Numerolgical Faith Promotion

[Tarski]

I have been quite surprised to see publication of the ideas of John Pratt in Meridian Magazine.

I don't know if this has been discussed.

 

In particular, consider the article "Mars Testifies of Patriarchs and Priesthoods" found at ldsmag.com

I find this article to be essentially numerology or at least the same kind and quality of thinking.  Very very bad, in other words.  I would have thought that plain old common sense would be sufficient to reject this kind of thing and that this would be true among educated LDS as well. That is, even without having thought about scientific epistemology, use or misuse of probabilistic thinking, or even the psychology behind the kind of generalized intellectual pareidolia or overactive pattern finding that is exhibited in numerology, I would have suspected that Mr. Pratt's ideas would be unappealing and implausible to most LDS.

 

But, I am not so sure now that I see it appearing in Meridian magazine since I thought that the magazine endeavored to be taken a bit more seriously.  Am I wrong about what to expect from a typical LDS or am I wrong about Meridean Magazine or both?

What opinions do MDD board members hold about this kind of thing?

 

[mfbukowski]

What "kind of thing" would that be?

A link to the article would help.

[Tarski]

What "kind of thing" would that be?

A link to the article would help.

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/14952

[mfbukowski]

Yep, definitely weird.

 

I guess people get to have weird beliefs in this world and get them published.

 

So this is something we should worry about - why?  I mean should we boycott Meridian magazine as being not politically correct or something?  March around with signs?

[Tarski]

Yep, definitely weird.

 

I guess people get to have weird beliefs in this world and get them published.

 

So this is something we should worry about - why?  I mean should we boycott Meridian magazine as being not politically correct or something?  March around with signs?

Just ask for better. A letter the the editor. A critical comment (allowed? Try it.).

I would worry about it if I were an active member.  It goes to image if nothing else.  There is also the value of education and critical thinking skills that ought to be embraced by the Lord's flock. But, then I may be expecting too much. From my limited perspective, major parts of Mormonism itself are quite weird in roughly the same way.

Since I posted the question, it did occur to me that perhaps early saints, Joseph Smith included, would have been attracted to this kind of thinking. That is my impression at least.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Tarski

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have read a few things from Mr. Pratt. I think some of it is very strange and I stopped reading most of it. I just don't believe what he is saying. Not really into that kind of "proof". This stuff is more like twinkie doctrine. I.e., Even if true it is not very useful.

 

 

BTW, were the heck have you been it has been at least 2 years since you were on here, I think.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Calm]

" I am not so sure now that I see it appearing in Meridian magazine since I thought that the magazine endeavored to be taken a bit more seriously.  Am I wrong about what to expect from a typical LDS or am I wrong about Meridean Magazine or both?"

 

I was under the impression that the Pratts owned Meridian magazine.  Will have to check on that.

 

add-on:  oops, that was the Proctors...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scot_and_Maurine_Proctor

 

If I recall correctly, Pratt has been publishing for a long time his theories in the magazine.  There has always been a certain segment of the LDS community that looks for secret codes of the universe whether in the Bible, the stars or someplace else just like there is in the general population.  I personally don't buy it though I don't discount God using the sky in some way to mark an event, though I think the earth event would be tied to the sky event and not the other way around because it would be a lot harder to get the timing right.

 

After some research, I have found that Dr. Pratt is an astronomer who has done professional work that has been respected.  He has apparently taken his professional knowledge and attempted to apply it to a better understanding of the scriptures.  Some of the stuff looks intelligent and useful such as possible chronologies, but other stuff looks like he has one tool in his toolbox and insists that it will work for everything.  He in essence moves out of astronomy and into astrology or its equivalent, imo.  It is too bad when people lose the ability to set back and rigorously critique their own work.

Edited September 30, 2014 by calmoriah

[USU78]

Yep, definitely weird.

 

I guess people get to have weird beliefs in this world and get them published.

 

So this is something we should worry about - why?  I mean should we boycott Meridian magazine as being not politically correct or something?  March around with signs?

 

Nothing wrong with looking in odd places to see if, perhaps, there's a diamond in the dung.

 

And, as you've made abundantly clear in the other thread, sometimes G-d's finger touches the excremental and ennobles it, making it sublime.

[Ahab]

Nothing wrong with looking in odd places to see if, perhaps, there's a diamond in the dung.

And, as you've made abundantly clear in the other thread, sometimes G-d's finger touches the excremental and ennobles it, making it sublime.

Excremental? I think you made that word up.

Not to mention, eewwww!!!

[USU78]

Excremental? I think you made that word up.

Not to mention, eewwww!!!

 

Orson Scott Card did a short story several years ago where poop figured largely:  Warriors on another planet are joined by a human hoping to establish diplomatic relations in their quest to honor a comrade who'd died in battle.  They don't take his corpse to the mountain top as a religious duty, but rather the contents of his bowels at the moment of his death.

 

Card says he did it as an exercise:  If I can invoke holiness with a tale about the worst kind of earthly stuff, then I've really done something.

 

He succeeds, IMO.

 

Mark's been making the point that the mundanest of things can become holy through our experience of the holy, just as mere rocks are made to glow by the touch of G-d's finger (just as low and useless beings like the likes of me and thee can be ennobled by G-d's touch).

[mfbukowski]

Nothing wrong with looking in odd places to see if, perhaps, there's a diamond in the dung.

 

And, as you've made abundantly clear in the other thread, sometimes G-d's finger touches the excremental and ennobles it, making it sublime.

Oh no, I totally agree, but that doesn't make the process "UN-weird". 

 

I recall a conversation my father told me about in 1945 with his great grandmother (birth date- 1860's, Poland) who was a phenomenal lady, holding her family together in spite of all the odds.  She had received revelations about future events for her family and knew about things well before they happened, and prepared for them.  She could pick wild mushrooms in the forest and no one ever got sick because the species in Western NY were the same as those in Europe, I guess.

 

My dad was describing the fact that the chair she was sitting in was made of atoms that were vibrating constantly and that really had more space between the atoms than mass, and that one of those atoms could be split and give off enough energy to make a bomb or make electricity for a whole city.

 

She looked at him with serious alarm in her face, and thought he had lost his mind.

 

Just because a story is weird, that doesn't mean it is false

[cinepro]

I think Meridian targets a specific sub-set of Mormons.  There are certainly many LDS who become enamored by such ideas (I think I may be related to some of them).  I guess we can just be thankful that those ideas aren't commonly found in official Church publications.

[mfbukowski]

In fact I was going to take on Tarski's religious belief that to be "true" a proposition had to have "evidence", but we've done that all before.  (see his siggy)

 

Now that's REAL faith, in what qualifies as "evidence" and how the sentence "corresponds" to the evidence and how we could possibly know that.

 

But that is a different battle- been there done that. 

 

Tarski- remember this: http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/2/278.deterding

 

Or didn't we ever talk about it?

 

Really that would be a derail I guess- up to you as OP

[The Nehor]

Basically these are people who thing God put Easter eggs in the Universe for some reason and matched them to their hypothetical dates for important past events.

I guess it keeps the weirdos in the church out of trouble so I encourage this as long as they keep it to themselves.

[strappinglad]

Apparently, even our vaunted physicists can get the numbers wrong and need a fresh perspective.

http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

[The Nehor]

Apparently, even our vaunted physicists can get the numbers wrong and need a fresh perspective.

http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

 

Gotta love the internet. A site makes a claim and suddenly it is news and virtually proven. Journalism is truly dead.

 

And no, this does not mean black holes do not exist. We know that there are supermassive objects out there. We have found the infrared signatures of MILLIONS of them. We have observed their effects. Is there more to learn about the phenomenon? Sure. Could we find out they work differently then we think they do now? Sure. Are we going to find out they don't exist at all? No.

 

Of course it is getting eaten up anyways. I expect Christian fundamentalist groups to bite hard as if she is correct her ideas would shoot down the Big Bang Theory. Sadly for them this is almost certainly going nowhere.

[boblloyd91]

Basically these are people who thing God put Easter eggs in the Universe for some reason and matched them to their hypothetical dates for important past events.

I guess it keeps the weirdos in the church out of trouble so I encourage this as long as they keep it to themselves.

After reading the article I couldn't have said it better myself! I remember on my mission a rather mischievous district leader found an old book of LDS science fiction. There was some WEIRD stuff in that book. Among the stories told was the story of "Lynn a" a narrative about a sperm traveling up the birth canal, which I guess was an analogy of our mortal journey? Then there was a story about Jesus holding a news conference after the second coming. The one that took the cake though was the story of some righteous Nephites who build a spaceship during the times of great wickedness. They found a colony on a moon by Jupiter, and become so holy that a temple recommend is required to land, and the inhabitants speak in a mathematical expression. It was a weird but hilarious book. I forget what it was called or when it was compiled. I really believe no one can do weird like us Mormons!

[longview]

After reading the article I couldn't have said it better myself! I remember on my mission a rather mischievous district leader found an old book of LDS science fiction. There was some WEIRD stuff in that book. Among the stories told was the story of "Lynn a" a narrative about a sperm traveling up the birth canal, which I guess was an analogy of our mortal journey? Then there was a story about Jesus holding a news conference after the second coming. The one that took the cake though was the story of some righteous Nephites who build a spaceship during the times of great wickedness. They found a colony on a moon by Jupiter, and become so holy that a temple recommend is required to land, and the inhabitants speak in a mathematical expression. It was a weird but hilarious book. I forget what it was called or when it was compiled. I really believe no one can do weird like us Mormons!

How would you rate Orson Scott Card on the weirdness scale?

[boblloyd91]

How would you rate Orson Scott Card on the weirdness scale?

 

I've never read his stuff, but from what I've heard I don't think he is all that weird

[Tarski]

In fact I was going to take on Tarski's religious belief that to be "true" a proposition had to have "evidence", but we've done that all before.  (see his siggy)

 

Now that's REAL faith, in what qualifies as "evidence" and how the sentence "corresponds" to the evidence and how we could possibly know that.

 

But that is a different battle- been there done that. 

 

Tarski- remember this: http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/2/278.deterding

 

Or didn't we ever talk about it?

 

Really that would be a derail I guess- up to you as OP

It is amusing that you call something a religious belief exactly when you wish to make fun of it. Faith is a good thing isn't it?

But what are you making fun of exactly? The idea that evidence matters?

 

Let me state my position.  It is not that something can't be true unless we have evidence. What is true is what is true.

The evidence comes in when we want to justify our belief that something is true or  when we want to find out whether something is true or not with a degree of confidence. From another point of view evidence comes into play because we wish to avoid error. We want to increase the chances that our actions do not lead to painful results.

 

Oh but you ask "do you need evidence to know that you love your mommy?"

Or how about, "what is your evidence for the principal of scientific induction? Oh that's circular!"

Or "Can you logically prove the validity of logic"?"

 

I think we can skip over this stuff because if anything is the sort of thing where appropriate attention to evidence is relevant, it is in cases like what we are talking about.

After all, when it comes to important issues like whether vaccinations cause autism or whether witches are the cause of disease (a live issue in some parts of africa), what else would be more important than evidence and its rational analysis? But what goes wrong in these cases is of the same sort as with Dr. Pratt's Numerology/Astrology even if the later are unlikely to cause immediate harm. It is a matter of rooting out sloppy habit of thinking and belief fixation.

Well, there are things just as important as raw evidence (an idealization). For example, the rational princples (possibly including something like common sense) that help us determine what counts as relevant evidence for what and how much weight to assign, what can be expected in terms of coincidence and more subtle things such as cognitive illusions, confirmation bias and so on. For example, we need to understand why the fact that my friends dog died the day after  his mother died is not evidence that my friend must have sinned or that someone in the family is practicing witchcraft.

 

Does it matter to you at all if belief in conspiracy theories runs rampant even among powerful policy makers or that homepathic medicine is used in place of evidence based medicine? How about beliefs people have about other races or religions?  Are some beliefs dangerous? Are some beliefs more warranted than others? Are you denying or down playing the importance of evidence and rational analysis in such instances? 

The fact, that philosophers can still draw our attention to certain epistemological puzzles and cannot provide absolute epitemological foundations cannot excuse us from doing our best to collect relevant evidence and apply careful rational analysis --as much as possible within the available time constraints (we all have to act in a time manner).

 

But, what I am saying is that the Pratt stuff is a clear example of a failure in this regard and the extent to which people accept it reflects an undesirable irrational quality in those people. Were the same kind of sloppy thinking to be applied by those people in other contexts such as voting, policy making, child rearing, personal health and diet, or choosing a religion, actual harm is done and in many cases the harm is not restricted to the individual.

So excuse me but I think I will continue to call attention to what looks like clear cases of irrationality. The opening up of the conversation at least is important.

 

You might want to think about the problem that exists with belief in witchcraft that exists in certain societies in parts of Africa for example. All sorts of things are blamed on witchcraft. It is my understanding the people are actually murdered or dismembered in some cases by their own family members as a result of such beliefs.  How would you fight that in the long term without promoting the importance of evidence based critical thinking? I am not sure how a radical relativist even frames the problem.

 

Let me add that it isn't the weirdness as such that is of concern.  Quantum mechanics is weird. 

Edited October 1, 2014 by Tarski

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is amusing that you call something a religious belief exactly when you wish to make fun of it. Faith is a good thing isn't it?

But what are you making fun of exactly? The idea that evidence matters?

I would not assume he is making fun of anything. Remember it is all philosophical.

[mfbukowski]

It is amusing that you call something a religious belief exactly when you wish to make fun of it. Faith is a good thing isn't it?

But what are you making fun of exactly? The idea that evidence matters?

 

Let me state my position.  It is not that something can't be true unless we have evidence. What is true is what is true.

The evidence comes in when we want to justify our belief that something is true or  when we want to find out whether something is true or not with a degree of confidence. From another point of view evidence comes into play because we wish to avoid error. We want to increase the chances that our actions do not lead to painful results.

 

Oh but you ask "do you need evidence to know that you love your mommy?"

Or how about, "what is your evidence for the principal of scientific induction? Oh that's circular!"

Or "Can you logically prove the validity of logic"?"

 

I think we can skip over this stuff because if anything is the sort of thing where appropriate attention to evidence is relevant, it is in cases like what we are talking about.

After all, when it comes to important issues like whether vaccinations cause autism or whether witches are the cause of disease (a live issue in some parts of africa), what else would be more important than evidence and its rational analysis? But what goes wrong in these cases is of the same sort as with Dr. Pratt's Numerology/Astrology even if the later are unlikely to cause immediate harm. It is a matter of rooting out sloppy habit of thinking and belief fixation.

Well, there are things just as important as raw evidence (an idealization). For example, the rational princples (possibly including something like common sense) that help us determine what counts as relevant evidence for what and how much weight to assign, what can be expected in terms of coincidence and more subtle things such as cognitive illusions, confirmation bias and so on. For example, we need to understand why the fact that my friends dog died the day after  his mother died is not evidence that my friend must have sinned or that someone in the family is practicing witchcraft.

 

Does it matter to you at all if belief in conspiracy theories runs rampant even among powerful policy makers or that homepathic medicine is used in place of evidence based medicine? How about beliefs people have about other races or religions?  Are some beliefs dangerous? Are some beliefs more warranted than others? Are you denying or down playing the importance of evidence and rational analysis in such instances? 

The fact, that philosophers can still draw our attention to certain epistemological puzzles and cannot provide absolute epitemological foundations cannot excuse us from doing our best to collect relevant evidence and apply careful rational analysis --as much as possible within the available time constraints (we all have to act in a time manner).

 

But, what I am saying is that the Pratt stuff is a clear example of a failure in this regard and the extent to which people accept it reflects an undesirable irrational quality in those people. Were the same kind of sloppy thinking to be applied by those people in other contexts such as voting, policy making, child rearing, personal health and diet, or choosing a religion, actual harm is done and in many cases the harm is not restricted to the individual.

So excuse me but I think I will continue to call attention to what looks like clear cases of irrationality. The opening up of the conversation at least is important.

 

You might want to think about the problem that exists with belief in witchcraft that exists in certain societies in parts of Africa for example. All sorts of things are blamed on witchcraft. It is my understanding the people are actually murdered or dismembered in some cases by their own family members as a result of such beliefs.  How would you fight that in the long term without promoting the importance of evidence based critical thinking? I am not sure how a radical relativist even frames the problem.

 

Let me add that it isn't the weirdness as such that is of concern.  Quantum mechanics is weird. 

 

There really isn't much I can argue with here, but there is one point, I think.

 

 

But, what I am saying is that the Pratt stuff is a clear example of a failure in this regard and the extent to which people accept it reflects an undesirable irrational quality in those people. Were the same kind of sloppy thinking to be applied by those people in other contexts such as voting, policy making, child rearing, personal health and diet, or choosing a religion, actual harm is done and in many cases the harm is not restricted to the individual.

So excuse me but I think I will continue to call attention to what looks like clear cases of irrationality. The opening up of the conversation at least is important.

I guess what I object to here the assumption that religious principles need to be "rational" when "rational" is defined as "subject to justification by objective evidence" and that is what I interpret this as saying.

 

By that definition, all religion is "irrational", but then by the same definition, so is ethics and morals.  There is no evidence that can show that "cannibalism is wrong" or that we should not eat newborn babies for breakfast.  (But chicken embryos are acceptable)

 

Yet in all civilized societies, those norms are accepted as "rational" without any justification, other than moral feelings inside of oneself.  We find beheadings of innocents disgusting and condemn them universally, with absolutely no evidence that we should do so.

 

The fact that we value human life is itself evidence that evidence doesn't apply in these cases.

 

We believe people should be free to find their own destiny and live in happiness.  By the previous definition, that is "irrational"

Were the same kind of sloppy thinking to be applied by those people in other contexts such as voting, policy making, child rearing, personal health and diet, or choosing a religion, actual harm is done and in many cases the harm is not restricted to the individual.

Yes, but we do not apply that kind of "sloppy thinking" in these areas, do we?

 

And why not?

 

Because, except for "choosing a religion", you have mentioned activities in which evidence is important in making good decisions.  You don't use a screwdriver to tighten a pipe- there is an appropriate tool for every job.

 

In religion, morals, picking a mate, and really most of the important issues in life, objective evidence becomes irrelevant because none is available.  Because 98% of people voting would pick "Spouse X" as a mate (think of your favorite sexy movie star) doesn't mean that I would or should pick the same person, or compete for his/her affections.

 

Because everyone is Muslim, or Catholic or Mormon, that doesn't mean I should be.  Because everyone thinks abortion is right- or wrong for that matter- that doesn't mean I should feel that way.

 

Activities that make my life meaningful might not make yours meaningful.  Perhaps you want to save the whales.  Maybe I want to kill whales.  Maybe studying quantum mechanics makes your life meaningful, but I would rather paint a picture or write a poem.

 

No one thinks those kind of choices should be based on "rational evidence".  These kinds of decisions are based on emotional preference and have nothing to do with objective evidence

 

My point, is that religion is in the same category as those other issues, and therefore evidence is irrelevant.

 

If I think that because the moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, making it clear that today is the day to write my memoirs, that is no less "rational" based on evidence, than thinking it is immoral to behead innocents.

 

Those who think it is ok for one to behead an innocent find that just as "rational" as one who wants to save the planet or vote Democratic or Republican.

 

I basically agree with most of what you say, but I think you are missing the point in that quote. 

 

Religion, which to me is a set of beliefs which give your personal life meaning and give you an understanding of your place in the universe, has nothing to do with evidence based on what works for others or anything objective.

Edited October 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

We are emotional beings- and that is what it is to be human.  The things we find most important are based on emotions- indeed the fact that we order one item above an other in "importance" is based on an emotional decision.  ALL decisions about what is most important to us include emotional elements, otherwise they would be easy.

Edited October 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

How would you rate Orson Scott Card on the weirdness scale?

His books? Normal but strangely homoerotic. Himself? Currently quite crazy.

[Tarski]

 

 

I guess what I object to here the assumption that religious principles need to be "rational" when "rational" is defined as "subject to justification by objective evidence" and that is what I interpret this as saying.

 

By that definition, all religion is "irrational", but then by the same definition, so is ethics and morals.  There is no evidence that can show that "cannibalism is wrong" or that we should not eat newborn babies for breakfast.  (But chicken embryos are acceptable)

 

Well, in practical terms it may be quite difficult to be fully rational about an array of things. For one thing, we may not have the time or resources. For another, some things are so poorly understood in the first place it is hard to get a handle. As I am sure you are aware, all evidence is theory laden from the start. This is fine as long as we can both be pretty confident about any minimal theoretical baggage we are bringing to the table and also as long as we can be open to a possible questioning of our assumptions if needed (without that we could have never gone from the Newtonian to the Einsteinian notions of time space and energy).  But what if we are aware the theoretical background in a certain area is inchoate or controversial. This is the case with some parts of psychology for example. Then we are limited in our ability to act rationally but not completely.

There is usually a sense in which we can surmise whether we are being more or less rational.

As for the comment about cannibalism, I think that evidence can obviously play a role. For example, if a society has come to adopt another value such as some value about health practices or longevity and then evidence emerges that cannibalism has health consequences, that very evidence comes into play. It is not hard to imagine evidence emerging that shows cannibalism to conflict with any of a number of emerging values.  In fact, I think this is in part how we got over slavery.  If anyone thought that slaves were at the social station best suited for their own happiness, it is not hard to imagine evidence that contradicted that. If the value of another persons being happily suited to their circumstance were already in place, then the evidence would matter.  Similarly, if (counterfactually I believe) evidence were to emerge that showed consistent increases in major depression among sex change patients, a rational person would have to take that into account when considering a sex change.

The point, is that are various values have to be harmonized or coordinated and evidence can clarify where subtle conflicts exists.

 

 

Yes, but we do not apply that kind of "sloppy thinking" in these areas, do we?

 

Well, yes I think we do often enough.

 

Perhaps you want to save the whales.  Maybe I want to kill whales.  Maybe studying quantum mechanics makes your life meaningful, but I would rather paint a picture or write a poem.

 

No one thinks those kind of choices should be based on "rational evidence".  These kinds of decisions are based on emotional preference and have nothing to do with objective evidence

 

Evidence can and often should play a role. For example, it might be relevant to me to have evidence that whales are conscious. I might have another value to reconcile and I may have heretofore been under the assumption that whales are not conscious.

 

In the current case, I am quite sure that it matters to Mr. Pratt that his ideas be true. He very well might not be interested in pursuing them if he knew they we not likely to be true. More to the point, onlookers who are attracted to those ideas in part exactly because they are judged to be true would be irrational to not look into the evidence issue. Few people like the idea of being fooled into a state of apparent happiness.   When is the last time someone you know said, "if this is a lie don't tell me".

It goes back to the observation that most people only join churches with elaborate and tightly held literalistic doctrine because they think the doctrine is true in a very straightforward sense. Rational evaluation of evidence would be quite relevant in that case and we should feel sorry for a person who is taken in by such a religion if by their own lights the facts of the matter as they seee them are a necessary part of why they choose such a religion. Few people want to be duped even if they knew the beliefs would make them happy if maintained. It is the old red pill blue pill thing from the matrix.

 

By the way, even my judgement that some belief might make me happy is an example of a rational consideration in a general sense.