Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Absolutely.  Feelings are what justifies all kinds of immoral decisions.  God gave us a brain for a reason, he expects us to use it.  

Go ahead.  Disprove this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

Trust me I have replies for all the usual objections.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Just saw this. No I don't think that. It may have seemed to you that I thought that, but I didn't and still don't think that. Just that it seems to me that you think  like atheists think, sometimes, when you talk as if you think God is not out there as a part of objective reality or that there is no objective reality out there.

I am converting atheists- what do you want?

Paul on mars hill.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Just for the record I don't buy that. Quest for power is behind most of those things. The Stalinists, the Khemer Rouge, the Nazis and so forth were more about power than truth even if truth is a great way to motivate people. The crusades in particular had much more complex causes than some abstract notion of truth. 

Saying the problem was belief in absolute truth is about on par with how New Atheists say the problem was religion. It's overly reductive and depends upon simplifications of the history.

In any case, I think humans have some basic instinctual drives towards truth so even if that were the problem it's likely genetic and not apt to be changed any time soon. Much like you likely can't get rid of religion, merely sublimate it with pseudo-religious drives like communism or even certain types of atheism.

Umm what? Physics does a pretty good job recognizing the sky is blue during the day and explaining it due to scattering effects. 

Doesn't this conflate whether there is truth with the question of whether we always know it?

I am going to have to disagree with you on these.

First of all I mentioned only ONE of the examples you brought up- the crusades.  I did not mention Stalinism, the Khemer Rouge or the Nazis.  I also mentioned jihadists.

There is no question that all these groups performed atrocities and used force completely motivated by thirst for power, but it is clear that in the two I mentioned- the crusades and jihadism the original excuse was the interpretation of scriptural texts based on the inerrancy of scripture and absolute truth as being knowable by men.   The impetus for the crusades was at first simply the notion that the Holy City of Jerusalem was possessed by unbelievers of the absolutely true church, Catholicism, and therefore must be liberated.

The motivation of the jihadists is essentially the same, substituting the notion of the absolutely true belief of Islam for that of Christianity.  Yes- the real motivation might have been otherwise but the justification was as simple minded as "We have the absolute truth- and the others are infidels!" in both cases.

Yes, the problem is oversimplified but those are the folks I deal with on both sides.  The application may be overly simplified but yet the Platonic notion that absolute truth exists only in an unverifiable realm of forms unknowable to man or the Aristotelian notion that truth corresponds to reality.

From that evolves the idea that absolute truth only corresponds to metaphysical entities which ties the whole notion of truth eventually to religious metaphysics.

Quote

 

The correspondence theory is often traced back to Aristotle’s well-known definition of truth (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”—but virtually identical formulations can be found in Plato (Cratylus 385b2, Sophist 263b). It is noteworthy that this definition does not highlight the basic correspondence intuition. Although it does allude to a relation (saying something of something) to reality (what is), the relation is not made very explicit, and there is no specification of what on the part of reality is responsible for the truth of a saying. As such, the definition offers a muted, relatively minimal version of a correspondence theory. (For this reason it has also been claimed as a precursor of deflationary theories of truth.) Aristotle sounds much more like a genuine correspondence theorist in the Categories (12b11, 14b14), where he talks of underlying things that make statements true and implies that these things (pragmata) are logically structured situations or facts (viz., his sitting and his not sittingare said to underlie the statements “He is sitting” and “He is  not sitting”, respectively). Most influential is Aristotle’s claim in De Interpretatione (16a3) that thoughts are “likenessess” (homoiomata) of things. Although he nowhere defines truth in terms of a thought’s likeness to a thing or fact, it is clear that such a definition would fit well into his overall philosophy of mind. (Cf. Crivelli 2004; Szaif 2006.)

1.1 Metaphysical and Semantic Versions

In medieval authors we find a division between “metaphysical” and “semantic” versions of the correspondence theory. The former are indebted to the truth-as-likeness theme suggested by Aristotle’s overall views, the latter are modeled on Aristotle’s more austere definition from Metaphysics 1011b25.

The metaphysical version presented by Thomas Aquinas is the best known: “Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus” (Truth is the equation of thing and intellect), which he restates as: “A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality”. He tends to use “conformitas” and “adaequatio”, but also uses “correspondentia”, giving the latter a more generic sense (De Veritate, Q.1, A.1-3; cf. Summa Theologiae, Q.16). Aquinas credits the Neoplatonist Isaac Israeli with this definition, but there is no such definition in Isaac. Correspondence formulations can be traced back to the Academic skeptic Carneades, 2nd century B.C., whom Sextus Empiricus (Adversos Mathematicos, vii, 168) reports as having taught that a presentation “is true when it is in accord (symphonos) with the object presented, and false when it is in discord with it”......

Aquinas’ balanced formula “equation of thing and intellect” is intended to leave room for the idea that “true” can be applied not only to thoughts and judgments but also to things or persons (e.g. a true friend). Aquinas explains that a thought is said to be true because it conforms to reality, whereas a thing or person is said to be true because it conforms to a thought (a friend is true insofar as, and because, she conforms to our, or God’s, conception of what a friend ought to be). Medieval theologians regarded both, judgment-truth as well as thing/person-truth, as somehow flowing from, or grounded in, the deepest truth which, according to the Bible, is God: “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14, 6). Their attempts to integrate this Biblical passage with more ordinary thinking involving truth gave rise to deep metaphysico-theological reflections. The notion of thing/person-truth, which thus played a very important role in medieval thinking, is disregarded by modern and contemporary analytic philosophers but survives to some extent in existentialist and continental philosophy.

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

And on it goes through the history of philosophy- unresolved and unresolvable because the notion is incoherent to start with.  We can perceive only what we can perceive- and that is not "objective reality".  We perceive appearances which are variable, easily confounded and inconsistent.  Mirages look like water, some people seem honest and are not. Sometimes Muslims are better people than Christians and vice versa.  Language is horribly ambiguous and its "correspondence" to a world of absolute truth we cannot perceive is an incoherent concept.

I found your physics site simplistic and did not answer the question of why the sky is blue- a pretty simple question which it supposedly answered. The sky being "blue" has nothing to do with anything mentioned- the wavelength of light.  It has to do with our PERCEPTION of the appearance of what we call "blue" caused by our perception and our brain- IF we decide to use scientific terms to describe it.  The wavelength of light is self-referential- the wavelength is the wavelength.  Whether that wavelength causes a SENSATION of blue or red happens entirely in our brains and is totally subjective.  Certain brains and eyes DO register colors differently than the majority- we call such people "color blind"

To be technical, it is impossible to say that we all call the same color "blue"- for all we know some could call what some see "red", "blue".  We cannot describe the difference between a blue and red sensation- we have no linguistic basis for comparison so that question is so obviously unknowable that we never even consider it- it is irrelevant for practical considerations- yet the correspondence with "objective reality" is NOT a practical question anyway.

The practical answer to all these questions is to never start the discussion- practically, they have no consequence.  We blunder through the world of appearances while philosophers worry about "absolute truth" and make up reasons for things they want to believe in because they think that have to in order to justify their belief in God- they do not. They do not need "absolute truth" all they need is the still small voice.

Quote

Doesn't this conflate whether there is truth with the question of whether we always know it?

 

No.

This is a distinction without a difference.  What good is truth we cannot know or perceive?  Why try to speak about a realm we cannot experience?  And of course this world we cannot perceive cannot be known, yet we can know God because of spiritual experience, directly.

Would Peirce find a practical difference here?

[RevTestament]

On 4/7/2017 at 4:39 PM, mfbukowski said:

Proof it really happened?

No way is that objective. No evidence.

I demand scientific evidence or a philosophical theory that shows that scientific evidence is not appropriate.

The thing about visions is there is no evidence to others that they really happened unless they too had them. Even if everyone had the same vision, they cannot "prove it." They can only show a strong confirmation bias. They can each only write down what they experienced as evidence. That is generally how "reality" or history gets recorded, but of course it is through the interpretive memory of each recorder. So even if everyone had the same vision, when they write it down, history will record different versions of that "reality."

The thing we need to remember when say atheists demand "proof" about God or religion is that they generally demand more than they do for their other beliefs. In other words they are really playing a game. They are turning their skepticism meter way up to max when they demand proof from you, and then will shoot down your evidence with absurd statements such as "an alien could have done that." There is actually a ton of evidence that Jesus existed and died. He provided massive amounts of evidence through eye witnesses. In addition the Jewish historian Josephus mentioned him. The Roman historian Tacitus who hated Christianity mentioned that he died under Pontius Pilate. There is more corroborating evidence for Jesus' existence than for figures like Buddha or Confucius. The atheist evidence professor Simon Greenleaf was challenged to disprove Jesus by using the rules of evidence. This Harvard professor became the president of Harvard Law School. In his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists, using the rules of evidence he concluded that there is more valid evidence for Jesus' existence and works than just about any other historical figure, and he became a Christian.

So when discussing this kind of thing with athiests one can point out that by their own rules  they cannot prove God doesn't exist. There is generally no evidence that will meet their criteria of proof that God exists, because they turn their skepticism meter up so high when it comes to religion. So they will accept the Buddha existed, but don't accept God exists even though dozens of prophets have testified they heard His words, and provided evidence through many prophecies. If you use their same criteria on other historical figures, they can't prove any of them existed. So, essentially Atheists are not being fair to God. They typically apply a different set of rules to Him than they do to the rest of history. If you help them see this is what they are doing, you might make an impact on them.

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The thing about visions is there is no evidence to others that they really happened unless they too had them. Even if everyone had the same vision, they cannot "prove it." They can only show a strong confirmation bias. They can each only write down what they experienced as evidence. That is generally how "reality" or history gets recorded, but of course it is through the interpretive memory of each recorder. So even if everyone had the same vision, when they write it down, history will record different versions of that "reality."

The thing we need to remember when say atheists demand "proof" about God or religion is that they generally demand more than they do for their other beliefs. In other words they are really playing a game. They are turning their skepticism meter way up to max when they demand proof from you, and then will shoot down your evidence with absurd statements such as "an alien could have done that." There is actually a ton of evidence that Jesus existed and died. He provided massive amounts of evidence through eye witnesses. In addition the Jewish historian Josephus mentioned him. The Roman historian Tacitus who hated Christianity mentioned that he died under Pontius Pilate. There is more corroborating evidence for Jesus' existence than for figures like Buddha or Confucius. The atheist evidence professor Simon Greenleaf was challenged to disprove Jesus by using the rules of evidence. This Harvard professor became the president of Harvard Law School. In his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists, using the rules of evidence he concluded that there is more valid evidence for Jesus' existence and works than just about any other historical figure, and he became a Christian.

So when discussing this kind of thing with athiests one can point out that by their own rules  they cannot prove God doesn't exist. There is generally no evidence that will meet their criteria of proof that God exists, because they turn their skepticism meter up so high when it comes to religion. So they will accept the Buddha existed, but don't accept God exists even though dozens of prophets have testified they heard His words, and provided evidence through many prophecies. If you use their same criteria on other historical figures, they can't prove any of them existed. So, essentially Atheists are not being fair to God. They typically apply a different set of rules to Him than they do to the rest of history. If you help them see this is what they are doing, you might make an impact on them.

Excellent points, thanks.!

With ex Mormons I have found that the hardest part is teaching them to trust spirituality and their feelings, yet they trust their own feelings every day in their personal decisions. It seems very difficult for them to make that connection.

They cannot make the distinction between what historians tell us actually happened as opposed to our spiritual interpretation of what historians tell us

It comes down to what you want to believe. If you believe the historians then suddenly Jesus is the Christ. If you don't believe the historians then Jesus was an imposter. But history cannot tell you if Jesus was the Christ.

Edited April 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am converting atheists- what do you want?

Paul on mars hill.

You could say that sometimes it may "seem" as though there is no such thing as objective reality or objective truth out there, and give some examples to illustrate that, while also saying...and sayin it often... that there really truly is such a thing as objective truth/reality out there.

You're still going to get people who disagree with you, though, and you'll just have to get used to that.

Not even Paul could convert everybody.

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Excellent points, thanks.!

With ex Mormons I have found that the hardest part is teaching them to trust spirituality and their feelings, yet they trust their own feelings every day in their personal decisions. It seems very difficult for them to make that connection.

Largely, what has happened is that they have learned science in school, and the traditional interpretations of the Bible have conflicted with science in their mind, causing a need to accept one rationally. Personally, I don't see much of a conflict, between science and scripture, if any. But then, I don't hold an "orthodox" interpretation of scripture. Then there has been a general attack on religion on the internet, and again many get stuck applying the rules of interpretation of the adversary, and no longer trust the spiritual witness they have received. For me personally, I made a decision long ago that I would follow Christ as an exemplary leader. When I was young I was somewhat enamored with the TV character of Kwai Chang Kane. But when I was older and trying to figure out the atonement, probably the last piece of the puzzle was that Yeshua was the most exemplary leader one could imagine. When I was taking a leadership course, I realized there are basically two types of leaders in the world. The common type leads by force and intimidation if necessary - where inspiration doesn't work - or often almost exclusively. This category fits most totalitarian rulers and military leaders, which is why the Lord tried to warn Israel not to ask for a king. Deserters are dealt with harshly. Those who won't tow the line are punished and even killed. So fear and intimidation are used to keep everyone in line. This is actually the primary method of the adversary. When it comes down to it, he demands obedience, and his worldly systems usually will kill those who won't conform, because they are a threat to his totalitarian rule. The other type of leader in the world leads through inspiration. They generally don't even seek to be a leader, but just take hold of an idea or ideas and pursue them. Others then get enrolled in those ideas, and follow the person, elevating that person to the status of leader once a group of followers is formed. There is no earthly punishment for not believing or wishing to conform. They lead through love and inspiration. Of course this describes Jesus perfectly. So I decided He was who I would follow. I came back to the Church because it was the place where I had most felt the hand of the Lord, and because I realized there are truly evil spirits in the world. It is also the place that I had originally accepted the truth of the restored gospel. I still believed it, but just had questions about the atonement I felt I needed to answer. When I finally felt I understood it, events seemed to coalesce which almost virtually tossed me back into the Church.

To Ex-Mo's reading this, I invite them to look at Jesus as a leader, and the restored gospel as His leadership. Why would you not want to follow it? Does it provide light in your life? Does following it bring you and your family happiness? Is Yeshua's leadership worthy of following? Does it teach you ways of being or interacting with the world which provides you with fulfillment and the simple joys of life like the joy of family relationships, and overcoming earthly challenges? Ways to advance society for the betterment of all? If they are willing to set aside the faults of His followers, and simply follow Jesus, I posit He is truly worthy of being followed for their own happiness.

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

"Objective within that subjectivity."  That's an interesting idea. Let's say someone (person A) has read the Book of Mormon and prayed and feels that the BoM is from God and that Joseph Smith is a prophet. I think you would refer to this as subjective experience. Let's then say that they encounter someone online (person B) who says that Joseph isn't a prophet because he was a money-digger and practiced polyandry. Person A reads some source material and is unconvinced that the material is accurate and puts little stock in it and continues to believe that JS is a prophet and the BoM is true. Person B then says that Person A is delusional and isn't being objective in considering all the evidence. Person A responds that they did objectively consider the evidence but came to a different conclusion. So who is being objective here? What would you consider "objective within subjectivity?" Let's say that Person A changes their mind and rejects JS as a prophet. Is Person A being more objective now than before? 

 

Okay, let's explore this scenario, because I can relate to both person A and person B.

So a person prays and feels that The BoM is from God and Joseph is a prophet.  This person could be operating in a framework where they have identified subjective premises and subjective experiences, apart from objective observations.  For instance, objectively, they know that according to the church Joseph practiced polygamy. They read the proclamations on it in the D&C, and they conclude that if they operate from the subjective premise that the D&C is true, then they can reasonably say that Joseph could have been being obedient to god's law at that time.  So, as you can see, this is a melange of subjective belief and objective observations. Yet, again, this individual knows which pieces are which, which is subjective and which is objective.

In my case, I was aware that, objectively, the historical record could support the claim that Joseph did some morally questionable things involving polygamy. Objectively, I tried to see if there was an objective way to fit together the subjective pieces of my testimony with objective observations. Eventually and over time, I had constructed rational bridges to fit those pieces together:  1)maybe it's not true, he did not practice polygamy, then 2)yes he did practive polygamy but for good reason, then 3)yes, he did practice polygamy and some shady things were likely going on there.  With this last one, I had one more rational bridge available.  I reminded myself of my own subjectivity.  I reminded myself that I could not know that being involved in shady dealings involving polygamy would preclude Jospeh from a prophetic station. Indeed, God works his miracles through flawed humanity, that's one of the beauties of the gospel which is so inspiring and which is so patterned throughout life's objective observation: people doing work highly benefitcial to humankind despite perhaps doing horrible things around the same time.  So, I held my testimony of Joseph as prophet together with this possibility, that Joseph might have been God's prophet even if he did bad things around the same time.

So, if we examine this rational bridge closely, it involved the divine nature of God and the human nature of mankind, and that the divine can work within a flawed person.

Then, for me, experience happened.  Over the course of a few years, I trusted an individual who ended up lying on a continual basis, about major things, about facts that hurt my family, and doing so deliberately.  When problems with this individual began, I was accepting and understanding.  I assumed that perhaps I had contributed to the problem and I did what I could do, beyond what I was legally and morally obligated to do, to rectify the problem and to make a show of good faith and genuine caring.  I saw his difficult nature as understable. If you would have asked me at this point if, for instance, he could have received revelation and inspiration to, say, teach Sunday School, I would have said it might be possible.  But, as I indicated, things worsened from a difficult relationship to the lying I talked about, eventually to violence on his part and then lying about that. At this point, if you would have asked me if he could have been disposed to receive revelation and inspiration to teach Sunday School, I would say an adament, convicted "no." Why was this a conviction? It is a conviction because, within the framework of the gospel, there can exist a point at which the Spirit departs from a man.  This is well supported by scripture. And this man, a member of the ward, had explicitly attempted to invoke God to pronounce judgments upon us, in ways that even though he had no priesthood authority over us, he did over his family.  And he was doing things and saying things that directly harmed his family because of how it affected our relationship. According to scripture, the priesthood power of this man in this thing for his family was "Amened."

This is when the epiphany came for me about Joseph.  I won't go into much more detail except to say that, in my experience described above, I learned that there will be a threshold in any individual, when the spirit and priesthood authority can depart.  Although this is explicitly described in LDS scripture, it took me seeing this dynamic play out for me to know it and see how it worked.

"Subjectivity within objectivity" is not necessarily some mishmash of observations and decisions.  It can very well be an aware, intentional construction of decisions and observations, knowing where one's subjective premises are, how they extend, what rational bridges they persuade us to invoke in order to connect to objective observation.  So, as person A, I was being objective.  As person B, I was being objective, but with more information. 

One way to look at it is, we are all necessarily inescapably subjective.  But that does not mean we cannot be objective, too. Furthermore, there is a difference between holding on to a subjective premise when the information does not support it, and that of holding onto a subjective premise when the information strongly contradicts it. 

Quote

This notion of objectivity, even "within [a] subjectiv[e]" realm takes for granted the inability to objectively justify the value that a person puts on some evidence vs. other evidence. People say they are being objective when they "consider all the evidence" or  take certain things into account. But they fail to explain how the value they place some evidence is objectively justifiable. How would you propose doing this without ultimately making an appeal to your own subjectivity? How can you objectively show that a historical account of polyandry should be given more weight than feelings, or vice versa? 

The way to do that is to identify the subjective pieces and the objective pieces.  Knowing your testimony at age 18 was based on a strong warm feeling of light washing over your entire being, that it was your experience and a subjective one, that is healthy.  Treating that experience, however, as if it has weight and authority over another person or that they should simply reproduce that experience for themselves is one example of allowing subjectivity to run rampant and out of bounds. On the other hand, showing a person that the Book of Mormon encourages and invites spiritual experiences in Moroni 10:5 is an objective claim. You can open the book and show someone else.  You can cite the scripture here on MD&D and they can look it up too, by following the correct chapter and verse.  

Quote

My belief is that neither person in this scenario is objective or even objective within subjectivity, because I don't even know how that is possible. They are merely accepting the explanation that makes the most sense, or is of the most use, to them given their perception. Call this "internal logic" if you'd like.

Hopefully my description has helped you see what I mean by being objective within subjectivity. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

To Ex-Mo's reading this, I invite them to look at Jesus as a leader, and the restored gospel as His leadership. Why would you not want to follow it? Does it provide light in your life? Does following it bring you and your family happiness? Is Yeshua's leadership worthy of following? Does it teach you ways of being or interacting with the world which provides you with fulfillment and the simple joys of life like the joy of family relationships, and overcoming earthly challenges? Ways to advance society for the betterment of all? If they are willing to set aside the faults of His followers, and simply follow Jesus, I posit He is truly worthy of being followed for their own happiness.

If you're interested in how I relate subjective, objective, and rational thought in my own spiritual journey, I described it in my post reply immediately above.

About a month ago, I bore my testimony of the teachings of Jesus Christ, how they have blessed my life and the lives of my family members, and how the hope Jesus models has blessed my relationships with my children, my most cherished part of my life.

I can believe all these things without the church and I do.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am going to have to disagree with you on these. First of all I mentioned only ONE of the examples you brought up- the crusades.  I did not mention Stalinism, the Khemer Rouge or the Nazis.  I also mentioned jihadists.

Sorry, should have been clearer. I was more trying to explain my view here not criticize you has having mentioned those other groups.

Quote

it is clear that in the two I mentioned- the crusades and jihadism the original excuse was the interpretation of scriptural texts based on the inerrancy of scripture and absolute truth as being knowable by men.

Right my point is that the excuse is just that: an excuse not the cause.

Quote

The application may be overly simplified but yet the Platonic notion that absolute truth exists only in an unverifiable realm of forms unknowable to man or the Aristotelian notion that truth corresponds to reality.

But most people aren't platonists. Truth can be explicated without appeal to timeless platonic forms.

Quote

We can perceive only what we can perceive- and that is not "objective reality".

Claims about "objective reality" end up determining claims about future experience. To the degree they make accurate predictions they are more apt to be correct. While I've not read all the posts in this thread, the arguments you've been making more or less appear to largely neglect that predictive power.

Quote

This is a distinction without a difference.  What good is truth we cannot know or perceive?  Why try to speak about a realm we cannot experience?  And of course this world we cannot perceive cannot be known, yet we can know God because of spiritual experience, directly.

Would Peirce find a practical difference here?

Since Peirce thought there was truth and had an extensive theory about it I think he would find a practical difference. (grin) He clearly thought truth and fallibilism were compatible. The SEP has a reasonably good discussion of this although it avoids some of the nuance of his mature phase.

Quote

SEP:

The final section of ‘How to Make our Ideas Clear’ promises to ‘approach the subject of logic’ by considering a fundamental logical conception, reality. It possesses a form of unreflective clarity: ‘every child uses it with perfect confidence, never dreaming that he does not understand it.’ An abstract definition is also readily forthcoming: ‘we may define the real as that whose characters are independent of what anybody may think them to be.’ But, he announces, we shall need to apply the pragmatic maxim if our idea of reality is to be ‘perfectly clear’. It is at this stage that the concept of truth enters the discussion: Peirce's strategy for clarifying the concept of reality is, first, to give an account of truth, and, then, to observe that ‘the object represented in [a true proposition] is the real’. So we have to turn to his remarks about truth to see how the kind of mind-independence captured in the abstract definition of reality is to be understood from a pragmatist perspective.

Peirce's motivations are evident when he says that ‘the ideas of truth and falsehood, in their full development, appertain exclusively to the scientific (in a later revision he altered this to ‘experiential’) method of settling opinion’. This reflects a law which is evident from scientific experience: when different people use different methods to identify, for example, the velocity of light, we find that all tend to arrive at the same result:

So with all scientific research. Different minds may set out with the most antagonistic views, but the progress of investigation carries them by a force outside of themselves to one and the same conclusion. This activity of thought by which we are carried, not where we wish, but to a foreordained goal, is like the operation of destiny. No modification of the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape the predestinate opinion. (EP1: 138)

In the 1878 paper, his pragmatic clarification is quite tersely expressed:

The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality. (EP1: 139)

Peirce had presented this way of thinking about reality seven years earlier when he described it as the ‘realist conception of reality’ (EP1:88–9). In doing this, he contrasts it with another ‘nominalist’ conception of reality, which he thinks is flawed, but which many earlier philosophers had accepted. In a review of a new edition of the writings of Berkeley—a philosopher who, according to Peirce, was in the grip of this misleading picture—Peirce asks ‘where the real is to be found’, observing that there must be such a ‘real’ because we find that our opinions (the only things of which we are immediately aware) are constrained. While acknowledging that there is ‘nothing immediately present to us but thoughts’, he continues:

These thoughts, however, have been caused by sensations, and those sensations are constrained by something out of the mind. This thing out of the mind, which directly influences sensation, and through sensation thought, because it is out of the mind, is independent of how we think it, and is, in short, the real. (EP1: 88)

We can then think of the real only as the cause of the (singular) sensations which, in turn, provide our sole evidence for beliefs about the external world, and this naturally leads to both nominalism about universals and skepticism about empirical knowledge. Peirce's pragmatist clarification of truth offers an alternative conceptualization of ‘being constrained by reality’. It is explained in terms of this fated agreement of convergence through the process of inquiry rather than in terms of an independent cause of our sensations. Although the nominalist theory is not clearly worked out here, it is clearly related to the ‘intellectualist’ or ‘copy’ theory of truth attacked by other pragmatists. It articulates a metaphysical picture that all pragmatists tried to combat. See (Misak 2007, 69f) where Cheryl Misak emphasises that Peirce does not offer a traditional analysis of truth. Rather, he provides an account of some of the relations between the concepts of truth, belief, and inquiry, She describes this as a naturalistic understanding of truth, and calls it an anthropological account of how the concept is used.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If you're interested in how I relate subjective, objective, and rational thought in my own spiritual journey, I described it in my post reply immediately above.

About a month ago, I bore my testimony of the teachings of Jesus Christ, how they have blessed my life and the lives of my family members, and how the hope Jesus models has blessed my relationships with my children, my most cherished part of my life.

I can believe all these things without the church and I do.

I am not quite sure what you mean. I accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and Seer. Even though I don't fully understand the Book of Abraham for instance, I believe it to be an inspired work. I believe some of the prophecies in D&C have already come true, which bolsters Joseph's prophethood. 

Unfortunately, both Joseph and Church followers are imperfect. I believe sometimes followers put words in Joseph's mouth largely because they wanted to show how Joseph was a prophet or inspired leader. Many times these words are not intentional misleading statements, but simply what followers wanted to hear or how Joseph's words got interpreted. For instance, I believe the black priesthood question was a possible result of interpreting some of Joseph's statements about the status of black slaves who wished to join the Church. The eventual polygamy position of the Church seemed to exalt polygamy to an exalting requirement based on alleged statements of Joseph Smith despite a complete lack of such in scripture. Was Joseph Smith guilty of misunderstanding the teaching of the Lord? Yes, several times. I believe this shows his humanity, and is actually an argument in favor of the truth of the events he relayed and evidence for his prophetic status. Generally, fakers don't record negative things. Joseph recorded the Lord rebuking him on several occasions. On other occasions it is clear he did not fully understand what the Lord was teaching him. That doesn't make him a false prophet - just a human one. Is that what you are saying? I am not clear on how to apply what you are saying to the historical record. As with any history there are both sides of the coin to choose from when examining Joseph Smith. Of course if one accepts that there is a lying adversary who can influence men, one must ask if Joseph Smith would have any lies/unverified "facts" written about him given his pivotal role in restoring the gospel. Does Jesus have unfavorable stuff written about Him? How we interpret the historical record becomes a key in Church investigators since all must do it, but the same is true for any Church.

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am not quite sure what you mean. I accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and Seer. Even though I don't fully understand the Book of Abraham for instance, I believe it to be an inspired work. I believe some of the prophecies in D&C have already come true, which bolsters Joseph's prophethood. 

Unfortunately, both Joseph and Church followers are imperfect. I believe sometimes followers put words in Joseph's mouth largely because they wanted to show how Joseph was a prophet or inspired leader. Many times these words are not intentional misleading statements, but simply what followers wanted to hear or how Joseph's words got interpreted. For instance, I believe the black priesthood question was a possible result of interpreting some of Joseph's statements about the status of black slaves who wished to join the Church. The eventual polygamy position of the Church seemed to exalt polygamy to an exalting requirement based on alleged statements of Joseph Smith despite a complete lack of such in scripture. Was Joseph Smith guilty of misunderstanding the teaching of the Lord? Yes, several times. I believe this shows his humanity, and is actually an argument in favor of the truth of the events he relayed and evidence for his prophetic status. Generally, fakers don't record negative things. Joseph recorded the Lord rebuking him on several occasions. On other occasions it is clear he did not fully understand what the Lord was teaching him. That doesn't make him a false prophet - just a human one. Is that what you are saying? I am not clear on how to apply what you are saying to the historical record. As with any history there are both sides of the coin to choose from when examining Joseph Smith. Of course if one accepts that there is a lying adversary who can influence men, one must ask if Joseph Smith would have any lies/unverified "facts" written about him given his pivotal role in restoring the gospel. Does Jesus have unfavorable stuff written about Him? How we interpret the historical record becomes a key in Church investigators since all must do it, but the same is true for any Church.

Part of your quote to which I responded said this:

"If they are willing to set aside the faults of His followers, and simply follow Jesus, I posit He is truly worthy of being followed for their own happiness."

I can do this without church.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I can do this without church.

We all can do many things without Church member support.

What we need the Church for might be an interesting thread discussion.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We all can do many things without Church member support.

What we need the Church for might be an interesting thread discussion.

What the church can offer differs depending on its truthfulness, right?

If the church is true, it can offer a path to exaltation.

But what can the church offer if it's not true?  By "not true," I mean the founding claims being false: no Restoration, no priesthood, no prophets.

The latter case looks very different, I think.

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The church is moral now and  I would not join or participate in an immoral organization.    I joined only after the priesthood ban was lifted and would leave if anything immoral was in the doctrine.

We persistently cannot communicate- if you want to stop that's fine.  I blindly obey no one nor any organization- if I disagree I leave.  You are imagining what I think and are projecting your former abject obedience to the church onto me.  My objectivity is not compromised one iota.  And I object to your feeble attempt to psychoanalyze me with your weaknesses 

I obey what God tells me- not what men tell me. Fortunately that is a church principle if you truly understood Mormonism.  No testimony- no belief- 

 ^"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Its ok that we disagree on whether there is anything immoral about the LDS institution.  Immorality is not a binary proposition, it is measured in degrees.  I see many issues today where the church is falling short morally.  I apply this standard to all organizations and people.  Individuals aren't perfect, and neither are institutions.  I find serious flaws in the church today, and this gives me pause, but I'm not under the illusion that any flawless institutions exist. 

If you are unable to critically evaluate the pros and cons of the organization that you are a part of, I find that unfortunate.  When I first mentioned how membership in an organization biases a person towards that organization, you pointed out how we are all biased towards the things we preference.  I acknowledged your point about my preferences towards even this message board and I admit my bias.  Yet now you claim objectivity about your views on the church.  How is this not a contradiction?  

Lastly, you started this thread out with a challenge to TBMs and mentioned how you'd be using the arguments of the atheist to demonstrate what reality is.  Intellectually, I have a hard time believing in God, but emotionally I have experienced God at many times in my life and I continue to have experiences that tells me there is something more.  

When I'm challenging you to tell me why I should consider whether organized religion has value, or whether I should remove myself from organized religion out of principle, its not just fun and games for me personally.  I'm honestly going through this actual evaluation of myself and my life as we have this discussion.  I'm wrestling with these decisions in my mind and my heart.  I know a lot of people come on message boards just for fun and to pass the time, but for me its a real life wrestle and I'm trying to learn and evaluate myself through this discussion process.  I would just like to express my sincerity here and that I'm arguing with myself as much as I'm arguing with you on this thread.  

 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

What the church can offer differs depending on its truthfulness, right?

If the church is true, it can offer a path to exaltation.

But what can the church offer if it's not true?  By "not true," I mean the founding claims being false: no Restoration, no priesthood, no prophets.

The latter case looks very different, I think.

Yes, of course. Then it would be just another one of many different associations of people that associate together for a common goal.

I was thinking more about how the value of the Church is in what the Church can help people to become which they otherwise would not be able to become without  Church member support. Priesthood support, primarily. The social society aspect I could pretty much leave, or take.

 

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We all can do many things without Church member support.

What we need the Church for might be an interesting thread discussion.

And Christ is enough.

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Part of your quote to which I responded said this:

"If they are willing to set aside the faults of His followers, and simply follow Jesus, I posit He is truly worthy of being followed for their own happiness."

I can do this without church.

OK, I understand that. But to some extent, I posit you cannot do that without the Church, since it is the Church which performs baptisms as He directed, and various other ordinances. So, if you want the most of what He has to offer, I posit you need His Church. Further, just being around others going through the vicissitudes of life, can help you to stay on His narrow path. But yes, if you happen to live someplace where there is no ward or building like some in Africa have, you can live the gospel without the "Church." But those in Africa who did so, were sure glad when a ward came into existence in their community.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Actually, it is our brains that do the justifying.  Really smart people who use their brains and ignore the feelings of their conscience are the most dangerous people on earth.

Until God gives us an objective measure for morality, the best we can do is use our conscience.  

No, I've heard this stereotype of smart people ignoring their conscience before, sounds like a common slander by the religious against communism or the Godless atheists. 

How can anyone possibly measure the level that humans listen to their conscience or ignore their conscience?  Its impossible to tell. 

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

OK, I understand that. But to some extent, I posit you cannot do that without the Church, since it is the Church which performs baptisms as He directed, and various other ordinances. So, if you want the most of what He has to offer, I posit you need His Church. Further, just being around others going through the vicissitudes of life, can help you to stay on His narrow path. But yes, if you happen to live someplace where there is no ward or building like some in Africa have, you can live the gospel without the "Church." But those in Africa who did so, were sure glad when a ward came into existence in their community.

Much of that assumes priesthood authority.  You can understand that I no longer desire baptism from the church since I no longer believe it has priesthood authority?

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And Christ is enough.

Not if Christ wants us to accept more.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

To Ex-Mo's reading this, I invite them to look at Jesus as a leader, and the restored gospel as His leadership. Why would you not want to follow it? Does it provide light in your life? Does following it bring you and your family happiness? Is Yeshua's leadership worthy of following? Does it teach you ways of being or interacting with the world which provides you with fulfillment and the simple joys of life like the joy of family relationships, and overcoming earthly challenges? Ways to advance society for the betterment of all? If they are willing to set aside the faults of His followers, and simply follow Jesus, I posit He is truly worthy of being followed for their own happiness.

I'm not an Ex-Mo, but I'm an extremely unorthodox sometime inactive Mormon, and I'd like to respond.

You realize that your image of what Jesus is, is just a story that you've constructed in your mind?  You have no access to the actual human named Jesus, only to your interpretations of stories told by people that lived 2 to 3 generations after Jesus lived which is compounded by 2000 years of theological evolution and invention.  

What brings light into our lives?  I think there are a lot of things, but recognizing that we won't always experience light, learning to accept the dark times is part of what can bring lasting peace.  Life is not about just hoping for the good and avoiding the bad.  I'm learning more about this through mindfulness practice and it has been very interesting. 

I find it sad that many Christians want to feel like they need to be defensive of their religion.  I find good in the Christian and Mormon traditions, but they don't have access to exclusive anything.  They have flaws and immoral history just like the rest of the human race.  I much better like the statement that Joseph Smith made, a highly flawed individual himself, but I think he was onto something when he said that we should accept truth no matter where it comes from.  

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Much of that assumes priesthood authority.  You can understand that I no longer desire baptism from the church since I no longer believe it has priesthood authority?

That is your choice. I am merely pointing out that rejecting priesthood authority because of the faults of men is a mistake, since all men besides Yeshua are faulty. You cannot find any valid baptism then. I suppose you are saying you have amen'ed the priesthood of Joseph Smith. Well, my response is the Lord did remove various aspects of his priesthood power during his tenure. For instance his power to translate was removed for a time, and I personally believe he lost the privilege of the Urim and Thummim at that time. Do I believe he understood the principles of polygamy perfectly? Not as reported I don't. There are other things he clearly did not understand perfectly. I am merely pointing out his imperfections clearly do not invalidate the Church. If the Book of Mormon is true, and the D&C are true, then the Church does represent the house of our Lord - with all its imperfect members. I guess what I am saying is given the propensity of people to give inaccurate representations of history either inadvertantly or on purpose, like we see in LDS Church history from critics, how can you be so sure that you have sufficient valid evidence to Amen the priesthood of Joseph Smith, and is that even for us to do, or is that for the Lord to do?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I've heard this stereotype of smart people ignoring their conscience before, sounds like a common slander by the religious against communism or the Godless atheists. 

How can anyone possibly measure the level that humans listen to their conscience or ignore their conscience?  Its impossible to tell. 

Who said anything about communism or atheists?  I am talking about morality.  A criminal who uses his "God given brain" doesn't make him more moral, it just makes him a better criminal.  That is what I meant by "the most dangerous people".  My point is that using your brain doesn't make you more moral as you claim.  Morality is primarily found in the subjective feelings of our conscience.  Criminals often feel remorse for their actions, so it is not always impossible to tell when someone is listening to or ignoring their conscience.

Where is your objective measure for morality?

Edited April 12, 2017 by pogi

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You realize that your image of what Jesus is, is just a story that you've constructed in your mind?  You have no access to the actual human named Jesus, only to your interpretations of stories told by people that lived 2 to 3 generations after Jesus lived which is compounded by 2000 years of theological evolution and invention.  

I have the history provided and my experience - like basically everyone else. However, I would assert that I do have an advantage of the Lord speaking to me. Still, that is "unprovable" - like it is for others who have heard and had visions, etc. Nevertheless, it is very real to me. My image of what Jesus is, is formed by the scriptures which I admit that I interpret differently from everyone else I know. As for them being stories written by people who lived 2-3 generations after Jesus, that is an interpretation I disagree with. I have taken a NT course complete with textual analysis and modern critical methodology - have you? The opinion that the gospels were written well after Jesus is based upon disbelief that He knew the future. All He had to know is what Daniel 9 said about Him, and that Jerusalem would be destroyed. Although He knew more. I mostly reject the 2000 years of theological evolution and invention. It is not scripturally based, and I believe the Lord has taught me otherwise.

"What brings light into our lives?  I think there are a lot of things, but recognizing that we won't always experience light, learning to accept the dark times is part of what can bring lasting peace.  Life is not about just hoping for the good and avoiding the bad.  I'm learning more about this through mindfulness practice and it has been very interesting."

I would proffer that following Yeshua is our source of light. The mindfulness practice you are speaking of sounds like you are speaking of Buddhism. I proffer the eight-fold path can be found pretty much straight from scripture. Who is to say that while Buddha was wandering around searching for truth outside of Hinduism that he didn't run across the Hebrew scriptures from Hebrew merchants spread throughout the Persian-Median domain after Assyria hauled them there? And that the alternative truth you believe you have found isn't a result of the light the Lord put in the world through His prophets? I am not against meditation, and in fact I posit that you should meditate on the first seven steps of the path, and the Tanakh and see if what I am saying is not true.

"I find it sad that many Christians want to feel like they need to be defensive of their religion.  I find good in the Christian and Mormon traditions, but they don't have access to exclusive anything.  They have flaws and immoral history just like the rest of the human race.  I much better like the statement that Joseph Smith made, a highly flawed individual himself, but I think he was onto something when he said that we should accept truth no matter where it comes from."

Yes, and I believe the Church has fallen into a trap of perhaps not accepting truth wherever it may come from because so many unquestioningly follow whatever the leader says. I don't believe anyone has exclusive rights to interpret scripture. That certainly has led to a lot of evil within Christianity. I believe if an interpretation is true, the Spirit will confirm it to others. However, I will defend Christ to the death. And I am saddened that you are saddened about that, if you are. I will not follow Muhammed for example. Did you know that Sharia means "the path?" I believe Christ is the Way, and will defend that. If you want to have a discussion about Buddhism I will be happy to discuss its faults. Primarily I think his emphasis on escaping suffering is too great. If you follow the prescription you will also escape joy. You cannot know one without the other. I perceive other faults as well, such as the belief in the god-like creatures in the hereafter. And what gave Buddha this revelation if there is no God? 

So I am not sure if I understand what you mean when you say "defensive" but I have no shame in defending Christ. Where I see faults in the Church, I freely speak about them, and have done so since I appeared on this board. I don't believe anyone can accuse me of being PC in my defense of the Church. I call it like I see it.