The Parable of the Believer and the Skeptic [Archive]

peter_mary

10th October 2006, 03:03 PM

I say the skeptic has set up the test according to his own assumptions. He assumes that gardeners are as tangible as he is, and even that the universe has a universal, "cover-all-your-bases" definition of a gardener.

The believer, and possibly the universe, may define gardener differently, however. If the "gardener" represents that by which all things "in the garden" obtain their sustenance in order to produce that which gardens produce, then the universe itself can be the gardener...and its hoe and spade are the principles by which gardens grow. They are invisible, they are odorless, they are impervious to electric shocks...yet without them, the garden doesn't grow.

The problem, therefore, is often one of semantics, or worse, pardadigms. When we speak of God/god/goddesses, we have a VERY broad pallette from which to choose what we mean. What I may say is "God", Wes (or others) may shake their head and wonder what barn I crawled out of. Yet when they speak of God, I assume they speak from the same paradigm I speak from and I just "know" they're crazy. And we go around and around chasing our tails, never really getting it.

Now, you all know where I land on the believer/skeptic continuum...clear out here in outer darkness. However, and this is an important distinction from my perspective. I am here because I arrived here based on the best information I have gathered to myself, the best thinking I know how to do for myself, and drawn the best conclusions I know how to make...for myself.

All those "Myselfs" should give everyone pause.

::waits while everyone pauses::

In other words, my perspective is NECESSARILY limited by own experience. My own experience is, to say the least, exceedingly limited. It is the best I have, but it falls rather short of all the experience there is to have.

So if I understand this, then there is room in my world-view for the possibility of God. I don't believe in one, but I readily acknowledge that I could be dead wrong. The believer's experience, like Puff's Ghost Walker, may know things, FROM THEIR LIMITED PERSPECTIVE, that I may never know. What's important is that TOGETHER, we know more about the universe than either one of us does alone.

And THAT I believe.

All the skeptic has shown the believer is that there is no "skeptic's gardener." He has shown the believer nothing about the "believer's gardener."

And the believer CAN'T show the skeptic his gardener, because the skeptic only knows how to look for, and test for, a skeptical gardener!

So there's a stalemate. How peculiar...that's exactly where we are!!!
_______________________________

Now, I have braced myself for the tomatoes and eggs to be thrown my way, but hopefully all will appreciate the spirit in which this little post was given!

helemon

10th October 2006, 05:16 PM

So there's a stalemate. How peculiar...that's exactly where we are!!!

PM you believe in Spinoza's god. I like his definition as well except for his belief that all events were predestined to occur.

I thought Skeptic's parable left something out. I thought the believer was going to point to the flowers as evidence of a gardener while the skeptic would counter by pointing at the weeds as evidence that even if there had been a gardener at one point he had clearly abandoned this garden. However the twist is that the definition of what is a weed and what is a flower is completely subjective and so provide evidence of nothing.

dogzilla

10th October 2006, 05:26 PM

I'd like to suggest, as the token gardener on this board, that you guys don't know jack squat about gardening! :duck:

Jeff_Ricks

10th October 2006, 05:30 PM

I identify with the Believer because it doesn't seem reasonable to me that flowers and weeds (or anything for that matter) just appeared one day out of nothing.I also don't think it's rational to believe that the flowers just appeared one day out of nothing.... but I think you might have it backwards, Wes. Usually it's the believer who thinks that way, not the skeptic. One day God spoke the magic words and BING! suddenly there were flowers. (wink wink ;) )

helemon

10th October 2006, 07:04 PM

I'd like to suggest, as the token gardener on this board, that you guys don't know jack squat about gardening! :duck:

And pray tell, how does YOUR garden grow? :confused:

wescape

10th October 2006, 09:39 PM

I also don't think it's rational to believe that the flowers just appeared one day out of nothing.... but I think you might have it backwards, Wes. Usually it's the believer who thinks that way, not the skeptic. One day God spoke the magic words and BING! suddenly there were flowers. (wink wink ;) )

But can the skeptic explain how matter came into existence? ;)

P.S. For the sake of Dogzilla, let me make the disclaimer that this is not an invitation to resume any debates between Jeff and myself. :duck:

Born Free

10th October 2006, 10:16 PM

I'm running with the theory that the garden is fertilized with the manure from Invisible Pink Unicorns, which does not differentiate between weed and flower. (IPU's love unconditionally; they'll poop on anything!)

Just as in Zen shit happens, so in the world of IPU, weeds happen.

Daryl

helemon

10th October 2006, 10:46 PM

skeptic

11th October 2006, 12:02 AM

Jeff_Ricks

11th October 2006, 07:28 AM

But can the skeptic explain how matter came into existence? ;)In the past, many things were thought to have come into existence by magic incantations of The Great Magician in Heaven (don't take offense, just trying to make a point), that are now understood as the result of nature interacting with itself. I'm betting the trend will continue. One day we'll understand the interactions that brought about matter. No reason to jump to the conclusion that hocus pocus is the cause.

Before I end this let me split a few hairs. Matter is coming into existence constantly as it alternates from waves to particles to waves to particles. Matter isn't really a thing, it's a state of being. So, when you ask how matter came into existence it's like asking how the swing came to be at such an angle. The angle is simply one of it's states as it swings back and forth (anyone please feel free to correct this armchair physicist if I'm out in left field).

Jeff

dogzilla

11th October 2006, 07:57 AM

And pray tell, how does YOUR garden grow? :confused:
See, in my garden, a weed is just another plant that's in a spot where I don't want it. By virtue of labeling it a weed, that doesn't mean it's useless or that it doesn't have a purpose or that I don't need it. It just might not fit within my scheme of how my garden should look.

Having studied a lot of herbs and plants with medicinal value, I've learned that many plants that most people consider to be weeds are actually quite valuable. And some plants are more valuable to a given culture than others. For example, there's a variety of holly bush here in Florida called a Yaupon Holly. It's quite scrubby and ugly looking yet, it's ubiquitous in the pinewood flats. Its Latin name is Ilex vomitoria.:Puking No, seriously. Turns out the Seminole Indians used to make tea from it as a purgative prior to certain native rituals. Or in the event someone ingested something they shouldn't have... it was the natural syrup of ipecac. There's a dozen other plants I could name that have also fallen out of favor because the flower isn't pretty or the foilage isn't sexy, but in the past, certain cultures or groups relied on the plant for nutrients.

Another point I wanted to make is that a plant never just shows up outta nowhere. You have to understand how plants reproduce and propagate themselves, but you'd never have a square chunk of soil that just randomly one day had a plant growing out of it. Either another plant reproduced and made seeds and an animal or person somehow planted those seeds (or a bird ate them and dropped them) or the roots from another plant spread out and put up a new stem.

wescape

11th October 2006, 08:36 AM

SoUtSkeptic’s take on the parable is that the ‘Skeptic’ is embracing evidence based reasoning. One of the beauties of science in my opinion is that it is evidence driven which dictates an opened ended inquiry. In science the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim, not the investigator. Therefore in the ‘Parable’ the burden of proof would be upon the ‘Believer’.

wescape,
I really appreciate your comments. Your question: "can the skeptic (implying science) explain how matter came into existence?" Science obviously has not advanced far enough to provide a testable theory which would explain your question.

In order to better understand a ‘Believers’ point of view and in mentioning you felt the ‘Believers’ theory was “reasonable” could you please explain what perhaps the basis for which you see such a conviction might be? I’m wondering if impart, it might be what some might call a need for something greater than oneself. Also having majored in one of the sciences do you feel the ‘Believers’ theory should be falsifiable? (That it must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the ‘Believers’ claim false)

Thanks- SoUtSkeptic

Hey SoUSkeptic,

In answer to your first question, consider the following scenarios:

1. A person who has been isolated from the modern world finds a coke can one day on the beach. Is it more reasonable for this person to assume that the coke can somehow formed through a gradual process of random changes or that it has an intelligent designer?

2. A person hurls all the parts necessary for a functioning watch into the ocean. Is it reasonable for this person to assume that after enough time has passed, a fully functioning watch will one day appear on a beach somehwere?

3. A person designs a machine with the capability of shuffling and then scattering a giant vat of Scrabble letters onto a flat surface. This process is then repeated ad infinitum. Is it reasonable to assume that at some point the machine will produce some kind of meaningful literature?

These examples illustrate the reasoning of the Believer. Another question relevant for the Believer is this: Why is there something rather than nothing? You also asked about the need for something greater than oneself. While I do think this is something that exists within all people, it seems clear to me that whether one acknowledges this need or not, things greater than oneself are self-evident (i.e. solar systems). As for your final question, only if one is trying to disprove the Believer's claim.

Wes

Jeff_Ricks

11th October 2006, 08:54 AM

Hey SoUSkeptic,

In answer to your first question, consider the following scenarios:

1. A person who has been isolated from the modern world finds a coke can one day on the beach. Is it more reasonable for this person to assume that the coke can somehow formed through a gradual process of random changes or that it has an intelligent designer?

2. A person hurls all the parts necessary for a functioning watch into the ocean. Is it reasonable for this person to assume that after enough time has passed, a fully functioning watch will one day appear on a beach somehwere?

3. A person designs a machine with the capability of shuffling and then scattering a giant vat of Scrabble letters onto a flat surface. This process is then repeated ad infinitum. Is it reasonable to assume that at some point the machine will produce some kind of meaningful literature?Your examples are gross oversimplifications of the evolutionary process because 1) watch parts, Coke cans, and scrabble letters don't reproduce like living things do, 2) watches, Coke cans, and scrabble letters aren't subject to natural selection, and 3) watch parts, Coke cans, and scrabble letters don't mutate like DNA can and does.

Jeff

Jeff_Ricks

11th October 2006, 09:25 AM

Your examples are gross oversimplifications of the evolutionary process because 1) watch parts, Coke cans, and scrabble letters don't reproduce like living things do, 2) watches, Coke cans, and scrabble letters aren't subject to natural selection, and 3) watch parts, Coke cans, and scrabble letters don't mutate like DNA can and does.

JeffJust had an epiphany! While a coke can might not bear any resemblence to the evolutionary processes, when you add a coke machine everything changes! Now the cans of Coke are subject to:

Natural Selection
"Hmmm... do I want a Coke or a Pepsi?"

Random Mutation
"Damn! I know I pressed Coke but it gave me a Diet Dr. Pepper!"

Reproduction
Every day when I go to the machine for a Coke it always has one to give me...unless of course it gives me a Diet Dr. Pepper. ;)

Jeff

...maybe someday, through the evolutionary process, I'll evolve into a Dr. Pepper fan.

wescape

11th October 2006, 09:32 AM

Your examples are gross oversimplifications of the evolutionary process because 1) watch parts, Coke cans, and scrabble letters don't reproduce like living things do, 2) watches, Coke cans, and scrabble letters aren't subject to natural selection, and 3) watch parts, Coke cans, and scrabble letters don't mutate like DNA can and does.

Jeff

As I said in a previous post, my responses to this thread by SouSkeptic are not an invitation to resume any prior debates. However, just to clarify, my examples were not intended to be exact parallels to Darwinism. They were making the point that, at least from my perspective, it is not reasonable to assume that anything complex (i.e. watches, living creatures) which contains information (i.e. literature, coke cans, DNA) comes about randomly.

Wes

skeptic

11th October 2006, 03:29 PM

peter_mary

11th October 2006, 04:25 PM

With my rambling I guess my point if there is one, that good men of faith can cause harm to people with their subjective beliefs. That evidence based reasoning holds people accountable.

SoUtSkeptic
Please know that I, too, am simply enjoying a great discussion and don't want to appear threatening or critical...

That said, here are a couple of thoughts.

Demanding empirical evidence is itself a kind of faith-based paradigm. It is faith in the notion that empirical evidence is a) always available to support a "truth" claim, and b) that we'll recognize it when we see it. But we can't KNOW that to be true, we TRUST that it is.

Now, please understand that I, too, share that paradigm. But I believe it is ONLY a paradigm.

But can you truly expect empirical evidence for things that are purely conceptual? Like faith itself? Like hope? Like meaning? Like desire? Like love? Where is the tangible evidence of those things? Can it be measured? Tasted? Touched?

No.

But are they therefore not real?

Again, no.

We find circumstantial evidence of these things, including brain chemicals and self-reports and brain scans, but none of that actually describes what "hope" or "love" really ARE. They only describe some of the specific features of our biology that are associated with something far more complex. These intangibles are an emergent phenomenon that exists only in the encounter between our biology and the entire field of human experience.

I argue that it is quite possible that the skeptic's inability to enjoy and appreciate the ineffable might be EXACTLY because we demand empirical evidence. That might be a bit like looking at the Mona Lisa and saying, "This is nothing more than colored oil paints smeared on an old canvas by a man living a few centuries ago. It is NOT a woman, because it doesn't meet the criteria for woman." The objective data are correct...but the point is missed. The difference between the empirical data and the "art" is the ability to appreciate what is MEANT by the smears of paint.

Art is something we identify with in part because it is a means of interpretting what we see, and giving it particular meaning. Not because that's objectively what it means to the universe, but because it's what it uniquely means to the artist. And to the art appreciator.

It is possible that there is joy in the mind of the believer in understanding the meaning of this life in terms analagous to a great work of art, in this case, the art being a variety of religious expressions interpreting the human experience in the universe. Really, what more are religious expressions than someone taking their unique encounter with the universe, and expressing it in terms that give it enhanced meaning to them? Is that no longer legitimate, simply because it fails to align with someone else's encounter with reality? Is the believer a flake because they don't care what the chemical composition is of the paint Da Vinci used, but is rather only captivated by the Mona Lisa's smile?

I agree that it can become harmful...we need only to look at the ongoing conflicts between people of differing faiths.

But that's not what religion "means," it's how it's been bastardized.

So while I agree that there are examples of good people of faith who have done a great deal of harm in the name of their subjective beliefs, I would argue that there are also people who lack faith who are equally as capable of creating such harm on the basis of their cold, objective conclusions.

I don't believe it is religion that causes people to hurt one another. It's people who insist on being harmful to one another, and they find whatever reason they can to justify their behavior. If their differing faith is a good enough reason, they'll use it. But if faith systems never evolved, do we really believe that people wouldn't still find a reason to be prejudiced? To be hateful? To be hurtful? I hardly think so.

For my part, I am grateful to the chemists, who can tell me the composition of the paint. And I am grateful to the many different artists, who can tell me what they each see, and what it means to them. And I am grateful for the freedom, and the mind, to draw my own, unique conclusions based on the information I glean from both chemsists AND artists.

And if any of that made any sense, than you must be smoking the same thing I am... :p

bigeddy

11th October 2006, 05:34 PM

I guess I must be smoking the same thing!

I understood your last paragraph and found it powerful and moving. Thanks.

Ed

Born Free

11th October 2006, 08:39 PM

I believe there is a massive gap between the thinking motivation of humanists and many 'God-fearing folks'.

The latter are convinced that God informs, supports and applauds their thoughts and actions. And of course all rabid religious followers share the same confidence, blind to the incongruity that 'God' can't be backing every (religious) player, inspite that they all root their confidence in 'faith'.

For me, it is this latter grandiosity that makes the religious follower so dangerous, and therefore their 'faith' so unhealthy. Sure, if the religious could stop short of concluding that God had saddled them with the responsibility to 'save the world', and mind their own business, then that would be fine, but many religions cannot stop there, and insist that God has charged them with the responsibility to stuff their beliefs down everyone else's throat.

Early this week here in Australia, I watched a current affairs group discussion in stem-cell research, which is on hold here for now. It was so obvious that religion was the common factor in all those resisting stem-cell research. Their thinking was made more visible by a young woman who was arguing that if 'we' accepted stem cell research, within no time, we would be prepared to canabalize 2 year old infants for their body parts.

Ah, the old slippery slope argument!

The fear that much religious thinking instills and promotes is not rational, but worse is rooted in fear and ignorance.

Daryl

helemon

11th October 2006, 09:13 PM

But if faith systems never evolved, do we really believe that people wouldn't still find a reason to be prejudiced? To be hateful? To be hurtful? I hardly think so.

I agree. I think people can be mean and hateful with or without religion. I think in both cases the emotions stem from fear. Fear that the other person will have power over them, fear that the other persons ideas will gain more favor, fear that the other person is in fact better than them. It is the fact that we must compete for limited resources in order to survive that can motivate some to feel like they need to attach those not like them. Fortunately, there are some who realize that by working together we can develop ways to stretch our resources so that more of us can survive and thrive.

skeptic

11th October 2006, 11:14 PM

Here's a good example:
From The Life and Confessions of John D. Lee
Written by John D. Lee, May 17, 1877

We agreed upon the whole thing, how each one should act, and then left the iron works, and went to Haight's house and, got breakfast.
After breakfast I got ready to start, and Haight said to me:
"Go, Brother Lee, and see that the instructions of those in authority are obeyed, and as you are dutiful in this, so shall your reward be in the kingdom of God, for God will bless those who willingly obey counsel, and make all things fit for the people in these last days."
Unless emigrants have a pass from Brigham Young, or some one in authority, they will certainly never get safely through this country."
My reply pleased him very much, and he laughed heartily, and then said,
"Do you really believe the brethren would make it lively for such a train?"
I said, "Yes, sir, I know they will, unless they are protected by a pass, and I wish to inform you that unless you want every train captured that comes through here, you must inform Governor Young that if he wants emigrants to pass, without being molested, he must send orders to that effect to Colonel Wm. H. Dame or Major Isaac C. Haight, so that they can give passes to the emigrants, for their passes will insure safety, but nothing else will, except the positive orders of Governor Young, as the people are all bitter against the Gentiles, and full of religious zeal, and anxious to avenge the blood of the Prophets."
I have always believed, since that day, that General George A. Smith was then visiting Southern Utah to prepare the people for the work of exterminating Captain Fancher's train of emigrants, and I now believe that he was sent for that purpose by the direct command of Brigham Young.
Major Higbee reported as follows: "It is the orders of the President, that all the emigrants must be put out of the way. President Haight has counseled with Colonel Dame, or has had orders from him to put all of the emigrants out of the way; none who are old enough to talk are to be spared."
He then went on and said substantially that the emigrants had come through the country as our enemies, and as the enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That they had no pass from any one in authority to permit them to leave the Territory. That none but friends were permitted to leave the Territory, and that as these were our sworn enemies, they must be killed. That they were nothing but a portion of Johnston's army. That if they were allowed to go on to California, they would raise the war cloud in the West, and bring certain destruction upon all the settlements in Utah. That the only safety for the people was in the utter destruction of the whole rascally lot.
Many of the brethren spoke in the same way, all arguing that the orders must be carried out. I was then told the plan of action had been agreed upon, and it was this: The emigrants were to be decoyed from their strong-hold under a promise of protection. Brother William Bateman was to carry a flag of truce and demand a parley, and then I was to go and arrange the terms of the surrender. I was to demand that all the children who were so young they could not talk should be put into a wagon, and the wounded were also to be put into a wagon. Then all the arms and ammunition of the emigrants should be put into a wagon, and I was to agree that the Mormons would protect the emigrants from the Indians and conduct them to Cedar City in safety, where they should be protected until an opportunity came for sending them to California. It was agreed that when I had made the full agreement and treaty, as the brethren called it, the wagons should start for Hamblin's Ranch with the arms, the wounded and the children. The women were to march on foot and follow the wagons in single file; the men were to follow behind the women, they also to march in single file. Major John M. Higbee was to stand with his militia company about two hundred yards from the camp, and stand in double file, open order, with about twenty feet space between the files, so that the wagons could pass between them. The drivers were to keep right along, and not stop at the troops. The women were not to stop there, but to follow the wagons. The troops were to halt the men for a few minutes, until the women were some distance ahead, out into the cedars, where the Indians were hid in ambush. Then the march was to be resumed, the troops to form in single file, each soldier to walk by an emigrant, and on the right-hand side of his man, and the soldier was to carry his gun on his left arm, ready for instant use. The march was to continue until the wagons had passed beyond the ambush of the Indians, and until the women were right in the midst of the Indians. Higbee was then to give the orders and words, "Do Your Duty." At this the troops were to shoot down the men; the Indians were to kill all of the women and larger children, and the drivers of the wagons and I were to kill the wounded and sick men that were in the wagons.
I was now satisfied that it was the wish of all of the Mormon priesthood to have the thing done. One reason for thinking so was that it was in keeping with the teachings of the leaders, and as Utah was then at war with the United States we believed all the Gentiles were to be killed as a war measure, and that the Mormons, as God's chosen people, were to hold and inhabit the earth and rule and govern the globe. Another, and one of my strongest reasons for believing that the leaders wished the thing done, was on account of the talk that I had with George A. Smith, which I have given in full in this statement. I was satisfied that Smith had passed the emigrants while on his way from Salt Lake City, and I then knew this was the train that he meant when he spoke of a train that would make threats and ill-treat our people, etc.
The people were in the full blaze of the reformation and anxious to do some act that would add to their reputation as zealous Churchmen.
After breakfast we all went back in a body to the Meadows, to bury the dead and take care of the property that was left there.
When we reached the Meadows we all rode up to that part of the field where the women were lying dead. The bodies of men, women and children had been stripped entirely naked, making the scene one of the most loathsome and ghastly that can be imagined.

SoUtSkeptic

Jeff_Ricks

12th October 2006, 06:09 AM

So while I agree that there are examples of good people of faith who have done a great deal of harm in the name of their subjective beliefs, I would argue that there are also people who lack faith who are equally as capable of creating such harm on the basis of their cold, objective conclusions.

I don't believe it is religion that causes people to hurt one another. It's people who insist on being harmful to one another, and they find whatever reason they can to justify their behavior. If their differing faith is a good enough reason, they'll use it. But if faith systems never evolved, do we really believe that people wouldn't still find a reason to be prejudiced? To be hateful? To be hurtful? I hardly think so.

For my part, I am grateful to the chemists, who can tell me the composition of the paint. And I am grateful to the many different artists, who can tell me what they each see, and what it means to them. And I am grateful for the freedom, and the mind, to draw my own, unique conclusions based on the information I glean from both chemsists AND artists.While faith and an appreciation of aesthetics are both subjective, I think that's about all they have in common. Hate and delusions are also subjective. I’m sure you’ll agree that just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's benign and should be left alone. I think we need to recognize that Islam, Judaism and Christianity all stem from the same ancient origins and have a sorry track record of hate, murder and oppression. Left unchecked by reason and objectivity they almost always seem to devolve into hateful delusions. The more progressive, benign religions – those that are better examples of faith – I think are benign because they include a healthy dose of objectivity to keep them in check. While there might be some examples where cold objectivity has produced hate, I think religion is by far the greater cause.

Jeff

Jeff_Ricks

12th October 2006, 06:37 AM

While faith and an appreciation of aesthetics are both subjective, I think that's about all they have in common. Hate and delusions are also subjective. I’m sure you’ll agree that just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's benign and should be left alone. I think we need to recognize that Islam, Judaism and Christianity all stem from the same ancient origins and have a sorry track record of hate, murder and oppression. Left unchecked by reason and objectivity they almost always seem to devolve into hateful delusions. The more progressive, benign religions – those that are better examples of faith – I think are benign because they include a healthy dose of objectivity to keep them in check. While there might be some examples where cold objectivity has produced hate, I think religion is by far the greater cause.

Jeff
I was sent a couple of good quotes this morning that pertain to this discussion:

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope."
-- Thomas Edison

helemon

12th October 2006, 07:59 AM

I was sent a couple of good quotes this morning that pertain to this discussion:

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope."
-- Thomas Edison

Why doesn't the religious right quote Tom Jefferson more when talking about the Christian foundation of our Nation? Hmmmmm :D

peter_mary

12th October 2006, 09:01 AM

I think there are a couple of things worth mentioning at this juncture.

First, I think we need to be careful about lumping all believers into the category of zealots. While it is the zealots who are most harmful (and they ARE harmful), I think the vast majority of the world's populace finds meaning in their world in the context of some sort of subjective belief system. And personally, my experience with the vast majority of people, is that they good, nice, helpful people. I think it is first and formost in our nature as human beings to cooperate with one another. It's how we've evolved to be so successful. Unfortunately, it's the fanatics of the world who are like the few little slivers on the boardwalk of the planet...they may be relatively few, but they are what you notice as you shuffle along and get one stuck in your foot.

The animosity we feel toward's each other seems to be more an aberation, albeit a common one, that I think is the result of increasing proximity and diminishing resources (like what Helemon was saying), with the occassional megalomaniac thrown in the mix like Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great, Constantine and Adolf Hitler who just felt like taking over the world for the hell of it.

Religion seems to give color and shape to some of that animosity, but I don't actually believe it is the source.

Now, I also don't want to leave the impression that I encourage people to believe in fiction. If you know something to be fictional, you would be a fool to adhere to it. People who claim to believe in "The Force", or who might read "The Hobbit" as a form of scripture probably need to have their heads examined. The authors of those books never claimed anything more than to be fictional writers.

I'm afraid I have to throw the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants into that category of fiction... Still, that's not to imply that people who believe in those Mormon scriptures are fools. To the contrary, many are bright, capable people who simply lack the context with which to draw different conclusions about those books. And within those stories, they are able to find meaningful ideas that help inform their world in a way they appreciate.

But really, that's just a diversion from what I think my real point is. And that is simply this: We ought to be very careful whenever we claim to be able to identify objective truth versus subjective truth. I will stand here all day and argue that objectivity as a human being is simply not possible. Anything we skeptics claim to "know" based on our "objective facts" is actually nothing more than "hypotheses" based on the best "models" we currently have available, "interpreted" through the "paradigmatic lenses" we each, individually, wear as a result of our "personal experience." There's no way out of that. And so, despite what we claim to know, we really DON'T know...we believe. We believe strongly.

And we are, therefore, no different than the ones we label "the believer". We just believe differently. And it turns out, we believe very strongly in our convictions! We rely on what we trust--evidence that makes sense to us--to inform those beliefs. But how is that different from the believer? They just trust different evidence, something encountered more in the "heart space", perhaps, than in the "brain space." The skeptics only value brain space. But if heart space is such an important part of the human experience, shouldn't it also be allowed at the table of evidence? Subjective experience is still valid, even if it cannot be replicated in a laboratory.

Science and industry have done some cruel things in the absence of an appreciation for the "meaning" of living things. Animal testing, some medical research, Nazi experiments on Jews, the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction, the careless treatment of our planet...these are not merely the products of "zealous religious fanatics." These are often done according to the best science available for the time, the best "objective ideas" of the day, and they result in devastation or demoralization.

My message in this thread is really simply this. I think we are playing the wrong game when we try to distinguish the correctness of being a skeptic over being a believer. It serves to divide...something I escaped when I left Mormonism. The game I think we should be playing (which is, I think, part of what Skeptic was asking Wes), is how do we understand better the myriad of perspectives that exist out there? There is power and beauty in religion. Their is also the potential for great harm. Likewise, their power and beauty in science...with the same potential for great harm.

But hell...what do I know? :p

Jeff_Ricks

12th October 2006, 11:30 AM

Well, PM, I have to challenge you on a number of ideas you've expressed because I'm not quite on the same page, but maybe I'm on the wrong page. :)

I think there are a couple of things worth mentioning at this juncture.

First, I think we need to be careful about lumping all believers into the category of zealots. While it is the zealots who are most harmful (and they ARE harmful), I think the vast majority of the world's populace finds meaning in their world in the context of some sort of subjective belief system. And personally, my experience with the vast majority of people, is that they good, nice, helpful people. I think it is first and formost in our nature as human beings to cooperate with one another. It's how we've evolved to be so successful. Unfortunately, it's the fanatics of the world who are like the few little slivers on the boardwalk of the planet...they may be relatively few, but they are what you notice as you shuffle along and get one stuck in your foot.I agree that most people in the world want to do good and be good. Only a tiny fraction are the zealots. But the zealots would be nothing if they didn’t have the blind support of the gullible masses who are so easily fooled by the zealots into thinking their cause is the just cause. Where religion fails the good people of the world is when it conditions them to be, as Thomas Jefferson stated, gullible. In their gullible, accepting state they are easily used by the otherwise insignificant zealots of the world who are skilled at manipulating the masses into backing an evil cause. History is full of such examples.

I'm afraid I have to throw the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants into that category of fiction... Still, that's not to imply that people who believe in those Mormon scriptures are fools. To the contrary, many are bright, capable people who simply lack the context with which to draw different conclusions about those books. And within those stories, they are able to find meaningful ideas that help inform their world in a way they appreciate. If the meaning and purpose that people find in a religion is not rationally based then that meaning and purpose is delusional, isn't it?

But really, that's just a diversion from what I think my real point is. And that is simply this: We ought to be very careful whenever we claim to be able to identify objective truth versus subjective truth. I will stand here all day and argue that objectivity as a human being is simply not possible. Anything we skeptics claim to "know" based on our "objective facts" is actually nothing more than "hypotheses" based on the best "models" we currently have available, "interpreted" through the "paradigmatic lenses" we each, individually, wear as a result of our "personal experience." There's no way out of that. And so, despite what we claim to know, we really DON'T know...we believe. We believe strongly.

And we are, therefore, no different than the ones we label "the believer". We just believe differently. And it turns out, we believe very strongly in our convictions! We rely on what we trust--evidence that makes sense to us--to inform those beliefs. But how is that different from the believer? They just trust different evidence, something encountered more in the "heart space", perhaps, than in the "brain space." The skeptics only value brain space. But if heart space is such an important part of the human experience, shouldn't it also be allowed at the table of evidence? Subjective experience is still valid, even if it cannot be replicated in a laboratory.I agree that when it comes right down to it, there is no such thing as objective truth, and because it doesn’t exist I see it as mute relative to any discussions on cause and effect, action and reaction, truth and error, right and wrong. But I think you'll agree that there is such a thing as relative truth. If I’m chopping wood and cut off my thumb I could argue that my thumb isn’t really chopped off because what is a thumb anyway? It’s nothing but atoms made of up of protons, neutrons, and electrons that are made up of quarks etc., so the truth is there is no thumb which means that nothing has been chopped off! But damn, my hand sure hurts, because in the context of the reality I exist in my thumb has been chopped off, leaving me with the consequences of what I’ll call relative truth, which for all practical purposes is truth, and is what I mean when I speak of truth. I think it's fair to say that 90% of the world is on the losing end of relative truth. Because relative truth exists and because we can't escape its consequences, I think it's our responsibility to make reasoned decisions based on relative truth in order to make the world a better, more tolerable place for everyone. If in the context of relative truth, religion (or fear, ignorance and gullibility that encouraged by religion) is behind much of the suffering in the world, then I think we have the responsibility to say so and takes steps to correct it.

Science and industry have done some cruel things in the absence of an appreciation for the "meaning" of living things. Animal testing, some medical research, Nazi experiments on Jews, the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction, the careless treatment of our planet...these are not merely the products of "zealous religious fanatics." These are often done according to the best science available for the time, the best "objective ideas" of the day, and they result in devastation or demoralization. Animal testing: Is it not the result of the religiously based arrogance of man thinking that he is above the animals and therefore can do as he pleases to them? “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’ ” (Genesis 1:27-28) I think it's generally the non-religious who are the champions of animal rights. That's been my experience.

Nazi experiments on Jews: I think you’ll agree that Hitler used religiously based bigotry against the Jews to manipulate the populous into allowing his genocide and experiments of the Jews. I also think you’ll agree that his experiments were based on an irrational assumption of Aryan superiority, and very little on rational science.

Weapons of mass destruction: While the development of weapons are the result of science and engineering, I think it’s true that the motivation to develop them is based on an irrational, fear and paranoia that is often religiously based.

Careless treatment of our planet: I think that this too is based on an arrogant belief that the planet is ours to do with as we please “Let us make man…and let them rule over…all the earth…” then God will press the reset button when he comes any day now to start the game over.

As I see it, religion doesn't cause good people to knowingly to bad things, instead it blinds people into a state where they are easily manipulated by the few who do knowingly do bad things.

In short, irrational thinking, that religion encourages, opens the door for the zealots. Rational thinking helps to keep that door shut.

Jeff

peter_mary

12th October 2006, 02:23 PM

Nah, you're not on the wrong page...it's just DIFFERENT pages, and that, my friend, is part of the point! There's so many different, and valid ways of looking at things. :)

Here's what I was thinking about while I went for a walk at lunchtime today while the oil was being changed in my car. I was pondering your point about "relevent" truth, pertaining in particular to the thumb that gets whacked by an axe.

It seems to me that another way of looking at this issue is in terms of "Specific truth," i.e. "exactly what just happened to ME", versus "Generalizeable Truth," or "what does it mean in the big picture of things."

Those are VASTLY different issues. And it's not unlike what we're talking about in terms of the garden in the original post, or my discussion earlier about the Mona Lisa.

See, we can make factual, "truth" statements on a specific instance at a gross level. "A thumb was cut off. It hurt me." "Some plants grew in a meadow. Weeds and flowers." "A woman's portrait was painted. She is smiling." No one would rationaly argue the "truthfullness" of those statements.

But we actually fail to appreciate the rich diversity and complexity of the human experience if we LIMIT the experience of each of those to that which is factually observable. What does it MEAN that a thumb was cut off and why? How is that interpreted by the amputee and why? Were there cultural reasons for cutting off a thumb? What are the long-term consequences for losing a thumb? How does the person feel about themselves now in the absence of a limb and why? How will others perceive a 9-fingered person and why? Would a woman feel differently than a man? Why? A Saudi feel differently than a Canadian? Why? Would you feel different than me? Why? And yes, a Christian or Muslim feel differently than an athiest? If a man in Ethiopia cuts off his thumb to assuage his guilt over the death of his son, is he wrong? Is he stupid? Does it work for him? Why? It doesn't work for ME...but am I right? Am I smarter? Does it work better for me to keep my thumb? What are the factors that influence thought process in such a case? Where do they come from?

None of that can be described in rational, objective terms, and all of it is perfectly reasonable to explore.

See, all I'm saying is that there is no way to avoid layers and layers of meaning that the human mind ascribes to events. You do it, I do it, we all do it. But like every other good, normal human being, we place a higher value on the layers WE see, and a lesser value on the layers OTHERS see.

Religious belief has its place in the world expressly because people believe that it adds value to their life. And I can't argue with that. It doesn't add value to MY life, but I'm damn sure positive that my world view would leave many a believer in a state of utter depression. So who's smarter? Who's right? Who has access to the truth?

Beats the hell out of me.

See, the "truth" is in fact infinitely complex. Taking for example each of the instances I cited and you refuted regarding the cruelties of science of industry absent God, your point is well taken...and so is mine. The reason is that the reality of the situation is such that it is almost impossible to tease apart the various cultural influences, religious influences, and scientific influences in each of those examples. We can postulate that animal research is conducted because man believes himself to have dominion over the animals, but that is only one possibility...and may only apply to some researchers. It's probably a LOT more complex than that. We can postulate that the destruction of the rainforests comes from the mindset that, "I might as well get while the gettin's good, 'cuz tomorrow Jesus comes and it's all gone burn anyway!", but again, that's only one possibility that might exist in some people's minds, but there are countless others.

We all are believers. Skeptics and religious folks alike. We simply choose to direct our adoration and faith on radically different paradigms, but make no mistake...it ultimately comes down to what we choose to believe.

Thus it is, yeah and verily, the gospel according to Peter_Mary!

:duck:

::crawls back to cave in outer darkness::

Jeff_Ricks

12th October 2006, 04:22 PM

We all are believers. Skeptics and religious folks alike. We simply choose to direct our adoration and faith on radically different paradigms, but make no mistake...it ultimately comes down to what we choose to believe.Are you suggesting that there is no basis for making qualitative judgements of any paradigm, so why try? If so I have to disagree. In fact I would go so far to say that it is irresponsible if we don’t make certain qualitative judgements. I can recognize that within the gamut of possible paradigms one paradigm might treat the sexual exploitation of children as a norm. I can appreciate the diversity that such a paradigm helps to bring about but I think that it would be irresponsible of me to knowingly allow such an unhealthy paradigm to continue when it is within my power to do something to put a stop to it.

Likewise, I can recognize that within the gamut of possible paradigms, one paradigm, a religion for instance, might treat the exploitation people as a norm – the typical Lord/servant paradigm, for instance, that most religions are based on. I can appreciate the diversity that such a paradigm helps to bring about but I think that it would be irresponsible of me to knowingly allow such an unhealthy paradigm to continue when it is within my power to do something to put a stop to it.

The child might not realize that they are being exploited, having been raised to think of their exploitation as just the way things are. Likewise the religious adherent might not realize that they are being exploited, having been raised to think of their exploitation as just the way things are. They both might even find a way to tolerate their exploitation -- such as invent an "endure it to the end" concept to help them deal with it. They might even convince themselves that it adds value to their life.

If you're suggesting that I should let the religious adherent believe what they want then I should also let the child believe the same, and turn away and just let it be.

So, again, are you suggesting that there is no basis for making qualitative judgements of any paradigm, so why try?

Jeff

helemon

12th October 2006, 08:10 PM

The game I think we should be playing (which is, I think, part of what Skeptic was asking Wes), is how do we understand better the myriad of perspectives that exist out there? There is power and beauty in religion. Their is also the potential for great harm. Likewise, their power and beauty in science...with the same potential for great harm.

I guess what we need to ask then is whether or not it is important for society to have a way to rationalize explore truth and is it important to help people avoid people and organizations that exploit them, encourage them to be ignorant, intolerant, and on top of it all feel bad about themselves. Yes religions do some good but at what cost.

I have been reading Dawkins God Delusion. He talks about how Gould tried to draw a line between science and religion. Science he argues studies how the heavens go while religion studies how to go to heaven. This all sounds fine except for the fact that religion is constantly sticking its nose into matters of science such as the age of the earth and evolution and passing laws on what science can study. I am sure that religious people feel that science is always butting into their domain as well by creating theories about how the universe was created, and performing healing miracles and disproving the power of prayer (or in fact discovering that prayer actually harms people as one recent study found).

I have said before that I do not see science and religion as dichtomous. Scientific inquiry has emerged from our earliest religious traditions as man has continued to try and make sense of his world. I do not agree that religion has sole claim over matters of the heart. I think scientists pursue their research with great passion and feeling that is at least as strong or stronger than that of a person who believes in a religion.

Also, why do we assume that the less we know about a topic the less artistic or poetic it becomes? I think Dawkins addresses this assumption in his book Unraveling the Rainbow. Why is it better to spread belief in fairy tales and unfounded theories than to have a deep appreciation for the beauty found in the complexity and mysteries of nature?

I understand where you are coming from with this, but I disagree that science squashes a diversity of opinions or interpretations. Quite the opposite. It is more often religion that squashes dissent and diversity. Science on the other hand requires it. Without dissent and questioning science would not progress. The major difference is that science requires extensive in depth knowledge of topics and does not tolerate simple unfounded beliefs. Anyone can put forth their ideas but they better be able to back them up with a solid foundation of evidence if they want others to adopt their ideas. Religion on the other hand offers simple answers that a child can learn and then uses fear, guilt, peer pressure, and false hopes to get people to conform.

helemon

12th October 2006, 08:21 PM

I can appreciate the diversity that such a paradigm helps to bring about but I think that it would be irresponsible of me to knowingly allow such an unhealthy paradigm to continue when it is within my power to do something to put a stop to it.

Dawkins tells the story of a couple who wanted to protest an upcoming revival by a faith healer who told people he "healed" to throw away their medications. These people went to the police to try and legally get permission to demonstrate outside the revival and warn people not to believe this man when he told them to stop taking their medicine. The police he talked to refused to allow them to protest this mans revival meeting and said they were going to attend and would spit on these people and beat them up if they showed up to protest.

It is unfortunate that we have all sorts of laws to protect people from fraudulant businesses but if that business claims to be a religion there is no recourse against their deceptive, fraudulant or harmful practices. That is something that needs to change.

wescape

12th October 2006, 09:48 PM

Wescape I’m not in for a debate either just understanding your point of view and where it comes from. If I understand correctly you embrace the complexity theories as proposed by Behe and Dembski.

I wonder without empirical evidence how we are to know whether or not the existence of a ‘Creator’ is subjective. (Being that our belief only exists in our mind)

I am puzzled however by your answer to my second question of falsifiability. (That it must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the ‘Believers’ claim false) You responded: “only if one is trying to disprove the Believer's claim.” Could you please clarify. As much as possible, for me, to be true to myself there needs to be empirical evidence. Should the ‘Believer’ be accountable in providing empirical evidence to support his claim to anyone who should ask for it? Your response would be appreciated.

The following thoughts might tend to hi-jack my original post. Here in Southern Utah the majority of counseling psychologists of course are LDS. In researching for a cause and treatment of homosexuality (needed to hear both sides) I called LDS social services I found them to promote the so called Reparative therapy treatment through Evergreen. According to the APA (mainstream psychology) this therapy is in effect a snake oil therapy. Further inquiring, I asked LDS Social services and Evergreen if they did any 5 year follow up studies to see if Reparative Therapy actually worked and also if they first checked to see if any of their clients were bisexual. The answer I received was NO. I found nearly all of LDS social services psychologists were members of the APA. Yet those I’ve talked to seemed to fully embrace this therapy, even with it being at odds with mainstream psychology. I understand that insurance companies now will not now pay for therapy unless it is evidence based/outcome based therapy. I’ve talked with several gay people and have learned of the harm that can come from this therapy. With my rambling I guess my point if there is one, that good men of faith can cause harm to people with their subjective beliefs. That evidence based reasoning holds people accountable.

SoUtSkeptic

Hey SoUtSkeptic,

Yes, I do embrace what Behe and Dembski have to say about complexity.

As PM (whom I wholehreatedly agree with by the way) pointed out in his response to Jeff, everything is subjective which obviously includes belief in the existence of a creator.

As for evidence of a creator, I believe it is all around us. This may not be empirical evidence, but Darwinism lacks that too(particularly Macro-Evolution) in my opinion (In other words, there was not anyone around to observe the proposed change between species).

With regard to your final comments, I am not familiar with the therapy you're speaking of. But as PM also pointed out in the same response to Jeff, both faith and science can have their downsides. However, I also agree with Helemon that faith and science are not dichotomous and that scientific inquiry has emerged from our earliest faith traditions as man has continued to try and make sense of his world. I personally believe that Darwinism is bad science that has been embraced by the majority of the scientific world.

Wes

peter_mary

12th October 2006, 10:46 PM

Are you suggesting that there is no basis for making qualitative judgements of any paradigm, so why try?

Jeff
No, I think what I'm saying is that ultimately, we can't HELP but make qualitative judgements. We all do.

I'm not suggesting that we can't agree that some practices are simply not okay. In fact, we have vast bodies of law for just that purpose.

What I'm saying, and maybe not very well, is that we are wise to understand that we are ALL believers, we just choose to believe different things. Failing to recognize that, the skeptic might be inclined to miss the vast richness of the human experience, including much of what religion, spirituality, culture, etc. bring to the table.

And...I'm saying that it's a slippery slope when we claim to "know" that our perspective is superior to someone elses. That's what Osama bin Laden and his boys believed when they flew planes into buildings. And that's what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield believe when they act like global bullies. EVERYONE is acting according to the best information they have. The BELIEVE in their paradigm.

We have to draw lines...of course we do...but I'm also suggesting that we needn't draw those lines TOO tight, and deny the artist's interpretation of the Mona Lisa.

That's all I'm saying...

peter_mary

12th October 2006, 11:05 PM

I have said before that I do not see science and religion as dichtomous. Scientific inquiry has emerged from our earliest religious traditions as man has continued to try and make sense of his world. I do not agree that religion has sole claim over matters of the heart. I think scientists pursue their research with great passion and feeling that is at least as strong or stronger than that of a person who believes in a religion.

Also, why do we assume that the less we know about a topic the less artistic or poetic it becomes? I think Dawkins addresses this assumption in his book Unraveling the Rainbow. Why is it better to spread belief in fairy tales and unfounded theories than to have a deep appreciation for the beauty found in the complexity and mysteries of nature?

It must be my day to stir the pot, and to be unclear.

I'm not intending to say anything different than what you've said above. My point, however, is that OFTEN science avoids the questions of "meaning" and focuses more on the questions of mechanics. We can measure the mechanics, but the meaning is elusive...and paradigm driven. In fact, I think science RECOGNIZES this fact, and that's in part why they stay away from that realm (well, I'm generalizing here...), because meaning is subjective and cannot be measured or described according to the scientific method.

The human experience is broader than facts, however, and despite the beauty of those facts, or the beauty of the mechanics (I just got back from admiring some of Southern Utah's most spectacular "mechanics" in red-rock country...more on that later), there is also much richness to be observed, and appreciated, in the aspects of the human experience that are ineffable. The "believer" may in fact prefer that realm.

I don't see religious people as gullible. I see SOME religious people that way, but then, I think we ALL get the wool pulled over our eyes from time to time. Exhibit A is the current war in Iraq, with it's budding twin in North Korea.

Human beings experiment...that's what we do. That's how we've evolved. We experiment with religion, with tradition, with politics, with philosophy, with technology...we're constantly exploring the universe and how we relate to it. We're all subject to fall victim at one time or another to a fad or idea du jour, only to find out later that we couldn't have been more wrong. That's how we learn.

The fact that religion and spirituality have been around as long as they have suggests that we are still learning, as a species, from that line of experimentation. As Jeff pointed out earlier, that line of experimentation MAY be running it's course. More and more people are growing weary of it and exploring new territory. I expect that's why Eastern philosophy is becoming so much more popular in the west these days, as people continue to seek meaning, but traditional religion with all it's baggage just ain't cuttin' it anymore for them.

Anyway, I've probably talked myself into circles here, and hear myself repeating the same things over and over, so I probably better go to bed. In the end...as usual...I expect we really aren't very far apart on this. It's just been interesting to test the boundaries, eh?

Jeff_Ricks

13th October 2006, 06:29 AM

I personally believe that Darwinism is bad science that has been embraced by the majority of the scientific world.This looks to me like a pot calling the kettle black, Wes. Science that doesn't have all the blanks filled in yet (which is pretty much all science) is better than no science at all.

"In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state. 'We have concluded that it is not [science],...To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions,' "

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

Jeff_Ricks

13th October 2006, 07:35 AM

What I'm saying, and maybe not very well, is that we are wise to understand that we are ALL believers, we just choose to believe different things.I agree that we are all believers, and what we think is "true" is based on what we choose to believe. I guess it comes down to how what we choose to believe relates to the world we find ourselves in. If our belief bears little resemblence to what we observe in the world around us then that belief is somewhere near the delusional end of the scale of beliefs. If what we choose to believe is a good predictor of how the world we live in behaves then what we believe is somewhere near the reality end of the scale. ;)

Jeff

helemon

13th October 2006, 07:42 AM

I agree that we are all believers, and what we think is "true" is based on what we choose to believe. I guess it comes down to how what we choose to believe relates to the world we find ourselves in. If our belief bears little resemblence to what we observe in the world around us then that belief is somewhere near the delusional end of the scale of beliefs. If what we choose to believe is a good predictor of how the world we live in behaves then what we believe is somewhere near the reality end of the scale. ;)

Jeff

Also, there is a problem if people toward the delusional end start legislating their beliefs and imposing them on others.

helemon

13th October 2006, 07:45 AM

This looks to me like a pot calling the kettle black, Wes. Science that doesn't have all the blanks filled in yet (which is pretty much all science) is better than no science at all.

If Darwin should not be believed because of a few gaps then Christianity should have been abandoned long ago. Evolution has far more evidence backing it up than any of the stories contained in the bible. So if a few missing pieces are enough reason for Christians to reject evolution then they need to toss their bible in the dust bin.

helemon

13th October 2006, 07:48 AM

We have to draw lines...of course we do...but I'm also suggesting that we needn't draw those lines TOO tight, and deny the artist's interpretation of the Mona Lisa.

That's all I'm saying...

I agree. I think the problem arises when people are unwilling to look at alternatives or address conflicting evidence. Also when someone elses beliefs are harming other people then we need to seriously question those beliefs.

helemon

13th October 2006, 07:54 AM

The fact that religion and spirituality have been around as long as they have suggests that we are still learning, as a species, from that line of experimentation. As Jeff pointed out earlier, that line of experimentation MAY be running it's course.

Could it be that religion has been around for so long because it impedes learning and exploration? It gets people caught in a cognitive trap where they think they have all the answers and so don't need to try and figure out how the universe works? They believe that God is in charge of everything and his ways are inscrutable so why bother? Could it be that our rapidly developing technology based society is what is forcing people to reexamine the paradigms offered by religion? Could it be the fact that kids today need to have a basic understanding of how the world works and of other cultures that is causing them to realize that the traditions of their parents are not the only paradigm out their? Could it be that globalization is forcing us to learn about and respect other traditions and thus be more likely to question our own?

helemon

13th October 2006, 08:03 AM

(In other words, there was not anyone around to observe the proposed change between species).

So Wes do you also reject the ability of CSI investigators to look at a crime scene and piece together a rough estimation of what happened? How do you explain the clear branching structure of fossils?
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/timeline.html

Do you deny that there is such a thing as genetic variation? Do you look identical to your father? Why not? Why is it so impossible to believe that those small generational changes could over long periods of time create a completely different animal? Have you read Dawkins Ancestors Tale? In it he has a chart showing where each species connects back to the original tree of all life going all the way back to single cell organisms.

wescape

13th October 2006, 08:22 AM

So Wes do you also reject the ability of CSI investigators to look at a crime scene and piece together a rough estimation of what happened? How do you explain the clear branching structure of fossils?
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/timeline.html

Do you deny that there is such a thing as genetic variation? Do you look identical to your father? Why not? Why is it so impossible to believe that those small generational changes could over long periods of time create a completely different animal? Have you read Dawkins Ancestors Tale? In it he has a chart showing where each species connects back to the original tree of all life going all the way back to single cell organisms.

Hey Helemon,

As I've already said a few times in this thread, resuming the debate about this is not my intention. I am fine acknowledging that Darwinism could be true, I just don't personally believe it is. Likewise, I have always been perfectly okay acknowledging that Christianity could be false, I just don't personally believe it is.

Wes

helemon

13th October 2006, 09:17 AM

Hey Helemon,

As I've already said a few times in this thread, resuming the debate about this is not my intention. I am fine acknowledging that Darwinism could be true, I just don't personally believe it is. Likewise, I have always been perfectly okay acknowledging that Christianity could be false, I just don't personally believe it is.

Wes

Ok, just so long as you hold the bible up to the same measure as the other models. That I think was my point. It seems ridiculous to say Darwinism isn't true because no one "saw it happen" even though there is a ton of archeological evidence while saying the bible miracles are true because a few people claimed that they saw the miracles but there is little evidence to back up their claim.

Jeff_Ricks

13th October 2006, 09:22 AM

If our belief bears little resemblence to what we observe in the world around us then that belief is somewhere near the delusional end of the scale of beliefs. If what we choose to believe is a good predictor of how the world we live in behaves then what we believe is somewhere near the reality end of the scale.I also think there is plenty of evidence showing that beliefs that fall near the reality end of the spectrum are more beneficial for humanity than those that near the delusional end. I suppose art falls somewhere in the middle. :)

Jeff

wescape

13th October 2006, 09:55 AM

Ok, just so long as you hold the bible up to the same measure as the other models. That I think was my point. It seems ridiculous to say Darwinism isn't true because no one "saw it happen" even though there is a ton of archeological evidence while saying the bible miracles are true because a few people claimed that they saw the miracles but there is little evidence to back up their claim.

The only reason I mentioned the fact that no one saw Macro-Evolution take place was to show SoUtskeptic that Macro-Evolution lacks the same kind of empirical evidence he wanted me to produce for Christianity. Additionally, I personally do not find the "ton of archaeological evidence" that you mentioned very compelling. But in the words of PM, "What the hell do I know?"

Wes

Jeff_Ricks

13th October 2006, 10:25 AM

Additionally, I personally do not find the "ton of archaeological evidence" that you mentioned very compelling.Man has been aware of gravity for probably hundreds of thousands of years but still doesn't fully understand the mechanism of gravity, but only a fool will deny the existence of gravity.

The evidence in support of macroevolution is nearly as extensive and conclusive as the evidence for the existence of gravity. The evidence permeates the fossil record, whether or not one chooses to acknowledge it, but like gravity we don't yet fully understand the mechanism for macroevolution. There are problems with Darwin's proposed mechanism. There are problems with the Lamarckian mechanism. There are problems with Gould's mechanism. Creationists and intelligent design advocates have used those problems as an excuse to deny something that is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that to deny it is, in my opinion, like denying the existence of gravity, which is ludicrous, especially when their proposed origin of life is God's magic wand.

The link below looks like a good summary of the evidence that is in support of macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Jeff

jamech

13th October 2006, 11:16 AM

Wow! I've been following this thread with great interest and first I have to say that I really appreciate the time and thought you all have put into your posts, because this discussion has been very pertinent at this particular stage in my journey....

As my husband and I have discussed various possibilities about how to work out our differences in a way that would be the best for the kids we've come up with a few scenarios:

1. My husband could leave the church, lose his job (he makes a good living), we could show the kids how they've been deceived, move away and start over thus giving the kids a chance to grow up in an environment that allows them freedom of thought and a better chance to actually make choices based on what they personally feel is right (not what they've been told).

This is appealing however there are some pretty heavy consequences associated with it: Peter_Mary says "I'm damn sure positive that my world view would leave many a believer in a state of utter depression." This is the place my husband is in. The thing that drives me most in my life is "truth and reason". The thing that drives my husband is "comfort and security" which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. Everyone is wired differently. He could no more feel comfortable in my world than I could in his... Is it fair to take my husband away from a place where he feels complete and whole? In addition, it's difficult to know how the kids would process it. It's a pretty hard ball we'd be throwing. Are they equipped to handle it? It's difficult enough to deal with the fact that their mom has left the church which is something they've been taught is wrong. They love me deeply, but my ideas frighten them (as you can imagine...they learn in Sunday School that I'm going to spirit prison!)

2. I could suck it up, forget the horrors of the church and focus on the good that it does now. And yes, I believe the church does do some good. It helps people in national disasters, it teaches some nice values, and it provides a community where people feel loved, accepted and secure. If I could somehow come to a place where I could see Mormonism as a legitimate way to live a good life, then maybe it would be possible and keep my family from having to go through a tremendous emotional, spiritual and economic upheaval that, quite frankly, I'm not sure they have the tools to deal with. This is the scenario that my husband and I decided would be best.

Now, one of the big problems with this scenario is that I don't know if it's possible for me to EVER be happy in this kind of environment. It might be possible for me to see Mormonism as a legitimate way to live a good life, but you can be absolutely certain that there is NO WAY any mormon will see MY path as a good one. What will my life be like when my whole community (and family) forever see me as having made a dreadful mistake. My ideas will NEVER be valued. I will ALWAYS be feared. I have to admit, it's kind of hard to take. But I feel that if this is the best thing for my kids, then maybe I can do it. Hopefully I can provide a bridge for my kids if they decide to choose another path and it will be easier for them than it was for me.

Now, no sooner than my husband and I had made this decision I got a phone call from one of the few Mormon friends I've got left. She had just been to a funeral of a Man, a former bishop who, "being influenced" by his wife, had left the church years ago. His wife later became a "Seer" and a healer. As you can imagine, the funeral was quite strange and it freaked my friend out. She called to express her "concern" for my kids.

She pointed out that I seem to be moving further away from the church, not closer, and that I was in grave danger. She also expressed her "deep concern" about my children and pointed out the ways that she thought I was being irresponsible in raising them. She said that if I'm having such a hard time processing what's happening in my life then "what do you think it's doing to the kids! You're an adult! They're just children who need to be protected." I told her that I believe in telling my kids the truth and that it will be up to them to decide how to handle it. She felt that protection and security were much more important and that my kids were being harmed.

Those of you who are parents may have some idea of what this did to me. :eek: I'm OK with someone challenging my ideas, but to have someone suggest that my kids are being irrepairably harmed by my actions is more than I could handle. All my decisions have been based upon careful consideration of all points of view, I've acted with honesty and integrity keeping the best interest of my children as a top priority! This conversation happened day before yesterday. I cried all that night and am still completely shaken by it!

This is where a quote from Jeff comes in:

I can recognize that within the gamut of possible paradigms one paradigm might treat the sexual exploitation of children as a norm. I can appreciate the diversity that such a paradigm helps to bring about but I think that it would be irresponsible of me to knowingly allow such an unhealthy paradigm to continue when it is within my power to do something to put a stop to it.

I'm sure my friend is certain that what I'm doing to my children is along the same lines of sexual exploitation. Her point of view could be viewed as reasonable by many and is certainly seen as reasonable by the vast majority in the church. My kids have been exposed to ideas that are contradictory to what they've been taught and that threaten their security (and their "forever family" :Crazy: ).

Now, lets just say she decides to take it upon herself and put a stop to this to "save" my children. Can you imagine the kind of damage she could cause, believing all the while that she was acting in the very best interest of my children!? I feel that before we consider making a judgment on what we believe is best for someone else, we need to be VERY CAREFUL!!!! I guess maybe it's the whole "walk a mile in someone else's shoes" idea. I would be VERY UNCOMFORTABLE taking it upon myself to decide what is best for someone else no matter what paradigm they happen to be aligned with.

Jeff_Ricks

13th October 2006, 11:52 AM

Those of you who are parents may have some idea of what this did to me. :eek: I'm OK with someone challenging my ideas, but to have someone suggest that my kids are being irrepairably harmed by my actions is more than I could handle. All my decisions have been based upon careful consideration of all points of view, I've acted with honesty and integrity keeping the best interest of my children as a top priority! This conversation happened day before yesterday. I cried all that night and am still completely shaken by it!
.
.
.
I'm sure my friend is certain that what I'm doing to my children is along the same lines of sexual exploitation. Her point of view could be viewed as reasonable by many and is certainly seen as reasonable by the vast majority in the church. My kids have been exposed to ideas that are contradictory to what they've been taught and that threaten their security (and their "forever family" :Crazy: ).

Now, lets just say she decides to take it upon herself and put a stop to this to "save" my children. Can you imagine the kind of damage she could cause, believing all the while that she was acting in the very best interest of my children!? I feel that before we consider making a judgment on what we believe is best for someone else, we need to be VERY CAREFUL!!!! I guess maybe it's the whole "walk a mile in someone else's shoes" idea. I would be VERY UNCOMFORTABLE taking it upon myself to decide what is best for someone else no matter what paradigm they happen to be aligned with.I think a good yardstick to judge such things by is whom, if anyone, is being taken advantage of. If no one is being taken advantage of by the things that another chooses then I agree, leave it alone. In the case of sexual exploitation, obviously the perpetrator is taking advantage of the one being exploited. In the case of your children, I don't think even your friend could argue that you're taking advantage of your children or exploiting them in anyway, so she should leave it alone. One the other hand and on a slightly different subject, I think most outsiders looking in would agree that the Church exploits and takes advantage of its members. I think when such exploitation is happen and it's within ones power to stop it, we are being irresponsible and even somewhat complicit in the exploitation if we turn a blind eye and deaf ear. I like Megawatt’s signature line along these lines: "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." --Elie Wiesel

...but if there is no tormented and if there is no oppressed, then I agree, leave it alone.

By the way, I've had similar experiences with my Mormon family. A few years ago while at a family thanksgiving get together a brother pulled me off to the side to chastise me about how I was dragging my family down to hell. The interesting thing is the following year or two, at another family gathering he pulled me off to the side, apologized and said he really had no business saying what he did. He also admitted with tears in his eyes that he reacted like he did not out of concern for me of my kids but out of concern for him. Seeing me walk away from Mormonism with such resolve that I’d also encourage my kids to do the same forced him to have to consider his own “testimony” and that made him very uncomfortable. His reading me the riot act was more of a selfish defensive action than one on behalf of my kids. Of course I don't know, but I suspect the same thing is behind what motivated your friend to chastise you.

Jeff

peter_mary

13th October 2006, 01:07 PM

Now, one of the big problems with this scenario is that I don't know if it's possible for me to EVER be happy in this kind of environment.
The above quote, coupled with the following quote:
I'm sure my friend is certain that what I'm doing to my children is along the same lines of sexual exploitation. Her point of view could be viewed as reasonable by many and is certainly seen as reasonable by the vast majority in the church. My kids have been exposed to ideas that are contradictory to what they've been taught and that threaten their security (and their "forever family" :Crazy: ).

Now, lets just say she decides to take it upon herself and put a stop to this to "save" my children. Can you imagine the kind of damage she could cause, believing all the while that she was acting in the very best interest of my children!? I feel that before we consider making a judgment on what we believe is best for someone else, we need to be VERY CAREFUL!!!! I guess maybe it's the whole "walk a mile in someone else's shoes" idea. I would be VERY UNCOMFORTABLE taking it upon myself to decide what is best for someone else no matter what paradigm they happen to be aligned with.
...does a beautiful job of demonstrating exactly what I was saying. Thank you!

See, even the "exploitation" we talk about relative to the Church is an "outside the Church" paradigm. Most very active Church members don't feel in ANY way exploited by the Church...they are happy to give of their time and money because they believe with all their hearts that they are reaping the benefits. It's a cost they willingly pay because they feel blessed, enriched, special, whatever. Is that exploitation?

Well, it might be when you are on the outside, and you see the Church getting fat off the labors of its members. But who's perspective is correct?

Beats the hell out of me...

Your friend (and many, many of us have had similar encounters with well-meaning friends and family members who are worried about us or our children), may have felt utterly duty-bound by what she KNEW to be right to warn you of the problems you are creating. It may have hurt you, (sounds like it did), but it may very well have been coming from a place of love. It just doesn't FEEL like love to the recipient.

Now turn the tables. You might feel equally honor-bound to warn your friend about the exploitation she is experiencing. You would do it out of love, because you KNOW what is right. And it would hurt her in exactly the same way she hurt you.

So who's right?

Beats the hell out of me.

Fortunately, I've had the hell beat out of me so much on this thread that I don't have much left, and after a few more posts, I may very well be escorted away from Outer Darkness...and none of us wants that! :D

Jeff_Ricks

13th October 2006, 01:44 PM

So who's right? Beats the hell out of me.Maybe the issue can be boiled down to this. Do we owe each other the right to have our paradigms? Yes, we do, but I also think we owe it to each other to challenge each others paradigms, because challenging them is the only way we have of keeping our paradigms healthy and the only way we have of collectively bootstrapping ourselves to a higher plane of existence. If we don't then we'll probably end up in another dark age. I think we can agree to that, right? :) Maybe where we disagree is where the proper place is to draw the line and challenge as opposed to let it be. So, let me attempt to list a few examples so you can see where in my mind I draw the line.

1. A person believes in something that I think is irrational, and even harmful to them, but they seem happy. I say let it be.

2. A person believes in something that I think is irrational, and even harmful to them, they seem happy, and they want to promote the paradigm to someone else. I say challenge it.

3. A person believes in something that exploits someone else who doesn't necessarily believe in it. I say challenge it.

4. A person believes in something that exploits someone else who also believes in it, and they both seem happy. Tough call, but lean toward let it be.

5. A person believes in something that exploits someone else who also believes in it, and they both seem happy, but the expoiter is knowingly lying to the exploitee in order to maintain the exploitee's belief. I say challenge it.

So, that's where I'm coming from, and I suppose that none of us are too far apart on where we draw the line. :)

Jeff

peter_mary

13th October 2006, 02:19 PM

Maybe the issue can be boiled down to this. Do we owe each other the right to have our paradigms? Yes, we do, but I also think we owe it to each other to challenge each others paradigms, because challenging them is the only way we have of keeping our paradigms healthy and the only way we have of collectively bootstrapping ourselves to a higher plane of existence. If we don't then we'll probably end up in another dark age. I think we can agree to that, right? :) Maybe where we disagree is where the proper place is to draw the line and challenge as opposed to let it be. So, let me attempt to list a few examples so you can see where in my mind I draw the line.

1. A person believes in something that I think is irrational, and even harmful to them, but they seem happy. I say let it be.

2. A person believes in something that I think is irrational, and even harmful to them, they seem happy, and they want to promote the paradigm to someone else. I say challenge it.

3. A person believes in something that exploits someone else who doesn't necessarily believe in it. I say challenge it.

4. A person believes in something that exploits someone else who also believes in it, and they both seem happy. Tough call, but lean toward let it be.

5. A person believes in something that exploits someone else who also believes in it, and they both seem happy, but the expoiter is knowingly lying to the exploitee in order to maintain the exploitee's belief. I say challenge it.

So, that's where I'm coming from, and I suppose that none of us are too far apart on where we draw the line. :)

Jeff
I think we are in agreement, mi amigo! Certainly there are times when it probably is moral to challenge, even intervene. I'm personally inclined to think that genital mutilation in young girls in Africa is one of those cases...but even that's a slippery slope.

I like the idea of "challenge," which is different, in my mind, from "discount". We should all be willing to challenge and be challenged...it's what keeps us thinking and growing. But it's when we close our minds to other possibilities, discount what someone else believes as somehow inferior, that we create a dualistic hierarchy--which is harmful. Whether the skeptics discount the believers, or the believers discount the skeptics, it doesn't matter. It invalidates another human being's core beliefs, and that's just harmful.

But challenging is another beast all together. It says, "Let's talk about this," rather than, "You're stupid!" At least that's the distinction I make in my mind.

What you also point out is that there are myriads of possibilities that we might encounter as we meet people or institutions with which we don't agree. There is no black and white approach to understanding what our moral obligation is, although I think it becomes more clear when actual, physical harm is occuring (which, ahem, I think we can say is currently occuring in Iraq, something for which I know I'm not very happy about, and which will influence MY vote this November...) When the powerless are being hurt by the powerful, there may be good moral ground for intervening. But it requires an inordinate amount of skill, moral reasoning, insight, and the ability to empathize in order to approach such an instance from a truly morally justified position.

And that's our challenge...all of us...believers and skeptics alike. Approaching our fellow human beings with dignity, honor and respect, and resisting the temptation to force-fit our own paradigms on others, while offering protection to the weak and powerless.

Funny, but I'm starting to sound all "beatittudish"... :p

helemon

13th October 2006, 02:23 PM

5. A person believes in something that exploits someone else who also believes in it, and they both seem happy, but the expoiter is knowingly lying to the exploitee in order to maintain the exploitee's belief. I say challenge it.

I agree. I think we should allow other paradigms but those paradigms should be open to being challenged especially if deception appears to be used to coerce belief from the followers. The paradigm people choose to follow should be based on as much up to date information relevant to the topic as possible. Groups that actively strive to isolate their members from opposing viewpoints should be challenged.

Jeff_Ricks

13th October 2006, 03:04 PM

Whether the skeptics discount the believers, or the believers discount the skeptics, it doesn't matter. It invalidates another human being's core beliefs, and that's just harmful...But challenging is another beast all together. It says, "Let's talk about this," rather than, "You're stupid!" At least that's the distinction I make in my mind.Absolutely! I know that my paradigm is incorrect. I like to think that it's a resonably healthy paradigm, and a fairly accurate one based on currently available knowledge in the areas I've exlored in my life, but it is still full of flaws. And because I know it's flawed I want it challenged! ...not dismissed but challenged. I'm the only one who has the right to dismiss it. So please, if you know something that I don't, or if you have another perspective that I've not considered, please tell me so I can consider it and thereby possibly fix another flaw in my paradigm.

I suppose at times I can come off as arrogant or condescending and dismissive when I challenge another's paradigm because at times I tend to do so with the same passion and doggedness that I want others to challenged mine. I can be pretty stubborn (dogzilla goes--> :duh no kidding), so push me and drive me and challenged me, until I see from the same perspective you do. But if I push, drive and challenge someone else's paradigm too far please forgive me.

That's where I'm coming from.

Jeff

helemon

13th October 2006, 05:07 PM

I can be pretty stubborn (dogzilla goes--> :duh no kidding), so push me and drive me and challenged me, until I see from the same perspective you do. But if I push, drive and challenge someone else's paradigm too far please forgive me.

I think the problem is that people don't feel like they have enough information and when they can't explain why they believe something they get frustrated, defensive and angry because they feel stupid for looking like they believe in something ridiculous. I am often frustrated when reading a book because it is always one persons selective description of the topic. I wish there was a better way to force authors to all work from the same foundation of facts and then build an arguement of interpretations and rational for accepting some evidence and discounting other evidence and which everyone could go to and follow the knowledge paths and see that while we may not all be interpreting reality the same way we are all at least looking at the same animal.

wescape

13th October 2006, 08:49 PM

I think we are in agreement, mi amigo! Certainly there are times when it probably is moral to challenge, even intervene. I'm personally inclined to think that genital mutilation in young girls in Africa is one of those cases...but even that's a slippery slope.

I like the idea of "challenge," which is different, in my mind, from "discount". We should all be willing to challenge and be challenged...it's what keeps us thinking and growing. But it's when we close our minds to other possibilities, discount what someone else believes as somehow inferior, that we create a dualistic hierarchy--which is harmful. Whether the skeptics discount the believers, or the believers discount the skeptics, it doesn't matter. It invalidates another human being's core beliefs, and that's just harmful.

But challenging is another beast all together. It says, "Let's talk about this," rather than, "You're stupid!" At least that's the distinction I make in my mind.

What you also point out is that there are myriads of possibilities that we might encounter as we meet people or institutions with which we don't agree. There is no black and white approach to understanding what our moral obligation is, although I think it becomes more clear when actual, physical harm is occuring (which, ahem, I think we can say is currently occuring in Iraq, something for which I know I'm not very happy about, and which will influence MY vote this November...) When the powerless are being hurt by the powerful, there may be good moral ground for intervening. But it requires an inordinate amount of skill, moral reasoning, insight, and the ability to empathize in order to approach such an instance from a truly morally justified position.

And that's our challenge...all of us...believers and skeptics alike. Approaching our fellow human beings with dignity, honor and respect, and resisting the temptation to force-fit our own paradigms on others, while offering protection to the weak and powerless.

Funny, but I'm starting to sound all "beatittudish"... :p

Hey PM,

I think you articulated something here that describes exactly how I've been feeling about this board.

As you well know, I am definitely in the minority here when it comes to the issue of faith. In some ways that is very much the way things have always been for me in many arenas so it is nothing new. First I was raised in Mormonism and never really fit in there. Then I rebelled and created an identity that was the polar opposite of everything taught to me in Mormonism. Eventually, I realized that the person I had become was not genuine because it was based purely on my reaction to Mormonism rather than on my true self. It was good that I took a path other than Mormonism since I didn't buy into it, but ultimately I just traded one lie for another. The next stop on my journey was a profound period of soul searching where I researched all different kinds of paradigms including philosophy, science, psychology, and spirituality. I was quite the skeptic and found most of them uncompelling. This is also when I found out just how f***ed up Mormonism really is. The real history totally blew my mind and I felt like my entire life was based on a lie. After all my searching, the Bible made the most sense to me, but not because someone else told me how to interpret it. I was not at all interested in that and decided to read it on my own without the aid of others. Obviously, I ended up as a follower of Jesus which has truly transformed my life. But the problem of not fitting in exists even there thanks to the completely distorted and misrepresented version of Christianity that seems to permeate this country. To sum it up I would say that Marx's phrase of religion being the opiate of the masses certainly applies to the American version of institutionalized Christianity. Now we come to the present and my experience here at postmormon.org. Once again the same theme permeates. It is unfortunate, but I don't really feel like my perspective is very welcomed here. In fact, much of the time I feel great hostility coming at me in the vein of, "You're stupid!" rather than "Let's talk about this." Or, "You're an idiot and here's why" rather than "I respect your position and welcome you to share it with us, even though I may disagree." The saddest part to me is that this is not much different from what I experience from Mormonism.

Anyway, thanks for putting words to something that has been gnawing at me for awhile.

Wes

peter_mary

13th October 2006, 10:16 PM

It is unfortunate, but I don't really feel like my perspective is very welcomed here. In fact, much of the time I feel great hostility coming at me in the vein of, "You're stupid!" rather than "Let's talk about this." Or, "You're an idiot and here's why" rather than "I respect your position and welcome you to share it with us, even though I may disagree." The saddest part to me is that this is not much different from what I experience from Mormonism.

Anyway, thanks for putting words to something that has been gnawing at me for awhile.

Wes
Sometimes it gnaws on me too, and that's probably why I played devil's advocate on this thread for a while...so you didn't have to! ;)

No, seriously, I worry that we chase a lot of good people away because we are strongly opinioned around here, with a bent toward the skeptic's perspective. I suppose it is what it is, and frankly, like any community, we have our struggles as we try to understand other perspectives. That doesn't come as a surpise, but I would like to see more, "Let's talk"... By the way, I think Skeptic invited you to do just that, but I probably sidetracked this thread and sent it careening down another path. :o But I suppose it's good to remember, too that this format (typing behind a blind screen) isn't very conducive to heated conversation, because it's utterly devoid of all the other communication cues we rely on. Facial expression, gestures, posture, tone of voice, eye contact, etc, that help us know whether someone is attacking us...or just really, really engaged.

I often wonder why it is you hang in there, and I'm always amazed and impressed that you do.

I'm glad...

Jeff_Ricks

13th October 2006, 11:51 PM

Hey PM,

I think you articulated something here that describes exactly how I've been feeling about this board.

As you well know, I am definitely in the minority here when it comes to the issue of faith. In some ways that is very much the way things have always been for me in many arenas so it is nothing new. First I was raised in Mormonism and never really fit in there. Then I rebelled and created an identity that was the polar opposite of everything taught to me in Mormonism. Eventually, I realized that the person I had become was not genuine because it was based purely on my reaction to Mormonism rather than on my true self. It was good that I took a path other than Mormonism since I didn't buy into it, but ultimately I just traded one lie for another. The next stop on my journey was a profound period of soul searching where I researched all different kinds of paradigms including philosophy, science, psychology, and spirituality. I was quite the skeptic and found most of them uncompelling. This is also when I found out just how f***ed up Mormonism really is. The real history totally blew my mind and I felt like my entire life was based on a lie. After all my searching, the Bible made the most sense to me, but not because someone else told me how to interpret it. I was not at all interested in that and decided to read it on my own without the aid of others. Obviously, I ended up as a follower of Jesus which has truly transformed my life. But the problem of not fitting in exists even there thanks to the completely distorted and misrepresented version of Christianity that seems to permeate this country. To sum it up I would say that Marx's phrase of religion being the opiate of the masses certainly applies to the American version of institutionalized Christianity. Now we come to the present and my experience here at postmormon.org. Once again the same theme permeates. It is unfortunate, but I don't really feel like my perspective is very welcomed here. In fact, much of the time I feel great hostility coming at me in the vein of, "You're stupid!" rather than "Let's talk about this." Or, "You're an idiot and here's why" rather than "I respect your position and welcome you to share it with us, even though I may disagree." The saddest part to me is that this is not much different from what I experience from Mormonism.

Anyway, thanks for putting words to something that has been gnawing at me for awhile.

Wes

Wes, I don’t think it’s any secret that you and I don’t mesh very well, so far. I have nothing against you personally, so please don’t think I do.

When I left Mormonism I attended a Christian church for almost two years, but I eventually began seeing some of the same kinds of problems with the Bible as I did with the Book of Mormon and left Christianity too. You obviously have strong negative feelings about Mormonism. For example, you said, “This is also when I found out just how f***ed up Mormonism really is.” I have the same kinds of negative feelings out Christianity. I think that it too, starting with the Bible, is rather f**ed up. Most Mormons would be offended by your opinions of Mormonism. Most Christians are offended by my opinions of Christianity.

What if you were to participate in a forum of mostly Christians and a Mormon came to the forum, wanted to share his beliefs and bear his testimony about the Book of Mormon, and he expected the rest of the forum to respond with, "I respect your position and welcome you to share it with us, even though I may disagree," Do you see how that’s probably not a very realistic expectation? In fact, I think it would be a bit of a selfish expectation, meaning, the Mormon seems not to be thinking, “Let’s talk,” he seems more like he's thinking, “Let me talk.” But if the Mormon comes to the forum, wants to share his point of view and is willing to have it challenged, and he’s willing to respond to those challenges with substantive answers, not just opinions, then I think the forum would respect him and he’d feel more welcome, dont you think so? Then he truly is participating in, "Let's talk."

Jeff

[Edit: Here's a couple of recent examples where I felt you were exhibiting a, "Let me talk," instead of a, "Let's talk," attitude:

"As I said in a previous post, my responses to this thread by SouSkeptic are not an invitation to resume any prior debates. However, just to clarify, my examples were not intended to be exact parallels to Darwinism. They were making the point that, at least from my perspective..." [here you brush off my post as if it is irrelevant, and move on]

"I personally do not find the "ton of archaeological evidence" that you mentioned very compelling." [here you respond to someone else’s post with nothing substantive whatsoever, just your opinion, treating the point that was made as if it is of minor consequence to the discussion]

The above are examples from this thread but I can find other similar examples throughout the threads you have engaged in, where you state your opinions and treat responses as if they are irrelevant or inconsequential. From my point of view you're welcome to this forum – I like that you bring a different perspective – but until you have a "Let's talk" instead of a "Let me talk" attitude, I'm afraid that you and I will continue to not mesh very well.

To be frank Wes, I think the reason you came to this forum and continue to participate in this forum, is because you see this forum as a place where you can witness Jesus. I could be wrong and I apologize if I am but I think that because it’s rare, if ever, that you engage in any discussion that doesn’t involve Jesus or Christianity. You’re a former Mormon but I don’t see you involving yourself in discussions that are strictly about Mormonism and leaving Mormonism, which is fine. It’s good that you don’t feel the need to, but I think you’re being disingenuous when you represent yourself as one who is here for the post-Mormon camaraderie. It seems to me that if you were truly interested in finding a place where you fit in then I would think that you’d join a group of former Mormon Christians, because they also tend to think that contemporary Christianity has become somewhat corrupted (having been taught so while Mormon). So, I think your real motive for participating here is because you see it as an opportunity to promote Jesus to a bunch of misguided people who have thrown the baby out with the bath water. And that underlying motive is why I think you participate in discussions with more of a, “Let me talk,” instead of a, “Let’s talk,” attitude. But you do it in a very nice, polite way. I’ll give you that. I don’t believe I’ve ever met anyone who can dismiss and devalue the things others say in such a nice, polite way. :) ]

jamech

14th October 2006, 12:30 AM

I often wonder why it is you hang in there, and I'm always amazed and impressed that you do.

I'm glad...

Me too! :)

puff

14th October 2006, 05:23 AM

helemon

14th October 2006, 10:04 AM

It is unfortunate, but I don't really feel like my perspective is very welcomed here. In fact, much of the time I feel great hostility coming at me in the vein of, "You're stupid!" rather than "Let's talk about this." Or, "You're an idiot and here's why" rather than "I respect your position and welcome you to share it with us, even though I may disagree." The saddest part to me is that this is not much different from what I experience from Mormonism.

I am sorry you feel this way Wes. It has never been the intention in any of my posts to make anyone feel that way. I think many of us here do recognize that there are parts of the bible that do teach worthwhile ideas. I think what we struggle with however is that there are other parts that teach absolutely horrible and hurtful ideas. And I agree with you that many of the "Christian" churches in America, and the big one in Italy, do not always follow the teachings of Christ. I also agree with PM that what you interpret at hostility is merely a request for you to defend or explain a statement more completely. I suppose we should do more of just letting peoples statement lie there but then people would think they were being ignored. At least you are not being ignored! I can respect that you find something better in Christianity than in the wild life you chose after leaving Mormonism. I hope you stick around.

wescape

14th October 2006, 01:29 PM

Sometimes it gnaws on me too, and that's probably why I played devil's advocate on this thread for a while...so you didn't have to! ;)

No, seriously, I worry that we chase a lot of good people away because we are strongly opinioned around here, with a bent toward the skeptic's perspective. I suppose it is what it is, and frankly, like any community, we have our struggles as we try to understand other perspectives. That doesn't come as a surpise, but I would like to see more, "Let's talk"... By the way, I think Skeptic invited you to do just that, but I probably sidetracked this thread and sent it careening down another path. :o But I suppose it's good to remember, too that this format (typing behind a blind screen) isn't very conducive to heated conversation, because it's utterly devoid of all the other communication cues we rely on. Facial expression, gestures, posture, tone of voice, eye contact, etc, that help us know whether someone is attacking us...or just really, really engaged.

I often wonder why it is you hang in there, and I'm always amazed and impressed that you do.

I'm glad...

Thanks PM. I agree that Skeptic did invite a conversation in the vein of "Let's talk" and I do appreciate that. I also appreciate your responses which are always in that same vein. :)

Wes

wescape

14th October 2006, 01:30 PM

Me too! :)

Thanks Jamech. :)

wescape

14th October 2006, 01:56 PM

Wes, I don’t think it’s any secret that you and I don’t mesh very well, so far. I have nothing against you personally, so please don’t think I do.

When I left Mormonism I attended a Christian church for almost two years, but I eventually began seeing some of the same kinds of problems with the Bible as I did with the Book of Mormon and left Christianity too. You obviously have strong negative feelings about Mormonism. For example, you said, “This is also when I found out just how f***ed up Mormonism really is.” I have the same kinds of negative feelings out Christianity. I think that it too, starting with the Bible, is rather f**ed up. Most Mormons would be offended by your opinions of Mormonism. Most Christians are offended by my opinions of Christianity.

What if you were to participate in a forum of mostly Christians and a Mormon came to the forum, wanted to share his beliefs and bear his testimony about the Book of Mormon, and he expected the rest of the forum to respond with, "I respect your position and welcome you to share it with us, even though I may disagree," Do you see how that’s probably not a very realistic expectation? In fact, I think it would be a bit of a selfish expectation, meaning, the Mormon seems not to be thinking, “Let’s talk,” he seems more like he's thinking, “Let me talk.” But if the Mormon comes to the forum, wants to share his point of view and is willing to have it challenged, and he’s willing to respond to those challenges with substantive answers, not just opinions, then I think the forum would respect him and he’d feel more welcome, dont you think so? Then he truly is participating in, "Let's talk."

Jeff

[Edit: Here's a couple of recent examples where I felt you were exhibiting a, "Let me talk," instead of a, "Let's talk," attitude:

"As I said in a previous post, my responses to this thread by SouSkeptic are not an invitation to resume any prior debates. However, just to clarify, my examples were not intended to be exact parallels to Darwinism. They were making the point that, at least from my perspective..." [here you brush off my post as if it is irrelevant, and move on]

"I personally do not find the "ton of archaeological evidence" that you mentioned very compelling." [here you respond to someone else’s post with nothing substantive whatsoever, just your opinion, treating the point that was made as if it is of minor consequence to the discussion]

The above are examples from this thread but I can find other similar examples throughout the threads you have engaged in, where you state your opinions and treat responses as if they are irrelevant or inconsequential. From my point of view you're welcome to this forum – I like that you bring a different perspective – but until you have a "Let's talk" instead of a "Let me talk" attitude, I'm afraid that you and I will continue to not mesh very well.

To be frank Wes, I think the reason you came to this forum and continue to participate in this forum, is because you see this forum as a place where you can witness Jesus. I could be wrong and I apologize if I am but I think that because it’s rare, if ever, that you engage in any discussion that doesn’t involve Jesus or Christianity. You’re a former Mormon but I don’t see you involving yourself in discussions that are strictly about Mormonism and leaving Mormonism, which is fine. It’s good that you don’t feel the need to, but I think you’re being disingenuous when you represent yourself as one who is here for the post-Mormon camaraderie. It seems to me that if you were truly interested in finding a place where you fit in then I would think that you’d join a group of former Mormon Christians, because they also tend to think that contemporary Christianity has become somewhat corrupted (having been taught so while Mormon). So, I think your real motive for participating here is because you see it as an opportunity to promote Jesus to a bunch of misguided people who have thrown the baby out with the bath water. And that underlying motive is why I think you participate in discussions with more of a, “Let me talk,” instead of a, “Let’s talk,” attitude. But you do it in a very nice, polite way. I’ll give you that. I don’t believe I’ve ever met anyone who can dismiss and devalue the things others say in such a nice, polite way. :) ]

As I have said many times here, I believe that the version of Christianity often promoted in this country is extremely f***ed up. In that sense I completely agree with you. As for the Bible, there are things in it that I have a real hard time with. For example, in the book of Job when God basically makes a bet with Satan and allows him to harm Job in horrible ways. It is a disturbing story that seems to paint God as somewhat of a sadist. There are others, as I'm sure you're aware. I've never claimed to completely understand the Bible and I'm sure there are parts of it that will always remain elusive. Thus, I completely understand why you think the Bible is rather f***ed up and I am not offended in the least that you feel this way.

I feel that your comparison of me at postmormon.org to a Mormon in a forum of Christians is not really fair. The biggest difference is that this is not a forum of all skeptics. Another difference is the fact that I am not coming here and parroting things like Mormons who repeat "I know the church is true, I know Joseph Smith is a prophet..." In fact, most of my repsonses are to people who start or have already posted something on different threads. I don't think I have ever started a thread about Jesus or Christianity.

I also think your characterization of me as "Let me talk" versus "Let's talk" is also unfair. The reason I responded the way I did in the examples you gave was because I did not want to go into the "same tired debate" to quote Dogzilla, over things we have already beat to death ad nauseum.

And I accept your apology for believing that my sole purpose here is to witness Jesus, because it is not. As I already said, I have never started a thread about that and don't plan to. Of course, the fact that I am a follower of Jesus is certainly a significant part of my life and I should be able to discuss that and anything else for that matter without being accused of zealotry. I have received many positive comments from several people on this board about the way I discuss things and have never heard anything negative (except from you).

Wes

wescape

14th October 2006, 02:26 PM

I am sorry you feel this way Wes. It has never been the intention in any of my posts to make anyone feel that way. I think many of us here do recognize that there are parts of the bible that do teach worthwhile ideas. I think what we struggle with however is that there are other parts that teach absolutely horrible and hurtful ideas. And I agree with you that many of the "Christian" churches in America, and the big one in Italy, do not always follow the teachings of Christ. I also agree with PM that what you interpret at hostility is merely a request for you to defend or explain a statement more completely. I suppose we should do more of just letting peoples statement lie there but then people would think they were being ignored. At least you are not being ignored! I can respect that you find something better in Christianity than in the wild life you chose after leaving Mormonism. I hope you stick around.

Hey Helemon,

Thanks for your post. Yes, I am definitely not being ignored. I think one of the problems is the fact that our paradigms are sort of speaking different languages. The realm of faith cannot necessarily produce the same kind of evidence that science can. For example, the virgin birth is not something that can be proven. As for science, there are many theories out there, some of which can be demonstrated, and some which in my opinion are still theories. The bottom line is that most of the time I feel like it is somehow not okay for me to feel that way. I am fine with the fact that you and others do not accept things like the virgin birth or any aspect of the Bible/Christianity. I'm not going to post some link that shows why you should. Why can't it be okay for me to not accept something like Darwinism?

Wes

helemon

14th October 2006, 02:47 PM

Why can't it be okay for me to not accept something like Darwinism?

That is fine if you don't accept it. I think the thing I was reacting to was that to me it sounded like you had two sets of rules for determining what you accept and what you reject. You mentioned missing evidence as a reason to reject Darwin while seeming to ignore the many missing pieces of evidence for the stories in the Bible.

wescape

14th October 2006, 03:31 PM

That is fine if you don't accept it. I think the thing I was reacting to was that to me it sounded like you had two sets of rules for determining what you accept and what you reject. You mentioned missing evidence as a reason to reject Darwin while seeming to ignore the many missing pieces of evidence for the stories in the Bible.

Many of the things in the Bible can be neither proved nor disproved, just like Darwinism.

Wes

Jeff_Ricks

15th October 2006, 08:18 AM

As I have said many times here, I believe that the version of Christianity often promoted in this country is extremely f***ed up. In that sense I completely agree with you. As for the Bible, there are things in it that I have a real hard time with. For example, in the book of Job when God basically makes a bet with Satan and allows him to harm Job in horrible ways. It is a disturbing story that seems to paint God as somewhat of a sadist. There are others, as I'm sure you're aware. I've never claimed to completely understand the Bible and I'm sure there are parts of it that will always remain elusive. Thus, I completely understand why you think the Bible is rather f***ed up and I am not offended in the least that you feel this way.

I feel that your comparison of me at postmormon.org to a Mormon in a forum of Christians is not really fair. The biggest difference is that this is not a forum of all skeptics. Another difference is the fact that I am not coming here and parroting things like Mormons who repeat "I know the church is true, I know Joseph Smith is a prophet..." In fact, most of my repsonses are to people who start or have already posted something on different threads. I don't think I have ever started a thread about Jesus or Christianity.

I also think your characterization of me as "Let me talk" versus "Let's talk" is also unfair. The reason I responded the way I did in the examples you gave was because I did not want to go into the "same tired debate" to quote Dogzilla, over things we have already beat to death ad nauseum.

And I accept your apology for believing that my sole purpose here is to witness Jesus, because it is not. As I already said, I have never started a thread about that and don't plan to. Of course, the fact that I am a follower of Jesus is certainly a significant part of my life and I should be able to discuss that and anything else for that matter without being accused of zealotry. I have received many positive comments from several people on this board about the way I discuss things and have never heard anything negative (except from you).

Wes
Wes, you’ve distorted half of what I said and responded to your distortions, not to what I actually said, you’ve ignored the other half of what I said, and once again I feel like I’ve been dismissed. When you're ready to honestly try to understand from my perspective why you and I don’t get along let me know, otherwise, I see where this is headed and don’t want to go there again. In the mean time, please don’t complain about how you don’t feel welcome and can’t understand why.

Jeff

wescape

15th October 2006, 12:25 PM

Wes, you’ve distorted half of what I said and responded to your distortions, not to what I actually said, you’ve ignored the other half of what I said, and once again I feel like I’ve been dismissed. When you're ready to honestly try to understand from my perspective why you and I don’t get along let me know, otherwise, I see where this is headed and don’t want to go there again. In the mean time, please don’t complain about how you don’t feel welcome and can’t understand why.

Jeff

Once again, Jeff, you're the only one giving me this kind of feedback. I honestly felt that I responded to your post in a genuine way, which is all I can do.

Wes

skeptic

18th October 2006, 01:36 PM

Is the Tooth Fairy Real?: A Fable
By Harriet Hall

Harriet told her little brother Dan that there was no Tooth Fairy; it was their parents who put the money under the pillow.
Dan refused to believe Harriet. He knew there was a Tooth Fairy. Every time he put a tooth under his pillow, there was money there the next morning. And all his friends said the Tooth Fairy brought them money too. And it couldn't be Mom and Dad because he'd wake up if they came in the room and lifted his pillow. Anyway, Mom and Dad said there was a Tooth Fairy, and they wouldn't lie.
Harriet asked him how he thought the Tooth Fairy found out about lost teeth, how she got into the house, where she got the money from, and what she did with the teeth. Dan said he didn't know, but wasn't it a wonderful mystery? Harriet pointed out that older kids all eventually stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy. Dan said that only proved that the Tooth Fairy would only bring money to those who still believed in her.
Harriet got several neighborhood kids to help test whether the Tooth Fairy would appear if the parents didn't know a tooth had been lost. It turned out that every time the parents knew about the tooth, there would be money under the pillow the next morning, and every time the parents didn't know about the tooth, there would be no money. Dan said the Tooth Fairy was just refusing to cooperate in those cases, because she wouldn't bring money if she knew she was being tested.
Harriet got out her Junior Detective kit and dusted Dan's Tooth Fairy money for fingerprints. Sure enough, she found their parents' fingerprints on it. Dan said that didn't prove anything, because there are lots of ways the Tooth Fairy could get hold of money the parents had previously touched. Or she could have magically put the evidence there to confuse us. And of course, the Tooth Fairy wouldn't leave any fingerprints of her own because she was magical.
The next time Dan lost a tooth, Harriet spread flour on the floor, and the next morning, she showed Dan their parents' footprints between the door and the head of his bed. He said that didn't prove anything-his parents had probably just checked on him, and the Tooth Fairy had come later. There were no Tooth Fairy footprints, because fairies don't leave footprints.
The next time Dan lost a tooth, Harriet set up a video camera in Dan's room and caught their parents in the act. (For those readers with dirty minds, I mean the act of removing the tooth and putting money under the pillow.) Dan told her that didn't prove a thing. Maybe the Tooth Fairy wouldn't appear when a camera was present. Maybe she is a shape-shifter who made herself look like their parents on videotape. Maybe she asked Mom and Dad to do the job for her just this once.
Harriet led Dan into their parents' bedroom, opened a dresser drawer, and showed him a box containing all of Harriet's and Dan's baby teeth neatly labeled and dated. She said that was proof their parents were taking the teeth and leaving the money. Dan said it was no such thing; the Tooth Fairy probably passed the teeth on to parents for keepsakes, or maybe she sold teeth to parents to raise the money she put under the pillows. Hey, yeah, that would explain the fingerprints!
Harriet and Dan confronted their parents, who admitted they had been taking the teeth and leaving the money under the pillow. Dan said either they were lying before or they're lying now, and they're probably lying now. Why trust what anyone says? He was just going to ignore everything except what he knew: the tooth-under-the-pillow thing worked. The Tooth Fairy was real.
Harriet screamed in frustration and tore all her hair out. She left it under her pillow. It was still there in the morning.

peter_mary

18th October 2006, 03:37 PM

Why I Believe In Santa Claus
by Peter_Mary

When I was a little boy, I learned about Santa Claus. The big, jolly fellow with the red suit and flying reindeer who had before--and would again--deliver gifts to me and my brother and sister on Christmas eve after we had, against all odds, managed to fall asleep. Santa Claus was easy to love, and easy to believe in. The evidence for him was there before my eyes every Christmas morning, not to mention the television shows, the story books and the annual trip to the Department Store to sit on the old elf's lap and try to remember what I wanted while holding down a panic attack at the thought of sitting on Santa's lap. It was almost like sitting on the President's lap, or the king...or God! I believed in Santa Claus.

As I grew up, I gradually came to understand that there was no man who lived at the North Pole, managing a toy shop staffed by elves. I realized then that the gifts bestowed upon me on Christmas day were the lovingly gathered and wrapped offerings of my parents and grandparents. The story of the Jolly Old Elf was a marketing ploy, a logo for a soda company, and emblematic of the secularization of a Christian holiday. I no longer believed in Santa Claus.

Then a magical thing happened. I became a parent myself. A baby girl, followed two years later by her brother, and then another, and eventually there were four in all (we were, after all, following the prophet!). My own pack of elfin creatures, each of them giddy at the prospect of getting gifts at Christmas...from Santa Claus.

I had to search my soul to decide how to approach the myth of the man in the red suit with my own babies. Would I lie to them? Would I perpetuate a story for the express purpose of manipulating their "good behavior" for a few wonderful weeks leading up to the big day? Or would I be honest with them, and remove a little of the glitter and wonder of Christmas in exchange for the brutal, honest truth.

I thought and thought and wondered and worried about what was the right thing to do. And a strange idea began to worm it's way through my head, like the glow the Grinch felt in his heart the morning he heard the Whos down in Whoville singing on Christmas morn. What IS Santa Claus? Is he a mythical man--or is he an ideal? What did he mean to me? And to my children?

As I listened to my heart for a while, I began to remember the magic of Christmases past. The excitement and anticipation. The stockings that were, in fact, hung by the chimney with care, lovingly stuffed the next morning with treats and toys that made us giggle and laugh. Presents that were thoughtfully chosen, and carefully wrapped, each one containing wonders and mystery that were only revealed when Dad decided it was your turn to open one. The mornings that lasted for hours, as each gift was turned over, admired, opened, assembled, and gratitude expressed before the next one was distributed.

As a parent, Santa Claus was a secret identity I got to wear in order to bestow gifts upon my children. He was my alter-ego, my better-self, the good Peter_Mary who knew what the children wanted and made every effort to deliver (as well as underwear and socks that I knew they needed, whether or not they wanted them!) Santa Claus was a manifestation of the love I have for my children, my wife, my extended family and friends, all wrapped up in a green package with a red bow, commemorated one day a year, and remembered the other 364 days...for the rest of their lives.

There is a zen Koan I have quoted on this site before that goes like this. "When I first saw a mountain, I said, 'There is a mountain.' As I moved toward enlightenment, I came to understand that a mounain is not a mountain at all. But when I was fully enlightened, I again said, 'There is a mountain.'"

I feel that way about Santa Claus. I may have deconstructed the myth of the man, but the beauty of the story, the meaning of the myth, what it means to ME has been re-birthed in my mind and my soul.

So when my children ask me, "Daddy, is there really a Santa Claus?" I look deep inside at who Santa has become, and I say, "Yes, honey. There really is."

I believe in Santa Claus all over again.

Jeff_Ricks

18th October 2006, 05:27 PM

There is a zen Koan I have quoted on this site before that goes like this. "When I first saw a mountain, I said, 'There is a mountain.' As I moved toward enlightenment, I came to understand that a mounain is not a mountain at all. But when I was fully enlightened, I again said, 'There is a mountain.'"

One thing that Bob McCue said at the conference Saturday that struck me was his suggestion that we should allow our lives the freedom to move back and forth between chaos and control. Too much chaos obviously isn't good but neither is too much control, nor is remaining fixed somewhere in the middle...stagnating.

Maybe the same applies to what I'll call reason and hope, or maybe better stated as reason and openness. If we're too open to possibilities we're regularly disappointed and sometimes misled. If we are too steeped in reason we might miss something that's actually 'reasonable' but outside the normal boundaries of our everyday experience. Am I making sense?

Bob’s point I think was that the trick isn’t striking a balance, a fixed point of zero movement where life stagnates, the real trick is, I suppose you could say, being a good swinger. ;)

skeptic

18th October 2006, 06:06 PM

Jeff wrote: Bob’s point I think was that the trick isn’t striking a balance, a fixed point of zero movement where life stagnates, the real trick is, I suppose you could say, being a good swinger.

Dang Jeff,

Don’t say that, I’d hate to think Joseph Smith had it right all along.

SoUtSkeptic

Jeff_Ricks

19th October 2006, 07:05 AM

I feel that way about Santa Claus. I may have deconstructed the myth of the man, but the beauty of the story, the meaning of the myth, what it means to ME has been re-birthed in my mind and my soul.

So when my children ask me, "Daddy, is there really a Santa Claus?" I look deep inside at who Santa has become, and I say, "Yes, honey. There really is."

I believe in Santa Claus all over again.P_M, I have to be a little nitpicky about part of this. I understand your overall point, but knowing you, I'm guessing that if your child were to ask you if there really is a Santa Claus I think you'd probably say something along the lines of, "Yes, honey. There really is, but..." and then I think you'd qualify what you mean by Santa Claus so she doesn't misunderstand and think you mean a guy who lives at the North Pole, drives a magic sleigh, and visits every house in the world on Christmas Eve. No? :)

Jeff

peter_mary

19th October 2006, 11:02 AM

P_M, I have to be a little nitpicky about part of this. I understand your overall point, but knowing you, I'm guessing that if your child were to ask you if there really is a Santa Claus I think you'd probably say something along the lines of, "Yes, honey. There really is, but..." and then I think you'd qualify what you mean by Santa Claus so she doesn't misunderstand and think you mean a guy who lives at the North Pole, drives a magic sleigh, and visits every house in the world on Christmas Eve. No? :)

Jeff
Actually...no. Not yet. We're pretty sure she knows (good hell, she's 11!) We figure when she wants to talk about it, we'll talk about it. (Actually, re-reading your question, the answer is more, "No, we haven't told her, but yes, we'll tell her when she wants to talk about it." We will qualify it when she's ready to hear it.)

But really, the point of all of that is simply to say that there is beauty in myth, especially if we learn to appreciate it as myth. I think that's what I gained most from Karen Armstrong's book, "The Battle for God," namely that a part of what we lost during the age of enlightenment is the ability to appreciate what myth is really about. We ruined mythology with logic and reason and the scientific method. Not that those things aren't ALSO good, but they can be a little sterile, and can sometimes leave people feeling less than inspired.

If we can seperate the need to have our stories be factually true, and instead appreciate them for what they mean, as well as appreciate them as vehicles or launching pads for deep discussion (like the Rabbi's once did with the Talmud), then myth becomes a powerful tool for imbuing life with new layers of understanding. Science, logic and reason are fabulous tools for understanding the mechanics of the universe, and how we function in that universe. Myth can be a powerful way to understand the magic of what it means to be a conscious, living, joy-experiencing, pain-feeling, love expressing human being. Science gives us knowledge. Myth gives us hope. Science provides solutions. Myth provides inspiration.

There is room for both.

Now...and I think this is where you really want me to go, so here you have it...I DO think that where religion has fallen flat on it's face is when it says that the Myths are factually accurate as told. Fundamentalist Christianity that insists on the historical fact of the Virgin Birth, the historical fact of the resurection, the historical fact of the flood, the historical fact of Jonah living three days in the belly of the fish, actually misses the whole beauty of those stories. When you insist that the mythical stories ARE truth rather than ABOUT truth, then I think you miss the whole point. (Mormons actually created the POTENTIAL for some powerful mythology as well, but because it was formed post enlightenment, it never got to fully develop as mythology, and Mormons have ALWAYS insisted on the factual historicity of such non-sense as, well, as the whole premise for the Book of Mormon.)

My Santa Claus parable simply points that out. When I first believed in Santa Claus, I assumed the stories WERE truth. Now I understand that they are ABOUT truth. They are vehicles for transferring important cultural meaning and values. It's taking the mountain apart, understanding it, and then stepping back one day and seeing it all anew. Seeing, once again, the mountain, but in a whole new way. And appreciating it, really, for the very first time.

skeptic

19th October 2006, 12:40 PM

peter_mary

19th October 2006, 01:46 PM

A Directors note from our local university play I think sheds some light on the dilemma, yet promotes the theme Peter_Mary has advocating.

FROM THE PLAY "SOUTH PACIFIC" SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY PRODUCTION
APRIL 1997 PROGRAM
A lesson mankind learns over and over again through war and peace is our need to shun the evil traditions of any culture and embrace the ennobling traditions of every culture. The problem lies in admitting to ourselves which are which. While never wavering in our struggle to preserve freedom and justice in the world, may we never overlook the beauty, wisdom, and joyous spirit of the world's people.
(Richard Bugg)
Bingo!!! That says it very nicely! Thank you!

Jeff_Ricks

19th October 2006, 01:53 PM

Actually...no. Not yet. We're pretty sure she knows (good hell, she's 11!) We figure when she wants to talk about it, we'll talk about it. (Actually, re-reading your question, the answer is more, "No, we haven't told her, but yes, we'll tell her when she wants to talk about it." We will qualify it when she's ready to hear it.)When I found out Santa Claus was a myth I was ready to hear it because I'd figured it out on my own prior to asking my Mom to give it to me straight, which she did. BUT I went immediately to my twin sister, who wasn't ready, and I told her what Mom said. She promptly went to Mom, which forced Mom to come clean to her too. My sister was devastated. She has since told me that she felt betrayed and said that her first reaction was, if Santa isn't real then I wonder if Jesus is real.

If I had a child who believed in Santa I'd do as you; I'd wait until she asks questions before telling her the complete truth about Santa. But if I were to raise another child from birth I'd probably never lead them to believe in a literal Santa in the first place. I'd prefer to tell them that it’s a story we like to tell because its a story about giving. That way s/he can learn to appreciate the value that it offers as a story, and maybe even be better prepared to consider other myths for the value they offer, rather than take them literally.

Maybe I push the reason side of the issue so much because I was forced to let go of four things in my life that I once believed in and now view as myths: Santa, "the prophet" Joseph Smith," Jesus and God. Like my sister, I felt some feelings of betrayal when I was compelled to realign my thinking. But I think I still appreciate the value of metaphor, allegory, fiction and myth. Although I understand that colors come from electromagnetic radiation responding to chemistry, when I look across the valley at the mountains bathed in morning light I'm still in awe. When I look up at night at a cloudless sky, out away from the city lights, I'm dumbfounded by how vast the universe is and how little we know about it. When I struggle for words to explain how deeply moved I am by such things I realize that it is just too subjective to describe to another through any other means than through the use of metaphor, allegory or myth. The key, as you’ve pointed out, is making sure that the myth isn’t misunderstood as fact, because then not only can the myth become the source of misunderstandings, oppression, sorrow and pain, it also has lost all value as a means of communicating what words fail to describe.

Epilogue: Mom and sis have both left Mormonism but both still believe in an historical Jesus, more or less. An older brother who passed away a couple of years ago was the first in the family to leave Mormonism and he died believing in an historical Jesus...also more or less. My four other siblings remain true blue Mormons, as did my father until he passed away. None of them still believe in Santa however. ;)

peter_mary

19th October 2006, 02:31 PM

Maybe I push the reason side of the issue so much because I was forced to let go of four things in my life that I once believed in and now view as myths: Santa, "the prophet" Joseph Smith," Jesus and God. Like my sister, I felt some feelings of betrayal when I was compelled to realign my thinking. But I think I still appreciate the value of metaphor, allegory, fiction and myth. Although I understand that colors come from electromagnetic radiation responding to chemistry, when I look across the valley at the mountains bathed in morning light I'm still in awe. When I look up at night at a cloudless sky, out away from the city lights, I'm dumbfounded by how vast the universe is and how little we know about it. When I struggle for words to explain how deeply moved I am by such things I realize that it is just too subjective to describe to another through any other means than through the use of metaphor, allegory or myth. The key, as you’ve pointed out, is making sure that the myth isn’t misunderstood as fact, because then not only can the myth become the source of misunderstandings, oppression, sorrow and pain, it also has lost all value as a means of communicating what words fail to describe.

Man, I really appreciated that post.

I, too, felt betrayed when I learned that "a mountain is not a mountain." In many ways, I'm still feeling that way. But I am learning to see the mountain differently, and finding it to be very compelling still.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not rebuilding a religious paradigm. But I am developing an appreciation for the stories we tell ourselves in an effort to express the inexpressable. I'm sad, as I'm guessing you are, too, that so many religiously minded people have skipped over the mystery, and settled into a realm of inexplicable "facts." The power of the God story is really in the mystery, not in knowing whether or not Adam had a navel, or that John the Baptist literally wore animal skins and ate grasshoppers.

So what does this mean for Peter_Mary? I think it means that I am learning to sit back and appreciate the good, the beautiful and mysterious in the universe, our world, the critters who live here with us, and the people who live here, too. There is a rhythm and flow to life that pulsates with energy, power and beauty, even though it includes things I can't understand or don't like. Religion, like bi-pedalism, seems to be a part of the human experience. I no longer believe that it frames the human experience, but it certainly informs it. I need to embrace what is, and accept the fact that, like it or not, it's a part of my experience.

But also like you, when I see an abuse or harm in the name of those stories, I'll probably have to speak up. I hope I have the courage to do so. However, I operate under the assumption that most people are good, that most people want only good on my behalf, and that whatever stories inform our existence, they fundamentally all guide us toward a more complete understanding of the human experience. They mostly guide us to BE good. And most of us are.

And there will always be wing-nuts who need a good smack about the ears...:)

Jeff_Ricks

19th October 2006, 03:09 PM

But also like you, when I see an abuse or harm in the name of those stories, I'll probably have to speak up. I hope I have the courage to do so. However, I operate under the assumption that most people are good, that most people want only good on my behalf, and that whatever stories inform our existence, they fundamentally all guide us toward a more complete understanding of the human experience. They mostly guide us to BE good. And most of us are.

And there will always be wing-nuts who need a good smack about the ears...:)I think we're converging, as we usually do when we come at something from two different perspectives and keep talking. :) I too believe that most people are good. I think even the wing-nut thinks he's doing "good" in terms of making what he thinks is the best choice given what he knows, his current circumstances and his current state of mind. I think we all do the best with what we have at any given point in time.

So, it's not people that I see as the problem, it's the paradigms that inform them, or rather misinform them, that I see as the problem. This brings up a new word that just popped into my head.

mythunderstandings: When myths are taken as literal accounts or descriptions of things that are intended to be understood figuratively.

It's the paradigms that should be challenged, not the person who to a degree is just an innocent bystander in it all. But unfortunately, when a persons pet paradigm is challenged the person feels personally threatened. I guess I don't know how to challenge a paradigm without making the "host" for the paradigm also feel uncomfortable. But if these paradigms that lead to mythunderstandings aren't challenged then the mythunderstandings along with the pain, violence etc associated with them also continue.

This brings up part of our homepage statement that says, "We regret the fact that our openness in this regard hurts some people, but feel that important information has been suppressed for so long within the Mormon community that we should let the chips fall where they may." (Bob McCue came up with that part, not me. :) ) The statement pertains specifically to Mormonism but I think in principle should apply to all areas of life where mythunderstandings exist.

Jeff

Jeff_Ricks

19th October 2006, 03:50 PM

Religion, like bi-pedalism, seems to be a part of the human experience. I no longer believe that it frames the human experience, but it certainly informs it. I need to embrace what is, and accept the fact that, like it or not, it's a part of my experience.I agree fully, but take it one step further.

"I need to embrace what is, and accept the fact that, like it or not, it's a part of my experience"...AND I can do something to make it better if I so choose. :)

Jeff

peter_mary

19th October 2006, 04:17 PM

I guess I don't know how to challenge a paradigm without making the "host" for the paradigm also feel uncomfortable.
Jeff
As a fellow word-maker-uper, I think "mythunderstandings" is an excellent one! Well coined.

But there was a little something you said up there in the quote that made me go, "Hey! He's on to something!" The idea of a paradigm being a "parasite". There's an interesting thing to think about.... ;)

Jeff_Ricks

19th October 2006, 05:54 PM

But there was a little something you said up there in the quote that made me go, "Hey! He's on to something!" The idea of a paradigm being a "parasite". There's an interesting thing to think about.... ;)Don't get me wrong. While I see us as hosts for paradigms, I think paradigms can both misinform AND inform. A paradigm to me is like an internal map or model of reality. The map can be reasonably accurate or it can be so poor as a representation of reality that it's useless and misleading.

So, because paradigms can be useful or useless, I think it's up to us to challenge our paradigms so those that misinform are identified. Then we can spend our energy nurturing those that truly do inform us and weed out those that mislead us and get in our way. I think if we fail to challenge our paradigms, because they are (both good and bad) part of our experience, then I think we inevitably end up with a garden full of weeds that choke off the paradigms that inform us and help make life better for us.

One example of paradigms that misled and choked off those that would have better informed us is found here in the good old USA where non-believers are a minority. I think it’s true that a majority of non-believers, probably +90%, were against the Iraq war back before we invaded Iraq. Now, with our 20/20 hindsight, our realization that the claims the administration used to go to war were not true (i.e., God said go do it George, Bin Laden and Saddam were working together, they had weapons of mass destruction), and that the war is something on the order of a fiasco, I think most will agree that it was a mistake. But the non-believers who were speaking out against the war, saying that there is insufficient evidence to justify an invasion, couldn't be heard because, from my perspective and in terms of the garden metaphor, we are overrun with weeds – with paradigms that misinform us.

So, while the parasite metaphor half works for me, I think a better metaphor for describing the nature of paradigms is the plant. Plants can feed us just as paradigms can inform us, but plants of the weed variety can also choke off plants of the food variety just as paradigms that misinform us can get in the way of those that inform us.

And that's my paradigm on the subject of paradigms,
Jeff

Born Free

19th October 2006, 07:55 PM

Don't get me wrong. While I see us as hosts for paradigms, I think paradigms can both misinform AND inform. A paradigm to me is like an internal map or model of reality. The map can be reasonably accurate or it can be so poor as a representation of reality that it's useless and misleading.

<snip>

And that's my paradigm on the subject of paradigms,
Jeff
I think I have quoted here before a quote from a source whose name I have forgetten. It goes:

All models are wrong: some models are useful.

We fall into the trap of thinking that the map is the territory, that the word is indistinguishable from the actuality that it is a label for.

To use P_Ms langauge, if we accept, consciously, the above, then we can commit to always be striving to be more skillful in our language and models, accepting that they will never, ever be perfect, then we are on a more solid foundation.

The facts are, that there are few facts.

Daryl

wescape

20th October 2006, 09:16 AM

If there would be one thing SoUtSkeptic could appreciate from the bible it would be the ‘Golden Rule’ "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.

I know Wes has felt like his beliefs have been in the spotlight of Skeptical Scrutiny, and I appreciate Wes sharing his point of view as I really wanted to understand his position to get an idea as to what he might feel would be more creditable: Faith based reasoning or Evidenced based reasoning. One might question if Evidence based reasoning is capable of giving HOPE. For me a world that is somewhat held accountable because we can QUESTION, enable’s the world to be a better place for my grandchildren. I get heartburn big time in reading the promoting of blind faith through the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son, Zacharis being stricken dumb for questioning the Angle Gabriel as to how he and his wife being very old would be capable of having a child. (St. Luke 1:5-20) The title page of the Book of Mormon- Wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may not be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ. Korihor runs into problems for questioning (Alma 30: 43-50)
I find many Christians having to disregard the Old Testament as one points to the promotion that a family member should be killed if they worship a different God. (Due 13:6-10) SoUtSkeptic can not reconcile the dichotomy. From what I gather from Wes posts it appears he has some heart burn in this arena also.

Perhaps we should start thinking more seriously about happiness and suffering.

A Directors note from our local university play I think sheds some light on the dilemma, yet promotes the theme Peter_Mary has advocating.

FROM THE PLAY "SOUTH PACIFIC" SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY PRODUCTION
APRIL 1997 PROGRAM
A lesson mankind learns over and over again through war and peace is our need to shun the evil traditions of any culture and embrace the ennobling traditions of every culture. The problem lies in admitting to ourselves which are which. While never wavering in our struggle to preserve freedom and justice in the world, may we never overlook the beauty, wisdom, and joyous spirit of the world's people.
(Richard Bugg)

Hey SoUtSkeptic,

I agree that one of the most appealing parts of the Bible is the Golden Rule. In fact, that, along with most of what Jesus said and did are why I believe. While I also accept the rest of the Bible as truth (this does not mean I think people should be killed for worshiping other gods), I fully acknowledge that much of it is very disturbing (particluarly in certain sections of the Old Testament) and I think it is important for people who claim to believe in it to truly wrestle with the things that are difficult (and the entire book for that matter) rather than casually overlook them. Anything less, from my perspective, would be dishonest. It is my understanding that the law of the Old Testament was fulfilled in the person of Jesus and thus those things are no longer necessary. Of course, I am still troubled that they were ever necessary, but in the words of PM, what the hell do I know?

You mentioned being curious about what I find more credible -Faith based reasoning or Evidence based reasoning and wondered whether Evidence based reasoning is capable of giving hope. I talked earlier about the fact that I believe the two go hand in hand in the sense that to me the creation is profound evidence of a creator. As for hope, I wonder how much ultimate hope one can have if there is nothing greater out there (especially for the vast majority of the world's population who live in utter poverty).

You also mentioned accountability. The Bible very much holds us accountable to treat others (the Golden Rule) and the earth with care and respect.

In light of the stories you mentioned, I can see how you would interpret the Bible as being "anti-questioning." However, I believe God is fine with us questioning things. In fact, he actually honors Job for being honest about his feelings. There is also a verse in the New Testament that encourages questioning: "Test all things and hold fast to that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Wes