43 Minutes Which Could Change Your Life And This Forum - Science & Religion

[thesometimesaint]

It reminds me of those lyrics by Marc Cohn:

Now Muriel plays piano

Every Friday at the Hollywood

And they brought me down to see her

And they asked me if I would

Do a little number

And I sang with all my might

And she said

"Tell me are you a Christian child?"

And I said "Ma'am I am tonight!!!"

I have a lot of sympathy for this postmodern pragmatist approach to life. It allows one to hold contradictory viewpoints depending upon where he or she is at the moment. I wouldn't call that lifestyle one of intellectual integrity, but it might be morally justifiable, given the whole situation.

 

 

There is always a certain amount of ambiguity. IE; We know that all matter is made up of atoms. Atoms are 99.9999% empty space. But I don't worry about falling through the floor when I get up in the morning.

[mfbukowski]

What do you think?  Do you agree with the song that truth exists and is an extraordinarily valuable thing which we should aspire to obtain?  Or do you agree with Rorty when he says there isn't a special human purpose called knowing the truth in terms of getting in touch with the intrinsic nature of reality?

Both.

 

That is what Rorty is saying.  The two have nothing to do with each other.

 

The problem is that you cannot see that it is a semantic issue and nothing "more", as if there is EVER "more".

 

Religious truth is of the first kind, scientific truth seeks ignorantly to "get in touch with the intrinsic nature of reality" when it never can.

 

But what you are saying is that Rorty is wrong- and in this case I am his surrogate.  You are dismissing one of the most important philosophers of our time with the wave of a hand and no arguments whatsoever.  You are free to do that of course, but it is not an indication of good comprehension of the problem

 

You have given no indication of why he is wrong, or even shown a glimmer of understanding about what the issue even is.

 

Religious speech is speech about the "ineffable" and there isn't much one can say about it, but such speech can be "true".

 

Apologies to those who have seen this video a million times, but for Analythics, who has I guess not seen it, here it is yet again.  Please listen carefully, ok?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

Edited August 16, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

 I'm observing a conflict that is explictly there.  The song is all about the value of knowing the truth. 

The issue of course is the definition of "truth" - it is not what you think it is.

 

This relies on a philosophical view of truth not a common-sense one.  If you are not familiar with different ways of understanding truth, I would recommend a philosophy class or two.  This is kind of the way I think of truth, and it is kind of like Rorty's conception:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

[mfbukowski]

Canard

 

Rorty was looking for a religion in which God could be seen as a "friend" and which would be based on unifying the human community as one.

No time to look it all up right now- but look up the word "friend" in D&C and see how many times Christ says that he wants us to regard him as a "friend".

Quite honestly, it was my understanding of Rorty which led me directly at least intellectually to my conversion to the church.  Then I had a Moroni 10:4 experience and that clinched it

Rorty's philosophy is in many ways similar to Heidegger's and James Faulconer, a BYU philosophy professor and many other Mormons are turning toward Heidegger as a basis for a new theology which is Mormon and not connected to the sectarian views of the past.

I am convinced that this path is the future of Mormonism theologically speaking and could provide for huge missionary growth if people actually understood it.  There are several non-Mormon philosophers who cannot believe that we are NOT moving down this path.

Canard definitely read this from one of your countrymen

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/why-i-love-mormonism/?_r=0

[Ahab]

The issue of course is the definition of "truth" - it is not what you think it is.

 

This relies on a philosophical view of truth not a common-sense one.  If you are not familiar with different ways of understanding truth, I would recommend a philosophy class or two.  This is kind of the way I think of truth, and it is kind of like Rorty's conception:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

The best philosophy is philosophy that is based on common sense.  Try using that to understand truth and everything else.

[mfbukowski]

The best philosophy is philosophy that is based on common sense.  Try using that to understand truth and everything else.

OK

Common sense tells me that golden plates and angels are a bunch of bunk. I have never seen anything like that in my life.

[Analytics]

The issue of course is the definition of "truth" - it is not what you think it is.

 

This relies on a philosophical view of truth not a common-sense one.  If you are not familiar with different ways of understanding truth, I would recommend a philosophy class or two.  This is kind of the way I think of truth, and it is kind of like Rorty's conception:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

The issue has nothing to do with my definition of truth.  The issue is how Rorty's definition of truth compares to the definition of truth given in the song, "Oh Say What Is Truth."

[Ahab]

OK

Common sense tells me that golden plates and angels are a bunch of bunk. I have never seen anything like that in my life.

Sheesh.  Nope.   Common sense would help you to see that what is real is true, and golden plates and angels are real.

 

You're just being silly or trying to deny what is real.

[mfbukowski]

The issue has nothing to do with my definition of truth.  The issue is how Rorty's definition of truth compares to the definition of truth given in the song, "Oh Say What Is Truth."

Well I disagree with your definition then.

 

I have no problem with "Say What Is Truth" either, but of course I am not a mind reader so I don't know what the person who wrote it was thinking, not that it much matters.

 

Most normal people don't even think of these issues- you have to be a little wacky to let issues like the nature of truth bother you.

 

But they do bother me, and you have yet to show me a consistent statement of what you mean by "truth" and why your view is better, and why anything about what this hymn says amounts to a hill of beans

 

It's poetry, a beautiful hymn, not a philosophical tome.  I see no logical notation, to discussion of justification or any other terms one would expect in a philosophical paper- do you?

Edited August 16, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Sheesh.  Nope.   Common sense would help you to see that what is real is true, and golden plates and angels are real.

 

You're just being silly or trying to deny what is real.

Yep, silly old me!

[mfbukowski]

The issue has nothing to do with my definition of truth.  The issue is how Rorty's definition of truth compares to the definition of truth given in the song, "Oh Say What Is Truth."

One more.

Show me in either of those sources where they give a definition of "truth" at all- much less incompatible definitions.

 

Rorty, had you actually watched the videos, explicitly says that truth is undefinable.

[Analytics]

Well of course I dispute that, because I am not a mind reader as you are.

 

I just take it on what it says as I interpret it.

 

 

If you aren't a mind reader, how do you know so much about my personal philosophy of truth?

 

I wasn’t attempting to read anybody’s mind—I was simply pointing out that the church with the motto “I know the church is true” tends to be filled with people who think that the truth is knowable.

 

Anyway, since you think the song is consistent with the deflationary theory of truth, we can add this verse to it.

 

Oh say what is truth? It is deflated

Because the deflationary theory says so

There is no truth that we can theorize about

You cannot say the statement's true

that the snow is white,

because truth doesn't have a nature

[Analytics]

One more.

Show me in either of those sources where they give a definition of "truth" at all- much less incompatible definitions.

 

Rorty, had you actually watched the videos, explicitly says that truth is undefinable.

 

One more.

Show me in either of those sources where they give a definition of "truth" at all- much less incompatible definitions.

 

Rorty, had you actually watched the videos, explicitly says that truth is undefinable.

 

Rorty doesn't think the truth is definable.  That is my point.  In contrast, the song defines it.  "Oh say what is truth? It is..." 

[mfbukowski]

If you aren't a mind reader, how do you know so much about my personal philosophy of truth?

 

I wasn’t attempting to read anybody’s mind—I was simply pointing out that the church with the motto “I know the church is true” tends to be filled with people who think that the truth is knowable.

 

Anyway, since you think the song is consistent with the deflationary theory of truth, we can add this verse to it.

 

Oh say what is truth? It is deflated

Because the deflationary theory says so

There is no truth that we can theorize about

You cannot say the statement's true

that the snow is white,

because truth doesn't have a nature

At this point this is constituting a derail and I respectfully request you stop posting here.

 

You do not understand any of this.  I have been trying to be nice and work with you, but all you do is repeat yourself.

[mfbukowski]

Rorty doesn't think the truth is definable.  That is my point.  In contrast, the song defines it.  "Oh say what is truth? It is..." 

Oh my. This is getting just plain weird.

1. Oh say, what is truth? ’Tis the fairest gem

That the riches of worlds can produce,

I would not call that a philosophical definition of truth.

 

Please refrain from derailing the thread.

[Ahab]

One more.

Show me in either of those sources where they give a definition of "truth" at all- much less incompatible definitions.

 

Rorty, had you actually watched the videos, explicitly says that truth is undefinable.

Rorty is wrong about that, though, because there are many ways to define what the truth is.

[mfbukowski]

Rorty is wrong about that, though, because there are many ways to define what the truth is.

I think maybe he is aware of that.

[canard78]

Canard

Rorty was looking for a religion in which God could be seen as a "friend" and which would be based on unifying the human community as one.

No time to look it all up right now- but look up the word "friend" in D&C and see how many times Christ says that he wants us to regard him as a "friend".

Quite honestly, it was my understanding of Rorty which led me directly at least intellectually to my conversion to the church. Then I had a Moroni 10:4 experience and that clinched it

Rorty's philosophy is in many ways similar to Heidegger's and James Faulconer, a BYU philosophy professor and many other Mormons are turning toward Heidegger as a basis for a new theology which is Mormon and not connected to the sectarian views of the past.

I am convinced that this path is the future of Mormonism theologically speaking and could provide for huge missionary growth if people actually understood it. There are several non-Mormon philosophers who cannot believe that we are NOT moving down this path.

Canard definitely read this from one of your countrymen

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/why-i-love-mormonism/?_r=0

Thanks. I remember it doing the rounds on Facebook during the election ("look, someone likes us... And he's a Brit.") but I enjoyed re-reading it.

I seem to remember recommending it a while back and you saying you weren't interested, but I'd encourage you to read the Givenses' God who weeps. It portrays a similarly "friendly" God and does so from a wonderfully broad range of sources. It would probably be better titled "The God who is our friend."

Reading it was another of the "43 minutes" (4-5 days actually) that may have changed my life.

I have no real idea or certainty whether the Givenses are right in their portrayal of God. But it's "truth that works" and leads to more good. Which in turn, I believe, leads me to more godliness.

My only slight critique of the book is that the world doesn't extend much further east than Athens and Jerusalem. The book seems to be setting out to show that the distilled wisdom of the world is found in Mormonism. But they dip into the wisdom of the west and near east. I'd have enjoyed a little of the wisdom of the countries further round to the right of the map; especially as I was reading the book while on holiday in Thailand.

Of course Asia is in our East; "over there" and out of sight and mind for many. It's naturally not the case if you're looking at an older map of the world made by China, in which case the Americas are in the far east. The Chinese for 'China' is 中国(zhōng guó), meaning "middle: 中," "country: 国"

"Zhōng": (中) is one of my favourite Chinese characters. A simple symbol to remind me that wherever "I" stand, the rest of the world extends in every direction from me. My petulant teenage self was right: the world really does revolve around me. Just as it does for each single 7 billion of us. The fusion of Daoism and Confucianism in Chinese philosophy understands the important balance of "I" and "we." I've heard it called "individualistic collectivism."

This is the principle that I think Rorty's proposing. We are always at the middle (中) of our own experience. Anything that falls outside of the mental/physical space around "I" is meaningless. It might as well not exist because, for the individual, it does not.

Edited August 17, 2013 by canard78

[Analytics]

Well I disagree with your definition then.

 

I have no problem with "Say What Is Truth" either, but of course I am not a mind reader so I don't know what the person who wrote it was thinking, not that it much matters.

 

Most normal people don't even think of these issues- you have to be a little wacky to let issues like the nature of truth bother you.

 

But they do bother me, and you have yet to show me a consistent statement of what you mean by "truth" and why your view is better, and why anything about what this hymn says amounts to a hill of beans

 

It's poetry, a beautiful hymn, not a philosophical tome.  I see no logical notation, to discussion of justification or any other terms one would expect in a philosophical paper- do you?

 

D&C 93:24 defines truth as knowedge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.  For the moment, let's assume that "truth" means what the D&C says it means.

 

Arround 12:30 in your video, Rorty says:

 

Nowadays since the development of modern science, religious belief and scientific beliefs have become tools for doing different jobs.  Scientific beliefs help us predict and control events in space and time.  This job used to be done by cosmogonist hypothesis pervaded by priests and prophets, but it can now be done better.

 

If "truth" is knowledge of things as they really are, then according to what Rorty is saying, science does a better job of helping us understand the truth.

[mfbukowski]

If "truth" is knowledge of things as they really are, then according to what Rorty is saying, science does a better job of helping us understand the truth

 

 

Rorty's central thesis is that philosophy has unduly relied on a representational theory of perception and a correspondence theory of truth, hoping our experience or language might mirror the way reality actually is. In this he continues a certain controversial Anglophone tradition, which builds upon the work of philosophers such as Quine, Sellars, and Davidson. Rorty opts out of the traditional objective/subjective dialogue in favor of a communal version of truth. For him, "true" is simply an honorific knowers bestow on claims, asserting them as what "we" want to say about a particular matter.

Rorty spends much of the book explaining how philosophical paradigm shifts and their associated philosophical "problems" can be considered the result of the new metaphors, vocabularies, and mistaken linguistic associations which are necessarily a part of those new paradigms.

 

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

Edited August 17, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Thanks. I remember it doing the rounds on Facebook during the election ("look, someone likes us... And he's a Brit.") but I enjoyed re-reading it.

I seem to remember recommending it a while back and you saying you weren't interested, but I'd encourage you to read the Givenses' God who weeps. It portrays a similarly "friendly" God and does so from a wonderfully broad range of sources. It would probably be better titled "The God who is our friend."

Reading it was another of the "43 minutes" (4-5 days actually) that may have changed my life.

I have no real idea or certainty whether the Givenses are right in their portrayal of God. But it's "truth that works" and leads to more good. Which in turn, I believe, leads me to more godliness.

My only slight critique of the book is that the world doesn't extend much further east than Athens and Jerusalem. The book seems to be setting out to show that the distilled wisdom of the world is found in Mormonism. But they dip into the wisdom of the west and near east. I'd have enjoyed a little of the wisdom of the countries further round to the right of the map; especially as I was reading the book while on holiday in Thailand.

Of course Asia is in our East; "over there" and out of sight and mind for many. It's naturally not the case if you're looking at an older map of the world made by China, in which case the Americas are in the far east. The Chinese for 'China' is 中国(zhōng guó), meaning "middle: 中," "country: 国"

"Zhōng": (中) is one of my favourite Chinese characters. A simple symbol to remind me that wherever "I" stand, the rest of the world extends in every direction from me. My petulant teenage self was right: the world really does revolve around me. Just as it does for each single 7 billion of us. The fusion of Daoism and Confucianism in Chinese philosophy understands the important balance of "I" and "we." I've heard it called "individualistic collectivism."

This is the principle that I think Rorty's proposing. We are always at the middle (中) of our own experience. Anything that falls outside of the mental/physical space around "I" is meaningless. It might as well not exist because, for the individual, it does not.

Thanks- I will check out that book more closely- sounds like I was kind of a jerk about it- sorry about that.

 

I think that last sentence you wrote is definitely true of phenomenology and perhaps especially Heidegger.  He has developed an entire theory of "Being" based on what it is to be in this world in the sense you are speaking about.

 

That is maybe a bit less the case in Rorty, but R spends much time talking about H in many of his (R's) works.  I really thank you for your thoughtful contributions

[canard78]

Thanks- I will check out that book more closely- sounds like I was kind of a jerk about it- sorry about that.

No worries at all, I'd not taken it personally.

I think that last sentence you wrote is definitely true of phenomenology and perhaps especially Heidegger. He has developed an entire theory of "Being" based on what it is to be in this world in the sense you are speaking about.

That is maybe a bit less the case in Rorty, but R spends much time talking about H in many of his (R's) works. I really thank you for your thoughtful contributions

Thanks for the references. I'll look them up.

[mfbukowski]

No worries at all, I'd not taken it personally.

Thanks for the references. I'll look them up.

Heidegger is horribly difficult to understand- I suggest a lot of secondary sources before you actually tackle him.

 

For a start, you might want to think of your "Zhong" as roughly equivalent to his "Dasein".  That term Dasein is his most difficult thing to understand because, justifiably, it is never translated - because he uses it in a specialized way.  It literally translates roughly as "Being" but he uses it as you used that term "Zhong"- it means the center of being which is ultimately each of us individually.  Just as you had to coin a word for the concept, he did as well, except he doesn't speak Chinese (as far as I know!)

 

But you really should read some Faulconer- again, a BYU philosopher who was quoted in that NY Times article and a student of H.

 

You will find yourself a kindred spirit there, I am certain.

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

Edited August 17, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

We are always at the middle (中) of our own experience. Anything that falls outside of the mental/physical space around "I" is meaningless. It might as well not exist because, for the individual, it does not.

http://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/07/always-in-the-middle?lang=eng

 

I assume you are familiar with this talk, but posted it for those who aren't.

Edited August 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[mnn727]

I just found this video which summarizes what Mormons need to know about the alleged conflict between science and religion and how to solve it

.

I never have seen any conflict between science and the LDS religion. So I won't waste my time with your video.

 

God is the ultimate scientist, many of his ways are beyond us currently, but we humans continue to learn new scientific principles all the time.

Edited August 17, 2013 by mnn727