Letter To My Kids: Part 2

Debating Tactics

While investigating different ideas and information you will run across people espousing various points of view who will argue their points passionately and persuasively. They may be right or wrong; winning an argument doesn't necessarily mean being correct. I can't give you a complete set of guidelines for evaluating people's arguments, but you should be aware of some of the tools used in argument/persuasion. Don't be fooled by faulty logic or emotional appeals.

Debating Tactics

While investigating different ideas and information you will run across people espousing various points of view who will argue their points passionately and persuasively. They may be right or wrong; winning an argument doesn't necessarily mean being correct. I can't give you a complete set of guidelines for evaluating people's arguments, but you should be aware of some of the tools used in argument/persuasion. Don't be fooled by faulty logic or emotional appeals.

"Ad hominem." Often a debator may attack the person's character rather than their arguments. Name calling may be overt or subtle, and even humerous. Whenever you see someone using diminuating language to describe their opponent, be alert to the ad hominem. Calling attention to someone's previous un-related mistakes may also be used to divert attention from the matter at hand. Sometimes evaluation of someone's previous work may be warranted, but it should have direct bearing on the question at hand. Ad hominem is easy to use.

"Appeal to authority." Simply naming off some famous person's statement supporting proposition X may be used in an attempt to declare victory on the subject. Statements by experts can and should be used to support arguments, but it doesn't obviate the need to support the argument with logic and wisdom that said expert would have used him/herself if they had to make the argument from scratch. Authorities can be wrong, too. Also, make sure the authority being appealed to is actually an authority on the subject at hand, not something else. Famous people are often used as support for arguments, but their expertise may be quite narrow.

"Straw man." This is where a simplified, even caricatured, incarnation of your opponent's argument is presented as the opponent's entire argument, then easily knocked down with some simplified line of reasoning. While it may sound convincing and conclusive, a fair debator would allow their opponent to present a more complete picture.

"Selective Evidence." Beware of those who pick and choose their evidence to support their position. In a debate, this is often what one must do to win the argument. But a fair investigator should hear both confirming and dis-confirming evidence to decide what is the most probable and reasonable position.

Related to selective evidence is the "survivor bias." One example is a book that interviewed survivors of aircraft accidents and asked if they had noticed where the exits were on the airplane. Some high percentage of them said, yes, they had noticed the location of the aircraft exits. The conclusion was that when you get on an airplane, you should carefully note where the exits are to increase your odds of surviving an airplane crash. The fallacy is that the author could not interview those who did not survive the accident - perhaps most of them had also noted where the exits are. But you can't interview the dead, and you can't conclude that looking for the exits will necessarily increase your survival odds. The same kind of poor procedure is called the "battlefield fallacy." Only the survivors live to tell their story in a war.

"Ad-hoc arguments." This is an argument that is plausible, but for which there is little or no evidence. It is created on the spot to solve a problem or dillema, seems reasonable, but has little or no evidence to support it. But "if it were true, the problem is solved." Going back to our dog-and-hamburger example, the friend might say "look, the back door is open - another dog must have come and eaten it!" Possible, but there's no direct evidence of another dog.

Faith and Knowledge

Now I will begin to talk about evaluating religious information. I will attempt to approach this subject with some sensitivity, because religious beliefs are very personal and usually have emotional attachment. Religion can be useful and emotionally satisfying. It answers questions that do not have scientific answers, or for which the scientific answers are not particularly appealing. Scientists must say "I don't know" or "there is no evidence for" a lot of questions for which we would really like to have answers. But religions used inappropriately can also be used to propagate evil (witness the many fundamentalist terrorists in the world), or just intolerance and bigotry. So it's important to look at religion with an eye to logic and rationality, as well as faith. It really should make sense, especially if someone is asking you to sacrifice significant amounts of time, energy, and money (or even your life) for a cause.

There are those who would say that "you can't evaluate religion by the same standards as the science," that when talking about religion we should "just have faith." While this may be appealing, I would say that this is incomplete. The idea of "just having faith" can be used to support any proposition or any religion. Therefore, we have to use logic and evidence at some point to decide what it is we will have faith in. There are many truly untestable propositions (in the scientific sense) about religion, such as "Does God exist?" But there are many propositions that are testable, and even those who believe in a particular religion would be foolish not to use their God-given intelligence to evaluate the variety of claims that are out there.

Is "faith" on the same level as "knowledge?" No, because if they were, we wouldn't even need a separate word to describe it. There is a big difference, though some use the words interchangeably. I believe there are many in the religious world (leaders and followers) who claim to "know" things that are objectively un-knowable. To claim "knowledge" would be to have evidence that can be used objectively to convince most reasonable people to a similar state of knowledge. However, in claiming "knowledge" about things that are inherently unprovable, people are conflating faith with knowledge without acknowledging the difference. While there are obviously strong feelings associated with many faith claims, feelings cannot refute objective evidence. Like the cognitive dissonance example above about the unfaithful spouse, all the feelings in the world don't change the fact that the woman's husband was cheating. Strong feelings can also be elicited by things that are patently fictional. For example, I feel warm-and-fuzzy (practically to tears) about the ending scenes of the Walt Disney movie "The Parent Trap." It is wonderful that the girls get their parents back together again, that they can be a family, and all the warm relations that entails. It's also a fictional story that has been contrived to provoke these exact emotions. Many books and movies operate the same way - you may remember reading (or me reading to you) "Where the Red Fern Grows." When I was growing up I didn't know that the book was fiction, and it evoked strong emotions. Even now that I know it is fiction, it is still very powerful. I cannot prove one way or the other that the "spirit" does not testify of truth in such a manner, but one should be aware that emotional feelings (that feel just like the "spirit") can be evoked by untruths, too.

Circular Logic

This brings me to a point about the logic of accepting faith-based "truths." In the LDS church, you have been taught to pray about something and you will receive a "manifestation" that it is true if it is true (usually a "burning in the bosom" or something similar). On my mission and other times in my life I have met people who claim they have received such testimonies of their religion, and also that the LDS church is false. How could they have received a manifestation of the spirit that contradicted my feelings on the subject? Does the spirit give different truths to different people? Or did they receive a "fake" manifestation? How do we know the "real" from the "fake?" The people I have met were every bit as sincere as any LDS person, and I would be dishonest to assert that their experiences were somehow less valid than my own.

The point is that our acceptance of the fundamental tenet that the "burning bosom" (or other feelings) represents "truth" is based on circular reasoning. This is a proposition that is asserted to be true based on a chain of logic that includes itself. For example, the scriptures tell us that we will receive a manifestation (burning bosom) if we pray to know if they are true. How do we know that the scriptures are correct? Because I prayed about it and received a burning in the bosom. How do we know the burning came from God? Because the scriptures tell us so. How do we know the scriptures are correct about that? Because I prayed about it. And so on. You have to accept one of the elements in the chain as "true" without supporting evidence for the circle to hold up - there is no external reference to break the chain. While this does not prove that God doesn't answer prayers in such a manner, it does show that attempting to prove this assertion in this way is to rely on circular logic. And thus, in my mind, you need to rely on reasoning, logic, and external evidence at some point to decide which tenets you are going to accept or reject. Otherwise, you are free to believe anything that gives you a good feeling.

Where Do We Look for Information?

From an early age we looked to "authority figures" for our information. This is a natural part of growing up, and our parents are our first authority figures that we look to for answers. [Of course you now probably think we don't have many answers at all :-), but we do our best.] Our parents introduce us to others whom they trust, like teachers at school, in church, and so on. But once you go on your own, you will be exposed to a myriad of people who claim to have answers. We should be careful not to give our trust easily to anyone who comes along, and there will be those who do not have your best interests at heart. In evaluating Mormonism, there are many in the "anti-Mormon" group who are truly not reliable and will resort to sensationalistic stories and selective data (examples - Ed Decker and Dick Baer). It is easy for those who believe in Mormonism to point at those and say "See, they are all liars!" and they would be right about those particular people, but it does not mean that all those who disagree with Mormonism use the same tactics. Hopefully, using the tools I've talked about above you will be able to see who is who.

Speaking of Mormonism, it has been said by many when referring to Mormonism's detractors, "Would you go to a Chevy dealer to find out about Fords?" By this they are implying that one should go to the Mormons to find out about Mormonism, and also indirectly, one should avoid other sources as being biased and unfair. While I agree that one should go to the Mormons to find out their view of Mormonism, if I'm buying a car and looking at Fords, I would also certainly look at Chevys as well, and probably other brands. But most importantly I would go to someplace like Consumer Reports where I could hear from previous Ford owners about their experiences with the cars, and impartial testers who also give their opinions. None of these sources are completely "unbiased," but I would be foolish to only accept the word of the Ford dealer's car salesman. Now, there is no "Consumer Reports" for religion; thus one has to look for information from a variety of sources. Those with axes to grind and anger issues will be apparent; those who attempt to present a more even-handed account will also be fairly clear. Over time a picture emerges as to the most likely set of events, and it comes from considering a variety of sources, not just the ones with a vested interest.

In the following sections I will lay out what I believe are some important facts and issues about the LDS church and Mormonism. By this I mean the events and information that have the highest probability of being true given my investigation of the available literature using the tools I've talked about above. I wish to be accurate, and if there is anything that you find that is factually incorrect, please point it out and show why. Many historians, both LDS and not, have studied the early documents related to the origins of Mormonism. Mormonism is relatively unique in that it came about in an age where printing and record keeping were available. Joseph Smith kept personal scribes and assistants that documented many things he said. Newspapers and tracts were published by the church itself, along with many newspapers and pamphlets outside the church that talked about the Mormons. From all of these documents numerous books have been written, from which one can gain a pretty good idea of both the positive and negative of Joseph Smith and the LDS church.

Some may say you should not look at things which are not "faith promoting." I ask, "why not?" Is faith so fragile that it must be protected from every contravening fact or argument? Is a faith worth having that can be easily damaged or rendered useless by historical documents and philosophical arguments? I firmly believe that truth will stand up to scrutiny, and will be made stronger by being examined and challenged. If something is true, celebrate it! If something is not true, acknowledge the fact and change our thinking to match the best reality we understand.