Mythic Literalism and Fundamentalists

[Gadianton]

Assuming that MG's Fowler stages aren't aped as simplistic apologetics and that Fowler himself was constructing an actual psychological theory and not an elaborate ad hominem, I think the implications of such a theory could be interesting to think about. Unitarians like the theory for the same reasons more traditional believers do, because they apply it in simplistic ways to pat themselves on the back as 5-7s and point their fingers at the opposition as 1-3s.

When I gave MG a hard time for being a 2 on the other thread for doubling down on fundamentalist beliefs that quite literally correspond to a 2 on Fowler's own scale, I was just giving him something to think about, which I doubt that he did. I don't think we can really say a fundamentalist is a 2, because of the noise introduced into the subjects thinking by professions of faith that correspond to a 2. A subject would need to be asked questions that avoid her ability to easily detect the point of the question.

I grant it's possible that more mature thinking people find themselves drawn to religions bordering on agnosticism or general mysticism or universalism, but I certainly don't think a real psychological theory would have all the LDS church leaders with their Phds and business experience as 8-year-olds developmentally because they insist on a mythic-literal God.

An obvious difference would be the way a child would understand a fundamentalist profession of faith vs. an adult. Speculating here, based on experiences I can remember as a child, a young child who learns the doctrine of God sitting on his throne on the planet Kolob may become concerned over the situation and ask her parents if they can give God a sweater because it must be awfully cold up there. An adult wouldn't worry about that, not because they understand science better, but they aren't really thinking about it literally even if they say they are.

It does raise the question to what degree an educated and materially successful general authority really believes that God is a literal man living on Kolob who listens to billions of prayers simultaneously 24/7 while satisfying an endless stream of wives. I think it would likely be demonstrated that church leaders don't actually believe many of the professions of faith they insist that they believe. If that is true, then why keep the faith so simplistic? The answer is that authoritarian regimes are based on obvious lies. People rally behind a great leader only so long as the leader is great. True loyalty must accept the leader no matter what. And so a worthy follower, especially someone in a position of power, can't actually be a true believer in what the leader preaches because what if the leader lets them down? What if the belief turns out false? And so the true test of loyalty comes in the form of carrying the water for silly lies that no functioning adult can possibly really believe. The leader who tells the lie and the adult power seeker mutually understand it is a lie without saying it and mutually support it without flinching.

And so it's no wonder that authoritarian religions find professions of faith that are obviously silly and that educated adults who should know better will double down on them.

Since the subject matter of religion is symbolic in nature, I don't think that professing no belief or faith escapes scrutiny. If God is a symbol then so is not-God. As a very brief observation about atheism, around the same day MG brought up Fowler, I caught a few minutes of Alex O' Conner on YouTube where Alex admitted he was less of an atheist now than he was as a teenager. It was an awkward statement and didn't totally clarify the point he'd been making, but I think we can see the point that even a atheist would tend to be more of a militant atheist as a younger person than an older one.

Alex, by the way is a young English guy, an Oxford grad who is a professed atheist and if you imagine the total stereotype of what a young atheist would be in the Russell - Ayer tradition of arrogance it would be Alex. That said, he's pretty good and I like his show for ten minutes at a time.

[I Have Questions]

It is interesting to ask those in senior Church Office - General Authorities, specific questions about specific things and whether or not they believe them literally. It is nigh on impossible to get a straight answer. There is a lot of "don't ask, don't tell" going on at General Authority level. Ask them directly about their belief in skin turning black and they will talk ambiguously and change the subject. Some will talk about it simply being symbolic until you follow up with what President Kimball said about witnessing skin literally getting lighter with religious learning. Then they will change the subject and try and put the spotlight on what you believe.

I've asked many times, many different General Authorities. They won't give a straight answer. Ever.

Straight answers from General Authorities on subjects of belief in specific spiritual things will end up in a conversation about your lack of faith. Perry promised straight answers to people in Sweden, but when push came to shove those "answers" remained locked in his briefcase and he turned it into a question about whether or not people in Sweden had sufficient faith in him to believe he had those answers.

They're just snake oil salesmen, who don't really believe in their own product if and when it comes down to testing it on themselves.

[sock puppet]

It is interesting to ask those in senior Church Office - General Authorities, specific questions about specific things and whether or not they believe them literally. It is nigh on impossible to get a straight answer. There is a lot of "don't ask, don't tell" going on at General Authority level. * * *

They're just snake oil salesmen, who don't really believe in their own product if and when it comes down to testing it on themselves.

There is a certain comfort in believing a bottle of liquid will cure all our ailments, even though if we think about it, we know it will not. Likewise, "prophets" that tell us how we should think and behave relieves us of having to make our own decisions or take responsibility for our own lives. As the decline in religious affiliation grows, there is a corollary uptick in those that will follow a political pied-piper that promises he alone can make our lives great again. Yet if we think about either, we know following them will not do the trick.

[I Have Questions]

I’m investing a bit of time in reading up on Fowler’s stages. I’m not really familiar with them. My first thought is that his age band assignments aren’t maybe distracting from the veracity of the categories themselves. It seems to me that movement through the categories, while somewhat linked to age, is more linked to time spent studying and researching and contemplating, and maybe even a person’s willingness to accept intellectual honesty.

I have generally found that Mormons are quite “childish” (blind, unthinking, unchallenging, naïve etc) in their religious thinking. In many cases I’ve seen that to be a conscious decision.

[MG 2.0]

Assuming that MG's Fowler stages aren't aped as simplistic apologetics and that Fowler himself was constructing an actual psychological theory and not an elaborate ad hominem, I think the implications of such a theory could be interesting to think about. Unitarians like the theory for the same reasons more traditional believers do, because they apply it in simplistic ways to pat themselves on the back as 5-7s and point their fingers at the opposition as 1-3s.

When I gave MG a hard time for being a 2 on the other thread for doubling down on fundamentalist beliefs that quite literally correspond to a 2 on Fowler's own scale, I was just giving him something to think about, which I doubt that he did. I don't think we can really say a fundamentalist is a 2, because of the noise introduced into the subjects thinking by professions of faith that correspond to a 2. A subject would need to be asked questions that avoid her ability to easily detect the point of the question.

I grant it's possible that more mature thinking people find themselves drawn to religions bordering on agnosticism or general mysticism or universalism, but I certainly don't think a real psychological theory would have all the LDS church leaders with their Phds and business experience as 8-year-olds developmentally because they insist on a mythic-literal God.

An obvious difference would be the way a child would understand a fundamentalist profession of faith vs. an adult. Speculating here, based on experiences I can remember as a child, a young child who learns the doctrine of God sitting on his throne on the planet Kolob may become concerned over the situation and ask her parents if they can give God a sweater because it must be awfully cold up there. An adult wouldn't worry about that, not because they understand science better, but they aren't really thinking about it literally even if they say they are.

It does raise the question to what degree an educated and materially successful general authority really believes that God is a literal man living on Kolob who listens to billions of prayers simultaneously 24/7 while satisfying an endless stream of wives. I think it would likely be demonstrated that church leaders don't actually believe many of the professions of faith they insist that they believe. If that is true, then why keep the faith so simplistic? The answer is that authoritarian regimes are based on obvious lies. People rally behind a great leader only so long as the leader is great. True loyalty must accept the leader no matter what. And so a worthy follower, especially someone in a position of power, can't actually be a true believer in what the leader preaches because what if the leader lets them down? What if the belief turns out false? And so the true test of loyalty comes in the form of carrying the water for silly lies that no functioning adult can possibly really believe. The leader who tells the lie and the adult power seeker mutually understand it is a lie without saying it and mutually support it without flinching.

And so it's no wonder that authoritarian religions find professions of faith that are obviously silly and that educated adults who should know better will double down on them.

Since the subject matter of religion is symbolic in nature, I don't think that professing no belief or faith escapes scrutiny. If God is a symbol then so is not-God. As a very brief observation about atheism, around the same day MG brought up Fowler, I caught a few minutes of Alex O' Conner on YouTube where Alex admitted he was less of an atheist now than he was as a teenager. It was an awkward statement and didn't totally clarify the point he'd been making, but I think we can see the point that even a atheist would tend to be more of a militant atheist as a younger person than an older one.

Alex, by the way is a young English guy, an Oxford grad who is a professed atheist and if you imagine the total stereotype of what a young atheist would be in the Russell - Ayer tradition of arrogance it would be Alex. That said, he's pretty good and I like his show for ten minutes at a time.

"Doubling down" does not necessarily mean that one remains a two on Fowler's stages.

Deepening Faith Through Openness:
In Fowler's Stage 5 (Conjunctive Faith), individuals become more open to other perspectives, not because they are abandoning their faith, but because they recognize that these perspectives can enrich their understanding. This stage involves a mature, reflective embrace of faith that is less rigid and more inclusive of complexity and nuance.

Questioning Without Abandonment:
During Fowler's Stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective Faith), individuals often question their assumptions and authority structures within their faith. While this period can lead some to leave their religious community if answers are unsatisfactory, others use this questioning process to refine and personalize their beliefs, ultimately strengthening their commitment to their faith.

Earlier I had mentioned that I would place myself somewhere in the 4-5 category/range. Still do. Definitely not a two or three.

One does not have to abandon core beliefs in order to live a more mature faith.

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

Assuming that MG's Fowler stages aren't aped as simplistic apologetics and that Fowler himself was constructing an actual psychological theory and not an elaborate ad hominem, I think the implications of such a theory could be interesting to think about. Unitarians like the theory for the same reasons more traditional believers do, because they apply it in simplistic ways to pat themselves on the back as 5-7s and point their fingers at the opposition as 1-3s.

When I gave MG a hard time for being a 2 on the other thread for doubling down on fundamentalist beliefs that quite literally correspond to a 2 on Fowler's own scale, I was just giving him something to think about, which I doubt that he did. I don't think we can really say a fundamentalist is a 2, because of the noise introduced into the subjects thinking by professions of faith that correspond to a 2. A subject would need to be asked questions that avoid her ability to easily detect the point of the question.

I grant it's possible that more mature thinking people find themselves drawn to religions bordering on agnosticism or general mysticism or universalism, but I certainly don't think a real psychological theory would have all the LDS church leaders with their Phds and business experience as 8-year-olds developmentally because they insist on a mythic-literal God.

An obvious difference would be the way a child would understand a fundamentalist profession of faith vs. an adult. Speculating here, based on experiences I can remember as a child, a young child who learns the doctrine of God sitting on his throne on the planet Kolob may become concerned over the situation and ask her parents if they can give God a sweater because it must be awfully cold up there. An adult wouldn't worry about that, not because they understand science better, but they aren't really thinking about it literally even if they say they are.

It does raise the question to what degree an educated and materially successful general authority really believes that God is a literal man living on Kolob who listens to billions of prayers simultaneously 24/7 while satisfying an endless stream of wives. I think it would likely be demonstrated that church leaders don't actually believe many of the professions of faith they insist that they believe. If that is true, then why keep the faith so simplistic? The answer is that authoritarian regimes are based on obvious lies. People rally behind a great leader only so long as the leader is great. True loyalty must accept the leader no matter what. And so a worthy follower, especially someone in a position of power, can't actually be a true believer in what the leader preaches because what if the leader lets them down? What if the belief turns out false? And so the true test of loyalty comes in the form of carrying the water for silly lies that no functioning adult can possibly really believe. The leader who tells the lie and the adult power seeker mutually understand it is a lie without saying it and mutually support it without flinching.

And so it's no wonder that authoritarian religions find professions of faith that are obviously silly and that educated adults who should know better will double down on them.

Since the subject matter of religion is symbolic in nature, I don't think that professing no belief or faith escapes scrutiny. If God is a symbol then so is not-God. As a very brief observation about atheism, around the same day MG brought up Fowler, I caught a few minutes of Alex O' Conner on YouTube where Alex admitted he was less of an atheist now than he was as a teenager. It was an awkward statement and didn't totally clarify the point he'd been making, but I think we can see the point that even a atheist would tend to be more of a militant atheist as a younger person than an older one.

Alex, by the way is a young English guy, an Oxford grad who is a professed atheist and if you imagine the total stereotype of what a young atheist would be in the Russell - Ayer tradition of arrogance it would be Alex. That said, he's pretty good and I like his show for ten minutes at a time.

"Doubling down" does not necessarily mean that one remains a two on Fowler's stages.

Deepening Faith Through Openness:
In Fowler's Stage 5 (Conjunctive Faith), individuals become more open to other perspectives, not because they are abandoning their faith, but because they recognize that these perspectives can enrich their understanding. This stage involves a mature, reflective embrace of faith that is less rigid and more inclusive of complexity and nuance.

Questioning Without Abandonment:
During Fowler's Stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective Faith), individuals often question their assumptions and authority structures within their faith. While this period can lead some to leave their religious community if answers are unsatisfactory, others use this questioning process to refine and personalize their beliefs, ultimately strengthening their commitment to their faith.

Earlier I had mentioned that I would place myself somewhere in the 4-5 category/range. Still do. Definitely not a two or three.

One does not have to abandon core beliefs in order to live a more mature faith.

Regards,
MG

Still practicing your tokens and handshakes?

[Chap]

... the Russell - Ayer tradition of arrogance ...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "arrogance", but it is certainly one of those words whose use makes plain a negative attitude to the person to whom it is applied. It's one of those loaded words that has a conclusion ready-made in its description - so let's not argue about that particular word. But I would just say that, at the least, you may be being a bit broad-brush here.

Here, for example, is the full text of a highly relevant work by Russell:

Science and Religion

In the Conclusion, we find (recall the book was written in 1935):

The warfare between science and Christian theology, in spite of an occasional skirmish on the outposts, is nearly ended, and I think most Christians would admit that their religion is the better for it. Christianity has been purified of inessentials inherited from a barbarous age, and nearly cured of the desire to persecute. There remains, among the more liberal Christians, an ethical doctrine which is valuable : acceptance of Christ's teaching that we should love our neighbours, and a belief that in each individual there is something deserving of respect, even if it is no longer to be called a soul. There is also, in the Churches, a growing belief that Christians should oppose war.

But while the older religion has thus become purified and in many ways beneficial, new religions have arisen, with all the persecuting zeal of vigorous youth, and with as great a readiness to oppose science as characterized the Inquisition in the time of Galileo. If you maintain in Germany that Christ was a Jew, or in Russia that the atom has lost its substantiality and become a mere series of events, you are liable to very severe punishment - perhaps nominally economic rather than legal, but none the milder on that account. The persecution of intellectuals in Germany and Russia has surpassed, in severity, anything perpetrated by the Churches during the last two hundred and fifty years.

Do you think those comments betray an unfairly negative attitude towards Christianity by Russell? As I said, I'd prefer not to argue about whether calling Russell "arrogant' is helpful to a clearer understanding of his work.

[Doctor Scratch]

It does raise the question to what degree an educated and materially successful general authority really believes that God is a literal man living on Kolob who listens to billions of prayers simultaneously 24/7 while satisfying an endless stream of wives. I think it would likely be demonstrated that church leaders don't actually believe many of the professions of faith they insist that they believe. If that is true, then why keep the faith so simplistic? The answer is that authoritarian regimes are based on obvious lies. People rally behind a great leader only so long as the leader is great. True loyalty must accept the leader no matter what. And so a worthy follower, especially someone in a position of power, can't actually be a true believer in what the leader preaches because what if the leader lets them down? What if the belief turns out false? And so the true test of loyalty comes in the form of carrying the water for silly lies that no functioning adult can possibly really believe. The leader who tells the lie and the adult power seeker mutually understand it is a lie without saying it and mutually support it without flinching.

Some interesting commentary here, Dr. Robbers. I definitely would agree that there is some compartmentalizing going on. I can recall many years ago, back when I was still permitted to post on the old FAIR board, I asked the folks there why the Church hadn't ever bothered to pursue a project aimed at locating Kolob in the night sky. I mean, if there are going to be tours to Mesoamerica and that sort of thing, then why not space exploration-type projects that search for God's home planet? Interestingly, the TBMs dismissed this as silly. I believe someone may have even alluded to Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, which, of course, involves a search for God at the center of the galaxy.

On the one hand, yes: obviously it's silly. That sort of doctrine seems to be the source of the common remark from non-LDS about how "Mormons think they're going to get their own planet!" But don't actual, tithe-paying Mormons really believe that God lives on a planet near Kolob?

So, I think there must be a sort of "cafeteria-style" picking and choosing that's going on. DCP will openly admit to believing that Added Upon is a realistic depiction of heaven, but good luck getting him to comment on Zelph, or Kolob, etc. (Does he believe that Zelph was a real person?) Perhaps you remember that classic thread where he was attempting to dissect BY's infamous comment about HF coming down in his "bodily tabernacle" to "begat Jesus"--i.e., he physically boned Mary. And DCP was trying to say that, no--instead Heavenly Father utilized some kind of magical "artificial insemination" method!

I guess it's one of the many great ironies embedded in the faith: there is this grim, unwavering absolutism about the truthfulness of it all, and yet they are still cherry-picking which things to actually believe. Hours and hours and hours will be spent devoted to "proving" that the Witnesses were 100% honest, and many tours will be taken down to the Yucatan, and yet how much time has been given over to gazing into a telescope in search of Planet Kolob?

[bbbbbbb]

Now I understand why the various Mormon missionaries who came to my home were utterly perplexed when I ask them what I considered to be very easy questions, such as how did the Holy Ghost become a god without a physical body or why is there only one Heavenly Mother if, in fact, Heavenly Father has, in truth, a harem of wives at his disposal.

[MG 2.0]

Now I understand why the various Mormon missionaries who came to my home were utterly perplexed when I ask them what I considered to be very easy questions, such as how did the Holy Ghost become a god without a physical body or why is there only one Heavenly Mother if, in fact, Heavenly Father has, in truth, a harem of wives at his disposal.

That kept you from pursuing the discussions and learning more about the church?

As far as I know, there isn't any doctrine that would have prohibited the Holy Ghost from being a God without receiving a physical body first. Jehovah was in the same boat. And he was a God.

I don't know that there is any doctrinal position that says that there is only one Heavenly Mother.

I'm sure you understand that these young Elders and Sisters are not going to know the answers to all questions.

More important question I would think is whether or not Jesus Christ was the literal son of God and if he came to the Earth and atoned for our sins.

Did you ask them that question?

Regards,
MG