Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[Elind]

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.

Funny think(g), when I saw that I made a note to myself to check if it was me or you, like the correction I just made in the line above, which was obviously not a simple typo. Then I saw your oops and didn't bother;but it's also fun to notice those who make loads of "typos" but never bother to correct, even though I'm sure most are smart enough to know.

The other one I do all the time, although I usually correct it, is always add a "g" to the end of words ending in "in". Beats me

 

[Elind]

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.

With all due respect to rcronk, who has certainly shown tenacity and manners, he HAS indicated that he understands "our" point of view. He said so specifically somewhere above.

As to your last sentence, that addresses nothing about the truth of a belief, which I think is what we are primarily concerned with here.

 

[articulett]

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



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.

Yes we know.... we've heard it before: "my woo is the true woo and you'd know it was the true woo if you could know what I know"...

Got it. To you it's truth. To us it's yet another delusion where people are sure they have the truth... hopefully your infallible prophet or invisible god won't direct you to do things that cause others to suffer-- but even if he did; it's doubtful you'd notice in your hubris.

Certainty over things that people are long known to be wrong about with no measurable evidence to show that you've escaped this common phenomenon is just a little arrogant and freaky for the rest of us mortals.

I just don't find you as moral and well reasoned as you imagine yourself to be-- but heck, I'm one of those people who need evidence. I wasn't "blessed" with the "gift" of "faith". shucks.

 

[RandFan]

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

What does culture have to do with anything? On one hand we have you who are certain, on the other hand we have the terrorist who is also certain.

Introducing culture does not resolve the issue.

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.

Again, you are not advancing an argument.

1. Saying that one is a good choice and the other bad does not resolve the issue.
2. Who is to say what is good and what is bad? Early Mormons lived by the concept of Blood Doctrine (atonement). Was that good or was that bad?

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.

This is called cognitive dissonance. Unless you are willing to look critically at what you are most certain about then you are not a very critical thinker. That is the very essence of critical thinking.

 

[Scot Ferre]

As to your last sentence, that addresses nothing about the truth of a belief, which I think is what we are primarily concerned with here.

Perhaps - in this belief, however, emotions and feelings are part of this truth. Coldly and objectively looking at the truth of such beliefs is missing the key element - that God reveals through the Holy Spirit that things are true, in a joyous, calm, and happy way. People can objectively look at that, and say we're not being objective about it - of course, we can't be, when the truth is revealed in such a manner. We can't ignore the emotions and feelings behind such revelations.

Hence, why I think it's important to see the person face to face and *understand* the emotions and feelings behind them as a person.

 

[articulett]

Funny think(g), when I saw that I made a note to myself to check if it was me or you, like the correction I just made in the line above, which was obviously not a simple typo. Then I saw your oops and didn't bother;but it's also fun to notice those who make loads of "typos" but never bother to correct, even though I'm sure most are smart enough to know.

The other one I do all the time, although I usually correct it, is always add a "g" to the end of words ending in "in". Beats me

because ing is such a common ending for words verbs and gerunds that your brain just finishes what it thinks it started... I do this one too... I have a default typing brain mechanism that fills in the blanks when my fingers sense "ah, I know where we are going...I've traveled this route before

Mistakes tend to be valuable methods of obtaining new information. Humans are cool-- we can learn from them... our own and others.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps - in this belief, however, emotions and feelings are part of this truth. Coldly and objectively looking at the truth of such beliefs is missing the key element - that God reveals through the Holy Spirit that things are true, in a joyous, calm, and happy way. People can objectively look at that, and say we're not being objective about it - of course, we can't be, when the truth is revealed in such a manner. We can't ignore the emotions and feelings behind such revelations.

Do you understand the problems inherent with such a claim? Do you understand the limitations of knowledge? Do you understand that many people have a peaceful calm assurance that what they believe is true yet they are not Mormon?

Hence, why I think it's important to see the person face to face and *understand* the emotions and feelings behind them as a person.

It is demonstrable that honest and sincere people can be certain about things that are not true. They are calm, peaceful and happy but in the end they are wrong.

You are not advancing an argument. You are simply saying that in your case you know that you are right but can't quite tell us why others are wrong even though they know that they are right. You cling to premises that don't support your conclusion.

 

[RandFan]

because ing is such a common ending for words verbs and gerunds that your brain just finishes what it thinks it started... I do this one too... I have a default typing brain mechanism that fills in the blanks when my fingers sense "ah, I know where we are going...I've traveled this route before

Mistakes tend to be valuable methods of obtaining new information. Humans are cool-- we can learn from them... our own and others.

I'm pushing Ramachandran's book at the moment. Have you read it?

It's amazing the degree to which we behave subconsciously.

 

[articulett]

Perhaps - in this belief, however, emotions and feelings are part of this truth. Coldly and objectively looking at the truth of such beliefs is missing the key element - that God reveals through the Holy Spirit that things are true, in a joyous, calm, and happy way. People can objectively look at that, and say we're not being objective about it - of course, we can't be, when the truth is revealed in such a manner. We can't ignore the emotions and feelings behind such revelations.

Hence, why I think it's important to see the person face to face and *understand* the emotions and feelings behind them as a person.

Wow have you got a major faith-based meme affliction! I mean you really sound as brain washed as any Scientologist and Hare Krishna-- so many words used to say nothing and infer things and make unsubstantiated claims that rest on even more unsubstantiated claims all rapped up with a smiley bow of "look how good I am with my special secret". Well, heck, if it helps prop up your delusion, go right on ahead. But your certainty is the same as the Hijackers certainty as far as OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE goes.

From my viewpoint you are not cogent, convincing, honest, or logical. I have a hard time imagining Randfan as ever having been this afflicted, but if he can turn into such an honest, humble, critically thinking individual-- then that gives me hope for you. He has felt what you have felt. He discovered that he was fooling himself. He sounds a lot smarter and more coherent and honest thatn you.

Maybe it's the hearing problem. But I suspect it's a major meme virus of the most virulent kind. After awhile, truther woo sounds like ESP woo sounds like religious woo... it all sounds the same to me. And the only useful knowledge I can extract from it is that the human mind is very clever at using semantics to prop up fanciful ego-enhancing notions.

 

[articulett]

I'm pushing Ramachandran's book at the moment. Have you read it?

It's amazing the degree to which we behave subconsciously.

He is fantastic... Did you watch the Beyond Beyond tapes? I loved the woman doing the implicit bias studies that was his colleague too. Mazrain? Damn... but make sure you watch the video with the two of them. I think he's amazingly clever at developing tests to tease out what is going on... and such fascinating information too! He's a very smart, funny, honest man, devising tests to understand consciousness and the brain and then eagerly sharing his excitement and knowledge with others. You can download some of his lectures from the BBC and he was featured in a PBS show called Secrets of the Mind[/I He takes the stuff that people claim is unknowable-- and he devises tests to know more-- and he allows the mistakes and quirks to prod his discoveries further.

The real heroes aren't invisible... nor are they gurus or prophets-- they are just mortals assimilating knowledge and sharing it so they and others can take iit further. They are demonized for not believing in magic, and yet they are the ones bringing the true magic and miracles of tomorrow. The average 5 year old knows more about germs and the nature of the earth and computers than the smartest people knew a hundred years ago. We live longer happier lives due to these mortals while invisible main and scam artists and the delusional are praised ad nauseum. It's sad.

 

[RandFan]

He is fantastic... Did you watch the Beyond Beyond tapes?

YES! about a half dozen times and it takes me a day to get through them.

I loved the woman doing the implicit bias studies that was his colleague too. Mazrain? Damn... but make sure you watch the video with the two of them. I think he's amazingly clever at developing tests to tease out what is going on... and such fascinating information too! He's a very smart, funny, honest man, devising tests to understand consciousness and the brain and then eagerly sharing his excitement and knowledge with others. You can download some of his lectures from the BBC and he was featured in a PBS show called Secrets of the Mind[/I He takes the stuff that people claim is unknowable-- and he devises tests to know more-- and he allows the mistakes and quirks to prod his discoveries further.

The real heroes aren't invisible... nor are they gurus or prophets-- they are just mortals assimilating knowledge and sharing it so they and others can take iit further. They are demonized for not believing in magic, and yet they are the ones bringing the true magic and miracles of tomorrow. The average 5 year old knows more about germs and the nature of the earth and computers than the smartest people knew a hundred years ago. We live longer happier lives due to these mortals while invisible main and scam artists and the delusional are praised ad nauseum. It's sad.

What many people do not get is that progress only accelerates when we as humans realize the limits of our knowledge. When we started to question our held beliefs. When we realize that bias and dogmatic thinking is corrosive to discovery. What if our belief is wrong? That's what those ancient Greeks figured out. We owe them a debt of gratitude that we can never repay. Sadly we mock them by clinging to ancient superstition.

I couldn't agree with you more about technology being magical. The life we live today would easily be seen as utopia by many in the past. Many, if not most would not believe it even possible.

But hey, let's get week in the knees for crystals, magnet therapy, holistic medicine, psychics, prophets and other woo.

My mother-in-law has a huge library of Mormon books. I mean HUGE. I asked her one day if she could tell me what concepts that she learned from any of them that she did not learn from the bible or BOM?

She was at a loss.

I have a library also. You could pick just about any one of them and I can tell you something and perhaps many things that I have learned from that book.

I apologize for sounding elitist and arrogant. I don't mean to. I just mean that once you get past eternal salvation and being kind to others and loving god there isn't much to religion. It's all padded with fluff.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[articulett]

I share your rant. I downloaded Dawkins Enemies of Reason and he is similarly flummoxed. I understand the zeal for people to share what they know-- I want to share what I've learned... but I think the cool stuff is the stuff that is the same for everyone... (wasn't Ramachandran's number test for synesthesia cool?)

You don't have to rely on faith. We can test all claims... and we do a better job if we aim for deeper understanding... not assume that we have the deeper understanding and now we need to explain it.

I've bought many new age books-- they "felt" true.... I believed you could feel truths... like rconk... I knew not everyone had the same truth... but at least I could find the one that "felt" right. It didn't dawn on me to test claims and I didn't realize how very easy smart people (like I considered myself) could be fooled. I did observe that smart people believed conflicting things-- and that reality and facts are the same for people no matter what you believe-- so some were clearly wrong... and we could devise tests to find out who might be right. (I love Randi's MDC).

Believers think my heroes are "bad guys"-- and yet they are the one's who could liberate them and let them bite from the tree of knowledge-- real cool stuff that we humans can know for the first time. The facts are so much more amazing than the myths and so much easier to make sense of. And we can test the facts to find out more and hone our understanding and correct our errors.

 

[RandFan]

http://thetruereligion.org/modules/xfsection/article.php?articleid=254
(prays to know true religion gets proof that it's Muslim)

How to know if Scientology is true per Scientologists:
http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/catechism/index.html

...

To a skeptic it just all seems the same. "My invisible friend can beat up your invisible friend".

Thanks.

Scientology is not a dogmatic religion in which one is asked to believe anything on faith. An individual discovers for himself that Scientology works by applying its principles and observing or experiencing the results.

Great stuff.

 

[RandFan]

That's it! I'm now going to demand that you say that you "believe" you like french toast now instead of saying that you "know" it for sure!

I think you are skating on thin ice and very close to breaking through and seeing the problem. Hang in there. Keep working it. Even if you think you are working it from the POV that Mormonism is true. Keep working it.

I have come to change my mind on many things by simply arguing in favor of those things. Doing so helps one to see the weakness of a proposition.

rcronk, if you read this I hope you will continue down this road. Don't give up. You actually can reason this out.

Scientific American Frontiers. When Memory Lies

You've always loved pizza, right? Wait, are you sure about that? If anyone can convince you that you don't like pizza, Elizabeth Loftus of the University of California, Irvine can. Loftus is an expert on false memories. She may be able to persuade you to remember something you've never experienced.

 

[Elind]

Perhaps - in this belief, however, emotions and feelings are part of this truth. Coldly and objectively looking at the truth of such beliefs is missing the key element - that God reveals through the Holy Spirit that things are true, in a joyous, calm, and happy way. People can objectively look at that, and say we're not being objective about it - of course, we can't be, when the truth is revealed in such a manner. We can't ignore the emotions and feelings behind such revelations.

Hence, why I think it's important to see the person face to face and *understand* the emotions and feelings behind them as a person.

When we are face to face, at your place or mine, most of us are too polite to say to each others face that the other is delusional. What it comes down to is this; you think we, I, should accept at face value what I consider a ridiculous (sorry, but true) belief entirely on your say so because you hear voices. By now it should be clear to you that not everyone hears voices, and many that do are on medication.

So what you do is look for others with the same delusion and then you reinforce each other, face to face, just like the drunks in a local dive do at 10 am.

All this has been said already. By now you should understand that some people think you are nuts. Actually most other delusional people on the planet agree with me too, because their voices contradict you.

What else would you like to know?

 

[Elind]

I'm pushing Ramachandran's book at the moment. Have you read it?

It's amazing the degree to which we behave subconsciously.

Not I, but I have one to start that was recommended, which may be somewhat relevant. The Island of the Color Blind.

 

[articulett]

Not I, but I have one to start that was recommended, which may be somewhat relevant. The Island of the Color Blind.

Is that Oliver Sacks (he's great too)... What's it about. I'm reading about Cognitive Dissonance in Mistakes Were Made, but not by me.
and the Zimbardo's the Lucifer Effect. Brain Fiction by Hirstein is good too... and The Accidental Mind by Lindzen. You can google the brainmind podcast from some good MP3's discussing such books too.

 

[RandFan]

Is that Oliver Sacks (he's great too)... What's it about. I'm reading about Cognitive Dissonance in Mistakes Were Made, but not by me.
and the Zimbardo's the Lucifer Effect. Brain Fiction by Hirstein is good too... and The Accidental Mind by Lindzen. You can google the brainmind podcast from some good MP3's discussing such books too.

A great day to be in the R&P forum.

Thank you.

 

[Elind]

Is that Oliver Sacks (he's great too)... What's it about. I'm reading about Cognitive Dissonance in Mistakes Were Made, but not by me.
and the Zimbardo's the Lucifer Effect. Brain Fiction by Hirstein is good too... and The Accidental Mind by Lindzen. You can google the brainmind podcast from some good MP3's discussing such books too.

You guys are way ahead of me. Yes it's Oliver Sacks. I saw part of a TV documentary on it back a ways. An isolated, genetically, population that is color blind.

I don't read as much as I used to, except for 6 or more monthly publications, and a few weekly and quarterly. Laziness, TV, work, whatever, but I do enjoy those my reviewer send me. Like the Banner of Heaven, a few Dawkins and Hitchens and Sacks (still to read), and the current one which is great; "The Republic of Pirates" by Woodard. If you ever saw Master and Commander, the movie, you should read it.

My reviewer is my 85 year old mother (I don't live at home BTW)

 

[articulett]

Okay... a derail... but there is a funny t-shirt that says "f- the colorblind" (spelled out) in colors the color blind can't see. I think it's hilarious. My colorblind boyfriend does also--even though I had to tell him the joke (we actually didn't know he was colorblind before I showed it to him).

I tried to post it in the members only section--but I was smote--

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=559
(if you can't read it--you have red--green colorblindness)

But it's interesting to know that we do have differing perceptions of reality. The facts are the same. The conclusions we draw from our perceptions of the fact rely heavily on our brains interpretation mechanisms. I like knowing about this.