Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[RandFan]

That's fine. I know God lives. Please at least consider the possibility that I might actually know it.

So long as you understand the limits of knowledge and that you could think you "know it" but still be wrong. I'm sorry rcronk, but it is an unexcapable fact, you could be right but you could also be wrong and only think you know. There are just to many real life examples. Any experience could be wrong. I've demonstrated this. There is no way of proving to others and ourselves that we are absolutely right. To often people have been certain that they were right only to find out that they were wrong.

The book Contact is a great starting point. Ellie Arroway could have been wrong. Sagan, the agnostic and skeptic, wasn't simply writting a book to justify blind faith in god.

 

[RandFan]

As I stated earlier, the witnesses I have received are more powerful than standing out in the sun and having someone tell me the sun is not shining on me.

I find this interesting. Why "powerful"? Just now I turned on my radio. It wasn't powerful but I could confidently say that it was true (given the limits of knowledge).

There is no need of power to convince me of the trutfulness of an event that I witness unless there is a need for persuasion. If I witnessed a man saw a woman in half it might be "powerful" but not powerful enough.

If you meant that the event was compelling in that there was some information conveyed to you that could not be disputed (see the book Contact pay attention to pi.) then I would think the word apropos.

As it is it seems your "power" is based on emotion. I think we need to be very careful about emotion and truth.

I trust the spiritual experiences I have had more than I trust my five senses....

Why? We know that "spiritual experiences" are emoitionally based. Emotion can cloud the thinking, make us think we are seeing clearly for the first time when we are demonstrably not.

Please watch Temporal Lobes of God.





Why does the patient feel that for the first time in his life he sees everything clearly yet he is clearly delusional? Is it possible fore each of us to experience this without being epilectic?

 

[RandFan]

Based on my experience, I think the idea that all or even most religious people are receiving conflicting answers (or even asking at all) is false and so the "overwhelming number of people" who have had the exact same experience as me but the truth they received conflicted with the truth I received just doesn't exist. I'm sure there are some, but I personally haven't experienced it. And if someone is asking if God exists while attending the Catholic church, yes, they would get an answer and it would be in harmony with the answer I got. I'd like to see actual testimony from all of these masses of "other people" whose answers conflict with mine before considering this assertion any further.

You miss the point.

1. If there is a "true" church don't people want to know what that "true" church is?
2. If this is correct then doesn't god know what is in their heart?
3. Following your logic we must conclude that god is unfair. Why should god not grant these people the wishes of their heart? Are you really saying it is THEIR fault for not understanding HIS CORRECT WAY?

 

[articulett]

What you have to understand rcronk is that for most people, whether religious or not, your kind of absolute certainty is very very scary.

Most of the worst atrocities in history have been committed by people who were absolutely certain they were doing the right thing, many of them by people who were absolutely certain they were doing what God wanted them to do. Have you ever seen Jacob Brownowski's seminal series The Ascent of Man? In one episode titled Knowledge or Certainty (note the 'or') he contrasted the gradual realisation of scientists that there was a limit to scientific knowledge, which culminated in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, with the parallel rise of Hitler and what he called the Principle of Monstrous Certainty. He ends the programme, as he must, at Auscwitz, where he stands by the pool and delivers one of the most moving extempore speeches in TV history:



That is all you are being asked to do. Think it possible you may be mistaken. Accept that there are some questions to which we cannot know the answers in this life, about which we can only ever say "I believe", never "I know". We may or may not find out the answers when we die, but we cannot find them out before.

Doubt is healthy. Doubt is honest. Doubt is human. People who are absolutely certain they have the definitive answers to the unanswerable questions are creepy and scary and potentially dangerous.

Fortunately the teachings of the LDS aren't dangerous, just silly, but I do wonder what its True Believers might be capable of if their leader suddenly started receiving rather different revelations and instructions from God.

Great Post! Please post more. Such eloquence. I wonder if it will make a dent?

 

[RandFan]

What you have to understand rcronk is that for most people, whether religious or not, your kind of absolute certainty is very very scary.

Most of the worst atrocities in history have been committed by people who were absolutely certain they were doing the right thing, many of them by people who were absolutely certain they were doing what God wanted them to do. Have you ever seen Jacob Brownowski's seminal series The Ascent of Man? In one episode titled Knowledge or Certainty (note the 'or') he contrasted the gradual realisation of scientists that there was a limit to scientific knowledge, which culminated in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, with the parallel rise of Hitler and what he called the Principle of Monstrous Certainty. He ends the programme, as he must, at Auscwitz, where he stands by the pool and delivers one of the most moving extempore speeches in TV history:

That is all you are being asked to do. Think it possible you may be mistaken. Accept that there are some questions to which we cannot know the answers in this life, about which we can only ever say "I believe", never "I know". We may or may not find out the answers when we die, but we cannot find them out before.

Doubt is healthy. Doubt is honest. Doubt is human. People who are absolutely certain they have the definitive answers to the unanswerable questions are creepy and scary and potentially dangerous.

Yes, very well said. Thank you.

One of humans greatest intelecutal faculties is summed up in two words. "What if"?

To be potent one must be willing to wield the question on all propositions.

What if gravity doesn't always work?
What if solipsism is correct and I'm the only one that exists?
What if the stuff in the middle of the twinkie is mind control gel?

Ok, we don't have to agonize over most questions but at least willing to consider that we could be wrong... about anything.

Show me the evidence.

 

[articulett]

And it doesn't make an invisible guy look very benevolent if he demands people have faith and not doubt-- I mean, that is a recipe for disaster-- what all loving dad would ask that of his kids-- demand it even?

If faith is "good"-- extreme faith is better, right? I think we need to dismantle the idea that it is respect worthy or a means of "higher truths".

(And is actual measurable evidence too much to ask an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent invisible entity who has an ego-maniacal need to be "believed in"?)

 

[RandFan]

Agreed, however rcronk doesn't think it is faith, as I understand he thinks he has perfect knowledge. Mormons are fond of saying "beyond a shadow of a doubt". I've said that myself.

Of course, if you are born a Mormon and you don't get pure knowledge dumped into your head and you have faith and are obedient you can attain the highest degree of salvation.

So "knowing" the truth isn't important so long as you are lucky enough to believe in the right church.

 

[RandFan]

...but it is an unexcapable...

WTF?

That wasn't me... no, really... damn.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

 

[RandFan]

Remember, I have said that God knows every fact of every situation, and therefore qualified to do what is necessary, even killing people if needs be.

Heck, perhaps he could be a pedophile if needs be, right? He could rape little children on the weekend if it "needs" be?

Could Jesus be gay? Is that possible?

Who knows if babies were actually killed? Perhaps they were all over the age of eight?

Bob: John, I heard your son was murdered, I'm so sorry.
John: No big deal, he was over the age of 8.
Bob: Whew... what a relief.
John: Tell me about it.

 

[RandFan]

I'm feeling worried about this post. I've opened myself up for attacks on many fronts simply by expressing my point of view. I'm sad that I have to feel that way here.

Rcronk,

This IS a skeptics forum. I'm sorry if your beliefs are challenged. That's what we do here. I'll concede that some are less kind than others. Heck, at times I can be pretty tough myself.

You can always put people you don't like on ignore. However, think kind of post won't endear you to many.

My first post to this forum invited scorn and I was upset, threw a fit and demanded that my account be canceled. I thought better of it and 20,000 posts later I can tell you that I have learned one hell of a lot and met a lot of great people. Others I put on ignore.

Good luck in your decision.

 

[Pixel42]

Great Post! Please post more. Such eloquence. I wonder if it will make a dent?

I've been having this conversation with Scot Ferre on another board for a couple of years, and I have yet to make a dent in his cast-iron certainty.

[Yes, it was me who pointed him here. My sincere apologies ]

 

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Pixel42
Fortunately the teachings of the LDS aren't dangerous, just silly, but I do wonder what its True Believers might be capable of if their leader suddenly started receiving rather different revelations and instructions from God.

There are plenty of examples of what their true believers ARE "capable of if their LEADER ...........

Let us not forget that anyone can be a LEADER (Prophet) if they claim to hear the voice convincingly enough and, to reference the book we have been mentioning, there are plenty of examples of that. We could even venture back to the origins if we wish, when the objective was really to set up a new nation. That failed not by choice, but by force or threat of force.

The potential danger, however remote today, is implicit in the belief.

I would also like to point out that we heard laments about not addressing the "scientific" evidence presented by rcronk. Specifically the word analysis issue which is more readily debatable than the DNA without getting into an ID type of discussion.

Obviously the word analysis concludes what was already known, that he plagiarized from many sources.

As to the evidence of the plates. Even if there were such plates, what analysis is going to tell us who made them?

 

[articulett]

WTF?

That wasn't me... no, really... damn.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

I hear you... I hate when that happens... especially since they freeze you out from editing... and then your giant blinking brain snafu is there for all to see... I do it with the word "full" and "fool"... "no" and "know"-- etc. I think my brain must be remembering the word to type aurally while my brain is thinking ahead.... (yeah... I know it must be some good reason having to do with smartness and thinking fast...I mean I have an INNER KNOWINGNESS--my higher self told me so...yeah... try it--check with your higher self and see if this reason doesn't apply to you... if you feel smarter; it's the sign of truth. )

 

[articulett]

I've been having this conversation with Scot Ferre on another board for a couple of years, and I have yet to make a dent in his cast-iron certainty.

[Yes, it was me who pointed him here. My sincere apologies ]

For shame...

It's a weird thing because they expect their faith to be tested... and then they consider those tests proof of faith and it enhances group loyalty. It's an old religious tool... and it's similar to hazing building group allegiance. I haven't seen very many people change a view held on faith... because belief that they have the truth becomes more important than the actual truth if it means they might be mistaken. For me, I wanted to cut my losses if I was mistaken... and Randi shows just how easily it is for anyone to be mistaken... as do so many studies in neurology and psychology. Humans confabulate to build a world that makes sense... it's a good way to pass on values and learning--but it's just so damn prone to error with no correction mechanism--and the notion that doubt is satan makes it even more impervious.

It's weird, because rconk can see the "syndrome" with the truthers... but he's blind to it in himself. I just don't understand how they see the error of thought that allows people to believe totally wrong things in others-- eons of others--even very smart others... and not have a hint that they are the same. To me, the all are. No amount of reason dents a faith held notion. How do you fix a world of people who all have different truths that make them special and chosen? I think it's by slowly dismantling this insane notion that faith and feelings are a means of knowing something... that belief and allegiance is worth of salvation and glory. Belief and allegiance over truth and actually lifting up the lives of those who don't have what you have?

I find imaginary gifts of prayers and baptisms for the dead and masses for healing-- as useless... a way to make people feel like they are doing something good without actually doing anything at all. People feel moral by not swearing and mentioning Jesus at ever turn and endorsing public prayer and demonizing dissent-- they get so self righteous while claiming to be humble. And they do scare me. Women and children don't seem to always have a choice as to which of these "truths" are inflicted upon them... and speaking up can lead to terrible abuse.

Doubt and evolving ways of thinking are more moral than believing you have divine knowledge and blind faith. When I'm cowed into silence, I think of this clip... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk

I feel like it's a hopeless battle for reason... how do you reason with "faith"--but I found my way out of the belief loop... and if I don't speak up then aren't I encouraging this sort of abuse for other smart young people. I dislike how non-believers are called arrogant and immoral and demonized at every turn-- it makes people pretend to believe or try to believe and causes much angst. I look forward to a day when skepticism is more respected than faith. It is clearly a much better way to separate truth from fiction... and I think non-believers are more moral... more humble... more honest. Do unto others...extends to those who don't believe as they do...

 

[RandFan]

I hear you... I hate when that happens... especially since they freeze you out from editing... and then your giant blinking brain snafu is there for all to see... I do it with the word "full" and "fool"... "no" and "know"-- etc. I think my brain must be remembering the word to type aurally while my brain is thinking ahead.... (yeah... I know it must be some good reason having to do with smartness and thinking fast...I mean I have an INNER KNOWINGNESS--my higher self told me so...yeah... try it--check with your higher self and see if this reason doesn't apply to you... if you feel smarter; it's the sign of truth. )

Thanks,

We live with typos so we've become used to them. If you think about it they are odd. Why do we make mistakes like "teh" for "the". I think we take things like mistakes for granted. Then along comes a word that isn't even in my vocabulary. I can only think that I was tired and on my happy hour and was simply not capable of coming up with the word on the fly so some part of my brain that usually does the typing was filling in and trying to come up with an approximation to "inescapable". It really knocked my socks off when I saw that. For a moment I wondered if a mod was messing with me.

 

[RandFan]

I feel like it's a hopeless battle for reason... how do you reason with "faith"[?]

Good post and a damn good question.

It's a funny thing really. Humans build up this wall of protection to protect their world view. Once I pierced the wall I realized that the world did not end and I did not crumble. Yet there was a great subconscious fear. I wouldn't have admitted it at the time. I would have couched my feelings in conviction and faith. A certainty that god lived and loved me and I had nothing to fear. Yet there was an unease whenever my mind wandered into certain areas. Of course I told myself that this was the devil and that reinforced my conviction (see Teresa Bright and Dark for an excellent object lesson of this).

Anyway, articulett, I found an excellent explanation of why it is so hard to reason with faith. A partial explanation at least. If you already know this then please forgive my patronization.

The Lancet Fluke is a parasite that lives in the food that is often devoured by ants. Once consumed the parasite invades the brain of the ant and alters the ants behavior. The ant will climb to the top of a blade of grass and attach itself and not let go, ever.

This was a bizarre behavior on the part of the ant and one that entomologists at first could not explain. The behavior was counter to evolutionary theory. Then they discovered the fluke. But why does the fluke do this? Simple, if the ant stays on the grass blade then there is a good chance that it can be eaten by a ruminant and it is in the belly of a ruminant that the fluke has the only chance to reproduce and continue the life-cycle. Parasites can change the behavior of the host to further the interests of the parasite.

Religion is a mental parasite. Religious ideas are memes that can and do evolve. They have evolutionary fitness. The more they cause the host to resist reason the better chance they have to survive.

If a person knows that the moon does not exist then it is very difficult to convince that person otherwise. The parasite is very effective at creating cognitive dissonance. Reason is simply set aside for certain beliefs.

For those of you who don't buy into the concept of memes know this, the ideas of Joseph Smith, Buddah, L. Ron Hubbard, Taze Russell, Mohammad and others will be around long after you are dead.

 

[articulett]

Thanks,

It really knocked my socks off when I saw that. For a moment I wondered if a mod was messing with me.

Are you sure it wasn't Satan?... I hear he messes with people.

Anyhow, I thought it was a great typo... and a great reaction. I aspire to such cool typos AND such a humble reaction about them. It makes me feel like less of a dolt when I re-read mine which are a-plenty.

And yes... I agree with Dennet's analogy... I think this is obviously so. I remember trying not to think about god because the more I though the less it made sense and the more I doubted and the more I feared doubting...it was a weird loop. And I remember the confirmation bias type things I did to prop up my beliefs or ensure myself that they were "true". But that does take effort.

I remember a couple of things that really made me think that I try to offer my students... because it's the kind of thing you have to want to find for yourself--you don't want it forced on you...

I read about Randy testing Diviners and it really struck me what he was doing... and how these things could be tested and why believing something was true is not the same as knowing something... and knowing something is much cooler and more useful. It just dawned on me through assorted readings and experiences that it mattered to me whether a belief was true-- a lot-- even if it didn't matter to others. I wanted to know the ways I can be fooled... whom I could trust... how I could understand real and useful and amazing things...

I'm not good at "belief" and "faith"-- I tried... and I believed it was good or necessary for morality or that god wanted it and all that-- but now I don't believe any of that... I think that children evolved to trust those in charge... and those in charge do the best they can... it doesn't occur to either that the ones in charge might be mistaken... and so the belief in belief becomes a part of the culture. An unspoken assumption... with the "faith is good meme" as the corollary. And even those who don't have faith learn to prop up the paradigm and defer to those who do.

Even Dennett-- who is about as kind and non-arrogant and anti-militant as can be is attacked for suggesting that religion is like a virus... a bad chain letter... a pyramid scheme... it takes on a life of it's own so long as it promises rewards to those who pass it on and punishment for dissent. It offers protection from evil that it creates and a remedy to eternal damnation that it invented... and makes parents pass it on to their kids just in case it might be true and the kids will suffer for not being indoctrinated (or--gasp--become immoral). Those who bring reason are Satan, apostates, evil tempters, part of a test... etc. It's insidious and has a built in logic defying shield.

 

[Scot Ferre]

I apologize for not being here for the past few days. I've been sick, on and off, and I didn't have the mental capacity to handle the type of discussion here. By nature, I happen to be a fun-loving and optimistic kind of person, and I usually spend a lot of time on the Doctor Who forum. There's a serious section there for religion and politics and so on, and I post in that section while being able to go away from that section when I need to and relax with the fun parts of the forum.

This particular forum is amazing, and I'm very impressed. It just happens to be not my style, because it's heavy on the mind (which is a very good thing, by the way), but I'm still recovering from the ill effects of my sickness. And a lot of posts were posted in my absence. Rcronk has done an excellent job of responding and making posts, and I admire his tenacity, and I don't blame him for quitting this thread (for the time being), because it's quite difficult to discuss things without understanding the other's POV, without having met the person face-to-face. Knowing their faces and how they behave physically and emotionally would give very important clues on *why* and *how* people believe in and know things.

Anyway, I'm preparing for a life event in the next few weeks, and I hope to stop by from time to time, making a comment here and there. I'll leave you with these words:

I know God lives. I know Jesus Christ is a resurrected being and lives. I know that the LDS Church is true. There is no doubt whatsoever. Absolute certainty is not a bad thing at all if it's directly given and confirmed by God. Good luck to you all!

 

[RandFan]

Thanks for the post Scot. Good luck on that life event. I mean that with all sincerity.

I know God lives. I know Jesus Christ is a resurrected being and lives. I know that the LDS Church is true. There is no doubt whatsoever. Absolute certainty is not a bad thing at all if it's directly given and confirmed by God. Good luck to you all!

That's all well and good but understand that the people who strap on bombs and blow up children also know that god lives and that they are about to go to paradise and get 80 virgins.

That's the problem. We need a little less certainty and one hell of a lot more skepticism and critical thinking.

 

[Scot Ferre]

That's all well and good but understand that the people who strap on bombs and blow up children also know that god lives and that they are about to go to paradise and get 80 virgins.

Then there's a cultural problem, isn't there? If we agree that's wrong, then what can we do?

That's the problem. We need a little less certainty and one hell of a lot more skepticism and critical thinking.

Certainty coupled with actions that are designed to help people (for me, to do what Jesus would do) *while respecting their free will and choices* is not a bad thing at all.

Some people won't believe me when I say this, but I am certain on very few things - a great deal of things, I meet with skepticism and critical thinking. But there's also a place for me to be open-minded, to allow for all kinds of possibilities while at the same time applying critical thinking to those possibilities.