The Problem Of Historicity

[mfbukowski]

I will add in connection with what you are saying, that I am confused as to who the "We" are that Mark is talking about.  Whom is the OP addressing?

I am addressing Mormons who think that proving alleged historical details like geographic theories or archaeological evidence for or against the BOM or BOA or translation issues about the BOA have ANY relevance for the larger spiritual issues of the existence of God or the atonement or the nature of God as understood by the LDS church.

 

Here is the essence of the OP:

 

"Look, fellow Mormons, here we believe in an invisible God with an invisible Son, who somehow have physical bodies that we cannot see, and we believe that our sins will go away because Jesus died and all of this makes no sense in terms of objective scientific evidence at all, and you are letting yourselves get beat up by the critics because somebody thinks that Joseph gave the wrong name to some Egyptian god and we can't find Zarahemla?  What's the matter with you???  Look at the big picture and justify your beliefs and quit worrying about stupid trivia!"

 

Is that clear enough?

[mfbukowski]

And any interpretation of that evidence is strictly subjective and limited to the data we have.

 

How do you assure yourself the data is complete and you are interpreting it correctly?

It's more a question of what kind of "data" we are talking about.  What is the context for the data?  I hate to drag out the old Rorty video again.....  

[mfbukowski]

Interpretation of evidence is both subjective and objective (when a group has an agreed interpretation). 

 

Interpretation of historical evidence, and subjective (internal) evidence have the same burden of "how do you know it's true?"

 

As Jesus said, if you don't believe me, then believe based on the works I do. (Jn. 10:38) So even Jesus tied spiritual truth to physical evidence. 

 

How do I assure myself that the data is complete? I don't, rather I'm always open to new data. And trust that with the data set that I have, I can make sound conclusions. 

 

How do I know that I am interpreting the data correctly? Principles of interpretation are used in every walk of life, I use the same principles. One of which is the role of historicity. That something that is true will also be true historically. 

The problem is what does "TRUE" even mean when you question about whether or not you have a pain in your toe.

 

"Phantom pain" hurts just as badly as "real pain".  How do you know that you are not lying when you tell your wife you love her?

 

Spiritual matters are internal matters verifiable only internally.  Either you know it/feel it or you don't.  It makes no sense to talk about "truth" in matters which cannot be verified.  Truth is not out there- it is in here.  It is a property of sentences, not of the world.

 

You will disagree, but I did want to answer.  Chances are there will be no point in discussing it further since we have already gone around and around on this.

[MormonFreeThinker]

In order for the earth to be baptized, it was only necessary for large portions of it be submerged for a nano second. 

 

So you believe the Earth was submerged just for a nano second? Did that kill the animals? 

 

rather than on the testimonies of modern scientists who deny the miraculous power of God. 

 

Did you watch the video? You don't have to believe what the scientists are saying, you can see the orderly sequence of fossils for yourself. See for yourself, do what Galileo did. Even if the laws of physics didn't apply during the Flood, how do you explain that? Many scientists believe in the power of God, but they don't believe in the Global Flood. 

 

I believe what Elder Oaks taught, "I am grateful to know that there are two methods of gaining knowledge — the scientific method and the spiritual method" 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/witnesses-of-god

 

 

Edited August 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[mfbukowski]

I'm excited for some real discussions on the "front lines" of philosophy as it relates to Mormonism, so to speak.

Well this ain't that, so cool your jets!

[danielwoods]

The problem is what does "TRUE" even mean when you question about whether or not you have a pain in your toe.

 

"Phantom pain" hurts just as badly as "real pain".  How do you know that you are not lying when you tell your wife you love her?

 

Spiritual matters are internal matters verifiable only internally.  Either you know it/feel it or you don't.  It makes no sense to talk about "truth" in matters which cannot be verified.  Truth is not out there- it is in here.  It is a property of sentences, not of the world.

 

You will disagree, but I did want to answer.  Chances are there will be no point in discussing it further since we have already gone around and around on this.

 

Spiritual matters can also be verifiable externally as well. At least according to Jesus. 

 

Your view is the pragmatic view. What is true is what works for the person. Taken to it's ultimate end, nothing can be objectively counted as true. In essence, what may be true for you may not be true for anyone else. 

 

Jesus' message was/is tied to historicity.

[brainburn]

Well this ain't that, so cool your jets!

Well, not exactly, right. That's why I'm starting a new thread...

Just thought I'd sound off in this thread because I think you made an excellent first point that really locked in your perspective with a refreshing amount of frank clarity. That is to say, I think my new thread will begin with a different context but will quickly start to involve the sorts of discussions going on in this thread and I'll have your OP to reference if you want to talk I'm my new thread... Are you interested?

[Spammer]

Pragmatism has its limitations.  The approach can be used to strengthen belief in any historical claim, however eccentric.  Strong inner convictions about historical reality, which lack external evidences to back them up, are purely subjective.  They may work well for you and help you lead a happy, productive life, but that doesn't mean your subjective beliefs about history have any correspondence with actual history.  I can base my life around the spiritual teachings of the lost Atlanteans and find great happiness, but that isn't evidence that Atlantis ever existed.  Where's the evidence?  Multiplying the number of happy people who devoutly believe Atlanteans existed doesn't get us any closer to establishing that they did exist.  Even if the Church of Atlantis members are the happiest people on earth doesn't mean there ever were Atlanteans.   I suppose a pragmatist would respond "who cares?"  Indeed.  Good point.  Being happy and fulfilled is important.  Speaking only for myself, however, I could never do it.  I could never bring myself to believe in Atlantis, even if all of my loved ones converted and were happier than I was.  I could never get beyond that nagging sense that, try as I might, there really aren't Atlanteans and that my efforts to have faith and good feelings is tantamount to forcing myself to believe something I know isn't true. 

Edited August 13, 2014 by Spammer

[teddyaware]

Okay, but who believes that the Global Flood only lasted a nano second? That is not 40 days. 

 

 

 

Forget about Earth's geology for now, even if you don't believe the Earth is old, the order sequence of fossils contradict the Global Flood, that is the key evidence. Not even magic solves that contradiction, see 

 

I would appreciate it if you could let me know what organization produced the flood debunking video and who the narrator is. I'm especially wondering if the narrator is an atheist? His arrogance, condescending tone and use of profanity make me wonder why any Latter-day Saint would want to use this guys 'stuff' to make a point. Just from the little I watched, he seems to be the polar opposite of the kind of person a member would want to go to get the truth. The prophet Jacob speaks forthrightly about such people

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. (2 Nephi 9)

and again,

42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

43 But the things of the wise and the prudent shall be hid from them forever—yea, that happiness which is prepared for the saints. (2 Nephi 9)

 

On another point: as I watched the video, I was wondering what in the world trilobites and dinosaurs had to do with the great flood. Some creationists, like the one lambasted in the video, may believe trilobites, dinosaurs, lions and squirrels were all living on the earth at the same time; but while I always do try to keep an open mind on things, I'm more than a little dubious on that point. So the video did nothing to dissuade me from the position staked out on the great flood by the prophets.

 

As an aside, for reasons that are beyond me, I'm only allowed to make a limited number of posts on this board per day, and I'm almost out of them. So don't expect much interaction with Yours Truly for the rest of the day.

 

All the best...

Edited August 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[MormonFreeThinker]

Just from the little I watched, he seems to be the polar opposite of the kind of person a member would want to go to get the truth. 

 

Thanks for admitting that you didn't watch all of it, he is a geologist, and that is an ad hominem argument. I linked to his video because he explains it very clearly. Many Christians and LDS don't believe in a Global Flood. 

 

 

On another point: as I watched the video, I was wondering what in the world trilobites and dinosaurs had to do with the great flood. Some creationists, like the one lambasted in the video, may believe trilobites, dinosaurs, lions and squirrels were all living on the earth at the same time; but while I always do try to keep an open mind on things, I'm more than a little dubious on that point. So the video did nothing to dissuade me from the position staked out on the great flood by the prophets.

 

So you believe in millions of years of death before the Fall? Or you believe that they lived on other planets? 

 

Henry Eyring wrote, "the orderly structure of these horizontally lying layers, with their fossils, argues strongly against the notion that the earth has been assembled, relatively recently, from the wreckage of earlier worlds."

http://emp.byui.edu/OTTS/Science_and_Religion/Documents%5CReflections_of_a_Scientist_by_Henry_Eyring.html

 

If you believe in an Old Earth and a Global Flood, how do you explain this? 

 

 

or this?

 

Edited August 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[mfbukowski]

They may work well for you and help you lead a happy, productive life, but that doesn't mean your subjective beliefs about history have any correspondence with actual history.

I don't think that it is possible in any case to know with certainty what "actual history" even was, with the exception of large events.  We don't even know what "really happened" in the Kennedy assassination or in the crash of that plane over the Indian Ocean.

 

And I do not believe in the correspondence theory of truth.  It is a very confused notion.  You cannot get outside of hearsay information to get to what "really happened".  It is impossible.  Truth is a property of sentences and points of view, not what is "out there" in some abstract realm of "reality" beyond that which is knowable.

[mfbukowski]

Well, not exactly, right. That's why I'm starting a new thread...

Just thought I'd sound off in this thread because I think you made an excellent first point that really locked in your perspective with a refreshing amount of frank clarity. That is to say, I think my new thread will begin with a different context but will quickly start to involve the sorts of discussions going on in this thread and I'll have your OP to reference if you want to talk I'm my new thread... Are you interested?

We don't have a good history.  I will check it out and comment if I feel like it.  And my point was that this forum and anything on it is not exactly "cutting edge" in terms of philosophy, Mormon or otherwise.

[Spammer]

I don't think that it is possible in any case to know with certainty what "actual history" even was, with the exception of large events.  We don't even know what "really happened" in the Kennedy assassination or in the crash of that plane over the Indian Ocean.

 

And I do not believe in the correspondence theory of truth.  It is a very confused notion.  You cannot get outside of hearsay information to get to what "really happened".  It is impossible.  Truth is a property of sentences and points of view, not what is "out there" in some abstract realm of "reality" beyond that which is knowable.

 

I'm speaking of bare facts like "Kennedy was assassinated", "George Washington was our first president", and "Nephites existed".  Each claim is historical in nature and spiritual beliefs that involve claims about such bare historical facts are (ought to be) subject to external verification.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Spammer

[bcuzbcuz]

Edit:  I am adding something which I wrote in post 44 which should have probably been the opening line of the OP:

What I refer to as the "history game" is the belief that if we could only find the right historical information, we could "prove Mormonism".

 

Critics use this against us all the time to show that Mormonism is "false" because their personal understanding of "history" does not live up to their perceptions of the "truth claims" of the church.

 

 

Why are we not concerned about the rationality of believing all these apparently irrational beliefs?

 

What are we concerned about really?  Whether or not the names of some gods were correctly translated on an obscure Egyptian papyrus?

 

Are you serious?

 

We are concerned about historical evidence that some Ugaritic inscription somehow "parallels" our beliefs and therefore the beliefs are "true"?

 

That if Joseph "mistranslated" Egyptian, that therefore God does not exist?

 

That because we have no plates for the Book of Mormon and that we have not found a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" then all the incredible insights on the human condition in the Book of Mormon should be thrown out?

 

Why in heaven's name do we gloss over the big picture and concentrate on meaningless and irrelevant minutia?

 

Just askin'.

Interesting, but backwards.

I can only speak for those few Mormons, or ex-Mormons, I know that have shared their experiences with me....therefore I'm not making a statement with any proven validity.

For those who came to a point of challenging their beliefs, or who questioned, sometimes lifetime held, certainties, it wasn't historical narratives that brought their faith crashing down. They didn't start with questions about how Joseph Smith "translated" texts, or whether Nephite or Lamanite cities or names existed. They didn't question whether the Book of Abraham corresponded to the Egyptian texts. Instead, their faith tumbled over a question of doctrine, maybe a temple ceremony, or actions of a person previously held in high regard.

When they backed away from their previously held beliefs, their convictions of truth, and began doubting their very foundations of their testimony, then, and first then, did they begin listening to the inconsistencies of historicity. While they were TBM's, hearing about different versions of the first vision, didn't bother them. Hearing about Joseph using stones in a hat made little difference.

But once their beliefs began to shatter, those details suddenly took on importance.

I think all the various discussions on the multitude of internet sites that delve into the inconsistencies of belief will have no effect on the true believer. To those wobbling in their testimony, these sites are "grist to the mill".

[mfbukowski]

I'm speaking of bare facts like "Kennedy was assassinated", "George Washington was our first president", and "Nephites existed".  Each claim is historical in nature and spiritual beliefs that involve claims about such bare historical facts are (ought to be) subject to external verification.

Where did you get that "ought"?  Is it immoral if they cannot be verified?  In what sense, by who's philosophical theory "ought" spiritual beliefs be "subject to external verification?

 

How does one verify God's existence historically?  How does one verify that "Jesus is the Christ" historically?  I think you need to think that through a little bit.  And what counts as "verification"?

 

And what counts as a "Nephite"?  What was their DNA like, etc?  How did it differ from "Lamanites".   If there were "Lamanites" how do you know there were no "Nephites"?

Edited August 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

Where did you get that "ought"?  Is it immoral if they cannot be verified?  In what sense, by who's philosophical theory "ought" spiritual beliefs be "subject to external verification?

 

How does one verify God's existence historically?  How does one verify that "Jesus is the Christ" historically?  I think you need to think that through a little bit.  And what counts as "verification"?

 

And what counts as a "Nephite"?  What was their DNA like, etc?  How did it differ from "Lamanites".   If there were "Lamanites" how do you know there were no "Nephites"?

 

Again, I'm not speaking of verifying God's existence or whether Jesus is the Christ.  I'm speaking only of assertions about historical fact.  Whether Carthaginians or Nephites existed are historical questions and can be be verified externally.  My ought is my own.  I derive it only from the way I want to live.  Whether the moon is made of rocks and dust or swiss cheese doesn't matter to morality or to whether a happy life is possible.  To me however, I'd rather my beliefs are aligned with what's commonly known about the world outside of me and verified through an appropriate method and body of evidence.  Therefore, I believe the moon is made of rocks and dust.  I consider anyone who believes the moon isn't rocks and dust or that there were no ancient Romans to be irrational.  Everyone has to make a decision about what kind of evidence counts.  I think you can infer from my statements what kind of evidence would convince me Nephites existed.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

For those who came to a point of challenging their beliefs, or who questioned, sometimes lifetime held, certainties, it wasn't historical narratives that brought their faith crashing down. They didn't start with questions about how Joseph Smith "translated" texts, or whether Nephite or Lamanite cities or names existed. They didn't question whether the Book of Abraham corresponded to the Egyptian texts. Instead, their faith tumbled over a question of doctrine, maybe a temple ceremony, or actions of a person previously held in high regard.

I think you are probably right, but for me, that just points to this whole issue as tremendously important.

If I am right, NONE of those events should have shaken their faith in the first place, had they understood that spiritual beliefs stand on their own merit independent of literal interpretation.

They might have said of the temple question- "Wow- I didn't understand that! What does God want me to learn from THAT?- what lesson is there for me to learn from this gesture?" instead of thinking what every they thought which shook their testimony.

They should have known that the church is made up of humans who are sometimes jerks just like everyone else. Why don't we teach these things and discuss them openly?

What are we afraid of?

[mfbukowski]

Again, I'm not speaking of verifying God's existence or whether Jesus is the Christ.  I'm speaking only of assertions about historical fact.  Whether Carthaginians or Nephites existed are historical questions and can be be verified externally.  My ought is my own.  I derive it only from the way I want to live.  Whether the moon is made of rocks and dust or swiss cheese doesn't matter to morality or to whether a happy life is possible.  To me however, I'd rather my beliefs are aligned with what's commonly known about the world outside of me and verified through an appropriate method and body of evidence.  Therefore, I believe the moon is made of rocks and dust.  I consider anyone who believes the moon isn't rocks and dust or that there were no ancient Romans to be irrational.  Everyone has to make a decision about what kind of evidence counts.  I think you can infer from my statements what kind of evidence would convince me Nephites existed.

No problem. I am suggesting you expand your horizons about epistemology and think about how you know that something is blue or that you love your wife, or that it is wrong to kill people, or if phantom pain is "real" and in what sense, or how one could show that it is real or not real.

Can you be mistaken about liking your hobbies? What evidence could prove that you do not actually like your favorite hobby? After all, it is unreasonable to hold beliefs that are not falsifiable, right?

Alma 32 says that a belief is "true" if it is "sweet" to you.

[Senator]

I am addressing Mormons who think that proving alleged historical details like geographic theories or archaeological evidence for or against the BOM or BOA or translation issues about the BOA have ANY relevance for the larger spiritual issues of the existence of God or the atonement or the nature of God as understood by the LDS church.

 

Here is the essence of the OP:

 

"Look, fellow Mormons, here we believe in an invisible God with an invisible Son, who somehow have physical bodies that we cannot see, and we believe that our sins will go away because Jesus died and all of this makes no sense in terms of objective scientific evidence at all, and you are letting yourselves get beat up by the critics because somebody thinks that Joseph gave the wrong name to some Egyptian god and we can't find Zarahemla?  What's the matter with you???  Look at the big picture and justify your beliefs and quit worrying about stupid trivia!"

 

Is that clear enough?

 

Much better!

 

So, you're barking at the apologists as well?

[mfbukowski]

Much better!

 

So, you're barking at the apologists as well?

Oh my heck, yeah!

How did you like my translation into Utahn?

[Senator]

Oh my heck, yeah!

Well, good luck with that.

This is a group of individuals whose work is justified by the mandate of apostles and prophets.

Without them, there would admittably be to many slam dunks!

[Spammer]

No problem. I am suggesting you expand your horizons about epistemology and think about how you know that something is blue or that you love your wife, or that it is wrong to kill people, or if phantom pain is "real" and in what sense, or how one could show that it is real or not real.

Can you be mistaken about liking your hobbies? What evidence could prove that you do not actually like your favorite hobby? After all, it is unreasonable to hold beliefs that are not falsifiable, right?

Alma 32 says that a belief is "true" if it is "sweet" to you.

 

My perception of blue and my love for my wife and my experience of pain are internal states.  So is my experience of learning about ancient Rome and Abe Lincoln.  I get all that.  Even so, there's something outside of me that isn't me that corresponds with my my concepts of my wife, Roman ruins, and the Ford Theatre.  The object "my wife" exists independently of me and my mental states and how I experience her (I invite anyone to try to tell her there's no way to determine whether she really exists).  The statements "she exists" and "was born in Oakland" are statements about objective reality.  They are empirical and are verifiable.  The same goes for assertions that  Carthaginians and Nephites existed.  It doesn't matter whether our ideas about all of this are contingent.  The bare fact of the existence of certain objects or collections of objects external to me is self-evident.  Claims about the existence of this or that object are empirically verifiable.  Whatever is meant by the concepts "George Washington", "president", or "first", something once existed that corresponds to those contingent terms.  That something is not contingent (on us), though our experience of it is.  All I'm concerned about is the existence of those somethings.  Assertions about the existence of 'somethings' to which our contingent concepts attach are testable. 

Edited August 14, 2014 by Spammer

[teddyaware]

Thanks for admitting that you didn't watch all of it, he is a geologist, and that is an ad hominem argument. I linked to his video because he explains it very clearly. Many Christians and LDS don't believe in a Global Flood. 

 

 

 

So you believe in millions of years of death before the Fall? Or you believe that they lived on other planets? 

 

Henry Eyring wrote, "the orderly structure of these horizontally lying layers, with their fossils, argues strongly against the notion that the earth has been assembled, relatively recently, from the wreckage of earlier worlds."

http://emp.byui.edu/OTTS/Science_and_Religion/Documents\Reflections_of_a_Scientist_by_Henry_Eyring.html

 

If you believe in an Old Earth and a Global Flood, how do you explain this? 

 

 

or this?

 

And you are mistaken. I did watch the entire video with keen interest. Perhaps I would have made myself more clearly understood if I had said, "from the little bit of anti-flood argumentation I saw on this short video." And I'm being straight with you when I say I watched the whole thing. If you remember, the narrator's use of profanity didn't happen until near the end of the video. I've leaned that presumptuousness is a constant on boards like this one -- it's unavoidable.

As far as ad hominem is concerned, my point is that occupying the anti-flood position seems to make strange bedfellows, as scientifically oriented latter-day saints abandon the plain meaning of the standard works as they breathlessly rally to the side of snide and sarcastic unbelievers for support. And I can't help it if the prophet Jacob warns the saints that they should be wary of being in league with such arrogant, anti-God individuals.

Again, I would greatly appreciate it if you could supply the name of the narrator because I would like to know if he is an atheist and possibly even anti-Mormon.

As for the new video and photo: What in the world that vandalism news video has to do with the flood is beyond me. Perhaps you posted it in error? The same holds true for the photo. Perhaps you posted it to underscore the significance of the fossil record? If you did, as a believer in the Standard works I hold out the very real possibility that there are other possible explanations for the fossil record that haven't even entered into the minds of those members who are so cocksure of themselves that Adam evolved from single-celled mortal animal ancestors.

In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion it's possible that one of the reasons why the Lord deliberately set up the whole of creation in the way He did is so that the day might come when He will astonish to silence those who denied His word, humbling to the dust those learned individuals who abandoned God's pure word for a mess of worldlywise pottage. I hold a wait and see attitude because in the D&C the Lord promises His people that during the millennium He will reveal how He made the earth, and included in that promised day of divine disclosure will be "hidden things that no man knew." 

32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—

33 Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—

34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven. (D&C 101)

 

But you can prematurely jump to conclusions if you want to; as a free agent it's your prerogative.

By the way, you still haven't answered a few of my questions from previous posts. I would appreciate it if you would review some of them and let me know what you think?

I have one post left for today after this one...

Edited August 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

My perception of blue and my love for my wife and my experience of pain are internal states.  So is my experience of learning about ancient Rome and Abe Lincoln.  I get all that.  Even so, there's something outside of me that isn't me that corresponds with my my concepts of my wife, Roman ruins, and the Ford Theatre.  The object "my wife" exists independently of me and my mental states and how I experience her (I invite anyone to try to tell her there's no way to determine whether she really exists).  The statements "she exists" and "was born in Oakland" are statements about objective reality.  They are empirical and are verifiable.  The same goes for assertions that  Carthaginians and Nephites existed.  It doesn't matter whether our ideas about all of this are contingent.  The bare fact of the existence of certain objects or collections of objects external to me is self-evident.  Claims about the existence of this or that object are empirically verifiable.  Whatever is meant by the concepts "George Washington", "president", or "first", something once existed that corresponds to those contingent terms.  That something is not contingent (on us), though our experience of it is.  All I'm concerned about is the existence of those somethings.  Assertions about the existence of 'somethings' to which our contingent concepts attach are testable.

Agreed, but that's not the point.  I am not a solipsist.

 

Clearly in this case, she exists AND you have feelings about her.  The question is not whether or not she exists but how you might "verify" YOUR internal feelings about her.

 

You have feelings about things which do NOT exist in the way your wife does.  You might be proud of your country- or for that matter hate your country- that works just as well.  You might feel strongly about violence against women.  You might campaign against breast cancer, or for equal rights, or the right to own a machine gun.

 

These beliefs are what make you, you. They are not "true" or "false" in the sense of being verifiable by external objective evidence.  Is there objective evidence that it is "wrong" to kill babies for fun?  Yet someone like Adam Walsh (is that his name?) has spent his entire lifetime devoted to stopping crime.

 

People devote their lives to the Democrat party or Save the Whales or PETA and have strong beliefs about the "truth" of those causes.  Those beliefs are not subject to verification on any basis whatsoever- historical or otherwise!  Those causes and those outlooks give their lives meaning.  They construct their lives around supporting those organizations.  The believe their cause is righteous and true and that if only all of humanity could see it their way, this would be a wonderful world.  They do "missionary work" for their causes, and hand out flyers etc.

 

Those are "religions".  There is no historical evidence for any of those beliefs.

 

Richard Rorty, an agnostic, speaks about the future of religion:  http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134959

 

Though coming from different and distinct intellectual traditions, Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo are united in their criticism of the metaphysical tradition. The challenges they put forward extend beyond philosophy and entail a reconsideration of the foundations of belief in God and the religious life. They urge that the rejection of metaphysical truth does not necessitate the death of religion; instead it opens new ways of imagining what it is to be religious -- ways that emphasize charity, solidarity, and irony. This unique collaboration, which includes a dialogue between the two philosophers, is notable not only for its fusion of pragmatism (Rorty) and hermeneutics (Vattimo) but also for its recognition of the limits of both traditional religious belief and modern secularism.

In "Anticlericalism and Atheism" Rorty discusses Vattimo's work Belief and argues that the end of metaphysics paves the way for an anti-essentialist religion. Rorty's conception of religion, determined by private motives, is designed to produce the gospel's promise that henceforth God will not consider humanity as a servant but as a friend. In "The Age of Interpretation," Vattimo, who is both a devout Catholic and a frequent critic of the church, explores the surprising congruence between Christianity and hermeneutics in light of the dissolution of metaphysical truth. As in hermeneutics, interpretation is central to Christianity, which introduced the world to the principle of interiority, dissolving the experience of objective reality into "listening to and interpreting messages."

The lively dialogue that concludes this volume, moderated and edited by Santiago Zabala, analyzes the future of religion together with the political, social, and historical aspects that characterize our contemporary postmodern, postmetaphysical, and post-Christian world.

 

Notice what I have highlighted.

 

That time is NOW!  In Mormonism, God is our "friend".  Our form of Christianity is already reliant on "interiority, dissolving the experience of objective reality into listening and interpreting messages"  That is precisely what a "testimony" IS!

 

We need to put away the metaphysical nonsense of the past and take up a new understanding of all these issues.  This is not a "post-Christian world" but it IS a post sectarian Nicene Creed-believing world.  It could be a Mormon world if we only figured this out instead of hanging onto our metaphysical hangups

Edited August 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

Oh great, this thread has turned into another "flood" debate.  Talk about dwelling on unprovable minutia instead of the gospel as the OP referred to.

 

The scriptures say there was a flood over the whole earth.  I believe the scriptures to be from God.  So God can explain in his own good time how fossil records that seem to disprove a worldwide flood exist.  Until then, I will just exercise faith.