quote:Rationality begins with recognizing what we don't know.
I agree. But my experience with religious people - particularly those I'm close to and LDS in general, is that they are quite ready to declare that they "know" things which at best they strongly believe/hope. Children are taught to repeat rote phrases that begin "I know" followed by doctrines of the church long before they have any capacity to evaluate those doctrines for validity, strongly biasing any earnest investigation when they are older.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was presuming that there was some logical thread that relating your comments and that you had some point in engaging in discussion beyond massaging your own ego or venting your bitterness over the fact that God has not forcefully intervened to prevent your major life mistakes.
You would be correct.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was presuming that there was some logical thread that relating your comments and that you had some point in engaging in discussion beyond massaging your own ego or venting your bitterness over the fact that God has not forcefully intervened to prevent your major life mistakes.
You would be correct.
Then perhaps you might reveal what it was since you have scorned my attempts to identify it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rationality begins with recognizing what we don't know.
I agree. But my experience with religious people - particularly those I'm close to and LDS in general, is that they are quite ready to declare that they "know" things which at best they strongly believe/hope. Children are taught to repeat rote phrases that begin "I know" followed by doctrines of the church long before they have any capacity to evaluate those doctrines for validity, strongly biasing any earnest investigation when they are older.
I don't disagree with this but I also don't see its relevance to the broader point I was making.
There are many possible ways I could interpret it, but the most obvious to me is that, this was your backhand way of saying that since I am LDS, I'm some sort of hypocrite for talking about recognizing what I don't know.
If that was your intent, it's pretty ironic that you'd post in response to my post on the hazards or presuming you know what others think and believe.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, is your goal here really to discover why I noted that the distinction between Biblical literalists and "typical" believers, as measured in rationality, was merely one of degree? Is that the question that has occupied your mind for the last couple of pages?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are many possible ways I could interpret it, but the most obvious to me is that, this was your backhand way of saying that since I am LDS, I'm some sort of hypocrite for talking about recognizing what I don't know.
Mostly I was just sharing my own anecdote that my opinions about the rationality of religion are informed by substantial personal experience with a large group of people which, by fate and circumstance, has largely been LDS. Virtually everyone I know is a member of that faith and the abuse of the phrase "I know" by its membership is prevalent. I've come to accept it, as much as I can, as a special use of language - that when LDS say "I know" they mean what everone else says when they talk about believing strongly or having great faith. The problem though is that it leads to equivocation - where by using "I know" they actually come to believe stronger because of the certainness of that phrasing and what it means in any other context. I've even heard people at church advise people to "say it until you believe it."
Your particular affiliation with the LDS church wasn't a consideration.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a rote recitation for kids during fast & testimony meeting. You can tell by the way they say it. I don't put a lot of stock in it. The kids start to break out of it around 15 or 16, when I think they really start to consider the meaning of the word "know." To truthfully say "I know" does prompt you to consider your beliefs and the path to knowledge. Saying it definitely can be for an affirmation of strong beliefs; it is said as part of an affirmation of belief, after all. However, having heard many, many people say it in my lifetime, it's not always just a special use of language invented by the LDS, but is carefully considered and meant as it sounds.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Rabbit, is your goal here really to discover why I noted that the distinction between Biblical literalists and "typical" believers, as measured in rationality, was merely one of degree? Is that the question that has occupied your mind for the last couple of pages?
No Tom, I'm pissed at your intellectual dishonesty on the subject and this question pretty well captures what I mean.
1. You didn't note the distinction between "Biblical literalists and typical believers" as one of rationality. You started off by saying that the difference between a diagnosed schizophrenic (namely the timecube guy) and typical believers was one of degree.
That is not only extraordinarily insulting and condescending, it's unsupportable by any kind of scientific evidence.
2. You and others have been arguing that there is nothing wrong with claiming "the vast majority of religious people are irrational" because its their personal experience justifies them pronouncing judgements on the vast majority of the world population. I find that argument prejudiced and repugnant.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I didn't think so. That's why I didn't answer right away; you seemed far more interested in throwing out insults, and I wanted to make sure you got enough of that done before actually answering any questions you might have.
quote:You started off by saying that the difference between a diagnosed schizophrenic (namely the timecube guy) and typical believers was one of degree.
I started off by saying, and I quote: "From my particular atheist POV, the distinction between 'highly functioning' delusional people and 'raving lunatics' is one of degree."
quote:You and others have been arguing that there is nothing wrong with claiming "the vast majority of religious people are irrational" because its their personal experience justifies them pronouncing judgements on the vast majority of the world population.
I have not said anything of the kind. That said, I will gladly go on record as saying that I don't believe there's anything wrong with pronouncing judgments on the vast majority of the world population. For example, most of them are very bad at reading Cyrillic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Tom were arguing that most (or even all) belief in God was irrational, that would be a different issue. But he was not expressing an opinion about particular opinions or beliefs, but a sweeping opinion of the majority of people who hold them -- that is prejudice.
Back to this. Clearly when Tom says "most religious people..." he's making a statement about the nature of religious belief, not about individual personalities. When it comes to the latter, I doubt Tom would disagree with the claim "everyone is irrational", making it even more clear that Tom was in fact addressing particular beliefs rather than the class of people that hold them.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mostly I was just sharing my own anecdote that my opinions about the rationality of religion are informed by substantial personal experience with a large group of people which, by fate and circumstance, has largely been LDS.
Let me repeat and clarify. I have no particular problem if you want to argue that a particular religious belief or religious belief in general is irrational. I don't see a problem with arguing that religions in general discourage rational exploration of certain questions, or that a particular religion might discourage rational inquiry in general.
My problem with Tom's argument (and those that have been made by many other atheists in this forum) is that it goes way beyond that. My problem is the implication that non-religious people are as a group fundamentally more rational that religious people. I object to the idea that some aspect of irrationality is unique to religion, and completely absent in secular philosophy. I object to the view that irrationality is a problem of religious people, rather than a problem that plagues all people. I object to the implication that its fair to presume that because a person is religious, they will behave less rationally in aspects of their life that are not directly religious belief.
Those arguments and implication are unwarranted prejudice that cannot be support with objective scientific data. I find it highly ironic, when atheists, who persistently tout the ills of religious irrationality, are so completely blind to their own bias in this area.
I'm not alone in that opinion. I have in fact heard it expressed by many who describe themselves as atheists or secular humanists.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clearly when Tom says "most religious people..." he's making a statement about the nature of religious belief, not about individual personalities.
It most certainly was not clear or we wouldn't be having this argument. There is an enormous difference between saying a person is irrational and that an opinion or behavior is irrational.
The first is a statement about how people think, develop opinions and resolve complex issues, the second is a statement about the nature of a particular idea. If Tom intended the latter rather than the former, he should choose different language in the future.
I should, however, add that we have had this conversation enough times that I am reasonably confident in this case that Tom intended the former. Sufficiently confident that it would take a great deal to convince me he sincerely did not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
As long as you recognize that it's not actually my argument, I have no problem with your problem with it.
quote:If Tom intended the latter rather than the former, he should choose different language in the future.
Or, again, you could ask for clarification before running off half-baked. I refuse to accept responsibility for your hair-trigger, knee-jerk offense.
Really, should Ron be lambasting you for implying that all the Biblical literalists who exist must be mentally ill? Because that was what you were saying, right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The non-religious tend to be more likely to fetishize rationality. I don't know that they necessary then become better at it, but I can see why they think they might be better at it. Religious people tend to do the same thing with charity and they tend to be more charitable.
I believe I avoid a lot of "false positives" because there are certain modes of knowledge which I find invalid which are generally not rejected by religious people, but it's very possible that in doing so I also miss some actual true things. If I "know" fewer things, but am confident that a higher percentage of things that I do know are true, does that make me more rational? *shrug*
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I object to the view that irrationality is a problem of religious people, rather than a problem that plagues all people
I am not sure that we have established that irrationality (at least selective irrationality) is a problem at all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not even sure how we started discussing rationality, since my original comment compared "highly functioning delusional people" and "raving lunatics."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really, should Ron be lambasting you for implying that all the Biblical literalists who exist must be mentally ill? Because that was what you were saying, right?
Perhaps you should indicate where I implied this. The closest thing I can find is this.
quote:I've seen this before. It is truly mind boggling, but easy to dismiss as the ravings of a lunatic. There are far too many highly functioning people who call themselves biblical literalists for me to be able to dismiss it the same way.
The intent of which was exactly the opposite of what you keep claiming. But since you misunderstood it the first time, I clarified saying.
quote:No, not all. I do not share your opinion that people who believe the Bible is the literal word of an actual being are raving lunatics or even mildly ill.
And now that I have clarified that twice, I ask you to stop claiming I've said all self proclaimed biblical literalists are mentally ill when I said precisely the opposite.
quote:Tom said: Or, again, you could ask for clarification before running off half-baked. I refuse to accept responsibility for your hair-trigger, knee-jerk offense.
Asking for clarification is precisely what I've been doing but the clarifications you've given like this,
quote:I think the mental illness that produced TIMECUBE differs in degree from the mental illness that leads people to say they think the Bible is literally, word-for-word, true.
tend to confirm that I'm not running off on a half baked interpretation or offended by some knee-jerk hair trigger response.
I repeat. There is no scientific or medical evidence to support your claim that most biblical literalists suffer from any form of mental illness or that the typical religious person's spiritual experiences are related to schizophrenic delusions. In the absence of any supporting data, it is not rational of you to keep making this claim.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not even sure how we started discussing rationality, since my original comment compared "highly functioning delusional people" and "raving lunatics."
We are discussing it because you said
quote:I believe the vast majority of believers are irrational.
Iglee called this remarked prejudiced. Other atheists chimed in to say no, because their experience supported the claim no prejudice was involved. I disagreed based on numerous points.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, examine your post before that one. The TIMECUBE guy was brought up as an example of someone who believes some very strange things about the physical universe in response to your claim that no one is crazy enough to take the Bible literally, and that you are unwilling to recognize the existence of actual Biblical literalists because you don't think the people you've met who call themselves Biblical literalists are crazy enough to take the Bible literally.
quote:Iglee called this remarked prejudiced. Other atheists chimed in to say no, because their experience supported the claim no prejudice was involved. I disagreed based on numerous points.
Ah! So you weren't talking to me, then. I'm glad that's cleared up.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... There is no scientific or medical evidence to support your claim that ... the typical religious person's spiritual experiences are related to schizophrenic delusions.
I would think that at least this point would be fairly controversial and currently under investigation.
For example:
quote:The line between religious inspiration and psychosis is unclear and subject to dispute. Freud (1927) and Ellis (1983), for instance, argued that all religious experience is irrational, delusional, and antithetical to mental health.
quote:The current edition of the DSM (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) no longer contains negative references to religious experiences and behavior. Instead, religious experience is primarily ignored, and when addressed, DSM-IV does not provide clarity, but rather reveals the ambiguity. One of the few instances where religiosity is addressed is in a discussion of hallucinations related to schizophrenia: “Hallucinations may also be a normal part of religious experience in certain cultural contexts” (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p. 275). Although the problem of discrimination between normal and abnormal religious experience is acknowledged, no criteria are provided to help make that discrimination. The differentiation between authentic religiosity and psychopathology must rely solely on the vague reference to “certain cultural contexts.”
Edit to add: I think it would make more sense to say that while there is evidence of a relationship, there is no consensus on what that means yet.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I object to the view that irrationality is a problem of religious people, rather than a problem that plagues all people
I am not sure that we have established that irrationality (at least selective irrationality) is a problem at all.
Agreed, although I really don't see why Tom would bother to post that he thinks the vast majority of religious people are irrational unless he sees this as a problem. But then again, since he evidently sees great similarity between saying that the vast majority of people on the planet can't read cyrillic and that the vast majority of religious people are irrational, I should probably stop presuming Tom is actually trying to make some rational point and give up trying to figure out what it might be.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Agreed, although I really don't see why Tom would bother to post that he thinks the vast majority of religious people are irrational unless he sees this as a problem.
I did so in response to this statement, which I quoted at the time: "I think Tom knows as well as I do that not all atheist have abhorrent habits and that not all God believers are irrational." I felt that leaving iglee with the wrong impression would be a disservice. While it's true that I don't believe all "God believers" are irrational, I didn't feel that this technicality was honestly within the spirit of iglee's observation.
quote:But then again, since he evidently sees great similarity between saying that the vast majority of people on the planet can't read cyrillic and that the vast majority of religious people are irrational, I should probably stop presuming Tom is actually trying to make some rational point and give up trying to figure out what it might be.
It intrigues me that you seem to define a "rational point" as "a point I understand."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would think that at least this point would be fairly controversial and currently under investigation.
I'm curious why you think this would be fairly controversial and under investigation? Do you have some evidence for this.
My statement that there is no evidence for it is based on my reading of studies that use brain imaging and/or psychopharmocology to study what's happening during the brain during spiritual experiences. The results of these studies do not show any similarity between the changes in neurological function during a spiritual episode and those seen in people suffering from schizophrenia. In fact, enough studies of meditation have revealed trends that are counter to those seen in schizophrenia that meditation is being seriously considered as a treatment of schizophrenia.
I am by no means an expert in neurology but its something I follow more or less as a hobby. I have some close friends who developed severe mental illness in their early to mid-twenties and I also have several friends that are deeply involved in Buddhist meditation or Christian contemplation. So I kind of keep an eye on the neurological studies being done in those two areas. If there is a legitimate scientific controversy about this, I've yet to see any mention of it in the literature or read a study that even hints at a link.
The idea that spiritual experiences and mental illness are different degrees of the same thing is something I've heard expressed by atheists here on many occasions. The data does not fit this hypothesis. Certainly there are mentally ill people who have religious delusions, but the evidence does NOT fit the hypothesis that typical spiritual experiences are a much milder form of the same thing. In fact, everything we know about the fundamental biology of severe mental illness and spritual experience indicates they aren't related.
[ January 07, 2011, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It intrigues me that you seem to define a "rational point" as "a point I understand."
I find it intriguing that you think I didn't understand why you posted the snip about most people not reading cyrillic. It was a strawman argument that, while perhaps addressing the letter of what I said, missed the substance of it by a mile. I'm pretty sure you know that. If you really don't, I'd be happy to explain why your strawman lacks the substance of a rational point.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm curious why you think this would be fairly controversial and under investigation? Do you have some evidence for this.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Isn't "The line between religious inspiration and psychosis is unclear and subject to dispute" enough to indicate that there is a controversy?
quote: Certainly there are mentally ill people who have religious delusions, but the evidence does fit the hypothesis that typical spiritual experiences are a much milder form of this.
I fully agree. By no means do I mean to imply that typical religious experiences are remotely as serious as diagnosed mental illness. I'm sure that it is much more mild. Merely that as the introduction to that paper states, there is evidence linking religion to both poor and good mental health and that in their words "Empirical investigation has not provided clarity."
Edit to add: Have to leave, saw your edit, but you get the general idea.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should probably stop presuming Tom is actually trying to make some rational point
m'key, that's handwaving. your reaction to tom needs to be less emotionally driven.
Why does my reaction to Tom need to be less emotionally driven?
Perhaps it should be more polite, but why should I be less emotional about my arguments. I'm fully aware I'm biased on this issue but nonetheless am quite confident that my irritation with Tom is fully deserved.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, Rabbit, non-emotion-driven thoughts are more NOBLE than emotions. Why, newborn babies can emote!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what you're asking here. Isn't "The line between religious inspiration and psychosis is unclear and subject to dispute" enough to indicate that there is a controversy?
That's a different argument. The line between sanity and insanity is unclear. That isn't something that's specific to religious inspiration. The fact that the line between wanting to be clean and tidy and obsessive compulsive disorder is unclear does not imply there's any controversy about whether every one who wants to wash the grease off their hands is displaying a mild form of OCD.
If you image the brain of a normal healthy individual while they are washing dirty hands you see a very different neural response than you see when a person with OCD washes dirty hands. The same is true for schizophrenia and typical spiritual experiences. When scientists have imaged the neural activity in people (judged to be in good mental health) while they are having a spiritual experience, the patterns of neural activity they observe are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the spiritual experience is related to schizophrenia or any other mental illness.
Of course the very definition of what is a mental illness is controversial. Not long ago, homosexuality and transgender issues were widely classed as mental illnesses. There may come a time when having spiritual experiences is classified as a mental illness. But no matter how you define mental health, we know enough right now to know that the average spiritual experience is different from psychotic delusions at a fundamental biological level. We know that "different degrees of the same thing" is not an accurate description of what is going on biologically.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QB] Rabbit, examine your post before that one. The TIMECUBE guy was brought up as an example of someone who believes some very strange things about the physical universe in response to your claim that no one is crazy enough to take the Bible literally, and that you are unwilling to recognize the existence of actual Biblical literalists because you don't think the people you've met who call themselves Biblical literalists are crazy enough to take the Bible literally.
I never claimed that no one is crazy enough to take the Bible literally and if that is what you got from my post, you were completely missing the point. What I said was
quote:There are no Biblical literalists, at least I have never met or interacted with one. There are only "cafeteria" biblical literalists, who pick a few parts that support their agenda and ignore the rest.
Until I find someone who believes that the earth and atmosphere are sandwiched between two infinite expanses of water (which is what it literally says in Genesis), I will maintain that BIblical literalism is total hogwash, a misnomer.
My point was that "Biblical Literalism" is something of a misnomer. Even the vast majority of those who argue that Genesis should be taken literally, pick and choose what parts they think are literal and what parts aren't. I never at any time implied this was some sort of mental illness.
I made no speculation whatsoever about why the vast majority of Biblical literalist don't think its necessary to take the part about outer space being full of water literally. I merely pointed out that they don't. It was you who suggested mental illness was involved and I was quite explicit that I do not agree with that assessment.
I'm about 90% convinced that you understand my points just fine are being deliberately obtuse because it gives you some sort of pleasure to irritate people. That's why I have't felt there is any reason to respond politely. If I'm wrong in that assessment, I'm sorry. Either way, rivka has a point that it would be more NOBLE of me to respond politely.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in the middle of marking exams and projects. My sarcasmometer is completely non-functional. Even with your reset, I'm unsure who was being sarcastic. I guess I should get back to grading.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, is your goal here really to discover why I noted that the distinction between Biblical literalists and "typical" believers, as measured in rationality, was merely one of degree? Is that the question that has occupied your mind for the last couple of pages?
Well no truthfully, I'm just seeking a diversion from grading papers. I can only stand to do it for about 20 minutes before I need a break and this has been the easiest diversion I could find.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Virtually everyone I know is a member of that faith and the abuse of the phrase "I know" by its membership is prevalent. I've come to accept it, as much as I can, as a special use of language - that when LDS say "I know" they mean what everone else says when they talk about believing strongly or having great faith.
Matt, you bring up a good point here. Once in a while I’ve been uncomfortable with that phrase “I know” but as long as I keep in mind it means, as you say, “believing strongly” I’m OK with it. Orson Scott Card has written an excellent article on this very subject in Sept. in his column in Mormon Times.
quote: The problem though is that it leads to equivocation - where by using "I know" they actually come to believe stronger because of the certainness of that phrasing and what it means in any other context. I've even heard people at church advise people to "say it until you believe it."
I think I agree with you here also. Those people you have heard say stuff like “say it until you believe it. “ have a slightly skewed perspective. And you can tell them I said so. What they should have said was “obey it until you believe it.” Our theology teaches that mere lip service does not increase a person’s faith and conviction, but obedience and actually doing something about your faith does. That is what these two scriptures are taking about.
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.(John 7:17)
And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith. (Ether 12: 6)
Your post brings to my mind something else I have noticed. I’ve heard and read a bunch of times where scientists and teachers have expressed the idea that they know their theories are true. To try to be certain of something seems to be a normal human tendency. I have no problem with that as long as everybody keeps in mind that their conclusions may turn out to be wrong as new evidence comes along.
But I see nothing wrong with a person sticking with something that works. For instance, the way those people at JPL and NASA have proved many times that they can calculate and achieve some amazingly accurate trajectories. Well, there is no point in dumping those methods just because physicists don’t yet know everything about the universe.
Posts: 71 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should probably stop presuming Tom is actually trying to make some rational point
m'key, that's handwaving. your reaction to tom needs to be less emotionally driven.
Why does my reaction to Tom need to be less emotionally driven?
Because between your dialogue with him and his dialogue with you, yours is degrading and becoming snippy and defensive.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE] My statement that there is no evidence for it is based on my reading of studies that use brain imaging and/or psychopharmocology to study what's happening during the brain during spiritual experiences. The results of these studies do not show any similarity between the changes in neurological function during a spiritual episode and those seen in people suffering from schizophrenia. In fact, enough studies of meditation have revealed trends that are counter to those seen in schizophrenia that meditation is being seriously considered as a treatment of schizophrenia.
Please don't take what I'm about to say as an attack on religion, either yours or any other. Seriously, OK?
Are you equating meditation with ALL types of religious/spiritual experience? Prayer, maybe. I could see at least SOME forms of prayer being very similar to meditation. However...visions and "revelations from God" are a whole other subject. I think most people who have "visions" and "revelations" are either crazy (yes, schizophrenic, or something else) or need to eat some food (since a time-tested way of producing visions in many cultures is excessive fasting). IOW, I think most visions and revelations are the result of some biological malfunction. Probably not absolutely all of them are, but...most, in my book.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Anecdote Alert: It occurs to me that generally I do not assume anything about the specifics of the beliefs of any person I meet, even when they tell me about their religion (which is only sometimes). However, I have on at least several occasions had religious people state that I believe in "nothing," "chaos," "only yourself," or "that God is dead." It always seems to flip their cookies when I tell them no to all that. Then they get downright anxious when I start talking about the 2d planet and the 3d visitor and north of the north pole and Carl Sagan crap like that.
Counter anecdote: I have on many occasions had people tell me that because I am LDS I believe a long laundry list of things which I don't. When I correct them, many have argued stridently that I'm wrong (about what I personally believe). I've had them make all kinds of false presumptions about my politics, my education, and my family life. I've even been verbally assaulted for things I don't do or support. People, some on this very site, have said more or less outright that being an LDS scientist makes me dishonest and unreliable in one way or another.
You *are* unreliable in certain ways. But I base that judgement on my actual experiences with you. You understand science and are an advocate of it, but you also espouse certain modes of thinking that I find counter-productive. But do tell, who were these people who made these assumptions about you, and how did you handle that?
quote: This experience is a small part of why I think its important to recognize all prejudices. If you are offended (even slightly) when people falsely presume they know what you believe, why make the same error in reverse?
I am not offended by such idiocy. It's really just contemptible nonsense that annoys me, but I could rightly say that it *offends* me, in the sense that my honor or my sense of self is threatened by it. Rather the opposite really, which is not atypical I'm sure.
quote: Rationality begins with recognizing what we don't know. When it comes to what other people think and believe, we all know very little. Most people are so poor at articulating their most cherished beliefs that even when they've gone to great lengths to do so, it is can be very very difficult to truly understand.
See, I think if you are incapable of articulating your "most cherished" beliefs, then there may be something missing in what you believe. I don't know, but for me, there are many things I can't articulate well or even at all, and I do not walk about with the assumption that these are things I really have any kind of handle on at all. Interpersonal relationships, love, the meaning of life- these are not subjects on which I can articulate my most inner feelings. So how can I cherish beliefs I myself don't understand well enough to express? I never understood that, about myself or anyone else- that one could "believe" something, and be unable to state the nature of that belief. On the things I'm sure of, I'm also fairly sure that I can express myself well. That's my instinct, anyway.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, I think if you are incapable of articulating your "most cherished" beliefs, then there may be something missing in what you believe. I don't know, but for me, there are many things I can't articulate well or even at all, and I do not walk about with the assumption that these are things I really have any kind of handle on at all. Interpersonal relationships, love, the meaning of life- these are not subjects on which I can articulate my most inner feelings. So how can I cherish beliefs I myself don't understand well enough to express? I never understood that, about myself or anyone else- that one could "believe" something, and be unable to state the nature of that belief. On the things I'm sure of, I'm also fairly sure that I can express myself well. That's my instinct, anyway.
Why should the ability to frame an idea in words indicate whether the idea is sound? That implies that we have words enough to describe anything, when one of the most common lamentations artists and even lay people make is having an idea that defies description.
Because language doesn't completely evolve around the idea of describing all that can be described, it is totally inadequate, and yet miraculous that we have it at the same time.
A common metaphor thrown around Mormon circles who have difficulty describing spiritual experiences is,
"Assuming I have never tasted salt before, now describe to me what salt tastes like."
The idea being that although all of us know intimately what salt tastes like, our language cannot begin to explain to an ignorant person what saltiness is.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why should the ability to frame an idea in words indicate whether the idea is sound? That implies that we have words enough to describe anything, when one of the most common lamentations artists and even lay people make is having an idea that defies description.
Because language doesn't completely evolve around the idea of describing all that can be described, it is totally inadequate, and yet miraculous that we have it at the same time.
A common metaphor thrown around Mormon circles who have difficulty describing spiritual experiences is,
"Assuming I have never tasted salt before, now describe to me what salt tastes like."
The idea being that although all of us know intimately what salt tastes like, our language cannot begin to explain to an ignorant person what saltiness is.
To be fair, I think Orin's point was that it's rather silly to be so certain about something as major as the nature of life, the universe, and everything when you can't even put it into words. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Darth, your reasoning is not convincing. I know you evolutionists try to camoflage the basic impossibility of evolution by saying it all took place one little step at a time. But the impossible is still impossible.
As for your Argos analogy--birds are substantially different from dinosaurs, even though some common traits can be observed. Changing one basic genus to another requires that whole new genetic information structures be added to the genome. You do not get that merely by piecemeal editing of the existing genome. Does that actually seem reasonable to your mind?
Why is this impossible.
If I wanted to walk from New York to Los Angeles, you might think that it is impossible. There is no way such a walk could be done because the human body could not travel that distance without wearing out. But if I did it over a long stretch of time, stopping to eat, sleep, rest, etc--such an impossibly large event could occur--and has happened many times.
You argue that to change a whole genus would take too many changes to occur. Why? How much change is too much change? Does not water dripping drop by drop wash away mountains?
It is only impossible if you do not consider the immensity of the time scale and quantity of individual creatures that go into evolving new genuses.
When you state--"That is impossible" or "Does that actually seem reasonable to your mind" your arguments are lacking. One is flat out denial with out support, the other borders on name calling.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: So how can I cherish beliefs I myself don't understand well enough to express?
You're assuming that the ability to articulate a thought is an indication of how well that thought is understood. While that may be true in most cases, that's certainly not always true.
I would certainly have a difficult time trying to convey a very basic concept to someone that only speaks Russian, for example. That's not a failure on my part in understanding the concept, it's a consequence of the limitations of language.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:A common metaphor thrown around Mormon circles who have difficulty describing spiritual experiences is,
"Assuming I have never tasted salt before, now describe to me what salt tastes like."
The idea being that although all of us know intimately what salt tastes like, our language cannot begin to explain to an ignorant person what saltiness is.
To be fair, it's easy to give someone salt so that they can experience it for themselves. You may not be able to describe it, but you can at least share it with them. It's a lot more difficult to give someone a spiritual experience that allows them to draw the same conclusions that you've drawn.
That said-- I admit there are experiences that can be felt but not precisely described. One of the reasons we developed literary devices like metaphors and analogies is to help us communicate these often too-powerful-for-words stories to others.
I'm afraid that I believe that anyone who thinks all experiences can be described precisely is just...inexperienced. Sometimes words fail.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We know that "different degrees of the same thing" is not an accurate description of what is going on biologically.
Ummm, I think we're talking about different things again. "Different degrees of the same thing" is a phrase that no one has actually used aside from yourself. The phrase that I'm responding to is, "There is no scientific or medical evidence to support your claim that ... the typical religious person's spiritual experiences are related to schizophrenic delusions."
The question as to whether there is a relationship is I think one that clearly is yet to be determined given how much we have yet to learn. However, crossing the threshold of "no evidence" to some evidence of a relationship is pretty easy to reach.
quote:In conclusion, these preliminary imaging studies in patients with schizophrenia support the theory that the misattribution of self-generated thoughts or actions to outside entities/forces may contribute to the psychotic state. The inferior parietal cortex has been implicated. The few studies that have been completed in healthy individuals suggest that this region may also be important to normal religious experience
quote:I think I agree with you here also. Those people you have heard say stuff like “say it until you believe it. “ have a slightly skewed perspective. And you can tell them I said so. What they should have said was “obey it until you believe it.”
It is certainly the case that performing a duty leads to quicker internal justification than simple recitation. (Heck, even something as basic as smiling winds up producing post-hoc emotion.)
For the record, BTW: I have no doubt that people have had experiences of the "numinous" that they feel incapable of describing, but which they attribute to the divine. I believe these experiences are misattributed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why should the ability to frame an idea in words indicate whether the idea is sound? That implies that we have words enough to describe anything, when one of the most common lamentations artists and even lay people make is having an idea that defies description.
Because language doesn't completely evolve around the idea of describing all that can be described, it is totally inadequate, and yet miraculous that we have it at the same time.
A common metaphor thrown around Mormon circles who have difficulty describing spiritual experiences is,
"Assuming I have never tasted salt before, now describe to me what salt tastes like."
The idea being that although all of us know intimately what salt tastes like, our language cannot begin to explain to an ignorant person what saltiness is.
To be fair, I think Orin's point was that it's rather silly to be so certain about something as major as the nature of life, the universe, and everything when you can't even put it into words.
Sure, the fact that words are so difficult to find is an indication to me, primarily, that the concepts one is dealing with may be too difficult or subtle to actually be fully understood. And if you can't fully understand something, I'm not sure why you would so deeply believe in it. Moreover, I can't see why you would speak as an advocate for it if your ability to describe what it does for you is diminished in this way. I can see why people fall in love without understanding the nature of their feelings- but this is something to do with worldview, and with the logical and rational underpinnings of that worldview. Things like love have less to do with belief- you aren't required to believe that you *are* in love, but you are required to believe that you are a Christian, if you are one. Nobody becomes one accidentally- it takes some amount of conscious choice.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: So how can I cherish beliefs I myself don't understand well enough to express?
You're assuming that the ability to articulate a thought is an indication of how well that thought is understood. While that may be true in most cases, that's certainly not always true.
I would certainly have a difficult time trying to convey a very basic concept to someone that only speaks Russian, for example. That's not a failure on my part in understanding the concept, it's a consequence of the limitations of language.
I don't buy this. I think it's hand-waving away a legitimate concern.
You understand many things intuitively when you observe them, and have them explained. For instance, you may not have the words necessary to describe the process which causes particles in water to move ceaselessly, known as Brownian Motion, but you may understand the concept fully having seen it happen, and having that process explained to you by a teacher or a scientist. The limitation then is that you don't have the linguistic tools to relay that information to another person without, say, showing them the process as well.
But with religion and religious beliefs, particularly those that are based on appeals to emotion, and which typically play upon the convert's or parishioner's need to be loved by parents and society, the demonstrative aspect of most of these concepts is either non-existant, or potentially dubious. For instance, a preacher evokes an emotional response in a listener, and then attributes the source of that emotional response to god. The person then explaining the process by which he or she was converted or preached to, and why and how that person believes in god, would also be required to evoke the same emotional response, and likewise attribute that response to god.
That which you can't fully explain in words has to be demonstrated- but I think a key issue here is that no reliable demonstration of god exists. Seemingly all testaments to belief in god are tied to emotional experience and the implantation of this concept- that the emotional response is of a divine nature.
So, in the case of Brownian Motion, the concept can be reliably demonstrated and the concepts involved communicated through an appeal to reason and logic. The inability to express the concept in words is simply a lack of mutual communicative tools. You or the listener are not strong in the language of physics concepts, but when it is demonstrated, the process is relatively clear, given a grounding in basic physics. However, religious ideas that were taught through emotional appeals, and *never* were communicated in other ways, should be considered highly dubious, because at no point can it be reliably demonstrated that two people are understanding the same concept in the same way.
This is, by the way, the reason why I harbor the personal belief that there is actually no such thing as organized religion- only organized worship. Despite centuries of time and thousands of volumes of religious texts, the concept of god is non-demonstrable, and so actually logically incomprehensible to any person thinking rationally. That's why belief in god is irrational, and all appeals to faith rely on irrational thoughts- and appeals to emotion.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm afraid that I believe that anyone who thinks all experiences can be described precisely is just...inexperienced. Sometimes words fail.
Yes, sure. Absolutely. The point I'm raising is that it's rather a large thing to base your view of the universe on something like that. Words fail, I think, for reasons we ought to pay attention to.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point I'm raising is that it's rather a large thing to base your view of the universe on something like that.
Of course, it's not just the ineffable that makes up one's religious point of view; I know only a few people whose religious experience is based entirely on indescribable events.
Usually, people have building blocks to their point of view; and some of them are quite describable.
Alternatively: when my youngest was finally released from the hospital, the feelings I felt toward the doctors and nurses who cared for her during her open heart surgery was perfectly indescribable. The emotion was larger and more complex than just gratitude; it had the inertia of three months of sleepless nights and tense days; it had images of her bloated body on the bed, and her nurses tenderly washing her, or changing her bandages; it had the frustration of dealing with a family, and the satisfaction of seeing how the rest of the family responded to the trial.
You understand-- that's not a precise description of the event, or the feeling. But a lot of my family's relationship, and our reality, is based on those elements. I can describe pieces; I can show you some building blocks. But there are parts of the whole that are essentially indescribable. Those pieces are not the whole, but they are important parts, even if I can't exactly lay my hands on them.
Self-examination is important; that's a given. But an inability to precisely describe an experience is not a failure. It's perfectly human.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet your experience doesn't comprise a worldview. It is an emotional experience for which you do not have all the words. Fine. But your worldview needs to be more than an appeal to emotion, doesn't it?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
