ABC Orders Standards

Hi! I'm back again. I came across some paper work from my old days as a Kingston (a polygamist group). They are called "ABC Order Standards" and I would like to post this for everybody to read and think about. While some of these can be good ways to live, the way they are used in the Kingston group is very hypocritical and is a way to keep people under control.

A is for Appreciation: I appreciate my life and all of the wonderful blessing and gifts my Heavenly Father has given me. (Are poverty and birth defects gifts?)

B is for Brother: I love my brothers and sisters and never raise my hand against them. (Now a man can beat his daughters, sons, and wives. Let's clear that up)

C is for Cherish: I cherish my membership in the Order and thank the Lord each day for this gift. Membership in the Order is like a hunting license: It doesn't guarantee anything, but gives you the right to hunt and seek for eternal life. (By hunting, they mean hunting for their next wife)

D is for Dress: I keep myself clean and dress in a modest way that is pleasing to my Heavenly Father. (Apparently Heavenly Father likes his kids in clothes 2 sizes to big)

E is for Eternal Life: I will put gaining eternal life first before anything else in my life. (Including a dependable roof over my children's heads)

F is for Form: I will wait to form any ties with a boy or girl until I receive my Heavenly Father's direction on marriage. I will save myself for the one I marry. (Unless my last name is Kingston or Gustafson and I see a hot 9 year old..)

G is for the Golden Rule: I will treat other people as I would want them to treat me. (You want other people to rape and beat you?!)

H is for Honesty: I never take anything that is not mine. If I ever borrow anything, I ask permission first, and I return it. (Can I have the title for your house? I'll give it back when you get to Heaven.)

I is for Incomings: I will let all of my incomings and outgoings be in the name of the Lord. I watch what I spend and avoid extravagance. (Again if your name is Paul or Daniel Kingston this one doesn't count)

J is for Janitor: I would rather be a janitor in the house of the Lord than a king in any other kingdom. (I was actually a janitor in the house of the Lord, and I'd switch for the King)

K is for Kiss: My first kiss will be on my wedding day with my husband or wife. (Again Exclude Kingstons and Gustafsons)

L is for Love: I will strive to love others as Jesus loves me. (I don't think you're loving like Jesus loved....)

M is for Marriage: I will ask my Heavenly Father for direction and guidance in choosing my future husband or wife. (Sometimes you get to find out who your husband is before you're even old enough to be legally married!!)

N is for Natural: A natural man is an enemy to God. (An unnatural man is pasty and has an aspirin head)

O is for Obedience: I obey my father and mother and those who are over me. (Paul and Daniel excluded)

P is for Prayer: I begin and end each day with prayer and remember my meditations. Prayer, meditation and the help of the Lord will help me make my decisions. (He also helps you find lost remote controls!)

Q is for Quality: I will improve the quality of my life by using my time for the benefit of others. (By others....I mean myself...)

R is for Resolve: It is my firm resolve and fixed purpose to give my all to the Lord; my time, my talents, all that I am or ever expect to be, to the establishment of Zion and the building up of the Kingdom of God upon this Earth. This is consecration. (Did Paul change his name to Lord...?)

S is for Speak: When I speak, the words that I say are clean and pure. I will not swear or use my Heavenly Father's name in vain. (God damn! I was never good at this one...)

T is for Truth: I always tell the truth. (Exclude Paul, Daniel, and David Kingston)

U is for Understanding: I will understand the feelings and actions of other people and not be quick to judge them. (I understand you're hungry, but I need to pay off this lien....Go collect the change from your couch and give it to me.)

V is for Voice: I listen to the still small voice within me. It tells me what is right and wrong. If I listen and obey, it will guide me every day. (Ok wait... is it Paul, Lord, or Still Small Voice?! I'm so confused...)

W is for the Word of Wisdom: I obey the Word of Wisdom and eat and drink only the things that are good for me and my body. I will never taste and alcoholic beverage or try any drug. I will never put a cigarette in my mouth. (Don't do any research on the Comfry plant. Ignore the part where it says it should never be ingested and it could cause liver cancer. Keep drinking it every day, especially when you get liver cancer)

X is for eXercise: I will exercise my mind and my body with clean thoughts and wholesome activities. (When they aren't wholesome Paul or Daniel will exercise their bodies and minds while they verbally and physically abuse you)

Y is for Youth: I will represent my mind and my body with clean thoughts and wholesome activities. (See X is for eXercise)

Z is for Zest: I do my work with zest and do more than I am asked to do. I thank the Lord each day for my opportunities and blessings. (Paul and Daniel appreciate all that hard work too...I know because they've got it stashed in their basements and under their beds in the form of gold and silver)

Thoughts on polygamy

Having grown up in a polygamous community I've thought a lot about the decriminalization of polygamy. It's such a major topic today, that I wanted to talk about it a little bit.

We've got both sides of the spectrum: Principle Voices and Tapestry Against Polygamy. Principle Voices wants to decriminalize polygamy so they can live their lives in "religious freedom". Tapestry Against Polygamy wants it to be illegal forever, and also wants it to be prosecuted. I would put my self in the Tapestry Against Polygamy category, and here's why.

If we decriminalize polygamy, we would be decriminalizing all the other crimes that happen in polygamous communities. The government has already ignored so many crimes that have occurred due to polygamy, that if it was decriminalized they would have no motivation to prosecute ANYTHING. Mark Shurtleff ignored many pleas for help from a number of polygamous members. He was told about underage incestuous marriages, given names, locations, and so much more, and his only reply to all of it was, "We need more evidence." He had piles and piles of evidence sitting on his desk and did nothing. If polygamy were decriminalized, what other motivation would any government official have to prosecute....especially if they're being compensated not to? (I am not saying anybody is being paid off, I'm just implying it)

Principle Voices says that they're happy with their lives, how they always have a babysitter, and they don't have to make dinner every night. That sounds great...but that's not reality. I know this because I grew up in a polygamous community. In reality, it's kind of like walking into the bathroom when the door is shut and the fan is on. You're pretty sure it's going to smell like shit, but you're going in anyway and you WILL persevere. With polygamy, "Happiness" is taught. You are taught to have that perma-smile on your face when you are asked about your life. Look into the eyes of the women claiming happiness and you can see the sadness. Can you imagine having to share your husband with at least one other woman? Can you imagine hearing your husband having sex with another woman, and being forced to be okay with it? Can you imagine trying to seem happy when that is going on plus much more. These women watch their husbands beat their kids, sometimes til they lose consciousness. These happy women are beat as well. So yes, they have live in daycare and they don't have to make dinner every night, but at what cost?

Let's talk a little bit more about some of the child abuse that occurs. I was in the Kingston group and am still in touch with some members and ex-members. I have heard their stories and they are horrifying. I will never mention names, but I will tell you examples. We've all heard about the major stories of abuse involving Daniel and David Kingston. Those can be looked up online. We've got the story of MN Kingston, who was beat til she lost consciousness and walked to a gas station to call the police on Daniel. She was beat because she didn't want to marry her Uncle David. David and Daniel both got jail time, but guess how much jail time they got? Daniel was in jail for 11 months, he got to leave jail to work during the day and knock up his nieces/wives/cousins whatever you want to call them (He had a cot in his office, not even joking a little bit!), and slept in jail at night time. David got 4 or 5 years for incestuous statutory rape. That's the story I'm sharing because it's available to the public.

Let's sum it up now. The ONLY way I would be okay with decriminalizing polygamy would be if it were between consenting adults who were not raised fundamentalist Mormon or even mainstream Mormon, if there was not threat of eternal torture hanging over the heads of the adults, and if those adults didn't reproduce and bring kids into that mess (So I'll never be okay with it, because none of those things will ever happen!). I'm writing this because I can't sit back anymore and see the government turn their backs on this. If they don't stand up and show the Kingstons and other polygamists that they are not above the law then I'll humiliate and piss them off! :)

Thanks for reading!
: D

From Mormon to Atheist

     I use to be a strong believer in God and Mormonism, I believed it to be true without a doubt, and something that most Christians and Mormons might have a hard time believing is that it was actually my strong faith in God, that faith without a doubt that brought me to Atheism. As a Mormon I strongly believed in the scriptures, I thought they were true word by word, well that the Book of Mormon was true word by word and the Holy Bible to be true as far as translated, due to it being translated countless amounts of times, and that it is believed by Mormons that the true translation has actually been lost. I always knew as a Mormon that God had to be the same yesterday, today and forever, for if he did something different he would cease to be God (see Alma 42:13 in the Book of Mormon), which brings me to how I became an Atheist. So there is a scripture found multiple times in the Holy Bible and in the Book of Mormon, and the thing is, if it is mentioned so many times, it has to be really important. Of course if only mentioned once wouldn’t make it less true, the scriptures have to be true word by word, especially in the Book of Mormon if it really was translated to perfection by Joseph Smith as the Mormons believe. I will quote one verse from the Book of Mormon, which in different words but with the exact same message is repeated throughout the Book of Mormon and the Holy Bible many times. The quote I’m quoting is in Mormon 9:21; which says, “Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth.” This verse has a lot of powerful points, I will quote it again, but this time with emphasis”Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, DOUBTING NOTHING, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth.” I had that faith, that very particular faith without any doubts, according to this verse, my prayers, which had nothing but good intentions, should have been answered and should have happened.

     Mormons believe in Modern Day Revelation, which includes that every individual also has the ability to receive personal revelations through the power of the Holy Ghost. Mormons believe that everybody can feel the Holy Ghost, everybody can receive personal revelation from time to time, but as a member of the Mormon church you receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which means that that individual person once a member of the church would have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion, so long that person is trying his or her best to live righteously. Now in the Book of Mormon in Moroni, this character Moroni gives a challenge to read the Book of Mormon and then to ask God in Prayer if the book is true or not, but after those verses in Moroni 10:5, Moroni explains “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” It literally explains that we can know all truths through the power of the Holy Ghost, which the Holy Ghost, as believed by Mormons is a mouth piece from God, and the scriptures do a very good job explaining that God cannot lie, because if he does, like I said before, God would cease to be God, therefore he cannot lie.

     Now, I’ve had my fair share of personal “revelations”, heck, I even had a dream that seemed so powerful that I thought it was a revelation from God because how symbolic it seemed and how angelic it was and also how powerfully I “felt” the Holy Ghost afterward. I really felt that the Holy Ghost was my best friend guiding me throughout my life, leading me to the right direction to where I needed to go in life. Now in the Holy Bible it explains what the Holy Ghost is, and how you can tell it’s the Holy Ghost (or the fruit of the Spirit) and nothing else, which is in Galatians 5:22-23; which says “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” Now, I’ve prayed many times for answers and what were to me at the time, needs, and received many “revelations” with all the “Fruit of the Spirit” mentioned in Galatians. And I believed without a doubt, whatsoever, I had 100% faith in all these things I asked for and I was 100% sure that God was going to grant unto me these promises that I had personally received through “revelation” by the Holy Ghost, so according to the scriptures, it was suppose to be true, it would have to be, or God would have to cease to be God, which would be impossible, because God can’t lie, therefore it HAS to be true, without a doubt.

     It turned out to be, everything that I had hoped for, all the things I believed to be true, being 100% sure, turned out to be nothing but lies. I was on a Mormon mission, something young men in the church usually do after turning 19, were they leave home for 2 years to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Something happened there while I was on that mission, something that scarred me for good, something that I just couldn’t understand, because I was so sure of it, I believed it to be 100% true, without any doubts, not one doubt would cross my mind, because I wouldn’t allow it, it brings tears to my eyes right now as I even think about it. I’m not really comfortable explaining what it was I was so sure about, but I will tell you this, it broke my heart in so many ways, it’s like my heart shattered into a million pieces of a broken mirror. It happened to so quickly, and I didn’t expect it, not one bit, only because of my 100% surety of what I thought was to be true, what was going to end up to be my turning point in life, what would help bring me to salvation, what would bring me forever happiness in life and the life to come. I believed it without a doubt that these things were true, that God had shown me glimpse of the future, but yet, it turned out to be nothing but lies. I couldn't handle it, I tried to stay strong, but I kept falling, it let me to depression and misery, I was in denial, and I couldn't let go for a whole year. That’s how long I was hurting, my heart ached, I was emotionally hurt for an entire year, non-stop, I didn’t get any breaks other than sleep (which also let to dreams sometimes that caused me pain as I slept), but when I was I awake, it felt like torture 24/7, I couldn't help but think about it. Well, this event started actually during the beginning of my mission, I was only out for a month or two, but I managed to finish the full 2 years, even though I was hurting so bad half of the time, 1 whole year out of the 2. I came to a time, to “ease” the pain, I came up with a conclusion, “God works in mysterious ways, and we can never understand what he really has in store for us and why he does what he does.” It was in a way, a type of denial, I believed in God so much (and there were many reasons for it too), that I ended up making an excuse. 

     Well the time came that I returned home from my mission, I finally I got see my family again after 2 whole years, which felt great after that long time, which I thought it [the mission] was worth it (now it’s just a great experience to me where I had fun, well on the second half at least, but now I also feel that I could have done better things during that time). I continued in the church strong, I was still a faithful member towards the church, I thought I had the truth right in front of me, and I believed that God actually had something else planned for me, I didn't know what, and I still couldn't understand why all those things “had” to happen while I was on my mission. Well, as time went on, (you might as well call me insane during this time, according to the definition of insanity, but religion will do that to you) the same thing happened over and over again, and I fell for it over and over again. Sure, these occasions weren’t as extreme and they were kind of spread out throughout time, they didn't happen one after another, but I was still foolish enough to fall for it every time. It was after a year and a half after my mission (early January of 2012) I was getting more concerned about myself and all things I was chasing after for that I thought were promptings from the Holy Ghost. Well shortly before that, I was watching a lot of “Penn and Teller: Bullshit” at the time, both being Atheist made me think about Atheism, now I was thinking “I couldn’t never be an Atheist”, I loved Penn and Teller, especially Penn (he’s like a hero to me today), the things he just said I was just in favor of, except being an Atheist, I excepted Penn being an Atheist, but I thought that I could never be an Atheist. 

     While I was concerned about myself and what I was chasing after, I was in Barnes and Nobles, and I know about Penn’s book “God, No!”, which I thought would be interesting just to look at, not to convert into Atheism, but just too look at, he’s a funny guy, heck, Glenn Beck even likes the book according to his review on the back of the book, he’s Mormon, it didn’t deconvert him. Well I opened the book, and one of the first things I read in the book was “If god (however you may perceive him/her/it) told you to kill your child—would you do it? If your answer is no, in my booklet you’re an atheist. There is doubt in your mind. Love and morality are more important to you than your faith………. If your answer is yes, please reconsider.” And no, I don’t have a child, at least not yet, but it made me think for a minute, “If I did have a child, would I?” and I came to the conclusion that I probably couldn’t, I probably could kill any person really (unless maybe they were really evil, but then probably couldn’t either) even if God asked me too, I was never a fan of somebody losing their life, just thinking about it makes me uncomfortable, I always feel weird and not right when someone I know or know of has passed away for whatever reason, I just don’t think I could do it. So that whole quote by Penn really got me to thinking, and it bloomed my way into Atheism. I thought about many many things, I also came to realize that this “Holy Ghost” was nothing but my own thoughts, when I thought it was telling me something I wanted (that comes in many different shapes and forms) or what I thought God wanted from me, even if I didn’t like it (it was that farfetched). But it all started to make sense to me; all these things that I thought to be true came nowhere else but from my own thoughts, my very own mind. That’s the day I first became an Atheist, the day I realized that God probably doesn’t exist, the day I stopped believing God whatsoever.

     It was while I was reading Penn’s book, “God, No!”, (I decided to purchase that book two weeks after being atheist) when I first heard and learned about “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins which I purchased shortly after reading “God, No!”. I was already an Atheist for a little over a month when I first started reading “The God Delusion”, but as I read that book, a lot of things started making more sense to me why there most likely is no God, and I just became a stronger Atheist. I can now make a pretty good debate on rather why God exist or doesn’t exist, both sides actually, but a lot more on the latter. I started watching documentaries by Richard Dawkins, like “Root of All Evil” (which I would recommend to anybody) and other discussions Richard Dawkins had that I saw mostly through youtube. I started to realize more and more how religion is poison to the mind, that it is actually poisonous to our brain and that it can make us do all crazy things just because we believe it. Of course I realized it from first-hand experience, I realized how badly my religion had poisoned my brain. I also realized that there is an antidote for this poison, an antidote that many people will refuse to take, because they are too hooked by their religion. I came to realize that religion is a drug, a drug just a bad a meth and possibly even worse, a drug that is so harmful, that the people using it don’t realize what they are doing to themselves. But I do know what the antidote is, and that is to just stop, to stop believing God completely, and you will recover 100% if you completely stop believing God and let go of your entire religion right away, without turning back, not even one step back. Move forward without believe, without any believe, and it cures you completely. I have come to realize how much it had cured me in no time, as soon as I made that turning point to leave my religion completely.

     Now my mother is still a true believing Mormon, and I know she just can’t let go of God, at least not now, she is just so sure he exists without a doubt. She’s actually fine with me being an Atheist, but she still preaches to me here and there, but when she does, I really just see more and more why this religion is such a big poison, and how badly it affects our minds. I know my mother means well, she’s happy where she is at, and all I want is for her to be happy. Her believe in God makes her happy and it is not my job to take that believe away from her, I’ll tell her my story, I’ve already told her some, but I’m not going to debate with her how there most likely is no God. Anyways, thanks for reading my story. If you are somebody who is going through or already have gone through similar things I went through, my hope is that my story has helped out in some ways and that maybe you even have learned a thing a or two about your own self.

On The Spectrum Between Moral Realism and Relativism

One of the topics that really started my gears turning towards my more modern analytic self was a discussion in a philosophy class about moral realism vs. moral relativism. There are, I think, some interesting ideas to be explored within here.

First, a definition of the terms is in order. Moral realism is a belief that morality is unchanging. The things that define a moral act are the same in America as they are in China, and the same today as they were in ancient times. Morals are, in short, universal. Moral relativism is often defined as the antithesis of moral realism; what is moral depends on the place and time. This is not to say that what is legal changes with place and time, but specifically says that what is good changes with the place and time. When in Rome, doing as the Romans do isn't just smart, it's also (potentially) morally good.

To a theist (or to one indoctrinated by theism as a child), moral realism is often a default assumption. After all, why would we still be following those Ten Commandments from so long ago, if morality is ever-shifting with the times? Also supporting the default of such a stance is the use of absolute language within many religions: “their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever“. Eternal reward and eternal punishment only really make sense if ones’ actions remain good or bad eternally. If morality changes, then it would make more sense to only reap your reward until your actions are no longer moral with the times. And while there are some fascinating ideas there about your actions leading to cycles between existing in heaven and in hell, that discussion is for another day.

Another thing that draws people towards the default of moral realism is the “slippery slope” of relativism. For many, certain acts like rape or slavery are so bad, so evil, that they cannot condone any belief in which such a thing could ever be a moral act.

One of the things that I feel confuses the issue is the way that these concepts are presented. They are often taught (as they were to me) as a dichotomy. Either the universe is morally realistic, or morally relativistic: it’s one or the other.

For me, however, I do not see a system where there are only two answers. Whenever I am presented with only two choices, my default response is to seek a third. Just as Richard Dawkins presents a spectrum of beliefs between theism and atheism in his book, so too do I envision a spectrum existing between Realism and Relativism. And as a nod to Dawkins, I will attempt to present some possible moral views, laid out as a spectrum between the extremes.

1. Complete Moral Realism. This is the type that is usually presented in philosophy books; there is one set of defining morals, and those morals are absolute and unchanging. They might even be part of the fabric of the universe, for they are as unalterable as the cosmological constants of physics.

2. Mostly Morally Realistic. There are a couple of ways this one is (probably) most often applied. The first is to believe that the mutability of a moral is directly tied to its importance. In other words, the small and unimportant morals might change over time, but the big and important ones are unchanging. Caffeinated drinks might change morality, but the Ten Commandments never will.

The other way to take this stance is to believe that morals are only changeable by God’s Will.   This is the belief that god is the only exception to the immutability of morals, so that whenever he changes his mind, the morality of specific actions also changes. This is another popular view among theists, since almost every single religion has had its rules and doctrines change over time. The God Exception essentially lets them believe in the immutability of morals in the face of the history and the reality of their chosen church.

3. The 50/50 Split. Obviously, a moral agnostic would reside here. But aside from those that refuse to form (or give) opinions on the matter, this category would also be occupied by believers of what I like to call Dynastic morality. For such a believer, morals are largely fixed within the confines of any specific society. But those morals are modified by any sufficiently large changes in a society, such as a change in government type or the proliferation of a new technology that drastically alters how people live their lives. When the dynasty falls, so do its morals. There is obviously a lot of wiggle room in here. One person might believe that the morals of the US are largely unchanged for as long as the Constitution still stands, while another might believe that the spread of the Internet (and other forms of international communication) is combining the moralities of (formerly) separate regions into a single global morality.

4. Relativism With A Few Exceptions. This is a stance where most morals depend on the circumstances, with an admission that there are a few morals that simply do not change. Rape and slavery will always be Wrong. Altruism and selflessness will always be Right. But outside of a few absolutes, the rest depend on the “where”s and the “when”s, the “how”s and the “why”s.

5. Absolute Moral Relativism. This is the slippery slope that prevents many from embracing relativism. Each and every individual event will have its own different set of morals. The individual details of every event will be different, and these details matter, because they determine what is and is not moral. Any action can be moral, if the circumstances surrounding it justify the action.

As the descriptions imply, not too many people actually populate numbers 1 and 5; most people will be either a 2 or a 4. Which begs the natural (for this post) question: where do I lie? It’s not quite as clear-cut as you might think.

When I took the philosophy course that discussed this topic, I ended up writing a term paper on this very subject. I had to spend a lot of time considering the consequences and implications of different stances, and I ended up rejecting position 1; my arguments also largely sink number 2. The details are a bit long to list here, but I may post an updated version of the paper sometime if there is interest.

Okay, so wholesale Realism is out, but what flavor of relativism am I? If I use my imagination, can I come up with a situation where rape or slavery might be a morally good action to commit? I like to think that I could, if I really wanted to. Will such a situation ever happen in this world? No. And if it will never actually happen, then my ability to conjure up a scenario means little. So while I might be near a 5 in theory, in practice I’m more like a 3.5. Where do you fall in the spectrum, and why? Feel free to post your thoughts and opinions.

On the ontological argument for god

My Genesis friend was trying to convince me of god’s existence (he would probably claim he’s only trying to explain his position on the matter, but I digress). His belief seems to hinge, at least moderately, upon the ontological proof of god.

The way he described it to me, it goes like this:
Axiom 1: Good and Evil exist.
Axiom 2: God is the sum of all Good, or the greatest possible Good. (can be a mathematical concept, no consciousness required)
Followed by a logic proof showing that if those two concepts are accepted, then the existence of god is a logical requirement.

According to my friend, the logic proof part of the argument is bullet-proof, and nobody ever attacks it; the attacks are always on the axioms. Furthermore, he says that the 2nd axiom is solid, and that the first one is the only real line of attack people take. I had a few problems with his argument, but seeing as how I’m not a good debater (I’m not quick on my feet), I didn’t think of the problems right away, or did not articulate them well. But there are some issues here.

Outside of the ontological argument (which I will get to), he followed the logical proof by “If god exists, then what traits must he have?” And yet, he admitted not a minute beforehand that the “god” defined in the proof was essentially a mathematical concept, not requiring the supernatural. Where did this incredibly large mental leap come from? This is precisely the sort of thing agnostic atheists have problems with when discussing religion. A mathematical construct, like a matrix containing a largest set of Good, is precisely that: a mathematical construct! The existence of a math concept doesn’t mean it exists out in the physical world. Where in the world is the number 5? And I don’t mean 5 apples, or 5 people, but the concept of 5. Where does the concept of happiness exist in the physical world? Where is supercalifragalisticexpialadocious? And more to the point, how is the bridge being crossed from the concept of a mathematical construct called “god”, to the more popular definition of god? Even if such a concept could be shown to physically exist, there’s still a huge leap between it existing and it having consciousness, let alone omnipotence or omniscience. I think probably that he started out with the preconceived notion that a Christian God exists, and then used something that he came across that agreed with that opinion to support said original opinion; that’s bad reasoning, and is explicitly discouraged in science.

Also problematic is that the ontological argument does not seem to be what he claims it is. None of the variations of the ontological argument that I’ve seen seem to match what he says; if it is such a good proof, and so many philosophers out there know it (if they are all attacking Axiom 1, then it must be known), then it stands to reason it would be included in the collection of ontological arguments.

Based upon the content of each ontological argument, he is probably referring either to a variation on Gödel’s or Plantinga’s arguments. Gödel’s argument is the less likely of the two; although it appears to be laid out in the form of a logical proof, it contains 6 Axioms, and at least 4 of them appear (to my eye) to have serious assumptions within them that make any outcome shaky at best.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

I can see how this axiom would be tempting to agree with at first; dark is not light, positive numbers are not negative numbers, etc. But the wording is too loose, I think. The wording, as-is, could be used to argue that someone that is not right-handed is not a person, for instance. If you claim that right handed people are positive, then it would follow that left handed people are the opposite of right handed people, and therefore are not positive. Even if you stick to very strict interpretations and uses of this axiom, I’m still not sure that it’s true. In my mind, there is a lot of debate to be had here.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive.

Here I will simply disagree. Helping others could certainly be viewed as Good, but by this axiom helping Hitler would be good, since he is a person. Or look at the pruning of plants; if either fostering or restricting growth is defined to be Good, then taken to its logical extreme, the results would clearly be something that is not Good. This axiom implies a stark Black-and-White view of the world that I simply do not believe to be the case; most things exist as a spectrum, and “opposites” are not so easily defined within the real world.

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.

Sure, I’ll let this one slide. That’s not necessarily the definition of God-like that most people use, but outside of that it’s just a definition. Call it what you like.

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.

Once again, I would disagree. Back to pruning; if promoting growth is Good, then by this axiom promoting growth must always be Good. And yet, there are times when pruning is more helpful than letting the plant run wild. This axiom also implies a stark Black and White view that I don’t often agree with.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.

Bull. I’m not saying that it absolutely is not positive, but to throw out something like that with absolutely no justification is lazy at best, a straight up lie at worst. I could just as easily say, The Color Purple Is Necessarily Positive. It holds no meaning.

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

If helping others is Good, then having to help other is Good. This has two problems. The first is that it relies completely on the premise of axioms 4 and 2; indeed, this is mostly just a rewording of that axiom (Black and White, once again). Second, the “necessarily” part adds huge implications in regards to Free Will. It’s essentially a claim that says that having no choice in the matter does not affect it’s Goodness. To this I would disagree on principle. If free will exists, then removing it can certainly have moral impacts. Whether or not Free Will exists at all is, of course, a whole other can of worms.

Those are arguments that took less then 5 minutes to think up, and this is just in dealing with Gödel’s Axioms, without even delving into the actual logic proof. Needless to say, I’m not particularly impressed.

The other closest argument that I found that seemed similar to my Genesis friend's would be Plantinga’s argument. This one seems even flimsier to me. Here is a version of his argument:

1. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
2. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
3. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
4. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Oh, where to begin? Part 3 relies on something called Axiom S5. What this axiom basically says is that if something is possible, then its possibility is necessary. This is far from a solid conclusion, in my opinion. It’s a deep thought, and an argument in support of it could certainly be crafted, but the outcome is far from certain, in my opinion. It strikes me as a very hard to disprove (or prove) opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. Hardly the sort of bullet-proof logic that Proves the existence of the supernatural.

But Plantinga takes S5 even further with part 4, arguing that if something is necessary, then it must exist. When combined with axiom S5, it says that anything that has the possibility of existing must exist. Therefore unicorns are real, as is Harry Potter and magic. It’s possible that I could become a billionaire tomorrow, therefore it must be so. Tomorrow also marks the day we all die from thermonuclear war, since that has the possibility of occurring.  It’s possible that I have cancer right now and don’t know it; therefore, I must have cancer. It's also possible that I don't.

Hopefully these silly examples serve their purpose in pointing out the absurdity of arguments 3 and 4 together. You could certainly try to narrow down where the breakdown of logic occurs, but even without further fine tuning it is clear to see that something has gone horribly wrong; this cannot possibly be true.

And these were the only ontological arguments that even came close to my Genesis friend’s claims. I plan on asking him to look up his argument next time, but I’m not holding my breath. Despite his claims to the contrary, he isn’t truly looking for a rational argument; he just wants to be right. But personally, I have found my best-formed opinions (to date) have come from the result of being proven wrong, and having to take the time and effort to re-evaluate. Not being right, while awkward in the short term, is a good growing tool. I hope he is open to its use, even though I suspect he is often not.

UPDATE: I had a chance to talk to my Genesis friend about my results. He verified that he was referring to Gödel’s ontological argument, but seemed unaware that the argument contained six axioms. He decided that it must have been a modified version of Gödel’s argument that he came across way back when, and expressed interest in how I found "holes" within the axioms. Weeks have passed, and I haven't heard back from him. I rather suspect that his foundation on the ontological argument is similar to the faith he had in the Order of Creation: he heard it once, it sounded good to him, and he never bothered to do his homework before spreading it along. Perhaps I wouldn't be as bothered by that if he weren't about to get a PhD in a hard science field.

On the Religion of Science

Recently, my Genesis friend (see earlier post) tried to use the angle on me that science is essentially the same as religion. Science books are our Holy Texts, and anything written within them, we accept without question as the True and Complete Word, completely on faith. We don’t go out and do the experiments ourselves, we just accept that it’s true. He also pointed out that in many areas of bleeding-edge research (what grad students do), the experiments performed will probably never be repeated by anyone, and at that point the accepting on faith of what they say really does depend on the researcher’s character and whatnot, and the Truth of the experiment is questionable.
At first, I can certainly see where he’s coming from. At the level of doing research for graduate school, many of the experiments being done out there are singular, and not likely to be repeated explicitely. But I assert that there is a big difference between the religion of Science, and the religions of God.

While some science experiments may not be repeated again, many of them in fact are repeated. Any result that is a foundation of sorts to our modern technological advancements has been repeated, and usually quite often. Photoelectric effect? Been done thousands and thousands of times. Not only have the experiments fundamental to current science been often repeated, they usually have very strong agreement with the original experiment and with subsequent experiments. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity? There have been experiments both old and new that verify General Relativity to a very close degree. And the journals and the papers still exist; even if I don’t do the Millikan Oil Drop experiment myself, I can still look up results from others, and see the agreement.

Also worth mentioning is that in the higher sciences (physics, chemistry), the foundation results usually have mathematical derivations. You can literally work out the math yourself, and see what it comes back as. In a sense, you could think of all those homework problems as being ‘experimental’ verification.

And how does the religion of God work in these matters? Not so well, I’m afraid. Take a rather simple experiment: pray to God to see which religion out there is the True Religion. This experiment has certainly been done countless times over the years. And what results come back from these experiments? Does everyone who ever sincerely tries this end up a mormon? Certainly not, as I can personally attest to. Usually, the Catholics receive verification that Catholicism is true, Muslims get a verification that Islam is true, and Jews get back the verification that Judaism is the One True Religion. Or in my case, nothing at all. See all the contradictions in the experiment? This is in stark contrast to science, where the results tend to agree quite strongly over and over. Just because we haven’t gotten around to re-testing every single experiment ever does not mean that the things we have re-tested are somehow not in agreement. That agreement, incomplete though it might be, is something that makes science better than religion.

Another distinction that I would personally point out is the necessity to investigate further in Moral matters.  For many people, science falls into the category of  ”Information That Doesn’t Affect My Daily Life” (it indirectly affects them far more than they think, but let’s ignore that for now). The point is that for many people it’s just information, and has no effect on their morals; they aren’t out there killing people because of the level of scientific knowledge that people do or do not possess. Ah, but you say, what about those crazies that do go around harrassing others because of such things? For those people, it has transcended the level of information, and has become something that affects their morality.

For simple information that has no effect on your daily life, a lack of rigor (verifying results, doing the experiments yourself, etc) can be understandable. But if it’s something that affects your morals, something that changes who in your eyes is Good and who is Evil, who deserves praise and who deserves scorn, then you have an obligation to apply more rigor to your stance. Any flaw in your line of thought will have larger consequences due to its affect upon your morality, so you need to make sure to find any flaws that may be there. If science doesn’t affect your morals, then it is far more forgivable to take it on faith compared to something that has a definite effect on your morals.

The moral implications of religion is precisely what makes religious faith less acceptable than scientific faith. Religion has repeatedly shown to have a very large impact on how people view their morals, and as such it needs to be held to a higher standard. If people are going to kill for it, then it needs to be on even more solid footing than anything else; prove to me that there really are WMDs before marching in.

So in my mind religion, due to its impact on morality, needs even more compelling evidence than science, and is even less deserving of faith than science. So how come all of the ‘evidence’ that one finds on religious matters are precisely the types of objective, personal accounts that are considered to be so unreliable in science as to be practically worthless?  When I say that my beef with religion is the lack of evidence, this is precisely what I mean. Any issue that decides your morals needs to be held to a higher standard, and religion simply doesn’t stand that high. To paraphrase the saying, the reason I don’t believe in religion is because I’ve never found one that’s up to my high standards. For something that important, compelling and reliable evidence is a necessity. To take something that important on faith is frankly a ghastly, Immoral act.

Science for Exmormons

Legends Bar and Grill

677 South 2nd West, Salt Lake City, UT

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

All ages are able to attend, despite alcohol being served. This will take place in the Legends banquet hall. 6:30-7pm, mingle 7-8:15pm, science lectures We're going to have multiple science presentations by some of the people in our group (Brian Jolley, Barlow, Randy Parry, Elwin Bassett?, Jonathan Montgomery). The talks will go through the stellar formation of the universe, the vastness of space, modern biology, modern physics, and a look at earth and its future. Beth will be our gracious host. So come, grab a beer, and learn about the past, present, and future of the earth and science.