christian@topaz.UUCP (12/12/86)
In responding to Keith Rowell's article, "A non-Christian recommends some books about Mormonism" I take issue more with the character rather than the content of the article: >For a non-Mormon, non-Christian, mainstream slant on the LDS experience, >I would recommend two recent books: > > * Gottlieb, Robert and Peter Wiley. America's Saints: The > Rise of Mormon Power. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986 > (1984). (ISBN 0-15-605658-5) > > * Heinerman, John and Anson Shupe. The Mormon Corporate > Empire. Beacon Press, 1985. (ISBN 0-8070-0406-5) > >I would like to stress for those not acquainted with the world >of educated opinion that these books are not part of the (mostly) >fundamentalist Christian hate literature about Mormonism. "Christianity Today" published a favorable review of Heinerman and Shupe's book books in a recent issue. If anyone is interested in it, I'll look up the exact issue. (It's reassuring to know that CT keeps me "aquainted with the world of educated opinion"). Most of Keith's article constitutes good information, the remainder seems to constitute a slam against the Christian faith. The "Fundamentalist hate literature" Keith speaks of critiques Mormonism according to a different standard than these books. The polemics against Mormons by Fundamentalists carry the concern that Mormons not be identified with "fundamental" Christianity. This concern carries much of their critique to extremes, but that is not to say that they don't have some legitimate criticisms from their point of view. The fact that non-believers don't share this concern doesn't make their view any more important. There is a *difference* of viewpoint expressed here and I think readers who are really interested in the topic would benefit from reading a selection of all books recommended thus far (including those suggested by Mormons). The point I wish to make about the character of Keith's article is that it does little good for people like him to express their opinion of Christianity in the same manner as "fundamentalist hate literature" expresses its dislike for things that don't mesh with its viewpoint. The Fundamentalist concern for the "purity of Christian belief" finds many paralells in Keith's apparent concern for the purity of "educated opinion". I am as much disturbed with people who imply that educated opinion hasn't much compatibility with Christain faith as I am with Fundamentalists who claim that non-fundamentalist Christians are not real Christians. I appreciate the concern to draw the line somewhere in both cases, but I think this concern ought to be mixed with a measure of intellectual and spiritual humility which recognizes that one's own point of view may not define the whole boundry. I think Keith's response reflects a narrow view of Christianity and Christians. I'm sorry that the more flagrant Fundamentalist Christians are the most visible in the public eye, making up most of the reputation Christians have in the minds of non-believers. Unfortunately this narrow mindedness seems to be the cultural norm. The "educated opinion" Keith speaks of often passes as an erudite authority when I think it ought to be balanced by another point of view. The blame for this probably resides with both Christians and non-believers. Many of the former ought to be more outspoken, not being afraid of our society's tendency to pidgeon-hole outspoken Christians as "Fundamentalist bigots". I also think some non-beleivers ought to have a little more interest in personally considering the insider's view of Christianity, instead of mistrusting anything that isn't materialistically digested and served to them on a secular platter. As one such "insider", I would like to respond briefly to some of Keith's remarks. I don't particularly mean to pick on Keith here, just the particular attitude involved. >I have been disappointed at the lack of adequate response to these >criticisms given by various Mormon friends. ... Lack of response to your personal criticism may only mean that people don't consider changing your opinion to be important or worth the effort. We all need to be careful not to flatter ourselves by taking a lack of response to our opinions as an indication of the superiority of those opinions. >... In reality -- naturally enough -- Mormons like most Christians have >bought so hard into their faith that they turn a deaf ear to even faint >criticisms. All-encompassing belief systems -- ideologies -- do that to >people. True enough, this goes for secular materialists too. If not a "deaf ear", people often resort to ridicule or personal attack. Subjective and personal involvement on one's point of view is unavoidable. Arthur Holmes makes the point that this "epistomological subjectivity" isn't necessarily incompatible with "metaphysical objectivity". (See his book _All Truth is God's Truth_). I agree. I think people who identify these two concepts with one another are a cause for concern, no matter what their beliefs. >I *have* run into thinking Christians, but, characteristically, >the more they think, the shallower their faith. My experience has not been the same. Perhaps we judge "shallowness" differently. I think that time pressures on the priorities of individuals may explain this to a greater degree than any supposed causual connection. Some people have their noses so deeply buried in books that they don't have time to live out what they believe. For others the opposite criticism applies. People in each group tend to distain the priorities of the other as a result. >This is due to the inherent implausibility of much of Christian dogma when >compared to the knowledge derived from the current standard of >reasoned judgment ... The overwhelming success of science in >explaining the world and the transformation of civilization brought >on by business and government turning the knowledge of science into >technology has shoved things religious into an ever shrinking corner. What "all-encompasing belief systems" (see above) will do to people ;-). If you want to take faith in rationalism as the standard premise, then it may be hard to argue with your conslusions. But, as you say, when one has "bought in" to a belief systems so strongly (and I think much of our culture has uncritically done so), it's easy to see others as irrelevant. The status quo has so much inertia that those who will challenge it must be more thourough in their thinking than those who merely affirm it. (This is not to say that the status quo is therefore wrong, it's just that inertia has a way of squelching legitimate criticisms, making them appear foolish. It's something to keep in mind.) I see science as running up against its limits in many areas of inquiry, particularly those touching on the core of religious world views. Yours isn't the only plausible philosophy of science. In my opinion, it isn't the most plausible either. >Until that time [when genuine religious experience is vindicated >by sciencs as "psychic phenomena"] the prudent Christian should be very >caution about what parts of Christian dogma he or she decides to >"believe in". I believe that science and scholarship will ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ <<Shouldn't you be just as prudent? --PMD >eventually vindicate genuine religious experience but that much >of religious dogma will finally really be shown to be false. In the above paragraph you extoll the "overwhelming success of science in explaining the world". Explanation is one thing. People tend to accept *explanations* according to their philosophical predispositions. "Showing to be false" is quite another thing. I think this is where science runs aground in the claims made for its ability to prove or disprove any theory of religious experience. These claimants assume that the empirical, fact oriented, reputation of science will carry it into places where empirical data are scarce without undermining the athority of "scientific" conclusions in those areas. I don't think this assumption ought to be accepted as uncritically as most people seem to do. When this happens, no one notices when "scientifc" conclusions rest on speculation conforming to a particular philosophical stance, and when they rest on emprical data. I think the study of psychic phenomena and much of what is called social science are some areas where this is happening. Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd