The worst thing about Mormonism

[_Jersey Girl]

But they do so with no or little understanding of why this kind of thing occurs.

Rationaizations and cognitive biases exist in human minds with or without religion. I'm beginning to think that it is a neccesary part of who we are. Everyone does it in the context of whatever it is they are passionate about. Atheists I have found to be little different, though like religionists, you have the extreme and the more rational. Just look at JAK on the other thread. He totally goes into confirmation bias mode, ignoring points that totally undermine his premise.
Humans do this. If religion isn't the medium in which it is used, then maybe politics will be. Or maybe a passionate stalker will rationalize why it was OK to kill his victim.

When you get down to it all, the real problem is human nature.

Unless you're something other than human, it is hypocrisy to criticize others for doing it.

Of course it's human nature. The only antidote is a deliberately constructed system of thought and procedures which are designed to eliminate the effect of the biases of human thought. This antidote revolutionized the world for the very reason that it gave human beings a tool by which we could circumvent the very flaws of our nature.

Antidote = the scientific method and the rules of logic

beastie,

How can one construct a system of thought and procedures in which to evaulate personal relationships that involve emotional attachments? If I'm reading the OP and posts here correctly, one part has to do with giving up your teenage daughter to a "man of God" in order to secure your eternal destination. Scare tactics. So, removing oneself from the relgious context, how would a person go about constructing such a system that ensures clarity of thought and rational decision making in personal relationships that involve emotional attachments in much the same way that religious beliefs involve emotional attachments and responses?

Was that clear as mud?

;-)

[_karl61]

Cover your eyes those averse to scripture...

From 2 Peter 2:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [1] and committed them to chains [2] of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; [3] 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, [4] and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, 11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. 12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, 13 suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, [5] while they feast with you. 14 They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children!

...

17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. 18 For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves [6] of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.

CKS

That's all real nice but Peter did'New Testament write that as the person that wrote that was very educated- not a fisherman but it's nice and who had "eyes full of adultery".

[_dartagnan]

Now there is nothing wrong in itself about not being willing to abandon a long-term view simply because one piece of counter-evidence turns up. Successful scientific communities certainly do not act that way, nor do effective individuals. To that extent I agree with dartagnan that some ability to keep at bay frequent disruptions to one's world-view is natural to human beings, and even beneficial.

But there has to come a point where one accepts that, however much one COULD rationalise oneself out of an impasse, it is better to change one's mind and admit that one was just plain wrong about the way things were. Otherwise the price in terms of suppressed internal conflicts and disconnection from reality is just too high.

Humans make constant cost-benefit analyses throughout their lives, and for most Mormons, they really do believe the Church provides more good in their lives, and that they are better people in it than out of it. I agree with that this is probably almost always the case. Those people are less likely to even come in contact with refuting evidneces against Mormonism. They don't because they don't want to. I mean just look at how coggins responded to Book of Abraham arguments. He didn't even know what was going on, yet for years he has been in the environment where Mormons are most likely to encouter them: debat forums.

Of course it's human nature. The only antidote is a deliberately constructed system of thought and procedures which are designed to eliminate the effect of the biases of human thought.

Nothing like this exists, nor can it exist. It is impossible to operate outside yourself and be uninfluenced by personal biases.

This antidote revolutionized the world for the very reason that it gave human beings a tool by which we could circumvent the very flaws of our nature. Antidote = the scientific method and the rules of logic

Surely you're not serious. The scientific method can't help you here. There are only three ways to "know" anything: science, religion and philosophy. Too many people have too much faith in the scientific method, becoming unwilling to accept its boundaries and limitations.

I dare you to try and convince an American that America is not the greatest country on Earth. They don't want to hear facts about how we are a country running out of control with consumption of non-renewable resources. That we are one of the highest contributors to global warming. That our wars are not just.

It depends on how you define "great." How is the scientific method going to help you out on that one?

They are blinded and have no desire to see. Same with religion.

Um, excuse me, but you should hold judgment on the American people until the next election, at least. Having said that, there are plenty of anti-Americans who are equally blinded and refuse to acknolwedge any good in America. That's human nature.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I mean just look at how coggins responded to Book of Abraham arguments. He didn't even know what was going on, yet for years he has been in the environment where Mormons are most likely to encouter them: debat forums.

Maybe we just haven't done a good enough job debatting him.

Of course it's human nature. The only antidote is a deliberately constructed system of thought and procedures which are designed to eliminate the effect of the biases of human thought.

Nothing like this exists, nor can it exist. It is impossible to operate outside yourself and be uninfluenced by personal biases.

This is true. But it generally is acknowledged, I think, that the academy and the scientific community are structures that help make scientific progress possible by checking biases. This was one of the premises of Thomas Kuhn's book, though of course it was somewhat backhanded and he's occasionally been claimed by the postmodern camp. The rules of science can't allow us to transcend ourselves, but they do help to mitigate some of the more harmful effects of our biases.

[_dartagnan]

Maybe we just haven't done a good enough job debatting him.

Coggins doesn't debate. In order to debate one must acknolwedge the argument of one's opponent. Coggins just blathers away at the lip while closing his ears. The fact that he had been wandering around these forums for so long, and was here during the period when Book of Abraham criticism reached its peak last 18 months ago, is a testament to his ability to live in his own world.

This is true. But it generally is acknowledged, I think, that the academy and the scientific community are structures that help make scientific progress possible by checking biases.

In theory, but I don't see much evidence of this. A scientist is still left open to his own biases, with or without the scientific method. The scientific method is limited because it only deals with what we can observe and test, so that means it is limited to the five senses. We know animals have different senses of perception than humans, but we cannot say for certain, using the scientific method., whether humans can perceive truths from the outside world using unknown senses.

The rules of science can't allow us to transcend ourselves, but they do help to mitigate some of the more harmful effects of our biases.

I haven't witnessed any of this. All I see is a rise in arrogance by those who actually think they're less biased because they follow strict rules of logic. Generally speaking of course.

[Guest]

Hey Kevin,

While the rules of logic and the scientific method are part of what I'm talking about, I'm also talking about things like publication, peer review, and academic consensus. The academic community gives kudos to anyone who can deconstruct a scientist's argument. So while a scientist may arrogantly think he's doing objective, pure science, the community acts as a control, thereby sifting out distortions caused by his biases. It's definitely not a perfect system, as Kuhn demonstrated, but like Kuhn I think that in the long run it works.

As far as logic is concerned, it was the opinion (if I'm not mistaken) of Isaac Watts that logic is more a descriptive than a prescriptive discipline. It is our way of systematizing something that we already know and do instinctively. All our reasoning, really, is done in syllogisms. One needn't know what a syllogism is in order to employ it. It's true that a Cartesian skeptic might ask why we should accept this instinctive syllogistic way of knowing. I think the only answer we can give is that it seems to work, and we couldn't escape it even if it didn't. Like I said, it's instinct.

In my opinion, our syllogistic way of reasoning evolved over time-- just like consciousness and opposable thumbs-- precisely because it works. It allowed human beings to interact with and make sense of their world and, thereby, to increase its favorability for survival. Arguably, the scientific community has "evolved" for much the same reason. The emergence of academic rules and structures and ways of knowing in Europe gave the Europeans a technological advantage that enhanced their survival. The academic way of knowing has been adopted by most other cultures because they need to be able to compete. The academy is simply nature's latest innovation. So while I admit that it's hardly perfect, I think that the fact that it seems to work (broadly speaking) is reason enough not to plunge into the postmodern depths.

The religious way of knowing is a much more complicated situation. Because while a certain degree of spirituality and/or need to find meaning does appear to be instinctive (though hardly as ingrained as the syllogism), there really isn't a single religious way of knowing. No religious way of knowing has particularly gained ascendancy over the others, because no religious way of knowing allows us to make sense of the world in the kinds of survival-enhancing ways that the academic community does. Aspects of certain belief systems may ultimately enhance survival-- like for example the Catholics' rule against birth control and the Muslims' willingness to use violence-- but even if one religion were eventually to gain ascendancy I don't think that would demonstrate its superiority as a way of knowing in the same way that the academic community's has. The academic community has produced consistent, repeatable, useful results. The products of the various religious ways of knowing are a mixed bag, to say the least. They have been inconsistent and often even contradictory, and their validity is much more difficult to evaluate than in the case of science. I can boot up my computer and watch a movie in order to see the validity of science in action. But how do I test the validity of original sin or monotheism?

I hope that helps put words to why I think the logical and scientific ways of knowing are generally better and more reliable than religious ones. Best,

-Chris

[_beastie]

How can one construct a system of thought and procedures in which to evaulate personal relationships that involve emotional attachments? If I'm reading the OP and posts here correctly, one part has to do with giving up your teenage daughter to a "man of God" in order to secure your eternal destination. Scare tactics. So, removing oneself from the relgious context, how would a person go about constructing such a system that ensures clarity of thought and rational decision making in personal relationships that involve emotional attachments in much the same way that religious beliefs involve emotional attachments and responses?

I think that trying to discipline one's thoughts, even when strong emotions are involved, can help human beings make decisions utilizing as much information as possible. Of course, if one has already become ensnared in a belief system based on fear, control, or manipulation, then it has limited effect. The time when it could have been the most helpful is to prevent involvement in such a system to begin with. However, having said that, there are still examples of people within the particular belief system that retained enough independence to evaluate certain claims with more scrutiny.

Chris has more than adequately provided more input on this, but I do want to add one more thought in response to kevin:

Quote: (from me)
Of course it's human nature. The only antidote is a deliberately constructed system of thought and procedures which are designed to eliminate the effect of the biases of human thought.

Kevin's response
Nothing like this exists, nor can it exist. It is impossible to operate outside yourself and be uninfluenced by personal biases.

Note I did not say that we could eliminate our biases. What the scientific process and rules of logic can do it so eliminate the EFFECT of those biases, as much as possible.

[_Mercury]

religion is...

[_Coggins7]

This is precisely the reason why atheists say that religion is dangerous.

No, it patently is not. Most atheists are dyed in the wool liberals and leftists, and always will be, and people of this type are very simply scared to death of religion because religion threatens to rip out and roast over a crackling fire their core assumptions and beliefs about the world and themselves.

Religion, and especially the true gospel as it stands revealed in our day, is a poisoned arrow through the heart of Korihorism, or modern Liberalism, or "secular humanism", which is the philosophical substructure of modern western industrial society.

Madalyn Murray O' Haresque platitudes about religion's supposed malign influence (dwarfed, one must endlessly repeat, by the 20th century's substitute for it, political fanaticism) simply will not do.
Religion is dangerous, yes, but not in the simplistic and ahistorical context in which Shades places it. It is dangerous to the atheist's psychological and intellectual credibility with himself, and hence, both hated and feared.

[_Coggins7]

religion is...

No, only the attempt to escape it. We do not have any choice as to two whether we will be religious, only of what religion we shall find ourselves a part.