Understanding The Religious Mind

[Nofear]

http://divinehumanism.tumblr.com/post/134178789628/understanding-the-religious-mind-engaging-sam
 

Two atheists propose quite different approaches. I confess having empathy for Haidt's position (despite being anything but an atheist myself) and find value in his approach. But I can clearly see echoes of these two philosopher's approaches in the various "discussions" that occur on the board.

The post is mostly for mfbukowski, but others many like too.

[CV75]

http://divinehumanism.tumblr.com/post/134178789628/understanding-the-religious-mind-engaging-sam

 

Two atheists propose quite different approaches. I confess having empathy for Haidt's position (despite being anything but an atheist myself) and find value in his approach. But I can clearly see echoes of these two philosopher's approaches in the various "discussions" that occur on the board.

The post is mostly for mfbukowski, but others many like too.

What is the gist?

[Robert F. Smith]

http://divinehumanism.tumblr.com/post/134178789628/understanding-the-religious-mind-engaging-sam

 

Two atheists propose quite different approaches. I confess having empathy for Haidt's position (despite being anything but an atheist myself) and find value in his approach. But I can clearly see echoes of these two philosopher's approaches in the various "discussions" that occur on the board.

The post is mostly for mfbukowski, but others many like too.

Thanks.  A very important discussion.  Especially since Mormonism is divine humanism.

[Ahab]

I appreciate both perspectives and often neglect to wait until I see if someone feels a positive emotional connection to me before we begin to get into a rational discussion. I'm not particularly skilled in emotional foreplay either and tend to want to get into rational arguments fairly quickly. But still I pretty much love everybody all of the time anyways. I think I just need to get better at determining when and how much I should get emotional as well as rational with people, generally.

[theplains]

From Genesis ...

 

3:5 - "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and

ye shall be [future tense] as gods, knowing good and evil."

 

3:22-24 says, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know

good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat,

and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the

ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of

the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the

way of the tree of life."

 

At which point where Adam and Eve considered divine humans?  Before or after they ate

from the forbidden tree?  Is the phrase "the man is become as one of us" a reference to

them becoming deities?  

 

Before Adam had become 'as one of us', what was he?  Just a regular and perfect human,

non-divine?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Gray]

Thanks.  A very important discussion.  Especially since Mormonism is divine humanism.

 

I agree, although if you look up the term on LDS.org, you'll find article after article condemning it. 

[Nofear]

For the record, the article isn't about humanism at all. (Believing in deontological ethics I can't say I'm a humanist.) The article instead presents a framework about how to engage those with variant opinions. Seems some posters could learn from it.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Nofear

[mfbukowski]

http://divinehumanism.tumblr.com/post/134178789628/understanding-the-religious-mind-engaging-sam

 

Two atheists propose quite different approaches. I confess having empathy for Haidt's position (despite being anything but an atheist myself) and find value in his approach. But I can clearly see echoes of these two philosopher's approaches in the various "discussions" that occur on the board.

The post is mostly for mfbukowski, but others many like too.

Dang, ya got me!!

 

But the board is about to shut down.  I will check it out and catch you on the other side.

 

Gosh that sounds ominous !

[Meadowchik]

From the link:

Quote

If people do not feel that we first “get them,” or if they sense that we don’t care enough to illuminate their beliefs in the best light possible, then chances of us collapsing the gulf between descriptive and prescriptive ethics (what Harris wants to enact through persuasive reasoning) will be highly unlikely. Harms are bound to compound when we apply our competitive impulses to social conversation (in team psychology this is referred to as the “We’re right, you’re wrong” mentality). Problems occur when we seek to persuade others in the absence of our empathy, even if “we” really are right and “they” really are wrong. We must learn, as Haidt insists, to first speak to people’s hearts before trying to strategically reason, alter their paradigms. We must first win their trust.

I agree.

And, depending on our method of "argument," we can do even more than dissuade them from our position, we can turn them away from putting effort into mutual solutions to common real-life problems. 

I've experienced this myself in real life: there's nothing like realizing the person before you is behaving like a wolf in sheep's clothing.  Once realized, I have no desire to lend my hand, because I am quite sure that instead of extending their hand, too, they will bite.  Fortunately, I feel this way about a rare few I personally know...trying not to let this experience poison my other relationships.

[CV75]

I think all minds are subject to “illusions of knowledge” (as Tetlock and Gardner explain it in “Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction,”) so it doesn’t help to draw a dichotomy between intuition (which Haidt favors) and analysis (which Harris favors) based on what or how we think others think—we are all essentially doing the same things from the subconscious level.

I think Mosiah 4: 11, 12 and 27 shows this by describing why to exercise pure religion, and then explaining how.

Why: “And behold, I say unto you that if ye do this ye shall always rejoice, and be filled with the love of God, and always retain a remission of your sins; and ye shall grow in the knowledge of the glory of him that created you, or in the knowledge of that which is just and true.”

How: “And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.”

[The Nehor]

I have been authoritatively told by many atheists that as a believer my mind is broken so shouldn't they focus more on my mental illness?

[SmileyMcGee]

On 11/30/2015, 12:27:47, Nofear said:

http://divinehumanism.tumblr.com/post/134178789628/understanding-the-religious-mind-engaging-sam
 

Two atheists propose quite different approaches. I confess having empathy for Haidt's position (despite being anything but an atheist myself) and find value in his approach. But I can clearly see echoes of these two philosopher's approaches in the various "discussions" that occur on the board.

The post is mostly for mfbukowski, but others many like too.

I'm not really a fan of Sam Harris' position, it seems a bit dogmatic. I remember watching a debate of his with William Lane Craig, wherein he states that questioning whether human well-being should be the standard for gauging morality is "hitting philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question." Cleverly worded, but apparently he feels that calling something stupid is sufficient justification for claiming a superior moral framework--kind of circular.

I'm more comfortable with Haidt's position. The way I interpret his position (assuming the linked article sufficiently relays his position) is that behaviors are reasonable (good) or unreasonable (bad) within the context of a set of beliefs...whatever those beliefs may be, and arguing morality seems useless unless all parties to the argument are appealing to the same set of beliefs.

(This all sounds strangely reminiscent of thread discussing the "inherent evil" of SSM) 

Edited December 4, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[JLHPROF]

On 11/30/2015, 1:34:27, theplains said:

From Genesis ...

 

3:5 - "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and

ye shall be [future tense] as gods, knowing good and evil."

 

3:22-24 says, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know

good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat,

and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the

ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of

the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the

way of the tree of life."

 

At which point where Adam and Eve considered divine humans?  Before or after they ate

from the forbidden tree?  Is the phrase "the man is become as one of us" a reference to

them becoming deities?  

 

Before Adam had become 'as one of us', what was he?  Just a regular and perfect human,

non-divine?

Good questions. 

How did man become "divine" (like the Gods) through the fall?  Wasn't he more pure and righteous before being mortal?

How did knowledge of good and evil make man like the Gods?

What was the "tree of life" that would make mortal man immortal?

These questions show exactly what I love about the broad teachings encompassed in all that is Mormonism.

Edited December 4, 2015 by JLHPROF

[SmileyMcGee]

On 11/30/2015, 12:27:47, Nofear said:

http://divinehumanism.tumblr.com/post/134178789628/understanding-the-religious-mind-engaging-sam
 

Two atheists propose quite different approaches. I confess having empathy for Haidt's position (despite being anything but an atheist myself) and find value in his approach. But I can clearly see echoes of these two philosopher's approaches in the various "discussions" that occur on the board.

The post is mostly for mfbukowski, but others many like too.

If I could give you additional rep points I would. I really like this thread you have started.

[theplains]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Good questions. 

How did man become "divine" (like the Gods) through the fall?  Wasn't he more pure and righteous before being mortal?

How did knowledge of good and evil make man like the Gods?

What was the "tree of life" that would make mortal man immortal?

Eating from the forbidden tree made them mortal. They were immortal when they were created. They were closer in a relationship with God before the fall. After the fall, they were in a lost and fallen state... the consequences which all their progeny inherited. Their first experience was shame and fear.  There is no mention of this until Adam also partook.  I believe God would have eventually taught them everything they wanted to know, but unfortunately they followed the devil's schemes to seeking this knowledge in a way unapproved by God.  Hence the punishments given each to Adam, Eve, and the serpent.  LDS theology on the other hand (if you believe the teachings expounded in Gospel Principles), calls them 'great blessings'.  The tree of life was an actual tree like the other trees in the Garden were actual trees.  Some though may view it as something non-literal.  Adam and Eve no doubt had become like God as the scriptures say, but God is not a 'fallen and divine being' so this verse has more meaning than meets the eye.

Thanks,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, theplains said:

Eating from the forbidden tree made them mortal. They were immortal when they were created. They were closer in a relationship with God before the fall. After the fall, they were in a lost and fallen state... the consequences which all their progeny inherited. Their first experience was shame and fear.  There is no mention of this until Adam also partook.  I believe God would have eventually taught them everything they wanted to know, but unfortunately they followed the devil's schemes to seeking this knowledge in a way unapproved by God.  Hence the punishments given each to Adam, Eve, and the serpent.  LDS theology on the other hand (if you believe the teachings expounded in Gospel Principles), calls them 'great blessings'.  The tree of life was an actual tree like the other trees in the Garden were actual trees.  Some though may view it as something non-literal.  Adam and Eve no doubt had become like God as the scriptures say, but God is not a 'fallen and divine being' so this verse has more meaning than meets the eye.

Thanks,

Jim

That doesn't answer the questions.  Scripture says man is more like God when fallen than before the fall.  You say they weren't.  I'll go with scripture.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/30/2015, 11:27:47, Nofear said:

http://divinehumanism.tumblr.com/post/134178789628/understanding-the-religious-mind-engaging-sam
 

Two atheists propose quite different approaches. I confess having empathy for Haidt's position (despite being anything but an atheist myself) and find value in his approach. But I can clearly see echoes of these two philosopher's approaches in the various "discussions" that occur on the board.

The post is mostly for mfbukowski, but others many like too.

OK I have had a chance to look at the blog and read the NY Times review.  I have not read Haidt's book, though I plan to.  Harris not so much.

I endorse most of Haidt's position.  I liked the blog a LOT. Thanks so much for posting this!! 

I think Habermeyer has raised some good issues. Haidt, Habermeyer, Harris.  The three H's. Strange coincidence. Clearly some cosmic link there.  Must be those two verticals linked by the horizontal in the H - the three strokes representing two different vertical positions with a unifying horizontal bridge.    Yes my brain is a strange place to live. 

I am trying to figure out how much to go into the details of what I agree/disagree with, so because I am not very familiar with any of the three "H's" I will just make some comments on some of the arguments presented

Harris clearly has the hardest case to win, and no he is not the first to have raised a pragmatic position as a way of reconciling these two ethical positions- moral realism and moral relativism.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

In my book these are two sides of the same coin, and the differences are largely semantic.  But then again as a Wittgensteinian I think that all philosophical "problems" are semantic so there you go.

Moral statements can only be "justified" within a social context and within a given community.  Some societies may find justified the moral proposition that "One should use ritual scarification of the face to show which tribe one comes from" while in Salt Lake City it is sufficient to say that "I am a sixth generation Mormon".   On the other hand there are certain other moral propositions which all civilized societies must affirm- or else we would not call such a society "civilized".  Committing random murder for fun for example, is not acceptable in any culture or the culture could not exist.   Human babies need nurture and a peaceful environment to thrive.  If babies do not thrive, humanity dies out.   I see it as simple as that.  We must have morality to even exist in a civilized society.

One may take that state of affairs and call it "relativistic" because it implies some "different strokes for different folks".  Infanticide is "bad" but is abortion "infanticide"?  Is more than one piercing in each ear for females only morally blameworthy?   I can see that reasonable people can vary in such moral decisions and in different circumstances, so does that make me a "relativist"? 

On the other hand, I affirm that certain moral imperatives like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" must be considered "true" in any civilization or it is not a "civilization".  Yes that is intentionally circular because that makes it an a priori tautologous truth like "A"="A".   What I MEAN by "civilized" is that they affirm that principle.  It is "true by definition". It is a moral "fact" but that makes it rather uninteresting philosophically.  I have defined a word in such a way that it is always "true" or the rules of logic are violated.  So what?   Does that make me a "moral realist"?  Why do the labels matter at all??

That's kind of the problem I see with both Harris and Haidt.  They are talking about tribal identities here to a large extent it appears- it is more about which philosophical "camp" they belong than their positions themselves.

THAT is why it is largely said that Mormons have no "theology".  We do not belong to philosophical "camps".   Our overall way of thinking is "pragmatic" yes, but that is not a rigid ideology.  We read from the best books and take "what works" and apply it in our faith praxis.

I will be back in a bit and make some comments on Habermeyer and the idea of "divine humanism".  I like that phrase a lot!

Arguments?  Objections?

[mfbukowski]

On 12/3/2015, 6:48:24, SmileyMcGee said:

I'm not really a fan of Sam Harris' position, it seems a bit dogmatic. I remember watching a debate of his with William Lane Craig, wherein he states that questioning whether human well-being should be the standard for gauging morality is "hitting philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question." Cleverly worded, but apparently he feels that calling something stupid is sufficient justification for claiming a superior moral framework--kind of circular.

I'm more comfortable with Haidt's position. The way I interpret his position (assuming the linked article sufficiently relays his position) is that behaviors are reasonable (good) or unreasonable (bad) within the context of a set of beliefs...whatever those beliefs may be, and arguing morality seems useless unless all parties to the argument are appealing to the same set of beliefs.

(This all sounds strangely reminiscent of thread discussing the "inherent evil" of SSM) 

Yeah I think you hit it.

Oddly these two positions as you describe them can be reconciled into one position which is I think kind of where I am.

I see "human well-being" as really nothing much more than Utilitarianism mixed with Pragmatism- and there is nothing new about either of those.  You can also see it as social evolution- that clearly since we need "well-being" to survive, morality just evolved as a survival mechanism. 

Again I see these as metaphors.  You can take that whole concept and represent it as a Human God, our Father, providing us with Families and family values so that we can all be One in Love.  "Human well-being" represents all those things.

So now we turn to Haidt and apply the same formula.  Morality forms within a certain context of beliefs.  Fine.  No problem.  Different strokes for different folks.

But one can also argue that survival value then creates the inescapable paradigm that ALL civilized societies, to BE considered "civilized" must affirm survival value and therefore "human well-being".

NO civilized society can endorse mass murder and survive itself as a society or its neighbors will effectively give that society the death penalty itself.   We have numerous examples of that in the 20th century and more today.

As the Didache says, there are "Two Ways"- the Way of Death and the Way of Life. 

THAT is the first moral statement of Pragmatism as I see it.  You want to live in a nice peaceful society?  You play by the rules.

You want chaos and decide to drive on the wrong side of the freeway for fun?  You are going to die.  It's that simple.

So which is "right"?  My answer is "Both and Neither".   Sometimes in some contexts, certain rules work and others don't.  On the other hand there are rules that all must follow in order to survive.

So is that "moral realism" or "moral relativism"?   It depends on how you look at it. 

[theplains]

On 04/12/2015, 15:08:40, JLHPROF said:

That doesn't answer the questions.  Scripture says man is more like God when fallen than before the fall.  You say they weren't.  I'll go with scripture.

What is your understanding of the trees mentioned in the Garden of Eden?  What do you believe
Adam and Eve lost in the Fall?

Thanks,
Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/30/2015, 2:19:31, Gray said:

 

I agree, although if you look up the term on LDS.org, you'll find article after article condemning it. 

Yes, Gray, but they are condemning atheist humanism -- due to the common lack of understanding that Mormonism is divine humanism, and the consequent erroneous belief among many Mormons in a normative Christian God who is outside of time & space & nature.

[Nofear]

I liked your respose mfbukowski. Being LDS we essentially (or by tradition) subscribe to deontological ethics. Not very Haidt at all but he'd ask people to understand that. I do not think God, however, is deontological. I think God, with his omniscience, is more utilitarian. That is definitely more Harris like. 

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

What is your understanding of the trees mentioned in the Garden of Eden?  What do you believe
Adam and Eve lost in the Fall?

Thanks,
Jim

In my belief very little was lost.

They became subject to the weaknesses of mortality temporarily, and temporarily lost some of their previous dominion.  Both of which I am sure have now been restored.

[carbon dioxide]

On 12/4/2015, 1:08:40, JLHPROF said:

That doesn't answer the questions.  Scripture says man is more like God when fallen than before the fall.  You say they weren't.  I'll go with scripture.

I think both views are right.  Depends on what area they were more like God.  They were more like God after the fall because they knew good from evil.  There were more like God before the fall in the area of not being mortal.  In both states they were not complete.  It is only until we are resurrected with a celestial body and exalted that we become perfect. 

[SmileyMcGee]

14 hours ago, Nofear said:

I liked your respose mfbukowski. Being LDS we essentially (or by tradition) subscribe to deontological ethics. Not very Haidt at all but he'd ask people to understand that. I do not think God, however, is deontological. I think God, with his omniscience, is more utilitarian. That is definitely more Harris like. 

If pressed, I'd bet that most members would ultimately argue that what makes the restored Gospel "good" or "right" is that it maximizes joy (the Mormon word for utility), and, by extension, what makes other paths wrong is that they fall short in that regard. "Men are that they might have joy" seems to be interpreted by members as less of a statement of duty and more like a utilitarian axiom. 

Edited December 6, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Calm]

OTOH, LDS would generally say joy comes from following God's commandments.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/the-laws-of-god-are-blessings?lang=eng

Quote

Some people feel that the laws of God inhibit freedom; and that they who are not religiously inclined are automatically exempt from the laws and commandments of the Lord; and that if one minds his own business and lives his own life, so to speak, he has sufficient religion for his own welfare; and that salvation and joy everlasting will somehow be forthcoming, even though they do not observe the laws and commandments of God.

Surely these are shortsighted views. Actually, the commandments of the Lord are principles upon which our lives must be built if we are to find happiness, success, and peace....

Observance of law brings harmony, peace, order; while without observance of law there is found confusion, and sorrow, remorse, failure—whether it be the laws of God or the laws of man, or whether it be nations or whether it be individuals, it is the same. There are those who ask (they have asked me, and really that is why I am speaking along this line), “If the Lord loves us, why does he then give so many commandments, some of them restrictive in their nature?” Well, the answer is he gives us commandments because he loves us. He wishes to save us from sorrow and remorse and failure, and the worst of all, regret, and from losing our blessings.

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by Calm