Does Dr. Shades *really* believe "we all want the truth

[_Tal Bachman]

On the first page of this website are the words "because we all want the truth". I have a lot of respect for Dr. Shades, but on this point, he sounds very naïve. Maybe this should be changed to something more accurate!

I submit that human beings - Mormon and non-Mormon - are socially, psychologically, emotionally, and intellectually such, that we very often don't want the truth at all. After all, truth can be the source of very great pain; and widespread recognition of this fact is why we have common phrases like "don't shoot the messenger", "he's in denial", "he can't see the truth even though it's staring him in the face", "the truth hurts", and "that hit too close to home".

It might be worth pointing out that we must maintain the same skepticism about "everyone wanting the truth" whether we are devout religionists of some kind (say, Mormon), or devout secularists.

For if we are devout Mormons, say, we wind up with only two possible explanations for why only the tiniest fraction of those exposed to Joseph Smith's stories ever accept them as true (or continue to accept them for any length of time): cognitive defectiveness, or character defectiveness (that is, either people are too dumb to understand "the gospel", or they are too (insert perjorative here: "proud", "lazy", "desirous of worldly fame", "set in their ways", etc.)

And the "character defectiveness" explanation boils down to: "they just didn't want the truth". So devout Mormons are committed to the belief that the overwhelming majority of human beings do not want the truth (taking as a global population sample the vast percentage of people who decline to accept Joseph Smith's "true" stories once exposed to them, and the growing membership defection rates).

But secularists are committed to that same belief, including, I venture, Dr. Shades. For if we believe that we are the result of evolution, then we believe that certain traits and actions conferred survival advantage on our ancestors; and the important thing about actions is that they very often result from beliefs; and the important thing about those beliefs, from an evolutionary perspective, is that beliefs do not need to be true in order to lead to actions conferring survival advantage. Therefore, when by all accounts of evolution, the human brain has evolved such that it tends to attribute less importance to the truth of any particular claim, than to the benefits of believing that claim, so that in most clashes between the two, the most beneficial will win regardless of the truth, secularists simply cannot say that "we all want the truth". Rather, we tend to want what it is most beneficial to believe.

The very structure of scientific methodology tacitly concedes that often humans, at some level, don't want the truth. This is why in scientific experiments we control for things like confirmation bias. This is why results must be replicable to be accepted as valid (the desire to make an exciting new discovery can overwhelm our desires for truth). It is why (supposedly) Max Planck once wryly noted even of this most reliable means of discovering truth, that "science progresses one funeral at a time".

I could go on forever...but the point is, it is a very dubious (though laudable in its charity), claim that "we all want the truth". Why should most of us, anyway, when "matrixes" can be so pleasing to our vanity, so crucial to our identities and social relationships, so responsive to our most primal emotional needs, so (net) beneficial in terms of survival over eons?

[_Mercury]

Truth is subjective in this matter Tal. I wish the Mormons on here could get a better definition of truth but for the time being this community fosters discussion and debate.

Stop playing semantics games and go swim in the small pond of RFM. It seems your audience is much more cultish over there. Keep drinking Susans Kool Aide.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Long time no see.

Shades and his posse put up with alotto crap from both sides to keep this place on the net. I admit to at least 48% of the crap on one side:)

in my opinion Tal, you are far better at writing rock-n-roll songs than hammering out posts on an exmo/mo board, plus you hit a much larger audience with your great music. While I do enjoy your posts, I enjoy your music MUCH MUCH more.

Tal, stick to the music bud. All you will get here is, nothing.

I still have yet to purchase your last CD as you never got the thing on iTunes. I and billions of others buy exclusively from the cult of Mac, so get it there and I shall buy.

Other than that, how are things? The kids and wife?

When can we expect to hear your next CD?

[_Tal Bachman]

WOW. Really fantastic post, Merc. AMAZING!

By the way, perceptions are subjective. Any meaningful definition of "truth" has to entail independence from subjectivity/individual perception. After all, is it "true" that the sun revolves around the earth, if everyone in the world thinks it's "true" that it does?

Also by the way, if it matters (can't see how it does...), I haven't been over at RFM for like, two years. And who could blame me for posting here rather than there, with replies like yours? At least I've gotten a few laughs now!

[_beastie]

Ignore the welcome wagon, tal, I think you make a good point. Of course humans often don't want the truth, but we almost always tell ourselves we do. And I absolutely agree that beliefs don't have to be "true" in terms of an external, objective reality, to be evolutionarily useful. I think that is why the religious impulse is nearly universal.

[_Mercury]

WOW. Really fantastic post, Merc. AMAZING!

By the way, perceptions are subjective. Any meaningful definition of "truth" has to entail independence from subjectivity/individual perception. After all, is it "true" that the sun revolves around the earth, if everyone in the world thinks it's "true" that it does?

Also by the way, if it matters (can't see how it does...), I haven't been over at RFM for like, two years. And who could blame me for posting here rather than there, with replies like yours? At least I've gotten a few laughs now!

Tals so Hiiiiieiiieiiii......

:)

[_cksalmon]

On the first page of this website are the words "because we all want the truth". I have a lot of respect for Dr. Shades, but on this point, he sounds very naïve. Maybe this should be changed to something more accurate!

I submit that human beings - Mormon and non-Mormon - are socially, psychologically, emotionally, and intellectually such, that we very often don't want the truth at all. After all, truth can be the source of very great pain; and widespread recognition of this fact is why we have common phrases like "don't shoot the messenger", "he's in denial", "he can't see the truth even though it's staring him in the face", "the truth hurts", and "that hit too close to home".

It might be worth pointing out that we must maintain the same skepticism about "everyone wanting the truth" whether we are devout religionists of some kind (say, Mormon), or devout secularists.

For if we are devout Mormons, say, we wind up with only two possible explanations for why only the tiniest fraction of those exposed to Joseph Smith's stories ever accept them as true (or continue to accept them for any length of time): cognitive defectiveness, or character defectiveness (that is, either people are too dumb to understand "the gospel", or they are too (insert perjorative here: "proud", "lazy", "desirous of worldly fame", "set in their ways", etc.)

And the "character defectiveness" explanation boils down to: "they just didn't want the truth". So devout Mormons are committed to the belief that the overwhelming majority of human beings do not want the truth (taking as a global population sample the vast percentage of people who decline to accept Joseph Smith's "true" stories once exposed to them, and the growing membership defection rates).

But secularists are committed to that same belief, including, I venture, Dr. Shades. For if we believe that we are the result of evolution, then we believe that certain traits and actions conferred survival advantage on our ancestors; and the important thing about actions is that they very often result from beliefs; and the important thing about those beliefs, from an evolutionary perspective, is that beliefs do not need to be true in order to lead to actions conferring survival advantage. Therefore, when by all accounts of evolution, the human brain has evolved such that it tends to attribute less importance to the truth of any particular claim, than to the benefits of believing that claim, so that in most clashes between the two, the most beneficial will win regardless of the truth, secularists simply cannot say that "we all want the truth". Rather, we tend to want what it is most beneficial to believe.

The very structure of scientific methodology tacitly concedes that often humans, at some level, don't want the truth. This is why in scientific experiments we control for things like confirmation bias. This is why results must be replicable to be accepted as valid (the desire to make an exciting new discovery can overwhelm our desires for truth). It is why (supposedly) Max Planck once wryly noted even of this most reliable means of discovering truth, that "science progresses one funeral at a time".

I could go on forever...but the point is, it is a very dubious (though laudable in its charity), claim that "we all want the truth". Why should most of us, anyway, when "matrixes" can be so pleasing to our vanity, so crucial to our identities and social relationships, so responsive to our most primal emotional needs, so (net) beneficial in terms of survival over eons?

You here conflate ginosko with epithumeo and then conveniently conflate your amalgamation with "what LDS really want."

As if what LDS folks really desire is false, untrue knowledge, rather than the unvarnished truth.

This is, prima facie , an absurd argument.

Now, while certain LDS may wish to shelter themselves from primary sources that call into question their orthodox LDS beliefs, it is not then necessarily the case that such persons are necessarily adverse to objective, documented truth claims. They may be, indeed.

But, your phraseology embodies quite the logical leap.

Mercury says:

I wish the Mormons on here could get a better definition of truth but for the time being this community fosters discussion and debate

.

This frank assessment, by an ex-Mo, gives the lie to your simplistic theological algorithm.

And, didn't you recently leave MDB because it was beneath you, intellectually? I seem to remember that thread.

It might be instructive that neither Mo's nor ex-Mo's nor never-Mo's find your prattling on all that revolutionary or important.

Dr. Shade's board is exactly what it should be: a venue where those who want the truth can interact. The individual participants don't have to agree with you or Shades or Mercury or me. In disagreement, and only in disagreement, there is genuine dialogue.

Which is the point of this board.

Maybe your "matrix" is ultimately determinative of your participation here. Good enough.

But, why do you feel the need to spill it on everyone else?

CK "How No One Really Wants the Truth Except Tal Bachman--and How He Alone Possesses It--and How That's Bully for Him--and How That's Really Awesome for Tal--and How Everyone Else Probably Listens to Cinderella--and How Much They Suck Because of That" Salmon

[_Moniker]

Tal, I agree that many people state they want the truth, yet don't recognize that truth can be painful. I recall about a year ago on MAD amantha said we seek after the truth for happiness. That was an odd statement since the truth often brings about great discomfort and pain. I imagine some say they seek the truth while in actuality they long for the bits and pieces that make it work for them so that they can handle life -- seek only the aspects that bring them happiness.

Others quite frankly do NOT want the truth. They will deny, deny, deny anything that fits out of their scope of beliefs and will not seek any answers that may splinter the truth they've concocted.

Then, there are those that do seek the truth, knowing great pain can result -- yet, they have a desire to know regardless.

I'd imagine some of us may even flit between these at different times in our lives depending upon what the "truth" would entail and how it may affect us or others.

So, I agree with you when you state, "that very often we don't want the truth at all."

[_Gadianton]

I have no idea what Shades's mental state was at the time of writing, but I'd salvage his statement on the grounds of an expression of good faith towards both sides.

[_moksha]

Truth is just another word for nothin left to believe,
And nothin ain't worth nothin but its seen,
Feelin good is easy, lord, when Coggins sings the blues,
And so Tal, that is good enough for me,
Good enough for me and Mercury.