Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17,517 Excellent

About mfbukowski

  • Rank
    Wittgensteinian Pot-Stirrer

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Los Angeles Area
  • Interests
    My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,809 profile views
  1. There seems to be a feeling at least in my ward that if you are doing the Lord's work, you don't have faith that He will protect you if you wear a mask of are concerned about going to someone's house to give a blessing etc. That's tough for me, because yes I have faith that the Lord can protect me, but on the other hand, I know that bad things happen to good people- assuming I am at least trying to be one- and that he allows for natural consequences when you put yourself in danger stupidly. So wha'doya'do ?
  2. It would be interesting if we could make replies via short videos here. Just something to run up the flag pole. All we would have to do is make a selfie-video, limit the time, and upload it like you would share any video..... even I can figure out that one!!
  3. California is still closed to meetings of any kind, but our missionaries do an FHE every other monday night, and we do Sunday School -weekly, all of this using Zoom, of course. Our Sunday School runs around 25 people weekly, actually about what we would get in class at church Pretty interesting because those invited by the missionaries are sometimes "investigators" and sometimes just barely ! We had one woman attend sacrament meeting last week in that second category, who was quite bold in her questions, and kind of did not get the purpose of the meeting- she just thought it was some kind of Christian group praising Jesus etc. Because she was someone the missionaries just met, she kept asking who this "Alma" person was- because she could not find that name in her Bible. She had never heard of the Book of Mormon, but knew that "Mormons" were some kind of religious group like the Jehovah's Witnesses etc. What happened was a derail of Sunday School and 25 people chiming in on a door approach and first discussion at the same time!! As it was, the missionaries had already scheduled a home visit with her for right after the Sunday School meeting- I am sure her invitation was just one of those "By the way, we are having this meeting just before we meet with you..." kind of things that the missionaries did not anticipate what her attendance might mean for Sunday School But on the other hand, it was kind of cool to be back in one of those discussions- it was like having an investigator come to your house to meet the 25 people in your family!! But it went well, everyone was very kind in fielding her questions and I think it was a positive experience for all.
  4. But then if they are embodied, we should be using masks because who knows what diseases they might be carrying from eons ago... AND besides that is distinguishing people on their state of being and clearly shows Being-ism. Man you just have to get with it here, bro ! We clearly should not be practicing class-ism in distinguishing people who are experiencing embodied death and persons who are experiencing being disembodied. That is VERY Being-ist. You should know better! 😲
  5. ... and not consistent with LDS history in which it was commonplace to use the cross. (See the Mike Reed article we both quoted earlier) I wish I could get one of the pics from that book uploaded to the board, but was unable to do that- maybe you can do that Mr. Wagon. I jest ain't up on these here new-fangled contraptions, lak y'all young folks!
  6. There is always a "yeah but" in the apologetics business ... Yeah, but: You still have Joseph reading out of a hat! And now another question- who was the translator and how did Joseph receive the translation?? I am not sure that helps the argument in favor of Book of Mormon authenticity move along very well. I am still in the spiritual Moroni 10 crowd. There's no way of getting around that so why not just concentrate on that point? You could still have a perfectly logical explanation for it all and not take it as scripture.
  7. That is probably simultaneously the simplest, AND most profound question of all To show that his visions which he sends to his children are NOT caused by psychedelic drugs- or brain chemicals, because all those do is cause good trips or bad trips and show that spiritual experience is quite different than drug-originated experience. Some of us need to learn that the hard way, by experimenting for oneself. When someone tells me now that religious experience is just electro-chemicals dancing around in my brain, I know for sure that they are NOT, and are REAL, and perhaps the most real and ineffable experience humans are capable of having. When you see atheists wonder about why it is that cruelty is seen as "bad" or guys like Hitchens wondering why we seem to have a "moral compass" in our brains, I KNOW that naturalism and science cannot explain it. I know that there is a BEING out there who knows and cares for me and about me, and who, when I let he/she into my heart and open up to her/him, it is a REAL experience and an experience OF REALITY not caused by last night's tacos off the truck. That still small voice then can become the loudest thing you will ever hear, because you allow it to be. And we should thank Brother Hales for his very rational, profoundly well researched, and erudite explanation of that point.
  8. Since language itself is symbolic, it is reasonable for some with that spirit to see it as "literal". For some, all text is metaphor, since none of it refers to reality as it "really is."
  9. Incidentally the word "angel" is now politically incorrect, and reflects discrimination against dead people. They should now be referred to as "persons experiencing disembodiment".
  10. Not to mention it used to be displayed in funerals etc. I guess all of us are condemned then ☠️
  11. Another thought - using a science which is definitely a "hard" science- lotsa math lotsa theories, very much about the "reality" of the universe, astronomy. We don't think for a minute though that all that science is about what is presently "real" though, unless we do not know about astronomy. IN fact we know it is really about OUR PERCEPTIONS of light from thousands or millions of years ago! Those stars we see may not even exist in "reality" in any sense, and yet from them, we derive theories we apply to the future in making predictions That's a pretty good analogy for science in general imo. All we have are our perceptions to tell us about what is "real" and yet it is not "real" at all!
  12. Finally getting back to you! Yes I would say that you are right about Craig, though I do not agree with him on other issues. On the other hand I do not know his work very well. I just recall seeing some of his comments that convinced me that he was not on the "right path" as I see it. Well I hope I can show you the grave. One good place to start is in Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" though it is rather technical. https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf Do you know the work of AJ Ayer? He was one of the fathers of positivism Sir Alfred Jules "Freddie" Ayer FBA (/ɛər/;[3] 29 October 1910 – 27 June 1989),[4] usually cited as A. J. Ayer, was an English philosopher known for his promotion of logical positivism, particularly in his books Language, Truth, and Logic (1936) and The Problem of Knowledge (1956). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Ayer#:~:text=Sir Alfred Jules "Freddie" Ayer,Problem of Knowledge (1956). Everyday I sit in my home office and there is a bookshelf in front of me. On it is a copy of "Language Truth and Logic". I deliberately shelve it right next to Rorty's books, hoping that some day the books will come alive and duke it out. Maybe I need some LSD in my life. 😮 Why ? Because in the course of his career AJ Ayer himself repudiated his previous position and understood that indeed, positivism cannot be sustained. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism I would like to mention that in these choice of terms, I am an Instrumentalist which is an alternate term for Pragmatist. Dewey came up with the term. Another quote from the above quoted link: As mentioned here, the main logical problem of positivism is that it is self-contradictory.- This quote from the other wikipedia article linked above: So how is the "verification principle" self contradictory?- from above- "Unless logical or empirical verification is possible, statements like "God exists" or "charity is good" are not true or untrue but meaningless, and may thus be excluded or ignored. " The problem is that that statement itself cannot be empirically verified! If you want to see the volume of evidence that positivism is dead just google the words "positivism is dead". I think we have discovered the grave! But yes when you have been schooled in it for decades and it is all you know about epistemology, it can be difficult to give up. But to be credible in today's real world (as opposed to on this board) you have to acknowledge that positivism is dead. And still all the atheists you see hereabouts cling to principles they do not understand. Go figure! Exactly.
  13. Well it becomes important because now it becomes a human-created symbolic artifact showing human intentions It is an object that would not exist except for human intelligence and the ability to understand abstract symbols.
  14. Ah yes, I should have realized that! And of course his behavior was discovered many years after the fact. That was a very powerful philos. department in those days. Lewis, Church, Davis, Kalish and Montague, Solomon, - quite a stellar if peculiar group of people wandering around on the third floor of the Social Welfare building. ( now Dodd Hall)
  • Create New...