We all grew up inundated by Iknowthechurchistrue. It is the central principle of Mormonism. Saying it ensures your place in Mormon society, and to say otherwise is to instantly make one the object of infinite attention from members of all stripes until you to can say it with conviction.

Then we have all the evidence that it ain't necessarily so. The list of counter-arguments to the received narrative would- and does- fill entire library sections or gigabit hard drives. And yet all those 18-year-old missionaries still go out, backed up by mommy-bragging and proud dads and all those girls coyly announcing their sexual availability if the boys Return with Honor and escort them through the local Cinderella's Castle. So what gives? The two sides seem intractable. The non-believer side is rife with damaged souls and broken dreams, while the believer side is 100% convinced that everybody could be happy just like them if they would first "repent" and concede that JS was truly a prophet and the BoM is true and RMN is leading God's true church in what are surely the Last Days before Jesus returns and vindicates all those believers. In short, how can the church be "true" to all those people when its historical claims are patently false if not laughably ridiculous?

The answer, IMO, is this: they believe that (1) there is an unseen world, and that (2) Mormonism, especially with its appended feature of holy spaces epitomized by the temples, is the surest way on earth to access that unseen world. They are willing to allow indiscretions by JS. They are able to concede that former Prophets may have made mistakes and misspoken on subjects like race or theology. But they are unable to make the final step of considering that there may not in fact be an Unseen World so that their lives may have no cosmic significance beyond what they can achieve in a few decades as carbon-based life forms.

My interpretation is largely derived from this article from Boston University: https://www.bu.edu/arion/archive/volume-18/colin_wells_how_did_god_get-started/ . It is the clearest exposition I have found as to why people, even in 2021, still insist that there was a real Noah and that the BoM is a miraculous production and that Mormon really and truly stuck his staff into the ground in Manti, Utah. When people predict the end of religion, the biggest obstacle- the elephant in the room- is first convincing people that this life is all there is. Once you reach that point the hard part is over. But until a majority of humans still cling to that notion, no amount of logic or academic output or even suicides by their outcast children will have the slightest effect. They, as Carl Sagan pointed out, "need to believe". That's the central issue.

Sorry of the long post. I don't intend to use this site as a substitute for a blog

and look where that got me. I was just thinking about this. I have a son with mental illness and I just realized the other day while sitting in the drive-up line at McDonald's that I need to accept that this is just how it is.

I thought today about the fact that others would think this is what happens when you are a sinner, but then I realized my mother was one of the best people who walked the face of the earth. She had her problems, but she was a good person. She wanted only a graveside service when she died, but it snowed on the day of her funeral, so we had a viewing and a funeral. She would have been PISSED!! But you couldn't believe the number of people who came to her viewing and funeral. My other aunts and uncles who had higher callings in the church, etc., didn't have nearly as many people at their funerals. She had deaf parents (she was the oldest child and helped them all their lives--she was their voice). She had a son with many disabilities from birth and then her oldest son had a hemorrhagic stroke at age 42 and then she had another child to watch after.

She lived a difficult life and she never did anything to "deserve it." She was a good mormon lady and that means a good person.

I don't get these mission letter opening parties. They never did that when I was young. Or the baptism parties. Everything was much lower key. I had a boyfriend who went on a mission and he called me on the phone to tell me where he was going right after the letter arrived in the mail. Too much showing everyone how righteous they are, but we never know what is going on behind the scenes.

Myself, I still believe in an afterlife. I am obviously not certain of anything. My beliefs change daily. But one thing I do know is that living mormonism to the best of your ability is NO GUARANTEE of anything. Mormonism is NOT the way to live.

We have Christmas to celebrate the metaphorical rebirth of the sun, after the shortest day of the year. Easter to celebrate springtime. Cremations in India to release the spirit to heaven. Elaborate burials in the Christian tradition, and others, going back many thousands of years.

The desire for there to be an afterlife of some sort is pretty deeply ingrained in humans. Religions exploit that desire partly to aid people who are grieving, and partly (mostly?) to amass power and influence in society.

ETA: prior to the 20th century, at least in western civilization, the biggest, richest buildings in a city tended to be church buildings. Even in SLC, the most impressive 19th century buildings are the LDS temple, and the Cathedral of the Madeleine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2021 01:33PM by Brother Of Jerry.

"The desire for there to be an afterlife of some sort is pretty deeply ingrained in humans."

RESPONSE: Do you mean biologically, or genetically, ingrained? If so, how does belief in an afterlife--where life is supposedly peaceful and blissful (or at least minimally better than life on Earth)--square with natural selection where survival and reproduction ON EARTH are the guiding principles of evolution? Clearly, if people believe that the next life (death) is better than this life (survival), they will be less likely to take survival seriously, not more likely. It would seem that atheism would thrive, not religion, as religious believers are evolutionally disfavored!

In short, belief in an afterlife cannot be an adaptive trait when considering evolution by natural selection! As such, your assumption that such beliefs are "deeply ingrained in humans" is likely not a biological trait. In other words, it is probably mostly learned behavior; presumably based primarily upon cultural dictates and needs in a context of existential uncertainty.

Well, son of a gun!

Here I am siding with HB!

I, too, cannot accept that humans are born with a biologically in-place 'notion' that life after death is or ought to be a reality.

Why would humans have this trait when other animals don't? Or at least not that we're aware of.

And what about the variations? Is it possible that more humans right now believe in reincarnation rather than L-after-D?

Just the fact that there are different ideas about what happens upon the death of the body may be an issue to so many, but it could also just point to the very graphic truth that where you are born has a lot to do with how you develop.

"Well, son of a gun! Here I am siding with HB!"

RESPONSE: Congratulations! There may be hope for you yet! :)

But don't celebrate too quickly. After all the ghostly PhDs and "experts" of the Board have not yet 'spoken.' And, God forbid, if they disagree with you they might well insist that you change your views and just shut the f**k up. At that point, if you dare to repeat such nonsense you might find yourself being stalked and intimidated by those whose job it is to keep the doctrines "pure." So, a word of warning: be very careful my friend. :)
________________________________________________

While we are waiting, let's take a critical (but civil) look at your comments:

"I, too, cannot accept that humans are born with a biologically in-place 'notion' that life after death is or ought to be a reality."

RESPONSE: That is not quite fair. What is claimed by some evolutionary psychologists is only that there is genetic *component* in human beings that supports a psychological *tendency* to believe in life after death; and that this genetic component (whatever it is) is an evolutionary adaptation providing a survival advantage. Perhaps this is what BoJ had in mind.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324673914_Afterlife_beliefs_An_evolutionary_approach
________________________________________

"Why would humans have this trait when other animals don't? Or at least not that we're aware of."

RESPONSE: Well, technically we don't know what other non-human animals believe--if in fact they can have such beliefs at all without symbolic language? However, we might infer that the strong survival instinct in animals generally--wherever it is manifest--of itself undermines an assumption of a genetic, adaptational component to afterlife belief.
_________________________________________

And what about the variations? Is it possible that more humans right now believe in reincarnation rather than L-after-D?

RESPONSE: What is the connection here? Belief in reincarnation is just a variation of afterlife belief. One can believe in a genetic component to afterlife beliefs, without insisting that
all the variations of such beliefs also have a genetic component.
_________________________________________

"Just the fact that there are different ideas about what happens upon the death of the body may be an issue to so many, but it could also just point to the very graphic truth that where you are born has a lot to do with how you develop."

RESPONSE: More generally, the environment in all its glory. But suppose one takes the position that belief in an afterlife has a genetic component along with an environmental component. In other words, they think that human beings have a genetic adaptational tendency to believe in life after death, but further acknowledge that environmental factors can override or suppress such biological tendency? What say you then?

Note also that this is not a religious-non-religious issue. A theist might well insist that God created human beings with a genetic tendency to believe in life after death, and argue that such a tendency, since it cannot be an adaptation, must be the handiwork of God's creation. Then, they can point to the evolutionary psychologists for support. What say you then?

Oh, and about my moniker:

http://mypages.iit.edu/~schmaus/Science_and_Method/Lectures/Galileo.htm

(Sorry, no sinister bad faith.)

Cut the bullshit ! Theism is learned.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But don't celebrate too quickly. After all the
> ghostly PhDs and "experts" of the Board have not
> yet 'spoken.' And, God forbid, if they disagree
> with you they might well insist that you change
> your views and just shut the f**k up. At that
> point, if you dare to repeat such nonsense you
> might find yourself being stalked and intimidated
> by those whose job it is to keep the doctrines
> "pure." So, a word of warning: be very careful my
> friend. :)

Nope. No passive aggression in that paragraph. Henry would never resort to such a pusillanimous approach.

“Why would humans have this trait when other animals don't? Or at least not that we're aware of.”

Maybe you don’t speak “cat”. Cats are certainly of the opinion that they have nine lives.

It means it “feels true”. That’s the standard, usually. If what you feel to be true conflicts with what the church feels to be true, their version is the truth. Their ability to make up stuff is more refined than yours.

Then we have all the evidence that it ain't necessarily so. .
. . In short, how can the church be "true" to all those people when its historical claims are patently false if not laughably ridiculous?

RESPONSE: The simple answer is this: Those people who Mormons most respect and admire have taught them these doctrinal principles and historical "facts" in a context of faith in a larger, religious, worldview. As long as one can consistently reconcile the broad teachings of Mormonism with the facts of the world--even if involves a lot of fact spinning--such people will choose Mormonism. In short, as remarkably "ridiculous" such claims are to us, within a broad religious worldview they are not inconsistent with any hard facts of science. (Historical facts about matters remote in time; Biological facts that fail to address mind and consciousness; and psychological facts that fail to explain human cognition, are not "hard facts" of science.)
_____________________________________________

The answer, IMO, is this: they believe that (1) there is an unseen world, and that (2) Mormonism, especially with its appended feature of holy spaces epitomized by the temples, is the surest way on earth to access that unseen world. . . . But they are unable to make the final step of considering that there may not in fact be an Unseen World so that their lives may have no cosmic significance beyond what they can achieve in a few decades as carbon-based life forms.

RESPONSE: Most thoughtful Mormons are not oblivious to the possibility of there not being an afterlife, i.e. that Mormonism might be false. They also realize that peripheral stories might not be literal. They choose belief in part because faith in a authoritatively proscribed and meaningful worldview that transcends the cold finality of human life as taught by science, is more appealing to them than non-belief. So, if they can psychologically maintain their faith in the face of contrary evidence, they will. Why is that surprising? Why is it even irrational?
______________________________________

My interpretation is largely derived from this article from Boston University: https://www.bu.edu/arion/archive/volume-18/colin_wells_how_did_god_get-started/ .

RESPONSE: I find this article, and similar articles seeking to "explain" religion, extremely short-sighted, and often just as ludicrous as the religion they seek to explain. It is usually all about evolution, human nature, and some sort of historical account within that context. (See Boyer, "Religion Explained"; or Dennett, "Breaking the Spell") I have never read such an account where it seemed that the author understood the dynamics of religious faith at all. (William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" still comes the closest in my view.)
_______________________________________

It is the clearest exposition I have found as to why people, even in 2021, still insist that there was a real Noah and that the BoM is a miraculous production . . . When people predict the end of religion, the biggest obstacle- the elephant in the room- is first convincing people that this life is all there is. Once you reach that point the hard part is over. But until a majority of humans still cling to that notion, no amount of logic or academic output or even suicides by their outcast children will have the slightest effect. They, as Carl Sagan pointed out, "need to believe". That's the central issue.

RESPONSE: Convincing people that there is no afterlife is difficult when in the context of their pre-existing faith they see evidence that there is; e.g. in the form of paranormal NDEs or reports of the past lives of children. (See, Carter, "Science and the Near-Death Experience"; and Tucker, "Life before Birth") Science is not definitive on life after death-except within its own materialist assumptions. Even Carl Sagan, who you cite, acknowledged in "The Demon-Haunted World" that the phenomenon of reported past lives of children is worthy of serious study.

So, pejoratively calling it a "need to believe" as if it was some sort of psychological pathology, seems to me to be both short-sighted and false. A preference for faith in the context of uncertainty--however much evidence undermines such faith--does not express a "need" in this sense any more than a "need" for a cup of coffee in the morning does. It just makes one a little happier when facing the day.

I’m guilty of this when I call Mormonism stupid. At least there’s a method to the stupidity and who am I to say it’s wrong?

In the Jainist view, all roads lead to God. The world takes all kinds so there will be all kinds of truth. If creation is divine then this great diversity of truths is divine. Everyone has their own personal truth that’s different from everyone else’s truth. Or at least that’s how it should be, or why did God make individuals? Authoritarian religions that strip moral autonomy are the problem. They make a cookie cutter culture for you to either fit into or be a less than to be pitied.

Such religions are easy to despise for the hurt they cause. Maybe they really are stupid, but a better word is banal. Religion usually feeds into the banality of evil, which makes it dangerous. Where credulity is the most valued trait, wolves in sheep’s clothing show up for an easy lunch.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2021 06:17AM by babyloncansuckit.

it's a hard phrase to get out of the head "the church is true" I do admit. When I talk about things that are actually true in reality that phrase still comes up in my head unfortunately. They really ingrained that sh#t in my mind over decades of constant brainwashing. I consider it brainwashing in my case because there was an intimidation factor from certain individuals connected to the indoctrination. I know some people just saw it as mind control which is true but brainwashing takes it all a step further. Anyways, the operation does cause suicide or suicidal ideation in it of itself big time which is why it is evil in my opinion if there ever was a definition of evil.

Also, I always asked myself why do they say its true all the time like they keep trying to convince themselves that its true. They are not convinced so they have to keep saying it constantly i guess. Repitition is the name of the brainwashing and mind-control game for sure. If you repeat a lie enough under intimidation you will eventually think and say that it is true. Like in the book 1984, if you keep telling someone under intimidation that 2+2=5 then eventually that person will say and believe 2+2=5.

First of all, grammatically speaking, a church cannot be true, can it? A church is an organization, or a building. It exists but is not true or false. A set of religious beliefs or doctrine, that can be based on truth - or not.

Deb's Bud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First of all, grammatically speaking, a church
> cannot be true, can it? A church is an
> organization, or a building. It exists but is
> not true or false. A set of religious beliefs or
> doctrine, that can be based on truth - or not.

A church is an inanimate object. It can not think, feel, reason, nor make decisions.
HOWEVER THOSE WHO HAVE TAKEN POWER IN THE ORGANIZATION CAN!!!
An if you give them power over you they will most certainly use to THEIR benefit



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2021 01:12PM by thedesertrat1.

“Like in the book 1984, if you keep telling someone under intimidation that 2+2=5 then eventually that person will say and believe 2+2=5.”

You dare to question the Ministry of Truth?

"But until a majority of humans still cling to that notion, no amount of logic or academic output or even suicides by their outcast children will have the slightest effect. They, as Carl Sagan pointed out, "need to believe". That's the central issue."

If I look at humanity as an aggregate of adaptable creatures conforming to changes they introduced to themselves over time (as opposed to aliens) I think I can see a "need to believe" coming from humans adapting more and more to a psyche as opposed to being more tightly coupled to environs where they got their "daily bread."

Tribes coalescing into individuals but needing a "tribe for truth." People needing help to deal with things outside their own psyche look for it in many places with or without others.

RfM is a tribe of sorts. We understand the baseline of a fraudulent organization and how its "Truth" touched us in diverse ways.

Do I need to believe like I did when I thought my life depended upon it? I don't know. Thinking I have some objective place to puzzle things out is a fiction I like to keep close, as close as my desires to feel in control...of myself.

'True'?

Spandau Ballet should sue.

That's pure Gold.

True.

The song is better - and truer - than TSCC anyway.

Finally got time to read the link. Thank you, slskipper. Subject fascinates me no end and this article certainly was juicy for me. I even wrote my own version once of the beginning of God but mine is the opposite of scholarly, haha.

So much much to absorb there by Mr. Wells, and hard to read for a mind that works like mine does, but . . . sparked the idea that reason is nothing without imagination, and, what can be imagined may be real or not real, but, without ascertainment, imagination which can foster faith, leaves us with that chameleon of the word "true" which you bring up with regards to Mormonism.

What is true, indeed!

After reading the article I thought of oil and vinegar--don't mix well at all but do make a great salad dressing. One without the other is not nice. If equated to reason and faith, this idea leaves me with the ill feeling that religion is vital to reason and I don't like that. Hope I am getting it wrong.

Does the whole question just boil down to the eternal principle, "Opposites attract?" What are we without an opposite?

Well, I'm rambling but thanks for one of the most fascinating articles I've ever read that left sparks circling the cerebellum.
And love the lay of the land, the Mormon land, with which you opened this thread.


The scary part:

"But faith is also a mobile citadel, a portable fortress. Having evolved precisely to occupy the territory inaccessible to reason, faith evolved mechanisms to move fluidly with the boundaries of that territory.or, as with apocalypticism, to blithely revise its truth claims about the imminent end of the world as fast as they're discredited by the world's contrarian perseverance. Faith's quicksilver essence can never be rationally pinned down: the harder you press, the faster it squirts out from under your finger. Like the alien monster in countless movies, faith only gets stronger every time you shoot at it."


And that gives me an idea why my smart family is extremely TBM.

The social sciences is where people often go when they cannot do real science, but nonetheless still want to call themselves scientists! This article is a classic example of verbose nonsense masquerading as "science" in hopes that some unsuspecting layman will be fooled into finding it profound.

To solidify the point, can you provide one short and clear statement of the author's premises and conclusion?

Here are two statements that might help:

"In Darwinian terms, what I’m suggesting is that rational inquiry changed the religious environment, and that exclusive monotheism was the new class of religion that evolved as a result. Since religion’s environment is in fact psychological, to explain how religious “mutations” become successful “adaptations” it’s necessary to explain their psychological appeal. I’ve shown how exclusivity worked by appealing to and ultimately co-opting the rising tide of supernaturalism that reason left in its wake."

RESPONSE: Well, rational inquiry changes ALL social environments. The rise of "exclusive monism," if there was such a general rise, was a product of multiple historical and cultural phenomena, and most certainly was NOT a NEW class of religion born from rational inquiry. Moreover, there is no such thing as "religious mutations" or religious adaptations. (David Sloan Wilson's 'Darwin's Cathedral" has been brutally criticized and dismissed.) The psychological appeal of an idea is always coupled with the historical and cultural context of the idea. It is not biological; it is not a adaptionist "meme." Finally, the "tide" of "supernaturalism" has ebbed and flowed with culture, and has generally ebbed in the face of modern rationalism. Even religion has generally also sought to distance itself from supernaturalism outside of his own foundational beliefs. (Consider Mormonism as a classic example!)

_____________________________________________

"To put it another way, faith is the unassailable citadel to which religion withdrew after reason had overrun much of its original territory. And, let’s be honest, storming religion’s territory is what rational inquiry came into this world doing. In the face of such relentless, even terrifying, psychological pressure, it makes sense that our collective embrace of the supernatural, if it was to persist without dissolving completely, would have to tighten to the point of obsessiveness."

RESPONSE: But it has not tightened! Granted religion has withdrawn from rationalism, but this has hardly resulted in a "collective embrace of the supernatural."

So, in my not-so-humble opinion, this is all nonsense.
That said, I am very open to any articulation of substance, and related merit, that you can provide here. I am not closed minded. Tell me in your own words what you found of interest here. What is the point? And, why does it matter?

So glad I could provide you with an excuse to be supremely arrogant.

You're welcome.

Looking at it from a cuter angle: which side is more apt to be arrogant, the divine or the devilish?



Even though ghawd is reported to be All-Powerful, isn't there a line of reasoning that would provide a basis for one to choose to be friends with the devil, rather than ghawd?

And if such were the case, wouldn't ghawd need a higher ghawd to explain it to him?

Can a ghawd be nuanced?

God is like Build-a-Bear. If you want yours nuanced--- Then nuanced it is! Customizing is so NOW. Takes a lot of talent to craft the best God but well worth the effort.

And does the corollary hold true, that someone out there has crafted a better ghawd than the one you/I came up with? (my ghawd can't dance fer sh!t!!)

Seemingly, none of us seem to worry about coming up with a better devil.

There really should be a god contest, like Miss America. Swimsuit competition a must. And, they must state their platform-- what their plans are. That would be the hard part since they clearly make it up as they go along.



God. Satan. On top of drugs, sex, and rock and roll, one's given us caviar and champagne and the other green Jello and Cool Whip along with a baker's Hat that doesn't even have a logo. Speaking of which, I wonder if they are allowed to wear maga hats in the temple now?

Oh. The divine are more arrogant. It's sort of like the cornerstone of the whole thing.

The devilish don't need it cuz they are where it's at and have too much going on to worry about it.

Yea; the tone *was* a bit arrogant. So, I deserved that rebuke.

Notwithstanding, are you going to just go away mad, and lose an opportunity to perhaps learn something?

Since you are interested in this subject, you might start with the book referenced in the article: David Sloan Wilson's Darwin's Cathedral. Read it carefully and critically and tell me what *you* think.

Thank you, G. Salviati.

Seems a lot of assumptions being made.

Go away mad? No. Your opinions are not enough to inspire ire. Just not interested in discourse that is loaded the way I perceived your post.


Another assumption--that I bought the referenced article wholesale. I gave my own thoughts and reactions to this one story out of many that spark thought. I love anything that brings a new angle. However, I don't necessarily take the angle as anything more than one more clue; something of interest.


I have a large collection of semiprecious worry stones and jeweled dragonflies and butterflies and other metal insects on my desk and I put them in a new order, a new lay out constantly. (I live visusally, can't help it). I add new plants to my garden every week and rearrange the planting and pull things out that don't work. I read tons of book reviews. Gives me a lot of varied fodder for thought very quickly. I prefer learning from lots of observations of life experiences--my own and others and not from those offering "learned conclusions," or, a need to correct me.

Like the objects on my desk and what I find at the nursery, I like a revolving buffet of new angles and ideas to choose from and I don't plan to quit eating ever. So when you pronounced, "This is all nonsense," I found that to be wholesale dismissal.

The article was not nonsense to me--more like a plat du jour, but I will be having something else to eat next meal and may not remember that one---but my subconscious will and will add it to the conglomeration that is me.

I am no one's sparring partner.


If you ever gave a glimpse into what brought you to who you are now, that would interest me. I have never seen any clues as to who you are. Intellectualism may benefit from not being platonic.

Best Regards

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The social sciences is where people often go when
> they cannot do real science, but nonetheless still
> want to call themselves scientists!

You're a lawyer, right? I mean when you are telling the truth.


----------------
> This article
> is a classic example of verbose nonsense
> masquerading as "science" in hopes that some
> unsuspecting layman will be fooled into finding it
> profound.

You're a lawyer, right?


------------------
> That said, I am very open to any articulation of
> substance, and related merit, that you can provide
> here. I am not closed minded.

Right.

A well-informed lawyer can criticize the social sciences; just as a well-informed social scientist can criticize the legal profession. In fact, I have seen the latter type criticisms on several occasions and have often found them valid (without taking offense).

Now, if the above general principle of criticism across professional and academic boundaries were not correct, we would not have this Board, would we?

Read the book!

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Read the book!

So readers have a more general context of what’s going on here, from a review of Wilson’s book from Nature:

“In Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, David Sloan Wilson seeks to reconcile evolutionary biology with the existence of religion. Wilson’s main tool is a reconception of evolutionary theory; Wilson argues against the tradition that has privileged natural selection upon individuals (or upon genes) at the exclusion of any other mechanisms or processes. To this end, Wilson argues that group selection has played an important role in evolutionary history and that, once we recognize this, much of the tension between religion and biology disappears. Group selection has, of course, had a tough history. In some writings, Charles Darwin seemed to endorse group selection, though it is debatable how comfortable he was with this commitment.”

I have this loose bit because I once used Wilson and Eliot Sober (you got me to Sober, Salvati) when this topic was raging here on RfM, with multiple well-informed interlocutors. A more heady time for RfM, for sure.

(Hopefully I can be forgiven for choosing to use another’s words over mine, but too often another’s are better than mine.)

Hi Human:

My "read the book" response to LW was not intended to refer to the Wilson book. On several occasions I have encouraged LW to read Irving M. Copi's classic book, "Introduction to Logic." That was the book I was referring to as a personal reminder to her.

Notwithstanding, the Wilson book was referenced in the link of the OP, and is a classic treatise in evolutionary psychology as related to religion, so I would be glad to discuss it here.
_______________________________________________

So readers have a more general context of what’s going on here, from a review of Wilson’s book from Nature:

“In Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, David Sloan Wilson seeks to reconcile evolutionary biology with the existence of religion. Wilson’s main tool is a reconception of evolutionary theory; Wilson argues against the tradition that has privileged natural selection upon individuals (or upon genes) at the exclusion of any other mechanisms or processes. To this end, Wilson argues that group selection has played an important role in evolutionary history and that, once we recognize this, much of the tension between religion and biology disappears. Group selection has, of course, had a tough history. In some writings, Charles Darwin seemed to endorse group selection, though it is debatable how comfortable he was with this commitment.”

RESPONSE: This is a good description in that it references the fact that much of the criticism of Wilson's book has to do with his acceptance and use of the idea of group selection. But that topic is a can of worms that probably should be avoided if we are focusing on the general applicability of evolution to religious faith. Many of those criticizing Wilson on group selection would agree with him that religious faith has a more or less strong genetic component. The problem is defining what that component is, producing evidence for it, and what (if any) constraints that it has on both cultural influences and, (from my point of view) one's willed preferences.
_______________________________________________

I have this loose bit because I once used Wilson and Eliot Sober (you got me to Sober, Salvati) when this topic was raging here on RfM, with multiple well-informed interlocutors. A more heady time for RfM, for sure.

RESPONSE: Great. I will note for other readers of this thread that the Sober book, "Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior," (if that is the book you are referring to) is co-authored with Wilson, and was also criticized for embracing group selection. Of course, altruism *is* a "heady" topic, if that is what you were referring to.
_______________________________________

(Hopefully I can be forgiven for choosing to use another’s words over mine, but too often another’s are better than mine.)

RESPONSE: Rarely have I found that another's words are better than yours!
_______________________________________

One might be interested in why I am critical of Darwin's Cathedral. (There goes my ego again!) It is not because he embraces group selection. It is the project of evolutionary psychology itself; where "just-so" adaptionist stories are offered to "explain" human behavior; particularly "explanations" of altruism, or "explanations" of religion and religious faith. Human behavior is complex and in my judgment transcends simplistic "nature-nurture" characterizations. It does not, of course, exist in a biological or cultural vacuum.

But if there is one thing we know for sure (in my opinion) it is that human behavior can transcend both biology and culture--which is evidenced by willed human actions that appear to defy both. Such is the foundation of free will and morality. (I am a true, ontological humanist; A rare breed!) The social psychologists want their humanism, but their scientific materialism too--After all, that is the only way they can retain their standing as "scientists!" :) Moreover, they have to make religion "scientific" by removing any legitimacy that might follow from a transcendental religious experience. (The same with the arts, by the way, but the arts are not as threatening!)

Always a pleasure my friend.
Cheers
_______________________________________

What do you make of the supernatural taboo in mainstream science? Is there a concerted effort to remove mysticism from academia? When I look at the abysmal salaries of academics and the hyper competitive culture they work in, it seems like they are indoctrinated into thought patterns of insecurity and jealousy that hinder spiritual inquiry. You might call it a “low vibration”. The problem solvers of the world are purposely being blocked from the higher level of consciousness necessary to overcome the thinking that created the problems. Meanwhile, faith in the supernatural is waning in the churches due to cross pollination from humanism.

But I think people are waking up. There’s a natural mystic in the air. I don’t expect science or religion to throw off their chains overnight, but it seems the chains are lightening.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2021 07:04AM by babyloncansuckit.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A well-informed lawyer can criticize the social
> sciences; just as a well-informed social scientist
> can criticize the legal profession. In fact, I
> have seen the latter type criticisms on several
> occasions and have often found them valid (without
> taking offense).

So you are asserting that law is in some sense different from the social sciences? It is more scientific? It is more logical? You are brighter?


---------------
> Now, if the above general principle of criticism
> across professional and academic boundaries were
> not correct, we would not have this Board, would
> we?

Ah yes, hence your implication above that people with PhDs in mathematics and physics have nothing particular to add in a discussion of relativity and quantum mechanics. You and S-Cat are perfectly equipped to challenge, even laugh at, the musings of experts in those fields.


---------------------
> Read the book!

What's the point? Even when experts in other fields, be they astrophysics or students of brain function, address your points with evidence your monumental arrogance prevents you from hearing them.

It's impossible to engage meaningfully with someone who is firmly convinced he already knows everything worth knowing.

>> The social sciences is where people often go when they cannot do real science, but nonetheless still want to call themselves scientists! This article is a classic example of verbose nonsense masquerading as "science" in hopes that some unsuspecting layman will be fooled into finding it profound.

When I went to grad school for education in the early 90s, there were two types of research. The first was numbers-based research, similar that used by researchers in the hard sciences, that could generally be relied upon. The second was observational "research" in which educators wrote articles and books about instructional techniques and approaches that they felt were effective. I knew even as a student that calling the latter "research" was bunk. It was the entire basis of the Whole Language movement, which has since been discredited.

"When I went to grad school for education in the early 90s, there were two types of research. The first was numbers-based research, similar that used by researchers in the hard sciences, that could generally be relied upon. The second was observational "research" in which educators wrote articles and books about instructional techniques and approaches that they felt were effective. I knew even as a student that calling the latter "research" was bunk. It was the entire basis of the Whole Language movement, which has since been discredited."

RESPONSE: Thank you for that personal observation. I have no problem with the social sciences when they offer bare cultural information in good faith that is interesting--as for example, the responses to some questionnaire or survey--and then provide honestly presented statistical information as related to such responses. But when they engage in wild speculative interpretations, and pretend that Bayesian analysis, or some mathematical model, *mathematically* supports such conclusions, I draw the line. Or, when, as in the present article, you just have questionable evidence, coupled with poor logic and invalid inferences.

‘True’= reinforces the MORmON brainwashing I received since I was too young to think for myself.

When they say that the LDS church is “true”, it is the polar opposite of “all other churches are false”.

Basically, it’s a slogan that summarizes the basic premise that Joseph Smith got a face-to-face with the CEO who told him that all of the religions were fake (false) Start a new one, the CEO said. It will not be fake (aka-the one ‘true’ church) because I, the CEO, endorse it.

The church is true...well except for the Book of Mormon. But the church is true...except for the origin story. But the church is really true...except for all the controversial past doctrine which we now disavow. But trust us...the church is true...

The church is true, except for all the parts that are demonstrably untrue.

It means you don't have a
choice, or a voice.

It means NO Free-Agency.
NO Thinking or Feeling.
No Guessing/ Discussing.
No QUESTIONS or ANSWERS.

It means FOLLOWING-
Not LEADING

It means TSCC is a leach, sucking the life out of the "true" believers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2021 07:58PM by moremany.

"A leech and its lychee nuts are soon parted."

--Old Burmese saying

So Judi West was Burmese, then?

That's some passive-aggressive British humour for you :-)

I know the church is true!
Translated=
I have signed over my thoughts==life ==right to think==right to believe==and right to live to the whims of the “CHURCH”

Yep

Don't apologize for your excellent post. It's a very convincing hypothesis, for me, in fact probably the most convincing I've read. I always thought the "they saw the thunder, etc., and sought to explain it" cliché fell a bit short as a thorough explanation of religion's existence (although it probably played a role too). Your hypothesis has the advantage, for me, of convincingly explaining people's clinging to religions they know are false.

Thank you :-)