The Legion of Reason.

[meinmachine]

Many people today say that their “heart is their guide” and the “Spirit directs them.” It’s the living manifestation of the corny bumper sticker “God is my Co-pilot.” The brain is the source of all these feelings. Yet many see their spiritual feelings as somehow disconnected from their intellect. This leads to many problems for both an individual and society.

Often when big decisions are made people will turn to folks who they consider have a special link with the divine. What is the result? Dependence is created on “Spiritual Experts.” As societies struggle with a myriad of social and economic issues its’ “believing” members can have a real problem dealing with reality. How can those that try to base their decision on evidence and reason deal with those that all too often turn to another part of their brain to validate their preconceived opinions? Can there actually be a “debate” when there is no chance of one side even considering that they could be wrong? After all, their god (Insert Jupiter, Zeus, Jesus, Shiva, etc) told them, so it must be true.

I recognize that a non-theist may say that there is no god, thereby closing their mind. That is an error in my opinion. A true atheist or non-theist must not wear the burden to prove that god does not exist. There is a possibility it does and we must be open to it, even if it seems unlikely. I think most atheists do this. To make absolute judgments on things such as god is close minded and that is exactly what the intellectually honest must not do in order to avoid hubris.

Before I incur the wrath of the theists on this board I am not arguing there is no god, or even that he/her/it/ is not involved in our daily lives, I am simply stating that whether there is a god or not we must recognize that the debate between the believers and the skeptics is hindered because the believers are willing to believe despite the evidence and the skeptics are not willing to believe until there is evidence. (Independent of the emotions of the believer and provable by means of evidence)

This may well be the issue that brings our whole civilization to a grinding halt. If 12 million people can be convinced Joseph Smith was a profit, I mean prophet. A billion people can be convinced that bread turns to flesh when a catholic priest prays over it, and millions of evangelicals can believe that god is healing the masses on national television, then how much hope can we have that these same masses can have a debate with non-theists, or even theists of a different stripe?

The dark ages came because religion ended debate and progress. Until the monotheistic power of “The Church” was broken new ideas could not emerge. It seems today a new dark age is creeping over North America. New Age religion, evangelicals, and fundamentalists of all kinds are demanding their agendas be heard by the state and educational systems. Who will stand guard at the gate and stop the barbarism of ignorance from overwhelming our civilization? If there is a god surely it does not want us to surrender our intellect to satiate our willingness to “believe all things.” I will take my place in the Legion of Reason. Care to join?

[peter_mary]

Meinmachine,

You KNEW I'd be on board with you on this...but there is a piece that I'd like to comment on. It's the piece that keeps me, always, unwilling to take that final step and say, "I know..."

You talked about how theists seem unwilling to consider the data. I wonder if non-theists are unwilling to consider the possibility that reason alone cannot comprehend the spiritual nature of the human experience?

What I mean is, we get very frustrated when the evidence of, say, evolution is so plain to us. It makes sense to us. It resonates with us. And yet the theists seem to deny it outright, without even considering its merits. We want them to "know as we know."

The theists often claim to have had spiritual experiences that are so authentic, so life-changing, so meaningful, that it leaves no room for doubt, and it frustrates them that we seem to shut our minds off to the possibility of "knowing" as they know.

Parallel universes...

Now, you have read my stuff enough to know which side of the debate I fall on. I'm solidly in the "Legion of Reason" camp. But I TRY really hard to reserve in the back of my brain the possibility that others may have had genuine, authentic experiences that COULD be validated rationally if only we knew how...and we don't. So for now, the theists must maintain their conviction without the ability for the non-theists to even speak the language, and vice versa.

It's a little bit like this: Imagine two people who have never seen an American dollar bill. You stand them face to face, a few feet apart, and then you hold up a dollar bill between them, the face side toward one person, and the back side toward the other. Then you ask one of them to describe what they see...which they do with great accuracy and detail.

Then, assuring the other person that they are looking at the very same thing (which they are), you ask them if the first person described what they are looking at. Aside from the fact that's rectangular and worth "one", they will disagree completely with the description of the first.

They are looking at the same thing, but because of the uniqueness of their experience in facing that same "thing," they lack the ability to talk to the other side.

Reason and spirit are often like that. Worse, they often don't WANT to switch sides, and make an attempt to see it from both perspectives. That's where the breakdown occurs.

I see it in myself. I DO in fact deny what I previously maintained were spiritual experiences, and now interpret those things as psychological/emotional experiences, conjured up between a combination of past experience, present circumstance, and future desire. I BELIEVE that with all my heart. But I CAN'T say I know that, not even for myself...I certainly can't say that about someone else's experience.

I wish I was smart enough to figure out how to talk to both the rational and the spiritual. I think that's why I have often felt drawn toward Zen, because it seemed to be the closest thing, at least for me, to a place of both spirit and reason. My sense is, without studying it yet, that Wicca might do the same. Regardless, I still find for myself that the closest thing to spirituality is in the context of a Zen or Tao world-view. But my reason interferes when I approach the "practice" of Zen...it starts to move too close to "religion," and I have outright rejected religion.

I think flotsam and others on this board have also sought the language that speaks to both worlds....

Anyway, thanks for a thought-provoking post.

Oh, and you were thinking MUCH too hard for a Friday! :slap: :D

Peter_Mary

[Fredl]

Hi M.,

I'm not sure if what I'm about to say really addresses your issue or only consists of some thoughts your comments stimulated.....but let me say that I am in significant agreement with you that "unreason" seems to be a tidal wave about to overwhelm the Western Scientific tradition.

I remember when I was a youngster listening to radio shows listening to a particular program that really seemed to my young mind to capture the spirit of that time. It would always consist of a plot revolving around some sort of "supernatural" occurence or influence which, as the show proceeded, would turn out to have some perfectly natural basis which had been misinterpreted by the person bringing it to the attention to the intrepid party who were the show's main protagonists. In the end, every "supernatural" occurence merely served to confirm the validity of science and reason.

Contrast that with today's movies and TV shows, running from Harry Potter through Lord of the Rings to the cartoon shows that make up the bulk of today's youngster's daily entertainment in which the supernatural is taken for granted to be true and valid. I don't think it a stretch to find a lot in common between this broad movement in American culture and the revival of Christian Churches in America today.

Where I think we diverge, however, is that I think that folks who imagine that if we'd all just get a little more reasonable and accept science as our guide, then, by golly, we'd all get along peaceably, are quite mistaken.

Myself, I think there is something basic in human nature that seeks conflict and the creation of "the enemy". It does not seek reasonableness and accomodation. My own take is that to fail to recognize this is unreasonable and unscientific.

Fred

[Fredl]

Peter, you blow me away with your comments! Thank you, thank you for this current posting!

Fred

[meinmachine]

Hi M.,

I'm not sure if what I'm about to say really addresses your issue or only consists of some thoughts your comments stimulated.....but let me say that I am in significant agreement with you that "unreason" seems to be a tidal wave about to overwhelm the Western Scientific tradition.

I remember when I was a youngster listening to radio shows listening to a particular program that really seemed to my young mind to capture the spirit of that time. It would always consist of a plot revolving around some sort of "supernatural" occurence or influence which, as the show proceeded, would turn out to have some perfectly natural basis which had been misinterpreted by the person bringing it to the attention to the intrepid party who were the show's main protagonists. In the end, every "supernatural" occurence merely served to confirm the validity of science and reason.

Contrast that with today's movies and TV shows, running from Harry Potter through Lord of the Rings to the cartoon shows that make up the bulk of today's youngster's daily entertainment in which the supernatural is taken for granted to be true and valid. I don't think it a stretch to find a lot in common between this broad movement in American culture and the revival of Christian Churches in America today.

Where I think we diverge, however, is that I think that folks who imagine that if we'd all just get a little more reasonable and accept science as our guide, then, by golly, we'd all get along peaceably, are quite mistaken.

Myself, I think there is something basic in human nature that seeks conflict and the creation of "the enemy". It does not seek reasonableness and accomodation. My own take is that to fail to recognize this is unreasonable and unscientific.

Fred
I agree with you. Reason and skepticism are guiding principles for one to live by, but they do not mean peace and harmony will ensue. “When we question we are wise, when we believe we are happy”, as the Greeks used to say. Human nature is conflict. This is no better demonstrated by the human ability to both rational in some aspects of our lives, yet irrational in others. (Case and point: “Educated” Mormons) I was concerned that the dialogue between the two camps may well be impossible. So those who stand for reason must be vigilant.

I think our battles will be the following: We need to separate church and state. We must allow free and open discussion of ideas, even if they are contrary to passionately held beliefs. We must teach the masses to think. We must define the semantics of the debate and make sure all who participate agree to the terms of the discussion. We must protect science in its endeavor to widen our horizons of thought. We must respect the opinion of others even if they make no sense to us and hold out the possibility, no matter how remote, that we are wrong.

[wescape]

I think our battles will be the following: We need to separate church and state. We must allow free and open discussion of ideas, even if they are contrary to passionately held beliefs. We must teach the masses to think. We must define the semantics of the debate and make sure all who participate agree to the terms of the discussion. We must protect science in its endeavor to widen our horizons of thought. We must respect the opinion of others even if they make no sense to us and hold out the possibility, no matter how remote, that we are wrong.

Even though we clearly have a different idea about what constitutes good science I agree with what you are saying here meinmachine.

Wes

[free thinker]

I think our battles will be the following: We need to separate church and state. We must allow free and open discussion of ideas, even if they are contrary to passionately held beliefs. We must teach the masses to think. We must define the semantics of the debate and make sure all who participate agree to the terms of the discussion. We must protect science in its endeavor to widen our horizons of thought. We must respect the opinion of others even if they make no sense to us and hold out the possibility, no matter how remote, that we are wrong.

Sir

As long as people like you and others on this site, and many around the world are thinking like this, and display tolerance and humility, we will be fine.

You give me hope.

Thank You

free thinker

[Fredl]

M. and Wes and Peter, I am so impressed with what everybody has had to say on this thread!

Let me throw out another thought on this subject which M's second post got me started on: I'm probably older than anyone else in this discussion and, as a result have probably had more opportunity to get on both sides of a number of issues than anyone else contributing. And, believe me, I have been. When I was a young man, my friends used to call me "Red Fred" because I was so Liberal, politically. Well, liberal is no where near a strong enough word; actually, I was quite sympathetic to Communism. Today, I am a fervent believer in a free market economy and free enterprise. At that time, I was the most logical of folks when it came to religion: I was a True Believing Unitarian (if that's not a contradiction in terms). In college, I devoted much of my Campus Political career to campaigning against compulsory ROTC and was quite anti-military, yet a year after I graduated, I volunteered for the Marine Corps.

And so on.

I find myself wondering whether the raging societal conflict beween reason and irrationality is not a conflict that goes on in every human breast projected on a larger screen and whether every human ends up in some sort of accomodation to this conflict by expressing both ends of it in some aspect of his(her) life.

Now, here's where I destroy whatever friendships I started here on Postmormon.org:

To my way of thinking, a belief in Socialist economic or political solutions represents fanciful, illogical wishful thinking just as much as Mormonism does in its own, peculiar sphere. Now, something I've noticed for a LONG time, people who accept Mormonism or Fundamentalist Christian solutions to their spiritual questions seem to me generally VERY sensible in their thinking about economic issues.....and, visa versa.

Do Human Beings, generally, require both rational and irrational elements in their Nature of Realty Mental Model (Paradigm) to feel OK? Is this a(the) source of the interminable conflicts that seem to be a basic condition of Human existence.

And please don't imagine that from this line of inquiry I have a clue as to where the answers to these questions lie. Suffice it to say that my Mormon experience has both helped me and hindered me in my efforts to find my own answers.

Fred

[helemon]

Many people today say that their “heart is their guide” and the “Spirit directs them.” It’s the living manifestation of the corny bumper sticker “God is my Co-pilot.” The brain is the source of all these feelings. Yet many see their spiritual feelings as somehow disconnected from their intellect. This leads to many problems for both an individual and society.


But it also allows people to function. Many daily activities are not performed because we have absolute knowledge that we should do them. We do them because it feels right. I feel like going for a swim. I feel like going out to eat. I feel like taking a drive in the country. These are not rational impulses. People don't perform an exhaustive analysis of the pros and cons of what they could do and pick the most logical choice. Due to the somewhat unpredictable nature of life such an analysis would be impossible to fully perform. Typically I think people have a few ideas and then pick the one that sounds best many times based on what the common consensus is around them. For most things we do this is not a problem. However, when unflinching obedience to whim and emotion leads to bigotry, hate, or close mindedness there is a problem.


Often when big decisions are made people will turn to folks who they consider have a special link with the divine.


Yep, because he tells them he can predict the future. Something most sane people realize they cannot do. Unfortunately these people then accept this leaders statement as fact and thus can stop worrying about trying to figure out what to do.


What is the result? Dependence is created on “Spiritual Experts.” As societies struggle with a myriad of social and economic issues its’ “believing” members can have a real problem dealing with reality. How can those that try to base their decision on evidence and reason deal with those that all too often turn to another part of their brain to validate their preconceived opinions?


Non-believing people can also have problems "dealing with reality" as they struggle with the 'what happens when I die' question. As we have seen on this board and RfM loosing faith in the prepackaged answers provided by a religion can really mess a person up for a while. Often the individual rather than giving up on religion completely simply finds a more palatable diety to worship. I also think you are discounting peoples tendency to equate emotions as evidence. Emotions play such a large part in so many areas of our life in helping us to solve problems that we don't have all the answers to it is not suprising that they have such a large influence over major parts of how people view the world. Also I think people realize that just because something sounds logical it doesn't mean it is true. This allows them to discount arguements on topics that they have little expertise in that conflict with their beliefs.


Can there actually be a “debate” when there is no chance of one side even considering that they could be wrong? After all, their god (Insert Jupiter, Zeus, Jesus, Shiva, etc) told them, so it must be true.


But faith is not about debate. And in their eyes the stakes are too high for them to jeopardize their eternal soul in a battle of wits with the devil. Thus if they are loosing they will simply assuming that they don't have all the answers and walk away.


I recognize that a non-theist may say that there is no god, thereby closing their mind. That is an error in my opinion. A true atheist or non-theist must not wear the burden to prove that god does not exist. There is a possibility it does and we must be open to it, even if it seems unlikely. I think most atheists do this. To make absolute judgments on things such as god is close minded and that is exactly what the intellectually honest must not do in order to avoid hubris.


So you would also expect the theist to hold out the possibility that there is no God? But one of the allures of religion is that it claims to remove doubt about big questions like is there a God. If the theist can have the belief that there is a God why can't the atheist have the belief that there is no God?


Before I incur the wrath of the theists on this board I am not arguing there is no god, or even that he/her/it/ is not involved in our daily lives, I am simply stating that whether there is a god or not we must recognize that the debate between the believers and the skeptics is hindered because the believers are willing to believe despite the evidence and the skeptics are not willing to believe until there is evidence. (Independent of the emotions of the believer and provable by means of evidence)


"The proof of the non-existence of god.
Theory:
God is based on faith, if proof on gods existence exists, the faith is no longer required.
Without faith god no longer exists.
The proof:
Since the bablefish is such a neat construction,
it couldn't evolve by random, god must have created it,
and therefore since god proved his existence god doesn't exist."- Doug Adams :D


This may well be the issue that brings our whole civilization to a grinding halt. If 12 million people can be convinced Joseph Smith was a profit, I mean prophet. A billion people can be convinced that bread turns to flesh when a catholic priest prays over it, and millions of evangelicals can believe that god is healing the masses on national television, then how much hope can we have that these same masses can have a debate with non-theists, or even theists of a different stripe?


We can debate the 12 million number. The term convinced is also questionable. I think for many it is the only paradigm they are familiar with and the one all their friends and family know/accept, so why would they want to rock the boat and go look into something else? Nothing but pain, suffering and isolation down that road. Only bloody sadists would do something like that!


The dark ages came because religion ended debate and progress.


Or because major plagues ravaged the population disrupting the society and thus giving more power to the fear mongers.


Until the monotheistic power of “The Church” was broken new ideas could not emerge. It seems today a new dark age is creeping over North America. New Age religion, evangelicals, and fundamentalists of all kinds are demanding their agendas be heard by the state and educational systems. Who will stand guard at the gate and stop the barbarism of ignorance from overwhelming our civilization?


The rich and powerful? :duh


If there is a god surely it does not want us to surrender our intellect to satiate our willingness to “believe all things.” I will take my place in the Legion of Reason. Care to join?

I think you forget that many logical and rational people are also theists and have no trouble compartmentalizing God in one area of their lives and reason in another.

I think one of the problems with religion is that when you claim a certain principle, reality, world view is from God it is very hard to go back and revise it even if it conflicts with reason or future evidence and sensibilities. After all God is perfect, He can't make a mistake. The Mormon church leaders have tried and look what its done for them. Caused thousands of people to question their faith and leave the church. Which is unfortunate because that was supposed to be one of the great things about living prophets. Namely that the religion could change and adapt with society.

Unfortunately, if something comes from a perfect God rather than a man it is expected that everything he says is congruent. Thus the great power of religion that it has this prepackaged set of eternal truths becomes its achilles heal by fixing it in the mud of the social milleu from which it emerged. Science on the other hand by focusing on evidence and removing diety is allowed to discuss, debate, and revise its beliefs as times change. So the real question is how can you create a religion that is more like science? I don't know if that is possible. The gospel of a religion often succeeds by reducings lifes struggles down to a set of simple platitudes accessible by all. Science strives for ever increasing levels of complexity where even and expert may know little but their area of specialty. This I feel creates a barrier between science and the common man.

When will science and reason triumph over religion? When it has banished the fears on which religion feeds. When people can live forever, free of disease and suffering. When knowledge is freely offered to all who desire it. When all people treat each other with love, respect, and dignity as co-equal beings at different stages of an incredible journey of exploration. When it can offer them what religion only promises.

However, in the struggle with religion care must be taken not to Vulcanize the heart of man. If in the pursuit of reason over religion we sacrifice emotion, we will have lost something truly valuable; the very essence of what makes us human.

[Fredl]

I agree with you. Reason and skepticism are guiding principles for one to live by, but they do not mean peace and harmony will ensue. “When we question we are wise, when we believe we are happy”, as the Greeks used to say. Human nature is conflict. This is no better demonstrated by the human ability to both rational in some aspects of our lives, yet irrational in others. (Case and point: “Educated” Mormons) I was concerned that the dialogue between the two camps may well be impossible. So those who stand for reason must be vigilant.

I think our battles will be the following: We need to separate church and state. We must allow free and open discussion of ideas, even if they are contrary to passionately held beliefs. We must teach the masses to think. We must define the semantics of the debate and make sure all who participate agree to the terms of the discussion. We must protect science in its endeavor to widen our horizons of thought. We must respect the opinion of others even if they make no sense to us and hold out the possibility, no matter how remote, that we are wrong.

M., I kept thinking about your comment about separation of chuch and state. Somehow I just couldn't let it go. The thing that bothers me about it is that for the great majority of mankind, this model just doesn't seem to work.

Now, for a few hundred years, this model has, indeed, worked very well for the US and Western Europe. But, it has NOT been adopted by at least three other major civilizations which now, at the beginning of the 21st century appear to be poised to give us a real run for our money: Islam, China and India.

Islam appears to provide a model superior to ours to the world's poor and wretched. At least, from all accounts I'm aware of, it is gaining converts at a far more rapid rate than either Christianity or Westerm Skepticism. My own belief is that the poor and wretched know better than we do what offers them a vision of self respect and even a sort of progress within the ignorance (yes, they are ignorant - but not stupid) and want that they live in.

China, from what I've heard, offers its people the prospect of rapid material progress and considerable personal freedom at what appears to be a rather reasonable price - surrendering the right to organize in any way that could threaten political stability. This includes religious organizations. Appears to be a pretty reasonable price to pay for a model that is arguably at least as an effective model as Western Religious Freedom.

India, to the degree that I understand it, perceives religion as simply an aspect of the national culture rather than a distinct and definable "institution". On another Internet Site, I ran into a discussion of "Dharmic" and "Abrahamic" religions. The author, a lot smarter guy than I am, claimed this wasa general charactaristic of "Dharmic Religions". Also thought that "Dharmic Religions" tend to be a lot less militant than the "Abrahamic" sort.

I'm wondering whether the need to separate church and state is uniquely a Judeo/Christian issue. Or even just Christian one. Obviously, the Israelis don't seem to regard it as a burning issue.

Fred

[flotsam]

Hi folks. I'm back from a computer-free week in rural Alaska.



I wish I was smart enough to figure out how to talk to both the rational and the spiritual. I think that's why I have often felt drawn toward Zen, because it seemed to be the closest thing, at least for me, to a place of both spirit and reason. My sense is, without studying it yet, that Wicca might do the same. Regardless, I still find for myself that the closest thing to spirituality is in the context of a Zen or Tao world-view. But my reason interferes when I approach the "practice" of Zen...it starts to move too close to "religion," and I have outright rejected religion.

I think flotsam and others on this board have also sought the language that speaks to both worlds....
Peter_Mary

I think I may have figured our a teensy bit of the language while I was away. It's so easy, I feel like a complete idiot for not understanding it earlier. Simply put: part of the language is listening.

See, I just spent three days in very close contact with a TBM couple in an Alaska village. They're going to be teachers there. I followed them all over for three days with my camera on, leaving them alone only while they were in the bathroom (and even then, I got a few good sound effects :D) and when they went to sleep at night.

We had a few interesting conversations during that time. One of them revolved around how we could work their religion into the film. Education and religion have been connected for most of Alaska's colonial history. The pastor at Shishmaref had let me film the entirity of his meetings. But the TBM couple had reservations. It was interesting to watch them immediately refer to authority and precedence when considering if I should record them having a sacrament meeting (in a congregation consisting of them and one other person). They pretty much thought, no, I shouldn't film the meeting, as it was too sacred.

Looking for further discussion I brought up Brigham City, you remember, that Richard Dutcher murder mystery movie that involves a bishop/sheriff and a pretty much real-time sacrament service. I had heard criticism of Dutcher for putting in the service (and the baptism, and the blessing). Anyway, I told this to them, fully intending to present Dutcher's defense next.

However, Rick (we'll call him Rick) said, "Yeah, and I was one of those people." Then he went on to tell me about how he thought the sacrament was way too sacred to depict on film.

I had an interesting choice at that point: bring up my point of view (which was pretty much the opposite of his), or not. I chose to not do it. I let him talk.

And it turned out to be kind of interesting to hear his ideas. Eventually they decided that I could film a scripture study or a family home evening. Which I thought was fine.

I've been thinking about my decision, and I've decided that I did a good thing. Which seems like a weird thing for me to say. I mean, one of my foundational values is the perpetuation of viewpoints and their honest discussion. But see, what happened here was that I was listening to his story. Which, I think, is one of the closest things there is to an inherently valuable act. In a way, it made no difference what my opinion was. First, because I was making a documentary about Rick and Gloria (we'll call her Gloria), not about myself. But second because when I listen to someone, I take a tiny sympathetic step into their world, and they can feel that.

Think of the people you love best. I'm thinking of one. She was one of my professors in college. An ardent feminist and an exMo. I was still a Mo, and quite under the spell of patriarchy. We had some really interesting conversations. And I took three of her classes - none of them compulsory. I look back and think it's strange that I kept going back to her. In fact, the last time I visited Utah, I specifically went to see her, despite the fact that it was way out of my way.

Why did I keep going back? Our ideas clashed, but she did one thing really well, she listened to me. Now that I think about it, it really is astounding how well she could listen, even when my ideas were repellant to her. I felt like something new grew up between us. Instead of one or the other idea prevailing, something new was created. I suppose you could call it a relationship.

So think back. I'm interested to know: are the people you love best also the ones who can listen to you? Or am I just an egomaniac?

Don't answer that last question.

So if we think about this on a political level, or a scientific one, I think something interesting comes about.

Person 1 loves the idea of evolution and all it implies.

Person 2 loves the idea of inteligent design and all it implies.

Person 1 and 2 have a conversation. The both listen deeply to each other, each testing and deepening the other's ideas. At no point does either of them claim to be right. They are most interested in listening to each other. Afterwards they go out for a beer.

Person 1 learns that Person 2 is deeply distressed about the lack of consideration given to ID in the public schools where his children attend. But Person 2 cannot convince the school board that his concern is legitimate. They are all quite set on evolution being the only thing taught in the schools.

Person 2 seeks Person 1's help to communicate with the school board. Person 1, having credibility with the school board, is able to help them see Person 2's position, though nothing ever really comes of it.

Later, the Moral Majority takes over America and puts our a vendetta against people who believe in evolution. Person 1's life is in danger. Person 2 hides him in his attic until the Germans free America from the Moral Majority's tyranny.

Cheesy, yes. But what I'm thinking here is that it really isn't so important which political or scientific ideas are ascendant; it matters if people can enter a state of egoless openness with each other, because then they lay the foundation of a relationship. Kind of like what I tried to do with Rick.

It seems to me that such a state would actually accelerate learning and discovery. Because finally the thesis and the antithesis could talk to eachother constructively. Finally you could disagree with someone in such a way that he or she would really appreciate it. Wouldn't it be great to have someone around who would put your ideas to the acid test, without insisting that you're stupid when things didn't turn out the way you thought they would?

But none of this can come about, it seems to me, without people being able to listen egolessly to each other. Which is quite a feat, I think. But I'm getting some training.

Huh, I just thought of something. In missionary land, they teach you to restate the investigator's concerns when concerns come up. That's to make sure you have understood the concern, and to help them see that you really have been listening. The place where that breaks down, of course, is that you're still trying to drive them in a particular direction.

I think Martin Buber, the Hasidic philosopher, said what I'm trying to say in his book "I and Thou." Anybody around here read it?

[wescape]

Hi folks. I'm back from a computer-free week in rural Alaska.



I think I may have figured our a teensy bit of the language while I was away. It's so easy, I feel like a complete idiot for not understanding it earlier. Simply put: part of the language is listening.

See, I just spent three days in very close contact with a TBM couple in an Alaska village. They're going to be teachers there. I followed them all over for three days with my camera on, leaving them alone only while they were in the bathroom (and even then, I got a few good sound effects :D) and when they went to sleep at night.

We had a few interesting conversations during that time. One of them revolved around how we could work their religion into the film. Education and religion have been connected for most of Alaska's colonial history. The pastor at Shishmaref had let me film the entirity of his meetings. But the TBM couple had reservations. It was interesting to watch them immediately refer to authority and precedence when considering if I should record them having a sacrament meeting (in a congregation consisting of them and one other person). They pretty much thought, no, I shouldn't film the meeting, as it was too sacred.

Looking for further discussion I brought up Brigham City, you remember, that Richard Dutcher murder mystery movie that involves a bishop/sheriff and a pretty much real-time sacrament service. I had heard criticism of Dutcher for putting in the service (and the baptism, and the blessing). Anyway, I told this to them, fully intending to present Dutcher's defense next.

However, Rick (we'll call him Rick) said, "Yeah, and I was one of those people." Then he went on to tell me about how he thought the sacrament was way too sacred to depict on film.

I had an interesting choice at that point: bring up my point of view (which was pretty much the opposite of his), or not. I chose to not do it. I let him talk.

And it turned out to be kind of interesting to hear his ideas. Eventually they decided that I could film a scripture study or a family home evening. Which I thought was fine.

I've been thinking about my decision, and I've decided that I did a good thing. Which seems like a weird thing for me to say. I mean, one of my foundational values is the perpetuation of viewpoints and their honest discussion. But see, what happened here was that I was listening to his story. Which, I think, is one of the closest things there is to an inherently valuable act. In a way, it made no difference what my opinion was. First, because I was making a documentary about Rick and Gloria (we'll call her Gloria), not about myself. But second because when I listen to someone, I take a tiny sympathetic step into their world, and they can feel that.

Think of the people you love best. I'm thinking of one. She was one of my professors in college. An ardent feminist and an exMo. I was still a Mo, and quite under the spell of patriarchy. We had some really interesting conversations. And I took three of her classes - none of them compulsory. I look back and think it's strange that I kept going back to her. In fact, the last time I visited Utah, I specifically went to see her, despite the fact that it was way out of my way.

Why did I keep going back? Our ideas clashed, but she did one thing really well, she listened to me. Now that I think about it, it really is astounding how well she could listen, even when my ideas were repellant to her. I felt like something new grew up between us. Instead of one or the other idea prevailing, something new was created. I suppose you could call it a relationship.

So think back. I'm interested to know: are the people you love best also the ones who can listen to you? Or am I just an egomaniac?

Don't answer that last question.

So if we think about this on a political level, or a scientific one, I think something interesting comes about.

Person 1 loves the idea of evolution and all it implies.

Person 2 loves the idea of inteligent design and all it implies.

Person 1 and 2 have a conversation. The both listen deeply to each other, each testing and deepening the other's ideas. At no point does either of them claim to be right. They are most interested in listening to each other. Afterwards they go out for a beer.

Person 1 learns that Person 2 is deeply distressed about the lack of consideration given to ID in the public schools where his children attend. But Person 2 cannot convince the school board that his concern is legitimate. They are all quite set on evolution being the only thing taught in the schools.

Person 2 seeks Person 1's help to communicate with the school board. Person 1, having credibility with the school board, is able to help them see Person 2's position, though nothing ever really comes of it.

Later, the Moral Majority takes over America and puts our a vendetta against people who believe in evolution. Person 1's life is in danger. Person 2 hides him in his attic until the Germans free America from the Moral Majority's tyranny.

Cheesy, yes. But what I'm thinking here is that it really isn't so important which political or scientific ideas are ascendant; it matters if people can enter a state of egoless openness with each other, because then they lay the foundation of a relationship. Kind of like what I tried to do with Rick.

It seems to me that such a state would actually accelerate learning and discovery. Because finally the thesis and the antithesis could talk to eachother constructively. Finally you could disagree with someone in such a way that he or she would really appreciate it. Wouldn't it be great to have someone around who would put your ideas to the acid test, without insisting that you're stupid when things didn't turn out the way you thought they would?

But none of this can come about, it seems to me, without people being able to listen egolessly to each other. Which is quite a feat, I think. But I'm getting some training.

Huh, I just thought of something. In missionary land, they teach you to restate the investigator's concerns when concerns come up. That's to make sure you have understood the concern, and to help them see that you really have been listening. The place where that breaks down, of course, is that you're still trying to drive them in a particular direction.

I think Martin Buber, the Hasidic philosopher, said what I'm trying to say in his book "I and Thou." Anybody around here read it?

Bravo Flotsam. I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying. I read Buber's "I and Thou" for one of my classes last year and loved it. Treating someone as a "thou" versus an "it" is quite powerful and goes very much against the grain of our culture. I can only speak for myself, but I was always treated as an "it" in Mormonism. Who I was as a person was never really taken into consideration. It was all about the church and compliance with the Morg. When I became a rebellious teenager and did everything that Mormonism said not to, it really seemed like I was finally free from that bondage. But then I realized that I had just bought into another kind of dogma that of course looked very different from Mo'ism. I was only accepted as long as I "fit in" with the standards of my new "friends". True, this new group was the polar opposite of the Morg but ultimately it was the same thing just dressed in different clothing. As long as I said and did the things that were "right" I was accepted but any deviation from that was not going to be tolerated.

I personally think Buber's ideas were revolutionary and I think his philosophy is right in line with the way Jesus treated people. Every person has value and should be treated with dignity and respect even when there is disagreement. While I try to practice this, I admittedly fail at it more often than not and that's why I need grace.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Wes

[why me]

Hi folks. I'm back from a computer-free week in rural Alaska.



I think I may have figured our a teensy bit of the language while I was away. It's so easy, I feel like a complete idiot for not understanding it earlier. Simply put: part of the language is listening.

See, I just spent three days in very close contact with a TBM couple in an Alaska village. They're going to be teachers there. I followed them all over for three days with my camera on, leaving them alone only while they were in the bathroom (and even then, I got a few good sound effects :D) and when they went to sleep at night.

We had a few interesting conversations during that time. One of them revolved around how we could work their religion into the film. Education and religion have been connected for most of Alaska's colonial history. The pastor at Shishmaref had let me film the entirity of his meetings. But the TBM couple had reservations. It was interesting to watch them immediately refer to authority and precedence when considering if I should record them having a sacrament meeting (in a congregation consisting of them and one other person). They pretty much thought, no, I shouldn't film the meeting, as it was too sacred.

Looking for further discussion I brought up Brigham City, you remember, that Richard Dutcher murder mystery movie that involves a bishop/sheriff and a pretty much real-time sacrament service. I had heard criticism of Dutcher for putting in the service (and the baptism, and the blessing). Anyway, I told this to them, fully intending to present Dutcher's defense next.

However, Rick (we'll call him Rick) said, "Yeah, and I was one of those people." Then he went on to tell me about how he thought the sacrament was way too sacred to depict on film.

I had an interesting choice at that point: bring up my point of view (which was pretty much the opposite of his), or not. I chose to not do it. I let him talk.

And it turned out to be kind of interesting to hear his ideas. Eventually they decided that I could film a scripture study or a family home evening. Which I thought was fine.

I've been thinking about my decision, and I've decided that I did a good thing. Which seems like a weird thing for me to say. I mean, one of my foundational values is the perpetuation of viewpoints and their honest discussion. But see, what happened here was that I was listening to his story. Which, I think, is one of the closest things there is to an inherently valuable act. In a way, it made no difference what my opinion was. First, because I was making a documentary about Rick and Gloria (we'll call her Gloria), not about myself. But second because when I listen to someone, I take a tiny sympathetic step into their world, and they can feel that.

Think of the people you love best. I'm thinking of one. She was one of my professors in college. An ardent feminist and an exMo. I was still a Mo, and quite under the spell of patriarchy. We had some really interesting conversations. And I took three of her classes - none of them compulsory. I look back and think it's strange that I kept going back to her. In fact, the last time I visited Utah, I specifically went to see her, despite the fact that it was way out of my way.

Why did I keep going back? Our ideas clashed, but she did one thing really well, she listened to me. Now that I think about it, it really is astounding how well she could listen, even when my ideas were repellant to her. I felt like something new grew up between us. Instead of one or the other idea prevailing, something new was created. I suppose you could call it a relationship.

So think back. I'm interested to know: are the people you love best also the ones who can listen to you? Or am I just an egomaniac?

Don't answer that last question.

So if we think about this on a political level, or a scientific one, I think something interesting comes about.

Person 1 loves the idea of evolution and all it implies.

Person 2 loves the idea of inteligent design and all it implies.

Person 1 and 2 have a conversation. The both listen deeply to each other, each testing and deepening the other's ideas. At no point does either of them claim to be right. They are most interested in listening to each other. Afterwards they go out for a beer.

Person 1 learns that Person 2 is deeply distressed about the lack of consideration given to ID in the public schools where his children attend. But Person 2 cannot convince the school board that his concern is legitimate. They are all quite set on evolution being the only thing taught in the schools.

Person 2 seeks Person 1's help to communicate with the school board. Person 1, having credibility with the school board, is able to help them see Person 2's position, though nothing ever really comes of it.

Later, the Moral Majority takes over America and puts our a vendetta against people who believe in evolution. Person 1's life is in danger. Person 2 hides him in his attic until the Germans free America from the Moral Majority's tyranny.

Cheesy, yes. But what I'm thinking here is that it really isn't so important which political or scientific ideas are ascendant; it matters if people can enter a state of egoless openness with each other, because then they lay the foundation of a relationship. Kind of like what I tried to do with Rick.

It seems to me that such a state would actually accelerate learning and discovery. Because finally the thesis and the antithesis could talk to eachother constructively. Finally you could disagree with someone in such a way that he or she would really appreciate it. Wouldn't it be great to have someone around who would put your ideas to the acid test, without insisting that you're stupid when things didn't turn out the way you thought they would?

But none of this can come about, it seems to me, without people being able to listen egolessly to each other. Which is quite a feat, I think. But I'm getting some training.

Huh, I just thought of something. In missionary land, they teach you to restate the investigator's concerns when concerns come up. That's to make sure you have understood the concern, and to help them see that you really have been listening. The place where that breaks down, of course, is that you're still trying to drive them in a particular direction.

I think Martin Buber, the Hasidic philosopher, said what I'm trying to say in his book "I and Thou." Anybody around here read it?
I believe that it is through listening to others that a truly learning experience can occur. I have nothing against book knowledge; in fact, I value book knowledge but listening is a genuine human act because a person can directly show someone that they are willing to learn from the other's personal wisdom. It is also a sign of open-ness as two people are in the process of gaining insight into the other's way of piecing knowledge together through something personal or through the other's book understanding. Perhaps there is a lesson for postmos here. By listening to TBM's and their own experiences, not through judgemental acts, but through an honest willingness to comprehend another's realities---he or she can learn to be more human in understanding differences in comprehensions of personal realities.

[Fredl]

Gee, this is such a wonderful post! Somehow, it makes me want to break out in the old Fats Waller song, "When somebody says you're wonderful".

Before I retired, I had a guy working for me in San Francisco who I really liked. He was far from brilliant technically but he had an incredible gift for bringing out the best in the people around him. He seemed completely egoless and, as I put it in one of his reviews, had a gift for hearing "what people meant, not just what they said".

How I wish I was a better listener!

Fred

[flotsam]

I believe that it is through listening to others that a truly learning experience can occur. I have nothing against book knowledge; in fact, I value book knowledge but listening is a genuine human act because a person can directly show someone that they are willing to learn from the other's personal wisdom. It is also a sign of open-ness as two people are in the process of gaining insight into the other's way of piecing knowledge together through something personal or through the other's book understanding. Perhaps there is a lesson for postmos here. By listening to TBM's and their own experiences, not through judgemental acts, but through an honest willingness to comprehend another's realities---he or she can learn to be more human in understanding differences in comprehensions of personal realities.


Well, you know what's interesting as well is how much I've learned from listening to the Post-Mo's here. I think this forum is remarkably adept at listening. Much more so than some other forums I've participated in.

[why me]

Well, you know what's interesting as well is how much I've learned from listening to the Post-Mo's here. I think this forum is remarkably adept at listening. Much more so than some other forums I've participated in.
Well....that is true in many regards. The postmos do seem to listen in the threads..but they can also get it all wrong in what a person is saying or what that person is trying to convey...then one needs to duck and head for cover or put on the armor and fight to the 'death'. But all in all, we have a good bunch of people here and I have learned much from listening to them in the threads. I am sure Flotsom that you bring up some of the perspectives you have found here in your church meetings. Not to lead people away but rather to generate interesting conversation and good listening practice. I know that I have when I have attended meetings. :)

[flotsam]

Well....that is true in many regards. The postmos do seem to listen in the threads..but they can also get it all wrong in what a person is saying or what that person is trying to convey...then one needs to duck and head for cover or put on the armor and fight to the 'death'. But all in all, we have a good bunch of people here and I have learned much from listening to them in the threads. I am sure Flotsom that you bring up some of the perspectives you have found here in your church meetings. Not to lead people away but rather to generate interesting conversation and good listening practice. I know that I have when I have attended meetings. :)

Actually, I get a heck of a lot more listening practice than I do conversation practice at church. For some reason all the classes I go to just aren't open for the kind of discussion I thrive on. And when I try to open a conversation along my sort of lines people feel attacked - kind of like what happens here every once in a while - take the ID thread for instance. I just want to explore and people think I'm taking sides.

I'm trying to learn how to communicate better. Actually, I think I learned something tonight while watching my first ever episode of Columbo. He just played dumb and let people walk all over him. They thought they were so much smarter than he, so they got sloppy, and eventually he figured out what was going on.

A great example of being able to subvert one's ego in the cause of exploration.

[why me]

Actually, I get a heck of a lot more listening practice than I do conversation practice at church. For some reason all the classes I go to just aren't open for the kind of discussion I thrive on. And when I try to open a conversation along my sort of lines people feel attacked - kind of like what happens here every once in a while - take the ID thread for instance. I just want to explore and people think I'm taking sides.

I'm trying to learn how to communicate better. Actually, I think I learned something tonight while watching my first ever episode of Columbo. He just played dumb and let people walk all over him. They thought they were so much smarter than he, so they got sloppy, and eventually he figured out what was going on.

A great example of being able to subvert one's ego in the cause of exploration.
I suppose that there is a wrong way and a right way to open a conversation at church. But it is important that people do not feel attacked when a comment is given. But how to avoid this from happening? I always try to be humble in my comments and I don't speak in a hostile tone. I just bring a lot of christ-centered humanism into the conversations and I try to gear the conversations toward the practical as much as possible. For example, in a recent meeting the topic was: What kind of man do you want to be? Brothers made comments that were rather standard. Not much excitement. But I tried to bring in the whole issue of abuse which I have learned from these threads and I posed the statement: Maybe it would be better to talk about the kind of men we don't want to be. I then brought up the father who murdered his two children and the husband who murdered his wife in a public square. I said that I don't want to be like these men. These incidents just happened in my neck of the woods. I said that I don't want to be like these men but then I added: Why are men behaving in such a way? What is happening in our community to give men such feelings of violence? And how can we protect ourselves from becoming these men? And what can we do as human beings to prevent these tragedies from happening so frequently as they now are happening?
Well I cannot say that I was successful but it was the try that counted, I suppose. Good luck with your conversation practice. :)

[Born Free]

Actually, I get a heck of a lot more listening practice than I do conversation practice at church. For some reason all the classes I go to just aren't open for the kind of discussion I thrive on. And when I try to open a conversation along my sort of lines people feel attacked - kind of like what happens here every once in a while - take the ID thread for instance. I just want to explore and people think I'm taking sides.

.
Flotsam,

Here, and in like places, the objective is a free exchange of ideas, well argued, with personal ownership, all based upon the notion that breadth of experience and perspective is invaluable.

How does that compare with the facade at Church, where most lessons are designed to elicit predictable answers, which everyone can follow like sheep. One perspective is offered, valued and ALL others are seen as threatening at minimum, right up to evil at max.

Where in that is there room for intelligent discussion. All the answers are known before the discussion starts. Tweedle-dee, tweedle-dumb!

Sorry, old mate, you are struggling because it is a struggle. It can't be anything other than what it is! Leave your brain, life experience and maturity at home next time, and you will fit in so much better.

Daryl

[meinmachine]

M., I kept thinking about your comment about separation of chuch and state. Somehow I just couldn't let it go. The thing that bothers me about it is that for the great majority of mankind, this model just doesn't seem to work.

Now, for a few hundred years, this model has, indeed, worked very well for the US and Western Europe. But, it has NOT been adopted by at least three other major civilizations which now, at the beginning of the 21st century appear to be poised to give us a real run for our money: Islam, China and India.

Islam appears to provide a model superior to ours to the world's poor and wretched. At least, from all accounts I'm aware of, it is gaining converts at a far more rapid rate than either Christianity or Westerm Skepticism. My own belief is that the poor and wretched know better than we do what offers them a vision of self respect and even a sort of progress within the ignorance (yes, they are ignorant - but not stupid) and want that they live in.

China, from what I've heard, offers its people the prospect of rapid material progress and considerable personal freedom at what appears to be a rather reasonable price - surrendering the right to organize in any way that could threaten political stability. This includes religious organizations. Appears to be a pretty reasonable price to pay for a model that is arguably at least as an effective model as Western Religious Freedom.

India, to the degree that I understand it, perceives religion as simply an aspect of the national culture rather than a distinct and definable "institution". On another Internet Site, I ran into a discussion of "Dharmic" and "Abrahamic" religions. The author, a lot smarter guy than I am, claimed this wasa general charactaristic of "Dharmic Religions". Also thought that "Dharmic Religions" tend to be a lot less militant than the "Abrahamic" sort.

I'm wondering whether the need to separate church and state is uniquely a Judeo/Christian issue. Or even just Christian one. Obviously, the Israelis don't seem to regard it as a burning issue.

Fred
The reason western societies need a separation of Church and state is because we have things like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada) Bill of Rights- USA, Common Law-England etc. etc. If you wish to dispense yourself of your civil liberties then combining church and state is a good idea.

There is no official religion in China, it is a godless state. However, in the past it replaced a heavenly god with a living deity. (Chairman Mao) Now the state and its organs are the "religion". Speak against it at your peril.

Israel is another great example of a religious state. It is a place I would not choose to live. It is on the verge of civil war, and it faces hostile neighbors who want it destroyed. Perhaps if Judaism was separate from the function of government then Israel might be able to survive in the long term?

India is racked with religious divisions. However, they have chosen to copy the western model of separating the functions of the state and personal religious choice. This has proven to make India the most stable democracy in the region. India is prospering and leads the region in sustainable growth. It does not have the civil liberties of a nation like Canada or the USA, but then again it is dealing with Sikh extremist, Muslim radicals and Tamil insurgents, to name a few.

In these troubled times we may all be asked to exchange our freedoms for security. I suppose that may be necessary, but I hope it is not. Inevitably we need to be vigilant to preserve the free flow of ideas and scientific inquiry. When this is lost we will ultimately loose the very thing we are trying to protect.

[Born Free]

<snip>

I'm wondering whether the need to separate church and state is uniquely a Judeo/Christian issue. Or even just Christian one. Obviously, the Israelis don't seem to regard it as a burning issue.

Fred

I am not aware of the mainland European impetus, but know something of the English origins.

Anne Boleyn (sp?), later to become the 2nd wife of Henry V111, had been trained and educated in the French courts, and had the neurons to grasp what she was exposed to. I am not sure, but would hazard a guess that philosophy and the (out of control) siesmic shift created by Luther would have been major elements of the intellectual leap forward. (History buffs, please rescue us here!)

When Henry V111 started to show interest in Anne, and the Catholic Mary would not allow divorce from the infertile and mentally variable Mary, Anne seems to have seen both an intellectual and personal reason to promote the idea of separation of Church and State. That was teh beginning of the Church of England, and a bitter and deadly war between English Catholics and Anglicans. I must admit that when I saw this historical development I was amused that one person's personal agenda served the broader good so well.

Of course the idea was further consolidated by later developments. In this last week I have seen an interview here with Geoffery Robertson, the prominent international human rights lawyer, who is just releasing a new book on key developments in English history that shaped these idea. It looks superb.

So the way I see it, the Church (the institutional Catholic Church) fought this development tooth and nail.(Why doesn't that surprise me?) It was driven by intellectual developments and personal selfish agendas, but one cannot overlook Luthers notion that man did not need a mediator between him/her and God. One could argue that a healthy climate for intellectual exploration was also an element.

Sadly, I see Bush and the US fundies as trying to reduce the distance between the Church and State, but they do not see the risk that while they all figure they are paddling the same canoe, there are in fact deep divisions between conservative Christian groups as to what 'The Church' should have the power to stuff down others throats.

The dangers inherent in the idea that "I know the mind of God and am entitled to tell you what that is' is frightening in its implications. Every meglamaniac holds that mindset.

This truely is a flight from reason! :eek:

So I see no inherent superiority of Christianity over the other religions with respect to human rights. The West had its lead largely due to science and philosophy.

Daryl

[Born Free]

<snip>

There is no official religion in China, it is a godless state. However, in the past it replaced a heavenly god with a living deity. (Chairman Mao) Now the state and its organs are the "religion". Speak against it at your peril.

meinmachine,

Does the absence of an official religion imply a 'Godless State'?

The US consitution states that no man will get favour because of his/her religion, but historically the system has been very blind to systemic Christian bias.

THat is now being challenged, and the challenges are being seen by fundies as anti-God.

Daryl

[meinmachine]

meinmachine,

Does the absence of an official religion imply a 'Godless State'?

The US consitution states that no man will get favour because of his/her religion, but historically the system has been very blind to systemic Christian bias.

THat is now being challenged, and the challenges are being seen by fundies as anti-God.

Daryl
I intended "godless state" as a reference to the anti-commie phrase often used by those that criticized the Communist system. The Irony is of course is that China has its own variation of state dogma. It has its conventional religions too.(Officially tolerated anyway.)

It is sad that in the USA during the Eisenhower administration the Pledge of Allegiance was changed to include "under God." Just one more bending of the separation of church and state. I don't mind if 99% of Americans are Christian, what I mind is if the government gets involved in the promotion of religions.

[helemon]

I don't mind if 99% of Americans are Christian, what I mind is if the government gets involved in the promotion of religions.

Then this probably really ticked you off:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/14/AR2005081401036.html
I really hope that all this activity on the part of the religious right causes a huge backlash against these groups trying to impose their religious will on the rest of us. I can't believe all their retoric about activist judges! An activist judge is anyone who pronounces a judgement they don't like! Besides if it wasn't for "activist judges" W wouldn't be in the White house.

Miller criticized the court because it "removed prayer from our public schools . . . legalized the barbaric killing of unborn babies, and it is ready to discard like an outdated hula hoop the universal institution of marriage between a man and a woman."

Uh, its a PUBLIC school!! Not a CHRISTIAN school! Sometimes abortion IS justified and prudent. Why not focus on teaching kids how to prevent pregnancy and working to improve peoples socio economic status so that they can afford to raise children. As was demonstrated elsewhere on this board marriage and religion is a rather recent combination. Also there have been and still are various forms of marriage.