Bobbieaware Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: At first blush it appeared that we disagreed about this, but with closer reading, I realized we do not. I am not surprised we agree, as almost always. Bobbie made two different quotes which I first read as the same. Your comment was on her second response, and mine was on the first. Big difference here. Humans are intelligent Beings AND God is human. But all humans are not "God", So actually Bobbieaware, there could be a contradiction here If it is true that Goodness can only exist within the mind of an intelligent being, it can exist in the minds of regular humans like you and me. I agreed with that and I believe that is perfectly compatible with Mormon doctrine. If it is true that "Goodness cannot exist apart from God for God is the source... of all goodness" then that would IMPLY that goodness existing in a regular human could not be "Goodness" and therefore Bob is right that THAT is not LDS theology but is good Catholic or Muslim theology. But there is a resolution here which is what I have been proposing- that goodness is a question of choice and both regular humans and Exalted Humans both have the power of choice and therefore knowing both goodness and evil That's straight out of the theology of the "fortunate fall" aspect of LDS theology. So Bobbie could be right if she agrees with my interpretation But that is not surprising, OK Mark, How do the following verses of scripture fit into your paradigm of God not necessarily being the source and fount of all goodness and righteousness? 8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more. 9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. (2 Nephi 9) and... 24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief. 25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, NO NOT ONE, For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God. (Moroni 10)
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Shouldn't. Ultimately we all have ethical views even though we can't really fully justify them. In the same way we all have metaphysical ones. For about the same reasons. Which are.....? I don't see ethics as metaphysics but as human constructs upon which we all agree which have evolved in culture and which are necessary for survival of the human race. You may be right but I see "reality" as others see metaphysics - that is, as a human construct- and there is no need for a further departure from direct experience Remember I do not believe that "signs" point to anything but human experience so language itself is a kind of metaphysics since language itself is not linked to "reality" outside of human mental states, and human mental states are all we have to base anything on. So if you want to see my metaphysics I guess it is pretty simple, and pretty much based on Rorty's vision if not the details. So in order of what is more "real" we have 1- causes which do not include human mental states- (stubbing toes, walking into walks, falling off cliffs- though this descriptions are linguistic) physical constraints 2- direct experience- colors, love, God speaking to me, seeing my 60 year old wife as the most beautiful person who ever lived. 3- linguistic descriptions- "I see a red car", water boils at 212 F, the sun is x miles from the earth-, Adam and Eve were real people- These are totally human constructs, constructed realities through language, expressions of collective experience, the Eiffel Tower, "things we all know"- unicorns are not real, murder is wrong. 4- metaphysics- "language points to reality" "the Trinity is three persons in one substance" "Baptism is necessary for salvation" "truth is correspondence with language" So your metaphysics may not be my metaphysics.
clarkgoble Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Which are.....? I don't see ethics as metaphysics but as human constructs upon which we all agree which have evolved in culture and which are necessary for survival of the human race.You may be right but I see "reality" as others see metaphysics - that is, as a human construct- and there is no need for a further departure from direct experience I think metaphysics are almost always significantly underdetermined by the evidence. That's why we call them metaphysics rather than physics. This isn't to deny some overlap. (I'd put string theory in that overlap position). But ultimately metaphysics says more about the believer than reality. However like ethics, metaphysics is unescapable. We can engage with it to bring our assumptions out in the open otherwise it'll still continue to function affecting our reasoning but in an unknown and unchecked fashion. As with ethics, we may never be able to give complete reasons for what we find moral. Yet we can argue for more coherency. Further as we investigate our metaphysics we development them and hopefully improve them for the better. Just as with ethics. My own view is that with both metaphysics and ethics that which we can't stop ourselves from believing we consider the truth. If we've done sufficient inquiry and our beliefs persist through such inquiry we are justified in thinking we know. Much the way I might not be able to satisfactorily justify the general rule about murder, yet I think I'm justified in saying murder is wrong.
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: OK Mark, How do the following verses of scripture fit into your paradigm of God not necessarily being the source and fount of all goodness and righteousness? 8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more. 9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. (2 Nephi 9) and... 24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief. 25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, NO NOT ONE, For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God. (Moroni 10) I hope that one day we can communicate clearly! Maybe we can have a chat sitting on a cloud some day! I agree with you and I never said that God was NOT the source and fount of goodness and righteousness,- to us- but relative to the council of the Gods- let me ask you- where did God learn that all? Partaking of the fruit- a voluntary action. "For that is the way God gained his knowledge" It's an interesting idea to think that Satan was lying there, and if so what if we DON'T live up to all our covenants and be under Satan's power? Was that the truth??
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: My own view is that with both metaphysics and ethics that which we can't stop ourselves from believing we consider the truth. If we've done sufficient inquiry and our beliefs persist through such inquiry we are justified in thinking we know. Much the way I might not be able to satisfactorily justify the general rule about murder, yet I think I'm justified in saying murder is wrong. Oh yeah, I totally agree- that is straight James and Dewey's Pragmatism. That IS "justification". But I am sure you will have more to say about that! Quote Dewey's ethics replaces the goal of identifying an ultimate end or supreme principle that can serve as a criterion of ethical evaluation with the goal of identifying a method for improving our value judgments. Dewey argued that ethical inquiry is of a piece with empirical inquiry more generally. It is the use of reflective intelligence to revise one's judgments in light of the consequences of acting on them. Value judgments are tools for enabling the satisfactory redirection of conduct when habit no longer suffices to direct it. As tools, they can be evaluated instrumentally, in terms of their success in guiding conduct. We test our value judgments by putting them into practice and seeing whether the results are satisfactory — whether they solve the problems they were designed to solve, whether we find their consequences acceptable, whether they enable successful responses to novel problems, whether living in accordance with alternative value judgments yields more satisfactory results. We achieve moral progress and maturity to the extent that we adopt habits of reflectively revising our value judgments in response to the widest consequences for everyone of living them out. This pragmatic approach requires that we locate the conditions of warrant for our value judgments in human conduct itself, not in any a priori fixed reference point outside of conduct, such as in God's commands, Platonic Forms, pure reason, or “nature,” considered as giving humans a fixed telos. To do so requires that we understand different types of value judgments in functional terms, as forms of conduct that play distinctive roles in the life of reflective, social beings. Dewey thereby offers a naturalistic metaethic of value judgments, grounded in developmental and social psychology. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-moral/ AND Alma 32 for that matter! Edited June 19, 2017 by mfbukowski
clarkgoble Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Oh yeah, I totally agree- that is straight James and Dewey's Pragmatism. That IS "justification". But I am sure you will have more to say about that! Yes, they definitely followed Peirce there. I think the main difference James has to Dewey or Peirce is the degree to which one ought question ones views. Even that is more a matter of degree. That is James on religion doesn't think it matters if the experience is caused by drugs. Yet Peirce certainly would think that's a key piece of evidence we have to concern ourselves with in our inquiry. So Peirce in many ways is far more skeptical than James. I think you can see that with how much religion Peirce doubts. Yet simultaneously he rejects paper doubts. Merely writing or intellectually stating we doubt means nothing if we don't really doubt. This was where Peirce was highly critical of the Cartesian methodology towards epistemology that was still dominant at his time. James picks up on this but perhaps due to how he approached psychology there was I think practically less skepticism. For Peirce, none of this is ultimately about psychology and we err if we treat it as such. Rather it's about the logic of inquiry and how information affects us. I'd add though that Dewey's critique of platonism (which I share) is much more about a particular kind of platonism that primarily arose during the modern era. Particularly starting with the Cambridge platonists. There are other forms of platonism that are much closer to what we'd loosely call postmodernism. Edited June 19, 2017 by clarkgoble
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Yes, they definitely followed Peirce there. I think the main difference James has to Dewey or Peirce is the degree to which one ought question ones views. Even that is more a matter of degree. That is James on religion doesn't think it matters if the experience is caused by drugs. Yet Peirce certainly would think that's a key piece of evidence we have to concern ourselves with in our inquiry. So Peirce in many ways is far more skeptical than James. I think you can see that with how much religion Peirce doubts. Yet simultaneously he rejects paper doubts. Merely writing or intellectually stating we doubt means nothing if we don't really doubt. This was where Peirce was highly critical of the Cartesian methodology towards epistemology that was still dominant at his time. James picks up on this but perhaps due to how he approached psychology there was I think practically less skepticism. For Peirce, none of this is ultimately about psychology and we err if we treat it as such. Rather it's about the logic of inquiry and how information affects us. I'd add though that Dewey's critique of platonism (which I share) is much more about a particular kind of platonism that primarily arose during the modern era. Particularly starting with the Cambridge platonists. There are other forms of platonism that are much closer to what we'd loosely call postmodernism. Well I myself struggle with the idealism implicit in Rorty. It is a different kind of idealism but if everything is "in our heads" that sounds an awful lot like idealism. Refined, no question. But that is the ying and yang dialectic of my worldview. But therein also lies James' objection to Peirce I think, You can be as skeptical as you want but eventually your conclusion is still "in your head" no matter what it is. It is certainly nowhere else for others to see for themselves.
clarkgoble Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: But therein also lies James' objection to Peirce I think, You can be as skeptical as you want but eventually your conclusion is still "in your head" no matter what it is. It is certainly nowhere else for others to see for themselves. Yes but I think Peirce would say how it is in our head and what we exclude from inquiry matters a great deal. Peirce would also tend to say it's not in our heads due to a more thoroughgoing idealism not as tied to brains as most of James or Rorty's concerns are -- not that he minds narrowing our talk but it gets at why he says we're in signs rather than signs in us. So to me, while there's a type of idealism in Rorty, to me the more interesting aspect of Rorty's thought is how much he buys into traditional materialism. Even when he appears to be arguing against that in Mirrors of Nature.
Bobbieaware Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I hope that one day we can communicate clearly! Maybe we can have a chat sitting on a cloud some day! I agree with you and I never said that God was NOT the source and fount of goodness and righteousness,- to us- but relative to the council of the Gods- let me ask you- where did God learn that all? Partaking of the fruit- a voluntary action. "For that is the way God gained his knowledge" It's an interesting idea to think that Satan was lying there, and if so what if we DON'T live up to all our covenants and be under Satan's power? Was that the truth?? I know we agree much more than we might disagree; I'm just being provocative to keep the juices flowing. In answer to your question, Yes, Lucifer did speak the truth but he also appears to be deliberately misleading Adam and Eve (I.e. all who make the covenants) by leaving out critically important pertinent facts. You see, on the face of it what Lucifer seems to be saying is if we don't perfectly execute every single jot and tittle of the law of God we will be hopelessly entrapped and forever enslaved by his power. But what he craftily leaves out is that one of the covenants we make with the Lord is to live the law of repentance and the principle of repentance presupposes 1) we are all imperfect, 2) throughout our lives none of us will outgrow the need to acknowledge the personal mistakes, imperfections and sins that are endemic to the fallen nature, and 3) living the gospel is a process of spiritual growth from imperfection to higher and higher degrees of holiness and sanctification. So by deliberately leaving God's mercy, the sacrifice of Christ and the principle or repentance out of his threat he was actually attempting to deceive by omission. This is why we pledge to speak the WHOLE TRUTH in courts of law. Edited June 19, 2017 by Bobbieaware 2
Rivers Posted June 20, 2017 Author Posted June 20, 2017 On 6/18/2017 at 10:19 PM, Glenn101 said: I have a question. Were any of your students atheists that you know of? If so, were there answers any different from those professing religion? How do you think those questions would be answered in different cultures around the world? I do believe that the light of Christ operates in the world, for those who are receptive. I also believe that there are those that ignore it and develop their own rules of morality. So to answer: I do not believe that we really can come to agree on objective moral values. I think that the so called sexual revolution, polygamy, homosexual acts, etc. are example of areas where theists and atheists, and some in the middle, come to different conclusions. Glenn So it's mainly the sexual stuff that we can't agree on. But we can at least agree that rape is wrong right?
Glenn101 Posted June 22, 2017 Posted June 22, 2017 On 6/20/2017 at 4:18 PM, Rivers said: So it's mainly the sexual stuff that we can't agree on. But we can at least agree that rape is wrong right? In most countries and with most cultures, but there are some....
Recommended Posts