As I finish up chapter 1, Wilson mentions how genetic evolution does not only lead to closed ended processes. He references Plotkin`s (1994, as cited in Wilson 2002) concept of Darwin machines. As I understand it, these are processes which have evolved to certain levels of adaptability. The immune system and anti-body creation is cited as an example. Since Wilson`s book is about an evolutionary approach to religion, here is a quote with some far reaching implications (pp. 31, Wilson 2002),
"When physical and social environments become sufficiently variable, juke-box solutions are inadequate and the only recourse is to evolve Darwin machines."
In mormon circles, most members tend to take the approach that a restored religion will be quite similar to post iterations of the same. Now, I don`t think this implies the structure or appearance of the a church will or even should be the same. Aplogetics certainly do try and cite the similarities between early mromonism and the early Christian church - with some successes and some failures in my estimation. People tend to have an easier time projecting tight correlations between Book of Mormon religions and modern Mormonism. The viability of this approach gets clouded a bit depending the degree to which Joseph Smith`s own understandings affected his translation process.
One can dichotomize the restoration issue into two branches; 1) chruch structures should be congruent over time 2) only fundamental religious elements should be congruent over time. The first option meshes well with a positivist approach to religion. Religion is designed to reveal essential behaviour, rules, or standards. I will ignore this option as I find it rather problematic when taken to logical extremes. The second option forces a hard look at what is immutable over restoration cycles. I think such an approach would also be well informed from a universalist approach to religion. However, I think one needs to look beyond *what essential elements are common in religions" to "what essential elements are common in religions where distincitions between normal and extra-normal influence are overt".
This light takes some leverage from Wilson`s ideas. Religion should look different in different iterations because the conditions to which it responds are different. One can think of religion as a tool that allows the growth of sucessful developmental adaptations. However this doesn`t distinguish between what is momentarily beneficial and what benefits are more time independent. I think practical mormon theology is quite informed by the latter question.
For practical people, I suspect the following personal question emerges, to what extent does the learning associated with religion depend on leveraging what Darwin Machines can spit out? Is religion about learning absolutes, or is it about knowing how to leverage fundamental routines?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Darwin's Cathedral Part 1
I have just started reading Darwin's Cathedral (Wilson, 2002). I will pull out a few closely spaced quotes
"The belief that group selection can be categorically rejected belongs on the rubbish heap of history, alongside the earlier belief that groups always function as adaptive units," (pp.17).
"As we have seen, group selection can produce altruistic traits, but it must be exceptionally strong to oppose the strong selective disadvantage of altruism within groups. In contrast, the mechanisms that allow organisms to function as adaptive units do not appear very altruistic," (pp. 18)
"The belief that group selection can be categorically rejected belongs on the rubbish heap of history, alongside the earlier belief that groups always function as adaptive units," (pp.17).
"As we have seen, group selection can produce altruistic traits, but it must be exceptionally strong to oppose the strong selective disadvantage of altruism within groups. In contrast, the mechanisms that allow organisms to function as adaptive units do not appear very altruistic," (pp. 18)
"Social control, rather than highly self-sacrificial altruism, appears to solve the fundamental problem of social life at the individual level," (pp.19).
"Social control can be regarded as a form of low-cost altruism that evolves to promote behaviors that would qualify as high-cost altruism if they were performed voluntarily," (pp. 19).
Compared to other books I have read as of late, it is refreshing to read a nuanced author. I have, unfortunately, grown accustomed to the prescriptions of amateur authors convinced of the validity of their own pet ideas.
"Social control can be regarded as a form of low-cost altruism that evolves to promote behaviors that would qualify as high-cost altruism if they were performed voluntarily," (pp. 19).
Compared to other books I have read as of late, it is refreshing to read a nuanced author. I have, unfortunately, grown accustomed to the prescriptions of amateur authors convinced of the validity of their own pet ideas.
The guidelines Wilson portrays on the valid use of multi level selection evolution theory create a strong base for discussion. It seems like it will be extraordinarily difficult to rigorously discuss religion on these footings. I think most people will fall into the functionalist thinking that Wilson infers doomed 60's group evolutionists. As I explore more of this book, it will be interesting to see the extent to which social control informs religious function.
Givens' "People of Paradox" (2007), will be an interesting foil in this exploration. To what extent do religions truly embrace the Mormon ideal represented by Brigham Young, "in these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular," (pp. 65 as cited in Givens, 2007), or Joseph Smith, "intelligence is the great object of our holy religion," (pp. 65 as cited in Givens, 2007)? It seems as if religion is really several different characters. It may involve a search for group benefits, personal growth through shared meaning & experience, the gift of placebo-like (or real) assurance. One thing that seems correct to me, is that if one doesn't take the road of religious fundamentalism, religion grows in the weightlessness that exists with the tensions between fuzzy anchor points.
Now I may be projecting here, but I don't think practical religion can be separated from learning. Of course in practice, learning can't be separated from leadership, which in these contexts, can't be separated from training. Because of the circular nature of the situation, I would suspect one would need to be well informed on pragmatics to make much headway.
Givens, T. (2007). People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D. (2002). Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society, Chicago, University of Chicago.
The next iteration
Well, it has been quite a while since I posted anything on this blog. In looking at my stat counter, a few random visitors still appear -surprising
The LDS bloggernacle has changed quite a bit in the last two years. The volume of blogs has grown exponentially. My blog has tapered dramatically. Since I don’t read for content as much as for the opportunity to delve into new ways of thinking, I found I was getting nearly the same benefit letting new ideas gel as I was reading detail. Content for content's sake has just never been my thing.
My motivations for writing differ from my older posts. My older posts were mainly self serving attempts of fun. It was quite liberating not having to make things overly coherent, logical, or especially understandable. My old posts were more a journal of my own thoughts written to help me along the journey to difficult knowledge (Pitt & Britzman, 2003). This time around, I hope to explore social dynamics of group commitment. In particular, I hope to play with the kernels from which religious or quasi-religious thoughts arise.
Pitt, A. & , Britzman, D. (2003). Speculations on qualities of difficult knowledge in teaching and learning: an experiment in psychoanalytic research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(6), 755-776.
The LDS bloggernacle has changed quite a bit in the last two years. The volume of blogs has grown exponentially. My blog has tapered dramatically. Since I don’t read for content as much as for the opportunity to delve into new ways of thinking, I found I was getting nearly the same benefit letting new ideas gel as I was reading detail. Content for content's sake has just never been my thing.
Nonetheless, I have found it important to leverage the space that occurs when balancing tensions between new ideas, nuance, and the solidification of thought patterns occur. In this light, I am hoping to take some time to put some more of my thoughts down on paper.
My motivations for writing differ from my older posts. My older posts were mainly self serving attempts of fun. It was quite liberating not having to make things overly coherent, logical, or especially understandable. My old posts were more a journal of my own thoughts written to help me along the journey to difficult knowledge (Pitt & Britzman, 2003). This time around, I hope to explore social dynamics of group commitment. In particular, I hope to play with the kernels from which religious or quasi-religious thoughts arise.
Pitt, A. & , Britzman, D. (2003). Speculations on qualities of difficult knowledge in teaching and learning: an experiment in psychoanalytic research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(6), 755-776.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Problems with the concrete
I was going to put this up on Bob & Logan's page, but thought it was too much of a threadjack. Like many I appreciate John Dehlin's podcasts. I think universalizing perspectives are much more pleasant to listen to than over zealous bias. Judging by the ex-mo, or post-mo boards it is just unfortunate that lots of people have to go through such a bitter stage before moving on. Indeed I don't know if people ever fully remove many of those scars - especially in a culture of oppression empowerment.
With mormonism, it seems like people filter in one of two ways; total rejection, or universalizing acceptance. Universalizing acceptance is the less probable route. It seems to get further broken down into two subsets; those that want to stop and change the bad, and those who don't see it as a big issue. Again I think the former is more likely.
While nothing is clear cut like this, I wonder if our natural tendencies to "fix" things may help analyze the situation.
A focus on changing institutions and doctrines, puts a lot of faith in what they actually do. It implies overt means are useful in controlling implicit environments. We rationalize systems until they are perfect. Religions certainly have a tendency to do this. However I wonder if this neglects a possibility that "perfecting" may sometimes, or even most of the time, cause more harm than it actually solves (usually in the long term, not short term). See a Belmont club post on Darfur for an unorthodox perspective.
I can certainly see that universalizing tendencies are a prime goal of useful religion - like Dehlin's new order stance. However on this road lots of things get tossed out. People don't want to continually subject themselves to obvious errors in the system. Benefits are great, but this means people are always having to weigh the pro's and con's based on the moment. Because of this people often say that most any perspective is useful. What matters most is how it resonates with them. I won't deny that this isn't of a first order importance. However second order effects shouldn't be neglected in this process.
For example, why did Christ get baptized? It seems like there is something beyond universalizing ideas. There are universalizing practices as well. While we can say Christian acts are what matters, I suspect this neglects the possible importance institutions play, especially in the eternities.
WIth greater knowledge, there is a greater ability to see the consequences inherit in a grey world. While we like to think God's omniscience can result in actions that avoid any of these, I wonder about the functional possibility of that. What if God's knowledge just makes him more aware of the dangers and negative consequences involved in action-any and every action? This certainly seems like a curse of the tree of good and evil. No matter what Adam and Eve did, they would be instructing their kids towards evil. If this is the case one would either have to quit acting, act perfectly in limited ways, or say screw it forge ahead.
The catatonia of the first seems like a traditional Christian's heaven. The second seems like Satan's plan - fine if being perfectly limited is preferable to the imperfections of unlimitedness.. The latter requires a complete revamp in one's conception of God. It requires one to believe that God's actions may not be perfect, at least in any commonly accepted way.
Personally I like the latter. The world is screwed up because we are just plowing ahead with imperfect things. The very act of "perfecting" them may be impossible, or at least have secondary consequences that self perpetuate. Organizations are important because they will always do more than what an individual can. Neglecting them is as unwise a position as is belief in their possible perfection. In this way one may best view them as tools for self perfection than as tools for other's perfection. Their self rationalizing tendencies mean a continual exposure to new domains may be the only way to keep them form self implosion. Of course one could also create a destabilizing feedback loop. I think Atran had quite a bit to say about that.
With mormonism, it seems like people filter in one of two ways; total rejection, or universalizing acceptance. Universalizing acceptance is the less probable route. It seems to get further broken down into two subsets; those that want to stop and change the bad, and those who don't see it as a big issue. Again I think the former is more likely.
While nothing is clear cut like this, I wonder if our natural tendencies to "fix" things may help analyze the situation.
A focus on changing institutions and doctrines, puts a lot of faith in what they actually do. It implies overt means are useful in controlling implicit environments. We rationalize systems until they are perfect. Religions certainly have a tendency to do this. However I wonder if this neglects a possibility that "perfecting" may sometimes, or even most of the time, cause more harm than it actually solves (usually in the long term, not short term). See a Belmont club post on Darfur for an unorthodox perspective.
I can certainly see that universalizing tendencies are a prime goal of useful religion - like Dehlin's new order stance. However on this road lots of things get tossed out. People don't want to continually subject themselves to obvious errors in the system. Benefits are great, but this means people are always having to weigh the pro's and con's based on the moment. Because of this people often say that most any perspective is useful. What matters most is how it resonates with them. I won't deny that this isn't of a first order importance. However second order effects shouldn't be neglected in this process.
For example, why did Christ get baptized? It seems like there is something beyond universalizing ideas. There are universalizing practices as well. While we can say Christian acts are what matters, I suspect this neglects the possible importance institutions play, especially in the eternities.
WIth greater knowledge, there is a greater ability to see the consequences inherit in a grey world. While we like to think God's omniscience can result in actions that avoid any of these, I wonder about the functional possibility of that. What if God's knowledge just makes him more aware of the dangers and negative consequences involved in action-any and every action? This certainly seems like a curse of the tree of good and evil. No matter what Adam and Eve did, they would be instructing their kids towards evil. If this is the case one would either have to quit acting, act perfectly in limited ways, or say screw it forge ahead.
The catatonia of the first seems like a traditional Christian's heaven. The second seems like Satan's plan - fine if being perfectly limited is preferable to the imperfections of unlimitedness.. The latter requires a complete revamp in one's conception of God. It requires one to believe that God's actions may not be perfect, at least in any commonly accepted way.
Personally I like the latter. The world is screwed up because we are just plowing ahead with imperfect things. The very act of "perfecting" them may be impossible, or at least have secondary consequences that self perpetuate. Organizations are important because they will always do more than what an individual can. Neglecting them is as unwise a position as is belief in their possible perfection. In this way one may best view them as tools for self perfection than as tools for other's perfection. Their self rationalizing tendencies mean a continual exposure to new domains may be the only way to keep them form self implosion. Of course one could also create a destabilizing feedback loop. I think Atran had quite a bit to say about that.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
PC Polytheism
Contrasting Religion and the non-denominational progressive PC movement
Part II
Normally we don't think of the PC movement as a formal religion. While the "faith based" label is getting applied more and more to certain segments, what is the real difference between politically correct progressivism and traditional religion?
In the past I have talked about how zealotism is more defined by what is socially acceptable than by any other standard. I have also mentioned how self referential social sciences recreate scriptural authority by cross referencing and footnoting. I have also postulated that PC faculties have become the new theology departments. I also mentioned how mildly counter intuitive ideas are the ones get the most play on both sides. However, these, and all the other conclusions I have reached all seem superficial. After all, there are numerous differences between PC religion and traditional religion: no god like authority, no infallibility, no divine beings, no supernaturalism, no ultimate moral judgments, no divine repercussions, etc One could say that this means the PC'er has just become their own god, however that just doesn't seem overly accurate. There is most definitely a group movement that has occurred and is continuing to occur. Whether it is happening because of a group shift to new implicit assumptions, or whether it is occurring from overt strategies to change the status quo, one is probably correct in saying a new cultural religion is emerging. This movement, like another is most likely a combination of progressives and late adopters. But while it has the feel of a religion, it lacks many of the defining characteristics that define such, and provide such a source of derision.
I would postulate that the only difference is that this new religion has moved from physical polytheism to abstract polytheism.
Traditional religions are usually physically polytheistic. They believe in divine beings. These divine beings are counter intuitive in the way they supersede normal physical laws. Even strongly trinitarian religions end up physically polytheistic in practice - was Christ fully God in every sense? The counterintuitive, and hence unpopular aspects of religion revolve around the physical. The new progressive religious movements of today are physically coherent, but abstractly counterintuitive. Idealism may be successful in a rationalized system, but in practice it is usually slightly off. Obviously this new religious movement in not abstractly monotheistic. There is not one single "idea" or god around which it is unifying. Instead it has numerous different "divine" like "ideas". Each one allows the followers to pick and chose aspects that are most appealing while maintaining a sense of unity. Thus a large segment of the population is moving from physical religion to abstract religion - from a religion about beings, and concrete actions, to a religion about ideas and what thoughts are appropriate. When analyzing this idea, one should really take a book like Atran's, Boyle's or Dennet's and see if the religious critiques about physical counter-intuitiveness apply to the new abstract counter-intuitiveness. My guess is one would be surprised at the parallels.
Part II
Normally we don't think of the PC movement as a formal religion. While the "faith based" label is getting applied more and more to certain segments, what is the real difference between politically correct progressivism and traditional religion?
In the past I have talked about how zealotism is more defined by what is socially acceptable than by any other standard. I have also mentioned how self referential social sciences recreate scriptural authority by cross referencing and footnoting. I have also postulated that PC faculties have become the new theology departments. I also mentioned how mildly counter intuitive ideas are the ones get the most play on both sides. However, these, and all the other conclusions I have reached all seem superficial. After all, there are numerous differences between PC religion and traditional religion: no god like authority, no infallibility, no divine beings, no supernaturalism, no ultimate moral judgments, no divine repercussions, etc One could say that this means the PC'er has just become their own god, however that just doesn't seem overly accurate. There is most definitely a group movement that has occurred and is continuing to occur. Whether it is happening because of a group shift to new implicit assumptions, or whether it is occurring from overt strategies to change the status quo, one is probably correct in saying a new cultural religion is emerging. This movement, like another is most likely a combination of progressives and late adopters. But while it has the feel of a religion, it lacks many of the defining characteristics that define such, and provide such a source of derision.
I would postulate that the only difference is that this new religion has moved from physical polytheism to abstract polytheism.
Traditional religions are usually physically polytheistic. They believe in divine beings. These divine beings are counter intuitive in the way they supersede normal physical laws. Even strongly trinitarian religions end up physically polytheistic in practice - was Christ fully God in every sense? The counterintuitive, and hence unpopular aspects of religion revolve around the physical. The new progressive religious movements of today are physically coherent, but abstractly counterintuitive. Idealism may be successful in a rationalized system, but in practice it is usually slightly off. Obviously this new religious movement in not abstractly monotheistic. There is not one single "idea" or god around which it is unifying. Instead it has numerous different "divine" like "ideas". Each one allows the followers to pick and chose aspects that are most appealing while maintaining a sense of unity. Thus a large segment of the population is moving from physical religion to abstract religion - from a religion about beings, and concrete actions, to a religion about ideas and what thoughts are appropriate. When analyzing this idea, one should really take a book like Atran's, Boyle's or Dennet's and see if the religious critiques about physical counter-intuitiveness apply to the new abstract counter-intuitiveness. My guess is one would be surprised at the parallels.
Critically orthodox
Contrasting Religion and the non-denominational progressive PC movement
This week at school we had a good inservice with one of the leaders of critical thinking in education. While she wasn't overly impressed with the small town charms of a religious community, after the presentation, and an exciting day guiding begginers down high water rivers I started thinking about the similarities and differences between traditional LDS theology and socially progressive guerilla religions . Specifically there was some hypocrisy in how critical thinkers are supposed to remove prejudices as they analyze other points of view from within the context and assumptions in which they are created. (I think the instructor thought since this was a religious town there was no way anyone was ever going to come close to any critical thinking skills - at best techniques would be applied haphazardly in non-significant ways) Obviously removing prejudices is functionally impossible - most are after all implicitly based. However limiting prejudices and minimizing assumptive conclusions certainly isn't impossible. If this is the case, why do few people who are not religious fail to analyze religion with this in mind - ie from a perspective of generous orthodoxy?
I think the main reason is many critically educated people have come to reject religion as a tumor - superficially innocuous, but fundamentally destructive. They see extreme conclusions and assume the system is rationalized for such ends. Because of this, they may also reject anything with a tinge of religion, especially when it is formalized. In effect, religion has, ironically enough, become a cardinal sin. Anything associated with it is heretical, and anything springing from a font of heresy need not be taken on its own ground. Instead the effort to analyze and confront such ideas may be seen as a waste of time. While individual ideas may sometimes be of worth, the extent to which they are corrupted means it is better to toss them out wholesale rather than waste time confronting them with little chance of success. In terms of cultural change, revolution is the solution, not change from within.
However this strikes me as avoiding the whole issue of religion. Certainly it is easier to start with a clean slate and then think critically, but this denies the power of the whole concept. I will admit that most standoffishness in this regard may just be due to the fact the two sides talk past each other, and socratic dialog is limited by perceptions of fundamentalism. In effect, the whole concept of critical thinking fails to engage religion because of the effort required in anything other than academic debates. In day to day situations it seems like traditional tools like sin, heresy, orthodoxy, and social pressure seem to be the most efficient in day to day situations. Of course they are labeled differently today, and due to rapid socially change haven't acquired the connotations and bagger of the former. However PC tools seem the same, although they appear less benign. Perhaps this is due to a polytheistic approach where deities are replaced by ideas.
This week at school we had a good inservice with one of the leaders of critical thinking in education. While she wasn't overly impressed with the small town charms of a religious community, after the presentation, and an exciting day guiding begginers down high water rivers I started thinking about the similarities and differences between traditional LDS theology and socially progressive guerilla religions . Specifically there was some hypocrisy in how critical thinkers are supposed to remove prejudices as they analyze other points of view from within the context and assumptions in which they are created. (I think the instructor thought since this was a religious town there was no way anyone was ever going to come close to any critical thinking skills - at best techniques would be applied haphazardly in non-significant ways) Obviously removing prejudices is functionally impossible - most are after all implicitly based. However limiting prejudices and minimizing assumptive conclusions certainly isn't impossible. If this is the case, why do few people who are not religious fail to analyze religion with this in mind - ie from a perspective of generous orthodoxy?
I think the main reason is many critically educated people have come to reject religion as a tumor - superficially innocuous, but fundamentally destructive. They see extreme conclusions and assume the system is rationalized for such ends. Because of this, they may also reject anything with a tinge of religion, especially when it is formalized. In effect, religion has, ironically enough, become a cardinal sin. Anything associated with it is heretical, and anything springing from a font of heresy need not be taken on its own ground. Instead the effort to analyze and confront such ideas may be seen as a waste of time. While individual ideas may sometimes be of worth, the extent to which they are corrupted means it is better to toss them out wholesale rather than waste time confronting them with little chance of success. In terms of cultural change, revolution is the solution, not change from within.
However this strikes me as avoiding the whole issue of religion. Certainly it is easier to start with a clean slate and then think critically, but this denies the power of the whole concept. I will admit that most standoffishness in this regard may just be due to the fact the two sides talk past each other, and socratic dialog is limited by perceptions of fundamentalism. In effect, the whole concept of critical thinking fails to engage religion because of the effort required in anything other than academic debates. In day to day situations it seems like traditional tools like sin, heresy, orthodoxy, and social pressure seem to be the most efficient in day to day situations. Of course they are labeled differently today, and due to rapid socially change haven't acquired the connotations and bagger of the former. However PC tools seem the same, although they appear less benign. Perhaps this is due to a polytheistic approach where deities are replaced by ideas.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
1421
There have been few posts lately as the rivers come up and waterfalls seek my attention. However, I was given a copy of 1421 about how the Chinese likely mapped most of the world during this exploratory phase. I must say the whole idea has been fascinating on many levels.
One, it is amazing how supposedly concrete ideas can get turned over quite quickly. I think a lot of historians or archeologists are quite conservative in how they are taking these new ideas. Second, it is interesting to see how some of the rather fanciful phrases of explores can actually be taken quite literally. Obviously not everything is literal, but tales of some of the rich cities and such seem more plausible with Chinese colonization in North or South America.
Second, I think people often overlook how prevalent ocean going exploring is. I think the test of the reed boat that sailed from Africa to Brazil? exemplifies this thinking.
Third, I really get a kick how the lay public has brought to light so much information that conservative or reactionary academics are readily out of step with things that seem obvious. Of course academics have a right to be skeptical, after all they are trained not to jump to conclusions. However, the amount of new information that can be gleamed from a few such jumps (Like Menzies did) is pretty remarkable. I don't think scientific plodding would have stumbled upon this for quite some time.
All in all, in certainly puts a new spin in some of the things I will be looking at the next time I go through the book of mormon. Not that I imagine 1421 exploration having a part in the narrative, only that there are lots of possibilities that some may discredit, but may turn out to be quite reasonable later on. It is a fascinating read, especially if you like the idea of unexplored civilizations.
One, it is amazing how supposedly concrete ideas can get turned over quite quickly. I think a lot of historians or archeologists are quite conservative in how they are taking these new ideas. Second, it is interesting to see how some of the rather fanciful phrases of explores can actually be taken quite literally. Obviously not everything is literal, but tales of some of the rich cities and such seem more plausible with Chinese colonization in North or South America.
Second, I think people often overlook how prevalent ocean going exploring is. I think the test of the reed boat that sailed from Africa to Brazil? exemplifies this thinking.
Third, I really get a kick how the lay public has brought to light so much information that conservative or reactionary academics are readily out of step with things that seem obvious. Of course academics have a right to be skeptical, after all they are trained not to jump to conclusions. However, the amount of new information that can be gleamed from a few such jumps (Like Menzies did) is pretty remarkable. I don't think scientific plodding would have stumbled upon this for quite some time.
All in all, in certainly puts a new spin in some of the things I will be looking at the next time I go through the book of mormon. Not that I imagine 1421 exploration having a part in the narrative, only that there are lots of possibilities that some may discredit, but may turn out to be quite reasonable later on. It is a fascinating read, especially if you like the idea of unexplored civilizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)