ŷ������

I'd like to think that there are alternative ways of coming to new understandings about things through collective inquiry. Not to discount the experiences of mystics who have heard the voice of God in the wilderness, or people of creative genius who arrive at some hypothesis through a process of studying the great minds of history (also a form of collaboration, except the dead great mind can't respond) and applying their own individual interpretations. Our society likes to focus on individual experience, and when we do have collective experiences they tend to be of the type that causes us to abandon our reason (mob mentality, groupthink, cult followers). I would like to think that there are good alternative ways (in addition to the scientific method) for people to put their minds together to arrive at new understandings about reality.

Theresa wrote: "whenever there is a discussion of religious experiences, and people are sharing those experiences, they often seem to be merely preaching to each other without really getting through. "

True. I see that in myself as well. This is not limited to religion, however. The lack of genuine communication and understanding is pervasive in many areas of personal, social and political life.

Theresa wrote: "when we do have collective experiences they tend to be of the type that causes us to abandon our reason"

I don't think collective experience tend to be irrational. For example, science is a collective and collaborative experience. A large scientific project often involves people from many disciplines, institutions and nations. People come together as a group, reason and discuss with one another and come to a consensus on the interpretation of data.

A group consists of individuals, and is no more rational or irrational in nature than its individual members. I think "mob mentality" is nothing but the irrationality of individuals magnified by the synergy of a group.

Sometimes when people are in the grip of a movement - religious or otherwise - they abandon their own sense of individuality and may not even trust their own eyes if everyone around them is admiring the emperors new clothes.

I do understand that scientific projects are approached using reason, discussion, scientific methods of observation etc, but does anyone ever get converted to a new religion or world view with this method? The experience of enlightenment is, on the one hand, more emotional, private, and individual (an apparition in a dream or alone in the desert) or one is swept up in the wave of emotions in a crowd of believers. I was hoping that there was a middle way, and wondered if the methods of Plato and Socretes might be that way of engaging, enlightening, people to religious experience - if only their way could be used in a group of equals searching for answers (rather than the leading questions that Socretes put to his students).

Another good book that touches on the subject of human nature in crowds Crowds and Power by Elias Canetti. It has been a few years since I've read it but I think he would say that mob mentality was a phenomenon that is more than the irrationality of individuals magnified.

Everyman wrote @147: "You seem to be suggesting that there can be a "Key to all Religions" if only someone had the wisdom to write it. ."

Well, Casaubon's project seems a noble undertaking, but I fear only a modern Saint Thomas would have a chance of success.

As for myself, I'm rather interested in (just a few, not a system) things common to both religion and non-religious irrationality. In what unites us.

Nemo wrote: "Theresa wrote: "putting our minds together but how to avoid "groupthink"?

What's the difference between the two?."

The difference is when you discuss issues with Theresa but neither one of you succumbs to the other's views simply because of group pressure, not on the merits of the issue.

Minds together is a majority of our members voting for a book because they think it will be a great choice. Groupthink is a majority of our members voting for a book because it got the first two votes and everybody else just felt the need to get in line even if they wouldn't, after thinking about it independently, have chosen that book.

Theresa wrote: "I do understand that scientific projects are approached using reason, discussion, scientific methods of observation etc, but does anyone ever get converted to a new religion or world view with this method?."

Well, discoveries in quantum physics has changed our understanding of reality - space, time and matter, and the apparent design in the universe and of life forms has caused some atheists (e.g. ) to change their minds.

I agree with you that an individual must make his/her own choice and judgment, but I don't think a group necessarily impacts the individual in a negative way. The effect can often be very beneficial.

You quoted, "A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making."

I think the same is true of the individual, and perhaps to a greater extent. An individual insulated from outside opinions tend to dehumanize other individuals, in some cases, even deny their existence.

P.S. I wrote a blogpost on if you're interested in pursuing that line of inquiry further.

I like the "shared pool" model of discussion:

People who are skilled at dialogue do their best to make it safe for everyone to add their meaning to the shared pool�� even ideas that at first glance appear controversial, wrong, or at odds with their own beliefs. Now, obviously, they don’t agree with every idea; they simply do their best to ensure that all ideas find their way into the open. As the Pool of Shared Meaning grows, it helps people in two ways. First, as individuals are exposed to more accurate and relevant information, they make better choices. In a very real sense, the Pool of Shared Meaning is a measure of a group’s IQ. The larger the shared pool, the smarter the decisions. And even though many people may be involved in a choice, when people openly and freely share ideas, the increased time investment is more than offset by the quality of the decision.

Patterson, Kerry; Grenny, Joseph; McMillan, Ron; Switzler, Al. Crucial Conversations Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High, Second Edition (p. 24). McGraw-Hill Education. Kindle Edition.

Nemo wrote: "Theresa wrote: "I do understand that scientific projects are approached using reason, discussion, scientific methods of observation etc, but does anyone ever get converted to a new religion or worl..." I like that!

David wrote: "I like the "shared pool" model of discussion:People who are skilled at dialogue do their best to make it safe for everyone to add their meaning to the shared pool�� even ideas that at first glance a..."

This is great, in fact this sounds like the ideal conversation. I am always frustrated by conversation that seems to be waylaid by arguments which would negate the premise -- no matter how mundane or how fanciful -- and therefore basically stymie conversation on the topic altogether. Ideal conversation, to me, would be the mutual acceptance of the premise of the concept with the agreement to build upon that with whatever information, observation, or experience would lend to it, until it becomes a group creative effort of discovery or invention.

oops my reply was supposed to be to David's comment about the "shared pool" (not that I don't "like" Nemo's I just intended to respond to the Shared Pool idea)

David wrote: "I like the "shared pool" model of discussion:People who are skilled at dialogue do their best to make it safe for everyone to add their meaning to the shared pool�� even ideas that at first glance a..."

I really like that.

In fact, if I ever write a FAQ for this group, I'll probably steal it!

The "shared pool" sounds like a supermarket. It make sure that all products are made available to the customers, regardless of their quality or value, and the customers are free to choose for themselves. The more products there are, the more choices the customers have. However, unless they know the quality of each product, their choices are not necessarily smarter.

It is also like brainstorming: new insights arise in participants' minds when bits of information and ideas are added to the pool by others that some would not have thought of adding. When a few people notice the novelty of the addition, and they, as a group, make new connections, I think these new connections could qualify as a discovery arrived at through collaboration.

Of course throwing out wild, half baked ideas, can result in a time consuming number of digressions, and sometimes a sense of being overwhelmed, yet there are ways of still keeping the conversation under control. In this group for example, a general thread like this is one way of adding to the pool while minimizing the side topics that arise under the weekly threads.

Nemo wrote: "...However, unless they know the quality of each product, their choices are not necessarily smarter. ..."

Is that the key criterion? (Perhaps some objective...which may be group, may be individual? From my cynical side, if I am baking a cake with butter, I don't care how good the olive oil is. But if the group wants a Tuscan meal....)

Nemo wrote: "The "shared pool" sounds like a supermarket. It make sure that all products are made available to the customers, regardless of their quality or value, and the customers are free to choose for thems..."

Are you saying that the modern capitalist shopping experience makes a mockery of liberty?? I totally agree!! (tongue in cheek)

If liberty is about having choices (and I think it is) and you don't really have any opportunity to make serious choices in life (except maybe on election days) then the experience of shopping makes you feel like you are in control of your destiny. Should I buy this brand of shampoo or that one? Really, they are all the same but once you have arrived at a brand loyalty you feel like you have exercised something that feels like free choice. I discovered this once when I went to a shopping mall looking for a dress of a certain type - not too out of style but not current either - I went from boutique to boutique only to discover they all had the same things (the shops may even have all been owned by the same head office but with different names). It was kind of disappointing, I think I liked the illusion of choice and plenty of it.

One reason it is fun to browse through charity shops and garage sales - more real variety.

Theresa wrote: "One reason it is fun to browse through charity shops and garage sales - more real variety...."

And other people's minds....

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "...However, unless they know the quality of each product, their choices are not necessarily smarter. ..."

Is that the key criterion? (Perhaps some objective...which may be group, may ..."

The situation that I envisioned here is similar to what Socrates warns against in Protagoras:

We must take care, my good friend, that the sophist [merchant of ideas], in commending his wares, does not deceive us, as both merchant and dealer do in the case of our bodily food. ..., hawking them about to any odd purchaser who desires them, commend everything that they sell, and are ignorant which of their wares is good or bad for the soul; ... For I tell you there is far more serious risk in the purchase of doctrines than in that of eatables. When you buy victuals and liquors you can carry them off from the dealer or merchant in separate vessels,.. But you cannot carry away doctrines in a separate vessel: you are compelled to take the doctrine in your very soul by learning it, and so to depart either an injured or a benefited man.

Nemo wrote: "....and so to depart either an injured or a benefited man...."

LOL! I see now your clever, learned analogy. Thx!

Mind poisoning versus food poisoning, or, less severely, indigestion?

But I think I'll take William James's wares in preference to those of Sam Harris, whom I find tantalizing but too oft careless of what he speaks. James may be wrong, but he seems careful within the scope of the age in which he spoke.

I didn't know where to post this but there's a book by Charles Taylor called 'Varieties of Religion Today: Williams James Revisited'. Note that the title says 'Religion' not 'Religious Experience'. I haven't read the book yet, but I think it might be a good book to read along with James' book.

I also reread the Story of Pi (still haven't watched the movie though). I first read this book when I was an atheist. Now, after becoming a Christian after a traumatic experience (although not as dramatic or life-altering as in the novel), I'm rereading the novel through new eyes and James' lectures are giving me new food for thought.

Borum wrote: "I didn't know where to post this but there's a book by Charles Taylor called 'Varieties of Religion Today: William James Revisited'. Note that the title says 'Religion' not 'Religious Experience'. I haven't read the book yet, but I think it might be a good book to read along with James' book....."

I think you are right. I have encountered Charles Taylor as a respected writer before, although I don't recall tonight quite where. The reader reviews of this book on Amazon may be of interest to others. Thank you, Borum, for bringing it to our attention. I'm going to obtain a copy.

I've read one of Charles Taylor's major works (Sources of the Self), and he's definitely an important philosopher of religion and modernity, not to mention (relative to his field) a highly intelligible writer. Thank you for bringing this work to my attention. It's only 116 pages, so I'll add it to my to-read list and let you know what I think whenever I get to it.

I've only finished the first two lectures and the postscript, but I have to say I like James' personal and common sense approach to religion. It works particularly well with the pluralistic and consumer culture we're in now.

If I follow James' thought process correctly, this is why and how one ought to take religion seriously:

First, every human being must face the reality of life, death, suffering, and something beyond ourselves. How do we respond to this reality? James surveys responses from atheists (Voltaire), transcendentalists (Emerson), Stoics and Christians. The atheists' attitude is the least appealing to his moral and aesthetic sense, and therefore atheism is not an option.

Second, there are many religions in the world, with practitioners earnestly promoting their wares in the Vanity Fair. How do we choose? James didn't study theology in depth and probably didn't care to, his pragmatism led him to ask the question: Which religion provides the most benefits with the least risks?

Third, to gauge the benefits and risks associated with each religion, he studies the lives of individuals who exemplify the best and the worst in each, the most famous and infamous. It is the highest and lowest potentials that set things apart one from another, not the qualities that all have in common. The question we need to ask: What is truly special about each religion?

Finally, once we identify the characteristics of religion that are most desirable and beneficial, the question becomes: How do we attain it? (I suspect James doesn't have a answer for that, but we'll see...)

While away from home a few days this week, we saw the movie "The Man Who Knew Infinity."



In the context of our book here, these were among the items I noted:

As what a reincarnation of "dead white men" that collegiality of Cambridge dons appeared in the film, set in the period leading up to and including the start of WWI, a conflict that was to begin the unraveling of the viability of war for the preservation and continuity of civilization (a process still underway)

That the disciplines exemplified by renaissance and enlightenment needs must be imposed on thought.

That men who devised systems of government and control capable of ruling the world (e.g., India, gem of Queen Victoria's crown) carried within themselves deep veins of prejudice and judgment that they were willing to use their intellect and their power to enforce, rather than to question.

That humans of genius, like Ramanujan, may draw on sources that seem outside themselves and their own physical biochemistry.

That, at least in the evidences cited by those like Larry Summers, male humans may include a higher likelihood of providing those capable of probing the boundaries of mathematics, the language of the universe, if not of the gods.

In a bit of background work for the note preceding, I came across this book authored by Larry Summer's wife, Elisa New:
New England Beyond Criticism: In Defense of Americas First Literature

One or two of you might enjoy browsing the available parts of the section on "Variety as Religious Experience, Four Case Studies, ..."

James' treatment of evil left me wanting a little more. Can anyone recommend: Why Evil Exists by Professor Charles Mathewes from The Great Courses?

Audible is having a 2 for 1 credit sale on the Great Courses until June 23 and the temptation is positively evil.

David wrote: "James' treatment of evil left me wanting a little more. Can anyone recommend: Why Evil Exists by Professor Charles Mathewes from The Great Courses?

Audible is having a 2 for 1 cred..."

What I have listened to it I have found very, very good. Unfortunately, I have either buried the series among my things or loaned it to someone who has forgotten he has it. My folly is that my gut says the latter is what has happened??? For now, I shall borrow a library copy and/or find out if my status with TGC allows me to stream it as well.

Lily wrote: "David wrote: "James' treatment of evil left me wanting a little more. Can anyone recommend: Why Evil Exists by Professor Charles Mathewes from The Great Courses?

Audible is having ..."

I did watch it last year, and I'd watch it again (I got it from the college library, you can usually purchase patron borrowing cards from college and university libraries if your public library doesn't have what you want).
Despite that, I can't remember much of it, I probably watched too many lectures together, resulting in a slightly blurred memory. When it comes to The Great Courses, I don't mind borrowing (they are expensive to buy) but the one thing I would like to be able to purchase is the review booklets that come with them. They are great for jogging the memory.

Sorry I can't help you more with the details of the course.

I like to have the video to watch, as their are often images and graphics that enhance the lecture. The only Great Courses package I've purchased from Audible is this one (because music):

Still haven't finished listening to it.

I subscribed to Audible for a few months until the Decline of the Canadian Dollar made the monthly subscription fee seem too expensive. Otherwise it is a great deal. I managed to nab The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire before I cancelled my subscription. The audio on that is much much better than it is on Librevox. It is not always the case, sometimes the librevox readers are quite excellent. I found this to be true in the case of Bleak House. I often like to read and listen at the same time. Audible was a godsend when reading A Clockwork Orange. I would never have guessed how to pronounce all that slang without it.

This may sound like a bit of a soft suggestion for a group like this, but I'll throw it out anyway: There was a TV series in the 1990s called Touched by an Angel It was really sweet and endearing - if a bit sappy at times. Every single episode featured a profound, earth shattering religious experience of the kind James discusses. I loved it. Still have all the dvds, though I haven't watched them in years. Also interesting, the interviews with the show's creator re her experiences with meeting people who were fans and hearing about how the show resonated with their lives.

Theresa wrote: "This may sound like a bit of a soft suggestion for a group like this, but I'll throw it out anyway: There was a TV series in the 1990s called Touched by an Angel ..."

I watched a couple of those episodes, and they seemed authentic and sincere, and now that you mention it, they coincide with James's lecture material.

Our pastor this morning suggested watching this video of Matt Damon's address to the MIT graduating class. I pass along his suggestion:

Does anyone know where to find the complete bibliography of VRE online? I'd like to read some of the autobiographies, but the references are scattered all over the place in the e-text.

Nemo wrote: "Does anyone know where to find the complete bibliography of VRE online? I'd like to read some of the autobiographies, but the references are scattered all over the place in the e-text."

Nemo -- see if the footnotes here are any help. It is different than what you seek, but at least references seem to be gathered in one place (linked to page numbers? not sure, didn't check).



I googled:
bibliography for "Varieties of Religious Experience"

There were some other possibilities I didn't explore.

That helps. Thank you, Lily.

Today's ŷ������ quotation somehow felt relevant to our VoRE readings:

“Listen, and you will realize that we are made not from cells or from atoms. We are made from stories.��
�� Mia Couto

More on Mia Couto:

Lily wrote: "Today's ŷ������ quotation somehow felt relevant to our VoRE readings:

“Listen, and you will realize that we are made not from cells or from atoms. We are made from stories.��
�� Mia Couto ..."

Nice. I hadn't noticed it. Thanks!

Why, oh, why?

Lily wrote: "

Why, oh, why?"

Who knew that it would cost more to make a movie about Noah than to build Noah's ark?

Lily wrote: "

Why, oh, why?"

What James would say of the "Ken Ham" religious experience I do cannot say, but in my opinion it is the the most insidious type.

"Basically, this boat is a church raising scientifically illiterate children and lying to them about science," said Jim Helton, who lives about a half-hour from the ark.

This is nothing less than a form of child abuse and a sin against mankind.

David wrote: "This is nothing less than a form of child abuse and a sin against mankind...."

Your words are strong, David, in a nation that holds so firmly to its rights of freedom of speech -- including for your response. But the stupidity and all the speaking with dollars as well as elaborate dioramas feels both sad and frightening to me.

Lily wrote: "David wrote: "This is nothing less than a form of child abuse and a sin against mankind...."

Your words are strong, David, in a nation that holds so firmly to its rights of freedom of speech -- in..."

I may not agree with YEC beliefs, but the idea of using the Ark as a means of education and entertainment makes practical sense to me in this age of distractions.

Not sure but what this post may be really off the beaten track:



'For Solomon, the research suggests that when people create meaning in their lives �� whether through religion, nationality or “staying at home with a 30-pack of beer and spraying some Cheez Whiz on a cracker,�� in Solomon’s words �� they are protecting themselves from their constant awareness of death....'

"Solomon is part of a group of researchers that has spent decades investigating the connections between death and a broad variety of human beliefs and behavior. Their inspiration has been the work of Ernest Becker, an anthropologist who argued that the fear of death was a kind of fundamental principle in explaining human psychology. Becker won a Pulitzer Prize for his 1973 book ��The Denial of Death,�� but he was shunned in the academic community for what his peers saw as a lack of rigor."

It has been years since I read that book, but I am now wondering how my reaction to "lack of rigor" would compare today to my reaction to Henry James.

Nemo wrote: "I may not agree with YEC beliefs, but the idea of using the Ark as a means of education and entertainment makes practical sense to me in this age of distractions. ..."

This time, I'll turn the perhaps too direct question on you, Nemo: "Practical sense" to accomplish what? Indoctrination into YEC beliefs?

Also, for what do you use YEC as abbreviation? Youth Evangelism Conference; Young Evolution Christians, other?

Oh, probably Young Earth Creationists?

Reference site:


2007 opening indicated. So I am confused by the 7/6/16 article.
I wonder what the attendance experience has been. I guess maybe the Ark is a new attraction add?

Lily wrote: "David wrote: "This is nothing less than a form of child abuse and a sin against mankind...."

Your words are strong, David, in a nation that holds so firmly to its rights of freedom of speech -- in..."

1. I am all for free speech and I am not about the suppression of any words coming out of Mr. Ham's mouth. In fact the more he says the dumber he looks and it will most likely get him into well deserved trouble someday. However I am about stopping the way he did it, dishonestly with future tax dollars used for religious purpose and discriminatory hiring practices.

2. I am not against free speech, but I am all for calling out a liars.

"I believe this is going to be one of the greatest Christian outreaches of this era in history," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, the ministry that built the ark.

. . .because the tourism incentive "is neutral, has a secular purpose, and does not grant preferential treatment to anyone based on religion, allowing (Answers in Genesis) to participate along with the secular applicants cannot be viewed as acting with the predominant purpose of advancing religion."

. . .That cleared the way for the group to seek out only Christians to fill its labor force. New applicants will be required to sign a statement saying they're Christian and "profess Christ as their savior."

"When Ham was asked about the tax incentive at the Tuesday event, he drew loud cheers when he proclaimed no taxpayer money was used to the build the ark."

More on the shady tax incentives can be read here:

2. I am not against free speech, In fact, I was excising my own right to condemn the Noah's Ark theme park and its purpose.

@Nemo: There may be some entertainment value. I am sure I would both laugh and cry all the way through it. However, there is nothing whatsoever educational about it. It is purposefully anti-educational.

I feel sorry for the children and sympathy for their science teachers.

Lily wrote: ".."Practical sense" to accomplish what? Indoctrination into YEC beliefs?"

It is an effective -- effective because it appeals directly to the senses-- way of defending and spreading young-earth creationist beliefs, while having fun doing it and making money at the same time.

David wrote: "This is nothing less than a form of child abuse and a sin against mankind."

I can understand your concern for the education of children everywhere. But how is this child abuse?

I am currently going through the adoption process. The children I am learning about have been raped, locked in their rooms without food, and many other terrible, horrible things. I fail to see how this compares.