LDS Apologetic Response to Atheistic Materialism

[mfbukowski]

As Feynman points out, no person has to be looking. All that has to be the case is that some record is made in the universe that makes it in principle possible to tell which slit the electron entered. No one, no person, no consciousness, has to check the instruments. It doesn't even have to be a device designed for measuring. Feynman gives a real world example involving spin on pages 3-6, 3-8, 3-9 of volume 3 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics where we see the effect of a sort of measurement done not by the person but by a hidden part of the system--no one looks.

But then they look at what the instrument "saw" and interpret the results. Looking through a microscope or a radio telescope or any kind of scope you like is still looking.

The results have to be interpreted by human consciousness, otherwise they have no "meaning" to humans.

[mfbukowski]

There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics that do not implicate consciousness at all.

Who is doing the interpretation?

[Nofear]

Who is doing the interpretation?

wikipedia: Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

I'm personally a fan of Bohmian Mechanics (probably enough to say that I subscribe to the theory). While the Copenhagen interpretation preserves locality while eschewing counterfactual definiteness, Bohmian mechanics eschews locality while favoring counterfactual definiteness. Bohmian mechanics naturally appeals to my bias for realism. It allows reality to exist without and independent of consciousness.

[MistahStokes]

If, then, sure. That would be an interesting line of demonstration, to be sure. Hopefully, it wouldn't be

[WalkerW]

I have to to say I really appreciate what Blake does, compared to Dan's critique of "secularism" that got brought up in this thread, he is light years ahead.

To be fair, Dan's article isn't a piece of deep, analytical philosophy on a particular aspect of doctrine. It is, as he calls it, reflections. He looks at some of the secularism he sees online, in Europe, in the media and elsewhere. He has a few comments about secularism is general, but does not delve too deeply, nor does he pretend to. I think it is meant to be more of a heads-up of what is coming in future opposition. Its structure reminds of me of Thomas Sowell's articles "Random Thoughts on a Passing Scene." But the particular part that was quoted I think fits well with what Blake lays out in his article (which is why I quoted that specific portion):

"Looked at empirically, the world does not yield any meaning." (pg. 76)

I think it was a case of reductio ad absurdum. Whether it was fallacious or not I think is the question. Perhaps Dan would prefer to comment on his own work.

[mfbukowski]

wikipedia: Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

I'm personally a fan of Bohmian Mechanics (probably enough to say that I subscribe to the theory). While the Copenhagen interpretation preserves locality while eschewing counterfactual definiteness, Bohmian mechanics eschews locality while favoring counterfactual definiteness. Bohmian mechanics naturally appeals to my bias for realism. It allows reality to exist without and independent of consciousness.

An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although quantum mechanics has received thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters

I am glad it allows reality to do that. Theories always allow "reality" to do something or other. But they are still theories derived in consciousness, in other words, inventions of consciousness.

The mere fact that someone had to make up such a thing is a very interesting notion to me.

Kind of like apologetics, huh?

"Well there MUST be "something out there"- how can we make up something to account for that?"

If you want to define things that way, ok- just know you are doing it. All we can KNOW is human experience- the pool of all knowledge and all observations- we can never get "outside" of observations and theories which explain the observations.

[elguanteloko]

Of course not. That he allows us to be like him makes him greater than ever before conceived.

I was talking more about the "as man is, God once was" part of God... and Him not creating everything from scratch... and Him not creating a plan that much different than those before Him did... etc.

I guess, though, all these issues depend on how we use our imagination. I sure can conceive of a being more "great" that had a beginning and is not that creative than one who created all this from nothing. Imagination dead-end, I guess. Probably when I see how "great" any of those gods is then I'll have some basis for saying otherwise.

[Tarski]

Who is doing the interpretation?

We are. I hope you don't think that is deep or in anyway changes my point.

We have put forth the interpretations (don't confuse this with measuring or looking, we are just talking about how to conceptualize the math). But, even if we were not doing any such interpreting or conceptualizing, even if there were no humans at all, there would be possible interpretations of the math available in the abstract that were consistent with the outcomes of potential experiment and ones that are not. There may (hopefully) be only one interpretation consistent with all possible future experiments even if they are done by robots (and even if done by accident I suppose).

Of course, even this is irrelevant to the point, which is that there is nothing at all about quantum mechanics, as such, that forces us to import the concept of consciousness into our theory of the quantum measurement process in any way other than the trivial sense that we who measure happen to be conscious of some of our measurements which is true for classical physics too!

The special quantum-consciousness connection is spurious.

[Tarski]

But then they look at what the instrument "saw" and interpret the results.

Actually, in Feynman's example, the measurement done by the material had its effect even though we check what the results of the measurement. In other words, we can tell from the interference pattern degradation that some measurable flips in spin must have happened in the scattering material even if we never do go look at the material to see which atoms flipped spin.

Looking through a microscope or a radio telescope or any kind of scope you like is still looking.

The results have to be interpreted by human consciousness, otherwise they have no "meaning" to humans.

That's very true but not deep and certainly not what we are talking about when we talk of consciousness collapsing a wave function and all that nonsense.

Oh, see my last post too.

[ERayR]

This is variation of an all too common maneuver used by cult leaders and the preistly class designed to intimidate doubters and keep them from calling BS on claims of supernatural or divine powers.

It is similar to a town church elder shouting "witch!" when someone dares to question them.

It is rather despicable "trope". In fact, there is obviously no connection between seeking empirical evidence for alleged divine powers and being guilty of adultery.

Is that the same type of response as an athiest calling a believer ignorant and superstitious?

[44Foxtrot]

Is that the same type of response as an athiest calling a believer ignorant and superstitious?

Seems to me that believers choose to be superstitious, by definition.

Formal definitions of superstition include the following:

noun:

a

credulous

belief

or notion,

not

based on

reason

or

knowledge

.

noun:

a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Just sayin'.

[TAO]

Seems to me that believers choose to be superstitious, by definition.

Formal definitions of superstition include the following:

noun:

a

credulous

belief

or notion,

not

based on

reason

or

knowledge

.

noun:

a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Just sayin'.

Ah, but that is superstition, not faith, that it isn't.

[mfbukowski]

But, even if we were not doing any such interpreting or conceptualizing, even if there were no humans at all, there would be possible interpretations of the math available in the abstract that were consistent with the outcomes of potential experiment and ones that are not. There may (hopefully) be only one interpretation consistent with all possible future experiments even if they are done by robots (and even if done by accident I suppose).

Sorry, this takes more faith to believe than I can muster.

I suppose this would be "Atheistic Platonism" or something like that. I cannot believe in the existence of "abstractions". See, that is the problem with the verb "to be" and why we have problems between you and me talking about "existence".

even if there were no humans at all, there would be possible interpretations of the math available in the abstract

In what sense of "be"? Existence? With no humans there "are" interpretations floating somewhere with no consciousness to do the interpreting?

If you really believe this, you should read more Pythagoras and Plato. Good stuff, I just don't believe it. That's why I am not Catholic anymore- it wasn't God that was the problem (I can experience his effects- in my belief-)it was "Substance" and "Being". I have no clue what those "are".

This is so far from my realm of understanding that I would consider it.... well, I wouldn't consider it, let's just leave it at that.

[mfbukowski]

I will make my comment just by underlining portions of your quote which I find to be inconsistent with your position, or maybe more precisely, with MY position.

Actually, in Feynman's example, the measurement done by the material had its effect even though we check what the results of the measurement. In other words, we can tell from the interference pattern degradation that some measurable flips in spin must have happened in the scattering material even if we never do go look at the material to see which atoms flipped spin.

That's very true but not deep

I am not interested in being "deep"- I am interested in thinking as clearly and simply as I can. It is "being deep" which causes confusion. If it cannot be said clearly, there is no point in saying it.

[WalkerW]

I recently watched an interview with Peter Harrison in which he makes (in my opinion) an excellent point about materialism. Food for thought on both sides. I'm not very familiar with Harrison, but I'll be looking at some of his work. The video is "Miracles and Materialism." The point I'm referencing is towards the end.

[Kenngo1969]

Interesting article....

I would be hesitant with materialism, the more immanent God becomes, the more he starts to trespass into the realm of science.

Well, if he's trespassing, I say have him arrested then!

[mfbukowski]

One individual (I forget whom) described Mormons as materialists who function as dualists. The materialism is not the exact same as that usually presented by atheists. I would never argue that. And "intelligence" and "spirit" were used synonymously and sometimes inconsistently in the early days of the Church.

It is a rather mind-blowing topic. The dualism associated with it I think has a lot to do with levels of consciousness, but that isn't something I'm necessarily married to nor in a position to defend really.

Well I finally got a chance to read this thread, so I apologize if I make a bunch of replies at once.

I agree that we are "materialists who function as dualists" and would propose that we not do that anymore. Imo, we need to drop the Platonic dualism of Creedal Christians and develop our own theology which rejects the dualism as apostate, and simultaneously affirms the "reality" of religious experience at least in principle.

I think clinging to dualism is ultimately contradictory to the central conceptual strengths of Mormonism, and is one of the reasons we keep hitting our heads against the theological wall metaphorically speaking, and make little progress toward a systematic theology.

The problem is not "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture"- ANYONE who thinks about religion is in some sense thinking about philosophy- it is mingling the WRONG philosophy- a creedal philosophy- with the LDS understanding of scripture.

Our very interpretation of the Bible for example, is a "philosophy"- it is a coherent abstract interpretation which breaks with tradition, so "philosophy" is not the problem.

The problem is our clinging to our oil-and-water dualism and then wondering why it does not mix well.

[WalkerW]

Well I finally got a chance to read this thread, so I apologize if I make a bunch of replies at once.

I agree that we are "materialists who function as dualists" and would propose that we not do that anymore. Imo, we need to drop the Platonic dualism of Creedal Christians and develop our own theology which rejects the dualism as apostate, and simultaneously affirms the "reality" of religious experience at least in principle.

I think clinging to dualism is ultimately contradictory to the central conceptual strengths of Mormonism, and is one of the reasons we keep hitting our heads against the theological wall metaphorically speaking, and make little progress toward a systematic theology.

The problem is not "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture"- ANYONE who thinks about religion is in some sense thinking about philosophy- it is mingling the WRONG philosophy- a creedal philosophy- with the LDS understanding of scripture.

Our very interpretation of the Bible for example, is a "philosophy"- it is a coherent abstract interpretation which breaks with tradition, so "philosophy" is not the problem.

The problem is our clinging to our oil-and-water dualism and then wondering why it does not mix well.

Well put. Like I said, I think a lot of the dualistic thinking comes from what could be described as different levels or dimensions of physicalism and consciousness. These different levels or realms are described in the language of dualism (material vs. immaterial, body vs. mind, flesh vs. spirit, reason vs. emotion) even though it may not be accurate. Brigham Young described the spirit world as being here. Obviously, it would be a different state of existence; a parallel state. But just because it is removed from our brand of physicalism does not mean it isn't physical. The dualistic language I don't think is completely useless (the NT has dualistic language), but I agree that it is influenced a bit too much by abstract Platonic ways of thinking.

[WalkerW]

In the words of Arthur Henry King,

"Joseph Smith was born at a time when the scientific revolution had not yet percolated down through society, and yet what he has to say under inspiration in the Doctrine and Covenants

[mfbukowski]

There is much chaos, certainly. The ancients believed in chaos. They contrasted the order of creation with the chaos that it emerged from. "Nonexistence" was equated with chaos. No argument there. But that doesn't necessarily mean that no order exists at all.

This is what I mean that no one really operates as if there is no purpose. Elsewhere, Feser writes:

The irony is that the very practice of science itself, which involves the formulation of hypotheses, the weighing of evidence, the invention of technical concepts and vocabularies, the construction of chains of reasoning, and so forth

[mfbukowski]

Well put. Like I said, I think a lot of the dualistic thinking comes from what could be described as different levels or dimensions of physicalism and consciousness. These different levels or realms are described in the language of dualism (material vs. immaterial, body vs. mind, flesh vs. spirit, reason vs. emotion) even though it may not be accurate. Brigham Young described the spirit world as being here. Obviously, it would be a different state of existence; a parallel state. But just because it is removed from our brand of physicalism does not mean it isn't physical. The dualistic language I don't think is completely useless (the NT has dualistic language), but I agree that it is influenced a bit too much by abstract Platonic ways of thinking.

Absolutely!

The problem is the language- you can see that again and again in your post, each time you say "ism" or "described" as well as of course "language". We all need a little Wittgenstein to clear that up! (imo)

My recommendation for those who haven't read it, is Philosophical Investigations basically the later Wittgenstein more than the earlier.

People read him looking for a "philosophy" and get confused though- read him to learn a methodology. Let him be your teacher- he shows you exercises- that is the key to understanding him. He is not a systematic philosopher- he teaches you how to think. Praxis!

I tend to get suspicious whenever I see an "ism" - because what that means to you may be very different than what it means to me.

[mfbukowski]

WWalker,

I believe it was Stephen J Gould who made the case that the biggest misconception about evolution is that it is a matter of progression TOWARDS something.

Whitehead would disagree. His entire theology is built upon that point- and that is his view of (I hate to use the word because it is so different for him) "evolution".

For him, what we are really talking about is God's progression, to use LDS terms. Radically radically oversimplified.....

Process and Reality is probably not a good place to start though. He invents his own language so it gets really hard really fast, but it is worth the study.

[mfbukowski]

Did the Creator make the universe biocentric or did biocentrism make the Creator? Challenging questions, philosophically, scientifically, and theologically.

Fascinating link! Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

In short, I think the LDS view has everything the "conventional Christian" response has, plus revelation as a real option, and without a few major stumbling blocks for a modern/post-modern investigator.

Yep!

And this is why we have the only (imnsho) answer to materialistic atheists compatible with Christianity. No dualism, no problem!

God's effects, in principle, are discoverable by science, though we accept him on faith (for now) as "empirically verifiable" (sort of- that will be a LONG explanation) by "experience", albeit subjective experience, not "objective" (yet).

The long explanation, imo revolves around the mind/body problem as clarified by Nagel and his bat- and the question of "points of view" he raises. That is the key.

Again, just a little (!) terse, it takes a bunch of qualifiers, but those are close to being the skeleton principles? Yes? Maybe?

[WalkerW]

The "subjective" is also making a comeback in my opinion. For example, in philosophy, logical positivism is dead and gone (though some hints of it pop up in lay discussions). In neuroscience, neuroplasticity is on the cutting edge (William James long ago thought the brain to be plastic). In the sociological and psychological aspects of business (which is what my education is in), we are moving away from scientific management and focusing more on human capital. It is interesting to see the conflation of the subjective and objective taking place in a variety of fields.