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

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Once you see it, the world changes. It's not the way you describe it, it's not "the matrix".

It is the total opposite of self-deception. It is seeing reality for what it is. Even your Matrix analogy is still the bifurcation of reality. It is still seeing something out there. It still makes a differentiation between what is out there and what is in your mind. There is no such differentiation. Science is as much of a construction as anything else. It is the construction of many Minds together agreeing on their experiences but at the bottom line is still about human experience in the mind. Multiple Minds yes but still the human mind.

You are projecting your understanding of reality on to what you think mine is. My perception of reality is much different than yours. Mine agrees with Rorty, James, Habermas, Dewey, Wittgenstein Heidegger and the boys. You are still with Aristotle and Descartes

Now I want to go and watch The Matrix again!  :-)  Do they have a movie version of the Rorty, Wittgenstein, and the boys philosophies that I can watch?  

I like this, even though its hard for me to understand, maybe I'm a glutton for punishment.  

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Now I want to go and watch The Matrix again!  :-)  Do they have a movie version of the Rorty, Wittgenstein, and the boys philosophies that I can watch?  

I like this, even though its hard for me to understand, maybe I'm a glutton for punishment.  

Imagine seeing the world as virtual reality you can never escape from.

Your goggles are permanent implants. There is no other reality knowable or even imaginable. Everything is a 3D movie but it's not a movie it's real. The movie is the only reality you can know. You can speak to others but you can't see their movie exactly. You can do things together and cooperate but you will never see their movie. You can listen to their descriptions of their movie and see if it compares to your movie. If it doesn't how do you decide the truth? There is no truth but community consensus.. Others agree with your movie and some don't.

But what if your movie does not agree with the descriptions of others?

What if many very intellegent others agree with you that it's all a movie but the mass of humanity thinks the movie is a mirror of something they cannot actually see?  How could these silly people believe that?

 What if you hear their talk about an unseen world beyond the movie as nonsense?

All this is an analogy but it is something like that 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Now I want to go and watch The Matrix again!  :-)  Do they have a movie version of the Rorty, Wittgenstein, and the boys philosophies that I can watch?  

I like this, even though its hard for me to understand, maybe I'm a glutton for punishment.  

Here is something I wrote a long time ago on this forum also along these lines  

 

On 5/7/2008 at 2:38 PM, William Schryver said:

But for those who do believe in such things as intelligences within spirits, spirits within bodies, and a supreme specimen of our type, the relationship resulting in what we term â??revelationâ? is not mediated by anyone or anything. It is man to man. That is my personal experience, and I know it to be the experience of many others.

And when it finally comes to seeing the big picture and making sense of the handful of puzzle pieces we are able to collect, it is only through the â??eye of faithâ? that we are able to see.

Now many are quick to dismiss (and even mock) the notion of faith as simply the method by which fools blind themselves to the â??evidenceâ? and claim to see something that is not really there. The â??eye of faithâ? is nothing more than a blindfold coupled with human imagination.

However, in my experience, the â??eye of faithâ? is a precision instrument, the use of which enables me to see the individual pieces for what they really are, and to see them in the context of the otherwise unseen picture on the puzzle box.

I recently went to see a 3D IMAX movie -- U2-3D (incidentally, it was fabulous). As I sat in the theater, I occasionally removed the 3D glasses to see what the picture â??reallyâ? looked like on the huge IMAX screen; to view its â??empirical facts.â? Then I would replace the glasses in order to see the picture as it â??reallyâ? wasnâ??t.

I have related this experience to many former LDS in the past few months, and have posed to them the question: Which picture is â??trueâ??

To date (and perhaps tellingly), none of them has deigned to reply.

Of course, within the context of the metaphor I described above, the 3D glasses constitute the â??eye of faith,â? without which it would be impossible to see the raw â??dataâ? in a way that imparts meaning to it.

We live in an era where a large number of intellectually-gifted former Latter-day Saints have concluded that there is no apparent value in â??faith.â? For them, reason alone informs the meaning of their existence. We see many of them on this very message board from day to day â?? often trying to evangelize the rest of us to their point of view.

Additionally, we see many Latter-day Saints who have essentially concluded, no doubt in consequence of their unswerving devotion to the principles embodied in the old â??natural theology,â? that the religion established by Joseph Smith is, if not simply true, at least of utilitarian value in todayâ??s complex world. (I am personally convinced that those who currently reside in this camp never stay for long. In time, they make the complete journey to â??non-believerâ? and cease to identify themselves, even culturally, as Latter-day Saints.)

Indeed, I suggest that it is just as well for such to disassociate themselves with those who continue to believe, for, as Midgley concludes in his essay to which I referred above:

  Quote

Those who have accepted the Prophet Joseph Smith and his restoration message continue to insist â?? rightly, I believe â?? that the gospel to which they are committed is nothing if not simply true. And they prosper thereby. But what of those few who now seem inclined to toy with the idea that the truth of the Latter-day Saintsâ?? faith is to be found merely in its ability to deal with pressing social problems? One must ask if the salutary moral impact of a faith could survive the reduction of that faith to a useful mythology. Religious beliefs, when treated as merely useful, may, of course, impel a few to reach beyond greed, selfishness, and the quest for simple physical comforts to higher and more noble and lasting things. But it is not likely that much in the way of genuine self-sacrifice can survive such a transformation.

Midgley, Louis - The Utility of Faith Reconsidered, in Revelation, Reason, and Faith â?? Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen, FARMS, Provo, UT, 2002, p. 170

In answer, then, to Zeta Fluxâ??s question above, â??Is there a place for philosophy in the gospel?â? My answer is a qualified â??yes.â? But we must never allow reason alone, nor its brown-shirted, hobnailed-booted friends â?? otherwise known as â??empirical evidenceâ? â?? to rule our inquiries. Left alone with nothing but the â??facts,â? we will find ourselves like the man in the 3D theater, proudly proclaiming that he sees things as they â??reallyâ? are, and scoffing at those who, behind the â??crutchâ? of their â??eye of faithâ? are pleasantly enjoying the movie in the manner its creator intended.

 

I think that Will has touched on a few central issues which are later also voiced by 3DOP and Zeta, and that may be a good starting point.

It's unfortunate that Will's quote is so hard to read since I think the new database misinterpreted some of the characters, but it is still understandable.

The issues I think so far discussed are faith and how it relates to empiricism and revelation and how all that works together with "reason", and as Midgley points out above, whether or not the reconciliation of faith and reason will limit the purpose of religion to utilitarian social concerns.

I of course would like to contribute my own two cents.

I think Will's 3-D example is right on the money- where is the "Real Picture"- and the answer is not one which relegates empiricism to something to be suspicious about for the believer, but to be fully embraced.

I think for the believer, we need to establish a truly "radical empiricism" which admits that the "real picture" in the 3-D experience we have in what we call the "real world" everyday of our lives is not in fact "out there", but just as it is in a 3-D theater, the real experience is happening inside of us. And I won't even say it's happening "in our heads" because it happens throughout our entire beings. Just as our hearts can race in a thrilling motion picture, just as we can feel woozy when the image from a wide- screen camera in a helicopter tilts and banks, experience happens throughout our entire being, and that includes for me, spiritual experience.

So why don't we usually include "spiritual experience" in what we call "empirical evidence"?

Up comes the great bugaboo: "Objectivity". "Why you can't do that! Spiritual experience is not 'objective'"!(They say without defining objectivity)

My response would be - "But what IS objective?" Many have had spiritual experiences, many describe them in similar ways, just as we describe any other experience.

We don't worry about whether or not your experience of "red" is the same or different than my experience of "red", or green, or the sound of a trumpet, or sweet, or sour, or bitter, or if you feel the exact same thing I feel when I am hungry, tired, in love, or-- whatever-- yet we acknowledge those experiences as "valid" and "real"- why not "spiritual experience"? Why of all these experiences is spiritual experience the one singled out to be declared magically "invalid" for the purposes of being defined as "empirical"?

That becomes the basic question. If we define spiritual experience as in some sense just as "objective" as other experiences- what would happen to the idea of "empiricism"?

We would see reason not as opposed to faith- but as part of it. We would see science as capable of exploring spiritual experience as any other experience.

We would see what is "real" as what we experience- true radical empiricism- including just the experience of being a human being. And that I think would also solve Midgley's problem of having religious truth relegated to the dust-bin of "social utility", and bring it into the vibrant place it belongs as the well-spring of all that is good in human experience.

 0

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Now I want to go and watch The Matrix again!  :-)  Do they have a movie version of the Rorty, Wittgenstein, and the boys philosophies that I can watch?  

I like this, even though its hard for me to understand, maybe I'm a glutton for punishment.  

Here is another article which might help.  It's a bit technical unfortunately

http://www.iep.utm.edu/phenomsc/

Quote

 

 A theory does not correspond to a scientific phenomenon; rather, the phenomenon fulfills or does not fulfill the expectations of its observation raised by the theory. Is this an electron beam or not?  To decide that, its behavior has to be evaluated. Theory provides a language that the experimenter can use for describing or recognizing or identifying the profiles. For the theorist, the semantics of the language is mathematical; for the experimenter, the semantics are descriptive and the objects described are not mathematical objects but phenomena – bodily presences in the world. Thus the dual semantics of science (Heelan 1988); a scientific word (such as ‘electron’) can refer to both an abstract term in a theory and to a physical phenomenon in a laboratory. The difference is akin to that between a ‘C’ in a musical score and a ‘C’ heard in a concert hall. Conflating these two usages has confused many a philosopher of science. But our perception of the physical phenomenon in the laboratory has been mediated by the instruments used to produce and measure it (Ihde 1990).

By adding theoretical and experimental mediation to Husserl’s account of what is “constitutive” of perceptual horizons (Husserl 2001, from where the following quotations are taken except where noted), one generates a framework for a phenomenological account of science. To grasp a scientific object, like a perceptual object, as a presence in the world, as “objective,” means, strangely enough, to grasp it as never totally given, but as having an unbounded number of profiles that are not simultaneously grasped. Such an object is embedded in a system of “referential implications” available to us to explore over time. And it is rarely grasped with Cartesian clarity the first time around, but “calls out to us” and “pushes us” towards appearances not simultaneously given. A new property, for example parity violation, is detected in one area of particle physics – but if it shows up here it should also show up there even more intensely and dramatically. Entities, that is, show themselves as having further sides to be explored, and as amenable to better and better instrumentation. Phenomena even as it were call attention to their special features – strangeness in elementary particles, DNA in cells, gamma ray bursters amongst astronomical bodies – and recommends these features to us for further exploration. “There is a constant process of anticipation, of preunderstanding.”  With sufficient apprehension of sampled profiles, “The unfamiliar object is … transformed …into a familiar object.”  This involves development both of an inner horizon of profiles already apprehended, already sampled, and an external of not-yet apprehended profiles. But the object is never fully grasped in its complete presence, horizons remain, and the most one can hope for is for a thing to be given optimally in terms of the interests for which it is approached. And because theory and instruments are always changing, the same object will always be grasped with new profiles. Thus, Husserl’s phenomenological account readily handles the often vexing question in traditional philosophy of science of how “the same” experiment can be “repeated.”  It equally readily handles the even more troublesome puzzle in traditional approaches of how successive theories or practices can refer to the same object. For just as the same object can be apprehended “horizontally” in different instrumental contexts at the same time, it can also be apprehended “vertically” by successively more developed instrumentation. Husserl, for instance, refers to the “open horizon of conceivable improvement to be further pursued” (Husserl Crisis #9a). Newer, more advanced instruments will pick out the same entity (for example, an electron), yield new values for measurements of the same quantities, and open up new domains in which new phenomena will appear amid the ones that now appear on the threshold. Today’s discovery is tomorrow’s background.

 

Objects are in the eye of the beholder, who sees them as they are experienced- the "object itself" is unknowable.

To see an object as objectively "real" in a scientific sense is to be able to predict how it will look from another perspective or even another person's perspective, but those perspectives are always based in human perception, not in something beyond human perception in "the real world"

The "really real" IS what humans observe- the human experience.   The real IS the "movie" and there is nothing beyond it which can be spoken about.

So are visions "real"?   They are real experiences that no one else can see, but so is the rest of "the movie".  They are as real as the pain in your toe which I cannot see or the love of your wife which I cannot feel.  They are as real as your political leanings with which I  may disagree, or even some of your moral values which I may also disagree with (pro-choice or pro life?  See how slanted those words make the feeling in your heart into a hard political position)

If the belief in God is real to you, it is as real as anything else that gives meaning to your life, like your love for your children or wife.   It is a force in your life that you might die for.

Soldiers die for "freedom" every day- but what does that even mean?  Empirically who would die for "freedom"?   Is it rational to die for an abstraction which cannot be quantified or even proven to exist?

Think of the idea of God as the idea of Freedom.   It can be something so much more important than string theory that people will die for the idea.  Would you die for your children?   What evidence do you have that that is a rational idea?

Edited August 31, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Just pondering...

I find it hilarious that people who insist that religion cannot be true without empirical evidence to support it would support the idea of "human rights" without any empirical evidence for their existence either.

The constitution is based on "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"...

Of course there is no evidence for that statement, but if all statements must have empirical evidence then the idea that any humans have any rights at all also requires empirical evidence.

In a sense, ALL "freedom" requires belief in the non-objective, and therefore "religious" belief that humans "SHOULD" have rights, even if it is believed that the state bestows those rights instead of God.

In a sense, belief that anyone "should" have any rights at all is a belief not justifiable though evidence and therefore a "religious" belief.

So freedom to HAVE religious beliefs - ie beliefs not supported by evidence- becomes the basis for belief in all freedoms.   It is the cornerstone belief upon which all other freedoms stand.

[Glenn101]

21 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

 

Martin Harris is reported to have claimed the eight witnesses never saw the plates, but he's also the Donald Trump of early Mormonism as noted above. Vogal notes that the weight to size ratio is consistent with tin. So who knows.

Honorentheos, I feel that you are doing Martin Harris a grave injustice. In a couple of earlier posts you have described Martin Harris as an excitable, gullible man. And gere you are calling him the DOnald Trump of early Mormonism. I suspect that you may not have done your homework.

Martin's New York reputation was of the highest caliber among his contemporaries. Most of hos friends and acquaintances were horrified at his support of Joseph Smith and financing the printing of the Book of Mormon, but were also generally had favorable views of his honesty, work ethic, and business acumen. I am not going to get into a full blown discussion of the matter, but will leave this link for you to peruse and maybe come to a better understanding of the man. http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/harris1.html

Glenn

[UtahTexan]

21 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Honorentheos, I feel that you are doing Martin Harris a grave injustice. In a couple of earlier posts you have described Martin Harris as an excitable, gullible man. And gere you are calling him the DOnald Trump of early Mormonism. I suspect that you may not have done your homework.

Martin's New York reputation was of the highest caliber among his contemporaries. Most of hos friends and acquaintances were horrified at his support of Joseph Smith and financing the printing of the Book of Mormon, but were also generally had favorable views of his honesty, work ethic, and business acumen. I am not going to get into a full blown discussion of the matter, but will leave this link for you to peruse and maybe come to a better understanding of the man. http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/harris1.html

Glenn

Shucks.  Don't let facts get in your way.

Yes...Martin had a very good reputation.  He also was successful.

 

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Honorentheos, I feel that you are doing Martin Harris a grave injustice. In a couple of earlier posts you have described Martin Harris as an excitable, gullible man. And gere you are calling him the DOnald Trump of early Mormonism. I suspect that you may not have done your homework.

Martin's New York reputation was of the highest caliber among his contemporaries. Most of hos friends and acquaintances were horrified at his support of Joseph Smith and financing the printing of the Book of Mormon, but were also generally had favorable views of his honesty, work ethic, and business acumen. I am not going to get into a full blown discussion of the matter, but will leave this link for you to peruse and maybe come to a better understanding of the man. http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/harris1.html

Glenn

"But, he was a great man for seeing spooks."

The stories around Harris are all over the map. Was he successful, wealthy, able to increase in prosperity, and regarded in Palmyra? So it seems. Was he a lot of other things and far less regarded after his involvement with Smith? Well, his wife claimed he became the worst sort of person, his falling out with Smith led to some rather choice quotes from Joseph. The reports of things he said after he was out of the Church range far and wide though he seems to be well within the center of his own high self-importance.

Trump seems an apt analog.

[Teancum]

On August 30, 2016 at 1:02 PM, mfbukowski said:

Good for you.  I am glad your atheist religion gets you out of bed in the morning.!  We all have to figure these things out for ourselves!  I am glad you do also.

You should read this, it is one of my favorites: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ESK52II/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

"Religion Without God" solves, I think the whole religion thing and why religion is important in life, even without God.

Now we don't have to keep going over the same stuff!

I am not an atheist.  I think I have told you that several times.  Being a skeptic does not make one an atheist. Nor have I claimed that religion has no usefulness or utility.  Why do you keep heaping things on me that I don't say?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I am not an atheist.  I think I have told you that several times.  Being a skeptic does not make one an atheist. Nor have I claimed that religion has no usefulness or utility.  Why do you keep heaping things on me that I don't say?

Sorry!

Honestly I do not understand your position as a coherent position.  All I see is criticism.  That does not mean you do not have a coherent position- just that I do not remember it from one encounter to another. Sorry.  Would you please detail how you see things in a post so I can remember your position as a coherent whole?

[mfbukowski]

On 8/30/2016 at 10:08 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

Okay, then, which "happenings" should we constitute as "miracles"? Good ones or include the awful events like the tsunami happened few years back where hundreds of thousands perished? 

I have a better idea for a "miracle" that never happens, for example, close to home, when the bad guys surrounded Fencher party, when Lee walks people away leading them to their demise why not interrupt it (as God) and save them? That would be a "miracle". Or healing some amputees, anything that helps to convince people easier.......

 

How about cutting off an arm or some other member of the body .... oh nevermind

Edited September 1, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

"But, he was a great man for seeing spooks."

The stories around Harris are all over the map. Was he successful, wealthy, able to increase in prosperity, and regarded in Palmyra? So it seems. Was he a lot of other things and far less regarded after his involvement with Smith? Well, his wife claimed he became the worst sort of person, his falling out with Smith led to some rather choice quotes from Joseph. The reports of things he said after he was out of the Church range far and wide though he seems to be well within the center of his own high self-importance.

Trump seems an apt analog.

While Harris was out of the church, his religious wanderings may have been "all over the map." I do not see what significance that has with the issue of his character. If you read the references concerning what people thought of him after he began to publicly support Joseph in his efforts to produce the Book of Mormon, you will find that they retained their respect for his integrity, etc. and thus were puzzled by his, to them, irrational behavior. E. B. Grandin had this to say about Martin upon Harris' departure to Kirkland, Ohio with the rest of the Church, "Mr. Harris was among the early settlers of this town, and has ever borne the character of an honorable and upright man, and an obliging and benevolent neighbor. He had secured to himself by honest industry a respectable fortune—and he has left a large circle of acquaintances and friends to pity his delusion."

As for his wife, they went through a divorce. Do some people become acrimonious during and after divorces? I hope you are enough in touch with whatever reality that we can actually observe to accede that point. (I can point to a few recent ones that were in the news to bolster my point.)

As for what Joseph supposedly said about Martin, can you provide a reference?

Thanks,

Glenn

[Honorentheos]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Now I want to go and watch The Matrix again!  :-)  Do they have a movie version of the Rorty, Wittgenstein, and the boys philosophies that I can watch?  

I like this, even though its hard for me to understand, maybe I'm a glutton for punishment.  

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/115

ETA: This one is more funny to me in light of, well, pragamatism even though it's dealing with skepticism - http://existentialcomics.com/comic/143

But here's one with Wittgenstein for you:  http://existentialcomics.com/comic/90  it kinda reminds me of these discussions, too, which is a plus.  

Edited September 1, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

12 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

While Harris was out of the church, his religious wanderings may have been "all over the map." I do not see what significance that has with the issue of his character. If you read the references concerning what people thought of him after he began to publicly support Joseph in his efforts to produce the Book of Mormon, you will find that they retained their respect for his integrity, etc. and thus were puzzled by his, to them, irrational behavior. E. B. Grandin had this to say about Martin upon Harris' departure to Kirkland, Ohio with the rest of the Church, "Mr. Harris was among the early settlers of this town, and has ever borne the character of an honorable and upright man, and an obliging and benevolent neighbor. He had secured to himself by honest industry a respectable fortune—and he has left a large circle of acquaintances and friends to pity his delusion."

As for his wife, they went through a divorce. Do some people become acrimonious during and after divorces? I hope you are enough in touch with whatever reality that we can actually observe to accede that point. (I can point to a few recent ones that were in the news to bolster my point.)

As for what Joseph supposedly said about Martin, can you provide a reference?

Thanks,

Glenn

I'm a little surprised that you aren't familiar with the controversy over Harris' varied claimed statements and those of members of the Church after he was sent on his way.

Here's a website that has a number of them you may or may not trust but gives you a flavor of the variety and intensity around the subject: http://richkelsey.org/trouble_with_martin_harris.html

Other examples I'm familiar with but didn't see in the link include the charge in Kirtland by Sidney Ridgon that Harris was going around telling people Smith drank too much while translating the Book of Mormon. Harris repented of that one as the record goes.

He's rumored to have said a lot of things, and many things have been said about him. I'm pretty sure anyone who's familiar with the record in total would not dispute it's a wild card section of the attempts to investigate Mormon history. For good or ill, if someone attributes something to Harris or, even worse, a second party quoting Harris, it's probably good to put an asterisks by it but not outright discount it either.

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/115

HILARIOUS!!!

At least it demonstrates someone else actually says what I say they say.   I am not making this stuff up!!!

Thanks for that- it made my day!!

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I'm a little surprised that you aren't familiar with the controversy over Harris' varied claimed statements and those of members of the Church after he was sent on his way.

Here's a website that has a number of them you may or may not trust but gives you a flavor of the variety and intensity around the subject: http://richkelsey.org/trouble_with_martin_harris.html

Other examples I'm familiar with but didn't see in the link include the charge in Kirtland by Sidney Ridgon that Harris was going around telling people Smith drank too much while translating the Book of Mormon. Harris repented of that one as the record goes.

He's rumored to have said a lot of things, and many things have been said about him. I'm pretty sure anyone who's familiar with the record in total would not dispute it's a wild card section of the attempts to investigate Mormon history. For good or ill, if someone attributes something to Harris or, even worse, a second party quoting Harris, it's probably good to put an asterisks by it but not outright discount it either.

I am aware that a lot of people have said a lot of things about Martin Harris. They are all over the place. I agree with your last statement. If you will go back and read what Martin himself actually wrote, his stories are the same in virtually all respects.

Glenn

 

[Honorentheos]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I am aware that a lot of people have said a lot of things about Martin Harris. They are all over the place. I agree with your last statement. If you will go back and read what Martin himself actually wrote, his stories are the same in virtually all respects.

Glenn

 

That's weak sauce history, Glenn. Harris speaking about Harris is only a very small portion of the overall picture. One, BTW, that is by definition subjective. What Harris wrote is not much, but what he is claimed to have said is volumous. Both supportive and contradictory to the Church's narrative. 

Do you honestly disagree with high council minutes from Kirtland where Rigdon is recorded as chastising Harris for basically going around saying derogatory things about Joseph Smith such as his having drank too much liquor while translating the Book of Mormon? Like this article from Dialogue portrays, even the faithful view of Harris has to apologize for how he acts when in public: https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N03_9.pdf

Harris is the Donald Trump of early Mormonism. So you will vote for him. Ok.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/115

ETA: This one is more funny to me in light of, well, pragamatism even though it's dealing with skepticism - http://existentialcomics.com/comic/143

But here's one with Wittgenstein for you:  http://existentialcomics.com/comic/90  it kinda reminds me of these discussions, too, which is a plus.  

This is awesome, thanks!  

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

That's weak sauce history, Glenn. Harris speaking about Harris is only a very small portion of the overall picture. One, BTW, that is by definition subjective. What Harris wrote is not much, but what he is claimed to have said is volumous. Both supportive and contradictory to the Church's narrative. 

Do you honestly disagree with high council minutes from Kirtland where Rigdon is recorded as chastising Harris for basically going around saying derogatory things about Joseph Smith such as his having drank too much liquor while translating the Book of Mormon? Like this article from Dialogue portrays, even the faithful view of Harris has to apologize for how he acts when in public: https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N03_9.pdf

Harris is the Donald Trump of early Mormonism. So you will vote for him. Ok.

Before that:

 

11 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Other examples I'm familiar with but didn't see in the link include the charge in Kirtland by Sidney Ridgon that Harris was going around telling people Smith drank too much while translating the Book of Mormon. Harris repented of that one as the record goes.

He's rumored to have said a lot of things, and many things have been said about him. I'm pretty sure anyone who's familiar with the record in total would not dispute it's a wild card section of the attempts to investigate Mormon history. For good or ill, if someone attributes something to Harris or, even worse, a second party quoting Harris, it's probably good to put an asterisks by it but not outright discount it either.

It is not "weak sauce history" get what someone has said from the person himself versus what someone else says that he said. It does not matter if one believes him or not, i.e. whether he saw an angel, etc. A report of what someone said is hearsay, even a reported interview. Therefore, one has to evaluate the source, the author of the report. And one needs to compare those reports with what the person says for himself.

Now, what in the heck does "Harris is the Donald Trump of early Mormonism. So you will vote for him. Ok." have to do with this topic? It is completely irrelevant to the subject. I have noticed a pattern of "poisoning the well" in some of your posts. That is not a good debating tactic.

Glenn

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is awesome, thanks!  

Read especially the "Didn't get the joke" sections

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Read especially the "Didn't get the joke" sections

Wow, this stuff is amazing!  I just read through the first one, and its dumbed down enough that I think I'm actually understanding part of it now.  Pierce sounds interesting to me in this first comic.  Thanks again Honorentheos and MFB!  

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, this stuff is amazing!  I just read through the first one, and its dumbed down enough that I think I'm actually understanding part of it now.  Pierce sounds interesting to me in this first comic.  Thanks again Honorentheos and MFB!  

C.S. Peirce is the father of pragmatism. (pronounced "purse")   I am a pragmatist.  William James took Peirce's central ideas and modified them so they are useful in religious discourse.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/7995/Pragmatism.html

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

 Like this article from Dialogue portrays, even the faithful view of Harris has to apologize for how he acts when in public: https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N03_9.pdf

What is the "faithful view" you are referring to here?

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry!

Honestly I do not understand your position as a coherent position.  All I see is criticism.  That does not mean you do not have a coherent position- just that I do not remember it from one encounter to another. Sorry.  Would you please detail how you see things in a post so I can remember your position as a coherent whole?

I thought this was a discussion board where people come to discuss pros and cons about the LDS church.  Yes my comments about the LDS church are currently on the critical side and perhaps even about claims of any religion that claims to be a revealed religion in general.   Critical commentary about religion does not make one an atheist so it is erroneous to say my position is not coherent if I make critical comments about religion but am not an atheist.

A quick summary of my position is while I have spent most of my life as a full beleiving Latter Day Saint I have reached a point over the past 6 to 7 years where I am very skeptical about the founding claims of the LDS Chuch.   I am not sure about Christianity in general.  The problem of evil and suffering have caused me to question the existence of a theistic God that has all the divine attributes that it seems the Bible and even LDS scriptures and leaders teach that God has.  

But I hope there is a God.  I hope that Jesus is His son and what I have been taught about Him is true.  There is also much I love in LDS doctrine that I find very noble, grand and inspiring.   And there is much that I struggle finding noble, grand and inspiring as well.  Taking things on faith is difficult for me right now.   So I call myself a skeptical seeker of truth.  I am open and willing to follow God, if God is there, wherever I am led.  I still pray to God as if God real and hears and answers prayers but I currently can't say I am getting answers. In fact I think my prayers and pondering and listening are more intense than they ever have been in my life.  I still attend the LDS church and teach high priests once a month.  At times I don't feel authentic at church because I don't say much about what I may be more open about here.  Yet I still participate and find it in many ways still a wonderful community to be a part of.  Other things about the culture and community trouble me.

Yes I have as of late leaned to wanting physical evidence of things rather than take it on faith or on a metaphysical experience.  So I lean towards positivism but am not entrenched or fixed in it.  I wish I had more time to read and explore some of the philosophical positions you have brought up here.  But right now I am focusing on understanding science better as well as other world religions better.  

Perhaps this is not a very coherent position but this is just a quick summary of where I am at because you asked and I don't really want to make this thread about me. So that's the best I can do in a few paragraphs.

[Honorentheos]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

What is the "faithful view" you are referring to here?

Granted, Dialogue is not a particularly faithful venue. The article I linked to is, on the whole, sympathetic to Harris and his faith. I consider that as faithful as, say, Rough Stone Rolling.