I'm interested to see if those who have left Mormonism found another religion. I worked with a guy who was exmo and he would have a few drinks now and then. He also joined a Christian, bible-based church.

My reading here suggests that some become atheists after leaving Mormonism.

I have not joined another religion, but I enjoy visiting Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines in Japan, where I live.

Søren Kierkegaard has some particularly interesting things to say about belief systems. Once a belief system crumbles, the person who held the belief can start to doubt all belief systems.

What has been your experience?

T-Bone

I doubt all belief systems.

My experience is that common sense will serve you better than any faith.

Life is a bitch once that critical-thinking gene kicks in.

Once you develop the detective skills and higher standards for evidence, it's likely you will use them for everything. You have to make a conscious effort to exempt a religion (that likely provides some emotional or social need) from the same scrutiny you would give any other subject.

I automatically assumed at first it was just Mormonism that had doctrinal and historical problems. I studied my way out of "faith-is-s all you need" claims altogether over time.

There is not one person who knows any more about a god than me or you. Period.

It was a long journey, because I did due diligence.

Age of Reason by Thomas Paine: This is where I first found someone else had the same issues I was finding with Christianity.

Demon Haunted World by Sagan: This is where I recognized the nature of religious claims and standards for accepting them.

Joseph Campbell (any of this books on mythology): This is where I came understand why and how humans throughout time make up religious claims.

Once you look behind the curtain, you see how the process works.

Yeah, same as dagny above.

My mormon "belief system" didn't crumble -- I took it apart, one rational argument at a time.

Having learned that process, and seeing how useful it was, I've used it over and over again. "Belief systems" don't stand a chance if you do that.

donbagley, Dave the Atheist, long time no see! I am thrilled to see oldtimers here offering ideas that cut through the crap.

dagny, you have quite the reading list there. Sagan's Demon Haunted World was amazing.

You guys really nailed it. Once you peel the wrapper off, you realize that it's all the same, no matter what name we give it.

I don't see the value in the rituals and dogma that come with Abrahamic religions, but I acknowledge that others get meaning from them. I get more out of studying the archetypes and their relationships to existential questions. I'm certainly not denigrating any way that somebody can gain meaningful and useful understanding the world around us.

So while I don't agree with saying "xyz happened in the Bible, therefore you have to do such and such," I see value in making analogies between the archetypes and the questions we have in daily life in the modern world. The themes are universal. Greed, jealousy, fear, honesty, etc.

Just as dagny says, common sense is a great guide.

Today, I try to avoid doing things that add suffering to the world, and do things that I consider positive. But I'm human and, therefore, I make mistakes or fall short of my ideals. This is something that, while universal in my opinion, seems to be despised in Mormonism. That is where I draw the line. I will not feel guilty for making a mistake or falling short. I will try better next time. But I won't beat myself up for it. And I certainly won't allow anybody else to punish me for it. End of story.

T-Bone

I doubt all belief systems. That wasn't an automatic response from figuring out the lie of Mormonism though. Just that after Mormonism I can't accept anything without looking under the rug. Once bitten . . .

Why believe for certain when you can explore and discover constantly. I have no use at all for the word "sacred."

P.S. I studied Buddhism for quite a while. Had a lot of friends who were Buddhists at one time. Same cake. Different frosting.

I only ate the frosting.

The afterlife is probably real. We probably exist in some form after our bodies pass. Mormonism probably works so well because they've capitalize and monopolized actual spiritual universal archetypes.

Astral projection and out of body experiences are also real, just like lucid dreaming is real.

People have had these experiences both by dreaming/sleeping and taking the right psychedelic substances. When you have an experience out of your body where you are AS LUCID are you are when you are in body, you begin to seriously question that nature of reality.

Keep exploring, friends. There are many mysteries yet to be solved.

I learned that the LDS standard I used to have was actually a pole sticking out of my butt. Sheep on a stick, anyone?

If beliefs are made up, why not make up your own? I’m pretty sure most of my beliefs are completely bogus. However, they aren’t provably false. And they don’t hurt me. Only believe what serves you. Cults use their beliefs to hurt people. That’s bad.

I don’t think a low-maintenance church is even in the same ballpark as Mormonism. The cult is a parasite on a time-proven structure that has been beneficial for thousands of years.

This is why I always like to see your moniker pop up. Sheep on a stick. Hahaha. Yup.

I agree with Vahn421.

There is 'truth' and you can get 'evidence' of it. However, it is not 'evidence' you can share except by telling about it. The libraries are full of 'metaphysical evidence' from others that is 'anecdotal'.

I have 'experienced' a ton of stuff. So I 'believe' in God, life after death, reincarnation, ESP, RV, etc. etc.

However, 'metaphysics' like life is 'not' a spectator sport. If you want 'evidence' you have to attempt things that may sound 'crazy'!!

Based on my 'experiences' there is no 'true church/religion' but there are plenty of 'truths' to discover if you seek them and not afraid to 'try' new things.

Right on, friend.

Have your own revelation. Have some "empirical" experiences. They are definitely out there.

I would like to take issue with some of the things written by Dagny and Hie. Since their views seem to coincide, I combined them for my response:

DAGNY:

"Once you develop the detective skills and higher standards for evidence, it's likely you will use them for everything. You have to make a conscious effort to exempt a religion (that likely provides some emotional or social need) from the same scrutiny you would give any other subject.

COMMENT: A rational worldview is a product of (1) logic (reasoning ability), (2) evidence (established facts), coupled with (3) one's emotional needs. All three are legitimate components in establishing one's worldview.

With regard to (1) the defining point is consistency; i.e. one's views must be consistent if they are to be deemed rational. Second, the deductive inferences one makes from facts to conclusions must be valid.

With respect to (2) what counts as "evidence" is controversial. However, for worldview formation, as opposed to scientific investigation, one's personal, subjective experiences matter (including one's negative experiences with Mormonism), and when evaluated carefully, can be considered "facts" in establishing one's worldview. As an example, if I "feel" that certain moral principles are valid, I can consider such feelings as "facts" to be considered support of a worldview--even if I have no scientific evidence to support such feelings. (We all incorporate moral "facts" into our worldviews!)

In addition, when formulating a worldview "the best explanation" can involve evidentiary facts that are not necessarily aligned with scientific facts and conclusions. Thus, the fact of one's consciousness, and the associated intuition of freewill (which intuition is also a fact) need not be held hostage to materialist scientific explanations.

Finally, in considering (3), it is a mistake to conclude that someone's worldview should be entirely free of personal emotional needs. Again, someone might "need" to believe in objective morality, in some absolute sense, without a scientific justification. There is no reason why such a need should be excluded when adopting a rational worldview. Moreover, such needs help to establish beliefs when objective facts are uncertain.

In short, you should not confuse the search for a rational worldview, with the search for scientific truth. They are different. Scientific truth is a source of worldview formation but not its master. Otherwise, there would be no personal moral codes, and no everyday decision-making based upon an assumption of freewill.

The bottom line is that given the above, a religious worldview could be at least in principle perfectly rational, which is why many rational people maintain such a worldview. These people are per se irrational simply because they have adopted a worldview that includes religious faith.

________________________________________________

"There is not one person who knows any more about a god than me or you. Period."

COMMENT: That is an very arrogant statement, without the slightest rational justification. What someone claims to know about God, may be right or wrong, but you do not have access to the facts necessary to make such a universal judgment.
________________________________________________

"It was a long journey, because I did due diligence."

COMMENT: Again, very arrogant. It implies that your "due diligence" determinations are objective and rational, and others' are wrong and irrational. Again, there is no basis for such a conclusion. Many competent scientists (the minority to be sure, and including biologists) have done their own "due diligence" and have come to conclusions different from yours.
__________________________________________________

"Age of Reason by Thomas Paine: This is where I first found someone else had the same issues I was finding with Christianity.

Demon Haunted World by Sagan: This is where I recognized the nature of religious claims and standards for accepting them.

Joseph Campbell (any of this books on mythology): This is where I came understand why and how humans throughout time make up religious claims."

COMMENT: I could make a very extensive list of books that you no doubt have not considered. Formulating a rational worldview arguably involves consideration of many points of view, which your list does not reflect. You are merely stating your own personal post Mormon road. By suggesting that this lead you to "the truth" or "how the process works," is absurd.
_________________________________________

"Once you look behind the curtain, you see how the process works."

COMMENT: So, all we need to do is follow "the process" and we will all come to your same conclusions, or otherwise be appropriately deemed irrational. Please spell out for me just what this magic process is.

HIE:
__________________________________________

Yeah, same as dagny above.

COMMENT: See above.
__________________________________________

"My mormon "belief system" didn't crumble -- I took it apart, one rational argument at a time."

COMMENT: I am glad you put it this way. It was a process that involved *your* involvement. Notwithstanding your indoctrinated self, *you* managed to break the spell by *your* own efforts. Just remember, that such "free actions" are not explained by science, but in fact are denied. "You" by scientific standards are nothing more than molecules in deterministic motion. So, please add this observation to your formally described worldview, and admit you have no scientific evidence to support it. :)
___________________________________________

"Having learned that process, and seeing how useful it was, I've used it over and over again. "Belief systems" don't stand a chance if you do that."

COMMENT: Well, you are naïve if you think that your worldview does not involve a belief system. Your belief system (i.e. your worldview) represents a global instantiation of your psychological beliefs. Your belief system has just been modified away from Mormonism, and any other formal "ism." O.K. formal belief systems may not stand a chance, if that is what you meant.

Henry, as I've pointed out to you over and over again, I don't have a "worldview" other than to view the world as it is.
And I certainly don't have a "belief system."

And it's patently false that "free actions" are "not explained by science, but in fact are denied." Your definition of "'you' by scientific standards" also is completely false.

My "free choice" -- which isn't denied by science in any way -- is to eschew "belief," honestly admit when we don't know something, honestly conclude when we do, and not make up explanations that can't be demonstrated correct by verifiable evidence.

I stand by my final statement -- belief systems (formal or not) don't stand a chance in the face of honest, rational inquiry. Because honest, rational inquiry doesn't depend on belief. In any way.

Let me make this simple:

EVERY belief system or worldview involves three basic components:

1. Consciousness (No consciousness, no psychology; no psychology, no beliefs.

2. Free will (Everyone believes that they go through life making real, genuine choices, which affect their lives and the lives of others.

3. Morality (Everyone has a moral sense, i.e. that certain actions are morally right, and others morally wrong.)

Now, here is the punch line. SCIENCE DOES NOT HAVE A THEORY ABOUT ANY OF THE ABOVE. (There may be secondary theories, for example in psychology, the social sciences, or evolutionary theories, but there are no *physical* theories, which is why none of the above can be found in the index of any physics textbook. What is needed is a *molecular,* *particle,* *field* or *quantum* account as to what consciousness is, and how freewill and morality arise from that account. Absent that, there *is* no scientific basis for any of these universal aspects of one’s worldview.

THEREFORE, worldviews are inherently unscientific.

Please stop just announcing I am wrong, and provide me with the scientific basis for the above! GIVE ME THE SCIENTIFIC, REDUCTIONIST, PHYSICAL, THEORY! You know, one with mathematical quantities that link the properties of particles and fields, their interaction and their energy. In other words, where do these things fit into the Core of Quantum Field Theory?

Otherwise, the state of science on theses subjects remains a mystery, and your incorporation of the same into your worldview is unscientific. PERIOD!

And to say you do not have a belief system or worldview, is belied by the numerous beliefs you constantly express on this Board. You are, I believe, a conscious agent that has a set of beliefs, right? You are not a zombie.

Susan Blackmore rejects your claims for 1 and 2 pretty thoroughly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2018 01:37PM by dogblogger.

Blackmore would admit that she experiences consciousness, and that she feels and acts *as if* she has genuine freewill. She just thinks that these subjective feelings are just illusions. She would subscribe to the view that all reality is ultimately physical and deterministic, making consciousness and genuine freewill illusory, or as some people say, just "a way of speaking about the brain." So, yes, there is an out, of sorts, you can believe that everything essential and important to human beings is illusory, while just pretending that consciousness and freewill are ontologically real. This is one version of the inconsistency I was talking about in my post, which inconsistency disqualifies it as being rational. (IMHO)

Blackmore, psychologist, gets her views of consciousness from Dan Dennett's book Consciousness Explained, views that almost nobody subscribes to. Dennett's views on freewill are essentially of the same "explain-away" variety, with a bit of clever wordsmithing.

Now, having said all that, if you want to provide me with the essence of Blackmore's (or Dennett's) argument, we can discuss it. After all, just saying someone disagrees isn't very helpful.

I didn't doubt that you know how to Google.

She and Dennet are more convergent than derived from the other. But Marvin Minsky is (was since he's now dead) also in this group. Your popularity argument fails in that the evidence is equal among the camps, but the assumptions for the more complex consciousness arguments collapse under Occam's razor pending other evidence. There is no locus of Cartesian Theater as they require.

This is the strength of this particular argument at this time. It's surely subject to change as we learn more. But it cannot be dismissed with claims of wordsmithing and other outs as you are wont to use.

"I didn't doubt that you know how to Google."

COMMENT: I didn't Google, and rarely do. I have the resources handy, in most cases. Nothing she has written on this topic is original. Literally, nothing!
___________________________________________

"She and Dennet are more convergent than derived from the other."

COMMENT: I doubt that very much. Dennett's book came out in 1991, and Blackmore was one of the first to adopt it, while most everyone else was calling it the nonsense that it is. (See John Searle's critique as a representative example.) Of course, what she was thinking before that I do not know. But she is most certainly NOT an original thinker on this subject.
____________________________________________

"But Marvin Minsky is (was since he's now dead) also in this group.

COMMENT: Of course, Minsky was an original Turing-style AI theorist, most of whom were (and remain) naturally in this camp. And, again, that is fine. They can be materialists who deny consciousness and freewill. My point is that they cannot do that with respect to daily thoughts and actions. (Including their own scientific endeavors) As such, their worldviews are inconsistent. They intellectually believe one thing, while act in their daily lives in accordance with ordinary human commitments that transcend their materialist biases, including the fact that they themselves are genuine conscious agents having the human faculty of freewill from which to order their lives.
______________________________________________

"Your popularity argument fails in that the evidence is equal among the camps, but the assumptions for the more complex consciousness arguments collapse under Occam's razor pending other evidence. There is no locus of Cartesian Theater as they require."

COMMENTS: No. Most "camps," even materialist ones, believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, and do not believe it is illusory. However, they cannot explain what such a "property" is and how subjective properties emerge from physical systems, like the brain. Moreover, they cannot provide a physicalist, scientific account as to just what this emergence entails. Again, non-scientific. Occam's Razor, last time I checked, is not a scientific principal. It is entirely intuitive. In particular, it cannot be used to sweep known phenomena (i.e. consciousness) under the rug of materialist science by simply denying its existence, or appealing to a vague principle of "emergence."
____________________________________________

"This is the strength of this particular argument at this time. It's surely subject to change as we learn more. But it cannot be dismissed with claims of wordsmithing and other outs as you are wont to use."

COMMENT: I am using wordsmithing? Then, surely you can defeat my arguments by appealing to my words and logic. So far all you have offered is name-dropping. If you think Blackmore, Dennett, or Minski (or anyone else) is right, and I am wrong, please enlighten me with substance!
____________________________________________

Nice try hie. Can't do better than that.

You knew what was coming though, didn't you? :)

Once I was done with mormonism, I was DONE.

Mormonism was never MY belief system. It was just forced upon me from birth. I just cooperated and tried to convince myself what I was taught was real. So my belief system didn't crumble. I simply realized I had done sort of a Stockholm Syndrome thing, that I didn't believe any of it, and now I could live honestly.

olderelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mormonism was never MY belief system. It was just
> forced upon me from birth. I just cooperated and
> tried to convince myself what I was taught was
> real. So my belief system didn't crumble. I simply
> realized I had done sort of a Stockholm Syndrome
> thing, that I didn't believe any of it, and now I
> could live honestly.

I think this happened to me i never believed it, it was just forced on me. I had a stolckhom syndrome to survive type of thing to survive my surroundings that i was born into.

I can never go back to any organization.

Agree with most of the above. As an old farm boy I see life in pretty simple terms. The main problem with all belief systems is you have to believe or ignore too many things that don't make sense. I use the sniff test: If it smells fishy, it probably is.

"Doubt your doubts"

*******************

Best LDS quote ever!

Once you listen to the still small voice and doubt everything, question everything, you will find the answers.

YOU have all the answers within and always have Dorothy.

T-bone,

To me the most interesting part of your inquiry is the idea of a belief system. From what i understand through thinking about human nature as derived from the evolutionary path that got us here, I find it intriguing that we instinctively feel a need to cling to 'systems' at all.

I know I have noticed it in my life-- a constant seeking for validation, approval for my actions, in one way or another (including finding validation on this board), those tendencies are all a part of an innate desire to belong.

Personally, I have decided that organized religions, or belief systems, contain bits and pieces of beneficial truths, ideas, and perspectives. Perhaps I am purposefully fighting a subconscious instinct, perhaps not-- either way I no longer wish to prescribe myself to a single system.

Rather, my goal is to overcome needs like communal validation (i'm not there yet, or else I probably wouldn't use this website).

Maybe many find no solace in organized systems post-mormonism because they too wish to find internal validation?

Is that nirvana?

-mightybuffalo

I have a belief system that is now evidence based. Truth is real, it exists and it controls everything about our universe and our existence. It is up to us to discover what those important truths are. That isn't accomplished by looking to purveyors of religion.

I would like to see a movement that could unite and mobilize people to do good based on quantifiable truth and secular wisdom. I marvel at how faith based organizations/movements can mobilize people to action and sacrifice. It makes more sense to be "anxiously engaged in a good cause" based on quantifiable truth rather than myth built on comforting lies.

I haven't joined another church or society or group or party or anything. In fact, I haven't even fully joined RfM.