Thanks for the well thought-out post. I dig Paul Kurtz ,and as I posted before, his books helped me sort out my perspective options when I changed my view on what the epistemological implications of transcendent experiences. I'm glad you got my point about communication. I can't imagine anyone relating to the term as applied to themselves. I can apply it to stuff I used to believe quite comfortably. But I don't think you can get around the pejorative implications. It connotes false belief anyway we slice it.
Anyway you got my point. We all have our own goals here. I don't assume I know what yours are. But I do enjoy the material you are presenting. I also dig that here I get versions of beliefs that I do not necessarily share, but which remind me that thoughtful people are putting their world view together with different tools, and it stretches me to hear it. So do we know each other from the old days? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Curtis, > I agree with the general point that using words in discussions with > others that have a perjorative connonation -- to them -- is not > usually helpful to the tone and fruitfulness of the discussion. Often > this occurs when there is not a common understanding of meaning. > Reading your recent posts /cites from Kurtz helped me sharpen up my > definition of "magical thinking" -- as I hope, perhaps naievly (that > they read it), it has for others > > And I don't think the term is necessarily pejoritive when understood. > Some ascribe to its merits and value, others do not. Its becomes a > simple statement of fact about someones mode of inquiry for one who has > "an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question, > ... the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause, > there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. ... These two factors > in conjunction allow for the development of ad hoc explanations, often > relying upon an assumption that correlation demonstrates causation. > ... This magical thinking is certainly irrational, in that it > deliberately bases conclusions upon a clear lack of demonstrable > evidence and without regard for logical coherence or consistency. ... > but why are people tempted to accept these stories? The explanation is > twofold - first our innate creativity, and second our penchant for > seeking patterns. Together, they can lead people to false beliefs. " > (Kurtz) > > There are those on this list that openly proclaim, or demonstrate a > strong belief in via, their writings that: > > 1) correlation demonstrates causation > > 2) in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an > unknown and un-natural cause > > 3) personal experience is the highest knowledge and should be left > pure, unexamined and undiluted with issues such as multiple possible > interpretations of personal experience, scientific testing of relvant > paramters associated with the experience, examination of potential > perceptual and cognitive biases in recalling, describing the > experience, logical inconsistencies in experiential attributes, > actions, etc. > > 4) being immersed in biased cognition and logical traps are useful in > discerning what is Real and what is Unreal -- and an aid to Being Here > Now. > > 5) Paradox is in everything, thus logical consistency in any realm is > impossible > > 6) stangers' inner states and motives can be clearly discerned from > some select sample of their writing, > > 7) Scripture is literally true, regardless of logic, scientific > evidence, and alternative views of interpretation (e.g., allegorical > vs literal) > > 8) etc. > > All of these are characteristics of "magical thinking" and magical > belief systems, IMO. > > Perhaps, if some object to the name "magical thinking", we can call it > Type A thinking. And rational, logical, conistent, fact-based, > causal, bias-minimized inquiry, thinking, belief systems and findings > -- in domains where they are applicable -- as Type B thinking. But > regardless of names, people tend to cluser around these two poles -- > with some variations of course. > > > I made the point earlier that cognitve biases and logical fallacies > are a cornorstone of magical thinking, or as I have termed it, Type A > thinking. This idea needs more development, but seems resonate with > John Schumaker, as quoted by Kurtz, " Humans tend to corrupt their > visions of reality, in order to survive in a world that they cannot > fully comprehend." That is Type A's may be quite happy with cognitve > biases and logical fallacies if it is more soothing and comfortable > than facing What IS, Now. > > > Kurtz goes on, "It is only in recent human history that the species > has gradually been able to overcome mythological explanations. > Philosophy and metaphysics emerged, attempting to account for the > world of change and flux in terms of rational explanations; modern > science succeeded where pure speculation failed, by using powerful > cognitive methods of experimental verification and mathematical > inference. What had been shrouded in mystery was now explicable in > terms of natural causes. Diseases did not have Satanic origins, but > natural explanations and cures. The weather could be interpreted, not > as a product of divine wrath or favor, but in meteorological terms. > Nature could be accounted for by locating the natural causes of > phenomena. Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by the > regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science abandons > occult for material causes. " > > All of these schrouds could be viewed broadly as cognitve biases and > errors. And they have been dismantled in part by strong logical and > reasoning. > > Kurtz adds, "Thus there has been a continuous retreat of magical > thinking under the onslaught of cognitive inquiry. The same methods of > inquiry used so successfully in the natural sciences, were extended to > biology and the social sciences. Science thus continues to make > progress by using rigorous methods of naturalistic inquiry." > > And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences" -- the > realms of personal experience, where among other things, logic, the > rooting out of interpretative and cognitive errors and biases, can > lead to a much truer interpretation of subjective experience. > > Kurtz touches on this, "It there still remained a residue of > unanswered questions, and it is here in the swamp of the unknowable > that the transcendental temptation festers. This beguiling temptation > reaches beyond the natural world by sheer force of habit and passion, > and it resists all efforts to contain it. Rather than suspend > judgments about those questions for which there is no evidence either > way, it leaps in to fill the void and comfort the aching soul. It is > the most frequent salve used to calm existential fear and trembling. > Why is this so? Because I think that the temptation has its roots in a > tendency, and this in a disposition. In other words, there is most > likely within the human species a genetic component, which is stronger > than temptation and weaker than instinct. The hypothesis that I wish > to offer is that the belief in the efficacy of prayer and the > submission to divine power persists because it has had some survival > value in the infancy of the race; powerful psycho-socio-biological > factors are thus at work, predisposing humans to submit to the temptation. > > The cognitive explanation for its persistence is that there is > cognitive dissonance or misinformation that is the root cause for the > fixation on the transcendental and that this can be overcome by > rational inquiry. Socrates thought that faith persisted only because > of ignorance, and that knowledge would disabuse us of religious myths. > This surely continues to play a powerful role in regard to the content > of our beliefs. Yet I submit that there is another factor present, > which explains the persistence of religiosity, and this is an > evolutionary explanation; that is, belief in the transcendental had > adaptive value, and those tribes or clans which believed in unseen > myths and forces to whom they propitiated by ritual and prayer had a > tendency to survive and to pass on this genetic predisposition to > their offspring. Thus religiosity is a "heritable" factor within the > naked human ape. " > > > While Type A thinking may have genetic survival roots -- at some point > it will have outgrown its usefulness. I suggest we are past that > point. Type A thinking is the realm and domain of the True Believer. > Type B thinking is the realm and domain of the former True Believer -- > one who has some out of the shrouds of dogma into a world of free > inquiry, rationality, logic, use of scientificfindings in building > belief systems, etc. More broadly, these aretermed conversion and > deconversion processes. > > Kurtz recounts that, "Bruce Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer, in an > important study, [10] have attempted to outline the processes of > conversion and deconversion in students that they studied in > universities in Canada. Edward Babinsky [11] has published > autobiographical accounts of why people abandoned their religiosity. > We need to study the processes of deconversion for possible genetic > explanations: Why do people who were religiously indoctrinated reject > their beliefs, how rapidly did they do so, and for what reasons or > causes? Conversely, what processes are involved in moving from a state > of unbelief to religious conviction? No doubt there are many causal > factors at work; we need to sort them out. Hunsberger and Altemeyer > have suggested in their study of students that the process of > deconversion was predominantly a slow, cognitive process; and that of > conversion a rather rapid emotional transformation." > > Lots of opportunities and frontiers to develop a clean, Type B > subjective science(inner experience), which clarifies perception and > interpretation of experience, weeds out cognitive errors and > biases,applies logic where applicable, and is beyond myth, > supernatural explanations, mystical foundations, indoctrination, > fuzzy-loose meanderings and Type A thinking. > > Kurtz adds (to end of post), "A number of important sociological > studies also need to be undertaken. We need to examine the > socio-cultural contexts in which religious ideas appear and disappear. > We have an excellent data pool today in Russia and Eastern Europe > where atheism was the official doctrine of the state. Here enormous > efforts were expended for 50 to 75 years to pursue political policies > of indoctrination and propaganda, designed to discourage religious > belief and encourage atheism. We may ask, What has happened in these > countries since the collapse of communism? Is the past > political-social influence of atheism enduring, leaving a permanent > residue, or is it dissipating? > > "Similarly, many Western European countries have seen a rather rapid > decline in traditional religion in the post-World War II period, > especially under the influence of liberalism and humanism. For > example, in the Netherlands before the war approximately half of the > population identified with Roman Catholicism and half with > Protestantism, with a small percentage of Jews and other minorities. > This has changed since World War II where there is now a higher > percentage of humanists than either Protestants or Catholics. Similar > processes have been observed in Norway, England, France, and > elsewhere. Why has this happened? Are the polls reliable?" > > Curiously, only six to eight percent of the American population may be > classified as unbelievers. [12] Can we give an account of why this is > so and why American society seems to be anomalous, at least in > comparison with Western Europe? Interestingly, some 60 percent of > American scientists, according to a recent poll, are classified as > unbelievers; and 93 percent of so-called élite scientists. Why does > this happen? Are there cognitive factors primarily at work? Or are > disbelievers anomalouslacking the genetic disposition. Or, on the > contrary, do they represent an advanced form of the evolution of the > species? [13] > > A key factor in the growth of religion or atheism undoubtedly is a > function of the socio-cultural influences that prevail. Historically, > the orthodox religions have sought to punish heresy or blasphemy as > high crimes. Infidels have often been excommunicated or burned at the > stake. It is only in recent times that democratic societies have > recognized, let alone permitted or encouraged religious dissenters to > flourish. [14] One might ask, If the condition of tolerance, indeed > encouragement, were to prevail, to what extent would religious beliefs > wane or be altered? How can this be developed? What are the > environmental conditions by which atheism can be induced? What kind of > educational curricula would most likely stimulate unbelief? > > A key issue that can be raised concerns the difference between the > content of the core beliefs and practices of a religion and the > function of the beliefs and practices. The content may change over > time, and there may be an erosion of traditional beliefs and their > modification due to cognitive criticisms; but alternative > creed-practices may emerge, satisfying similar > psycho-biological-sociological needs and functions. In this regard, I > reiterate, we are not dealing with the kind of religion that persists > or the status of its truth claimswhich may be irrelevant for many > believersbut with the power of religious symbols and institutions to > provide structure and order, and to give purpose in an otherwise > meaningless and perhaps terrifying universe. > > If science confirms the hypothesis that there are deep > socio-biological forces responsible, at least in part, for religiosity > in the species, then we need to ask, What can we do about it, if > anything? Cognitivists will say that we still should constantly strive > to engage in criticism of outrageous doctrines. At the very least this > will help to restrain and temper religious fanaticism, protect the > rights of unbelievers, and perhaps develop an ethic of tolerance. If > religiosity will most likely be with us in one form or another in the > foreseeable future, can we develop secular and naturalistic > substitutes or moral equivalents for the passionate longing for > meaning? Can we serve up sufficient balm to soothe existential > weltschmerz? Can we develop new symbols to inspire meaning and hope? > Can we engender the courage to be and to become? In other words, can > naturalistic humanism offer a message as potent as theistic mythology? > These are the kinds of questions which, hopefully, the science of > religion will help us to solve. But they are predicated on our > understanding how and why people believe or disbelieve in a religion." > > > http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:KYij76M6zW0J:www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/kurtz.html+kurtz+magical+thinking&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Thanks, I have enjoyed many of your posts. > > > > The term "magical thinking" seems to be a moving target for me in > > relationship with communicating with others. I know where I draw this > > line, but I think everyone has there own line to draw here. It seems > > more useful as a concept of self discovery, but in the context of > > communicating with people with different beliefs it seems harsh. This > > is coming from a guy who has used this term often and freely in the > > past! I don't think it works as well in a group like this where > > people are thoughtfully choosing this line for themselves. What do > > you think? > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
