One of the unfortunate facts about the Recovery Board is that often serious, thought-provoking threads, quickly disintegrate into mindless and frivolous disputes that soon leave the original post in the dust. (That is all I will say about that.)

On the topic at hand, I note first that I am what I would call a humanist-atheist. What that means, I suggest, is that although I do not believe in God, I *do* most emphatically believe in human values; not just as a matter of rhetorical cliques (like the golden rule), but *ontologically* ; that such values are real! That is why I continue to harp upon the reality of freewill; which at times even gets tiresome for me. I can imagine what it must be like for some of you!

But, I want to make a point here that transcends (there is that word again) a superficial consideration of the value of organized religion. The point to consider is whether organized religion as the protector of moral transcendence, is important in a society where the humanities have succumbed to either science, on the one hand, or post-modernism, on the other; both of which play havoc with moral agency and freewill.

In this regard, I strongly recommend Huston Smith’s classic book, Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit In An Age Of Disbelief. Here are a couple of quotes:

“Advocates of the human spirit, the humanities were traditionally the heart of higher education. Today they are neither its heart nor its center. Having been replaced at the center by professionalism and science, the humanities are now outlying provinces -- in enrollments, budgets, and prestige, all three. . . This can be seen as a takeover by technology and vocationalism, but it can just as well be seen as abdication; humanists have renounced their post as moral mentors. [Smith 2001:88]

“The domain of faith, meaning, and values is constantly placed on the defensive and undercut by the incursions of a narrow, positivistic knowledge, along with its accompanying materialistic worldview. Not being grounded in the reality that is generally recognized to be potentially *knowable*, the object of faith, ethics, and art stands in constant danger of becoming epiphenomenal and only derivatively real. [Smith 2001:100]”

Smith goes on to discuss in some detail the effect of modern science and post-modernism as eroding human values. For Smith, religion (and faith generally) is a stable influence in the wake of such erosion.

I reluctantly think Smith has a point. I could illustrate this with hundreds of quotes, but let me just provide a sample. This quote is from “neuro-philosopher” Patricia Churchland, who in many ways represents how humanist values have been replaced by a materialist science worldview.

“Bit by experimental bit, neuroscience is morphing our conception of what we are. The weight of evidence now implies that it is the *brain*, rather than some nonphysical stuff, that feels, thinks, and decides. That means there is no soul to fall in love. We do still fall in love, certainly, and passion is as real as it ever was. The difference is that now we understand those important feelings to be events happening in the physical brain. It means that there is no soul to spend its postmortem eternity blissful in Heaven or miserable in Hell. Stranger yet, it means that the introspective *inside* -- one's own subjectivity -- is *itself* a brain-dependent way of making sense of neural events. In addition, it means that the brain's *knowledge* that this is so is likewise brain-based business.”

“Given what is known about the brain, it also appears highly doubtful that there is a special nonphysical module, the *will*, operating in a causal vacuum to create voluntary choices -- choices to be courageous in the face of danger, or to run away and fight another day. In all probability, one's decisions and plans, one's self-restraint and self-indulgences, as well as one's unique individual character traits, moods, and temperaments, are all features of the brain's general causal organization. The self-control one thinks one has in anchored by neural pathways and neurochemicals. The mind that we are assured can dominate over matter is in fact certain brain patterns interacting with and interpreted by other brain patterns. Moreover, one's *self*, as apprehended introspectively and represented incessantly, is a brain-dependent construct, susceptible to change as the brain changes, and is gone when the brain is gone. [Churchland 2002:1]

Let me quickly add that I think that Churchland is flat-out wrong in the above assessment of current neuroscience. Yet, this is the opening statement for her introductory book, called “BrainWise: Studies in Neurophilosophy.” (And this was in 2002, and it has only gotten worse.) I cringe when I think of her teaching gullible university students this negative, valueless, view of humanity. But again, it is not unique to her. It is well-established trend. The Humanities, on the other hand, no longer comes to the defense of human values. Instead, it either embraces materialist science, hook, line and theoretical sinker; or it adopts a post-modern view where truth itself is suspect, moral or otherwise, and that all is relative, or subject to "interpretation". In either case, the trend is arguably socially dangerous, which is Huston Smith’s point.

Given the above, do we really want to leave the defense of human values to religion? That too is a scary thought on many levels. But when considering the social value of religion, we should at least be careful of knee-jerk dismissals that focus on criticism of historical true claims, while ignoring its general commitment to basic, shared, human values.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/

>But now that our ancestral cognitive equilibria are being overthrown, we should
>expect scientific and moral progress will become decoupled. And I would argue
>that the evidence of this is becoming plainer with the passing of every year.

I'd send you there regardless of his latest posting but it is topical to your post as well.

I doubt youll agree with him overall, except that he's disagreeing with Pinker, but I expect you'll find him thought provoking.

Thanks for sharing this.

I have never been a fan of Pinker; though, I have not read the book reviewed here, so won't comment. As for the reviewer, I checked his blog more thoroughly and came up with his "New Theory," which in my view is an over-reaction to his assessment of the successes of modern cognitive science and what he deems as a rather negative assessment of human nature:

"The New Theory, on the other hand, realizes there is no such thing as critical thinkers, only hard-won moments of critical thinking. It also realizes that few things are more pernicious to critical thinking than the assumption that one has somehow transcended, by dint of training or disposition, the cognitive limitations imposed by their psychology and culture–that one is, in other words, a ‘critical thinker.’ Where the Old Theory pays lip service to its cultural and historical parochialism, the New Theory is founded upon the inevitability of its self-deception. The New Theory self-consciously utilizes analogies that underscore its cognitive limitations, and remains suspicious of those that legitimize and aggrandize."

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/essay-archive/the-new-theory-a-provisional-manifesto/

I take this as a version of post-modernism, suggesting that cognitive neuroscience undermines the whole idea of "critical thinking," and therefore science itself. Although, most certainly, human cognition has limitations, and is susceptible to mistakes, biases, culture, etc., this does not mean that human beings do not have the ability, both formally and informally, to garner evidence, objectively evaluate inductive and deductive inferences, and thereby access "reality" to some extent. If science has taught us anything, it is that there is some sort of reality out there, and we *do* have access to it, for better or worse. In short, there is something about human cognition that imperfectly correlates with a real world. Now, I would controversially include morality as part of the reality that is objectively "out there" as rooted in genuine freewill.

it is post modern, and post intentional.

For just a split second when I started reading your Churchland quote, I thought maybe you had come to your senses. ;-)

For just a split second when I started reading your Churchland quote, I thought maybe you had come to your senses. ;-)

COMMENT: LOL. You give me way too much credit. I'm afraid I am much too stupid to be seduced by the Churchlands. No doubt I would fail Pat's introductory neuro-philosophy class. But, I am in good company: The Churchlands (Paul and Pat) are leaders of the so-called "eliminativist" philosophy of mind, essentially denying that consciousness exists. I agree with John Searle, who said such people do not need a refutation, they need help! But, hey, keep teaching those kids!

Now, perhaps you can help to straighten me out by weighing in on the issue at hand. (:-) After all, you are one of the few on the Board that can get my attention! (Take that as a compliment!)

You're something else in a good way, Henry. I don't get how you select experts who never seem to prove anything, but you are unique and always give me something to think about.

I hate to admit it, but I might be in agreement with the last paragraph in your original post.

Also I would add to this thread:

I am not sure the world would be better off without religion mostly because some people are born into situations with absolutely nothing but suffering, cruelty, starvation and hopelessness. Religion might be the only thing they have to cope.

I also have far less hope for humanity than most people. Humans are going to keep making up religion or religion substitutes. They insist on having answers and being herded.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/
>
> >But now that our ancestral cognitive equilibria
> are being overthrown, we should
> >expect scientific and moral progress will become
> decoupled. And I would argue
> >that the evidence of this is becoming plainer

Good point.
What an amazing discussion.
I feel like I'm in a really cool college class learning on a daily basis from the good people here on RfM.
Man I really gotta say, the more I hear what Lot's Wife has to say the more amazed I am by her depth of knowledge and insight, especially in regards to world religions. I learned a hell of a lot from her about Confuscism and Taoism that I didn't realize before. I used to think of Confuscism as pretty similar to Taoism, but in reality they are diametrically opposed to one another.
Taoism is opposed to education. Confuscism is all about education. I used to call myself a Zen Dudeist, but I really think Confuscism is more beneficial, socially.
The whole concept of Ren or, empathy as the inate, natural basis of morality and of relationships, society.
An ideal society, where the most wise naturally became the leader, based upon empathy.
Ren. Has proven very helpful to me in my daily life, in my relationships, and understanding complex relationships of others.
Confuscism, like Zen Buddhism has been described (by Christians) as an atheist religion or a philosophy, because it is the least metaphysical of all religions. IOW, less dogmatic.
The more dogmatic you are, the less capable you are of adapting to change, as revealed by science.
The definition of delusional is maintaining erroneous beliefs, despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Sometime we should have a beer and talk about this stuff, Kori. I'd enjoy that.

There is so much depth in the classical Chinese intellectual world. For example, Confucius was followed by two important thinkers: Mencius (Mengzi) and Hsun-tzu (Xunzi). Mencius thought that people were basically good and hence only needed education to bring out the best. Hsun-tzu was more pessimistic, thinking people are basically selfish and evil. The implication of his thinking was that the state had to reinforce education with force.

Hsun-tzu had a great deal of influence. His version of Confucianism contributed to Han Feizi's Legalism, which asserted that society needed strong laws bolstered by a strong state. It was this system of thought that motivated the Qin to crush all opposition and unify China in about 220 BCE. After the unification, the Han Dynasty shifted the balance back towards Confucius and Mencius--but that was easier given that the norms of central power had already been established.

Taoism represented a rebellion against all of this. Laozi and Zhuangzi were perhaps the most optimistic of the philosophers in the Warring States period because they thought people were basically good and it was education that ruined them. They would have felt that nuclear weaponry and modern military technology vindicated their distrust of education. And it is difficult to gainsay this analysis.

So there are multiple options for those of us who study this stuff. One option is the Taoist belief that people should focus on living in harmony with nature. Another is Mencius's view that people are good and only require education to reach their full potential both individually and socially. Still another is Hsun-tzu's view that people can't be trusted and need both education and firm governance. If you superimpose the Buddhist view that every single individual is deluded and should basically check out of the world and the cycle of reincarnation (samsara), you end up with a huge range of possibilities.

I think you have to:
a) define religion. Some people would include not so obvious things as religion. For example, MLMs mentioned elsewhere verge into it. I have seen Amway described as a cult. Some people's love of a sport resembles religion too, and can be just as ugly.

b) define how we would rid the world of religion. I know the pat answer is "education", but that has not been completely effective in removing religion. I think the onus is put on the State to remove it which is not a road we want to go down.

c) realize religion is still growing worldwide, not shrinking. Now I know many people on here think purely in terms of America where it is shrinking, but the fact of the matter is that the most religious people often have the most children, so they are outbreeding secularists who tend to produce fewer children.

You never disappoint.

Nope. Never.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You never disappoint.

In which case, you can provide some productive discussion along with your aidekick(s)/alter ego(s).

It would benefit your arguments a great deal, if you said what you thoight instead of thinking what other people might want you to say.

* sidekick(s)

How is Jordan NOT like a broken clock?

That should be obvious--although how it is physically possible remains a paradox.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would benefit your arguments a great deal, if
> you said what you thoight instead of thinking what
> other people might want you to say.

I don't have any arguments for this thread. I was just commenting that you are consistent in beating your drums.

This argument (the thread) seems philosophical. Some could argue that religion is intrinsic. I'm of the opinion that it is more meme than inevitable. I imagine in hominid past lives nothing of the sort existed. Evolution doesn't seem to me to put much more in memes than propagation of successful groupings of our species.

These are my intuitions, opinions.

Philosophically, I believe the world of humans has a penchant for memes of metaphysical natures. They don't have to be religious. They could be believing in the great clock in the sky that makes things move without worshiping it.

> Some could argue that religion is intrinsic. I'm
> of the opinion that it is more meme than
> inevitable. I imagine in hominid past lives
> nothing of the sort existed.

EB, it's worth bearing in mind that very early graves (HSS, Neanderthal, other) show signs of religious practices. Bodies were often buried with goods some of which may have indicated social status but others (wooden toys) that serve no apparent purpose other than as provisions for use in another life. There is also a lot of evidence that burials were organized in ways suggesting rebirth--the frequent use of red ocher, for instance, to symbolize the individual's next emergence from the womb. So there is reason to believe that early hominids did indeed have a sense of religion.


------------------
> Evolution doesn't
> seem to me to put much more in memes than
> propagation of successful groupings of our
> species.

That observation begs two questions. First, is there some psychological or sociological advantage conveyed by religion? Did humans who thought they had answers to existential questions have an evolutionary advantage--perhaps in the form of more cohesive and supportive kinship groups? The answer may be "no," but it could also be "yes."

Second, was there a pronounced disadvantage to religion in terms of natural selection? Evolution allows all sorts of quirks to persist--the appendix, for example--if they don't actually kill the carrier. So it could be that religiosity emerged from a cluster of other characteristics that conferred evolutionary strengths and persisted because its cost was not particularly great.


---------------------
> Philosophically, I believe the world of humans has
> a penchant for memes of metaphysical natures. They
> don't have to be religious. They could be
> believing in the great clock in the sky that makes
> things move without worshiping it.

My definition of "religion" is broad enough to include belief in a divine clock. Indeed a lot of Asian religions teach that there is no supernatural entity to worship; there is a cosmology and a praxis but no external focus. Those faiths are nonetheless religions with most of the psychological and social functionality of Western belief systems.

In your terms, it may be that supernatural memes are so universal and persistent that we have to conclude that the need for them, if not their specific characteristics, is biologically programmed.

------------------
> Evolution doesn't
> seem to me to put much more in memes than
> propagation of successful groupings of our
> species.

That observation begs two questions. First, is there some psychological or sociological advantage conveyed by religion? Did humans who thought they had answers to existential questions have an evolutionary advantage--perhaps in the form of more cohesive and supportive kinship groups? The answer may be "no," but it could also be "yes."

COMMENT: First, Dawkins' brain-child the "meme" is pretty much known to have nothing to do with biological evolution, or social evolution for that matter; and at best is a metaphor, and poor one at that. It was perhaps the beginning of a trend to invoke Darwinism as an explanation for all phenomena where, well, we really don't have an explanation. Explaining religion as a product of memes, or social Darwinism, is a perfect example of this. So, entering into a discussion about religion that is centered around social-Darwinism is a non-starter, at least as applied to human beings. If you want to talk about ants and bees, O.K., but I doubt they are religious.
______________________________________________

Second, was there a pronounced disadvantage to religion in terms of natural selection? Evolution allows all sorts of quirks to persist--the appendix, for example--if they don't actually kill the carrier. So it could be that religiosity emerged from a cluster of other characteristics that conferred evolutionary strengths and persisted because its cost was not particularly great.

COMMENT: See above. Question: Are there any modern biologists, besides Dawkins, that actually take this idea of religion as a product of evolution seriously? Are there any "God-gene" biologists, or are these folks just social psychologists looking for a scientific handle?

_______________________________________________

---------------------
> Philosophically, I believe the world of humans has
> a penchant for memes of metaphysical natures. They
> don't have to be religious. They could be
> believing in the great clock in the sky that makes
> things move without worshiping it.

My definition of "religion" is broad enough to include belief in a divine clock. Indeed a lot of Asian religions teach that there is no supernatural entity to worship; there is a cosmology and a praxis but no external focus. Those faiths are nonetheless religions with most of the psychological and social functionality of Western belief systems.

COMMENT: Well, thank God evolution is now out of the way! Now, if we are wondering about how belief in the metaphysical (or if you prefer, the supernatural) got started maybe it was because early humans, just like modern humans, do not have the answers about the origin of life, consciousness, mind, and the universe itself; and so decided to speculate a little. If that is the case, are the modern metaphysical speculations of science on more solid logical footing per se, than the metaphysical speculations of the religious-East or West?
__________________________________________________

In your terms, it may be that supernatural memes are so universal and persistent that we have to conclude that the need for them, if not their specific characteristics, is biologically programmed.

COMMENT: Oh no, I feel and evolutionary explanation sneaking back in. Please enlighten me as to what "biologically programed" means. I can only assume you mean "programmed" as in a computer program, and that the biological programmer, on your view, was God. Or maybe you would be more comfortable saying that the brain was programmed by Mother Nature. Just don't tell me the brain was programmed by evolution. There is nothing whatever about evolution that allows it to program anything. It just, well . . . evolves!

Henry, I get the sense you are replying to someone else and not to the argument I meant to convey.


--------------
> COMMENT: First, Dawkins' brain-child the "meme" is
> pretty much known to have nothing to do with
> biological evolution, or social evolution for that
> matter; and at best is a metaphor, and poor one at
> that. It was perhaps the beginning of a trend to
> invoke Darwinism as an explanation for all
> phenomena where, well, we really don't have an
> explanation. Explaining religion as a product of
> memes, or social Darwinism, is a perfect example
> of this.

I didn't introduce the concept of the "memes" and I don't like it. My point was that religious, or proto-religious, activity was present in many pre-HSS hominids and that any conversation about the possible origins of human religiosity must account for those facts.


---------------
> So, entering into a discussion about
> religion that is centered around social-Darwinism
> is a non-starter, at least as applied to human
> beings.

That doesn't necessarily follow from your preceding observations. If you don't like the notion of "memes," fine. But that hardly discredits the broader discussion (about which I am agnostic). Again, I was pointing out to EB that any exploration of the origins of human religiosity must address related phenomena in related species.


------------
> COMMENT: See above. Question: Are there any
> modern biologists, besides Dawkins, that actually
> take this idea of religion as a product of
> evolution seriously? Are there any "God-gene"
> biologists, or are these folks just social
> psychologists looking for a scientific handle?

Again, this reads like a reply to someone else's post. I did not suggest that there is a God gene or that religion is a product of evolution. I merely stated that a characteristic could evolve as a byproduct of genes that for independent reasons conferred an evolutionary advantage.

Take, for instance, anemia among Africans. Did evolution favor such a biological development? Not per se, but it did favor the interruption of the lifecycle of anopheles mosquitos, a generally helpful adaptation that brought some unfortunate side effects in an overall net-positive package. If a series of genetic adaptations in people brought religiosity collaterally and that change did not harm, on balance, the prospects for survival, natural selection would not have removed* it from the genome.


------------
> COMMENT: Well, thank God evolution is now out of
> the way! Now, if we are wondering about how belief
> in the metaphysical (or if you prefer, the
> supernatural) got started maybe it was because
> early humans, just like modern humans, do not have
> the answers about the origin of life,
> consciousness, mind, and the universe itself; and
> so decided to speculate a little.

Yes. By posing the question broadly enough to include other hominids, you are doing what I proposed.


--------------
> If that is the
> case, are the modern metaphysical speculations of
> science on more solid logical footing per se, than
> the metaphysical speculations of the
> religious-East or West?

Modern speculations certainly could be more accurate than the musings of ancient humans. I'm not sure we are there yet, or will ever get there, but science has already found decent evidence (twin studies, etc.) that shed light on the genetic contribution to religiosity. It is possible that such research will yield very useful insights.

I would also note, however, that your passage elides two different issues. One is whether genetics influence religiosity. The other is whether any particular metaphysical speculation is preferable to others. Those questions should not be conflated. It is possible that genetics influence the ability to perceive "reality" in this area as in more mundane matters AND that some religions are more perceptive than others. That would be true of all speculative systems, scientific or religious.


------------------
> COMMENT: Oh no, I feel and evolutionary
> explanation sneaking back in. Please enlighten me
> as to what "biologically programed" means. I can
> only assume you mean "programmed" as in a computer
> program, and that the biological programmer, on
> your view, was God. Or maybe you would be more
> comfortable saying that the brain was programmed
> by Mother Nature. Just don't tell me the brain was
> programmed by evolution. There is nothing whatever
> about evolution that allows it to program
> anything. It just, well . . . evolves!

Henry, you are right about this. But surely you know I am aware of it. I was being sloppy in order to react to EB's post simply and quickly.



*This asterisk is intended to indicate that I realize the word "remove," a transitive verb, also implies causation and hence is as problematic as my employment of the term "programming." I wouldn't want you to get the impression I am not cognizant of these linguistic complexities.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2019 05:56PM by Lot's Wife.

That doesn't necessarily follow from your preceding observations. If you don't like the notion of "memes," fine. But that hardly discredits the broader discussion (about which I am agnostic). Again, I was pointing out to EB that any exploration of the origins of human religiosity must address related phenomena in related species.

COMMENT: O.K. Fair point. But, evolutionists, particularly evolutionary psychologists, have run with this term in an attempt to legitimize their enterprise. Consider this quote from the very popular, and well-received book by Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained:

"The idea of "meme" itself is an example of a meme that replicated rather well. A few years after Dawkins had introduced the notion, virtually everybody in the social sciences and in evolutionary biology or psychology knew about it and for the most part had an essentially correct notion of the original meaning." [p.38]

I would add, knew about it and ran with it, including Boyer! And this was encouraged by both Dawkins and his cohort, Daniel Dennett in his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. So, the idea of "memes" took root in these disciplines, including in explanations about the roots of religion.
__________________________________________

> COMMENT: See above. Question: Are there any
> modern biologists, besides Dawkins, that actually
> take this idea of religion as a product of
> evolution seriously? Are there any "God-gene"
> biologists, or are these folks just social
> psychologists looking for a scientific handle?

Again, this reads like a reply to someone else's post. I did not suggest that there is a God gene or that religion is a product of evolution. I merely stated that a characteristic could evolve as a byproduct of genes that for independent reasons conferred an evolutionary advantage.

COMMENT: Well, that is still evolutionary psychology, nonetheless. Religion encompasses a host of divergent ideas, with complex sources, which cannot be explained in evolutionary terms. This is an example of the illegitimate use of evolutionary theory in the social sciences. I would be happy to debate this with you in another thread.
_________________________________________________

Take, for instance, anemia among Africans. Did evolution favor such a biological development? Not per se, but it did favor the interruption of the lifecycle of anopheles mosquitos, a generally helpful adaptation that brought some unfortunate side effects in an overall net-positive package. If a series of genetic adaptations in people brought religiosity collaterally and that change did not harm, on balance, the prospects for survival, natural selection would not have removed* it from the genome.

COMMENT: O.K. But here, religiosity has nothing whatever to do with evolution. It is simply a social byproduct of a biological selection mechanism. Religiosity was not "selected" for anything, it was not an adaptation, and there is nothing to suggest that religiousity of itself had a survival advantage that was in any way selected for.
_______________________________________________

--------------
> If that is the
> case, are the modern metaphysical speculations of
> science on more solid logical footing per se, than
> the metaphysical speculations of the
> religious-East or West?

Modern speculations certainly could be more accurate than the musings of ancient humans. I'm not sure we are there yet, or will ever get there, but science has already found decent evidence (twin studies, etc.) that shed light on the genetic contribution to religiosity. It is possible that such research will yield very useful insights.

COMMENT: Look, I am not suggesting that genetics plays no part in religiosity; i.e. that some people are not in general more naturally inclined to the "spiritual." But, this is very far from a biological explanation of religiosity. Until someone can look at a baby's genome and say, "Well, this one is definitely a Catholic," (or an atheist for that matter) I will remain unimpressed by biological explanations of religion.
___________________________________________

I would also note, however, that your passage elides two different issues. One is whether genetics influence religiosity. The other is whether any particular metaphysical speculation is preferable to others. Those questions should not be conflated. It is possible that genetics influence the ability to perceive "reality" in this area as in more mundane matters AND that some religions are more perceptive than others. That would be true of all speculative systems, scientific or religious.

COMMENT: I agree that they are two separate issues. I was responding to your post. (At least that was my intention.) I do not think it is possible that genetics in any meaningful way influences one's ability to perceive reality, except from considerations of general intelligence. I also don't think that any religion is per se better equipped than others to make perceptive metaphysical judgments. Now, I would agree that some metaphysical speculations are scientifically more informed than others. But I am not at all sure that this gets them any significant mileage in determining ultimate reality.

______________________________________________


------------------
> COMMENT: Oh no, I feel and evolutionary
> explanation sneaking back in. Please enlighten me
> as to what "biologically programed" means. I can
> only assume you mean "programmed" as in a computer
> program, and that the biological programmer, on
> your view, was God. Or maybe you would be more
> comfortable saying that the brain was programmed
> by Mother Nature. Just don't tell me the brain was
> programmed by evolution. There is nothing whatever
> about evolution that allows it to program
> anything. It just, well . . . evolves!

Henry, you are right about this. But surely you know I am aware of it. I was being sloppy in order to react to EB's post simply and quickly.

COMMENT: O.K. But underneath this sloppiness are real issues to explain about how the brain works, and what its limitations are in explaining human behavior, including religion and morality.

> COMMENT: O.K. Fair point. But, evolutionists,
> particularly evolutionary psychologists, have run
> with this term in an attempt to legitimize their
> enterprise. Consider this quote from the very
> popular, and well-received book by Pascal Boyer,
> Religion Explained:
>
> "The idea of "meme" itself is an example of a meme
> that replicated rather well. A few years after
> Dawkins had introduced the notion, virtually
> everybody in the social sciences and in
> evolutionary biology or psychology knew about it
> and for the most part had an essentially correct
> notion of the original meaning."
>
> I would add, knew about it and ran with it,
> including Boyer! And this was encouraged by both
> Dawkins and his cohort, Daniel Dennett in his
> book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. So, the idea of
> "memes" took root in these disciplines, including
> in explanations about the roots of religion.

Fair enough. But I am not Dawkins, Dennett, Boyer or Dawkins and do not subscribe to (many of) their philosophical views.


--------------
> Religion encompasses a
> host of divergent ideas, with complex sources,
> which cannot be explained in evolutionary terms.

Religion and religiosity are different things. The latter is influenced by genetics, the former probably not.


-------------
> COMMENT: O.K. But here, religiosity has nothing
> whatever to do with evolution. It is simply a
> social byproduct of a biological selection
> mechanism.

The byproducts of biological selection are certainly related, closely related, to evolution.


-------------------
> Religiosity was not "selected" for
> anything, it was not an adaptation, and there is
> nothing to suggest that religiousity of itself had
> a survival advantage that was in any way selected
> for.

I never said anything incompatible with your statement. It may be that religiosity brings an evolutionary advantage; I have no reason to have a strong view on that question. Where I went further is in suggesting that religiosity might be a byproduct of evolutionary developments that themselves conferred positive adaptations. I don't think you would disagree with that.


-----------------
> COMMENT: Look, I am not suggesting that genetics
> plays no part in religiosity; i.e. that some
> people are not in general more naturally inclined
> to the "spiritual." But, this is very far from a
> biological explanation of religiosity.

I'm not sure what a "biological explanation of religiosity" would look like. We know that biology contributes to religiosity just as it contributes to intelligence. Biology provides a complete explanation of neither, but it is assuredly a factor.


-------------
> Until
> someone can look at a baby's genome and say,
> "Well, this one is definitely a Catholic," (or an
> atheist for that matter) I will remain unimpressed
> by biological explanations of religion.

Here you are getting slippery. I never said biology explains "religion." I said it explains "religiosity," which is fundamentally different. There will never be a gene, or set of genes, that will inevitably produce a Catholic. But there will never be a gene, or set of genes, that will inevitably produce a nuclear physicist.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us to consider that religiosity is like intelligence, a complex phenomenon that is influenced by genetics. So unless you are willing to say that biology is irrelevant to intelligence, you can't consistently say that it is irrelevant to religiosity.


--------------
> Now, I would
> agree that some metaphysical speculations are
> scientifically more informed than others. But I
> am not at all sure that this gets them any
> significant mileage in determining ultimate
> reality.

I think it does for the simple reason that science gets one closer to ultimate reality than ignorance does. If a system of thought of any sort employs more science, it will generally produce more factually dependable results.


--------------
> COMMENT: O.K. But underneath this sloppiness are
> real issues to explain about how the brain works,
> and what its limitations are in explaining human
> behavior, including religion and morality.

That is true. But we both know that one adapts one's language to the task at hand, so if EB and I are discussing something fairly simple there is less need for precision. My shorthand becomes problematic only if one shifts the discourse to a different level, but I did not intend to do that.

I would add that the very use of language is shorthand since few words convey precise meanings and every person perceives them slightly differently. So some level of ambiguity inheres in any conversation. That doesn't mean we should eschew precision, but it does mean that context is important in evaluating the content and style of expression.

LW: Thanks for these clarifications. I will only press the following point:

> Now, I would
> agree that some metaphysical speculations are
> scientifically more informed than others. But I
> am not at all sure that this gets them any
> significant mileage in determining ultimate
> reality.

I think it does for the simple reason that science gets one closer to ultimate reality than ignorance does. If a system of thought of any sort employs more science, it will generally produce more factually dependable results.

COMMENT: It is a trivial point that in general science is better (and more dependable) than ignorance. But when metaphysical speculations are at the core of a scientific theory or "system of thought," the playing field between science and religion begins to merge, and become more equalized. The idea of "dependability" which I take to mean the ability of the theory to make successful predictions as to future events, becomes a lost ideal.

For example, science postulates a multiverse as an explanation for the acknowledged appearance of "fine-tuning" of the universe for life. This "theory" generally includes a lot of very compelling and consistent mathematical speculations about inflation theory. (The proposed exponential expansion of the early universe.) But, does all of this make such an explanation per se more palatable than religion's simple postulation of an intelligent agency (of some sort) with a teleological purpose to bring about intelligent life. I am not so sure. It seems to me that at some point in speculative metaphysics a preference for the scientific just amounts to question-begging; i.e. "The scientific view must be right because, well . . . it's science!"

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LW: Thanks for these clarifications. I will only
> press the following point:
>
> > Now, I would
> > agree that some metaphysical speculations are
> > scientifically more informed than others. But I
> > am not at all sure that this gets them any
> > significant mileage in determining ultimate
> > reality.
>
> I think it does for the simple reason that science
> gets one closer to ultimate reality than ignorance
> does. If a system of thought of any sort employs
> more science, it will generally produce more
> factually dependable results.
>
> COMMENT: It is a trivial point that in general
> science is better (and more dependable) than
> ignorance. But when metaphysical speculations are
> at the core of a scientific theory or "system of
> thought," the playing field between science and
> religion begins to merge, and become more
> equalized.

I think that is what I said. I wrote that "generally. . . the more science" the better. It conversely follows that the more metaphysical science becomes, the less "dependable" its conclusions.


----------------
> For example, science postulates a multiverse as an
> explanation for the acknowledged appearance of
> "fine-tuning" of the universe for life. This
> "theory" generally includes a lot of very
> compelling and consistent mathematical
> speculations about inflation theory. (The proposed
> exponential expansion of the early universe.)
> But, does all of this make such an explanation per
> se more palatable than religion's simple
> postulation of an intelligent agency (of some
> sort) with a teleological purpose to bring about
> intelligent life.

I would venture to say yes, since there is a general correlation between concrete rational thought and predictive results. In this case we have already seen science coincidentally refine the idea and role of God dramatically over many hundreds of years. we agree that the further "science" gets from empirical research, the higher the degree of imprecision but that doesn't mean the world was created 6,000 years ago and the flood was universal. In general, the more scientific rigor the better.


-------------
>I am not so sure.

I'm not sure either. As an agnostic I look for more information and evaluate it tentatively, waiting to refine my beliefs when better information becomes available.

Surety is the stuff of idiocy and totalitarianism. A truly honest person takes life with a grain of salt.

"First, Dawkins' brain-child the "meme" is pretty much known to have nothing to do with biological evolution, or social evolution for that matter; and at best is a metaphor, and poor one at that."

Well, I like it. I've not tied it to anything scientific. When I read The Selfish Gene Dawkins I believe pointed out that it was fantastical speculation.

If you know of a better suited concept for the transfer of concepts please let me know.

I believe and opine much. I'm not reviewing articles but discussing on The Internet.

We humans came from a variety of hominids I think. Religion itself isn't really nailed down so who knows? Religion for much more primitive creatures with larger forebrains could be as simple as an object reference. This pretty rock made one of them feel better so they kept it with them and it was left with them when they died. They had no conceptual or linguistic way over communicating their object reference so it wasn't "set." But along the way of the changing creatures of this planet religious beliefs and art and deep investigation of objects came along. Conceptual things appeared and philosophy developed.

One could make an argument that religion is just rudimentary philosophy unrefined.

Do I think humans better off without religion? Maybe. Socrates didn't appreciate art in his Republic. Maybe religion is just another form of art.

> Religion for much more primitive creatures
> with larger forebrains could be as simple as an
> object reference. This pretty rock made one of
> them feel better so they kept it with them and it
> was left with them when they died. They had no
> conceptual or linguistic way over communicating
> their object reference so it wasn't "set."

I'm not sure about the linguistics. We see the gradual evolution of various related species of which only one survives. That species, our species, employs language. We may be unique in that regard, but that conclusion strikes me as premature. Some non-hominid species demonstrate some of the rudiments of speech, and higher primates even more. It could be that related species could speak and had language, even metaphorical language, which would not surprise me given the indications of religious thought.


-------------
> But
> along the way of the changing creatures of this
> planet religious beliefs and art and deep
> investigation of objects came along. Conceptual
> things appeared and philosophy developed.
>
> One could make an argument that religion is just
> rudimentary philosophy unrefined.

Or vice versa. As you know, my definition of "religion" is copious because that is the only way one can logically account for several of the main Asian faiths. Once the definition is stretched to encompass those faiths, though, it also includes some political movements. Philosophy is just one more step down that road. Theistic religion, atheistic religion, philosophy, and political philosophy: all are subsets of the quest for understanding.


------------
> Do I think humans better off without religion?
> Maybe. Socrates didn't appreciate art in his
> Republic. Maybe religion is just another form of
> art.

That is, as you know, a very different question. The reasons religion is so tenacious are one issue; whether people are better off with it or without is a separate one.

"Once the definition is stretched to encompass those faiths, though, it also includes some political movements. Philosophy is just one more step down that road. Theistic religion, atheistic religion, philosophy, and political philosophy: all are subsets of the quest for understanding."

If religion is part of a conceptual continuum of human thought and artistic expression I don't think we are better off without it. My personal tastes can't scale up to humanity and pre-humanity in its entirety.

I should have just answered the truth. I don't know and could never know if we are better off without it.

It is wonderful and terrible like good erotica. You know that it can stir you viscerally at the same time feels like playing with fire (yourself ;) with the threat of Prometheus' punishment. And all those kittens I've killed.

Religion can take one to the limits of mental masturbation as any study of a Mormon apologist proves.

> If religion is part of a conceptual continuum of
> human thought and artistic expression I don't
> think we are better off without it.

That is a very interesting question.

Whether reality is the world or our interpretation of the world. If it’s the latter, art matters. We need useful interpretations. Mormonism is an example of one that has stagnated to the point of being counterproductive.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mormonism is an
> example of one that has stagnated to the point of
> being counterproductive.

Was there ever beauty in The Restoration? Religions like LW pointed out seem to play out very similarly regardless of whether they claim a divine being or no.

The best art I believe has a power of shared emotions behind it. The problem with our ever individuating worlds is I believe religion's strengthening our inner voice telling us that our internal dialog needs religious ballasting more than it being a part of a flying buttress to beautiful art.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you have to:
> a) define religion...

I thought these three points were valid. I don’t really understand the criticism and sarcasm aimed at you.

I have some time so I'll attempt to give you my interpretation regarding the disdain heaped upon Jordan in this thread...

The stated purpose of this thread is NOT what the OP title says: "Would world be better off without religion? (cont.)" That was just quoting the original thread. Buried in the OP thesis is this:

"But, I want to make a point here that transcends (there is that word again) a superficial consideration of the value of organized religion. The point to consider is whether organized religion as the protector of moral transcendence, is important in a society where the humanities have succumbed to either science, on the one hand, or post-modernism, on the other; both of which play havoc with moral agency and freewill."

Henry is asking a two-fold question, neither of which has anything to do with the fact that religions exist. There is no attempt to do away with religion. The immediate human reaction to the word 'Religion' is not at all an issue.

So then along comes 'Whoosh' to ask the assembled to pay heed to his three points:

a) define religion.
b) define how we would rid the world of religion.
c) realize religion is still growing worldwide, not shrinking.


Not one of these issues has anything to do with the intent of the issues Henry is attempting to have discussed. This is why the immediate reaction to his post was "Whoosh".

I'm not as smart as the active participants in this thread, but even I could see that whoosh had struck again. He is earning his reputation. And as a famed pseudo-philosopher of ye olde Anglican Church once said:

"It is far better to keep one's pie-hole shut and make people wonder how dumb one is, rather than to open one's pie-hole and remove all doubt."
--Judic West, Vicar of Darby-on-Hutch, Eieieioshire, West Midlands, England

There is also the context in this and many other threads. It is one thing to miss the mark, another repeatedly to insult everyone else in the process.

“define religion. Some people would include not so obvious things as religion. For example, MLMs mentioned elsewhere verge into it. I have seen Amway described as a cult. Some people's love of a sport resembles religion too, and can be just as ugly”

A canonized fad.

Rupert Sheldrake considers sports a spiritual practice. “Meditation in the West is called sports”, as he says. Certainly golf is a meditation, but the more active sports occur in the moment and are breath-intensive. Athletes in “the zone” are like monks in meditation.

The newest scriptures were written by Stan Lee. The Marvel and DC Universes use all of the classic archetypes of religious stories. They are also targeted at young people.

I think these new forms emerge as needed just as old forms fall away. Mormonism is only alive because its current base is still alive. It’s not sustainable long term.

>But when considering the social value of religion, we should at least be careful of >kneejerk dismissals that focus on criticism of historical true claims, while ignoring its >general commitment to basic, shared, human values.

What are these basic shared human values?

reciprocity? I see it proclaimed but rarely practiced outside of enforced situations

Murder is wrong? only within the in group. Religion has often declared the out grouo to be exterminated.

acceptance/tolerance of the other? certainly not if the other is a sinner such as lgbtq tribalism reigns supreme in religion.

Theft is wrong? only when watched, or primed for being observed-- external enforcement or in some religions praiseworthy against the outgroup.

much religious morality is tied up in Purity, Authority and Loyalty which is about propogating the religion and controlling the religious. I find those behaviors immoral.

>But when considering the social value of religion, we should at least be careful of >kneejerk dismissals that focus on criticism of historical true claims, while ignoring its >general commitment to basic, shared, human values.

What are these basic shared human values?

COMMENT: Well, let me give you an example of what I mean. I am pro-choice in the abortion debate. Notwithstanding, it is a biological fact that a fetus is a living organism; a life! Although we might differ with the pro-life crowd on this issue, they *are* effective in constantly reminding us of our shared value that life should be respected, and that the life of a fetus, whether deemed a person or not, is worthy of consideration as part of the moral dynamic of the abortion decision. My point is that I believe this is one legitimate way to keep our moral sense grounded and stable. If that perspective is stifled, arguable the balance of our moral sense is disrupted. The point works both ways: The pro-choice rhetoric about rights, freewill, one's ownership of one's body, etc. should be appreciated by the pro-lifers as a legitimate stabilizing influence of our shared moral sense in this most difficult decision.


(Note: I did not understand your remaining points.)

I think what dogblogger is saying is that "human values" shift with tribalism, ie: abortion is wrong within your tribe, but somehow it's okay to drop bombs on, say, Iran - and kill a lot of Iranian babies while doing it.

Religion used to be able to terrorize it’s adherents with the fear of eternal damnation. Consequently, they tended to behave.

Nowadays, people aren’t so easily kept in check with those threats. It seems that people are more inclined to misbehave nowadays because religion has lost it’s clout and lawyers have made incarceration a rarity.

People seem unable to control their impulses on their own and so goes society...

Who really knows what a society extant religion would look like and function like? We have no such history anywhere. There are those who wish to point to the USSR as a religionless state. However, the Russian Orthodox church thrived and grew under communism.

As I wrote in previous threads with this topic... "I don't know how a religionless world would look. Let's give it a try and take some data."

HH =)

That is untrue, most of the churches were shut under the USSR. Some did remain open, but many were turned into "Palaces of Culture", Red Army Komsomol etc or trade union clubs. Many were just demolished like St Nicholas Cathedral. (Which they attempted to demolish at night to avoid protests).

If religion grew at all, it was because people needed some solace from the mass arrests, disappearances, poverty and German invasion. However, the overground Orthodox Church was run by the KGB (and its predecessor organizations)

During WWII, Stalin worked out religion was a good way to motivate resistance to invasion, but they did not have chaplains, and the repressions began again after the war.

Some bright spark in the politburo also worked out that a lot of tourists wanted to see the old churches, so they were kept as museums to attract foreign currency.

IMO, religion is one of the most oppressive/suppressive forces on the planet. It all starts out when we're young and being told that we're never good enough; raise the bar, lengthen your stride,do better, you need to change,and other drivel. Then there's the oppressive part to religion. The Holy Wars, the Crusades and the Knights Templar. The inquisition. Pizarro and his merry band of murderers tortured and killed those who wouldn't convert to his religion. There is a museum in Peru that shows the different methods of torture that were used to convince people of the error of their ways. The Salem Witch Trials inflicted on those and by those who had originally sought religious freedom. Jim Jones, and lest we forget: Mormon "doctrine" which condoned adultery, revenge, and a host of other things that we all have learned about. It is based on the occult, deceit, lies and murder. No; I would rather consider myself to be spiritual than be tied to a religious organization.

When will the religious top telling us all we are nothing without them?

Never. It's all they got.



I work with a lot of people in their twenties and thirties. Not one is religious at all. Religion never comes up. I say ultra religious things to get a laugh and they do laugh like when I say, "Que Dios te bendiga," when they leave on Friday. And the good part is they are wonderful people who are supportive of each other and just want to make the best life they can and love their kids the way Mormons only think they love theirs.

When will the religious top telling us all we are nothing without them?

COMMENT: You got this very wrong. What religion tells us atheists is that we human beings have ultimate value; have freewill, and make real moral choices. They try to explain this view by invoking God along with a religious worldview.

It is science, not religion, that has suggested "we are nothing."
(See the above OP quote)

As much as we ridicule the closed-minded Mormons, it’s the physical materialists that go forward with eyes wide shut.

No time to participate; but let me leave the following, which goes to the kind of assumptions and contradictions the Churchlands make and the kind of observations you make:

From Twitter:

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "The Universe is blind to our sorrows and indifferent to our pains.

"Have a nice day!"

Norm MacDonald: "Neil, there is a logic flaw in your little aphorism that seems quite telling. Since you and I are part of the Universe, then we would also be indifferent and uncaring. Perhaps you forgot, Neil, that we are not superior to the Universe but merely a fraction of it. Nice day, indeed."

You, of course, are the 'Norm' here.

Cheers,

Human, amazed how these kinds of threads look exactly as they did 15 years ago, even with the same people voicing the exact same opinions.

Norm MacDonald: "Neil, there is a logic flaw in your little aphorism that seems quite telling. Since you and I are part of the Universe, then we would also be indifferent and uncaring. Perhaps you forgot, Neil, that we are not superior to the Universe but merely a fraction of it. Nice day, indeed."

COMMENT: And the logical flaw noted here is NOT just rhetorical. The very same philosophers (e.g. the Churchlands) and scientists (e.g. Steven Weinberg) who constantly beat the "we are nothing" mantra, nonetheless go about their business, doing--of all things--setting goals, making choices, loving their children, deriding immoral behavior, complaining about social policy, and, of course, writing books; as if "we" human beings are responsible and can (and should) make a difference; i.e. as if we really *do* matter. But, then, back at the office, or the seminar, or the TED talk, or the popular book, it is monkey business as usual. (Of course, there are many others, including scientists, who acknowledge just the opposite; that the world appears to be ordered with purpose and meaning. But you better have tenure before you go there!)

And, such people are the first to complain about the irrationality of religion--and try to teach their students to abandon religion in favor of their own "rationality." All of this makes Huston Smith's view very enticing indeed--if we could just get rid of the religion part. :)
_______________________________________

Human, amazed how these kinds of threads look exactly as they did 15 years ago, even with the same people voicing the exact same opinions.

COMMENT: Yes. I'm guilty! But as you know, in some circles I have gone from a blowhard, to a wordsmith, to someone who "always gives me something to think about." So I suppose that's progress.

>COMMENT: Yes. I'm guilty! But as you know, in some circles I have gone from a blowhard, to a wordsmith, to someone who "always gives me something to think about." So I suppose that's progress.

Slow down there, Henry. You can be all three, can't you? We aren't usually in the same circle. No circle would have me.

Slow down there, Henry. You can be all three, can't you? We aren't usually in the same circle. No circle would have me.

COMMENT: Well, being self-critical I suppose I have to admit that at times I can be all three. However, I don't remember in years gone by where rather than being summarily critical and dismissive, you also accused me of being thought provoking, much less "in a good way." Hence, I rather timidly "supposed" a positive progression of attitude.

PLEASE ALLOW ME THIS DISTORTION! I AM RATHER ENJOYING THE MORE POSITIVE INTERACTIONS! :)

“And, such people are the first to complain about the irrationality of religion--and try to teach their students to abandon religion in favor of their own "rationality."”

Sheesh, how long does it take people to get over being burned at the stake?

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of the unfortunate facts about the Recovery
> Board is that often serious, thought-provoking
> threads, quickly disintegrate into mindless and
> frivolous disputes that soon leave the original
> post in the dust. (That is all I will say about
> that.)

Probably because the posters here are so mentally warped after being brainwashed for years by a cult. Their world views change and not for the better. I can find a problem with almost every poster here. You guys think you are normal now? Let me just say that most of the women here come off as extremely bitter and are probably nasty bitches in real life. If you resigned you are still a member of the Mormon cult, sad to say. They will never let you go. I hate them as much as you, but it is just a sad truth.

Yet here you are. This is a nice place to think. People usually write to help through working out their thoughts or to have fun. I’m so glad they aren’t normal.

There are some who aren’t done hating yet, but so what? They need a place to vent.

I have a feeling that the real issue you think is a problem about others is that they aren't like you.

I've met several people from this board IRL, and they are not as you describe at all. Gracious, polite, friendly, smart and fun describes most of them.

Remember that this board is one small corner of our lives where we can vent and laugh based on a few common background interests. It is only a fraction of the complicated people we are.

It's unfair to use the "b" word, but there are plenty of people who are not as nice as they think they are, or repress their real opinions. At least with me, people know where they stand.

Dagny, could you go get the cookies and punch? The menfolk would like a snack.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2019 01:33PM by Lot's Wife.

If this is truly a 'recovery board' this should be 'refreshing and helpful' to at least the person expressing this opinion.

I actually enjoy 'honest' opinions! I have no problem with what this person feels. Letting these type of 'feelings' out should actually help recovery from 'whatever'!

There's nothing wrong with expressing them--as there is nothing wrong with criticizing them.

Totally agree with you on this one!!!

I expected a lot more from this comment ---- time will tell.

“Given the above, do we really want to leave the defense of human values to religion? That too is a scary thought on many levels. But when considering the social value of religion, we should at least be careful of knee-jerk dismissals that focus on criticism of historical true claims, while ignoring its general commitment to basic, shared, human values.”

I would love to see secular humanism promote human values. However, human existence is essentially a transcendental enterprise. The data is there, but it’s taboo. That leaves religion until science gets serious about spirituality.

I would love to see secular humanism promote human values. However, human existence is essentially a transcendental enterprise. The data is there, but it’s taboo. That leaves religion until science gets serious about spirituality.

COMMENT: I really think you raise a good point here. First, I would note that secular humanism used to be about just that; human values. It is only with the new "third culture" that humanism has embraced science and technology at the expense of such values. Part of the problem was that secular humanism was never consistent in the first place, because it could never provide a theory of "naturalization" that made its position scientifically respectable. It is perhaps no wonder that science and technology drowned out secular humanism in academic circles. (See Huston Smith quote in OP) Incidentally, for a good discussion of this issue, read John Brockman, The New Humanists: Science at the Edge.)

You last point, is, I think, a critical one. The question is two-fold: (1) Can there be a theory of human values (morality; freewill, etc.) within a modern scientific paradigm? and, if not (2) what can science do "to get serious" about the transcendental? Does science have anything to offer in this regard, other than skepticism and criticism? My answer is "No" to the first question, but "Yes" to the second. My guess is that the "data" you refer to that is "taboo" in science is paranormal data, including, but not limited to, transcendental human experiences. As a teaser, one of the possible connections between modern science and the transcendental that I see is the scientific concept of *emergence*, which already has one foot in the door of mysticism! Another connection is mental causation, which I think by now is an obvious phenomenon that can no longer be denied by science, but which along with consciousness itself is fundamentally transcendent.

There is not much space to address these issues in any further detail in this thread, so I won't.

I suppose my last point is more about politics, which is itself an emergent phenomenon. Any profession with money involved is going to have vested interests along with matching beliefs. That puts them in the same camp as BYU professors. Go along with the doctrine if you value your job. Privately held beliefs are a different matter, but not very useful if they remain private.

Anyone ahead of the curve can tell you trying to change perception is brutal. It’s like talking to Mormons.