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

[Atheist Mormon]

2 minutes ago, SteveO said:

"Space and Time Theory"...oh, you mean the Theory of Relativity that Joseph Smith presented in the Pearl of Great Price ninety years before Einstein? 

Yea.....Enish_Gooondosh which governs fifteen Planets and unlike other stars it receives it's light from Kolob.....Amazing....

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Tell me what a true thing is or could be

What makes a chair "true"?  What makes a mountain true?

Specifically I can't say any attribute about the chair is true because everything I perceive about that chair including the word chair, is filtered through my language and my perceptions.  But I have to say that there is something about this chair that is true because we agree that the chair exists, then I think there must be some element about the chair that also exists that is a sub component element of the chair.  What separates the chair from the air around it or the floor its resting on.  Where does it begin and where does it end?  If the chair exists, then each leg of the chair also exists.  These elements or sub components of the chair must exist, and it seems there must be something true about this existence.  What these elements are I can't say, but I want to say that I believe they exist.  Does this make any sense?  

[mfbukowski]

More importantly, what would make trees or mountains or yes even churches "false"?

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 What these elements are I can't say, but I want to say that I believe they exist.  Does this make any sense?  

Disregard the last post I made- I wrote that before I saw your answser

Yes it makes a ton of sense and THIS is exactly the issue!

Now you are echoing Rorty .  This is the way he wrote your sentence above:

 " 

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 the chair is "out there" and is not our creation is to say, with common sense (your gut feeling that it is real, which is of course correct) that most things in space are causes which do not include mental states (Stuff in our mind- or our mind's states)

So yes, that is it!!

Your sentence above- 

 What these elements are I can't say, but I want to say that I believe they exist.  Does this make any sense?

 You believe they do because they DO exist! 

BUT WHAT THEY ARE YOU CANNOT SAY!!  Yes exactly!   The minute you put them into words- or even just SEE them- they become "mental states"!

The reflected light from the object enters your eye and your brain makes it into a picture of the chair and its surroundings.  What is entering your brain is "matter unorganized" and your brain organizes it just as God organizes the world.   In a sense you are a mini-god doing what God does just on a smaller scale!!

What you just said is exactly what Rorty said in that quote

That things are "real" is common sense - but what they are we CANNOT SAY in language

And only STATEMENTS in language are true or false- things are not true or false!  There are no false mountains or false chairs!!

So truth is a property of sentences - not of reality!!

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Specifically I can't say any attribute about the chair is true because everything I perceive about that chair including the word chair, is filtered through my language and my perceptions.  But I have to say that there is something about this chair that is true because we agree that the chair exists, then I think there must be some element about the chair that also exists that is a sub component element of the chair.  What separates the chair from the air around it or the floor its resting on.  Where does it begin and where does it end?  If the chair exists, then each leg of the chair also exists.  These elements or sub components of the chair must exist, and it seems there must be something true about this existence.  What these elements are I can't say, but I want to say that I believe they exist.  Does this make any sense?  

Where does the air end and the chair begin?

Now let's put on a scientists hat and think about how science answers that.  (Notice my use of language- we are now not in philosophy- we are in science.  We are not talking about "reality" or "truth"- we are literally now talking science and intentionally taking on the assumptions and vocabulary of science)

At some level scientifically, the molecules of the chair interact with the molecules of the air.  But they are all still molecules interacting.

So the difference between the chair and the air is at the molecular/atomic level from a scientific perspective

But we do not see molecules!

And we do not see air!!   Think about that!! Thank God we do not see air!  We would be in a perpetual fog of smoke if we could see air!  Seriously that is perhaps a good teaching tool right there!

We have evolved NOT to see air molecules because they would defeat the purpose of SEEING at all!   Air is as real as anything- but it is invisible precisely so we CAN see through it!

Our eyes have evolved to NOT see air and see the "objects" beyond because it is objects that may harm us.   So in this case the invisibility of certain molecules has survival value.

We only sense or perceive air when it is windy or if we are moving through it.  Yet it is as "real" as chairs or mountains.   If you have ever been scuba diving, you know how important it is to see through the medium you are in.   A sudden wave can kick up sand and suddenly you see NOTHING. 

So we have evolved (or "God created us to be able to..."-  same difference) be able to see those objects which might hurt us.  

But we still do not know their "REALITY" as it is- we see only our perceptions

"Now, as though a glass darkly, but then face to face" -

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, SteveO said:

"Space and Time Theory"...oh, you mean the Theory of Relativity that Joseph Smith presented in the Pearl of Great Price ninety years before Einstein? 

Exactly!  "There is no immaterial matter......"  Spirit itself is energy/matter

E=mc2

But our friend speaks another language I am afraid.  I just wish I knew what it was.

[SteveO]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly!  "There is no immaterial matter......"  Spirit itself is energy/matter

E=mc2

But our friend speaks another language I am afraid.  I just wish I knew what it was.

Book of Abraham was totally off the wall outrageous for anything coming out of the American frontier in the 1830's.

It wasn't so crazy ONCE THE SCIENCE CAUGHT UP WITH JOSEPH!!!!!!!!!!

I think it was Ravi Zacharias who said something along the lines of, "when scientists finally reach the top of the mountain of questions, they'll see at the summit of answers that theologians and philosophers have been there for centuries"

#getonourlevel

 

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

As much as I think Atheist Mormon is being way over the top here in the most cliched way possible, that's a bit of a stretch to say the least. But maybe it was intended to be funny.  

...Only half joking 

...and totally serious 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Where does the air end and the chair begin?

A chair is a chair when I sit on it.  (The Copenhagen affect, as interpreted by cdowis)

 

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, cdowis said:

A chair is a chair when I sit on it.  (The Copenhagen affect, as interpreted by cdowis)

 

Yep

Before that it's a bunch of sticks and stuff holding them together.

That's actually a pretty good analysis of "there are no facts, only interpretations"

The most comfortable easy chair I ever sat in was a pile of sand at the beach I wiggled myself into until it fit perfectly.  Matter unorganized, organized for my custom use, organized by my limited intelligence, and action, total harmony with the environment!!

Quote

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence

It didn't exist as a chair until intelligence acting for itself (very limited as it was) organized it to be a "chair"

AND it was recyclable and did not add to my carbon footprint.

See how much you can squeeze out of sitting your.......bottom.... on a pile of sand?

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Book of Abraham was totally off the wall outrageous for anything coming out of the American frontier in the 1830's.

It wasn't so crazy ONCE THE SCIENCE CAUGHT UP WITH JOSEPH!!!!!!!!!!

I think it was Ravi Zacharias who said something along the lines of, "when scientists finally reach the top of the mountain of questions, they'll see at the summit of answers that theologians and philosophers have been there for centuries"

#getonourlevel

 

Absolutely.

He was a pragmatism before pragmatism existed.  And William James later saw it, though arguably James learned it through Swedenborg

http://juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/

Some may scoff but I think the Lord prepared the philosophies of the day to be receptive to the gospel.

The secular interpretation is that Joseph's ideas were "in the air" through romanticism and the American ethos coming through Emerson et al but both can be true in their sphere.

Unfortunately I don't do twitter.

But unfortunately I think Ravi was naive because though I think he was right, scientists are too arrogant to know it.  Kant figured out the Copenhagen principle 200 years ago

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yea.....Enish_Gooondosh which governs fifteen Planets and unlike other stars it receives it's light from Kolob.....Amazing....

Symbolism.  Names can be symbolic.  Something you don't comprehend but you sure use it a lot.

 But I suppose you do not understand that and sign all those checks you write "Atheist Mormon"?

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That things are "real" is common sense - but what they are we CANNOT SAY in language

And only STATEMENTS in language are true or false- things are not true or false!  There are no false mountains or false chairs!!

So truth is a property of sentences - not of reality!!

I am willing to accept this concept of truth if I can also understand how I should make value judgments in my life based on information that I have access to.  I'm having to let go of the proposition that truth is factually accurate, and realign my thinking of truth to being relative to human perspective, sense, language and culture.  I don't see every truth as equally valid, yet it still seems to me that Rorty's paradigm is saying that every truth is equally valid.  I'm not sure you answered that question from the perspective of the philosopher.  You explained why you align with Mormonism and how you personally discard the truths of the lunatic, but you didn't explain how Rorty and others value one truth over another truth for practical purposes.  Can you elaborate on this?  

 

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where does the air end and the chair begin?

Now let's put on a scientists hat and think about how science answers that.  (Notice my use of language- we are now not in philosophy- we are in science.  We are not talking about "reality" or "truth"- we are literally now talking science and intentionally taking on the assumptions and vocabulary of science)

At some level scientifically, the molecules of the chair interact with the molecules of the air.  But they are all still molecules interacting.

So the difference between the chair and the air is at the molecular/atomic level from a scientific perspective

But we do not see molecules!

And we do not see air!!   Think about that!! Thank God we do not see air!  We would be in a perpetual fog of smoke if we could see air!  Seriously that is perhaps a good teaching tool right there!

We have evolved NOT to see air molecules because they would defeat the purpose of SEEING at all!   Air is as real as anything- but it is invisible precisely so we CAN see through it!

Our eyes have evolved to NOT see air and see the "objects" beyond because it is objects that may harm us.   So in this case the invisibility of certain molecules has survival value.

We only sense or perceive air when it is windy or if we are moving through it.  Yet it is as "real" as chairs or mountains.   If you have ever been scuba diving, you know how important it is to see through the medium you are in.   A sudden wave can kick up sand and suddenly you see NOTHING. 

So we have evolved (or "God created us to be able to..."-  same difference) be able to see those objects which might hurt us.  

But we still do not know their "REALITY" as it is- we see only our perceptions

"Now, as though a glass darkly, but then face to face" -

Scientifically speaking now, it does seem to me that some scientific observations are closer to reality than others.  Back to the flat earth vs. round earth description.  A round earth is a closer approximation to describing a real attribute of the earth than the flat earth description.  I think its more valuable and more accurate a description.  I think that science can help us understand things about the environment that we inhabit that have practical useful application.  

I'm going to try start using the word real instead of true when talking about these things, because truth does seem to be more appropriately used in philosophical and religious discussions, thanks for helping me learn.  You have been a good teacher!  

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Scientifically speaking now, it does seem to me that some scientific observations are closer to reality than others.  Back to the flat earth vs. round earth description.  A round earth is a closer approximation to describing a real attribute of the earth than the flat earth description.  I think its more valuable and more accurate a description.  I think that science can help us understand things about the environment that we inhabit that have practical useful application.  

I'm going to try start using the word real instead of true when talking about these things, because truth does seem to be more appropriately used in philosophical and religious discussions, thanks for helping me learn.  You have been a good teacher!  

Thanks for putting so much effort into it

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Scientifically speaking now, it does seem to me that some scientific observations are closer to reality than others.  Back to the flat earth vs. round earth description.  A round earth is a closer approximation to describing a real attribute of the earth than the flat earth description.  I think its more valuable and more accurate a description.  I think that science can help us understand things about the environment that we inhabit that have practical useful application.  

I'm going to try start using the word real instead of true when talking about these things, because truth does seem to be more appropriately used in philosophical and religious discussions, thanks for helping me learn.  You have been a good teacher!  

Here is more on truth as I see it.  

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

[mfbukowski]

Well I have lost now 2 lengthy posts

I give up - I don't know if it is the software or the computer.  I hit submit reply and it disappears