Vogel Responds To Apologist Brian Hales

[mfbukowski]

As long as religion stays in the ethereal world, I have little to say historically about it; but when it tries to prove itself through historical propositions, then that can be tested.

No religion Mormonism included, can be "proven" historically. That may be the naive view of some, but they are wrong. Now I am sure you will cite many who you will allege say that history "proves" Mormonism. It is my belief that you will find few, but if you find any, they would be wrong.

The BOM is either real history (i.e., written by real Nephites/Jaredites), or it’s not. Presently, it’s more reasonable to reject BOM historicity than to assert it. That conclusion has implications on other claims JS made, although it can never answer the questions of whether the BOM is inspired by God or was JS a true prophet.

I think that is a pretty black and white view which is not justified. Now first let me say, that I think there is plenty of rational evidence for the historicity of the BOM, as shown by Brant Gardner and Mark Wright et al.

But that has little to do, in my opinion, with whether or not Joseph was a "prophet", as you admit. Mohammed believed an angel revealed the Koran to him, Joseph believed he translated the BOM, but both the Koran and Book of Mormon stand on their own as being scriptural or not scriptural according to your personal beliefs. You can also put the Bible in the same pot and compare it to the Zorastrian Avesta or the Hindu Bahgavad Gita. Whether or not any of these books are "scripture" is not defined by their histories.

[mfbukowski]

I like to say that there is a truth out there, but language gets in the way. In other words, whenever we think we have arrived at the truth, we realize that the truth has been constructed under a scaffolding of our experience, culture, and biases. It is impossible to fully remove that scaffolding to reveal the pristine and unmolested truth, or if we do remove it, there is an inner scaffolding underneath the outer one. We can tell that there is a building underneath, but it is always obscured by the scaffolding.

If there is anything "under" that scaffolding of language, we sure can't talk about it, so it's irrelevant to discourse anyway.

But it can be VERY relevant to the way we think and feel, the decisions we make, and what gives our lives meaning. None of that is "objective", nor can it be, because only the objective can be expressed linguistically

This is precisely why history is irrelevant to religion ultimately- because religion gives us meaning and is personal and subjective, whereas history and science are "objective" in the sense that they involve linguistic discourse.

Edited September 22, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Chris Smith]

There are no "constraints on experience"- you cannot put your hand through the wall because you EXPERIENCE THE WALL AS SOMETHING YOU CAN'T PUT YOUR HAND THROUGH.

Sounds like a tautology to me.

But even if you're right, and there's no rhyme or reason for our experience of being constrained, we might as well use realistic language to describe that condition.

But from my point of view, as a former atheist, the first issue in developing a religious belief is whether or not God "exists" and in what sense; that to me is an intellectually prior question and after one decides that one, one can begin to decide if religious belief can be "true" in any sense at all.

If God exists, can he communicate with people? That would be the next question- because if he can't, he becomes irrelevant in one's life.

Since I started life as an evangelical, I approached religion from the opposite direction. I had a fully formed system of religious propositions, which I found myself gradually discarding as I realized how indefensible they were. Once you've discarded that many purported "communications" from God, though, you get down to the basic questions you described and have to answer in the negative. After all, if all God's purported communications turn out to be bollocks, then either they're not really his communications, or he's not worth listening to.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

I like to say that there is a truth out there, but language gets in the way. In other words, whenever we think we have arrived at the truth, we realize that the truth has been constructed under a scaffolding of our experience, culture, and biases. It is impossible to fully remove that scaffolding to reveal the pristine and unmolested truth, or if we do remove it, there is an inner scaffolding underneath the outer one. We can tell that there is a building underneath, but it is always obscured by the scaffolding.

I would agree.

But some people have decided that since we can't see the building, there must not be one there at all. So they've started building their own personal scaffolding away from the rest of the superstructure, off into empty space. This is all well and good until the thing collapses under its own weight.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Chris Smith

[wenglund]

And of course what was constructed in his mind would be "false" because it had no survival value.

Neither would jumping out of a plane without a parachute. That of course has nothing to do with whether or not it is "constructed in your mind" of course.

Eliminating someone's visual cortex makes it a little hard to "see" what his brain constructs and the danger involved in jumping out of airplanes. That's why we have evolved a visual cortex.

The point that I believe both Chris and I are making is that reality can at times and in an some ways etch itself upon the mind and in ways contrary to the mind. "Reality" may manifest itself in such a pronounced ways as to cause cognitive dissonance which can to some extent reshape the mind. This suggest to me that "reality" isn't just what our minds create. It is also something that can recreate or reshape the mind.

But, this is beside the point of the thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

The point that I believe both Chris and I are making is that reality can at times and in an some ways etch itself upon the mind and in ways contrary to the mind. "Reality" may manifest itself in such a pronounced ways as to cause cognitive dissonance which can to some extent reshape the mind. This suggest to me that "reality" isn't just what our minds create. It is also something that can recreate or reshape the mind.

But, this is beside the point of the thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Listen to yourself.

"reality" isn't just what our minds create. It is also something that can recreate or reshape the mind.

Of course it is! But where do those "changes" end up? IN THE MIND!

This interaction we are having is "happening" in our minds- we are sitting at computer screens sharing linguistic ideas in a linguistic environment- interacting and hopefully "changing each others minds"

Surely this is "reality"- isn't it? Any body who thinks we are dreaming this, please respond. But be sure you wake up first, or it won't work.

[mfbukowski]

The organism and the environment interact and both are affected by the other. That is called "evolution"!

(And if Brian Hales cares to respond I promise to shut up immediately- otherwise we might as well talk about something!)

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited September 22, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Here is more on Perry's stages. The underlying assumption is that meaning is not "discovered" nor is it "true or false"- it is created.

Here of course I see a parallel with how a Being who is a Man creates worlds by means of the Word ("by whom all that was made was made") in a linguistic constructivist sense.

Perhaps you can see how having this view places Joseph not only as a philosopher, but as a creator of a new religious paradigm which I believe has the potential to revolutionize religious thought.

With that in mind, I truly doubt the importance of some historical hearsay which alleges that perhaps he might have had some personal moral issues.

I don't know anything about Copernicus' moral life, do you? Does it matter?

[baddonkey]

There was another thread awhile ago where Lamanite criticized Bro. Hales - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/51146-mormon-scholars-testify/

I appreciate the work that he has done regarding polygamy but it seems to me that he occationally misunderstands or misinterprets details. I can see what Dan is saying. I appreciate Dan's work as well but do disagree with him about certain things. I was disappointed by the Making of a Prophet book.

[wenglund]

Listen to yourself.

Of course it is! But where do those "changes" end up? IN THE MIND!

This interaction we are having is "happening" in our minds- we are sitting at computer screens sharing linguistic ideas in a linguistic environment- interacting and hopefully "changing each others minds"

Surely this is "reality"- isn't it? Any body who thinks we are dreaming this, please respond. But be sure you wake up first, or it won't work.

Were it just happening in the mind, would I be able to tell, at this point, the difference between really eating a bowl of peaches and cream (home grown and delicious) and dreaming about eating peaches and cream?

To me, there is some level of interactivity between the mind and "reality" that makes "it" happen in more than just the mind. "It" is also happening outside the mind. This means that the mind both discovers and creates. But, I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 22, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Were it just happening in the mind, would I be able to tell, at this point, the difference between really eating a bowl of peaches and cream (home grown and delicious) and dreaming about eating peaches and cream?

To me, there is some level of interactivity between the mind and "reality" that makes "it" happen in more than just the mind. "It" is also happening outside the mind. This means that the mind both discovers and creates. But, I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course the world is "real". The point is that all you can know about are your experiences. Are you seriously in doubt if you are in a dream or awake?

Of course not! Peaches and cream don't taste that good in a dream- and they might turn into mashed potatoes and gravy in a dream. I bet your peaches don't do that while you are awake.

Surely you don't deny that the only way you can know something is through your senses? (And I would include your feelings there as well)

And your senses and your brain put it all together and organize all those inputs into what you know are peaches and cream, which "taste good"

All that has evolved because peaches and cream are better for your body than eating sand, which doesn't "taste good". The fact that it is good for your body is what makes it taste "good"- it has survival value.

Your mind doesn't "discover" in the sense of getting outside of what is already programmed in your mind. You cannot get out of your mind and see the atoms of those peaches or see if there are bacteria in the cream which might kill you (sorry!). You cannot even see the worm in the peach until you cut it - but then your "discovery" is only perceived as "a worm" and inedible because you are human. A bird would look at the worm and think "YUM"!- why? Because it experiences worms differently than you do.

"Tasting good" is not out there in the world- it is a product of your experiences- and the birds experiences. All that is "out there" is unknowable and irrelevant. You could look at the peach as a scientist might- measure sugar content, vitamins, calories- but those are not "out there" either- can you point to a calorie for me?

No, calories are a way we have of measuring the potential energy in things. They are artificial constructs which we invented. They are ways of organizing certain observations or experiences in a scientific manner

The point is not that we live in a dream or can't tell the difference- the point is that we can only know things through our experience.

Besides I think you should share your peaches and cream with me so that I can prove to you that they are "objectively real" and not a dream.

That is precisely the difference between what is "objective"- or verifiable by others- and "subjective"- something that only I can know. The problem here with history is that it is not fully "objective".

Of course we can see what people have said, but we cannot call them up and verify it further. We cannot send one of Joseph's wives for DNA testing, we cannot put them on a polygraph machine etc. We have only their word for it- and they all had an "axe to grind", and possible motives to lie.

Edited September 22, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Chris Smith]

So mfb, if I understand you correctly, you agree that the world is "objectively real" and must somehow be reckoned with, but you also think the only thing that actually matters is how we subjectively experience it. And unlike the "objectively real" present, the "objectively real" past is too far removed to even really need to be reckoned with, so you think we're justified in making any barely-plausible assertions about it that enhance our subjective experience. Is that about right?

Personally, it's my belief that it will always enhance our subjective experience more, in the long run, to reckon with the objectively real past as seriously and probabilistically as we reckon with the objectively real present-- mainly because it's by looking at how people have reckoned with past events that we learn how to predict and reckon with future ones. Because of this belief, I reject the sort of historical license you seem to be endorsing.

[wenglund]

Of course the world is "real". The point is that all you can know about are your experiences. Are you seriously in doubt if you are in a dream or awake?

Of course not! Peaches and cream don't taste that good in a dream- and they might turn into mashed potatoes and gravy in a dream. I bet your peaches don't do that while you are awake.

Surely you don't deny that the only way you can know something is through your senses? (And I would include your feelings there as well)

Yet, we also cannot know something absent it providing us with sensations, and sensations particular to that something, and sensations that are differentiable from other somethings. And, it is through these differentiable sensations that a blind man may discover the reality of a tree that he was unaware of before, and come to discover the difference between the sensation of a tree unexpectedly and unpleasantly confronting his nose and the expected pleasant sensation of a cream-drenched peach slice on his tongue.

Granted, our ability to structure sensations into meaningful or coherent differentiations is a creation of the mind, but that creation is also somewhat a product of the sensory material the mind has to work with. It is not coincidental that there isn't a great disparity in our shared experiences--particularly those of a more objective nature. So, to me, our experiences consist of the mind both creating and discovering.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 23, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

Personally, it's my belief that it will always enhance our subjective experience more, in the long run, to reckon with the objectively real past as seriously and probabilistically as we reckon with the objectively real present-- mainly because it's by looking at how people have reckoned with past events that we learn how to predict and reckon with future ones. Because of this belief, I reject the sort of historical license you seem to be endorsing.

Dealing with the "objectively real," either in the past or the present, is a goal that can be approached, but never fully achieved. When you think you have written the "objective reality" of history, then you take a step back and look closely about what you have written, you realize that your description of it is full of cultural artifacts, biases, linguistic uncertainties, and paradoxes. And you realize that you have had to use the English language, which is a deeply eclectic and paradoxical language with a lot of baggage from the whole of Western thought. So you realize that what you have written is actually more "subjective" than you originally thought.

[Dan Vogel]

Think about it from my perspective, where if you and I jump out of an airplane without parachutes, we will both die no matter how hard we try to mentally "construct" our way out of it.

(I actually agree with the constructivist critique of categories and language, and often use it myself to critique categories such as "gender" or "marriage" that people seem to be giving metaphysical status. I even agree that sensory perception itself is "constructed" to some extent. But construction also clearly has its limits. It is constrained by something that we experience as being beyond our control, which we might as well call the "real world" and think about in realistic terms for lack of a better way of making sense of it.)

Chris,

I’m reading a book by Paul Boghossian, a former student of Rorty, you might find helpful.

Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism

http://www.amazon.c...16744855&sr=1-1

The idea that science is just one more way of knowing the world and that there are other, radically different, yet equally valid ways, has taken deep root in academia. In Fear of Knowledge, Paul Boghossian tears these relativist theories of knowledge to shreds. He argues forcefully for the intuitive, common-sense view--that the world exists independent of human opinion and that there is a way to arrive at beliefs about the world that are objectively reasonable to anyone capable of appreciating the relevant evidence, regardless of their social or cultural perspective. This short, lucid, witty book shows that philosophy provides rock-solid support for common sense against the relativists; it is provocative reading throughout the discipline and beyond.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Dan Vogel

[Chris Smith]

Dealing with the "objectively real," either in the past or the present, is a goal that can be approached, but never fully achieved.

That's why I said "reckon with" rather than "discover". In other words, the implications of the stories we tell should be as commensurate with the experienced world as we can manage to make them.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

Interesting, Dan. I'll have to take a look. The height of "relativist theories of knowledge" coincided with the height of behaviorist psychology and its "blank slate" theory of the mind. Science has moved past that now, with the advent of the discipline of Evolutionary Psychology. EP suggests that there are inborn structures in the brain which are evolutionarily adapted to help us reckon with the real world. Although these "common sense" structures are not fully reliable, they do provide a biological "foundation," if you will, for meaningful knowledge and communication. The philosophy has inevitably lagged behind the science, of course, but I think it's started to catch up in the last decade or so. It will take even longer for the humanities to catch up with the philosophy, since they prefer not to read anything written in the last 50 years.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Cobalt-70]

I’m reading a book by Paul Boghossian, a former student of Rorty, you might find helpful.

Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism

http://www.amazon.c...16744855&sr=1-1

I haven't read his book, but I think, based on the excerpts I can find that he is equally misguided as his mentor Rorty. He's right to take issue with Rorty and other modernist relativist writers who claim that all truth is relative (except for the truth that all truth is relative). But he's also wrong in his apparent view that it is possible to construct an objective truth that is free from cultural and linguistic context.

[mfbukowski]

Honestly guys, I think you are all missing the point and we are talking past each other.

Please show me one thing- one piece of evidence- one ANYTHING which has never been experienced by any human ever. Everything we know and talk about comes from human experience.

You can pretend all you want that that is not the case, but you are living in fantasy land.

Show me one thing that no one has ever experienced. Even that becomes a contradiction, because if it had never been experienced you could never show it to me!

Of course the world is "real" - no sane person would doubt that- the point is the "world" is made of human experience. We do not see gamma rays, but we experience their effects with machines- and that is the only way we know they are "real".

The history of "discovery" is simply a chronicle of human experience.

Let me ask you this: we all know there are species yet undiscovered- but in what sense are they "real"?

What do they look like? Are they butterflies or dinosaurs? Are they flowers or bear-like things?

In what sense are they "real" if no one has experienced them?

I have no idea why that is so hard for people to understand.

[mfbukowski]

If anyone is ready to get into a serious discussion of Rorty, I would relish the opportunity. I think he makes serious errors in some areas, but in others he is right on the money.

[mfbukowski]

So mfb, if I understand you correctly, you agree that the world is "objectively real" and must somehow be reckoned with, but you also think the only thing that actually matters is how we subjectively experience it. And unlike the "objectively real" present, the "objectively real" past is too far removed to even really need to be reckoned with, so you think we're justified in making any barely-plausible assertions about it that enhance our subjective experience. Is that about right?

Personally, it's my belief that it will always enhance our subjective experience more, in the long run, to reckon with the objectively real past as seriously and probabilistically as we reckon with the objectively real present-- mainly because it's by looking at how people have reckoned with past events that we learn how to predict and reckon with future ones. Because of this belief, I reject the sort of historical license you seem to be endorsing.

Close, but no cigar.

This is what misses the target by a large margin:

...so you think we're justified in making any barely-plausible assertions about it that enhance our subjective experience. Is that about right?

It becomes a question of what is more important to you; what you have seen with your "own eyes"- ie: what you have experienced yourself vs. someone else's barely plausible easily falsifiable assertions. In other words, my testimony experience outweighs historical assertions which are not "proof".

Another major factor is asking oneself how important a question is this.

Suppose Joseph really did rape little girls soon before he died (I don't believe that) but suppose it is true. Does that negate his contribution to religious philosophy, or his entire life's work of "revelations"?

For me it doesn't. At worst, one might say he is a "fallen prophet", but it doesn't matter to me any more than it would matter if say Copernicus (as an example- since he is credited perhaps erroneously with the "Copernican Revolution") had similar "evidence" of doing similar things before his death would negate his work.

Both figures are, to me, responsible (though in different ways of course) for major paradigm shifts in human thought- and I am not about to throw away the importance of that paradigm shift because of their personal moral problems. The thoughts they produced are too important to me.

We would not throw out the theory of relativity because hypothetically, Einstein turned out to be a scoundrel.

We do not throw out the Psalms because David fell.

But frankly, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post. It is a question of how much importance one places on testimony experiences and how strong they are, in constructing one's individual world.

Mine are very strong and very important.

[mfbukowski]

Two more comments, and then I have to take off till the AM:

1- Rorty has nothing to do with behaviorism.

2- If someone could prove to me today that Joseph was not a "prophet", I would go out tomorrow and establish my own religion.

Guess what the beliefs would be? Starting with basic Christianity, I would also teach that man is God and God is man, linking that to Humanism, and Rorty-type guys, who think that humans "organize" reality, that we can like God, and have spiritual revelations to "prove" that, that spirit is matter, but "more refined", I would bring in all that we know about the Bible and Council of the Gods, I would have a temple in which quasi- Masonic truths were taught, I would include the Book of Mormon with other sacred books, perhaps the Zorastrian Avesta for example, as well as of course the Book of Abraham as a "revealed" source, and I would bring in a bunch of stuff from Swedenborg.

That would be a start.

Sound familiar? See why I am not concerned about this polygamy stuff? Oddly enough, I actually think the church is "true"!

Edited September 23, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

How can a Mormon NOT believe that God (a human) organizes "reality" and that we all follow him in organizing our own "worlds"?

I am mystified.

[Chris Smith]

Let me ask you this: we all know there are species yet undiscovered- but in what sense are they "real"?... In what sense are they "real" if no one has experienced them?

They're real in the sense that they have the potential to affect human experience. Some of those species could have scientific or medicinal value. If we never went looking for them because we consider them "unreal", we'd being doing ourselves a great disservice.

I have no idea why that is so hard for people to understand.

Of course we understand it. We can only experience phenomena, not noumena. A very nice, perfectly valid abstract philosophical assertion.

But at the end of the day, also irrelevant. We experience ourselves as being constrained, affected, and determined by a noumenal world. It doesn't matter if this is true or not. It doesn't matter if we can prove it. Our experience forces us to take it seriously, philosophers be damned. It's real to us, and that's the only thing that matters. (I have no idea why that's so hard to understand! )

But frankly, I pretty much agree with the rest of your post. It is a question of how much importance one places on testimony experiences and how strong they are, in constructing one's individual world.

Ah. Well, that's where we differ, then. My experience as a Pentecostal and a religious historian persuades me that such experiences are unreliable ways of knowing.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited September 23, 2011 by Chris Smith