Are cureloms imaginary?

[USU78]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not to mention producing no babies.  Not a great evolutionary strategy.  I have still not seen a reasonable explanation for the evolution of homosexuality, but I know that comment will get me into trouble.

Practical, ethical and moral reasons for what, until a little over the last 100+ years, was a priori.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Sorry, I phrased it very poorly. I meant to say that God doesn't create morality. Morality just exists out there, for anyone to discover. God doesn't will morality into existence.

But, to your point about coffee, it's possible that there is a set of immutable moral principles (A), and God is free to tack on sub-clauses (B) onto them (word of wisdom, law of Moses, etc) as he sees fit.

No, Clark got it right as he often does as long as he is not talking about Peirce.

Morality exists out there for anyone to discover, like Antarctica or a new species?  Where ARE these immutable moral principles?  How does one go around "discovering" them especially since they are "out there" to discover?  Does one wander through swamps of words?  Wait- I forgot my flashlight?

I don't want to be too hard on you and I know that is not what you meant, but this is the kind of thing that shows how important words are

It's like the problem with the word "evidence"- it seems it can mean anything to anyone, and I suppose it can in the sense that that is the way that language changes. 

I always return to the saying "Education is learning to use the tools the race has found to be indispensable"

I think morality is one of the tools the human race has found to be indispensable.  We can argue all day about where it came from, IF it "came from" anywhere, even that is a presumption

All I know is that it works.

It could be derived simply from the fact that peaceful society encourages reproduction or it could be that God handed it to us on a platter from immutable principles, but the fact is that we will disagree about that

The more reasonable discussion to me, upon which we all can agree, is that it is one of the tools the race has been found indispensable to survive and leave it at that

Or maybe it's turtles all the way down- but we will never have answers upon which we can all agree on that hypothesis.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Heck we might as well be discussing if cureloms are imaginary.

 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, Clark got it right as he often does as long as he is not talking about Peirce.

Morality exists out there for anyone to discover, like Antarctica or a new species?  Where ARE these immutable moral principles?  How does one go around "discovering" them especially since they are "out there" to discover?  Does one wander through swamps of words?  Wait- I forgot my flashlight?

I don't want to be too hard on you and I know that is not what you meant, but this is the kind of thing that shows how important words are

It's like the problem with the word "evidence"- it seems it can mean anything to anyone, and I suppose it can in the sense that that is the way that language changes. 

I always return to the saying "Education is learning to use the tools the race has found to be indispensable"

I think morality is one of the tools the human race has found to be indispensable.  We can argue all day about where it came from, IF it "came from" anywhere, even that is a presumption

All I know is that it works.

It could be derived simply from the fact that peaceful society encourages reproduction or it could be that God handed it to us on a platter from immutable principles, but the fact is that we will disagree about that

The more reasonable discussion to me, upon which we all can agree, is that it is one of the tools the race has been found indispensable to survive and leave it at that

Or maybe it's turtles all the way down- but we will never have answers upon which we can all agree on that hypothesis.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Heck we might as well be discussing if cureloms are imaginary.

 

As I explained to Calm, I'm exploring what Mormon theology has to say about morality, not necessarily my own thoughts about  morality. In the end I'm pretty much on the same page as you.

But, perhaps thinking of morality as a "thing that's out there," as seems to be implied by the Book of Mormon, could at least be a helpful metaphor.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Given that it's more prevalent in younger sons where there are many older brothers, it seems to be nature's birth control. It's nature's way of saying, yeah, you're about to have more mouths to feed than resources, time to slow it down.

And so since it's genetic, then the genes know that they are in a younger son with may brothers, right?  How do we wave the hand to get around that one?

Edited July 14, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Depends upon what you mean. I tend to think saying church is only emotional is false. I might have an emotional response but I don't consider that evidence of much. To me focus on the emotional response tells me a bit about myself but not about truth. It has to at best be correlated with something or more importantly be what Joseph called flows of pure intelligence. Otherwise what's to distinguish church from say a pentecostal church or an emotional concert?

Thank you for your honest answer.  I agree with you.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And so since it's genetic, then the genes know that they are in a younger son with may brothers, right?  How do we wave the hand to get around that one?

Epigenetic, apparently. The womb environment changes based on how many sons have already been born, leading to epigenetic changes.

At least that's my understanding. Research is ongoing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/06/biological_basis_for_homosexuality_the_fraternal_birth_order_explanation.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

 

 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

As I explained to Calm, I'm exploring what Mormon theology has to say about morality, not necessarily my own thoughts about  morality. In the end I'm pretty much on the same page as you.

But, perhaps thinking of morality as a "thing that's out there," as seems to be implied by the Book of Mormon, could at least be a helpful metaphor.

Oh that

Mormon theology is easy to work with.  My explanation is that we get it from the culture of the Council of the Gods.  Then you get to explain where they got it and that gets back to the turtles.

Immutable principles or evolution?  Same difference to me.  I mean to me the Golden Rule is about as immutable a principle as humans can come up with- OR evolve to have- take your pick

These questions are not worth arguing about in my book- we are back to "it is what it is".

That's why I say that belief is everything.  It's like the question of the historicity of the atonement- even if it is a grand Moral Force in the universe which must be balanced between Justice and Mercy- that is unknowable and must be accepted by..... wait for it.... FAITH, so is every principle ultimately we put into language.   I mean as Bertrand Russell said even he could not prove that we did not all blip into existence 5 minutes ago and that all our memories were implants

And if Bertrand Russell can't do it, Bukowski ain't gonna try

So the bottom line with the atonement for ME is that I KNOW that it frees me of guilt to think that Jesus died for my sins, and no one can prove that He did not.

That is all that matters frankly.  

Some get the same effect from psychotherapy and call it more "reasonable" but I do not accept that definition of "reasonable" because it is no less "turtles all the way down" than believing in Jesus the Christ.

It's giving up the BELIEF that guilt is useful in your life that frees you from guilt- what I believe may not be what you believe as to the mechanism but it is the BELIEF in the long run that changes your life and allows you to live guilt free (as long I think as you have repented to the best of your ability- that is part of what frees you I think)

So yes, we CHOOSE our beliefs and for me the turtle on the bottom is ALWAYS the belief we choose.  It may be science, it may be religion, or something in between like psychotherapy or "Save the Whales" but whatever it is, it will be creating our own universe out of matter unorganized

Because that is what humans do!  

Turtles, Freud, Susskind, Smith, Kuhn or Christ, words cannot give us these answers, only our "gut"/ spirit/ unconscious can.

And in the final analysis it is the BELIEF we choose that changes our lives.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Epigenetic, apparently. The womb environment changes based on how many sons have already been born, leading to epigenetic changes.

At least that's my understanding. Research is ongoing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/06/biological_basis_for_homosexuality_the_fraternal_birth_order_explanation.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

Ah yes- I had heard about that and forgotten thanks.  Yet another Kuhnian paradigm shift caused by Kuhnian causes.  Got it.

Where is good old Hume when you need him?

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Depends upon what you mean. I tend to think saying church is only emotional is false. I might have an emotional response but I don't consider that evidence of much. To me focus on the emotional response tells me a bit about myself but not about truth. It has to at best be correlated with something or more importantly be what Joseph called flows of pure intelligence. Otherwise what's to distinguish church from say a pentecostal church or an emotional concert?

The point being though that some might say "nothing", my answer would be that clearly each fills a different need in our lives, and there is nothing wrong with that since atheists fill that same need perhaps by working for World Peace. (cue angelic choir....)  

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have never seen such a mush of ambiguous words in my life

On the other hand opposing evidential faith by reason alone leads to faith in compelling belief in reasonable evidence of a non-sequitur and is clearly superior in saying nothing at all.

Keep a shoveling amigo!

Brilliant. I especially love how the first sentence gives the reader a hint of what's to follow in the second. Like you view it as a competition.  Rock on amigo!

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Absurd.

Any plan for a series of scientific experiments requires hope for things unseen.  Perhaps this combination of chemicals administered in this manner will kill the cancer.

Maybe if we tweak this rocket fuel in this manner, we may get more thrust.

Of course one is compelled to faith by evidence and one is protecting nothing.  And you have not even looked at what counts as "evidence" in what context.  Surely there is a different kind of evidence required in finding a mate than there is in finding the cure for cancer.

Mush in mush out.  Keep on mushin' amigo!

You conflate what Alma 32 says with a scientific process on no better grounds than it uses the word "experiment" but fail to contextualize it with the rest of the language around it. For a pragmatist to fail to understand the importance of context in word play continues to reinforce that it's all a bunch of handwaving to provide cover for your radical destruction and reconstruction of Mormon theology on very simple grounds - you can make it all about you.

Show me where, in Alma 32, it clearly demonstrates one is being compelled by actual evidence rather than the seed that one has protected so it can grow.

Here's the set up for the so-called experiment -

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

So in seed parlance, we're making space for the seed. Giving it a place in one's heart and thoughts and not rejecting it.

And it goes from this act of giving it space and not rejecting it to knowledge. It's that simple, amigo. It's not a scientific experiement. It's the opposite. One assumes a position and then protects it from all challenges.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Practical, ethical and moral reasons for what, until a little over the last 100+ years, was a priori.

Homosexuality has been present in numerous cultures in human history and among animal species. It's silly to try and claim there is some sort of natural bias against it on the mistaken grounds it is a recent phenomena that a parent culture would be accepting of it. You're locked in a Victorian world if you do.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Honorentheos

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Honorentheos said:

Homosexuality has been present in numerous cultures in human history and among animal species. It's silly to try and claim there is some sort of natural bias against it on the grounds it is a recent phenomena to view it as compatible with the larger parent culture. You're locked in a Victorian world if you do.

You are aware, are you not, that Hammurabi lived before Victoria?

[Honorentheos]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You are aware, are you not, that Hammurabi lived before Victoria?

As did Plato. And?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Honorentheos said:

As did Plato. And?

Oops. Misunderstood. Ignore the schmuck in the 2nd balcony.

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Clark,I think there is a meaningful if difficult difference between feeling that can be tied to one of the five senses compared to feeling that is an expression of sense but not obviously externalized. Feeling a boat sway can be tied to ones visual sense of seeing the boat and it's movement, of the action within one's inner ears that indicate motion is occurring, along with other collaborating sensory inputs. It's difficult because demanding it be tied to the material world brings philosophical challenges but I'd argue we can at least describe it as we ought to be able to tie it to something external to our mind.

I don't accept a clear division between mind and world so I just don't by this line of reasoning at all. There's no clear place we can make the divide you make. Take just your comment "five senses." I recognize you're speaking loosely, so forgive me for going pedantic but I think it important. There's simply not five senses. There are hundreds if not more sensory inputs. But they are pre-processed in various ways before reaching my awareness. By the time I'm aware of them they're already integrated. To give an example when I look at my keyboard I don't see color patches that I then consciously interpret to make a keyboard. Rather as it comes to my consciousness it comes as a slew of different objects including coming as a keyboard.

Given that it's not at all clear what we gain from talking about inside/outside or even mind at all. More significantly though you're introducing a taxonomy that's simply alien to the text in question. Now perhaps that'd be useful as a secondary discussion, but I think we have to deal with the presentation Alma gives even if we might not agree with the conceptual model he uses to communicate it. There's simply no indication that Alma buys into a dualism between mind and world. So to read Alma in terms of such a dualism is acontextual. That's less true with Lectures on Faith where you can see elements of such a dualism, which was of course prevalent in the early 19th century.

Quote

It also needs to hold up under subsequent investigation. A sound misheard that the brain interprets as a threat (a successful biologically evolved response) but that gets reinterpreted upon investigation as not being an angry growl or bark would be an example of a "feeling" that becomes better understood and substantiated through investigation.

But again you're creating an opposition that I'm not sure I agree with. What do you mean by misheard? I suspect you simply mean that when given to consciousness it's given with an "as" structure. So I hear I noise that's given to me as a dog bark. When I investigate I realize it's not a dog. So I agree about investigation, but I think we have to be careful how we discuss senses here. This is far more complex than you are suggesting.

Quote

The faith description in Alma is describing inner workings.

Because... 

I already recognized that was your belief. It's not at all clear to me why you think that. And again we have to be clear what sense of inner we are speaking of. You appear to be meaning inner as mind. But that's not at all clear. Maybe it just means inner to the person in an opposition between person and what's not the person. That makes no appeal to mind. There are other ways to deal with inner that deal closely with the text. Say 28 where the seed is said to be "planted in your heart" -- but what does he mean by heart? We can't assume he means something like a dualist conception of mind.

Quote

It seems clearly to imply the influences that are acceptable must already be understood as coming from God which means they must already ally themselves with the intention of pursuing faith.

Coming from God in what sense? Again, that's not at all negligible. You're taking that as clear revelation but it's not at all clear that's what he's saying. 

The allying with pursuing faith I do agree with. Indeed that's the whole start. It's the rest I'm much more skeptical of.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Show me where, in Alma 32, it clearly demonstrates one is being compelled by actual evidence rather than the seed that one has protected so it can grow.

Hold on, now I'm confused. Why wouldn't the swelling be evidence? How are you using "actual" here?

So the things described as evidence aren't evidence but what is never called evidence is the evidence? Don't you see that as being a little topsy turvy? 

Quote

And it goes from this act of giving it space and not rejecting it to knowledge. It's that simple, amigo. It's not a scientific experiement. It's the opposite. One assumes a position and then protects it from all challenges.

But that's most explicitly not what's claimed. It's like you're taking your reading of Romans and then projecting it on the Alma's metaphor ignoring what it does say. The whole point of the metaphor is that after you plant the seed it grows. Something happens that is detectable. You're whole argument is that planting the seed is assuming a position and protecting it but there is no testing (despite the common discussion of test) and that the only testing and evidence are the challenges (despite challenges never being discussed in the chapter).

Wow. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Brilliant. I especially love how the first sentence gives the reader a hint of what's to follow in the second. Like you view it as a competition.  Rock on amigo!

Competition?  No possibility- you win the prize by a mile.  I could never have even thought of that mush without your help- Thanks amigo!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

You conflate what Alma 32 says with a scientific process on no better grounds than it uses the word "experiment" but fail to contextualize it with the rest of the language around it. For a pragmatist to fail to understand the importance of context in word play continues to reinforce that it's all a bunch of handwaving to provide cover for your radical destruction and reconstruction of Mormon theology on very simple grounds - you can make it all about you.

Show me where, in Alma 32, it clearly demonstrates one is being compelled by actual evidence rather than the seed that one has protected so it can grow.

Here's the set up for the so-called experiment -

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

So in seed parlance, we're making space for the seed. Giving it a place in one's heart and thoughts and not rejecting it.

And it goes from this act of giving it space and not rejecting it to knowledge. It's that simple, amigo. It's not a scientific experiement. It's the opposite. One assumes a position and then protects it from all challenges.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

HUH?

Where did I say that Alma 32 is a description of the scientific method?

AND suppose it is!  Suppose for one second I totally goofed up and said it is a perfect description of Kuhn's paradigms

Please note that it is YOU who is protecting the scientific methodology as a paradigm.

I have no problem with protecting paradigms- that is precisely what humans do in creating their own myths.  Look in the mirror!!

Your Cartesianism is just blatant and you don't even see it.  "Correspondence" through and through!

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Epigenetic, apparently. The womb environment changes based on how many sons have already been born, leading to epigenetic changes.

At least that's my understanding. Research is ongoing.

They don't know and the study, which I've linked to here before, needs replication. It might be epigenetic but it might also be due to physical changes in the mother and hormones as well. We really don't know much here. But I certainly find the twin studies to be very intriguing. 

I rather doubt it'll be one thing. It'll probably be a complex manifestation from dozens if not hundreds of genes and the environment during both fetal development and development during adolescence. It would seem likely that there's not one cause either but that it could be caused in multiple ways. i.e. gay is a pretty wide catch-all term describing a common set of behaviors but not a common physiological state.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, Clark got it right as he often does as long as he is not talking about Peirce.

Well Peirce would say ethics are developing through a system of evolution in the universe and thus they are discoverable and not relativist to what any particular group decides. So to Peirce ethics aren't necessarily that different from say symmetry breaking in the physics of cosmology during the evolution of the universe.

My point though was simply that there's a ton of ways to look at this. An utilitarian might have a good way to discover ethical rules, for instance, but it's not clear why good should be seen as maximizing happiness. That is, there's still a contingent element on semantics.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think morality is one of the tools the human race has found to be indispensable.  We can argue all day about where it came from, IF it "came from" anywhere, even that is a presumption

If something is indispensable that surely entails there being a reason it's indispensable. That is we can inquire about why it works. That we don't yet fully know really isn't an argument for it being inherently unknowable. There's lots of things we don't know.

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I don't agree that the use of true as presented in Alma 32 shows correspondence with Hebrew uses. One only needs to use google's ngram tool to see "true seed" show up in the available documents in google books from the period of 1800 to 1819 that include religious and agricultural uses, both of which are realms Smith was involved in obviously. It's lacking evidential weight and I think best set to the side if it can't be shown as anything more than a colloquialism. Just like true church.

To break this down, though, I completely disagree that Alma's point is that faith comes in response to testing the object of faith. Here's the scripture -

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant;

Alma claims knowledge comes in response to the test and not before. Before the test was faith which he claims is now dormant.

And this gets to why I want you to tie your thoughts to scriptures rather than just sharing your views. I am sure you have thought long about your own view and feel it is coherent. It could be. But it isn't coherent with the LDS view contained in scripture and the LoF.

To break it down even further, let's take the next section of your response:

Again, going to the scripture itself, v28 says - Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts;

It's a choice to "give place" to the seed. In the context of this OP, let's say we "give place" to the idea that cureloms are real rather than imaginary. That's a choice. When presented with evidence that the word curelom has no correspondence with an animal attested anywhere but a book that fails to demonstrate it is based on reality rather than religious fantasy, if I "do not cast it out by (my) unbelief", that is also a choice. Faced with something that suggests I should give up on this idea but I instead decide to keep running with it as if it were true, it's an act of volition to do so. The scripture claims that I would be doing so by resisting the Spirit of the Lord because I guess some may have emotional attachment to the concept of cureloms being real. And Alma 32 tells us if we do all of that - choose to make allowance for cureloms being real, ignore reasons for deciding they aren't, not resisting the feelings that are described as the Spirit of the Lord, at some point the idea that cureloms are real will "swell in (my) breast", assuming I now feel something about cureloms being real I wouldn't have been able to feel otherwise.

Moving forward, and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

I'd argue it is very much saying faith is an act of volition. But the results of not giving in to the evidence will lead to "knowledge" and here you and I would agree that these seem to be the passive results of choosing faith over evidence.

So, I think we need to get on the same page with the above. I think you jumped a track early conflating faith with what Alma 32 calls knowledge and this is has wide-ranging consequences for your entire position.

Three different correspondence problems in one post- one that languages can possibly "correspond" with another, especially in this context of naming animals in ancient languages from different continents, and the other that words "correspond" with reality, and then that the word "evidence" in a spiritual context corresponds to the same usage as "evidence" in a scientific context

Every post reflects a positivistic paradigm, taken on faith when such views have long since been debunked.  They just don't work to demonstrate the connection of words to "reality"

And then confusing spiritual "evidence" with scientific "evidence".   Yep same word alright so that must mean that the word "corresponds" to the same "reality" right?

Mush on amigo!

Edited July 14, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

They don't know and the study, which I've linked to here before, needs replication. It might be epigenetic but it might also be due to physical changes in the mother and hormones as well. We really don't know much here. But I certainly find the twin studies to be very intriguing. 

I rather doubt it'll be one thing. It'll probably be a complex manifestation from dozens if not hundreds of genes and the environment during both fetal development and development during adolescence. It would seem likely that there's not one cause either but that it could be caused in multiple ways. i.e. gay is a pretty wide catch-all term describing a common set of behaviors but not a common physiological state.

Well Peirce would say ethics are developing through a system of evolution in the universe and thus they are discoverable and not relativist to what any particular group decides. So to Peirce ethics aren't necessarily that different from say symmetry breaking in the physics of cosmology during the evolution of the universe.

My point though was simply that there's a ton of ways to look at this. An utilitarian might have a good way to discover ethical rules, for instance, but it's not clear why good should be seen as maximizing happiness. That is, there's still a contingent element on semantics.

If something is indispensable that surely entails there being a reason it's indispensable. That is we can inquire about why it works. That we don't yet fully know really isn't an argument for it being inherently unknowable. There's lots of things we don't know.

 

This is not the place to get into Peirce, we have bunnies to slay!

Let's take care of the bunnies before we worry about the dragons.

So if there were no people there would still be morality evolving for no one to follow, and so would "symmetry" without anyone around to decide that symmetry was "symmetrical."  Hard to see without the turtles getting in the way!  

We look out at the universe and see our smiling faces looking back, learning more about how we perceive things than what is "really there".  Copenhagen, Heisenberg and other buzzwords!

But those are the dragons.

 

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If something is indispensable that surely entails there being a reason it's indispensable. That is we can inquire about why it works. That we don't yet fully know really isn't an argument for it being inherently unknowable. There's lots of things we don't know.

The reason morality is indispensable is not that complex. Families are required to raise many babies in peace.  Immorality leads to "death" by murder, divorce, lack of peace, broken homes etc- just look around our culture and you will see why morality is indispensable for family growth.  

Our urban culture is just not the best way to raise families and thereby make more babies and thereby continue human values- especially human values.  It is all about survival of the value system through creating more people who believe in it.

And I don't recall saying that was "unknowable"- did I say that?  If so I retract it.  Seems pretty obvious to me at the moment.

It is more an issue of RELEVANT evidence.   The fact that you can't see God, to me, is not relevant to the non-existence of the being I call "God" for He exists as an Ideal Being in my mind.

Maybe He does have a body as tangible as mine, but I find the concept makes him much easier to relate to, and imagining that I could also become perfected is an extremely interesting notion to me.  It gives my life more meaning than trying to stop global warming, for example.

Finding out how much God weighs (scientific evidence for his "existence" ) is immaterial to the richness I find in my life believing that he cares for me like a Father and that I might be able to become like him if I try to be an ideal father myself.

I would rather be an ideal father than stop global warming.   I KNOW that my efforts in fatherhood will do a lot more for the world than what I can contribute to global warming.

No accounting for values I guess....

Since God's existence is unknowable, I look to the effects the belief in God has in my life, and choose the pragmatic value of one over the other, rather than MY personal effect on global warming even IF there IS such a thing caused by humans or in some sense possibly caused by ME personally.

Also the fulfillment I receive from being a dad is far above that received from reducing my carbon foot print- I will devote my life to the first and not the latter.

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Depends upon what you mean. I tend to think saying church is only emotional is false. I might have an emotional response but I don't consider that evidence of much. To me focus on the emotional response tells me a bit about myself but not about truth. It has to at best be correlated with something or more importantly be what Joseph called flows of pure intelligence. Otherwise what's to distinguish church from say a pentecostal church or an emotional concert?

My experience with the Church and the gospel is definitely not purely emotional. I have sought to understand many things, which I didn't come to understand on an emotional level. One example is my understanding of the atonement.

My faith is not based on emotion. It is based upon my knowledge of the word of God and on my experience - those times God or other church members have reached out and touched my life. I suppose I have had confirmations which are probably best described as an emotion, but usually it is more than that. Sometimes it is like a light turning on - it can include what I perceive to be a physical experience. I now perceive it as my soul guiding me I guess. 

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have never seen such a mush of ambiguous words in my life

On the other hand opposing evidential faith by reason alone leads to faith in compelling belief in reasonable evidence of a non-sequitur and is clearly superior in saying nothing at all.

Keep a shoveling amigo!

Had to chuckle at this. Can I put it in my signature?

Edited July 14, 2017 by RevTestament