4.30.2013

This kind of Mormon

Every LDS person is encouraged to become a profound theologian. Becoming such necessitates a heavy commitment to active study ‘in theory, in principle, in doctrine’ to search out the weighty matters of time and eternity, which include the basic questions of the philosophers. The imperative ‘study it out in you mind’ is a standard for all LDS persons, not just for academics. 
-Encyclopedia of Mormonism

4.23.2013

Clipping Armistice

-->
I feel angry and frustrated, so frustrated. And it’s not because I’m a ginger. It’s because they don’t see things the way that I do.  I see some of the others, most of the others, as lazy, uninformed, comfortable, brainwashed and spoon-fed. Habitual thinkers. I see a wave of people caught up in the wave of the crowd being pushed around like sheep in a heard. Blissfully ignorant, lemmings as it were. This is a group that dismisses and shoves ugly and mystery under the rug. I see a population blind to what is accessible to them, and in return receive a pat on the back for being so “faithful”. This is an organization that I am a part of, oddly enough, and one that I have been participating in for many years. 
I have certain biases that I carry toward my faith and the culture around it.  Some aspects are admittedly admirable and I adore about our culture. Who can say that casseroles and hand delivered thank you notes are anything but an innocent and loving act? Or that green jell-o, however revolting it might be, is the worst thing in the world?  It’s kind of cute to say “Oh my heck”, instead of “oh my hell” isn’t it?  It’s admirable how dedicated Mormons are to service, and providing humanitarian aid for those in need around the world.  Mormons have a deeply rooted value in family connections across generations. There are many other aspects about Latter-Day Saint members that I greatly respect. The value of participating in a community that comes with participating in a religion is noteworthy. 
We all carry prejudices and biases in one form or another. It’s always a difficult process to objectively look at one’s own biases. It takes a certain level of honesty and internal reflection to come up with answers. In the process of dissection and categorizing, identifying internal and external influences that shape prejudices proves a difficult path.  Following my continual moment of reflection, it appears to be obvious that I carry many prejudices.  All of which are hypocritical I’m sure, elitist and ultimately apathetic. What experiences lead me to feel and think this way about this certain group of individuals?
Let’s first pause and agree that the less exposed an individual, to a particular group, the less informed the person is.  To form any substantial conclusion about a particular group or individual, one must spend the proper time and effort to observe and participate.  A scientist would only make a hypothesis after having observed or experienced phenomena several times before, and after many repeated trails and experiments, the scientist reaches fairly concrete conclusions.  An individual that has years of experience exposed to a certain group, has, let’s say, more leverage.  By simply stating that you carry a bias for a particular group because you haven’t been exposed to them is a cop out and a weak reflection on your part.  Let’s add then, to the information you already know about me, in hopes of proving that I have some weight in the discussion about Mormon culture.
I grew up in Centerville, Utah.  Aside from the In-and-Out burger, one might identify Centerville as the city with lovely landscapes in the hill hugging residents of a wind-blown city.  97% of C-ville-ites are Caucasian, most middle to high-class well off Republicans.  Centerville, not actually centrally located in the Beehive state is a blessed suburbia, and that’s not meant to be facetious, 20 minutes north of Salt Lake City.  In Salt Lake resides the headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Utah is predominantly a religious people, of Latter-Day Saint faith, or Mormon, and has been across many generations. I experienced a homogenous upbringing to say the least, born into the church, surrounded by the cultural influence of Mormonism. 
As I have 24 years worth of experience, in exposure to Mormonism, I’d like to think that my prejudices and biases around this group of people is somewhat more informed than my biases towards other groups. Worthy of note--the more soaked you are in a particular culture, the harder it is to step outside and examine it objectively wringing out biases drop by drop.  This proves to be a tricky task, and a slow process, but one that is worthwhile.
My biases towards and against my own religious culture perhaps stem from various factors, my personality being one of them.  For one thing, I hate being told what to do.  Secondly, I would not consider myself a follower, or more accurately a conformer, and I don’t want to be, I can be at times, but I don’t want to be that way.  To a certain extent you are what you hope to be, I hope to be courageous enough to stand up, even when I might be alone.  Because of this, I feel alone, profoundly alone.  I feel as if I’m a rarity as a “black sheep” and just as rare are the few other “black sheep”. I can’t discuss my deepest thoughts and concerns about Mormon thought.  I never want to burden the naïve or sheltered with the reality of suffering I see in the world. Yet I ache for them to address each chapter carefully like I hope to.  I would hate to harm another with the trouble and burden of unanswerable questions I have constantly tracking through my mind, to be as a “gadfly” as Socrates self-proclaimed. Feeling alone is not a positive emotion; it’s a negative one, and I don’t like feeling it. This is the poignant part. Emotion drives prejudice, perhaps in a stronger and more real, intimate and private sense, than other influences do.  Maybe my prejudice towards those that don’t think about things like I do, and don’t ask the sorts of questions I do is part of my personality.  I’m one that has a tendency for inquiry.  I’m also not a bull-shitter by any means, I’m a straight shooter, I refuse to bear witness of something that I don’t know. All of these personality traits of mine, and the emotions that I feel can cause friction in my relationship with religion and larger organizations in general, and may sway my perceptions of who Mormon people are and where they are at in their quest for truth. 
My biases come from the influence of others around me as well.  Those that I look up to and respect have impacted my views; my mother in particular has been a support and catalyst in my growth process. Other family members also have influenced my biases against my own culture. Friends, ward members, bloggers, tweeters, Facebook groups, authors, church leaders, scholars, and many other people--strangers even, have impacted my thoughts and feelings.  I can think of countless occasions when I have been either uplifted or disturbed by the comments of others within my religion. 
Humans are complex, fluid beings, and nothing can be more stimulating to complexity than combining several millions of them together under one giant Mormon umbrella. Just as everyone else is on a different road, or level of growth, I am subject to the same.  I may change and move and grow, and quite frankly hope to do so throughout my entire life. 
I can’t help but think that there are always two sides to every coin.  There is always going to be black and white, but there will always be many shades of rainbow colored gray’s in between.  Good and bad will always exist within every large organization, in every group, and within every individual.   I am a part of an organized religion, with that comes the good and the bad.  And I cope with it. What weighs the most is what you choose to give weight; It’s a matter of choosing how you react to your environment however fluid it may be.  I’m not one of “those” Mormons, I hope to never be one of “those” Mormons, but I am one of those Mormons.



4.18.2013

Summer Checklist



Read
The Poisonwood Bible
The Alchemist
The Attributes of God
The God Who Weeps
The Foundation Trilogy
Naked Hike
Bike Bike Bike
Fireworks
Love
Ask
Trips to National Parks
Oregon
Grad School thoughts hashed out
Lagoon
Pass of all Passes
Ballet Class
Wes Anderson
Learn to cook something
Make a new friend
Work hard
Go to art shows
So many concerts
Paint
Piano
Discover new music at the library
Love people
Build faith
Build something
Floss
Eat more and more veggies



4.15.2013

Two Arguments For the Existence of God



Descartes has to begin with his own ideas, this in a sense, is where all rationalists have to begin, Descartes is a rationalist.  Rationalists think the structure of the mind is the structure of reality and by the mind alone we can acquire knowledge.  Descartes has two arguments to rationalize the existence of God.  Descartes provides one of his arguments for the existence of God in Meditation III.  There, Descartes claims that are only three kinds of ideas, innate, adventitious, and factitious. Ideas are effects.  Because they are effects, they must have a cause.  The idea of God is an effect.  The effect cannot be greater than the cause.  The idea of God was put into us by a greater cause, God, proving that God exists.

We are born with innate ideas, adventitious ideas come from a source outside of ourselves through sensory experiences, and factitious ideas are self-produced or made up. Once you have thought of an idea, you cannot unthink it; this is the principle of natural light that Descartes speaks of.  For example, I have thought the thought of God, once I have thought it, I cannot erase it.  Now that I have thought of the idea of God, where did the idea come from? What caused it?   

In Descares’ principle of sufficient reason, he states there must be as much reality in the cause as in the effect to make something reasonable and true. The effect cannot be greater than the cause, if so, there must be another cause effecting the effect.  To illustrate this, imagine a baby on a scale. The baby weighs 10 lbs.  The scale is properly functioning and accurately reads weight.  The cause is the baby being set on the scale, and the effect is the reading of 10lbs.  Seconds later you put the baby on the scale again, and the baby now weighs 20lbs. At once one would assume that there is another cause or weight being set on the scale to result in an effect so great. It would be absurd to think otherwise.  There must be a cause equal to or greater than the effect in order to be reasonable or true.       


My ideas are the effect of any given cause; the cause of my ideas then must be greater than my ideas. Descartes proposes that the idea of God as an effect, must have a cause of equal or greater value to God. Of necessity, Descartes must define God here. God is all possible perfections; there is none greater than God.  Descartes establishes God as a “He”, characterized as perfect, immutable, infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, independent, and the creator of all things.  What is the cause of the idea of God?


Descartes argues that God is the cause of the idea of God. Remember the three types of ideas Descartes proposed, one being adventitious ideas; these are empirical, sensory, and finite in nature.  Human beings are made up of finite material, and cannot possibly understand that of the infinite world because our mind cannot apprehend that which is infinite. Our mind cannot comprehend the concept of eternity or what it is like to participate in the 4th dimension, or beyond, for example. The idea of God is not an adventitious idea, then, it must be one of the other two types of ideas. Factitious ideas or self-produced ideas are limited in terms of apprehending or creating the idea of God, there is no possible way that one could make up the idea of a being like God, because of the nature of it.  Human rationale is limited.


By process of elimination, this leaves the last type of idea, innate ideas.  The idea of God is an innate idea humans were born with.  God is the cause of the idea of God in all of us, because of the principle of sufficient reason.  God is the cause of the idea because the effect cannot be greater than the cause. Someone or something had to put the idea of God into us, therefore, God exists, the cause of the idea.


In Descartes’ second argument for the existence of God is found in Meditation V. Descartes states the principle of clearness and distinction.  The principle of clear and distinct ideas is that if I clearly apprehend something to belong to an object, it truly does.  It does belong because you cannot think about one object without necessarily thinking about the characteristics of it.  Meaning, the characteristics truly belong to the object.  For example you cannot think of fire without necessarily thinking of its characteristics of light and heat.  Fire would cease to be fire without these necessary traits.  Light and heat in its most natural form are necessarily in association with fire. Therefore, while thinking clearly and distinctly about fire, one comes to realize that light and heat truly belong to fire, and vice versa.


When I am thinking of God, I’m thinking of the being with all possible perfections, including existence.  Existence is a perfection, existence is better than not existing.  So when you think of God, you necessarily think of an existence of God.  To say that God does not exist is a contradiction in terms. How do you know God is not a deceiver?  What is deception? Deception is a defect, an imperfection, and by definition God is perfect, so God cannot be a deceiver, otherwise it would be a contradictory claim.