I'm going to quote merc's comments which deserve conversation outside the discussion about the offensive language he used.
Merc said:
There is no hope of honest debate with most Mormons. It is a futile task. Given the mountain of evidence showing in plain means that Mormonism is a laughable farse, they still will find a way to ignore it and run back to the false comforting fallacies ensuring that the cult gets their ten percent, paid in blood and enforced through stupidity.
The change has to come from inside. It is not until the slave realizes that the shackles of Mormonism are around his neck that he can change. It is not until tehy willfully step outside the comfort zone and look hard that true change can be invoked.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I think that it's inaccurate to make this statement about "most Mormons". Most Mormons are simply unaware of these issues at all, so we can't really draw any conclusions about how they would react.
I think that the statement is accurate to make about True Believers, in the Eric Hoffer sense of the word. These are people who are so emotionally invested in and psychologically enmeshed within the belief system that the thread of loss of belief is the threat of loss of self. Therefore, their minds will "protect" them from the reality of the falsity of their beliefs by trickery.
Time for my favorite Eric Hoffer quote:
“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.
It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.
Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.
I do agree that a True Believer has to reach some sort of emotional break-through, somewhat like the "slave seeing the shackles around his neck", before he/she can even register factual information thoroughly enough to process and connect the dots.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I say, you can't reason with anybody who has made up their mind, be they critic or believer. This is not an inherit trait of religious people; this is common to all of humanity.
I agree with both of you, in that firstly you cannot reason with someone who has made up their mind, and secondly, the true believer is too enmeshed within their beliefs to really be able to let go. It's physically painful to do so. I once managed to severely mess up both knees, both elbows, and my chin in one week. Mom would let the wounds "breathe" at night, and I'd wake up attached to the friggin sheet each morning. It was agonizing, ripping that sheet off. I would have rather had toga day, no matter how rediculous I looked to outsiders, in order to avoid that pain.
I think some LDS feel the same way. Even if they get the inkling that their beliefs are not healthy, peculiar, etc...the thought of a life without that rigid structure is just too frightening. Everything you do is dictated by the church when you are a Mormon. When you let go of all of that, if you've been enmeshed for a long time, or if you've never known anything else, how do you cope? It's been done, but who has made an easy transition out of the church? I'd like to meet them...
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
John Larsen wrote:I say, you can't reason with anybody who has made up their mind, be they critic or believer. This is not an inherit trait of religious people; this is common to all of humanity.
Have you made up your mind about that?
Or can I ask you - doesn't the answer really depend on what they have made their mind up about, and the criteria they are in the habit of using to make up their mind about the particular kind of issue in question?
Thus, for instance, if I have made up my mind on the basis of extensive surveys that there are no living specimens of a certain species in the Amazonian jungle, there is plenty of point in arguing with me if you can show that there really are some living specimens there after all.
If I have made up my mind that Joseph Smith had read the Bible, on the basis of the expectation that he would have the same reading habits as other 19th C. American Protestants of a religious turn of mind, there is plenty of point in arguing with me if you can produce good evidence that it was a notorious fact amongst early LDS that the prophet was ignorant about conventional scripture.
But if I have made up my mind about the Book of Mormon on the basis of a warm feeling in my chest, reinforced by regular public testimony-bearing by myself and those on whose regard I depend, then there is probably not a lot to be done by offering to reason with me - at least, nothing to be done that can be done very rapidly.
I think Chap just made an important point, which is that with a true believer type there's often not much that can be done that will work quickly, but often there may be something which can be done which will just take a long time to work. I'm a case in point. I was a true believer for most of the 36 years since I was born until I finally realized that the church wasn't true after all. I was thoroughly convinced of it, and I took, just like so many other TBMs, to making up excuses in my mind for the little things that seemed to belie the truth of the church.
However, the nagging fact that church leaders had been so spectacularly wrong about issues that science could have a say in, over so long a period, worked on me in subtle ways over the years, despite my best efforts to dismiss these things as "not important to my salvation", that eventually lead me to a state of openness and willingness to consider that I'd been wrong about my belief, that when the full Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith polyandry/rampant polygamy information became known to me, I was just barely able to make the transition in my beliefs from strongly believing to no longer believing.
I say I was just barely able to make that transition, because it's true that it was very, very difficult for me to face this unpleasant and harsh reality, and if I hadn't already been prepared by years of realization that the "prophets" had been so wrong about things like Noah's Ark, no death before Adam, etc., I think I would probably have gone the way of people like Will Schryver and others we all know and love so well from the MAD board, who are really too smart to keep believing this stuff, but have made the decision to do so, and now bend their will to the task of finding ways of explaining and excusing it all.
There, but for the grace of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, go I. ;-)
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
John Larsen wrote:I say, you can't reason with anybody who has made up their mind, be they critic or believer. This is not an inherit trait of religious people; this is common to all of humanity.
Have you made up your mind about that?
Or can I ask you - doesn't the answer really depend on what they have made their mind up about, and the criteria they are in the habit of using to make up their mind about the particular kind of issue in question?
Thus, for instance, if I have made up my mind on the basis of extensive surveys that there are no living specimens of a certain species in the Amazonian jungle, there is plenty of point in arguing with me if you can show that there really are some living specimens there after all.
If I have made up my mind that Joseph Smith had read the Bible, on the basis of the expectation that he would have the same reading habits as other 19th C. American Protestants of a religious turn of mind, there is plenty of point in arguing with me if you can produce good evidence that it was a notorious fact amongst early LDS that the prophet was ignorant about conventional scripture.
But if I have made up my mind about the Book of Mormon on the basis of a warm feeling in my chest, reinforced by regular public testimony-bearing by myself and those on whose regard I depend, then there is probably not a lot to be done by offering to reason with me - at least, nothing to be done that can be done very rapidly.
All I am suggesting is that when people make up their mind, no matter how transparently false the conclusion, there is little point in reasoning with them. They will not usually change their mind. They have to first be open to changing their mind.
If you observe virtually any debate, the parties spend to defending their position and attacking the opposite position. There is not much in the line of "trying on" the ideas of the other person.
I do agree that this phenomenon is not restricted to religion, but I think it is qualitatively different than the normal human trait of being wedded to one's own "rightness".
I think it's qualitatively different due to the irrational lengths that the True Believer will go to in order to protect his/her beliefs from threat. Simple human stubbornness, while frustrating, it not quite as irrational or intractable. The reason True Belief goes beyond simple human "rightness" is that it has something to do with a "core issue" that defines the self in some very basic way that normal opinions and beliefs do not.
The other area I think it is most commonly seen is politics. Like religion, politics is very easily transferred to "tribe", and I think what is being manifest in True Believerism is extreme tribal loyalty and devotion. The tribe is the only safe haven.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Sethbag wrote:I think Chap just made an important point, which is that with a true believer type there's often not much that can be done that will work quickly, but often there may be something which can be done which will just take a long time to work. I'm a case in point. I was a true believer for most of the 36 years since I was born until I finally realized that the church wasn't true after all. I was thoroughly convinced of it, and I took, just like so many other TBMs, to making up excuses in my mind for the little things that seemed to belie the truth of the church.
However, the nagging fact that church leaders had been so spectacularly wrong about issues that science could have a say in, over so long a period, worked on me in subtle ways over the years, despite my best efforts to dismiss these things as "not important to my salvation", that eventually lead me to a state of openness and willingness to consider that I'd been wrong about my belief, that when the full Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith polyandry/rampant polygamy information became known to me, I was just barely able to make the transition in my beliefs from strongly believing to no longer believing.
I say I was just barely able to make that transition, because it's true that it was very, very difficult for me to face this unpleasant and harsh reality, and if I hadn't already been prepared by years of realization that the "prophets" had been so wrong about things like Noah's Ark, no death before Adam, etc., I think I would probably have gone the way of people like Will Schryver and others we all know and love so well from the MAD board, who are really too smart to keep believing this stuff, but have made the decision to do so, and now bend their will to the task of finding ways of explaining and excusing it all.
There, but for the grace of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, go I. ;-)
I agree with what you are saying here. But it was that "nagging feeling" that made you open to considering other views. That is what I am talking about. You first had to decide on some level to consider seriously the other side.
I don't think there is much evidence that arguing with people tends to produce that nagging feeling, at least not very often. That doesn't mean it isn't fun, though. :)
When I was 6 I began entertaining all the reasonable criticisms, versus the stories that I was told, surrounding the Santa Claus issue. It was hard to do, but the evidence that Santa Claus was a myth manufactured by men, and kept alive by loved ones for my sake and that of the Christmas spirit, weighed too much on my mind. Evidences that were plain were explained away by people who were much smarter than myself. Trusted authority figures, teachers and parents alike, reassured me that He was real. Nothing but confusion surrounded the issue because what should have seemed like an impossibility, a jolly old elf flying around the world with enough gifts for all children packed into one sleigh, well, even to the mind of a child this was clearly false. But, so many people around me continued to tell me it was true. So, I just shelved my disbelief, and joined the chorus echoing that He lived and the Christmas spirit was alive and well. I even parroted the lie to others.
And then one day, when I was 8 years-old, I accepted the possibility that Santa Claus didn't exist, and that I had been duped. And that was that. I no longer believed. It was that simple.
There is no basic difference between the lies of god-worship, and the lies that were told to us as children about Mr. Claus. It's only when the person who knows he is being deceived allows himself to acknowledge that reality will he awake from his self-imposed stupor and realize the lies he has been told are just that. That is an internal process. It's incumbent upon people who have reached this conclusion to not continue to be a part of the con job. Why? Because we become part of the deception, a tacit complicity, if we fail to tell others the truth about the human condition. That is an external process. Both processes are necessary for the human spirit to prevail over the darkness of myth, and the corruptibility of our minds by ideological thugs.
It is, no less than our duty, to be the standard bearers for knowledge and progress.