Kish critiques John Dehlin

[Kishkumen]

But he doesn't sacrifice rationality to do so. I don't generally see an inclusion of specific supernatural beliefs, especially the very specific Mormon-type ones where some Mormons pretend to have more access to the information associated with those beliefs than others (patriarchs, the Q15, etc). Those type of beliefs are not a necessary element of ethical and coherent narratives, in my opinion.

A couple pages back, PBs that assigned a black person to the tribe of Cain or Ham were pretty universally decried as unethical and damaging. Fixing that problem isn't accomplished by better human effort that still pretends PBs come from a supernatural Oracle; fixing that problem is accomplished by being better and more ethical humans and letting go of an insupportable belief in the magic of patriarchs. That doesn't obviate the need of or benefits from ethical and coherent narratives.

I don't believe that letting go of a belief in the magic patriarchs necessarily results in better and more ethical humans. It results in humans who do not believe in the magic of patriarchs and still have problems with being ethical and good.

[Morley]

I agree. We don't want facts, we want a story that helps us to understand those facts.* I think Walter Fisher called this the narrative paradigm. He theorized that human beings don't respond to rational argument (the so-called rational world paradigm), but are eager to embrace concepts that can be turned into stories--as long as these stories reflect things already in their cultures and values. We want a narrative--and then we want to know where we fit into that narrative.

Our job, in part, is to make sure those narratives are ethical and coherent.

* This is one reason that Physics Guy is so effective in discussion. He weaves every idea into an understandable narrative analogy.

But he doesn't sacrifice rationality to do so. I don't generally see an inclusion of specific supernatural beliefs, especially the very specific Mormon-type ones where some Mormons pretend to have more access to the information associated with those beliefs than others (patriarchs, the Q15, etc). Those type of beliefs are not a necessary element of ethical and coherent narratives, in my opinion.

A couple pages back, PBs that assigned a black person to the tribe of Cain or Ham were pretty universally decried as unethical and damaging. Fixing that problem isn't accomplished by better human effort that still pretends PBs come from a supernatural Oracle; fixing that problem is accomplished by being better and more ethical humans and letting go of an insupportable belief in the magic of patriarchs. That doesn't obviate the need of or benefits from ethical and coherent narratives.

You're right, of course.

I'd composed a lengthy addendum to my response on narrative and myth, but decided that it wandered too far into the theoretical weeds of psychology, so I set it aside. Ha! It looks like this was a wise choice.

Many thanks to you and Rivendale for the gentle poke in the ribs.

[Dr Moore]

John’s latest episode with the “stickofjoseph” Paul brothers was a real miss in my view. It started out cordial and storylike, but John allowed himself to be pulled into bashing with them, rather than sticking to his role as curious interviewer. Unfortunately, the majority of the episode devolved into an unproductive debate. I wish John had resisted the temptation to try and score points, which largely had the undesirable effect of allowing the brothers to turn the interview around; too much of the dialogue involved John defending his ideas, past out of context quotes and philosophical beliefs.

[Kishkumen]

John’s latest episode with the “stickofjoseph” Paul brothers was a real miss in my view. It started out cordial and storylike, but John allowed himself to be pulled into bashing with them, rather than sticking to his role as curious interviewer. Unfortunately, the majority of the episode devolved into an unproductive debate. I wish John had resisted the temptation to try and score points, which largely had the undesirable effect of allowing the brothers to turn the interview around; too much of the dialogue involved John defending his ideas, past out of context quotes and philosophical beliefs.

That’s too bad! I was excited to see he was doing it. I had hoped he would keep it friendly. Maybe I don’t need to watch this one. That’s too bad, because I often end up not watching these days. The Matthew Harris series was an exception. I HAD to see that. The historical issues ones are a little irritating to me because this is where I find myself most unhappy with the uneven quality of the criticism.

[Rivendale]

John’s latest episode with the “stickofjoseph” Paul brothers was a real miss in my view. It started out cordial and storylike, but John allowed himself to be pulled into bashing with them, rather than sticking to his role as curious interviewer. Unfortunately, the majority of the episode devolved into an unproductive debate. I wish John had resisted the temptation to try and score points, which largely had the undesirable effect of allowing the brothers to turn the interview around; too much of the dialogue involved John defending his ideas, past out of context quotes and philosophical beliefs.

This interview/debate might give some insight into the Church and its attempt to inoculate the youth. For those two Millenials it seemed to have worked. Despite having a shallow knowledge of church history they didn't seemed bothered by John's exposure of some of the hot historical topics. The Christian nationalist question seemed preplanned. He knows they run a podcast that interviews people like Tad Callister. It is called why I love America . https://youtube.com/@whyiloveamerica1 ... qundDEN edit to fix Tad's name.

[Kishkumen]

This interview/debate might give some insight into the Church and its attempt to inoculate the youth. For those two Millenials it seemed to have worked. Despite having a shallow knowledge of church history they didn't seemed bothered by John's exposure of some of the hot historical topics. The Christian nationalist question seemed preplanned. He knows they run a podcast that interviews people like Tad McCallister. It is called why I love America . https://youtube.com/@whyiloveamerica1 ... qundDEN

You mean Tad R. Callister?