Shall We Sin?
Topic: The Miracle Of Sin
Shall we sin? Absolutely!

One of the things I've noticed with some of my fellow apostates is they resist enjoying the many pleasures the world has to offer. Contrary to what many TBMs think, apostates often times have difficulty embracing a worldly life. Part of that resistance I think, is a belief that they need to be able to say, "I lived the gospel for 25 years, I went on a mission, I never did anything wrong, I paid a full tithing. When I left the church it wasn't because I wanted to sin or because I was bitter, but because I had studied the issues and made an informed decision."

There are a couple of problems with this reasoning. First of all, it's a Mormon belief that the presence of sin accounts for all apostacy. Those who have rejected the many absurd claims of the church don't need to apply this standard to themselves. Sins, emotions, personal choices, and lifestyle are always a part of apostacy. Just not for the reasons church members think they are. It doesn't matter if it's Mormonism, Scientology or the Navy, someone who breaks community protocols and alienate themselves from the group, even in subtle ways, is always in a position where they can more objectively evaluate the institutions they belong to. This is not inherently good or bad. Suffice it to say, there is no inherent shame in "sin" being a part of the exit story.

So yes, it's ok to sin! No Mormon is ever going to believe you didn't! The key to remember is that just because other factors besides reason contribute to apostacy, that doesn't mean the apostacy isn't justified on the very logical grounds given. In fact, as I have argued, it often takes some real life turmoil in order to get our brains to question deeply held assumptions about the world.

FARMS Admits they exist for Faith
Topic: I'm Sorry I believe
Skeptics know that FARMS exists primarily as a faith promoting institution for already faithful members, the actual research done in the name of Mormon studies being a secondary issue to the real issue: letting faithful members know that really smart people believe in the church! If really smart people aren't scathed by the firey darts of the critics, why should the lay member be? This is, in the end, what the entire corpus of Mormon scholarship amounts to. And the truth be told, it's the apologists themselves who've defined it this way.

A glimpse into the mind of the apologist can be found in Truman Madsen's introduction to the cornerstone of Mormon Intellectualism, Hugh Nibley's Timely and the Timeless. He observes, "Classicist Jacob Geerings remarked shortly before his death: "Hugh Nibley is simply encyclopedic. Though I do not agree with his views I hesitate to challenge him; he knows too much." (xii)

That's right. High Nibley was the greatest genius that ever lived. And guess what? He was Mormon. It doesn't matter if he was right. He was smarter than his critics were, therefore, even though there may be those who on intellectual grounds are allowed to not believe in the church, they certainly don't have the right to challenge it! Or so the subtext tells us.

This proto-truth of Madsen's has matured into a full blown operational paradigm for today's apologetic arm of Mormonism. That's right, FARMS exists to inspire the faithful with confidence, that it's not just the everyday Joe who swallows it all hook, line, and sinker. FARMS admission to this truth is readily apparent to anyone who has witnessed, or has been a part of debates online with FARMS reps. What is the first thing a critic learns in one of these debates? That the critic isn't qualified to participate. The apologetic work in question, has been authored by an expert in a related field who holds three or four doctorate degrees. The critic in question is not a philologist, a Hebraist, and Egyptologist, or any other kind of -ist who can be taken seriously to comment on the most recently discovered link between the ancient world and the Book of Mormon. In fact, there are probably only a few hundred, or thousand people in the world who have the incredibly specialized training necessary to thoroughly evaluate the claim in question.

Of course, it can't be suggested, that the other twenty people on the planet smart enough to have an opinion on the subject have no interest whatsoever. That the paper in question will never receive the same kind of academic review that the author's other, non-Mormon apologetic publications receive on a regular basis. That would be disingenuous to point out since those other experts just, for whatever reason, don't have an interest in Mormonism. We can't let their silence speak anything on the matter.

So what then, could possibly be the point of FARMS? We know 1)The experts in academia qualified to critique their claims aren't interested in doing so. 2)The non-specialized critics who do have an interest aren't qualified. So who is the audience of FARMS? Well, that's simple. The common LDS folks who shop at Deseret Book where FARMS publications are sold. But how much do the common LDS folks know about philology, Egyptology, and near eastern studies? Nothing. That's right. The target audience of FARMS is no more qualified to have an opinion on what FARMS puts out than the non-specialist critics FARMS snubs their noses at. If it takes a PhD to critically evaluate the link between Hebrew grammar and some word in 2nd Nephi Smith made up, then it's pointless for brother Johnson to even buy the book in the first place. That is, unless the underlying reason for bro. Johnson to read the book has nothing to do with critically evaluating its contents and has everything to do with bro. Johnson being impressed by all the smart people who believe the church is true.

Index
Ethics
(I)God is Morality

Evolution
Dembski Dismissed

Godel
(I)Godel
(II)The Basic Idea

Postmodernism
(I)Five Points

Skeptics Boot Camp
(I)Abusing Fallacies
(II)Catch-Phrase Philosophy
(III)All or Nothing
(IV)Faith is Bad

Gödel (II) The Outline
Topic: Godel

Here is an example of a simple axiomatic system:

A v B = B v A
A = C

The first statements reads, "A or B equals B or A." From these two sentences, we can create other sentences, like A v B = B v C. If every statement that can be expressed within this system can be constructed by various combinations of the two statements, then the system is said to be complete. This trivial system is certainly complete. The system logicians were especially interested in is one which could reduce mathematics (arithmetic) generally to basic propositions of which the above are examples. But the system must be complete in order to be successful. The implication of the system not being complete would be that there are mathematical truths which can't be proven. Plainly speaking, the goal here is to be able to "know everything" by drawing deductions from trivial assumptions. Gödel demonstrated a statement that can be expressed within the logical foundations of mathematics which can't be derived from the system, rendering any logic powerful enough to do math generally, incomplete. Let's fast forward through the rules of the game and all the key plays necessary for the setup and concentrate on the structure of the final slam dunk which brought down the glass.

(Loosely following Braithwaite's Introduction)

Important Definitions

v Gen q (v,w): The q (v,w) part means the variables "v" and "w" hold a relation to each other "q". The "v Gen" part means to substitute other variables for "v" in this relation.

Gödel number: An actual number which he has decided represents a formula - kind of reversing the roles of numbers and formulas. Why a number opposed to just another variable will make sense in the next section.

Start with v Gen q (v,w). We will define q as "not a proof." So this reads, q is a relation between "v" and "w" such that for all Gödel numbers (representing formulas) that could be substituted for v, v is NOT a proof of w. Now let's substitute the Gödel number for the formula "v Gen q (v, w)" into w, let's say that's 23. So we get, v Gen q (v, 23) which means, "For all Gödel numbers of formulas that we could substitute for v (all formulas), none of these formulas are proof of the formula with the Gödel number 23. Well, if no formula is a proof of the formula known trivially as 23, then there is no proof for formula 23. Of course this formula that can't be proven is "v Gen q (v, w)" - itself. So this is the formulae which can be rightly constructed, but declares of itself, that it can't be proven. He then shows that if the formula could be proven, the negation of the formula could also be proven, making the foundations of mathematics inconsistent. So we can choose between incomplete yet consistent and complete but inconsistent. Finally, he shows that if we get tricky and try to assume this formally undecidable proposition away, another can be constructed and this ad infinitum.

In The Matrix Reloaded, it's revealed that Neo is, obviously, the Gödel sentence of the Matrix. There had been prior versions of the Matrix and every one had an anomaly that would crop up. The architect had never been able to fix the problem by integrating prior anomalies (Gödel statements) into the structure of the system. A new one would always appear.