Aristotle Smith wrote:In the LDS church, for the most part, yes.
The mistake is not in utilizing emotions for social cohesion and decision making, but in making that the sole tool for those important things. Each of us is driven by emotion, some more than others. To deny that is I think a fallacy and mistake that many newly minted atheists/uber-rationalists make. It's understandable when has left the LDS church, but in the end it's not realistic.
The right thing to do is to bring every cognitive power you have to bear on figuring out what is true, good, and beautiful. That means bringing logical rationality, empirical observation, reliance on trustworthy authorities, and yes, emotion. The mistake of the LDS church is to focus on the last one and ignore the others when they conflict with emotion.
I always trot out the marriage analogy here. You must connect emotionally with a spouse, but the marriage also has to be rational in real way. To connect emotionally with a crack addict and then marry that person is not right because it's not rational. To enter a good marriage with absolutely no emotional connection to the spouse is also not right because it's not emotional.
Emotion is an important part of being human, but what can emotion tell us about the truth value of faith? Especially where faith intersects empirical data?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Aristotle Smith wrote:In the LDS church, for the most part, yes.
The mistake is not in utilizing emotions for social cohesion and decision making, but in making that the sole tool for those important things. Each of us is driven by emotion, some more than others. To deny that is I think a fallacy and mistake that many newly minted atheists/uber-rationalists make. It's understandable when has left the LDS church, but in the end it's not realistic.
The right thing to do is to bring every cognitive power you have to bear on figuring out what is true, good, and beautiful. That means bringing logical rationality, empirical observation, reliance on trustworthy authorities, and yes, emotion. The mistake of the LDS church is to focus on the last one and ignore the others when they conflict with emotion.
I always trot out the marriage analogy here. You must connect emotionally with a spouse, but the marriage also has to be rational in real way. To connect emotionally with a crack addict and then marry that person is not right because it's not rational. To enter a good marriage with absolutely no emotional connection to the spouse is also not right because it's not emotional.
Emotion is an important part of being human, but what can emotion tell us about the truth value of faith? Especially where faith intersects empirical data?
That is the $64,000 question. Mormons have an emotional epistemology . They believe truth can be determined by emotion. Emotions can sometimes be useful in determining truth. Someone might give you a "bad vibe" that turns out to be true. But just as often, people will get a good vibe about a bad person (e.g., Hinckley and Hoffman). If there is validity to the emotional epistemology (i.e., some transcendent force is guiding our emotions), then it should lead to convergence. However, this is not what we see in the world of religion. People's subjective "vibes" lead to vastly different truth claims. Even within the church, the vibe shared by many people (Blacks were being punished because they were fence sitters or the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indian) has changed over time. Joseph Smith's vibes led him to believe that a pile of bones was Zelph the White Lamanite or a rocky outcropping was a Nephite fortification.
We all have feelings about things that turn out to be correct, but this is likely confirmation bias. We tend to forget the times that our feelings have been off, we remember the hits.
Aristotle Smith wrote:The right thing to do is to bring every cognitive power you have to bear on figuring out what is true, good, and beautiful. That means bringing logical rationality, empirical observation, reliance on trustworthy authorities, and yes, emotion. The mistake of the LDS church is to focus on the last one and ignore the others when they conflict with emotion.
I agree, Mormonism in general is guilty of overemphasizing the importance of emotion as a confirmation of truth, but let’s not single out Mormons on this issue. I’ve spoken with many self-described traditional Christians who misconstrue their personal emotional experiences as Divine confirmation of truth. They invariably describe the personal experience of being "born again" with a heavy emphasis on emotional terminology. Like Mormons, they try to erase the line between emotional phenomena and supernatural phenomena.
How exactly does one go about verifying the supernatural aspects of the Biblical Christ narrative with “logical rationality, empirical observation, reliance on trustworthy authorities, and…emotion”?
What is the role of emotion in this process if not to counteract the conflicting role “logical rationality”?
Corpsegrinder wrote: How exactly does one go about verifying the supernatural aspects of the Biblical Christ narrative with “logical rationality, empirical observation, reliance on trustworthy authorities, and…emotion”?
What is the role of emotion in this process if not to counteract the conflicting role “logical rationality”?
At some level, even spiritual experiences have to be processed rationally (or irrationally as is most often the case). What I see most often is people "turning off" their rational processes in favor of what feels good (or avoids cog dis).
Corpsegrinder wrote: How exactly does one go about verifying the supernatural aspects of the Biblical Christ narrative with “logical rationality, empirical observation, reliance on trustworthy authorities, and…emotion”?
What is the role of emotion in this process if not to counteract the conflicting role “logical rationality”?
At some level, even spiritual experiences have to be processed rationally (or irrationally as is most often the case). What I see most often is people "turning off" their rational processes in favor of what feels good (or avoids cog dis).
Yet, most Mormon parents advise their teenagers not to make drug use and sex decisions based on emotions. They want them to make rational decisions, not just succumb to the emotion that it feels good. Too bad those Mormon parents don't take that same advice and put COJCOLDS to the rational test they want their teenagers to use re decisions about sexual activity and drug use.
sock puppet wrote:Yet, most Mormon parents advise their teenagers not to make drug use and sex decisions based on emotions. They want them to make rational decisions, not just succumb to the emotion that it feels good. Too bad those Mormon parents don't take that same advice and put COJCOLDS to the rational test they want their teenagers to use re decisions about sexual activity and drug use.
That's because teens are not experienced enough yet. We have an age restriction for drinking alcohol in the U.S. We should do the same for baptisms.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
sock puppet wrote:Yet, most Mormon parents advise their teenagers not to make drug use and sex decisions based on emotions. They want them to make rational decisions, not just succumb to the emotion that it feels good. Too bad those Mormon parents don't take that same advice and put COJCOLDS to the rational test they want their teenagers to use re decisions about sexual activity and drug use.
That's because teens are not experienced enough yet. We have an age restriction for drinking alcohol in the U.S. We should do the same for baptisms.
Yea, it seems without enough "Mormon experience", teenagers are expected to act rationally. It's only once you become an adult Mormon that reliance on emotions takes primacy over rational thought.
I see that everyone has returned to their vomit. God is in the POWER of the Holy Ghost and it is not human emotions. Not even what some want to believe are powerful human emotions.
The power of God does not come from our emotions. It comes from without. That is what is recognized as HIS power, when it comes from without and enters into our heart and mind. Moroni said that it is by the POWER of the Holy Ghost that we may know all things.
D&C 76: 10, 12, 31, 37, 42, 52 10 For by my will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man. • • • 12 By the power of the Spirit our eyes were opened and our understandings were enlightened, so as to see and understand the things of God— • • • 31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power— • • • 37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power; • • • 42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him; • • • 52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
It is very true that Mormons do not partake of this power. They do remain in only their emotions. So the mocking of their hypocrisy is just. But it does not diminish the reality of God's power.
Without the power of godliness all man can accomplish is an abominable form of godliness.