Does The Supernatural Exist?

[Calm]

I think I understand your blather here I used to be much more impassioned about getting my point across and persuading others. As I ripen, it seems to be slowly diminishing in importance.

Not to say that I don't like a good rant every now and then (like derailing this thread, for example...)

You only have to look at the length of many of my posts to figure out I haven't given up...see for example the post-edited post above. Having embraced the idea that we are trying to convey a level of understanding with tools that are comparable to needing Shakespeare to do it justice while actually having to be satisfied with a hand signing chimpanzee encourages me to try harder but results in less frustration and anger in most cases when it becomes obvious that some points weren't seen as valuable as I saw them, ideas had nuances added or removed, etc. I tend to only get a negative reaction when it becomes obvious that the only tool the reader brought to the conversation was not his best pot cleanser and favourite pen for writing (or its equivalent) but a flamethrower and some manure to fingerprint with....not much commitment there to the idea of actual communication. Edited February 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Ok, if we use the word blather to describe everything, then I ain't got no quarrel with it.  All this Mormon stuff is just blather!

 

Besides, I enjoy your blather, mfb

Thanks, and I enjoy yours better!

 

So there!! 

 

Let me take this opportunity to clarify, once and for all where I was coming from in saying that.

 

John and I have gone round and round about postmodernism and he understands it well.  He understood perfectly what I meant when I said that- we went around and around on the trailer park about differences between Wittgenstein and Saussure, and he was clearly conversant with all the issues and knew perfectly what I was saying.

 

I love him like a brother but there are certain brothers who cannot speak to each other without arguing, and I am trying to avoid him for that reason, but he will not leave me alone.  It happens every single time.

 

I feel bad about 3DOP on the other hand because I can't seem to communicate with him well on these issues. 

 

But at least I think you understand me- we can disagree on a friendly basis because we understand the other's position perfectly- we just disagree.  And that is fine!

 

Wittgenstein himself was raised a Catholic, and told his Catholic friends to pray for him after he was gone.  He was a mystic and did not buy into Catholic dogma and theology and was arguably an "agnostic".

 

All he wrote in the latter part of his life was arguably about dealing with religious issues- though not directly.  There is much now being published about the religious implications of his life's work, AND ALL THESE IMPLICATIONS ARE ARGUABLY FAVORABLE FOR RELIGIOUS DISCOURSE.

 

But he did think that all philosophical problems arose out of linguistic confusion.

 

The complex, intertwined relationship between a language and the form of life that goes with it means that problems arising from language cannot just be set aside–they infect our lives, making us live in confusion. We might find our way back to the right path, but there is no guarantee that we will never again stray. In this sense there can be no progress in philosophy.

In 1931 Wittgenstein described his task thus:

    Language sets everyone the same traps; it is an immense network of easily accessible wrong turnings. And so we watch one man after another walking down the same paths and we know in advance where he will branch off, where walk straight on without noticing the side turning, etc. etc. What I have to do then is erect signposts at all the junctions where there are wrong turnings so as to help people past the danger points.

But such signposts are all that philosophy can offer and there is no certainty that they will be noticed or followed correctly. And we should remember that a signpost belongs in the context of a particular problem area. It might be no help at all elsewhere, and should not be treated as dogma. So philosophy offers no truths, no theories, nothing exciting, but mainly reminders of what we all know. This is not a glamorous role, but it is difficult and important. It requires an almost infinite capacity for taking pains (which is one definition of genius) and could have enormous implications for anyone who is drawn to philosophical contemplation or who is misled by bad philosophical theories. This applies not only to professional philosophers but to any people who stray into philosophical confusion, perhaps not even realizing that their problems are philosophical and not, say, scientific.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/#H4

In the Tractatus Wittgenstein's logical construction of a philosophical system has a purpose—to find the limits of world, thought and language; in other words, to distinguish between sense and nonsense. “The book will … draw a limit to thinking, or rather—not to thinking, but to the expression of thoughts …. The limit can … only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense” (TLP Preface).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/

 

 

I said that in shorthand by saying that it's ALL "blather all the way down".

 

And I am convinced that that was also what Robert was saying.

 

If that offended anyone, which obviously it did, I am truly sorry.

 

I suppose I need to post the entire history of philosophy with every post, but that's not going to happen.  After all, it's blather all the way down.

[jkwilliams]

Thanks, and I enjoy yours better!

 

So there!! 

 

Let me take this opportunity to clarify, once and for all where I was coming from in saying that.

 

John and I have gone round and round about postmodernism and he understands it well.  He understood perfectly what I meant when I said that- we went around and around on the trailer park about differences between Wittgenstein and Saussure, and he was clearly conversant with all the issues and knew perfectly what I was saying.

This is the last I'll say about this. I said repeatedly that my sole objection was to referring to other people's beliefs as spiritually dead blather and nonsense unworthy of our respect. That was it. I was surprised that you took issue with that, and even more so that you thought my calls for civility were a manipulative attack.

So, no, I did not know what the heck you were talking about when you brought up Wittgenstein and objected to what I thought was a reasonable call for respect and civility. I wish you could give me even the tiniest amount of credit, but I suspect I've so thoroughly poisoned our interaction that it's impossible. Hence the break.

Edited February 28, 2014 by jkwilliams

[MiserereNobis]

I suppose I need to post the entire history of philosophy with every post, but that's not going to happen.

 

 

Well, make sure you include Whitehead's statement:  "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." 

 

Ok, I think/hope we all understand each other know, so back to the topic of the thread

[Ahab]

Forgive me if I can't quite picture you saying..."Absolutely", in reference to LDS "blather". The next time I see it will be the first. Since verbal communication is virtually meaningless according to your here today, gone tomorrow gurus, it wouldn't hurt the appearance of your integrity to say so once in a while with regard to the "blather" of a few more of your own more often.

Frankly, its okay. You and your friends can't help it. You think we are beknightedly ridiculous and it comes out when you are unguarded. Aquinas was brilliant you say...a thousand years ago. Thanks for the "compIiment". Its nice, but the sting is still there. I can't make myself think LDS thought is stupid, but since it seems that a prerequisite to being LDS is to think Catholicism is outdated nonsense, I am forever disqualified from considering the Book of Mormon, or your faith. If I doubted every article of the Apostles Creed I could not believe what you guys believe, in your ignorant inexperience, about my faith.

I hope you undetstand that what I was referring to as a...mistake...is the decription of God as described in the creeds you and traditonal Christians accept as the truth, creeds which are a combination of scripture mingled with the false philosophies of men. Philosophies which portray God, our Father, as an immaterial person without body, parts or passions. A person who is nowhere in particular at any given time and yet everywhere at the same time, except that there is no time where he is because he is somehow outside of time, if even he can correctly be referred to as a "he". And this little summary of your...mistake...barely even scratches the surface of what is described in what is called the Athanasian and Nicean creeds.

And yes you can call that a successful mistake if by succrssful you mean that many many people accept that mistake as the truth, but if people continue to accept what is not true as the truth they will likely accept other mistakes as the truth and not even realize they need to be corrected, calling those who have the truth mistaken.

[mfbukowski]

deleted.  I combined two posts by mistake.

 

I told John that we both needed a 12 step program.

Edited February 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Well, make sure you include Whitehead's statement:  "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." 

 

Ok, I think/hope we all understand each other know, so back to the topic of the thread

Oh unquestionably.  As always, Whitehead was right.

 

Uno mas, por favor. 

 

Pardon my yelling this but I want everyone - especially Catholics who don't understand Wittgenstein to hear this.  I have said it all before, but as usual no one listens.

 

WITTGENSTEIN'S POINT OF VIEW IS FAVORABLE TO CATHOLICISM (and any religious position) AND ONE OF HIS BEST STUDENTS WAS A CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN NAMED G.E.M. ANSCOMBE WHO WAS A PROPONENT OF "ANALYTICAL THOMISM"

 

Wittgenstein should not be seen as a "bad guy" by Catholics.

Edited February 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Because at this point in my life it is rare that I feel that I have been able to communicate everything that I mean to attach to my choice of words even if I use an epic to try and provide all the needed context and intent?

Ps: in terms of making sense, I find Catholicism and Orthodox (though know that less well) as logically consistent and thoughtful as I find LDS doctrine...in fact once the LDS faith moves out of revelation and moves into reasoning and then opinion, I think we run into a lot of problems which the leaders are still/always in the process of having to deal with as even when successful in removing one impurity to the faith that has been added by man's hand, often another is left behind. I came across an analogy last night that I love...was it here? I will have to look for it.

The Gospel is like a beautiful copper pot with a shining exterior, but over time it acquires by man's hands and use smears, decolorations, blemishes to the point it may lose a great deal of beauty. These are caused by impurities that have been added to the beautiful copper structure. If we try to polish it up just using hard work and determination it will be greatly improved in most cases but still never that glowing clarity of a new pot. However revelation and the Spirit that encourages to stick to God's words is like taking a high grade cleanser to the copper and by diligence, inspiration and self honesty we can cleanse and polish the copper, removing all the buildup of man's impurities and leaving behind a high qualitypot that looks like the day it was given you, pristine and new and if cared for properly everlasting.

How did the pot get made with no one touching it? 

 

The whole notion that the gospel can even be put into words is a "philosophy of men".

 

We need a few more koans and a few fewer philosophers.

 

Uh oh.  Now I have to explain a koan.  Fergitaboutit.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed.  Post-modernism almost always falls into inherent self-contradictions.  For example, the statement "all language is blather" is, by its own definition, blather, so why believe it?  "There are no absolutes" is a statement trying to take an absolute stance.  Etc, etc.

And what does not fall into inherent self-contradiction?

 

All we can do is apply language within a context until we achieve communication.  Communication grows out of meaningful conversation between people within a given and particular context, where people are working together on a common problem.

 

That is why we view the Godhead as one "in purpose"- because they are one IN ACTION.  That is the key to understanding what Pragmatism is-  as Joseph Smith said, faith is a principle of ACTION.

 

No action, no faith.  Alma 32 says to TRY a principle to see if it works for you- TO TAKE ACTION ON IT.

 

And this is why Mormons have no "doctrine" just orthopraxis. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

 

The culprit here is doctrine- statements floating around which are not attached to a definable context in action.

[Calm]

How did the pot get made with no one touching it? 

 

The whole notion that the gospel can even be put into words is a "philosophy of men".

 

We need a few more koans and a few fewer philosophers.

 

Uh oh.  Now I have to explain a koan.  Fergitaboutit.

God made it without blemish and then passed it to man for use in creating the feast of life....which gets very messy at times.

[Robert F. Smith]

And what does not fall into inherent self-contradiction?

 

All we can do is apply language within a context until we achieve communication.  Communication grows out of meaningful conversation between people within a given and particular context, where people are working together on a common problem.

 

That is why we view the Godhead as one "in purpose"- because they are one IN ACTION.  That is the key to understanding what Pragmatism is-  as Joseph Smith said, faith is a principle of ACTION.

 

No action, no faith.  Alma 32 says to TRY a principle to see if it works for you- TO TAKE ACTION ON IT.

 

And this is why Mormons have no "doctrine" just orthopraxis. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

 

The culprit here is doctrine- statements floating around which are not attached to a definable context in action.

You're getting better, Mark.  I really liked  this one, including Blake's article and all the responses.

[Robert F. Smith]

I hope you undetstand that what I was referring to as a...mistake...is the decription of God as described in the creeds you and traditonal Christians accept as the truth, creeds which are a combination of scripture mingled with the false philosophies of men. Philosophies which portray God, our Father, as an immaterial person without body, parts or passions. A person who is nowhere in particular at any given time and yet everywhere at the same time, except that there is no time where he is because he is somehow outside of time, if even he can correctly be referred to as a "he". And this little summary of your...mistake...barely even scratches the surface of what is described in what is called the Athanasian and Nicean creeds.

And yes you can call that a successful mistake if by succrssful you mean that many many people accept that mistake as the truth, but if people continue to accept what is not true as the truth they will likely accept other mistakes as the truth and not even realize they need to be corrected, calling those who have the truth mistaken.

All of what you say may be true, Ahab, but I have attended many a Roman Catholic mass and have yet to hear a bad homily.  The warm Christian greetings of those sitting nearby is also a highlight of each service.  Perhaps the orthopraxis of the RC Church is more important than the creeds or systematic theologies, just as it is for the LDS congregants.

 

As you can see, mfb has got me thinking and reflecting.

[Ahab]

All of what you say may be true, Ahab, but I have attended many a Roman Catholic mass and have yet to hear a bad homily. The warm Christian greetings of those sitting nearby is also a highlight of each service. Perhaps the orthopraxis of the RC Church is more important than the creeds or systematic theologies, just as it is for the LDS congregants.

As you can see, mfb has got me thinking and reflecting.

Nevertheless those who are...mistaken and continue to be ...mistaken are...mistaken and will continue to be...mistaken as long as they do not accept correction when it is offered.

But yes I have known and still know a lot of very nice people who were...mistaken and still are...mistaken regarding their beliefs in the nature of God.

[pogi]

And yes you can call that a successful mistake if by succrssful you mean that many many people accept that mistake as the truth, but if people continue to accept what is not true as the truth they will likely accept other mistakes as the truth and not even realize they need to be corrected, calling those who have the truth mistaken.

 

I think that we are all guilty of this to some extent, are we not?  

[mfbukowski]

You're getting better, Mark.  I really liked  this one, including Blake's article and all the responses.

Thanks!

 

Once you truly get this, it is a life-changer.  You no longer see "reality" the same way.  That is the bottom line of "There are no facts"- because facts are always linguistic and language is always ambiguous- "there are only interpretations". 

 

Plato observes someone doing a "good deed"- an action- and then verbally abstracts it into the idea of "goodness" and makes it into a thing (reification) and then abstracts if further into the "Form of Goodness" which he identifies as God.  God is no longer an acting being watching his children, he is linguistically abstracted into the "Form of Goodness".

 

As the "Form of Goodness" of course (?) he cannot change, because he must be "perfect" and in Greek the word "perfect" MEANS "complete".  So if something is not complete, then it must be changing.  Therefore the Form of Goodness must be unchanging.  So God is then unchanging.

 

It's just layer upon layer of linguistic abstraction created out of language and little nuances of language like the linguistic fact that in Greek, "perfect" MEANS "complete" so to be perfect is to be unchanging.  Maybe in Greek, but conceptually we use the word- and think therefore- in English "perfect" quite differently-

 

"OK, I'll swing by your house, around 8- will that work?"

"Perfect!  I'll see you then."

 

THAT is not a statement about anything being complete or unchanging.  The provisional plan to meet at 8 may be "complete" for the moment- but if it doesn't work because of a flat tire etc- then it will be changed.  "No biggie!"

 

So does God have to be unchanging to be "perfect"-  no, that is an abstract linguistic requirement of a language- ancient Greek- which is no longer still in use.  So now we still debate about omnipotence and omnipresence and the "perfect Nature of God" all because we have confused ourselves with these abstracted "doctrines" which have no meaning in themselves, outside of action.

 

So all statements in language are inherently ambiguous, and therefore potentially contradictory.

 

The only language we have invented which is not ambiguous is mathematics because it is specifically designed not to be ambiguous.  That is because math defines the RULES of what we call "logic"- in fact one of the great philosophical achievements of our time was Russel's proof that symbolic logic and math are mutually related- that one can be deduced from the other.

 

But this is not a "natural language" it is one constructed specifically to NOT be ambiguous. 

 

So is what I have just said itself some kind of metaphysical statement?  Is the belief that all language is ambiguous a belief which is itself ambiguous?  Of course- BUT HERE IS THE IMPORTANT POINT.

 

Those who say that already know that, so that is not a "harmful" argument.  That's why I said it's blather all the way down, and even that statement is blather.

 

This is a point of view- not a philosophical pronouncement.  It is a position in action.  It is a perspective which works in the world.  These statements I am making are not a "metaphysical position" - they are one man feeling the elephant and finding only the trunk of a tree.

 

The difference is that I know I am blind and don't have the whole picture.  Others think they do and that is the problem.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks!

 

Once you truly get this, it is a life-changer.  You no longer see "reality" the same way.  That is the bottom line of "There are no facts"- because facts are always linguistic and language is always ambiguous- "there are only interpretations". 

 

Plato observes someone doing a "good deed"- an action- and then verbally abstracts it into the idea of "goodness" and makes it into a thing (reification) and then abstracts if further into the "Form of Goodness" which he identifies as God.  God is no longer an acting being watching his children, he is linguistically abstracted into the "Form of Goodness".

 

As the "Form of Goodness" of course (?) he cannot change, because he must be "perfect" and in Greek the word "perfect" MEANS "complete".  So if something is not complete, then it must be changing.  Therefore the Form of Goodness must be unchanging.  So God is then unchanging.

 

It's just layer upon layer of linguistic abstraction created out of language and little nuances of language like the linguistic fact that in Greek, "perfect" MEANS "complete" so to be perfect is to be unchanging.  Maybe in Greek, but conceptually we use the word- and think therefore- in English "perfect" quite differently-

So now along comes Aquinas, one of the most brilliant thinkers of all times.

 

He sees the conflict with the problem of the incarnation- that God becomes man.  Yet God is perfect, and therefore unchanging, he thinks.  How can God become man?  There is a total contradiction there.

 

The Hebrew God who is our Father is NOT the "Form of Goodness"- yet since Aquinas accepts the kernel of Neoplatonism current in his day, God must of course be "perfect"- and therefore unchanging-  how could he NOT be?

 

So there is the conflict for him.  Unchanging, yet he BECAME man, and DIED.  Sounds like a few changes there.

 

So how is it to be resolved?  The Trinity!  God and Jesus "BEING" remained perfect and unchanging.  The only thing which appeared to change where just that- appearances.  There is a difference between appearance and the unchanging "Reality" of their "Being".  Their essence, their substance, was unchanged, just the appearance changed.  Jesus combined two Natures- the unchanging Nature of God with the changing paltry Nature of man!  More bifurcation.

 

By abstracting these linguistic qualities- being and substance- into unchanging realities, the conflict could be resolved.  And it also worked to explain how a wafer of bread's "appearance" could remain while it's invisible "substance" changed.  Just bifurcate the language and you have created two realities!

 

Appearance and substance are different ontologically, he postulated.  There is the created, different ontologically from the Creator.  And Plato supplied the ontology for him, after all Forms are what is "real" because they are perfect and unchanging.  God the Form of Goodness can remain unchanging while his Appearance- Jesus can become an imperfect man, live and die.  Make a linguistic distinction- as Aristotle taught him- and you change the "reality".

 

By bifurcating the universe into Ideas which are perfect and things which are imperfect, God's perfection is saved!  Substance and Being are the only realities while we men with our carnal human evil Nature we inherited from Adam, muck around down here in the world of appearances.

 

And Western Civilization totally bought into the bifurcation which is with us even today.  The Light of Science shines forth with Knowledge, while our paltry unprovable mundane experiences are unimportant and imperfect.

 

Indeed western civilization IS a series of footnotes to Plato. 

 

All that is Perfect is what can be Known by the Light of Science.  After all, Knowledge is Perfect and Unchanging.  Universal Laws of Physics exist independent of our knowing them.  They are there waiting to be Discovered as we shine the Light of the scientific method into the darker corners of the universe.

 

Your paltry little religious experiences are merely some remnants of a bad ham sandwich you had, as Scrooge might say of Marley's Ghost.   They could not possibly be "real" because they are not Observable by the Great Eye of Science, and so they cannot be branded as Authentic, and receive the Imprimatur of Empirical Evidence.

 

Along comes Kuhn, the Pragmatists Postmodernism and Phenomenology.  These are branded as "relativistic" heresies.  The idea that it is language all the way down, and knowledge is inherently ambiguous, that there are no facts, just interpretations of data, is a DANGEROUS notion and politically incorrect, because it might offend someone who still loves the Greeks. 

 

They say, as James did, that your religious experience may be as "valid" as any other observation in giving your life meaning

 

And now along come the Mormons, steeped as they are in their good sectarian philosophy and see that anyone who believes in Relativism must be a heretic!  Truth is Knowledge of Things as they Are.

 

It never occurs to them that things as they are might be in a state of continual flux, because of course Things As They Are are eternal and Unchanging, and after all, it must be true or false and facts are facts.  Things as they are could not possibly be relative! 

 

It never occurs to them that if God can progress, they have to throw out all of the Platonic Unchanging stuff they inherited from the sectarians. After all, facts are facts, and either statements are true or false, and everything is right or wrong.  TRVTH is TRVTH as it is etched across the front of the Temple of Truth and is eternal and unchanging. 

 

Uh oh- but God progresses through us, and might have once been like us.  How is that supposed to work?

 

And God sits on his throne, progressing through our progression, feeling love for his children, hearing and answering prayers and blessing us, and a little smile I think comes across his sacred countenance as he watches us hang onto Platonic paganism.

 

"Oh well", I am sure he thinks, since he already knows us and what we will do, "They will learn- they are such little babies!"

Edited March 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

Please don't think that their disrespect for your beliefs is representative of Mormon thought. I have not encountered this kind of stuff anywhere else in the church. I don't know why it's popping up here, but I hope you understand these opinions are outliers.

 

Its finally Saturday...Eight and a half hours of sleep and not too many chores today. I am starting with this post because it is the first of those addressed to me to which I haven't replied. I read this week about the origins of the term metaphysics. It would seem that a chronicler of the works of Aristotle was assembling a library around 150 B.C. He did not know what to call his work that dealt with the subject of being, essence, nature. All are non-existent concepts according to LDS philosophy. If nature is non-existent, where is anything above non-existence? Supernature? Do you mean supernothing? Anyway, to get back to the derail, I was amused that the Greek expression, meta, means after. The librarian had placed this portion of Aristotle's work after the Physics, and the expression metaphysics was born. Those who accept the perennial philosophy would urge that this was also logically convenient, and perhaps that is why the expression caught on and continues.

 

I do not claim "logical convenience" in the order by which I try to reply to the posts with which I have an interest. But I begin with the post from above by jkwilliams.

 

Hi John,

 

Ordinarily our paths don't cross I think. This is probably because I tend to wait until something comes up about my own beliefs. At times I can be quiet for a few weeks, but I am always looking around. I usually don't have to wait very long. Anyway, I will have to disagree with you here. Neither Robert nor mfbukowski are among those few who appear to be actually unconcerned about giving offense. There are posters here who couldn't care less, and cannot offend me, because they are so ignorant. In this case, I am convinced Robert does believe, in a precise philosophical sense, that we are atheists. bukowski pronounced his ratification of Robert's moment of candor with a remark that is truly not consistent with his professed philosophy, "Absolutely!"

 

This does not mean that they disapprove of the first universities of Europe, Catholic architecture, the paintings of Fra Angelico, Sacred Polyphony, or Dante's poetry. They know that the fruit of this philosophical "atheism" has certainly brought forth beauty, possibly goodness, and maybe even a kernel of truth. But LDS beliefs do not permit respect for the philosophy that informed the faith of an era when the Catholic Church inspired the culture and a civilization emerged where it prospered. But they do respect what emerged from the nonsense.

 

LDS can talk about orthopraxis all they want but they are as dogmatic as a traditional Catholic. They will not budge on the dogma of the materiality of all things. I don't mind that they are dogmatic. I mind that they say they are not. The perennial philosophy of St. Thomas insists that an idea has existence. LDS progressive philosophy cannot permit this. Ideas, concepts, and possibilities all lack matter. There is nothing immaterial according to the philosophy of the sons of Joseph Smith. And if an idea has existence, this raises the question of whether matter is necessary for any thing to exist. The materialist philosophy that can only allow that the thought that you ponder exists if it is made out of matter cannot permit the metaphysics of the librarian referenced above. This materialism permeates LDS thought and is dogmaticallly incompatible with the world of immaterial reality that planted universities on the earth and raised Gothic Cathedrals to the sky.

 

Allow me a digression, faithful Mormons wonder why doubting Mormons continue to be so keenly interested in LDS life and culture? Perhaps it is because the foundational precepts which have informed Mormonism almost always remain most firmly. After the subject loses faith because of polygamy, geography, DNA, or no more apostolic style miracles, he or she is fixed and rooted in the materialism which is incompatible with an immaterial God that transcends creation. How does this happen? Why do Mormons who leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints almost inevitably turn to atheism instead of considering one of the other cults (I use the word in its classical sense, non-pejorative) of Christianity?

 

Any individual case has a variety of reasons, but I would propose for your consideration that a fundamental reason is that the LDS faith has succeeded in persuading its faithful that metaphysics is a deservedly dying strain of thought in the unexamined, but presumably inevitable march of the human intellect towards a better understanding of philosophical realities. When this modern philosophy of the day does not overcome whatever intellectual shortcomings have troubled the believer in the religious propositions of Mormonism, materialist philosophy is still fundamental and the idea of immaterial reality remains as dogmatically excluded as it was when they were active and believing missionaries, priests, or bishops. Mormonism is still seen as the only option that can save religion from today's tide toward atheism. As such, the reluctant atheist, formerly LDS, still feels "the tie that binds". Heck jk, you still want to defend Mormonism to guys like me!  

 

In a later post, I will try to develop the reason why it is so easy and advantageous for the LDS apologist to say that everything is blather. Even while I was composing this, Mark commented, "So all statements in language are inherently ambiguous, and therefore potentially contradictory."  Right. oh wait. Wrong? Ummmm, yes, absolutely. Oh wait, absolutely not.

 

What can be said to that? Nothing. The conversation would be ended there except that the LDS adherents of that belief inconsistently apply it. They keep talking:

Last I checked ineffable was a totally appropriate word to describe (in part) the mainstream Christian thought on the nature of god... Linking it with blather, well not so much. The fact remains describing god in mainstream Christianity is an impossibility. In Mormonism it's pretty simple. Gods a super smart guy with a body. 

 

 

I think I have to disagree with you jk about how widespread these opinions are. As I recall, the missionaries who I once had to the house almost immediately started talking about the Council of Nicea and "hellenism". That may not be the norm. Maybe the well-meaning Mormon who knew me knew that these particular missionaries were available who might be able to speak specifically to me on a subject I may have mentioned. I tend to think the belief Robert expressed is mainstream LDS, at least for those who give it thought. Strip away all the veneer and thoughtful Mormons believe what Bikeymikey said above. They worship a super smart guy with a body. Us? Well, our God, great as He would be if He could exist, is impossible. How do they know? Because the challenging language of a theology that is dogmatically opposed to their own is easily caricatured as hopelessly verbose and unmeaning. Mormons understandably are delighted with such an explanation, and if only a few of them express it, they rest easy about whether they need to worry about offending anybody more imposing than a super smart guy with a body. They can congratulate themselves on having left behind the angels on pinheads. (By the way, that has never been a subject of doubt with those of us who hold that angels are immaterial. How many ideas can one brain entertain? Same question. Ideas are immaterial and don't take up space). I wonder, does God work out? You know, lift weights or jog?  

 

Thank you for your concern. 

 

Rory

Edited March 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[Ahab]

I think that we are all guilty of this to some extent, are we not?

If we are we need to fix that by accepting correction, should we not?

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP:

 

The Saints accept that being, essence, nature exist. Though we do put a different religious meaning to them than did Aristotle.

[teddyaware]

Deleted
.

Edited March 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Thanks!

 

Once you truly get this, it is a life-changer.  You no longer see "reality" the same way.  That is the bottom line of "There are no facts"- because facts are always linguistic and language is always ambiguous- "there are only interpretations". 

 

Plato observes someone doing a "good deed"- an action- and then verbally abstracts it into the idea of "goodness" and makes it into a thing (reification) and then abstracts if further into the "Form of Goodness" which he identifies as God.  God is no longer an acting being watching his children, he is linguistically abstracted into the "Form of Goodness".

 

As the "Form of Goodness" of course (?) he cannot change, because he must be "perfect" and in Greek the word "perfect" MEANS "complete".  So if something is not complete, then it must be changing.  Therefore the Form of Goodness must be unchanging.  So God is then unchanging.

 

It's just layer upon layer of linguistic abstraction created out of language and little nuances of language like the linguistic fact that in Greek, "perfect" MEANS "complete" so to be perfect is to be unchanging.  Maybe in Greek, but conceptually we use the word- and think therefore- in English "perfect" quite differently-

 

"OK, I'll swing by your house, around 8- will that work?"

"Perfect!  I'll see you then."

 

THAT is not a statement about anything being complete or unchanging.  The provisional plan to meet at 8 may be "complete" for the moment- but if it doesn't work because of a flat tire etc- then it will be changed.  "No biggie!"

 

So does God have to be unchanging to be "perfect"-  no, that is an abstract linguistic requirement of a language- ancient Greek- which is no longer still in use.  So now we still debate about omnipotence and omnipresence and the "perfect Nature of God" all because we have confused ourselves with these abstracted "doctrines" which have no meaning in themselves, outside of action.

 

So all statements in language are inherently ambiguous, and therefore potentially contradictory.

 

The only language we have invented which is not ambiguous is mathematics because it is specifically designed not to be ambiguous.  That is because math defines the RULES of what we call "logic"- in fact one of the great philosophical achievements of our time was Russel's proof that symbolic logic and math are mutually related- that one can be deduced from the other.

 

But this is not a "natural language" it is one constructed specifically to NOT be ambiguous. 

 

So is what I have just said itself some kind of metaphysical statement?  Is the belief that all language is ambiguous a belief which is itself ambiguous?  Of course- BUT HERE IS THE IMPORTANT POINT.

 

Those who say that already know that, so that is not a "harmful" argument.  That's why I said it's blather all the way down, and even that statement is blather.

 

This is a point of view- not a philosophical pronouncement.  It is a position in action.  It is a perspective which works in the world.  These statements I am making are not a "metaphysical position" - they are one man feeling the elephant and finding only the trunk of a tree.

 

The difference is that I know I am blind and don't have the whole picture.  Others think they do and that is the problem.

Please understand I ask the following question respectfully: Do you believe the brother of Jared, Nephi, and John the revelator (all three of whom received the great and all-encompassing revelation of God's truth from the beginning to the end) would agree with your analysis that that even after their visions they were still blind as to what the truth really is? Nephi's description of the language of John the Revelator's written account of his encounter with the aforesaid all-encompassing vision of truth does not sound like it is at all the plagued with problematic linguistic ambiguities you describe...

20 And the angel said unto me: Behold one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

21 Behold, he shall see and write the remainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been

22 And he shall also write concerning the end of the world.

23 Wherefore, the things which he shall write are just and true; and behold they are written in the book which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men. (2 Nephi 14)

Could it be the ambiguities of language you describe are overcome by the clarifying revelations of the Spirit and that the concerns you have in this regard are overblown and not so problematic for those who do have a sufficient portion of the Spirit?

.

[mfbukowski]

Please understand I ask the following question respectfully: Do you believe the brother of Jared, Nephi, and John the revelator (all three of whom received the great and all-encompassing revelation of God's truth from the beginning to the end) would agree with your analysis that that even after their visions they were still blind as to what the truth really is? Nephi's description of the language of John the Revelator's written account of his encounter with the aforesaid all-encompassing vision of truth does not sound like it is at all the plagued with problematic linguistic ambiguities you describe...

20 And the angel said unto me: Behold one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

21 Behold, he shall see and write the remainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been

22 And he shall also write concerning the end of the world.

23 Wherefore, the things which he shall write are just and true; and behold they are written in the book which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men. (2 Nephi 14)

Could it be the ambiguities of language you describe are overcome by the clarifying revelations of the Spirit and that the concerns you have in this regard are overblown and not so problematic for those who do have a sufficient portion of the Spirit?

.

Did they know nuclear physics or how to make a computer? 

No.

Did they have a perfect knowledge of God's plan for their lives?

YES

Are the words they wrote totally unambiguous, even though they are plain and precious?

No.

Can we know God's will for us by reading and pondering those words AND FOLLOWING THE SPIRIT?

Absolutely!

Is that the only absolute?

No but it is the only absolute for a theist.  If God cannot speak his will to us, he is irrelevant in our lives and might as well not exist.

 

That is why denying the spirit is the worst sin.  It is God speaking to us and we willfully deny his existence.  That is another reason dogma is so damaging.  It is taking someone else's word above what God tells us directly.  We must have a testimony on our own or else it is blind obedience and a surrender of our agency to tradition or authority, instead of following God.  It is idolatry.

[3DOP]

Invoking Wittgenstein to justify derogatory statements about other people's beliefs just makes you look arrogant and foolish. I hope you'll reconsider what you're doing to good people like 3DOP.

 

jk, hey again.

 

Mark is okay and so am I. Mark can't do anything to me. We even like each other I think. We both have the antidote to the others poison. I find him frustrating in public debate because it is so much easier for him to make everything obscure when it still serves his purpose than for me to make everything clear which is the only way to serve mine. "Everything is blather" works for him, not for me. Its brilliantly easy, except he can't help talking like me about truth like it is objective, knowable, and verbally describable when it suits his purpose. For instance... "Absolutely," he said. That's why I stayed out of this thread when it started and waited for that nugget not knowing if I would see one. I despaired of talking about nature/supernature with him around as an adversary. He just wins too often. It makes me upset to lose! This time, it seems to me that he made a mistake. He was inconsistent in his application of his professed principles.

 

Mark, I don't want to hear another plaintive cry about how you are going to be quiet about Catholicism now. I don't ask that even if you want to offer it.I shared that with jk, you, and the board to express why I consider myself at a grave disadvantage verbally much of the time. I find your philosophy to be every bit as difficult to understand as the one in which I have an interest. But I deny that yours is pragmatic. I deny that yours is utilitarian. To live in this world and to survive in it, we have to trust our senses. I believe God placed us in a circumstance where we can discern objective knowledge. Everything since Aquinas seems to me to be an attack on that knowledge. Using Aquinas' vocabulary, the devil himself couldn't have failed to see the proofs for the knowledge of God. And so comes the attack. Not directly on the  knowledge of God though, but more subtly, on knowledge itself. Descartes was a practising Catholic too. So what? The ball starts rolling until modern philosophy is so confused that we don't know if ideas exist and don't even know if we exist.   

 

My philosophy, whether he knows it or not, besides being old, is the realist philosophy of the man of the soil, and the sea, and the road. It is the continuous, perennial, and non-progressive truth about the objective reality and perfectly communicable symbolic meaning in those white lines that help keeps my set of doubles from rolling down the gorge instead of staying on that four-lane highway. Pragmatically speaking, you and I live in a world of objective reality discernible to the human intellect and if we behave otherwise, the phenomenon might kill us.     

[3DOP]

I think you misunderstood my intent.  My point was not that Catholicism was "blather all the way down" my point was that ALL human speech can be seen as "blather" when it is not understood in the context in which it is intended, and that includes LDS theology as much as Catholic.

 

Wittgenstein's entire life's work was dedicated to fixing all philosophical "problems", all of which he believed were caused by semantic misunderstanding or, my characterization, "blather".   I can see that if you did not understand that, it could be misunderstood, which was my fault entirely.

 

It was never my intent to offend you or Catholicism.

 

Mark,

 

I have tried on many occasions to explain that the human speech used to express the meaning of the Nicene Creed has "to be understood in the context in which it is intended." I seem to recall opposition from you to my attempts to explain the meaning of the word consubstantial, which has arisen as a stumbling block, understandably, for those not familiar with the way the words were being used. A Mormon hears the word substance, and they think of that table with all of the elements listed. I get that. But they can't correctly use that understanding of the word substance to arrive at what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

I have thought I was getting somewhere on a few occasions when I have point out that at Chalcedon, the Council where the next heresy attacked whether Jesus was fully man, used the same word, consubstantial, to describe His connection to us as human. I was thinking than an image was forming where we could perceive that this word consubstantial was used to insist that as in biological reproduction, animals and plants have offspring "after their kind", so it is with God. When Jesus reveals Himself as the Son of God, our differing views about God will take us Catholics and Mormons in different directions. But the boogie man is not consubstantiality. You guys believe in consubstantiality, properly understood, as much as we do! It is one misunderstanding that ought to go away.

 

But it is truly easier to submarine the whole effort by talking about meaninglessness of words and how it doesn't say anything to talk about a human nature or divine nature or any nature. We're all individuals and mouse nature doesn't tell me anything. Okay. I have to back up that far to be able to talk about consubstantiality. We were so close and then we have to prove that mice, flowers, and oatmeal are identifiable according to a common nature. 

 

With all due respect, I fear you are failing to remember how you have in the past denied that there is any context in which the formulae of the early Councils makes sense. If I have wronged you here, please say so and accept my humble apologies which will be forthcoming after I have looked in the archives and confirmed that my recollection is false. My dismay for being wrong about you will be more than offset by my joy in hearing that you think the Nicene Creed is understandable (even if it is wrong) if one will undertake the trouble to learn the vocabulary according to context.    

 

Rory

Edited March 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[strappinglad]

I just had a thought.( careful, you say.) Ideas may be composed of matter. Is faith an idea? We are told that by faith actions can be done such as shriveling trees or moving mountains. Things move in response to a force which by definition is mass(matter) times acceleration. In the beginning was the WORD ,God SPOKE and it was done. There must be something powerful in language, even thought.