Dan Peterson: "Why I Can't Manage To Disbelieve"

[cinepro]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So rather than address the evidence and historical record at hand, you fabricate a speculative hypothetical with no basis in fact?

Let's not do that.

Thanks,

-Smac

My point was that the list shown of the different possibilities about the existence of the plates was incomplete (it only presented a few hypotheticals and ignored many others), and therefore misleading. 

And some of the hypotheticals on the list would already be classified by believers as having "no basis in fact", so it's a little late to be introducing that objection.

 

[UtahTexan]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

My point was that the list shown of the different possibilities about the existence of the plates was incomplete (it only presented a few hypotheticals and ignored many others), and therefore misleading. 

And some of the hypotheticals on the list would already be classified by believers as having "no basis in fact", so it's a little late to be introducing that objection.

 

let's think of all the possibilities for the existence of apples.  Does the fact you might be able to think up dozens of possibilities mean the actual way is less probable?

Edited August 29, 2016 by CountryBoy

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It is in the eye of the beholder for you is it not?  You are the one that constantly says reality is what we see from our own perspective as well as truth is what truth is as confirmed by an outside influence that cannot be tested that you call the Holy Ghost.  But you do seem willing to allow others their own truths even if it contradicts yours of they think God is telling them to follow it.

Not if their "truth" is inconsistent.

I could easily defend a 6,000 year old earth as long as the theory was consistent.  Vogel is not consistent.  He makes up his own "empiricism" to suit his purposes.  He becomes the sole judge of "evidence".   It is not a matter of theory for him, his problem is that he does not consistently interpret his own theory.

I have had conversations with some who say "AHA! Gotcha!  If there is no truth then relativism itself cannot be TRUE!"

The answer to that is "YEP!  So what?  Whatcha got that's better?"

In a few words that is the summary of some very erudite arguments between positivists and relativists I have read through the years.   Relative truth is only relatively true, but it is the best definition we have!

Truth is what works for a given purpose and saying something is "true" is just like saying "Yep- we agree on that one!"

Alma essentially says that, Joseph Smith in D&C 93 says that and even Spencer W Kimball essentially says that about "Absolute Truth" https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

Does any one actually read this stuff and comprehend it?  Apparently not.

"Things as they are" are things the way we experience them, full of their humanly interpreted and inserted content.   A scary movie is just that- scary.  A creepy feeling is actually creepy.  Blue is the product of our brains (soul/spirit/mind/intuition- take your pick)

It's fun to talk about scary movies because they are fully EMPIRICALLY "scary"  100% of the audience may agree that it was a "scary" movie- yet within each one that is a fully subjective experience.

Can "scary" be defined?  Nope- yet we all know what it is, just as we all know what blue is as a color, which is just as empirical, and just as subjective.  Neither blue nor scary nor anything else exists "out there" independent of our minds.

The cliff you drive over or the chair you stub your toe on is still based on the human experience of driving over the cliff or stubbing your toe.

If we could know "objective reality" we could know what it is like to use bat sonar to locate bugs to eat.   After all, that experience is independent of human experience, so science should be able to describe the experience exactly.     It cannot BECAUSE we can only describe human experience.

I have spiritual experiences reading the Book of Mormon.   To discount those is to discount the reality of the Book of Mormon, just like saying "there is no such thing as a scary movie" or "there is no such thing as the experience of bat sonar"

http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/maydede/mind/Nagel_Whatisitliketobeabat.pdf

But why am I bothering?   I have some odd fondness for positivists, I guess because I think they must be bright, but just confused by old ways of seeing.  But you will not read it, you will not discuss it and consequently you will stay in your comfortable positivist shell knowing that Vogel is a genius.

Best wishes 

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Without knowing all the background of your debates with Vogel or your critiques of Mormon historians, I think you're missing an important point that I'm making about the respect that Vogel's work has received by many many credible scholars.  

Assuming for a moment that you are correct about Vogel not understanding the your philosophical arguments, is it possible that you may also not understand the historical arguments that Vogel has presented?  It seems to me that your disagreements might be due to the differences in disciplines, more than anything else.

I'm not trained in philosophy or in history, but I can see that when a highly respected person who's won many awards and who's works are frequently sited by those in Mormon historical disciplines is being unfairly dismissed, and I don't find that to be credible.    

No, trust me.

I have spent 40 years of my life understanding the errors of positivism- I have LIVED those errors.   I was an atheist for years because of positivism until "I got better".

I found William James and pragmatism / phenomenology which is the antithesis of positivism.

I am not making this stuff up!  I was an anti-positivist long before I ever even knew what a Mormon was

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Quote

In the late 1930s, logical positivists fled Germany and Austria for Britain and United States. By then, many had replaced Mach's phenomenalism with Otto Neurath's physicalism, whereby science's content is not actual or potential sensations, but instead is entities publicly observable. And Rudolf Carnap, who had sparked logical positivism in the Vienna Circle, had sought to replace verification with simply confirmation. With World War II's close in 1945, logical positivism became milder, logical empiricism, led largely by Carl Hempel, in America, who expounded the covering law model of scientific explanation. Logical positivism became a major underpinning of analytic philosophy,[2] and dominatedAnglosphere philosophy, including philosophy of science, while influencing sciences, but especially social sciences, into the 1960s. Yet the movement failed to resolve its central problems,[3][4][5] and its doctrines were increasingly criticized, most trenchantly by W. V. O. Quine, Norwood Hanson, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Carl Hempel.

.....After the Second World War's close in 1945, key tenets of logical positivism, including its atomistic philosophy of science, the verifiability principle, and the fact/value gap, drew escalated criticism. It was clear that empirical claims cannot be verified to be universally true.[12] Thus, as initially stated, the verifiability criterion made universal statementsmeaningless, and even made statements beyond empiricism for technological but not conceptual reasons meaningless, which would pose significant problems for science.[20][33][34] These problems were recognized within the movement, which hosted attempted solutions—Carnap's move to confirmation, Ayer's acceptance of weak verification—but the program drew sustained criticism from a number of directions by the 1950s. Even philosophers disagreeing among themselves on which direction generalepistemology ought to take, as well as on philosophy of science, agreed that the logical empiricist program was untenable, and it became viewed as self-contradictory.[35] The verifiability criterion of meaning was itself unverified.[35] Notable critics were Nelson Goodman, Willard Van Orman Quine, Norwood Hanson, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, J L Austin, Peter Strawson, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Rorty.

.....

By the late 1960s, logical positivism had clearly run its course.[41] Interviewed in the late 1970s, A J Ayer supposed that "the most important" defect "was that nearly all of it was false".[42][43] Although logical positivism tends to be recalled as a pillar of scientism,[44] Carl Hempel was key in establishing the philosophy subdiscipline philosophy of science[13]where Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper brought in the era postpositivism.[39] John Passmore found logical positivism to be "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes".[42]

Logical positivism's fall reopened debate over the metaphysical merit of scientific theory, whether it can offer knowledge of the world beyond human experience (scientific realism) versus whether it is but a human tool to predict human experience (instrumentalism).[45][46] Meanwhile, it became popular among philosophers to rehash the faults and failures of logical positivism without investigation of it.[47] Thereby, logical positivism has been generally misrepresented, sometimes severely.[48] Arguing for their own views, often framed versus logical positivism, many philosophers have reduced logical positivism to simplisms and stereotypes, especially the notion of logical positivism as a type offoundationalism.[48] In any event, the movement helped anchor analytic philosophy in the Anglosphere, and returned Britain to empiricism. Without the logical positivists, who have been tremendously influential outside philosophy, especially in psychology and social sciences, intellectual life of the 20th century would be unrecognizable.[13]

 

Indeed it would.  And notice we are no longer in the 20th century.  Notice it says positivism is no longer influential in philosophy but influential in "social sciences" like history for that matter.

AJ Ayer was one of the INVENTORS of logical positivism and he himself said that "nearly all of it was false"

Wittgenstein started out as a positivist and later changed 180 degrees when he realized it did not work

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The problem with #3 is you're still using your own knowledge as a reference.  Thus, the more ignorant you are, the more likely it is for the supernatural theory to be true.  It's a surefire recipe for gullibility and foolishness in every area, except in the case of The Book of Mormon, in which it happens to guide someone to the incredible truth of otherwise unbelievable claims.

You're also "tossing" theories based on the assumption that Joseph couldn't have been "the most unlikely case of an uneducated person creating something impressive" and so on.  Uri Gellar might be the most accomplished person in the history of the world at bending spoons naturally, and I might not know how he does it, but that still doesn't mean I should "toss" the theory that he's doing it using natural power.

I'm fine with that.  I'm not interested in discussing these intellectual points with people who are extremely gullible and foolish.  The person who gave the presentation and the people discussing in this thread don't fall into that category.  I'm not proposing my logic as a way to identify truth.  I'm simply proposing it as a way to address this "Occam's Razor" kind of logic method Dr. Peterson and several in this thread are employing.  I don't find it very compelling.  And I think my post illustrates how to address it quite easily.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Yes I did read Dan's talk and did not find it compelling, nor do I your post above.  And yes it is upon those who claim the Book is what is claims to be as well as how it came to be to provide more than a simple low level bar of plausibility so people can simply ask God. 

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose.  I think the Church's religious truth claims are plausible.

Quote

Angels giving plates of Gold to one person and that person using stones and or a thing called the Urim and Thummim to translate the book from some unknown language are fantastical claims and not events that are common nor really able to be demonstrated with much evidence. 

True enough.  There are facets of the Church's explanation as to the origins of The Book of Mormon that are essentially matters of faith.

But then we have the testimonial evidence of the Three Witnesses.  And the Eight.  And the character of those men.  And their behavior subsequent to being estranged from Joseph Smith (and hence would be very motivated to disavow the "fantastical claims" you mention, yet they did not).  And then there are the textual evidences.  Lots of them.  And the complexity of the text.  And the internal chronological and geographic consistency.  And the short time frame in which the text was produced.

The ironic thing, really, is that as contemptuous as you are about the quantum of evidence in favor of the LDS Church's position on the origins of The Book of Mormon (you suggest that it is not supported by even "a simple low level bar of plausibility"), the alternative theories proposed by the critics are apparently even less plausible, so much so that folks like Cinepro (and, I suspect, you) will not commit to any of them or present theories of your making.  At least the Mormons are taking the field.  At least they are engaging in assessment of the evidence and defending their position based on it.  Folks like you, on the other hand, are throwing their hands up in the air and insisting that the origins of the text are . . . well, you have no explanation, and instead buy into the "reasoning," such as it is, exemplified by this statement from Dale Morgan: 

Quote

With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.

Not a lot of reasoning in that.  Not much of an assessment of the evidence.

Quote

Odd that historically such things happen only to a select few that then ask people to take it on faith. 

I don't follow.  What is "odd" about this?

Quote

Thus the plausibility level is a low bar for the BoM because there is little to no evidence to show angels are real beings that actually interact with humans on any level of frequency.

Well, let's take a look at the "plausibility level" you have in mind for the alternative theories about The Book of Mormon.  I invite you to pick one you like and explain how it provides a better, more "plausible" assessment of the evidence pertaining to the origins of The Book of Mormon.

Quote

Additionally as noted the BoM claims that the people and civilization accounted for in it are real. Thus the book can be tested and falsified on those grounds as well.

It can?  You really think that?  

Quote

So far DNA evidence as well as lack of other historical evidence makes it pretty difficult to lend credence to the BoM and what the book claims for itself in that arena.

I'm not persuaded that such broad declarations are merited.  But again, even if what you say is true, even if the quantum of evidence supporting the LDS Church's position on The Book of Mormon is lacking, how much more lacking is the quantum favoring the naturalistic theories (so lacking, it seems, that folks like you aren't even willing to put it out there for analysis and discussion)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

My point was that the list shown of the different possibilities about the existence of the plates was incomplete (it only presented a few hypotheticals and ignored many others), and therefore misleading. 

But that's not a valid point.  Not really.  In order to have a rational discussion, we cannot give ourselves over to sheer, evidence-free conjecture and speculation, as you have done.  If there are "different possibilities" which can be reasonably extrapolated from the evidence and the historical record, let's hear 'em.  I'm quite willing to listen.

But I suspect that you cannot formulate additional theories, and therefore lack a basis for making accusations that Dr. P or I am being "misleading."

Quote

And some of the hypotheticals on the list would already be classified by believers as having "no basis in fact", so it's a little late to be introducing that objection.

Huh?  Defenders of The Book of Mormon are willing to present alternative theories about the origins of the book and analyze them.  If you have some additional theories (more evidence-free flights of fancy), let's hear 'em.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2016 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, trust me.

I have spent 40 years of my life understanding the errors of positivism- I have LIVED those errors.   I was an atheist for years because of positivism until "I got better".

I found William James and pragmatism / phenomenology which is the antithesis of positivism.

I am not making this stuff up!  I was an anti-positivist long before I ever even knew what a Mormon was

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Indeed it would.  And notice we are no longer in the 20th century.  Notice it says positivism is no longer influential in philosophy but influential in "social sciences" like history for that matter.

AJ Ayer was one of the INVENTORS of logical positivism and he himself said that "nearly all of it was false"

Wittgenstein started out as a positivist and later changed 180 degrees when he realized it did not work

Ok, I think I get what you're saying, but at a really simplistic level, I'm at a philosophy 101 level of understanding, so I really can't critique positivism and its influence on social scientists.  I'll have to take your word for it, because I still don't understand how this makes Vogel's approach to history or all the other PHDs that find his research to be worthy of respect, sophomoric.  

BTW, does this post positivism perspective somehow validate Dr. Peterson's thesis in your mind? 

[UtahTexan]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But that's not a valid point.  Not really.  In order to have a rational discussion, we cannot give ourselves over to sheer, evidence-free conjecture and speculation, as you have done.  If there are "different possibilities" which can be reasonably extrapolated from the evidence and the historical record, let's hear 'em.  I'm quite willing to listen.

But I suspect that you cannot formulate additional theories, and therefore lack a basis for making accusations that Dr. P or I am being "misleading."

Huh?  Defenders of The Book of Mormon are willing to present alternative theories about the origins of the book and analyze them.  If you have some additional theories (more evidence-free flights of fancy), let's hear 'em.

Thanks,

-Smac

The problems is, all the theories have been debunked.  How can there possibly be new ones?

On a different note....is it my opinion, or has the board become nicer over the last few days?

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, I think I get what you're saying, but at a really simplistic level, I'm at a philosophy 101 level of understanding, so I really can't critique positivism and its influence on social scientists.  I'll have to take your word for it, because I still don't understand how this makes Vogel's approach to history or all the other PHDs that find his research to be worthy of respect, sophomoric.  

BTW, does this post positivism perspective somehow validate Dr. Peterson's thesis in your mind? 

I would like to see who the believing LDS PhD's are who agree with Vogel are.

I have not completely read his Peterson's talk yet, but from what I have, yes.

The point of the talk was that from his interpretation of his experiences, he cannot find a reason to doubt.   Neither can I from my experience.

The reason Vogel is so popular is precisely because his assumptions are "common man in the street" assumptions.  As Goff points out, those assumptions are not philosophically sophisticated.   In a hundred years when people learn this stuff in kindergarten it will change.  Kids will know what science is for and what it is not for.

We don't require empirical evidence for political opinions- religious opinions are no different.  We don't ask pro-choice people for evidence that fetuses are not "human beings" either.  We take it for granted that we can kill cattle for food, but not whales.  We assume without evidence that people "should be treated equally" and that "everyone should have a right to vote" and that these are "unalienable rights" without evidence.  We affirm "basic human rights" with no evidence to even define what those are.  We know on a gut level that the candidate we are opposed to is "evil" while ours is "better"- with no evidence for that.  We never question that one "should" be grateful for the sacrifice of our service men without real evidence that they died for anything but someone's politics.

I know these are social heresies but that is why I brought them up.  We accept virtually all our core beliefs without empirical evidence, yet when it comes to religion, which is just as subjective as any of these we want "evidence".   How absurd is that??

From my point of view, we are still teaching that the sun goes around earth.  The common man in the street looks up and sees no reason to doubt that.  In those times when that was believed even educated churchmen and "scientists" and writers still believed that as well.  What we are going through now is no less a paradigm shift than that one.  Science does what it does very very well, but does nothing to solve any of these social, political, or moral issues.  Nothing whatsoever.  These questions are immune to "evidence"

The ideas go back to at least Kant, but they have yet to filter down through the disciplines.

Oh well

Enough wasting time.

Edited August 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

The problems is, all the theories have been debunked.  How can there possibly be new ones?

On a different note....is it my opinion, or has the board become nicer over the last few days?

For myself, I am making a conscious effort to be nicer.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

When talking about Vogel's approval rating (  ), one needs to separate his work of documentation and his commentary on that documentation.  I have noticed some people confuse the two thinking approval of the first equates to approval of the second when that is not the case.

[cinepro]

 

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

let's think of all the possibilities for the existence of apples.  Does the fact you might be able to think up dozens of possibilities mean the actual way is less probable?

I'm not sure what your point is.  In what way are the gold plates and Joseph Smith's handling of them (and their subsequent disappearance and theories regarding them) similar to "the existence of apples" to make that a useful analogy?

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

I'm not sure what your point is.  In what way are the gold plates and Joseph Smith's handling of them (and their subsequent disappearance and theories regarding them) similar to "the existence of apples" to make that a useful analogy?

Because it does not matter what possibilities you dream up, we know how the plates appeared, how they were handled, and what came from them.

[Kevin Christensen]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

 

Again, I can't see how someone operates in the modern world with such thinking. 

I can understand saying such things in the context of The Book of Mormon (again, that's what "special pleading" is), but at some point it just becomes absurd.

As I said earlier, there are an infinite number of things I can't explain.

Take, for example, Uri Gellar.  The man claims to be able to perform amazing feats using only his mind.  And honestly, I would consider the ability to bend a physical object, like a spoon, using only the energy of your mind as being far more amazing and miraculous than producing a book like The Book of Mormon.

But the problem is, I can't explain it better with a naturalistic theory.  Sure, I can say "he's doing it using his hands", but that's the same thing as saying "Joseph Smith did it himself."  It's just a naturalistic theory that doesn't account for the fact that Uri isn't seen bending it with his hands (just as Joseph wasn't seen doing it himself). 

So according to the logic in this thread, I cannot produce a better naturalistic theory that explains Uri's abilities, therefore I am logically compelled to believe that he is doing it with "supernatural" powers.  It isn't enough for me to say "I don't know how he did it, but I still don't believe a guy can bend spoons with his mind until I see more (and better) evidence." 

No, I am supposed to say "Since I can't fully explain how Uri Gellar does it, I must accept that he is bending spoons with his mind energy."

If this is the level of thinking that is being invoked to prop up The Book of Mormon, than it's a big (and disappointing) step back for defenders of the book. 

The Amazing Randi had lots of fun duplicating Gellar's feats.  The spoon bending involved thumb pressure.  I recall seeing demonstrations and even learning how to do it myself, way back when.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_About_Uri_Geller

Things like the Book of Mormon, the Witnesses, the rise of the church, and such, have been much more elusive.   Easy to dismiss (a simple wave of the hand and a knowing look will do) but very very hard to duplicate.

By me the metaphor regarding the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is not viable.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Glenn101]

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, I think I get what you're saying, but at a really simplistic level, I'm at a philosophy 101 level of understanding, so I really can't critique positivism and its influence on social scientists.  I'll have to take your word for it, because I still don't understand how this makes Vogel's approach to history or all the other PHDs that find his research to be worthy of respect, sophomoric.  

BTW, does this post positivism perspective somehow validate Dr. Peterson's thesis in your mind? 

You seem to be more of a nuts and bolts type of person, much as I am and the more abstract philosophical discussions of relativism and positivism are not my cup of tea. Dan Vogel is respected for his work in ferreting out and publishing documents related to LDS history. He has done a yeoman's work there. The main problem that some have with him is not in the evidence that he presents, but in the interpretation of the evidence. Sometimes he relies on secondary sources to make a point and holds them in higher esteem than contradictory primary sources.

One such example has already been noted here in this thread where he uses a secondary source that is quoting another, anonymous source.  It would derail this thread to get into this in detail (if it has not already been derailed). Just do your own research pro and con and form your own conclusions.

Glenn

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Not at all.  Look at the theories regarding the Book of Abraham and the papyrus.  Do you think there isn't enough creativity among apologists to account for all of those supposed "lies"?

etc

I deleted my  post, but obviously after you had quoted it.  Please do me the favor of deleting my quote from your post.  

Thank you.

Edited August 30, 2016 by cdowis

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding Vogel, reputation, among which folks, and upon which basis, and the specific criticisms that appeared in my posts here, I don't see "He has a good reputation" does not address the specific issues in my quotations about misuse of sources and ignoring important sources

Here is another one.  Back in 2002, while I was reading the footnotes to his essay on "The Validity of the Witnesses Testimonies"  I noticed his note 60 referred to a letter from "26 November 1857, where Isaac DeMill, then living in Saline (Michigan?) wrote to his brother Freeborn De Mill and a sister living in Manti, Utah, mentioning a a story he had heard about Joseph Smith use of hypnosis or "magnetizing" in Broome and Onondaga Counties, New York, and that he had learned the art of a German pedler'" and he cites the presence of the letter in the archives.

So we get a wealth of detail about the sources and people and archives involved, which is all very impressive except that all of it builds up to what is basically a late unsourced fourth-hand rumor.  Why does he bother?  Is that the best he can do?  The best evidence that Joseph Smith used hypnosis on the witnesses is an unsourced rumor from 26 years and several states away?

That, I think should be instructive enough, but happens to get even more instructive.  The previous note 59 refers to a 1975 BYU Studies article on Mormonism and Mesmerism by Bunker and Bitton, which quotes from an 1856 novel that it just so happens, originated the Mesmerism story of the German pedler.  So Vogel not only builds a key argument on an un-sourced late rumor, but he inadvertently documents the source of that rumor.

There are people out there who may think this sort of thing does not matter.  Facts are facts.. just face them.  Or, easier, pick an authority and let them handle it for me. I work in Computer Aided Engineering, where the basic priniciple involves using hierarchy to deal with complexity.

And postmodernism, Jesus taught Postmodernism insights in the Parable of the Sower.  The same seeds (words) can produce vastly different yields depending on soil, nurture, and patience.  2 Nephi 25:1-5 talks about how we cannot expect understand the writings of the Jews save it be we are taught after the manner of the Jews.  That is a post-modern insight.  And Joseph Smith begins his quest when he notices that "the different teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of scripture so different as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."  That is a post-Modern insight.  And Alma 32 offers another set of insights, valuable in navigating the rival interpretations by offering the same set of values that Kuhn offers as the best means for navigating paradigm choice.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not if their "truth" is inconsistent.

I could easily defend a 6,000 year old earth as long as the theory was consistent.  Vogel is not consistent.  He makes up his own "empiricism" to suit his purposes.  He becomes the sole judge of "evidence".   It is not a matter of theory for him, his problem is that he does not consistently interpret his own theory.

I have had conversations with some who say "AHA! Gotcha!  If there is no truth then relativism itself cannot be TRUE!"

The answer to that is "YEP!  So what?  Whatcha got that's better?"

In a few words that is the summary of some very erudite arguments between positivists and relativists I have read through the years.   Relative truth is only relatively true, but it is the best definition we have!

Truth is what works for a given purpose and saying something is "true" is just like saying "Yep- we agree on that one!"

Alma essentially says that, Joseph Smith in D&C 93 says that and even Spencer W Kimball essentially says that about "Absolute Truth" https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

Does any one actually read this stuff and comprehend it?  Apparently not.

"Things as they are" are things the way we experience them, full of their humanly interpreted and inserted content.   A scary movie is just that- scary.  A creepy feeling is actually creepy.  Blue is the product of our brains (soul/spirit/mind/intuition- take your pick)

It's fun to talk about scary movies because they are fully EMPIRICALLY "scary"  100% of the audience may agree that it was a "scary" movie- yet within each one that is a fully subjective experience.

Can "scary" be defined?  Nope- yet we all know what it is, just as we all know what blue is as a color, which is just as empirical, and just as subjective.  Neither blue nor scary nor anything else exists "out there" independent of our minds.

The cliff you drive over or the chair you stub your toe on is still based on the human experience of driving over the cliff or stubbing your toe.

If we could know "objective reality" we could know what it is like to use bat sonar to locate bugs to eat.   After all, that experience is independent of human experience, so science should be able to describe the experience exactly.     It cannot BECAUSE we can only describe human experience.

I have spiritual experiences reading the Book of Mormon.   To discount those is to discount the reality of the Book of Mormon, just like saying "there is no such thing as a scary movie" or "there is no such thing as the experience of bat sonar"

http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/maydede/mind/Nagel_Whatisitliketobeabat.pdf

But why am I bothering?   I have some odd fondness for positivists, I guess because I think they must be bright, but just confused by old ways of seeing.  But you will not read it, you will not discuss it and consequently you will stay in your comfortable positivist shell knowing that Vogel is a genius.

Best wishes 

 

Well I am not sure I said Vogel was a genius.  I think he is fairly bright. But not likely a genius.

Am I a positivist?   Not sure though I would say currently I lean more that way.  Perhaps it is because I partly feel betrayed by my more subjective metaphysical experiences and at least currently I find the claims of most reveled theistic religions lacking objective evidence, subject to major changes nad conflicting changes.  

And I have to chuckle that you think I am in some comfortable shell.   This is a bit ironic coming from someone who thinks they know and have the one true church with God's sole authority to perform saving ordinances in His name.   I will however concede that you have one of the more novel approaches to Mormonsim and seeking truth than most Mormons I have interacted with. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well I am not sure I said Vogel was a genius.  I think he is fairly bright. But not likely a genius.

Am I a positivist?   Not sure though I would say currently I lean more that way.  Perhaps it is because I partly feel betrayed by my more subjective metaphysical experiences and at least currently I find the claims of most reveled theistic religions lacking objective evidence, subject to major changes nad conflicting changes.  

And I have to chuckle that you think I am in some comfortable shell.   This is a bit ironic coming from someone who thinks they know and have the one true church with God's sole authority to perform saving ordinances in His name.   I will however concede that you have one of the more novel approaches to Mormonsim and seeking truth than most Mormons I have interacted with. 

So you are not sure if you are a positivist, but you are dissatisfied that theistic religions do NOT have objective evidence.

Pretty clear to me.   That's ok you just need to study more science and see that it teaches nothing important about life

Edited August 30, 2016 by mfbukowski
left out NOT. Unbelievable mistake

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose.  I think the Church's religious truth claims are plausible.

True enough.  There are facets of the Church's explanation as to the origins of The Book of Mormon that are essentially matters of faith.

But then we have the testimonial evidence of the Three Witnesses.  And the Eight.  And the character of those men.  And their behavior subsequent to being estranged from Joseph Smith (and hence would be very motivated to disavow the "fantastical claims" you mention, yet they did not).  And then there are the textual evidences.  Lots of them.  And the complexity of the text.  And the internal chronological and geographic consistency.  And the short time frame in which the text was produced.

The ironic thing, really, is that as contemptuous as you are about the quantum of evidence in favor of the LDS Church's position on the origins of The Book of Mormon (you suggest that it is not supported by even "a simple low level bar of plausibility"), the alternative theories proposed by the critics are apparently even less plausible, so much so that folks like Cinepro (and, I suspect, you) will not commit to any of them or present theories of your making.  At least the Mormons are taking the field.  At least they are engaging in assessment of the evidence and defending their position based on it.  Folks like you, on the other hand, are throwing their hands up in the air and insisting that the origins of the text are . . . well, you have no explanation, and instead buy into the "reasoning," such as it is, exemplified by this statement from Dale Morgan: 

Not a lot of reasoning in that.  Not much of an assessment of the evidence.

I don't follow.  What is "odd" about this?

Well, let's take a look at the "plausibility level" you have in mind for the alternative theories about The Book of Mormon.  I invite you to pick one you like and explain how it provides a better, more "plausible" assessment of the evidence pertaining to the origins of The Book of Mormon.

It can?  You really think that?  

I'm not persuaded that such broad declarations are merited.  But again, even if what you say is true, even if the quantum of evidence supporting the LDS Church's position on The Book of Mormon is lacking, how much more lacking is the quantum favoring the naturalistic theories (so lacking, it seems, that folks like you aren't even willing to put it out there for analysis and discussion)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Fine post but at some point I think you need to acknowledge that its all about spiritual experience and own that.

It seems you are playing the critic's game with the critic's rules.  Empirical evidence will only take you so far.   Spiritual experience is perfectly justifiable as "rational" and useful for religious purposes and in religious contexts, you just have to see that one is football and the other is a different game entirely with different rules.

Sorry for butting into the conversation

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

When talking about Vogel's approval rating (  ), one needs to separate his work of documentation and his commentary on that documentation.  I have noticed some people confuse the two thinking approval of the first equates to approval of the second when that is not the case.

Good point

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose.  I think the Church's religious truth claims are plausible.

True enough.  There are facets of the Church's explanation as to the origins of The Book of Mormon that are essentially matters of faith.

But then we have the testimonial evidence of the Three Witnesses.  And the Eight.  And the character of those men.  And their behavior subsequent to being estranged from Joseph Smith (and hence would be very motivated to disavow the "fantastical claims" you mention, yet they did not).  And then there are the textual evidences.  Lots of them.  And the complexity of the text.  And the internal chronological and geographic consistency.  And the short time frame in which the text was produced.

The ironic thing, really, is that as contemptuous as you are about the quantum of evidence in favor of the LDS Church's position on the origins of The Book of Mormon (you suggest that it is not supported by even "a simple low level bar of plausibility"), the alternative theories proposed by the critics are apparently even less plausible, so much so that folks like Cinepro (and, I suspect, you) will not commit to any of them or present theories of your making.  At least the Mormons are taking the field.  At least they are engaging in assessment of the evidence and defending their position based on it.  Folks like you, on the other hand, are throwing their hands up in the air and insisting that the origins of the text are . . . well, you have no explanation, and instead buy into the "reasoning," such as it is, exemplified by this statement from Dale Morgan: 

Not a lot of reasoning in that.  Not much of an assessment of the evidence.

I don't follow.  What is "odd" about this?

Well, let's take a look at the "plausibility level" you have in mind for the alternative theories about The Book of Mormon.  I invite you to pick one you like and explain how it provides a better, more "plausible" assessment of the evidence pertaining to the origins of The Book of Mormon.

It can?  You really think that?  

I'm not persuaded that such broad declarations are merited.  But again, even if what you say is true, even if the quantum of evidence supporting the LDS Church's position on The Book of Mormon is lacking, how much more lacking is the quantum favoring the naturalistic theories (so lacking, it seems, that folks like you aren't even willing to put it out there for analysis and discussion)?

Thanks,

-Smac

First I am not contemptuous about evidence in favor of the LDS claims on how the Book of Mormon came to be.  I am skeptical and find the claims of divine intervention and Angels with plates of gold a fantastical claim.  That's it.  Do you not find it fantastical as well?  Even when I felt I had a testimony of the book I believed the claims made by Joseph were fantastical. And by that I don't mean bad.   I mean, well, fantastical.  I find the same true of Muhammad's claim and how Islam believes the Koran came to be, of the Bible and the story of Jesus and so on.  

I am not sure I am under any obligation to provide any alternative theory.   Why is that my job?  

But we can take a step back and ask a few questions:

1: Do Angels exist?  If yes what are the evidences of such beings? 

2: If Angels exist why do they communicate God's message to a select few? My point on this in my last post was it just at least to me does not make rational sense that God would give so much of what seems like important messages to a few select humans and that the rest have to go on faith that what the person who claims to have spoken with the angel says.  Maybe that is just a personal hang up for me.

3:. If Mormons accept the supernatural fantastic claims for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon why do they reject other fantastical supernatural claims of other faiths such as Islam, Catholic claims of seeing Mary and so on?

4: Regarding the witnesses why do you accept their testimony for the Book of Mormon but reject it on issues of say Polygamy or the office of High Priest?  Do you accept many of David Whitmer's criticisms of Joseph Smith in his Address to All beleivers? 

5:  regarding the short time frame the book was produced in, well that may or may not be the case really.  If Joseph or someone else wrote it, it could have been produced over a longer period of time.

Now I will give you one theory of my own for the Book of Mormon.  I think it likely Jospeh wrote it and produced it himself.   He may have had others assist.  Who I do not know.   I think Oliver Cowdery may have assisted but not sure.  I have found the Spalding theory a bit compelling but also problematic.  But it is not something I have chased much nor do I wish to now.   Feel free to take that as a concession if you wish.  

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So you are not sure if you are a positivist, but you are dissatisfied that theistic religions do have objective evidence.

Pretty clear to me.   That's ok you just need to study more science and see that it teaches nothing important about life

I will readily concede I am not well versed in philosophy.  I have shared with you and others here that up to perhaps six to seven years ago I was a solid LDS believer.  I spent most my spare time serving in church callings, reading scripture, scripture commentary and then got into hobby apologetics.  I was an avid reader of FARMS material for quite some time.  So most of my free time was family, church, reading about church stuff.  And I have had a very demanding career as well.   Not much time left for other things.

I knew little of science so yes I have started learning more in that arena.  Do you disdain science?  The way your post above comes across it seems so.   The closest I have come to Philosphy is a few papers by David Paulsen and one of Ostler's books, the first of three he wrote, on the Mormon Philosphy about God.   And quite frankly that book lost me.   I read it all and it still is on my bookshelf.  

My professional discipline is also a practical one and one that can create skeptical thinking as it is beneficial in what I do.  Philosphy is too esoteric in my chosen field.  Not that I object to it.  Perhaps I at some point will have more time to invest into to.  

Edited August 30, 2016 by Teancum

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Fine post but at some point I think you need to acknowledge that its all about spiritual experience and own that.

It seems you are playing the critic's game with the critic's rules.  Empirical evidence will only take you so far.   Spiritual experience is perfectly justifiable as "rational" and useful for religious purposes and in religious contexts, you just have to see that one is football and the other is a different game entirely with different rules.

Sorry for butting into the conversation

I acknowledge that the truth claims pertaining to The Book of Mormon are principally and primarily a matter of faith.  Subjective faith.  I-am-converted-to-the-Restored-Gospel-because-I-felt-the-Spirit faith.

I also acknowledge that "empirical evidence will only take {us} so far."  Hence my comments from a few days ago (in bold):

Quote

Quote

Well, if you're going to hang your spiritual framework on historicity, everything is suddenly dependent upon secular research and historical methodology.

Not principally, no.  I have faith in Jesus Christ as an actual being, as the actual Son of God and actual Savior of the world.  A belief in a fictional/imaginary Jesus makes about as much sense as telling a drowning man to rely on a fictional/imaginary life preserver.

My belief in Jesus Christ is based on the scriptures and on the Spirit.  "Secular research and historical methodology" are, at best, supplemental and ancillary resources.

I also like these comments by Daniel Peterson (man, I end up quoting him a lot):

Quote

Of course, scholarship does not replace spiritual witness as a source of testimony. As Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy said: “The power of the Holy Ghost … must ever be the chief source of evidence for the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary. … No arrangement of evidence, however skillfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take its place.”

Yet scholarship has a definite place even in spiritual matters. The Lord said in an 1829 revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery, “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost” (D&C 8:2; emphasis added). In 1832 the Lord said to the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). As one writer observed: “What no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” 

So I don't think I'm paying the "critics' game."  The context of my remarks pertained to "supplemental and ancillary" evidences which, unlike spiritual "evidences," are somewhat susceptible to empirical analysis.

Thanks,

-Smac