A Pragmatic Approach to Mormonism (or any religion, really)
While visiting my parents over Christmas I attended worship services as the local ward – the ward I “grew up” in. It was a great experience for many reasons. I had a chance to see some close friends from High School and catch up with other Church members who I had not seen for many years. The service was spiritual and uplifting. It was an opportunity for like-minded people to come together and, through shared experience, lift each other’s spirits and offer both spiritual and temporal support.
As I sat in the congregation enjoying the music, the stories of Jesus, and all of the family and friends singing and smiling together I was reminded of why I find Pragmatism, as an epistemological approach, so incredibly appealing. What I witnessed during these worship services was the real-world consequences of religious belief.
I am, for the most part, a non-believer in many of Mormonism’s truth claims – both metaphysical and historical. Yet, this Christmas worship service reminded me of the powerful pragmatic implications of Mormonism in the lives of its adherents. Pragmatism, of course, has no concern for truth claims in any abstract sense. Rather, Pragmatism is concerned with the practical outcomes of such abstract beliefs. Take basic theism, for example. Pragmatism cares nothing for whether God exists except in how a belief in God produces real-world outcomes. Simply put, if a belief in God produces positive outcomes in the life of an individual or a community by aiding in the construction of a coherent “truth narrative”, such a belief is good and is what we can call, instrumentally true.
Again, Pragmatism has no concern for metaphysical conceptions of truth as it recognizes that such truths, if they do in fact exist (whatever that means), are essentially unknowable. Thus, a pragmatist may analyze his/her conception and God and recognize negative consequences that result from this conception. In such a case, a pragmatist may choose to abandon his/her belief entirely or, as is more commonly seen, adjust their conception so as to produce positive real-world outcomes. Such adjustments, of course, are not limited to beliefs as looming as the question of theism generally. Adjustments may – and perhaps more commonly – occur to smaller beliefs and notions which, when put together, comprise an individual’s conception of “The Truth.” In my particular case, I found that a belief that the Book of Mormon as a historical record produced negative outcomes as I struggled to reconcile my understanding of authentic ancient texts as well as 19th Century protestant theology with what the Book of Mormon claimed to be. Ultimately, I found that by adjusting my beliefs and viewing the Book of Mormon as a work of great literature and theological significance, rather than as an authentic history, that these negative outcomes disappeared and were replaced by outcomes more positive. Thus, my pragmatic approach to this particular belief resulted in a rejection of Book of Mormon historicity but a greater appreciation of the book’s literary beauty and the genius of the book’s author, Joseph Smith.
Yet, my personal belief is unique to me. Pragmatism does not require that I conclude, for all people, that the Book of Mormon is non-historical. For example, there is a gentleman in my parent’s congregation who has, for as long as I have known him, had some very serious struggles – some of which have caused incredible hardship for himself and his family. In Priesthood meeting, I listened to this brother express how the Book of Mormon, its teachings of Jesus, and the prophetic call of Joseph Smith had helped him overcome many challenges and gave him the strength and inspiration to continue. It was clear that this Brother’s personal beliefs about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the divinity of Jesus varied greatly from my own yet for this man, these beliefs were the foundation upon which incredibly positive practical outcomes have been established.
I can imagine that some of my more enthusiastic atheist or zealous ex-Mormon friends will argue that establishing “the truth” about God’s existence or the “reality” of Joseph Smith’s visions etc… are matters of incredible importance. For some, this may be the case. If, for example, my specific conception of God leads me to strap bombs to my chest, or shoot doctors who perform abortions, it is high time to reevaluate those beliefs in terms of the consequences they produce. Likewise, if my commitment to Jesus’ command to “be perfect” (Matt 5:31) leads me to become discouraged and depressed, it is time to reevaluate my beliefs/understanding regarding Jesus’ words. Yet, if my belief in a benevolent God leads me to be more charitable and kind, then this belief has real value.
As William James pointed out over 100 years ago, when we evaluate beliefs and conceptions of truth based solely on their practical outcomes, we begin to realize just how many questions of metaphysics become entirely irrelevant.
In the end, I say live and let live! Practical outcomes are shared experience and the wise pragmatist will consistently evaluate his/her beliefs in these terms.
I think that perhaps the nature of “truth” in Pragmatism is a bit simpler than your description, and that you are unintentionally adding layers of non-existent problems with your characterization of the nature of “truth”. For example, the notion of “positive or negative consequences” in your view, needs definition.
But that is not really a Pragmatic definition of “truth”. For a Pragmatist, truth is “what works”, without complex definitions of what that necessarily means. Those definitions if necessary, would be dependent on the particular “language game” (in a Wittgensteinian sense) to be analyzed for clarification if such clarification is necessary.
And the notion that “truth is unknowable” is also overly complicated. Truth is “what works, verified by experience. Period. All we can know is experience, there is nothing beyond it. In a sense, that is saying that “truth” as advocated by certain Western traditions like Platonism, as something beyond experience, is unknowable, but Pragmatism ignores such obsolete rhetoric and discusses only what IS knowable which is human experience.
So the bottom line I guess is that I whole heartedly agree with “where you’re coming from”, but think you leave yourself open to criticism and misunderstanding for the way you are saying it.
And the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon brings up the question of historicity in general, and the Pragmatic approach can be very useful in looking at this problem as well.
The question is, how much of “what happened” is provable even on the Evening News? Issues about objective reporting etc, are highly relevant. The phrasing of a commentator, nuances of inflection etc can be highly influential in “objective reporting”.
What really happened in the Kennedy Assassination? How would we find that out?
What were the real motivations involved in the Civil War (even my saying those words instead of “War Between the States” implies bias)
The point rapidly becomes, “what difference does it make”, and what exactly constitutes an historical “fact”. Ultimately again it comes down to Pragmatism.
Mark, you are absolutely right. I have unintentionally muddied the waters and opened myself up to misunderstanding by employing the terms of positive and negative consequences. Your simple: “what works” avoids 1) the need to define, objectively, what is “positive or negative” and 2) the accompanying assumptions one must necessarily bring to the table in order to do so.
Thank you for chiming in and helping me to refine my thinking on the matter!
This is a link to an excellent article by Richard Rorty, which, in the first portion, gives an excellent discussion of this precise issue, about what “truth” is to a Pragmatist.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/rorty.htm
The remainder of the article gets a little technical and presumes some familiarity with all the ins and outs of the politics of academic philosophy, but it is still an excellent discussion, and I often return to this article because it explains the philosophical reasons why I personally gave up academic philosophy for what I hope is “philo-sophia” or love of wisdom.
The goal of Pragmatism is ultimately to solve the problems of philosophy, as a doctor heals patients. Once all the patients are healed, the doctor would be out of business, right?
A good Pragmatist, I think, thinks that the problems of philosophy have been solved, and all that is left is applying the methodology to clean up the left over crumbs and wipe up the sink. I was too lazy to stick around and wash the dishes.
But there are still plenty of dirty dishes in other people’s sinks! Pragmatism is a valuable attitude and methodology which has only been slightly applied to theology, so I feel there is much work to be done there.
Thanks for listening!
What is important, I think, about this article is that how much it echos a Mormon point of view without in any way being “Mormon”. There is the suspicion of the “philosophies of men”, and the common sense attitude which underlies Mormonism, and yet Pragmatism itself
Sorry- I failed to edit that last paragraph out before I posted, and was unsure on how to edit it
In reality, no single religion could guarantee us a place in Heaven. In the end, what matters is how we a treat other people.”‘:
Mark, you are absolutely right. I have unintentionally muddied the waters and opened myself up to misunderstanding by employing the terms of positive and negative consequences. Your simple: “what works” avoids 1) the need to define, objectively, what is “positive or negative” and 2) the accompanying assumptions one must necessarily bring to the table in order to do so.
Thank you for chiming in and helping me to refine my thinking on the matter!
actually it doesn’t matter what Religion you may have, as long as you treat the other person right.”~`