Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: auntsukey ( )
Date: October 27, 2022 10:46AM

Each week Maria Popova's newsletter, "The Marginalian" explores the deep thought, beauty, and unique perspective of [sometimes obscure] authors and philosophers. The posts are always illuminating and thought provoking. This week's post is one of her best as she quotes from "Words in Pain: Letters on Life and Death" by Olga Jacoby, an atheist in love with life but facing her own death at a very young age.

In Jacoby's many letters that comprise the book, (some to her pious doctor), she gently but soundly calls out religion's damage.

"Have you ever come across a baby whose eyes were not all innocence and inquiry? And from the first you crush that innocence with those terrible biblical words. Mind you, they are words only. A sincere man will never agree to them when it comes to his own children, and a generous heart must repel them as strongly when they apply to others."

"As to children’s inquiries, they are often wrongly answered, and the higher the subject, the more you think yourself justified in lying to them. From these same children you expect in return truly felt love, good acts, truthfulness and a desire to learn… You absolutely cripple a child by not allowing him to think clearly on all subjects — and no dogmatic religion will stand thinking."

Typically the writer's words are complemented by beautiful arwork.

If you love beautiful writing and discovering many other sources of it, you might subscribe to her newsletter.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: October 27, 2022 11:24AM

Interesting. Thanks for the suggestion, auntsukey. I looked at the site and saw some of her art. I've bookmarked it to browse around her thoughts.

>>"You absolutely cripple a child by not allowing him to think clearly on all subjects — and no dogmatic religion will stand thinking."

I could not agree more!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: October 27, 2022 11:43AM

Jesus is santa claus for adults.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard Foxe ( )
Date: October 28, 2022 08:13AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Happy_Heretic ( )
Date: October 28, 2022 08:42AM

Actually he does. I am generous to good children, and give coal to bad children. Luckily I don't know any bad children, so I have yet to support the dirty energy industry. Don't call my workers elves... they don't like it. Santa is very inspiring. A myth.. yes. Just like Jesus.


HH =)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: October 27, 2022 02:08PM

"As to children’s inquiries, they are often wrongly answered, and the higher the subject, the more you think yourself justified in lying to them. From these same children you expect in return truly felt love, good acts, truthfulness and a desire to learn… You absolutely cripple a child by not allowing him to think clearly on all subjects — and no dogmatic religion will stand thinking."

COMMENT: What children are told about life and death, and religious faith generally, should depend to some extent on the context. For example, a child of six who is facing a terminal illness, or the terminal illness of a parent or loved one, is arguably best served with a scintilla of hope as opposed to a strict insistence on the utter finality of death--at least if the child's emotional welfare rather than bare truth is the measure of what is morally appropriate. After all, dogmatic certainty one way or the other does not serve 'truth' anyway.

Taking it one step further, when teaching children, we should not lose sight of the fact that although dogmatic religion presented as truth is offensive regardless of age, so is dogmatic atheism. Both the claim of finality of death, and the claim of life after death are distinctly metaphysical assumptions, of which neither atheists nor theists have a definitive answer. (Although they both often make such claims.)

I am reminded of the book by Robert Audi, called *Rationality and Religious Commitment* who insists that religion can be a rational response to the existential uncertainty of life. For him, once a rational (consistent) religious position is articulated--stripped of needless dogma--it becomes a matter one's willingness to adopt a position of hope, however evidentially feeble, while accepting the risk of error. In any event, here is part of the last paragraph in his book, which I think is worth considering:

"Rational religious commitment lies somewhere between a headlong confidence in what we passionately wish to be true and a timid refusal to risk disappointments, . . Rational religious commitment may be elusive; it differs in many ways from one person to another; and, even in a single life, it may change much over time, for better or, sometimes, for worse. But if our notion of rationality is not too narrow, if our religious lives are well integrated, if our sense of the mutually enriching interconnections between the religious and the secular is sufficiently keen, and if we do not try to justify needlessly strong cognitive attitudes, we may hope both to construct an adequate theory of rational religious commitment and to progress toward a lasting reconciliation of faith and reason."

Now, many of us have a hard time accepting any notion of 'rational faith," myself included. But certainly, when teaching children, we should not foreclose--by our own dogmatism--the possibility that a child might benefit from such a search, and perhaps find a measure of hope where we could not.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Done & Done ( )
Date: October 28, 2022 11:38AM

Very thought provoking post. Especially the quotes. Thank you Henry Bemis.

Seems to be indicating the way forward is centrist and not just for teaching children but to get out of the mess this country is in due in large part to " . . . a headlong confidence in what we passionately wish to be true . . ." and list God as our number one backer.

This thread interested me a lot but I hesitated to join in because I find this line from the OP to rely on emotion for the win:

"Have you ever come across a baby whose eyes were not all innocence and inquiry?"

What I have noticed is that, babies aside, it doesn't take long for a child to begin displaying what their particular set of genes are made of. I have never seen babies/kids as blank slates but a conglomeration of propensities gifted from thousands of ancestors who have contributed a small part of themselves to ensure we are all screwed up a little and each in a different way.

I like your Robert Aldi comments specifically because I believe that children should see the whole menu, know what the ingredients are, but not be told what to order.

And I truly wish religion wasn't the only lie told to children. Often religion is just an excuse to justify all the other ones.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: October 28, 2022 01:19PM

Thank you for your positive comments.

"Seems to be indicating the way forward is centrist and not just for teaching children but to get out of the mess this country is in due in large part to " . . . a headlong confidence in what we passionately wish to be true . . ." and list God as our number one backer."

COMMENT: When one adopts what they take to be a rational, non-dogmatic, religious worldview it is deeply personal. It is a way to allow religious faith and hope to enter your life even though the evidence for such a worldview is imperfect at best, and the underlying reality of such a worldview is perhaps improbable. Ideally, no one is otherwise affected by this inner, personal, belief structure; it is just a matter of personal faith that helps to psychologically assess and navigate the vicissitudes of life while retaining peace and meaning.

Note, however, that when you bring society and politics into the equation, by suggesting some sort of 'centrism,' the metaphysically personal now becomes encumbered by objective facts and real-world decision-making, where we are now more firmly tied to the physical world. Here, when considering centrism, I worry about losing the concept of truth altogether and slipping into a post-modernist stance such that 'truth is relative to whatever works for the individual.' That may work in a religious, metaphysical context, but it is dangerous in the real world. In the real world there *are* ascertainable facts, and ascertainable consequences that have real-life significance for everyone. For example, I think the facts of global warming demand a radical progressive response, not centrism. The same might can be said for some fundamental personal liberties, like racial equality. In these cases, a 'fight' may well be appropriate, as opposed to centrist compromise.
____________________________________________

This thread interested me a lot but I hesitated to join in because I find this line from the OP to rely on emotion for the win:

"Have you ever come across a baby whose eyes were not all innocence and inquiry?"

"What I have noticed is that, babies aside, it doesn't take long for a child to begin displaying what their particular set of genes are made of. I have never seen babies/kids as blank slates but a conglomeration of propensities gifted from thousands of ancestors who have contributed a small part of themselves to ensure we are all screwed up a little and each in a different way."

COMMENT: While a baby is indeed NOT a blank slate, I do not share your pessimistic view that human nature is dominated by genetics, or that individuals are merely a 'conglomeration of propensities gifted from thousands of ancestors.' In my opinion, this common view of 'evolutionary psychology' is profoundly mistaken, and unsupported by evidence. (But that is another post) In the present context, it is assumed that whatever one's genetic endowment, one is left to freely assess and adopt a worldview, religious or otherwise, notwithstanding nature or nurture.
_______________________________________________

I like your Robert Aldi comments specifically because I believe that children should see the whole menu, know what the ingredients are, but not be told what to order.

COMMENT: Yes, and don't forget that for Audi, the scope of 'the rational' encompasses religious faith. Thus 'the whole menu' (religiously speaking) encompasses teaching children that religious faith (at least in some appropriately moderate form) is a genuine option, and not per se irrational to be rejected out-of-hand.
_________________________________________________

And I truly wish religion wasn't the only lie told to children. Often religion is just an excuse to justify all the other ones.

COMMENT: In teaching children it would seem that it is all in the presentation, closely tied to what is at stake. If I had young children, I would be dogmatic in teaching global warming, because the facts and consequences seem clearly established.
I would be less dogmatic (but surely opinionated) in discussing the scope of individual personal liberty as it relates to such controversial issues as abortion, because the relevant moral commitments can genuinely differ. I would be more or less open about metaphysical matters, such as the origin of the universe, whether there is a God, or the prospects of life after death, because on these issues nobody has a clue.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Done & Done ( )
Date: October 28, 2022 02:06PM

" . . .I do not share your pessimistic view that human nature is dominated by genetics . . ."

I do not know what the working ratio is between nature and nurture. I don't believe anyone does. I am only saying you cannot discount the impact of genetics.

I never said that human nature is dominated by genetics. BUT, maybe it is--- since it may be that genetics are what has left us with the ability for self correction and our own escape from the domination of our genes?

When it comes to nature vs nurture, isn't our reaction to nurture dependent largely on our genes. Even in my large Mormon family, every child responded in a different way to the same nurturing.


Henry---I am not saying anything for sure in this post or the response I posted to yours. They are ideas for consideration which I consider important.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: auntsukey ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 10:55AM

Done & Done Wrote:

> I do not know what the working ratio is between
> nature and nurture. I don't believe anyone does.
> I am only saying you cannot discount the impact of
> genetics.


Evidence is accumulating that nature - ie genetics - plays a much bigger role in human development than is commonly thought. For just one example, consider the studies of twins raised apart. Their similarity in habits, choices, mannerisms, accomplishments, etc. are astounding.

Steven Pinker points out in "The Blank Slate" the genetic qualities that are at work in acquiring grammar, affiliating with a particular political stance, choosing occupations, etc.

The study of epigenetics is further illuminating the role of our genes in who we become.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Done & Done ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 11:28AM

Thanks for that. I have my own strong opinions from my own observations in this life and the twins comparison is strong evidence for what I see to be the case.


What I liked about what Jacoby said is that giving a child love may make a huge difference no matter what the genetic propensity may be. At the very least some early love can't hurt and could make some important shift just in case some of your genes are at war with others as seems to be my case.

And also I read into her words a push for real teaching--"just the fact's ma'am"-- and no push of any agenda, religious or otherwise. Of course, how can a parent not push their own agenda? Out of love, of course. Complicated.


And all those primary songs the kids learn with the catchy tunes?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: auntsukey ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 12:34PM

If genetics is at work (and I'll assume it is) there will be differences in how children absorb religion's dogma.

I believe temperament is an inborn quality. Fearfulness, independence, introversion, extraversion, imagination, are inborn attributes that will influence how information is received.

Most harmful to me is the idea that there is free-floating evil in the world; that satan is trying to influence you and you must be wary; that the holy ghost speaks to you by twanging the strings of your bosom; that god is watching you all the time.

A fearful child will take those ideas seriously and literally, giving rise to hypervigilance, nightmares, overadaptation for societal influences. And some "creative" human beings might extrapolate these teachings to include demons, possessions, zombies.....

You see where I'm going?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Done & Done ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 12:50PM

I know where you are going all too well.

As a child I had heard so many warnings about the power of Satan that once it was time for bed, I kept the hall light on in my basement bedroom and the door open and I stared at the door and tried to stay awake as long as I could so I was ready to command the devil to go away in the name of Jesus Christ as instructed.

Apparently this was how my survival genes handled that bit of Mormon "nurturing" I received.

I was actually plagued with the Satan coming for me dreams for most of my life. My worse half having to hit me to wake me up when I started trying to yell the command to go away but my mouth wouldn't work of course. Been about 8 or ten years now since the last one so maybe that's the end which seemed to coincide with when I came to RFM and started unpacking.

I really could have done without all that. You know?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 12:21PM

"Evidence is accumulating that nature - ie genetics - plays a much bigger role in human development than is commonly thought. For just one example, consider the studies of twins raised apart. Their similarity in habits, choices, mannerisms, accomplishments, etc. are astounding."

COMMENT: The so-called 'twin studies' have been largely debunked. (See link below) The debate between nature and nurture rages on, but genetics is playing a lesser and lesser role in explaining human behavior, not more. (Note: you used the word 'development' which is ambiguous between mere physical traits, where genetics is more prominent, and 'behavioral traits,' where nurture (and neuroscience) is deemed to be more relevant.)

https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/11/bad-science-minnesota-study-twins-reared-apart/#:~:text=A%20sizable%20portion%20of%20my%202015%20book%20The,and%20environment%20%28nature%20and%20nurture%29%20on%20human%20behavior.
________________________________________

"Steven Pinker points out in "The Blank Slate" the genetic qualities that are at work in acquiring grammar, affiliating with a particular political stance, choosing occupations, etc.

COMMENT: This book has also been largely debunked, along with other books embracing evolutionary psychology. Although, as Pinker insists, the human mind is not a blank slate, he goes way overboard in claiming that all sorts of human behavior have a genetic basis, when there is no evidence to support such claims. As one commentator noted:

"It is impossible to attend to the contemporary mass media without hearing of the genes for this or that feature of human physiology or behavior that scientists have discovered or are on the verge of discovering. . . But more exciting journalism is offered by the genes of aggression, alcoholism, homosexuality, promiscuity, rape, intelligence, criminality, and so on, genes that purport to explain the great variety of human behavior. . . The bits of science I have alluded to are, in my view, seriously misguided."

The reasons such claims are "seriously misguided" are numerous, but they center around their reliance upon wild speculation with a context of a poorly defined evolutionary history for any proposed behavioral 'trait.' In addition, behavior is universally thought to be a product of the brain and environment, with genetics being more associated with brain development rather than specific function. If you would like to debate or discuss this further, I would be happy to engage.
_________________________________________

"The study of epigenetics is further illuminating the role of our genes in who we become."

COMMENT: Epigenetics means 'above or beyond' genetics, and in biology has to do with essentially non-genetic effects on development, or effects related to gene expression as dictated by the environment. The study of epigenetics illuminates more the limitations of genetics than it does the role of strict genetic determinism. (See Nessa Carey, *The Epigenetic Revolution: How Modern Biology is Rewriting Our Understanding of Genetics, Disease, and Inheritance (2012). This 'modern view' is in opposition to "the Selfish Gene" model promulgated by Richard Dawkins--which still retains its hold on popular culture (and on Dawkins himself).

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: auntsukey ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 12:42PM

Your source (mad in america) doesn't impress me.

As for Pinker being debunked? No. I think you are wrong. Where did you get that idea?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 01:05PM

"Your source (mad in america) doesn't impress me."

COMMENT: The source is the author of the essay, in this case psychologist Jay Joseph. Here is his book, and various impressions of it:

https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Twin-Studies-Reassessment-Behavioral/dp/1138813060/ref=sr_1_1?crid=20UYE60A9M8BW&keywords=the+trouble+with+twin+studies&qid=1667062508&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjI1IiwicXNhIjoiMC4wMCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&s=books&sprefix=The+Trouble+with+Twin+%2Cstripbooks%2C144&sr=1-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.f5122f16-c3e8-4386-bf32-63e904010ad0

Now, if you read the book, and it still doesn't impress you, you can provide a response. Or alternatively, you can provide me NOW with someone's else's criticism of the book. Otherwise, you are merely table pounding your entrenched position.
____________________________________________

"As for Pinker being debunked? No. I think you are wrong. Where did you get that idea?"

COMMENT: Again, not all of Pinker is debunked, only his excesses in evolutionary psychology, which claim a genetic basis for any number of common human behaviors; behaviors which clearly have no genetic basis. Rather than give you a long list of sources, here is one I would recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-Maladapted-Life-Mind/dp/0262182602/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3B1MEXFK9WEBB&keywords=Evolutionary+Psychology+as+Maladapted+Psychology&qid=1667062922&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjkzIiwicXNhIjoiMC4wMCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&s=books&sprefix=evolutionary+psychology+as+maladapted+psychology%2Cstripbooks%2C151&sr=1-1

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 02:45PM

Here are the posted Amazon reviews, least the 'prophetess' shows up to spew her nonsense and personal attacks (without, of course, reading the book, or anything else on this subject):

"Joseph (a practicing psychologist) presents a meticulously detailed albeit polemical critique of behavior genetics in general and the twin studies technique in particular. ... Though complex, the material is carefully presented and should be accessible to students of psychology and biology. The book is particularly valuable for bringing together political and scientific issues. Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals." -- J. Mercer, emerita, Stockton University, in CHOICE, July 2015

"The Trouble with Twin Studies significantly adds to Jay Joseph’s impressive record of scholarship critiquing the conceptual and methodological flaws of research claiming to document a genetically-determined basis of human behavior and development. This book provides an insightful and important analysis of the flaws of claims derived from twin research that, independent of coactions with the environment, genes alone or in large part determine human psychological and social attributes. This title is essential reading for basic and applied scholars interested in understanding the inadequacies of simplistic, genetic-reductionist accounts of human development." -- Richard M. Lerner, Director, Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development, Tufts University

"Jay Joseph exposes the fundamentally flawed assumptions held by researchers who use twins to study the genetics of human behavior, bolstering his criticisms with the words of the researchers themselves. This is a must-read for biology teachers, geneticists seeking genes for human behaviors, psychiatrists, and all of us who learned in school about nature’s supposedly "perfect experiment" - the study of identical twins." -- Jonathan Beckwith, Harvard Medical School, Department of Microbiology and Immunobiology

"This book is an astonishingly detailed and comprehensive dissection of the results of all the major twin studies, and the vaulting claims of twin researchers. It reveals the simplistic notions about genes and environments and the preposterous idea that their effects on human variation can be separated. Joseph then exposes the often-shoddy, corner-cutting methods through which that impossible dream has been pursued. This book will be an invaluable resource to those who suspect that twin studies are too good to be true, and want to articulate the arguments that encourage wider views of the causes of human variation." -- Ken Richardson PhD, Former Lecturer, Open University

"Joseph’s analysis of the twin studies is a masterpiece in both breadth and depth. If you have always been skeptical of claims about genes for mental illness then you owe Joseph a debt of gratitude. The Trouble with Twin Studies shows that often made claims about genes and mental health are laid bare." -- Jonathan Leo, PhD, Professor of Neuroanatomy, Lincoln Memorial University

"[A] meticulously detailed [...] critique of behavior genetics in general and the twin studies technique in particular. [...] Though complex, the material is carefully presented and should be accessible to students of psychology and biology. The book is particularly valuable for bringing together political and scientific issues. Summing Up: Highly recommended." -J. Mercer, emerita, Stockton University, CHOICE

So, my opinion is invalid, along with the above cited academic authorities. Long live the prophetess of the Rfm-ation.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 02:52PM

Ah, cut and paste. As you would--or should--know from your extensive research, academic reviewers of a new book are always positive because insulting colleagues is not a good career move. I repeat, there is a single reader review and it is an anonymous five star rating. Was that the author or was it you?

One question for you, Henry. Given that twin studies are so thoroughly discredited, why are so many world-class research institutions still using them?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 03:13PM

"Ah, cut and paste. As you would--or should--know from your extensive research, academic reviewers of a new book are always positive because insulting colleagues is not a good career move. I repeat, there is a single reader review and it is an anonymous five star rating. Was that the author or was it you?"

COMMENT: Nobody forces reviewers to write positive reviews, and if a book is without merit, academics with not risk their reputations by supporting it. Moreover, you can tell by the tone and substance of such reviews whether a reviewer is 'faking it' to promote a colleague or is genuinely impressed. Here they clearly are genuinely impressed.
________________________________________

"One question for you, Henry. Given that twin studies are so thoroughly discredited, why are so many world-class research institutions still using them?"

COMMENT: The studies criticized by Jay Joseph are NOT still widely used and cited by academics. It is true that twin studies generally are sometimes used and are of value in specific contexts. However, they are not used, or certainly less used, when the subject matter is the genetics of human behavior--which, of course, is precisely the issue we were talking about in this thread before you butted in with your predictable nonsense.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 06:28PM

> COMMENT: The studies criticized by Jay Joseph are
> NOT still widely used and cited by academics.

Ah yes, the retreat.

You initially asserted that "the so-called 'twin studies' have been largely debunked." That was a general assertion. I pointed out that your blanket claim was utter nonsense. Now you retreat to saying that a few specific twin studies were flawed. That's closer to the truth.

But that raises the question why you would have offered the false generalization in the first place.


----------------
> However, they are not used, or certainly less
> used, when the subject matter is the genetics of
> human behavior. . .

Okay, Henry, now you are going to have to retreat again. You allege here that twin studies are "not used, or certainly less used, when the subject matter is the genetics of human behavior. . ."

Surely you know that is not true. Twin studies are used all the time to analyze the genetics of human behavior. The National Institutes of Heath is but one of the many highly reputable organizations that publish such studies constantly.

Why do you persist in dissembling?


> --which, of course, is precisely the
> issue we were talking about in this thread before
> you butted in with your predictable nonsense.

Henry, I realize you think that there are many things that women "need to learn" from you. But it might make more sense not to call what I say "nonsense" if my comments compel you to retreat from what you initially declared.

Say stupid stuff and you'll get called out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 02:58PM

As for my personal attacks, you lied to me about your academic resume. You lied twice: first telling me you had a degree in microbiology and then, to everyone, about having a degree in the philosophy of science.

Claiming credentials you do not have is relevant to your credibility, particularly when the lies were about the topic under discussion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 03:43PM

"As for my personal attacks, you lied to me about your academic resume. You lied twice: first telling me you had a degree in microbiology and then, to everyone, about having a degree in the philosophy of science."

COMMENT: Like everyone else here, my knowledge (or ignorance) speaks for itself from the substance of my posts, and not from any claimed academic credentials. This is why I back up--or am prepared to back up--everything I say on RfM, as we have once again found out here! This can sometimes be embarrassing to people, but that is how we learn.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 06:31PM

Sure. You've demonstrated your expertise in spades.

You said twin studies are "largely debunked" but then had to retreat to saying a couple of studies are debunked.

Now you say that twin studies are rarely used to study the genetics of behavior. That is ridiculous.

The extent of your expertise is patently clear.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 02:03PM

Here we go again.

Henry, who has at various points falsely claimed to have an undergraduate degree in science, then a degree in the philosophy of science, and finally acknowledged under pressure that his degree is in philosophy, is again wandering basket-in-hand through the orchard picking cherries.

He argued the other day, mangling Godel in the process, that there is no way to disprove the existence of the soul and concluding on that basis that there *is* a soul. No, Henry, all we can conclude from the lack of evidence is that the issue remains open, not that your preferred hypothesis is true.

He's taken us back to the debate over the localization of brain function. Henry claimed that we cannot locate various cognitive functions and cited books from--in one case, no kidding--the 1950s making that argument. When he asked for citations proving he was wrong, I offered them, including lots from the McGovern Center at MIT, and Henry replied that he didn't have time to waste reading such things. Why? Because he already has the answers.

Now he tells us that twin studies are "largely debunked." That is just silly. Henry has found one psychologist--not even a psychiatrist, who would have training in hard science or an MD--who thinks twin studies are lousy. Said psychologist's book, on Amazon, has a single review--a five star review, granted, but suspiciously "anonymous"--and hence seems to have dropped unnoticed into the ether.

Meanwhile everyone from NASA to the National Institutes of health continues with the twins methodology because it works. Could one or two studies be flawed? Absolutely. But one, or even a dozen, even two dozen, failures does not invalidate a scientific approach that everyone but Henry and his voice-in-the-wilderness psychologist, relies on every single day.

Henry is the personification of God-of-the-Gaps reasoning. The supernatural exists. Since he does not define that supernatural or how it can be tested, the march of science can never disprove it. Meanwhile he finds someone who wrote something that supports his position and embraces that argument like Golem with his ring without any further consideration of whether that person is correct. Having found his "precious," Henry sticks with that nonsense for, in some cases, over 60 years, pretending head-in-the-sand that science has not evolved since them.

His supernatural is the God of the Gaps and his human spirit is the Soul of the Saps.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Done & Done ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 02:48PM

First law of God of the Gaps is as long as you keep arguing, you can't be wrong? There is no winner if the game is still going on even if you are down 1000 to one.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 02:52PM

Precisely.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: auntsukey ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 10:57PM

Thank you LW for helping me get a perspective on the person who wants to argue with everything.

I was afraid I was missing something. I'll now feel comfortable to ignore the word salad sans dressing HB serves.

Without a face to connect to a name, it's hard to get a handle on who is who.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2022 12:01AM by auntsukey.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 11:02PM

It's unfortunate, isn't it? And it's also very Mormon.

You start with a conclusion--"the church is true" or "there's a soul and it can't be reduced to the brain"--and then accept or reject evidence based on whether it supports your conclusion or not.

The sheer persistence is exhausting, frustrating.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: auntsukey ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 11:59PM

Oh yes. A priori positions.

You've more patience than I have, LW. You actually make an effort to understand the faulty points and respond conherently.

Exhausting and frustrating is right.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogbloggernli ( )
Date: October 28, 2022 04:01PM

Is it sill really religion if you strip it of the certainty claims?

Does faith remain once you acknowledge uncertainty, that you only hope the ideas might actually be so?

Is this not just gussied up wishful thinking?

…it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire.

Thucydides, The Landmark Thucydides, edited by Robert B. Strassler, p. 282.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 28, 2022 04:12PM

Thucydides went far for a man who couldn't see blue!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 12:50PM

"Is it sill really religion if you strip it of the certainty claims?"

COMMENT: Yes! Why not? Doesn't the words 'faith' and 'hope' imply a measure of uncertainty? Like science itself, religion can be tentative or dogmatic in its presentation. Unfortunately, we seem to see more of religion's dogmatic tendencies--especially as exMormons. However, if you were to ask a theologian (as opposed to a preacher) whether they 'knew' that God exists, the nearly unanimous answer would be NO.
______________________________________

"Does faith remain once you acknowledge uncertainty, that you only hope the ideas might actually be so?"

COMMENT: Yes, possibly. (See above)
________________________________________

"Is this not just gussied up wishful thinking?

…it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire."

COMMENT: There is always an element of 'wishful thinking' when the evidence falls short of establishing the truth of one's preferred theory or falls short of establishing the preferred outcome of future events. This is certainly not unique to religion, and why 'faith' is universal in human psychology. A mother who is facing the loss of a child with a high degree of certainty, still clings to a kind of 'faith' (hope) whether religious or not. Religion just gives faith and hope a metaphysical context.

If 'careless hope' is defined as hope without *any* evidence or rational inference, then I am not sure how far reason will get you in justifying such hope. Moreover, it is not always easy to establish the chronological order between hope and reason. (Does reason bring hope, or does hope bring reason?) In any event, as far as I am concerned, I don't care what someone believes, and for what 'reason' or no reason, so long as they leave social policy and politics out of it. Unfortunately, that rarely happens.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogbloggernli ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 04:51PM

I suppose then that this all leads to imaginary transendence.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 05:11PM

"I suppose then that this all leads to imaginary transcendence."

Well, I am not sure where this all leads. However, I *do* know that Einstein (and many of his 20th Century colleagues) believed that scientific-based transcendence was real, and not imaginary, so I suppose anything is possible. Each to his own.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: October 28, 2022 12:40PM

> I like your Robert Aldi comments
> specifically because I believe
> that children should see the whole
> menu, know what the ingredients are,
> but not be told what to order.


I don't think I'm alone in straight away always trying to order from the dessert menu.  I don't know it for a fact, but while it may not be 'good' for you, it's good for the animal world.


If you can't live on desserts alone, what is heaven for?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Done & Done ( )
Date: October 28, 2022 04:36PM

And that is why God invented insulin. Omnithoughtful, right?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 29, 2022 12:51PM

Aurora/Ostara From "American Gods"
https://youtu.be/xLRaIBlJePo


What does this sound like to you?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%E2%82%82%C3%A9ws%C5%8Ds

Eternal rebirth

The Dawn-goddess is sometimes portrayed as un-ageing and her coming as an eternal rebirth. She is ἠριγένεια ('early-born', 'born in the morning') as an epithet of Eos in the Ancient Greek Iliad, and the Ancient Indian Rigveda describes Uṣas, the daughter of Dyáuṣ, as being born from the harnessing of the Aśvins, the divine horse twins driving the chariot of the sun.[18]

Colours

A characteristic generally given to the dawn h₂éwsōs is her 'brilliance' and she is generally described as a 'bringer of light'.[18] Various cognates associated with the dawn-goddess indeed derive from the Proto-Indo-European root *bheh₂-, meaning 'to glow, shine'.[18] The Vedic Uṣas is described as bhānty Usásah ('the Dawns shine'), the Avestan Ušå as uši ... bāmya ('shining dawn')[b] and the Greek Ēṓs as φαινόλις ('light-bringing'),[18] φαεσίμβροτος ('shining on mortals'),[20] or λαμπρο-φαής ('bright-shining'),[21][22] attested in an Orphic hymn to the Dawn.

h₂éwsōs is usually associated with the natural colours of the dawn: gold, saffron-yellow, red, or crimson. The Dawn is 'gold-coloured' (híraṇya-varṇā) in the Rigveda, 'the golden-yellow one' (flāua) in Ovid's Amores, and 'gold-throned' (khrysóthronos; χρυσόθρονος) in a Homeric formula.[23] In Latvian folk songs, Saulė and her daughter(s) are dressed of shawls woven with gold thread, and Saulė wears shoes of gold, which parallels Sappho describing Ēṓs as 'golden-sandalled' (khrysopédillos; χρυσοπέδιλλος).[23]

Ēṓs is also 'saffron-robed' (κροκόπεπλος) in Homeric poems,[24] while Uṣás wears crimson (rose-red) garments and a "gleaming gold" veil.[25][26] The Hindu goddess is also described as a red dawn shining from afar; "red, like a mare", she shoots "ruddy beams of light", "yokes red steeds to her car" or "harnesses the red cows" in the Samaveda.[27] Saffron-yellow, red and purple are colours also associated with the Dawn by the Latin poet Ovid.[28][c]

The Baltic Sun-goddess Saulė has preserved some of the imagery of h₂éwsōs, and she is sometimes portrayed as waking up 'red' (sārta) or 'in a red tree' during the morning.[41] Saulé is also described as being dressed in clothes woven with "threads of red, gold, silver and white".[42][d] In the Lithuanian tradition, the sun is portrayed as a "golden wheel" or a "golden circle" that rolls down the mountain at sunset.[46] Also in Latvian riddles and songs, Saule is associated with the color red, as if to indicate the "fiery aspect" of the sun: the setting and the rising sun are equated with a rose wreath and a rose in bloom, due to their circular shapes.[47][48][49][e][f]

According to Russian folklorist Alexander Afanasyev, the figure of the Dawn in Slavic tradition is varied: she is described in a Serbian folksong as a maiden sitting on a silver throne in the water, her legs of a yellow color and her arms of gold;[52] in a Russian saying, the goddess Zorya is invoked as a "красная девица" (krasnaya dyevitsa, "red maiden");[53] in another story, the "red maiden" Zorya sits on a golden chair and holds a silver disk or mirror (identified as the sun);[54] in another, a maiden sits on a white-hot stone (Alatyr) in Buyan, weaving red silk in one version, or the "rose-fingered" Zorya, with her golden needle, weaves over the sky a veil in rosy and "blood-red" colours using a thread of "yellow ore".[55][g][h] She is also depicted as a beautiful golden-haired queen who lives in a golden kingdom "at the edge of the White World", and rows through the seas with her golden oar and silver boat.[58]

Opener of the doors of Heaven

h₂éwsōs is often depicted as the opener of the doors or gates of her father the Heaven (*Dyēus): the Baltic verse pie Dieviņa namdurēm ('by the doors of the house of God'), which Saulė is urged to open to the horses of the Son(s) of God, is lexically comparable with the Vedic expression dvā́rau ... Diváḥ ('doors of Heaven'), which Uṣas opens with her light.[67] Another parallel could be made with the 'shining doors' (θύρας ... φαεινάς) of the home of Ēṓs, behind which she locks up her lover Tithonus as he grows old and withers in Homer's Hymn to Aphrodite.[64]

A similar poetic imagery is present among Classical poets, although some earlier Greek source may lie behind these.[93] In Ovid's Metamorphoses, Aurōra opens the red doors (purpureas fores) to fill her rosy halls,[94] and in Nonnus' Dionysiaca the Dawn-goddess shakes off her sleep and leaves Kephalos' repose in order to 'open the gates of sunrise' (ἀντολίης ὤιξε θύρας πολεμητόκος Ἠώς).[95]

Other reflexes may also be present in other Indo-European traditions. In Slavic folklore, the goddess of the dawn Zorya Utrennyaya open the palace's gates for her father Dažbog's (a Slavic Sun god) journey during the day. Her sister Zorya Vechernyaya, the goddess of dusk, closes them at the end of the day.[96][97] In a passage of the Eddas about Dellingr, a Norse deity of light, a dwarf utters a charm or incantation in front of 'Delling's doors' (fyr Dellings durum), which apparently means "at dawn".[98][99]

According to scholarship, Lithuanian folklore attests a similar dual role for luminous deities Vakarine and Ausrine, akin to Slavic Zoryas (although it lacks the door imagery):[100][101] Vakarine, the Evening Star, made the bed for solar goddess Saulė, and Aušrinė, the Morning Star, lit the fire for her as she prepared for another day's journey.[102] In another account, they are Saulé's daughters and tend their mother's palace and horses.[103]

Reluctant bringer of Light

In Indo-European myths, h₂éwsōs is frequently depicted as a reluctant bringer of light for which she is punished.[104][105] This theme is widespread in the attested traditions: Ēṓs and Aurōra are sometimes unwilling to leave her bed, Uṣas is punished by Indra for attempting to forestall the day, and Auseklis did not always rise in the morning, as she was said to be locked up in a golden chamber or in Germany sewing velvet skirts.[2]

The Divine Twins are often said to rescue the Dawn from a watery peril, a theme that emerged from their role as the solar steeds.[105][106]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2022 01:00PM by anybody.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  ******     ******   **    **  ********   **     ** 
 **    **   **    **  **   **   **     **  **     ** 
 **         **        **  **    **     **  **     ** 
 **   ****  **        *****     ********   **     ** 
 **    **   **        **  **    **         **     ** 
 **    **   **    **  **   **   **         **     ** 
  ******     ******   **    **  **          *******