These last couple of weeks were fairly busy. Not because I've been forcedly busy, I've just been trying to stay busy. I've worked more in a week than I ever have before, and I am very slowly beginning to understand the most surface level of quantum mechanics through my research. Also, all that stuff they teach you in calculus and differential equations is actually useful for something. In fact, it is nearly impossible to understand some of quantum mechanics without it. If you cared, I might be able to explain something interesting instead of just saying I don't know. I won't bore you with the details.
My work chatbot is working. It's my first truly functional idea. I am very proud of it.
It was Hazel's birthday a few days ago. I allowed her to put hair tinsel in my hair. I am very pretty now.
The new pope got elected, which is very exciting news. He seems like a fairly good guy, and he's from Chicago. He is the first American pope in history. Isn't that exciting?
I am not really sure what else to talk about. Everything has been more or less ordinary. I suppose I could take this time to explain something that's been on my mind.
I read a fairly infamous document this week about the church that poses questions with hard answers. I would not say that it is a particularly positive document, as it focuses on potential shortcomings in early church claims. However, I read it and saw it as a list of genuine concerns and questions, many of which I also possess. To see that someone else has noticed the same things didn't make me feel worse, it made me feel more normal. As I read about the beginnings of the LDS church, I thought about how frantic it must have been. One guy suddenly gains a small following for some factually unverifiable events and a church begins. He dies, and several other people have similar experiences and create their own small denominations with nearly identical beliefs.
Let's apply something that my math proofs class taught me. We are going to use principles of mathematical proof to explore the validity of our religion. This is going to be very rudimentary, so don't think that this is meant to explain everything. Obviously a religion's applicability to your life can't be justified by one paragraph, but perhaps a single aspect of it can. The statement we will prove is "The critical document is false." We have a proof by cases:
1. All of it is false.
This situation is not possible, because at least one of the points is true and is easily verifiable. Thus, this case never occurs.
2. Some of it is false.
This is possible. Assume then that we filter out all of the false premises and select only the true ones.
3. None of it is false (it is true).
Assume that the document is true. Thus, a 100% black or white church, gospel, doctrine, and belief system is false. This is what historians call a McConkie interpretation. This type of church cannot possibly stand up to criticism because finding one flaw inherently destroys the entire web of ideas, which is the defining characteristic of the model. If this is the type of church that you want to believe in, that's fine, but this means that if any detail is shown as true, you have to deny it to preserve your initial belief. However, this case doesn't immediately ruin a gray-area church, one that is growing and changing. A church that can and is wrong is more correct in the face of criticism? Ironic.
I spent two hours this week attempting to explain my perspective to someone very close to me. I explained that believing that everything must be true is a very dangerous mentality, because sometimes evidence on the contrary is undeniable. I choose to believe what I do because I haven't yet found it to be wrong. When I do, I adjust my beliefs to make room for other proven claims. If something is shown to be true, how can I not believe it? Truth should stand to scrutiny and should be found everywhere. I don't limit my perspective because it seems quite naive to do so. This is what I think causes people to spiral out of control. Holding fast to a very narrow worldview leaves no room for any other opinions or ideas. When one part of that is shown to be wrong, the entire thing comes crashing down, causing the person to feel betrayed, lied to, and upset. Now, I am not saying that you should give up on what you believe, nor am I saying hold tighter to what you do. What I am saying is that viewing things from multiple angles is the most effective way to find what is true. When you hear someone with a viewpoint that differs from yours, listen! Don't listen with the intent to change their mind. Don't rationalize their ideas in your head. Don't think immediately of why they are incorrect or why you know better. Just listen. Attempt to understand why they feel the way they do. Ask questions. Ask why. Don't probe, but be interested. You may find that you really do agree with them more than you did with yourself. This is true outside of a church perspective. This is true in business, science, and politics. This doesn't mean you should never stand your ground, but there is a time and a place where it isn't necessary. It is perfectly acceptable to entertain beliefs opposite of what you believe, because you should be able to sort out the truth from amongst the options. This is why I dislike the common church quote, "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith," because it implicitly states that your doubts are going to be wrong. They might not be. They might be right, and your interpretation was wrong the whole time. Example: the church has stated that Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon using the plates. He didn't look at them through the Urim and Thummim. He put his face in a hat; a much less heroic image. This isn't some anti-LDS sentiment, this is supported by the church itself. The specifics of the narrative that you might have thought you knew are false. This doesn't mean that the meanings behind the story were false, but the specifics were. I also am not saying that they are unequivocally true. I think that it takes a lifetime to decide that, and I'm not going to say whether you are right or wrong. I think it depends very much on the person.
In short, it was a very difficult conversation. I don't think the person was ready to accept that my understanding was different than theirs. I don't really think that much of what I said was really listened to. But that is okay. How can I fault them for doing exactly what they think is right: ignoring anything that might have a negative effect on their faith? I cannot.
I guess that's all for now. If you do not burn in the moonlight, please enjoy tan skin and sunlight for me. Some of us can't be outside for more than 15 minutes without burning. 5 minutes if the UV is 7 or above.
-william
ps. subject song is goated
No comments:
Post a Comment