Science vs. Religion

A family member  asked why I believed what scientists say instead of what scriptures say.  The reason I usually trust science is that it works, it’s consistent (eventually), and it corrects itself when it’s wrong. 

First, science works for us everyday in ways we sometimes take for granted.  We use the internet, we communicate with cell phones, we use GPS devices to avoid getting lost, we travel in computerized automobiles and airplanes, we develop new medical cures for deadly diseases, we diagnose illnesses through medical tests and procedures, we take medications to treat chronic illnesses or infections, we immunize ourselves and our kids. When we are really sick, we go to the hospital and trust the doctor and all the latest advancements of medical science to heal us; and it usually does. So, in a sense, we all “believe” in science. 

Second, I believe in science because it is consistent and convergent.  Initial attempts at discovery may be marked by error, debate, and disagreement among scientists about what is factual. However, there is an eventual convergence toward a singular understanding of how the world actually works.   All this happens because that’s the way the scientific method works.  As scientific facts continue to pile up, scientific knowledge gradually becomes more certain, alternative theories are discarded, and consensus is formed - regardless of whether you are a biologist or chemist, physicist or psychologist.

Revelation, on the other hand, is not consistent.  Various revelations, various scripture, and various religions have mutually exclusive ideas about what is true.  Granted, there is much overlap in different religious beliefs. But saying that the thousands of different religions in the world today are all consistent with each other strains the limits of credulity.  Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg said “The insights of thousands of individual physicists have converged to a satisfying (though incomplete) common understanding of physical reality.  In contrast, the statements about God or anything else that have been derived from religious revelation point in radically different directions. After thousands of years of theological analysis, we are no closer now to a common understanding of the lessons of religious revelation.” 

Third, I believe in science because it corrects itself when it’s wrong.  At any point, a scientific theory can be discarded if it’s proven wrong through the discovery of new evidence.  Every hypothesis and theory in science is falsifiable - meaning it can be proven false.  The theory of evolution (to take one example) has been falsifiable since its formulation by Darwin 150 years ago; yet the evidence has continued to pile up from various fields of science - all in support of the theory.  However, at any time, and in any number of ways, the theory could have been proven wrong.  But it hasn’t. 

On the other hand, religions usually don’t make claims that are falsifiable.  It is therefore difficult to amend or discard religious doctrine.  Religious beliefs can even be held onto firmly when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  The reason for this, I think, is that questioning the literalness of revelation, prophecy, or scripture can appear to threaten the very foundation of religious belief.

One of the first examples of how religion was resistant to change in the face of scientific advancement is the Galileo affair.  Utilizing the newly invented telescope, Galileo showed that the earth orbited the sun.  The problem was that Galileo’s idea contradicted scripture and religious tradition, which held that the sun moved around the earth.  Galileo was eventually convicted of heresy in 1633, and sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life. The Church banned his work and ideas, and it wasn’t until 1992 when Pope John Paul II made an informal apology saying “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...”  An official apology vindicating Galileo was later made in 2000 by Pope John Paul II.  

A current example of religion’s difficulty in adjusting to new scientific knowledge is its resistance to Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Resistance usually comes from religions which believe in a more literal view of the Biblical creation account.  The most recent battleground between science and religion has been attempts to introduce “Intelligent Design” (or jazzed up creationism) into the science classroom.  

Religion was mans’ first attempt to explain the natural world around him.  First attempts at anything usually need to be revised in light of discovery (which is why I’m waiting until next year to buy the iPad). Ancient religions saw God as a causative agent of everything from disease to natural disasters to planetary motion.  Moderate religions have gradually gotten out of the business of trying to use God to explain the natural world, and have focused more on faith, ultimate meaning, and values.  This ceding of causal explanations to science is a good thing for science and religion. When people are forced to decide between religious authority and the facts of science, it can create an unnecessary crisis of faith. For example, I remember being very troubled by official LDS statements against the evolution of man. This black and white view of things set up an unnecessary conflict between faith on one hand, and science on the other.  When this happens, it is usually religion that eventually has to admit defeat, as with Galileo and Darwin. It is the faithful person trying to make sense between the two who may be disillusioned.

However, I think this “either science is true or religion is true” view presents a false dichotomy.  Science and religion really can get along - but it takes some flexibility and humility from both the religious and scientific communities.  Scientists need to learn how to communicate what they know within the religious community, so that it does not offend religious sensibilities (more light, less heat). They also shouldn’t use science as a weapon to bludgeon religious ideas to death - because it doesn’t work.  Conversely, religious people need to remain flexible, and less dogmatic, in light of new scientific knowledge about the natural world, and adjust their religious views accordingly. If both sides can do this, then religion and science can get along just fine. If not, then I think the unnecessary conflict between science and religion will continue into the foreseeable future.

The Varieties of Religious Experience

My sister asked what I thought about one of her friend’s personal religious experiences. The same question could be asked what I think about anybody’s religious experiences, including my own. Didn’t I have powerful religious experiences? Yes, I had religious experiences just like you and millions of others. Like you, my experiences were meaningful, they seemed to confirm my religious beliefs, and I didn’t make them up.  In retrospect, however, I view these experiences differently than I did before. 

Personal experiences are one of the most common reasons people believe in God. It’s hard to question the seemingly obvious meaning of these personal and powerful experiences.  However, there are valid reasons to doubt that these experiences are what they seem. 

The first problem I see with religious experiences is that other religious people have contradictory experiences.  I remember talking to sincere people on my mission who would describe their own religious experiences that contradicted my own (ie. an answer to their prayer that denied the Book of Mormon, or confirmed their belief in the authority of the Catholic church).  I have talked to many people since then, and it has always been difficult to make sense of these contradictory experiences.  My only explanation was that they had to be deceived, since they couldn’t have veridical religious experiences that contradicted my own. 

Today’s Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Christians all have powerful religious experiences that happen to confirm their own particular religious faiths.   However, their religious beliefs, supported by their religious experiences, fundamentally contradict each other.  When you include the religious claims of aboriginal cultures in Australia, central Africa, and Native Americans, the disparity of religious claims grows even greater. Then you need to include religious experiences of people who worshiped long ago in ancient Egypt, Greece, the Middle East, and Rome.  The religious experiences and beliefs of people in different religious traditions stand on identical footing - a justification based on a powerful subjective experience.  However, not all these beliefs can be valid since they are mutually inconsistent.  The problem with supernatural beliefs is that they come in so many incompatible forms, all of which are grounded in just the same way. 

Another problem with personal religious experiences, is that they are, by definition - personal. They can’t be shared with anybody else.  I think we’ve all sat through one of those testimony meetings (the ones you were glad you didn’t bring an investigator to) where some colorful religious experiences are shared and we have a hard time believing in the truth of their experience.  Since our subjective religious experiences cannot be shared with anybody else, they are not evidence to anyone else.   There are very strong skeptical philosophical arguments against believing with certainty in the reality of any of our perceptive experiences (ie. what we can see, hear, and even touch).  It is even more difficult therefore to be certain of our religious experiences since they seem to occur only in our imagination or inner feelings.  Religious experiences, therefore, only count as evidence to the person who is having it. 

Also, our senses can frequently mislead us in our perceptions of reality.  For example, we have all been fooled by optical illusions. And our hearing can be just as easily fooled since we hear what we expect to hear many times.  Visual or auditory hallucinations are extremely common phenomena that can be explained by purely natural means.  Also, religious experiences are more commonly described by troubled individuals whose emotional lives are disturbed, and whose sense of reality is altered - such as individuals suffering from severe depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.  I’m not saying that you are mental if you have religious experiences (I had them too, remember).  I’m just saying that since we’ve all been fooled by our perceptions of reality,  we ought to be careful about the conclusions we draw from them because they can be unreliable at times. 

A final problem with religious experiences that ought to make us treat them with caution is that they can be manufactured chemically.  For example, certain drugs such as peyote or psilocybe mushrooms, have been used for centuries by shamans during religious ceremonies to induce profound religious experiences that last as long as the drug is active in the brain.  These hallucinogenic plants, called entheogens, have been used by ancient Egyptian, Greek, Inca, Maya, and Aztec societies, and are still used today by native Amazon cultures.  

Religious experiences can even be reproduced artificially in the laboratory.  For example, when neuropsychologist Michael Persinger stimulates the temporal lobe of the brain in volunteers with a powerful electromagnetic stimulator, it will induce a religious experience in about 80% of people (the experiment has been repeated in hundreds of subjects).  People who are more religious, are more likely to have a religious experience than people who are not.  Also, people usually describe their experience in the religious context they grew up in: Christians usually experience Jesus, the Virgin Mary, or God, while Muslims experience Allah or Mohammed, and Jews might experience Elijah or Yahweh. Some people even experience darkness or Satan.  Believers of UFO’s may have experiences similar to accounts of alien abduction.  But all these experiences were singularly caused by a modified snowmobile helmet, or what has been dubbed “the God helmet.” 

This suggests that the temporal lobes of the cerebral cortex may play a role in religious experiences.  Consistent with this idea is the fact that patients who suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy, a disorder caused by intense electrical activity in the temporal lobe, will often describe profound religious experiences during their seizures. Epileptics describe  being in God’s presence, being given a mission by God, being in heaven, seeing a bright light, experiencing cosmic oneness or utter peace and happiness; all the stuff of powerful religious experiences. 

This idea, that our religious experiences are caused by our brain, is also supported by research from Andrew Newburg. He had Franciscan nuns, Buddhists monks, and even an atheist (who was expert in meditation) pray or meditate while their brains were being imaged in a CT scanner that measured blood flow with a radiologic tracer. What he found was that although each participant described their experiences very differently (Nuns describe being in the presence of God, Buddhists, who do not have a concept of God, described transcendence, while the atheist described peace and connectedness to the universe), they each had similar changes in specific areas of brain activity during their experiences. This suggests that religious experiences occur as a result of similar activity in our brain, but that the experience, depending on the context of the individual, is interpreted differently. 

Does this mean that religious experiences are not valid?  No, it doesn’t. There is definitely still room for faith in religious experiences.  For example, a religious person could say that this is how God works - by natural means in our brain. This may very well be true.  But the previous examples suggest that that assumption may not be necessary, and that these religious experiences - although meaningful, important, and life-altering to those experiencing them - do not have to originate from a supernatural presence outside ourself, or a nonphysical spirit within us.  I think it’s more sustainable to view religious experiences as personal experiences that we generate in our brain. The fact that my brain causes me to feel love, and the fact that this experience is explainable by natural means, does not cheapen the experience for me.  However, if we remain convinced of the literalness of religious experience, then how do we account for the variety of contradictory religious experience? How do we account for the fact that religious experiences can be reproduced artificially, or as a result of pathology in the brain?  It seems more parsimonious to explain religious experiences as perceptual experiences generated in our own incredibly complex brains.

Can We Be Good Without God?

The Reverend Rick Warren, in his mega best-seller The Purpose Driven Life, writes regarding nonbelievers:  “If your time on earth were all there is to your life, I would suggest you start living it up immediately. You could forget about being good and ethical, and you wouldn’t have to worry about any consequences of your actions. You could indulge yourself in total self-centeredness because your actions would have no long-term repercussions.” This idea is not new. Fydor Dostoevsky, the great 19th century Russian author, is supposed to have claimed: “If there is no God, then all things are permitted”. 

I wonder if people really believe this? Obviously I don’t, since I didn’t throw my morals to the wind when I stopped believing in God. So it left me wondering; if Rick Warren stopped believing in God, would he really start “living it up immediately” or “forget about being good and ethical” to family, friends, strangers, people in need, or even his pet dog? If the answer is that he would turn to deception, robbery, rape, debauchery, or murder - instead of continuing to be a good person - then this is a moral indictment on his own character. What sort of person turns to debauchery and vice if their only restraint (belief in God, love of God, fear of consequence, or hope for reward) is removed? 

Actually, I don’t think Rick Warren would do what he suggests atheists should do. I don’t think any previously good believer (turned nonbeliever) would either.  There are plenty of other reasons to be good:  love, respect, reciprocity, altruism, integrity, and empathy - to name a few reasons.  All these qualities are possessed by the religious and nonreligious alike. In fact, the Golden Rule, or some version of it, is common to all cultures and predates Christianity and monotheistic religion. Reciprocal and altruistic behaviors are even found in the non-human animal and insect world. There are so many examples of nonreligious individuals, societies, and cultures acting good (thereby disproving Rick Warren’s silly idea that we wouldn’t) that I don’t need to list them to emphasize my point that nonbelievers can be good. However, I want to go even further and claim that God isn’t even the source of morality. 

In Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates asks: “Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right?” 

If you answer Socrates’ question by saying that something is good because God says it’s good, then prior to God saying killing is wrong, it wasn’t wrong. Therefore, what is good is arbitrary and whatever God commands is therefore good by His decree only.  If God makes things right or wrong, then killing, rape, and stealing would be good if God says they are good. But there seems to be something wrong with this notion of morality since killing, rape, and theft would be wrong whether God says so or not. 

In practice, most of us don’t subscribe to this idea of morality.  If God gives a commandment that goes against our inner moral sense, then people usually ignore it, or it quickly becomes outdated and socially unacceptable.  We pick and choose upon the basis of what seems moral to us already. For example, even though the Bible (and presumably God) said we should put to death Sabbath-day breakers (Exod. 35:2), adulterers (Lev. 20:10), witches (Exod. 22:18), blasphemers (Levit 24:14), homosexuals (Lev. 20:13), and atheists (2 Chron. 15:12-13) - we don’t do that anymore. Nor do we condone slavery as the Bible does (Deut. 21:10-14, Titus 2:9-10). We also ignore commandments to not eat pigs (Lev. 11:7-8), shrimp and lobster (Lev 11:10), or wear a jacket made from a linen/wool blend (Deut. 22:11). These are all very out-of-date moral rules - some of which you’d be put in jail for today - that we ignore or override because they conflict with our own sense of what’s right and wrong. 

However, the alternative to Socrates question is that God commands what is already morally good. But if morally good acts are willed by God because they are already morally good, then they must be morally good prior to (and therefore independent of) God willing them.  And if morality is independent from God, then we can be good without being told how to be. 

The view that morality comes from God sometimes prevents people from allowing this basic goodness to nonbelievers. Even though religion teaches morality (which is a good thing that religions do) there is no evidence that this makes someone more ethical, just as there is no evidence that lack of religious belief makes someone less ethical. Granted, religious people are good; but don’t confuse correlation with causation, since nonbelievers are good too. In fact, I can’t think of any ethical action performed by a believer that could not have been performed by a nonbeliever. Can you? 

Individualism

In Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World, the Director of the World State plans to make a public example of Bernard Marx, a rogue psychologist, by exiling him to Iceland. The Director plans to banish Bernard because he has become too individualistic and therefore has become a risk to the rest of their society. The Director tries to justify himself by saying:

"It is better that one should suffer than that many should be corrupted. Consider the matter dispassionately, Mr. Foster, and you will see that no offense is so heinous as unorthodoxy of behavior. Murder kills only the individual–and, after all, what is an individual?" With a sweeping gesture he indicated the rows of microscopes, the test-tubes, the incubators. "We can make a new one with the greatest ease–as many as we like. Unorthodoxy threatens more than the life of a mere individual; it strikes at Society itself. Yes, at Society itself."

In strikingly similar language, the Book of Mormon describes Nephi in justifying his murder of a drunken and defenseless Laban before stealing the Brass Plates from him. Nephi says to himself “Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.” 

The two quotes highlight a characteristic feature of religion: the idea that individuality is wrong if it goes against the religious teaching of the group. Murder may even be justifiable for the wicked and dangerous outlier when faced with the greater threat to the community at large. Nephi justified murdering Laban, while the Director of Huxley’s novel justified banishment by exile of Bernard Marx, due to the greater benefit this would serve to society. This is dangerous morality that didn’t fully hit me in the face until I read Brave New World last month and noticed the striking similarities in the moral reasoning of Joseph Smith and The Director of the World State. 

If the individual gets in the way of the larger society - watch out since you may become collateral damage. In the believers mind, there is a matter of greater importance than the individual. Just as in the military, the mission always comes first. As the Director and Nephi teach us, individuals are expendable. 

Religions of all varieties preach an absolutist type of morality. Each claims knowledge of absolute truth via scripture or revelation to religious authority. It doesn’t matter that nearly every religion contradicts the next one, and that their “absolute” truth is not compatible. This does not dissuade the believer in preaching their absolute knowledge of God’s will for humankind - whether through their own personal revelation, or because of scriptural interpretation, or pronouncements of their religious authorities. 

So, when an individual strays from their religions outlined path, it can (to say the least) cause problems. Sometimes the consequence can be severe, as it is in many theocratic Muslim nations where the penalty of apostasy is death. Most other religions will excommunicate the individual who strays too far from the faith, while the Amish will shun individuals who apostatize or marry outside the Amish community. 

With this behavior of excommunication or shunning in mind, consider Jesus’s teachings in Matthew 10:34-39 where he says:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. I came not to send peace, but a sword. ... A man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.                         

Basically, what the scripture are asking us to do is to place the ideas and “truths” of religion before our own family in order of importance. If our family relationships come in conflict with our religious obligations or views, then it is family relationships that we are expected to sacrifice. 

This, of course, sounds pretty extreme. Good Mormons don't usually shun the way the Amish do, and they don't murder apostates like some Muslims do. What happens instead is that after an initial effort to reconvert the heretic,  religion becomes taboo to talk about. Differences of opinion, as they touch on religion, become very difficult to discuss. Rarely will family or friends attempt to get to know why you left the Church, what you believe in now, and what sort of person you really are at your core. Assumptions, which are easy, safe, and convenient, are made instead. 

However, this can feel just as painful as shunning to the effected individual, and largely has the same effect. It becomes very difficult for either person to open up, share feelings and personal thoughts, or feel unconditionally accepted and safe in exposing any vulnerability. Relationships, even those that were once close and intimate, become  characterized by formality, pretense, and superficiality. These kinds of relationships are not very rewarding, and so the people drift away. 

But, if religious people could learn to value the individual freedom of others, even if it contradicts their absolutist religious opinions of what is right and wrong (and they are only opinions), then much could be gained by everyone involved. 

Prop 8

This is an email I sent my brother in law (active TBM, lawyer, and Bishop) about Prop 8. It's in response to an email he sent me, from which I include some of his quotes and arguments in favor of the proposition. I was disappointed that he couldn't muster any better reasons why the LDS Church should spend so much capital in terms of money, time, and reputation, to support such a stupid initiative. Revelation? Inspiration? No. Just homophobia, bigotry, and blurring of the boundaries between church and state. There is hope from some people in the Church, that it will change and become more open minded, less bigoted, more inclusive. Prop 8 shoots these hopes down. Enjoy:

I was on call at the hospital on Saturday and wasn't very busy (this is why I have the time to write such long, detailed, and linked emails sometimes).  So, I thought I'd respond to what you wrote about gay-marriage and Prop 8. Let me first respond to the arguments you put forward. After that I'll respond to the other arguments I've heard against gay-marriage.

Are you saying that we can't have religiously moral views and fight for those views without being a bigot?  That's purely un-American.. . .   As a purely moral issue, marriage is between a man and a woman, and we believe that God has mandated it that way.  That's what it comes down to.

Religions can say whatever they want, and they can believe whatever they want since our Constitution guarantees our freedom of speech and freedom of religioun.  Some people, who seem to still believe in the vengeful God of Deuteronomy, carry big signs that say "God Hates Fags." They have the First Amendment right believe and say that.  But if you believe such hateful ideas (not that you do), other people also have the right to disagree.  And if your religious beliefs cause you to try and make laws denying a large group of Americans their Constitutional right to marry because they are gay, then others have the right to speak out against you. But this does not, as some LDS argue, limit your freedom of religion.  Allowing gays to marry each other does not restrict your freedom of religion in any way. If you disagree, then tell me how it does? Once it's legalized, you can go on believing and teaching that it's against God's will if you want. You can also go on geting married to whom you want (a right that they don't enjoy).

There is nothing "un-American" about fighting against existing forms of injustice and inequality.  But what IS actually un-American is when people try and deny rights, freedom, and equality to a group of people simply because they are different than you. We are a nation that prides itself on freedom and equality for all people (yet we sometimes have a spotty record in allocating that freedom and equality to minority groups). People have the religious freedom to believe whatever they want, but not the right to silence their critics, nor the right to force their religious beliefs on others by making laws that respect the establishment of their own religion. You are the one who's taken classes in Constitutional Law  - surely you should understand this.

Next:

Does a 30 year old man have a constitutional right to marry a 14 year old?  What if the 14 year old really loves him and wants to marry him?  Does a man have a constitutional right to marry more than one woman and practice polygamy?  Does a man have a constitutional right to marry a dog that he truly loves?  No, a man does not have a constitutional right to any of these types of "marriages."  If there truly was a constitutional right to any type of marriage, then all of the statutes outlawing these practices would be unconstitutional.  But they are not because only a certain type of marriage is constitutionally protected at this point, and that is marriage between a man and a woman.  That's the crux of the argument, what type of "marriage" is a constitutional right.  That's the issue here.

Marriage is a fundamental right. Nowhere does the Constitution define marriage as being between a man and a woman. That's why some people are trying to add an amendment to define marriage that way. The freedom to marry your partner of choice is recognized as a fundamental right and is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see Turner v. Safley, "The freedom to marry is a fundamental right"). Nowhere does the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Supreme Court specify what type marriage is protected.  Where does it say that "interracial" marriage is OK?  It doesn't.  It just protects "marriage" - period.  Efforts to prevent certain types of marriage between 2 consenting adults, such as interracial marriages, have been struck down as unconstitutional (see Loving v. Virginia). When I said the SCOTUS has said marriage is a fundamental human right more than 10 times (the number is actually 14 times), I was citing Ted Olson in his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News (Ted Olson is the conservative lawyer who argued the illegality ofProp 8 before Judge Vaugn Walker). Watch this video. It's on Fox News - so you know it's fair and balanced. 

Dogs and 14-year-olds can't consent to a marriage agreement, so those examples you cite are not applicable (a fact that didn't stop Joseph Smith from marrying Helen Mar Kimball when she was 14). And speaking of polygamy, which you bring up as an example as a certain type of unconstitutional marriage, the LDS Church lost it's day before the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States, where it decided that the First Amendment protected religious opinion, but not certain religious action. For example, someone's religious belief in the practice of human sacrifice is not protected under the First Amendment.

Up until Loving v. Virginia, most states denied interracial couples their right to marry.  The justification for such laws, as spelled out in the court decision by Virginia Supreme Court judge Leon Bazile, was that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

It's clear that Bazile didn't know the first thing about race or human evolution. It's also clear that his opinion was racist.  A more enlightened SCOTUS struck down Virginia's archaic anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Our Church leaders, from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball, also taught that interracial marriage was immoral, echoing the common racist opinion at the time, and would bring a number of consequences including: "death on the spot" (Brigham Young), the "end of your priesthood lineage" (Mark E. Peterson), a "curse" (2 Nephi 2:21-24), and it was discouraged through Spencer W. Kimball. It was illegal under Utah law from 1852 until 1963 anyway.  However, there was no valid reason to restrict interracial marriages.  It was irrelevant that most people opposed interracial marriage because of their racist or religious beliefs.  However, now that the predictions regarding interracial marriage have failed, and our view of race has evolved, we can all accept that interracial marriage should be legal. This is an embarrassing chapter of both our national and Church history that we have thankfully moved beyond - and hopefully can learned from. Saying that legalizing gay marriage threatens your freedom of religion is as ridiculous as past Mormons saying that allowing interracial marriage threatens their religious freedom.

Similarly to this past chapter of opposition to interracial marriage, the LDS Church has mobilized opposition to gay marriage, and have framed the issue in "moral" terms, with dire warnings, both to society and the institution of marriage, if gay marriage is legalized. However, you cannot legislate your personal religious opinions of what you think is immoral when there is no secular reason it should be illegal. By similar faulty reasoning, it should be illegal for women to go to school or drive a car in Taliban controlled Afghanistan, and it should be legal to stone-to-death adulterers in Iran or Saudi Arabia. These are all laws based on the prevailing traditional/religious views of those respective societies. Of course it's obvious to you that these traditions are wrong. But it is equally obvious to others that the LDS position on gay marriage is wrong as well.

Before you pass a restrictive law, there needs to be a valid reason that certain behavior should be restricted. For example, there are good reasons for having laws prohibiting underage drinking, speeding, theft, rape, and marrying children. What is not clear, however, is why we need laws prohibiting committed gay couples from marrying each other. Saying that marriage should be off-limits to gays because your religious tradition defines marriage as only being between a man and a woman is not a valid reason; it's just stating your own personal definition. Saying that it should be illegal because it's immoral, or that God has declared it as such, is also not a valid reason. That's just your personal religious opinion, and not grounds for restricting others who don't share your religious opinion.

The bottom line is that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Making a law based only on one's religious view, without any other reason supported by fact, and which infringes upon someone elses fundamental right to marry, is unconstitutional. However, if same-sex marriage did in fact threaten heterosexual marriage, or did harm children, or did damage society in some way, then there would be good reason to make it illegal. However, this has never been shown, and there is no reason to suspect that it would. 

Some of the other reasons I sometimes hear used as reasons to deny same-sex couples their right to marry, that you did not list, is that:

1. "It goes against the traditional view of marriage." Who cares. So did interracial marriage until the 1960's. But as our view of race evolved, so did our "traditional" view of marriage as it relates to interracial couples. Similarly, as our view of gender and homosexuality evolve, so should our view of marriage with regard to gay couples who want to exercise their fundamental right to marry -which is similarly protected by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Tradition alone is insufficient grounds for making prohibitive laws.

2. "It goes against nature." Actually, about 5-10% of humans are homosexual. This has probably always been the case throughout human history and across all cultures. Homosexual behavior is also present in nearly all non-human animal species - from dolphins, to bonobos, to penguins, to longhorn sheep. Homosexuality has a strong natural component via genetics or environment factors (such as embryonic development) beyond the control of the individual. If you say it's unatural because they can't have children, and that this somehow threatens our species (perhaps the most ridiculous argument ever), this is also faulty logic. The criteria of producing offspring has never been a requirement for marriage. Do we make heterosexuals sign contracts to produce offspring or anull their marriages if they are infertile, choose to not have kids, or choose to adopt? Homosexual couples can adopt or lesbians can conceive through artificial insemination, just like heterosexual couples can. Finally, even if it is "unnatural", who cares? Drugs used for anesthesia during surgery and labor are also "unnatural." That is no excuse for making anesthesia illegal just because it's unnatural. Artificial life support goes against nature too. So whether or not homosexuality is natural is irrelevant.

3. "It harms heterosexual marriage." This is pure fear-mongering and conjecture used by the Church to control opinion. Allowing other gay couples to marry does not threaten my marriage or your marriage, nor does it threaten our children's right to marry who they want. Heterosexuals will still be allowed to be married after the same right is extended to homosexuals. The Church will not be forced to perform gay-marriages in temples against their religious beliefs. Allowing gays to marry will not limit your freedom of religion one iota.

4. "It harms the kids they adopt."  No study ever has indicated that opposite sex parents are better for children than same sex parents. Rather, every study shows that what matters is having two loving and attentive parents, whatever their gender. Here is the newest study, hot off the press, showing that kids who have two moms do just as well than kids raised by a mom and dad. Children raised by gay parents are not more likely to become gay themselves, or delinquents, or criminals, or even godless democrats.  The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers state: "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.... Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents.  If their parents are allowed to marry, the children of same-sex couples will benefit not only from the legal stability and other familial benefits that marriage provides, but also from elimination of state-sponsored stigmatization of their families." 

Prop 8 only prevents gay couples from marrying, not from adopting children. Gay couples will have children and adopt children with or without the recognition, benefit, and protection that marriage provides. It does these children a diservice by preventing their parents from marrying each other, just like it would hurt your kids if the law prevented you from marrying your partner.  

5. "The people have spoken! You can't disinfranchise 7 million California voters." I like what Ted Olson told Chris Wallace during a Fox News interview:

If 7 million Californians were to decide that we should have separate but equal schools, or that we would send some of our citizens to separate drinking fountains, or have them be in the back of the bus, that would be unconstitutional. If we didn't have a separation of powers, if we didn't have a Bill of Rights, then 7 million Californians could take away your rights, or my rights or the rights of these citizens in California. But we do have a Bill of Rights, and it's intended to protect us. The 14th Amendment was the result that -- the 14th Amendment that guarantees due process and equal protection to all citizens, to all persons, was the result of a civil war intended to enforce the promise of our Constitution that all men and women are created equal.

For any other reasons I missed, and for a very good legal explanation on the subject, I would encourage you to read Judge Vaugn Walker's full text decision.  It's well written and makes, in my opinion, a very strong case for the unconstitutionality of banning gay marriage that will eventually be upheld by the Supreme Court. There simply is no valid reason any state, or the US as a whole, should be interested in preventing gay couples from marrying each other. It poses no societal risk, or any risk to heterosexual marriges, and there are millions of people who would benefit if the right of marriage were extended to them. 

As you admit, the tide of opinion is changing in America. Younger people support gay marriage and it will soon be the law of the land - just like it is the law in many other developed countries (even Mexico is ahead of us on this!). Just as people's fears of gay marriage have not been realized in these other countries, the fears of some in our own country will not be realized either.  We live in America, the land of the free, not some theocratic government like Iran where religious opinion form the basis of restrictive law. Law should be based on universal values that protect everybodys fundamental rights - including everybodys fundamental right of marriage.

The Only True Church?

One troubling Mormon doctrine is the idea that our church is the only true church while all the others are an "abomination" in God's eyes, or at least they do not have a "fullness of truth." It's a fundamental aspect of the LDS faith that Joseph Smith was called by God to restore Jesus's original Church and authority to the earth after all the others had apostatized.  Today, only in the LDS Church can there be found a fullness of God's truth, along with God's priesthood authority, necessary for the salvation of all people. This is why Mormons, to the annoyance of everyone, still try to convert other Christians. Sorry, but your religion isn't true enough.

The loophole in this doctrine, which Mormons are quick to point out, is that if you don't have a chance to hear about the Church in this life (which includes 99.99% of the 100 billion humans who have ever lived on earth) then you will get the chance in the next life to accept it. Mormons robust attempts to convert the living world pale in comparison to the missionary efforts supposedly going on among the dead. But even then, dead people have to accept the same truths that the LDS Church teaches among the living: in effect, they have to join the Mormon Church in the afterlife. This, of course, is why Mormons do temple work for dead people in temples.

There are many arguments against such a silly idea the Mormons are sole possessors of God's truth and power, but one of the most damaging is to just do the math and observe the incredible improbability that such a claim is true.  Monotheism has only been around for 3 thousand years, but humans have lived on the earth for roughly 100 thousand years. Prior to monotheistic religions (the first being Judaism) humans lived in small clans, tribes, and chiefdoms which began to practice a pagan, animist, or nature-worship religious prototype about 30,000 years ago. These religions slowly evolved into polytheism which then evolved into monotheism during the Axial Age - when most other forms of religious and philosophical thought emerged in larger agricultural societies. Still, none of these religions are salvific yet. Christianity hasn't even been invented yet. It did not arrive on the scene until 2,000 years ago, and yet, there is no evidence that Jesus even wrote down his teachings, let alone established a Church, as Mormons claim.

Mormonism didn't come around until 1830 and today only boasts a membership of 13.5 million members. Despite it's claims to be the fastest growing Church in the world (not true), Mormons have a serious retention problem since only 30% of it's 13.5 million members are even active. Most Mormons are first generation converts and nearly 50% of these stop attending after the first year. Yet all these lapsed Mormons are still included in the 13.5 million member total. You are still counted as a statistical member even if you ask for your name to be removed from the records of the Church. Mormons only compose 1.6% of the U.S. population and their growth rate is decreasing, not increasing. None of this bodes well for a religion that is suppose to convert the world.

I list these boring statistics to emphasize the following point: out of the 100 billion humans who need to accept the gospel, as preached by Mormons, only a smattering of people have ever done so, the majority of these people do not even "endure to the end," and the Mormon growth rate is going in the wrong direction. Considering that Mormonism is only 1 of 10,000 distinct world religions (or 1 of nearly 30,000 distinct Christian subgroups of religion) the probability of Mormonism being the "one and only true Church" is extremely improbable. Most other religions, populated in higher numbers by sincere believers, also claim to be the only true church.  So what are the chances that Mormonism is really God's one and true Kingdom on Earth? Not very high.

Finally, when you consider Mormon doctrine as it relates to cosmology, the prospect looks even more grim. For example, consider that Mormons believe that Jesus sacrificed himself vicariously not just for every person to ever live on this earth, but for every other "human" who has lived on all God's other planetary creations! Assuming that God created "the heavens and earth" (the observable universe) that would be 100 billion stars in our own galaxy and then 100 billion other galaxies - each with it's own 100 billion stars. Astronomers are rapidly discovering earth like planets orbiting many of the stars in the universe, so the number of life-sustaining planets could be extremely high. Could you imagine alien prophets telling their alien followers (by the way, there is no reason to assume aliens would even look human since humans are a product of a unique evolutionary process that occurred on our planet, but wouldn't necessarily occur on theirs) that there exists another alien, named Jesus, who died for their sins too? Our own earthling Jesus myth is hard enough to believe. Could you imagine how many aliens would have faith to believe? Even to Mormons, who believe some pretty strange things, this claim should stretch the limits of credulity.