Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

43 Minutes Which Could Change Your Life And This Forum - Science & Religion


Recommended Posts

Now that I have your attention.... ;)

I just found this video which summarizes what Mormons need to know about the alleged conflict between science and religion and how to solve it.

Richard Rorty is one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, and happens to be an atheist.

His argument here is as strong an argument against atheism as one can get, in my humble opinion. All that I have been presenting on this forum I steal from Rory, James and Dewey.

Don't get put off by the 1:17:00 running time- the last portion is questions and answers which can easily be skipped. Part of the audio is gone, near the very end.

So my recommendation is to watch the first 40 minutes or so, until the applause starts and the lecture is over, and then skip to the very end- around 1:14:00 and listen to the closing questions.

It's all right there. If everyone really understood this video, the topics on this forum would change forever.

Oh- notice that Rorty would be in favor of a religion which sees God as a "Friend". Anybody know of such a religion?? ;)

Link to comment

Great Video!!! thanks so much...

I really enjoyed the conversation from 1:14 onwards. The whole idea of envisioning philosophy as the mediating discipline between Religion and Science is really interesting.

I am one undergrad and one post-grad degree into philosophy and no one ever clearly expressed the discipline of science in those terms.

Link to comment

bukowski

All that I have been presenting on this forum I steal from Rory, James and Dewey.

3DOP

Considering that there are probably not two people on this forum that are more philosophically opposed than you and I, this comment left me bewildered, but not displeased. Then I realized! Tyyyyypo. Heh. (For those who don't know, my name is Rory, and I am occasionally so identified).

Anyway bukowski, I was just talking about your ideas as I understand them and how they relate to Mormonism over dinner with our son (who has just returned from seminary where he finished his third year and his first year of philosophy). Maybe I can talk him into watching with me.

Regards,

Rorty...I mean...Rory

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment

Yeh, brilliant, for sure. Thanks. I like Rorty, and here are a couple of quotes from this lecture:

“Acquiring or losing belief in God is more like falling into or out of love than like winning or losing an argument.” (that one is for John Dehlin)

“The question of whether there is evidence for a belief is the question of whether there exists a certain human community which takes certain relatively non-controversial propositions as providing good reason for that belief. Where there is such a community, a community to which we want to belong, or to continue to belong, we have an obligation to our fellow human beings not to believe a proposition unless we can give some good reasons for doing so: Reasons of the sort that the relevant community takes to be good ones. Where there is no such community, we don’t. Nobody knows what would count as non-question-begging evidence for the claims of the Catholic or Mormon Church to be
the one true church
. But that does not, and should not matter to the Catholic or Mormon communities. Biologists, on the other hand, know quite well what counts as evidence for Darwinism or Creationism.”
Link to comment

This makes me think of something that Hugh Nibley discussed the trichotomy of orthodox Christianity and modern science along with Mormonism. Orthodox Christian theology says that everything was created out of nothing and modern science says that everything was created for no purpose. Mormonism was revealed predating this argument answers both and allows for a science and religion to be discussed with equal force.

Link to comment

Well, you did catch my attention! That was quite interesting. mfbuskowski, since you've said that you took all you present in this forum from Rorty, James, and Dewey, are you a pragmatic yourself? ;)

Summarizing what I could gather, Rorty reconciles science and religion looking at them through the lens of pragmatism. So if I'm understanding him correctly, in the end the demand for intellectual responsibility (same as intellectual honesty I believe) is futile since religion doesn't have to justify itself in scientific terms, and likewise science doesn't have to justify itself in religious terms. Hence, intellectual responsibility being a notion that comes from the proponents of science, it is irrevelant for them to ask and expect the same from a paradigm working on different principles, e.g., religion. It has to be understood that science and religion serve different purposes for which they are respectively adequate for, which means that ultimately they are not accountable to each other.

I thought it was interesting that he pointed at the struggle to reconcile science and religion to explain the differences between our Western concept of philosophy and the Oriental philosophy. Though I never really looked at their differences, I had always seen and felt a strong contrast between the two. It now makes a lot of sense.

Edit: punctuation and added a few more words.

Edited by Stroopwafel
Link to comment

Now I'm wondering, using this approach, how is one supposed to determine the truthfulness of any particular religion?

I could stand corrected, but from what I understand at the moment, the answer to this would basically hold that the criteria is how a particular religion works for you, within the confines of religions and the associated paradigm... In short, religious pragmatism.

So how does one chose between mormonism and hinduism? He/she looks at which one is better practically justified in his or her particular circumstances.

Am I understanding this correctly or am I missing something? (I genuinely want to understand/clarify this)

Link to comment

Yeh, brilliant, for sure. Thanks. I like Rorty, and here are a couple of quotes from this lecture:

“Acquiring or losing belief in God is more like falling into or out of love than like winning or losing an argument.” (that one is for John Dehlin)

“The question of whether there is evidence for a belief is the question of whether there exists a certain human community which takes certain relatively non-controversial propositions as providing good reason for that belief. Where there is such a community, a community to which we want to belong, or to continue to belong, we have an obligation to our fellow human beings not to believe a proposition unless we can give some good reasons for doing so: Reasons of the sort that the relevant community takes to be good ones. Where there is no such community, we don’t. Nobody knows what would count as non-question-begging evidence for the claims of the Catholic or Mormon Church to be
the one true church
. But that does not, and should not matter to the Catholic or Mormon communities. Biologists, on the other hand, know quite well what counts as evidence for Darwinism or Creationism.”

Great selections!

I especially like the one about falling in love- and indeed that really should be repeated over and over. The location of Zarahemla doesn't have much to do with falling in love.

Link to comment

bukowski

All that I have been presenting on this forum I steal from Rory, James and Dewey.

3DOP

Considering that there are probably not two people on this forum that are more philosophically opposed than you and I, this comment left me bewildered, but not displeased. Then I realized! Tyyyyypo. Heh. (For those who don't know, my name is Rory, and I am occasionally so identified).

Anyway bukowski, I was just talking about your ideas as I understand them and how they relate to Mormonism over dinner with our son (who has just returned from seminary where he finished his third year and his first year of philosophy). Maybe I can talk him into watching with me.

Regards,

Rorty...I mean...Rory

Actually I noticed that typo and was positive I corrected it before posting- and I was thinking of you when I noticed that. Must be getting old- ;)

As far as watching with your son- that's a great idea considering the philosophy he has been learning is all Aristotelian stuff- or Aquinas (same difference) which Rorty is opposed to. In that case listen for the word "correspondence" - he really has an excellent summary of what is wrong with that view.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

This makes me think of something that Hugh Nibley discussed the trichotomy of orthodox Christianity and modern science along with Mormonism. Orthodox Christian theology says that everything was created out of nothing and modern science says that everything was created for no purpose. Mormonism was revealed predating this argument answers both and allows for a science and religion to be discussed with equal force.

I studied this kind of stuff while an atheist and it was actually this kind of view that allowed me to open myself to spiritual experiences, and God for whatever reason decided to drive a truck through that crack in the wall and give me some strong spiritual experiences.

What is amazing is that there is no other Christian religion which fits well with Rorty- but Mormonism fits perfectly.

Alma 32 is a completely pragmatic approach to religion- if the idea is "sweet" to you and "swells in your bosom" then you know it is "true".

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

This is exactly what Rorty is saying - this is how one knows the truth of religion.

This is also why I have no problem saying "I know the church is true"- because it IS true.

And because of this I can say that I believe and have a testimony that it is the only true church - because these are the principles I believe are true.

Link to comment

Well, you did catch my attention! That was quite interesting. mfbuskowski, since you've said that you took all you present in this forum from Rorty, James, and Dewey, are you a pragmatic yourself? ;)

Yes I would consider myself definitely within the Pragmatic tradition- I am a great fan of James and Dewey and Rorty and the later Wittgenstein.

Summarizing what I could gather, Rorty reconciles science and religion looking at them through the lens of pragmatism. So if I'm understanding him correctly, in the end the demand for intellectual responsibility (same as intellectual honesty I believe) is futile since religion doesn't have to justify itself in scientific terms, and likewise science doesn't have to justify itself in religious terms. Hence, intellectual responsibility being a notion that comes from the proponents of science, it is irrevelant for them to ask and expect the same from a paradigm working on different principles, e.g., religion. It has to be understood that science and religion serve different purposes for which they are respectively adequate for, which means that ultimately they are not accountable to each other.

Exactly right

I thought it was interesting that he pointed at the struggle to reconcile science and religion to explain the differences between our Western concept of philosophy and the Oriental philosophy. Though I never really looked at their differences, I had always seen and felt a strong contrast between the two. It now makes a lot of sense.

Glad to hear that!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Now I'm wondering, using this approach, how is one supposed to determine the truthfulness of any particular religion?

I could stand corrected, but from what I understand at the moment, the answer to this would basically hold that the criteria is how a particular religion works for you, within the confines of religions and the associated paradigm... In short, religious pragmatism.

So how does one chose between mormonism and hinduism? He/she looks at which one is better practically justified in his or her particular circumstances.

Am I understanding this correctly or am I missing something? (I genuinely want to understand/clarify this)

It's really Alma 32. If the seed is sweet to you and swells in your breast, you know that the message is "true".

Mormons don't typically like that idea because they want absolutes, so there is a way to reconcile that absolutism with relativism as Rorty suggests, by making a distinction.

I personally believe that the church is the truest church that exists on the earth today, BECAUSE it is the only church which teaches humanism (that God is a Man, and humans are not naturally evil and that human potential is infinite- indeed we can become gods ourselves) AND teaches an Alma 32 approach to truth and knowing the truth.

But not all people are ready for this message.. But God leads us one step at a time ("line by line...") .

So if you are Hindu, and receive a testimony, I would say stay with it because that is what your spirit needs to learn for now.

The beauty of Mormonism includes the idea that salvation continues into the future- that we grow spiritually after this life.

So I would reconcile the traditional Mormon idea of absolute truth of one faith with the idea of "follow your testimony" by adding the words "for now" to the idea of following your testimony.

Whatever it is, if it is "sweet" to you, follow your testimony - for now. As your understanding increases, it is my opinion that you will soon see a coherence between where your heart leads you and Mormonism, if you allow that in your life.

It will take a lifetime and well beyond for all of us to come to a unity of the faith and see eye-to eye on these religious matters- but guess what?

Mormonism is the only church which teaches that as well - that spiritual progression can grow infinitely after this life!!

"Every knee shall bow...." Mormonism is true and Pragmatism is true, and they cohere perfectly. Surprise surprise!!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

I believe science to be true insofar as it is translated, transmitted, transferred correctly. As well as long as it always supports the truth, free of politics. :)

I agree with you... however, it is also the same as saying it is true as long as it has no error.

Link to comment

Yes I would consider myself definitely within the Pragmatic tradition- I am a great fan of James and Dewey and Rorty and the later Wittgenstein.

Exactly right

Glad to hear that!

Wittgentstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel...

Link to comment

It's really Alma 32. If the seed is sweet to you and swells in your breast, you know that the message is "true".

Mormons don't typically like that idea because they want absolutes, so there is a way to reconcile that absolutism with relativism as Rorty suggests, by making a distinction.

I personally believe that the church is the truest church that exists on the earth today, BECAUSE it is the only church which teaches humanism (that God is a Man, and humans are not naturally evil and that human potential is infinite- indeed we can become gods ourselves) AND teaches an Alma 32 approach to truth and knowing the truth.

But not all people are ready for this message.. But God leads us one step at a time ("line by line...").

From this I gather that it wouldn't matter to you, or that at least it would be secondary, whether or not the church is approved by God. Rather, the primary criterion is what the church (or any particular belief for that matter) teaches, what it brings to one's life. Some members would definitely not be ready for this message.

Well, I guess this view is all fine if one believes that this quest for truth ends once one reaches Mormonism. In the Church, we like it when we see people seeking truth ending up converted to our religion. It confirms to us that we are on to something special, and that indeed these people are even drawn to us. It becomes another testimony that we are God's one true church...

Whatever it is, if it is "sweet" to you, follow your testimony - for now. As your understanding increases, it is my opinion that you will soon see a coherence between where your heart leads you and Mormonism, if you allow that in your life.

So let's say one follows his testimony of Mormonism - for now, would this person be wrong if he/she ends up going pass/beyond Mormonism as his/her understanding increases?

It will take a lifetime and well beyond for all of us to come to a unity of the faith and see eye-to eye on these religious matters- but guess what?

Mormonism is the only church which teaches that as well - that spiritual progression can grow infinitely after this life!!

I know it is not exactly the same, but aren't the religions believing in the concept of reincarnation also teaching a sort of infinite spiritual progression after this life?

"Every knee shall bow...." Mormonism is true and Pragmatism is true, and they cohere perfectly. Surprise surprise!!

I don't know if pragmatism is "true", but it certainly is an interesting philosophy. ;)

Link to comment

Wittgentstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel...

Isn't the next line something about cream cheese and a bagel? ;)

Link to comment

From this I gather that it wouldn't matter to you, or that at least it would be secondary, whether or not the church is approved by God.

Not sure at all where you got that impression- those old paradigms are hard to break.

The question is how would you KNOW that ANY religion is approved by God! And suddenly we are back to testimony- the still small voice of Moroni 10: 4-5 and Alma 32.

Clearly if there is a God who cares about out spiritual path, clearly he better have a way of telling us which is "true". That is pretty fundamental, otherwise he would be a capricious god who is toying with humanity by saying in essence "Yes, there is a true religion, but there is no way to find out which one I want you to join- but if you get it wrong, you burn in hell forever".

Not exactly MY idea of a loving Father in heaven. So the only question,as with everything else about what we call reality, the question is not what is "really out there" since all we can KNOW is what we see and feel about what is out there.

That is the entire point of Pragmatism. So for a Pragmatist this objection misses the point.

Rather, the primary criterion is what the church (or any particular belief for that matter) teaches, what it brings to one's life. Some members would definitely not be ready for this message.

Oh clearly! But my answer to that is that they need to be educated in the fallacy of their present beliefs- that they can "know" something they have no experience of and cannot even articulate.

When one speaks of a world "beyond experience" one speaks nonsense. How could we possibly know anything about such a world? Did Zoron of Ratherplack kill the Tolomer or not? How would we determine the truth or falsity of something we have no experience of?

Well, I guess this view is all fine if one believes that this quest for truth ends once one reaches Mormonism.

Which is, of course what Mormons believe. That is why I believe that this is highly compatible with what Mormons believe.

In the Church, we like it when we see people seeking truth ending up converted to our religion. It confirms to us that we are on to something special, and that indeed these people are even drawn to us. It becomes another testimony that we are God's one true church...

And this is wrong because......?

So let's say one follows his testimony of Mormonism - for now, would this person be wrong if he/she ends up going pass/beyond Mormonism as his/her understanding increases?

Well a good Pragmatist Mormon would have trouble with the word "beyond" in this sentence. I think such a person would say "Well, he decided to leave the church, but I am sure he will be back, if not here, then on the other side where he sees the errors of his ways" or something like that.

Also saying that one's "understanding increases" implies that there IS something "more" objectively to be discovered, which one could learn which is "beyond" Mormonism/Pragmatism. Without a definition of a full fledged theory, it is hard for me to see what that would be- I have not seen anything better in the 40 years I have been studying this stuff.

I know it is not exactly the same, but aren't the religions believing in the concept of reincarnation also teaching a sort of infinite spiritual progression after this life?

Yes, but there are serious problems with reincarnation and that principle in my opinion. On that view, all that is necessary for the theory to work is to believe that spiritual progression can happen after death- the Mormon view. All the other mechanics of reincarnation after that become redundant. Once one has accepted spiritual growth after death, there is no need to say things like that you might come back as a rat or a dog or a Buddha - all that silliness is redundant to the principle that spiritual growth continues after death. It puts extra cogs and wheels in the theoretical model which are not called for.

I don't know if pragmatism is "true", but it certainly is an interesting philosophy. ;)

A Pragmatist would not quite know what to do with that statement, considering we/they are not even sure what "true" would mean in such a context. It works the best of anything I know of until something else comes along. ;)

Link to comment

There is one paragraph that I must speak to only because it attempts to say what all non-LDS teach and it seems misleading if not mistaken to me.

Bukowski

I personally believe that the church is the truest church that exists on the earth today, BECAUSE it is the only church which teaches humanism (that God is a Man, and humans are not naturally evil and that human potential is infinite- indeed we can become gods ourselves) AND teaches an Alma 32 approach to truth and knowing the truth.

3DOP

Catholics could not agree that man is naturally evil. Everything God makes is very good. Both sons of God, Adam and Christ were from their beginnings on earth sinless. I do not deny that the wound of Adam's fall has resulted in something alien and unnatural to man. Nevertheless, as man wounded in Adam is potentially evil, so man healed in Christ has a potential as unlimited as in LDS eschatology. We would not say "infinite" potential because only God is infinite. In fact, I thought most LDS quibbled with us for saying God is infinite. Unless God is infinite, how could human potential be infinite/limitless? Because we place no limits on God, it has been my opinion that the potential for human deification in Catholic thought is not inferior to that in any other religious system. We don't believe man can be greater than God but since God is infinite the possibilities are probably unimaginable. Maybe that is why so many Catholic writers through the ages have not shied away from saying that the blessed in Heaven are well described as "gods".

Anyway, I am not trying to argue against the beliefs anyone has regarding Mormon compatibility with the thoughts presented in the video. I only want for those who may not be familiar with the Catholic faith to understand that we could not agree with the above characterization without many qualifiers. I would especially hate for someone to get the impression that God makes man evil according to Catholic thought. I would also hate to clutter this thread over a minor distraction. I certainly don't think my misgivings about a couple of small points diminish the argument that Bukowski is trying to make and with which I tend to agree (regarding the compatibility of Mormonism with modern philosophy in general and Rorty in particular).

Rory

Link to comment

There is one paragraph that I must speak to only because it attempts to say what all non-LDS teach and it seems misleading if not mistaken to me.

Bukowski

I personally believe that the church is the truest church that exists on the earth today, BECAUSE it is the only church which teaches humanism (that God is a Man, and humans are not naturally evil and that human potential is infinite- indeed we can become gods ourselves) AND teaches an Alma 32 approach to truth and knowing the truth.

3DOP

Catholics could not agree that man is naturally evil. Everything God makes is very good. Both sons of God, Adam and Christ were from their beginnings on earth sinless. I do not deny that the wound of Adam's fall has resulted in something alien and unnatural to man. Nevertheless, as man wounded in Adam is potentially evil, so man healed in Christ has a potential as unlimited as in LDS eschatology. We would not say "infinite" potential because only God is infinite. In fact, I thought most LDS quibbled with us for saying God is infinite. Unless God is infinite, how could human potential be infinite/limitless? Because we place no limits on God, it has been my opinion that the potential for human deification in Catholic thought is not inferior to that in any other religious system. We don't believe man can be greater than God but since God is infinite the possibilities are probably unimaginable. Maybe that is why so many Catholic writers through the ages have not shied away from saying that the blessed in Heaven are well described as "gods".

Anyway, I am not trying to argue against the beliefs anyone has regarding Mormon compatibility with the thoughts presented in the video. I only want for those who may not be familiar with the Catholic faith to understand that we could not agree with the above characterization without many qualifiers. I would especially hate for someone to get the impression that God makes man evil according to Catholic thought. I would also hate to clutter this thread over a minor distraction. I certainly don't think my misgivings about a couple of small points diminish the argument that Bukowski is trying to make and with which I tend to agree (regarding the compatibility of Mormonism with modern philosophy in general and Rorty in particular).

Rory

When Catholics agree that God has a body in human form and is immanent rather than transcendent we will have something to talk about. When Catholics do away with their "Substance" theology we will REALLY have something to talk about

The Trinity of course is another idea we explain quite simply- the three persons are united in love and purpose. The "Godhead" is a collective noun like "congress" or "committee" and when the scriptures say God is love, that is literally true. The Unity of God is the love that the tree persons have for each other. Saying that God is love is about the same as saying "The family is Love" - because it is love which forms a family.

At any rate, it is nice that we are on the same page about deification, but in my experience your view is not the typical Catholic view. I could very well be mistaken of course.

But it is also important to realize that Rorty's fictional character Professor Ryan is a Catholic, and clearly his arguments work just as well for Catholics as they do for Mormons. We could very well agree on all that Rorty says, and disagree on doctrine. On the other hand, I don't think a Catholic could accept Rorty's position because Rorty specifically attacks Catholic philosophy- the notions of "substance" but certainly not Catholicism as a religion.

So I think a Mormon can totally agree with Rorty unreservedly on these issues whereas a Catholic cannot, even though ultimately Rorty would defend the "rationality" of both the Catholic and Mormon positions.

Put it more simply, Rorty's idea of "truth" coheres well with Mormon "truth" but is highly incompatible with Catholic "truth" concepts, yet he would consider both positions equally "rational" for a true believer.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

bukowski

When Catholics agree that God has a body in human form and is immanent rather than transcendent we will have something to talk about. When Catholics do away with their "Substance" theology we will REALLY have something to talk about

3DOP

Or conversely, when Mormons agree that they are wrong about the fundamentals of their faith...For the record we do not admit that God is transcendant only. His immanence is amply demonstrated in the pages of both Testaments.

bukowski

The Trinity of course is another idea we explain quite simply- the three persons are united in love and purpose. The "Godhead" is a collective noun like "congress" or "committee" and when the scriptures say God is love, that is literally true. The Unity of God is the love that the tree persons have for each other. Saying that God is love is about the same as saying "The family is Love" - because it is love which forms a family.

3DOP

According to my understanding, God is the personification of all virtues and perfections. Love, Wisdom, Light, Truth, Mercy, and Justice, to name a few.

bukowski

At any rate, it is nice that we are on the same page about deification, but in my experience your view is not the typical Catholic view. I could very well be mistaken of course.

3DOP

It is good. Are you suggesting that I must limit my beliefs to the "typical Catholic view"? Heh. That would be pretty hard on me. I don't think I could be Catholic if that were the case. Maybe it is because they have become much like Professor Ryan? I doubt if Professor Ryan has thought very much about deification. Anyway, my experience with the typical Catholic is not much different from yours. The Catholic Church has never taught that we should take "typical Catholics" for our guide. That is why I would rather agree with Irenaeus, Augustine, Aquinas, John of the Cross, and Francis de Sales, the liturgy, and Pope John Paul's catechism than 1.1 billion living Catholics, many of whom don't know what their church teaches.

bukowski

But it is also important to realize that Rorty's fictional character Professor Ryan is a Catholic, and clearly his arguments work just as well for Catholics as they do for Mormons. We could very well agree on all that Rorty says, and disagree on doctrine. On the other hand, I don't think a Catholic could accept Rorty's position because Rorty specifically attacks Catholic philosophy- the notions of "substance" but certainly not Catholicism as a religion.

So I think a Mormon can totally agree with Rorty unreservedly on these issues whereas a Catholic cannot, even though ultimately Rorty would defend the "rationality" of both the Catholic and Mormon positions.

Put it more simply, Rorty's idea of "truth" coheres well with Mormon "truth" but is highly incompatible with Catholic "truth" concepts, yet he would consider both positions equally "rational" for a true believer.

3DOP

We watched the first fifteen minutes carefully last night. So far I agree with your assessment. I think we would need to listen farther for me to comment on whether both positions are "equally 'rational' for a true believer".

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment

Not sure at all where you got that impression- those old paradigms are hard to break.

Simply because of the reasons you stated first why you believed that the church is the truest church: 1. it teaches humanism (as you presented it), and 2. it teaches an Alma 32 approach to truth.

So the only question,as with everything else about what we call reality, the question is not what is "really out there" since all we can KNOW is what we see and feel about what is out there.

I don't see the "only question" you refer to. You only gave what the question is not.

That is the entire point of Pragmatism. So for a Pragmatist this objection misses the point.

The point of pragmatism is that "all we can know is what we see and feel about what is out there"? What is the objection you refer to?

I won't address your many points, mainly for lack of time, but thank you for your response!

A Pragmatist would not quite know what to do with that statement, considering we/they are not even sure what "true" would mean in such a context. It works the best of anything I know of until something else comes along. ;)

Haha!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...