Over the
past few years, I've thought quite a lot about spiritual questions, skepticism,
and faith. This post is an effort to write out some thoughts about how I
approach questions and doubts about religion and spirituality, and more
specifically about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I expect that most that will read this are
deeply familiar with the Church, and so I have used a lot of terminology that
Mormons will understand without taking space to define terms. To those who may read this that are not
familiar with Mormon terminology, I apologize in advance, and encourage you to
visit
www.mormon.org to get the basics on
anything you don’t understand, or you can contact me directly.
I also
want to say upfront that this is quite long.
I do not think I could do it justice without taking up a fair bit of
space. I sincerely hope that it is worth
taking the time to read.
With that
brief intro, here goes:
The
back-story
My entire
life I have been filled with questions. Jenn's family to this day pokes
fun at me for always wondering about the world and how and why it works.
I view it, in all seriousness, as a gift from God to be curious by
nature. Very few things in the world fill me with as much excitement as
digging in and really getting to the bottom of (almost) any question.
It was
probably on my mission or shortly before it when I discovered that there are a
myriad of questions about religion, the Church, and the gospel, and that it was
okay and even enlightening to ask them. I guess up until that point I had
kind of had the mindset that whatever was taught by my parents, in Sunday
school, or in seminary was just true and there wasn't anything deeper to
understand. I want to highlight here that I'm talking about asking
questions, which is different from having doubts. I simply wanted to know
more about almost anything, from the trivial (did Laban have literally the ONLY
set of scriptures in all of Jerusalem??) to the vital (why must faith precede
hope?). I've used these kinds of questions as my main method of studying
the gospel for the past 15 years or so, and it has been extremely fulfilling
and enriching.
Now, my
profession as an academic is all about asking (and, hopefully, answering)
questions as well. But a big part of getting a Ph.D. is also learning to
be something of a skeptic. I would say that the default for most
academics when they read or hear something new is to be skeptical first, to
"lead with their unbelief," to borrow a phrase from
Elder
Holland. I don't think this is necessarily bad, either. Being
critical and skeptical of yourself and others forces the researcher to explore
every possibility and to be sure of something before promoting it too much.
This leads to better research overall.
It's
natural, then, when you're getting a Ph.D., to start to become skeptical
towards religion as well. In fact, it almost feels disingenuous not to.
After spending all week doubting other's work, why is it okay to suddenly
have faith on Sunday? Shouldn't you put these critical reasoning skills
to work in religion as well?
At first,
these kinds of thoughts made me uneasy. It seemed like a sure path to
losing my testimony, which was the last thing I wanted. So, I basically
avoided them. But you can only put those kinds of things on the shelf for
so long; at some point you must confront them.
Two
key insights
The short
of it is that I'm still a firm believer. I happily devote and dedicate
myself to Christ and His teachings and His church, and in many ways I feel that
my faith is stronger now than before, although it had to pass through some
shakier times to get there. I'm not going to chronicle that journey here,
although I give two short examples below. Instead, what I want to do is
lay out two key insights that have helped me reconcile my professional and
spiritual life, and see just how similar they really are. These two ideas are my starting points for
any doubt I might have about the Church.
1. We know almost nothing about almost
everything. This has been one of the most startling discoveries for
me of the past 8 years. While getting my undergraduate degree, everything
I learned was presented as, "this is the way the world works."
It seemed that we knew SO MUCH about SO MANY things! But that is a
complete illusion that stems from the fact that undergrad classes are designed
to give you a solid base, not to teach you what we don’t know. In grad
school, I first started to get a sense of the vast unexplored wilderness of the
unknown of economics. I realized that in economics at least, we know
almost nothing. For all we know, most of our economic policies might be
as effective as bloodletting was to cure high blood pressure. And then I
realized that this is probably true in almost every field of inquiry.
Think of the things we've discovered in the last few hundred years!
Think of how hard it was to convince the skeptics in Copernicus' time
that the sun and not the earth was at the center of the universe! And
then think of how wrong Copernicus was to think that the sun was at the center,
when really we're in the outer rim of just our galaxy! In all likelihood,
we're way off in our understanding of most things that we "know,"
because we only know a small piece of the full picture.
This is
true in spiritual matters as well. For whatever reason, God has chosen to
reveal very little to us in this life. The Plan of Salvation, wonderful
as it is, is pretty light on the details. The scriptures have been
interpreted (and, sometimes, misinterpreted) for centuries, and cultures and
contexts have changed so dramatically that it's hard to know their exact meaning. And all prophets in
all ages have mostly spoken to us about a select few topics anyway (faith seems
to be a popular one...must be important!).
This
means that with anything that is unclear or hard to understand, there is a high
likelihood that we don't have the whole picture. In any disagreement
between two "truths" it is not necessarily the case that one is right
and one is wrong. It could be that both are right, and we are missing
more understanding that would make the pieces fit together. It could be
that both are wrong. It could be that they are partially right and
partially wrong. We just don't know enough about most things to be able
to rule very much out. Both academic and spiritual learning are muddied
by missing information, years of history, and limited mental and spiritual
capacity.
2. All knowledge is based on faith. Because
we know so little, with anything that we study we always have to start with
faith. Religious study usually starts with faith in God, or maybe even
just a desire to believe in Him (Alma 32:27), and builds from there.
Nephi said that he didn't know the meaning of all things, but that he knew
that God loves His children (1 Nephi 11:17). That's a place to start, and
then we can build from there. We learn more by "experimenting on the
word" and then observing the results. But it all has to start with
faith in something.
The
interesting thing is that secular knowledge is exactly the same. We
know very little, and so we start with faith, and then go from there. Of
course, in secular learning we don't call it faith. Instead, we usually
call it an assumption or a conjecture. But it comes down to the same
thing. For example, scientists start with the assumption that nature
follows laws that can be described by mathematical formulas, and that these
laws are constant. A few hundred years ago, it wasn't a given that this
was true. Newton conjectured that gravity might be one of those laws and
now, from many experiments we know that things on earth fall at an acceleration
rate of about 9.81 m/s^2, so gravity must be a constant law.
The crazy
thing is that even something that we understand as well as gravity doesn't seem
to work all of the time. A little less than two decades ago, it was
discovered that our universe is expanding at an accelerating pace, exactly opposite of what gravity
would predict. That's like throwing an apple in the air and having it fly
away from you faster and faster, rather than falling back down to earth.
It was completely unexpected - so much so that the scientists who
discovered it thought that their data was wrong. They've now won a Nobel
Prize.
When this
discovery was made, did physicists all throw up their hands and lose faith in
the ability of mathematics to describe nature? Did they reject gravity as
a universal law? Of course not!
Rather, they assumed that there was something else out there that they
just didn't understand yet. They still have faith in gravity and other
physical laws because centuries of experience has taught us that eventually
things will work out and will make sense, and that this is the best way to
understand the physical world.
In my own
field of study, I go on faith all the time.
All main economic principles are based on mathematical models of how
people make decisions. But, these
economic models are approximations of reality.
We cannot prove them in the real world because the real world is far
more complex than any model can capture.
That doesn’t mean that the models are worthless. It just means they are light on the
details. Basically, I take it on faith
that what the models say is true, or at least approximately true. I then look for evidence using whatever
methods I can to see if the evidence lines up.
Whether it does or it doesn’t, that is an opportunity to learn more and
get closer to the truth.
A quick
example: a basic principle of economics is that free markets will generally
lead to more economic prosperity. I
could spend all of my time running around saying, “you can’t prove that!” And, it’s true, we can’t. But if I waited for 100% proof, I would never
be able to move from the basic idea that free markets are efficient to anything
more complex or nuanced, such as the idea that free markets are efficient but
only if contracts can be enforced.
Basically, I start with the idea that free markets are good, look around
at the evidence I do have which is heavily on that side, and move on to the
next thing. My faith, in spite of the
fact that something isn’t proven 100%, allows me to progress in knowledge and
understanding.
Bringing
it all together
To sum
up: we don’t know very much about most things, and because of that all
knowledge is based on faith. Therefore,
when I’m faced with something that goes against what I used to believe, it
doesn’t necessarily have to destroy everything I used to know. I first have to acknowledge that I don’t have
complete information, and so making all the pieces fit perfectly together just
isn’t going to happen right now. And
then, I remember that this new piece of information is based on faith, as is my
old information, so it’s not a competition between science and faith.
That
doesn’t mean that I can or should ignore new pieces of evidence. That is blind faith, and I don’t want to have
blind faith in either science or religion.
Rather, when some new piece of information comes along, I weigh it as
new evidence to go along with all of the old evidence I have on some
topic. I try to see how it might fit in,
and I remember that none of the evidence is exactly perfect, so I should not be
so dogmatic and close-minded as to simply reject things out of hand.
I feel
like so often, when something challenges someone’s worldview, they feel like
they either have to hold fast to their old views or completely abandon them for
the new ones. Knowledge and learning is
line upon line! Little by little! Right now we “see through a glass, darkly” (1
Cor. 13:12), not in clean black and white.
Because of that, I think we should be cautious about allowing a single
thing to dramatically alter our beliefs.
Example
1: Genetic evidence and the Book of Mormon
I have
given a couple of examples above of cases where scientific beliefs are based on
faith and how new information does not necessarily destroy those beliefs. I want to share also a couple of examples of how
I have dealt with questions and doubts about spiritual matters as well.
The first
is a straightforward conflict between what science tells us and what religion
tells us. On the one hand, the Book of
Mormon claims that at least some of the ancestors of the Native American people
were from the Middle East. Meanwhile,
our best genetic evidence shows that Native Americans are most closely related
to people from East Asia, leading to a theory that they crossed over to the
Americas via a land bridge near present-day Alaska.
There is
a conflict here, so how do I deal with it?
First, I have to remember that scientific evidence is not irrefutable. Scientific findings get overturned all the
time, so I should not just abandon my faith in the Book of Mormon because of
this apparent conflict. Indeed, my
limited understanding is that our best genetic evidence is based on precious
few sets of DNA from centuries ago, combined with complicated models of how
that DNA might evolve over time. Second,
I also remember that Mormon himself wrote that he wasn’t able to write even
1/100th of the things that occurred during their time. We don’t have the full picture in the Book of
Mormon, and maybe some of the pieces that would help reconcile these two pieces
of information are simply missing right now.
For example, we don’t know what other groups of people lived in the
Americas that the Nephites and Lamanites came into contact with.
Thus, I
go on what I know: I know that I have no explanation for the Book of Mormon
other than Joseph Smith being an absolute genius such as the world has never
seen, or that it is from God. I know that when I live by its teachings I am
happy and fulfilled, and that when I mess up I am not. I know that I have felt
for myself the Spirit testifying that it is true, and that many others whom I
respect and love have felt the same. I
take all of this evidence, and the small conflicts about genetics don’t trouble
me too much because I recognize that we lack complete information on those
issues. Thus, I continue to believe that the Book of Mormon is from God, and
then I wait for more information.
It turns
out that in this case, a small bit of further information has come. A couple of years ago National Geographic
published
an article about a “great surprise:” new evidence from the genome of a
24,000-year-old Siberian youth suggests that up to 1/3
rd of Native
American genes are of Western Eurasian descent, rather than entirely from East
Asians as previously believed. Thus, it
now appears entirely reasonable to assume that at least some ancestors of the
Native Americans were from the Middle East.
Again,
this new piece of information is just a piece
of evidence! It may switch again, and
again, as we learn more. Thus, it does
not fully confirm or deny the story in the Book of Mormon; it just sways things
back in the direction of my own beliefs.
Most importantly, however, it demonstrates how things that we “know”
will change as new things come to light.
Example
2: Learning more of Joseph Smith’s history
As with
most people that grow up as members of the Church, I have always revered Joseph
Smith as a man of God and the prophet who restored the gospel. I still do.
But I think that I was taught a rather glossed-over version of his
history in my youth, mostly because that’s the history that Church materials
present. (I think this is slowly
changing, which I applaud!)
Thus, it
was a bit of a shock to learn more about his past in the small bit of reading I
have done about him outside of the standard Church materials. For instance, Rough Stone Rolling tells of him looking into a hat to translate
the Gold Plates, which was something I had never heard before in my life. I have also learned of him going to look for
gold in various places, and other things that he did in setting up the Church
that appear to be mistakes or errors of judgment (such his failed financial
ventures).
This
challenged my worldview of Joseph Smith, whom I had envisioned as a
near-perfect man. The question is: what
do I do with this new information? The
answer is that it depends a lot on how I approach it. If I were starting from a position of not
believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and looking for confirming evidence
of that, I could probably take these things that way, and it would weaken or
even destroy my faith.
But I can
also take this same evidence and use it to further cement my faith that Joseph
Smith was a prophet. Specifically, instead
of asking, “How does this show that Joseph Smith was not a prophet?” I instead
ask, “How does this change what I know about prophets?” Notice that I’m taking all of my previous
knowledge and faith and beliefs about Joseph Smith, and using it as a starting
point, just like I do when I study economics.
When approaching the question from this angle, the new information is
enlightening, not faith-destroying. If
you think about it, the fact that Joseph Smith looked into a hat isn’t any
weirder than him looking into the Urim and Thumminm. Is it that odd that he went looking for gold,
given all of the gold rushes we know about in California, South Dakota, the
Yukon, etc.? Not really. Rather, I now better understand that the Lord
works with prophets as real men, who might feel more comfortable looking into a
hat or who might be easily swayed by tales of gold. I think of how often the Lord has let me fail
and mess up, even in my church calling, and I understand that it is no
different even for a man of Joseph Smith’s stature. In fact, learning this history has increased
my appreciation of what God can do with prophets, because I marvel even more at
the temples, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and all of the
other things instituted through an imperfect man.
What I
believe
Hopefully,
those two examples give small illustrations of how my faith evolves as I ask
questions and encounter new information.
I want to say clearly that I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints is the true church. I
believe this not because I have a perfect knowledge of all things, but because
all of the evidence in my life to this point tells me that there is a God who
loves me, and that when I live His commandments I am happier and my life is
better. Some of that evidence is
observational and scientific, and of course a lot of it is based on my own
personal spiritual experiences One of
the difficult things about that spiritual knowledge is that each person needs
to have their own experiences with the Spirit.
I cannot give you the data and let you do the analysis as I could with a
hard science. But that doesn’t make it
less true or less important! It just
means that others have to find that evidence for themselves.
By
recognizing that faith is not a perfect knowledge, I also recognize that my
faith and beliefs are (and should be!) evolving and changing as I learn
more. That process has been an
enlightening and uplifting one as long as I have been humble and prayerful. It can also be frustrating, as it means that
I always have many open questions that I simply have to put on the shelf and
wait for an answer. But I believe that the Lord is willing to pour down
knowledge (see D&C 121:33) as soon as I am ready for it. I know that as I go through that process, my
light slowly becomes “brighter and brighter until the perfect day.” (D&C
50:24).
That’s
what I believe.
