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

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I thought this was a discussion board where people come to discuss pros and cons about the LDS church.  

It is such a forum.  It is a place free  of attacks, but sincere questions and criticisms.  

Yes I have as of late leaned to wanting physical evidence of things rather than take it on faith or on a metaphysical experience.  

I have a question that I always wanted to ask.  Let us suppose that we wanted to appreciate good music, and have an understanding of "true" or good music. So let's start our journey taking to various composers, let's then talk to orchestra musicians and the conductor. But let's say I'm a skeptic, so I want to question these musicians on the physical evidence that the music they are playing is good music.  I want solid evidence or proof based on strict scientific investigation.

For example, let's interview them and how would those musicians respond in describing what they do.  Yes, there is a physical element in the tones, volume, etc of their music, but how would they convince me that what they were playing was beautiful music?  What language language would they use, what scientific instruments would they use.

I think that science and music are in different worlds.  While they do briefly touch (ratios of tones, etc), it is very brief.

I believe that a key concept is my "relationship" with the music, the poetry, etc.  In order to find that evidence, it is found withing the relationship I have with that specific poem or piece of music.

Edited September 2, 2016 by cdowis

[Calm]

NM

Edited September 2, 2016 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

OK thanks, did not mean to offend you.

I base most of my comments on philosophical points which I try to explain.  If you don't have time to read them, I am sorry but I am not sure how to respond.  Then you ask the same question again and I write it again, and you seemingly don't read it again.   So sorry.  I don't know what to do with that.

Metaphysics is believing in a world independent of what we can experience- which is exactly what is happening when one believes that observations "correspond" to something outside themselves which cannot be observed.  Observations are just human experiences- we cannot see outside our experiences or observations to see if they "correspond to reality" or not.  So I see positivism as metaphysics

I believe that observations are actually constructions in, and by our minds, and that is an unescapable fact.  All you can know is what you can know- and where is what you know? "In your head", right along with dreams and visions

[Teancum]

On August 31, 2016 at 11:31 PM, 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?

FYI I am going to get the book you recommended-Religion Without God.

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

Thanks for sharing your story.  I can see some similarities in my journey, and its good to have you contributing on a message board like this.  I don't consider myself an intellectual, but I'm trying to learn from others on here and there is a diversity of views here that I appreciate that. 

As far as your religious journey, I think as you explore other religions and science as you mentioned, you will continue to see that claims that Mormonism or even Christianity, has something something uniquely exceptional, aren't based on any kind of objective set of observations.  Mormonism is special to those that believe it is special, the same as other religions.  Whether God cares about which religion people belong to is just another subjective belief.  

When it comes to these philosophical discussions, I'm a novice and trying to learn.  It frequently sounds like MFB is telling me that all truth is subjective, and that as long as truth works for someone, that it is true.  Then there is this separation of what science can know is true, vs. what religion can know is true.  These are difficult concepts to grasp for me, and I'm pretty sure I don't understand them enough to say whether I agree or disagree with them.  But I like trying to stretch my understanding.

[mfbukowski]

major modification see below

Edited September 2, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing your story.  I can see some similarities in my journey, and its good to have you contributing on a message board like this.  I don't consider myself an intellectual, but I'm trying to learn from others on here and there is a diversity of views here that I appreciate that. 

As far as your religious journey, I think as you explore other religions and science as you mentioned, you will continue to see that claims that Mormonism or even Christianity, has something something uniquely exceptional, aren't based on any kind of objective set of observations.  Mormonism is special to those that believe it is special, the same as other religions.  Whether God cares about which religion people belong to is just another subjective belief.  

When it comes to these philosophical discussions, I'm a novice and trying to learn.  It frequently sounds like MFB is telling me that all truth is subjective, and that as long as truth works for someone, that it is true.  Then there is this separation of what science can know is true, vs. what religion can know is true.  These are difficult concepts to grasp for me, and I'm pretty sure I don't understand them enough to say whether I agree or disagree with them.  But I like trying to stretch my understanding.

 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

FYI I am going to get the book you recommended-Religion Without God.

Fine.

But remember that secular "religions" will always lack the power of the spirit of God, by definition.  "Save the Whales" does not speak to your soul in those darkest nights of human despair.

Here is a quote from a NEW talk I urge you to read or listen to, from Elder Holland.  Yes, that old "fogie" Elder Holland who nails it in this talk:

Quote

 

“My concern is that when it comes to binding up that fabric in our day, the ‘ligatures’ of religion are not being looked to in the way they once were,” he said.

Noting the “many colliding social and cultural forces in our day that contribute to this anti-religious condition,” Elder Holland shared the observation that the shifting away from “respect for traditional religious beliefs—and even the right to express those beliefs—has come because of a conspicuous shift toward greater and greater preoccupation with the existential circumstances of this world and less and less concern for—or even belief in—the circumstances, truths, and requirements of the next.”

Whether called secularism, modernity, or “existentialism on steroids,” such an approach to life “cannot answer the yearning questions of the soul, nor is it substantial enough to sustain us in times of moral crises,” he said.

 

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-jeffrey-r-holland-says-religion-essential-to-society-and-individuals?lang=eng&cid=email-IN_GM_08302016CTA7

I agree completely!

The reason I point to secular religion at all is to show that NO ONE can live without some kind of "religion"- even atheists.

I point to secular religion to justify true religion and show the flaws of the secular- the point is is that by understanding that we ALL have a "relgion" our CHOICE of religion is paramount.

Only faith in a personal God, in my tortured experience, will get you through those times when you are staring at the revolver thinking about how easy it would be to end all the pain.

Meditation will not get you through that, political causes will not get you through that, "solidarity with humanity" will not get you through that.  Only faith in a loving Father, proven certain by the Spirit,  will get you through that.

Been there, done that.

Edited September 2, 2016 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But remember that secular "religions" will always lack the power of the spirit of God, by definition.  "Save the Whales" does not speak to your soul in those darkest nights of human despair.

I'm going to push back on this a little.  Some of my most profound spiritual experiences in this life, upon greater reflection have not been tied directly to religion.  Four examples:

1. Visiting the homeland of my ancestors in Germany and visiting the actual locations including the homes of structures of family members was deeply moving to me.  

2. Visiting the statue of liberty and Ellis Island and reflecting on the great sacrifices for freedom that were made and the family members who sacrificed so much on my behalf was also a moving spiritual experience for me personally.

3. The awe I've experienced when learning about the beginning of the universe watching images captured by Hubble space telescope and contemplating the vastness of it all have been moving on multiple occasions.  

4.  Gratitude for the life of my grandmother and the love and personal attention she showed to me, has also connected me on multiple occasions to the spirit.  

Religion may have informed some of the above spiritual experiences, but I think I would still have experienced these things without the religion.  

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The reason I point to secular religion at all is to show that NO ONE can live without some kind of "religion"- even atheists.

I point to secular religion to justify true religion and show the flaws of the secular- the point is is that by understanding that we ALL have a "relgion" our CHOICE of religion is paramount.

I didn't like Holland's talk.  He sound insecure about his position and the role of religion.  I much preferred Patrick Mason's talk about how we should learn from the secular and not demonize it.  Of course it has flaws, but no more so than anything else.  Holland then makes a bizzare comment about "preoccupation with the existential circumstances of this world".  Wow, call me guilty then, and happily so.  I would that more religious people were preoccupied so.  

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Only faith in a personal God, in my tortured experience, will get you through those times when you are staring at the revolver thinking about how easy it would be to end all the pain.

Meditation will not get you through that, political causes will not get you through that, "solidarity with humanity" will not get you through that.  Only faith in a loving Father, proven certain by the Spirit,  will get you through that.

Been there, done that.

I'm going to call these claims unfounded and somewhat outrageous.  Do you have any data to back this up?  Suicide rates at higher levels for atheists or non-religious?  You are also throwing meditation under the bus?  Come on! 

 

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm going to push back on this a little.  Some of my most profound spiritual experiences in this life, upon greater reflection have not been tied directly to religion.  Four examples:

1. Visiting the homeland of my ancestors in Germany and visiting the actual locations including the homes of structures of family members was deeply moving to me.  

2. Visiting the statue of liberty and Ellis Island and reflecting on the great sacrifices for freedom that were made and the family members who sacrificed so much on my behalf was also a moving spiritual experience for me personally.

3. The awe I've experienced when learning about the beginning of the universe watching images captured by Hubble space telescope and contemplating the vastness of it all have been moving on multiple occasions.  

4.  Gratitude for the life of my grandmother and the love and personal attention she showed to me, has also connected me on multiple occasions to the spirit.  

Religion may have informed some of the above spiritual experiences, but I think I would still have experienced these things without the religion.  

I didn't like Holland's talk.  He sound insecure about his position and the role of religion.  I much preferred Patrick Mason's talk about how we should learn from the secular and not demonize it.  Of course it has flaws, but no more so than anything else.  Holland then makes a bizzare comment about "preoccupation with the existential circumstances of this world".  Wow, call me guilty then, and happily so.  I would that more religious people were preoccupied so.  

I'm going to call these claims unfounded and somewhat outrageous.  Do you have any data to back this up?  Suicide rates at higher levels for atheists or non-religious?  You are also throwing meditation under the bus?  Come on! 

 

Sigh.

Empirical evidence justifies spiritual belief?

Bigger sigh. Nevermind.

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm going to push back on this a little.  Some of my most profound spiritual experiences in this life, upon greater reflection have not been tied directly to religion.  Four examples:

1. Visiting the homeland of my ancestors in Germany and visiting the actual locations including the homes of structures of family members was deeply moving to me.  

2. Visiting the statue of liberty and Ellis Island and reflecting on the great sacrifices for freedom that were made and the family members who sacrificed so much on my behalf was also a moving spiritual experience for me personally.

3. The awe I've experienced when learning about the beginning of the universe watching images captured by Hubble space telescope and contemplating the vastness of it all have been moving on multiple occasions.  

4.  Gratitude for the life of my grandmother and the love and personal attention she showed to me, has also connected me on multiple occasions to the spirit.  

Religion may have informed some of the above spiritual experiences, but I think I would still have experienced these things without the religion.  

I didn't like Holland's talk.  He sound insecure about his position and the role of religion.  I much preferred Patrick Mason's talk about how we should learn from the secular and not demonize it.  Of course it has flaws, but no more so than anything else.  Holland then makes a bizzare comment about "preoccupation with the existential circumstances of this world".  Wow, call me guilty then, and happily so.  I would that more religious people were preoccupied so.  

I'm going to call these claims unfounded and somewhat outrageous.  Do you have any data to back this up?  Suicide rates at higher levels for atheists or non-religious?  You are also throwing meditation under the bus?  Come on! 

 

OK I will repent and use this as a teaching moment.

Spiritual experiences are based on the individual's perception of he problem and the individuals perception on what solves it.

The only "evidence" which could apply for someone in the situation I am describing would be for THAT INDIVIDUAL to have been both a life long atheist AND a life long religious person, have faced the exact same suicidal moment and committed suicide in one, and not committed suicide in the other.

Obviously that is impossible for a ton of reasons- the most obvious is that we do not get two or more lives.

Would the same person who had been a life time atheist AND a liftetime religious person be the "same person"?   Another obvious problem

How could the two suicidal moments under those circumstances be the "same"?

How can we find out empirical evidence judging between forces in an individual life and the "pressure" they feel in any situaiton as compared to another?   Can two people EVER be in the "same" situation?   THAT is the quesiton

Statistics do not help because they look at the aggregate and not at the individual.  What the statistics say do not help me in MY situation- THAT is the point.  No science helps at that point.

If you ever face suicide, I hope your experience at the statue of liberty helps you, that when you think of the Hubble telescope you decide not to pick up the gun, or perhaps it will be the image of your grandmother which stops it, or perhaps the thought of your ancestors.

The only problem with that experiment is that it does not exactly have a good control group, does it?  What would you have done if your life had been different?

Good luck in figuring out that one!

Edited September 2, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

OK thanks, did not mean to offend you.

I base most of my comments on philosophical points which I try to explain.  If you don't have time to read them, I am sorry but I am not sure how to respond.  Then you ask the same question again and I write it again, and you seemingly don't read it again.   So sorry.  I don't know what to do with that.

Metaphysics is believing in a world independent of what we can experience- which is exactly what is happening when one believes that observations "correspond" to something outside themselves which cannot be observed.  Observations are just human experiences- we cannot see outside our experiences or observations to see if they "correspond to reality" or not.  So I see positivism as metaphysics

I believe that observations are actually constructions in, and by our minds, and that is an unescapable fact.  All you can know is what you can know- and where is what you know? "In your head", right along with dreams and visions

I actually read quite a few of your posts.  Not being studied in philosophy much of the philosophy you refer to it is difficult to respond to and the pragmatic side of me finds much difficult to wrap my head around.  At this point I can't say I agree that your perspective is the correct one.  Nor can I totally disagree.

I was not offended I just wanted to make it clear I do not consider myself and atheist. 

Edited September 2, 2016 by Teancum

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

OK I will repent and use this as a teaching moment.

Spiritual experiences are based on the individual's perception of he problem and the individuals perception on what solves it.

The only "evidence" which could apply for someone in the situation I am describing would be for THAT INDIVIDUAL to have been both a life long atheist AND a life long religious person, have faced the exact same suicidal moment and committed suicide in one, and not committed suicide in the other.

Obviously that is impossible for a ton of reasons- the most obvious is that we do not get two or more lives.

Would the same person who had been a life time atheist AND a liftetime religious person be the "same person"?   Another obvious problem

Statistics do not help because they look at the aggregate and not at the individual.  What the statistics say do not help me in MY situation- THAT is the point.  No science helps at that point.

If you ever face suicide, I hope your experience at the statue of liberty helps you, that when you think of the Hubble telescope you decide not to pick up the gun, or perhaps it will be the image of your grandmother which stops it, or perhaps the thought of your ancestors.

The only problem with that experiment is that it does not exactly have a good control group, does it?  What would you have done if your life had been different?

Good luck in figuring out that one!

Thanks for repenting.  :-)  I do want to understand your perspective better.   

If this is all about individual experience, you don't want to look at outcomes and statistics, then why are you saying things like faith in a personal God is necessary to get you through the difficult moments of life.  You're taking taking the personal (what works for you), and applying it to others. 

Holland does this in his talk as well asserting that the secular "cannot answer the yearning questions of the soul".  Why not?  If its personally applied, who is Holland to say that someone else's perspective doesn't satisfy the yearnings of their soul?  

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, cdowis said:

I have a question that I always wanted to ask.  Let us suppose that we wanted to appreciate good music, and have an understanding of "true" or good music. So let's start our journey taking to various composers, let's then talk to orchestra musicians and the conductor. But let's say I'm a skeptic, so I want to question these musicians on the physical evidence that the music they are playing is good music.  I want solid evidence or proof based on strict scientific investigation.

For example, let's interview them and how would those musicians respond in describing what they do.  Yes, there is a physical element in the tones, volume, etc of their music, but how would they convince me that what they were playing was beautiful music?  What language language would they use, what scientific instruments would they use.

I think that science and music are in different worlds.  While they do briefly touch (ratios of tones, etc), it is very brief.

I believe that a key concept is my "relationship" with the music, the poetry, etc.  In order to find that evidence, it is found withing the relationship I have with that specific poem or piece of music.

What scientific instruments would they use?  How about an MRI:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/your-brain-music-how-our-brains-process-melodies-pull-our-heartstrings-271007

 

 

 

[Calm]

On September 1, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Honorentheos said:

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.

And the author Marquardt is not currently LDS, I don't know if he was when he wrote it.

[Gray]

On 9/1/2016 at 11:25 PM, cdowis said:

I have a question that I always wanted to ask.  Let us suppose that we wanted to appreciate good music, and have an understanding of "true" or good music. So let's start our journey taking to various composers, let's then talk to orchestra musicians and the conductor. But let's say I'm a skeptic, so I want to question these musicians on the physical evidence that the music they are playing is good music.  I want solid evidence or proof based on strict scientific investigation.

For example, let's interview them and how would those musicians respond in describing what they do.  Yes, there is a physical element in the tones, volume, etc of their music, but how would they convince me that what they were playing was beautiful music?  What language language would they use, what scientific instruments would they use.

I think that science and music are in different worlds.  While they do briefly touch (ratios of tones, etc), it is very brief.

I believe that a key concept is my "relationship" with the music, the poetry, etc.  In order to find that evidence, it is found withing the relationship I have with that specific poem or piece of music.

That's a really good example. It is about as nonsensical to say that there is one true music as there is to say there is one true church. Goodness is subjective and not a scientific question, but at least it's an appropriate question.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Gray

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

That's a really good example. It is about as nonsensical to say that there is one true music as there is to say there is one true church. Goodness is subjective and not a scientific question, but at least it's an appropriate question.

What is more nonsensical. to say that there is one true church, or to say that all Christian churches are true? 

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

That's a really good example. It is about as nonsensical to say that there is one true music as there is to say there is one true church. Goodness is subjective and not a scientific question, but at least it's an appropriate question.

You are so very clever to point out that an allegory is not true to  reality.  Wow.

Edited September 4, 2016 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

On 9/2/2016 at 0:01 PM, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for repenting.  :-)  I do want to understand your perspective better.   

If this is all about individual experience, you don't want to look at outcomes and statistics, then why are you saying things like faith in a personal God is necessary to get you through the difficult moments of life.  You're taking taking the personal (what works for you), and applying it to others. 

Holland does this in his talk as well asserting that the secular "cannot answer the yearning questions of the soul".  Why not?  If its personally applied, who is Holland to say that someone else's perspective doesn't satisfy the yearnings of their soul?  

No I didn't say that.  It it applies to you fine, if not fine.  I really don't care.

This is what I actually said.  Try to read the words instead of what you think I said:

Quote

 

OK I will repent and use this as a teaching moment.

Spiritual experiences are based on the individual's perception of he problem and the individuals perception on what solves it.

The only "evidence" which could apply for someone in the situation I am describing would be for THAT INDIVIDUAL to have been both a life long atheist AND a life long religious person, have faced the exact same suicidal moment and committed suicide in one, and not committed suicide in the other.

Obviously that is impossible for a ton of reasons- the most obvious is that we do not get two or more lives.

Would the same person who had been a life time atheist AND a liftetime religious person be the "same person"?   Another obvious problem

Statistics do not help because they look at the aggregate and not at the individual.  What the statistics say do not help me in MY situation- THAT is the point.  No science helps at that point.

If you ever face suicide, I hope your experience at the statue of liberty helps you, that when you think of the Hubble telescope you decide not to pick up the gun, or perhaps it will be the image of your grandmother which stops it, or perhaps the thought of your ancestors.

The only problem with that experiment is that it does not exactly have a good control group, does it?  What would you have done if your life had been different?

Good luck in figuring out that one!

 

I said "I hope it works for you"

I don't know where you got what you said I said.   I generally mean exactly what I say.  I cannot imagine that working for me.  God speaks to me, I have no doubt he is "real".  I cannot explain it.

If that doesn't work for you, find your own explanation.  That is what i did when everyone around me was an atheist ridiculing my feelings.  If the Hubble works for you, go for it.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

That's a really good example. It is about as nonsensical to say that there is one true music as there is to say there is one true church. Goodness is subjective and not a scientific question, but at least it's an appropriate question.

I would like you to document that phrase "one true church" in any church talk.

"The only true and living church" is another question.  THAT latter phrase combines the idea of "true church" with "living church" which means one which receives revelation today.

All churches have truth to one degree or another.   The church says that. The church claim is that we are the only church which has truth- as much as is necessary for salvation, AND is also a living church, able to receive ongoing revelation to keep it "true"

Here is how some Catholics explain they are the "one true church":

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-do-we-know-it’s-the-true-church

[strappinglad]

I was recently introduced to a type of reasoning called " abductive reasoning" . I was familiar with deductive and inductive reasoning and their uses , particularly in math. Abductive reasoning allows for a plausibility of outcome. Here is a quick example.

 Major premise : If A occurs , then B would be expected as a matter of course. eg . If a mudslide occurs , then felled trees would be expected in the area

Minor premise: B is observed eg. felled trees are observed

Conclusion: hence there is reason to believe A has occurred eg. It is plausible that there was a mudslide.

Note that the conclusion is not about absolutes, however, the fewer other ways that we can come up with felled trees, the better the conclusion holds up.

Does this apply to spiritual experiences?

Does this apply to testing the truth of the appearance of the BoM ?

[UtahTexan]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I would like you to document that phrase "one true church" in any church talk.

"The only true and living church" is another question.  THAT latter phrase combines the idea of "true church" with "living church" which means one which receives revelation today.

All churches have truth to one degree or another.   The church says that. The church claim is that we are the only church which has truth- as much as is necessary for salvation, AND is also a living church, able to receive ongoing revelation to keep it "true"

Here is how some Catholics explain they are the "one true church":

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-do-we-know-it’s-the-true-church

The Catholic claim fails, though.  Catholics point to Matthew 16:18.  They then claim succession from Peter.  They claim for the LDS Church to be true, Jesus failed (I know because I used this argument when I was Catholic).

But They, (and I) are wrong.  Well, I used to be.  

The argument fails because we believe Christ believes and thinks like we do.  Christ did not fail when the Catholic Church did...because time is not the same to Christ.

Christ succeeded thru the LDS Church.  

The only Church with a living Prophet.

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

The Catholic claim fails, though.  Catholics point to Matthew 16:18.  They then claim succession from Peter.  They claim for the LDS Church to be true, Jesus failed (I know because I used this argument when I was Catholic).

But They, (and I) are wrong.  Well, I used to be.  

The argument fails because we believe Christ believes and thinks like we do.  Christ did not fail when the Catholic Church did...because time is not the same to Christ.

Christ succeeded thru the LDS Church.  

The only Church with a living Prophet.

Agreed- of course!

And there ARE statements that we are the "one true church" but they were all made 40 years ago or more.  That phrase now just doesn't work for our day.

Some quote others testimonies like "I was looking for the one true church" or "I am glad I found the one true church" which is of course NOT "The Church" claiming TO BE "one true church".   There is a quote by President Lee saying we are the "one true church" and a few statements in manuals quoting those statements etc

Those are old and few and far between.  I think Wilford Woodruff said it.

But clearly we have moved away from that usage, to "the only true and living church" which is far different than "the one true church"

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

That's a really good example. It is about as nonsensical to say that there is one true music as there is to say there is one true church. Goodness is subjective and not a scientific question, but at least it's an appropriate question.

And another thing

"Goodness" is not "subjective" any more than badness is.

I suggest first you go out and set up a home for abused mothers and children and run it successfully for 10 years.

Then go out and randomly kill 15 people.

See which act is seen as "subjectively good" and which is seen as "subjectively bad".   That will be a nice scientific experiment!  I predict that no one will call the murders "good" and the home "bad"

Science is the ability to predict what we will experience.  So I just maintained there is a way to objectively test what is good and bad.  Ask people.

And I would say that that those same judgments would maintain the same for all civilized societies.  In those cases we have "absolute truth" because what we call good and bad in those situations does not change.

So how is that different from absolute "objective truth"?   The term "absolute truth" is usually used to say that absolute truth corresponds to some eternal law out there some where in the universe.  I am not saying that

I am that all members of civilized societies, who are not sociopaths, mentally ill, etc, would say that setting up a home for abused mothers and children is a good thing and that murdering 15 random people for no reason is a bad thing

Each of those opinions is based on a subjective feeling we might call the "light of Christ".  

So though in some sense "goodness" is still "subjective" in that it is felt individually in our hearts and cannot be defined, but "we know it when we see it" but yet it is virtually universally agreed on.

In a sense then goodness and badness is both subjectively felt and yet universally agreed on.   It is almost like color sense- the color blue is subjectively experienced, yet universally agreed upon- everyone knows what "blue" is.  (except in silly instances of terminology or optical illusions http://qz.com/352479/this-dress-of-disputed-colors-is-driving-china-crazy-too/)

Edited September 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I was recently introduced to a type of reasoning called " abductive reasoning" . I was familiar with deductive and inductive reasoning and their uses , particularly in math. Abductive reasoning allows for a plausibility of outcome. Here is a quick example.

 Major premise : If A occurs , then B would be expected as a matter of course. eg . If a mudslide occurs , then felled trees would be expected in the area

Minor premise: B is observed eg. felled trees are observed

Conclusion: hence there is reason to believe A has occurred eg. It is plausible that there was a mudslide.

Note that the conclusion is not about absolutes, however, the fewer other ways that we can come up with felled trees, the better the conclusion holds up.

Does this apply to spiritual experiences?

Does this apply to testing the truth of the appearance of the BoM ?

Great points!

 I would say "yes" to both but I would think it would depend on the exact phrasing of the proposition- you might want to come up with some examples.

I would think re: the BOM, Robert Smith's "preposterous Book of Mormon" sort of applies to what you are talking about.  The existence of the BOM shows something unusual happened.

What exactly that was is open for discussion, yet in the absence of any other clear hypothesis for it's existence. as crazy as it is, the traditional explanation Joseph gave seems the most likely.   I just look at it doctrinally and philosophically.  How could an uneducated backwoods teenager come up with doctrine that would revolutionize Christianity?

Solve the "problem of evil" which had been debated for 2000 years?  Solve the problem of who Melchizadek was, and how he got his priesthood?

And other revelations from Joseph- who could come up for a logical solution of the "trinity"?  Who could come up with a plan that solved the problem of infant baptism and the sillyness of original sin?  Who could combine all this with a way that the gospel can be preached to all people, even those who have died, to show God to be fair and not capricious?    Who could take the notion of "theosis" understood partially by the Eastern Orthodox churches and amplify it into a doctrine which teaches us to become the best humans we can become?  Who could also come up with a plan for administering an organized church that has lasted 180+ years?

And most importantly that people could pray about and get an answer??

Preposterous- abosolutely!  But what other explanation can there be??

[Scott Lloyd]

Forgive me for diverting us for a moment back to the original topic of this thread. But Dan Peterson, on his blog, has weighed in on the discussion about his own FairMormon presentation. He makes essentially the same point I did earlier in this thread (as I recall), and I feel thus vindicated. So, because it is definitely relevant to the topic, I am reproducing his post here:

Quote

 

The critical responses that I’ve seen to my FairMormon remarks have been fairly predictable.  One such response simply declines to engage what I said, on the grounds that I’m simply irrational (or some such thing).  Another asserts that unbelievers are not obliged to propose a counterexplanation for the Book of Mormon.

 

I understand that.  Certainly, the typical Buddhist in Sri Lanka, who has probably never even heard of Mormonism, has no strong obligation to account for the book.  Nor does an apathetic and uncurious person who simply dismisses the book, knows essentially nothing about it, and has little or nothing to say about it.

 

But people who insistently assert the falsehood of the Book of Mormon do, I think, have such an obligation.  At least to some substantial degree.  Or, to put it another way, if they insist that the book is the product of either hallucination or fraud, they haven’t fully fulfilled their intellectual responsibility on the topic until they explain how fraud or hallucination produced it.  Its very existence poses a challenge.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd