Reasoning with True Believers

[_wenglund]

I think it helpful not to confuse "reasoning" with "judgementalism" or "non-constructive criticism". People in general tend to be relatively closed to the later two, while somewhat more open to the former. I will leave open the question whether reasoning" or "judgementalism" is most prevelent on boards such as this.

And, I find it helpful to think of "reasoning" as a means to an end, rather than the end, itself, and that being "open to reason" does not necessarily equate with being "open to change in belief or opinion". It has been my experience (moreso in the last two years or so) that my capacity to reason with others is greatly increased when the focus of the dialogue shifts from each party pointing fingers and/or trying to convert others to their point of view, to each simply attempting to better understand and respect other points of views, even while growing in confidence in one's own point of view. The same is true when the end goal for the discussion is the mutual enhancement of our respective capacities to become the best people possible (as we each determine that for ourselves), and to better satisfy the basic human need to love and be loved, to value and be valued, and to be meaningful to self and others.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Analytics]

Great thread!

Comment 1:

I think Wade did a good job of answering liz’s question about why the anger and condescension from church members; if a believer feels that reasoning is really judgmentalism or unconstructive criticism, then he or she will understandably take a defensive position and reciprocate the perceived attack.

Comment 2:

Reasoning entails logical thinking in the context of an objective analysis of the facts with the purpose of figuring out the truth. Reasoning well is at best difficult, and if somebody already has his or her mind made up then he or she isn’t going to bother engaging in the tedious process or reasoning.

But with the true believer, a couple of other tendencies can come into play. First, he or she might not agree that reason is the approach to take. Things like faith and revelation are at best are subjective (e.g. experiments with seeds of faith) and at worst are anti-rational (e.g. believing that the correct thing to do when a rational analysis would indicate that your faith is misguided is to obstinately cling to faith).

Further, a true believer might not even agree that the objective of rationality is to better understand reality, but rather thinks it is about showing respect other points of views, about becoming the best person possible, and about satisfying the basic human need to love and be loved.

After that not-so-subtle dig I just laid into Wade, I will admit that there really is a lot of validity to his point. It isn’t at all clear to me that for the purpose of leading a joyful, fulfilling life, that it is important or even desirable to obtain and accept the ultimate truth of things. It reminds me of a cynical math professor I know who claimed that there is a proven inverse correlation between happiness and intelligence. Typically, highly intelligent folks aren’t as happy as people with lesser grips on reality.

I find it sobering to contemplate that while knowing the truth might set you free, it might not lead to salvation from unhappiness.

[_wenglund]

Great thread!

Comment 1:

I think Wade did a good job of answering liz’s question about why the anger and condescension from church members; if a believer feels that reasoning is really judgmentalism or unconstructive criticism, then he or she will understandably take a defensive position and reciprocate the perceived attack.

Comment 2:

Reasoning entails logical thinking in the context of an objective analysis of the facts with the purpose of figuring out the truth. Reasoning well is at best difficult, and if somebody already has his or her mind made up then he or she isn’t going to bother engaging in the tedious process or reasoning.

But with the true believer, a couple of other tendencies can come into play. First, he or she might not agree that reason is the approach to take. Things like faith and revelation are at best are subjective (e.g. experiments with seeds of faith) and at worst are anti-rational (e.g. believing that the correct thing to do when a rational analysis would indicate that your faith is misguided is to obstinately cling to faith).

Further, a true believer might not even agree that the objective of rationality is to better understand reality, but rather thinks it is about showing respect other points of views, about becoming the best person possible, and about satisfying the basic human need to love and be loved.

After that not-so-subtle dig I just laid into Wade, I will admit that there really is a lot of validity to his point. It isn’t at all clear to me that for the purpose of leading a joyful, fulfilling life, that it is important or even desirable to obtain and accept the ultimate truth of things. It reminds me of a cynical math professor I know who claimed that there is a proven inverse correlation between happiness and intelligence. Typically, highly intelligent folks aren’t as happy as people with lesser grips on reality.

I find it sobering to contemplate that while knowing the truth might set you free, it might not lead to salvation from unhappiness.

By way of clarification, I very much believe that one of the objectives of rationality is to better understand reality.

However, I believe that since there is much about physical reality, and even more so about the spiritual reality (as I view things), that can't presently be known definitively or with complete certainty, and in fact not a few things now and even in the distant future may be highly speculative and observed as if through a glass darkly, that in such cases one may be better served to reason less about what is "real", and reason more about what "works"--with the rational presumption that "what works" may likely be evidence of what is "real".

In short, I am not advocating reasoning regarding respect and happiness, etc. at the expense of better understanding reality, but rather in practical pursuit of both. That way, one can be highly intelligent and happy. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mercury]

I'm going to quote merc's comments which deserve conversation outside the discussion about the offensive language he used.

Merc said:

There is no hope of honest debate with most Mormons. It is a futile task. Given the mountain of evidence showing in plain means that Mormonism is a laughable farse, they still will find a way to ignore it and run back to the false comforting fallacies ensuring that the cult gets their ten percent, paid in blood and enforced through stupidity.

The change has to come from inside. It is not until the slave realizes that the shackles of Mormonism are around his neck that he can change. It is not until tehy willfully step outside the comfort zone and look hard that true change can be invoked.

Anyone who is monolithic in their views are difficult to reason with. It does not matter if they are a believer or non believer. Look at some of the ex LDS who post here. Infymus is the mirror image of say someone like Coggins. Merec himself while seemingly fairly bright seems to degenerate into tunnnel vision and even smugness on this topic. Hell look at his comments above. His smug post offers no hope of reasonable dialogue. None at all. And speaking of smug how about our resident Rock star Mr. Bachman? His Sunstoned OP was nothing but smug. People work from all sorts of angles.

For me it was people like you beastie and TD and Runtu as well as others that caused me to start reconsidering my world view. When I found decent and rational thought from those who have chosen no longer believe and they presented it in a polite and rational way I understood that not all LDS were angry rabid and big time sinners. Here were some people who left for respectable and understandable reasons even if I did not agree with all their reasons. I could see why they did leave and it started to open my world to a different thought process.

That said, I agree that true believers can be difficult to reason with. But is it a laughable farce that they believe? Not really. Not at all. There are many reasons people stay and stay believing very strongly and they are not stupid, not at all.

Bro, I never set out in any post to deconvert anyone but myself. Most of what I post is just personal rants and a diarrhea of the keyboard, expelling the personal pain and torture of my years in an authoritarian system of MY LIFE, not just Mormonism. In some ways my personal experience is close to a worse case scenario. At the same time the ideals of life and the facade that I was surrounded in were predominately Mormon. My visceral nature is a direct product of the anger and bottled up tension created by Mormonism when faced with reality.

I know you can't leave yet jason. Some day, bro. Some day.

[_Analytics]

However, I believe that since there is much about physical reality, and even more so about the spiritual reality (as I view things), that can't presently be known definitively or with complete certainty, and in fact not a few things now and even in the distant future may be highly speculative and observed as if through a glass darkly, that in such cases one may be better served to reason less about what is "real", and reason more about what "works"--with the rational presumption that "what works" may likely be evidence of what is "real".

In short, I am not advocating reasoning regarding respect and happiness, etc. at the expense of better understanding reality, but rather in practical pursuit of both. That way, one can be highly intelligent and happy. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How rational is the "rational presumption" that what works is evidence of what is real? Your posts often remind me of Anthony Robbins, because you both focus so much on taking control of your life and such. Robbins had a chapter in a book about what beliefs work. He titled the book "The Seven Lies of Success" because even though they work, they probably aren't true.

[_wenglund]

However, I believe that since there is much about physical reality, and even more so about the spiritual reality (as I view things), that can't presently be known definitively or with complete certainty, and in fact not a few things now and even in the distant future may be highly speculative and observed as if through a glass darkly, that in such cases one may be better served to reason less about what is "real", and reason more about what "works"--with the rational presumption that "what works" may likely be evidence of what is "real".

In short, I am not advocating reasoning regarding respect and happiness, etc. at the expense of better understanding reality, but rather in practical pursuit of both. That way, one can be highly intelligent and happy. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How rational is the "rational presumption" that what works is evidence of what is real? Your posts often remind me of Anthony Robbins, because you both focus so much on taking control of your life and such. Robbins had a chapter in a book about what beliefs work. He titled the book "The Seven Lies of Success" because even though they work, they probably aren't true.

I'm not in a position to answer for Robbin's alleged assertion in the chapter in question (and this because I have yet to read the chapter, and I have no idea what supposed "untruths" he may have suggested are workable nevertheless). But, if interested, I am in a position to speak for myself, and am willing to reason with you about the presumed rational that "what works is evidence of what is real"?

Let me begin by asking you whether you think there is, by and large, an inherent workability in reality or not (entropy notwithstanding)? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Analytics]

I'm not in a position to answer for Robbin's alleged assertion in the chapter in question (and this because I have yet to read the chapter, and I have no idea what supposed "untruths" he may have suggested are workable nevertheless). But, if interested, I am in a position to speak for myself, and am willing to reason with you about the presumed rational that "what works is evidence of what is real"?

Let me begin by asking you whether you think there is, by and large, an inherent workability in reality or not (entropy notwithstanding)? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For the record, allegedly the chapter I'm talking about is chapter 5 of "Unlimited Power", and the seven alleged lies are allegedly:

1. Everything happens for a reason and a purpose, and it serves us

2. There is no such thing as failure. There are only results

3. Whatever happens, take responsibility

4. It's not necessary to understand everything to be able to use everything

5. People are your greatest resource

6. Work is play

7. There is no abiding success without commitment

They are "lies" because its dubious that everything really happens for a purpose, failure does in fact exists, not everything that happens is really your fault, etc. But he claims that if you chose to believe these "lies" then you'll likely get better results.

In any case, I’ll engage in your Socratic reasoning. Yes, I think that there is a certain amount of workability in reality.

[_wenglund]

In any case, I’ll engage in your Socratic reasoning. Yes, I think that there is a certain amount of workability in reality.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "certain amount"? (feel free to you a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being a miniscule amount of workability, and 10 being entirely workable all the time)

Could you do the same for what you may believe to ultimately be the amount of workability of unreality or "lies"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Analytics]

In any case, I’ll engage in your Socratic reasoning. Yes, I think that there is a certain amount of workability in reality.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "certain amount"? (feel free to you a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being a miniscule amount of workability, and 10 being entirely workable all the time)

Could you do the same for what you may believe to ultimately be the amount of workability of unreality or "lies"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The way I see it, the concept of workability implies that there is an agent influencing or shaping reality. How much a particular agent can shape reality depends upon his or her "circle of influence", as Stephen Covey allegedly said. Believing useful "lies of success" can greatly expand a human's circle of influence.

[_Analytics]

The way I see it, the concept of workability implies that there is an agent influencing or shaping reality. How much a particular agent can shape reality depends upon his or her "circle of influence", as Stephen Covey allegedly said. Believing useful "lies of success" can greatly expand a human's circle of influence.

It was famously said that not everything that is true is useful. Likewise, not everything that is useful is true.