- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have come to this topic after some recent studies and conversations around the difficulty many people have in finding any value in the church after a major crisis of faith. It could easily be a chapter in a book, and I cannot give adequate background here, but this topic is primarily aimed at those people who have experienced a catastrophic failure of their worldview. So often as church members we are accustomed to feeling a sense of security in “knowing” what is right and true – at least as far as the really important things in life and beyond. That is a big reason why a major faith crisis can be so disorienting and traumatic often leading to intense anger and frustration. When you just can’t see the world in the same way that you’ve grown accustomed to it’s hard to find your bearings, and desperation can be great. Most people find themselves grasping for anything solid, anything that they can cling to that won’t sway under the weight of their scrutiny. A common anchor that logical minds are drawn to in this time of need is science. Science has a proven method of reinforcing its conclusions through verification. When an experiment can be verified it is assumed to be sound. I think we all know of people who have lost their trust in God and have gained a new trust in science. When this switch is made the sense of security in knowing what is right and true can be preserved.
The problem with this change in “loyalty” is that it tends to be exclusive. While some faithful and eager church members are content to discount science where it may conflict with their spiritual views, those with a loyalty to science may just as easily discount all spiritual views when some element conflicts with science. I believe it is a sincere desire to retain the security of knowing what is right that drives this divisiveness, but the resulting divisions can be tragic and heartbreaking.
My personal desire to find a way to “make it work” was initially to preserve and avoid traumatizing my family. When faced with two horrible alternatives: 1) a divided and troubled family -or- 2)”going along” at church when I honestly found no value there — I couldn’t choose because neither of the choices were acceptable. I needed to find a way that would both preserve my inner sense of integrity, and allow me to find the common ground that would enable family unity. In short I needed to find a way to authentically make church “work.”
It is not an easy or quick process. I understand why so many people say it’s impossible, and frankly it may be for them. Thankfully I have found ways to re-engage at church that are both positive and meaningful. I realized today that one of the key decisions that has allowed me to progress in this goal was my willingness to sacrifice some of my certainty.
I realize that may come across entirely wrong to a lot of people. I can understand the reaction of “oh, he decided to ignore demonstrable truths.” That is not what I’m talking about at all. I am only talking about the
non-demonstrable projected conclusions if you will. Not wanting to get deep into examples I will summarize with one: Evolution is for practical purposes demonstrable, the full absence of God including all definitions is not. If there is room for a degree of belief, and my family will benefit from my effort, to me it becomes an important choice: Quote:Do I value my certainty over my family?
From there the effort can be colored to look much like Alma’s planting a seed. I fertilize it with my favorite LDS quotes such as “if it’s true it’s part of the gospel” or “you are only required to believe the parts that are true.” Even Brigham Young’s “If there is any truth in hell we cling to that too!” And water it with as much hopeful, loving, positive thoughts that I can produce. I realize a huge amount of detail is missing here, but in the end I feel I am honest with myself, striving for my family and my own improvement, and willing to learn by any method that God, or life, or the greater good can place in my path.
After spending some time on this path, I have grown to appreciate Edward Kimball’s reflection, that “certainty is a burden.” While it once felt comforting to have ideas and concepts nailed down and secure, it now feels so liberating to be open to new knowledge and truths, “come from whence they may.” It has given me new appreciation for many church quotes such as from Joseph Smith:
Quote:The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men…
Embracing uncertainty has been incredibly liberating to me. It’s not easy by any stretch, but it was wonderful when it got so ingrained that I no longer had to think about it. I am going to share the link to the poem my second daughter wrote as a junior in high school. She is one of my most “TBM” children, if you will, and she wrote it all by herself with no help or input from me.
“Imagine If” (
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3098&hilit=poem Quote:It is not an easy or quick process. I understand why so many people say it’s impossible, and frankly it may be for them. Thankfully I have found ways to re-engage at church that are both positive and meaningful. I realized today that one of the key decisions that has allowed me to progress in this goal was my willingness to sacrifice some of my certainty.
I agree so much… I now realize faith is more crucial then knowledge
Quote:Embracing uncertainty has been incredibly liberating to me. It’s not easy by any stretch, but it was wonderful when it got so ingrained that I no longer had to think about it.
So true… I no longer have to make every detail fit. I realize God doesn’t expect that either… he pushes us to the precipice of Faith.
Orson, Thanks for your thoughful post.
Orson wrote:A common anchor that logical minds are drawn to in this time of need is science. Science has a proven method of reinforcing its conclusions through verification. When an experiment can be verified it is assumed to be sound. I think we all know of people who have lost their trust in God and have gained a new trust in science. When this switch is made the sense of security in knowing what is right and true can be preserved.
I don’t think science can be an anchor of certainty any more than religion. Science is not static but is always changing as new data is collected. As time goes on scientists discover new principles that reshape their views. Occassionally new data is so disruptive that all the old principles are thrown out and new ones are written. Even when this happens, scientists don’t lose their faith in science and look for other sources of certainty.
A good example is around the turn of the century when Einstein, Heisenburg, Bohr, and others radically changed our fundamental understanding of physics. Other scientists didn’t give up on physics and join the circus, they adapted their views and worked with the new information they had.
I think the strength in science isn’t its certainty, but its ability to evaluate and integrate new information. If we can accept that we learn gospel truths “line upon line” and “embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men” then we can evaluate new truths and integrate them into our gospel worldview wthout having to start again from scratch.
Thanks Earl for those points of clarification. My statement was coming from an experiential origin, mostly dealing with betrayal and feeling traditional views are unsound. The change of loyalty if you will to embracing science is partly because of its adaptive nature, you are right about that, and how that adaptive nature helps the process feel sound and secure with regard to loyalty to discernible truth. No simple model can do perfect justice, but I tried to paint a helpful picture of one element of my personal journey. Science doesn’t seek certainty, and then throw it out when new information is discovered. Science seeks to disprove false conclusions and seek the most probable remaining conclusions. It is open to, and invites, new challenges to existing theories. It is never certain. In a way, there is faith in science. Faith in what is seen.
Neither relIgion nor science should embrace certainty. Both evolve.
Heber13 wrote:
Neither relIgion nor science should embrace certainty. Both evolve.Yes, today that looks to me like the more mature statement, and I agree 100%. In the moment when my prior worldview shattered science looked like a solid anchor and an appealing option to fill the void that would allow me to continue to feel certain about “knowing” truth. What is the quote – “the enemy of truth is a sense of certainty”?
It’s not really about science as much as it is about grasping ideas with the feeling that “here I have truth, here is something solid that will always remain.” It’s a personal seeking of comfort, and people can do it with both religion and science.
I think an important question that everyone can ask is:
Quote:What do I cling to as truth that I am afraid to release?
This is an exercise of personal reflection, and should also be augmented by:
Quote:What ideas do I hope others will release, so they will be able to agree with my point of view.
Orson, awesome questions. Although I don’t think anyone is certain about it in this life, I cling to the idea of an afterlife asJoseph Smith taught it. I like to believe my dad, who has passed away, is close by me sometimes, and I will see him again.
I hope that others will release the idea that we know with certainty the degrees of glory and spirit world. I think we know far far less about it than we talk on Sundays.
I never think that I am certain about much of anything. Best you can do is take the current and best information you have and use your brain to make decisions. I would not embrace uncertainty for the cause of ignoring facts to the contrary however. Cadence wrote:I would not embrace uncertainty for the cause of ignoring facts to the contrary however.
Exactly. To do so goes against God in my view. But I also think we must hold a little space in the back of our minds that the “facts” as we know them may also be misunderstood to some degree. Not that gravity may not really exist, but that we don’t perfectly understand all the finest details of how it works.
Quote:I never think that I am certain about much of anything.
Sure you do, as evidenced by quite a few of your comments here (most recently regarding garments). I do the same thing as you – but I try hard to recognize when I am certain only about myself and when I am certain about others, as well.
Heber13 wrote:Neither religion nor science should embrace certainty. Both evolve.
To make either religion or science to appear unchanging it is sometimes helpful to look at the last 20 years or so (to the exclusion of past history). Framing it in this way minimizes shifts that take some generations to fully evolve. Sometimes in dealing with troubling issues of church history, I have heard suggested that the modern church does not teach these things and it is therefore not relevant to us now. I see both as acceptable ways of dealing with contrary information: one may expand the scope and change the approach (as Orson is suggesting) or narrow the scope until it fits the approach (as some have suggested in considering only the teachings of the modern church in determining value).
I suppose that it is easy to dismiss the later approach as simply burying the metaphorical head in the sand – but allow me to elaborate…
Orson wrote:Not that gravity may not really exist, but that we don’t perfectly understand all the finest details of how it works.
I suppose in some future generation it may be necessary to understand more of how gravity works (in order to properly maintain our anti-gravity cars
:ugeek: ) but for the here and now gravity works just fine in keeping my feet on the ground. I can live and die without this additional knowledge and feel no lack in its absence.And then there is the relationship cost. I am fascinated by true stories of people who are so consumed by a thing (proving patent infringement or solving a crime. etc.) that they neglect other things and people in their lives. Is it ever worth it? I guess that depends on who you ask. Sometimes, even when they are proven right against all odds, those relationships with spouses and children are long gone. In this sense, I recommend a big dose of consideration for other people. Someone that is certain that sinners are going to hell can hurt a lot of people by unfiltered sharing. Conversely – someone that is certain that religions are all made up baloney for the weak and gullible can also hurt a lot of people by unfiltered sharing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.