Confirmation through the spirit or feelings?

[hope_for_things]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And yes, science is a metaphor which adds to everyone's life.  We can't see quarks and strings or choose your language and description mode to describe things "as they are"

Religion is just as much a metaphor that adds to everyone's life as science is, but the subjects are different.  Psychiatry is somewhere between the two.

Science is a method of learning that does requires a creative element to it, but the method also calls for systematic replication and those replications can be tested and measured and independently verified through others testing and verifying the results all over the world across cultural and societal boundaries.  This method is constantly evolving, meaning that new findings are at times overturning old understandings and are being refined and advanced as additional understanding is "revealed".  

Religion doesn't function the same way, there isn't a process for peer review and testing and replication of results.  Religions also evolve it is true as they are influenced by culture and society.  Scientific knowledge has influenced religion in many ways as well.  However, I see the two enterprises quite differently.  Religion has no check and balance internally as part of the system.  There aren't structured methods required for innovation, especially with respect to the Mormon religion, whatever biases and presuppositions that leaders bring to their position are automatically given preference, and there isn't an independent measured process for evaluating and testing these innovations. While I would agree with you that science is still using words to describe phenomena and in this way it is a metaphor, otherwise, I don't think the two methods have much if anything in common. 

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Dictionary writers report usage. That accomplished nothing. It is like a photograph of a disease. It does not heal the problem.

I have never alleged that what I have said is true. That would be a vacuous statement without defining  truth.

There is nothing to be said about truth or it's synonyms 

 

And thus further and further into sophistry you go.

True it is that Language is not the end all or be all of Truth/Reality.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

It depends on what you use for a standard of historicity. You chose to believe that “God is existence,” based on the historical event of your hearing it. That is a very Biblical approach (Romans 10:17). The idea was put into your mind and you chose to believe it.

Sometimes we invite ideas into our minds (Alma 32).

You need to articulate how faith-dependent claims such as Nephites and Jesus are any different from claims that “God is existence.” So far it seems like you arbitrarily picked a different historical standard than you did for God, and such hunches are entirely subjective, internal processes, based on what you choose to invite into your mind and consider.

 

Well, that escalated quickly… But now that you mention it, even your hallucinations have an origin, or an input to your brain.

How did you learn to pray? That would be the discernible external input to the associated mental processes, which are entirely internal.

Wow.   Just Wow.

This raises the issue of the contingency of language and therefore contingency of the self.  If language is arbitrary and contingent and not tied to "reality" as the old modes of thought would dictate, and we are subject to being "programmed" by what is external, "the self" disappears.  We are like a computer, only spitting back what it is programmed to do.  We are not actors, we are acted upon and no different than rocks in a landslide.

So for me, Alma 32 becomes the key- we choose to a large extent- but not always- what inputs work for us and what to keep and what to throw out by determining if the "seed grows into fruit and the fruit becomes sweet to us" as Alma might have put it.

So as you say, the religious choice of believing that "God is existence" is just as much an internal choice of Alma's "sweet fruit" as believing in Joseph and the gold plates, based on internal mental states and what works for the individual.

So for me in the final analysis, we remain actors in choosing what inputs work in organizing our worlds out of the matter unorganized of all the inputs available.  That is the kind of individual Rorty refers to as an "Ironist" which I think I mentioned to you before.  So though Rorty does not understand it, for me God is the Ultimate Ironist in choosing how to use the matter unorganized to organize HIS "internal state" which becomes OUR "real world" meaning our raw experience of the world, independent of language.

God took our raw intelligences and gave us Human perception like his, instead of making our intelligences perhaps whales or other creatures with different ways of perceiving reality.   Whales do not build houses- they have no need for them, on the other hand they are not infinitely adaptable as we are.  A whale could never live on mars, where we could with great effort.

So our story tells us we are Godlike in our perceptions and the way we organize matter unorganized.  We choose the inputs and grind them up and organize a world- all of this is an "internal" process done through our intelligence.

And THAT is why I am Mormon.

Not gold plates, not history, nothing to do with papyrus or polygamy- the total GENIUS of that insight at the core of Mormonism was enough for me 40 years ago.

God took our raw intelligence and made it like his in a "spirit body" like his and sent us to earth- and you know the rest.

But the kingdom of heaven is still within us and not "out there" somewhere because WE are the agents organizing our worlds as WE KNOW THEM because we have created them.

So Gray has made his world in the image of his own intelligence, but for us we see the process as identical to ours- but he has chosen different inputs.  Mazel tov.

But interestingly they are still well within the Judeo-Christian realm if he sees that or not, considering their source.   That old dualism is still there.

Edited April 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Gray said:

If you haven't doubted, you haven't examined. If you want to really examine, you have to be ready to abandon any belief that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If you can't do that, then you've fallen victim to a spirit of fear. Cherished beliefs are shielded from scrutiny, only because we fear they might not hold up.

When I think of "doubt", I equate it with a belief that something is unlikely.  To me, that is a very cynical way to live and is not without its own bias.  If you are using the word to to suggest uncertainty, then I have no problem with it used in that way. 

[Ahab]

A little closer to where we started now, please, but adding in what we have learned.

"Confirmation through the spirit or feelings?"

Confirmation of what?

Whose spirit and whose feelings?

We can understand much on our own but sometimes with some input from other people we can begin to understand even more.  But then again others may benefit from what we can teach them and not understand very much on their own without us.

To be the teacher, or to be the student?

I think,l therefore I am, but what am I and how can I know it?

Maybe my spirit and my feelings are an extension of the spirit and feelings of God 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Science is a method of learning that does requires a creative element to it, but the method also calls for systematic replication and those replications can be tested and measured and independently verified through others testing and verifying the results all over the world across cultural and societal boundaries.  This method is constantly evolving, meaning that new findings are at times overturning old understandings and are being refined and advanced as additional understanding is "revealed".  

Religion doesn't function the same way, there isn't a process for peer review and testing and replication of results.  Religions also evolve it is true as they are influenced by culture and society.  Scientific knowledge has influenced religion in many ways as well.  However, I see the two enterprises quite differently.  Religion has no check and balance internally as part of the system.  There aren't structured methods required for innovation, especially with respect to the Mormon religion, whatever biases and presuppositions that leaders bring to their position are automatically given preference, and there isn't an independent measured process for evaluating and testing these innovations. While I would agree with you that science is still using words to describe phenomena and in this way it is a metaphor, otherwise, I don't think the two methods have much if anything in common. 

There is no need for these things in religion because religion is about what beliefs give us meaning and comfort in our lives.   It is not about what you would call "external reality"

And I know you will come up with the ususal objections- that Jesus had to die as a historical event etc, but no that is not correct

Religion is not about facts it is about what we BELIEVE about things we take on faith were "facts"

If you could discern the meaning of those words, we would communicate better.  Religion is about internal attitudes about reality, not "external reality."

Read the Rorty below and see if that helps.

Religion is not about causes which are NOT dependent on the mind- religion is about what you would call our "internal state of mind"  nothing more nothing less.

You take it on faith that science is about "external reality" but it is actually about how humans perceive what they CALL "external reality"

Systematic replications are just systematic replications of what humans systematically replicate.  It is about human perception, nothing more.

Edited April 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

If you haven't doubted, you haven't examined. If you want to really examine, you have to be ready to abandon any belief that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If you can't do that, then you've fallen victim to a spirit of fear. Cherished beliefs are shielded from scrutiny, only because we fear they might not hold up.

I would throw this right back atcha.

YOU haven't doubted enough!  You haven't really examined the idea that all your perceptions are mental states about an unknowable world around you, which humans have constructed out of their inability to perceive it as it is.

THAT is the only idea that really holds up to scrutiny- that even reality AS WE KNOW IT is more about how WE are than how IT is.

Edited April 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[snowflake]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Dictionary writers report usage. That accomplished nothing. It is like a photograph of a disease. It does not heal the problem.

I have never alleged that what I have said is true. That would be a vacuous statement without defining  truth.

There is nothing to be said about truth or it's synonyms 

 

Wow, what a pile of B.S.!!!  Anybody else out there scratching their heads? No reality appearance distinction? What deep philosophical truths! LOL  Oh wait...that came out wrong, there is no such thing as philosophical truth, or truth for that matter.

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no need for these things in religion because religion is about what beliefs give us meaning and comfort in our lives.   It is not about what you would call "external reality"

And I know you will come up with the ususal objections- that Jesus had to die as a historical event etc, but no that is not correct

Religion is not about facts it is about what we BELIEVE about things we take on faith were "facts"

If you could discern the meaning of those words, we would communicate better.  Religion is about internal attitudes about reality, not "external reality."

Read the Rorty below and see if that helps.

Religion is not about causes which are NOT dependent on the mind- religion is about what you would call our "internal state of mind"  nothing more nothing less.

You take it on faith that science is about "external reality" but it is actually about how humans perceive what they CALL "external reality"

Systematic replications are just systematic replications of what humans systematically replicate.  It is about human perception, nothing more.

You and Gray were talking about "external reality", not me, but I read a few of the comments and I'll try to follow.  

I'm not hung up on whether Jesus died and was resurrected physically and whether that has any bearing on Christianity.   I agree with you that religion doesn't have to be about facts (many people think it does, but I don't.)  Many people who believe religion is about facts lose their religious convictions when they find out otherwise.  I think religion can be purely about metaphor and still have meaning.  

It sounds to me like you are saying that religion and science are doing the same thing, that they are equally taking observations of their surroundings and inventing meaning for those observations via metaphor, and that in this way religion and science are just two different flavors of meaning making without any material differences in methodology.  If this is what you meant, can you explain because I very much disagree.

Religion SHOULD BE about the "internal state of mind", but many religious people believe that their religious experience is about "external reality".  

Lastly, while the scientific method isn't perfect and is subject to human perception, the methodology of this system has brought significant advancements to the human enterprise, with measurable results.  Religions don't function at all the same way, this is a horrible comparison if you're equivocating religions and the scientific method, I don't get it.   

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

Just now, snowflake said:

Wow, what a pile of B.S.!!!  Anybody else out there scratching their heads? No reality appearance distinction? What deep philosophical truths! LOL  Oh wait...that came out wrong, there is no such thing as philosophical truth, or truth for that matter.

Don't be so dismissive of philosophy.  I suggest you start learning and considering some arguments before you come out and call something BS.  I'm a novice on this subject, but I respect those who know much more than I do about this very long tradition of thought.  Do some reading and don't be rude.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Wow.   Just Wow.

This raises the issue of the contingency of language and therefore contingency of the self.  If language is arbitrary and contingent and not tied to "reality" as the old modes of thought would dictate, and we are subject to being "programmed" by what is external, "the self" disappears.  We are like a computer, only spitting back what it is programmed to do.  We are not actors, we are acted upon and no different than rocks in a landslide.

So for me, Alma 32 becomes the key- we choose to a large extent- but not always- what inputs work for us and what to keep and what to throw out by determining if the "seed grows into fruit and the fruit becomes sweet to us" as Alma might have put it.

So as you say, the religious choice of believing that "God is existence" is just as much an internal choice of Alma's "sweet fruit" as believing in Joseph and the gold plates, based on internal mental states and what works for the individual.

So for me in the final analysis, we remain actors in choosing what inputs work in organizing our worlds out of the matter unorganized of all the inputs available.  That is the kind of individual Rorty refers to as an "Ironist" which I think I mentioned to you before.  So though Rorty does not understand it, for me God is the Ultimate Ironist in choosing how to use the matter unorganized to organize HIS "internal state" which becomes OUR "real world" meaning our raw experience of the world, independent of language.

God took our raw intelligences and gave us Human perception like his, instead of making our intelligences perhaps whales or other creatures with different ways of perceiving reality.   Whales do not build houses- they have no need for them, on the other hand they are not infinitely adaptable as we are.  A whale could never live on mars, where we could with great effort.

So our story tells us we are Godlike in our perceptions and the way we organize matter unorganized.  We choose the inputs and grind them up and organize a world- all of this is an "internal" process done through our intelligence.

And THAT is why I am Mormon.

Not gold plates, not history, nothing to do with papyrus or polygamy- the total GENIUS of that insight at the core of Mormonism was enough for me 40 years ago.

God took our raw intelligence and made it like his in a "spirit body" like his and sent us to earth- and you know the rest.

But the kingdom of heaven is still within us and not "out there" somewhere because WE are the agents organizing our worlds as WE KNOW THEM because we have created them.

So Gray has made his world in the image of his own intelligence, but for us we see the process as identical to ours- but he has chosen different inputs.  Mazel tov.

But interestingly they are still well within the Judeo-Christian realm if he sees that or not, considering their source.   That old dualism is still there.

It seems that part of our test is that we are often “imposed upon” if not fully “acted upon,” and we need to reject that. We need to reject those kinds of inputs or risk becoming program-dependent (the arm of flesh/“element”). It is interesting to me that the Lord, and that which is of the Lord, only “inviteth and enticeth.” Of course the devil “inviteth and enticeth” also, but to coerce and impose, and not to liberate and succor which are the epitome of doing good (Moroni 7:12-13). Another part of the test is to recognize, accept and use "that which is of God," which of can be abundantly found everywhere (Alma 30:44).

It is also interesting to me that, in the spirit of comparing what we do with what God did with His spirit children, one (actually, two) of the fundamental inputs into the brain is the parental DNA that combined to make it… yet someone new appears and does something with it!

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems that part of our test is that we are often “imposed upon” if not fully “acted upon,” and we need to reject that. We need to reject those kinds of inputs or risk becoming program-dependent (the arm of flesh/“element”). It is interesting to me that the Lord, and that which is of the Lord, only “inviteth and enticeth.” Of course the devil “inviteth and enticeth” also, but to coerce and impose, and not to liberate and succor which are the epitome of doing good (Moroni 7:12-13). Another part of the test is to recognize, accept and use "that which is of God," which of can be abundantly found everywhere (Alma 30:44).

Peer pressure, you mean. And yes it is better to learn from our Father .

 

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is also interesting to me that, in the spirit of comparing what we do with what God did with His spirit children, one (actually, two) of the fundamental inputs into the brain is the parental DNA that combined to make it… yet someone new appears and does something with it!

Maybe even becoming like our Father and Mother, if we really want to.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Mark is a student of philosophy and for that reason his statements are often subtle, nuanced and, on occasion, obscure. Very often he comments as if the person he's responding to is also trained philosopher. I can assure you Mark knows and believes truth is SOMETHING in some sense. And I can assure you he also believes Christ is the truth in some sense as well. Hopefully, he'll find a simple way to explain what he means so you'll be able to better understand his thinking on this point.

Thanks- in order to say things correctly I have to use philosophese because there is no other way I can say it "correctly" to me

Truth is unspeakable - it is direct experience.   It is seeing the color red before we call it "red".

Christ is the way the truth and the life- the direct experience of God speaking to you is non-verbal, it is felt in your heart.  The EXPERINCE of Christ is unspeakable as experience of red is unspeakable.  Neither red nor Christ are "objects in the world" they are EXPERIENCES.

We know how to use the word "truth" but there is no EXPLANATION of what "truth" is that works for all occasions and in all situations.

We know what it means that it is true that I am writing this and that you are reading this.  We know what it means when we say it is "true" that person who commited  a crime really did commit it.

It means that all our perceptions hang together to confirm that as a "fact" we can use to put the guy in jail.  Truth as a word is always pragmatic and good for a purpose to communicate something to someone.  Did you take the cookies out of the cookie jar? "Yes, it's true, I did it"

But "truth" as an abstract concept is undefinable.  We use it all the time but can't define it any more than we can define red without pointing to something red.  

Dictionary definitions are useless to define anything other than to give synonyms

Pretend you are blind and want to know what "red" is and so you look it up in the dictionary

Quote

 

red

red/

adjective

1.

of a color at the end of the spectrum next to orange and opposite violet, as of blood, fire, or rubies.

"her red lips"

synonyms:scarlet, vermilion, crimson, ruby, cherry, cerise, cardinal, carmine, wine, blood-red;More

noun

1.

red color or pigment.

"colors range from yellow to deep red"

2.

a red thing or person, in particular.

 

Did that help you, blind person?

Of course not.

That is true of all dictionary definitions- they use synonyms because language only refers to itself.

THAT is a lesson it itself.  

Nothing can really be defined unless you already know by experience what it is.  Experience is all we have and then we try to translate it into words, which never really works.  It kinda works but when you get down to brass tacks, it always lacks something because words are not experiences.  The word red is itself not red.

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Wow, what a pile of B.S.!!!  Anybody else out there scratching their heads? No reality appearance distinction? What deep philosophical truths! LOL  Oh wait...that came out wrong, there is no such thing as philosophical truth, or truth for that matter.

Ignorance is bliss.

[mfbukowski]

Religion is not about facts it is about what we BELIEVE about things we take on faith were "facts"

You take it on faith that science is about "external reality" but it is actually about how humans perceive what they CALL "external reality"

Systematic replications are just systematic replications of what humans systematically replicate.  It is about human perception, nothing more

(I have said it all before but I like the way it hangs together here.)

Edited April 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Religion is not about facts it is about what we BELIEVE about things we take on faith were "facts"

You take it on faith that science is about "external reality" but it is actually about how humans perceive what they CALL "external reality"

Systematic replications are just systematic replications of what humans systematically replicate.  It is about human perception, nothing more

(I have said it all before but I like the way it hangs together here.)

I feel like you're dodging my question about the differences between religion and science.  In fact, now that I think of it, I seem to recall some past discussions where you were the one arguing for how different science is from religion.  Do you remember those, I'll have to see if I can find an old thread, but I swear you were strongly arguing that I was equivocating scientific truth with religious truth, and you were adamantly opposed to that idea.   Some of my thoughts on the subject have evolved since then, but if my memory is correct, it sounds like you've done a complete 180 on this science and religion thing.  Now they are essentially the same???  Please explain.  

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks- in order to say things correctly I have to use philosophese because there is no other way I can say it "correctly" to me

Truth is unspeakable - it is direct experience.   It is seeing the color red before we call it "red".

Christ is the way the truth and the life- the direct experience of God speaking to you is non-verbal, it is felt in your heart.  The EXPERINCE of Christ is unspeakable as experience of red is unspeakable.  Neither red nor Christ are "objects in the world" they are EXPERIENCES.

We know how to use the word "truth" but there is no EXPLANATION of what "truth" is that works for all occasions and in all situations.

We know what it means that it is true that I am writing this and that you are reading this.  We know what it means when we say it is "true" that person who commited  a crime really did commit it.

It means that all our perceptions hang together to confirm that as a "fact" we can use to put the guy in jail.  Truth as a word is always pragmatic and good for a purpose to communicate something to someone.  Did you take the cookies out of the cookie jar? "Yes, it's true, I did it"

But "truth" as an abstract concept is undefinable.  We use it all the time but can't define it any more than we can define red without pointing to something red.  

Dictionary definitions are useless to define anything other than to give synonyms

Pretend you are blind and want to know what "red" is and so you look it up in the dictionary

Did that help you, blind person?

Of course not.

That is true of all dictionary definitions- they use synonyms because language only refers to itself.

THAT is a lesson it itself.  

Nothing can really be defined unless you already know by experience what it is.  Experience is all we have and then we try to translate it into words, which never really works.  It kinda works but when you get down to brass tacks, it always lacks something because words are not experiences.  The word red is itself not red.

That's close enough to you saying truth is independent of language that I can give you credit for saying it now.

Thank you.

It only took a couple of pages to get this far.

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Don't be so dismissive of philosophy.  I suggest you start learning and considering some arguments before you come out and call something BS.  I'm a novice on this subject, but I respect those who know much more than I do about this very long tradition of thought.  Do some reading and don't be rude.  

I think philosophy is great, but I also know that the law of non-contradiction must dismiss statements like "there is no such thing as truth". That is a contradictory statement and cannot support it's own claim.

Did you really understand what the guy was saying? 

[snowflake]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ignorance is bliss.

Is there such a thing as good or evil? Or is that some construct that individuals make up in their heads?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, snowflake said:

I think philosophy is great, but I also know that the law of non-contradiction must dismiss statements like "there is no such thing as truth". That is a contradictory statement and cannot support it's own claim.

Did you really understand what the guy was saying? 

It doesn't count until he says it the way he says it otherwise he might think you mean something else by the way you say it.

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I think philosophy is great, but I also know that the law of non-contradiction must dismiss statements like "there is no such thing as truth". That is a contradictory statement and cannot support it's own claim.

Did you really understand what the guy was saying? 

You are taking it out of context.  Here is what MFB said (with emphasis added):

Quote

Certainly truth is not a thing so there is no such thing as truth.

He believes in truth obviously, but it is unspeakable. 

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I think philosophy is great, but I also know that the law of non-contradiction must dismiss statements like "there is no such thing as truth". That is a contradictory statement and cannot support it's own claim.

Did you really understand what the guy was saying? 

I've watched the video before, in context I think he's saying that truth is dependent upon the language being used to describe it, and language is just a means of interpretation so it is subjective and contingent upon the context of the observer.  I'm butchering this I'm sure, MFB could explain it better than me, I'm a novice like I said.  

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

...truth is dependent upon the language being used to describe it, 

Semantics, again. More precisely stated:

Our perception of truth when trying to understand someone describing truth with language is dependent upon our perception of the language being used to describe it.

Not that truth, itself, is dependent on language. Language is just a tool we use to try to describe truth to other people or to understand their descriptions of truth.

Quote

...and language is just a means of interpretation so it is subjective and contingent upon the context of the observer.

Close enough for me to know what you mean and I agree.

Quote

I'm butchering this I'm sure, MFB could explain it better than me, I'm a novice like I said.  

It's just about trying to be precise with language.  My main point has simply been that truth is not dependent on language, even though language is often used to describe what is true.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Ahab

[Gray]

19 hours ago, Ahab said:

Huh? "Hold up to external reality"???

Oh, wait. Are you talking about discerning why I feel what I feel while determining whether it's "just me" or someone else is having a conversation with me while sharing his thoughts  and feelings? If so my basis for comparison is how well I know myself and knowing when someone else is communicating with me.

Says you, but I know better than to believe you.

I'm probably a figment of your imagination

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Semantics, again. More precisely stated:

Our perception of truth when trying to understand someone describing truth with language is dependent upon our perception of the language being used to describe it.

Not that truth, itself, is dependent on language. Language is just a tool we use to try to describe truth to other people or to understand their descriptions of truth.

I'm butchering this and I know MFB is going to correct probably everything I say, but I'm going to try anyway.  You're not understanding Rorty.  He's saying that objective truth about the nature of something that exists out there, "cannot exist independently of the human mind".  Rorty is saying that truth itself is dependent on language.  He's not saying that nothing exists in the universe if humans don't exist.  He is saying that truth (as defined by human intelligence and language) does not exist outside of the human mind.  

So what does that mean then?  Does this mean that the Sun isn't hot, or that water isn't a liquid?  No, the Sun is hot and water is a liquid, as defined by human language, but what does hot or liquid mean?  It means nothing outside of human language and perception.  In other words, and this is hard to explain, but there is an object (even the word object is a human word) that exists that we humans call the Sun.  This object has attributes about it that exist independent of the existence of humans.  But as soon as you or I or anyone starts to describe these attributes we take what exists independently and we put it into our human box.  That human box is where the words true and false also exist.  Inside our human box is where we decide what the attributes of the sun are and whether they are true or false.  Does that make sense?