Views of religion

PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST

God is a complicated subject and proof is a complicated idea.

Disproving God is impossible.  If the universe is a like a fish tank, it may be possible that God is not even in the tank at all. Does the owner of the fish tank not exist because the fish can’t find him inside of the tank? It is possible that God is in the tank, but it is also very possible that God is not in the tank. But this is not any type of evidence of God’s existence anymore than it is evidence for a flying spaghetti monster.

Not being able to see God will never and can never be a way of disproving God’s existence, and on the other side, even seeing God is not necessarily “proof” that God exists. Clearly this is a complicated subject.

MENTAL ILLNESS

I am a psychiatrist and have spent significant amounts of time with plenty of people who have “seen God”... but they have also seen squirrels with cameras spying on them or suffered from similar such delusions or hallucinations, such that their “seeing God” only functions as a symptom of their mental illness, and not as evidence of God.

DELUSION AND EMOTION

What about a person without a mental illness claims to have seen God?

My next assumption might be that they have a “peculiar” culture (usually something I can sort out with some conversation)..

What I mean by a “peculiar” culture is that they will say that they interacted with God because they interpret their experiences differently than people who are not in their culture. Some people view peculiar cultures as a culture that support delusions. For example, people reports feeling a lot of emotion when they imagine a person who loves them unconditionally and forgives them for every mistake and then they take that as “evidence” of an interaction with God. Thinking of wonderful things causes me a lot of emotion as well, but I don’t take those emotions as evidence of an interaction with God.

TEMPORARY PSYCHOSIS

If they don’t have a peculiar culture, then I might assume that they may have been temporarily psychotic.

This is basically impossible to rule out completely, but think I can sometimes get a clearer picture if I look at the “history” or circumstances. For example, if they were under the influence of an illicit substance that might create a clearer picture.

LIARS

If the history doesn’t point to a brief psychotic episode, then I might wonder if they are a lying.

I have a high degree of skepticism for people claiming to have interacted with God. In order for me to determine if I trust someone, I usually need to have known them for some time. Sometimes you can do quite a bit of investigation about someone and look at their actions and connections and relationships and make a determination about their claims. This can be very complicated and sometimes very inconclusive.

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Since proof is perhaps out of reach, a more attainable question to answer might be:

“Is there sufficient evidence to make a reasonable case for the existence of God?”

Of course there is. Granted there is also a reasonable case for atheism. Both atheism and theism can be reasonable conclusion.

So, whether fortunately or unfortunately, it really comes down to what you want to believe.

Want to believe in God? You can reasonably! there is plenty of evidences from many diverse sources on every continent through all of recorded history to support that belief.

Want to believe that the universe spontaneously organized life without God? That is another available option to you of what to believe. There are plenty of ways to assign all of these diverse evidences as coincidences, mental illness, delusion, and lies.

The church that I was raised in, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. I have spent hundreds of hours studying reports both in favor of and not in favor of various claims made by the church. I have tried very hard to keep an open mind.

After all of this research, what is my answer?

Question: IS THE CHURCH TRUE?

Answer: It’s complicated-- but in short, yes.

Here is a slightly longer answer.

It depends on what you mean by “true”.

Is it flawless? Nope.

Can the church do what it claims to do? Yes.

The purpose of the church of Jesus Christ is to bring people to Christ.

A real testimony of Christ comes from God.

Scripture and doctrines taught in the church offer instruction and examples of how to approach God.

Adhering to the doctrines and teachings in the scriptures may lend the reader with faith (trust) to approach God with adequate determination and sincerity sufficient for that enlightenment from God.

But what about Joseph Smith? What about his visions? What about the Book of Mormon?

Here are the possibilities:

1). It is the product of a deceptive mind.

2). It is the product of a delusional mind.

3). It is the product of an inspired mind.

4). It is the product of some mixture of all three.

Although I think that it is reasonable to assume that Joseph may have told lies at various times for various reasons, (like most people would do under tremendous pressure), I do not think he primarily was a con-artist who duped his entire family starting at the age of fourteen and throughout the rest of his life.

Although, I am certain he was delusional about numerous subjects to various degrees, (as nearly everyone was/is), I do not think that his fruits are primarily the product of delusion.

I have reasons for my belief that Joseph was inspired by God. But although I believe he was inspired, it doesn't mean that he never told a lie, committed a sin or was never delusional about anything.

For a moment though, I would like to evaluate the implications of the other possibilities.

1). DECEPTIVE

What if Joseph Smith was a deceptive genius who, without divine inspiration, wrote the book of Mormon and other parts of the church?

If that is the case, his genius pays off, because his method works. I have tried it, and it directed me towards faith in Christ and enabled me to experience the things that it promised firsthand. The ordinances give me strength and support to be able to follow the teachings of Jesus and bring me great joy in my life.

2). DELUSIONAL

What if Joseph Smith was delusional and not inspired? This would need to be divided into part A and B.

A). Not inspired and no one is inspired.

B). Not inspired but other people are inspired.

If option A is the case… nothing really matters. Just do what makes you happy. Try The Church, if it makes you happy then keep doing it. If not, then try to find someting else that might make you happier. Good luck. I however have found that living the practices in the church enables me to have a tremendous life because it points me to God and enables me to have experiences that fill me with joy.

If option B is the case… then it’s all a myth. A myth that brings people to Christ. Can myth lead one to Christ?

Of course, The Christ himself used myths to teach truths.

Whether God directly orchestrated the writing of the Book of Mormon, or whether Joseph merely thought that he was inspired, it is still evident that the book of mormon illustrates teachings and patterns of behaviors that lead people towards Christ.

The book or Mormon is the product of an inspired and enlightened mind. Whether you believe it is brilliant delusion, deception or divinity. I know from personal experience that it directs me towards Jesus Christ.

Whether or not the accounts are historically accurate is less important than whether or not they lead one towards God.

It is either an inspiring historical account or an inspiring myth.

The thing that I care about the most, is that I have learned from personal experience that it is inspiring. It has inspired me to seek God and brought tremendous happiness and peace into my life.

The thing I have not shared here are my personal experiences. Had I not experienced what I have, maybe I would have come to different conclusions because maybe I would have wanted to believe something differently and then used different evidences to support these different beliefs.

If you come to a different conclusion than I do, this can be reasonable-- even if I don’t agree with you (yes opposing views can both be reasonable depending on which sources of information you trust or don’t trust). But please don’t think that I have not evaluated different claims or different religions or perspectives.