- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I did a post today about the so-called “neo-apologists”: https://wheatandtares.org/2017/08/22/neo-apologists/ A few interesting things in the comments. I like what Mary Ann says (quoting Kevin Barney) that there are 3 different types of apologists (or maybe even more accurately, 3 types of apologetic approaches since one apologist might use all of them at different times), and then adding a 4th type:
– Engagement apologetics. Example: FAIR responding to the CES letter. This approach is a direct engagement with a criticism to offer counter-argument or evidence.
– Scholarly apologetics. Example: Maxwell Institute broadcast. This is a broader approach, involving various Mormon studies on topics of interest with a somewhat open-minded format, not grappling with or refuting a specific criticism.
– Educative apologetics. Example: Gospel topic essays and Rough Stone Rolling. These are designed to be educational pieces that can inoculate people against future criticisms by presenting a more open-minded view of the situation while acknowledging that other (more critical) interpretations are possible and even likely. They are written from a believing perspective but without omitting damaging information.
– Pastoral apologetics. These haven’t traditionally been considered apologetics because they are often devotional or offer spiritual frameworks for engaging with the church (rather than grappling with factual criticisms). Mary Ann cites: “Bushman’s section in Patrick Mason’s Planted book where he talks about the possibility of staying in the church because it’s good, even if you aren’t sure that it’s true – to me that’s more pastoral apologetics.” Her conclusion:
Quote:I think JD is trying to get at the emerging prominent role of pastoral apologetics when he’s describing the neo-apologists. While we had some figures in the past who played around with it, like Eugene England or Armand Mauss, I just don’t think we ever really considered it part of the apologetics field because the presence of devotional arguments (spiritual/emotional in addition to intellectual) made it look so different from the more left-brain engagement, scholarly, or educative types of arguments.
Another interesting comment was from Kevin Christensen, offering an alterative to Fowler. I’m not a Fowler fan (as I say in the OP) because it’s very self-congratulatory to say you’ve progressed beyond those rigid thinkers. He suggests a different model:
Quote:Personally, I very much prefer the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth to the Fowler’s Stages of Faith. The Perry Scheme observes how a person processes information and categorizes that way, rather than on the conclusions a person makes, as in Fowler. Based on studies of Perry is very useful in watching the debates and debaters in LDS culture.
Position 1: The authorities know.
Position 2: The true authorities are right, the others are frauds
Position 3: There are some uncertainties and the authorities are working on them to find the truth
Position 4: (a) Everyone has right to their own opinion
(b) The authorities don’t want the right answers. They want us to think in a certain way
Position 5: Everything is relative but not equally valid
Position 6: You have to make your own decisions
Position 7: First commitment
Position 8: Several Commitments
Position 9: Believe own values, respect others, be ready to learn
That’s the nutshell version.
Although I don’t know much about the Perry Scheme, I don’t necessarily get that this is stating that these positions are progressive, which is why Fowler is problematic. Well, screw it. I just looked up a couple of scholarly papers on Perry, and it is still a transitional approach, so again, seems like it’s ripe for self-delusion potentially. But it does have more nuance than Fowler. Here’s one of the easier to read versions:
http://perrynetwork.org/?page_id=2 What do the rest of you think?
I take it that in the Perry Scheme a person can hold multiple positions simultaneously? Great post. I really liked it. hawkgrrrl wrote:I’m not a Fowler fan (as I say in the OP) because it’s very self-congratulatory to say you’ve progressed beyond those rigid thinkers.
The self-congratulations were the only solice in the middle of a faith crisis!
On a more serious note, I did find it comforting learning about Fowler’s stages of faith. It made me realize that that is wasn’t totally crazy and this is rather normal. In the end, self-congratulates are going to self-congratulate. It is just what they do. That reminds me of my most competive son was playing basketball for the first time at age 5. The league did not keep score because at that sage it was really basic “learn how you play the game.” But he had his brother on the sidelines keep score and would run by and look at the score after each time he made a basket.
I don’t think any one model is perfect, but it is helpful to try and frame things in general ways. Looking at several models (angles) is usually more informative.
Again – Great post!
Looking hard: Yeah, I think I hold several different Perry Scheme positions simultaneously, so I agree with you. hawkgrrrl wrote:
I did a post today about the so-called “neo-apologists”:https://wheatandtares.org/2017/08/22/neo-apologists/ A few interesting things in the comments. I like what Mary Ann says (quoting Kevin Barney) that there are 3 different types of apologists (or maybe even more accurately, 3 types of apologetic approaches since one apologist might use all of them at different times), and then adding a 4th type:
I loved the taxonomy of apologists. I am a pastoral apologetic. No rationalizations for me — stay for practical reasons, the goodness it DOES bring into your life, avoiding the costs of leaving if they outweigh the personal costs of staying, and don’t even try to convince people to go back to a believing state if they have moved beyond it.
I also think the steps you have listed as an alternative to Fowler are accurate and brilliant. Although I don’t know what “First Commitment” and “Several Commitments” means. I assume it means you make personal commitments to live your life a certain way, in spite of what the church or authorities teach.
Fowler, for me, is way too academic and heady for the average person. I’m an academic myself, so I don’t shy away from terminology and big words, but his descriptions are tough to understand. And as Einstein said, true genius is found in taking the complex and making it simple.
I find behavioral models to be like a weather forecast. None are perfect. Perhaps there is some utility in having something to discuss and frame personal plans around, it is better than nothing, and it can generate thought and discussion with others. I like the idea that I once trusted authority, and was disappointed, and now can strive for my own authority on matters of spirituality and faith…but fight the urge to suggest that is a progression for others, or is somehow elevated above others who believe differently. Ya…it can be self-congratulatory…but perhaps as LH joked…it is nice to validate myself as being OK to be where I’m at so I can ease some pain and anxiety amid my struggle. Just don’t need to translate that to a progression all must get to. Just that it is OK for me to feel OK about my journey.
Usually the moment a model is presented by someone smarter than me, it can be picked apart by critics as flawed, and rightly so. Not everyone experiences the weather the same.
It can be useful in generalities. It is often limited in application of things that matter to the soul searching for concrete answers.
I’m nostalgic about Fowler because of the ideas it opened to my mind back 8 years ago when coming across it in my journey, despite it’s limitations.
I find the Perry Scheme positions interesting. Just not the same impact to me, probably due to my own bias.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Position 2: The true authorities are right, the others are fraudsPosition 3: There are some uncertainties and the authorities are working on them to find the truth
I find these 2 positions interesting.
Position 2 is sometimes projected outwardly to convey boldness and certainty…while often in one on one discussions with people who claim position 2, I still find them willing to admit they can accept position 3…but they can’t find a good way to say it out loud over the pulpit…so they think in position 3 but speak in position 2. That adds to confusion to listeners. Which is why I find myself more towards position 9…realizing everything I hear from others in church isn’t always what others truly believe…it is just what can be conveyed.
One complexity of it all is the difference between what people truly believe and what they are able to express, and what i truly believe and what I am able to absorb or hear.
Nothing fits neatly into any stage or any position. It gets complicated…hence, the limitation of any model presented.
A good model gets close enough to express the weather forecast that people can take actions or make plans. Something like that…if I conveyed it properly.
Good stuff…HG.
I think my positions on the Perry Scheme are best described as:
Quote:Position 5: Everything is relative but not equally valid
Position 6: You have to make your own decisions
Position 9: Believe own values, respect others, be ready to learn
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I think my positions on the Perry Scheme are best described as:
Quote:Position 5: Everything is relative but not equally valid
Position 6: You have to make your own decisions
Position 9: Believe own values, respect others, be ready to learn
Nice!
Don’t you think those positions are very threatening to some people who aren’t comfortable with “everything is relative” and “I will decide for myself” because they feel it translates to “Nothing matters…we all make god in our own image” which is a weak thing for them?
They want outward standards to things so everyone conforms to it…not inward standards that are relative and they think leads to chaos?
I guess because I can see some thoughts by others and the motivation for those thoughts…I also like to avoid presenting a progression of stages or positions (like you said earlier in your posts) or it would feel like everyone should hurry up and get to stage 9 as fast as possible and then all is right in the world. And that isn’t really what would happen. Is it?
Quote:Don’t you think those positions are very threatening to some people who aren’t comfortable with “everything is relative” and “I will decide for myself” because they feel it translates to “Nothing matters…we all make god in our own image” which is a weak thing for them?
They want outward standards to things so everyone conforms to it…not inward standards that are relative and they think leads to chaos?
Well, yes, but I think they are fooling themselves. Taking ownership for your own choices is always harder to do. Trying to figure out why something can be right in one situation and wrong in another is heavier lifting than just following rules set by another person outside the situation. I think some people prefer to outsource their thinking to authority figures, but I also think there are some who use rule-following as a heuristic to “doing what’s right” and who even do it superstitiously, hoping that they will be rewarded for their compliance, even when the reward they want is unrelated to the thing they are doing.
LookingHard wrote:
On a more serious note, I did find it comforting learning about Fowler’s stages of faith. It made me realize that that is wasn’t totally crazy and this is rather normal. In the end, self-congratulates are going to self-congratulate.
My mother once asked me what book that I read after our stillbirth was most helpful. I responded that it was a book based on a clinical study on stillbirths/SIDS and the range of grief responses. It described a range of responses that might not have seemed normal and then showed them to be Normal responses to abnormal circumstances. I found this to be incredibly helpful.
Multiple perspectives almost always are better than just one. Heber13 wrote:
I find behavioral models to be like a weather forecast. None are perfect.As a researcher in the area of personality, I want to quote the person who said “God left all the easy problems to the scientists”. Human problems are way more complex than physical ones because there are so many extraneous variables.
I will say this — even a 30% improvement in your predictive ability can set you apart from practitioners who rely on information from psychological or other soft, humanistic research areas.
I have story upon story of how my understanding or personality theory has increased my personal effectiveness significantly.
Hawk’s taxonomy is purely descriptive at this point. If there was research that showed how to argue against any one of these types of apologists, or how to predict how they will answer objections to our religion, or their attitudes toward heterodox people, it becomes predictive. Experience shows that good predictive theory, that increase your predictive ability even 30% can be really powerful.
To get around the “imperfect” quality of such classifications, remember that people can be a blend of many categories within a classification system, but often have one or two dominant categories….
Heber13 wrote:
I find behavioral models to be like a weather forecast. None are perfect.
Very true, but what we have today as weather forecasts sure beats not having them. The fact that a tropical depression could turn into a hurricane by the end of this week and hit the Texas coast is sure better than being blissfully ignorant (just go study the 1900 Hurricane that nailed Galveston TX which at the time had more $ in the city than New Orleanshttp://www.history.com/topics/1900-galveston-hurricanehttp://www.history.com/topics/1900-galveston-hurricane” class=”bbcode_url”> We have all heard that perfection is the enemy of good.
Take the good general direction we get from weather forecasts and behavior models, but recognize their limitations while continuing to push for even better models.
LookingHard wrote:
Very true, but what we have today as weather forecasts sure beats not having them.
100% agree. I did not intend to sound like I think they are useless. Simply, as SD said…there are complex factors and multiple things at play.
I find them more useful in general trends of social beings, but there are likely much variation and even outliers and the individual feels the impact of their individual experience they get once.
In generalities, they are helpful. In specifics, there is much tolerance and variation of error.
Certainly, better than nothing. And as Ray put it…multiple perspectives are helpful.
I kind of see Fowler’s stages being broken down into the 9 positions:
Fowler Stage 1 & 2 & 3 = Perry Scheme Position 1 & 2
Fowler Stage 3 (continued) = PS position 3 & 7
Fowler stage 4 = PS position 4 & 5 & 6
Fowler stage 5 = PS position 6 (overlaps) & 8 & 9
Fowler stage 6 = ? – I don’t see this position in Perry scheme.
Possibly some kind of weather forecast model like these, which help see patterns of faith development and how people feel and react to the authority and their belief system. I find them helpful. More so at a 30,000 foot doppler radar level than feet on the ground level.
I love it!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.