InG we T - Implicational logic

In Gods We Trust
Ritual 3.0 - Implicational logic

By tuning out the scripted routine and forgetting changing details, participants are able to turn their attention to the "logical" structure and implications of religious doctrine presented in exegesis, argumentation, and sermonizing. As the "inexorable implicational logic" of religious doctrine becomes transparent to participants, the "codification and transmission" of religious belief take on a "high degree of ideological integration, coherence, uniformity, stability" Indeed the systematic, logically integrated character of institutions is an adaptation to conditions of frequent reproduction.

Last year I wrote some posts on TRIBAL RELIGION. One aspect of tribal religions is their lack of universality. Tribal religions are often defined by the inability to fully accommodate outsiders. To have a true sense of their meaning, one has to be born into them. This is the only way to fully understand the hidden meanings that support a unique and basically non transferrable world outlook. Outsiders, like anthropologists, can try to decipher meaning, but hidden memes will always destabilize projections.

Religion it seems, becomes more logical the more one gets in tune with the hidden assumptions behind it. Like Atran mentions in the previous quote, implicational logic become transparent to participants. The reproduction of memes is easy for religion to accommodate. This is because in one sense, the real value of religion doesn't lie in philosophical based doctrines, rather it lies in the ability to give representation to deeply seated memes, heuristics, and even universal assumptions.

In this sense religion mimics deep assumptions about the world. As we look at our own religious views, perhaps we can become too proud of their seemingly logical irrefutability. We assume others just need to see things more from our perspective in order to be convinced. Perhaps we think our perspectives are more useful for others than they may actually be. Perhaps it is too easy to get caught up in the apparent correctness of our view, making a firm foundation of personal experience and validation even more important. If not, we may be wont to follow a path that, as we progress, appears to be more and more correct. As ever the importance of initial direction may only be offset by the importance of humility and a repentant attitude.

InG we T - Big Brother

In Gods We Trust
Commitment 2.6 - Big Brother

According to Jared Diamond, who relates a form of the "religion is oppression" argument: "Bands and tribes already had supernatural beliefs, just as do modern established religions. But the supernatural beliefs of bands and tribes did not serve to justify central authority, justify transfer of wealth, or maintain peace between unrelated individuals". True "religion" arose only when a central authority, or what Diamond calls a "kleptocrat," co-opted preexisting supernatural beliefs to set up a pyramid scam. In this game of social deception wealth flows up the social hierarchy from plebes to patrcians on its way to the gods. Of course, the plebes never see wealth get past the patricians, but they believe it does. The kleptocrat's trick is not entirely a con. He gets people to cooperate with one another under the belief that Bid Brother is always lurking about in search of defectors. The plebes hope to emulate Big Brother by spying on an policing one another, which helps maintain personal security through public order. It also gives people a motive to sacrifice themselves for nonkin

In large societies stability depends on the strength of the central authority. Whether this authority is fascist or democratic doesn't change the requirement that diversity must be balanced by organization. The more diverse a population, the more unifying elements are needed. It seems as if there are several current attempts to supply things around which our increasingly diverse population can unify.

Human rights and social progressiveness seems to be one tenet that seemed to gain notoriety in the 90's. The growth of feminist movements, queer studies, and various other minority voice issues seem to have an underlying theme that the embrace of diversity can function as a social glue. Not being a sociologist I will refrain from citing self referential studies, and merely conclude that, in practice, an embrace of diversity seems to often be a one sided affair that seems to self justify exceptions. Thus it rarely has the enforceable tendencies that would allow it to survive as a tenable rallying point.

Natural religion seems quite capable of providing a rallying point for civilization. According to Atran so far, it seems like an abstractly created Big Brother is a fairly universal human tendency. For it to function as a unifying force, however, one would assume there has to be some continuity in the social norms (memes) that it enforces. This explains why many people are concerned about the unraveling of social values that is occurring today. Despite what may be broadcase, individual points themselves may not have much intrinsic value. However, the diverging paradigms that are manifest and created as a result of these challenges may undermine our sense of internal policing. If we truly believe that the other side is out to lunch, unable to act rationally (from our frame of reference), and likely to push their agenda over our own values, there is little chance that their naturally evolved Big Brother will police them in a way that is mutually favorable.

Religion seems to overcome this by the display of commitment. Throughout this 5th chapter Atran points out that natural religions require commitment displays that are hard to fake. These displays must be costly, enforceable, somewhat prescribed, and hence limiting, and easily interpreted. This tendency to allow others to judge commitment, makes fooling the system more difficult. In this sense then, the creation of organized religion follows from the facilitation of such acts. Chances are you wouldn't put someone who skipped out every other Sunday as a teacher in charge of a whole ward. Neither would you trust a patriarch who never seemed to think about the scriptures or the gospel.

Perhaps some of this is what we feel is missing in politics. We expect historic displays of commitment, but, due to our diversity, must reject the narrow mindedness that such seems to entail. Being committed to generalities never seems to inspire much trust, though it certainly is superficially successful in our PR world.

A final quote from the summary of chapter 5:

All religions require their members to sacrifice immediate self-interest is displays of moral commitment to a particular way of community life whose rightness and truth is God give. For these displays to work their magic, however, they must be convincing. In the statistical long run, and on the average, displays of commitment are convincing only if people are sincerely committed to live up to their promises no matter the cost. To be convincing, then, displays of commitment must be uncontrollable and unreasonable enough to be hard to fake. They must be emotionally expressed and passionately held.

InG we T - quasi-propositional beleifs

In Gods We Trust
Commitment 2.5 - Quasi-propostional beliefs

From page 113

Religious doctrines, rites, and liturgies are only diversely connected sets of examples that serve as public entry points into the vast network of mostly unarticulated commonsense beliefs that nearly all human beings share or have ready inferential access to. In fact, the so-called norms and values of religious traditions are not rules, principles, axioms, or injunctions with fixed factual or propositional content. They are public representations of quasi-propositional beliefs. Quasi-propostitional beliefs may have the superficial subject-predicate structure of ordinary logical or factual propositions, but they can never have any fixed meaning because they are counterintuitive. Their cognitive role is to mobilize a more or less fluid and open-textured network of ordinary commonsense beliefs in order to build logically and factually impossible worlds that are readily conceivable, memorable, and transmissible.

One of the complaints against Mormonism is the ever shifting theology and doctrine. Religious attackers get frustrated as they assume religion should be creedal based and definite. Our open theology can be very frustrating because there seems to be such a church emphasis on religious conservatism and orthopraxy. In essence, they are attacking our beliefs as too quasi-propositional, just as Attran attacks religion in general. Personally I think many of these attacks come because people fail to account for vagueness and propositional uncertainty. Outside of faith in Christ, repentance and baptism, theologically, Mormons are pretty open about the uncertainty, or more accurately the lack of importance of much else. Sure conservatives may not come across this way, but chances are if the prophet told them things had changed, they would be quite accommodating. (look at polygamy WofW, black & priesthood, etc). In this sense, the fluidity LDS have with theology may partially arise from the lack of fixed meaning towards other's revelations.

As I mentioned over at ISSUES IN MORMON DOCTRINE, I think revelatory experiences can never be communally applicable. For them to have any weight, they must be experienced first hand. The fluid nature of quasi-propositionals ensures that we must always search for meaning that is ever changing. From Attran's point this makes religion a costly wast of resources. From a Mormon perspective it forces one to seek grounding spiritual experiences. In this light, scriptures are less about certainty of meaning than they are keys for enabling equivalent personal experiences.

The problem arises with the apparent ease we have in creating, and building upon counterfactuals. We tend to take these relatively rare personal experiences and feel free to apply them where we will. We seem to have a tendency to turn them into fantasy, or at least use them to justify other pleasing fantastical assumptions.. Perhaps it is just me, but I think we may abuse the reality of these experiences if we use them as an excuse not to deal with reality. There should be no caveat assumptions that things will work out when Satan is bound. There should be no assumptions that communal issue problems will be worked out once society is purified. It seems to me that the reality of the gospel indicates that there are workable solutions available. It is the working through these solutions that creates the fantasy that we may envision. Dreams are ethereal until somebody puts them down on paper and gets busy making them.

religious counter-intuitions...draw attention to those aspects of the world that people wish were otherwise. Such counter-intuitions evoke other, logically and factually impossible worlds that are nonetheless readily conceivable because they leave intact most of the everyday world - minus a few worrisome facts and inferences.

InG we T - the fallacy of convergence

In Gods We Trust
Commitment 2.4 - The fallacy of convergence

More often, religious prescriptions and commandments do not constitute social norms in the sense of shared rules or injunctions that determine behaviour. Instead, they stipulate only a bare, skeletal frame for collectively channeling thought and action....Their expression perfomatively signals and establish a cognitive and emotional commitment to seek convergence but doesn't specify what people should converge to. Supernatural agents are guarantors and placeholders for appropriate actions in future circumstances. The truth about them is accepted on faith and communicated through ritual display, not discovered or described as a set of factual or logical propositions.

It is interesting that Atran considers religious propensity an enabler for a convergence. I assume he believes this to be an artifact associated with abstract thinking skills. I would tend to assume the same. Whether or not there is something around which to converge is the crux of the religious argument.

If religion is entirely an unintended consequence associated with abstract, then humans should not be able to use it as a tool for group convergence. The ever mutating forms of religions and their associated conflicts seem to bear this out. However one could equally say that the growth and relative stability of world religions are a counter point. Indeed the apocalyptic nature of some of the New Testament seems to prophesy convergence (although one could certainly see it as convergence by eliminating everyone who doesn't agree). While this question certainly seems non falsifiable for either side, a few points could be significant.

This first is the mutation of religion. If there are mutations in religion, then there is most likely nothing substantial around which to converge. Thus God remains a fantastical supernatural being who is an invented artifact of our abstract thought. The founding intent of catholicism seemed to be an encouragement and facilitation of convergence. LDS views on the apostasy would say for religion to be convergent, there must be communication between god and man, which was not present until the restoration. All religions seem to excuse convergence by blaming individual weakness. As Atran points out, this will always prevent scientific accountability. However, I wonder if part of the fallacy of convergence is the belief that large scale convergence is necessary.

The LDS notion of multiple kingdoms, and MY TAKE ON IT (creating heaving) seems to make it possible to believe that small scale convergence may be all that religion needs. People go as far with it as they want. Everyone gets off at a different point. (link on mormon terrestial is Protestant heave) It seems that the only type of convergence the gospel suggests is that everyone will confess that Jesus is the Christ. Even that may not happen for quite some time in the hereafter.

InG we T - Societal Morals

In Gods We Trust
Commitments 2.3 - Societal Morals

From page 112

Simple consent between individuals seldom, if ever, successfully sustains cooperation among large numbers of people over long periods of time. Displays of commitment to supernatural agents signal sincere willingness to cooperate with the community of believers. Supernatural agents thus also function as moral Big Brothers who keep constant vigil to dissuade would-be cheaters and free riders. To ensure moral authority survives without the need for brute force and the constant threat of rebellion, all concerned - whether master or slave - must truly believe that the gods are always watching even when no other person could possible be looking. Once these sacred relations become a society's moral constitution, as in our "One Nation Under God," they cannot be undone without risking collapse of the public order that secures personal welfare. This is one way that the conceptual ridge of our evolutionary landscape connects with the ridge of social interaction.

According to this chapter, supernatural entities function as big brothers because of our awareness and sensitivities concerning false belief. Abstract thinking gives us the ability to assign intention to seemingly non-random events. Thus supernatural beings arise as plausible explanations for some of the doors abstract thinking opens. Our heuristics for false belief detection, make us conscious about our actions, or at least the way they may be perceived. This combination explains why we believe God is always watching. It also explains why people may be so concerned about the consequences of eliminating the unifying effect of religion in our society.

We can only operate in large groups if we believe other people are generally acting on a set of accepting laws and behaviours. While exceptions will always occur, society is glued together because it is accepted that these individuals will be punished, eliminating the benefits that one could get as a rogue. Once people stop playing by these rules, society can't help but collapse. The evolutionary cognitive arms race has selected for people who have no trust with strangers who may not play by accepted rules.

Can an open society ever create a strong enough sense of nationalism or strong enough cannon of accepted social guidelines to replace an evolutionary programmed Big Brother?




Comments.

I think this ties into my thoughts on the religion like tendencies of progressive left wing humanism. Removing the acceptance of the universality of religion means some other universal set of rules must take its place, well as long as society is not to break down in chaos. I think the emphasis on human rights indicates that some believe there is a large enough core base of universally accepted moral values to enable us to get rid of those that may be tied into superstitious beliefs.

InG we T - finishing up

Since most comments on the book were covered some time ago, I stopped posting my responses. Having not posted anything for quite some time though, I though perhaps I might as well throw my responses online. They are still rough, and I haven't bothered cross linking things like I normally would, however since I doubt I will get around to correcting that, I am posting them nonetheless.

Stages

I have really appreciated all the work John Dehlin has put into his podcasts. Specifically episodes on masonry, David O. Mckay and mormon assimilation have stood out. While it is certainly been a while since I have posted anything, after listening to the stages of faith casts, I thought I might try and pry myself away from renovations to post a few thoughts.

The first time I was presented with Piagetian stages in 2nd year University. The concept seemed to gel. I certainly think the idea of schemas is quite useful. However I have never really appreciated many other hierarchal "stage" concepts. Partly it's because of how easily value judgments seep in. More significantly though, rarity is often unnecessarily associated with progress or perhaps more accurately usefulness. Liberalism offers an easy venue to justify superiority. Happily the sincere stories of the podcast certainly avoided these issues even if the whole concept of stages nonetheless encourages it.

While I certainly think Fowler's stages presuppose levels of merit, that point certainly seems debatable. To me, what is interesting in how unstable the equilibrium point is between relatively blind belief and functional disavowal of supernatural influence. As John mentioned if one moves out a believing paradigm one usually ends up an the realm of atheism or abstract new age supernaturalism. But why is this so?

Certainly some concepts in mormon religion can be hard for some to reconcile. From some perspectives, dissonance requires continual shifts in paradigms that can be taken as proof of religion's futility. Alternatively one can say that lack of stable, paradigms encourages a spirit of repentance and humility; or even that an acceptance of dissonance requires an extreme form of liberalism similar to Fowler's 5th level. While I certainly won't deny any of these possibilities, like assumptions of progressional merit in stage theories, they seem to reach beyond the mark.

Psychological approaches to the supernatural certainly allow one to think of religion as just an effective vehicle in the accomplishment of rather practical goals. If we take the logic in Abraham at face value, God, being the smartest of all of us will just use the most effective tool he can to accomplish what he wants. But why then are rather obvious solutions to the problem of belief left undone?

For a while I have been positing that time constraints involved with a hands off God can answer many questions, well at least for me. Alternatively one could also suppose that there is just a very high cost associated with maintaining traits that can only develop at certain unstable equilibria. But then doesn't this imply that Fowler's higher stages are what should be sought?

Not necessarily. Fowler's higher stages seem to be equilibrium points as comfortable as any previously mentioned. The pain in achieving them may give a sense of accommodated tension, but it is also missing the unnerving quest for answers that unstable equilibria provide. Unfortunately the purpose of this instability is exactly mirrored by the effect one would expect when trying to explain irrational beliefs in a supernatural religion. The latter conveys a sense of depth by providing a circular feedback loop with ever changing parameters. The former assumes that traits associated with unending reformulations are divine.