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

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

 

The way of Christ is for each of us personally to take on the responsibility to read, and pray to God.  Not to have missionaries use  clever arguments and sales techniques to sell Christ and the church.  That suits me very well, thank you.

Clever what? Asking couple skeptical questions and Missionaries telling investigators to pray about it? Passing the buck without the shred of evidence will not get them far anymore. 

This tactic may suit you well but gaining converts department it will not deliver results,, guaranteed......

PS: to add; This critic is not directed against LDS only.....

Edited September 6, 2016 by Atheist Mormon

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

If "true" is being used as a synonym for "good", then it makes perfect sense to say all Christian churches are true, or at least most. If "true" means accurate or in accordance with reality, then it doesn't make sense either way. 

Only if you do not believe in Jesus Christ. This is (nominally) an LDS discussion board and it makes perfect sense to LDS posters that still believe that the LDS Church is the restoration of the church that Jesus organized during His mortal ministry here on this earth and that Joseph Smith was the prophet called of God to be the instrument of that restoration. Of course you already knew that. So, maybe if you qualified your statement to read 'If "true" is being used as a synonym for "good", then it makes perfect sense to say all Christian churches are true, or at least most. If "true" means accurate or in accordance with reality, then it doesn't make sense to me either way.' (Bolded words in read and underlined are by me.)

Glenn

[Gray]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with the first sentence.  Of course I agree with it and I am surprised you would bring it up.  My whole reason for being here is to defend what you call "the subjective"

Yes indeed the opinions of a million human beings "turn the subjective into the objective".  That is precisely what science is.  Replication by others and getting the same results = "science".  Galileo first saw a blurry image of the rings of Saturn through his primitive telescope.  THAT was a subjective experience. He is the only one who ever had that experience at that moment.  He published it and soon everyone turned their telescopes on Saturn and got the same results.  The subjective became objective through construction IN LANGUAGE.  Without language, he would have gone to bed and it would be another Helen Keller experience, subjective but unable to be communicated.

 

Well, what do you mean by subjective and objective? Science relies on interpretation, it's true, but it's not just about what people feel deep down to be right. In science what people feel deep down to be right is often overturned by the data as it's run through the scientific method machine (for example, Newtonian Physics vs. Special Relativity). 

I think in most ordinary uses of the word objective, we're trying to get at something like this:

Quote

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Morality will always be subjective. It's subjective to the human species. We invented it! Or perhaps we stole it from our nearest non-homo sapiens ancestors. The most important things in our own little lives are subjective. Morality is written in our own little hearts, and of course while some things seem universal, if you study human history you find that only a few of our most cherished moral beliefs are not so universal after all. We have a hard enough time relating to the morality of our 19th century Mormon ancestors, whose moral framework was in some ways quite alien to our own. 

Quote

Subjective:  based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

These are dictionary definitions, and I'm sure you have philosophical disagreements with them. But before you disregard them out of hand for being philosophically incorrect, consider how utilitarian they are.

Quote

The experience would be as "real" as Moroni appearing to Joseph, meaning, would anyone consider it "real" at all?  That is the point of the defense of the subjective.  All experiences ARE subjective- but if we agree on them we call them "objective".  No one else agrees on seeing Moroni under those conditions and so the experience remains "subjective" to Joseph alone.  But what does that do to its "reality"?   Is that even an intelligible question?

I disagree that agreement is all that is needed to make something "objective". Otherwise every polarized Rotten Tomatoes score would suddenly become an objective statement about film, while everything in the 30-70% range would remain in the realm of the subjective.

However, something can be totally subjective but also completely "real" and "true". Morality exists - it's real. It's absolutely true that we should follow the golden rule. But it's also a subjective ideal. 

Quote

So now we also look through a telescope and see something out there - to be interpreted.  What is the interpretation of the experience as now socially constructed?   We have learned through language where to find the experience called "Saturn".  We take the prescribed instrument with the prescribed lenses and turn it in the direction of the prescribed and defined experience of "Saturn" in the "sky" on a defined night when the experience is available- we know that because even those nights have been described.  We point the device at the potentially described experience- and lo and behold!! There is around experience surrounded by circular experiences!   We have been taught to interpret this private experience as the word "Saturn"!!   YAY!   Saturn is yet again confirmed to be an interpretation of experience which is "objective" and therefore a "fact"!!   We can now make that interpretation within our own brains- it is not just a lumpy odd-shaped light in the night sky- it IS "Saturn"!

Please define another possible meaning of "objective" if you can.  Coyly saying "it doesn't make that determination objective" becomes a meaningless phrase in context.  What does make it objective then?  "Correspondence" to a world no human can experience??

To start with, objectivity cannot be driven by our emotions. Surely there is more to human perception (limited though it may be) than our emotional response. There is a difference between perceiving Saturn's existence with our eyes and feeling in our hearts that Saturn is beautiful. 

To be honest, I'm a little surprised to see you balking at the word subjective. I'd think you would embrace it. All of the great truths of the human experience are to be found in the realm of the subjective. I would think that objectivity would be the hobby horse of those pesky correspondence theorists. 

 

Quote

I doubt that saltwater crocodiles have a language that can express their agreement, thereby presenting a bit of a problem with that statement   but I suppose that if they did, it would express their understanding of ONE form of the deflationary theory of truth which maintains that saying a proposition is true is the same as saying "I agree with that"

But I suppose I should discuss that further with a saltwater crocodile philosopher.

Oh wait- maybe I am.

 

The saltwater crocodile philosopher responds, "Anything that improves the well being and health of saltwater crocodiles must be moral!"

How cheerfully he seems to grin, how neatly spreads his claws and welcomes little fishes in with gently smiling jaws.

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Gray

[Teancum]

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 9:22 AM, cdowis said:

CRITIC

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that the BOM is authentic.

RESPONSE

I have absolutely no interest in proving anything to you.  That is something between you and God.  Now if you want to convince ME that is is false, let's see what you got.  You need to be able to explain etc etc

Well if you are happy and feel you have your answer that is wonderful for you. 

Live your life accordingly and be happy.

The critics have provided lots of alternatives for the BoM other than the LDS narrative.  If you or Dan Peterson don't find them compelling that's ok.  But anyone who does not accept the BoM is not obliged to accept the LDS narrative. Nor are they obliged to prove out the alternative options. 

 Perhaps we all talk past each other but it seems pretty clear to me that those making the claim of supernatural activity for the coming forth of the BoM or even the founding of the LDS Church are the ones that need to provide the evidence. If I tell you that Santa Clause is real I think you would expect me to give you some evidence of flying reindeer, a home for Santa at the North Pole, evidence that Santa is essentially immortal, etc.  If I want you to pray to know if Santa is real I guess that is where the idea of plausibility comes in. Anyone who is presented with the LDS narrative on how we got the BoM will need to decided if it is plausible enough to simply pray about it and also believe that there is a God that will answer. Based on statistics for missionary work it seems most people don't find the LDS narrative plausible enough to pursue it.  That does not mean it is not true but it does seem to mean that to most humans who are presented with the LDS narrative it is not convincing enough to pray and pursue it.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Only if you do not believe in Jesus Christ. This is (nominally) an LDS discussion board and it makes perfect sense to LDS posters that still believe that the LDS Church is the restoration of the church that Jesus organized during His mortal ministry here on this earth and that Joseph Smith was the prophet called of God to be the instrument of that restoration. Of course you already knew that.

 

 

It has nothing to do with what you believe about Jesus. "True" is a nonsensical word to apply to an institution. Institutions are not true, any more than thoughts are hairy. Claims are true or false. Institutions are neither. 

8 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

So, maybe if you qualified your statement to read 'If "true" is being used as a synonym for "good", then it makes perfect sense to say all Christian churches are true, or at least most. If "true" means accurate or in accordance with reality, then it doesn't make sense to me either way.' (Bolded words in read and underlined are by me.)

Glenn

How about, it doesn't make sense within normal English language usage of the word "true". 

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

"One true church" is a phrase that pops up many times at LDS.org:

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query="one+true+church"

All churches receive revelation, though. We're not special there. 

Let's use the Bible to clarify the "one true church".

Paul tells us

Eh 4  [11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Note how long the true church of Christ would have apostles and  prophets.  The historic Christian church has replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and philosophers.

Where do we find living apostles and prophets as the foundation of the "one true church"?  As Christ said, '"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, "

Finally, Christ told Peter

Matt 16 [19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Where do we find those keys to bind between heaven and earth today?  In the "one true church".  

Edited September 6, 2016 by cdowis

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The vision seen by Nephi indicated that in the last days the Church of Jesus Christ would be over all the face of the earth but that its numbers would be few by reason of the influence of Satan. I have every expectation we will continue to see that prophecy fulfilled. If that means fluctuating or even declining membership numbers, well, we can't say we weren't forewarned by scripture (see the first three quotes in my signature).

It's a wonderful thing isn't it? 

The Church has an out if it does not grow rapidly, has trouble with retention, increasingly becomes marginalized because of it's hard line stances on social issues.....

but if it grows, has high convert rates and so on, well then it is the stone cut out of the Mountain without hands that will fill the earth according the prophecy of Daniel. 

It's a great thing to have both sides of the coin covered.

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well if you are happy and feel you have your answer that is wonderful for you. 

Live your life accordingly and be happy.

The critics have provided lots of alternatives for the BoM other than the LDS narrative.  If you or Dan Peterson don't find them compelling that's ok.  But anyone who does not accept the BoM is not obliged to accept the LDS narrative. Nor are they obliged to prove out the alternative options. 

 Perhaps we all talk past each other but it seems pretty clear to me that those making the claim of supernatural activity for the coming forth of the BoM or even the founding of the LDS Church are the ones that need to provide the evidence. If I tell you that Santa Clause is real I think you would expect me to give you some evidence of flying reindeer, a home for Santa at the North Pole, evidence that Santa is essentially immortal, etc.  If I want you to pray to know if Santa is real I guess that is where the idea of plausibility comes in. Anyone who is presented with the LDS narrative on how we got the BoM will need to decided if it is plausible enough to simply pray about it and also believe that there is a God that will answer. Based on statistics for missionary work it seems most people don't find the LDS narrative plausible enough to pursue it.  That does not mean it is not true but it does seem to mean that to most humans who are presented with the LDS narrative it is not convincing enough to pray and pursue it.

Apparently you missed my recent post wherein I linked to and quoted the following from Daniel Peterson's blog. Or perhaps you saw it and decided to ignore it.

I'll paste it in again here for your convenience. Pay attention this time, especially to the part I have emphasized in bold:

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 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It's a wonderful thing isn't it? 

The Church has an out if it does not grow rapidly, has trouble with retention, increasingly becomes marginalized because of it's hard line stances on social issues.....

but if it grows, has high convert rates and so on, well then it is the stone cut out of the Mountain without hands that will fill the earth according the prophecy of Daniel. 

It's a great thing to have both sides of the coin covered.

Yes, it's nice to be able to employ scripture and prophecy to confound antagonistic sophistry.

By the way, I've said repeatedly that I believe the prophecy of Daniel won't have its fulfillment until after the coming of Christ in glory and the establishment of His kingdom on earth. What we are doing at the moment is setting the stage for that event.

 

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

D&C 1 as a whole is a formal statement of "mine authority" and the "authority of my servants" (v6) so a close and careful reading strikes me as more reliable than either a paraphrase or even extracting a few words. 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

All too often, I have seen members, even commentaries on D&C 1, refer to what they think or expect or want the verse to say, and yet never giving a close reading.  However, it also turns out that there are unavoidable reasons for that, developmental issues, as neatly laid out in the Perry Scheme, and which therefore ought to be seen as inevitable in a community.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Kevin, My reading of verse thirty differs a bit from yours.

"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—"

It seems to me that one can take the three comma separated phrases "and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness", "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth", and "with which I, the Lord, am well pleased" one at a time and not change the meaning of the verse.

1.And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness.

2.  And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.

3. And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

Unless the comma coming after "the whole earth" is a mistake and should not be there.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Well, what do you mean by subjective and objective? Science relies on interpretation, it's true, but it's not just about what people feel deep down to be right. In science what people feel deep down to be right is often overturned by the data as it's run through the scientific method machine (for example, Newtonian Physics vs. Special Relativity). 

I think in most ordinary uses of the word objective, we're trying to get at something like this:

Morality will always be subjective. It's subjective to the human species. We invented it! Or perhaps we stole it from our nearest non-homo sapiens ancestors. The most important things in our own little lives are subjective. Morality is written in our own little hearts, and of course while some things seem universal, if you study human history you find that only a few of our most cherished moral beliefs are not so universal after all. We have a hard enough time relating to the morality of our 19th century Mormon ancestors, whose moral framework was in some ways quite alien to our own. 

These are dictionary definitions, and I'm sure you have philosophical disagreements with them. But before you disregard them out of hand for being philosophically incorrect, consider how utilitarian they are.

I disagree that agreement is all that is needed to make something "objective". Otherwise every polarized Rotten Tomatoes score would suddenly become an objective statement about film, while everything in the 30-70% range would remain in the realm of the subjective.

However, something can be totally subjective but also completely "real" and "true". Morality exists - it's real. It's absolutely true that we should follow the golden rule. But it's also a subjective ideal. 

To start with, objectivity cannot be driven by our emotions. Surely there is more to human perception (limited though it may be) than our emotional response. There is a difference between perceiving Saturn's existence with our eyes and feeling in our hearts that Saturn is beautiful. 

To be honest, I'm a little surprised to see you balking at the word subjective. I'd think you would embrace it. All of the great truths of the human experience are to be found in the realm of the subjective. I would think that objectivity would be the hobby horse of those pesky correspondence theorists. 

 

 

The saltwater crocodile philosopher responds, "Anything that improves the well being and health of saltwater crocodiles must be moral!"

How cheerfully he seems to grin, how neatly spreads his claws and welcomes little fishes in with gently smiling jaws.

 

Well I have been discussing these issues for 8 perhaps silly years here on this board and am not inclined to get back into it.

Greener fields draw me.  

I would suggest you read a lot of Thomas Nagel who really gets into this stuff of subjectivity/objectivity.

IF you actually read this and IF you really want to discuss it, I will be glad to continue to do it seriously.  But at this point, pot shots off the top of the head that I have answered before are not my thing.  I suppose I should have put it into a better blog format so that I could refer you to "Answer 84.7" but unfortunately I have not.

But since this is where I get my stuff from anyway, I will just point you to "the master" on this subject in my opinion, and see if it has resonance for you, but I suspect there won't be any replies to this post because no one will read it.  I will make parts bold which might point better to the important ideas.  The whole essay is important.

His point is essentially that each statement has a perspective, and any reduction of a first person description into a third person description leaves something out.  That means that third party descriptions can never include all that is contained in a first-person account.  That carries it on to science as well as any other descriptions.  Objective descriptions are always third person descriptions, and so they lose the full content of a first person account.

Quote

I. THE MIND 1. These lectures are about objectivity and its limits. In the second and third lectures I shall be concerned with normative questions; I shall defend the objectivity of ethics, and try to explain what it means. But today I am going to say something about the problem of objectivity as it occurs in metaphysics, especially in the philosophy of mind. I do this because the problem has a similar form in the two areas, and because ideas arising from metaphysics influence our views of what must be done to discover objectivity in ethics. I hope therefore not only to say something about subjectivity and objectivity in the philosophy of mind, but also to set the stage for an account of what it would be for ethics to be objective. 2. As an aid to comprehension, let me begin by asserting without argument what I hope to show by examination of particular cases. Objectivity is a method of understanding. It is beliefs and knowledge that are objective in the primary sense. Only derivatively do we call objective the truths that can be understood in this way. To acquire a more objective understanding of some aspect of the world, we step back from our view of it and form a new conception which has that view and its relation to the world as its object. In other words, we place ourselves in the world that is to be understood. The old view then comes to be regarded as an appearance, more subjective than the new view, and correctable or confirmable by reference to it. The process can be repeated, yielding a still more objective conception. 78 The Tanner Lectures on Human Values But it will not always yield a result, and sometimes it will be thought to yield a result when it really doesn’t: then, as Nietzsche warned, one will get a false objectification of an aspect of reality that cannot be better understood from a more objective standpoint. So although there is a connection between objectivity and reality - only the supposition that we and our appearances are parts of a larger reality makes it reasonable to seek understanding by stepping back from the appearances in this way still not all reality is objective, for not everything is better understood the more objectively it is viewed. Appearance and perspective are essential parts of what there is, and in some respects they are best understood from a less detached standpoint. Both in ethics and in metaphysics, I believe, realism underlies the claims of objectivity and detachment, but it supports them only up to a point. 3. The question I want to discuss now is whether there is a sense in which the mind and the self are parts of objective reality. Eventually I shall take up the question of what it is for a particular person to be me (or you). But first I am going to talk about the objective status of mental phenomena in general. This question is in the background of the mind-body problem, for the mind-body problem arises because certain features of subjective experience resist accommodation by one very important conception of objectivity. I am not going to offer a solution to the mind-body problem here. But I believe that no progress can be made with it unless we understand this conception and examine its claims with care. For convenience I shall refer to it as the physical conception of objectivity. It is not the same thing as our idea of what physical reality is actually like, but it has developed as part of our method of arriving at a truer understanding of the physical world, a world that is presented to us initially but somewhat inaccurately through sensory perception. [NAGEL] The Limits of Objectivity 79 The development goes in stages, each of which gives a more objective picture than the one before. The first step is to see that our perceptions are caused by the action of things on us, through their effects on our bodies, which are themselves parts of the physical world. The next step is to realize that since the same physical properties that cause perceptions in us through our bodies also produce different effects on other physical things and can exist without causing any perceptions at all, their true nature must be detachable from their perceptual appearance and need not resemble it. The third step is to try to form a conception of that true nature independent of its appearance either to us or to other types of perceivers. This means not only not thinking of the physical world from your own particular point of view, but not thinking of it from a more general human perceptual point of view either: not thinking of how it looks, feels, smells, tastes, or sounds. The secondary qualities then drop away, and the primary qualities are thought of structurally. This has turned out to be an extremely fruitful strategy. The understanding of the physical world has been expanded enormously with the aid of theories and explanations that use concepts not tied to a specifically human perceptual viewpoint. Our senses provide the evidence from which we start, but the detached character of this understanding is such that we could possess it even if we had none of our present senses, so long as we were rational and could understand the mathematical and formal properties of the objective conception of the physical world. We might even in a sense share an understanding of physics with other creatures to whom things appeared quite different, perceptually - so long as they too were rational and numerate. The world described by this objective conception is not just centerless, it is also in a sense featureless. While the things in it have properties, none of these properties are perceptual aspects. All of those have been relegated to the mind, a yet-to-be-examined domain. The physical world as it is supposed to be in itself con- 80 The Tanner Lectures on Human Values tains no points of view and nothing that can appear only to a particular point of view. Whatever it contains can be apprehended by a general rational consciousness that gets its information through whichever perceptual point of view it happens to view the world from.l 4. Powerful as it has proven to be, this bleached-out physical conception of objectivity encounters difficulties if it is put forward as the method for seeking a complete understanding of reality.

For the process began when we noticed that how things appear to us depends on the interaction of our bodies with the rest of the world. But this leaves us with no account of the perceptions and specific viewpoints which were left behind as irrelevant to physics but which seem to exist nonetheless, along with those of other creatures. Not to mention the mental activity of forming an objective conception of the physical world, which seems not itself capable of physical analysis. Faced with these facts one might think the only conceivable conclusion would be that there is more to reality than what can be accommodated by the physical conception of objectivity. But to remarkable numbers of people this has not been obvious. The physical has been so irresistibly attractive, and has so dominated ideas of what there is, that attempts have been made to beat everything into its shape and deny the reality of anything that cannot be so reduced. As a result the philosophy of mind is populated with extremely implausible positions.

http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/n/nagel80.pdf

And Nagel is an atheist, but he takes that on faith.  He says he "hopes" there is no God.  Go figure.

So I wasn't kidding about the point of view of the crocodile.  His concept of what every crocodile knows could teach us much about "true objectivity" as well as the point of view of a whale or dolphin.   What counts as "objectivity" to we humans gives us a tremendously restricted view of "all there is to know about the world"  I speak sometimes about the "color of cosmic rays".  Nagel's point is that the more we can get of "subjective descriptions" - including ALL the phenomena in the "edges" the closer we get to "true objectivity"

Imagine what it would be like to hear something a hundred miles away as whales can, or seeing in the dark with sonar as a bat or dolphin does?  Do they "see color" in those "images"?  What if we could "see a symphony"?   Yet our subjective minds take all those objective vibrations out of the air and construct order and tonality and beauty and even "color" to a sophisticated listener.  And what is lost in an objective scientific analysis of the vibrations in the air of a symphony or a full orchestral rendition of your favorite hymn performed by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir?

Just a moment of thinking this way should show you that even what we call "objective" is totally restricted to what humans can perceive, even aided by our gadgets.   If it can't be represented in human terms, we have to force what could be a round peg into our square brains.

And incidentally for what it is worth, I find in those "corners" of reality that don't always fit into our round brains, religious experience like Joseph's vision.   Suppose momentarily, to put it into scientific terms, we could glimpse for a second what is happening in in different dimensions or parallel universes?

Would that make Joseph's vision "objective"?  We have no trouble conceiving "warping space/time" while watching a movie, but put that into a religious context and suddenly it is "nonsense".

Now go ahead and think of this only in terms of vibrations in the air, and see what is lost.  I want to see a table of the frequencies and how they are repeated in time.

THAT is what is lost in leaving out the subjective, and THIS is the "social construction of reality"  THIS is the knowledge of things AS THEY ARE- not stripped into words and descriptions and least of all into science.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

 

It has nothing to do with what you believe about Jesus. "True" is a nonsensical word to apply to an institution. Institutions are not true, any more than thoughts are hairy. Claims are true or false. Institutions are neither. 

How about, it doesn't make sense within normal English language usage of the word "true". 

One definition of the word "true" is "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false."If the LDS Church is truly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints it, the theology, etc. is true. When a person bears their testimony that "the Church is true," I am not envisioning an institution, but the theology which it The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints represents. This is not a question I have put to anyone who has ever borne their testimony, but I believe that this is what they are thinking about, are talking about. You have your opinions, and that is your due. I just do not feel constrained to comport my understanding with your opinion.

Glenn

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently you missed my recent post wherein I linked to and quoted the following from Daniel Peterson's blog. Or perhaps you saw it and decided to ignore it.

I'll paste it in again here for your convenience. Pay attention this time, especially to the part I have emphasized in bold:

 

I did not miss your post. Your insistence as well of that of Dan Peterson does not make is so just because you want it to be so.  You make the claim, you need to provide the evidence.  But my response was open to the plausibility issue. I also noted that apparently the majority of those hearing the LDS claims don't find it all that plausible.  Other wise there would be a higher rate of converts. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, it's nice to be able to employ scripture and prophecy to confound antagonistic sophistry.

By the way, I've said repeatedly that I believe the prophecy of Daniel won't have its fulfillment until after the coming of Christ in glory and the establishment of His kingdom on earth. What we are doing at the moment is setting the stage for that event.

 

Or another way is to say it is the scripture I believe but most others reject.  Just like anything scripture is in the eye of the beholder. And it works out well for you either way. Interpreting scripture to one's agenda is a fine thing as well. Its been going on for quite some time.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Teancum

[Glenn101]

45 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I did not miss your post. Your insistence as well of that of Dan Peterson does not make is so just because you want it to be so.  You make the claim, you need to provide the evidence.  But my response was open to the plausibility issue. I also noted that apparently the majority of those hearing the LDS claims don't find it all that plausible.  Other wise there would be a higher rate of converts. 

The Book of Mormon invites those who have a sincere interest in learning the truthfulness of its extraordinary, supernatural claims the way to determine if those supernatural claims are true. The same way that Joseph Smith did, or that many more have done. A spiritual claim can only be verified spirituality.

However, there are those who deny the supernatural and assert that the Book of Mormon must have a perfectly rational, natural, and explainable origin. However, none of those making such assertions have been able to provide any plausible framework that fits, that explains the many different aspects of the Book of Mormon that LDS scholars continue to reveal. One may well observe their biases, but the actual data that they have produced has not been dealt with except dismissively by the critics.

This is reminiscent of how some of the early critics of the Book of Mormon viewed it, in the words of Thomas O'Dea, a Catholic sociology professor wrote in his book "The Mormons" that "the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion on it."

If you are happy in your assessment of the origins of the Book of Mormon as a product of Joseph's fertile mind, a Spaulding advocate, or whatever, that is okay. But do not be surprised or miffed if those who feel the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired when you cannot produce a coherent naturalistic explanation.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Only sentences or propositions- linguistic statements can be true or false.   The world is not true or false, reality as we know it is not true or false- see Rorty below, yet again.

Elder Holland made statements- uttered statements- which I can consider to be "true" and with which I fully agree.  So did President Kimball in saying that certain moral statements are "absolutely true".  I agree that certain moral statements will always work for all humanity and are therefore "universally true" in MY WAY of interpreting those words.

Whether or not that is the way President Kimball or Elder Holland interpreted those same statements the same way I do is unknowable.  I am not in their heads.  It would take hours of chatting probably to establish that, and I have not had that opportunity.

I've been thinking about this and delayed responding because I didn't want to give a knee jerk response.  I think I need to repent of my earlier comment about you trying to have it both ways.  While I can't say that I agree with the entirety of what I believe Holland is speaking about, I also don't think you are trying to have it both ways anymore.  You acknowledge that you can't get into Holland's head, and that you're approximating what Holland is saying through your interpretive framework, the same way that I am.  At first I saw a contradiction between what you stated and what I interpreted, but its really just subjective interpretation on both our parts, as we likely neither of us can fully understand what Holland is saying.  

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Kant held those two statements to be equivalent, but obviously the second statement quoted here was after many BOOKS written explaining EVERY WORD of the first formulation.

So once you know the theory of Kant, you can also see that these statements can be seen as "equivalent".   Without understanding the theory behind every word, they look like they have nothing to do with each other.

Was Kant trying to have it "both ways"?  No, just that he understood both to be equivalent.

I'm getting some of what you're saying here with Kant, but its going to take me more time to understand how he can hold those two statements as equivalent.  I'm going to just trust that his reasoning is logically consistent for now because even though I can't claim to understand it, I'm going to give this the benefit of the doubt.  

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree that there are maxims which are universally true for all humans, meaning that our survival as a culture depends on them.  Elder Holland agrees with that.

I think that perhaps God gave us those maxims, or perhaps they evolved.  It doesn't matter to me how we got them, but I believe, like Elder Holland that we must believe and live by them.

Perhaps Elder Holland and I would disagree on "how we got them" or perhaps not, but I don't see that as relevant to the fact that we both try to live our lives by those maxims.  I aspire to be half as adept as Elder Holland is in feeling the spirit and following it.  My disagreeing with where he puts the commas and what words he uses on occasion has nothing to do with that.

I wonder about these maxims, are these like the laws of physics or mathematics?  How can we measure what is universally valuable without our limited, culturally influenced perspectives.  It would give me great comfort to think that there are maxims that are universal, I just wonder how we can test and determine whether this is the case or not.  I can see many people disagreeing on should be included in the maxims, so then how is this different than any debates throughout time about religious dogma?  It seems to me that perhaps the maxims will always be changing over time, and that nothing is static.  

I think part of my problem lately has been that I'm using the tools of critical thinking and analytics to dissect arguments and identify perceived errors in reasoning and disagreements that I have with what is being said.  This is a useful tool at times, but when emphasized too much, it can hinder the learning process.  I'm going to try and listen more for a little while and find areas that I agree, rather than just point out issues that I disagree with.  Thanks for the teaching.  I have a lot to learn!  

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And incidentally for what it is worth, I find in those "corners" of reality that don't always fit into our round brains, religious experience like Joseph's vision.   Suppose momentarily, to put it into scientific terms, we could glimpse for a second what is happening in in different dimensions or parallel universes?

Would that make Joseph's vision "objective"?  We have no trouble conceiving "warping space/time" while watching a movie, but put that into a religious context and suddenly it is "nonsense".

Now go ahead and think of this only in terms of vibrations in the air, and see what is lost.  I want to see a table of the frequencies and how they are repeated in time.

THAT is what is lost in leaving out the subjective, and THIS is the "social construction of reality"  THIS is the knowledge of things AS THEY ARE- not stripped into words and descriptions and least of all into science.

I read your whole post, thanks for sharing, I don't get all of what Nagel or you are saying, but I'm getting enough to have a question about this.  So lets assume that with Joseph's visionary experiences he was actually picking up on something that is real or true, but outside everyone else's capacity to perceive.  Lets say he has a unique connection to something that is just as real as anything that science can measure today.  What tools should we use to evaluate the veracity of Joseph's experience?  

You seem to be placing the experiences that people claim to have on the same playing field as scientifically measured observations about the world.  Aren't you in essence saying that the visionary experiences of a Joseph Smith or Ellen White (pick any religious figure) are on equal playing field with scientific observations about mathematics or physics?  

This is the part I'm having a hard time understanding because I see how scientific experiments are designed to test and verify and replicate the same results over and over again.  This method is much more concrete than trying to evaluate the veracity of any person's claimed experience whether that's a religious vision or a big foot or alien sighting.  These two ways of knowing aren't on equal playing fields in my mind.  One has a qualitatively more reliable method for measuring how correct it is, the scientific method.  Its not perfect, and you can point out the imperfections of it and the limitations of us as humans with understanding and interpreting the world around us, but I don't see how its on the same playing field with anyone's claimed experiences no matter how outrageous or unverifiable.  

[UtahTexan]

20 hours ago, Teancum said:

I did not miss your post. Your insistence as well of that of Dan Peterson does not make is so just because you want it to be so. You make the claim, you need to provide the evidence.  But my response was open to the plausibility issue. I also noted that apparently the majority of those hearing the LDS claims don't find it all that plausible.  Other wise there would be a higher rate of converts. 

No, wanting it to be so does not make it so.  The fact it is true makes it so.  

What the majority believes or accepts has nothing to do with truth.  When the whole population believed the earth was flat, did it make the earth flat?

Believing is not easy.  Being a member is not easy.  We will be tested.  Our faith will be stretched.  Our feelings will be hurt.  And some will give in....they will trust their doubts more than they trust their faith.  I know this.  I let it happen to me in 1989.

Being LDS is hard.  And frankly, I am glad.  The easier something is, the less it matters when you rise to the challenge.

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I read your whole post, thanks for sharing, I don't get all of what Nagel or you are saying, but I'm getting enough to have a question about this.  So lets assume that with Joseph's visionary experiences he was actually picking up on something that is real or true, but outside everyone else's capacity to perceive.  Lets say he has a unique connection to something that is just as real as anything that science can measure today.  What tools should we use to evaluate the veracity of Joseph's experience?  

You seem to be placing the experiences that people claim to have on the same playing field as scientifically measured observations about the world.  Aren't you in essence saying that the visionary experiences of a Joseph Smith or Ellen White (pick any religious figure) are on equal playing field with scientific observations about mathematics or physics?  

This is the part I'm having a hard time understanding because I see how scientific experiments are designed to test and verify and replicate the same results over and over again.  This method is much more concrete than trying to evaluate the veracity of any person's claimed experience whether that's a religious vision or a big foot or alien sighting.  These two ways of knowing aren't on equal playing fields in my mind.  One has a qualitatively more reliable method for measuring how correct it is, the scientific method.  Its not perfect, and you can point out the imperfections of it and the limitations of us as humans with understanding and interpreting the world around us, but I don't see how its on the same playing field with anyone's claimed experiences no matter how outrageous or unverifiable.  

Well we seem to be making progress!  If you don't mind I am using you as a "guinea pig" to come up with formulations which will make sense to those unacquainted with philosophy, and this idea is always a sticking point.  It is a little frustrating to me because it is so obvious to some people and others- even professional well known philosophers- just do not understand it.

We seem to keep having the same sticking point, and that is the idea that there is no such thing as "evidence" except what we accept as evidence due to cultural factors.

I have tried to explain it as Rorty did- using my siggy quote on numerous occasions but so far no dice.  All we are discussing is this one point so we need to concentrate on it.

The point is that science itself and observations themselves- cannot predict anything WITHOUT a CULTURAL CONTEXT provided by cultural assumptions many time included in language.   I am not making this stuff up- I could give you a list of acknowledged very important philosophers who see it as I do- and that is WHY I see it as I do.

Did Mt Everest exist before people were on earth?   The answer seems to be such an obvious ""YES" as to be not even worth asking the question.  

YES there was something WE humans now call "the highest point on earth" and we know what that means.  

Notice I said "we now call the highest point" because those words already have a cultural context as does every other word in that sentence, all invented by humans.  The are all WORDS in a language- words are NOT THINGS.  The word "Mt. Everest" IS NOT Mt Everest itself.

The IDEA of "earth" presumes we have language, first of all.  The idea of "Earth" as a whole is a modern concept.  If you were born in 22000 BC there would be your village and its boundaries- you would have no conception of "EARTH "as you now do.   You have never seen an ocean, you have no idea that there are people "on the other side of the ocean".  And "earth" as we now culturally see it- the blue marble floating in space- was invented fairly recently.  I lived through that!  After the moon landing suddenly the perception of the "earth" changed.  Ask anybody old!  Those moon photos of the earth as one round ball in space suddenly created a new world view.

That's one word- EARTH

Another is "highest point".  Suppose you were born where there were no mountains- on a flat plain.  You see trees or jungle to the horizon.  Everywhere you have been is surrounded by trees.  Yes, there are clearings perhaps several hundred feet across- maybe even half a mile across.  What is on the other side of the clearing?  More trees, jungle.  To you the "highest point" might be the biggest tree.  Perhaps there is not even a word in your language for "mountain"

So for you does "Mt Everest" exist?  You do not even have the language to conceive of what that could be.

Now that does not mean that Mt Everest is not in some sense "real"- just that it is not the CONCEPT of the word represented by "mountain" nor does the CONCEPT of "highest point" exist WITHOUT LANGUAGE.

So in some sense of course there is "something big out there"- but is that "something big" what we now call "Mt Everest"?

I have presented this as a simple concept and you may think "man- there Bukowski goes again with his weird subjective stuff".  But this is an important concept handled by one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century- Willard Van Quine in what is called the "Duhem-Quine Thesis".  It questions the idea that science "makes predictions" AT ALL.

Quote

 

The substance of the thesis

The Duhem–Quine thesis argues that no scientific hypothesis is by itself capable of making predictions.[1] Instead, deriving predictions from the hypothesis typically requires background assumptions that several other hypotheses are correct; for example, that an experiment works as predicted or that previous scientific theory is sufficiently accurate. For instance, as evidence against the idea that the Earth is in motion, some people objected that birds did not get thrown off into the sky whenever they let go of a tree branch. Later theories of physics and astronomy, such as classical and relativistic mechanics could account for such observations without positing a fixed Earth, and in due course they replaced the static-Earth auxiliary hypotheses.

Although a bundle of hypotheses (i.e. a hypothesis and its background assumptions) as a whole can be tested against the empirical world and be falsified if it fails the test, the Duhem–Quine thesis says it is impossible to isolate a single hypothesis in the bundle. One solution to the dilemma thus facing scientists is that when we have rational reasons to accept the background assumptions as true (e.g. explanatory scientific theories together with their respective supporting evidence) we will have rational — albeit nonconclusive — reasons for thinking that the theory under test probably is wrong in at least one respect if the empirical test fails.

Example from Galilean astronomy[edit]

The pioneering work of Galileo Galilei in the application of the telescope to astronomical observation met with rejection from influential sceptics. They denied the truth of his most startling reports, such as that there were mountains on the moon and satellites around Jupiter.[2] In particular some prominent philosophers, most notoriously the highly respected Cesare Cremonini, refused to look through the telescope, arguing in effect that the instrument might have introduced artefacts producing illusions of mountains or satellites invisible to the unencumbered eye. To neglect such possibilities amounted to underdetermination in which argument for optical artefacts could be urged as being of merit equal to arguments for observation of new celestial effects, whether the latter were more parsimonious or not. On a similar principle in modern times a prevalent view is that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

In the early 17th century the modern version[1] of the Duhem–Quine thesis had not been formulated, but commonsense objections to such elaborate and ad hoc implicit auxiliary assumptions certainly could be urged. To begin with, the mechanism of the (Galilean) telescopes had been explained in terms of geometrical optics and the nature of the objects that they imaged was consistent; for example a distant lake would not resemble a tree when seen through a telescope. The behaviour of telescopes on Earth denied any basis for arguing that they could create systematic artefacts in the sky, such as apparent satellites that behaved in the predictable manner of Jovian moons. Evidence also offered no basis to suggest that they could present yet other, more elaborate artefacts, fundamentally different from the satellites, such as Lunar mountains that cast shadows varying consistently with the direction of Solar illumination.

In practice of course, the politics and theology of the day trumped common sense, but the nature of the controversy was a clear example of how different bundles of (usually implicit) auxiliary assumptions could support mutually inconsistent hypotheses concerning a single topic. In terms of either version of the Duhem–Quine thesis it therefore is necessary to study the defensibility of the auxiliary assumptions together with the primary hypotheses if one is to select the most viable working hypotheses.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesis

This details some of the tacit assumptions we now take for granted in simply using telescopes.  ALL those tacit assumptions are included in your "Hubble Experience" which shows that even that was not an "unmediated experience" but conditioned by your culture.  Strip away the cultural understanding and those pictures become pretty colors randomly placed in a frame without ability to produce any experience at all.  

Sorry but again read the Rorty quote slowing thinking about every word.  Rorty here is making the same point Quine did.  BOTH of these philosophers are among the most important philosphers of the 20th century, following my boy Wittgenstein.   This weirdness is not from Bukowski.  http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/lets-settle-this-once-and-for-all-who-really-was-the-greatest-philosopher-of-the-20thcentury.html

Quote

 

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

" To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states."

THERE really IS "something big" out there.  If you climb it and fall, it's all over.  It really IS there, it is not in my mind.  If you trip over "something" in the middle of the night, you will see that it is real and you will have a very real broken toe.  That broken toe was not "in my mind" before I broke it.

But how can "something big" be "true"?   Even saying "something big is out there" (which IS TRUE)  is a sentence- we cannot even use the language with out making the argument circular- THAT is what Quine is saying above also.  Science begs the question from the beginning with the very idea that "something is out there" as a CONCEPT.

Rorty calls these "the effects of causes which do not include human mental states".  My mental state did not give me the broken toe- it's very real!  But that broken toe is an EFFECT of that unknown "CAUSE".  The cause is real- we just have not put it into language or "seen what it was"

We flip on the light.  My human perception -at first subjective- sees a patch of red.  "What IS that #@%&! THING?"  I bend down for a closer look.  All my cultural assumptions now are instantly put into play and I perceive that as "My son's toy truck!"   Implicit there is the assumption I know what a "son" is, I have one, and he and I both know what a "truck" is and have the words to express it.

Now I can utter the "true"sentence "I stubbed my toe on Billy's toy truck!"   Without that sentence- prior to it- there was no "truth".  It was just raw experience waiting to be put into words.  The process of putting it into words brought in with it all the cultural baggage- that Billy is my "son"- and the "cause" of my broken toe was a "toy truck".

In 22,000 BC there were no "toy trucks" and no "Billys" but there WERE sons who left a rock where the should not have but humans were still having the "same experience"including THEIR personal descriptions in their cultures.  Their "reality" was different, but the human experience links us even to them.

Unaided by human description there are no "toy trucks" or "Mt Everest" or "telescopes" or "moons" for Galileo to look at.  There's "lights in the sky" in a sense, but in another sense, even THOSE are words describing experience

Without language there's nothing to talk about.  We are all Helen Keller- no language, no "thought" in our sense of the word- raw experience without words.  Helen Keller could have fallen off Mt Everest, but it would not have been "Mt Everest" to her, nor would the broken toe be caused by a "toy truck"

Without language- and math IS a language which describes how we think and give order to the world- there is no science.

So now let me ask you- what tools do we have to evaluate raw experience?

Suppose now that your toe is NOT broken- but just bumped and that you felt pain on something.   Suppose in that darkened room, you cry out.  You can't get to the light switch.

Your wife in a loud voice says" What's the matter?  You woke me up!"

"I just stubbed my toe!"

"How could you do that"? 

"I don't know- I just stubbed it on something!"

Now let's have a little fun with it!  Suppose your wife says "I don't believe you! You are just trying to get back at me for that prank I pulled yesterday!"  "NO! I REALLY STUBBED MY TOE!"

Now freeze time.  How is she supposed to verify your subjective report- without evidence- that you did in fact stub your toe?

Suppose your assertion was instead about a nightmare you had- and not a stubbed toe?   Was the nightmare a "real nightmare"?  Certainly the private subjective experience was "real" enough to you to wake you with a start and something "you can't get out of your head"

Quote

What tools should we use to evaluate the veracity of Joseph's experience?

What tools should your wife use to evaluate the veracity of your experience?   What tools should we use to evaluate the veracity of anyone else's subjective experience?

Was there "something out there" before it was called "Mt. Everest"?  How do we know for sure?

Was there "something out there" before the "angel took back the plates?"  How do we kinow for sure?

Was your dream "real"?

I suggest that these questions are just linguistic confusions and the problem is "putting it into words"

The answer to the question "what is reality" and "how do we verify it" creates a BIG problem with words as hopefully you now see.        ? 

Just remember it took 2000 years of the evolution of philosophy to get to Rorty and Quine.  Even if you do not understand it fully, that should at least make you want to refute their positions.  And going back over that poll result of who the most important 20 philosophers of the 20th century are, at least 15 would agree with my position- with modifications.  All of those 15 would deny that the "correspondence theory of truth" is valid-  and THAT is the theory your posts reflect, still (but I'm working on it)

Your insistence on "empirical evidence" is the problem- but that's ok you are in line with the "man in the street"- it just shows how far off the "man in the street" is from understanding this stuff.

I have been trying to refute these 15 or so smart boys for 40 years and find something better, but as yet I have not succeeded.   At this point I have to concede they are right.  But that's ok because now I have a religion compatible with what these smart boys say!

I just want you to know that this all is firmly grounded in the philosophy of today, for what that's worth

[mfbukowski]

HOPE

I suppose I should also link to the wikipedia on Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" which roundly criticizes the scientific method

The wikipedia is not very well done in this case- it is a complex argument, I will try to find something easier

Quote

 

Instead of reductionism, Quine proposes that it is the whole field of science and not single statements that are verified. All scientific statements are interconnected. Logical laws give the relation between different statements, while they also are statements of the system. This makes talk about the empirical content of a single statement misleading. It also becomes impossible to draw a line between synthetic statements, which depend on experience, and analytic statements, that hold come what may. Any statement can be held as necessarily true according to Quine, if the right changes are made somewhere else in the system. In the same way, no statements are immune to revision.

Even logical laws can be revised according to Quine. Quantum logic, introduced by Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann, abandons the law of distributivity from classical logic in order to reconcile some of the apparent inconsistencies of classical Boolean logic with the facts related to measurement and observation in quantum mechanics. Quine makes the case that the empirical study of physics has furnished apparently credible grounds for replacing classical logic by quantum logic, rather as Newtonian physics gave way toEinsteinian physics. The idea that logical laws are not immune to revision in the light of empirical evidence has provoked an intense debate (see Is logic empirical?).

According to Quine, there are two different results of his reasoning. The first is a blurring of the line between metaphysics and natural science. The common-sense theory about physical objects is epistemologically comparable to the gods of Homer. Quine is a Physicalist, in the sense that he considers it a scientific error not to adopt a theory which makes reference to physical objects. However, like Gods of Homer, physical objects are posits, and there is no great epistemic difference in kind; the difference is rather that the theory of physical objects has turned out to be a more efficient theory. As Quine states in Two Dogmas, "The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience".

The second result is a move towards pragmatism. Since, Quine says, the function of science is to predict future experiences in the light of past ones, the only ground for choosing which explanations to believe is "the degree to which they expedite our dealings with sense experiences." While pragmatic concerns are important for Carnap and other logical positivists when choosing linguistic framework, their pragmatism "leaves off at the imagined boundary between the analytic and the synthetic". For Quine, every change in the system of science is, when rational, pragmatic.

 

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

It's not that science is not "true" or "useful", it's just that it makes metaphysical assumptions which are no better than "The Gods of Homer"

Again, this simply shows in other words that science and religion are based on different systems of language and knowledge and seeing the world and as DC 93 says, they are in separate "spheres"

Quine was an atheist by the way- this should in no way be construed as his endorsement of religion

On the other hand, it is also not a condemnation....

Now if we postulate that science is no more "accurate" than statements about the "God of Homer" and change that to the "God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob......"

Edited September 7, 2016 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Did Mt Everest exist before people were on earth?   The answer seems to be such an obvious ""YES" as to be not even worth asking the question.   

Are you familiar with the "Copenhagen effect"?  Basically, as I understand (or do not understand),  the moon  (etc) does not exist unless someone actually observes it.  So, "yes" is not so obvious for those who are "in the know".  

One of those interesting quantum mechanics thingy.

Edited September 7, 2016 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Are you familiar with the "Copenhagen effect"?  Basically, the moon does not exist unless someone actually observes it.  So, "yes" is not so obvious.

One of those interesting quantum mechanics thingy.

Yep

This coheres with that idea though of course the Copenhagen Interpretation is about sub-atomic particles.  

Rorty and other philosophers essentially say that even in science, we are only observing the way our own minds order nature.  That does not mean that there is "no order" out there just that we are restricted by our human minds.

We all wear "human colored glasses" and cannot take them off.  We can only see things and order things as humans can see and order things.

Of course it still works nicely- we get to send space vehicles to what we call "the moon" etc.  That's because humans really CAN organize "matter unorganized" as godlings in embryo.

It helps of course to postulate that God himself is in a way "human" because then we can at least partially see things as he does.

Gosh, think I will start a church......  

Edited September 7, 2016 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

On 7 September 2016 at 0:15 AM, Teancum said:

It's a wonderful thing isn't it? 

The Church has an out if it does not grow rapidly, has trouble with retention, increasingly becomes marginalized because of it's hard line stances on social issues.....

but if it grows, has high convert rates and so on, well then it is the stone cut out of the Mountain without hands that will fill the earth according the prophecy of Daniel. 

It's a great thing to have both sides of the coin covered.

I marvel at your courage to state your opinion and fight for altenative views to interpretations of scripture and doctrine. I say courage because your statements rather often come under a fair bit of criticism.

Some have called opposing arguments as a waste of time. In many ways they are correct because people who have cemented their position into a solidified form are neither thankful nor appreciative of being called into question.

I noted that Daniel Petterson has stated "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.

The two arguments are 1) The BoM was an inspired translation achieved by Joseph Smith being given ancient texts by a visiting angel, on golden plates, in a language only translatable by his looking into a hat wherein he burried a glowing stone that showed him the translation.

Or 2) he made it all up., accompanied with stories about heavenly visitors and magic stones and secret golden plates (Does that work to show how fraud and hallucination produced it?)

Which of the two stories requires the least "miracle" and thus unproven propositions?

[Gray]

On 9/6/2016 at 7:15 PM, Glenn101 said:

One definition of the word "true" is "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false."If the LDS Church is truly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints it, the theology, etc. is true. When a person bears their testimony that "the Church is true," I am not envisioning an institution, but the theology which it The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints represents. This is not a question I have put to anyone who has ever borne their testimony, but I believe that this is what they are thinking about, are talking about. You have your opinions, and that is your due. I just do not feel constrained to comport my understanding with your opinion.

Glenn

I get that "true" is a kind of code word that means "authorized by God and in possession of correct doctrines". But it still doesn't make grammatical sense. I can accept it as a kind of poetic phrase. 

[Gray]

On 9/6/2016 at 4:57 PM, cdowis said:

Let's use the Bible to clarify the "one true church".

Paul tells us

Eh 4  [11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Note how long the true church of Christ would have apostles and  prophets.  The historic Christian church has replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and philosophers.

Where do we find living apostles and prophets as the foundation of the "one true church"?  As Christ said, '"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, "

Finally, Christ told Peter

Matt 16 [19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Where do we find those keys to bind between heaven and earth today?  In the "one true church".  

On the other hand, we don't have evangelists or pastors. 

I'm familiar with this interpretation of scripture - it's right out of the old 17 Points of the True Church thing. But in reality there was no such unity in the ancient church. And of course Paul is only selectively used in the LDS church as a source of doctrine.