The Yarn Spinners

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

The Yarn Spinners

Post by _Tal Bachman »

What kind of world do we live in, when well-intentioned lunatics have more influence over how we think, feel, and act, than anyone else?

Joseph Smith was a wonderful storyteller - clearly, so wonderful that even in 2007 many people are so enchanted with his stories, that the fact that they could not possibly be true means nothing to them. Their belief in his stories, to them, gives their lives meaning; so why should they ever part with them? Meaning is enough. What difference then can it make that, contrary to Joseph Smith's assertions, the human family pre-dates two Missourians who lived only five millenia ago? Or that there wasn't a global flood 4000 years ago as Joseph Smith claimed? Or that the Native Americans aren't the blood descendants of Lehi at all, as Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon claim? Or a hundred other things? Clearly, none at all. These false teachings, which even many members know are false, to borrow a phrase, are simply instantly relegated to "not essential to our salvation" (though of course Joseph Smith said just the opposite). In the (not necessarily conscious) opinion of the believers, what is essential to the salvation of our psyches, our self-images, senses of safety, perhaps our marriages, etc., is to continue believing in Smith's silly, self-aggrandizing stories, and the authority claims of his successors.

Mormons may enjoy remembering that it is not only they who have found great meaning in wonderful (untrue) stories. Decades after almost all of his most important theories have been identified as either untrue or inherently untestable yarns, Sigmund Freud continues to inform the worldviews of millions of people. Humans don't actually wish to have incestuous relationships with their parents, and in fact possess an overwhelmingly powerful innate instinct against it? No problem. No evidence that our minds erase all memory of traumatic episodes? No problem. Therapists in the 80's, taking their cues from Freud, actually "creating" false traumatic memories in trying to "recover" these non-existent "repressed memories", and in so doing, tearing families apart, ruining the very lives they're supposed to be helping? No problem. Nothing seems to be a problem to those who like Dr. Freud's stories. After all - the stories give their lives meaning: incest, penis-envy, patricidal fantasies, fictitious anal fixations and all. In truth, it is nonsense, just like Mormonism - but not to the believers. For them, it has become crucial to life itself.

And what of Marx? It is no exaggeration to say that virtually all of Marx's "scientific" predictions about capitalism failed. No problem for his adherents; just like any other ideologues, his followers simply invented post hoc rationalizations to make it okay. To this day, a look at any university department faculty in the humanities or social sciences will reveal professors examining this or that "through the prism of Marxism" - after 80 years of TOTAL MARXIST FAILURE. After all the failed predictions, after MILLIONS DEAD because of the premise that human nature is infinitely malleable (a premise shared also by Mormon theology, hence its own experiments in Utopian collectives), and the desire of "knowers" to realize heaven on earth. It just doesn't matter. All that matters is that Marxism has given them meaning in their lives. Untruth has become "my truth" for the Marxist, "the end".

What about Betty Friedan and other founding mothers of modern feminism? Crucial to most modern feminism "thought" has been that "sex" does not exist; only "gender" does. ("Gender", the word, itself is a claim that all differences observed between males and females are a result of environment, rather than biology.) Now, 44 years after "The Feminine Mystique" came out, many dozens of studies confirm the fact (which, suspiciously, never seems to have been doubted prior to 1963) that the survival of our species has depended on the evolution of certain important differences in male and female human brains, just as is the case in other mammal species, has been overwhelmingly supported by many dozens of studies. (As it happens, quite a bit of the most important research in this area has been conducted by women themselves [and why not, since women have as much to gain from understanding humanity as men do?] See, e.g., the work of Doreen Kimura, or Louise Brizendine's new "The Female Brain") . Yet, there are still millions of people running around claiming that any observed differences between men and women are the result of social conditioning, and that "gender is a social construct". (No, dear - sex is real, and "gender" is largely a figment of your imagination.) The studies, the proof, the terrible effect on societies and personal relationships of positing identically hard-wired brains...none of it matters to the ideologues. Nothing can matter, by definition, to the ideologue, but his or her ideology. It's the story, stupid. Not the truth.

Translation-facilitating rocks, entirely fanciful "interpretations of dreams" (Freud's magnum lunatic opus), the superiority of central economic planning to free markets, innately identical boys and girls...all are nonsense, and demonstrable nonsense at that. Yet it seems to make hardly any difference to millions. It seems sometimes that we live in a world shaped not so much by what we know, but what we would most like to believe, damn the truth, "whatever 'truth' might mean anyway, as Nietszche taught us...".

Thank God the Bacons, Galileos, Newtons, Humes, Voltaires, Einsteins of the world have cared less about stories, even wonderful stories, and focused more on the business of trying to gain real knowledge about the world. After all, the story of Adam and Eve, which includes women through Eve being cursed by God with pain in childbirth, might be life-giving and appealing to some women - but probably far more life-giving and appealing are safe, emergency C sections and epidural blocks. (And to think there are still some feminists out there who claim that science is inherently patriarchally oppressive...what unspeakable ignorance.)

I like stories as stories, too - but I'm not sure they ought to be favoured over reality itself.

Just my two cents.

Tal
Last edited by NorthboundZax on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Re: The Yarn Spinners

Post by _asbestosman »

Tal Bachman wrote:Thank God the Bacons, Galileos, Newtons, Humes, Voltaires, Einsteins of the world have cared less about stories, even wonderful stories, and focused more on the business of trying to gain real knowledge about the world.


Uhm, I'm not so sure about that. Remember that Newton was really into alchemy. I'm not absolutely certain, but it wouldn't surprise me if he were convinced that Adam and Eve were literal. Newton was a theist. Galileo too.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm not so sure they cared less about what you call stories than they did about gaining real knowledge. Rather I think these men had the inspiration to look beyond that which their peers routinely saw. But even their insight isn't always necessarily unique. Leibnitz discovered/invnted calculus at about the same time as Newton.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Ray A

Re: The Yarn Spinners

Post by _Ray A »

asbestosman wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Thank God the Bacons, Galileos, Newtons, Humes, Voltaires, Einsteins of the world have cared less about stories, even wonderful stories, and focused more on the business of trying to gain real knowledge about the world.


Uhm, I'm not so sure about that. Remember that Newton was really into alchemy.



I don't think Tal understands the extent to which Newton was also into theology and the Bible (much more than science). If he did know this, he would be calling Newton a fraud too.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Post by _Chap »

Ray A:

I don't think Tal understands the extent to which Newton was also into theology and the Bible (much more than science). If he did know this, he would be calling Newton a fraud too.


Newton was (amongst other things) part of a process we may (retrospectively, crudely and briefly) call the Enlightenment. By the time that process had worked out most of its consequences, which was well after Newton's lifetime, it was no longer possible to find an educated and intellectually serious person who believed in such things as alchemy, and that was in part due precisely to the success of Newton's work in physics, as well as to Robert Boyle's work in chemistry. But during that lifetime things were different, and Newton's obsessions were by no means rare. However, anyone who takes alchemy seriously nowadays is a nut. And if Newton's successor in the Lucasian chair (Stephen Hawking) was to start writing copious commentaries on the Book of Daniel his friends would really, really start worrying about him.

Tal:

Thank God the Bacons, Galileos, Newtons, Humes, Voltaires, Einsteins of the world have cared less about stories, even wonderful stories, and focused more on the business of trying to gain real knowledge about the world.


While as individuals the thinkers named may have had all kinds of heterogeneous beliefs, they were all committed so far as enquiry about the natural world was concerned to the programme set out in the motto of the Royal Society of London, of which Newton was for a time President - Nullius in Verba - roughly "Take no-one's word for it", i.e. as Tal says, they could not have cared less about stories. While Tal does not write with historical subtlety at all times, the thrust of his post is basically correct.
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Re: The Yarn Spinners

Post by _Inconceivable »

asbestosman wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Thank God the Bacons, Galileos, Newtons, Humes, Voltaires, Einsteins of the world have cared less about stories, even wonderful stories, and focused more on the business of trying to gain real knowledge about the world.


Uhm, I'm not so sure about that. Remember that Newton was really into alchemy. I'm not absolutely certain, but it wouldn't surprise me if he were convinced that Adam and Eve were literal. Newton was a theist. Galileo too.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm not so sure they cared less about what you call stories than they did about gaining real knowledge. Rather I think these men had the inspiration to look beyond that which their peers routinely saw. But even their insight isn't always necessarily unique. Leibnitz discovered/invnted calculus at about the same time as Newton.


I'm assuming that regardless of these men's religious affiliations, they were unwilling to permit the stories to limit their potential in creating or discovering amazing things.
_Tommy
_Emeritus
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:10 am

Post by _Tommy »

Brothers and Sisters, instead of thanking God for crude men such as Voltair, I choose to thank him for a prophet. One, indeed, who guides us in these latter days. I thank him for sending us his gospel and for lightning our minds which results from basking in its holy rays. I can scarcely imagine how to govern my life without the words from our loving modern-day prophet. Truly I am blessed. And Tal, thou art blessed as well. Seek ye not the learnings of the world any longer and come back to the Saints and rejoice!
_Doctor Steuss
_Emeritus
Posts: 4597
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:57 pm

Re: The Yarn Spinners

Post by _Doctor Steuss »

Tal Bachman wrote:[...]
I like stories as stories, too - but I'm not sure they ought to be favoured over reality itself.
[...]


I know what you mean. When people favor “stories” over “reality” they end up willing to blow themselves up if their lowly mission president asks them to.

Luckily, I’ve never been that out of touch with “reality.” And I’m glad that in “real” life I’ve never had to associate with the type of weak-minded person that could find themselves thinking that way (if even for a moment).
Last edited by Reflexzero on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

Not only that Brother Tommy, I thank him for every single blessing that is by his bounteous hand bestowed. I feel true pleasure in serving him and Love To Obey His Command.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

I know what you mean. When people favor “stories” over “reality” they end up willing to blow themselves up if their lowly mission president asks them to.

Luckily, I’ve never been that out of touch with “reality.” And I’m glad that in “real” life I’ve never had to associate with the type of weak-minded person that could find themselves thinking that way (if even for a moment).


Was it weak-mindedness, or simply taking Mormonism at its word? If you vote for the former, you haven't read enough LDS scriptures and conference talks.

By the way, only an idiot would claim that Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist until Einstein, was dispositionally more interested in maintaining a belief in dogma and magic at the cost of never discovering the laws that govern our universe, simply because, using the best of his powers, he continued to believe in certain Biblical stories or claims, or in God. I can't believe how dumb you guys sound now lol. It is shocking. Can I get some good comments on this essay please? Is that too much to ask?

Francis Bacon, the author of the early primer on critical/scientific thinking Novum Organum, was also deeply into alchemy. Is that a contradiction? Not really - Bacon and others, understanding what they did, had every reason to suppose that the laws of physics might allow the transmutation of one substance into another. That is, they thought they were doing proper science. After all, they drop some silver or gold into nitric acid, and it dissolves. Why then would they not infer that another substance might change it in some other way? And how, oh geniuses, is that attempt so different in principle than the modern activity of smashing different atomic nuclei into each other at high speeds, and then hoping they undergo fusion and land in a ground state?

Your very ability to read these words right now is attributable not to dogmatic adherence to beliefs such as that all six billion of us descend from two Missourians 5700 years ago, but to the increasing employment of the human brain to understand the nature of our world and universe. Could that be any more obvious?

It's not even funny that the religious faith of the man who wrote the Principia should be used now, by "true believers" in some nonsense or other, to cast him as equivalent to to a modern Freudian, Marxist, radical feminist, or Mormon. It's only sad - and it only helps prove the point of the original essay here.

Thanks.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Tal Bachman wrote:
IIt's not even funny that the religious faith of the man who wrote the Principia should be used now, by "true believers" in some nonsense or other, to cast him as equivalent to to a modern Freudian, Marxist, radical feminist, or Mormon. It's only sad - and it only helps prove the point of the original essay here.

If so, it wasn't by me nor by Steuss. My point was more or less that of Inconceivable:

Inconceivable wrote:I'm assuming that regardless of these men's religious affiliations, they were unwilling to permit the stories to limit their potential in creating or discovering amazing things.


In my opinion, I see no reason that belief in things you disagree with will get in the way of greatness. Many great men hold crazy beliefs. Take our present day Roger Penrose for example. I think his supposed proof that human intelligence transcends that of a Turing machine is severely lacking--despite the fact that Penrose is many times more intelligent than I am. Despite all that I don't think it detracts from his wonderful contributions in mathematics. Similarly I think that men who hold other crazy beliefs can just as easily make great contributions to all fields. Could they do more without beliving certain stories? Pehaps, but I'm not so sure they're much of an obsticle to greatness.

Oh yeah, another crackpot: Nicola Tesla. A mad scientist if there ever was one although in his case I don't think it was because he believed stories handed down from others.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
Post Reply