The Problem Of Historicity

[mfbukowski]

That's profound, but there's an asymmetry in your statement.  The existence of Iraqi Christians is not in doubt.  Only Mormons believe Zarahemla existed.  I understand that Mormons believe in Zarahemla with all their hearts.  To an outsider, though, to say Zarahemlites are more real to you than Iraqi Christians seems odd.

I know Zarahemlites better than I know any Iraqis

[Spammer]

I know Zarahemlites better than I know any Iraqis

 

Except Zarahemlites never existed.      Sorry, couldn't resist.

[mfbukowski]

Except Zarahemlites never existed.      Sorry, couldn't resist.

Suppose as a thought experiment that there is right at this moment- a planetary extinction being perpetrated on a planet in a far away galaxy which we will never know about.  It is really happening right this second.  I see this as an actual possibility, or that at least this might have actually happened in our lifetimes.   We will never know this has actually happened.

 

What does that "reality" matter?

 

On the other hand you watch an award winning Science Fiction film and weep for the extermination of millions of fictional lives in a heart wrenching scene, and are so moved, that you decide to spend the rest of your life campaigning for peace on the planet, because you see the horrors of what might happen here.

 

Which is more "real"?

[mfbukowski]

The transcendent god has always been a friend of man. Nothing has changed. 

Note the different meanings of transcendent and immanent.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transcendent

b :  extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience

 

c in Kantian philosophy :  being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge

2

:  being beyond comprehension

3

:  transcending the universe or material existence

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immanent

:  being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge

 

A God who is truly transcendent doesn't care about mankind.  Now if you are proposing some kind of combination of the two, you are admitting that he is not fully transcendent.   That's ok with me, but probably not with you.

[Spammer]

Suppose as a thought experiment that there is right at this moment- a planetary extinction being perpetrated on a planet in a far away galaxy which we will never know about.  It is really happening right this second.  I see this as an actual possibility, or that at least this might have actually happened in our lifetimes.   We will never know this has actually happened.

 

What does that "reality" matter?

 

On the other hand you watch an award winning Science Fiction film and weep for the extermination of millions of fictional lives in a heart wrenching scene, and are so moved, that you decide to spend the rest of your life campaigning for peace on the planet, because you see the horrors of what might happen here.

 

Which is more "real"?

 

Good experiment.  I'd say that without access to a warp drive the former scenario can only be imagined, not experienced.  It's tough to get worked up over an imagined reality.  The latter scenario is an actual experience of a fictional extermination event.  If the moviegoer gets 'lost in the story' then an emotional response could be triggered, making the fictional story seem very real indeed (just like a good actor is able to place himself into and 'get lost' and experience an imaginary reality, such as the experience of filming a movie based on your first scenario, and is able to self-induce the needed emotions for the performance).

 

For me, this thought experiment just shows why feelings are an unreliable guide for knowing what is and isn't really real.  Just because you strongly feel with great conviction that something's real doesn't mean that it really is real.  An emotional response can be triggered by both imaginary and real objects and events and can be self-manufactured under the right conditions. That's why corroborating your feelings-based beliefs about the outside world with external evidence is so critical.  That's the only way to avoid delusion.  Historicity is important.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Spammer

[Calm]

"Just because you strongly feel with great conviction that something's real doesn't mean that it really is real"

Which is the argument against God by many.

[ERayR]

Just because you strongly feel with great conviction that something's real doesn't mean that it really is real. 

How strongly must I feel for it to be real?

[Spammer]

"Just because you strongly feel with great conviction that something's real doesn't mean that it really is real"

Which is the argument against God by many.

 

Yes it is. 

[Spammer]

How strongly must I feel for it to be real?

 

Something's real if it exists.  Feelings have nothing to do with whether it exists.

[Helen47]

I "feel" horses existed in pre-columbian America, I have a  burning in the bosom.

 

Rude and tasteless. You are thread banned.

[danielwoods]

Note the different meanings of transcendent and immanent.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transcendent

b :  extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience

 

c in Kantian philosophy :  being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge

2

:  being beyond comprehension

3

:  transcending the universe or material existence

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immanent

:  being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge

 

A God who is truly transcendent doesn't care about mankind.  Now if you are proposing some kind of combination of the two, you are admitting that he is not fully transcendent.   That's ok with me, but probably not with you.

 

You are creating a false dichotomy. A God who is truly transcendent doesn't care? How do you know this? 

Edited August 16, 2014 by danielwoods

[mfbukowski]

Good experiment.  I'd say that without access to a warp drive the former scenario can only be imagined, not experienced.  It's tough to get worked up over an imagined reality.  The latter scenario is an actual experience of a fictional extermination event.  If the moviegoer gets 'lost in the story' then an emotional response could be triggered, making the fictional story seem very real indeed (just like a good actor is able to place himself into and 'get lost' and experience an imaginary reality, such as the experience of filming a movie based on your first scenario, and is able to self-induce the needed emotions for the performance).

 

For me, this thought experiment just shows why feelings are an unreliable guide for knowing what is and isn't really real.  Just because you strongly feel with great conviction that something's real doesn't mean that it really is real.  An emotional response can be triggered by both imaginary and real objects and events and can be self-manufactured under the right conditions. That's why corroborating your feelings-based beliefs about the outside world with external evidence is so critical.  That's the only way to avoid delusion.  Historicity is important.

The first three sentences seem to contradict the rest.  You were not impressed with with the "real" scenario because it "could only be imagined and not experienced"

 

Even though the scenario was "real" the fact that it could not be experienced led to a lack of involvement in the lessons to be learned.

 

What is experienced, not what is "real" is what makes the difference in our lives! 

 

Your conclusion then seems to reverse your position by saying that what is "real" and can be corroborated is "critical".  But the Book of Mormon cannot be corroborated.  So I am totally confused about what you are saying.   Again, note that I am not saying that the BOM is NOT historical, just that at this time we cannot know that by empirical means. 

 

Yet we can and do experience the power of the lessons in the BOM, hopefully daily. 

 

Stories can change our lives regardless of if they are "real" or not.  It is our experience that changes our lives, and you clearly understand that, especially when we cannot prove the historicity of the BOM.

 

The indisputable fact is that 15 million people believe in the Book of Mormon, even though there is no evidence to corroborate its historicity.  That in itself should prove the point.  It creates its own empirical proof of my point.

[mfbukowski]

"Just because you strongly feel with great conviction that something's real doesn't mean that it really is real"

Which is the argument against God by many.

Exactly- and indeed that is the point of the thread.

 

How can we believe in God if there is no historical evidence for him if historicity is so important?

 

I suppose I could have made the entire long OP just that short if i had thought about it.

[mfbukowski]

You are creating a false dichotomy. A God who is truly transcendent doesn't care? How do you know this? 

For the same reason that a yellow car is not red.

[mfbukowski]

I "feel" horses existed in pre-columbian America, I have a  burning in the bosom.

So what?

Who cares if horses existed in America or not?  You are not understanding this thread I guess.  I won't respond to you further.

[mfbukowski]

Yes it is. 

Oh nevermind.

 

I thought you were a theist.  If not this is a waste of time.  We need to get more metaphysical then but it's too much work right now.

[MiserereNobis]

For the same reason that a yellow car is not red.

 

Hmph.  Your characterization of the God of traditional Christianity (Catholicism) is such a straw man.  He is not just transcendent, He is immanent, too.

 

Did you fail catechism or what? 

 

But seriously, you have repeatedly created a straw man about the God in which traditional mainstream Christianity believes.  You'll not find one Catholic theologian who says that we believe in a transcendent God that is so removed from us that He doesn't care about us.

[mfbukowski]

Hmph.  Your characterization of the God of traditional Christianity (Catholicism) is such a straw man.  He is not just transcendent, He is immanent, too.

 

Did you fail catechism or what? 

 

But seriously, you have repeatedly created a straw man about the God in which traditional mainstream Christianity believes.  You'll not find one Catholic theologian who says that we believe in a transcendent God that is so removed from us that He doesn't care about us.

Well as I originally said, transcendent and immanent are opposites, but I did say that one could try to blend the two opposites.

A God who is truly transcendent doesn't care about mankind. Now if you are proposing some kind of combination of the two, you are admitting that he is not fully transcendent. That's ok with me, but probably not with you.

 

 

I don't think the blending works, that's all.  It's not that I flunked catechism, I just disagreed with its logic. Transcendence comes from pagan Greek philosophy, it isn't Biblical at all.

 

I can pull out ECF quotes if we need to, but I am too lazy unless you insist.    I just bought a whole nifty book on the subject.

Edited August 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

The first three sentences seem to contradict the rest.  You were not impressed with with the "real" scenario because it "could only be imagined and not experienced"

 

Even though the scenario was "real" the fact that it could not be experienced led to a lack of involvement in the lessons to be learned.

 

What is experienced, not what is "real" is what makes the difference in our lives!

 

Your conclusion then seems to reverse your position by saying that what is "real" and can be corroborated is "critical".  But the Book of Mormon cannot be corroborated.  So I am totally confused about what you are saying.   Again, note that I am not saying that the BOM is NOT historical, just that at this time we cannot know that by empirical means. 

 

Yet we can and do experience the power of the lessons in the BOM, hopefully daily. 

 

Stories can change our lives regardless of if they are "real" or not.  It is our experience that changes our lives, and you clearly understand that, especially when we cannot prove the historicity of the BOM.

 

The indisputable fact is that 15 million people believe in the Book of Mormon, even though there is no evidence to corroborate its historicity.  That in itself should prove the point.  It creates its own empirical proof of my point.

 

I agree that stories can change our lives. Whether we view a movie about an extermination event and "get lost" in the story or view a news report of an actual event and believe it to be true, the emotional response is the same.  In either case, we believe the story (temporarily in the case of the movie) and an emotional response is triggered.  In either case, we have an emotion-producing experience and we're changed.  The problem is that the movie experience corresponds to a fictional event.  The news report experience corresponds to a potentially historical event (if the news report is corroborated).  In both cases the emotional response is the same.  The emotions themselves aren't evidence of anything other than evidence that we experienced an emotional event.  Whether the extermination event we witnessed (on the big screen or in the news report) is actually historically real does not depend on the experience of the life-changing emotions themselves.  Emotions can be attached to true and false events, to real and imaginary objects.  They should never be used as evidence of what's real outside of ourselves.  That's why corroboration is important, to help us sort out which of our experiences refer to true events and real objects in the world.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Oh nevermind.

 

I thought you were a theist.  If not this is a waste of time.  We need to get more metaphysical then but it's too much work right now.

 

I am a theist, but my faith rests on different grounds than emotion and direct experience.

 

[Edit to add that I'm leaving to have a better direct experience than stimulating online conversation.  We're off to the Outer Banks for a couple of days for some sand and ocean fishing.  I'll check in as I can.] 

Edited August 16, 2014 by Spammer

[teddyaware]

off topic, but yes that is pretty weird. The first vision showed that

Just to make things clear. ERayR misread my post to non-member Daniel, and because of that misreading he erroneously concluded I, an LDS Church member, do not believe God the Father has a body. To set the record straight, I do believe God has a body. The whole point of my post to Daniel was to establish the fact that it is reasonable to believe God the Father is material and that He also has a body. Perhaps you misread my post as well? If so, please go back and reread what I said to Daniel in post #165.

Edited August 16, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

For the same reason that a yellow car is not red.

 

Knowing that God is transcendent is knowledge derived from observing the universe, your contention is that it follows he doesn't care, you haven't supported this contention with facts. 

 

How do I know he loves me? I feel it. 

 

What led to me feeling it? Observing the universe, and events in my life. In essence he drew me to himself. 

 

I agree that our experience is personal, however, it also corresponds to external truths that are experienced by others in the same way. 

[teddyaware]

Knowing that God is transcendent is knowledge derived from observing the universe, your contention is that it follows he doesn't care, you haven't supported this contention with facts. 

 

How do I know he loves me? I feel it. 

 

What led to me feeling it? Observing the universe, and events in my life. In essence he drew me to himself. 

 

I agree that our experience is personal, however, it also corresponds to external truths that are experienced by others in the same way.

Hi Daniel,

It is a unique experience to dialogue with deep philosophical thinkers. What these philosophers think and the ideas they formulate are very clear within their own minds, but when untrained folks get enmeshed in philosophical discussions with trained philosophers it's exceedingly easy for misunderstandings to prevail because words, and their varied definitions and nuances of meaning, get in the way. Mfbukowski (Mark) often speaks of this "tyranny of words." And while I most certainly can't speak for Mark, I believe he would agree that in the end there actually is a very real history of the human race that will one day be unfolded to human view with complete accuracy by God Himself.

But I think what Mark might be trying to say is that that although there is a real history of the human race, for the time being, while all of us are "looking through a glass darkly," whatever that real history might turn out to be is not nearly as important to our spiritual health as are the impressions of the Spirit.

For example, there are many eyewitness testimonies in the Bible that Jesus rose from the dead, just as there are at least 12 eyewitness testimonies that the gold alloy plates that comprise the Book of Mormon actually exist. But the problem is that today there is absolutely no way to verify beyond doubt that either of these two events took place. Even though many years after the fact we have written eyewitness testimonies that Jesus rose from the dead and that the gold plates of the Book of Mormon were in actuality seen and closely examined by 12 men, there is no way either of these two events could be proven to be true in a court of law because, quite simply, there isn't enough evidence to prove they happened (this is one of the reasons why uncorroborated eye witness accounts and testimonies are very often considered unreliable in today's criminal justice system).

So where does this leave us? The only way one can know that Jesus rose from the dead, or that the ancient gold alloy plates that contain the sacred writings of the Nephites are real is not by scientific or collected historical evidence; the only way one can know if either of these two purportedly factual events are true is by the confirmation of the Spirit of God, as it testifies to our spirits -- a process the Latter-day Saints call divine revelation.

 

Until the day when the Lord sees fit to plainly reveal all of His hidden mysteries to His earthly children, the confirming testimony of the Spirit and not history books will have to suffice. But even in that wondrous day, when the Lord reveals all of the hidden mysteries of the past, the recipients of that knowledge will still have to be spiritually minded in order to discern that what is being revealed to them by God is true, because "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" For the Latter-day Saints, the following passage from the Book of Mormon sets forth the primary method for discovering and understanding saving truth:

4 And when ye shall receive these things (the Book of Mormon plus anything else that claims to be of God), I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10)

Edited August 16, 2014 by teddyaware

[Tiki]

It's obvious the Historicity since 1820 to 2014 has been ignored.

[mfbukowski]

Knowing that God is transcendent is knowledge derived from observing the universe, your contention is that it follows he doesn't care, you haven't supported this contention with facts. 

 

How do I know he loves me? I feel it. 

 

What led to me feeling it? Observing the universe, and events in my life. In essence he drew me to himself. 

 

I agree that our experience is personal, however, it also corresponds to external truths that are experienced by others in the same way.

The fact that we - you and I - know that God hears and answers prayers shows that He is "immanent" and not "transcendent" in the sense of Greek philosophy. This is a definition thing. The problem with standard Christian theology is that it takes an image of a transcendent God from Greek philosophy and then tries to blend it with the God you and I know from our experiences, who is the God of the Bible.

The point I am making is not about God our Father who loves us, who we know hears and answers prayer, the problem I am discussing is about Christian theology and how God has been represented by Christian philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas- both Catholics- so my point is a philosophical one about the definition of "transcendent"

But we would both agree- if we got together and sat down and just talked about it that the God of our experience is our loving Father.

My point is that traditional Christian theology represents God in a confused way because it incorporates Greek pagan philosophy into Christianity.

I have no quarrel with the point you are making, just your use of the word "transcendent" which I suspect "does not mean what you think it does"

The transcendent gods of the Greeks were beyond the reach of mankind, and were ineffable Ideas, not real people.

Edited August 16, 2014 by mfbukowski