DiscussMormonism.com

Polygamy-Porter has started today another thread, in which he quotes from Joseph Antley's blog, thusly:

I worry that anti-intellectualism among common members of the Church sometimes pushes critical thinkers out of the Church or suppresses them into cultural Mormonism (where they still attend meetings for social and cultural reasons but privately do not believe in the truthfulness of the LDS Church).

Very worrisome, indeed.

It seems very clear that what pushes critical thinkers out of the Church or so suppresses them is critical thinking about the truthfulness of the LDS Church. The Brethren/COB (albeit 'anti-intellectuals' but hardly 'common' members) pronounce Mormon orthodoxy, not those plebeian 'common' members that Joseph Antley views as such a threat. Those members merely follow that Mormon orthodoxy. That does not keep critical thinkers from thinking critically. It is the Mormon orthodoxy, such as the Brethren/COB's claim that the literal world wide flood actually occurred in the time of Noah, that pushes critical thinkers out of belief. That is because such claims by the Brethren/COB cannot withstand the scrutiny of critical thinking.

But, Joseph Antley seems to think that the problem for critical thinkers is that there exist TBMs, commoners mind you, that accept and believe the Mormon orthodoxy that oozes out of the COB, from the Brethren. Crap on the intellectually un-elite to somehow save the Brethren/COB from themselves? Is this some kind of a diversionary tactic, to draw attention away from where those silly ideas emanate, and blame those taken in by them?

Joseph Antley, you'd be wonderful in arguing that Bernie Madoff was not the problem, it was the blind greed of those that handed over their life savings to Madoff. If it weren't for those greedy investors offering their life savings, Madoff wouldn't have taken their money and no crime would have been committed, right?

I also find it interesting how the mopologists are like young children flirting ever closer with the edge, but scurrying back to safety, back several feet from the edge when frightened by how precariously close they came to the edge and falling over it. The mopologists flirt with critical thinking, each time getting closer to the edge and the loss of their faith (belief without supporting facts and reason). But if before the mopologist falls off of that edge, he scurries back--there will be the comforting arms of DCP, Hamblin, etc. of NAMIRS to embrace the rattled mopologist.

Joseph Antley reminds me of just such a thrill seeker, but it is truly disappointing that this promising intellect sees fit to assail the fact that some people believe on faith (common members, anti-intellectuals) as the reason critical thinkers lose their faith.

where they still attend meetings for social and cultural reasons but privately do not believe in the truthfulness of the LDS Church

I agree that such behavior is at the apex of anti Intellectualism. Now a believing Mormon who is also a scientist, that's the apex of Intellectualism and Critical Thinking du jour.

bcspace wrote:

where they still attend meetings for social and cultural reasons but privately do not believe in the truthfulness of the LDS Church

I agree that such behavior is at the apex of anti Intellectualism.

No.
It's the height of social self preservation.

Crtical thinking is an often abused term. First we need to define it to see if the posters are on the same page. Here is one definition: Critical thinking is the use of rational skills, worldviews, and values to get as close as possible to the truth. (Howard Gabennesch)

But there are others.

Now, the Critical Thinking response to this approach will be that these are simply two different, perhaps both valuable, endeavors. It is one thing to question the evidentiary base (or logic, or clarity, or coherence) of a particular claim, and to find it wanting. This is one kind of critique, adequate and worthwhile on its own terms. It is something else, something separate, to question the motivation behind those who propound certain views, their group interests, the effects of their claims on society, and so forth. That sort of critique might also be worthwhile (we suspect that most Critical Thinking authors would say that it is worthwhile), but it depends on a different sort of analysis, with a different burden of argument — one that philosophers may have less to contribute to than would historians or sociologists, for example.

http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/burbules/pap ... tical.html

Now this may apply to people on this board, especially the underlined part.

why me wrote:Crtical thinking is an often abused term. First we need to define it to see if the posters are on the same page. Here is one definition: Critical thinking is the use of rational skills, worldviews, and values to get as close as possible to the truth. (Howard Gabennesch)

But there are others.

Now, the Critical Thinking response to this approach will be that these are simply two different, perhaps both valuable, endeavors. It is one thing to question the evidentiary base (or logic, or clarity, or coherence) of a particular claim, and to find it wanting. This is one kind of critique, adequate and worthwhile on its own terms. It is something else, something separate, to question the motivation behind those who propound certain views, their group interests, the effects of their claims on society, and so forth. That sort of critique might also be worthwhile (we suspect that most Critical Thinking authors would say that it is worthwhile), but it depends on a different sort of analysis, with a different burden of argument — one that philosophers may have less to contribute to than would historians or sociologists, for example.

http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/burbules/pap ... tical.html

Now this may apply to people on this board, especially the underlined part.

You underlined the wrong bit so I fixed it for you...

bcspace wrote:

where they still attend meetings for social and cultural reasons but privately do not believe in the truthfulness of the LDS Church

I agree that such behavior is at the apex of anti Intellectualism. Now a believing Mormon who is also a scientist, that's the apex of Intellectualism and Critical Thinking du jour.

A true believing (orthodox) Mormon who is a physical scientist or a hard sciences professional represents the apex of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance.

Drifting wrote:
You underlined the wrong bit so I fixed it for you...

My underlined part was more to the point of this board. But both of them go together quite well and it needs to be kept in mind when discussing critical thinking.

bcspace wrote:

where they still attend meetings for social and cultural reasons but privately do not believe in the truthfulness of the LDS Church

I agree that such behavior is at the apex of anti Intellectualism. Now a believing Mormon who is also a scientist, that's the apex of Intellectualism and Critical Thinking du jour.

It's the apex of something, for sure. Cognitive dissonance springs to mind.

I believe critical thinking TBMs are called "ex-Mormons".

- VRDRC

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I believe critical thinking TBMs are called "ex-Mormons".

- VRDRC

Or NOMs.

;-)