Atheists are sincere

I really appreciate my wife’s very open-minded and tolerant views. She knows that my beliefs are important to me and sincere, and respects them as such, just as I respect her views in the same way. She’s a great example for other Mormons, especially in view of Mormon dogma that often casts doubt on the sincerity of other belief systems. When Joseph Smith asked God which Christian sect was right:

“... the Personage who addressed me said that ... those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me...’” (JS-H 1:19).

The professors were insincere: their “hearts,” or desires, weren't really for God; and corrupt, meaning that they were willing to be dishonest for personal gain.

The Book of Mormon implies that its only atheist, Korihor, is equally insincere. He eventually admits that he “always knew that there was a God” (Alma 30:53). I hope that Mormons don’t apply that to modern atheists like myself.

After years of study and serious consideration, when I tell people I’m atheist I’m occasionally told that “people usually just believe what they want to believe,” as if atheism was a conclusion I wanted to reach for some reason. It wasn’t. I can respect that religious beliefs are genuine and important to their adherents, and I just hope that they can give me that same level of respect.

LDS church growth

Back in 2000, my seminary teacher quoted to my class the Rodney Stark projections for church growth, estimating that there would be 64 to 267 million members by 2080. Other researchers have predicted much lower numbers, around only 30 million.

Another sky-high projection was made by a Mormon recently, projecting that there could be 2.6 billion members by 2120. I'd like to consider whether those projections are realistic, but first let's distinguish between growth of the reported membership, and growth of either self-identified or active members.

The official reported church membership is much higher than the number of self-identified Mormons. I’ll just give a few examples:

Members claimed by church in Mexico, 1999	846,931
Self-identified members from census in Mexico, 2000	205,299
Members claimed by church in Chile, 2001	520,202
Self-identified members from census in Chile, 2002	103,735
Members claimed by church in US, 1990	4,175,000
Members projected by ARIS survey, 1990	2,487,000
Members claimed by church in US, 2008	5,974,041
Members projected by ARIS survey, 2008	3,158,000

Sources: here and here. Based on worldwide data, this researcher concludes "approximately 40% of individuals claimed as members by the LDS Church worldwide identify the Church as their faith of preference."

The comparison between the ARIS survey projections and the official membership is interesting because the growth rate implied by the official membership numbers from 1990-2008 is an impressive 30% (~1.47%/year, or 15.7%/decade). The ARIS projections only indicate growth of 16% (~0.83%/year, or 8.6%/decade), which is about the same as US population growth.

So if the church is overstating both total numbers and its growth rate, how can the true worldwide growth rate be estimated? Many observers think that the active members per congregation (meaning wards and branches) has been fairly consistent, so the true growth rate might be close to the growth rate of congregations.

This chart doesn't include the most recent data points, and unfortunately it's not my chart so I can't update it, so I'll list the most recent data for increase in congregations in this table:

Year:	Total congregations	Increase	Increase as %
2009	28,424	315	1.11%
2010	28,660	236	0.82%
2011	28,784	124	0.43%
2012	29,014	230	0.79%

As a comparison, the US population growth rate is ~0.9%/year, and world population growth rate is ~1.15%/year. I do expect to see a temporary increase from the change in missionary age over the next 2-3 years, and possibly a slight long-term increase as well. Based on this data, I'll make a few conclusions:

• The church's growth rate is similar to background population growth.
• The conclusions drawn by David Stewart, based on a lot of data, are bit out of date but are probably still accurate.
• Because the church has a higher fertility rate than average, achieving only population growth means they are actually losing members on the conversion side, in spite of an aggressive proselytizing program.
• The church cannot sustain long-term exponential growth.
• Therefore, I think the long-term Loomis and Anderson projections are much more believable than the sky-high Stark or Koltko-Rivera projections.

Mormonism and Evolution

I respect those Mormons who believe in evolution and the old age of the Earth. Their willingness to consider the massive amount of rock-solid scientific evidence on the subject is admirable, and ought to be encouraged. However, they face at least two major challenges:

1. The most straightforward interpretation of a few scriptures seems to contradict scientific fact.

2. LDS Church curriculum and common teachings of the Prophets and Apostles, including living ones, contradict science on several points.

The church has traditionally taught that physical death did not occur before the fall of Adam. Under "death" in the Bible dictionary, the first scripture cited for support is 2 Nephi 2:22:

if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. (2 Nephi 2:22)

In my personal opinion, the most obvious and straightforward definition of "state" would preclude evolution from occurring prior to the fall of Adam. Some LDS scholars suggest that the verse only applies to the Garden of Eden, and not the entire Earth. I personally disagree, but I suppose it's one possible resolution.

The second scripture cited for support is Moses 6:48, which states that by the Fall of Adam came death. It doesn't explicitly indicate physical death, and I suppose it could also be interpreted as indicating spiritual death.

Another problematic verse is D&C 77:6, which states that the "continuance ... or temporal existence" of the earth is 7000 years. As this scripture is interpreting a symbol, it seems unlikely to me to be a symbol itself, but some people have interpreted it that way.

One further scriptural problem is that many scriptures imply that "Adam is the primal parent of our race," as the First Presidency put it in a statement. Adam is depicted as farming, reading, and writing. DNA indicates that our most recent common ancestor could not have lived more recently than about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, and that was way prior to the existence of domesticated plants, or reading or writing. I'm not sure how Mormon believers in evolution resolve that issue, but I'd like to hear their comments about it.

The second problem is that LDS curriculum and current Apostles continue to attack evolution. The recently-updated scriptures contain a "Bible chronology" section that places Adam at 4000 BC. Boyd K. Packer has made many anti-evolution comments, but I thought this one was pretty clear: "An understanding of the sealing authority with its binding of the generations into eternal families cannot admit to ancestral blood lines to beasts." Russell M. Nelson and others have also disparaged scientific theories. Mormon believers of evolution can probably ignore these statements as not official doctrine, and can simply consider them the misinformed opinions of current church leaders.

I'm glad that many Mormons are willing to accept science in spite of these challenges, and I hope that many more will choose to do so in the future. I hope that someday an Apostle will defend well-supported scientific theories such as the big bang or human evolution.

If you are a Mormon who believes in evolution, I invite you to comment on how you've dealt with these challenges.

How I became an atheist

I already posted once about my logical reasons for not believing in God, but I did not give the history of how I got there. It's a long one, and very personal, but I think a few people might be interested in it.

I'm going to share a few experiences I remember illustrating how my beliefs and doubts have changed over time.

When I was young, I received a lot of positive feedback for bearing my testimony. I set a goal to bear my testimony every month, and did so.

In high school I placed a lot of trust in my teachers, always attended seminary, and enjoyed it very much. I kept a 4.0 in seminary.

Around high school graduation, I became interested in whether evolution was true. I read two books on the subject: one was Faith of a Scientist by Henry Eyering, the other was Answers to Gospel Questions by Joseph McConkie. I learned that Henry Eyering believed strongly in the evolution of man, while Joseph McConkie said evolution was not compatible with Mormon doctrine. I concluded that either position was acceptable, because they were both prominent members of the church, so it didn't matter if evolution was true or not. I didn't read anything at the time about the evidence for evolution.

At BYU, my good friend James and I frequently discussed evolution. I read BYU's packet on statements from general authorities about evolution, and again concluded that it was fine to believe in evolution.

In the MTC, I read the entire missionary library, and bought interesting institute manuals from the MTC bookstore. Some things, like A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, and other people's testimonies, bolstered my testimony. Some things, like the Pearl of Great Price study guide, thinking about the Atonement, and stories about the Joseph Smith Papyri, caused some doubts.

I was sometimes skeptical of people's supernatural experiences. My trainer in Cambodia told me he had seen someone be possessed, and that the Cambodian witch doctors had the power of the devil, and I thought there was probably a more natural explanation for the stories he told me. I was skeptical about many people's amazing stories, if they involved angels or the devil, unless they were officially sanctioned by the church. I still believed strongly in spiritual promptings and inspiration. At one point during my mission, I decided that I would read an anti-Mormon book someday, because I wanted to know both sides. I didn't fulfill that goal until several years later.

After my mission my time and attention basically was devoted to girls and classes until my last semester at BYU. I received a certain copy of Wired magazine with an article about the "new atheism." It really piqued my curiosity, but I didn't dare read more about atheism while I was at BYU. It really appealed to the skeptical side of me, because I had long thought natural explanations of many stories were more likely than supernatural explanations, although I had not yet applied that logic to church history or God. Just after graduating, while on a road trip with some friends at Disneyland, I purchased The God Delusion. I hid it from my Mormon friends, but was excited to read it when I got back.

After returning from the trip, I began to read The God Delusion. I found it totally devastating to my faith. I found it totally convincing, and very depressing. Some mornings I was so crushed I couldn't even get out of bed. The thought of admitting to my parents that I was losing my faith made me feel sick. It was a very sad time in my life, and hard on my self-esteem.

I told my bishop I didn't want a calling, but a week later the First Counselor asked me to serve as a Family Home Evening (FHE) group leader. I would organize Monday night meetings for a few members of our singles ward. I had been taught never to turn down a calling, and I didn't have the courage to leave the church, so I accepted it. In retrospect this was a mistake, as it kept me in the church for years longer than I should have been. I often felt sick before FHE, terrified about bearing my testimony, terrified that someone would question whether I was being honest, even though I knew that would never happen. I also avoided dating until I decided whether to stay in the church or leave.

After about 2 years, I knew I was wasting my life with indecision, so I decided I would put more effort into having faith, start dating, and pursue marriage. At the time, I thought I wanted to remain in the church forever, even if I never believed with the level of conviction I once had. During this time I would occasionally admit of serious doubts to my parents, my bishop, close friends, or whoever I was dating. Sometimes I would think "you're really an atheist and lying about your beliefs," but I would try to push these thoughts aside and tell myself I had faith.

After about two more years, I decided to marry Sarah. At the time, I was not honest with her about how serious my doubts were. After we had been married a few months, I was serving in the Young Mens' Presidency, and I felt like the young men in the ward didn't have the self-confidence I thought they ought to have. I thought about how the church's teachings about masturbation hurt my self-confidence when I was a young man, and I was concerned about how the church was affecting them. I continued to feel sick when I had to teach gospel lessons. Eventually I admitted to my wife that I did not believe in God, and asked the Bishop to be released of my calling.

Admitting that I was an atheist was very hard on my wife, but liberating to me. She was at first angry that I had not been honest with her, but supported me being honest now. My self-confidence was largely restored when I found the courage to defend my true beliefs, even though virtually all of my friends and family disagreed with me. I finally didn't feel the need to hide or lie anymore.

The real history of the Bible

I've just watched the Bible's Buried Secrets, a video by Nova examining Biblical archaeology, for the second time. It's free if you've got Amazon Prime or $2 to buy, but it's worth viewing. I'm going to summarize some of the conclusions of Biblical Archaeologists here, although they're covered more thoroughly in the video.

• There's evidence from the Merneptah Stele that the Kingdom of Israel existed as early as 1200 BC.
• The Bible claims the Israelites entered Canaan from Egypt, and destroyed many Canaanite cities in a very short time period, and then divided the land between themselves.
• There's no archaeological evidence of either the Israelites existing as slaves in Egypt, or of the Exodus.
• Most of the Canaanite cities that were supposedly destroyed by Israel do not show signs of warfare or destruction.
• A few Canaanite cities were destroyed violently, and some archaeologists ascribe their destruction to the Israelites.
• But some archaeologists think the evidence better fits internal revolts. Many Canaanite kingdoms were in decline prior to the rise of the Israelites.
• King David is the first figure in the Bible for which there is strong archaeological evidence of his existence.
• The Israelites were polytheistic, and commonly worshipped Asherah as well as Yahweh, possibly as his wife.
• All worship of Asherah appears to have stopped after the Jews were taken captive by Babylon around 600 BC

Based on the archeological evidence, I've drawn some conclusions about what I think is true and false in the Bible. I want to emphasize here that I'm not claiming that there is hard proof of these assertions, and I'm not trying to disprove anyone's beliefs here, but I think these conclusions are in line with modern scholarly opinion.

• Abraham and Moses are fictional.
• The stories about King David unifying Israel are probably based on historical events.
• The concept of a monotheistic God originated around the time period of the Siege of Jerusalem, give or take a couple hundred years.
• Monotheism gave priests an excuse for why Yahweh did not protect the Israelites (they were worshipping other gods).
• Monotheism helped the priests keep the Israelites from assimilating into Babylon (like the bible warns about mixing with the Canaanites).
• A lot of the modern Bible was written after the siege of Jerusalem, particularly the parts emphasizing that it's wrong to worship other gods, and the stories about the Israelites in Egypt.
• Some early Bible stories, like the creation story and Noah's flood, were in part derived from Babylonian myths.

Just to reemphasize, I'm not trying to prove anything here, I'm just presenting this as my best guess about what's true in the Bible. I'm not trying to start an argument. Like much of history, there's a lot that we'll never know for sure, but I still like to see what the evidence indicates.

Atheists ought to be the most non-judgmental people in the world

Okay, by "atheist" I really mean naturalist. Why should naturalists be so non-judgmental? Because people aren't really responsible for their actions. People do what they do, ultimately, because of their genetics and their environment. To what other causes could I possibly attribute their actions? If I were religious, maybe I could attribute their choices to an immortal spirit and allude to "free will" (whatever that means) as the ultimate explanation for their choices. But as a naturalist, I think choices are the result of neurons firing in a brain, and a choice is only a proximate explanation for actions, not the ultimate explanation. The ultimate reasons for an individual's actions is her genetics and environment, and she is not personally responsible for either of those.

I think people should only be held responsible for their actions if it's for their own good or the good of other people around them. A parent should impose consequences on their children's actions to teach them to behave well. Society punishes criminals to discourage crime. I think society should lock up criminals if they're likely to harm others. That makes sense. But I don't think people ever "deserve" punishment or pain, unless it's necessary for a good purpose. That's why I prefer treatment to punishment, both on a government-policy level and in my personal interactions. I'd rather try to change someone's bad behavior than punish them for it.

And that's why naturalists ought to be so non-judgmental. People may be irrational, be bad drivers, or harm themselves or others, but hey, why should I expect anything more from a species of somewhat-intelligent apes? When I can help someone improve their behavior in some way, for example by helping them better understand the consequences of their actions on themselves or others, by all means, I'd like to do it. But if I'm not in a position to influence someone else's behavior, maybe the best thing to do is just lower my expectations, and remind myself of why that person is behaving badly to begin with. Because of his genetics, his environment, and because he's a close cousin of the chimpanzees, just like all of us.

Finding spirituality as an atheist

After leaving religion, I felt like I was missing spirituality in my life. Because my religion had always been my source of inspiration, comfort, and spiritual renewal, I needed to find new sources for those things. I'm going to share some of the things I've come up with.

For a while, I made up an imaginary deity to pray to, because I missed prayer. I eventually came up with "Life Reviews" to replace prayer altogether. Once every week or two, I set aside some time to do a "life review." It's quiet personal time for me to review my past goals, set new ones, think about how I've been using my time, and how I want to use my time. I record my feelings about how my life has been going over the last couple of weeks, and my goals for the next couple weeks. I keep my writings password protected, because they're pretty personal. That way I can be totally honest about everything with myself. Life reviews help me remember the big picture and my life goals. I also have some specific goals that I check off daily in a spreadsheet to keep me focused and productive.

I also find spiritual renewal through reading great literature. I mostly read non-fiction books, but sometimes fiction. I enjoyed ExMormon, probably because I related so strongly to so many of the characters in it. I even read it twice. I really like coming-of-age novels (I recently read this one), probably because I feel like I'm still growing up and figuring things out too. Good movies, musicals, and documentaries can also provide inspiration. I loved Les Miserables, Wicked, and Easy A. I think they each teach important principles that I believe in.

I've also liked service projects, donating to charities, and talking with friends and family to maintain strong relationships with them. I started doing Yoga recently, which is pretty fun. Working out and eating right helps me feel good about myself.

So those are just a few ideas. I'd love to hear your ideas for non-religious sources of inspiration and spiritual renewal, whether you're religious or not. Feel free to comment!