Understanding The Religious Mind

[mfbukowski]

On 11/30/2015, 2:45:48, Nofear said:

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.

I would say that that is quite debatable.  You know me- for me it always comes down to semantics.
Here is an interesting quote

Quote

 

None of these pluralist positions erase the difference between consequentialism and deontology. For the essence of consequentialism is still present in such positions: an action would be right only insofar as it maximizes these Good-making states of affairs being caused to exist

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

This is kind of the way I might say that last sentence by changing just one letter in the whole sentence:

Quote

For the essence of consequentialism is still present in such positions: an action would be right only insofar as it maximizes these God-making states of affairs being caused to exist

The words "good" and "god" are similar for a reason in English.  In many other languages also, the idea of "good" is often pragmatic- a "good shovel" is one that works well, food being "good for you" produces health.  A "good" person is one who functions well in society, obeys the rules, is kind, etc. In many Indo-European languages it seems that "good" and "God" are very close- in German "Got" vs "gut", similarly in Slavic languages as well.

We as Mormons always talk about "natural consequences" of our actions and I see that as an important paradigm.  Humanism is about human potential - about humans becoming better by choosing better consequences.  Seeing God as a Glorified Perfected Human makes him the Ideal for us to become, kind of the Jungian Archetype of what it means to be a perfect human, and whom we should copy.  We hear repeatedly from primary on "What would Jesus do?".   We are taught to imitate Christ who in turn imitates his father.

I know it seems like deontological ethics would also work well with Mormonism- I am not saying it doesn't.  We like our rules.  But on the other hand I always ask what are the function of the rules.

I joke with my kids sometimes when they used to say "Why do we have to do the dishes?" and I would answer "Because God says so!" and that would always lead to a little discussion about "deontological ethics" on a teen-age level.  .    My poor kids!

Anyway for me, the paradigm is that as the Perfect Human, God functions perfectly to accomplish his purposes- bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, ie: exaltation. "Raising the kids to grow up and be just like Dad".  When one thinks of "human potential" one must have an ideal in mind.  Human potential to be what?  The perfect sociopath? That is not humanism, nor is it Mormonism.

So on a practical level I think that humanism seen as human potential and Mormon human perfection are basically working toward the same goal.

I think even atheistic humanism basically seeks to get a "better humanity" but what is lacking there is the idea that God can be postulated to be the Archetype of a perfect human.

One can take that literally or figuratively or any other way one wants to- all we ever have is linguistic descriptions to communicate with each other.

If you are an atheist and want to "look inside your own consciousness, unify yourself with your paradigm of the universe, and ask yourself what it means to become your best" for all practical purposes I do not see that as pragmatically so different from "asking God to tell you the best course for you in prayer".

Yes they are operating within two different contexts, but that then is straight Haidt (and Wittgenstein and Rorty and about every other contemporary pragmatically-oriented philosopher- nothing new at all).  Truth is expressed in terms of a context for a given audience. I hear a lot of this kind of stuff on these "Ted" videos about meditation etc.  The way I see that, it is secular religion. They are praying to God but don't know it.  They look into their own "unconscious" and "formulate an answer" to their problems and we go into our closet and seek the "still small voice" and come out with a "revelation". 

Subjectively how they got their answer is just as mysterious as our "still small voice" but they might express what they think happened in scientific jargon, and we will express it in religious jargon.

No I am not an apostate.  I firmly experience the existence of someone Beyond Me whom I identify as The Personal Voice of the Universe.  I know that that Person loves me individually, and knows me and looks out for my welfare and guides and directs me.   I know it through personal direct ineffable and unspeakable experience.  I call that "revelation" though the description of others may vary according to their contexts.

I get up in Sacrament meeting and speak in Mormon parlance to the Mormon audience, in their context saying "I have a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ and I know without a doubt that the church is true".  I do that in all honesty without any mental reservation nor mental "translation".  I am "bilingual"- I can speak "Athiest" and "Mormon" fluently.  I go out and see the night sky and the Universe "speaks" to me in the same non-linguistic affirmations that receive contemplating my Savior.

Language only works in a context- in a specific language, or "language game" for a specific audience. 

"Ya unnastan' wha' I'm sayin'?"

That common saying is what it is all about in the final analysis.  It may sound ignorant in our erudite, ivory tower world, but it is profound in its understanding that what is important is that we understand what the other person is saying, regardless of the language in which they express it

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

On 05/12/2015, 21:41:18, JLHPROF said:

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.

What do you believe life was like for Adam and Eve in the Garden before the Fall?

Thanks,
Jim