New Findings in the (Maybe Not So) New World

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The more I think about these kinds of evidences that contradict the claims of religions, the more I think that our evolved brains really are hard wired to want to believe in the propositions promoted by an external divine authority.  We are a few centuries after the enlightenment, and groups of fundamentalists who reinterpret ancient texts in literal ways and who ignore scientific evidence are thriving.  Why is this the case?  Humans must have evolved to not think critically, and instead be drawn to believe in things that don't logically make sense. Why? 

I think it is because the object of faith is much deeper than the presented claims, so that the claims are merely symbolic of that object, rendering the quality of the facts irrelevant to the greater value of that which might be deemed irrational. Deep down we all know the degree of irrationality of something does not determine whether it is real and worthwhile to pursue.

Everything we take into our minds comes from an external (at least perceived as external) source of one kind or another, and we attribute authority, or validity, to those realities. It doesn't matter if it is deity or mother or nature.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Largely because we mortal humans are biological Naked Apes who don't know much. So we make up stories to make ourselves feel better about it. OTOH I have no problem with God or Science.

I'm talking primarily about specific beliefs that conflict with reason and evidence.  Young earth creationists, biblical literalists, and the Mormon version (FIRM conference attendees).  Why are so many people wired to believe in specific propositions that evidence clearly contradicts?  

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it is because the object of faith is much deeper than the presented claims, so that the claims are merely symbolic of that object, rendering the quality of the facts irrelevant to the greater value of that which might be deemed irrational. Deep down we all know the degree of irrationality of something does not determine whether it is real and worthwhile to pursue.

Everything we take into our minds comes from an external (at least perceived as external) source of one kind or another, and we attribute authority, or validity, to those realities. It doesn't matter if it is deity or mother or nature.

Can you expound on this object of faith that is held deep within?  Do you think that these deep beliefs are proven to be "worthwhile to pursue", or is measuring whether or not something is worthwhile actually irrelevant to the equation?  

I'm thinking that loyalty is a factor for many people.  The unfortunate part is that people perceive loyalty in specific terms, i.e. they can't disagree with leaders or they are being disloyal.  Is this what you're getting at?  

Edited April 27, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Even those might not actually defy logic and reason, they just defy it from your perspective.  (I don't agree with a 6000 either but the flood i'm undecided on).

Science is an imperfect science (  ) and there are people who find it most reasonable and logical to choose to accept what they believe to be God's teachings over science's fallible discoveries.  

From their perspective, they are following the most logical course.

Perspective is important for sure.  There are flat earth believers and other conspiracy theorists and always will be, that might be a related phenomenon that we shouldn't discount.  

I've always felt like the majority of people when presented with information will come to a similar conclusion, but it seems that many of these fundamentalists/literalists are an exception to this rule precisely because there are such large numbers of people who believe things that are at odds with rational evidence based knowledge.  Seems like there are other psychological and societal dynamics at play which are very powerful and persuasive.  

Humans aren't rational beings by nature.  The more I learn the more I'm thinking we have to intentionally practice thinking differently to avoid the biases that are naturally a part of our makeup.  

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm talking primarily about specific beliefs that conflict with reason and evidence.  Young earth creationists, biblical literalists, and the Mormon version (FIRM conference attendees).  Why are so many people wired to believe in specific propositions that evidence clearly contradicts?  

Humans seem to be hard wired for faith(From Buddhism to Mormonism). I think we have to learn to just accept that, though we obviously don't have to accept a specific belief. IE; Science will never convince anyone through science against their will that the earth is some 4.5 billion years old. Just as believers can never convince non-believers that God wasn't involved. The best we can do is present whatever evidence we have for our claims.

[thesometimesaint]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perspective is important for sure.  There are flat earth believers and other conspiracy theorists and always will be, that might be a related phenomenon that we shouldn't discount.  

I've always felt like the majority of people when presented with information will come to a similar conclusion, but it seems that many of these fundamentalists/literalists are an exception to this rule precisely because there are such large numbers of people who believe things that are at odds with rational evidence based knowledge.  Seems like there are other psychological and societal dynamics at play which are very powerful and persuasive.  

Humans aren't rational beings by nature.  The more I learn the more I'm thinking we have to intentionally practice thinking differently to avoid the biases that are naturally a part of our makeup.  

Just depends on what biases you want to avoid. Science works because it works regardless of the biases of those doing it.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it is an affect of the presence of faith in the universe and faith being the power that created us (and everything else).  Maybe we are fundamentally drawn towards faith because it is part of our very being (even if we don't recognize it)?

I may or may not have faith in what you said.  

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's interesting.

So instead of Adam and Eve being the parents of ALL living are you suggesting that they may be the progenitors of their particular tribe through which the scriptures have been written? It sounds similar to the way Lamanites have been refigured from THE ancestors of American Indians to "among" the ancestors of the American Indians.  It makes way more sense to me that way.

Didn't it used to say "the primary ancestors" of the Lamanites?

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The theology of what happens at Adam-ondi-Ahman pretty well requires that Adam and Eve be either directly the parents of all or the adopted parents of all. The point is that the sealings have to be made so there's one family with Adam at the head. The theology of sealings and adoption pretty well solves this problem. If there were pre-adamites they'll simply be adopted by Adam.

Could be but to adopt an elder into the family as an offspring of sorts seems weird to me.

My view is that if we are all from the same father know as Adam and the same mother known as Eve then the eternal sealings of families connects all of humanity together as one eternal family; and since sealings are directly connected to exaltation, you may say that it connects all of humanity together "as God".

Just a thought.

/ We may even have pet mastodons.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Darren10

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you expound on this object of faith that is held deep within?  Do you think that these deep beliefs are proven to be "worthwhile to pursue", or is measuring whether or not something is worthwhile actually irrelevant to the equation?  

I'm thinking that loyalty is a factor for many people.  The unfortunate part is that people perceive loyalty in specific terms, i.e. they can't disagree with leaders or they are being disloyal.  Is this what you're getting at?  

Expounding on the irrational: I’m not sure you’d really want me to do that! LOL Another option is to “Call the missionaries, they can help!” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/ask-the-missionaries-they-can-help-you?lang=eng

Briefly though, I’d say the most fundamental object of our most incipient faith is our conscience (in LDS doctrine, the light of Christ). It is that common sense of goodness beyond the sense of right and wrong (irrational charity) that everybody worldwide recognizes and acts on to one degree or another. Some can conclude that this leads them to Christ and others to some other guiding principle / principal, but we all have it.

You mentioned hard-wiring (we are what we are). Our brains are hard-wired to interact with extrinsic entities and forces; the brains wouldn’t live or work without them, even on an hereditary level. These interactions have an irrational component to them, even if one limits that to the random mingling of genetic material and discounts the mother’s instinctive altruism.

I can’t say how an irrational thing is to be rationally measured or proven, or why it should be. The self-identifying rational person is also self-perceptibly irrational, and each aspect of his psyche leverages the other for maximal integration and benefit. Each has its own standard of validation which also acknowledges the utility of the other.

I hadn’t thought of loyalty; that seems to be an outgrowth of deeper drives which seem to boil down to continuance or permanence both within one’s lifetime (rational) and outside of it (irrational).

Edited April 27, 2017 by CV75

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perspective is important for sure.  There are flat earth believers and other conspiracy theorists and always will be, that might be a related phenomenon that we shouldn't discount.  

I've always felt like the majority of people when presented with information will come to a similar conclusion, but it seems that many of these fundamentalists/literalists are an exception to this rule precisely because there are such large numbers of people who believe things that are at odds with rational evidence based knowledge.  

I think it's somewhat based on people learning (in other parts of their lives) that the presentation of facts is very easy to 'spin', that we are almost always working with incomplete data, and that people who believe in whatever "fact in question" will almost always work to convince others it is true , leaving out evidences that don't mesh (because they personally have justified them as being not relevant).

For example, there have been many times in my life when i have read something or been to a presentation and afterwards have been amazed at how 'true' it was.  But, over time i've found evidences and facts that show that it wasn't really true at all (or at least, not provably so).  

Also, I have a degree in history and one of the frequent activities that we did (in multiple classes) was to be presented with historical data and then asked to argue a specific position (such as, did the feudal system actually exist or is it a construct created by historians to try to explain what actually existed).  After arguing pro or con for a while, you had to switch teams and argue the opposite.

What i learned was that it was always possible.  Some evidences were stronger than others, but for a lot of things, no clear consensus could be reached by everyone, and everyone had logical and reasonable reasons for holding the positions they did.  They might not have seemed valid to me, but they did to them.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

C14 isn't reliable for the age claimed so typically you use other means. As I recall once you get past 50,000 years it becomes not nearly as useful. I confess I don't know what they use for bones between 120,000 - 200,000 years old. I assume it's either potassium or uranium dating.

The claim was that "we all know that carbon dating is unreliable," which is a completely false statement.  Moreover, no archeologist depends on only one system of dating, and applies a wide array of dating techniques to artifacts found in any excavation:  http://www.sourcinginnovation.com/archaeology/Arch08.htm .

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Didn't it used to say "the primary ancestors" of the Lamanites?

I believe it said 'principle ancestors.'  

[hope_for_things]

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You mentioned hard-wiring (we are what we are). Our brains are hard-wired to interact with extrinsic entities and forces; the brains wouldn’t live or work without them, even on an hereditary level. These interactions have an irrational component to them, even if one limits that to the random mingling of genetic material and discounts the mother’s instinctive altruism.

I can’t say how an irrational thing is to be rationally measured or proven, or why it should be. The self-identifying rational person is also self-perceptibly irrational, and each aspect of his psyche leverages the other for maximal integration and benefit. Each has its own standard of validation which also acknowledges the utility of the other.

The primary risk being what degree do we allow our irrational components to govern our existence?  Are we able to mitigate these risks to some degree through practice and education.  I'd like to think so, and I'd like to think we can be better in spite of our hard wired weaknesses.  

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's somewhat based on people learning (in other parts of their lives) that the presentation of facts is very easy to 'spin', that we are almost always working with incomplete data, and that people who believe in whatever "fact in question" will almost always work to convince others it is true , leaving out evidences that don't mesh (because they personally have justified them as being not relevant).

For example, there have been many times in my life when i have read something or been to a presentation and afterwards have been amazed at how 'true' it was.  But, over time i've found evidences and facts that show that it wasn't really true at all (or at least, not provably so).  

Also, I have a degree in history and one of the frequent activities that we did (in multiple classes) was to be presented with historical data and then asked to argue a specific position (such as, did the feudal system actually exist or is it a construct created by historians to try to explain what actually existed).  After arguing pro or con for a while, you had to switch teams and argue the opposite.

What i learned was that it was always possible.  Some evidences were stronger than others, but for a lot of things, no clear consensus could be reached by everyone, and everyone had logical and reasonable reasons for holding the positions they did.  They might not have seemed valid to me, but they did to them.

Good points.  I completely agree that we're always acting on incomplete information practically.  I think this is where the skills of critical thinking come to play along with a large amount of humility and willingness to change our perspective based on new information.  I think there are degrees of validity with respect to arguments, but that both sides definitely aren't equal.  Sometimes I think the complexity of arguments causes people to believe there is a moral equivalency and that bias towards thinking both sides are equally valid is part of the mess that our brains aren't very good at dealing with.  

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The primary risk being what degree do we allow our irrational components to govern our existence?  Are we able to mitigate these risks to some degree through practice and education.  I'd like to think so, and I'd like to think we can be better in spite of our hard wired weaknesses.  

I think the best risk analysis entails a full appreciation of both components.

Naturally imbalance of any kind represents a risk, so the ideal degree is total, along with total rationality. Where both components already govern our existence in an integrated fashion (voluntarily and not), we would benefit from a “functional spirituality” where our hard-wired weaknesses are ameliorated by extrinsic strength and our hard-wired strengths (if you can you name any…) can be directed as extrinsic succor to the weak. Of course I’m referring to saviors on Mount Zion and the like, which is the essence of the Gospel. Extrinsic strength is typically rendered through mercy and grace, and received by faith and humility – both processes completely voluntary.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I believe it said 'principle ancestors.'  

Oh, yeah, I do believe you're correct. I've wondered if that meant biologically or culturally. Overtime I've leaned towards some biological but heavily cultural. If anything, the ancient American Indians did interact with each other in a way which allowed ideas to be shared regularly. Well, at least that's my stereotypical view of them.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Darren10

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Adam can be the literal father of all living or the adopted father of all living. But if we adopt the adoption theory then we must also reject the literalistic history of the garden story where Adam is the very first and only man. I'm fine with that but I suspect many others wouldn't be.

I don't like the term "literalistic" since usually the exegesis isn't completely taking sentences at face value. The problem and where the exegesis varies is primarily over what the expulsion from the garden consists of. There's interpretations where the fall is the whole earth (Joseph Fielding Smith's interpretation) but there's only indirect evidence for that. There's interpretations where the garden was a terrestial world and when Adam and Even fell the garden didn't (thus the angel guarding the entrance). Thus there was a pre-existing telestial world Adam and Even went to. There's of course lots of other completely "literal" readings that differ from the common McConkie/JFS interpretation. 

The problem with saying "first and only man" in a literalist reading is that it doesn't say that anywhere. The closest is 2 Nephi 2:20. But to read that as invalidating non-Adamites seems difficult and at minimum involves a non-literal reading. Scriptures like D&C 138:138 simply literally work with an adoptive meaning. Places like D&C 84:16 are talking priesthood order most likely. Some might recall in his infamous tiff with Eugene England, Bruce R. McConkie made an awfully big deal of Abraham 1:3 treating Adam as meaning first father but giving it a priesthood emphasis. Whatever the merits of McConkie's theology here (and I tend to think he was onto something) This is where people took up the "two Adam" way of dealing with Young's Adam/God theory for instance. If Adam just means first father and there are lots of first fathers (Moses 1:34) then that could easily apply to earth as well. In that sense Noah or Lehi might both be first fathers for instance. I think Abraham 1 clearly insinuates that Abraham is one even if it doesn't come out and make that explicit.

Typically the rejoinder is to the 1909 First Presidency Statement on the Origin of Man. But that's more ambiguous than it appears. While it brings up evolution it merely says they are the theories of men not that they are wrong. Further it just is about whether Adam was the first man on the earth. But all the theories including the different theories of Brigham Young hold that Adam was the first person on the earth and most say that as Michael he helped with the creation of the earth. That's prior to losing his memory and being put in the garden though. So it leaves a ton of theological wiggle room if one doesn't accept the "whole earth, not just Adam and Eve, fell theory."

The last thing I'd add, relative to the 'literalist' category is that the 'literalists' here take some exceedingly figurative approaches to the Adam story. Again McConkie is pretty illustrative. 

Quote

Adam was born into the world; that is the way he had to get here. The rib story is as much as people are able to receive and it’s figurative as is the dust of the earth story. I was made of the dust of the earth, and so was Adam. The way I was made of the dust of the earth was for my mother to partake of the elements of the earth in the normal birth process….

So the very notion of a "literalist" take is pretty misleading at best. Rather they have a model that demands extremely figurative readings in parts. What determines what is to be taken figuratively or not is the pre-existing theology. So the literalist reading really is just doing a kind of proof text to fit some existing theological models - although those may have arisen out of reading particular verses "literally."

Edited April 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I believe it said 'principle ancestors.'  

Wrong again!

"Principal ancestors" for the score...

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html

"principal ancestors of the American Indians"

  

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm talking about the kinds of beliefs that do defy reason and logic, things like a 6000 yr old earth, or literal flood, etc.  

Typically the problem isn't reason and logic than refusing to look at evidence or inquire. By avoiding looking at inconvenient evidence they can maintain their reason and logic. So the sin is that cutting off of inquiry. It's akin to a child putting their hands on their ears and yelling "I can't hear you." If they had real faith they wouldn't care about examining the evidence. Their actions demonstrate a fear that seems incompatible with faith.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Typically the problem isn't reason and logic than refusing to look at evidence or inquire. By avoiding looking at inconvenient evidence they can maintain their reason and logic. So the sin is that cutting off of inquiry. It's akin to a child putting their hands on their ears and yelling "I can't hear you." If they had real faith they wouldn't care about examining the evidence. Their actions demonstrate a fear that seems incompatible with faith.

Yes, good points.  I think the other component is trust and loyalty to leaders and having that external locus of authority as opposed to a developed internal authority.  A person might see the evidence, but find it unconvincing because they don't trust the source of the evidence. This was the case for me in Mormonism where I was taught that I shouldn't read unapproved sources of material.  

I still laugh at my personal experience of a few years ago where I confessed to my local priesthood leader that I was reading Rough Stone Rolling because I was feeling quite guilty about it, and was worried that this was an unapproved source of information.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, good points.  I think the other component is trust and loyalty to leaders and having that external locus of authority as opposed to a developed internal authority.  A person might see the evidence, but find it unconvincing because they don't trust the source of the evidence. This was the case for me in Mormonism where I was taught that I shouldn't read unapproved sources of material.  

I still laugh at my personal experience of a few years ago where I confessed to my local priesthood leader that I was reading Rough Stone Rolling because I was feeling quite guilty about it, and was worried that this was an unapproved source of information.  

That's so weird to me. When it came out the Orem CostCo had hundreds of copies and they all quickly sold out. It was widely available for sale at BYU.

The only time I've ever heard someone say that was some relatives from small town Alberta. And I more or less said exactly the same thing about faith to them.

All that said, I certainly recognize some people are weak in faith or not ready to hear all things. So I recognize the issues there. But to even imagine someone seeing Rough Stone Rolling as a problem just strikes me as inherently odd.

[Tsuzuki]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This does, however, indicate that it may not be so far fetched to imagine Noah setting sail in his ark from the New World, being adrift in the ocean for awhile, and coming to rest in upper Mesopotamia.

That is still very far fetched.

[strappinglad]

What SHALL we do with all those gullible and irrational scientists who continue to believe in dark energy and dark matter despite absolutely no hard evidence of their existence. The latest experiments with instruments said to be 10,000 times more sensitive than previous ones failed to detect anything. Maybe they are just looking in the wrong place or at the wrong time or with the wrong instruments. Maybe the basic assumptions are in error. Might there be bias from a worldview? Silly humans with their hardwired brains .

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

What SHALL we do with all those gullible and irrational scientists who continue to believe in dark energy and dark matter despite absolutely no hard evidence of their existence. The latest experiments with instruments said to be 10,000 times more sensitive than previous ones failed to detect anything. Maybe they are just looking in the wrong place or at the wrong time or with the wrong instruments. Maybe the basic assumptions are in error. Might there be bias from a worldview? Silly humans with their hardwired brains .

These are only theoretical constructs needed to explain their theory of the big bang. If the universe did not begin in a big bang, which I am tending to believe at present, then one doesn't need dark energy and dark matter to explain why some galaxies are moving too slowly to be where they are - one just accepts they were not created in a big bang with all the other galaxies. One also does not then need to worry about how all the matter in the universe could be stuffed into a singularity so massive that no matter or light could escape from it - yet did, etc, etc.

Edited April 28, 2017 by RevTestament