Religion and the Domains of Truth

[mfbukowski]

It is one thing to know that there is a God and what that God is like and what that God is all about. It is yet another thing to become like God. The point of the restored gospel is less about knowing, and more in become like God, and this because it is only through becoming like God that one may fully know and comprehend him and therein have eternal life.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'll second that!

[mfbukowski]

Now superimpose the changlessness of eternal change over the Process Philosophy notion of evolution and see what happens:

Thomas E. Hosinski Stubborn Fact and Creative Advance

Whitehead explains how rocks are better at survival than all living organisms, or that trees live much longer than humans.

The same eternal values a tree is moving toward unconsciously, or a bear is moving towards consciously are found in a higher level in the human scene by implication of Process Philosophy. It's all about increasing our long term satisfaction of our experience and then passing that beyond ourselves into the life of our posterity or even into the lives of other human beings or living organisms; This notion of helping other people / things increase in their satisfaction and intensity of their experience is life affirming and it seems to reflect a Godlike nature in all things of this earth, but manifested the most in Human beings (thus we are accountable to God unlike other things). It's all about eternal progression and felicity of everything on this earth. And the means of delivery and discovery are always Pragmatic.

This is why service to others makes us happy.

Sins of commotion would be using our free will to ultimately betray this process or as I think you said once MFB, "swimming against the river."

Wickedness never was happiness could be argued strongly from a secular view with Process Philosophy and Pragmatism because you are ultimately letting down the species by "swimming against the river."

And this is such a great secular philosophy because everything is pre-plumbed to install God!

Hmmmm

A lot of this going on today!

I don't know if there even needs to be "Intelligent Design"- it is more like an intelligent conspiracy, or more accurately, a conspiracy of intelligences!

[Facsimile 3]

I don't know if there even needs to be "Intelligent Design"- it is more like an intelligent conspiracy, or more accurately, a conspiracy of intelligences!

So true.

"Wherever there are rocks. Watch out! Because they going to start to come alive!"

[mfbukowski]

So true.

"Wherever there are rocks. Watch out! Because they going to start to come alive!"

More like the chemicals in the rocks in the right solution with the right Intelligences....

Hey, everybody wants to reproduce!

Edit: Hey Montgomery you still out there? We're just hanging out chatting waiting for you to get back!

[LeSellers]

Wow! This More guy is lock step with John Dewey. What an effective missionary companionship those two could have been!

They may have been effective, but certainly not in promoting God. You do know that Dewey was a signatory of the original Humanist Manifesto, right?

Humanist Manifesto, signed by John Dewey, Father of Modern USmerican government-run schools

I despise that man along with Horace Mann and every thing they advocated.

Lehi

[Facsimile 3]

They may have been effective, but certainly not in promoting God. You do know that Dewey was a signatory of the original Humanist Manifesto, right?

Humanist Manifesto, signed by John Dewey, Father of Modern USmerican government-run schools

I despise that man along with Horace Mann and every thing they advocated.

Lehi

The Philosophy of Pragmatism through James and Dewey has done a hell of a lot more for the Mormon position than C.S. Lewis. So if Humanism scares you I would suggest going back to reading the Chronicles of Narnia.

[mfbukowski]

They may have been effective, but certainly not in promoting God. You do know that Dewey was a signatory of the original Humanist Manifesto, right?

Humanist Manifesto, signed by John Dewey, Father of Modern USmerican government-run schools

I despise that man along with Horace Mann and every thing they advocated.

Lehi

I also disagree with his politics, but his view of epistemology and culture is right on imo. He didn't understand the value of free markets, but the best of us make mistakes.

[Facsimile 3]

I really wish Dewey could have read the humanist manifesto to people right before I knocked on their doors as a missionary. It seems like the perfect compliment to the missionary teaching of the Great Apostasy and the Restoration and the part where we ask them to test out the Book of Mormon for yourself, but be patient with finding an answer; its a process.

There are obviously some areas where things do not line up with the Church in the Humanist Manifesto, but if my (future) children were, dare I say, educated in a public school by a teacher who lived by these principles, I don't think I would worry too much about their development as a HUMANS or their personal testimonies.

[DonBradley]

Rather than send them all the way to Narnia--which seems just a bit far!--I would suggest that anyone, particularly a Latter-day Saint posting here, who believes they despise "everything" John Dewey stood for knows only very partially exactly what John Dewey did stand for. Dewey aimed at human welfare and progress, recognized the need for spirituality, hoped to help children evolve into well-rounded adults, etc., etc., etc.

Don

[DonBradley]

I look forward to the day in the (hopefully) not too distant future when a group like mfbukowski, SilverKnight, sethpayne, Kevin Christensen, you and me could ALL go do a temple session together as a group. Before that day comes our group could always get together and talk about Pragmatism and Humanism over some toasted subs from Quizznos; I'll buy.

Sounds fantastic, Facsimile 3! And, yes, with a back row seat saved for Wade (that is, if he prefers that row).

Thanks, btw, Facsimile 3 for your encouragement, kind comments, and contributions to the thread. I'm a bit behind in my engagement on the thread, but I've been excited to see that there are so many of us pragmatists here!

Don

[DonBradley]

Nathair and Ceeboo,

So many thanks for the positive feedback!

Don

[Nathair/|\]

So true.

"Wherever there are rocks. Watch out! Because they going to start to come alive!"

They already are. I can't find it now, but there is an old tale of someone who lived near one of the stone circles of Britain and saw them dance one night.

Yours under the sidhe oaks,

Nathair /|\

[mfbukowski]

It is ironic to me that Dewey was a socialist and also a Pragmatist when it has been shown that Socialism just does not "work".

I wonder how much this view would change if he had lived to see the downfall of Communism. He just did not live long enough to see the "experimental data" illustrated in the fall of Communism in both the USSR, the Eastern block and China "prove" that free markets are necessary to a successful economy. He thought he was being progressive and on the right side, but the evidence has shown otherwise.

And he would be the first to admit that when the evidence shows that the course charted was the wrong one, it should be changed. He was just too embedded in the mid- 20th century to see what was to come. But in a sense, that is itself a confirmation of his theory. We are products of our culture and he personally, was no exception.

[Nathair/|\]

Facsimile 3, on 30 June 2010 - 08:55 AM, said:

I look forward to the day in the (hopefully) not too distant future when a group like mfbukowski, SilverKnight, sethpayne, Kevin Christensen, you and me could ALL go do a temple session together as a group. Before that day comes our group could always get together and talk about Pragmatism and Humanism over some toasted subs from Quizznos; I'll buy.

Sounds fantastic, Facsimile 3! And, yes, with a back row seat saved for Wade (that is, if he prefers that row).

Thanks, btw, Facsimile 3 for your encouragement, kind comments, and contributions to the thread. I'm a bit behind in my engagement on the thread, but I've been excited to see that there are so many of us pragmatists here!

Don

You all should go on midsummer morning, then come over to my circle of stones (if I have it built by then) to dance with the faeries at noon.

Yours under the otherworldly oaks,

Nathair /|\

[mfbukowski]

They may have been effective, but certainly not in promoting God.

If you read that manifesto as applying to creedal Christianity and excluding Mormonism, it nearly sounds like an early Mormon condemnation of all (other) religions being an "abomination" which must be replaced by the restoration. That is what Facsimile 3 is talking about.

And when you actually look at the values expressed, they fit very well with Mormonism. Yes, the rhetoric is a pain- but if you see beyond that you can see the similarities in the underlying world view.

We also are concerned with the betterment of mankind- we call it "Zion" and ultimately, "exaltation". What is missing is a full understanding of how religion fits- but I think we can see that as LDS better than anyone.

[Facsimile 3]

It is ironic to me that Dewey was a socialist and also a Pragmatist when it has been shown that Socialism just does not "work".

I wonder how much this view would change if he had lived to see the downfall of Communism. He just did not live long enough to see the "experimental data" illustrated in the fall of Communism in both the USSR, the Eastern block and China "prove" that free markets are necessary to a successful economy. He thought he was being progressive and on the right side, but the evidence has shown otherwise.

And he would be the first to admit that when the evidence shows that the course charted was the wrong one, it should be changed. He was just too embedded in the mid- 20th century to see what was to come. But in a sense, that is itself a confirmation of his theory. We are products of our culture and he personally, was no exception.

If I remember correctly Dewey dragged the USSR and Fascist Germany through the rocks in his book Freedom and Culture. I don't remember Dewey being a full blown socialist, just a strong advocate of government regulation of the Free Market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_and_Culture

Here is a review I wrote after reading it:

John Dewey For President! My only complaint about this book is that it was too short. I wanted parts of it to be fleshed out a bit more. It is incredible how much ground in covered in 134 pages. "Freedom and Culture" was completed right before America plunged into WWII. During this time there was a lot of second guessing about the future of Democracy with the success of Fascism and Marxism spreading in the world.

His main point in the book was that the culture we cultivate in our countries today will lead us either to a greater level of freedom to reach our fullest individual human potential or towards a limited totalitarian state tomorrow.

"...democracy has always been allied with humanism, with in the potentialities of human nature...The impact of the humanist view of democracy upon all forms of culture, upon education, science and art, morals and religion, as well as upon industry and politics, saves it from criticism passed upon moralistic exhortation. For it tells us that we need to examine every one of the phases of human activity to ascertain what effects it has in release, maturing and fruition of the potentialities of human nature. It does not tell us to 're-arm morally' and all social problems will be solved. It says, Find out how all the constituents of our existing culture are operating and then see to it that whenever and wherever needed they be modified in order that their workings may release and fulfill the possibilities of human nature."

"...the task of those who retain belief in democracy is to revive and maintain in full vigor the original conviction of the intrinsic moral nature of democracy, now stated in way congruous with present conditions of culture. We have advanced far enough to say that democracy is a way of life. We have yet to realize that it is a way of personal life and one which provides a moral standard of personal conduct."

The other purpose of this book was for Dewey to analytically destroy Marxism.

[DonBradley]

Alternative epistemological methods are integral to the sorts of metaphysical theorizing that occurs within the domains of religion. If I hadn't accepted that many people believe we need alternative epistemology, and they must be evaluated, then I wouldn't be here. I recognize that many reasons exist to attempt to discover what is behind this, but a successful attempt in favor of religion has not been brought to my attention. My original thread, once thoroughly discussed, was to be followed by a discussion of why I believe these alternative epistemological methods do not pass evaluation, especially when they overlap with separate established domains. I can unpack, in part, that thread as a response here. I'll be rearranging your post a bit. You've covered quite a few topics. I'm just posting to let you know I'm working on it.

Hi Montgomery,

So religious methods constitute an alternative epistemology and conflict with other established domains.... Huh? This frames religion as on the outside from the get-go, the struggling newcomer trying to establish a place in the epistemic world. My point was that precisely the opposite is the case. Religion is an established domain of inquiry, a very, very long and broadly established one and one that has led to a number of conclusions shared by groups widely separated in time and space and also one that has shown tremendous value.

The idea would not be to try to shoehorn religion into an already cramped epistemological establishment, but, rather, to acknowledge that religion already is established: it is the domain in which human beings inquire after questions of larger meaning and seek to actualize such meaning and that it has always, or verrry long, had methods for inquiring after these things.

To me, to mildly mix my metaphors, what you're asking is equivalent to requiring someone to justify a place for moral inquiry at the epistemic table, as though morality were this strange new fashion that some offbeat folks wanted to set aside a reservation for within a world that belongs to philosophy, math, and science.

Morality is an existing domain of inquiry, inquiry after moral truth. Religion also is an existing, established domain, one which inquires after a kind of truth all normal human beings seem predisposed (if to varying degrees) to contemplate--most obviously questions of transcendence, spirituality, and meaning--how we connect to the universe and whatever is ultimate and primordial in it, where we fit in the grand "scheme of things," and what ultimately matters.

I was going to write that such religious inquiry is at least as universal as mathematical inquiry, but of course it is far more so. We are homo religiosis much more than homo mathematicus or homo philosophicus.

I no more think religion and the religious method need "justification" as a domain and an epistemology than do morality, science, math, and philosophy.

Now...in fairness to you, I would have not long ago asked the same or similar questions to yours; so I "get" that you think religious epistemology does need special justification. But, for me, deeper probing into the basic nature of religion and its questions, and the universality or near-universality of some of its methods and even findings, has turned such a worldview on its head. It's like thinking we need to argue for the validity of philosophy, not that it's as circular as that, but that we cause ourselves similar trouble in both cases by feeling we need to justify as a special adjunct what is already established and intrinsic. The philosopher may have trouble justifying something as basic as the systematic application of logic, but this doesn't stop him from being able to use it, finding things through it, and benefiting from its application. It is the same for the religionist.

Best,

Don

[DonBradley]

Further thoughts in that vein...

It is not the acceptance of a universal and long-standing domain of truth, inquiry, and life that requires justification but its entire rejection--which, in such a case, ought to require hefty justification indeed, if not also the full and adequate replacement of any functions of the rejected domain that meet demonstrable human needs. While science sometimes seeks to explain religion, it is a far cry from refuting the validity of its methods within its domain proper and farther still from subsuming it and replacing its functions in human life. Science doesn't, and by its nature isn't going to, address the human needs for and culturally universal concepts of the transcendent and the sacred, meaning (much less ultimate meaning), how we are to connect to what is larger than ourselves, and what, ultimately, we are to live for. These are simply beyond its scope or what its methods are good for.

To attempt to press it into those areas isn't science but scientism. Scientism, as you doubtless know, is a worldview that exalts science as the central, if not ultimately sole, normative mode. It begins from the (accurate) observation that science has been so fantastically successful these past few centuries and has consequently transformed our lives, and then makes the leap that we should therefore place the other domains under it, if not just replace them with it. Thus, for instance, E. O. Wilson wants to subsume the humanities, religion, and even morality into science. Fundamental problems, like the is-ought distinction, the nature of the domains themselves, and the nature and therefore limitations of the tools of science preempt such goals. But they do not preempt the potentially disastrous consequences of avidly pursuing them.

Devotees of scientism and of fundamentalist religion are each seeking the same thing--to steal turf that properly belongs, and can only belong, to the other. Here we need, as in government, a wall of separation to demarcate them, if hopefully a porous one so that they can propose ideas to inform and enrich, but not issue mandates, for one another.

Cheers,

Don

[LeSellers]

anyone, particularly a Latter-day Saint posting here, who believes they despise "everything" John Dewey stood for knows only very partially exactly what John Dewey did stand for.

How little you knkow of what such an one knows.

Dewey aimed at human welfare and progress, recognized the need for spirituality, hoped to help children evolve into well-rounded adults, etc., etc., etc.

As long as they learned what he decided was important, supported the limitation of individual freedom and personal responsibility, et cetera, etc, &c.

Lehi

[DonBradley]

How little you knkow of what such an one knows.

As long as they learned what he decided was important, supported the limitation of individual freedom and personal responsibility, et cetera, etc, &c.

Lehi

My Friend,

All or nothing statements are almost always wrong. You don't know "everything" John Dewey stood for, and therefore have no way of knowing whether you opposite it all or not.

But I digress.

Cheers,

Don

[mfbukowski]

How little you knkow of what such an one knows.

I think you need to read more Dewey. Really.

[LeSellers]

I think you need to read more Dewey. Really.

I have read more than enough of him. He did not advance freedom, he opposed it, no matter what his words may have been. I judge him based on his acts, and their results.

Anyone who believes that children should be divorced form their parents; who elevates mortals to the highest level, worthy of de facto worship, is not someone I want to waste my time with.

The plain fact is that Dewey took a really bad idea and made it far, far worse. Government-run, tax-funded (grtf, aka, welfare) schools are the worst of all of the anti-family ideas, not far ahead of tax-funded abortion, no-fault divorce and others. GRTF-welfare schools forcibly take children from their homes, indoctrinate them in collectivism and prytaneolatry (worship of the state).

Lehi

[Facsimile 3]

I have read more than enough of him. He did not advance freedom, he opposed it, no matter what his words may have been. I judge him based on his acts, and their results.

Anyone who believes that children should be divorced form their parents; who elevates mortals to the highest level, worthy of de facto worship, is not someone I want to waste my time with.

The plain fact is that Dewey took a really bad idea and made it far, far worse. Government-run, tax-funded (grtf, aka, welfare) schools are the worst of all of the anti-family ideas, not far ahead of tax-funded abortion, no-fault divorce and others. GRTF-welfare schools forcibly take children from their homes, indoctrinate them in collectivism and prytaneolatry (worship of the state).

Lehi

Lehi, please CFR.

You should read Dewey's Freedom and Culture.

[LeSellers]

Lehi, please CFR.

Okeh, I call for reference.

Dewey wanted to force children into schools where irreligious people would teach them. He is (although it may have been one of his atheistic friends) the one who said, "What good is their one hour a week in Sunday School compared to six hours a day in our schools?"

Anyone who had anything to do with imposing government-run, tax-funded (grft, aka ,welfare) schools on the parents of USmerica is a traitor to the very idea of freedom. It is more than merely interesting that, only a decade or so after the last state had disestablished its government religion, states began to impose their schools on parents. Why? The literature of the day (written by the same people who were doing that forcing) tells us it was to divorce children from their parents. Dewey was of the same mind as Mann who wanted to tear the child from his father's religious beliefs, to "free him from pope, papa and priest," in the words of another of their supporters.

It was never about "education" (although it was about "training", as one trains a dog), it was always about indoctrination. If the state control the way one is taught, the state controls what one thinks. GRTF-welfare schools teach not how to think, but what to think. And that "what" is prytaneolatry first and foremost, the religion of the state as god.

As Dewey was a strong supporter of grtf-welfare schools, he must accept the label as traitor to freedom. None other fits him or any of the rest of the "schoolmen" of the mid-to-late XIX and early XX.

I have often said that no one here has shown that the counsel of the Brethren to keep our children out of grtf-welfare schools has been rescinded. They were adamant that LDS children be taught by the faithful, not the faithless. Dewey was among those whose work has seduced Saints around the world, not just in Utah, to ignore these warnings. We are seeing the harvest of that rebellion. I hold Dewey and his ilk responsible for the failure of so many Saints to remains faithful.

Even the devil tells us truths from time to time, as it suits his purposes. Karl Marx and Mao Tsedung said things that were correct. That does not make them wise or good men. The things Dewey said that were correct do not overcome the horrific effect his schools have had on the training and morality of children and the adults they grew up to become.

Lehi

[wenglund]

I don't know much about this Dewey fellow, but getting back to the topic of the thread, and regarding domains of truth, I think there is good reason why at universities the College of Fine Arts are separate from the College of Life Science.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-