One of the interesting "strengths" that Mormons perceive ourselves having theological is that we can give an answer to "why" regarding life. I put both in quotations for two reasons. The first is I'm not sure we're unique in claiming this. Although, to be fair, Mormons do have a fairly persuasive reason for why we have this kind of life. It is the claim that we all existed pre-mortally and that we are attempting to progress. This life is a necessary step in our personal development. Further, we are here because we chose to come. It seems to me that while other faiths can give answers to why we're here, they have a much harder time providing a reason that seems convincing to the average person. (Recognizing that not all will agree) However, it does sometimes bother me that Mormon call this the meaning of life instead of the meaning of mortality. After all it at best explains this life. It doesn't explain life or existence in general. Indeed a Protestant or Catholic might well suggest that by having our essential nature uncreated, the Mormon can no more offer an explanation for the meaning of existence than an atheist can.
Jeffrey over at Issues in Mormon Doctrine raised this very issue. I think this may explain partially why Mormons find the discussion of transcendence in Continental thought so interesting. If we are ontologically co-eternal with God, then what gives us meaning? For that matter what gives God meaning? (I think the questions are wrapped up together) I think the LDS notion of eternal progression is the answer. Existence is struggle, the attempt to grow, to expand, to say "yes" to life. Out of that recognition as well as the recognition that we are always already in a world, always alongside others, that leads to ethics, to the eternal divine life.
So I don't think it difficult to answer. Further, by moving the question of God out of the ontological realm and the realm of "pure faith" (meaning completely independent of empiricism and reason) and into the realm of experience and phenomena, we change the very meaning of God. Now I can understand Protestants getting upset at us for that, although I think the move to make God a philosophical question rather than a question of relationships and politics was unfortunate. But it is a decision that has been part and parcel of the western tradition since fairly early in Christian history. (The place Mormons feel Christianity went astray, of course)
Still it is an interesting question. One might say that the question of "why" to life in general is the question of why there is something and not nothing. (Or, put an other way, what is nothing?) I've coincidentally been rereading Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics which addresses just these questions.
This whole train of thought seems like an invitation for Mormons to at least give a listening ear to the claims of the existentialists.
It would seem to meaning that the meaning of existence is continually being decided by us, both in the pre-existence as well as here in this mortal life.
I also posted on the difficulty on pinning down a Mormon ethical theory. I think it might be fruitful land for somebody to explore the possibility and implications of a "social contract" theory between us and God, wherein meaning and morality are derived from meaninglessness and amorality.
I think LDS philosophers have long been very sympathetic to existentialists. Even Chauncey Riddle was very influenced by existentialists.
I think you are right Clark. If we are to ask the meaning or purpose of our own existence we inevitably must ask the same question of God. This is particularly true for us Mormons who believe there is no ontological difference between us and God. Your answer seems to be the only answer -- the purpose is progress. Our doctrine says we can eternally progress in things like "joy, light, truth, glory, intelligence, love, mercy, justice" etc. Perhaps it is not too dissimilar to evolutionary theories here on earth wherein progress is the key to survival?
Good points, Clark. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "Mormonism and Atheism: How Wide the Divide?"
Christian, I posted a brief discussion a few months back on Nietzsche which touched upon this. There was a similar discussion on LDS-Phil. It was on the religious uses of atheism. Nietzsche comes up a lot in these sorts of discussions, and I sometimes wonder if his kind of will (largely against Schopenhauer) isn't an interesting perspective on the LDS notion of intelligence. I think that relates to some of Geoff's points as well.
I'd say more but I have a brutal head flu right now and can barely think straight.
OK, I'll take the bait:
Speaking as an atheist, I'd think the answer to "Mormonism and Atheism: How Wide the Divide?" is "Pretty damn wide".
What's the argument to the contrary?
Michael,
I can see your point. The wide between the two lifestyles could hardly grow bigger. The same can be said for the basic mormon beliefs.
I think what Christian is getting at is the difference between the Mormon understanding of reality versus that of atheism is not that different.
We do not believe God created anything out of nothing. We believe that God, rather than creating physical law, is subject to it. We believe that we as individuals exist independent of God. (Many mormons will debate these issues, but Mormonism certainly tends in this direction. I personally believe that most of the resistence to this comes from theological ideas inherited from other religious traditions.)
Thus, Mormons need to define ethics, meaning and truth independent of God, just like atheists do. We take a very positive view of science, again just like atheists. We seek to keep our beliefs within the bounds or logic and consistency, unlike other theologians.
While certainly there remain vast differences between the two, there are striking similarities between Mormonism and the atheistic paradigm, similarities which traditional Christianity typically does not share.
I think Christian's comment was a pun on a book called How Wide the Divide which dealt with the issues between Evangelicals and Mormons. There are quite a few. I'll admit I don't care for the book too well - I think it frequently downplays traditional LDS belief. But it was an engagement over common ground and showing that some doctrines didn't have as big a separation as it sometimes appears.
At the same time, I don't think we should downplay the huge differences between Mormons and atheists. But, I think there are some common metaphysical grounds. But sometimes the differences are downplayed too much. I recall a paper on Mormonism and Nietzsche that was in Dialog back in the early 90's. It made Nietzsche sound almost like a proto-Mormon. But in doing so it often invoved superficial readings of Nietzsche, and in some cases misreadings (with respect to the meaning of the overman/superman). However Nietzsche clearly is quite popular in many ways, but there are also many things that Mormons feels extremely uncomfortable with. (Obviously his atheism being the obvious one)
Clark, Jeffrey, thanks for the clarifications. My knowledge of Mormonism is admittedly shallow, but I found it hard to imagine that it was that close to atheism.
That being said, the notion that "we as individuals exist independent of God" does sound suspiciously similar to "existence precedes essence", which would imply some significant common ground between Mormonism and Existentialism.
Interesting.
One additional clarification I ought make to Jeffery's comments is that while what he outlines is, I think, the "mainstream view" within Mormonism, there are people who reject this view in various ways. I know of one person, for instance, who interprets Mormonism in very Ockham like ways. (I've been after him to guest post here for a while, but he doesn't have time) Likewise there are some, such as in that How Wide the Divide book, who I think interpret Mormonism more in Protestant absolutist terms. But I definitely think that the existentialism like view is the most common among thoughtful Mormons. (Obviously the average lay member doesn't really engage these questions)
Clark,
"Existence is struggle, the attempt to grow, to expand, to say "yes" to life."
What did you mean by this? I'm working on a post closely related to this subject and your answer may be very helpful.
Jeffrey, I'll try to answer that when I have some time. I'm unfortunately working late all this week which is why I'm commenting on lots of blogs but not doing much new content here.
The brief answer is that the affirmation of life as life is an acknowledgement of change and growth. That is we open ourselves up for what will be new about ourselves and about all the entities we encounter. The opposite, or death, assumes an end or completeness to entities. That we know them in full. That they are static.
Along with this both Derrida and Nietzsche tie this sense of affirmation to laughter. One reason for this is in speech acts or communications laughter is a kind of eruption or break of the normal process of language. It can't be contained by the normal propositional view of language. (According to some, anyway) In a sense this relationship between laughter and speech is tied to the relationship between the "yes" to life and life itself.
"This crown of the man who knows laughter, this rosechaplet crown: I have placed it on my head, I have consecrated laughter. But not a single soul have I found strong enough to join me." (Nietzsche, Introduction to The Birth of Tragedy)
The stuff about pre-existence and choosing to come into this life seems arbitrary, and cannot be empirically shown.
I think there is a problem in your epistemology: existentialist philosophy (and theology of the protestant sort) starts with despair, which is so certain that no one doubts it once they have discovered they are in it, and THEN offers answers which may or may not require faith, Mormonism seems to need to begin with a leap of faith without which despair makes no sense.
I think Mormonism starts with the idea that we can all be prophets and that it is by personal revelation we know. The Protestant view that we can know by an appeal to the text or (for existentialists) via despair is just not convincing to me.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble