I wrote up much of this yesterday in response to Mormonkey's thread on whether or not we do/should be "missionaries for Postmormonism." I lost that post to the nether-reaches of cyberspace--or gremlins--and I just couldn't bring myself to replicate it. Besides, I had to go home.
But I've been THINKING about what I wrote for the past 24 hours, and I realized that it represents some important aspects of my CURRENT operating paradigm, and the latest evolution of the way I personally see things. For my own selfish purposes, it is helpful for me to write it out, and this seemed as good a place to do that as any. My appologies in advance.
[Disclaimer:What follows is simply the machinations of my brain, and should in NO WAY be interpreted to suggest that this is how I think anyone else should see things. I'm just narcisistic enough to write it out here...though few of you will be fool enough to read all the way through it. And I don't blame you...]
There's a reason why I don't claim to "know" anything: I don't believe we can. I think we can come close to knowing some things, like I think I'm generally pretty safe looking at my wrist, seeing a watch, and saying, "I know I have a watch on my wrist." That kind of data is as close to "first-hand" as my brain can get. Something in the region my brain identifies as the "my left wrist region of the universe" is matter that reflects light that is filtered through my cornea, onto my retina, triggering electrical impulses in my optic nerve that alert the visual centers of my brain to "Pay attention! We're FOCUSING ON SOMETHING HERE!" and then this gray lump of matter that squats in the eternal darkness of it's cranial cave calculates those electrical impulses, interprets them, and creates an "image" that the rest of the brain can use, and all parts say, in unison, "Watch! And it's lunchtime! Yay!"
In all of that, there is much room for interpretation. Since it's my brain that does the interpreting, but other sensory organs that do the "experiencing," that which interprets is ALWAYS seperate from that which is being interpreted. In other words, my brain doesn't directly experience ANYTHING, other than the wet, warm, eternally dark environment it has always known. Everything else is an interpretation. (Worse, my brain lacks the nerve endings and therefore the wherewithall to even 'experience' it's own environment. It is truly blind.)
If that is true for the most basic of observations in my life, how much more is it true of the more complex? If my brain can only indirectly experience my watch, how much more true is that of my experience of each of your worlds? How much more removed is my brain from yours? My experience from yours?
Each of you have had experiences--things you know--that I cannot know. I can believe you when you tell me they happened (or not), but I cannot "know them." It is why trust is such a fundamentally important human virtue: without it, we can never believe ANYTHING other than our own, personal, unique experiences. With trust, I can get closer to experiencing what you experience, but I can never KNOW as you know.
Because everything we experience "right now" is SO MUCH MORE COMPLICATED than "right now." Everything I experience right now is filtered and interpreted through the lenses of EVERYTHING ELSE that has happened to me up to this point. And that set of experiences that colors everything I think and see is necessarily and categorically different than your set of unique experiences that colors everything you think and see. So not only can my brain not directly experience RIGHT NOW what your brain is experiencing, but it can not even begin to approximate the filters and lenses of your entire life that helps you interepret "right now."
If that is true for you and me right now, how much more true is it of me and people who lived a generation or two before? Or 150 years ago? 300 years ago?
So I am satisfied, therefore, that I cannot "know" what was going on with Joseph Smith, or Jesus, or Muhammed, or Buddha. I cannot "know" what their experiences were, what they meant, how they felt, what they believed.
All I have is "data", not truth. Truth is far too complex to ever be divined by the likes of me. However, I cannot help but interpret data--it's what my brain does. It's what human brains do. I intepret the data the best that I can, bringing to bear all that my experience has taught me in the past, and I come to the best conclusions I can, based on how I interpret that data.
But that's all it is, and all it can be.
More than that, I know that there are many--probably countless--errors I make in the assumptions I use as I interpret my world. I call it, "The Stupid Stuff I Believe." I also realize that it might be stupid, but it's the best I've got for now, and until I encounter something that highlights where I'm stupid, I'm going to continue to labor under my illusions. So are you. So are we all. It's what "paradigms" are all about. If we know what we believe is stupid, we don't believe it any more, but until we have reason or opportunity to see our stupid stuff for what it is, we have no choice but to hang onto it.
People ALL believe stupid stuff. And everything we think we "know" we actually "believe." Our brains--the seat of "knowing"--squats in darkness, remember? It gathers data and interprets it, and creates models and finds patterns, and convinces itself that its interpretations are indeed representative of reality. But those representations are, of necessity, so limited, that they cannot represent reality, but rather just impressions and approximations of reality. What we think we know, we really just believe.
That means I am a "believing" athiest. I cannot know there is no God, I can only believe that the universe--based on my interpretations of the data around me--can come into being without the help of an intelligent, intentional First Being. But for millions, even BILLIONS of believers in this world, I am a fool for believing as I do. The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims--they see much of the same data I do, and their brains interpret it differently, coming to different conclusions.
We are all believers. We all believe stupid stuff. We just don't know yet that it's stupid.
Because I "believe" that's true, I can relax, and let everyone else--Mormons included--believe their own stupid stuff.
The Mormon church exists because it fulfills expectations that millions of people have regarding their personal set of stupid stuff. So does the Catholic Church. So does Islam. For that matter, so does capitalism. So does communism. So does the Republican and Democratic parites. So does economics. So does law. All sets of ideas, grouped into institutions, volumes, religions, or clubs, are simply people who find community in the stupid stuff they believe. We all belong to such communities, and we always will. This is one of them. They fulfill a basic human need, and they will always, always be around in one incarnation or another.
So I relax, sit with my own stupid stuff, and try at times to see beyond it in an effort to replace it with slightly less--but nevertheless, still stupid stuff. And I grant everyone else the same privlege.
That's some insight into the stupid stuff I currently believe.
[Disclaimer:What follows is simply the
machinations of my brain, and should in NO WAY be interpreted to
suggest that this is how I think anyone else should see things. I'm
just narcisistic enough to write it out here...though few of you will
be fool enough to read all the way through it. And I don't blame
you...]
Well I guess I am a fool - cause I just read the whole darm thing.
[Disclaimer:What follows is simply the machinations of my brain, and should in NO WAY be interpreted to suggest that this is how I think anyone else should see things. I'm just narcisistic enough to write it out here...though few of you will be fool enough to read all the way through it. And I don't blame you...]
Well I guess I am a fool - cause I just read the whole darm thing.
As Forest Gump is famous for saying, "Stupid is as stupid does."
First off let me say I'm not advocating being missionaries for post-mo, but I am advocating that we open our mouths when false information is thrown out there and we open our mouths when it comes to the hurt and pain of loved ones.
You mention that what you know is based on your experiences and the filter through which you view those experiences. Also, how your brain interprets the data.
This is individually specific to each of us.
However, if I draw a wrist watch on a piece of paper, your brain and my brain interprets the scribblings as the same things, a wrist watch.
You mention not knowing truth, but just working with the data at hand. That's what I'm talking about, I think it's important for people to have all the data to make a decision. If you have more data than me, I ask you to share, so that I can make the best decision on that data, through my filters and with my brain.
I think you KNOW a lot more than you explanation says. You have experiences that are relevant to others.
A smart man learns from his own mistakes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others. We can't live life learning and experiencing everything on our own.
I teach my children that fire is hot, they learn to not stick their hand in the flame from my example. This is a valuable lesson and one they learned without having to actually experience burning pain.
I don't think we should be in people's faces about Post-Mo and act as missionaires. But I think that we should share data and experience as appropriate with people who are in situations that we have been through.
Perhaps they will learn not to get burned like we did.
But this is my opinion and you have shared yours. So we must agree to disagree if it comes to that.
Know that I respect you and appreciate your insight.
I don't think we should be in people's faces about Post-Mo and act as missionaires. But I think that we should share data and experience as appropriate with people who are in situations that we have been through.
Actually, I doubt we really do disagree.
Obviously, I could have written more, but time, space, and other people's attention spans are limiting factors, and I figured I had already exceeded the bounds of good taste when it comes to forum posting (and hence, most people won't read it).
That said, here's where I come from in direct response to the issue of talking about what I believe with Mormons. You're right. We learn from one another, especially when there is trust, and by sharing, we expand our understanding, if we believe the other person is credible.
When it comes to Mormons, I assume that THEY assume that "I'm not credible" because I have come to different conclusions. Therefore, they do not trust what I say, and I waste my breath and their time.
But if someone actually DID want to know what I believe, did want to hear what I have to say, and did so because they thought I was at least so credible as to be "sincere," then of course I would share my interpretations of the data.
In the absence of that trust, though, I let them believe their stupid stuff, and hope they'll leave me in peace to believe mine.
I'm not saying that's the way we should all do it. It's just the way I do it.
Afterthought:
It's probably why I'm so active on Postmormon...because the "people who are in situations that we have been through" (as you said) are more likely to consider my opinions to be worthy of consideration, and therefore, I share them abundantly (sorry...). If it supports someone in their own healing process, then I'm happy.
People ALL believe stupid stuff. And everything we think we "know" we actually "believe." Our brains--the seat of "knowing"--squats in darkness, remember? It gathers data and interprets it, and creates models and finds patterns, and convinces itself that its interpretations are indeed representative of reality. But those representations are, of necessity, so limited, that they cannot represent reality, but rather just impressions and approximations of reality. What we think we know, we really just believe.
That means I am a "believing" athiest. I cannot know there is no God, I can only believe that the universe--based on my interpretations of the data around me--can come into being without the help of an intelligent, intentional First Being. But for millions, even BILLIONS of believers in this world, I am a fool for believing as I do. The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims--they see much of the same data I do, and their brains interpret it differently, coming to different conclusions.
We are all believers. We all believe stupid stuff. We just don't know yet that it's stupid.
Because I "believe" that's true, I can relax, and let everyone else--Mormons included--believe their own stupid stuff.
PM, thank you for your "stupid" post.
And just to rile things up (since we haven't had any drama at all at Postmo lately)...I just wanted to say, "I know I love my children and grandson. I know I'd rather hang out with my dogs than certain people. And I know I love to tease."
This is me in a nutshell. I am comfortable and at peace in my "beliefs". I don't feel a need at all to convince anyone to think like I do. I have a very TBM mom and sister, and the only thing that would result from me telling them how mucked up I believe Mormonism is, would be a whole lot of hurt feelings and destroyed relationships. It's just not worth it. If it makes them happy - then I'm happy for them. If someone asks what I believe, I'm happy to answer, but it's not my place to tell anyone else they've got to think like I do and share my beliefs.
The observer in each of us does just that...it observes. It takes the relevant data and interprets it in a way that makes sense to our paradigm. Thus the concept of "confirmation bias." The world works in the way we think it does, because we interpret the data to fit how we see the world.
I guess that is one of the things that really bothers me about religion in general. We are taught to view everything through the metaphor of religion and voila...the world functions just the way we've been taught. Not because it necessarily functions that way but because the data we allow in to our inner observer interprets it that way. Until our inner paradigm shifts we can't even see the data.
I liken it to a firewall. Firewalls have access lists that determine what information is allowed through. Our minds have beliefs that act as access lists. What we believe scans incoming data and only allows through that which agrees with our beliefs.
People ALL believe stupid stuff. And everything we think we "know" we actually "believe." Our brains--the seat of "knowing"--squats in darkness, remember? It gathers data and interprets it, and creates models and finds patterns, and convinces itself that its interpretations are indeed representative of reality. But those representations are, of necessity, so limited, that they cannot represent reality, but rather just impressions and approximations of reality. What we think we know, we really just believe.
That means I am a "believing" athiest. I cannot know there is no God, I can only believe that the universe--based on my interpretations of the data around me--can come into being without the help of an intelligent, intentional First Being. But for millions, even BILLIONS of believers in this world, I am a fool for believing as I do. The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims--they see much of the same data I do, and their brains interpret it differently, coming to different conclusions.
We are all believers. We all believe stupid stuff. We just don't know yet that it's stupid.
Because I "believe" that's true, I can relax, and let everyone else--Mormons included--believe their own stupid stuff.
PM, thank you for your "stupid" post.
And just to rile things up (since we haven't had any drama at all at Postmo lately)...I just wanted to say, "I know I love my children and grandson. I know I'd rather hang out with my dogs than certain people. And I know I love to tease."
This is why it's helpful to throw things out to the four winds from time to time--just to see what comes back.
Because when I was thinking about my "Current Operating Paradigm", I was ONLY thinking in terms of experiences and data that exist OUTSIDE my brain. MsGabbie gently and teasingly pointed out that there are some experiences that are INITIATED in our brains, and perhaps we can "know" those things in ways that we cannot know other things. Like the love we have for children or our dogs. (Well, not MY dog, per se...he's a douche-bag that poops on my carpet).
While those things are not knowable to another, perhaps our own brains really CAN know those things, despite how difficult it is to define why.
I guess that is one of the things that really bothers me about religion in general. We are taught to view everything through the metaphor of religion and voila...the world functions just the way we've been taught. Not because it necessarily functions that way but because the data we allow in to our inner observer interprets it that way. Until our inner paradigm shifts we can't even see the data.
I liken it to a firewall. Firewalls have access lists that determine what information is allowed through. Our minds have beliefs that act as access lists. What we believe scans incoming data and only allows through that which agrees with our beliefs.
Max
I struggle with the exact same frustration. A LOT. I worry about how those religious paradigms govern people's behaviors, particularly when those behaviors directly or indirectly impact me, my family/people I love, my country, etc. Here the glaring example is the events of 9-11, but the ongoing Jihadist movement, the Zionist movement in Israel, the Christian Right in US Government, all of those are distressing to me, because they have the potential to impinge on my freedom to believe whatever stupid stuff I want--or to protect myself from harm.
But as long as their behavior respects my personal boundaries, then I can allow them the limits of their firewall, just as I expect them allow me the limits of mine. (Good analogy, Max).
P-M often writes thought provoking stuff here. I can only imagine that his DW has something to do with the process.
I mean, the probability is that his DW has something to do in the process, based on evidence I have about what his DW does for a living.
And this brings me to the reason for this post. I agree that we know a lot less than we may think we know and that we all believe stupid stuff (to some extent).
With this understanding, I view the world as probabilistic. That is, assertions or hypotheses all have a probability of being valid and this probability is based on available evidence.
In decision making, we have to go with the odds after obtaining as much relevant objective evidence as possible. Decisions should not be made before a decision is needed.
Decisions based on inadequate data are sometimes required. This is just a way of saying that the available evidence has not yet pushed the probabilities far enough in one direction or another to make a decision that is comfortable.
IMHO, there is relatively little we can ever know about the external world. The best we can do is to collect all evidence possible and know, through experience, how this evidence affects probability as we go along.
Very Bayesian.
BTW: Using this paradigm, the foundational claims of the LDS Church are relegated to the extremely improbable, and therefore not worth much mental energy or concern.
P-M often writes thought provoking stuff here. I can only imagine that his DW has something to do with the process.
I mean, the probability is that his DW has something to do in the process, based on evidence I have about what his DW does for a living.
And this brings me to the reason for this post. I agree that we know a lot less than we may think we know and that we all believe stupid stuff (to some extent).
With this understanding, I view the world as probabilistic. That is, assertions or hypotheses all have a probability of being valid and this probability is based on available evidence.
In decision making, we have to go with the odds after obtaining as much relevant objective evidence as possible. Decisions should not be made before a decision is needed.
Decisions based on inadequate data are sometimes required. This is just a way of saying that the available evidence has not yet pushed the probabilities far enough in one direction or another to make a decision that is comfortable.
IMHO, there is relatively little we can ever know about the external world. The best we can do is to collect all evidence possible and know, through experience, how this evidence affects probability as we go along.
Very Bayesian.
BTW: Using this paradigm, the foundational claims of the LDS Church are relegated to the extremely improbable, and therefore not worth much mental energy or concern.
I could have written this, too. The notion of probability plays a huge part of my "Current Operating Paradigm", too.
It's fascinating to consider the many ways in which it plays itself out, but one of the fun ones to consider is simply this:
The probability of coming to the conclusion of your Postscript, BTW regarding the foundational claims of the church is a function of the existing paradigms under which you labor. Daniel Peterson will have a vastly increased probability of finding any given set of data to be supportive of the foundational claims, whereas you or I will have a vastly lower probability of coming to the same conclusion. He places higher probabilistic value on faith-based claims, whereas you and I place higher probabilistic values on science-based claims. He believes he's right. We believe we're right.
The activism of postmormonism, like my atheism, is up to me. The situation declares the response. I have avoided dealing with Mormon issues and have alternately been confrontational, dependin on the circumstance.
As to knowing nothing; there is a reality we all share. If there was not, we would not be communicating here.
You at some point had to test your beliefs and found them unsatisfactory. You applied the scientific method without thinking about it. You observed, you theorized, you tested, and you came to a conclusion. From a philosophical standpoint you might know nothing, but you are still capable of drawing conclusions at some point whether you can believe, not believe, or simply say you don't know.
You are making concrete decisions about things in your life, perhaps without thinking about it. When people say "I don't know" and declare themselves as anything- atheist, agnostic or theist- they have made a decision. The agnostic might say I don't know. As an atheist I can also say I don't know, but I have observed, theorized, studied and concluded that there is not a sufficiency of MY INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE of God to believe he exists. But in every other respect, the door is open for more proof. The only difference between an atheist and an agnostic is the lack of the final step, the conclusion.
Your determining not to know also implies you made a choice. You determined or concluded that you didn't know, but you had to have made decision based on some form of observation to come to that conclusion.
Great thought provoking post P_M. Some of what you said reminds me of the flick "What the bleep do we know". Maybe you're familiar with it. You pretty much explained some of the reasons why I try not to engage true believers of any belief unless they engage me first and are genuinely seeking answers. Like Galileo said, we can't teach a man anything, we can only help them to see it within themselves, and only if they are ready to be taught. People aren't generally ready for answers to questions they aren't ready to ask. I leave tidbits of info that can invite one to question, but I don't go out of my way to convert anyone to different beliefs. Thanks for the well thought post.
I'd like to stand and bare my testiphoney. I know gravity and taxes are true. I know that death will come to all and that there might not be anything after life. I know today is as good a day to be happy as tomorrow and tomorrow I might die so I should have dessert first. I know that grandbabies are true. I know that kissing my husband feels really good, especially if it leads to more kissing. I know that Pringles are bad for me but I like them anyway.
I say these things in the name of Peter Mary, namen.
It would behoove all of you to get behooved, especially if you start with kissing before behooving. Sometimes just get behooved but only at lunchtime, then after a nice dinner, start with kissing, dessert, some more kissing, then the behooving, then some more kissing. If you're young enough, more behooving. If you're really old, just talk about behooving but make sure you laugh a little to make it more fun. I felt behooved to tell you all that.
I tried to warn you all of Paladin's amazing poetic talents but now you're getting it with both barrels. Sometimes he writes really tender stuff and other times his prose makes me pee my panties and squirt milk out my nose. He's one talented dude. He's also very smart.
Dahli-mama: I tried to warn you all of Paladin's amazing poetic talents but now you're getting it with both barrels. Sometimes he writes really tender stuff and other times his prose makes me pee my panties and squirt milk out my nose. He's one talented dude. He's also very smart.
Tipareth, Paladin isn't BABB. He's a frequent contributor on another site and someone I've come to admire very much. BABB writes poetry but it always has a rhyme that sounds like Nantucket.
Dahli-mama: Tipareth, Paladin isn't BABB. He's a frequent contributor on another site and someone I've come to admire very much. BABB writes poetry but it always has a rhyme that sounds like Nantucket.
It's a poetic irony that the more open we are to how tenuous our grip is on reality, the better grip we actually have on reality.
How in contrast to the supreme confidence of Mormons that they have 'truth' in a string bag, while carefully avoiding their own history, because it might be faith-threatening! Yeah, that makes sense.
Put another way "Can't look at how we got here, 'cause it might threaten our confidence in where we're at, and that won't do, because we're so wedded to notions of Eternity!" aka "I want to live for all Time & Eternity, but definitely NOT in the here an now".
Sorry for that interruption to programming. We will now return to P_M contemplating whether his left arm and watch can be relied upon to anchor his existence!
BTW: Using this paradigm, the foundational claims of the LDS Church are relegated to the extremely improbable, and therefore not worth much mental energy or concern.
I could have written this, too. The notion of probability plays a huge part of my "Current Operating Paradigm", too.
It's fascinating to consider the many ways in which it plays itself out, but one of the fun ones to consider is simply this:
The probability of coming to the conclusion of your Postscript, BTW regarding the foundational claims of the church is a function of the existing paradigms under which you labor. Daniel Peterson will have a vastly increased probability of finding any given set of data to be supportive of the foundational claims, whereas you or I will have a vastly lower probability of coming to the same conclusion. He places higher probabilistic value on faith-based claims, whereas you and I place higher probabilistic values on science-based claims. He believes he's right. We believe we're right.
Fun, eh?
Like Sam Harris, who I admire greatly and read often, I have to disagree that DCP's faith - based claims are as useful or valid as claims based on objective, verifiable physical evidence.
In his Letter to a Christian Nation, Harris spends some time on the relative value of faith based claims vs objective evidence based claims. He shows that faith based beliefs are of little value to society as a whole.
Harris also points out that, to a remarkable degree, religion and religious faith are based on lies. Numerous examples are provided.
You seem to afford DCP grudging respect, I afford him no respect whatsoever. From the way in which he conducts himself and what he says, I would put the probability at 50% or greater that he knows the foundational claims of the Church are a pack of lies and absolutely incapable of withstanding any fact or reason based scrutiny.
One only need to read my signature line to see, in his own words, how DCP views the Church.
Imagine a scientist making such a statement about the foundational claims of his or her discipline.
P-M often writes thought provoking stuff here. I can only imagine that his DW has something to do with the process.
I mean, the probability is that his DW has something to do in the process, based on evidence I have about what his DW does for a living.
And this brings me to the reason for this post. I agree that we know a lot less than we may think we know and that we all believe stupid stuff (to some extent).
With this understanding, I view the world as probabilistic. That is, assertions or hypotheses all have a probability of being valid and this probability is based on available evidence.
In decision making, we have to go with the odds after obtaining as much relevant objective evidence as possible. Decisions should not be made before a decision is needed.
Decisions based on inadequate data are sometimes required. This is just a way of saying that the available evidence has not yet pushed the probabilities far enough in one direction or another to make a decision that is comfortable.
IMHO, there is relatively little we can ever know about the external world. The best we can do is to collect all evidence possible and know, through experience, how this evidence affects probability as we go along.
Very Bayesian.
BTW: Using this paradigm, the foundational claims of the LDS Church are relegated to the extremely improbable, and therefore not worth much mental energy or concern.
I only recently became acquainted with Bayesian statistics. A very helpful concept that I wish I'd stumbled into much earlier. The concept of using a prior probability when evaluating a new idea is, IMO, a very useful concept.
Peter_Mary, I like the humility and respect for other opinions. My way to the same endpoint is this: "I might be wrong."
I can be confident, act on hunches, argue, concede, ponder, and proceed with near-total surety...as long as I remember, "I might be wrong." It's enough to protect me from one category of mistakes. I have plenty others that I can make, of course, but retaining awareness of my fallibility helps minimize the resulting damages.
An also-helpful corollary is: "They might be wrong." It is much less effective, however, at minimizing arrogance.
* Case in point: I read and re-read my post, pretty darn sure that I had spelled everything correctly. Knowing I might be wrong, I spell-checked. Sure enough, I had misspelled one word: "surity." Sheesh!
BTW: Using this paradigm, the foundational claims of the LDS Church are relegated to the extremely improbable, and therefore not worth much mental energy or concern.
I could have written this, too. The notion of probability plays a huge part of my "Current Operating Paradigm", too.
It's fascinating to consider the many ways in which it plays itself out, but one of the fun ones to consider is simply this:
The probability of coming to the conclusion of your Postscript, BTW regarding the foundational claims of the church is a function of the existing paradigms under which you labor. Daniel Peterson will have a vastly increased probability of finding any given set of data to be supportive of the foundational claims, whereas you or I will have a vastly lower probability of coming to the same conclusion. He places higher probabilistic value on faith-based claims, whereas you and I place higher probabilistic values on science-based claims. He believes he's right. We believe we're right.
Fun, eh?
Like Sam Harris, who I admire greatly and read often, I have to disagree that DCP's faith - based claims are as useful or valid as claims based on objective, verifiable physical evidence.
In his Letter to a Christian Nation, Harris spends some time on the relative value of faith based claims vs objective evidence based claims. He shows that faith based beliefs are of little value to society as a whole.
Harris also points out that, to a remarkable degree, religion and religious faith are based on lies. Numerous examples are provided.
You seem to afford DCP grudging respect, I afford him no respect whatsoever. From the way in which he conducts himself and what he says, I would put the probability at 50% or greater that he knows the foundational claims of the Church are a pack of lies and absolutely incapable of withstanding any fact or reason based scrutiny.
One only need to read my signature line to see, in his own words, how DCP views the Church.
Imagine a scientist making such a statement about the foundational claims of his or her discipline.
I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Wilson. When I read anything by DCP my bullshit sensors go off the charts. He exhibits a very cynical view of his followers and readers, essentially inferring that they're too stupid to catch him in his obfuscations and lies.
One tool I discussed yesterday was trying to evaluate someones motives when they make an outrageous claim on an improbable situation. What do they gain by holding to that belief or statement?
In DCP's case, he sells books, lots and lots of books. He has a niche market in the devout easily duped gullible LDS who like to use his books as scholarly proof of what they're too lazy to look up and research themselves. They can pull out one of his books, look at the glossy pictures and read his shell game of explanations on some obscure tiny tiddly little piece of what he calls evidence and proclaim, "SEE, it's there! Right in front of you, proof that something vague, possibly related exists!!" .
Their testimony and investment in the church is safe and protected for the mere price of a glossy coffeetable book and they don't have to do a thing other than claim that our reality is no reality because their reality is there in print in a glossy coffee table book, for only $69.95, signed by the author Daniel C. Petersen.
One thing I have no doubt that Daniel C. Petersen knows very well and that is the vulnerabilities of his audience. He plays on every manipulative scripture or mandate from up above. It's a symbiotic relationship with the heirarchy where they can blame FAIR, FARMS, SHIELDS every time something turns out wrong, and he can rely on them to keep the members clueless and obedient enough to keep buying his bullshit books and attending his bullshit lectures. Other than that, I like him a lot.
While I'm not near smart enough to even show up on this thread, I acknowledge myself daily for not using phrases like "I know" and preferring phrases like "I think" or "I believe." I've become very sensitive to those terms in all areas of my life. Funny that they actually feel much safer than "I know." Who'd a thunk it?
Thank you, everyone. Living on the Morridor, I see people every day pissing and moaning about "our values" or "traditional American values" or whatever. So when I reply, "you mean traditional American values that existed at the time the Constitution was ratified?" A vigorous nod, like their head is on a string being pulled by the Big Three--Hannity, Limbaugh or Beck. "Like slavery and treating women as property?" That gets them all twisty-knickered. They don't want their paradigm shifted.
It's the same with religion. My experience (after nearly fifteen years of inactivity and four years since our resignation) has been that people only want to hear what they want to hear. "I was too lazy to sit in church for three hours on Sunday and hold down a calling that demands ten hours a week of my time, and too cheap and stingy to pay tithing. Plus, I wanted to try beer. And have multiple sex partners. And make pron flicks."
And guess what--you could logic them, scientific evidence them, history and archaeology and linguistic them; you can even use some of the church's own writings as evidence against them; but they will still hear "I was too lazy to sit in church for three hours on Sunday, hold down a calling that demands ten hours a week of my time, and too cheap and stingy to pay tithing. Plus, I wanted to try beer. And have multiple sex partners. And make pron flicks."
Being a Post-Mo missionary would be a lot like my proselytizing mission was--eighteen long months of beating my head against a stone wall.
Yes, I would love to "warn my neighbors." I'd love to have some apostate friends to barbecue with. The reality is that an extreme few want out of their "comfort zone." They didn't want a black president and they don't want the health care system reformed and they didn't want their gay son or daughter to marry their same-sex partner, and if they could get away with forcing teachers to teach the B of M in schools, for damn sure they would do it. Then they could watch all the bad TV they wanted instead of feeling obligated to study scriptures with their children.
Most of these people don't want to know they've been duped. They would be forced to look at life in the harsh light of reality. They would rather be secure than free. They'd rather have all the tough questions answered for them.
They'd have to experience the pain and disillusionment and alienation some of us have experienced.
My mom asked me, point-blank once, "Why did you leave?" I asked her, "Why do you stay?"
She admitted she was afraid. Afraid that the forty-plus years she'd dedicated to this belief system (ever notice that belief system's initials are BS? hee); afraid to admit she was in a vulnerable situation, having just buried a son whom the Morg promised her unequivocally she would see again; afraid of pain and disillusionment and disappointment and alienation. She is holding on to the slenderest thread of hope and was terrified to see that my thread had broken and that I was okay with that.
I have no conclusion, no pithy statement to sum this up, except that I don't know nuthin' neither, except that I'm so much happier out of the Morg than I ever was in it, and that has to be enough for me for the moment. I traded security for freedom. It's that simple. And that complicated.
I have no conclusion, no pithy statement to sum this up, except that I don't know nuthin' neither, except that I'm so much happier out of the Morg than I ever was in it, and that has to be enough for me for the moment. I traded security for freedom. It's that simple. And that complicated.
hartlyn
Probably at the end of the day, that's the part that's most important: The simple recognition that there can be peace, happiness and fulfillment in just not knowing. I believe I am happier, too, outside the church, but I don't know that would be the case for everyone...perhaps even your mother, who admitted she was afraid. I'd like to think she would find the same peace, and her fears would abate--but I don't know that they would.
I agree that the more I know the less I know. I frequently catch myself second guessing everything.
One of the difficult things about being a Pomo....and I am sure one of the reasons we are all here, Is it seems that every single day I wake up, I have to run through all of my conclusions in my head. I feel a need to re calibrate and make sure I am following what I truly believe.
Some of that is good. Some of it is bad. I am sure we all know a bit that some of it is from our inculcation. At anygiven time the voices of the indoctrination can seap back in and we have to reason it all out again to see if we trust our own judgment.
I do however have to agree with Dr. W. I love how Sam Harris words it. That truthfully and rationally we can agree there is a mutual starting point that exists. That we can agree that certain fundamental laws and forces of nature in the universe that are what we all have to adhere to, and they can be tested and tested and tested and they always yield the same results. Until those laws just stop working, they are our only and best method of sorting it out for any possibility for universal external truth. We can expound on all of them by further testing testing testing, peer review, more testing.
However, Peter_Mary, I think you did an excellent job stating the gray area in the matter of truth, but I also think its part of going full circle which is a beautiful and interesting next step beyond current science........it always hurts my head and edges me towards nihilism when I chew those ideas a bit too much though. Always a good to keep in check what I know....and I thank you for reminding me once again to re-examine.
This whole conversation about knowing reminds me of a joke I once heard -
what is the difference between a physicist and a mathematician ?
A story illustrates the difference
- one day a physicist and a mathematician were discussing their respective hot dates they had that weekend. They were both really shy, being the nerdy types. The physicist came up with a plan, and told it to the math guy. He said - here is what I'm going to do. I'm going to sit on the sofa next to her and move closer every time a commercial comes on. The math guy asked, how much closer ? The physicist thought about it and said "I've got it, every commercial I will move 1/2 the distance"
The math guy, then said "Hah, that way you will never get there, what a fool"
to which the physicist replied "Hah, your the fool. I'll get close enough for all practical purposes"
And so it is with Knowing vs. Knowing. Sure, maybe we can't know anything. At the same time, maybe we can know enough for all practical purposes. In fact this is exactly how we operate every day, all day. When I drive through an intersection in my car, I can't know that another car will come the other way at 80mph and slam into my car. I absolutely can't know this. However I have got to make an assumption. If I didn't I wouldn't be able to drive across town.
I can't know that if I walk outside of my door a bold eagle won't fly over and crap on my head. Heck, they fly over all the time. Yet, I do still walk out of my door, and I don't really worry about the eagles flying overhead.
I lived over 40 years of my life thinking the Church was true. Oh, how I wish someone would have told me the truth. My wife converted and thought it was true, oh, how she wishes the missionaries had told her the truth about JS.
I could assume that I know that my neighbors and friends are happier not knowing the truth about JS and their religion. Yet, I would then be as guilty as they were.
All I can know is that I am happiest when I live my life being as true to who I am as I can be. All I do know is that I feel terrible when I hear someone tell me how wonderful JS was, or how true the Church is. I feel terrible every time I hear a lie from the Church. I feel terrible looking at my family and see the damage that was done by the Church. I feel terrible looking at my neighbors and watching their kids go off on missions knowing what I know about the true Church.
So what is the right or wrong thing - me being who I am ?
