LDS Apologetic Response to Atheistic Materialism

[mfbukowski]

My article on Hitchens

Although scholars have identified a number of different paradigmatic approaches to the Bible, Hitchens reduces this complexity to binary opposition: the Bible must be either utterly inerrant or completely bogus. No middle ground exists for an inspired though errant text. In this he is paradoxically in thrall to the fundamentalist assumptions he so vividly vilifies. That is to say, throughout his book he argues against fundamentalist presuppositions and interpretations while ignoring

[mfbukowski]

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.

Yes and in investing there's a lot now on "social capital".

Subjective and objective are really two sides of a great logical divide- you cannot mix statements which are objectively verifiable with subjective observations- to do so is to confound "language games" and imo, causes the whole mind/body free will/determinism and other philosophical alleged "problems" which really are not problems at all- just linguistic issues.

You can't objectively dig in someone's brain- you looking at the brain as an objective observer, and dig out "qualia", or "meaning" because both qualia and meaning are subjectively felt. Totally "real" experientially, but the point of view required to know they are real is subjective, not objective.

Also with determinism/free will. You can protest "he could have not done otherwise" when you know (objectively) the outcome, but subjectively- from that point of view- you cannot deny that we have choices and make them every minute of the day. There is no logical "problem" unless you mix points of view and create one. Either I am seeing it, or someone else is seeing it. I do not see what others see. It is a fundamental fact of having a body. (Does God see both at once? Probably, but that is another thing...)

These kind of problems are purely linguistic- they are, I think "category errors" like arguing about the "color of virtue" or "sound of one hand clapping" (designed of course to communicate the idea of the Unspeakable and not intended to be logical)

We speak of having a life filled with "meaning" and subjectively we understand what that "means" but logically speaking, "meaning" is not a property of a life- it is a property of words and sentences. Again the great divide.

Two different points of view- two different language games, two different ways of thinking about the same thing. Mix them, and you have all kinds of confusion.

[mfbukowski]

Well I only got partially through page four- time to shut up for a while so that I am not totally monopolizing this thread.

Tarski- haven't gotten to you yet. But maybe I have in some of these other comments. I wanted to talk a little with people I agree with rather than the "loyal opposition".

[mfbukowski]

Let me quote Robert Nozick from his Philosophical Explanations

To experience God might leave one with the absolute conviction that his existence was the fountain of meaning, watering your own existence. I do not want to discount testimony reporting this, But even if we accepted it fully, it leaves unanswered the question of how meaning is possible. What is it about God, as usually conceived, in virtue of which he can ground meaning? How can there be a ball of meaning? Even if we are willing to treat the testimony in the way we treat accurate perceptual reports, there still remains the problem of understanding how meaning can be encountered in experience, of how there can be a stopping place for questions about meaning. How in the world (or out of it) can there be something whose nature contains meaning, something which just glows meaning?

These questions haven't been answered in this thread, finding God just creates an extra step and goes no where in terms of externally trumping Naturalism.

I just did. see above- number 152

He is committing a category error.

You cannot see what I see as "red"- you cannot know what I perceive as "meaning" objectively. (from another's pov)

Pretty basic stuff. Is the yellow you see the same yellow I see? Wow man, groovy? That is essentially what he is saying. So what?

Do you remember when a woman "glowed love" when you looked at her? Would I see that same love in that same woman? I definitely see your mom differently than you do- I guarantee it.

Gosh you remind me of another "Mr S..." over at the trailer park..... what a mystery!

You should choose less consistent sock puppets. I really don't want to reapeat the pages and pages of going nowhere we did over there- what a waste!

OK now I really will shut up for a while.

[MistahStokes]

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.

It's funny how his reflections ape the boilerplate apologetics one finds on the shelf of Barnes and Noble. I'd love it if he came into this thread and explain how he didn't quotemine Camus to suit his own purpose, but I'm not expecting it anytime soon.

[MistahStokes]

I just did. see above- number 152

He is committing a category error.

lol

Gosh you remind me of another "Mr S..." over at the trailer park..... what a mystery!

taint no mystery, that's me!

[MistahStokes]

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

Excellent.

[TAO]

Nah, it is "creating it". How would you know you changed it? How would you measure the change you made by observing it?

Uh, let me try and explain... basically, there is a way that would exist if you were 'not effecting' the particles. However, by doing anything (even existing), you change the particles altering their course. Thus, it is impossible to measure anything perfectly, because you have changed it by interfering with it, and it isn't the same as it was before.

[MistahStokes]

To answer a PM inquiry and for lurkers...

MfB doesn't answer the question because he's trying to invoke a dated concept of "language games" off what I assume is off a few pages from Wittgenstein's Investigations commentary on a Metaphysical debate. People who actually study Philosophy and try to stay current understand that a man named Michael Dummett put this to rest when he showed that the debate between Platonism and Intuitionism about numbers was not really based on some confusion of language.

In any case, the lol was a mirthful one. MfB is a favorite poster over at the lovely park place because of a combination of his gutsy and go gett'em attitude combined with the frank ability to toss out self refuting concepts like it was effortless. For example:

Subjective and objective are really two sides of a great logical divide- you cannot mix statements which are objectively verifiable with subjective observations- to do so is to confound "language games" and imo, causes the whole mind/body free will/determinism and other philosophical alleged "problems" which really are not problems at all- just linguistic issues.

....

We speak of having a life filled with "meaning" and subjectively we understand what that "means" but logically speaking, "meaning" is not a property of a life- it is a property of words and sentences. Again the great divide.

Words and sentences are logical, to say that "meaning" is a property of words, is to easily cross the great divide rather easily and turn something "subjective" into the "objective."

It's the little things in life that keep us entertained, and MfB is dear to me, even if he kicks!

[Pahoran]

That is fine, but don't confuse your religion with the naturalist's philosophy, just asking someone to accept the mystery isn't going to do much.

There is just nothing the LDS faith has to offer really, at best you can try to appeal to someone's sense of greed with talk of spiritual rewards.

Thank you for demonstrating the fact that you understand nothing at all about Mormonism.

It is a spiteful caricature to pretend that Mormonism motivates by describing God as a celestial Santa with a big bag of goodies to hand out to the good kiddies. The reality is that the Gospel first portrays God as a loving parent, concerned for our welfare, and then strives to establish a relationship with Him on that basis.

Now perhaps you only ever obeyed your parents out of utterly cold self-interest. If so, I feel sorry for you, but please be aware that not all of us are that morally stunted.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MistahStokes]

Thank you for demonstrating the fact that you understand nothing at all about Mormonism.

Where in that quote did I attribute that to Mormonism? If I really thought that, would I not have kicked up a fuss when Greg Smith said one shouldn't invoke such things?

Also....

The reality is that the Gospel first portrays God as a loving parent, concerned for our welfare, and then strives to establish a relationship with Him on that basis.

Sweet! So.....can you explain to me how this eliminates an Atheist from having a less meaningful life than a Mormon, or explain why an Atheist should leave his current belief system for this Restored Gospel?

Can you do it in terms that omit Celestial Rewards and Blessings?

[Brennin]

Thank you for demonstrating the fact that you understand nothing at all about Mormonism.

It is a spiteful caricature to pretend that Mormonism motivates by describing God as a celestial Santa with a big bag of goodies to hand out to the good kiddies. The reality is that the Gospel first portrays God as a loving parent, concerned for our welfare, and then strives to establish a relationship with Him on that basis.

Now perhaps you only ever obeyed your parents out of utterly cold self-interest. If so, I feel sorry for you, but please be aware that not all of us are that morally stunted.

Regards,

Pahoran

His characterization of Mormonism is correct, your antipodean fulminations notwithstanding.

[cksalmon]

Many think that the idea that "we create reality" involves solipsism, but it does not!

The fact that what we organize out of chaotic lightwaves is a "tree" and not unintelligible utterance or no utterance at all, demonstrates the necessity of language - of social relations- in the creation of the world. Without language- creation of names and imposition of that structure- there is no communication and no "world".

Yeah, I flirted with that stuff years ago. Somehow I managed to outgrow my college education.

When you manage to socially construct the ledger of your bank account, I may revisit the discussion. As far as that goes, I'm with Tarski.

Until then, I'm not sure how you'd maintain a credible testimony of the actual truthfulness of Restorationism. The reality I've apparently engaged in creating with other like-minded linguistic co-conspirators, in opposition thereunto, supercedes it. At least for me.

[cdowis]

Sweet! So.....can you explain to me how this eliminates an Atheist from having a less meaningful life than a Mormon, or explain why an Atheist should leave his current belief system for this Restored Gospel?

Can you do it in terms that omit Celestial Rewards and Blessings?

You are exactly correct if you believe that you will live forever. Or you know for a certainty that there is no life after death. With those assumptions, there is no need for the Restored Gospel, but once you admit that everyone will die, and there is a possibility of life after mortality, then it makes sense to look at it.'

Tithing, priesthood ordinances, the temple, sabbath worship, the sacrament are all about preparing ourselves for the next life. It only makes sense if we believe that we will move onto another existence after mortality.

But if you are certain there is no life after death, don't worry about this stuff. The Gospel has no meaning for you.

[mfbukowski]

Uh, let me try and explain... basically, there is a way that would exist if you were 'not effecting' the particles. However, by doing anything (even existing), you change the particles altering their course. Thus, it is impossible to measure anything perfectly, because you have changed it by interfering with it, and it isn't the same as it was before.

Yes, I am very familiar with the concept. I was talking about something different.

[mfbukowski]

MfB doesn't answer the question because he's trying to invoke a dated concept of "language games" off what I assume is off a few pages from Wittgenstein's Investigations commentary on a Metaphysical debate. People who actually study Philosophy and try to stay current understand that a man named Michael Dummett put this to rest when he showed that the debate between Platonism and Intuitionism about numbers was not really based on some confusion of language.

Outdated?

Show me how this refutes Wittgenstein! You are just resorting to personal attacks because I recognized you and outed your sockpuppet. Oh well.

In any case, the lol was a mirthful one. MfB is a favorite poster over at the lovely park place because of a combination of his gutsy and go gett'em attitude combined with the frank ability to toss out self refuting concepts like it was effortless.

Yes of course. I just love that place. I would like you to show me exactly ONE "self-refuting concept"

So you are maintaining that "words" have no meaning? Really good point!

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, I flirted with that stuff years ago. Somehow I managed to outgrow my college education.

When you manage to socially construct the ledger of your bank account, I may revisit the discussion. As far as that goes, I'm with Tarski.

Until then, I'm not sure how you'd maintain a credible testimony of the actual truthfulness of Restorationism. The reality I've apparently engaged in creating with other like-minded linguistic co-conspirators, in opposition thereunto, supercedes it. At least for me.

I am sorry you "outgrew" your education, but I guess you are right. I mean I would not want to argue with you about that.

If you think your bank account is not socially constructed, I suggest you go ahead and spend all you like and add nothing, and ignore all those letters you will be getting from your account which is NOT "socially constructed". And when the men in blue appear to take you away, tell them they are figments of your imagination too, since reality is not socially constructed and they are not real.

I think Tarski has a much better understanding of this.

I know that the Restoration is true, because I have seen enough data, both in personal spiritual testimony and intellectual evidence, to prove it to me, thanks for asking.

[mfbukowski]

deleted.

[TAO]

Yes, I am very familiar with the concept. I was talking about something different.

Oh, lol, sorry then

[TAO]

Sweet! So.....can you explain to me how this eliminates an Atheist from having a less meaningful life than a Mormon, or explain why an Atheist should leave his current belief system for this Restored Gospel?

I think I might be able to show you...

Alma 42:19-21

19 Now, if there was no law given

[Greg Smith]

Ah! I thought you wanted to make a case for something and not just express your feelings. Sorry about that!

If you are under the impression that parables' only rhetorical use is to "express...feelings," I may not be of much help to you.

Mormonism about the renunciation of power, huh? Protestants don't think they will become as powerful as God but Mormons do... mmm.

It seems you did not check the references I provided previously. A core doctrine of the gospel is the renunciation of power:

• He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (New Testament | Matthew 10:39)
• But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. (New Testament | Matthew 23:11)

This theme in Jesus' teaching is too pervasive to require comment, however poorly mortals have lived it. The Book of Mormon also discusses it extensively (cf Moroni 7, for example, where it describes such abilities as gifts of grace).

LDS doctrine makes this even more clear, when describing priesthood power (God's power, remember):

• [*] No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile

[Tarski]

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

Why? All I am saying is that the universe has the property that IF humans came along and did such and such an experiment then such and such would be the result.

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".

I am just trying to not do violence to our conceptual foundations that make thinking even possible. One of these foundations is the distinction between "to be" and "to be known". One could attribute more or less ontological weight to various entities, be they abstractions, sense data, or lumps of concrete, depending on one's philosophical disposition and still respect the semantic difference I am talking about.

In fact, I have noticed that you respect the difference in ordinary conversation and only get weird when waxing philosophical.

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

No the possibility of being interpreted exists because of the structure of natural law. It isn't as if nature behaves one way when there are only ants looking and another when humans look. The objective side of things is the amenability to an interpretation as opposed to the lack thereof. It is OK to think in terms of possibilites. I can consider the set of all possiblilities in a given context and give that set ontological weight if I find it helpful to my thinking.

It can be phrased in terms of conditionals I suppose. If humans come into being and if they employ the following concepts and if they do the following experiments then...

Of course, there isn't even any pragmatic value in asserting that before humans came along there were no mountains or atoms. The fact that we pick out those features with human words and concepts from the vantage point of the present doesn't ruin anything for me about existence or objectivity. It is quite rational to recognize that understanding things in the universe means the activity of cognitive/epistemic agents who employ concepts fitted to their interests, and at the same time assert that those things exist independent of us in exactly the sense that when we formed our concepts it was from kicking the universe and seeing how it kicked back. It is in the kicking back that we find objectivity.

If one goes around saying that things do not exist when we don't look or when we aren't around to use concepts, it creates the unhelpful impression that we could have created things anyway we wanted and this is to ignore the "kicking back" that I mentioned above. Nature resists us.

It is much safer to just use language like "before man there were primative primates that used tools but ....". or senteces like "long before there was life, the universe was filled with hydrogen gas." A pragmatist must surely realize how unhelpful it is to refuse to assert such things.

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".

I am not sure about substance either and I am not a fan of substance/accident metaphysics although there are perfectly fine and intuitive echos of this way of thinking in ordinary language. It just doesn't rise to the level of a grand metaphysics. As for "substance" in particular, I have an intuition for the word as it is used in ordinary pre-philosophical conversation, but I do not see anything clearly answering to it in modern physics. As for "being", I also have an intuition, but I cannot say for sure that it is not just an illegitimate reification of the ordinary vegitarian concept that this or that may or may not exist. For example, I think it perfectly rational, maybe even necessary to make assertions like "life does not exist on pluto" or "a solution to this equation does not exist".

On the other hand, I have had some numinous experiences where I felt compelled to talk about "Being". Just poetry perhaps.

[Tarski]

Without God, you accept a world lacking of justice and law. That means that anything and everything is correct if you can pull it off.

In other words, having an atheistic philosophy means this:

Think you can take over the world? Do it.

Think you can cheat people out of money? Do it.

Think you can cheat on your wife? Do it.

Even think you can murder...

The list goes on...

With no law, there is nothing wrong with doing these things.

This is one of the things that drove me to search for the gospel - I didn't know I would find it, but I had a desire to search for God, to prevent these things, if it was at all possible he existed.

Funny, us atheists have just as much ability to prevent these things. We feel wrong and right just like most people but we see no need to form the theory that these feelings come from an invisible person in the sky who could have declared murder to be good if he had so desired. It makes no sense to us. But whether we have a detailed scientific theory of the origin of morals as opposed to a superstious one, or not, we still have the moral sense and act by it. The experiment has been done. Atheist can be moral without belief in the supernatural. That much is settled. It is also settled that believers can be quite immoral.

But, if you are the type of person that would go on a murder rampage if God wasn't watching you, then please, by all means keep on believing.

[TAO]

Funny, us atheists have just as much ability to prevent these things. We feel wrong and right just like most people but we see no need to form the theory that these feelings come from an invisible person in the sky who could have declared murder to be good if he had so desired. It makes no sense to us. But whether we have a detailed scientific theory of the origin of morals as opposed to a superstious one, or not, we still have the moral sense and act by it. The experiment has been done. Atheist can be moral without belief in the supernatural. That much is settled. It is also settled that believers can be quite immoral.

But, if you are the type of person that would go on a murder rampage if God wasn't watching you, then please, by all means keep on believing.

Lol, I'm not talking about imperfect human justice, I'm talking of perfect justice.

However, people will be justified in doing whatever they want if there is no God, that is the truth.

Lol, I'm not the type of person to murder or steal or do any of those things, but there are some who are. There are some who are still like that, when there exists a God (look at Hitler, Stalin, etc).

You will notice, I am not criticizing atheists, I am criticizing the fact that their belief leads to things which they do not realize.

[Greg Smith]

Good morning Greg,

I don