Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

As long as you frame your questions (both the first and follow-ups)  in terms of “can” and “could” of course there is always an element of faith, and my response is essentially the same. But why move away from the subject of the Book of Mormon, and what the book says about using prayer in relation to it? Those are not really follow-up questions to the one about the Book of Mormon at all.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

Prayer does not reveal anything about history in a scholarly context because prayer it's not within a scholar the context.

That is what we've been discussing oddly enough for over a year. 

If however the belief in historicity is in a religious context then secular Scholars have nothing to do with it. I have said that over and over. Whether or not the atonement occurred in 33 ad is a religious question. Whether or not the Book of Mormon is historical is a religious question.

Regarding George Washington If by accurate you're talking about agreeing with the consensus of Scholars then yes the statement about being the first president is more accurate than the other one.

Define accurate any other way. You can't.

But these are semantic games.

Essentially you're asking if historians create paradigms about history. Of course they do.

To  me it's like asking if all bachelors really are unmarried or if some bachelors might possibly be "actually " married.  Accepted history is what historians accept. To me this is all just tautologies.

You still seem to be stuck on absolute truth and take accuracy as correspondence with the world.

Of course if that is the case you'd have to already know about how the world is, independent of the scholars in order to know if what they said correponded to the real thing or not. 

That of course is absurd.

Edited December 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

seems like it has happened

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1390183

Assuming that includes his apocalyptic and alchemist discoveries too.  

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As long as you frame your questions (both the first and follow-ups)  in terms of “can” and “could” of course there is always an element of faith, and my response is essentially the same. But why move away from the subject of the Book of Mormon, and what the book says about using prayer in relation to it? Those are not really follow-up questions to the one about the Book of Mormon at all.

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.  

[strappinglad]

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Assuming that includes his apocalyptic and alchemist discoveries too

There ya go, QED .

[CV75]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Yes, there are two different, independent spheres as you seem to accept, but since this same type of question keeps coming up, I thought I would bring up how the two spheres can operate conjointly (albeit independently) for those willing to consider that. The degree of willingness is reflected in one’s level of ability to accept multiple spheres, and also the ability to accept “yes and no” as an answer, or only  “yes” or “no” answers.

The Book of Mormon invites us to pray about certain things in certain ways within its topic sphere. Referring to your question, if you want to pray about something else that you haven’t seen within its sphere, but is yet somehow accepted as a topic related to the Book of Mormon, what is the source and rationale? And if you do believe that facts in one sphere are somehow related to truth in another sphere, that suggests that one sphere could govern another.

A hammer and nail can be used for many things, not all involving gravity.

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Prayer does not reveal anything about history in a scholarly context because prayer it's not within a scholar the context.

That is what we've been discussing oddly enough for over a year. 

If however the belief in historicity is in a religious context then secular Scholars have nothing to do with it. I have said that over and over. Whether or not the atonement occurred in 33 ad is a religious question. Whether or not the Book of Mormon is historical is a religious question.

Regarding George Washington If by accurate you're talking about agreeing with the consensus of Scholars then yes the statement about being the first president is more accurate than the other one.

Define accurate any other way. You can't.

But these are semantic games.

Essentially you're asking if historians create paradigms about history. Of course they do.

To  me it's like asking if all bachelors really are unmarried or if some bachelors might possibly be "actually " married.  Accepted history is what historians accept. To me this is all just tautologies.

You still seem to be stuck on absolute truth and take accuracy as correspondence with the world.

Of course if that is the case you'd have to already know about how the world is, independent of the scholars in order to know if what they said correponded to the real thing or not. 

That of course is absurd.

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.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, there are two different, independent spheres as you seem to accept, but since this same type of question keeps coming up, I thought I would bring up how the two spheres can operate conjointly (albeit independently) for those willing to consider that. The degree of willingness is reflected in one’s level of ability to accept multiple spheres, and also the ability to accept “yes and no” as an answer, or only  “yes” or “no” answers.

The Book of Mormon invites us to pray about certain things in certain ways within its topic sphere. Referring to your question, if you want to pray about something else that you haven’t seen within its sphere, but is yet somehow accepted as a topic related to the Book of Mormon, what is the source and rationale? And if you do believe that facts in one sphere are somehow related to truth in another sphere, that suggests that one sphere could govern another.

A hammer and nail can be used for many things, not all involving gravity.

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.  

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Then why do you keep asking the same question?

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Then why do you keep asking the same question?

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

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Well, that is part an parcel of being "another crazy thread..."

The question from here, after the philosophical points were acknowledged: Posted 19 hours ago

“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”

ANSWER(S) consistent with the two-spheres-of-truth idea: Yes, no, depends; even the most rigorously disciplined evaluation remains subjective; people can accept the Book of Mormon as historical enough for them after praying about what it does promise to answer; people can pray about its historicity and other things it doesn’t promise to answer (with varying results); scholars can apply their trade in a religiously supportive context, recognizing that nothing in scholarship is final; some are good at it and some are not; people can comfortably work with both prayer for some things and the scientific method for others, and successfully coordinate the findings, and some people cannot.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Well yes, I think it is original and I need to get the word out. Were more Mormons into the philosophies of men they would know their beliefs are justified philosophically. Rorty knows it, and he knew Mormonism

It's Rorty, chapter and verse

Not me 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Well, that is part an parcel of being "another crazy thread..."

The question from here, after the philosophical points were acknowledged: Posted 19 hours ago

“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”

ANSWER(S) consistent with the two-spheres-of-truth idea: Yes, no, depends; even the most rigorously disciplined evaluation remains subjective; people can accept the Book of Mormon as historical enough for them after praying about what it does promise to answer; people can pray about its historicity and other things it doesn’t promise to answer (with varying results); scholars can apply their trade in a religiously supportive context, recognizing that nothing in scholarship is final; some are good at it and some are not; people can comfortably work with both prayer for some things and the scientific method for others, and successfully coordinate the findings, and some people cannot.

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.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well yes, I think it is original and I need to get the word out. Were more Mormons into the philosophies of men they would know their beliefs are justified philosophically. Rorty knows it, and he knew Mormonism

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

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

That’s been understood all along, but doesn’t explain why you keep asking the same question, which is what I asked about.

Our faith recognizes that the pursuit of knowledge, whatever kind and through whatever means, is fundamentally a matter of exercising personal agency.  So of course everyone won’t agree on every precept no matter how well justified or rationalized it is by any given paradigm and standard, and everyone has the answer they choose to live with, even scholars and scientists.

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That’s been understood all along, but doesn’t explain why you keep asking the same question, which is what I asked about.

Our faith recognizes that the pursuit of knowledge, whatever kind and through whatever means, is fundamentally a matter of exercising personal agency.  So of course everyone won’t agree on every precept no matter how well justified or rationalized it is by any given paradigm and standard, and everyone has the answer they choose to live with, even scholars and scientists.

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.  

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

What if there is no bias at all, and I speak from personal experience.

In fact I am one of a group of individuals who knew nothing about Joseph Smith nor the Book of Mormon, who did not pray for truth but was confronted in no uncertain terms that it was true after having an unexpected, unanticipated personal spiritual experience.

https://youtu.be/d96c3dzZBmA

 

Edited December 10, 2018 by cdowis

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, cdowis said:

What if there is no bias at all, and I speak from personal experience.

In fact I am one of a group of individuals who knew nothing about Joseph Smith nor the Book of Mormon, who did not pray for truth but was confronted in no uncertain terms that it was true after having an unexpected, unanticipated personal spiritual experience.

https://youtu.be/d96c3dzZBmA

 

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.  

[CV75]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I think the paradigm is quite common, but is more intuitive and visceral than is verbally/orally articulated. After all, people have lives and actually live their religion!

Not to pick on anyone, but can you point out on this thread some replies indicating the two spheres are considered as one and the same?

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, cdowis said:

What if there is no bias at all, and I speak from personal experience.

In fact I am one of a group of individuals who knew nothing about Joseph Smith nor the Book of Mormon, who did not pray for truth but was confronted in no uncertain terms that it was true after having an unexpected, unanticipated personal spiritual experience.

https://youtu.be/d96c3dzZBmA

 

There may have been no bias about Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon in the sense one is ignorant of them, but there may be bias in terms of what other things one accepts as reasonable and one dismisses as error of some sort or other biases that increase attraction or avoidance of specific beliefs.

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the paradigm is quite common, but is more intuitive and visceral than is verbally/orally articulated. After all, people have lives and actually live their religion!

Not to pick on anyone, but can you point out on this thread some replies indicating the two spheres are considered as one and the same?

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.  

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Is that the royal "we"?

I think we need another thread on that subject.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Is that the royal "we"?

I think we need another thread on that subject.

Sorry, I got you mixed up with CV75.  

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Not really.  Some paradigms are better than others for the purpose of making us the best humans we can become etc- you pick the purpose.

I think the notion of trying to be like God is about the best paradigm humans can have to make them better humans by imitating Christ  I suppose others might disagree with that if they have other goals.  Since God is defined as being perfect one would think that being a perfect human would be a perfect paradigm.

And that is precisely what the Mormon paradigm for what God is is a perfected, literal human.

I am not here to please most Mormons- I am here to hone paradigms and find the best for me. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

What if there is no bias at all, and I speak from personal experience.

In fact I am one of a group of individuals who knew nothing about Joseph Smith nor the Book of Mormon, who did not pray for truth but was confronted in no uncertain terms that it was true after having an unexpected, unanticipated personal spiritual experience.

https://youtu.be/d96c3dzZBmA

 

Me too.