Hales-Vogel #2
The following correspondence occurred between Brian Hales and Dan Vogel discussing several different topics. It is reproduced here with Dan’s permission.
From: Brian Hales
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013
To: Dan Vogel
Subject: not lukewarm
Hi Dan,
I hope you are doing well. Will you be at MHA/Sunstone/JWHA?
I think I marvel, with many others, at the incredible energy you expend with these videos, books and articles. It may be an insult to you, but I think we actually have something in common, an inner drive to complete a work that is not involved with financial remuneration or the honors of men.
I imagine that you (and those who actively support your efforts) understand your position in the bigger scheme of things. If it turns out that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of the living God, then your labors and products may be deemed as perhaps the most sophisticated of all oppositional endeavors this planet ever experienced.
On the other hand, if Joseph was an imposter, you may be remembered [supposing there is an afterlife] as giving great service to redirect the errant Latter-day Saints away from his deceptions.
Regardless, no one will accuse you of being lukewarm on Joseph Smith (see Revelation 3:15-16).
I still recall our first spirited discussion years ago, in Kirtland I think it was, and the affections you exchanged with your dear wife. I was touched then by this goodness and your mutual devotion. So forgive me now, but as one with strong convictions, I would encourage you to reconsider your position and maybe, for your own sake, the conclusions you advance on the world stage.
I’m happy to exchange some emails to further discuss this, but not in the spirit of contention and I would hope that this would not appear on a blog somewhere. Please feel free to ignore this if you find it bothersome.
God Bless,
Brian
From: Dan Vogel
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:32 AM
To: Brian Hales
Subject: stuff
Brian,
My goal in life is to be authentic and true to my feelings and thoughts. I try to be as respectful as I can towards those who may disagree with me. Having been raised a Mormon, I know that strong emotions are involved and how Mormons might view me when I discuss such things. I feel conflicted about disturbing Mormons, but perhaps it’s not my job to take care of their feelings. After all, they are very active in telling the world they are wrong. However, Utah Mormons are not my only audience, possibly not even my main audience.
The videos are educational. It’s my way of teaching people what I have discovered through hard work. My goal is not to disprove Mormonism. I don’t have that power. My goal is to discover what probably happened as best I can. My first audience is me. I want to know this for myself. It’s my heritage and part of the reality I grew up with. In fact, it still is part of my psyche. I my view, to ignore such an important part of who I am would be unthinkable. So I have to process and deconstruct it constantly.
I have no ambitions to take Mormons out of the Church or to make unbelievers of them. I share my views because I value my opinion and think others should consider it, but I have no advice about what they should do with this information. I have no interest in telling others how they should live their lives.
The major reason I work so hard at whatever I decide to do (not just Mormon history) is because it makes me a better person. In other words, I’m challenging myself and Mormonism just happens to be the venue for expressing myself and growing. This is a very Mormon thing to do, but I don’t know how to be something else. My intellect won’t allow me to believe, but I follow the still small voice every day.
I must be true to myself and my discipline as a historian. The public can only benefit with alternative narratives to choose from. Good scholarship is a community effort, and that community needs to be diverse and dynamic. I need the clash of ideas to grow and get better. Embrace it! I wouldn’t dare try to suppress your voice.
I will be at Sunstone and JWHA. I have been notified that we will be giving papers in the same session. Should be interesting.
Best Wishes,
Dan
From: Brian Hales
To: ‘Dan Vogel’
Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2013 11:36 PM
Subject: RE: stuff
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I guess my concerns are more simplistic. You publish that Joseph Smith was a “deceiver.” If true, then you are doing the world a favor. But if (as I believe), he was a true prophet, then your position is problematic from an eternal perspective (see D&C 1:14, 76: 101, 104).
I agree with you that from a scholarly standpoint, alternate opinions can be healthy and even exciting and I appreciate your tolerance. However, I can’t intellectualize away the spiritual consequences, because I really do care about others, even those that disagree with me (see Enos 1:9; Mosiah 28:3).
It has always been easy for me to believe and my in depth study of Joseph has only strengthened those convictions. I’m always curious to learn what those who disagree with LDS theology actually do believe. Atheism? A different theism? I’m also curious what drives their activism, but you explained that pretty well (thanks).
Forgive me if anything I write seems the least bit patronizing because I do not mean it to be. I have offended others without even realizing it and I don’t want to offend you.
Our JWHA session should be interesting, even if we are presenting different topics, some of the underlying principles might be contrastable to the audience?
Thanks again and Take Care,
Brian
From: Dan Vogel
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 18:07:49 -0700
Subject: Re: stuff
To: Brian Hales
Brian,
It’s not easy offending me. I’m pretty tolerant. I think people get offended too easily because they don’t have the confidence or ability to express their views.
I’m not a believer in anything supernatural, but I understand where you are coming from because I’ve been there. While I think your concern is misplaced, I count it as well intentioned and why I like Mormons so much. It’s a shame that Mormonism causes so much anxiety about salvation for others, especially family members, when they believe in three heavens anyway. Why do they think that everyone has to go to the Celestial Kingdom? I used to jokingly tell my parents that they could come down and visit me in the Telestial or Terrestrial kingdom. The Celestial Kingdom doesn’t sound so appealing to me anyway.
I’m not trying to do the world a favor. I’m only doing the best history I can and sharing my perspective because I think it has value to everyone no matter what they decide. I believe vigorous debate is necessary regardless of what the truth is. The things I’m discussing about Mormonism need to be discussed. Since everyone can’t believe JS’s claims, how do you want non-believers to discuss JS? I would submit that my view is the most charitable.
Best Wishes,
Dan
From: Brian Hales
To: Dan Vogel <————————————————>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:51 AM
Subject: RE: stuff
Hi Again,
Sorry to be so slow in responding. I appreciate your “charitable” approach not only to LDS topics, but also to this email exchange.
I also agree that sometimes people’s reactivity is indicative of their own doubts in their position and their need to “prove it” in order to remove a perceived threat (that shouldn’t be threatening if their convictions were solid).
As a non-believer in the supernatural, would it be accurate to classify you as a “naturalist”? Would you mind if I observe that while you may not believe in the “supernatural,” you absolutely believe in the “supranatural.” I use the term supranatural to refer to things the naturalist can’t explain and therefore must believe without proof (which would be called “faith” by a religionist).
Let me give you a couple of examples. My undergraduate degree is in biology (USU ’81). I’ve kept abreast of the abiogenesis studies over the past few decades. Abiogenesis looks at the step of no life to life. It attempts to describe how placing a few basic elements in a sunlit pool (or by a thermal jet at the bottom of the ocean or close to a chemical source of energy) and waiting a few billion years will then cause a trillion atoms to spontaneously form themselves into the most basic form of life known on this planet, a prokaryotic cell capable of reproduction and metabolism. In short, scientists have no idea. For every question they can answer, a hundred-thousand questions persist. Most scientists are certain there is no God, so they assure their audiences that it happened and it is just a matter of time before science can prove it. But in reality, it is the equivalence of faith – believe in things you cannot prove.
Another example I’m currently studying is the “Big Bang Theory.” With very solid math, it postulates that at some point, there was a large explosion that created everything and the universe has been expanding every since. The problem with the theory is that at point zero, the math completely breaks down. Furthermore, it theorizes that at point zero, everything in this universe, every galaxy, every planet, every person, every sun, was all compressed into a size smaller than the head of a pin. Can any human comprehend this? No, but believing scientists accept it (again with the equivalence of faith).
Naturalists cannot explain these two observations, but they accept that they happened without supernatural intervention. I call their beliefs, suPRAnatural, but I guess they could be called infranatural or perinatural, because they require a belief in unprovable things and are currently beyond the comprehension of the pure naturalists, the pure atheist, and the pure scientist.
As I see it, we all have faith, it just depends of the focus of that faith.
I have a colleague, a gynecologist, who is an atheist. (One of his partners is a Catholic, another a Budhist, a third a Born-Again Christian – we really have fun discussions!) Anyway, I tease my atheist friend saying, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” He doesn’t like the word “faith” applied to him and has no problem ignoring the problems of no-life-to-life and the Big Bang Theory. His faith is very strong that science will find the answers.
Most naturalists don’t think about these things. Hence, I’m curious if you have?
I seriously don’t think I could be a naturalist, because it doesn’t explain enough of my personal experience and understanding. Any thoughts?
Take Care,
Brian
From: Dan Vogel
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:12 PM
To: BRIAN C HALES
Subject: Re: stuff
Brian,
I have no problem responding to your comments. I have given these subjects some thought over the years. I’m not a scientist, but who doesn’t like science and the great success it has enjoyed in explaining the natural world. I don’t like labels, but I have used the term “naturalist” in the intro to my biography. That is, I don’t believe one has to go outside nature to explain what happens within it. This distinction is tricky with Mormons because they a pseudo-naturalists and pseudo-materialists.
However, I’m more interested in the rhetorical approaches of the various positions. Your approach is a very typical strategy used by theists; skeptics call it the God of the Gaps argument. If scientists can’t explain everything there must be a God. In logic, that’s the argument from ignorance fallacy. It is also a subtle way to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic. Whereas the theist is the one who needs proof, because God is not the default position for explaining nature. It therefore holds no influence with skeptics.
Many scientists are theists, but the goal of the natural sciences doesn’t allow theistic explanations. God is not an explanation. So there is a methodological atheism. The attempt to argue that your faith in God and the supernatural can’t be criticized since scientists also have faith is a form of ad hominem called tu quoque (“You [do it] too”). The inability to explain some principle in nature doesn’t exempt theists from criticism of their position. It’s also the fallacy of equivocation because “faith” is not being used in the same way in both cases. The inability to explain everything naturally doesn’t prove there is a God any more the ability to explain everything disproves the existence of God. Science and religion are not related.
Your comment on defensiveness showing the lack of “conviction” concerns me since I see religious “conviction” as false confidence. They think some religious experience makes them right and they become impervious to reason. So using the word “conviction” with science or scholarship seems out of place.
Best Wishes,
Dan
From: Brian Hales
To: ‘Dan Vogel’
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:00 AM
Subject: RE: stuff
Hi Again,
Thanks for the interesting response and for the tone it carries. It makes this exchange.
You have shifted the discussion slightly to the idea of proving the existence of God. While I mentioned God, I would not expend any energy trying to “prove” His existence, which would be futile. My point (which you have not yet conceded) is that everyone needs to believe things that cannot be proven, which the religionist would call “faith.”
I would take issue with one thing you said. You stated that “God is not the default position for explaining nature” to which I disagree. It seems that the statement might reflect your own biases. I would assert that it is dependent up on the time and place. Prior to Darwin and Nietzsche introducing their biological and social “survival of the fittest,” the default position for much of mankind included God as creator.
You have mentioned that your videos are “educational” and to “teach people,” seeking to be “good scholarship.” I would probably agree that my books and podcasts are designed to accomplish similar things. The point here is that our presentations are not objective. I’m sure you would agree that no historian is totally objective. Such objectivity is impossible. However, I have watched many historians present their “findings” and some even declare, “Don’t shoot the messenger,” as if they see themselves as being objective. In such instances, the curiosity for me is to discern whether the author realizes the level of bias they present. Or if in fact they do realize it to some degree, but allow their agenda (conscious or unconscious) to drive the process forward anyway, trying to sway readers/listeners to accept their biased view.
You may recall our discussions regarding some items in your EMD volumes (for which I give thanks for the incredible effort compiling). Despite my brief interaction with them, I detected some pretty heavy bias. You remember the Nan Hill quote that I would argue would be categorized as “dubious” by an objective reviewer, but you generously assess: “the early rumors cannot be dismissed too quickly.” And then there is the your quote: “His [Joseph Smith’s] July 1830 trial in South Bainbridge included testimony accusing him of improper conduct with two of Josiah Stowell’s daughters, Miriam and Rhoda.” We’ve talked about how there is no “testimony,” only assumption. Additionally, I would add the Eliza Winters interview which you characterized her apparent silence on the topic as “an accusation she neither confirmed nor denied,” goes well beyond the statement (and I think that it is very likely that the topic did come up and Mather didn’t like the answer).
I guess my question is whether you acknowledge any bias in these types of statements and if you do, then are you concerned? I see biases that bring me back to my first email: “If it turns out that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of the living God, then your labors and products may be deemed as perhaps the most sophisticated of all oppositional endeavors this planet ever experienced.”
Understandably, you classify my reference to “conviction” as “false confidence.” But, just to be complete, I would classify the biases in your presentations simply as “darkness” in the context of D&C 50:24: “That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.” This “light” is quite real to me (I wrote a book on it). Do you see my feelings about light and darkness as the result of a “frenzied mind” or as some other form of self-deception?
Thanks for your willingness to correspond. I find this very interesting.
Take Care!
Brian
From: Dan Vogel
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 18:21:34 -0700
Subject: Re: stuff
To: Brian Hales
Brian,
Right, I don’t concede “everyone needs to believe things that cannot be proven, which the religionist would call ‘faith.’” I don’t need to believe in the Big Bang Theory the same way you need to believe in Joseph Smith. Gaps in scientific knowledge are not the same as faith in propositional revelation. Believing in things beyond human comprehension—like endlessness of space—does not justify believing in the trinity, transubstantiation, or whatever comes under the heading supernatural. They are arrived at through completely different methods. I have no faith in how religious knowledge is obtained. For me, it is either delusion or fraud. And I have plenty of evidence for it. Look around you. Doesn’t the history of the human race testify that our species is prone to delusion and deception? And every religion thinks they are they exception.
When I said God was not the default position, it was a principle of logic. Of course, I know God or the supernatural was the first theory humans came up with to explain what was to them mysterious phenomena. Like the movement of the lights in the night sky, or what have you. However, God is not the default position when science can’t explain something. We are a little smarter than our ancestors. There is no logical connection between not knowing something and the notion of God. It just means we don’t have an answer. You can’t take a negative and make a positive out of it. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
I’m not as preoccupied with labeling bias as you seem to be. Apologists of all people like to label things biased. Their definition is usually circular (the same for their anti-Mormon label); anything that challenges their faith is anti-Mormon and biased. For me, everything is evidence and strength of argument, no matter who says it. To dwell on bias is ad hominem. Some apologists think that since everyone is biased that gives them permission to write faith promoting history.
Not only is objectivity impossible, it’s not even desirable. Some discussions of objectivity (especially by postmodernists) define it in such a way as to be humanly impossible. There are many definitions of objectivity, but I think people usually mean fair. I want historians to be critical, but fair and balanced. Scholars have a right to take sides and defend their thesis with the best evidence and arguments they can muster. This is how scholarship works. In time, the weaker theories fade and the stronger ones survive. So your game of trying to determine the degree of bias is a waste of time. The proper thing to do is to judge the strength of the evidence and arguments. Nothing else matters. To focus on bias is ad hominem.
I felt responsible to alert readers of EMD to related sources, some of which you think is bias. I can’t say bias isn’t there, but sometimes your bias sees more than what is there. Call it hypersensitivity. Reaction to my editing has been mixed. I think I was fair.
On Nan Hill: all I did in EMD is alert readers to related sources. In my biography, I believe, is where I said rumors cannot be dismissed easily. I could have made my case without Nan Hill, but I used the source because it was a family story with a name, not just a rumor, and it seemed to be consistent with other sources. The point I was trying to make was that plural marriage was on JS’s mind from the start. In EMD, the footnote begins “Of possible relevance …” Readers need to know these related sources. There is minimal interpretation.
Regarding “testimony” at the 1830 trial, JS was accused of improper conduct with Stowell’s daughters, although apparently it wasn’t verified by them when they testified. I believe this is implied in JS’s telling of the event, although you require it to be explicitly stated. Is it possible that your bias prevents you from seeing the very obvious context of Stowell’s daughters being called to testify? Moreover, I used “testimony” in the sense of someone testifying, but you insisted that I produce written “testimony” and asserted that I was being deceptive. Again, JS strongly implied that his accusers were hoping to extract from Stowell’s daughters evidence of sexual impropriety. I insist that my interpretation is reasonable and not just an assumption.
My footnote to Levi Lewis’s statement about Eliza Winters mentioning her later interview and that she neither confirmed nor denied the rumor is also reasonable. It’s a simple statement, and readers needed to know that information. They can decide what it means. However, you give the speculation that the question was asked and left out because Mather didn’t like the answer, which oddly shows both your bias and willingness to go beyond the evidence.
In all honesty, I don’t see why you are so concerned about these footnotes in EMD. I see them as quite normal and expected. My biography is a different matter. It’s was intended to be more interpretive and provocative.
Your statement about what my work means in light of JS be a true prophet or fraud really doesn’t concern me. I’m trying to be as honest and fair as I can. That’s all I can do.
I regard your feelings about light and darkness as just an opinion expressed in religious terminology.
Regards,
Dan
From: Brian Hales
To: Dan Vogel
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: stuff
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the email. Sorry about the slow response. I have other deadlines and I wanted to spend a moment clarifying my own thoughts before sending them on.
You’ve obviously thought about these things before. I would like to make a few observations.
You wrote: “Gaps in scientific knowledge are not the same as faith in propositional revelation.” It is okay with me if we do not call your confidence in natural things “faith” – we can call it whatever you want so long as it accurately reflects the depth of the lack of provability in the specific claims. You refer to it a “gap,” which is a bit of an understatement.
Let me illustrate. It may be that placing a few basic elements in a sunlit pool and waiting billions of years provides all the needed ingredients for life to spontaneously form. Or it could be that those elements will just sit there, basking in the sunlight, without ever forming the intricately complex chemical bonds needed for metabolism and reproduction unless an external force acts upon them. No scientist can prove what happened and those PhDs who declare life occurred spontaneously have basically no idea how any of the millions of needed processes began or progressed. Their “proof” seems to be: “it happened because it happened.” However, that is not science; it is pulling yourself up by the bootstraps.
I appreciate your remarkable confidence that life occurred due to a spontaneous interaction of naturally occurring phenomena. But that confidence is not based upon any known science because there is no science to base it upon, just assumption. Hence, I conclude that everyone must believe in something that is unprovable, call it confidence, conviction, faith, opinion, speculation, conjecture, or whatever you want.
You expressed some questions about my focus on the three EMD interpretive notes. The reason I mentioned them is not to prompt you to defend your commentary – not at all. I simply detect some undeniable bias in those three entries. And since I have a very brief interaction with the EMD volumes, it could be the bias I detect is an anomaly and the remainder of the notes in all the volumes are objective. However, I think they are probably representative of the whole and I’m trying to determine how you view them. You acknowledged, “I can’t say bias isn’t there.” But then you said that “I’m trying to be as honest and fair as I can. That’s all I can do.” I see a bit of a contradiction, but my assessment is unimportant to anyone but myself. I was just curious if you perceive your message as oppositional (to Joseph Smith) and if you do, is it secondary to the quoted historical documentation, or to your interpretations and a priori beliefs, or to some other reason(s).
I would agree with your comment: “Doesn’t the history of the human race testify that our species is prone to delusion and deception?” However, the observation “And every religion thinks they are they exception” is not a reason for me to completely discount religion and spiritual things. However, it is the same argument my gynecologist friend has quoted to me for over the past twenty years. We have discussed it ad nauseum in the O.R. while he is operating. It is obviously insoluble, but as follower of Joseph Smith, it describes exactly the circumstances I would expect to see in the world around me based upon JS’s revelations: D&C 50:1-3, 52:14, 84:49-53 etc. (I really don’t expect you to look these up ).
While I have no intent to ever quote from this exchange, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Would you mind if I did quote from this sometime in the future (with or without attribution)?
In that first email I wrote: “I would encourage you to reconsider your position and maybe, for your own sake, the conclusions you advance on the world stage.” You have, in a very patient and kindly way, made it clear that it “really doesn’t concern” you and I respect that and will not bother you further with it.
On the other hand, if you have additional comments, I’m happy to chat or write about them in the future.
Thanks and take care,
Brian
From: Dan Vogel
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 19:26:42 -0700
Subject: Re: stuff
To: Brian Hales
Brian,
Don’t feel obliged to respond quickly.
You talk about my confidence is naturalism as if it is an unusual thing. Everyone has confidence is naturalism, even you. The question is should we have confidence in claims of the supernatural?
You keep trying to exploit gaps in our scientific knowledge as an excuse for your belief in the supernatural. It doesn’t matter where the gaps are or how serious, because my concern is about the structure of the argument you apparently are making. I have already gone over the logical fallacies involved.
While you see “undeniable bias” in the EMD entries, I believe the opposite would be true. If you were to edit these documents, your bias would lead you to leave the related sources out or to deflate them. Regardless, bias doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is the sources and how they are used. Accusing each other of bias is a waste of time and irrelevant. Argumentum ad hominem (circumstantial).
I don’t see my admission that I have bias as contradictory to trying to be fair. In the introduction to my biography I admitted that I had a naturalistic bias, but that I try to look for the best arguments and evidence.
Although I don’t believe Joseph Smith’s claims about the BOM, I have tried to be as sympathetic to what I believe was his reality. I’m trying to understand him, not condemn him. I have been accused by the harsher anti-Mormons of being a JS sympathizer. Steve Benson even accused me of being a JS apologist. Nothing pleases me more than to be accused of such things. I definitely am not interested in telling Mormons to leave the church and become like me. That’s not what I’m about. I’m just trying to be the best historian I can.
My purpose is not to make you denounce religion, but to be more skeptical of it. Mormons aren’t supposed to doubt. I believe it’s unhealthy to lose touch with natural skepticism.
I can’t imagine quoting our correspondence to anyone, but you can as long as you don’t quote me out of context.
Best,
Dan
From: Brian Hales
To: Dan Vogel
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:55 PM
Subject: RE: stuff
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the email. I enjoy this discussion although I sense we may soon understand about all there is to recognize regarding our polar differences on these topics. Sorry this is a tad long – no need to feel obligated to read it.
Your comment, “Everyone has confidence in naturalism, even you,” is true for things which science can prove and untrue for things it cannot prove.
As I think about it, it seems that bias in our historical treatises is important only if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of a living God. Otherwise (as it is in your world) bias is a nonissue.
It seems unlikely that any believer would consider you to be a Joseph Smith apologist. You’ve plainly labeled him a “pious deceiver,” so how can anyone disagree with that? Steve Benson is an interesting fellow. Before my books were released, he reportedly criticized the idea that an anesthesiologist could write about JS and polygamy. What a guy.
Your confidence that the natural world can explain our experiences is not uncommon. My gynecologist friend reflects the same certainties. When I discuss the “gaps” in science, he dismisses them just as you do. A naturalist (Godless) mindset is easy to embrace, especially with so many scientists assuring us that they have the answers (or that the gaps will soon be filled).
However, the naturalist perspective just doesn’t work for me for several reasons. One is composed of the phenomena that science can’t readily explain. I’ve mentioned the no-life-to-life process. But then there are all of the so-called “miracles.” As a physician, I have witnessed healings that go contrary to medical knowledge. I can’t excuse them as sleight-of-hand or wishful thinking. I don’t know how they fit into a naturalist mentality – I’m sure you have thought of this.
While you label miracles and similar activities as “supernatural,” I think that “supranatural” is better and it is “supra” because we have yet to understand what is happening. Joseph Smith taught that “the spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body.” Accordingly, miracles and other “spiritual” phenomena are considered by LDS and many religionists to be extensions of the material (i.e. “natural”) world. Parley P. Pratt wrote: “The terms miracle and mystery must become obsolete, and finally disappear from the vocabulary of intelligences, as they advance in the higher spheres of intellectual consistency. Even now they should be used only in a relative or limited sense, as applicable to those things which are not yet within reach of our powers or means of comprehension.” (Key to the Science of Theology, 104; emphasis mine.)
Two hundred years ago radio transmission would have been “supernatural,” because it transcended what we knew about nature. But we have since discovered natural laws to explain it and it is now considered “natural,” not “supernatural.” I realize that the analogy is not perfect because I do not believe that science could ever discover God or spiritual things directly (the way Marconi discovered radio waves). If the naturalist believes only in things that science can describe, then the naturalist will probably never believe in God, unless God opens the eyes to things that science cannot currently detect.
The other problem for me with the naturalistic approach to life deals with feelings. Bruce R. McConkie said, “All true religion is a feeling.” I think religionists would generally agree that false religious beliefs can also be supported by “feelings” (as per D&C 50:2). Hence, a naturalist would probably just ignore feelings in general because there are so many conflicting ideas promoted in the name of “testimony” and “God-given” convictions. That is the position of my gynecologist friend. He says, “Everyone claims to have the truth so how do you know Mormons have it?” If I say it is a feeling, he responds, “That is just what the others all say.” The confusion prompts him to not only completely ignore “feelings,” but also to dismiss the results of those feelings.
At this point in my life I just can’t walk away from the feelings I possess and the ideas the flow into my mind from time-to-time accompanied by those feelings. The sensations that accompany prayer and temple attendance are very real and positive to me – I call them “light” in my book (Light, SLC: Cedarfort, 2004 – if you would like a copy, just send me a mailing address). They may be easily dismissed as self-induced mania, “frenzied mind,” self-fulfilling psychosis, or something similar, but several years ago I thought I sensed them in your relationship with your wife. They continue to bring peace, purpose, hope, and empathy to me.
I would wish you luck with your endeavors, but my original reason for writing was to encourage you to change direction. Yet I can thank you for allowing this communication to proceed to this point without rancor or animosity.
I’m happy to read any response you might have. We’ll obviously see each other at Sunstone and JWHA – maybe we can sit down over lunch and chat some more.
Take Care,
Brian
From: Dan Vogel
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 10:57 AM
To: BRIAN C HALES
Subject: Re: stuff
Brian,
I’m willing to share my thoughts; I might argue vigorously for my point, but won’t be overbearing. I don’t need to convince you or change your mind. I believe the purpose of such conversations is to make us better scholars. You can’t get better without being challenged.
“As I think about it, it seems that bias in our historical treatises is important only if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of a living God.” By putting your conclusion first and then your interpretation, you beg the question. The world of scholarship doesn’t care if JS is a “real” prophet any more than it cares about trying to discern the hand of God in historical events. Those questions are outside the realm of scholarship. You are welcome to believe as you wish, but it has nothing to do with determining what JS did or did not do. When you argue that JS was a true prophet and a true prophet wouldn’t do such and such, you commit the idealist fallacy. Rhetoric and behavior do not always align. I would encourage you to read David Hackett Fischer’s book Historian’s Fallacies, especially his discussion of the idealist fallacy.
You use this kind of argument to defend JS against sexual polyandry as if that was JS’s only abusive behavior. Plural marriage was a horrible institution, and JS’s practice of concubinage amounted to spiritual and sexual abuse of his followers. Some things that are “abominable” under one condition are still “abominable” under another.
When I say JS used deception, it has nothing to do with saying he was not a prophet of God. Those are different questions.
I think you missed my point about naturalism being universal–“true for things which science can prove and untrue for things it cannot prove.” Naturalism is bigger than science can explain at any point and supernaturalism isn’t the default. It’s like two people see a UFO and since one cannot explain it, the other claims it is proof alien visitors. There’s no other explanation? Ignorance is not proof of anything. This is basic logic.
When I was accused of being a JS apologist because I rejected extremist views of JS as a simple conman or pedophile on line at RFM site, I went to the real apologists at FAIR board and held a survey of how many considered me an apologist. Well, you can guess the outcome of that. It seems believers only hear “fraud” and JS haters only hear “pious”. The subtle nuances escape those involved in polemics.
Anomalous experiences are complex and have different explanations based on the circumstances. Most of them are subjective and anecdotal. If you are talking about so-called medical miracles such as spontaneous remission, then we are again in an area of trying to exploit the unknown to prove a positive. The supernatural isn’t the default no more than demon possession was a default for an epileptic seizure.
By now you should see that much of my concern is with the structure of an argument and less with the details of the subject at hand. If you know how to form sound and compelling arguments, the less bias will dictate what you see.
Naturalism isn’t necessarily atheistic. Evolution, for instance, is not a proof against God. It’s only proof that it is not wise to base one’s faith on a literal reading of a 4,000 year old Semitic poem. However, belief in God becomes more of a choice than a necessity.
No-life-to-life is a social construct that has no objective existence. At what point does the organization of matter become alive? Why is an atom considered not alive and a human organism not considered a complex arrangement of atoms? I think scientists have pieced enough of the evolution puzzle together to demonstrate the superiority of naturalism over supernaturalism. There is no guarantee that the right kind of evidence was preserved or that human intelligence will match the problems that need solving to explain everything naturally, even if such were the case.
On JS and immaterial matter, you might recall that I referred to Mormonism as pseudo-materialism (and pseudo-naturalism). Of course, a distinction between mater and pure matter is meaningless. If you want to argue that spirit is really matter and miracles obey unknown laws of nature, then you can’t use them as evidence for the supernatural (or supranatural), because you are making a distinction without a difference. In other words, we are saying the same thing in different ways. However, you want your cake and eat it too, because you still want it to be evidence of something that has no evidence, namely, God, miracles, creation, and so forth. Do you not see that your position is incoherent? On one hand you say naturalism is false, then on the other it is the ultimate reality.
Science was invented to get on firmer ground about knowledge than what relying on subjective or anomalous experience tells us. I think religion would do well with confining itself to spirituality (by this I mean our inner and psychological needs), rather than the nature of reality. I don’t ignore feelings, even so-called religious feelings. They are real experiences. I have them and they factor into my decision-making, although I don’t treat them as infallible or magically superior to reason. I’ve done some reading in the area of what is variously described as bio-theology, brain science, biology of belief, neuro- theology, the God-gene, God part of the brain, etc. I hope Obama’s brain study initiative happens. There is great promise in this field. Any way, I believe what Mormon’s call “Testimony” is a combination of limbic-parietal lobe function and social conditioning. Feelings should be subject to reflection and reinterpretation just like any experience, especially as we mature. Spirituality should mature along similar lines as other feelings such as love.
At the very least I would hope this communication allows you to see that I have tried to confront the issues as thoughtfully and honestly as I can, that I’m still in the midst of that endeavor, and if there is a God, he knows that. I say that for your sake, because I don’t believe we are involved in some cosmic game where God tests our ability to get revelation with a brain he created prone to delusion.
Regards,
Dan
From: Brian Hales
To: ‘Dan Vogel’
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:27 PM
Subject: RE: stuff
Hi Dan,
I’ve got a few minutes this morning before visiting family this Memorial Day and I thought I’d advance our discussion one more round. And I am enjoying this stretching exercise and hope you are too. Thanks for your openness and cordial frankness.
I think we actually agree on the issue of bias, but I don’t think I have explained my position very well. Scholars are less concerned about bias because everyone is entitled to their own opinions (and everyone is biased in some way).
When applied to Joseph Smith and the issue of whether he was a prophet, a additional potential force enters the discussion that deals with consequences. I’m sure you know the LDS scriptures: “Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph, for I will justify him” (D&C 132:60). “And the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people… Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments” (D&C 1:14, 17). If Joseph Smith’s God does not exist, then there are no consequences for bias against him (and his message). But if He does exist, then when people’s personal biases prompt them to either “not hear the voice” or “set on” Joseph, negative eternal consequences are promised. This is a focus of my original email.
I appreciate your comment on polygamy and would be very happy to discuss the topic with you, perhaps in another set of emails. It appears you might benefit from looking at my research in my three volumes, would you like me to send you a set?
Your statement: “When I say JS used deception, it has nothing to do with saying he was not a prophet of God” is very curious because, as I understand it, you do not believe in God. While we all admit JS was not perfect and he so claimed several times, you transcend that admission by labeling him a “pious deceiver.” I was listening to Richard Bennett’s talk on Joseph Smith and the years 1820-1829 (or something like that). He quotes you (as I’m sure you know). Anyway, if you had a chance to explain that comment, I’d love to understand it better.
You also wrote: “I believe what Mormon’s call ‘Testimony’ is a combination of limbic-parietal lobe function and social conditioning.” I’ve read Korihor’s reference to a “frenzied mind” and the more recent psychologists’ categorizations of “group psychoses” and “mania” etc. But cudos to the naturalist who can explain away my feelings right down to the neuropathways that are allegedly involved. The spiritual things that are so real to me are reduced to rhetorical analysis and cold descriptions of neurogenic self-deception.
I’m still trying to understand the naturalist and their view of the no-life-to-life process. How does this sound? We can prove that chemical forces exist. For example, if we put a base and an acid together, chemical forces will create an explosion – it happens reliably every time. On the other hand, we can NOT prove that “supernatural” forces, like those emanating from the God described by Joseph Smith. Hence, when confronted with an observation that science cannot currently prove, like the no-life-to-life process, the only acceptable forces to consider are those that we can currently prove to exist. Or in other words, we can prove chemical forces exist, but we cannot prove supernatural forces exists, therefore we are confident that chemical forces drove the no-life-to-life process, even if we cannot now prove it. If this adequately explains the naturalists’ position, I would assert that it is not a very strong argument and that it also reflects arrogance and a mind that is closed to expanded possibilities. In addition, it does not take into account the fact that we cannot prove a negative, that some force we currently do not understand was actually involved. Thoughts?
Your comments have got me thinking, which is a gift from you to me. I also appreciate the pushback on polygamy, which we could entertain in a separate communication if you like.
Happy Memorial Day,
Brian
From: Dan Vogel
May 27, 2013
To: Brian Hales
Brian,
I understand your position on bias and consequences. Within your paradigm I’m sure it makes perfect sense to see things that way; I’m not in your paradigm, but I used to be. In my journey out of your paradigm, at what point did I become biased? It seems to be that you have a looser definition of bias than I do. Someone who considers both sides of an issue isn’t biased because he/she makes a decision.
Bias is often a matter of degree, and there is no bias greater than that of a believer. Among believers, there can be degrees of bias as well. I would rank Mike Quinn’s as weak for a believer, for example. Yours appears to be very strong, while mine among non-believers is weak.
I made my decision thoughtfully and carefully, and so I have no fear of eternal consequences. Why do you think that such threats would concern me? Are you worried about similar consequences for rejecting Mohammed?
Interesting that you should quote D&C 132:60. I take that section as JS repenting of his polyandrous marriages, threatening Emma if she tries to do the same, and declaring that God has forgiven him for his mistake.
I plan to get your volumes. Mike Marquardt and I have discussed them. He’s better at reading these things. I get behind on both purchasing and reading. I consult your website occasionally because it is well organized.
I don’t know what Richard Bennett said. My position is finely nuanced. My personal belief doesn’t include God or prophets, and my scholarship doesn’t try to decide those issues. Historical issues aren’t easily decided by the historian’s belief or unbelief either. Most believing historians who know the sources don’t deny sexual polyandry because they know denying it would be obviously biased, as well as special pleading and presentism. Admitting such isn’t the same as saying JS was a false prophet.
Theoretically, a “true” prophet (one who actually speaks to God) can use deception to accomplish his mission or commit any number of sins. So for me, rejecting BOM historicity, for instance, isn’t proof that JS is a false prophet. The same for polyandry. Because Mike Quinn recognizes this distinction, he doesn’t need to be overly defensive JS’s character flaws.
Of course, a fundamentalist definition of prophet would try to exclude such activities by prophets. If that’s the case with you, then I would point you to the fallacy of question-begging definitions.
I didn’t mean my mention of neuro-theology to be taken negatively. Terms like “frenzied mind” or “group psychoses” doesn’t capture what I was after. Religious feelings have served an important role in human evolution, primarily in stress reduction. Their are actually several feelings that are defined by humans as religious or spiritual, which have different explanations. They are normal and experienced across cultures.
As I read your paragraph on naturalism, I thought of Wittgenstein and his observation about word games. Science and religion speak different languages and play different games.
Because one cannot prove a negative (although there are certain conditions that can justify a reasonable belief in a negative), the burden of proof rests on those who assert the positive. Belief in God isn’t the problem, as I see it; the problem arises when the believer wants to justify his/her belief with reason. The greatest philosophers have failed in this endeavor, although they keep trying. The more literal minded the believer, the more difficulty reconciling the two worlds.
I think I’ve said this before. Even if science can explain everything, it still doesn’t prove there’s no God. Conversely, if there is a God, it doesn’t mean that the universe can’t have a naturalistic explanation. Believers try to exploit gaps in scientific knowledge for rhetorical advantage, not for any legitimate purposes. It comes down to argumentum ad ignorantiam.
While you accuse naturalists of being arrogant, I might suggest that believers lack faith in their desperate search for evidence. Gaps in scientific knowledge are expected. It’s OK for science to not have all the answers. It’s premature to conclude science won’t solve the key issues. To do so can be seen as arrogant on the part of the religious, and perhaps foolish given how wrong they have been in past centuries. Science is a methodology, not just a group of theories. Anyone who builds their faith on scientific gaps builds on a sandy foundation.
Take Care,
Dan
From: Brian Hales
May 31, 2013
To: Dan Vogel
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. It is somewhat remarkable that two people who are so opposite in their views are able to discuss them without contention. It is a credit to you and a manifestation of the confidence you possess in your position.
I like your mention of our paradigms. In 2000 I wrote a little book called The Veil (Cedar Fort). In it I discuss how (from an LDS view), we are surrounded by a veil that conceals eternity (premortal past, spirit world future, God and Satan and their angels). I also describe the veil as a screen or curtain upon which we project our own beliefs regarding what is on the other side. Thus, our world, our reality, is a function of our beliefs regarding what is within the veil and without. My discussion was to observe that as our beliefs become true, we are actually thinning the veil. (Sorry this diagram is very old.)
I expect this discussion has elicited a smile and yet as a model, it easily contrasts our two positions wherein you detect no veil, just natural light and natural darkness. Those with faith can paint the veil with philosophies and theologies of their choices (e.g. you mentioned Mohammed). It also implies that genuine truth, things as they really are, exists on the other side of the veil and could be the LDS version or a description from some other religious tradition. For those without faith, it is considered to be fission-based light and photon-less darkness, with no tolerance of any other possibilities.
I like your statement: “Even if science can explain everything, it still doesn’t prove there’s no God. Conversely, if there is a God, it doesn’t mean that the universe can’t have a naturalistic explanation.” As you probably know, Stephen Hawking used to make a place for God, but more recently, he has said that if there is a God, he had no choice regarding how the universe is made (paraphrased). Carl Sagan showed the forces existing in the universe and then asked why God was needed.
You have mentioned Joseph Smith and polyandry several times. I would encourage you to find some supportive evidence and to deal with all of the contradictory evidence regarding it, before assuming it happened. Everybody wins if we stay close to the evidence. Mike Quinn acknowledged that there is no solid evidence and his 70 page paper fails to do anything more than take ambiguous evidence and interpret it in an extreme way. (Have you read my response?) Do you want to discuss sexual polyandry?
I think we have covered a lot of ground and we understand each other’s position well. I appreciate you have been respectful (and I hope I have been too), with a goal of not “winning” an argument, but simply exchanging points-of-view. I’m not sure I can identify additional issues dealing with the theme. Can you?
I’ll look forward to seeing you at JWHA if not sooner.
Take Care,
Brian