So one of my favorite publications, Public Square Magazine, recently did and interview with Tarik LaCour stating:
“If your LDS Twitter forays ever touch on philosophy or theology, you’ve probably come across Tarik LaCour. LaCour is a growing figure in the LDS intellectual community, no doubt largely due to the unexpected nature of his takes on almost everything.”
I nodded in agreement as I read the above words. Having interacted with Tarik on social media I always have found his takes to be interesting and his story and personality always have left me feeling like he would be a fun guy to hang out with. I have nothing but fondness for Tarik even though we have disagreed at times quite sharply.
Ever since encountering Tarik online I have wanted to get more details on the intellectual work and ideas of this popular participant in online Latter Day Saint discussions but had only seemed to get bits and pieces. However, in this recent interview he went into greater depth about his worldview than I had read before. To be honest, I was left a little confused. Tarik is either playing a 5D chess that is over my head or he holds a variety of philosophical positions that not only often explicitly contradict church doctrines, but also seem to be either philosophically incompatible or internally incoherent.
I should also point out that I agree with many things Tarik says in the interview but some of his ideas were just too radical for me to ignore. I don’t write this to malign a good and thoughtful man. I consider Tarik to be both. Instead I write this because I am genuinely curious about how he approaches these challenges.
Tariks Takes
Universal Salvation.
Tarik: In the end, yes: because I am a universalist, meaning I think God will eventually save and redeem everyone, including the Devil.
This literally was the teaching of one of the most evil characters in the Book of Mormon Nehor: “And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.” (Alma 1:4)
The scriptures and modern prophets consistently reject this false notion: “And there shall also be many which shall say: …And if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines” (2 Nephi 28:8-9)
And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance. (2 Nephi 28:22)
There is no meaning design or purpose in nature.
Tarik: I would also add that scientistics are anti-teleological, meaning they see no design, meaning, or purpose in nature...I am a scientistic and I am proud to wear the label.
Tarik considers himself a scientistic (from scientism). This doctrine rejects that nature has any meaning design or purpose. Meanwhile our scriptures and theology teach he exact opposite. I don't see how this view is compatible.
“Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.”
It seems the church is promoting a very different notion about teleology.
Monarchy.
Interviewer: So, what would you propose instead of democracy?
Tarik: A constitutional monarchy.
Interviewer: What’s the advantage you see with having a monarch as opposed to just a constitution?
Tarik: One person makes the decisions while the rest of us can go with our lives without dabbling in politics. We spend too much time discussing the political process; there is much more to life than what goes on in Washington.
It's really interesting to have a person who says they are an American conservative say they think Constitutional Monarchy would be the best form of government. The American founding (what American conservatives are trying to conserve) was literally a rejection of constitutional monarchy. To make matters worse, one is left feeling confused when someone says they are a big fan of libertarian Thomas Sowell while favoring a government model that centralizes state power. It would be like saying that one of your economic heroes is Bernie Sanders and how much you love billionaires and low taxes.
Consciousness does not exist.
Tarik: Illusionists think that phenomenal consciousness does not exist and that this first-person aspect of consciousness is an illusion, hence the term illusionism. For us, the question is not "How does this type of consciousness arise?" - because we think that it doesn’t….Dennett and Frankish don’t like saying they don’t think consciousness exists, but I have no problem saying it doesn’t….There is nothing it is like to be you; you are just an amalgamation of chemicals that can be understood by physics, neuroscience, and psychology, and there is no special property those sciences don't account for.
Is there anything more self evident than the fact that one is having a first hand experience? Is not the data being collected by an empiricist a first hand experience? Is the data not being observed by an observer? Is earth life a first hand experience? How do you reconcile the notion that our consciousness does not exist with a gospel that teaches mankind chose to come to earth to have first hand experiences? How do you reconcile the notions that the self is an illusion with the notion that man is an eternal intelligence or spirit inhabiting a mortal body?
Scientism
Tarik: Roughly, scientism is the view that the hard sciences—like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge of reality.
How do you reconcile this with the recurring rejection of scientism taught by the savior and prophets in the scriptures and in modern times?
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God...Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."- Paul in his letter to the Corinthians.
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I am?....And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Matt:16:13-16
"Behold, my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. "- Jacob 4:13.13
In other words, if you want to recognize spiritual truth, you have to use the right instruments. You can’t come to an understanding of spiritual truth with instruments that are unable to detect it. - Elder Uchtdorf
Logical positivism
Tarik embraces Logical Positivism. This is the idea that “the only meaningful statements are those which are verifiable through empirical evidence”. This may sound good but its totally self refuting. That statement cannot be verified through empirical evidence. In philosophy logical positivism fell out of favor pretty quickly after it arose due to this glaring problem. On a religious level embracing it would result in us having to reject a huge number of the claims of Jesus Christ and the restored gospel (like the idea that you can know truth by the spirit). It’s surprising to see Tarik still endorse it. But perhaps he sees something most philosophers and prophets are missing.
No Spiritual Experiences
Tarik: I have not had any spiritual experiences, so this doesn’t bother me at all. I am a very religious man, but I am not a spiritual one. I don’t have a spiritual bone in my body.
I am in no way critiquing the fact that Tarik says he has had no spiritual experiences. In fact I appreciate his honesty. However, I would argue he has had many but does not see them. It seems to me that a commitment to hard empiricism leads to only having one epistemological eye open.
I also am curious if he sees a lack of spiritual witness as a problem as a Latter Day Saint. Our missionaries go out and teach people that they can receive revelation from God through spiritual experiences and in fact that this is the proper basis for ones testimony. Should they be teaching logical positivism instead? Is it possible to be born again without receiving the Holy Ghost? In what sense does one believe they have the Holy Ghost if they never felt it or communed with it? Does he believe he just has not been able to recognize the spirit? Is love a spiritual experience? Has he ever experienced love?
Hard Empiricism
I think Tarik would agree with the fundamental empiricist axiom that says knowledge only comes from sensory experience. However, I wonder how he would respond to the problem of focus. This is the idea that we choose what sensory data we take in. We actually control the inputs. For instance, at any given time there are a myriad of sounds that you “block out”. If I were to ask you about the sound the AC unit was making while you were intently solving a math problem you likely would not even recall any such sound. If anyone has ever watched the video of the man in the gorilla suit video they will realize that sensory data is not raw data. It is selective data. In other words what we sense is chosen by us. This would imply that sensory data is not fundamental but rather that our values are. Our values guide what we focus on.
Lets Talk
In the end I want to say again that I have nothing but fond feelings for Tarik. However, with someone rising to prominence as an LDS intellectual, I think it is fair to ask serious questions about his ideas. Especially when considering that so many of them seem to run completely contrary to well established LDS doctrine and/or are widely rejected philosophically. Is Tarik valued primarily for bringing powerful insights to the table or is he valued primarily for being amusingly eccentric? I think Tarik has the potential to be a powerful intellectual figure inside and out of the church. However I worry that unless these controversial views are properly explained and defended (or abandoned) it may lead thoughtful people to seriously question his intellectual judgement.
For that reason I have written this and welcome a response and will happily publish it and link it below when it is made. Or preferably, I would love the chance to sit and have a podcast discussion on these subjects entirely with the intent of understanding and steel-manning Tarik’s perspective. Tarik if you read this I hope you will consider reaching out. I have nothing but respect for you and would love the chance to chat.
Comentários