The Gullible Mind

[_beastie]

"Be careful in your allies".

You know, there's a lot to unpack there in terms of what I think is often wrong with Mormon apologetics.

The fact is that people can disagree on many things, and yet still agree on the truth of other propositions. The idea that Chris should not agree with something that is patently true - that the human mind is inherently gullible due to the manner in which it evolved - because the person making the assertion is on the "wrong" side of another issue is troubling.

You know what, Dan? I bet you actually agree with my OP. I bet you actually agree that human beings are inherently gullible, and it's helpful to be aware of that fact. But because I'm on the "wrong" side, you can't bring yourself to admit it.

Some Mormon apologists are always thinking in terms of "how can this be used against Mormonism", in my opinion - and even if something is obviously true, they will ignore or deny it because it could later be a threat. While I suppose that approach makes some sense, it also has the potential to unsettle people who could feasibly be on the "right" side, but don't like seeing obviously true things being argued or ignored in the cause of protecting Mormonism.

Truth Dancer used a good example from an old polygamy discussion on MAD. In response to the common defense that Mormon polygamy was partly designed to take care of widows and orphans, she pointed out that one doesn't have to be married to help take care of widows and orphans. A believer issued a CRF on that point. This straining at gnats makes you all look like you're worried and constantly protecting your flank. And it makes you look unreliable, willing to ignore truths in the service of protecting the faith.

[_beastie]

Since you mention "fight to the death" it's time for a moment of Glenn Beck:

Please! I'm eating lunch!

[_Daniel Peterson]

The fact is that people can disagree on many things, and yet still agree on the truth of other propositions. The idea that Chris should not agree with something that is patently true - that the human mind is inherently gullible due to the manner in which it evolved - because the person making the assertion is on the "wrong" side of another issue is troubling.

It's also a figment of your imagination.

The fact that you mistake my point so completely is confirmation so pure and on point that attempting serious substantive conversation with you would be an exercise in pointless frustration that it could actually have been issued directly from the Department of Redundancy Department.

You know what, Dan? I bet you actually agree with my OP. I bet you actually agree that human beings are inherently gullible, and it's helpful to be aware of that fact. But because I'm on the "wrong" side, you can't bring yourself to admit it.

You know what, Beastie? I "admit" it freely! Enthusiastically! In fact, I actually even noticed it without your help, decades ago!

Some Mormon apologists are always thinking in terms of "how can this be used against Mormonism"

Right. And, of course, neither you nor CK mentioned acceptance of Mormonism as an instance of gullibility. Hypersensitive Peterson hallucinated that.

Truth Dancer used a good example from an old polygamy discussion on MAD. In response to the common defense that Mormon polygamy was partly designed to take care of widows and orphans, she pointed out that one doesn't have to be married to help take care of widows and orphans. A believer issued a CRF on that point. This straining at gnats makes you all look like you're worried and constantly protecting your flank. And it makes you look unreliable, willing to ignore truths in the service of protecting the faith.

And, of course, because "a believer" allegedly did that, I'm somehow implicated by it.

Just the Morg hive-mind in action.

Straight from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Why am I wasting my time with this silliness?

[_Some Schmo]

Since you mention "fight to the death" it's time for a moment of Glenn Beck:

Please! I'm eating lunch!

No kidding. I think I've watched his show twice (also the occasional snippet from YouTube or when I'm scanning what's on CNN), and every time he says, "I'm no (expert on whatever) but I am a thinker..." I can't help but simultaneously laugh and cringe.

[_beastie]

It's also a figment of your imagination.

The fact that you mistake my point so completely is confirmation so pure and on point that attempting serious substantive conversation with you would be an exercise in pointless frustration that it could actually have been issued directly from the Department of Redundancy Department.

This is vintage Peterson. You have been doing this since years ago on ZLMB. You make a statement, and when it's interpreted in a very reasonable manner, you protest that poster misunderstood you, and that only a complete, bumbling idiot would misunderstand you to this point, so you won't explain yourself anymore. So there!

You know what, Beastie? I "admit" it freely! Enthusiastically! In fact, I actually even noticed it without your help, decades ago!

Well of course. So why are you preaching to chris to be careful in picking his "allies"?

Right. And, of course, neither you nor CK mentioned acceptance of Mormonism as an instance of gullibility. Hypersensitive Peterson hallucinated that.

It doesn't matter, because what I stated is still true. It's true. Chris agreed with something that you also agree with!! It's true!! Just because it can be used against Mormonism isn't a good reason to deny or ignore something that is true.

And, of course, because "a believer" allegedly did that, I'm somehow implicated by it.

Just the Morg hive-mind in action.

Straight from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Why am I wasting my time with this silliness?

I never said you were personally implicated. I said it is an example of my point, and it was.

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is vintage Peterson. You have been doing this since years ago on ZLMB. You make a statement, and when it's interpreted in a very reasonable manner, you protest that poster misunderstood you, and that only a complete, bumbling idiot would misunderstand you to this point, so you won't explain yourself anymore. So there!

It's vintage beastie to so thoroughly misunderstand a point.

Which is why an attempt at serious conversation with you would be an infinite regress into mind-killing frustration, a geometrically expanding mountain of soul-numbing, life-destroying exasperation.

Just because it can be used against Mormonism isn't a good reason to deny or ignore something that is true.

Sigh.

Blather on.

[_Scottie]

I often wonder why religious beliefs are so hard to dispel?

Most kids will eventually learn for themselves that there is no Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc. All lies that parents tell their kids. Even without the help of classmates, an 8 year old will eventually connect the dots and figure it out.

Not so for religion.

[_Daniel Peterson]

An interesting question.

It could be the topic of a serious and substantive conversation.

Somewhere else.

[_beastie]

Scottie,

You ought to read Kluge. It really lends a lot of insight into that question. I'd offer more quotes but my boyfriend borrowed the book. From memory, the problem is that the higher level thinking part of the human brain evolved from the far more primitive earlier brain. In other words, if an 'intelligent designer' designed the human brain that IDer meant for us to be extraordinarily plagued with gullibility and other flaws of reasoning. Either that or the IDer just sucks as an engineer.

Human processing is contaminated by several things. Our thinking/memory is contaminated by context - we tend to remember and associate more importance with associations of things that happened at the same time. So, in terms of religious beliefs, if they were conveyed to you by your parents who really loved you, and you have positive memories of their love, you'll be more inclined to associate those positive feelings with the religion, as well. In addition, we are plagued with confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. Confirmation bias means we simply notice things that confirm what we already believe, usually for reasons totally outside logical reasoning, and motivated reasoning means we’ll be more critical and prone to analyze ideas that we “don’t like”, either because they disconfirm our previous beliefs or make us uncomfortable for some other reason.

So what you end up with is that children associate religion with the love and security their parents provided in their childhood, and then, because they already believe their religion in the first place, will only notice the things that confirm their religious beliefs, and will vigorously analyze and criticize things that seem to contradict their religious beliefs, while giving things that seem to confirm their beliefs a free pass. Combine with this the realistic desire to protect one’s lifetime investment, and you end up with the fact that it is extraordinarily difficult to change one’s religious beliefs.

[_Daniel Peterson]

There are few things more gratifying than reductionist pop-psychological explanations of the beliefs and attitudes of people whose beliefs and attitudes differ from one's own.