Honoring a historic breakthrough in the study of Internet Anti-Mormonism

Many years ago, when we had far less data than we have now, a pioneering student of apostasy in the Internet Age formulated what has come to be called, in his honor, Novak’s Rule. It runs essentially as follows:

When you become an apostate, expect your IQ to drop by about eighty points. In other words, God strikes you stupid.

Now, as formulated, the Rule is obviously too simple. As with all illnesses, the incidence of Novak’s Disease is unpredictable. Just as not every smoker contracts lung cancer, not all sedentary red-meat addicts develop coronary problems, and not everybody exposed to the flu becomes sick, many apostates – probably, in fact, a considerable majority of them — continue to show signs of relatively normal mental function.

Moreover, one might accuse the formulator of Novak’s Rule of invoking a “God of the Gaps” argument: There is no evidence that it’s actually God, whether directly or indirectly, who lowers certain apostate IQs. It’s entirely possible that an entirely naturalistic explanation will be found for the phenomenon. Just as, now that we understand the mechanism behind lunar eclipses and the origin of meteors, we no longer call upon supernatural forces to explain them, the discernible trajectory of post-Newtonian science suggests that Novak’s Disease, as well, should first be explained in ordinary, natural terms. (This would reflect the helpful principle called “methodological naturalism.”) Only when and if such natural analysis proves inadequate to the task should supernatural agents be hypothesized. (This advice reflects yet another important rule: William of Ockham’s.)

But there is a more fundamental objection to Novak’s Rule, and I think it’s a legitimate one: No direct measurements of post-apostasy IQs have been taken, such that they might be compared to pre-apostasy IQs in the same test subjects.

Strictly speaking, therefore, we don’t know that apostate IQs have actually dropped from their previous (believing) levels. Further, human experimentation is notoriously difficult, fraught with both legal and ethical challenges – and this is so even before we confront the often irrationally belligerent objects of our research themselves. (Fortunately, they needn’t be tranquilized, wrestled to the ground, and tagged for observation. Most of them have already clearly tagged themselves.)

All we’re left with, as matters currently stand, is inference from the public, outward behavior of a statistically significant number of apostates.

But this seems to be enough.

I was forcibly reminded of Novak’s Rule this morning, as I browsed a few anti-Mormon threads on various sites – threads that happen to focus, as they frequently do, on y’r humble and obdt servant. Many such threads are devoted to the ever-fascinating topic of my remarkable insignificance. (I’m reminded of one of Yogi Berra’s famous comments: “Nobody goes there any more. It’s too crowded.”) But others take me to task for the various screamingly stupid and bloodcurdlingly offensive things that I say and do many times throughout each typical day.

It’s not merely that they routinely rip things out of context, often omitting materially relevant statements and facts without ellipses, and that they grievously, tendentiously, maliciously, but still perhaps unconsciously distort the meaning of what’s left. They also commit errors of logic — particularly, non sequiturs and fallacies of poisoning the well — that would make an unprincipled sophist blush.

For all that it might be made more rigorous and precise, the formulator of Novak’s Rule remains an honored trailblazer in the study of the intriguing phenomenon called “Internet Anti-Mormonism.”  The Rule has proven its value.