Jump to content

hope_for_things

Contributor
  • Content Count

    6,052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,964 Excellent

About hope_for_things

  • Rank
    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,695 profile views
  1. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    While it certainly makes sense that some paradigms are better than others, we’ve agreed that this sphere of religious truth is squarely relative and subjective, so you can’t also claim that Mormonism is objectively better than other paradigms. You like the theology around trying to become like God. Some other person likes the idea of infinite reincarnations. I like Michelangelo’s David, another person likes a work by Jackson Pollock. It’s all subjective, no theology is measurably better than another. Who’s to say.
  2. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    Sorry, I got you mixed up with CV75.
  3. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    Honestly I think this way of thinking is extremely rare. It requires a new definition of regular terms like the term historicity now has two meanings, there is the commonly accepted scholarly historicity and now there is a newly defined personal subjective religious experience historicity. I didn’t even know we needed a new term before this recent discussion because I had no idea that this concept even existed.
  4. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    These experiences can be powerful and life changing and I respect your experience, but that doesn’t make it objective or scholarly. Now you sound like you’re trying to cross over from one sphere of knowing into another. I thought we agreed earlier about the categories.
  5. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    The answer to my question whether we can learn about the historicity of the BoM via prayer was not clear to me all along. I was asking that question of MFB and his answers have helped me to understand much better where he’s coming from now. I assume you share a similar paradigm, which is interesting as I thought it might be unique to him and I haven’t encountered this paradigm before, yet perhaps it exists out there in greater numbers than I suspected. As for seeking knowledge I recognize that many will come to different opinions. On subjective questions, like which religion a person prefers or who someone falls in love with, there isn’t a more or less accurate answer for those kinds of questions. But for questions that we can apply the tools of science and scholarship the degree of accuracy to answers is very important and we shouldn’t confuse these two spheres.
  6. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    Thanks. The thing is that this philosophy justifies all religions equally which I’m not sure most Mormons are comfortable considering.
  7. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    I’m not convinced that prayer can answer the historicity question in a scholarly sphere. I might agree there is some qualitative overlapping, but not with respect to the apologetic arguments as these are strictly not at the level of academic respectable scholarship.
  8. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    Which question are you referring to? I’m confused.
  9. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    I haven’t seen compelling evidence that spiritual truth seeking is anything more than a subjective confirmation bias. That said, confirmation bias is how the placebo effect works and it has benefits. The BoM is no more historically accurate for its adherents using the religious method of seeking truth than the cosmology of Scientology is for its adherents.
  10. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    Thanks for clarifying, but I have two problems with this in contemporary Mormonism. First, the question of BoM historicity in the scholarly context. That is what most members who read apologetics think about as the read “scholarship” on BookofMormonCentral or any other apologetic sources are thinking when they consume that material. They think that these very smart and educated individuals who are supporting the BoM with their scholarship are doing that scholarship on very rigorous grounds that would be otherwise accepted by the broader scholarly community except for their inherent bias towards religion. (See my exchange in this very thread with strappinglad as exhibit A. ) Second, your average person does not make a clear distinction in their mind between these two contexts in the way that you’ve articulated. I don’t even fully understand where you are drawing this line between scholarly historicity and religious historicity. When 99% of people are talking about historicity, they are talking about the scholarly secular kind, and honestly I wonder if you haven’t created your own uniquely individual category for this religious historicity definition that I’m not sure I’ve ever encountered before. This could be part of the communication problem when using a term that most people understand one way, yet you have a very different way of using that term, historicity.
  11. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    For the BoM promise it’s not at all related to an answer about historicity. It’s truth in the sense that MFB and I have been discussing, spiritual truth, not scientific truth.
  12. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    Assuming that includes his apocalyptic and alchemist discoveries too.
  13. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    Well, I would say this position is a faith you have in the power of prayer that is unsubstantiated. I would also ask a follow up question whether prayer can tell you other data points about history? Like name the leaders of China in the sixth century? Would you also extend this power of prayer into other scientific realms like physics or math or chemistry? Could prayer teach you how to build a bomb with common household products, or could prayer give you the first 100 digits in Pi. Where do the practical limits of prayer begin and end, and do we have any evidence to substantiate these abilities?
  14. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    For a strong believer in historicity, no amount of scientific evidence could refute their belief. The studies will always be flawed in one way or another. As for the soft tissue example, it’s probably a good thing in general for a significant finding that overturns other findings to require a substantial amount of evidence. This is a strength in the scientific method and a flaw in religious dogmas. Science is constantly seeking more accurate descriptions of the universe and how it works, and never believing that it has reached a full or perfect understanding. Religious thinking is often self deceptive in its traditional appeals to authority and has a sense that it has already arrived at truth and that other views are a threat to it. Religious thinking isn’t always like this, but often slumps down to this low common denominator.
  15. hope_for_things

    Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

    Are you saying my statement about Washington being the first albino American is just as accurate as the statement that Washington was our first President? Can we measure the accuracy of these two statements? I believe yes, using critical historical analysis. What do you think? I agree that different tools should be used for different purposes. I’m still trying to get a answer about whether prayer is a tool that can be used to evaluate the historicity of a narrative like the BoM? I’m strictly talking about historicity, nothing more or less. I would argue that only scholarly tools can be used to evaluate the historicity question. What do you say?
×