Anti-Mormonism; Built On A Shifting Foundation? E. D. Howe.

[thesometimesaint]

Brian 2.0:

I can prove that love is a biochemical reaction. I can also prove that large quantities of chocolate imitate that biochemical reaction. What I can't do is prove that someone else experiences the emotion of love other than by the evidence of their actions.

What we have in the BoM is the claim that it is a translation of an ancient document. We have evidences that it is such. Not only with the actions of JS, but also the mentions of physical, and liquistic evidences from the BoM itself. What weight you put to those evidences for the Truth Claims is a personal decision no one else can make for you. But that doesn't permit you to take the evidences of its antiquity off the scale.

[Brian 2.0]

What we have in the BoM is the claim that it is a translation of an ancient document. We have evidences that it is such. Not only with the actions of JS, but also the mentions of physical, and liquistic evidences from the BoM itself. What weight you put to those evidences for the Truth Claims is a personal decision no one else can make for you. But that doesn't permit you to take the evidences of its antiquity off the scale.

When did I say I was taking those evidences off the scale? I only mentioned taking personal revelation/witnesses from God off the scale.

What's on the scale is the evidences you mentioned, along with others evidence going to show it's an ancient record. And on the other side would be evidence of it as not an ancient document (among those might be some evidence showing how it could be a 19th century document).

I no where mentioned taking off the scale scholarly evidence for it being a ancient record.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[mfbukowski]

Objective verification by others is simply a means of establishing high probability. It's not really necessary to perform that kind of check on one's subjective perception of a subjective state, because it's more or less tautological that my subjective experience correctly represents my subjective experience. On the other hand, objective checks could be helpful on the ways I linguistically interpret or describe my subjective states. For instance, a doctor might be able to tell me that it's not really my stomach that's hurting me; the pain I feel is psychosomatic. That could guide me to more effective treatment options.

I pretty much agree, but the word "psychosomatic" is vague to the point of being a virtus dormitiva.

Multiple Personality Disorder (also called Dissociative Identity Disorder) is a hotly-debated and controversial subject in its own right; there is no unanimity of opinion on whether it truly exists. Nevertheless, there have been reports indicating that a single individual may, in different states of consciousness, exhibit varied clinical symptoms, as if one "personality" has a disease, while the others do not. I have gathered some information on this phenomenon. For reasons of copyright, I am posting just brief excerpts here; you may want to read some of these articles in their entirety. The articles are fascinating. "Within a given individual, multiple disease states can exhibit themselves exclusively of each other, depending on the state of consciousness ('personality') currently activated in the conscious mind. Thus, with one personality expressing itself in the conscious mind/body system, the individual can show all the clinical symptoms of diabetes, for example, and require insulin -- while a shift into another personality may result in no presence of any disease state or perhaps the clinically-confirmed appearance of a cardiovascular condition requiring entirely another type of medication and treatment. Thus, clinical measurements show changes not only in immunoreactivity when the individual switches from one personality to another but in bodily functions and metabolism as well, as the subject becomes hypertensive in one personality, diabetic in another, and neither of these in yet other states of consciousness (Hall, N.R.S. et al., 1994; Cosh J., 1996; Hirshberg C. & Barasch M., 1995)." SelfQuest: FREUD'S INNUENDO & JAMSHID'S CUP http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/SelfQuest/freud.html "Research reported over the last decade on some of those suffering from multiple personality disorder (Hall, 1994; Barasch & Hirshberg, 1995). What the studies report is the bona fide appearance of clinical symptoms of a particular medical ailment with the manifestation of a 'personality' in consciousness, requiring the specific appropriate medicines and treatment to sustain function and life. All the while the association of another state of consciousness in the same subject's mind creates an entirely different set of clinical symptoms of pathology to precipitate, and no pathology appearing whatsoever when a third state of consciousness presents in the conscious mind. Thus, a diabetic in one 'personality' becomes a cardiac patient in another state of consciousness and shows no medical pathology at all when another schizoid fragment of consciousness presents itself through yet another state of mind. The confirmation of genuine clinical medical symptoms of disease, concurrent with specific psychological states of consciousness in the subject, demands an understanding that supersedes the casual and common misunderstanding and misuse of the labels 'hypochondria' in medicine and psychiatry, and further demonstrates the influence of consciousness beyond the limits of conventional mechanistic mind/body notions of causality and disease etiology...

[mfbukowski]

This is raises an interesting question.

Presumably, you are a member of the Church today because you believe it's claims to be true. Yet, should you discover, unequivocally, that the church's claims are not true, you would start a new religion based on the Mormonism.

This implies that we can factor truth claims out of the equation and state that the truthfulness of the church's claims are of little importance to you. Is this accurate?

H.

Of course it is accurate. I don't believe in "truth"- in a philosophical sense, but of course we use the word all the time- why would I believe in "truth claims"?? I believe in testimony as does every other member of the church- there is no way so many ridiculous stories could be accurate in a scientific sense, and I would never believe them if God had not told me it was "true" in the sense I take it to mean the church is "true".

Incidentally I think it is highly debatable that the church even MAKES any kind of "truth claims" in a scientific sense, so any argument about alleged "truth claims" in that sense is pretty irrelevant to anything

I really don't want to get into a protracted discussion of that here since I have already posted volumes on it. The bottom line is that it is "true" because it gives meaning to my life and helps me formulate a consistent world view.

Gosh, do I really have to post this again? Please listen to every word this time, ok? Notice especially what he says about "truth" before responding- ok? Maybe read up a little on Pragmatism too, ok- at least wikipedia or something. And while you are at it - William James on religious experience.

The problem is that one cannot get beyond appearances and interpretations to get to "truth". We can't take off the rose-colored glasses of human perception to see what color things "really are" and we are restricted to linguistic interpretations of experiences which are non-linguistic. When I say "red" nothing red comes out of my mouth- just a word does. That makes it tough enough for someone who has not seen "red" but when we talk about really abstract ideas like "omniscience" it all breaks down into linguistic, semantic gibberish. All we have are appearances and interpretations of someone else's experience.

That's even more than I wanted to say about it-

Edited March 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Given such things, the question of whether the person encountered a totally private ineffable pain quale is of relatively little consequence.

Most, if not all, of what matters is in principle objectively verifiable. We just choose not to waste out time doing so in all cases.

When that subjective pain quale causes him to go and kill a few people it makes an objective difference.

So do states of mind.

Subjective qualia change our lives. Are you married?

[mfbukowski]

I hope I'm not interrupting the discussion here to pose a question from the perspective of someone from the outside looking in and trying to find out more about the Mormon Church. Let's just say hypothetically that the comments here are accurate from those who apparently are believing Mormons. We'll say that the anti-Mormon theories, whatever those might be, have been debunked. What exactly does that buy you? It does not follow from that proposition that the claims of the Mormon Church are therefore true. Debunking a counter-theory does not relieve you of the burden of proof of your own propositions. Why not focus these energies on whatever evidence you feel there is that prove the Mormon Church's truth claims?

Arguably the "Mormon Church" makes no scientifically verifiable "truth claims" in the sense you are using the word. I am a Wittgensteinian fideist, at least on these kind of questions.

Questions of faith have nothing to do with science- they are separate realms. You can toss some Kirkegaard in there as well if you like.

Oh yeah- and welcome to the board. Read Moroni 10:4-5, pray about it and you will either get an answer or not. That's about all that matters.

Edited March 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

This is true, of course, but, before building anything, it is often helpful to clear the field of debris.

When anti-Mormons make their spurious and false claims, we are more-or-less obligated to address the issues they raise. Because if one side of the story, even if wholly false, is the only side someone hears, the natural assumption is that it is true.

Indeed, we spend as much energy, if not more, doing exactly that.

However, in the world of religion, "truth claims" are not completely verifiable objectively. Religion, by its nature, is a faith-based proposition. This fact does not invalidate religion, but is does make it an unfit subject for the laboratory or courtroom.

See Moroni 10:4~7. Oh, heck, here 'tis.

A key, and often missing, element of this promise is "with real intent". I cite Alma to illustrate.

Lehi

Dang- honest- I didn't read this before I made the above reply.

Cue alien music--- ooooooooooowwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooooooooooooooooooooo

Great minds, and all that....

Allow this to show that at least two faithful LDS "objectively verifiably" have the same opinion on this.

[Chris Smith]

The problem is that one cannot get beyond appearances and interpretations to get to "truth".

Mmkay mfb, but once you establish the reality/appearance distinction, there's still appearance to reckon with.

So to rephrase LDST's question, "Presumably, you are a member of the Church today because you believe its claims to be justified. Yet, should you discover, unequivocally, that the church's claims are not justified, you would start a new religion based on Mormonism. This implies that we can factor justification out of the equation and state that the consistency of the church's claims with appearances is of little importance to you. Is this accurate?"

Edited March 31, 2012 by Chris Smith

[mfbukowski]

Mmkay mfb, but once you establish the reality/appearance distinction, there's still appearance to reckon with.

So to rephrase LDST's question, "Presumably, you are a member of the Church today because you believe its claims to be justified. Yet, should you discover, unequivocally, that the church's claims are not justified, you would start a new religion based on Mormonism. This implies that we can factor justification out of the equation and state that the consistency of the church's claims with appearances is of little importance to you. Is this accurate?"

I don't follow you. This is highly simplified as was the video, but I agree with Rorty that the objective of Pragmatism was to eliminate the distinction between appearance and "reality"

So I guess I do not "establish the reality/appearance distinction" as you assert, and therefore your question does not apply?

Understand I am not making this up. This is a pretty well established philosophical position that you are taking on and are not likely to seriously challenge with a tricky reply. Perhaps I did not state it in a clear enough way being so brief and all, but this position is not going to disappear because of a one-liner.

I think that religious experience can justify belief, including belief in the church of JCLDS on Pragmatic grounds independent of scientific verification of what some, I think, mistakenly, call "truth claims" because their assumption is that the very term "truth claim" involves that any such claim must be scientifically verifiable.

I am disputing that notion using a pragmatic theory of justification.

Edited March 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Chris Smith]

I don't follow you. This is highly simplified as was the video, but I agree with Rorty that the objective of Pragmatism was to eliminate the distinction between appearance and "reality".

If you're eliminating the distinction rather than establishing it, then I don't understand your objection to LDST's use of the term "true". Presumably in your worldview "true" merely means "justified," i.e. consistent with appearance/reality, right? So why not answer the question using that definition rather than launching into a discourse about how you don't believe in truth and the LDS Church makes no truth claims?

I think that religious experience can justify belief, including belief in the church of JCLDS on Pragmatic grounds independent of scientific verification of what some, I think, mistakenly, call "truth claims" because their assumption is that the very term "truth claim" involves that any such claim must be scientifically verifiable.

Only a positivist would say that a claim has to be scientifically verified before it can be accepted, but even Rorty, I think, would reject a claim that had been scientifically falsified (which was the premise of LDST's question). Am I wrong?

Edited March 31, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

Another way of putting this is that in Rorty's view, a claim is true if it coheres with the rest of our knowledge and experience. If Mormon claims turn out not to cohere with the observable stuff of history/science/whatever, then Rorty would say they're unjustified. Wouldn't he?

Edited March 31, 2012 by Chris Smith

[mfbukowski]

So with that said, let me take this apart line by line.

Mmkay mfb, but once you establish the reality/appearance distinction, there's still appearance to reckon with.

No, the object is to do away with the distinction, not establish it. What you experience is what is "real" except in cases of illusion of course, etc.

So to rephrase LDST's question, "Presumably, you are a member of the Church today because you believe its claims to be justified. Yet, should you discover, unequivocally, that the church's claims are not justified,

Let's stop it there. I cannot think of a way in which I would think that the church's spiritual ideas would not be "justified". Those, to me, are justified by my own spiritual experiences and have little to do with church history, etc, any more than my philosophical belief in the principles of Pragmatism are justified by William James' personal history. I couldn't care less about his personal history- I base my beliefs on the principles he authored, and I am saying that my belief in Mormonism is similar to that sort of justification.

About all that I think might render the historical accounts of the founding of the church "unjustified" would be some incontrovertible evidence that it was all a hoax. Maybe a signed confession by Joseph with DNA evidence on the page, written in ink consistently known to be used in other monographs, on paper known from other monographs to be in his posession- that kind of thing. That would do away with, say, the first vision and the idea that Joseph saw that God was a man. But I believed that man was a god before I joined the church! I believed that it was correct to "worship" mankind and our ancestors and the worlds we created in a cultural and humanistic sense.

It was a very easy intellectual jump for me to become Mormon and a strong spiritual experience was all I needed. I am totally convinced that that experience came from outside my mind, from a higher being verifying to me that my choice of path was the correct one. And that idea is totally consistent with William James notion of justifiability through religious experience.

you would start a new religion based on Mormonism. This implies that we can factor justification out of the equation and state that the consistency of the church's claims with appearances is of little importance to you. Is this accurate?"

This is where it goes haywire and I have no clue what you mean. Justification is never out of the equation- the only question is what counts as justification in the kind of proposition being proposed. Scientific propositions get scientific justification. Spiritual, metaphysical propositions get spiritual and metaphysical justification. Objective propositions get objective justification, same with subjective.

You know, kind of like Wittgensteinian language games. Each proposition gets justified according to, and within, its context.

[mfbukowski]

If you're eliminating the distinction rather than establishing it, then I don't understand your objection to LDST's use of the term "true". Presumably in your worldview "true" merely means "justified," i.e. consistent with appearance/reality, right?

No that is precisely the problem. There is no way to determine if any appearance is "consistent" with anything because all we have are our (collective, and linguistically expressed) experiences.

We can't stand outside our experience and look at "reality" and compare them and say "Yep, they match". That is the problem with correspondence.

Edited March 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Another way of putting this is that in Rorty's view, a claim is true if it coheres with the rest of our knowledge and experience. If Mormon claims turn out not to cohere with the observable stuff of history/science/whatever, then Rorty would say they're unjustified. Wouldn't he?

He sees all these things as myths and metaphors. Science is a metaphor, history is a metaphor. There is only language which is consistent or not- a consistent "vocabulary" is the way he puts it.

Beliefs are justified if they work to fulfill their purpose- like a screwdriver works to drive a screw. If one metaphor works better than another it is "justified" or in common parlance, "true"

Edited March 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So "the church is true" to me, means that one is justified in considering all the beliefs of the church as one whole in considering its effects in our lives in making us happy, giving us meaning in life, understanding our place in the universe, consistent with our spiritual experiences.

As I said before, as a philosophy, it has no more to do with what Joseph did or did not do than what William James did in his life ultimately. Yes, I accept Joseph's visions etc as if they actually happened as he said they did. But that really has very little to do with the philosophy itself and how he saw man's place in the universe, or how he attached that philosophy to Christianity.

We don't worry about Calvin or Luther's or Wesley's personal lives and histories, and accept their religious ideas as religious ideas independent of anything else.

[Chris Smith]

Mfb,

You're weird.

But I love you anyway.

-Chris

[LDSToronto]

Of course it is accurate. I don't believe in "truth"- in a philosophical sense, but of course we use the word all the time- why would I believe in "truth claims"?? I believe in testimony as does every other member of the church- there is no way so many ridiculous stories could be accurate in a scientific sense, and I would never believe them if God had not told me it was "true" in the sense I take it to mean the church is "true".

Incidentally I think it is highly debatable that the church even MAKES any kind of "truth claims" in a scientific sense, so any argument about alleged "truth claims" in that sense is pretty irrelevant to anything

I really don't want to get into a protracted discussion of that here since I have already posted volumes on it. The bottom line is that it is "true" because it gives meaning to my life and helps me formulate a consistent world view.

Ah, excellent. I am sure I will have much to say on this once I have had time to think about what you call "truth"...

Gosh, do I really have to post this again? Please listen to every word this time, ok? Notice especially what he says about "truth" before responding- ok?

This might surprise you, but I don't hang on every word that every person posts here.

Maybe read up a little on Pragmatism too, ok- at least wikipedia or something. And while you are at it - William James on religious experience.

Will do - Hey, are you a neopragmatist? Rorty is, according to Wikipedia.

H.

Edited March 31, 2012 by LDSToronto

[mfbukowski]

Mfb,

You're weird.

But I love you anyway.

-Chris

[mfbukowski]

Ah, excellent. I am sure I will have much to say on this once I have had time to think about what you call "truth"...

Just comment on what Rorty calls "truth" and that will be good enough. Rorty is an agnostic- I am not.

[LDSToronto]

Just comment on what Rorty calls "truth" and that will be good enough. Rorty is an agnostic- I am not.

Should I assume, then, that you agree with Rorty on all points? And could you please answer - are you a neopragmatist? And, if you are not an agnostic, but Rorty is, are there points upon which the two of you disagree?

H.

[LDSToronto]

Just comment on what Rorty calls "truth" and that will be good enough. Rorty is an agnostic- I am not.

Rorty says two things about truth - truth is a belief that we can justify, and beliefs don't need to be justified to be true. He goes on to say that truth can never be reached because of the problem of infinite interpretability.

Is this close?

H.

[mfbukowski]

Toronto

You need to read it to understand it- it is not easily summarized or turned into a slogan. I have already said I disagree with Rorty in that he is somewhere between an athiest and agnostic- he wasn't sure himself exactly where he stood ultimately on the question of God- as always it depended on how God is defined. But certainly Rorty never even thought of an immanent God who was a human who shared in human language and created through language in a constructivist sense.

I disagree with Rorty on the question of the contingency of the self, and other issues. I think this is where he goes wrong and actually separates himself from being a true Pragmatist because it is impossible imo to see ourselves as contingent ironists as he would put it. We see ourselves as selectors of vocabularies which implies that in fact we are non-contingent. His concept of ironism is for me not only ironic, it is contradictory.

On religious questions I am closer to William James and John Dewey. But clearly LDS thinkers have found James highly compatible with Mormonism.

I really don't have the time to spoon feed it to you- if you want to read up and discuss it fine.

I use Rorty as an example of a post-analytical Pragmatist- for that he is valuable because he sees the limits of positivism and analytical philosophy which of course could not be criticized by James or Dewey because those movements were not yet in full flower when they were writing.

Edited March 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[LDSToronto]

Toronto

You need to read it to understand it- it is not easily summarized or turned into a slogan. I have already said I disagree with Rorty in that he is somewhere between an athiest and agnostic- he wasn't sure himself exactly where he stood ultimately on the question of God- as always it depended on how God is defined. But certainly Rorty never even thought of an immanent God who was a human who shared in human language and created through language in a constructivist sense.

I disagree with Rorty on the question of the contingency of the self, and other issues. I think this is where he goes wrong and actually separates himself from being a true Pragmatist because it is impossible imo to see ourselves as contingent ironists as he would put it. We see ourselves as selectors of vocabularies which implies that in fact we are non-contingent. His concept of ironism is for me not only ironic, it is contradictory.

On religious questions I am closer to William James and John Dewey. But clearly LDS thinkers have found James highly compatible with Mormonism.

I really don't have the time to spoon feed it to you- if you want to read up and discuss it fine.

I use Rorty as an example of a post-analytical Pragmatist- for that he is valuable because he sees the limits of positivism and analytical philosophy which of course could not be criticized by James or Dewey because those movements were not yet in full flower when they were writing.

Dude, I'm not asking you spoon feed me, but you've made an assumption that I am well-read on this topic. Your first line, "You need to read it to understand it" - what exactly is "it"? Do you have a paper in mind, some foundational literature?

Because I will read it.

H.

[mfbukowski]

Dude, I'm not asking you spoon feed me, but you've made an assumption that I am well-read on this topic. Your first line, "You need to read it to understand it" - what exactly is "it"? Do you have a paper in mind, some foundational literature?

Because I will read it.

H.

We are talking like three or four long books- do you really want to do this? Do you understand the history of philosophy in general terms as a background?

If you actually want to do that I will help you but I am not sure you are that serious about it. The first would be William James, Varieties of Religious Experience and Will to Believe, Dewey Reconstruction in Philosophy and Experience and Nature and for Rorty Contingency Irony and Solidarity

If you want to pare it down probably Varieties, Reconstruction and Contingency would be enough.

Or if you are really brave you could try Contingency by itself but I don't think you would understand it without the background

Edited April 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[LDSToronto]

We are talking like three or four long books- do you really want to do this? Do you understand the history of philosophy in general terms as a background?

If you actually want to do that I will help you but I am not sure you are that serious about it. The first would be William James, Varieties of Religious Experience and Will to Believe, Dewey Reconstruction in Philosophy and Experience and Nature and for Rorty Contingency Irony and Solidarity

If you want to pare it down probably Varieties, Reconstruction and Contingency would be enough.

Or if you are really brave you could try Contingency by itself but I don't think you would understand it without the background

I'll probably read reviews and criticism of these books (authoritative, of course) along with papers that reference the major themes of each. Thanks for the references.

H.