Subjective Source Suggestions

Share

I have noticed lately as I started watching more youtube videos related to faith and the Faith that the majority of suggestions for further viewing are subjective. Most of them are actually adversarial and feature people who have left my Faith for “the truth” found elsewhere. Such events as this continue to corroborate my conclusion that Google is anti-faith and counter to traditions of American culture, but I digress. Each of the people in these videos and those who promote them commit a crime against truth by presenting a subjective opinion.

Most of these videos seem to originate with people who abandoned the beliefs of their youth due to some offense. Essentially, leaving something because you are offended evinces an attitude of pride. While I youth, I remember a speaker came to us and told us about his experiences with literature that attacked the Faith with libel and slander. He attended a Sunday sermon by another Christian affiliation that advertised “Three Ex-Mormons For Jesus Will Speak”, and somehow got permission to join in testifying of Christ. Rather than conclude as the others did with a story about how he left when they couldn’t satisfy his demands, Jack told us how he went to his bishop and confessed his sins. The other people had all risen in their pride and left God whereas Jack humbled himself enough for the Spirit of Truth to speak to him. F. Enzio Busche tells us that we can only communicate with God when we humble ourselves sufficiently to enter the lower levels of meekness where we are acceptable for the light of Christ. Evil men change the rules to match their behavior. Good men change their behavior to match the rules. I have been saying for years that most people are not really looking for truth as much as they secretly hope the truth will corroborate what they already happen to believe.

I laugh sometimes when people who never were members of my Faith or people who essentially apostatized from it profess to be experts. When I need an opinion on a suspicious mole, I don’t usually turn to the baker in the donut shop. When I need my tires changed, I don’t take them over to a fast food restaurant. I wouldn’t turn to a homeless person for tips on cleanliness or to a sick person for tips on healthy living or to a cripple for advice running a marathon. We turn to people who really know. We certainly don’t and shouldn’t turn to people who hate what we love for advice doing what we love any more than the British might have asked the Germans for tactical advice during World War II.

A few simple rules ought to govern this debate. Krister Stendahl, lately the Bishop of Stockholm and a professor at Harvard until his death in 2008 suggested the following, which you can hear here:

1. Ask them, not their critics. As he points out, if you ask a detractor rather than a faithful adherent who then criticizes them, you invite them to break the commandment to not bear false witness. When I want an objective opinion of a woman I think worthy of dating, I don’t go ask her exes or the girls who hate her. I ask her friends why they like her. You cannot expect to get an honest and fair opinion from someone whom you know to be openly critical.
2. Compare your strengths to their strengths. Most subjective arguments highlight the strengths of the favored party and the weaknesses of the opponent. You can see in almost any of the videos done by people who left my Faith that they see very little worthwhile in the Faith they once felt was true. That’s unlikely and hence illogical, and it does a disservice to both sides. Most people naturally prefer what they know and caricature the rest. It’s used to scare people away from the unknown or unwelcome, but in reality it makes you less appealing if you cannot stand on your own merits without slandering or libeling others.
3. Leave room for “holy envy”. There are good things everywhere. What Stendahl essentially suggests is that you be open to take the good things away from another belief system that are noble and praiseworthy. Sometimes we take for granted that other people have good ideas and discount them because they are not ours. In other people’s traditions, there are usually things that you admire and would incorporate if you could.

Most people do not want true debate, regardless of what they claim. In fact, I know from debate that it’s more about rhetoric and emotion than facts and logic. A year or so ago, a study showed that the louder party is usually considered to be the winner, and so it’s not usually about truth as much as it is who has the better argument. That’s how Bill Nye the so-called “Science Guy” who doesn’t have a degree in science “bested” some Australian theologian and disproved religion. Nye didn’t follow any rules aside from those of the Kaisers- win at all costs.

Unfortunately, in these debates, I do not see many people presenting both sides even when they claim to be objective. Most people will provide you information that corroborates their position because they mean to convince you to agree with them. I don’t expect any part of the Great Googleplex to suddenly populate the feed with as many videos that support a topic as they have in opposition thereunto. They have an agenda.

The fact of the matter is that people ignore things that they truly believe to be inconsequential. If people felt as Gamaliel that my Faith was faulty and would fall apart on its own, they would ignore it. Since they choose instead to lash out irrationally and write scores of books and record scores of videos attesting to the contrary, they show that they fear. They show that they’re not so certain. The truth is like a lion. It can defend itself. The more apologists an idea has, the more likely it is to be either false or unhelpful. I take comfort in that, because I know people throw rocks at things that shine, that they would not attempt to slay my Faith if they felt it was inconsequential. They are afraid of the truth, because more than truth, they desire to be right.