Do it right now. If you can choose it should be easy.
If you take Don as an example. He became convinced that Mormonism was the right belief system. And then it wasn’t and he became convinced atheism was the right belief system. And then it wasn’t and he became convinced Evangelicalism was the right belief system. And then it wasn’t and he became convinced Mormonism was the right belief system. Again.
Was he choosing, or was he being persuaded by the compelling arguments and evidence? Or was he just in crisis each time frantically looking for a safe haven for his thoughts and feelings? He returned to that which was familiar, and made the pieces for that decision - is how it seems to me from listening to him.
He doesn’t come across as the “frantic” type to me. I think compelling arguments and evidence may have played its part. Oh yeah, he researched and wrote a book.
I think you have little or no qualifications to judge the man.
If you take Don as an example. He became convinced that Mormonism was the right belief system. And then it wasn’t and he became convinced atheism was the right belief system. And then it wasn’t and he became convinced Evangelicalism was the right belief system. And then it wasn’t and he became convinced Mormonism was the right belief system. Again.
Was he choosing, or was he being persuaded by the compelling arguments and evidence? Or was he just in crisis each time looking for a safe haven for his thoughts and feelings?
I would say he became convinced subconsciously for probably a combination of reasons and then created some kind of framework to articulate his new belief. Much like a split brain patient.
… split brain patients articulating reasons for what the left brain sees
In split-brain patients (individuals who have had their corpus callosum severed, usually to treat severe epilepsy), the left hemisphere—which houses language and speech—fabricates instant, logical explanations for actions initiated by the mute right hemisphere.
The Classic Experiment
• The Setup: Neuroscientists Michael Gazzaniga and Roger Sperry presented two different images simultaneously to a split-brain patient: a chicken claw flashed to the right visual field (processed by the speaking left brain) and a snow scene flashed to the left visual field (processed by the non-speaking right brain).
• The Actions: When asked to point to matching pictures on a table with their hands, the patient's right hand (controlled by the left brain) pointed to a chicken, and the left hand (controlled by the right brain) pointed to a snow shovel.
• The Rationalization: When researchers asked the patient "Why did you pick the shovel?", the left hemisphere—which never saw the snow scene and has no direct knowledge of why the left hand moved—did not hesitate or say "I don't know". Instead, it confabulated (made up) a quick, plausible story on the spot, such as saying, "Oh, a shovel? You need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed
I think a lot of this occurs at the subconscious level often enhanced by trauma or deep introspection. Deep research and previous indoctrination often add to the nested belief scaffolding.
Here we go again with the armchair psychologists apparently thinking, “How do we explain this irrational decision Don made?”
I think a lot of this occurs at the subconscious level often enhanced by trauma or deep introspection. Deep research and previous indoctrination often add to the nested belief scaffolding.
I wouldn’t disagree with that assessment.
Big word. Assessment. Sounds kind of pyychobabbly.
Big word. Assessment. Sounds kind of pyychobabbly.
Regards,
MG
And spiritual autism is wordsmith magic?
Actually, I think it is. I still think that thread/discussion was quite interesting…and I do think there is such a thing. If you’re wanting to bring that into the discussion for those interested…link to that thread. I don’t have much else to say about it.
People can decide for themselves if there was a bit of ‘magic’.
Psychobabbly is just that. Babbling about something you have absolutely no idea about when it comes to Don. Easy to do isn’t it when he’s out of earshot and probably not interested in the armchair psychology prevalent around here?
Actually, I think it is. I still think that thread/discussion was quite interesting…and I do think there is such a thing. If you’re wanting to bring that into the discussion for those interested…link to that thread. I don’t have much else to say about it.
People can decide for themselves if there was a bit of ‘magic’.
Psychobabbly is just that. Babbling about something you have absolutely no idea about when it comes to Don. Easy to do isn’t it when he’s out of earshot and probably not interested in the armchair psychology prevalent around here?
Regards,
MG
I have had long conversations with Don and the pinnacle of his final piece of evidence for choosing theism has to do with the ultimate question regarding creation. It has been a while but essentially he said science can't answer the ultimate question but religion does. That has no convincing powers for me because essentially it is refusing to admit we don't know and claiming religion does. To me that is disingenuous, thought stopping and disrespecting to future inhabitants of our world. And spiritual autism is slandering people with autism.
I would say he became convinced subconsciously for probably a combination of reasons and then created some kind of framework to articulate his new belief. Much like a split brain patient.
I think a lot of this occurs at the subconscious level often enhanced by trauma or deep introspection. Deep research and previous indoctrination often add to the nested belief scaffolding.
Here we go again with the armchair psychologists apparently thinking, “How do we explain this irrational decision Don made?”
Regards,
MG
At least I supplied real data. All you do is supply fractally convoluted whataboutisms.
Actually, I think it is. I still think that thread/discussion was quite interesting…and I do think there is such a thing. If you’re wanting to bring that into the discussion for those interested…link to that thread. I don’t have much else to say about it.
People can decide for themselves if there was a bit of ‘magic’.
Psychobabbly is just that. Babbling about something you have absolutely no idea about when it comes to Don. Easy to do isn’t it when he’s out of earshot and probably not interested in the armchair psychology prevalent around here?
Regards,
MG
I have had long conversations with Don and the pinnacle of his final piece of evidence for choosing theism has to do with the ultimate question regarding creation. It has been a while but essentially he said science can't answer the ultimate question but religion does. That has no convincing powers for me because essentially it is refusing to admit we don't know and claiming religion does. To me that is disingenuous, thought stopping and disrespecting to future inhabitants of our world. And spiritual autism is slandering people with autism.
You sound like an interesting guy. Really. I would love to meet you, especially if you're an old fart, one on one but I realize that's not possible. And you might not want to anyway. I get it.
We're on opposite sides of a divide. I understand where you're coming from, I think, more than you would believe.
On another day I argued against spiritual autism not being a slander against people with autism at all.
My arguments still stand as far as I'm concerned. I have an autistic grandson. I would not "slander" him and his good name in any way. He is an AWESOME person.
So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that front.
I do think it's a real thing. As with autism it is nothing to be ashamed about.
A curious phenomenon has recently presented itself in which certain defenders of the Mormon faith awkwardly extend unsolicited invitations to meet face-to-face. Data reveals these offers typically follow when subject is confronted with a suspected violation of board rules or when subject is exposed as using dubious research methods. Occasional outbursts directed at other board members often directly precede or follow these offers, though their purpose remains unclear.
Initial assessments indicate the Mopologist may believe presenting himself as an ordinary, reasonably pleasant human being in person may overcome the disadvantages of his established online persona; namely one characterized by circular reasoning, dorkiness, arrogance, whataboutism, and sloppy thinking. Net assessment: Subject’s probability of successfully offsetting established perceptions considered near zero.
