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

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Researchers prefer primary sources I'm sure, but when it comes to putting the puzzle together we often have to rely on secondary sources.  Vogel is no more guilty of this that anyone else.  Apologists do this all the time as well and there is a lack of consistency on both sides.  

I've read enough books up to this point by both believing and non believing historians and researchers and I try to make my own value judgments about the credibility of the authors.  I've found Vogel to be very good at being fair minded and he is one that has earned my respect.  Nobody is perfect, and everyone has their biases.  

There is plenty of room to have respect for Vogel and disagree with many of his conclusions.  Not even sure what you guys are arguing about here, so I figured I'd chime in and settle it. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

You don't find the first three questions I asked about Angels and others claimed divine supernatural manifestations pertinent to the claims of how the BoM came to be?  

Well, they run far afield, I think.  And the existence of angels is not really subject to evidentiary analysis, wouldn't you think?

In contrast, there are topics like A) the existence of the Gold Plates, B) testimonial evidence about the Plates, C) character evidence about the witnesses to the Plates (and circumstantial evidence about them as well), D) the short time frame in which the text we now have was "written," and - perhaps most important of all - E) various textual evidences in The Book of Mormon.  These are, I think, a lot more susceptible to reasoned and evidence-based discussion.

Angels are essentially a matter of faith.  The existence of the Gold Plates is both a matter of faith and also history.

Quote

Since Joseph claimed many visits from Angels in relation to the Book of Mormon iI think those questions need to be answered first.

But they can't be "answered," not in any meaningful sense in an adversarial construct.  I believe God exists and has sent angels to communicate with men.  You, apparently, don't.  So how do you prove your position and disprove mine?  How do I do the same?  I don't think we can.  

In contrast, we can discuss things like the whether Joseph Smith had actual physical plates, or not.  And whether those plates were fabricated by Joseph Smith, or by a contemporary, or through some conspiracy, or if they were an ancient artifact.  We can also discuss the testimonies of the witnesses, and their character, and their failure to disavow their testimony after having become estranged from Joseph Smith and the Church.  We can also discuss the short time frame in which the text was produced.  We can also discuss the textual evidences, and how they ended up in the text (happenstance?  sourced from other books a la Grant Palmer's "Golden Pot" theory or Chris and Duane Johnson's "The Late War" theory?).

Quote

And for me at least to find Whitmer's credible I do think one has to give credence to his later testimonies and opinions.  

Why is that?  

Let me illustrate my position: I was present last night for a wonderful FHE which our family shared with a family in our ward.  I am a competent and percipient witness of who was in attendance, what was said, what activities we did, what snack we had (brownies and ice cream!), and so on.  If I wrote up a statement about these things, I think you would be hard-pressed to challenge my testimony.  I am generally an honest person.  I have nothing to gain or lose by lying or misleading you or anyone else about it.  I could also buttress my testimony by obtaining affidavits from my wife, from my older children, and from the mother of the family who was also in attendance.

So there you are.  I am a strong witness of last night's FHE in the Macdonald household in Provo, Utah.  It also happens that I have strong opinions about the upcoming presidential election.  Are you obligated to "give credence to" my opinions about this issue?  I would not think so.  My testimony as a percipient witness regarding Matter X does not privilege my opinion as to Matter Y.

Out of curiosity, what "later testimonies" do you have in mind?

Quote

The instability of the three and most the eight witnesses as far as their comittment to the Church and Joseph Smith I think is a major negative for thei credibility.

There are all sorts of people who find the disaffection of some of the witnesses to strengthen the importance of their testimony, not lessen it.  Look at their character.  Have you read Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses?  Have you read Jeff Lindsay's various articles about them?  Have you read this 2006 FAIR presentation by Daniel Peterson?  Have you read The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon: A Marvelous Work and a Wonder (an excellent review of which is available here)?  Have you read Matthew Roper's "Comments on the Book of Mormon Witnesses: A Response to Jerald and Sandra Tanner"?  This article by FAIR?  Any of these (this is one of the better bibliographies available about the Witnesses)?

In contrast, can you provide evidence or argument which, in a more or less objective way, undermines or weakens their credibility?  (There have been efforts made to some extent, but I'd be interested in which efforts you have found most persuasive.)

Quote

And how to explain what they claim they saw I can no more explain that than a few hundred Cathoilcs that claimed to see Mary all at the same time.  

But are these events (the experience of the Three Witnesses versus some unidentified vision of Mary by an unidentified throng of Catholics) on equal footing?  We have oodles of information about the Three and Eight Witnesses.  Their character.  Their various estrangements from the Church.  Their numerous subsequent statements about their testimony.  In contrast, I have no idea what "few hundred Catholics" you are referring to here.  No information about the event you are alluding to here, or about the environment, or about the character of these anonymous Catholics, or about their purported "testimony" (was it written down?  did they all agree about what happened?  etc.), or about their subsequent retention or abandonment of what they had previously "claimed to see," and on and on.

This seems like an apples and oranges comparison.  Or perhaps even apples and cilantro.  The two purported events have very little comparative value to each other.

Quote

Martin Harris said the experience was with his spiritual eyes did he not?   What does that mean?  

Lots of discussion about this.  I have some substantial doubts and questions about the "spiritual eyes" claim pertaining to Martin Harris.  Here are some resources:

• FAIR Article: "'Eye of Faith' and 'Spiritual Eye' statements by Martin Harris"
• Article by Steven C. Harper: "Evaluating the Book of Mormon Witnesses"
• Online Article: "CES Reply: Three Witnesses – Whitmer
• Article by Roger Nicholson: "Wikipedia Attacks Martin Harris’ Faith"

I appreciate your thoughts.  I think discussions such as this can be helpful and illuminating, but only up to a point.  I think that if someone is interested in The Book of Mormon, their primary focus should be seeking a spiritual witness of it.  Ancillary evidences are helpful to some extent, but they can become a problem if we let them predominate over what really matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Quote

Your view is very shallow and distorted regarding Mormonism and science.

Perhaps you can tell us what we believe the relationship between God and natural law.   Did God create natural law?  Specifically, what is our view of a "miracle" ==>  Is it the suspension of natural law

That's very easy to answer; There's no such thing as "miracle". I can't even think of any event or happening can be attributed to it.   Natural Law encompasses everything happening in the universe. Just because we cannot explain it why should it be attributed to a "miracle"? 

I've never thought of miracles as "the suspension of natural law," but rather as a higher manifestation of it.

If that is the case, then the tension you propose (that "miracles" don't exist because "Natural Law" explains everything) pretty much disappears.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery collaborated on the Book of Mormon. Emma and the Whitmers were knowledgeable of this fact. Martin Harris was an easily excitable tool used for money. It's a reasonable theory that doesn't contradict the physical evidence against the Book of Mormon being ancient. And it takes into account why the three and eight witnesses may have had motive for their support of said fraud. And, in case we forget, Joseph Smith's character is consistent with this theory.

So your theory posits a conspiracy involving Joseph Smith, almost all of the Witnesses (Martin Harris was duped), Emma Smith, and Mary Musselman Whitmer.  Is that correct?

How do you account for Hiram Page?  In your view, was he a conspirator or dupe?  What evidence do you have to support this view?

How do you account for the plates?  

Do you believe there were actual, physical, plates or not?

If you concede that physical plates existed, but that they were fabricated, what is your theory about that?  Who fabricated them?  When?  How?  Why?

If there was a conspiracy to defraud - as you apparently believe - why did the witnesses who later became estranged (or even overtly hostile to) Joseph Smith and the Church not recant their testimony?

How do you account for the short time frame in which, according to you, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery "collaborated" on (that is, created the text of) The Book of Mormon?

What "motive" do you think the Witnesses had "for their support of said fraud?"  What evidence do you have to support this view?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So your theory posits a conspiracy involving Joseph Smith, almost all of the Witnesses (Martin Harris was duped), Emma Smith, and Mary Musselman Whitmer.  Is that correct?

How do you account for the plates?  

Do you believe there were actual, physical, plates or not?

If you concede that physical plates existed, but that they were fabricated, what is your theory about that?  Who fabricated them?  When?  How?  Why?

If there was a conspiracy to defraud - as you apparently believe - why did the witnesses who later became estranged (or even overtly hostile to) Joseph Smith and the Church not recant their testimony?

How do you account for the short time frame in which, according to you, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery "collaborated" on (that is, created the text of) The Book of Mormon?

What "motive" do you think the Witnesses had "for their support of said fraud?"  

Thanks,

-Smac

Hey Smac, I appreciate the questions and am eager to hear his answer.  but it should be acknowledged that there are questions related to the theory held by the faithful as well. 

If the BOM came as a result of the gift and power of God, how did the process work?  Did words appear and he recite?  if so, what's with the near quotes of the KJV?  Did he consult a Bible or did he not?  Loose vs tight?  who knows?  Where did it take place?  If it all happened in Meso America why do we not hear of a culture in the area that worshipped Jesus?  Why no horses and elephants in the correct time frame?  Why are words and phrases from centuries earlier being used in the BoM text?  Seemingly words and phrases un used in JS' day? 

I realize there are LDS who have addressed and are working on addressing these types of questions but that doesn't mean the issues are resolved.  I'd say, this is why debates may continue and reasonable people will be found on both sides of the aisle, as it pertains to these things. 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hey Smac, I appreciate the questions and am eager to hear his answer.  but it should be acknowledged that there are questions related to the theory held by the faithful as well. 

I acknowledge that.  We do not have all the answers.  We have essentially no revelatory/prophetic guidance as to the location of the events described in The Book of Mormo.  In Joseph Smith-History 1:34, the Angel Moroni is quoted/paraphrased as saying "there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."

So "this continent" is a scriptural reference.  Further on, in verse, 51, Joseph Smith describes the place where Moroni had buried the plates centuries before (on the west side, "not far from the top" of a drumlin or "hill of considerable size").  There are ongoing debates about whether this drumlin and its environs are the locus for the events described in The Book of Mormon, or whether Moroni traveled there from some the "Book of Mormon lands" (such as around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.  Again, we do not have revelatory guidance on this issue.

Quote

 

If the BOM came as a result of the gift and power of God, how did the process work?  Did words appear and he recite?  if so, what's with the near quotes of the KJV?  Did he consult a Bible or did he not?  Loose vs tight?  who knows?  Where did it take place?  If it all happened in Meso America why do we not hear of a culture in the area that worshipped Jesus?  Why no horses and elephants in the correct time frame?  Why are words and phrases from centuries earlier being used in the BoM text?  Seemingly words and phrases un used in JS' day? 

I realize there are LDS who have addressed and are working on addressing these types of questions but that doesn't mean the issues are resolved.  I'd say, this is why debates may continue and reasonable people will be found on both sides of the aisle, as it pertains to these things. 

 

I agree with you.  This is why I am generally more focused on 1) the "spiritual" mechanisms of determining the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon, and 2) to a lesser extent, more interested in what I see as more important supplemental/ancillary issues pertaining to the Gold Plates, the testimonies of the Witnesses, and so on (by "more important" I mean more than speculating about things like the particulars of the translation process, geography, etc.).

On an unrelated note, I appreciate what seems to be a growing measure of civility and decorum between us.  I have been working on that from my end.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2016 by smac97

[churchistrue]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So your theory posits a conspiracy involving Joseph Smith, almost all of the Witnesses (Martin Harris was duped), Emma Smith, and Mary Musselman Whitmer.  Is that correct?  sure. or maybe they were all duped. 

How do you account for Hiram Page?  In your view, was he a conspirator or dupe?  What evidence do you have to support this view? either.  no evidence, but then again no evidence is required, because the threshold for the plausibility is the same for the threshold of plausibility for a one time unique in human history event, ie angels providing metal plates that would be translated by power of God

How do you account for the plates?  either there or not

Do you believe there were actual, physical, plates or not? either

If you concede that physical plates existed, but that they were fabricated, what is your theory about that?  Who fabricated them?  When?  How?  Why?  joseph made them. or someone else.  made of any kind of metal--but likely not pure gold  .  painted or not.  when made?  any time that fits the narrative.  

If there was a conspiracy to defraud - as you apparently believe - why did the witnesses who later became estranged (or even overtly hostile to) Joseph Smith and the Church not recant their testimony? maybe they didn't want to embarrass themselves or family, maybe they felt inspired by God to preserve the conspiracy, maybe they thought they could some how value from it, dunno, i could go on and on and list 30 possibilities.  each one being equally plausible as a one time unique human history event of the traditional explanation.

How do you account for the short time frame in which, according to you, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery "collaborated" on (that is, created the text of) The Book of Mormon?  1. he's a genius 2. he had it written ahead of time 3. God led him

What "motive" do you think the Witnesses had "for their support of said fraud?"  What evidence do you have to support this view?  money, stature, confused/stupid, manipulated spiritually, truly inspired of God, felt spiritually connected to the story, etc, etc.  no evidence needed to create an argument equally plausible as a one time unique human history event 

Thanks,

-Smac

I included some possible answers.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I included some possible answers.

I suppose.  I was hoping for substance, not off-the-cuff conjecture.  With respect, it sounds like you have given little or no thought or study or evidentiary assessment to these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

[churchistrue]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suppose.  I was hoping for substance, not off-the-cuff conjecture.  With respect, it sounds like you have given little or no thought or study or evidentiary assessment to these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

On the contrary.  I've put a lot of thought into this.  My point here is that the threshold is low.  The bravado of "if you want to reject the traditional narrative you better put forward your own theory" isn't that compelling.  I totally understand you could pick apart all these theories and prove why they are implausible.  But it's like saying something is .001% possible vs .000000001% possible.  The threshold is low in this kind of this or that ultimatum when it comes to the Book of Mormon traditional narrative.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

There are many non theists that find many wonderful reasons to get up in the morning without a religious reason to do so.  And I think science does tell us many things that are more important than how your car works.  I am almost 57 so I would not say I am young.   I worry about all sorts of issues that are important.   In fact the more I have thought about the important issues the more skeptical I am that the claims of revealed religions have the answers to those important questions.   

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

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

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

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

[Atheist Mormon]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've never thought of miracles as "the suspension of natural law," but rather as a higher manifestation of it.

If that is the case, then the tension you propose (that "miracles" don't exist because "Natural Law" explains everything) pretty much disappears.

Thanks,

-Smac

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

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

 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

On the contrary.  I've put a lot of thought into this.  

Your previous post does not seem to reflect much thought.

Quote

My point here is that the threshold is low.  The bravado of "if you want to reject the traditional narrative you better put forward your own theory" isn't that compelling.

Okay.  But then, neither is the position taken by Dale Morgan (a position you appear to share): "With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church." 

As contemptuous as you are about the quantum of evidence in favor of the LDS Church's position on the origins of The Book of Mormon, the alternative theories proposed by the critics are apparently even less plausible, so much so that folks like you will not commit to any of them or present theories of your making.  At least the Mormons are taking the field.  At least they are engaging in assessment of the evidence and defending their position based on it.  Folks like you, on the other hand, are throwing their hands up in the air and insisting that the origins of the text are . . . well, you have no explanation, and instead buy into the "reasoning," such as it is, exemplified by the above statement by Mr. Morgan.

Quote

I totally understand you could pick apart all these theories and prove why they are implausible.  

So much so that you won't even attempt to present or defend one?

Doesn't that . . . say something about the state of things?

Quote

But it's like saying something is .001% possible vs .000000001% possible.  The threshold is low in this kind of this or that ultimatum when it comes to the Book of Mormon traditional narrative.

I do not understand this statement.  The text of The Book of Mormon exists.  The testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses exist.  Extensive historical evidence exists pertaining to the Witnesses' subsequent statements about The Book of Mormon, about their refusal to recant their controversial and boy-they-caught-a-lot-of-flak-but-stuck-with-it-anyway-despite-being-estranged-from-Joseph-Smith-and-the-Church testimonies.

I can see the allure of the Dale Morgan school of thought on this subject (see above).  But it doesn't really lead to substantive discussion or analysis of the extant evidence.   In order to have a rational discussion, we cannot give ourselves over to sheer, evidence-free conjecture and speculation, as you seem to be doing.  If there are different possibilities about the origins of The Book of Mormon which can be reasonably extrapolated from the evidence and the historical record, let's hear 'em.  I'm quite willing to listen.  

If such a discussion is not your cuppa, then I will leave you alone and wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Okay, then, which "happenings" should we constitute as "miracles"?

Well, I sort of like this definition in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

A miracle is a beneficial event brought about through divine power that mortals do not understand and of themselves cannot duplicate. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the reality of miracles as a consequence of their belief in the existence of God and of his power and goodness.

So the defining elements appear to be A) that the event is "beneficial," and B) that the event is "brought about through divine power" that mortals B1) "do not understand" and B2) "of themselves cannot duplicate."

Quote

Good ones or include the awful events like the tsunami happened few years back where hundreds of thousands perished? 

I think most people construe miracles as "beneficial" events.  "Awful events like the tsunami" would probably not fit within the normative parameters of a "miracle."

Quote

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

I can't speak as to why miracles happen in some instances, but not in others.

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about the incident in Cokeville, Wyoming?  

Or this event in Spanish Fork, Utah last year?  

Quote

Four Spanish Fork police officers all said they heard it.

"We've gotten together and just talkin' about it, and all four of us can swear that we heard somebody inside the car saying, 'Help,'" officer Jared Warner recalled Sunday.

But when they flipped the vehicle resting on its hood in the Spanish Fork River onto its side Saturday, they discovered there was no one inside able to speak.

"The only people in there were the deceased mother and the child," said officer Bryan Dewitt.

"We're not exactly sure where that voice came from," Warner told the Deseret News.

But because of the actions of those officers and several Spanish Fork firefighters, 18-month-old Lily was rescued. She remained at Primary Children's Hospital Sunday in critical condition but was reported to be stable.

Police belive Lily was upside down, strapped in her car seat for up to 14 hours. Her mother, Lynn Jennifer "Jenny" Groesbeck, was killed in the crash.

...

Groesbeck, 25, was driving home to Springville from Salem, where she had been visiting her parents. She was killed about 10:30 p.m. Friday when her car went off the road where Arrowhead Trail connects with Main Street. What caused the car to go off the road was still under investigation Sunday. Because of where the vehicle landed, it was difficult for anyone to see the wreck from the street above.

Fourteen hours later, about 12:30 p.m. Saturday, a fisherman spotted the vehicle and called police.

Dewitt was one of the first officers to arrive. The incident was originally reported as a possible abandoned vehicle in the river. But as he got closer, he said he could see the mother inside. Three more officers arrived almost simultaneously at the river.

And that's when they heard a voice.

"We were down on the car and a distinct voice says, 'Help me, help me,'" Dewitt recalled.

"It wasn't just something that was just in our heads. To me it was plain as day cause I remember hearing a voice," officer Tyler Beddoes said. "I think it was Dewitt who said, 'We're trying. We're trying our best to get in there.'

"How do you explain that? I don't know," he said, adding that the voice didn't sound like a child

What are your thoughts about Tyler Beddoes, one of the police officers involved in this event?

Here are my remarks on this second issue which I wrote last year:

Quote

I don't think we can fully comprehend how or why God does, or does not, do things in terms of intervening in the lives of His children. We simply lack the perspective and wisdom necessary to understand such things.

I think our limited perspective makes it a bit too easy to put God into a no-win scenario. If God does not intervene to prevent all harm, then either A) He does not exist, or B) He is capricious ("hit and miss" as the commenter put it) and therefore flawed/limited/evil.

There is, though, a third option: That God has a plan which includes vital concepts such as agency, a fallen world, life beyond this mortal existence, an atoning sacrifice, communication between God and man, and so forth. These concepts help me understand that God's "macro" plan is in place. So I cannot always understand this plan's implementation at a specific, "micro" level, such as the tragic death of the child's mother, or even some "meso"-level events such as the horrors of famine and disease, of atrocities, of natural disasters, etc. Some of these events can be attributed to the wickedness of men and combinations of men, or to confluences of events and circumstances. Some cannot, and it is these inexplicable, seemingly random tragedies that can try our faith the most. Nevertheless, being aware that there is a greater plan helps me navigate difficult questions about why bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad people, etc.

I believe the {first responders} described in the article {about the incident in Spanish Fork} could have heard a voice, and that this voice was a prompting from God

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Scientific discovery over the centuries has dramatically influenced the faith of religious believers, primarily through discoveries about how things can be explained scientifically, without the need to attribute phenomena to a supernatural deity.  The weather, the stars, diseases, birth defects, race, sex, etc, all of these things that religious people over the years have attributed to the supernatural have been informed by science and consequently taken out of the supernatural, and into the natural.  These things have changed religious belief, and I have no reason to believe that future scientific discoveries won't continue to do the same.  

Sorry you do not understand the argument against what you say above.

On one hand you say that science cannot disprove God and on the other you say it can, above.   Honestly I think you are confused.  Natural "facts" are not about God, they are about a different subject.  People who believe that facts of nature have something to do with God are mistaken.  That has been the whole point of the discussion.

Please read Vogel voraciously if you like him so much,  and take every word as The Truth. You need to evaluate all this for yourself.

The problem is that you think the correspondence theory of truth reveals "the world" - it does not.  Please read this quote 500 times and write in on the blackboard until you understand what it says. If you can refute it, I would love to discuss that with you- no one else has done so yet.  Science is not about "the world" it is about a cohesive way to understand our OBSERVATIONS which cannot be proven to "correspond to reality" OUTSIDE our observations.

Science ignores our most important "OBSERVATIONS" intentionally disregarding our feelings and spirituality, which is the most important aspect of life. 

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.

 

Purported "descriptions of the world" do not describe "the world" independent of our mental abilities to construct those observations into coherent theories, expressed in language.  Science is not about the world, it is about descriptions of the world which intentionally leave out the most important things in life.  In the past when it was believed that science described "the world" and religion also described "the world".  That gave them a common context.  But that view is mistaken. Contemporary philosophy largely now rejects that view.

Neither science NOR religion describe the world, they both describe certain experiences humans have, defined by language, CAUSED by outside unknown phenomena, the complete observation of which is impossible due to our limited senses and understanding  All we have to explain these experiences linguistically are religion to describe one set of experiences and science to describe another set of experiences, the latter experiences which can be replicated.  This bifurcation of reality resulted from errors started by the Greeks and carried on by Descartes. separating the "mental" from the "physical".  Present philosophy seeks to cure this dualism and return to a unified understanding of human experience (Phenomenology and Pragmatism) "as it really is", or on the other hand, simply understand the limits of language and learn to live with it (Wittgenstein)

I hope that explains it otherwise, I am frankly tired of the repetition.   I really do wish you well in your quest, and if I can help you I would love to do so.  Right now I think you need to get out there and study it out for yourself!

 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Mfb certainly does not disdain science.  That would be obvious from his posts in my opinion, if not his use of technology.  Realizing that science has limits in describing human reality/experience is, imo, more respectful of the craft than simply assuming it is applicable to everything.

Science does not tell us what to value in our life and why.  Those are the important things Mfb is talking about.

It has saved lives (well, people have through its use), but it can't measure the value of that ability.

You always say it better than I do. Grrrrr.    I am jealous!  There is a disconnect between my brain and my mouth!

[churchistrue]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your previous post does not seem to reflect much thought.

Okay.  But then, neither is the position taken by Dale Morgan (a position you appear to share): "With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church." 

As contemptuous as you are about the quantum of evidence in favor of the LDS Church's position on the origins of The Book of Mormon, the alternative theories proposed by the critics are apparently even less plausible, so much so that folks like you will not commit to any of them or present theories of your making.  At least the Mormons are taking the field.  At least they are engaging in assessment of the evidence and defending their position based on it.  Folks like you, on the other hand, are throwing their hands up in the air and insisting that the origins of the text are . . . well, you have no explanation, and instead buy into the "reasoning," such as it is, exemplified by the above statement by Mr. Morgan.

So much so that you won't even attempt to present or defend one?

Doesn't that . . . say something about the state of things?

I do not understand this statement.  The text of The Book of Mormon exists.  The testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses exist.  Extensive historical evidence exists pertaining to the Witnesses' subsequent statements about The Book of Mormon, about their refusal to recant their controversial and boy-they-caught-a-lot-of-flak-but-stuck-with-it-anyway-despite-being-estranged-from-Joseph-Smith-and-the-Church testimonies.

I can see the allure of the Dale Morgan school of thought on this subject (see above).  But it doesn't really lead to substantive discussion or analysis of the extant evidence.   In order to have a rational discussion, we cannot give ourselves over to sheer, evidence-free conjecture and speculation, as you seem to be doing.  If there are different possibilities about the origins of The Book of Mormon which can be reasonably extrapolated from the evidence and the historical record, let's hear 'em.  I'm quite willing to listen.  

If such a discussion is not your cuppa, then I will leave you alone and wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't take similar view as Dale Morgan at all.  I'm a person of faith.  I'm looking for reasons to believe in God not looking for reasons to suppress belief.  

I'm a life long member and former literal believer.  My loss in belief in the traditional view of the BOM came due to the implausibility of the traditional view (1. lack of external evidence of BOM people and events 2. sketchiness of BOM discovery and translation process involving folk magic 3. anachronisms 4. circumstantial evidence related to the rest of the restoration events and religion in general, ie polygamy, Book of Abraham, Bible issues, etc).  

There are some things that a real mystery to me.  1. huge mystery: complexity, consistency, and genius of the text (keep in mind I love the Book of Mormon and deem it as scripture) 2. smaller mystery: the witnesses.

I don't have a plausible explanation of these.  But for me, that doesn't prove the traditional narrative is true.  It just proves we have a mystery on our hands.  The fourfold "anti" evidence I list above, imho, far outweigh the two unsolved mystery items.  

So, anyway, that's where I'm coming from.

But, as for this algorithm, if a then b if not b then c if not c then D. with a,b,c = naturalistic theories, and D being traditional narrative, I just am not impressed.  Implausible events have occurred in the history of mankind.  There are mysteries in human history that are hard to make sense of.  If any of a,b,c are as plausible as D, then it defeats this little logic tree exercise.  

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by churchistrue

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I don't take similar view as Dale Morgan at all.  I'm a person of faith.  I'm looking for reasons to believe in God not looking for reasons to suppress belief.  

Then I have misunderstood.  Thank you for clarifying.

Quote

I'm a life long member and former literal believer.  My loss in belief in the traditional view of the BOM came due to the implausibility of the traditional view (1. lack of external evidence of BOM people and events 2. sketchiness of BOM discovery and translation process involving folk magic 3. anachronisms 4. circumstantial evidence related to the rest of the restoration events and religion in general, ie polygamy, Book of Abraham, Bible issues, etc).  

Okay.

Quote

 

There are some things that a real mystery to me.  1. huge mystery: complexity, consistency, and genius of the text (keep in mind I love the Book of Mormon and deem it as scripture) 2. smaller mystery: the witnesses.

I don't have a plausible explanation of these.  But for me, that doesn't prove the traditional narrative is true.  

 

I can understand and respect that.  I also don't think the absence of the a plausible countertheory "prove{s} the traditional narrative is true."  I don't think there is "proof" either way.  There is faith.  And evidence.  But not "proof."

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Neither science NOR religion describe the world, they both describe certain experiences humans have, defined by language, CAUSED by outside unknown phenomena, the complete observation of which is impossible due to our limited senses and understanding  All we have to explain these experiences linguistically are religion to describe one set of experiences and science to describe another set of experiences, the latter experiences which can be replicated.

I know you said you're tired of repeating yourself, but I'm going to try pull you back into discussing this section, which I think I understand.  Let me see if I can get it right. 

Humans have limited senses and understanding, therefore can never come to a "complete" understanding of the world.  It sounds like our understanding is really limited in that we're not describing the world the way the world actually is, but just the way we interpret it through our observations of phenomena using our senses and other observational mechanisms, but these mechanisms are always limited and therefore can never describe the reality of the actual world in its entirety.  This part makes sense to me.  

So, if I understand that right, it sounds like you're saying science isn't playing in the same field as religion for value judgments about the meaning of life, etc.  As Calm mentioned above.  

What about social sciences that study happiness, religiosity, altruism.  There are many studies that employee scientific techniques to measure these things with certain sociographic parameters.  How is this not an example where science is attempting to measure the way humans value things and also measure the value of the things we spend our time doing and associating with?  Can't the tools of science be employed to inform our value judgments on things?

I just don't understand your strong statements about science having nothing to do with these subjects.  From my vantage, you can't remove science from our world view, it informs all of our value judgments.  Its ingrained in our perspectives.  You can't look at value judgments about religion in isolation.  We are all influenced by our cultures and environment, and scientific discovery and learning is a part of everyone's religious paradigm in this culture.  I don't see how you are trying to separate the two when they are integral.  

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I know you said you're tired of repeating yourself, but I'm going to try pull you back into discussing this section, which I think I understand.  Let me see if I can get it right. 

Humans have limited senses and understanding, therefore can never come to a "complete" understanding of the world.  It sounds like our understanding is really limited in that we're not describing the world the way the world actually is, but just the way we interpret it through our observations of phenomena using our senses and other observational mechanisms, but these mechanisms are always limited and therefore can never describe the reality of the actual world in its entirety.  This part makes sense to me.  

So, if I understand that right, it sounds like you're saying science isn't playing in the same field as religion for value judgments about the meaning of life, etc.  As Calm mentioned above.  

What about social sciences that study happiness, religiosity, altruism.  There are many studies that employee scientific techniques to measure these things with certain sociographic parameters.  How is this not an example where science is attempting to measure the way humans value things and also measure the value of the things we spend our time doing and associating with?  Can't the tools of science be employed to inform our value judgments on things?

I just don't understand your strong statements about science having nothing to do with these subjects.  From my vantage, you can't remove science from our world view, it informs all of our value judgments.  Its ingrained in our perspectives.  You can't look at value judgments about religion in isolation.  We are all influenced by our cultures and environment, and scientific discovery and learning is a part of everyone's religious paradigm in this culture.  I don't see how you are trying to separate the two when they are integral.  

They appear to you to be integral because you have been conditioned by your culture.  They are not.  Many in humanity are still "brainwashed" into thinking this way.  Once you understand that we organize reality from matter unorganized the insight comes like a flash and you cannot go back.  The whole world changes.

That's why I have so much trouble putting it into words- I don't have words to explain it any more because I do not think that way.   I see the world as a unified whole of human experience with little packages of theories for different purposes- like using a hammer for one job, and a wrench for another.   I see people who don't see it that way wasting time an effort using a wrench to pound nails.   I tell them to use a hammer and they say- NO! We have good nail pounders- right here- a one purpose tool!  "Science!"  All tools in one!"

the problem is that wrenches really are not good nail pounders.

MY culture no longer sees reality that way- I have been thinking this way for 40 years totally immersed in philosophy which sees it differently than you do.

Eventually all will be "postmoderns", probably after some other paradigm is discovered.

There is another philosopher named Thomas Nagel who has extensively studied physicalism, the idea that ideas and experiences are "nothing more" than physical reactions in the brain

The problem is that any physical description cannot be made identical LOGICALLY to assertions about experience.

The assertion "Bukowski is having reaction xyz at location abc in his brain" is NOT logically equivalent to "Bukowski thinks the landscape is beautiful"

There is always something LEFT OUT- and not included in the physical statement which is contained in the statement describing the state of consciousness- the experience.

Beauty IS NOT a chemical reaction- it is a state of consciousness.  Science objectively may see reactions CORRELATED with the experience but the correlation is not the experience.

Social sciences are not regarded by chemists and physicists as "real science" because they are so based on "subjective definitions"

More later- gotta run now

[cinepro]

19 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

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

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

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

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

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Exactly.  James Randi is a critic of Gellar, and even has some critical "naturalistic" theories about how Gellar performs his miraculous feats.  He is an anti-Gellar, and while he has some interesting theories, none of them fully explain everything that Gellar has done.  The only theory that fully explains everything is Gellar's own theory.  Every other theory has holes in it and is only believable to closed-minded skeptics who aren't familiar with all the evidence.  In fact, it's my understanding that believers in Gellar are aware of Randi's attacks, but still just can't manage to disbelieve what they've seen.

The most critical difference between Joseph Smith and Uri Gellar is that Joseph Smith is dead, leaving behind little data on the miraculous dictation of The Book of Mormon and the gold plates (but, some would say, leaving behind enough data about his ability to translate unknown languages).  Had Gellar lived in the early 1800s, it's likely his feats and spiritual acumen would be much less assailable.  It was his curse to live in an age of television and James Randi.

 

 

 

 

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Even the smallest of possible conspiracies, those composed of a mere two people, tend to collapse under their own weight.  You propose a far larger one that, somehow, managed to hold up. 

In order for that statement to be tested, we would need to know how many conspiracies are discovered vs. undiscovered.  I don't think that's the case (unless someone has ever done a comprehensive survey asking people if they have ever been part of a conspiracy, how many people were in that conspiracy, and was it ever discovered?)

I agree that it is logical that the more people involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it is to remain undiscovered. But I don't think we can say with confidence that something wasn't a conspiracy just because it remained undiscovered.   I don't generally agree with "conspiracy theories", but it is possible to overreach in stating the degree to which they are or aren't possible.

Edited August 30, 2016 by cinepro

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Cyclopedia of Mormonism 

You referred us to that page, It defines " A miracle is a beneficial event brought about through divine power t "  

I can easily refute this by showing the law of averages of universe, the events do not happen on a consistent basis to someones favor; good things / bad things happen on an average 50 /50 basis (give or take). There's no consistent basis of "miracles" winning out vs bad luck happening somewhere to upset the average......

And the most strange element in this situation is the miracles described happens by "pure luck" which the event could go either way.   The "Genuine Miracle" skeptics like me want to be convinced about never happens; like an appropriate demonstration of healing an amputee or putting Las Vegas out of business by gifting somebody by power of constant Black Jack, royal flush hands.....

I can count a dozen genuine events from my personal life could be easily construed as miracles by believers.... And yet all of us living in this Universe entitles us all to participate such encounters...Good or Bad......

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

That's very easy to answer; There's no such thing as "miracle". I can't even think of any event or happening can be attributed to it.   Natural Law encompasses everything happening in the universe. Just because we cannot explain it why should it be attributed to a "miracle"? 

 

OK, my mistake.  You really do know what we believe.  Divinity uses natural laws in the creation process, including gravity, evolution, etc.  Matter and natural laws are eternal.

"But why, dear fellow, is God necessary at all?"

He is similar to an artist.  He uses the materials and tools at hand, such as pigments, canvas, brushes, the principle of perspective, etc, to create his masterpiece.  Creation is the process of ORGANIZATION of materials in chaos.

The ability of raw matter to self-organize is very limited.

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by cdowis

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

In order for that statement to be tested, we would need to know how many conspiracies are discovered vs. undiscovered.  I don't think that's the case (unless someone has ever done a comprehensive survey asking people if they have ever been part of a conspiracy, how many people were in that conspiracy, and was it ever discovered?)

I agree that it is logical that the more people involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it is to remain undiscovered. But I don't think we can say with confidence that something wasn't a conspiracy just because it remained undiscovered.   I don't generally agree with "conspiracy theories", but it is possible to overreach in stating the degree to which they are or aren't possible.

That is not true.  That is like saying, "to show there are more good people than bad people in this world, one must first know all the good and bad conduct of every single person".

You tend to ignore the logical when it suits you, just like you either pretend to not understand analogies (or ignore them) when they prove your points invalid.

Anyone with any knowledge of human nature knows that the larger the conspiracy, the greater chance of its failure.  

This is not new information.  Hence the sayings:

“Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.” 
― Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack

A secret remains a secret until you make someone promise never to reveal it. – Fausto Cercignani

Three things cannot long stay hidden: the sun, the moon and the truth. – Buddha

To keep your own secrets is wisdom; but to expect others to keep them is folly. – William Scott Downey, Proverbs

Apparently, you are the only person who doubts this concept.......

 

[UtahTexan]

4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

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

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

 

I believe the saddest miracle is that they happen every day and you are unable to see them

Edited August 30, 2016 by CountryBoy