Secular Anti-Mormonism: Comments for DCP on You Tube Address

[_Ren]

Hi mikwut,

I don't believe a theist is making a god of the gaps mistake to say it is far from satisfyingly answered from a secular perspective.

I do.

For example, "kin altruism" and "reciprocal altruism" can find pockets of homes in secular thought. Nevertheless, it isn't an unthoughtful cliché for the theist to point out that these constructs fail to offer fully insightful answers or meaningful discussion into the kind of radical altruism of for example Irena Sendlerova who repeatedly risked her life in saving 2,500 Jewish children who were trapped in the Warsaw ghetto.

If such instincts as "kin altruism" or "reciprocal altruism" are seen only as a binary (on / off) condition, then no - it probably won't seem satisfactory to you. But that would seem an inaccurate way to view it.

Try to look as it as we would any other natural trait, feature, aspect or instinct. As variants around a 'statistical norm'.

The very fact that you called the moral example of Irena Sendlerova 'radical' answers your own question. Most people DO care more about their own children than they do the children of 'others' (i.e. not close relatives). That isn't to say they don't care at all, or that they wouldn't lift a finger for the children of others - of course not. But they also aren't likely to put literally as much effort, or go to the same levels of self-sacrifice, into helping literally all children around them - as opposed to their own children.
I think of all us understand and 'accept' this - in practical terms. And there is a reason for that...

Such a trend is explained perfectly well by evolutionary forms of altruism. I think the trick here is to realise that just because the root principle is "kin" or "reciprocal" altruism, doesn't mean these principles won't naturally, routinely and legitimately 'exceed their bounds'. Mainly because nature doesn't place any arbitrary bounds.

If it doesn't fatally harm our 'species' if some / many members of it are more likely to treat everyone around them as if they are their own kin or 'tribe', then that will naturally happen. In fact, given our modern 'global' community, where practically anybody on the globe CAN potentially affect everybody else - directly - then trends towards 'global' "reciprocal altruism' are entirely rational and consistent with evolutionary principles.

Nature isn't consistent on an individual basis - only on an overall, 'statistical' basis. Once this is understood, there is no mystery.

A theist can intellectually see ethical intuition as a signal of a transcendent dimension.

Theists routinely see all kinds of things where nothing necessarily exists.

I don't hear from Daniel a trite moral superiority being argued...

I do. If you don't, you either aren't listening hard enough, or it doesn't seem that way because of the side of the fence you are sitting on. (I'm thinking the latter is more likely).

Now, I understand a schoolyard answer can be given to that - "well I am fully honest and the opposite is true" - but experience itself can only truly answer that question.

I appreciate the above. Yes, I'm sure what your experience tells you seems right. But it's good of you to admit that in a battle of 'personal evidence', very little will ultimately be decided.

Next, the moral evolutionary answer fails to answer something else very important. The cognitive faculties you use to derive the argument that morality from a secular viewpoint can satisfactorily be answered fails to take seriously those very faculties.

...?!

If I take seriously that Reason, logic and scientific understanding - and my cognitive abilities that can understand those abilities as reliable into discovering a "real" world (which I do) - I have to take seriously that my cognitive abilities or moral reasoning, understanding and insight are likewise reliable towards a real world

...yes... and...?

and those insights and intuition point in my concrete experience to exactly what Daniel argues.

And my 'experience' tells me otherwise. So where are we now? Still where we started I guess...

Evolution is the well that all of these faculties sprung from.

If evolution ends up being the 'source' of the moral drive, therefore we can't rely on abilities given to us by evolution to determine that...?!

Does this mean that if God ends up being the 'source' of the moral drive, therefore we can't rely on abilities given to us by God to determine that...?!

[_mikwut]

Renegade,

I will answer more fully but need your response to the last part of your post first.

you said,

If evolution ends up being the 'source' of the moral drive, therefore we can't rely on abilities given to us by evolution to determine that...?!

Does this mean that if God ends up being the 'source' of the moral drive, therefore we can't rely on abilities given to us by God to determine that...?!

Are you understanding that I believe evolution is providing us with "un"reliable sources? I believe understand wholly the opposite.

Regards, mikwut

[Guest]

Are you understanding that I believe evolution is providing us with "un"reliable sources? I believe understand wholly the opposite.

Hmmm - ok.

Reading over what you've posted again - I'll try again.
Does this accurately summarise your proposal?

"If we both agree that our senses and reason have come about .via evolutionary processes...
...and that we agree that we CAN (reasonably) rely on such to derive conclusions about reality...
...and that I (i.e. mikwut) have used such said 'apparatus' to come to the conclusion that Daniels points are sound...

....therefore they are...?"

[_mikwut]

Hello Renegade,

"If we both agree that our senses and reason have come about .via evolutionary processes...
...and that we agree that we CAN (reasonably) rely on such to derive conclusions about reality...
...and that I (i.e. mikwut) have used such said 'apparatus' to come to the conclusion that Daniels points are sound...

....therefore they are...?"

Kind of..... Let me try quickly and assume I will have to elaborate more. If we both agree that our cognitive abilities of reason, logic, observation, etc..(those relied on by the scientific method) are generally reliable and have come about via evolutionary processes how can we arbitrarily chosoe general unreliability among other cognitive faculties we possess, i.e. spiritual awareness (the one I am arguing for), moral intuition, beauty, creativity, imagination etc... They all came through the same process - evolution. They all should be considered generally reliable in cognating a real world.

Thank you this interesting dialogue,

mikwut

[_Ren]

Kind of..... Let me try quickly and assume I will have to elaborate more. If we both agree that our cognitive abilities of reason, logic, observation, etc..(those relied on by the scientific method) are generally reliable and have come about via evolutionary processes how can we arbitrarily chosoe general unreliability among other cognitive faculties we possess, i.e. spiritual awareness (the one I am arguing for), moral intuition, beauty, creativity, imagination etc... They all came through the same process - evolution. They all should be considered generally reliable in cognating a real world.

I 'think' I see where you're going with this. (Maybe...)
And I must say I certainly agree with this 'to some extent'. But perhaps not to the extent to which you are attempting to reach.
Or maybe not in the same 'way'. Perhaps.

I'm still not sure how this relates to bolstering Dan's positions. But anyway...

Let me clarify my position - in relation to what I think is your point - and we'll take it from there.

Let's imagine an 'intelligent' race or species that had plenty of reason, logic and observational ability on it's side but - say - no 'imagination'.
Would such a race have much luck in determining the secrets of the 'reality' it occupies? I'd argue not - scientific theories have usually required substantial amounts of imagination (certainly at their initial construction) to get things - and keep things - moving.

NOTE - imagination without 'control' being forced upon it by reason or logic won't help. In such a scenario, you may as well say that a fiction writer is giving us as much accurate information about the 'real world' as a physicist. Reason and logic are REQUIRED in the mix. Without them, imagination would just run riot in the eternal sea of 'possibility'.

But yes, I accept imagination is required and can be considered part of the 'apparatus' required to inspect reality. And in that sense - when tempered by reason and logic - yes, can be considered part of the 'reliable' whole.

I would tend to think of creativity in the same vain. It seems to me to be some 'sub-set' of imagination perhaps...

Beauty? Well - perhaps this is related to 'drive'. What good would a race be in discovering the secrets of reality if they had no drive to do it? They would be like computers or very simple life-forms here on Earth - pretty much only performing set programming like drones. If we have drives and we have imagination, it seems like a natural consequence to see beauty in things.
So while I'm not sure seeing beauty in the world has any direct effect on us being able to reasonably inspect it, I think it is certainly a natural 'side-effect' - if such beings are able to.

'Spiritual awareness'? Well - from my atheistic perspective - that translates to me as 'awareness of the depth of self'. (And therefore, the awareness of the depth of 'self' of others). Again, hard to see how all the other characteristics could be in play and this NOT be.

'Moral intuition'? Well, that would seem a natural side-effect of being social creatures. Is such social 'need' necessarily linked with the other attributes listed this far? Maybe - maybe not. Out of all the items on the list, this seems to me the least 'needed' in our inspection of the 'materialistic world', both directly and as a 'natural consequence'.
So I'm going to claim that - no - moral intuition isn't required to understand the 'real world'. (Meaning in the materialistic sense). Neither directly, nor as a natural consequence of the other abilities that ARE required. This is simply a by-product of our status as social creatures that attach significant importance to societies...

Well, feel free to let me know how much of that was even vaguely related to what you're talking about, and how much of it completely missed the point. ;)

Thank you this interesting dialogue

Cheers - and agreed :)

[_Danna]

First, if a theist takes the human experience of conscience at its utmost seriousness I do think evolutionary thinking offers us some insights and partial answers. I don't believe a theist is making a god of the gaps mistake to say it is far from satisfyingly answered from a secular perspective. I believe the theist is being responsible in pointing this out. For example, "kin altruism" and "reciprocal altruism" can find pockets of homes in secular thought. Nevertheless, it isn't an unthoughtful cliché for the theist to point out that these constructs fail to offer fully insightful answers or meaningful discussion into the kind of radical altruism of for example Irena Sendlerova who repeatedly risked her life in saving 2,500 Jewish children who were trapped in the Warsaw ghetto. A theist can intellectually see ethical intuition as a signal of a transcendent dimension. I don't hear from Daniel a trite moral superiority being argued but rather a deep insight into our concrete humanness as evidence and insight into a dimension not articulated satisfactorily from a secular viewpoint.

As you note kin selection and reciprocal altruism and a few other basic traits are 'hardwired' by evolution. Evolution provided the basis and direction, but the final trait that we see in a person is not a direct outcome of their DNA.

The basic traits that cause us to value altruism, fairness and an orderly society are magnified by the effects of culture and experience as a person develops.

We are social animals: in interaction with biological evolution, our cultures also evolved as different values were rewarded by other people depending on the situation the early groups found themselves in, which I believe explains the different value placed on moral factors by some societies. Ultimately, the seed from which the culture grew is provided by evolved traits - even quite subtle ones.

Cultures never seem to be stable, when a trait is admired or useful, people seem to want to have just a little more than the next guy - and so standards/norms rachet along in a specific direction. An personal observation of this sort of thing is that since my family converted, 'Mormon' attire (what you wear in any situation where one is identified as 'Mormon') is getting more and more formal. During the shabby 60s Mormons were distinctive for being 'cleancut', and they valued the distinction - the direction was set, and all dress-code and grooming standards are progressively tighening up. (this is really noticible here in NZ!) Maybe sometime in the furure, the bretheren will decide that Mormons are too different and need to 'fit in' more and the direction will change.

So a person is born with moral inclinations that get rewarded to varying extents by the society they are born in, and their own experiences as they develop. We get people like Irena Sendlerova. Kin selection and reciprocal altruism alone don't explain her behaviour, but the combination of genetics and development in a culture that rewards altruism, and personal experiences that led her to value selflessness can.

I would be stating the obvious when I say that religion is often a big part of the cultural environment! But the genetic/cultural/experiential system is a closed one - it doesn't require an external force to feed in moral standards.

[_Danna]

Our religious and spiritual aspects can just as easily be understood as emergent properties - and again the secularist would find themselves cutting off the very cognitive faculties that feed them if they begin to argue that some emergent properties signal real aspects of the world and universe and others don't.

I spent some time thinking about this, and trolling for more information since I am not a neuroscientist. I gather you are suggesting that a spiritual or numinous experience could be an emergent phenomenon, just as the mind (or consciousness of self) is.

People describe numinous experiences as 'expanded consciousness', or being at 'one with God/nature/the universe', so to the extent that this a 'state' of mind/self, rather than the mind/self experiencing a neural event, the numinous experience could well be emergent from lower processes. I had not thought of it that way before. I did find several studies whether people had their heads read (fMRI generally) while having a religious experience. While some correlations were found with neural activity, there were no specific events said to cause a numinous experience.

However, while trolling around, I discovered a whole new field of study - neurotheology!! by crickey! Some of the research seems to be getting very deterministic, even with attempts to link specific allelles to religiousity. Personally, I will be surprised if anything concrete comes out of the gene-spirituality research. If there was a solid link as with, say Down's Syndrome, it would be pretty obvious by now. Given the variety of spirituality around, and the plasticity of the brain, I think that culture and personal experience will have a big part to play in the final trait.

Anyway, This guy manages to say everything much better than I can:

[Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

This new wave of research will not seep into the public realm in the form of militant atheism. Instead it will lead to what you might call neural Buddhism.

If you survey the literature (and I’d recommend books by Newberg, Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio Damasio and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to speed), you can see that certain beliefs will spread into the wider discussion.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

Edit to say: I used the word 'trolling' the way I would in conversation! After all these years on the net, I am still more used to it being an activity involving casting out a long line from a boat. My brain can't be that plastic after all.

[_marg]

Hello marg,

you said:

"Science never makes claim to absolutes, no need to do careful analysis on that point."

I am glad we agree in regard to science we consider approptiate. I did follow the sentence I think your referring to with, In all realms of human inquiry, the interlacing of experience and interpretation introduces a degree of precariousness into the argument. The history of science also is different from your statement - but I am glad you see that differently too.

If you think science makes claims to absolutes, what are they, or what do you have in mind?

you furthered, "The scientific method is a process to gain knowledge which leads to best fit theories based upon evidence."

Crudely, I suppose. That's roughly what all our school books taught us isn't it? When I discuss science and religion I focus more on the aspect of science that is similar to the process of gaining spiritual knowledge.

That is exactly my point. The process in the scientific method versus the process used by religion in seeking best fit truths have far greater dissimilarities than similarities. Religion relies on "truth by assertion". Science does use axioms but those are based on observations and appear to be universally valid.

That is the aspect of 'discovery' within science. Most writers of science have not paid much attention to discovery. But the beginning of scientific knowledge is nothing at all like the simple banal process we all learn at school. The beginning is a vague sense of a problem, which then brings a scientist into a personal obsession for searching for the solution, it could arbitrary in how the scientist determines a problem but itself is deep question of science really works, patient meticulous work follows with many setbacks, wrongturns and disappointments, then in most cases a sudden flash of illumination, an imaginative leap may show the scientist the answer. Many other emotional and subjective factors are included in the process, such as caring for example which entire volumes have been spent on. Have you read any Poincare, Polya, Polanyi, Kuhn or Pirsig?

I think with science there is no particular way as you describe. There isn't necessarily a vague sense of a problem, nor personal obsession, not necessarily setbacks, wrongturns and disappointments, nor necessarily sudden flashes of illumination. I think sometimes discoveries are by chance, sometimes they are made by individuals not necessarily working in science and even thinking they are about to discover anything. What you are describing is textbook science, but that's not how it's eventually done in the real world.

You then said:
Those theories are open to being proved erroneous or deficient.

Sure.

In contrast religionists use a process which relies upon asserted claims of knowledge, rarely tentative,

Einstein recognised the special character of discovery he wrote, "The supreme task of the physicist is the search for those highly universal laws from which a picture of the world can be obtained by pure deduction. There is no logical path leading to these laws. They are only to be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love." If you read Eintstein or my favorite Marie Curie who discovered radium and polonium you will see science as a process which relies on asserted beliefs that are rather tentative.

The natural laws used by physicists are observable. God and afterlife, the main claims used by our common religions is/are not observable. Religion makes things up. It offers no predictive value, nothing to test. God is made up and from there other claims are added on. Science uses axioms based upon observations. Scientific theories offer explanation of phenomenon which offer predictive value which in the vast majority of cases can be verified.

most often absolute with no means of being proved false, such as the Abrahamic God exists, the afterlife exists, Jesus exists and visited the Americas etc.

This is also true for science before verification. Einsteins theories were accepted prior to verification and the critics cried foul that the theories could not be falsified. Science is replete with examples of this. Religion is not alone here marg.

This is the crux of the problem I'm having with your beliefs mikwuk. You do seem to think that science and religion are similar in many ways and use similar methods to understand the world. Sure science deals with the very small and the very large which may be next to impossible if not impossible to verify. However those unverified theories are only useful to the extent they offer or will offer predictive value. The theories serve to help explain phenomenon, or how the universe operates. Theories are not accepted on faith but are accepted because they offer the best available explanation of observable phenomenon.

As a consequence most religious claims can not be proven wrong if they were. While religion may "not have access to absolute proof of its beliefs", the beliefs are most often held as absolutely true, despite lack of evidence, despite reliance on assertions.

As in science such generalisations as this are nearly meaningless. How would go about falsifying the beauty of Shakespeare's plays? Some claims of religionists can certainly be falsified - Chirst will return to the earth by the end of this calendar year for example, others, just as in science, are discovered in differing ways as with all our beliefs. I would suggest you don't dialogue with skeptics or religionists that are held in the grips of absolute certainty. Such is nuttery. But, committed and motivated belief in a spiritual dimension that could be wrong but could be discovered is a quest I take as serious as science.

Falsifying the beauty of Shakespeare has nothing to do with science. While some claims of religion can be falsified particularly when they are specific offering time and place information which is capable of being potentially verifed, asserted claims which offer nothing verifiable, offer no predictive value, offer nothing observable, can not be disproved..such as a particular God, an afterlife, being the main examples. Those are the sorts of beliefs which generally are held as absolute. If one can not disprove a belief, one is not likely to hold it tentatively or skeptically with the notion that additional information might disprove the belief. Few believers in God say God might exist. They typically hold such a belief as an absolute. In contrast natural laws assumed universal and used as absolutes are observable. There is a critical difference mikwut.

[_mikwut]

Hello Danna,

I agree with the first part of your post. When you said the following:

So a person is born with moral inclinations that get rewarded to varying extents by the society they are born in, and their own experiences as they develop. We get people like Irena Sendlerova. Kin selection and reciprocal altruism alone don't explain her behaviour, but the combination of genetics and development in a culture that rewards altruism, and personal experiences that led her to value selflessness can.

We agree regarding genetics playing a vital role as well. We disagree that combining genetics to the mix fully explains everything. Evolutionary thinking on its own is ethically inadequate, as even Richard Dawkins acknowledges on the last page of The Selfish Gene.

But, more interesting to me - you are making your claims on non-empirical grounds. Your using judgment, and other subjective traits determine your conclusion. I don't discourage that because that is in fact what I am arguing for, but I like all the cards being on the table.

kind regards, thank you for this thread -
mikwut

[_mikwut]

Hi marg,

I have not had the pleasure of discussing anything with you in the past so may I say thank you for entertaining these notions with me. I respect anyone who thinks critically about important matters whether we agree or disagree.

You stated,

If you think science makes claims to absolutes, what are they, or what do you have in mind?

I am sorry if my writing is getting confusing, I was agreeing with you that I don't think science does. The History of science includes many absolutes - Einstein again had to battle with the certainty of a bygone paradigm. Thomas Kuhn elaborates many historical instances I would be happy to provide with many books that explain the history of science with unfortunate periods of absolutist thinking. But, for me I agree with you regarding the ideal of science.

You continued,

That is exactly my point. The process in the scientific method versus the process used by religion in seeking best fit truths have far greater dissimilarities than similarities.

I disagree, but I would be happy for you to be more specific in where you see the dramatic dissimilarities.

Religion relies on "truth by assertion". Science does use axioms but those are based on observations and appear to be universally valid.

I am more comfortable using 'axioms' in regards to its traditional usage of logical, mathematical self-evident or necessary truths - are you meaning scientific laws based on observations? I usually don't refer to self-evident truths as observational.

think with science there is no particular way as you describe. There isn't necessarily a vague sense of a problem, nor personal obsession, not necessarily setbacks, wrongturns and disappointments, nor necessarily sudden flashes of illumination. I think sometimes discoveries are by chance, sometimes they are made by individuals not necessarily working in science and even thinking they are about to discover anything. What you are describing is textbook science, but that's not how it's eventually done in the real world.

Would you be so kind as to explain how it is done in the real world. I have provided you with two very dramatic examples, (i.e. Einstein and Marie Curie). Also, do you agree or disagree - it is confusing when you say what I am describing is textbook science (which I don't know many textbooks that describe it my way; that was in fact my point) or that you don't see it as textbook science and see it another way.

The natural laws used by physicists are observable.

Really?

God and afterlife, the main claims used by our common religions is/are not observable.

Correct.

Religion makes things up.

People make things up, theists, atheists, scientists, high school hall monitors - they all make things up. Critical and thoughtful people of which I hope we both are - try not to.

t offers no predictive value, nothing to test.

We disagree. I can test my spiritual relationship in the same way I can test other relationships.

Scientific theories offer explanation of phenomenon which offer predictive value which in the vast majority of cases can be verified.

Here is another area we might have a quibble. Your hell bent on observation being paramount in science. I value observation don't limit knowledge or scientific enquiry to it alone. Now, when you say, Scientific theories offer explanation of phenomenon I think you could only mean description of phenomenon - because observation alone can never explain something - more personal skills are required if your looking for explanation.

This is the crux of the problem I'm having with your beliefs mikwuk. You do seem to think that science and religion are similar in many ways and use similar methods to understand the world.

I do. I am most interested in understanding why you don't - you have made general statements but I am very unclear on why you believe they are so dis-similar and we could narrow our discussion those issues.

Theories are not accepted on faith but are accepted because they offer the best available explanation of observable phenomenon.

Yes. For me the best available explanation of the sense of God in my life is the observable (subjectively) fact that a being I call God loves me. See Religion does the same thing.

Falsifying the beauty of Shakespeare has nothing to do with science.

I know marg, but knowledge for me is much broader than knowledge for you.

asserted claims which offer nothing verifiable, offer no predictive value, offer nothing observable, can not be disproved..such as a particular God, an afterlife, being the main examples.

Your the one narrowing knowledge to only the scientific, I don't so I don't share these concerns. I am interested in why they are concerns to you. With no disrespect intented marg - so what?

Those are the sorts of beliefs which generally are held as absolute. If one can not disprove a belief, one is not likely to hold it tentatively or skeptically with the notion that additional information might disprove the belief. Few believers in God say God might exist. They typically hold such a belief as an absolute. In contrast natural laws assumed universal and used as absolutes are observable

Many theists hold to certainty and have little doubts. I observe this too. Again, so what? Many scientists, psychologists, statisticians, librarians, police officers, lawyers, doctors, politicians, and grammy award winning actresses can hold too tightly to certainty, again so what? I believe with a committed and motivated belief. This is how all our beliefs are. No scientist is going to make a valuable and groundbreaking scientific discovery in something he/she doesn't care of believe in. I believe in God and that allows my belief that God. All beliefs are like this. The modern mind has it deeply ingrained in it that it is somehow more honest to doubt than to believe. There are unprovable arguments built into language and perception, it is impossible to doubt any belief except from a commitment to a different belief. Your doubt has brought you to differing commitments. The broader way of looking at things usually sees more than the narrow.

Thanks for the interesting discussion marg I respect your thoughtful position.

mikwut