mfbukowski Posted August 30, 2016 Posted August 30, 2016 26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: How about B. H. Roberts' The Seventy’s Course in Theology, 5 vols. (SLC: Deseret News Press, 1907)? Online at http://archive.org/details/seventyscoursein00robe . How do you feel about that? Honestly I haven't read it because I was afraid to. I was positive I would not like it. But I shall read it now just to prove myself wrong in my elitist prejudice. I have loved other quotes by BH Roberts, I don't know what my problem is. I came into this church from a weird intellectual position stunned by the brilliance of the revelations and yet disappointed with the tacit presence of the correspondence theory of truth everywhere else. I was surprised at the inconsistency between what Joseph wrote and what everyone else wrote. Joseph was like a brilliant light shining in a dark vacuum. But that was wrong. I should get some edujmacation in this stuff. I mean just look at this one little piece: 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's all right there in one sentence. Truths are independent in their contexts. Truth is a principle of action (also in the Lectures of course) meaning that the idea of "truth" ACTS. It is not passive, the truth means commitment and it applies to actions. "What should I do in this situation Lord?" It is pragmatic. What I need to do in this situation is not what I might do in another situation. As action oriented, there is no point in discussing arcane linguistic quandaries about the "nature of God" or how many "natures" God has or "substance" (sorry Rory!) Truth is about practical matters. Pragmatically what works in one disciple does not necessarily work in others. Science is about making things work, religion is about giving life importance and defining its place in the universe. Two totally different kinds of truth- two different "spheres" And then the real burning light brilliance- "otherwise there is no existence" Without contextual truth manifested in actions of humans, there is nothing. The worlds are organized by the Word which is produced by intelligence. Intelligence organizes worlds through action, through the Word. And this is spiritual truth, this is not "philosophy"- this is a spiritual matter ABOUT spiritual matter ("matter more refined") which obeys the Word. We organize experience through words, experience is the only reality we can know. Without intelligence and the Word, there is nothing we can know about So right there we have systematic theology (but don't tell anyone!) So now let's take a look at BH! Thanks by the way- you are a walking bibliography. If you have other suggestions I would love to hear about them. I am actually very ignorant about LDS writings in this area. I know McMurrin- that is about all. 2
3DOP Posted August 30, 2016 Author Posted August 30, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: ...I came into this church from a weird intellectual position stunned by the brilliance of the revelations and yet disappointed with the tacit presence of the correspondence theory of truth everywhere else. I was surprised at the inconsistency between what Joseph wrote and what everyone else wrote. Joseph was like a brilliant light shining in a dark vacuum.writings in this area... Mark, hi. It appears that you have agreed with my suspicion that correspondence theory, (or positivism or whatever you want to call it) is present all over the LDS landscape as well. It cannot be limited to a few BYU historians. Opponents of correspondence theory cannot be selective about who gets to speak in this wrong way and who doesn't. If you are going to oppose a handful of BYU historians and me for a false philosophy, what happens if you have to oppose the successors of Joseph Smith? Maybe you could, while retaining your own private opinion on the matter, admit that although it is your opinion that correspondence theory has limitations, it cannot be a fatal flaw. I have seen nothing so far in this thread to make me doubt my suspicion that whether through study or not, many prominent LDS, and perhaps even in the highest offices of the Church, have believed in the correspondence theory. Your admission as bolded above has encouraged me more than anything. If my suspicions are accurate, I would suggest that to go so far as to disallow any validity to discussion between parties that share a belief in correspondence theory, could be as problematic for LDS as for Catholics. I am only suggesting a necessary softening of any LDS opposition to correspondence theory. It seems like any Mormon, including yourself, would need to admit that correspondence theory cannot be a signal of grave problems if it attached itself to the Restoration in its infancy and continues in some prominent quarters today. It cannot be proposed as a fatal flaw for others, if respected LDS in high places get to believe in correspondence theory. Edited August 30, 2016 by 3DOP
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 3 hours ago, 3DOP said: Mark, hi. It appears that you have agreed with my suspicion that correspondence theory, (or positivism or whatever you want to call it) is present all over the LDS landscape as well. It cannot be limited to a few BYU historians. Opponents of correspondence theory cannot be selective about who gets to speak in this wrong way and who doesn't. If you are going to oppose a handful of BYU historians and me for a false philosophy, what happens if you have to oppose the successors of Joseph Smith? I want to take your post line by line Rory because I think first of all, that you deserve answers, and second of all because it shows a great difference between LDS culture and Catholic culture which could be revealing to others. Yes, the correspondence theory is widespread among "laymen" (meaning those who have not studied philosophy) in our culture in general. We should not be surprised about that- it has been the dominant view in Western culture for 2000 years. On the other hand, my view goes back nearly 400 years to Kant and has not been refuted, and it's importance grows yearly. Quote What happens if you have to oppose the successors of Joseph Smith? I am not sure what that means but I am presuming it means, what if I think some prophets are mistaken about the correspondence theory? Nothing. I sustain my leaders as leaders and agree to follow them. The are not trained philosophers and do not make philosophical pronouncements. If it in talk they speak of "truth" in a way which affirms the correspondence theory, I take it with a grain of salt and chalk it up to their generation and the fact that like most of the rest of western civilization they do not understand another way to envision "truth". It's like asking what if my grandma doesn't understand string theory. Nothing. She is still my grandma who knows tons of things I do not know and after all, string theory or the correspondence theory has not much relevance in living a good life, raising a family or anything else actually important. The only place where correspondence theory becomes important in my book is in understanding and speaking about the conflict between science and personal revelation. Science does not "represent" spiritual reality, nor could it because spiritual reality is not a subject of science. It is like asking knitting to conform to the rules of basketball. It's two different worlds colliding which should never collide! And when they DO collide, all you can do is offer your opinion and see if the other person has some new insight. They never do. Never. If they understood it, they would see it and not have questions. So you patiently sit back and let them rattle on and then you try to remain kind and say "Have you ever considered that there is a problem with that because....." or you ignore them and go on with life. You get used to it after a while. LDS do not believe that prophets are infallible. So as long as you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview, you are as "LDS" as anyone can be. You go to church, you go to the temple and you do not argue correspondence theory because no one will understand you. It's no biggie. I think on this board there are probably less than 7 or 8 people who get this stuff. That's fine. Eight is better than nothing. Quote Maybe you could, while retaining your own private opinion on the matter, admit that although it is your opinion that correspondence theory has limitations, it cannot be a fatal flaw. I have seen nothing so far in this thread to make me doubt my suspicion that whether through study or not, many prominent LDS, and perhaps even in the highest offices of the Church, have believed in the correspondence theory. Sure you could do that, but that seems excessively timid to me. It's no big deal!! This is an esoteric point that most people have no idea even exists as a point. It IS a "fatal flaw" in the theory of truth most have. But most do not care or even know that. This is a technicality that is unimportant anywhere in life except when someone says "How do you know that Joseph's vision was true? How can it be true without evidence? Why would you accept this nonsense?" THEN and only then belief in correspondence is that fatal flaw! You cannot answer that argument with the correspondence theory because that view IS the correpondence theory. If you buy correspondence you must believe that religious experience cannot be "true" CAN anyone else see the importance of this?? You cannot simultaneously believe correspondence AND that religious experience is true! The answer is: "Private experience is not subject, by its nature, to objective evidence. The truth of Joseph's vision is only knowable by Joseph himself, but you can also have your own spiritual experience confirming that it was true" Then you have to go into private experience and public experience, and the whole rap I do here daily, and how private experience in religious matters is perfectly justifiable as being "true" because of William James, yada yada .... But if the person is religious you just tell them that one cannot therefore rationally believe that the Virgin Mary "really appeared" to anyone either, or their spiritual feeling that lets them know they are "saved" is anything but, as the author of "A Christmas Carol" said, "a bit of bad beef". Overcoming the correspondence theory and affirming that truth is relative to to a community and a particular discipline is the only rational way to justify religious experience. And amazingly this view is actually in accord with the latest philosophy of science. We need to get over that, accept it, and get on with life. Nothing else works for that. No other view of science does that yet, but I am sure there will be other paradigms in the future which do This realization is what propelled me back toward religion. If different disciplines can have different paradigms, then truth is fitting your paradigm. Religion and science have different paradigms therefore religion can be true within its own context. And do people in the "highest offices" of the church hold to the correspondence theory? Of course they do- they are like anyone else, they are picked for their closeness to the spirit and for other reasons known only to the Lord. NONE of those characteristics include anything about the correspondence theory of truth, nor should they! Quote If my suspicions are accurate, I would suggest that to go so far as to disallow any validity to discussion between parties that share a belief in correspondence theory, could be as problematic for LDS as for Catholics. I am only suggesting a necessary softening of any LDS opposition to correspondence theory. Not sure what is meant by the first sentence. I discuss stuff all the time with people who believe in the correspondence theory without spouting off about it. Again, it's like talking to your grandma about string theory. Correspondence never comes up in Sunday school and if anything like that did I would probably make a very low-level comment about the validity of religious experience and the fact that there is no need for evidence verifying private experience but private experience itself. "So how do you know Joseph Smith was not lying about the first vision?" My Sunday School answer would be "The only way to know is by praying about it and getting your own answer". THAT is a true statement according to my view, without getting into all the arcane weirdness about the nature of truth and correspondence theory. When little Johnnie asks "where did I come from?" you don't take a gulp and get into the mechanics of sex when the answer "You were born in Cleveland" answers the question. You have to know what the question really is before you really answer it. And no, no softening is necessary, in fact we need to yell it from the housetops. "CORRESPONDENCE MAKES JOSEPH A LIAR!" This forum would not need to exist if all LDS understood this stuff. There would be no issues with LDS history, no worries about Book of Mormon geography. Everyone would simply see these paradigms as just that and not expect them to "correspond to a reality" which exists nowhere. It is impossible to know the "reality" of these issues or what "really happened". Impossible. No sense talking about them! All that matters is the effects Mormonism has in our lives, and whether or not it is "Sweet" as Alma says. It can be "sweet" even if there was no Alma to say those words, just as we can treat our children as the "prodigal son" even if there was no prodigal son historically, or reward the repentant as if they worked the full shift even if they only worked a few hours. Quote It seems like any Mormon, including yourself, would need to admit that correspondence theory cannot be a signal of grave problems if it attached itself to the Restoration in its infancy and continues in some prominent quarters today. It cannot be proposed as a fatal flaw for others, if respected LDS in high places get to believe in correspondence theory. I don't follow the logic here at all. As I have said it is only a "grave problem" when one seeks to explain religious experience as "true" using the correspondence theory. In that case it simply doesn't work and would BE a "grave problem" in the ARGUMENT (as opposed to the person who made the argument) of anyone who tried to pull that off. You cannot find empirical evidence for visions. It is as clear as that. If you argue you CAN, you are going to be in trouble. It would be claiming that there is scientific evidence that Joseph saw God. Good luck on that argument. Again, we do not believe in the infallibility of prophets, so no, it is no problem at all. And the fact that it IS a "fatal flaw" to the argument should be obvious to anyone who hears such an argument I must love you after all Rory to blast you with all these words!!
Bobbieaware Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 23 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I want to take your post line by line Rory because I think first of all, that you deserve answers, and second of all because it shows a great difference between LDS culture and Catholic culture which could be revealing to others. Yes, the correspondence theory is widespread among "laymen" (meaning those who have not studied philosophy) in our culture in general. We should not be surprised about that- it has been the dominant view in Western culture for 2000 years. On the other hand, my view goes back nearly 400 years to Kant and has not been refuted, and it's importance grows yearly. I am not sure what that means but I am presuming it means, what if I think some prophets are mistaken about the correspondence theory? Nothing. I sustain my leaders as leaders and agree to follow them. The are not trained philosophers and do not make philosophical pronouncements. If it in talk they speak of "truth" in a way which affirms the correspondence theory, I take it with a grain of salt and chalk it up to their generation and the fact that like most of the rest of western civilization they do not understand another way to envision "truth". It's like asking what if my grandma doesn't understand string theory. Nothing. She is still my grandma who knows tons of things I do not know and after all, string theory or the correspondence theory has not much relevance in living a good life, raising a family or anything else actually important. The only place where correspondence theory becomes important in my book is in understanding and speaking about the conflict between science and personal revelation. Science does not "represent" spiritual reality, nor could it because spiritual reality is not a subject of science. It is like asking knitting to conform to the rules of basketball. It's two different worlds colliding which should never collide! And when they DO collide, all you can do is offer your opinion and see if the other person has some new insight. They never do. Never. If they understood it, they would see it and not have questions. So you patiently sit back and let them rattle on and then you try to remain kind and say "Have you ever considered that there is a problem with that because....." or you ignore them and go on with life. You get used to it after a while. LDS do not believe that prophets are infallible. So as long as you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview, you are as "LDS" as anyone can be. You go to church, you go to the temple and you do not argue correspondence theory because no one will understand you. It's no biggie. I think on this board there are probably less than 7 or 8 people who get this stuff. That's fine. Eight is better than nothing. Sure you could do that, but that seems excessively timid to me. It's no big deal!! This is an esoteric point that most people have no idea even exists as a point. It IS a "fatal flaw" in the theory of truth most have. But most do not care or even know that. This is a technicality that is unimportant anywhere in life except when someone says "How do you know that Joseph's vision was true? How can it be true without evidence? Why would you accept this nonsense?" THEN and only then belief in correspondence is that fatal flaw! You cannot answer that argument with the correspondence theory because that view IS the correpondence theory. If you buy correspondence you must believe that religious experience cannot be "true" CAN anyone else see the importance of this?? You cannot simultaneously believe correspondence AND that religious experience is true! The answer is: "Private experience is not subject, by its nature, to objective evidence. The truth of Joseph's vision is only knowable by Joseph himself, but you can also have your own spiritual experience confirming that it was true" Then you have to go into private experience and public experience, and the whole rap I do here daily, and how private experience in religious matters is perfectly justifiable as being "true" because of William James, yada yada .... But if the person is religious you just tell them that one cannot therefore rationally believe that the Virgin Mary "really appeared" to anyone either, or their spiritual feeling that lets them know they are "saved" is anything but, as the author of "A Christmas Carol" said, "a bit of bad beef". Overcoming the correspondence theory and affirming that truth is relative to to a community and a particular discipline is the only rational way to justify religious experience. And amazingly this view is actually in accord with the latest philosophy of science. We need to get over that, accept it, and get on with life. Nothing else works for that. No other view of science does that yet, but I am sure there will be other paradigms in the future which do This realization is what propelled me back toward religion. If different disciplines can have different paradigms, then truth is fitting your paradigm. Religion and science have different paradigms therefore religion can be true within its own context. And do people in the "highest offices" of the church hold to the correspondence theory? Of course they do- they are like anyone else, they are picked for their closeness to the spirit and for other reasons known only to the Lord. NONE of those characteristics include anything about the correspondence theory of truth, nor should they! Not sure what is meant by the first sentence. I discuss stuff all the time with people who believe in the correspondence theory without spouting off about it. Again, it's like talking to your grandma about string theory. Correspondence never comes up in Sunday school and if anything like that did I would probably make a very low-level comment about the validity of religious experience and the fact that there is no need for evidence verifying private experience but private experience itself. "So how do you know Joseph Smith was not lying about the first vision?" My Sunday School answer would be "The only way to know is by praying about it and getting your own answer". THAT is a true statement according to my view, without getting into all the arcane weirdness about the nature of truth and correspondence theory. When little Johnnie asks "where did I come from?" you don't take a gulp and get into the mechanics of sex when the answer "You were born in Cleveland" answers the question. You have to know what the question really is before you really answer it. And no, no softening is necessary, in fact we need to yell it from the housetops. "CORRESPONDENCE MAKES JOSEPH A LIAR!" This forum would not need to exist if all LDS understood this stuff. There would be no issues with LDS history, no worries about Book of Mormon geography. Everyone would simply see these paradigms as just that and not expect them to "correspond to a reality" which exists nowhere. It is impossible to know the "reality" of these issues or what "really happened". Impossible. No sense talking about them! All that matters is the effects Mormonism has in our lives, and whether or not it is "Sweet" as Alma says. It can be "sweet" even if there was no Alma to say those words, just as we can treat our children as the "prodigal son" even if there was no prodigal son historically, or reward the repentant as if they worked the full shift even if they only worked a few hours. I don't follow the logic here at all. As I have said it is only a "grave problem" when one seeks to explain religious experience as "true" using the correspondence theory. In that case it simply doesn't work and would BE a "grave problem" in the ARGUMENT (as opposed to the person who made the argument) of anyone who tried to pull that off. You cannot find empirical evidence for visions. It is as clear as that. If you argue you CAN, you are going to be in trouble. It would be claiming that there is scientific evidence that Joseph saw God. Good luck on that argument. Again, we do not believe in the infallibility of prophets, so no, it is no problem at all. And the fact that it IS a "fatal flaw" to the argument should be obvious to anyone who hears such an argument I must love you after all Rory to blast you with all these words!! Let's suppose, as part of the process of final judgment, God the Father himself stands before the billions of resurrected humanity, along with the prophet Joseph Smith who has been called out of the vast throng to stand at the Father's side. Then imagine the Father puts his arm around the shoulder of the prophet and then dramatically testifies in the ears and eyes of every single gathered soul that he -- God the Father -- did indeed appear to the prophet Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, and that the account of the First Vision as found in the Pearl of Great Price is correct. Would such an event satisfy the demands of science and therefore prove scientifically that the First Vision did indeed occur?
3DOP Posted September 1, 2016 Author Posted September 1, 2016 22 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I want to take your post line by line Rory because I think first of all, that you deserve answers, and second of all because it shows a great difference between LDS culture and Catholic culture which could be revealing to others. Yes, the correspondence theory is widespread among "laymen" (meaning those who have not studied philosophy) in our culture in general. We should not be surprised about that- it has been the dominant view in Western culture for 2000 years. On the other hand, my view goes back nearly 400 years to Kant and has not been refuted, and it's importance grows yearly. I am not sure what that means but I am presuming it means, what if I think some prophets are mistaken about the correspondence theory? Nothing. I sustain my leaders as leaders and agree to follow them. The are not trained philosophers and do not make philosophical pronouncements. If it in talk they speak of "truth" in a way which affirms the correspondence theory, I take it with a grain of salt and chalk it up to their generation and the fact that like most of the rest of western civilization they do not understand another way to envision "truth". It's like asking what if my grandma doesn't understand string theory. Nothing. She is still my grandma who knows tons of things I do not know and after all, string theory or the correspondence theory has not much relevance in living a good life, raising a family or anything else actually important. The only place where correspondence theory becomes important in my book is in understanding and speaking about the conflict between science and personal revelation. Science does not "represent" spiritual reality, nor could it because spiritual reality is not a subject of science. It is like asking knitting to conform to the rules of basketball. It's two different worlds colliding which should never collide! And when they DO collide, all you can do is offer your opinion and see if the other person has some new insight. They never do. Never. If they understood it, they would see it and not have questions. So you patiently sit back and let them rattle on and then you try to remain kind and say "Have you ever considered that there is a problem with that because....." or you ignore them and go on with life. You get used to it after a while. LDS do not believe that prophets are infallible. So as long as you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview, you are as "LDS" as anyone can be. You go to church, you go to the temple and you do not argue correspondence theory because no one will understand you. It's no biggie. I think on this board there are probably less than 7 or 8 people who get this stuff. That's fine. Eight is better than nothing. Sure you could do that, but that seems excessively timid to me. It's no big deal!! This is an esoteric point that most people have no idea even exists as a point. It IS a "fatal flaw" in the theory of truth most have. But most do not care or even know that. This is a technicality that is unimportant anywhere in life except when someone says "How do you know that Joseph's vision was true? How can it be true without evidence? Why would you accept this nonsense?" THEN and only then belief in correspondence is that fatal flaw! You cannot answer that argument with the correspondence theory because that view IS the correpondence theory. If you buy correspondence you must believe that religious experience cannot be "true" CAN anyone else see the importance of this?? You cannot simultaneously believe correspondence AND that religious experience is true! The answer is: "Private experience is not subject, by its nature, to objective evidence. The truth of Joseph's vision is only knowable by Joseph himself, but you can also have your own spiritual experience confirming that it was true" Then you have to go into private experience and public experience, and the whole rap I do here daily, and how private experience in religious matters is perfectly justifiable as being "true" because of William James, yada yada .... But if the person is religious you just tell them that one cannot therefore rationally believe that the Virgin Mary "really appeared" to anyone either, or their spiritual feeling that lets them know they are "saved" is anything but, as the author of "A Christmas Carol" said, "a bit of bad beef". Overcoming the correspondence theory and affirming that truth is relative to to a community and a particular discipline is the only rational way to justify religious experience. And amazingly this view is actually in accord with the latest philosophy of science. We need to get over that, accept it, and get on with life. Nothing else works for that. No other view of science does that yet, but I am sure there will be other paradigms in the future which do This realization is what propelled me back toward religion. If different disciplines can have different paradigms, then truth is fitting your paradigm. Religion and science have different paradigms therefore religion can be true within its own context. And do people in the "highest offices" of the church hold to the correspondence theory? Of course they do- they are like anyone else, they are picked for their closeness to the spirit and for other reasons known only to the Lord. NONE of those characteristics include anything about the correspondence theory of truth, nor should they! Not sure what is meant by the first sentence. I discuss stuff all the time with people who believe in the correspondence theory without spouting off about it. Again, it's like talking to your grandma about string theory. Correspondence never comes up in Sunday school and if anything like that did I would probably make a very low-level comment about the validity of religious experience and the fact that there is no need for evidence verifying private experience but private experience itself. "So how do you know Joseph Smith was not lying about the first vision?" My Sunday School answer would be "The only way to know is by praying about it and getting your own answer". THAT is a true statement according to my view, without getting into all the arcane weirdness about the nature of truth and correspondence theory. When little Johnnie asks "where did I come from?" you don't take a gulp and get into the mechanics of sex when the answer "You were born in Cleveland" answers the question. You have to know what the question really is before you really answer it. And no, no softening is necessary, in fact we need to yell it from the housetops. "CORRESPONDENCE MAKES JOSEPH A LIAR!" This forum would not need to exist if all LDS understood this stuff. There would be no issues with LDS history, no worries about Book of Mormon geography. Everyone would simply see these paradigms as just that and not expect them to "correspond to a reality" which exists nowhere. It is impossible to know the "reality" of these issues or what "really happened". Impossible. No sense talking about them! All that matters is the effects Mormonism has in our lives, and whether or not it is "Sweet" as Alma says. It can be "sweet" even if there was no Alma to say those words, just as we can treat our children as the "prodigal son" even if there was no prodigal son historically, or reward the repentant as if they worked the full shift even if they only worked a few hours. I don't follow the logic here at all. As I have said it is only a "grave problem" when one seeks to explain religious experience as "true" using the correspondence theory. In that case it simply doesn't work and would BE a "grave problem" in the ARGUMENT (as opposed to the person who made the argument) of anyone who tried to pull that off. You cannot find empirical evidence for visions. It is as clear as that. If you argue you CAN, you are going to be in trouble. It would be claiming that there is scientific evidence that Joseph saw God. Good luck on that argument. Again, we do not believe in the infallibility of prophets, so no, it is no problem at all. And the fact that it IS a "fatal flaw" to the argument should be obvious to anyone who hears such an argument I must love you after all Rory to blast you with all these words!! Thank you Mark. I have read and re-read your words. You are the only person who has stymied me in all my years on the internet. You baffle me and leave me dumbfounded as to what to say. You are so far ahead of me intellectually. But It just seems like with your way we all become isolated in our experiences that cannot be verified or contradicted by anybody else. If interior experience is all, what is there to discuss? I am glad you want to keep being religious, but I don't think your way of doing it fits what came down to us from Apostles that we both accept, or even most of the Apostles you accept. It seems like some parts of our common redemption history, as well as your own particular restoration history is supposed to be verifiable. Those from whom we received our respective faiths seemed to appeal to proofs. I truly appreciate your comprehensive reply and I think you like me and as you say, you must love me. I want to say I have never been offended with you. You have often mistaken my zeal for anger. I sometimes feel like I have wasted my time here all these years. You have won eight! Eight is wonderful. That's three fourths of how many our dear Lord won! Great for you. Obviously I remain what I have been and will continue to be a good little soldier. But I am sorry that my good God has not given you a more worthy adversary. Your servant in Jesus and Mary, Rory
mfbukowski Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Let's suppose, as part of the process of final judgment, God the Father himself stands before the billions of resurrected humanity, along with the prophet Joseph Smith who has been called out of the vast throng to stand at the Father's side. Then imagine the Father puts his arm around the shoulder of the prophet and then dramatically testifies in the ears and eyes of every single gathered soul that he -- God the Father -- did indeed appear to the prophet Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, and that the account of the First Vision as found in the Pearl of Great Price is correct. Would such an event satisfy the demands of science and therefore prove scientifically that the First Vision did indeed occur? My answer is "YES!" Of course some might think it was just a mass hallucination !! There is always a skeptical way to see anything. That is agency in action. Remember a third of the host of heaven looked God in the face and decided to go the other way.
mfbukowski Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 3 hours ago, 3DOP said: But It just seems like with your way we all become isolated in our experiences that cannot be verified or contradicted by anybody else. If interior experience is all, what is there to discuss? I am glad you want to keep being religious, but I don't think your way of doing it fits what came down to us from Apostles that we both accept, or even most of the Apostles you accept. It seems like some parts of our common redemption history, as well as your own particular restoration history is supposed to be verifiable. Those from whom we received our respective faiths seemed to appeal to proofs. We all stand alone before Christ- there will be no others rooting for us at the judgment. And the decision to believe and live our faith is our own decision as well There really is nothing to discuss- once the answer is found, but until then, there is only teaching and learning and fighting to find the truth. Because one's family kept a tradition, one is still responsible for their own decisions The only verifications LDS have is Moroni 10: 4 -5. We have no "proofs" alleged but what we feel in our hearts. As far as the biblical apostles, I could give you pages of quotes showing what I believe is represented there. But what good would that do? We would just disagree on the interpretation. I cannot imagine picking a church based on anyone else's word but God's. I received my faith from no one but my own mind, as directed by God, I believe. I deduced what I saw as the best world view and then the spirit directed me to a church which supported it. I had to do that because I felt that there was no truth anywhere and this is where God led me, to the Plan of Happiness I really am a TBM you know underneath it all. I just use a different vocabulary than the others
clarkgoble Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) A few thoughts. It seems to me that quite a few separate issues are being conflated in the discussion. Logical positivism or the Vienna Circle evolved over time a fair bit. The Vienna Circle was influenced by the 19th century type of positivism, especially Mach, quite a bit. But we probably should distinguish them as two separate movements for a variety of reasons. The defining feature of positivism was less correspondence (although that was part of it) than it was a verificationalist theory of truth such that anything that couldn't be verified was meaningless. It was clear to the Vienna Circle fairly early that this could be seen as self-refuting. But while figures like Carnap or Neurath adjusted their views over time they never really were able to come up with a good verificationalist principle. Contra some I think there's a ton of value in Logical Positivism but there's a reason the movement petered out. When people like Alan Goff raise positivism it's usually less formal positivism than it is what many would term positivist tendencies in scholarly fields that aren't technically positivist in nature. That is assuming that theories don't themselves depend upon somewhat speculative and arguable foundations. This is especially true in places like history which Goff pays attention to. I'd prefer to call this a kind of naive empiricism since I don't think the issue is really positivism but that's more me wanting to keep categories clear. On the other hand the way postmodernism works in practice in many fields like history, sociology or so forth isn't much better and is arguably much worse. Again that's not really a commentary on philosophers like Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida or others than it is how people in English or Sociology appropriate (often badly) their work. My own take away is that often when applied to the humanities or very soft sciences grad students take a little reading of philosophers and mangle them. My second take away is that in publication these fields often have lower critical standards than one finds in the sciences leading to a bigger problem of fads and cliques. But by and large I rarely think the problem is the philosophy even when I disagree with it. To the question of positivism I think if one wants, the person to read is C. S. Peirce who in my view has all the strengths of the positivists without their many weaknesses. He was a 19th century chemist and physicist and did a lot of breakthrough work in logic. He is the founder of pragmatism although his form of pragmatism is quite different than that of William James who is better known or even Dewey. I think that's partially because James was a psychologist (in its 19th century form) whereas Peirce was in the hard sciences and mathematics. A major way of looking at the pragmatists is via the verification principle that was such a problem for the positivists. For Peirce (since I think he got it right) the verification principle is called the pragmatic maxim and arguably is the heart of pragmatism. However it's not a criterion of truth but of meaning. Peirce doesn't discard metaphysics the way the positivists did. He think metaphysical thinking is unavoidable. To try and avoid it is simply to do very bad uncritical metaphysics and then not be aware one is doing it. (Which I think is the general consensus about the positivists) Arguments for metaphysics might be weak and most metaphysics might be muddled thinking, but it is verifiable in the long run. Peirce's pragmatic maxim is to think about all the consequences in how you'd determined if a property is had. The meaning of that property consists in all the ways you'd go about trying to discover if an object has them. So for diamonds being hard it'd be all the ways you could measure the hardness of diamond. James sometimes followed Peirce but sometimes had more looser senses in which meaning is in terms of how we respond to an idea rather than how we'd verify an idea. This had important consequences in applying pragmatism to religion where arguably there's a big difference between James and Peirce. Peirce felt we could verify metaphysical theories about things like God but saw them not in individual responses to the idea but how we go about discovering them as in diamond. Edited September 2, 2016 by clarkgoble 1
clarkgoble Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 I don't think Mormons only have Moroni 10:4-5, which is a fair vague scripture. I think Alma 32 is pretty prominent as well, although I'd argue it is tied up with how Hebrews used the word truth which in turn has a lot of echoes to pragmatism. Outside of saying God will answer by the Holy Ghost it really says nothing. It's just incorrect to say the Holy Ghost is only a feeling in our hearts. At least from a theological position. (Although maybe I'm misinterpreting you there and you are being intentionally vague - if so forgive me for this response) How in practice people identify the spirit tends to vary quite a bit among people, as I think most missionaries discover rather quickly. How people then decide on the meaning also obviously varies. I'd argue there's an inherent hermeneutic component to it as well such that we're always making an interpretation. Regarding private experience and objective experience I think we should treat the terms private/objective as large orthogonal to each other. Usually by objective we just mean not determined by the person thinking about it. But of course we all have lots of private experiences that are objective. Right now I'm in my office with no one around typing on my computer. No one can as a practical matter know what I was doing (assuming not monitoring equipment was set up) yet it seems to me it is objectively true I'm typing on this keyboard. A problem some skeptics, especially of religion bring up, is a dismissive attitude towards private experiences as a source of truth. Yet just a few minutes thinking about this shows that's a ludicrous position. Usually the next step is to move towards classes of truths. So it's fine to say it's true I'm typing on a computer because typing on computers is well known publicly. But this doesn't really make much sense epistemologically. To see why, let's hypothesize a silly situation to avoid the baggage religious discussions take. Let's say there really are aliens with some knowledge of advanced physics that lets them make the trip from their planet to hear despite the problems with general relativity. Now we have zero reason in terms of public evidence to believe there are such aliens. Most of our evidence in physics says aliens appearing here are impossible. (GR bans faster than light travel and makes even very fast travel extremely difficult) But if I come upon an alien space ship, approach it all skeptically trying to determine I'm not hallucinating or have mental illness, conduct some reasonable tests, then it seems completely rationally justified to believe I experienced an alien encounter. Indeed I'd argue that semantically I should be able to say I know there were aliens. I have sufficient evidence, there's nothing to be sufficiently skeptical of my experience, plus it was true. Even for classic positivists this would be sufficient.
Calm Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Clark, good to see you again. 2 visits in abt 2 months after a gap of almost 9 years. You are on a roll.
Calm Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 On August 31, 28 Heisei at 6:46 PM, 3DOP said: But It just seems like with your way we all become isolated in our experiences that cannot be verified or contradicted by anybody else. The recognition of this has become in many ways the most fundamental aspect of my pursuit of God. It hit me hard one day after my mother matter of factly dropped all unawares a bomb about one of my sisters she thought I already knew. I had a few months earlier heard about a choice my other sister had made that I also just couldn't understand. How in the world could anyone who understood the world like I did choose to do those things? Which meant they didn't understand the world like me at all (a fact I had been resisting to accept since teen years, but with the latest there was no denying of it) even though we grew up in the same house, shared much of the same genetic material, had the same parents. I had thought that given enough time, attention and effort I would at least with these women be able to be understood deep down and return the favor, make that deep, intimate connection. Failures in the past were all about not knowing how to communicate, but if we really needed to, we would...or so I wanted to think. It was a security blanket against loneliness and frustration over constant miscommunications. With the revelation from Mom though, I could no longer hide from the reality (my reality, that is) that there was not one person out there that I would not only be able to relax around and not have to think before I spoke, but even more dismal there was no one out there who would see me as I am and not as the image they had laid over me. It felt suffocating, both the perception I would be forced to wear masks the rest of my life no matter how hard I worked to tear them off, but the sense of being so alone was like being shut up in a tiny box behind thick walls and being stuck out on a vast, empty plain both at the same time. After an eternity of sorrow that probably lasted less than five minutes, God intruded in and let me know in no uncertain terms that there was no need to despair. I was not alone and better yet, there was someone who knew me through and through, on every level, in every way. He knew me better than I knew myself and because I had him and he had me, he knew I could endure all the other incomplete relationships until the time came for those to be sanctified and made whole, made one as well...which even included my relationship with myself. Others obviously do not experience the world in the way I do, but it does seem an undeniable fact we can never know others in a fundamental way, we only approach this level of knowing. And the scriptures teach (1 Cor 13:12) and I most firmly believe that such knowledge will come from God along with all the other gifts he is looking forward to bestowing upon us. So all that is the long way around to saying isolation is a gift from God that he has given to us to lead, drive, drag us kicking and screaming to seek him out. I don't think we should look on the idea of isolation from our fellows any differently than we view the other limitations of life, health, poverty, language differences. Accept that they exist, seek God to receive both comfort and guidance in overcoming them. They are tools God uses to sanctify us and bring us to him. 1
mfbukowski Posted September 3, 2016 Posted September 3, 2016 3 hours ago, clarkgoble said: A few thoughts. Welcome. I am presuming this was addressed to me, but heck I will be glad to answer anyway I will take it paragraph by paragraph because I am glad to have someone to talk to who actually understands this stuff ! Quote It seems to me that quite a few separate issues are being conflated in the discussion. Logical positivism or the Vienna Circle evolved over time a fair bit. The Vienna Circle was influenced by the 19th century type of positivism, especially Mach, quite a bit. But we probably should distinguish them as two separate movements for a variety of reasons. The defining feature of positivism was less correspondence (although that was part of it) than it was a verificationalist theory of truth such that anything that couldn't be verified was meaningless. It was clear to the Vienna Circle fairly early that this could be seen as self-refuting. But while figures like Carnap or Neurath adjusted their views over time they never really were able to come up with a good verificationalist principle. Contra some I think there's a ton of value in Logical Positivism but there's a reason the movement petered out. Yes I agree fully. We have to understand that this is an apologetics board and not a philosophy board. When I go whole hog into nuances around here I will either get no replies at all (because no one has read the post) or someone will single out a single phrase and take me to task for their odd interpretation of the meaning, because they have no understanding of philosophy. The problem we have here is that we have many who have what I may call "naive verificationist" views straight out of a kind of fundamentalist scientism based on their interpretation of something muttered by say, Dawkins at his worst. And this sort of thing is supposed to refute Mormonism because there are no "historical facts" to "prove" the Book of Mormon, and horrors of horrors no scientific evidence for the existence of God. My main goal is simply to show that there are problems with a naive, man-in-the-street understanding of correspondence, which despite my repeated repeated attempts, has largely fallen on deaf ears, though I must say that my rep count indicates that I do have a few fans who "get it". I am here because it is a popular board which seems to attract occasional real scholars, but most of the denizens are your average folks with questions. I never got to go on a mission so I guess this is sort of it. I know for a fact I have helped some, and for me, that is what it is all about. In case it is not obvious, I am a super-fan of Dewey and studied James in grad school with John J McDermott https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/16178.John_J_McDermott so I am pretty well versed in that end of pragmatism, as opposed to Peirce. I am also big fans of Thomas Nagel and Rorty and their entourages because they understand that religious statements can be justified regardless of them being atheists themselves. Along the way I got hooked on Wittgenstein, his later stuff, and so I actually DO believe that philosophical "problems" are mostly based in language. Believing that, I actually quit academic philosophy because I did not want to teach philos 101 forever. I later found the church and saw its affinities with pragmatism (Moroni and Alma) and Wittgenstein (D&C 93:30) among many other verses. So yeah, I agree that the nuances are sloppy. All I am trying to show really though is that religion doesn't need science to justify its propositions. Anything above that is too nuanced for the audience. Quote When people like Alan Goff raise positivism it's usually less formal positivism than it is what many would term positivist tendencies in scholarly fields that aren't technically positivist in nature. That is assuming that theories don't themselves depend upon somewhat speculative and arguable foundations. This is especially true in places like history which Goff pays attention to. I'd prefer to call this a kind of naive empiricism since I don't think the issue is really positivism but that's more me wanting to keep categories clear Agreed, but I kind of think at least in that paper, he was up against some of the same problems I am, in dealing with philosophical novices Quote On the other hand the way postmodernism works in practice in many fields like history, sociology or so forth isn't much better and is arguably much worse. Again that's not really a commentary on philosophers like Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida or others than it is how people in English or Sociology appropriate (often badly) their work. My own take away is that often when applied to the humanities or very soft sciences grad students take a little reading of philosophers and mangle them. My second take away is that in publication these fields often have lower critical standards than one finds in the sciences leading to a bigger problem of fads and cliques. But by and large I rarely think the problem is the philosophy even when I disagree with it. Agreed, but perhaps you are alluding to my sloppy postmodernism on this board. I would be happy to get into that if you like. I just can't imagine quoting any of those guys here. I just had someone saying that we could use sociological "evidence" to help determine if or if not God exists, because after all it is "science" and deals with data about religious believers. That is where we are at. So yes, again I am sure I could discuss REAL "postmodernism" (whatever that means this week) with you anytime. Quote To the question of positivism I think if one wants, the person to read is C. S. Peirce who in my view has all the strengths of the positivists without their many weaknesses. He was a 19th century chemist and physicist and did a lot of breakthrough work in logic. He is the founder of pragmatism although his form of pragmatism is quite different than that of William James who is better known or even Dewey. I think that's partially because James was a psychologist (in its 19th century form) whereas Peirce was in the hard sciences and mathematics. A major way of looking at the pragmatists is via the verification principle that was such a problem for the positivists. For Peirce (since I think he got it right) the verification principle is called the pragmatic maxim and arguably is the heart of pragmatism. However it's not a criterion of truthbut of meaning. Peirce doesn't discard metaphysics the way the positivists did. He think metaphysical thinking is unavoidable. To try and avoid it is simply to do very bad uncritical metaphysics and then not be aware one is doing it. (Which I think is the general consensus about the positivists) Arguments for metaphysics might be weak and most metaphysics might be muddled thinking, but it is verifiable in the long run. Peirce's pragmatic maxim is to think about all the consequences in how you'd determined if a property is had. The meaning of that property consists in all the ways you'd go about trying to discover if an object has them. So for diamonds being hard it'd be all the ways you could measure the hardness of diamond. James sometimes followed Peirce but sometimes had more looser senses in which meaning is in terms of how we respond to an idea rather than how we'd verify an idea. This had important consequences in applying pragmatism to religion where arguably there's a big difference between James and Peirce. Peirce felt we could verify metaphysical theories about things like God but saw them not in individual responses to the idea but how we go about discovering them as in diamond. Well this is about where my Wittgenstein cuts in. Of course for Wittgenstein it could be said that meaning is context within a language game. Others have put that into a "community" of like-minded folks who understand the context, and that "truth" is their agreement with the proposition. So in a sense I think truth and meaning cannot be separated. To me, even the idea of a "property" is in the eye of the beholder, and seems to be somewhat of a reification. Almost downright Platonic, which is a dirty word to me. I would tend to go more with James on this one and really more with Wittgenstein than anyone. Is the "value" of a diamond a "property"? What are the practical consequences of being able to discuss the "properties" of diamonds as opposed to just discussing diamonds? What discussion does that metaphysical idea of "property" advance rather than confuse? In a religious sense, does discussion of "properties" make it easier to understand God or harder?
mfbukowski Posted September 3, 2016 Posted September 3, 2016 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I don't think Mormons only have Moroni 10:4-5, which is a fair vague scripture. I think Alma 32 is pretty prominent as well, although I'd argue it is tied up with how Hebrews used the word truth which in turn has a lot of echoes to pragmatism. Outside of saying God will answer by the Holy Ghost it really says nothing. It's just incorrect to say the Holy Ghost is only a feeling in our hearts. At least from a theological position. (Although maybe I'm misinterpreting you there and you are being intentionally vague - if so forgive me for this response) How in practice people identify the spirit tends to vary quite a bit among people, as I think most missionaries discover rather quickly. How people then decide on the meaning also obviously varies. I'd argue there's an inherent hermeneutic component to it as well such that we're always making an interpretation. Regarding private experience and objective experience I think we should treat the terms private/objective as large orthogonal to each other. Usually by objective we just mean not determined by the person thinking about it. But of course we all have lots of private experiences that are objective. Right now I'm in my office with no one around typing on my computer. No one can as a practical matter know what I was doing (assuming not monitoring equipment was set up) yet it seems to me it is objectively true I'm typing on this keyboard. A problem some skeptics, especially of religion bring up, is a dismissive attitude towards private experiences as a source of truth. Yet just a few minutes thinking about this shows that's a ludicrous position. Usually the next step is to move towards classes of truths. So it's fine to say it's true I'm typing on a computer because typing on computers is well known publicly. But this doesn't really make much sense epistemologically. To see why, let's hypothesize a silly situation to avoid the baggage religious discussions take. Let's say there really are aliens with some knowledge of advanced physics that lets them make the trip from their planet to hear despite the problems with general relativity. Now we have zero reason in terms of public evidence to believe there are such aliens. Most of our evidence in physics says aliens appearing here are impossible. (GR bans faster than light travel and makes even very fast travel extremely difficult) But if I come upon an alien space ship, approach it all skeptically trying to determine I'm not hallucinating or have mental illness, conduct some reasonable tests, then it seems completely rationally justified to believe I experienced an alien encounter. Indeed I'd argue that semantically I should be able to say I know there were aliens. I have sufficient evidence, there's nothing to be sufficiently skeptical of my experience, plus it was true. Even for classic positivists this would be sufficient. Wow- that link to T&S was great- thanks for posting that here! Very useful in the apologist wars! I think that again, my reply to this post is that yes we get sloppy here on the nuance because there is no practical reason to get into it, in my opinion. Along with Moroni and Alma I would suggest also D&C 93, and even, amazingly, this talk is by none other than President Kimball, hardly a "relativist": Quote Experience in one field does not automatically create expertise in another field. Expertise in religion comes from personal righteousness and from revelation. The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.” (D&C 93:30.) A geologist who has discovered truths about the structure of the earth may be oblivious to the truths God has given us about the eternal nature of the family. If I can only make clear this one thing, it will give us a basis on which to build. Man cannot discover God or his ways by mere mental processes. One must be governed by the laws which control the realm into which he is delving. To become a plumber, one must study the laws which govern plumbing. He must know stresses and strains, temperatures at which pipes will freeze, laws which govern steam, hot water, expansion, contraction, and so forth. One might know much about plumbing and be a complete failure in training children or getting along with men. One might be the best of bookkeepers and yet not know anything of electricity. One might know much about buying and selling groceries and be absolutely ignorant of bridge building. One might be a great authority on the hydrogen bomb and yet know nothing of banking. One might be a noted theologian and yet be wholly untrained in watchmaking. One might be the author of the law of relativity and yet know nothing of the Creator who originated every law. I repeat, these are not matters of opinion. They are absolute truths. These truths are available to every soul. Any intelligent man may learn what he wants to learn. He may acquire knowledge in any field, though it requires much thought and effort. It takes more than a decade to get a high school diploma; it takes an additional four years for most people to get a college degree; it takes nearly a quarter-century to become a great physician. Why, oh, why do people think they can fathom the most complex spiritual depths without the necessary experimental and laboratory work accompanied by compliance with the laws that govern it? Absurd it is, but you will frequently find popular personalities, who seem never to have lived a single law of God, discoursing in interviews on religion. How ridiculous for such persons to attempt to outline for the world a way of life! And yet many a financier, politician, college professor, or owner of a gambling club thinks that because he has risen above all his fellowmen in his particular field he knows everything in every field. One cannot know God nor understand his works or plans unless he follows the laws which govern. The spiritual realm, which is just as absolute as is the physical, cannot be understood by the laws of the physical. You do not learn to make electric generators in a seminary. Neither do you learn certain truths about spiritual things in a physics laboratory. You must go to the spiritual laboratory, use the facilities available there, and comply with the governing rules. Then you may know of these truths just as surely, or more surely, than the scientist knows the metals, or the acids, or other elements. It matters little whether one is a plumber, or a banker, or a farmer, for these occupations are secondary; what is most important is what one knows and believes concerning his past and his future and what he does about it. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng THAT is "pragmatic truth" Now don't get me wrong- he also speaks in very emphatic terms about "Absolute Truth" which he says comes by personal revelation through the scriptures, which show us "things as they are". But what ARE "things as they are"? Discarding the correspondence theory and empiricism which clearly President Kimball does, "things as they are" can only mean "things as we experience them" including spiritual experience. So my interpretation is that he is saying that only through spiritual experience- or direct experience in other fields- can we know "things as they are" which he terms "absolute truth". To me, that also could be compatible, oddly, with deflationary theories of truth! "Snow is white" is true because THAT is what we experience directly. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/. There is not really too much more we can say about "truth"- there is no other definition which always works Essentially that which is true is what is confirmed by my personal experience, including spiritual experience and Alma 32 experience, and essentially "what works" which you show in your article above. And yes I am being intentionally vague regarding the epistemology of the Holy Spirit. Yes, other people feel it in other ways, and that must automatically be taken into account when the audience includes many non-believers and also those hostile to Mormon Doctrine. And after all, epistemologically how does one distinguish from the "Holy Ghost" inspiring "only temporarily" for investigators, or the Holy Ghost as a constant companion? How does that differ in how it feels? Can it be verbalized? How does one distinguish the "Light of Christ" from the two manifestations of the HG? At what point does Moroni 10 blend into Alma 32 while the spirit makes ideas "sweet" and they start "producing true fruit"? Again, this is the Wittgensteinian side where at some point these alleged distinctions become meaningless in terms of being perceivable. And as good pragmatists, we know all about distinctions without a difference, right?
Recommended Posts