Christ
Melody: we must desire to follow them above all else
Melody: "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Articles of Faith
Me: Melody, can you hang on? I've got to use the bathroom. I'll be right back.
Melody: "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." Articles of Faith
Melody: ok. sounds good.
Melody: just read what I'm writing in the meantime
Me: Okay, I'm back.
Me: Thanks for waiting.
Melody: basically, that means that living the gospel means that we have Faith in Jesus Christ and His atonement, we continually repent of our sins, receive the ordinances of baptism, and the gift of the holy ghost. this is what it takes to enter the celestial kingdom. We can do that much. If we create excuses for ourselves, then we are lying to ourselves.
Melody: Now, there is something else that you should know. There are levels, or degrees of the celestial kingdom. Those individuals who are faithful, but reject the opportunity to become married, (in the spirit world or whatever) will enter into the celestial kingdom, but will not progress eternally with their spouse.
Melody:
1 In the acelestial glory there are three bheavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the ahighest, a man must enter into this border of the cpriesthood [meaning the new and deverlasting covenant of emarriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an aincrease. (doctrine and covenants 131)
Me: Intersting. I hadn't heard that before.
Melody: that's because we're getting into deeper doctrine, that we don't typically go into on mormon.org
Melody: we like to keep things simple
Me: Is it possible to be married in the Celestial kingdom and for one person to progress but not the other?
Melody: no. after the resurrection, everything is final. all such issues will be resolved before
Me: Progression isn't automatic, though, is it? I mean isn't there more a person has to do while in the Celstial kingdom to progress?
Melody: I would encourage you to start at the basics, and work up, this is really deep, and too much speculation on deep topics without an understanding of the basics is dangerous because it leads people to "look beyond the mark"
Melody: right
Me: Okay. Well thanks, Melody. Is there anything else you want to talk about before we go?
Melody: if you are interested in learning more about eternal marriage, I would encourage you to check out the link I gave earlier, for the quote by Elder Nelson
Melody: or visit lds.org
Melody: I hope that helps!
Me: Okay. Well, hopefully the missionaries will come back. I gave them my number.
Me: You've been very helpful. Thank you very much.
Melody: that's great! I hope they come by soon!
Melody: sure thing! I've really enjoyed chatting with you!
Me: Have a nice day, and Merry Christmas!
Melody: Merry Christmas to you too!

Agent [Melody] is ready to assist you.
Melody: Hi, I'm Melody
Melody: How are you today?
Me: Hi Melody.
Me: Sorry, I was looking at a different web page.
Melody: no worries. :)
Melody: how can I help?
Me: Okay, I got a visit from a couple of missionaries a couple of days ago...
Me: And I've been thinking about some of the things we talked about.
Me: And it has raised a question for me.
Melody: great! I'd love to help. :)
Me: When we were talking, I was asking them what distinguished them from other people who consider themselves Christians but who are not Mormons.
Me: I was wanting to know what advantage there was to becoming a Mormon instead of just remaining a Christian, assuming that Mormonism is true.
Melody: ok
Me: One of them started talking about different levels of glory.
Me: He showed me a book with an illustration of the Celstial Kingdom, the Terrestrial kingdom, and the Telestial kingdom.
Me: So my question is about the Celestial kingdom.
Me: Although I don't remember what all was said, I remember getting the impression that becoming a Mormon would be the first step toward eternal progression--becoming more like the Father.
Me: So my first question is this: Do you have to become a Mormon before you can enter the Celestial Kingdom?
Melody: that's a good question. A person has to believe in and live (the best they can) the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints (mormon) and which church has been given authority from God to perform ordinances such as baptism.
Melody: Many people who are members of the church, but who aren't fully committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ won't enter the celestial kingdom,
Me: So, becoming a Mormon is part of living the fullness of the gospel?
Me: So it's possible to be a Mormon, but NOT enter the Celestial kingdom. Is that right?
Melody: "Mormon" is a nickname for members of the Church of Jesus christ of Latter-day saints.
Me: Yes, I understand that. That's how I'm using the word.
Melody: right, but that term would not have applied to the first Christians during Jesus's time, or the faithful members of God's church in Old testament times. That's why I feel like stressing that it is the part about obeying the fulness of the gospel, rather than being a "mormon".
Me: I like your name, by the way. I used to know a girl named Harmony. Wouldn't it be funny to have twin girls and name them Melody and Harmony?
Melody: :) good times.
Me: Oh, I see your point.
Melody: we believe that it's the same church, though
Me: Okay, wel for the sake of discussions, let's just assume that when we use the word "Mormon," we're referring to people who faithfully live out the gospel.
Me: That'll just make the dissuasion more simple, I think.
Melody: and we also believe that God will give all of His children the opportunity to learn the gospel, the fulness of the gospel and have the chance to accept or reject it before they are judged. So there are many people who will enter the celestial kingdom who didn't have the opportunity to join the church during their lifetimes.
Melody: sounds good. :)
Me: Yeah, we talked about that. They read me a passage in the Book of MOrmon that basically said if you hear the gospel int his life, you won't get a second chance in the after life. But if you never hear in this life, you'll get a chance in the after life. So everybody gets a chance, but they don't get two chances.
Melody: God will be fair. and He will judge our desires and our actions. :)
Me: But anyway, we're straying a little bit from where I wanted to go. Lemme ask you another question.
Melody: alright
Me: So, a person must live consistently with the fullness of the gospel to get to the Celestial kingdom...And only Mormons (though not all Mormons) live consistently with the fullness of the gospel (since only the LDS Church has the priesthood authority, etc.)...So, it seems to follow that you must convert to Mormonism (either in this life or the next) before you can go to the Celestial kingdom.
Me: Is that right so far?
Melody: I'd say that sounds pretty accurate. :)
Me: Hold on, I have to get my train of thought back. LOL I'm a little skater-brained.
Melody: no worries. take your time. :)
Me: Oh yeah. So, is going to the Celestial kingdom necessary for eternal progression? I other words, it is possible to go to one of the lesser kingdoms and still continue to progress in the afterlife?
Me: Scatter-brained, I meant.
Me: Or however you spell "Scatter"
Melody: hmm...that's a good question. I imagine that people in the lesser kingdoms will still be able to learn and grow in some ways, but they will be limited. They will not inherit a fulness of God's glory, so they won't be able to eternally progress.
Melody: no worries.
Me: I wish I knew a little more about what it means to eternally progress, but that would get us into a long discussion, probably. The way the missionaries put it, progression is all about becoming more and more like the Father.
Melody: exactly. let me see if I can find a verse that may help.
Me: Okay, so let's say that people in any kingdom can progress, but you have to go to the Celestial kingdom before you can progress all the way and become JUST LIKE the Father. Is that right?
Melody: 55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given aall things—
Me: What is this a verse from?
Melody:
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are agods, even the bsons of cGod—
59 Wherefore, aall things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
60 And they shall aovercome all things.
61 Wherefore, let no man aglory in man, but rather let him bglory in God, who shall csubdue all enemies under his feet.
62 These shall adwell in the bpresence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
Melody: 69 These are they who are ajust men made bperfect through Jesus the mediator of the new ccovenant, who wrought out this perfect datonement through the shedding of his own eblood.
70 These are they whose bodies are acelestial, whose bglory is that of the csun, even the glory of God, the dhighest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.
Melody: It's from Doctrine and Covenants section76
Melody: it's part of a revelation received by the prophet Joseph Smith
Me: Okay. I'll have a look at that later. I sometimes have to read things more than once before they sink in. But I have a copy of the D&C, so I can look at it.
Melody: I like analogies a lot, they help me to understand the concepts better. The kingdoms of Glory are compared to the Sun, the moon and the stars
Me: So, what other requirements are necessary to enter the Celestial Kingdom? Is it just living the full gospel? Or is there more?
Melody: and in 1 corinthians 15 we learn that we will be resurrected to different kinds of glory
Melody: I use this analogy to help correlate the two
Melody: when we are living the fulness of the gospel, our souls become full of light
Melody: but when we sin, or reject our faith, our souls can't hold as much light
Me: Yeah, I've heard the 1 corinthians 15 connection, but that isn't where this doctrine comes from, is it? I mean Paul talks there about celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies, but there's no mention of telestial bodies. So the Telestial kingdom must come from some other source.
Melody: not exactly. I don't know why Paul doesn't mention it. It is possible that consequent transcribers made a mistake and left it out, or that Paul had other reasons
Melody: but he does mention sun, moon and stars, as an analogy for the "brightness" of different kingdoms
Me: But is there another source in LDS scriptures that talks about this? I'm assuming there's a D&C somewhere that talks about these three separate kingdoms. I mean Paul doesn't even mention kingdoms. It sounds like he's just making an analogy between different heavenly bodies and the resurrection bodies.
Melody: right, because there is a correlation between the two. The judgment is not arbitrary. our actions have a direct consequence on the state of our souls, which consequences will be made obvious in our resurrected bodies
Melody: we are the greatest record of our lives
Melody: you know how sometimes you meet a person
Melody: and they are so good, you can just tell by looking at them?
Me: You mentioned earlier that baptism was part of living the fullness of the gospel and that there are other ordinances. Can you mention what other ordinances there are? You don't have to mention all of them if there are a lot. I'm just curious what a few others might be.
Melody: they shine a little
Me: I don't know if I can tell by LOOKING at somebody who good they are. I mean people thought Ted Bundy was a pretty swell chap. But you can tell by observing the way they behave. Is that what you mean?
Melody: I don't necessarily mean literally, and of course, people aren't perfect
Melody: I mean that some people seem to glow a little. They know who they are. they are confident, and happy. They have joy in their lives, even when things are hard.
Me: Yes, I've met people like that.
Melody: its kindof like that.
Me: Hmm.
Melody: and people who have had rough lives, who have committed all kinds of sin, they can seem like they are clouded by darkness
Melody: or a hardness
Me: Yeah, I see what you mean.
Me: It's like some people have an aura about them that you can sense when you're around them.
Melody: exactly. We will be the same person after we die--and I think that we'll still carry that "aura" with us.
Melody: does that make sense in terms of the resurrection and judgement?
Me: A little. It does raise a question, though. Are you saying the different kingdoms aren't actually different places or domains, but that they just represent different groupings of people--people who have different kinds of "aura's"?
Me: That's something else I've wondered about. Do people in different kingdoms mingle with each other? Do they all get to experience the presence of Christ? Or are they isolated from each other?
Melody: I think it's both. No unclean thing can dwell with God, so there will be a physical separation between God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, and those who have rejected them. (That is why Christ can visit the terrestrial kingdom and the Holy Ghost can visit the telestial kingdom).
Me: When you say they can visit the kingdoms, it makes it sound like the kingdoms actually ARE different places, and not just a way of talking about different states of being.
Melody: that's why I said it was both. :)
Me: Okay. Did you see the question I asked about ordinances?
Me: If you didn't see it, I can ask again.
Melody: yes. Baptism is the first ordinance, along with receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Men are ordained to the priesthood. Temple ordinances follow in time, ceremonies called the initiatory, and the endowment. the sealing ordinance is the final ordinance, which seals a couple together for eternity, and their children to them so they can be a family unit in the eternities
Melody: (Also in the temple)
Me: Are these ordinances part of what it means to "live the fullness of the gospel"?
Melody: yes.
Me: So eternal marriage is part of living the fullness of the gospel?
Melody: right. However, God also understands the circumstances that we are in. Marriage is not always an opportunity for some people. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all things that are unfair about our mortal lives may be made right. God will not deny eternal opportunities for those who sincerely follow Him.
Melody: basically, that means that if we dont' have the opportunity to get married in this life, God will give us the opportunity
Melody: to be sealed
Me: I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that if a person lacks an opportunity to fulfill one of the ordinances of the gospel, that they can enter the Celestial kingdom even without living the fullness of the gospel?
Me: Oh, so you're saying that after death, we still have an opportunity to get married?
Melody: the ordinances of the gospel are step by step, line upon line. A person must be baptized to get the priesthood, and must have those before going to the temple.
Melody: God will make all things that are unfair about life fair in the eternities
Me: Does a person have to go through ALL of the ordinances before you can say they lived "the fullness of the gospel"? Or only some of the ordinances required?
Melody: that's a good question. It goes back to the fairness of God. He will judge us according to our faithfulness and the opportunities we were given. For example, suppose a young woman dies when she is 17. She has been baptized, and has been as faithful as she can be. She loves the Lord and desires to follow Him.
Melody: but she hasn't been through the temple because she's too young
Melody: God will make it fair for her
Melody: I don't know all of what that means,
Melody: but I do know that god will deny none of His children who love Him and want to be faithful
Melody: and he will provide a way
Me: When you say God will make it fair for her, does that mean God will treat her as if she had gone through all the ordinances, or does that mean God will give her the chances to perform the ordinances in the afterlife?
Me: Okay, I'm with you.
Melody: or provide a way for those who are on earth to do the work vicariously for her
Melody: that is why we do work for the dead
Me: Well, let me ask you another hypothetical question, and if you need to speculate, that's okay. Or if you just want to say, "I don't know," that's okay, too.
Melody: ok
Me: Let's say you're a Mormon, and you go to a church where there aren't a lot of other singles...
Me: But there's one single girl who really digs you, but you don't dig her that much.
Me: And let's say that this girl would marry you if she had the chance. That means YOU have the opportunity to get married. But you choose not to.
Me: Would that satisfy God's fairness? If you don't marry this girl, and if she was your only chance, does that mean you won't enter the celestial kingdom? After all, at that point, God could say, "I gave you the chance to get married, and you chose not to."
Melody: that's a good question. It all goes back to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We are to do our best, and He will make the "rest" possible. As for this hypothetical young man and woman, it depends. Did he try? Did he seek the Lord's counsel through prayer and scripture study on the subject? Did he choose to not pursue a relationship with this woman because he honestly felt that he couldn't honestly have a relationship with her? or did he not because he just didn't really feel like it? There is a bit of a difference between someone who never finds the right person, and those who let opportunities pass by.
Melody: God teaches us to be honest in our dealings with our fellow men. I think it would have been much worse if the young man had married her dishonestly, saying that he loved and was committed to her when his heart wasn't in it
Me: In this scenario, let's say there's nothing really wrong with the girl. She's a descent person, a faithful Mormon, etc. The guy just isn't the least bit interested in her. Either he's not attracted to her, or he's gay, or he prefers being single, or whatever.
Melody: And again, God understands our hearts and our limitations.
Me: Does that mean God will treat the person as if he had gotten married and let him go to the Celestial kingdom?
Melody: Not exactly, because God is not a hypocrite. He teaches honesty because He is perfectly honest. But through the atonement of Jesus Christ, He can provide opportunities to His children to reconcile themselves
Me: Or does it mean that some way or some how, God will see to it that you will meet somebody you WOULD want to marry and who WOULD want to marry you, either this life or the next?
Melody: I'm not really sure how it works, but I imagine that it would be something akin to the latter.
Me: So, if a person decided to join the Mormon church, was beginning to get old, and was beginning to despair that he'd never find somebody suitable to marry, he shouldn't suffer any anxiety about not making it to the Celestial kingdom since God will give that person more opportunity in the afterlife?
Melody: exactly. let me quote one of our current apostles on the subject:
Melody: But what of the many mature members of the Church who are not married? Through no failing of their own, they deal with the trials of life alone. Be we all reminded that, in the Lord’s own way and time, no blessings will be withheld from His faithful Saints.32 The Lord will judge and reward each individual according to heartfelt desire as well as deed
Melody: from:
Melody: http://lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/celestial-marriage?lang=eng&query=celestial+marriage
Me: That makes it sound like marriage isn't even necessary to go to the Celestial kingdom, unless I'm misunderstanding him.
Melody: I think you're misunderstanding him. :)
Melody: it's because they are not married "through no failing of their own"
Me: Melody, let's say a faithful Mormon dies single, and he has to find somebody in the afterlife to marry if he wants to eternally progress...
Me: Between the time he dies and the time he marries, will he be able to hang out in the Celestial kingdom, or must he stay in one of the other kingdoms until he finds said wife and gets married?
Melody: neither. When we die, our spirits go to a place called "the spirit world." it is like a waiting room for the resurrection. All such things will be resolved before the resurrection. Again, I don't know how it works, because God hasn't revealed all things to us, but we do believe that sometime in the future, when we need to know, He will teach us.
Me: So all the ordinances have to take place while in the spirit world before the resurrection?
Melody: right. the final judgment is final
Melody: and that happens after we are resurrected
Me: That's why you have proxy baptisms?
Melody: exactly!
Me: Is there such a thing as a proxy marriage?
Melody: yes. we do perform proxy sealings
Me: INtersing.
Melody: :)
Me: Does a couple have to be married here on earth before they can have a proxy sealing?
Me: Like say two people get engaged, and one of them goes off to war and dies in battle. Can they be sealed?
Melody: that is typically how it works--we seal deceased married couples. If there are exceptions, they have to be approved by church leaders.
Me: Or what if only one of them has died?
Melody: I'm not sure
Melody: I think it would still require special permission
Me: That's an interesting question because what if there's a Mormon couple, and one of them wants to be sealed for eternity, and the other doesn't. The one who doesn't, dies. Then, the one who does has a proxy sealing. So the one who doesn't, doesn't have a choice. LOL
Me: It's like an eternal shotgun wedding.
Melody: oh, there's always a choice. work that is done for the dead can be accepted or rejected by the individuals that it is done for. :)
Me: Oh, I see. I'm sure that's a relief for some people.
Melody: I'm sure it is! haha...
Me: Give me a second to think. I think you've answered all my questions, but give me a second.
Melody: no worries. I'm in no rush.
Me: Okay, so let's say Jesus is going to return tomorrow, and I still haven't found somebody to marry. And I get in a car accident and die today. That leaves me one night in the afterlife to find somebody to marry for eternity, because once Jesus returns and the resurrection happens, my chance is over. Does mean if I don't married within that short amount of time, I have no chance of ever going to the Celestial Kingdom and becoming just like the Father?
Melody: not exactly. You are right that there will be many who are resurrected when christ comes again, however, not all people are resurrected at the same time. If God is merciful and just, He will give His children what they need.
Me: Oh, I see! That is very interesting.
Me: So, God could leave us in the spirit world indefinitely to give us time to perform the ordinances, right?
Me: Which means there is no one judgment day. There's different judgement days for different people depending on when they are resurrected.
Melody: not indefinitely, since ordinances (and proxy ones) require living people who have bodies
Melody: God will give you what you need
Me: Body those who are resurrected are living people with bodies, right?
Me: Body = but
Melody: :)
Melody: yes, however, while God is fair, there aren't loopholes
Me: I'm curious if people who have been resurrected and who live in the Celestial kingdom are able to perform proxy ordinances on those who are still in the spirit world and haven't been resurrected yet.
Melody: I don't think so
Me: OKay, well this has been really interesting, Melody, and I appreciate your time.
Melody: I'm glad we were able to chat today! you had some tough questions!
Me: In case you're interested, the reason I'm asking these questions is because I'm wondering if it's worth it to even look into Mormonism.
Melody: what do you mean?
Me: Okay, lemme explain.
Me: Let's say that Mormonism is true in everything it asserts.
Me: And let's say that I never get married.
Me: That would mean that if I convert to Mormonism, I'm really no better off than if I don't convert to Mormonism. Because from what I understand, as long as somebody is a fairly decent person (especially if they're a Christian attempting to follow Christ), then they will probably go to the Terrestrial Kingdom. But that's exactly where I'd go if I became a faithful Mormon and never got married. So if I'm never going to get married,it doesn't really matter for all practical purposes whether I ever convert to Mormonism or not. And if it doesn't matter, there's no point in expending a lot of effort in trying to find out if Mormonism is true.
Melody: ok. let me explain something to you really quick. because it doesn't seem like you've been understanding
Melody: 23 For we labor diligently to write, to apersuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by bgrace that we are saved, after all we can cdo.
Melody: if you accept the fulness of the gospel, and live it to the best of your ability, you will enter the celestial kingdom. period.
Melody: marriage in this life or not
Melody: the point is that you have to do the best you can
Me: Melody, i question whether anybody, Mormon or not, ever lives the fullness of the gospel to the best of their ability. We're all lazy from time to time. We all slack off.
Melody: yes, and then we can repent of our sins and be forgiven
Melody: that is why we need Jesus christ
Melody: Don't make the mistake that so many christians and mormons make in underestimating or undervaluing the saving power of JEsus Christ
Me: But if you must live to the best of your ability, then a person who slacks off can't go to the celestial kingdom simply because they haven't met the requirement. They actually have NOT lived to the best of their ability.
Melody: no. the best of your ability means that you do the best you can, and when you mess up, you do your best to repent and move forward
Melody: we aren't going to be perfect
Me: So you don't think anybody has the ability to be perfect?
Melody: Jesus christ was the only person to live a sinless life
Me: Let me back up. You said earlier: "if you accept the fullness of the gospel, and live it to the best of your ability, you will enter the celestial kingdom. period. marriage in this life or not. the point is that you have to do the best you can."
Melody: yes
Me: But you're not saying here that a person who tries but fails to get married will still be able to enter the celestial kingdom, are you?
Melody: I'm not sure I understand the question
Me: AFter all, I'm sure I could be trying a lot harder. I could be proposing to every woman I met. I could be breaking out the charm. So I'm not giving my best effort. I'm not doing all I can do.
Melody: haha. I don't think that's what it means. :)
Me: Well, you said as long as we do our best, we'll make it to the celestial kingdom. My question is: What if I do my best to get married, but fail. Will i make it to the celestial kingdom anyway?
Melody: ok. let me simplify everything that I've already said.
Melody: we are on this earth to do our best
Melody: we have to have faith in God and in Jesus Christ
Melody: we must desire to follow them above all else
Melody: "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Articles of Faith
Me: Melody, can you hang on? I've got to use the bathroom. I'll be right back.
Melody: "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." Articles of Faith
Melody: ok. sounds good.
Melody: just read what I'm writing in the meantime
Me: Okay, I'm back.
Me: Thanks for waiting.
Melody: basically, that means that living the gospel means that we have Faith in Jesus Christ and His atonement, we continually repent of our sins, receive the ordinances of baptism, and the gift of the holy ghost. this is what it takes to enter the celestial kingdom. We can do that much. If we create excuses for ourselves, then we are lying to ourselves.
Melody: Now, there is something else that you should know. There are levels, or degrees of the celestial kingdom. Those individuals who are faithful, but reject the opportunity to become married, (in the spirit world or whatever) will enter into the celestial kingdom, but will not progress eternally with their spouse.
Melody:
1 In the acelestial glory there are three bheavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the ahighest, a man must enter into this border of the cpriesthood [meaning the new and deverlasting covenant of emarriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an aincrease. (doctrine and covenants 131)
Me: Intersting. I hadn't heard that before.
Melody: that's because we're getting into deeper doctrine, that we don't typically go into on mormon.org
Melody: we like to keep things simple
Me: Is it possible to be married in the Celestial kingdom and for one person to progress but not the other?
Melody: no. after the resurrection, everything is final. all such issues will be resolved before
Me: Progression isn't automatic, though, is it? I mean isn't there more a person has to do while in the Celstial kingdom to progress?
Melody: I would encourage you to start at the basics, and work up, this is really deep, and too much speculation on deep topics without an understanding of the basics is dangerous because it leads people to "look beyond the mark"
Melody: right
Me: Okay. Well thanks, Melody. Is there anything else you want to talk about before we go?
Melody: if you are interested in learning more about eternal marriage, I would encourage you to check out the link I gave earlier, for the quote by Elder Nelson
Melody: or visit lds.org
Melody: I hope that helps!
Me: Okay. Well, hopefully the missionaries will come back. I gave them my number.
Me: You've been very helpful. Thank you very much.
Melody: that's great! I hope they come by soon!
Melody: sure thing! I've really enjoyed chatting with you!
Me: Have a nice day, and Merry Christmas!
Melody: Merry Christmas to you too!

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)