On Freethinking in Mormonism

What is to follow is an informal account of an essay I intend on writing. I will begin on writing here in order to formulate my thoughts and in hopes of gaining comments from readers.

Testimony in the context of Mormonism is a witness from the Holy Ghost that a belief is true. It would then seem that the only difference betweenj faith in a belief and a testimony in a belief is the manifestation of the Holy Ghost (or the lack of the manifestation.) It is generally taught, in particular by Boyd K. Packer in his talk "The Candle of the Lord," Ensign, Jan. 1983, pp. 54-55, that faith comes first. I would suggest curiosity in the matter develops and that motivates one to challenge what is being taught. This is seen in converts to the church since, generally speaking, there is no social pressure being excerted to just assume the belief is true (this will be discussed later.)

I would then suggest the following: One should not believe a teaching without having reason to suppose that position. Faith, in of itself, is meaningless in its content. For example if I claim "I have faith that there is a teapot between Mars and Jupiter", my proclamation is empty in its claim. However if I taught that there is indeed a teapot between Mars and Jupiter, one can do one of three things: 1. Accept the teaching as a priori true , 2. Accept the teaching as a priori false or 3. Observe between Mars and Jupiter to see if there is indeed a teapot within that vicinity and if there is a teapot, suppose the teaching is true; if not, suppose the teaching is false. I would then argue that options 1 and 2 presented above should not be tolerated on the grounds that without any justification of the validity of the argument, other than it could be justified, one cannot demonstrate if the proposition is true, and one may be able to present evidence to suppose the proposition is false (in the case of 1. NOT observing a teapot, and in the case of 2. Observing a teapot). Thus another formulation of the argument is: Blind faith, or a hope in a belief without justification, is meaningless in content and therefor not significant. This formuation of the argument may seem like a leap but it can be imagined in the following way: Assume that I take position 1. above, or that there is a teapot between Mars and Jupiter either ignorant of any evidence or lacking any evidence to suppose there really is. This would then be blind faith but since there is no evidence provided my belief is meaningless. Now assume that I go up to an astronomer and tell him that there is a teapot between Mars and Jupiter and he questions me how I can possibly know that, but at the lack of a presentation of evidence he simply tells me off because my belief then carries no significance to his work.

The position held above is hardly new; it has been the liberal position for nearly a century. However in the positivist conception (or the philosophy that knowledge can only be obtained through observing evidence) one believe a proposition if and only if one can provide evidence to believe so. But consider the situation in which as one attempted to challenge the teaching of the existence of the teapot one did not have a powerful enough telescope to actually SEE the teapot, so one came to the conclusion that there is indeed no teapot. I would argue that he is right in believing such a position, but it does not necessarily mean he is wrong. But, say that another individual comes along with a more powerful telescope and then spots the teapot. The second individual in a very real sense proved the first indivual wrong. This is called the "Proof of Burden": If I suppose that there is a teapot between Mars and Jupiter, it is one's responsibility not to prove that there is a teapot, but that there isn't one. Thus if you can't prove that my belief is false then there is no reason to suppose it is false. This "Proof of Burden" argument is perfectly consistent with my argument presented above because they both imply the same thing: provide evidence to support your claim. The only difference is that in the positivist viewpoint (i.e. one should provide evidence to support a hypothesis or teaching) one can not know with certainty if one is correct; all one can say is that Evidence A and B support my teaching. On the other hand if one provides evidence directly against a teaching one may know with reasonable certainty the teaching is false. Thus I would suggest testimony be based off skeptical analysis of the teaching.

In the above example a skeptic would look between Mars and Jupiter for the teapot. It should be noted that while one does not believe in a teaching without evidence to support it, the primary argument is that the evidence for the proposition arises from the lack of evidence against the proposition. Therefore if one finds evidence against the proposition then one would logically suppose the proposition was false. It is interesting to note that in the case of God, where there is indeed no evidence to suggest the existence of Him, there is also no evidence to suppose that there is not other than the lack of evidence. Thus one cannot provide direct evidence for either side and one is left in a paradox: one is not to believe in the existence of God since there is no evidence, but at the same time one is not able to provide evidence against the existence of God which would then suggest the existence of God. Thus in situations where there is no direct evidence, people tend to use indirect evidence to support their position (either as justification to suppose the existence or as evidence against). As a product one is left to their own personal convictions and I would suggest that one applies the method outlined above (that of positivist belief and burdon of proof) to these items of indirect evidence to decide for oneself.

The method outlined above, i.e. not believing a propostion without any evidence and being skeptical of the teaching, as a system for an individual to OBTAIN knowledge is called free thinking. As Bertrand Russell explained the difference between a freethinker and someone who is not "lies not in what opinions are held but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way opinions are held in science..." Thus, my first argument here would be that science and religion are different in what is claimed, not the method of deriving belief. It is this way a scientist may find solace in religion and a theologist solace in science: each may question their beliefs in the same manner. And my second argument is that one should abandon any belief that is "dogmatically" held to be true simply because parents, friends or society claim it to be until one has personally derived a conclusion on the matter. Alternatively, accepting a belief on the basis of social conviction is, according to above, irrational. In the context of Mormonism if one does not have a testimony of the Gospel as revealed by the Holy Ghost (which would provide means of justification for you belief in the Gospel thus one would suppose the belief to be true) then one should not believe in the Gospel or any of its teachings. And one should certainly not preatch that they do have a testimony simply out of parental pressure or pressure from their youth leaders. Or in other words a testimony should be founded out of freethought and not communal faith, dogmas or family traditions or values or even church leaders. I would argue that while one certainly should not automatically or a priori reject these things, one should also not a priori accept them either without justification in doing so.