The First Law Of Thermodynamics

[WalkerW]

Sounds like the beginning of an infinite regress of causes, which I really do not understand. I'd much rather define two categories: (1) necessary, and (2) contingent. If we are all necessary beings then I can understand how we had no beginning and have no end. It also makes sense to me that we can "create" or manufacture contingency (finite, temporal, planets, galaxies, universes etc.). However, the Judeo-Christian insistence has traditionally been that only God is necessary, is wholly other, is outside the universe and time, that there is a great gulf between Him and us, and that only thus does he possess the requisite sovereignty to merit our worship and obedience. We are wholly contingent on Him and his whims. Thus, logically, if evil exists it is contingent upon Him, thus creating a self-contradiction for an omnibeneficent, omnipotent, and omnipresent God, a contradiction which cannot stand and which must negate the necessary existence of such a "God." Gott ist Tot, said Nietzsche.

I agree that the problem of evil becomes a real problem with the traditional model of God. This is why I'm glad Mormonism does not equate Being with God Himself.

[blackstrap]

Is this why people,particularly scientists, seem to be obsessed with classification,cataloging,naming and numbering? Once there is a cubby hole to put a 'thing' in then it can be claimed that the 'thing' is understood. Ah look,presentism,lo there is uniformitarianism, ah hah, I see Tom Cruise -ism, oh that's just ad hominism etc.

Edited July 23, 2012 by blackstrap

[WalkerW]

Is this why people,particularly scientists, seem to be obsessed with classification,cataloging,naming and numbering? Once there is a cubby hole to put a 'thing' in then it can be claimed that the 'thing' is understood. Ah look,presentism,lo there is uniformitarianism, ah hah, I see Tom Cruise -ism, oh that's just ad hominism etc.

The irony is that the very practice of science itself, which involves the formulation of hypotheses, the weighing of evidence, the invention of technical concepts and vocabularies, the construction of chains of reasoning, and so forth—all mental activities saturated with meaning and purpose—falls on the “subjective,” “manifest image” side of scientism’s divide rather than the “objective,” “scientific image” side. Human thought and action, including the thoughts and actions of scientists, is of its nature irreducible to the meaningless, purposeless motions of particles and the like...There is no such thing as “thinking,” “believing,” “desiring,” “meaning,” etc.; there is only the firing of neurons, the secretion of hormones, the twitching of muscles, and other such physiological events...But as Hayek would have predicted, the very attempt to state the position necessarily, but incoherently, makes use of concepts—“science,” “rationality,” “evidence,” “truth,” and so forth—that presuppose exactly what the position denies, viz. the reality of meaning and mind. (Edward Feser, "Blinded by Scientism," Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, March 9, 2010)

[mfbukowski]

Sounds like the beginning of an infinite regress of causes, which I really do not understand. I'd much rather define two categories: (1) necessary, and (2) contingent. If we are all necessary beings then I can understand how we had no beginning and have no end. It also makes sense to me that we can "create" or manufacture contingency (finite, temporal, planets, galaxies, universes etc.). However, the Judeo-Christian insistence has traditionally been that only God is necessary, is wholly other, is outside the universe and time, that there is a great gulf between Him and us, and that only thus does he possess the requisite sovereignty to merit our worship and obedience. We are wholly contingent on Him and his whims. Thus, logically, if evil exists it is contingent upon Him, thus creating a self-contradiction for an omnibeneficent, omnipotent, and omnipresent God, a contradiction which cannot stand and which must negate the necessary existence of such a "God." Gott ist Tot, said Nietzsche.

This is exactly the problem, and stated very well.

And indeed, for that god, Nietzsche was right. It just does not work conceptually.

Even atheists like Rorty base all their claims against that god on those distinctions between the contingent world and the necessary world. The entire notion of transcendence is based on a dualism which has no justification.

In fact the whole discussion of whether or not science and religion conflict is based on a dualistic understanding of human experience. Scientists, it might be said, observe the "contingent" world while religion, the old theology says, examines the "necessary" world. All this nonsense on these threads we have been wasting time on is based on the same dualism which goes right back to the Greeks.

Philosophy has seen this for well over 100 years now, at least on the continent and it is time for religion to catch up to the "avant garde"

[mfbukowski]

Is this why people,particularly scientists, seem to be obsessed with classification,cataloging,naming and numbering? Once there is a cubby hole to put a 'thing' in then it can be claimed that the 'thing' is understood. Ah look,presentism,lo there is uniformitarianism, ah hah, I see Tom Cruise -ism, oh that's just ad hominism etc.

When you think about it, that is all that science is. It is taking matter unorganized and giving it order through the Word.

Gosh, where have I heard that before?

As I posted earlier, all of astronomy for example is the classification of stars into a human perspective. Astronomy is just the most obvious example, but it can be seen as a model for all of science.

[mfbukowski]

The irony is that the very practice of science itself, which involves the formulation of hypotheses, the weighing of evidence, the invention of technical concepts and vocabularies, the construction of chains of reasoning, and so forth—all mental activities saturated with meaning and purpose—falls on the “subjective,” “manifest image” side of scientism’s divide rather than the “objective,” “scientific image” side. Human thought and action, including the thoughts and actions of scientists, is of its nature irreducible to the meaningless, purposeless motions of particles and the like...There is no such thing as “thinking,” “believing,” “desiring,” “meaning,” etc.; there is only the firing of neurons, the secretion of hormones, the twitching of muscles, and other such physiological events...But as Hayek would have predicted, the very attempt to state the position necessarily, but incoherently, makes use of concepts—“science,” “rationality,” “evidence,” “truth,” and so forth—that presuppose exactly what the position denies, viz. the reality of meaning and mind. (Edward Feser, "Blinded by Scientism," Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, March 9, 2010)

Precisely!

My Nagel quote below says essentially the same thing

And in the name of condemning faith, scientists still get educated based on faith that they will be able to get a job, "the hope for things not seen"

Edited July 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

faith - belief in religion

I'm going to borrow from a blog post of mine to address this:

Faith (Lat. fides; Gk pistis) is a term also very much at home in patron-client and friendship relations...In one sense, faith meant “dependability.” The patron needed to prove reliable in providing the assistance he or she promised to grant. The client needed to “keep faith” as well, in the sense of showing loyalty or commitment to the patron and to his or her obligations of gratitude. A second meaning in the more familiar sense is “trust”: the client had to trust the goodwill and ability of the patron...while the benefactor would also have to trust the recipients to act nobly and make a grateful response.[11]

In his commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews, DeSilva touches on Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen":

In philosophical language [the Greek hupostasis] can signify the “substance” or “underlying essence” of something...The same term, however, carries the everyday legal or business connotation of “title deed” or “guarantee,” attested by numerous papyri as well as classical texts...Given this immediate context, ['substance'] should be heard in the sense of title deed in 11:1, linking the discussion of faith more closely with 10:32-36 and the Christians’ loss of property...In this reading, ['faith'] in Hebrews is being understood very much within the context of patronage or friendship. After a client receives the patron’s promise that a certain benefaction will be given to him or her..."trust" is all the client has. If the patron is honorable and reliable, however, having “trust” is a good as having the promised item itself. Conversely, showing “distrust” toward the patron means letting go of the grasp on the promised item not only psychologically (because distrust produces anxiety) but in reality (as “distrust” manifested itself in “disobedience,” which caused the wilderness generation to lose their possession of the promised land; 3:7-19).[12]

Have you considered applying these definitions/distinctions to Alma 32:21-41?

[WalkerW]

Precisely!

My Nagel quote below says essentially the same thing

I love that article.

[mfbukowski]

Have you considered applying these definitions/distinctions to Alma 32:21-41?

I thought the same thing and edited my post before I saw this. Point well taken!

We were just talking about this in Sunday school today and I thought of this thread and about scientists who attack faith when most of what they do is based on it.

[WalkerW]

Have you considered applying these definitions/distinctions to Alma 32:21-41?

Yes. For the most part, I think it works fairly well. Alma is talking less about intellectual assent and more about dedication to a principle. The faith (i.e. loyalty, commitment, engagement) eventually becomes knowledge. The late biblical scholar John L. McKenzie described the "knowledge of God" in the Hebrew Bible as "a vital union with the traditional morality which qualified the whole human life; one knows this morality by having it, by living it." (McKenzie, "Knowledge of God in Hosea," Journal of Biblical Literature 74:1, March 1955: 27)

[WalkerW]

It is much like Richard Bushman said to his Catholic friend,

I told him I remained a Mormon because when I followed my religion I became the kind of man I want to be. No philosophy, no evidence, nothing elaborate. Simply the personal reality that my religion helps me get better. That’s what it comes down to in the crunch. The scripture verse explains what will happen when you listen to the spirit speaking in the wilderness: “My Spirit is truth; truth abideth and hath no end; and if it be in you it shall abound.” For me that promise becomes a simple matter of fact: when I hearken to the spirit, truth seems to abound in me as the verse promises. By that I mean not just truth as propositions about the world but truth as in the true and highest way to live.

[Robert F. Smith]

Mormonism is based on the belief that there is a God, that interacts with the world, has created the universe, who is in time and space. lived a mortal life, sent his son to earth to live a mortal life, the son dying and resurrecting and promising eternal life for all who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, right? This is the plan. Mormonism is PURELY based on the Judeo-Hebrew-Christian religion, even claiming it IS the actual original CHRISTIAN (Jewish really) church that Jesus, none other actually founded, yes? If that holds that it is a Judeo-Christian restoration, then the Judeo-Christian backbone must hold for Mormonism to even have a chance, right? And what is the basis of the Judeo-Christian religion? The Bible and a living God who has physical form, within our material world.

Much of what you say here is irrelevant to this discussion, and some of it is plainly false. Let me restate it for you, following your own sequence, just for clarification:

Mormonism is based on the the existence of an infinity of gods, for whom there is no beginning and no end, in an entirely natural universe/multiverse. These gods are to humans as oaks are to acorns, and all are based on the permanent, necessary existence of intelligence(s), which have no beginning and no end. God organizes planets, galaxies, and universes from pre-existing matter (consisting of both refined/spiritual and coarse matter). Matter & energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but may be formed and utilized for an infinite variety of uses. The measurement of time and the concept of space are entirely relative from the point of view of God.

The glory of God is "to bring to pass the immorality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). This He does through his great plan of salvation, to which all his spirit children gave assent: To come to an earth, have the veil drawn across our memories, struggle through the days of our probation, and learn all we can, and return to God via acceptance of the expiatory sacrifice of His eldest Son (our elder brother), and obtain exaltation in some cases via obedience to the advanced ordinances and covenants of the Gospel.

In so doing, Mormonism strips away the theological accretions foreign to the biblical text, and accepts other Scripture along with prophets and continuing revelation -- which was long ago rejected by the normative Judeo-Christian tradition, which is a heretical version of the original sacred deposit of the faith. Mormonism is a restoration of that ancient faith -- in place of the false faith which substituted human contingency for necessary being, and found itself trapped in the problem of evil (theodicy) thereby.

Science has shown all of this to be mistaken. What originality of Mormonism is so far away form the Christian roots that the scientists cannot touch Mormonism? I am honestly just asking. I may not know Mormonism as you propose, but you certainly do not appear to me to understand what science has dismantled in the Judeo-Christian world of religious thinking.

Of course science has dismantled the Judeo-Christian religion, a religion characterized by supernaturalism and ex nihilo creation, a god who is necessary and wholly other, in no way related to humans -- who are entirely contingent -- thus guaranteeing that the problem of evil becomes entirely god's responsibility, which negates his very existence.

The reason why other christian religions consider Mormonism to be non-christian is precisely due to the long list of heresies they attribute to us. You never noticed this??!

For instance, is it fair of me to ask do we Mormons really believe that God is eternal? Just what kind of God do we propose after all that is so vastly different than Christianity? Is God totally good? Can he be God if he is not? Is God honestly in possession of all knowledge as all the prophets actually have taught? Is God truly in possession of all power in heaven and earth as the scriptures teach? All of these questions most certainly effect our Mormonism do they not? The foundational basis and background of God is in the Mormon acceptance of the ancient Jewish and Christian scriptures the Bible. If it stands, then we are in the clear. If it falls, then the foundation is gone and what honestly does Mormonism have left? The Pearl of Great Price is pure Bible, read it and see. It adopts the Bible version of creation, as a revelation of God to Joseph Smith in the 1830's, and it has all the outmoded thinking the Bible has. Can we truly think this is supposed to be objective truth when we know it is not? Does God even know about the Cosmos? Apparently not if we agree with the PofGP. The D&C is all about the Bible questions and ideals of the Bible being reified within Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is so biblical as to honestly not need much explanation on that score. If the Bible and God in the Bible passes muster, then we can be cleared, until then, I may not know much about Mormonism, but I know enough to know that it is solidly built upon the Bible and God as depicted in the Bible. That is the proper place to go to see how alike Mormonism is with Christianity. Our philosophy is not all that much different than Christians except in minor details. And the philosophical refutations of the foundations of what God is and what he can do and know apply to Mormons just as surely as they apply to Christians. If not how not? Are we as Mormons going to say well God really doesn't know everything after all, hee, hee.....our bad. God is only really way smart. Are we as Mormons going to agree that God actually does not possess all power, or that he has just enough power to be powerful enough to overcome everything he needs to to ensure things go all right for the universe? Are we Mormons going to say God really is the epitome and fullness of love, kindness, and joy, or is that relative to something else as all his other attributes are? Just what are we going to say about God in Mormonism then? I know what I have been taught, and what I have been reading. I just don't know anymore that it makes any sense anymore.

Nearly all of what you say here is false, much of it irrelevant. Some of it is just absurd, as for your claim that Mormonism "is not all that much different than Christians except in minor details." Perhaps you'd like to run that by Rob Bowman. Most of those on this Board understand the huge gulf which exists between Mormonism and the standard Judeo-Christian tradition, but I'm not sure with all your reading how that managed to escape your notice.

Some of your false statements here are based on very poor reading of the texts, such as attributing geocentrism to the Book of Abraham, while at the same time missing the point that Mormonism has a variety of accounts of the Creation, all of them ritual and catechism, and certainly not intended as science texts.

Is it any surprise that so many Mormons can't stand Blake Ostler's analysis of God precisely because he has shown the problematic nature of even trying to understand the subject of God? True we want to keep it simple and easy to understand, but that's a pipedream. The moment you simplify it to kindergarten thinking philosophy destroys the assumptions of simplification whether Christian or Mormon. Just what attributes can we legitimately give to God and do they agree or disagree with scripture? Nothing about God in Mormonism matches any scientific analysis of cosmology, evolution, chemistry, astronomy, etc. In fact, what physical evidence has God left since Mormonism has arisen that science can explore and found verifiable? Science works with the physical for very obvious reasons, the moment you allow for supernatural, then anything can be claimed even quakers on the moon. So we stay with the natural material world in science to learn knowledge and fact and truth. Gravity is not caused by a good angel in the middle of the earth. Demons are no longer needed to exorcise these days, because we have actually learned they are not what is behind various diseases and disorders in life. etc.

Hardly any Mormons have ever heard of Blake Ostler, much less of his analysis of God, and you have not taken a poll.

You continue to rail against normative christianity, as though it does not differ from Mormonism. You continue to falsely attribute the "supernatural" to Mormonism. You falsely claim that Mormonism is incompatible with "any scientific analysis of cosmology, evolution, chemistry, astronomy, etc." And then you go off into areas completely unrelated to this debate. No wonder that you are confused and disoriented.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes. For the most part, I think it works fairly well. Alma is talking less about intellectual assent and more about dedication to a principle. The faith (i.e. loyalty, commitment, engagement) eventually becomes knowledge. The late biblical scholar John L. McKenzie described the "knowledge of God" in the Hebrew Bible as "a vital union with the traditional morality which qualified the whole human life; one knows this morality by having it, by living it." (McKenzie, "Knowledge of God in Hosea," Journal of Biblical Literature 74:1, March 1955: 27)

I like that. Very pragmatic. And I have always thought so highly of McKenzie. Thanks for that epistemic citation. I'll be using it myself.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Robert:

Some of your false statements here are based on very poor reading of the texts, such as attributing geocentrism to the Book of Abraham, while at the same time missing the point that Mormonism has a variety of accounts of the Creation, all of them ritual and catechism, and certainly not intended as science texts.

Kerry notes:

Thanks for your insightful comments, I shall ponder them. However this is simply unacceptable. Those texts are given as revelation of truth from God to Joseph Smith. God obviously does not tell the actual truth in them of how things really are. Is the actual truth less important than making rituals or something? I am not the one who claims the BofAbr is a geocentric text, other LDS scholars have said so. Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin and John Gee, "And I Saw the Stars: The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy," in Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant," edited by John Gee, FARMS, 2005: Chapter 1. You might take this argument up with them, I have mistated or misunderstood nothing in this regard. They aren't intended as science texts of course not. But are they intended as being taken as true, because they are simply not true by any stretch of the imagination. Geocentrism is dead already man. We now actually do know the sun is the center of our solar system, and earth is not the center of the universe, nor the solar system. Catchism texts?! What good is a catechism if it isn't based on truth? Honestly.

Robert:

Hardly any Mormons have ever heard of Blake Ostler, much less of his analysis of God, and you have not taken a poll.

Kerry:

Fair enough.

Robert:

You continue to rail against normative christianity, as though it does not differ from Mormonism. You continue to falsely attribute the "supernatural" to Mormonism. You falsely claim that Mormonism is incompatible with "any scientific analysis of cosmology, evolution, chemistry, astronomy, etc." And then you go off into areas completely unrelated to this debate. No wonder that you are confused and disoriented.

Kerry:

So, none of the attributes of God are in Mormonism? There is no similarities at all? God isn't the greatest, the most kind, the smartest, the most powerful, but just another version of Superman? Just what does Mormonism's God have on the Christian God then? An eternity of Gods is simply an interpretation of ancient interpretations. That doesn't solve a thing and is still incompatible with scientific cosmology models. Why would I possibly have to accept something like this without any evidence? A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. How does this possibly agree with scientific information based on mathematics, physics, and philosophy on the universe and the Big Bang, or even multiverse? I sincerely do not see how Mormonism's version of the gods tie in with what science has taught about cosmology, evolution, or chemistry. I know it is pronounced that there is no incompatibility, but I see nothing but incompatibility. And yes, now that I am finally bothering to read the sciences, I am confused, because Mormonism doesn't match anything better than Christianity so far as I can tell.

And you saying most of what I say is false about the Book of Mormon being very biblical is simply not accurate at all. For Pete sake, the Book of Mormon is designed to confirm the Bible (even though it doesn't do so very well). How on earth you can say I am the one misunderstanding is beyond me. Without the Biblical foundation there isn't much to build on is there? And if it isn't on the Biblical foundation then of what use the Bible at all?

I attribute supernatural to Mormonism and that's wrong to do? I need that explained more, I seriously do not understand how this can be so. Are we to take the supernatural out of Mormonism's claims? Sorry to be so dense, but I honestly do not understand what you are getting at here.

[volgadon]

Many of medieval concepts are related to natural philosophy, which evolved into what we know as science. I haven't read Stenger's book, but the quote you provided is downright sloppy. In fact, it is the same "Dark Ages" nonsense that fills the pages of Talmage's The Great Apostasy. The "Dark Ages" is no longer considered historically accurate.

Have you read Matheson's "The Imaginative World of the Reformation," Hill's "The World Turned Upside Down," Coulianu's "Eros and Magic in the Renaissance" and Williamson's "Apocalypse Then: Prophecy and the Making of the Modern World"?

I've enjoyed them, good looks at the roots of how we relate to our world.

[mfbukowski]

It is much like Richard Bushman said to his Catholic friend,

I told him I remained a Mormon because when I followed my religion I became the kind of man I want to be. No philosophy, no evidence, nothing elaborate. Simply the personal reality that my religion helps me get better. That’s what it comes down to in the crunch.

Profound philosophy if he wants to admit it or not.

Putting personal reality ahead of philosophy and evidence is a bold move indeed for most and is not easy to justify intellectually.

Edited July 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[WalkerW]

Have you read Matheson's "The Imaginative World of the Reformation," Hill's "The World Turned Upside Down," Coulianu's "Eros and Magic in the Renaissance" and Williamson's "Apocalypse Then: Prophecy and the Making of the Modern World"?

I've enjoyed them, good looks at the roots of how we relate to our world.

I haven't! What a selection! Will be checking the libraries in the near future. Check out Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Argues that the literalistic Bible readings of the Protestant Reformation altered the way in which they approached nature, bringing about what we would recognize as scientific methods. He has another I haven't read entitled The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge University Press, 2007). It argues that most of the scientific methods were developed to uncover the cognitive damage brought about by the Fall.

Edited July 23, 2012 by WalkerW

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert said:

Some of your false statements here are based on very poor reading of the texts, such as attributing geocentrism to the Book of Abraham, while at the same time missing the point that Mormonism has a variety of accounts of the Creation, all of them ritual and catechism, and certainly not intended as science texts.

Kerry notes:

Thanks for your insightful comments, I shall ponder them. However this is simply unacceptable. Those texts are given as revelation of truth from God to Joseph Smith. God obviously does not tell the actual truth in them of how things really are. Is the actual truth less important than making rituals or something? I am not the one who claims the BofAbr is a geocentric text, other LDS scholars have said so. Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin and John Gee, "And I Saw the Stars: The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy," in Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant," edited by John Gee, FARMS, 2005: Chapter 1. You might take this argument up with them, I have mistated or misunderstood nothing in this regard. They aren't intended as science texts of course not. But are they intended as being taken as true, because they are simply not true by any stretch of the imagination. Geocentrism is dead already man. We now actually do know the sun is the center of our solar system, and earth is not the center of the universe, nor the solar system. Catchism texts?! What good is a catechism if it isn't based on truth? Honestly.

Elsewhere on this Board in the past few days, I have recommended that you read chapter 2 (Rhodes & Moody) in that book, here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=40&chapid=162 . None of the authors of chapter 1 are scientists, yet you took their word for it that the BofA is geocentric.

You both deny that the BofA is not a science text, and then turn right around and claim that it is. Make up your mind, or tell me that the Psalter and Genesis 1 are scientific texts -- or that they must at least be scientifically "true." Are you sure that you understand the genre of literature involved and what scholars normally expect from such figurative language? Do you think that Eve was actually created from Adam's rib? Is that the actual intention of the text? The Brethren have stated unequivocally that it is "figurative." Do you understand what that means?

Moreover, a large proportion of non-Mormon biblical scholars today agree that Genesis 1 is a temple text, and not only due to study of Enuma elish and the Akitu Festival in Babylon, but due to the obvious temple motifs and iterative structure of the text.

Robert said:

You continue to rail against normative christianity, as though it does not differ from Mormonism. You continue to falsely attribute the "supernatural" to Mormonism. You falsely claim that Mormonism is incompatible with "any scientific analysis of cosmology, evolution, chemistry, astronomy, etc." And then you go off into areas completely unrelated to this debate. No wonder that you are confused and disoriented.

Kerry:

So, none of the attributes of God are in Mormonism? There is no similarities at all? God isn't the greatest, the most kind, the smartest, the most powerful, but just another version of Superman? Just what does Mormonism's God have on the Christian God then? An eternity of Gods is simply an interpretation of ancient interpretations. That doesn't solve a thing and is still incompatible with scientific cosmology models. Why would I possibly have to accept something like this without any evidence? A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. How does this possibly agree with scientific information based on mathematics, physics, and philosophy on the universe and the Big Bang, or even multiverse? I sincerely do not see how Mormonism's version of the gods tie in with what science has taught about cosmology, evolution, or chemistry. I know it is pronounced that there is no incompatibility, but I see nothing but incompatibility. And yes, now that I am finally bothering to read the sciences, I am confused, because Mormonism doesn't match anything better than Christianity so far as I can tell.-

You began by falsely claiming that Stenger's disestablishment of the normative Judeo-Christian theology applied equally to Mormonism, even though normative Judeo-Christian theology is incompatible with Mormonism. I tried to point out that Stenger's case doesn't apply to Mormonism at all, and told you why. You didn't understand what I said, and began making the false claim that Mormonism is really no different than normative Judeo-Christian theology. I suggest that you take your case to the evangelical community and see if they agree with you that there is no significant difference. Indeed, Stenger never even had Mormons in mind when he wrote his book.

You said that "A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence," and you say that you "see nothing but incompatibility." but provide no descriptions or evidence to back up your odd and unaccountable claims. Fess up, Kerry, you made these statements up without ever thinking them through or assembling evidence to back them up. I gave you detailed examples and you give me nothing in return.

And you saying most of what I say is false about the Book of Mormon being very biblical is simply not accurate at all. For Pete sake, the Book of Mormon is designed to confirm the Bible (even though it doesn't do so very well). How on earth you can say I am the one misunderstanding is beyond me. Without the Biblical foundation there isn't much to build on is there? And if it isn't on the Biblical foundation then of what use the Bible at all?

As long as you adhere to medieval philosophical descriptions and interpretations of the meaning of biblical texts, your "biblical foundation" will always be in opposition to the Book of Mormon and to the authentic biblical tradition.

You had stated above that "The Book of Mormon is so biblical as to honestly not need much explanation on that score," though I am not sure what you meant by that. You might want to read Joe Spencer's recent book on BofM theology, An Other Testament (Salem: Salt Press, 2012), and I have completed a paper on Book of Mormon theology which I may or may not be allowed to deliver soon, but it will be published in any case.

The BofM is a special case, having as it does no provenance, and is therefore verifiable only via internal analysis and systematic comparison with the world from which it claims to come. As a matter of Bayesian probability, this means that the making of no more than a probable case for it is adequate to claim it as "true."

I attribute supernatural to Mormonism and that's wrong to do? I need that explained more, I seriously do not understand how this can be so. Are we to take the supernatural out of Mormonism's claims? Sorry to be so dense, but I honestly do not understand what you are getting at here.

Of course. The whole point of Stenger's attack on normative Judeo-Christian religion is the supernatural nature of it. And he is correct. Mormonism is an entirely naturalistic religion, and remains untouched by Stenger. I am astonished that you don't know that. Science and Mormonism are entirely compatible. Always have been. Mormonism is monistic and posits an entirely natural universe with natural beings called "gods.".

[volgadon]

I haven't! What a selection! Will be checking the libraries in the near future. Check out Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Argues that the literalistic Bible readings of the Protestant Reformation altered the way in which they approached nature, bringing about what we would recognize as scientific methods. He has another I haven't read entitled The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge University Press, 2007). It argues that most of the scientific methods were developed to uncover the cognitive damage brought about by the Fall.

I'll definitely look for those, isn't it amazing how attitudes to scripture change how we view and approach the world?

Christopher Hill's book describes the radical world around the English Civil War, which directly influenced Joseph Smith's background. Scripture inspired people to bring about change in society.

Williamson's book is also very relevant to Mormonism, especially in our quest for knowledge, as outlined in the D&C. Apocalyptic was a strong motivator in seeking knowledge.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Mr. Shirts might be interested in the opening post of my old thread (that I really need to get back to when I have some time): Towards Naturalistic Deities.

I have to say, the infinity of eternal self-existing Intelligences embodied in corporeal form within an uncreated universe is what I love most about Mormonism. Joseph's so-called "Nauvoo theology" restores the infinite dignity and worth to humanity (both male and female) that was lost to so many normative religions. I heartily agree with pretty much everything Robert F. Smith and mfbukowski have said in this thread.

[Damien the Leper]

No you are not off base to recognize the logic represented by the "RM" in response to the "Christian". However, you would be off base if you consider this an accurate depiction of a line of reasoning that is actually given by informed Christians - or any person informed in this area.

The original hypothetical is, in fact, a strawman. The reason the logic looks so impressive is because the "Christian" is given the straw man view that "everything has a beginning". I don't know of any person educated in logic or apologetics that makes this claim. I can see an average joe make such a statement, but not anyone informed in this area.

Also, to your claim "nowhere in the original hypothetical does it allude to Big Bang nor suggests anything of the sort". I don't know why you take this stance. Sure, the words "Big Bang" aren't in the text, but you speak of no allusion nor suggestion. Such a strong (and by the evidence below, inaccurate) contention makes it appear as if you are trying to force the straw man.

CHRISTIAN: Do you believe that God created the universe?

[Generally, when Christians speak of "God creating the universe" they are speaking of it as ex nihilo, and so it is implied here by the fact that it is a "Christian" speaking that s/he has the beginning of the Universe from nothing in mind. In the scientific arena, this is referred to as the "Big Bang." I think this qualifies as an allusion, certainly a suggestion.]

REFORM MORMON: No.

CHRISTIAN: Who do you think created it then?

[see first note above]

REFORM MORMON: No one created it. The elements from which all things are organized are eternal; they have no beginning or end.

[This is a sufficient description of the steady state theory, which was in opposition to the "Big Bang" theory's eventual acceptance]

CHRISTIAN: But everything has a beginning.

[This is the weakness, or straw, upon which the logic turns and gets too easily to victory for the "RM", this is a straw man. It does not represent the Creator-theist's position at all, let alone their best argument, thus, it is, by definition, a straw man fallacy]

Mudcat recognized the straw man fallacy and attempted a more accurate depiction of such a hypothetical discussion. I suppose Mudcat did not make this explicit so Valentinus may have misunderstood him as recounting the same interaction in different terms, and thus calling foul on the change-up. I hope this is the case, otherwise, again, it would seem that Valentinus was trying to preserve the original hypothetical and thus its straw man.

Incidentally, Valentinus, I don't see how your quip at Mudcat, that "the problem with your hypothetical is that nowhere in the original hypothetical does it allude to Big Bang nor suggests anything of the sort. So I will agree with you...your hypothetical is a strawman," actually represents the necessary elements of a straw man fallacy. This makes me wonder even more whether you are intentionally forcing a straw man version of the Creator-theist's position.

The problem that I'm recognizing from your response is that you seem to think I consider the hypothetical to be a valid conversation. I do not nor did I say so. I gave plausibility to the obvious straw man, inwhich I do agree with you and Mudcat essentially, for the sake of discussion.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Shirts might be interested in the opening post of my old thread (that I really need to get back to when I have some time): Towards Naturalistic Deities.

I have to say, the infinity of eternal self-existing Intelligences embodied in corporeal form within an uncreated universe is what I love most about Mormonism. Joseph's so-called "Nauvoo theology" restores the infinite dignity and worth to humanity (both male and female) that was lost to so many normative religions. I heartily agree with pretty much everything Robert F. Smith and mfbukowski have said in this thread.

hey man, you get a point just for agreeing with me! I'm easy!

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Robert said:

Mormonism is an entirely naturalistic religion, and remains untouched by Stenger. I am astonished that you don't know that. Science and Mormonism are entirely compatible. Always have been. Mormonism is monistic and posits an entirely natural universe with natural beings called "gods.".

Kerry notes:

I must confess, this is the very first time I have ever heard someone say Mormonism is entirely naturalistic with no supernatural in it, and that the gods are actually just natural beings. I sincerely don't even know how to respond. I think I am going to go do some more reading since obviously I actually no longer know much of anything about anything now. Now I am sincerely confused. A being (Jesus) who is both human and divine FULLY is just natural after all. He died and came back to life in 3 days, naturally! And he floats off into space, naturally! Makes perfect sense to me. He now naturally is not subject to natural laws that we are, naturally. Nothing mysterious about that. He needs no air anymore to continue existing, naturally! There is nothing about divinity at all except nature, naturally! Creation just came about with his help naturally. Yep it's all perfectly natural. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon naturally, through natural instruments from the natural god who naturally used his natural power to produce just a natural book. I think Dan Vogel is going to enjoy learning this as is Brent Metcalfe. Joseph received God's visits and other heavenly PEOPLE IN BODIES, just naturally. They don't have to breathe to continue existing either, it's just natural. Everything about religion is just natural. Miracles aren't a big deal, they just naturally occur. None of the D&C revelations are impressive, they just happened naturally. The Book of Abraham was just a natural production with some natural papyri from a natural god to his natural prophet. I gotta go do some more reading, naturally.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Mr. Shirts might be interested in the opening post of my old thread (that I really need to get back to when I have some time): Towards Naturalistic Deities.

I have to say, the infinity of eternal self-existing Intelligences embodied in corporeal form within an uncreated universe is what I love most about Mormonism. Joseph's so-called "Nauvoo theology" restores the infinite dignity and worth to humanity (both male and female) that was lost to so many normative religions. I heartily agree with pretty much everything Robert F. Smith and mfbukowski have said in this thread.

The positing of an infinite amount of deities can easily simply be said of universes. God, according to science, is just an extra hypothesis, not necessary to explain the self organizing of the universe(s).

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Which is something I happily address in the post I linked to.