Reasonable Leap into Light: Dan Peterson's Fair Conference Presentation

[mfbukowski]

Epistmologically "Religion" expresses what is subjective, "science" expresses what is objective.

First person statements vs third person statements.

That's about it.

Two different angles on perception.  Picasso.

Edited December 28, 2015 by mfbukowski

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

But it sounds like you're going into complete relativism, or denying a reality external to the self. There has to be some distinction between "truths" and "untruths" - I can't just say I feel in my heart that the moon is made of cheese; for language to mean anything at all, at some point there has to be some agreement that "cheese" refers to a different sort of something than "rocks", and that the big spherical chunk flying around up there is made of the latter, not the former. Just because the difference is experienced through human perception doesn't mean the distinction isn't there. 

My point with the etymology was going off of your statement about "useful metaphors" - I wasn't trying to get back to some pure original, I agree that words evolve, and the etymon is whatever the sound is currently being used to convey. But I think seeing the history of how the word evolved is deeply relevant to the present, because so often the meaning evolves for historical reasons that still have effects on us and our communities, and even the present form of the word carries connotations from earlier understandings that we might not be conscious of if we're not aware of the history. How many arguments, for instance, are based on the idea that "priesthood" is supposedly inherently male, when the history of the word shows that it has evolved, it clearly doesn't have to be 'gendered' at all, and the existence of a male-only priesthood is a sexist historical development in patriarchal societies? If we know the history of the metaphorical use of pres-bous as a sort of 'shepherding' duty, then we can see how those cultures in which it is restricted to males often have a negative effect on women, and we can note that it is not an inevitability, etc. 

If I tell you that you can fly by the power of wishes, and you believe my linguistic representation of reality to the degree that you confidently jump off a building, how is that anything but an untruth? You might sincerely believe it to be true, but your subjective experience of belief has no bearing on whether or not you can levitate. If there is no such thing as some sort of external entity out there with the power to resurrect us, then regardless of what we call it, a God of that description does not exist. It'd be nice to know if that's the case, so we can know whether or not to stop looking for him. The point is, looking at how complex the natural world is does not give us an indication that this specific historical personage exists. 

Quote

"Yellow ball" is as good a description- within its function- as a description in quantum mechanics of every aspect of what the sun "is"- one is just more detailed than the other and is usable in a different context.  One might be a perfect description for a child, and the other for a college class, but neither describe more adequately what "the sun really is."

I thought that's pretty much exactly what I said? How are we disagreeing? 

This all feels like a weirdly overblown and kinda silly tangent. What do you actually think about the specifics of DCP's presentation?  

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

But it sounds like you're going into complete relativism, or denying a reality external to the self. There has to be some distinction between "truths" and "untruths" - I can't just say I feel in my heart that the moon is made of cheese; for language to mean anything at all, at some point there has to be some agreement that "cheese" refers to a different sort of something than "rocks", and that the big spherical chunk flying around up there is made of the latter, not the former. Just because the difference is experienced through human perception doesn't mean the distinction isn't there. 

My point with the etymology was going off of your statement about "useful metaphors" - I wasn't trying to get back to some pure original, I agree that words evolve, and the etymon is whatever the sound is currently being used to convey. But I think seeing the history of how the word evolved is deeply relevant to the present, because so often the meaning evolves for historical reasons that still have effects on us and our communities, and even the present form of the word carries connotations from earlier understandings that we might not be conscious of if we're not aware of the history. How many arguments, for instance, are based on the idea that "priesthood" is supposedly inherently male, when the history of the word shows that it has evolved, it clearly doesn't have to be 'gendered' at all, and the existence of a male-only priesthood is a sexist historical development in patriarchal societies? If we know the history of the metaphorical use of pres-bous as a sort of 'shepherding' duty, then we can see how those cultures in which it is restricted to males often have a negative effect on women, and we can note that it is not an inevitability, etc. 

If I tell you that you can fly by the power of wishes, and you believe my linguistic representation of reality to the degree that you confidently jump off a building, how is that anything but an untruth? You might sincerely believe it to be true, but your subjective experience of belief has no bearing on whether or not you can levitate. If there is no such thing as some sort of external entity out there with the power to resurrect us, then regardless of what we call it, a God of that description does not exist. It'd be nice to know if that's the case, so we can know whether or not to stop looking for him. The point is, looking at how complex the natural world is does not give us an indication that this specific historical personage exists. 

I thought that's pretty much exactly what I said? How are we disagreeing? 

This all feels like a weirdly overblown and kinda silly tangent. What do you actually think about the specifics of DCP's presentation?  

Statements about Rox and cheese are all objective third person statements we can agree on. The statements about what's in your heart or something only you can know. The correspondence theory of truth is essential to Creedalism, and in my opinion conflicts with the gospel. If the truth is outside of us and objective a testimony can never be called true. Statements about personal feelings can never be justifiable in the correspondence theory of truth. Essentially in the correspondence theory feelings cannot be true because there is no way to objectively verify them. 

I feel I have said everything I want to say about the presentation. Even the above speaks to that. There can be no scientific justification for gospel truth.

[mfbukowski]

The only theory of truth that could work with gospel truth is one that justifies feelings. William James has given us such a theory. I cannot imagine any kind of secular argument for the Gospel that does not operate within such a theory.

Edited December 28, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

One more-

Look at any thread on biblical archaeology and BOM archaeology and you will see clearly the problem.  These prove conclusively in my opinion that those who want to justify belief in the BOM by archaeological "evidence" are locked into the correspondence theory of truth.  "Evidence" is alleged to prove the spiritual "facts" of the gospel.

No evidence - no truth.  The theory is that if there is no evidence for the BOM it is a "lie".   That view is consistent with the correspondence theory. In order to justify any other belief one needs a theory of truth robust enough to handle the justification of subjective feelings in a religious context.

I have said it now three or four times in different ways, and I would love to have some kind of response.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't really know how to respond. I'm still not even sure exactly what you're saying. If an inscription in some weird form of Egyptian or Hebrew or whatever is dug up tomorrow in a newly-discovered Guatemalan Temple from 500bc talking about Lehi and his son Nephi and a voyage across the ocean, wouldn't that be some evidence in favor of the BoM? If there is no entity of some sort out there with at least some of the powers we have attributed to what we have named "God" in our ostensibly historical texts, then why should it matter how we feel about the idea in our hearts? The external entity and the name have to match up at some point, or we're all just wasting our time. Right? I can feel in my heart that the idea of being resurrected is beautiful, but unless it actually happens, who cares? 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

I don't really know how to respond. I'm still not even sure exactly what you're saying. If an inscription in some weird form of Egyptian or Hebrew or whatever is dug up tomorrow in a newly-discovered Guatemalan Temple from 500bc talking about Lehi and his son Nephi and a voyage across the ocean, wouldn't that be some evidence in favor of the BoM? If there is no entity of some sort out there with at least some of the powers we have attributed to what we have named "God" in our ostensibly historical texts, then why should it matter how we feel about the idea in our hearts? The external entity and the name have to match up at some point, or we're all just wasting our time. Right? I can feel in my heart that the idea of being resurrected is beautiful, but unless it actually happens, who cares? 

The point is that you can never know, for absolute certainty that you will be resurrected.

How could you possibly know that objectively when you have seen no evidence of ANYONE ever coming back to life??

How can that belief be useful in your life if you cannot justify believing it?  YOU CANNOT KNOW it.  That is the whole point.

And yet you persist in that belief.  How is that rational to believe in things you cannot possibly ever see?   The belief that it "actually happens" is itself a religious belief.  It is circular.  I believe it "actually happens" because if I did not believe it actually happened- I would not believe at all.

All that is is a religious unprovable belief about a religious unprovable belief.  It is a "meta belief" - a belief about a belief- which itself stands on nothing!!  It is like proving the bible is true because the bible says it is.

To be "rational" there must be some argument why that kind of meta belief can be considered "true".  Without that you are standing in thin air.  That's fine- no problem- but it is NOT a "secular argument".  Any atheist would find such an argument laughable.  You are still basing it all on your DESIRE to believe that it "really happens"- you are back to bare feelings with no basis. 

This is the atheist argument.  You have bought into it completely if you actually believe what you have written above.  There is no hope, nothing but evidence of what "really happens".  THAT is precisely what the problem is with the correspondence theory and the gospel.  Totally incompatible!!

You may BELIEVE that it really happens though there is no evidence.  But what good is that??  We are back to the moon being made of green cheese.

My point is that there is a fully rational way to see this which accounts for religious faith and the function it gives us in creating meaning in our lives, and that is looking at truth in terms of its context in a particular linguistic usage.  It is an argument which works for atheists to the point that - as DCP quotes, Nagel actually HOPES (has faith) that there IS NO GOD.

That is the key right there and everyone misses it!!!  Here you have an atheist using FAITH in "NO GOD" because he cannot justify his own claim that there is no god rationally using his system of thought

DUH.  Figure it out!!  Famous atheist, head of a major philosophy department in one of the best universities in the world RESORTS TO FAITH to justify "atheism"!!

You can just turn around his already perfected argument and put God in the place of no God.

What is his argument which rationally justifies his faith in no god?  It is along the lines I have been discussing here for years.

THAT is a perfectly secular, philosophically rational justification for belief in God but no one even looks at it because they think it is "relativist".  Horrors!  That is nearly as bad as "not Christian"!  A word- condemned for a word.  

And there it is just sitting there waiting to be turned against atheism, but does anyone do it?   No, we have to find a "secular argument"- and there it is right in front of our faces!

[mfbukowski]

Quote

But it sounds like you're going into complete relativism, or denying a reality external to the self.

No, the self is the the only thing we can know about really "for sure".  We experience.  It is not a conclusion like Descartes made it "I think therefore I am".

No therefores, no sentences, no words.  The self just "is".  It cannot be "doubted" because there is literally "no thing" then doing the doubting!  I literally am unable to conceive not being me because I always have been.  

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/subjectivity-after-wittgenstein-9781441144102/

https://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Publications/Dissertations/DS-2009-06.text.pdf

Edited December 28, 2015 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

On 08/12/2015 at 6:06 PM, Calm said:

Some have been asking for a transcript of Dan Peterson's Fair Conference talk, here is it:

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/the-reasonable-leap-into-light-a-barebones-secular-argument-for-the-gospel

His last answer was in response to an explanation for the Book of Mormon.

"I mean, I don’t know what to do with that, except to say, look at the fruits of it. I mean 
Mormons are healthy, they’re happy, it’s a good way of life. And if you think Satan is that 
devious that he would actually construct a happy mode of life for millions of people in order 
to defraud us and send us to hell, well, okay. If that’s the kind of universe you want to 
live in, it’s yours."

Satan is behind many false religions and ideas where people live happily.  After all, if he can't
make it attractive, no one would want to join.

Since he can appear as an angel of light, the obvious evidences are the fruits of false doctrine.

Thanks
Jim

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, theplains said:

His last answer was in response to an explanation for the Book of Mormon.

"I mean, I don’t know what to do with that, except to say, look at the fruits of it. I mean 
Mormons are healthy, they’re happy, it’s a good way of life. And if you think Satan is that 
devious that he would actually construct a happy mode of life for millions of people in order 
to defraud us and send us to hell, well, okay. If that’s the kind of universe you want to 
live in, it’s yours."

Satan is behind many false religions and ideas where people live happily.  After all, if he can't
make it attractive, no one would want to join.

Since he can appear as an angel of light, the obvious evidences are the fruits of false doctrine.

Thanks
Jim

Prove their "falsity".