Mormon Stories Podcast - Latest Comments

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

Jonah — Wed, 09 May 2012 20:22:14 -0000

Thanks JT.

Re: 343-344: Mormonism and the Internet with John Dehlin, Scott Gordon (FAIR) and Rosemary Avance

Odell Campbell — Mon, 07 May 2012 12:14:13 -0000

Apparently, those who run the LDS Church, its General Authorities, aren't responsible for their own speech or their decision to commission artwork, or their decision to publish information.

Re: 313-316: John and Brooke McLay – From CES to Ex-Mormons

Nathan R Kennard — Mon, 07 May 2012 11:07:02 -0000

I love John and Brooke. Although I never met them in connection with EFY, they have made a significant choice motivated by their intent to maintain personal integrity. Best wishes, Chase.

Having someone we look up to seem different than our mental image can be difficult, but the individual we knew who was deeply committed to honesty and truth remains so. Although they have scrupulously avoided details which might lead to conclusions they have drawn, this information is easily found.

Re: Please post questions for my interview with Mormon Mommy Blogger C. Jane Kendrick

Josh — Mon, 07 May 2012 10:19:57 -0000

THIS JUST SAID YESTERDAY BY ELDER MARLIN K. JENSEN, CHURCH HISTORIAN.

Regrettably, in this technological age, where information abounds, some
of it critical of events and people in the church's history. Some
Latter Day Saints get shaken in their faith and begin to question long
held beliefs. To such questioning individuals I extend love and
understanding and the assurance that if they will abide by gospel
principles and prayerfully pursue their study of church history,
studying sufficiently to gain a more comprehensive rather than a
fragmentary or incomplete knowledge, the holy ghost will confirm their
faith in the essential events of church history by speaking peace to
their minds. In this way they can become settled in their convictions
concerning the history of the restored church and be no more carried
about with every wind of doctrine.

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

CanuckAussie — Mon, 07 May 2012 06:00:04 -0000

John - I loved this podcast. I learned a lot about how TBMs think, but also was forced to confront some of my own ways of thinking. I was not convinced at all by the final tying together of all these concepts to totally explain away religion, but I can see some of the logic in much of it. Most of all though John, I loved your statements defending religion in the fourth podcast. That very much represents my own thoughts. Humans, nature, the world and the universe are too complex to be explained away by random accident. I took too much probability and statistics in university to every believe that lame explanation. To believe that is a form of religion itself, but one that can be mathmatically proven to be impossible. Like you , I think there is both beauty and utility in religion. Overall, I think religion has done more good than harm. I love the wonder and beauty of uncertainly that is outside of the 19th century farm-boy explanations.

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

JamesNagel — Mon, 07 May 2012 01:54:41 -0000

Hi CG,

Thanks for participating!

"I agree that religion is a cultural phenomenon, but it seems that "cultural phenomenon" also an apt description for the emergence and continuation of science. Why do you think it is not?"

That's an interesting question. In a sense, there is probably some truth to the idea that science is a cultural phenomenon. But the thing to remember is that science is just a methodology designed to understand the world. A great contrast between science and religion would be to consider the world map like the one at the end of Part 4. Clearly, religious beliefs fall within very distinct cultural boundaries. But what if we drew a similar map with respect to the demise of the dinosaurs? For example, how many people believe that the dinosaurs were killed by a meteor impact? How many believe that the dinosaurs were killed by a plague? Or volcanoes? Do these beliefs fall within cultural boundaries like religions do? Or do paleontologists around the world tend to converge onto the same set of beliefs?

We could repeat this process for all sorts of scientific theories and the result would be the same. Scientists generally converge onto the same set of conclusions independently of any cultural heritage. This heavily suggests that science is not in the same class of cultural phenomenon that religion is because scientific discoveries do not divide themselves along cultural boundaries.

"You offered anecdotal evidence to answer this great scientific question! What does the scientific research say about loss of religious faith and human well-being?"

That is a great question. I'm not sure if there is yet a clear answer. Perhaps a good place to start is the book suggested by another listener on this same forum. See, "Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment"

"In an ultimate sense, can science ever answer the question about what people SHOULD do? If it can, will you please provide one practical concrete example that illustrates this?"

Yes and no. As I told another listener, science does not set your goals for you. It merely tells you which actions are better at achieving them. For example, if your goal is to minimize travel time from A to B, then science can help you determine the optimal mode of transportation. If your goal is to maximize physical exercise within a 1-hour span, then science can tell you an ideal route to take around town. If your goal is to maximize fuel economy, then science can again help you with driving habits and engine design. But the goals you set are entirely arbitrary. There are no "right" or "wrong" goals. There are merely right and wrong choices to take in achieving them.

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

JamesNagel — Mon, 07 May 2012 01:33:18 -0000

Great recommendation. Sounds like a good read.

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

Paul Anthony — Sun, 06 May 2012 23:46:12 -0000

I have only viewed Part One so I may be premature in my conclusions, but my impression so far is that the agenda of this podcast is to cast doubt on religious claims. It’s billed as “The Psychology of Religion” but it’s more like “The Polemics of Religion”. Perhaps this is a poor re-titling, but I trust you understand what I mean to some degree.

To wit:

On another website (about this podcast) I made a comment about the statement:

“philosophers are a lot better at making claims about philosophical truths than psychologists.”

Instead, to my way of thinking a more accurate statement would be: philosophers are a lot better at making philosophical claims than psychologists.

It’s similar to avoiding the error of saying that science ‘proves’ or ‘has proven’ this or that.

Okay. RE: science, of which Psychology is considered as such.

I think it is more accurate to say that science ‘demonstrates’ or ‘has demonstrated’ that this or that ‘claim’ has valid merit (from a human being’s perspective).

Someone may say that I am being too semantically rigid because science has most definitely proven a lot of things. For example, that the earth is a round sphere and not a flat disk like most people used to claim.

I would still rather think in terms that science hasn’t proven or disproven anything, even that the earth is a sphere because ***the earth is what it is notwithstanding what science or religion or philosophy affirms***. All that science has done is demonstrate what appears to be a sphere and not a flat disk from a normalistic, mortal human perspective. “What?!” you say, “That’s shooting way beyond the mark.”

Well, I am not ***absolutely*** positive that the earth is a spherical rock ‘floating’ in ‘empty space’ in the sense that this IS the absolute TRUTH. When I die, I no longer will be a physical human being or anything what I appear to be now. But let’s assume that there is life after life. If (a) you have had a personal, religious phenomenological experience, (b) you have read 15 or so books on NDEs, SDEs experiences (c) you have read works like Lynne McTaggart’s “The Field” etc, then there are plausible reasons to believe that we do in fact ‘survive’ death. In any event, what will I be and where will I be at that juncture in my existence -- on a spherical rock floating in empty space? To my way of thinking, when I am in that state it is very plausible that I will ‘see’ or ‘perceive’ the earth that I lived ‘on’ in a totally different way, and not just the earth, but even ‘time’ or ‘space time’ as well. Maybe in that dimension (a higher one?) the earth and empty space, up and down, solid matter, energy, light, etc, is altogether a lot different than what we ever could have imagined let alone still affirm what we had at one time ‘proven’ to be ‘true’.

This is why I retain the rational belief that many aspects of religion (not all) are just as valid as many aspects of science (not all). We are mere mortal, ephemeral, presumably sentient beings made of crude matter with limited perceptual capacities existing in a *perceived* three dimensional state (or more if you are someone like Étienne Ghys). Nevertheless, I think there is a lot more ‘out there’ beyond us and about us than what we currently know, or think we (science) have ‘proven’ or even demonstrated. The scripture in Corinthians: “... Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them...” still gives me pause to wonder.

So, this podcast is interesting and has valid merit pertaining to certain aspects with regard to the science of how we think, group think, etc, and perhaps even about how Mormonism ‘operates’ (for the lack of a better term) to a certain degree, but in no way does it prove or even adequately demonstrate religion(s) to be ‘false’. That’s very dogmatic and/or simplistic thinking.

Of course I readily admit that my contribution to this discussion may be in itself simplistic and perhaps even dogmatic. However, not being the total captain of my own consciousness, I can only state to the extent I am able to, be that either simplistic, dogmatic or ridiculous.

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

Syphax — Sun, 06 May 2012 21:23:02 -0000

Your replies are good/sufficient for the questions I had. I have time to briefly reply on a more personal note. I do think religion is a cultural phenomenon inasmuch as it is an expression of the relations between sentient beings. However, I don't think this is as relevant to the truth-claims of those religions as you do.

I don't see "nitpicking" about "epistemological foundations" as detached from drawing the actual conclusions. If you can't show through some kind of logic or reason why uncovering the social origins/aspects of religion actually shows that they are not true, then I don't see any reason why I should come to that conclusion. Just like if someone shows me that history is in a sense a social construction (which it is), and that people are emotionally invested in history, and that they build their social identities with history, and that they want desperately to believe that some things in history actually happened, that really isn't a reason by itself to reject historical events. In fact it doesn't have anything to do with determining the truth-value of historical events. Now I'm not saying that determining the truth of history uses the same methods as determining whether there is a "ground of all being," but it provides an analogue to religious historical events.

And for me, if religion was only content-free dogmas about historical events or super space-beings or whatever, that would be one thing. But when you have guys like Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Averroes, Maimonides, al-Ghazali, etc. using metaphysical proofs to demonstrate the existence of something like God (some of whom - Aristotle and Plato among others - who certainly had no theological ax to grind), then suddenly you can't just dismiss it all as some kind of social construction. Once a philosopher like Aquinas throws down a gauntlet like the Summa, suddenly we're not talking about cognitive dissonance theory or social identity, we are talking about the laws of reality itself and what they ultimately reflect, if anything. And if (say) Aquinas' proofs are right, then wouldn't we expect a constructed reality in which the social influence/interaction/intuition/psychology that sentient beings operate in (all the stuff in your videos) would lead the majority of people to a belief in God? God's universe would reflect him, wouldn't it?

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

JT — Sun, 06 May 2012 20:51:01 -0000

It is very difficult to come to grips with all the quirks of human cognition that Dr. Nagel described as causing people to misattribute various perceptions to “spiritual” manifestations. One reason that experimental psychology is required to expose these is because people are biologically incapable of introspecting the complex processing of all the independently operating brain circuits that control our bodies and produce our cognitions. In other words, human cognition is mostly unconscious, including the cognitions that get collected, integrated and sent “up” to the conscious - which isn't much.

Dr. Nagel alluded to the role of the unconscious in the social psychological underpinnings of religious feelings and belief, but did not explore the full implications. A ton of research during the last 20 years on the adaptive unconscious has overwhelmed Freudian speculations. The extent to which we unconsciously select, interpret, evaluate, and set goals – i.e. perform high order cognitive tasks - has led one leading psychologist to describe consciousness as a mere "snowball on the tip of the unconscious iceberg [1]". Indeed, figuring out what’s left for consciousness to do is a tougher problem than analyzing unconscious functions. Some psychologists (and neurophilosophers) go so far as to propose that consciousness is an epiphenomenon.

One example of our inability to introspect the working of our own minds is that we are intuitive dualists – we “feel” like we have this little homunculus, or “soul-self,” residing somewhere behind our eyes. Throughout history this has made it difficult to imagine ourselves winking out of existence (even though we experience it most nights). And, notwithstanding some of Descartes’ brilliant work, his impoverished intuition about mind being independent of brain matter was dead wrong. There is no more reason to suppose that mind (conscious and unconscious) is anything more than a sustained dynamic pattern of electrochemical interactions than living things possess a vital force. The empirical evidence is found in the manipulation of conscious states through manipulation of the brain and through the study of lesions.

There is a scene in my favorite movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou" in which the three main characters pick up the bluesman “Tommy Johnson” at a “cross-roads.” Tommy describes how he sold his soul to the devil to play guitar the night before. When a horrified Delmar asks him why Tommy answers, “I wasn’t doing anything with it.” This is likely the reason why academic psychologists and psychiatrists are the least religious of any field.[2]

[1] Wilson, Timothy D. Strangers to Ourselves, Exploring the Adaptive Unconscious

[2] http://epiphenom.fieldofsci...

Re: 324-326: Grant Palmer Returns to Discuss Sexual Allegations Against Joseph Smith, William and Jane Law, and His Resignation

Smorg — Sun, 06 May 2012 20:44:51 -0000

I have to say... anyone who would subscribe to the notion that an 'Abrahamic test' is something a god would sanction either has no respect for the idea of a moral god at all or is subscribed to a very immoral sort of god. If there is a god that is capable of morality it would be appalled at such a thought. And if there is a god that actually approves of the Abrahamic test, it is no god worth worshiping to begin with... and kudos to all who refuse to bow to so psychopathic a cosmic bully.

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

JT — Sun, 06 May 2012 20:09:14 -0000

Syphax,

Well, I hope that a life spent making educated guesses based on more or less carefully considered tentative and incomplete findings of methodological naturalism produces more joy than suffering, even if it means slipping up and doing some bad philosophy once and a while. I'm counting on that being better than the years I spent under the spell of orthodox Mormon metaphysics.

Thanks for your response.

Cheers

P.S. I know too much quantum mechanics to make any positive claims about ultimate reality. But I know enough about reality not to try to fly out of 10 story windows. :)

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

JamesNagel — Sun, 06 May 2012 19:42:18 -0000

Argh... formatting errors. No "edit" button! :(

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

JamesNagel — Sun, 06 May 2012 19:41:26 -0000

Syphax,

Just stating a new thread since the threads apparently squish down with each reply.

...

"I am surprised that you would retreat into a crude sort of pragmatism, or throw "academic standards" under the bus so easily."I was actually intending to use the word "academic" in the pejorative sense, as in "it's all just academic in the end." Being an academic myself, I should probably have chosen my words more carefully.The point I was trying to make is that without some ultimate physical relevance, then anything you have to say is just a bunch of empty words. Perhaps this is just the engineer in me biasing my perspective, but I see this sort of problem floating around in philosophical discussions all the time. People spend hours debating back and forth about subtle nuances without ever bothering to ask how we would even measure the difference between the conclusions in the first place. That is to say, it makes no physical difference whether you are right or wrong about something when there is literally NO PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE between the two outcomes."You state that the ultimate challenge of an epistemology is to produce physical results. WHY is that the ultimate challenge? Because you say so? Seems like a bold, (arbitrary) axiomatic assertion without a reason why this should be the case. Where is the evidence that the truth of an epistemology should be determined by physical results?Because again, no one cares about your epistemology if it does not do anything. It is not because I say so, but because anything less is literally just words spoken into the air for no reason. For example, suppose you write an entire treatise on your ultimate standard for truth and knowledge. You can even publish it in books and share it with scholars around the world. But unless your ideas help us solve real problems with real, practical relevance, then who is going to care? Maybe if your are lucky then a few professorly types will kick your ideas around for a while, but what reason do the rest of us have to even give them a second thought? This is what I meant by the perjorative "academic" standard. People kick ideas around all the time, but the only ones that survive are the ones that have actual influence.Think of it this way. By definition, "knowledge" is nothing more than information, and information generally has no use whatsoever except in the context of decision making. So unless your standard of knowledge allows us to modify our decision-making process in some way that produces more desirable consequences, then what is the point? Who is going to care?"You're saying that religion ... should be evaluated in terms of sending people to space or finding cures for diseases, when those were never the objectives of religion to begin with nor is it the definition of "meaningfulness" that religion ever used. Should poetry or music be evaluated in terms of curing diseases or building power plants?

Poetry and music do not ultimately ground themselves in making statements of knowledge about reality. Poetry and music are merely tools designed to aid us in the expression of ideas (whether they happen to be right or wrong). In the other hand, religions across all cultures base themselves on some general set of truth-claims about the world. Converts are literally measured by the number of individuals who hold to a positive belief in those claims. This places religious doctrine in the same boat as any other set of truth-claims you might encounter, and therfore subject to the same set of rules for sorting out the good from the bad."Finally, you sound to me as if you are nit-picking my epistemological foundations rather than addressing any particular points of the video. While I do love a good philosophical discussion, I should probably try to keep us on track with the original discussion about psychology and religion. Please state again what exactly is your main beef with the conclusions we rendered in this interview. Is religion a cultural phenomenon? Is this fact relevant in your mind to the ultimate truth-claims of various religious denominations?

Re: Please post questions for my interview with Mormon Mommy Blogger C. Jane Kendrick

Amanda Nokleby — Sun, 06 May 2012 18:28:50 -0000

I'm also interested in knowing her views on the the current political climate surrounding women's health/right issues. And will she support Romney? Why?

I want to know how she handles all of the pressure that comes from having a popular blog and receiving hurtful comments, emails, critiques, etc. I assume she has a fairly thick skin, but perhaps she's had to develop it? Does she just have a good cry every day over all of it?

Where does she stand in terms of her beliefs in Mormonism? Does she consider herself to be a literal or liberal believer or somewhere in the middle? Is her family fairly literal and hard core when it comes to the church? And being a newfound feminist, what are her opinions about the patriarchal nature of the church? Does she feel or at least understand the perspective of being a second-class citizen in the church?

I loved her post about gay marriage issues and comparing it to the priesthood ban. What is her opinion concerning gay marriage? Is she 100% for it? What in general are her views on homosexuality with regards to Mormonism? Can't wait for this podcast, John! Keep up the good work!

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

Syphax — Sun, 06 May 2012 17:35:54 -0000

Yes, as a matter of strict definitions, anytime you make a positive claim about what exists in reality and what doesn't (natural, supernatural, forms, essences, matter, spirit, quantum wave functions, etc.), you are making a metaphysical claim. There is an erroneous notion that naturalism is some kind of "default" metaphysics that doesn't need arguments that support it - or even worse, that it's not a metaphysics at all. Reminds me of the saying that floats around philosophy message boards - "If you think you're not doing philosophy, you're probably just doing it very badly."

Re: 343-344: Mormonism and the Internet with John Dehlin, Scott Gordon (FAIR) and Rosemary Avance

Reelmormon — Sun, 06 May 2012 16:33:06 -0000

the comment about prophets being excused from being racist and that being unprophet like is awkward seeing as Peter was prjudiced at not giveing the Gentiles the gospel until further revelation changed the policy.

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

JT — Sun, 06 May 2012 12:46:39 -0000

Thanks Jonah,

I had to blow it up quite a bit to find Mormonism. Comforting to find it tucked between Jehovah's Witnesses and New Thought. :)

Cheers

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

JT — Sun, 06 May 2012 12:08:30 -0000

In a previous post I asked the rhetorical question, “Why complicate life with metaphysical baggage?” In asking this I was clearly suggesting that religious belief isn’t necessary. But I admit that this reveals more about my peculiar nature than anything else since it ignores the nearly universal incorrigibility of religious belief in our species.

Indeed, scientific evidence suggests that religious belief was an inevitable byproduct of our environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA), which included our primate ancestors' social structures. Religious ideas may have enabled humans to take that fateful step beyond small kin-based hunter-gather groups to cultural chiefdoms that out-competed the former (along with the discovery of agriculture).

In other words, religion fed group-selection, which molded the human brain to find it "sticky" - which led to a powerful feedback loop. Religion's group-selective utility led to innovations (and diversity) from which nature selected its most fit forms. As Dr. Nagel showed, these were the forms that exploited our cognitive biases and innate moral emotions. It got us calling people born a continent away "Brother Jones. " In addition to extended group altruism, group selection also molded the human brain to express altruistic punishment of defectors and to discount the moral status of out-group members.

So religion was adaptive in our EEA. But that leaves the question, is religion is adaptive in modern societies which are the product of a hyper-driven cultural evolution that has outpaced brain evolution? - which was one of Dr. Nagel strongest points.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows what might be left standing after competing dogmas battle their way toward self-fulfilling apocalyptic prophesies? Or maybe religions will naturally evolve toward more broadly benevolent forms as secular societies come up with technological solutions to the scarcities that lead to competition and conflict.

My hope is that human societies will get better ar using reason and science to help us work toward breaking ourselves free of our dogmatic religious myth commitments that are clearly maladaptive. I think this will be helped along by a broad understanding and appreciation of how evolution has molded human psychology to form of tightly-knit groups that tend to limit their moral circles. It is my hope that humanity can replace competing exclusive dogmas that bind, blind, and divide in-groups with substantive knowledge of the world and societal structures that promote a “broader tent” humanism.

But as Dr. Nagel so clearly outlined, this requires overcoming all those cognitive biases that privilege supernatural “ways of knowing” that are so comfortably intuitive, that so readily allow us to “love the one [group] you're with,” and that provide compelling emotional “meaning tags” that are just too deeply felt to simply chalk up to what evolved brains do naturally. As Dr. Nagel pointed out, the danger comes when this "way of knowing" makes a bad idea part of one's personal identity can then be exploited by his in-group toward antisocial ends.

Or maybe there will arise a powerful religious adaptation that can create harmony even amidst the diversity in its other preexisting aspects. Maybe this would be a negative (or weak) theism - the flip side of negative (or weak) atheism, that I mentioned in my response to John W. Morehead's comment. This would be the form of theism that humbly acknowledges the lack of evidence for God but professes a hope that singularly motivates living the golden rule. John Dehlin seems to be an example this approach. James Nagel seems to exemplify the weak atheist position, which I share, and which can motivate the same golden rule ethic!

Speaking for myself, my weak atheism simply means I no longer experience a need for hope in a God, which I suspect has something to do with my coming to terms with there probably being no life after death. I alluded to this "naturalistic sufficiency" in my sand box allegory. This innate disposition dawned on me after trying on Mormonism, which I got into only because of strong family influences. But it didn't fit (or catch) - in part because I find I am not innately disposed to seek group identity or affiliation. Does this leave me free to evaluate the evidence for the existence of God in a less biased way? I'm not certain.

I've traveled a similar road of discovery as Dr. Nagel. I'm an engineer by training and several years ago discovered social psychology. I've read every book he mentioned and at least read about every study he presented. I don't know whether I can say I find the evidence absolutely compelling. I can only say that limiting myself to a purely naturalistic view of the world makes the most sense, probabilistically speaking, and, perhaps more importantly, it makes me feel I am no longer pretending my way through life.

I am not sure whether a naturalistic world view is even a metaphysical position. I once thought of my loss of faith as a "clearing of my metaphysical decks" with no inclination to start over. If naturalism is accused by theists of being no more valid an a priori metaphysical commitment than supernaturalism, so be it. At least it's more economical.

This is way too long and self indulgent.

Thanks John Dehlin for taking Mormon stories in this direction. Thanks Dr. Nagel for putting this together. I'd love to share reading lists with you.

Cheers.

Re: 343-344: Mormonism and the Internet with John Dehlin, Scott Gordon (FAIR) and Rosemary Avance

Truthseeker — Sun, 06 May 2012 10:21:49 -0000

I thought the presentation was great. Kudos John.

Re: 345: Dr. Tom Mould–Still the Small Voice: Narrative, Personal Revelation, and the Mormon Folk Tradition

CanuckAussie — Sun, 06 May 2012 09:53:38 -0000

I would have liked to hear some discussion about the value or reliability of personal revelation. The human mind can easily create strong emotions, voices and even full hallucinations. In the LDS church, when members feel the slightest warm fuzzy, they are told "that's the spirit" Yet it is no different than what they might feel listening to a nice piece of music, or even an emotionally manipulative movie. If "personal revelation" comes from without, then one must question the source of it. It seems to me that if personal revelation if from the Holy Ghost, then old HG is clearly a prankster, like Loki of Nordic mythology. After all, he tells one person Mormonism is true, another that Islam is true, another that Pentacostal religion is the only way. In fact, he tells people of every religion that theirs is the true one. Even worse, he tells some LDS members to become polygamists, and he tells middle aged FLDS men to have ritual sex with a 12 year old girl. He tells FLDS parents to give their teenage daughters to old abusive men. He tells people to marry a partner that they are totally incompatible with. Clearly, personal revelation is not to be trusted any more than any idea that pops into our heads. So ultimately, what is the value of it?

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

Jonah — Sun, 06 May 2012 09:21:44 -0000

Infographic of world religions.

Re: 338-342: The Psychology of Religion with Dr. James Nagel

kcn — Sun, 06 May 2012 05:24:48 -0000

I enjoyed the podcast and I'm glad that it was produced; that said I think that the discussion between Syphax and James begins to touch on many of the problems I have with James' approach. Maybe I'll be able to pinpoint the dispute.

Like Syphax said, listing a bunch of empirically demonstrated errors associated with religious thinking has absolutely zero impact on the truth of any particular religious belief, unless those beliefs are logically incompatible with the fact that the biases exist (and the vast majority are not, as God might have planned us to be biased in his favor). When pressed, James tried to advance something like an epistemology of usefulness, where epistemology would be built around "what works." Unfortunately, many reasonable people would conclude that religious beliefs are extremely useful (even at getting people to Mars), and James wouldn't like that.
Furthermore, James' moral philosophy seems deeply wrong for the same reasons his epistemology is deeply wrong. Naturalistic explanations for why humans actually do things are not very useful in discovering what we should do. If we took a survey on common mathematical intuitions in human populations, and attached the best evolutionary explanations for those intuitions, it wouldn't change mathematics at all. The rules of mathematics and certain branches of philosophy are logically independent of physical accidents in human thought like hyperbolic discounting or change blindness. They are logically prior to empirical science; science needs them to get off the ground. Granted, we might be interested in the psychology to shield ourselves from error, but this is because we are looking beyond our origins here. So there is no empirical test we can do to confirm the law of non-contradiction; the only thing we can do is philosophize in the realm of basic principles like epistemology and ethics. Once one is on board with science in a specific area, then the biases become relevant.

Re: 343-344: Mormonism and the Internet with John Dehlin, Scott Gordon (FAIR) and Rosemary Avance

iwillgodown — Sun, 06 May 2012 05:09:31 -0000

John, I appreciate you saying something to the effect that a difference between the "true blue" and the "ex true blue" is that at one point the "ex" will decide to go wherever the truth takes her/him. Getting to that decision is the hard part.

I mean, why keep looking for this lovely 'pearl' when you are holding it in your hand? It is very sad when you finally test and examen this 'pearl of great price' and discover it to be a beautiful fake.

Re: 313-316: John and Brooke McLay – From CES to Ex-Mormons

Chase — Sun, 06 May 2012 04:05:44 -0000

I went to EFY with Bro. McClay as my Session Director three times. He was a spiritual GIANT. This guy touched everyone of us. I left that week on a spiritual high and this guy helped me build my testimony three summers in a row. This is the last person I would think that would leave the church. The fact that he is now an ex-Mormon completely blows my mind. I almost don't believe. Seriously , mind is blown.