Are cureloms imaginary?

[Johnnie Cake]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?  So you are ready to resurrect the moribund corpse of Positivism?

From my perspective it never died...

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

A 100 pages huh...gee I'd be happy with a single archaeological artifact or dig that's been confirmed to be Nephite.  Frankly, this is amazing and welcomed news RevTestiment, I actually didn't know that any Book of Mormon findings existed. I'm guessing that you can offer 1 single item or sight from your list of a 100 pages right?  I'm looking forward to it thanks.  And since I don't want you to highjack this thread to accommodate me...perhaps a separate thread might be appropriate.

 

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Really?  Because I gave context to my reply of a question you asked?  Do it then...and shame on you

No, not because you contest the existence of cureloms, but repeatedly try to make this thread about the entire BoM - that is far beyond the scope of the thread. I decline to reveal any other archaeological sites or findings on this thread not having to do with cureloms or Sumeria/Akkadia/Mesopotamia since that is SUPPOSED to be the subject matter of this thread. If you keep dragging everything LDS into it I believe I will report you for derailing the thread and not shame on me - shame on you. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

From my perspective it never died...

Obviously- that's the problem 

You have your religion we have ours

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

Edited July 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

No, not because you contest the existence of cureloms, but repeatedly try to make this thread about the entire BoM - that is far beyond the scope of the thread. I decline to reveal any other archaeological sites or findings on this thread not having to do with cureloms or Sumeria/Akkadia/Mesopotamia since that is SUPPOSED to be the subject matter of this thread. If you keep dragging everything LDS into it I believe I will report you for derailing the thread and not shame on me - shame on you. 

Why won't you tell us about your archaeological bofm proof, if you have it? I would like to know, if it's real or not or merely faith based.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why won't you tell us about your archaeological bofm proof, if you have it? I would like to know, if it's real or not or merely faith based.

False dichotomy

Every value you have in life and your reason for getting out of bed in the morning is faith based.  Are they real?

[Johnnie Cake]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

You might want to listen to non-Mormon scholar Peter Enns discuss the matter in his Peter Enns, “Why Defending the Bible Does More Harm Than Good (The Bible Tells Me So),” The Flipside #010, podcast online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ZHg6a_LP8 . 

 

Thanks for sharing this link Robert...I've thoroughly enjoyed listening to it.  Plus its given me access to another interesting podcast I can add to my podcast feed.  Are you aware that the host, Josuha Tongol, has left Religion?  Its just a recent development so you may not be aware...but he has offered some very interesting reasoning for why he has walked away from Christianity as well in some of his more recent podcasts if you're interested.

With respect to this particular link however...is the POV of the guest how you view the Bible?  More of a macro biblical pov instead of a micro biblical pov? Is this how you also see the Book of Mormon?  You gloss over its problems and focus on what value you can take from the book? 

I particularly enjoyed the guests insights into the story of Job. I had never considered the story of Job in that particular framework...as a counter to the over arching story in the Bible that evil is met with punishment and good is met with reward...and yet Job was good, did nothing wrong and yet God dealt him unimaginable sickness, pain, loss of loved ones etc...showing that in life being good does not necessarily mean we will be rewarded nor being evil equal consequences (at least in this life ha ha).

Any how...thanks again...I too recommend this podcast...it does offer quite an interesting perspective on how to access spirituality/God and how to process the ancient religion as found in the Bible with our modern times from the perspective of when it was written taking the biblical claims with a grain of salt and modern skepticism but still finding value in its message that can still be applied to our modern lives through a less literal interpretation.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Honorentheos]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Apriorism is based on irrational assumptions -- assumptions not based on logic or forensic evidence.  You have confused your early faith-based naivete with a solid and "indesructible" testimony.

 

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You again confuse faith with reason.  The two are not the same.  Faith needs no evidence and does not depend upon evidence.  A testimony via the Holy Spirit is completely separate from science and logic.  Those are two separate modes of thought.

I appreciate your having finally being straight-forward about this rather than dismissing the majority view that the BoM is not a historically accurate text. When it comes down to it, there is no real reasonable way to claim cureloms are anything but imaginary. A pleasent fiction if you will. You may claim extraordinary evidence in the form of a faith-confirming or faith-causing event specific to your faith in the historical periscope of the BoM which extends into the subject of cureloms. And this compels you to confabulate explanations for cureloms. But this second sentence of your I quote above is exactly right when it draws a line.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

13 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I particularly enjoyed the guests insights into the story of Job. I had never considered the story of Job in that particular framework...as a counter to the over arching story in the Bible that evil is met with punishment and good is met with reward...and yet Job was good, did nothing wrong and yet God dealt him unimaginable sickness, pain, loss of loved ones etc...showing that in life being good does not necessarily mean we will be rewarded nor being evil equal consequences (at least in this life ha ha).

This piques my interest. I've long understood the story of Job to be the oldest in the Old Testament. At least the part of it that is original (it is clearly added to by later authors, as are most works in the Bible). And the underlying issue of Job seems particularly appealing to the chosen people of Israel who must have contended with the problem of believing they are chosen by the one true god on the one hand. But suffer failures, become pawns in the game of empire throughout their history, and otherwise don't seem all that special or favored. The writings of the Old Testament that interprete this as a result of Israel turning away from God is a theme that seems to be particularly flavored by the Deuteronomists and Priestly contributors. But I could see the editing author of Job responding to these priestly condemning power-players and expanding on Job to insert them into the story in the form of his condemning friends. And of course they get their come-uppance by no less than YHWH. Very interesting thoughts there.

I'll have to check out the podcast. Thanks for seconding the recommendation!

Edited July 11, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

False dichotomy

Every value you have in life and your reason for getting out of bed in the morning is faith based.  Are they real?

Psychology and neuroscience would argue otherwise. Faith is a choice-based impulse to act. The vast majority of impulses to act are nonconscious. If you were with the times you'd know free will is not such a given as Mormonism's central placement of it assumes.  

Edited July 11, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Pete Ahlstrom]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

False dichotomy

Every value you have in life and your reason for getting out of bed in the morning is faith based.  Are they real?

Fair enough. But most things require very little faith. I see the ground and I only need a tiny amount of faith to believe it is still there in order to take a step. On the other hand a huge amount of faith is required to believe in cureloms. I guess I'd like to know where in the faith spectrum is Rev's "evidence?"

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why won't you tell us about your archaeological bofm proof, if you have it? I would like to know, if it's real or not or merely faith based.

As I indicated it is enough to fill a book. It is far beyond the scope of this thread. I am glad to know that you are interested, however. I don't know when it will be finished - my guess is by next year. It will address most of the "sticky" points of the BoM. I caution that it is not offered as proof, but as substantial evidence, which I hope people will consider prayerfully. Unfortunately, much of the evidence has been destroyed through development, looting, poor archaeological practice, etc, but there is still enough to make a substantial case - indeed I believe a compelling case. Not every peg is completely nailed in though, so those who don't want to believe will still find wiggle room not to believe as is the case with biblical archaeology as well. However, I believe it enough to ground faith in the BoM in archaeology and science, and to show it does not have to be accepted as a work of fiction. Indeed there are many points substantiated that Joseph Smith could not have simply made up. It is presently designed to be read along with the Book of Mormon as a study guide, so the reader can understand where things take place, and where the various lands of the Book of Mormon are, the chronology of their culture, the foods mentioned, geography, cement technology, metallurgy, calendar keeping and other particulars will be addressed in detail.

It will also address some biblical archaeology - in particular archaeology of the time of the exodus, and of the time of Lehi which overlaps into the Book of Mormon. It addresses the exodus route with most stops filled in with particularity and why other routes proposed to date are incorrect, and the true Sinai with particularity. It addresses a few particulars of the Mosaic law and other prophetic parts of the Torah as well. Some of these parts overlap into the Book of Mormon.

Basically, it is designed to be the common man's study guide rather than a scientific paper - so one can read it along with parts of the Bible or the Book of Mormon, and better understand what is going on. In other words it is not designed for peer review and scientific analysis, but rather as a scriptural commentary with archaeological evidences and other scientific evidence. My hope is it will open the eyes and hearts of many.

[hagoth7]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You again confuse faith with reason.  The two are not the same. ... 

 While the latter can be an onramp and rampart to/for the former. As in "Lord I believe....Help thou my unbelief."

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Faith needs no evidence and does not depend upon evidence....

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88.118#p117

Edited July 11, 2017 by hagoth7

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Psychology and neuroscience would argue otherwise. Faith is a choice-based impulse to act. The vast majority of impulses to act are nonconscious. If you were with the times you'd know free will is not such a given as Mormonism's central placement of it assumes.  

Idiocy. Compatiblism.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Fair enough. But most things require very little faith. I see the ground and I only need a tiny amount of faith to believe it is still there in order to take a step. On the other hand a huge amount of faith is required to believe in cureloms. I guess I'd like to know where in the faith spectrum is Rev's "evidence?"

Your question is faith based that such evidence is required.

It is not. Google "positivism is dead"

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Psychology and neuroscience would argue otherwise. Faith is a choice-based impulse to act. The vast majority of impulses to act are nonconscious. If you were with the times you'd know free will is not such a given as Mormonism's central placement of it assumes.  

I really think we're equivocating over terms - particularly words like faith or choice.

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

From my perspective it never died...

While I think positivism is unfortunately treated like a boogie-man, it also does seem pretty dead from a philosophical perspective. Of course within history it's alive and well. But my sense is that we all might be equivocating over the meaning of positivism. Without threadjacking, could you explain what you mean by positivism?

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While I think positivism is unfortunately treated like a boogie-man, it also does seem pretty dead from a philosophical perspective. Of course within history it's alive and well. But my sense is that we all might be equivocating over the meaning of positivism. Without threadjacking, could you explain what you mean by positivism?

If you are asking me...it basically boils down to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"  But I also like the web definition of positivism that "every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism" 

As to how I personally view the world,  I hate absolutes...so rather than accepting the dogmatic positivist worldview I try to take on a more pragmatic point of view but I also reject dogmatism in most of its forms...particularly within religion.  Which is also why I chose agnosticism instead of an atheistic worldview.  One allows for my POV to accept new information while the other has already drawn a conclusion.  that said...the notion of a God in the Mormon form actually existing...seems extremely unlikely from where I stand.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Your question is faith based that such evidence is required.

It is not. Google "positivism is dead"

So will you join my church? People say the so called history of it proves it false but I say history is hard to know, hard to prove. There really is no history, no facts, only observations. However, if you follow what I say to do, you will receive a spiritual experience that will tell you my church is right for you. It requires that you experiment on it first, but it is well worth it. By the way, god only requires 5% of your monthly income in my church. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

If you are asking me...it basically boils down to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"  But I also like the web definition of positivism that "every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism" 

As to how I personally view the world,  I hate absolutes...so rather than accepting the dogmatic positivist worldview I try to take on a more pragmatic point of view but I also reject dogmatism in most of its forms...particularly within religion.  Which is also why I chose agnosticism instead of an atheistic worldview.  One allows for my POV to accept new information while the other has already drawn a conclusion.  that said...the notion of a God in the Mormon form actually existing...seems extremely unlikely from where I stand.

What about the utility of envisioning such a God who urges that mankind become as kind to each other as is humanly possible?

This is the god Rorty says he could follow- one who is a "friend" to mankind instead of a Supreme Distant Monarch.

"World peace" does not "exist" either- whatever that word is supposed to mean in this context- to me it is a category error but that is another discussion.

But is there utility in envisioning "World Peace" as a goal to mankind?

I am sorry you cannot seem to make this equivalency due to your positivistic bent which is not founded in contemporary philosophy at all.

And dogma?  Get up to speed on that as well.

Quote

 

According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’.

There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there.

 

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

Dogma is a psychological need, not anything based in philosophy, so just ignore dogmatic people.   It is their problem more than their belief in anything reasonable.

So stick with the pragmatic view and take it to the limit.  Look at the FUNCTION of beliefs in people's lives.

People die for "freedom" because that is how that belief FUNCTIONS

Now as a disclaimer for the TBM's hereabouts- this has nothing to do with God being "real" because God cannot be shown through objective evidence that He "exists" or doesn't "exist"

In other words the FUNCTION of the belief in God must not be confused with the BELIEF itself.  You can be a believer as I am and understand the function of the belief in my life while still accepting the belief.

We had a discussion in our HC meeting Sunday about the idea of "choose to believe".

One can "choose to believe" in global warming as an "agnostic" about global warming- one can not be sure it is "real" and still choose to believe it is BECAUSE of the benefits of the belief in their lives.  They get the fellowship of other believers and work for a worthy cause- reducing energy use etc- a goal good in itself- without necessarily being firm in the ultimate statement of belief that "global warming exists"

Belief in the atonement takes away guilt even if there is no such thing as the atonement BECAUSE such things as atonements leave no physical evidence.  Evidence in the heart- yes but you will not accept that as "evidence" due to your dogma against it.

I happen to know with all my heart that Jesus died and atoned for MY sins, but I can distinguish the difference between how that belief FUNCTIONS in my life from the belief itself.

Atheists still have a human need to make a difference in life and to BELIEVE their lives have a purpose.  To me that IS what religion does for believers and is why I speak of atheists having a "religion without God"

Even in the absence of evidence that "soldiers should be willing to die for the freedom of their country" the BELIEF itself functions in the lives of millions, without any evidence or basis in reason at all.   In fact I am certain that there are many in the armed forces who do not believe in God who hold firmly to this belief "without evidence" and this view rules their lives and would in fact permit them to "die for their country" regardless how meaningless the particular mission in which they died was, even including friendly fire and training accidents.

So always look at the function of the belief when evidence is irrelevant in belief.

THAT is my point in being here though perhaps I have not put it that way enough.  God cannot be "proven" by objective evidence to exist or not exist, again whatever that word means, just like our cureloms here in this thread.

But in those cases, the question becomes "is the belief sweet to me" as in Alma 32, and does the belief bear fruit in my life?

For you, the idea that all must be proven with evidence, a belief which cannot itself be proven with evidence rules.

Fine.  That is your "religion".  Don't expect it to be mine when most contemporary philosophers see that itself as unreasonable dead dogma. And have fun hating absolutes while you believe your absolute.

Edited July 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So will you join my church? People say the so called history of it proves it false but I say history is hard to know, hard to prove. There really is no history, no facts, only observations. However, if you follow what I say to do, you will receive a spiritual experience that will tell you my church is right for you. It requires that you experiment on it first, but it is well worth it. By the way, god only requires 5% of your monthly income in my church. 

That would be "interpretations of observations"

You don't know me or my history.  Forty five years ago I was where you are.  You will get better hopefully when you figure out that positivism really IS dead.  Your god is dead.  Better shop for a new one.

Read the above link to the deflationary theory of truth to lose your dogmatism

 

[mfbukowski]

And by the way, I have no clue why cureloms being imaginary or not has anything to do with anything.

I suppose it is supposed to have something to do with the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon and therefore somehow the "truth" of Mormonism and therefore somehow the notion that IF cureloms are imaginary then so is God and Mormonism.

That is a pretty ridiculous conclusion when the issue is whether or not Mormonism gives meaning to the lives of the believers, and makes them better humans.  As a TBM myself I think that the answer to that is without a doubt in the affirmative

So where's the beef?

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

If you are asking me...it basically boils down to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"  But I also like the web definition of positivism that "every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism" 

But that gets at the traditional problem of stereotypical positivism. Such a claim can't be scientifically verified nor logically proven. So I'm surprised you'd embrace that.

Of course the classical positivists like Carnap knew that problem and never bought into to such a superficial conception of positivism. The main issue can be seen in Hempel's formulation (from which the more superficial form you quote originates). Hempel says that a significant assertion can be said to be true or false if and only if it is analytic or contradictory and it is potentially capable of test by experiential evidence. Note that this doesn't entail other statements are meaningless. Most of the positivists, especially Carnap, felt things like ethics or symphonies were deeply meaningful. They just weren't cognitively meaningful. (This is something many miss)

But beyond that issue there were two approaches. The first is to ask how broadly or narrowly "experiential evidence" is to be taken. So for instance C. S. Peirce had his own verification principle that, like the positivists, he felt would clear away a lot of metaphysical nonsense. But he felt that some metaphysics could be verified by his criteria. This is wrapped up with his logic though. Even among the positivists proper though the usual approach was to ask when a criterion is analytic and meaningful. (Which avoids the experience problem) But the usual approach is to ask how tight or broad the experience evidence is. Where in practice is where most positivists had problems because they actually did want to make it as narrow as possible - unlike Peirce and the pragmatists.

However the real reason the positivists ran into trouble wasn't the purported problem of being self-refuting. Rather it was Quine's breaking down the analytic/synthetic distinction which was key to Hempel's presentation.

 

Quote

As to how I personally view the world,  I hate absolutes...so rather than accepting the dogmatic positivist worldview I try to take on a more pragmatic point of view but I also reject dogmatism in most of its forms...particularly within religion.  Which is also why I chose agnosticism instead of an atheistic worldview.  One allows for my POV to accept new information while the other has already drawn a conclusion.  that said...the notion of a God in the Mormon form actually existing...seems extremely unlikely from where I stand.

That seems quite different from positivism though. Rather it's an issue of interpreting the experiential evidence. I think most people would agree that arguments for metaphysics are weak. The positivist argument though wasn't that the arguments were weak but that metaphysics typically was meaningless.

Edited July 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And by the way, I have no clue why cureloms being imaginary or not has anything to do with anything.

I suppose it is supposed to have something to do with the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon and therefore somehow the "truth" of Mormonism and therefore somehow the notion that IF cureloms are imaginary then so is God and Mormonism.

That is a pretty ridiculous conclusion when the issue is whether or not Mormonism gives meaning to the lives of the believers, and makes them better humans.  As a TBM myself I think that the answer to that is without a doubt in the affirmative

I think the argument is for cureloms being a sign of a fraudulent production by Joseph. That is that at best the book matters only the way that say Hamlet matters. But that if that is the best it matters that puts it at odds with what Joseph said. Thus Joseph is untrustworthy and one should look at his pronouncements with deep suspicion.

The problem is that that it's really hard to see how cureloms moves that argument much, as I said earlier. So like you, I don't quite see the focus beyond a rhetorical strategy of presenting what sounds weird to a superficial engagement. "Here, look at this funny sounding words. You don't know what they mean and neither does anyone else so let's dismiss Joseph and Mormonism." As such, it's intentionally sophistry to get people to avoid engaging with the text.

Edited July 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

What we are seeing here are those who are taught fundamentalism as children which gave them the comfort and security of certainty

All they have done is substituted bat Dogma for a new Dogma which gives them Comfort security that all propositions must be backed up with scientific evidence.

All that is is substituting One Security blanket for another.

The purpose of life is to face ambiguity and lack of certainty and create your own vision of the world from matter unorganized 

This was dictated.

Edited July 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Johnnie Cake]

50 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But that gets at the traditional problem of stereotypical positivism. Such a claim can't be scientifically verified nor logically proven. So I'm surprised you'd embrace that.

Of course the classical positivists like Carnap knew that problem and never bought into to such a superficial conception of positivism. The main issue can be seen in Hempel's formulation (from which the more superficial form you quote originates). Hempel says that a significant assertion can be said to be true or false if and only if it is analytic or contradictory and it is potentially capable of test by experiential evidence. Note that this doesn't entail other statements are meaningless. Most of the positivists, especially Carnap, felt things like ethics or symphonies were deeply meaningful. They just weren't cognitively meaningful. (This is something many miss)

But beyond that issue there were two approaches. The first is to ask how broadly or narrowly "experiential evidence" is to be taken. So for instance C. S. Peirce had his own verification principle that, like the positivists, he felt would clear away a lot of metaphysical nonsense. But he felt that some metaphysics could be verified by his criteria. This is wrapped up with his logic though. Even among the positivists proper though the usual approach was to ask when a criterion is analytic and meaningful. (Which avoids the experience problem) But the usual approach is to ask how tight or broad the experience evidence is. Where in practice is where most positivists had problems because they actually did want to make it as narrow as possible - unlike Peirce and the pragmatists.

However the real reason the positivists ran into trouble wasn't the purported problem of being self-refuting. Rather it was Quine's breaking down the analytic/synthetic distinction which was key to Hempel's presentation.

 

That seems quite different from positivism though. Rather it's an issue of interpreting the experiential evidence. I think most people would agree that arguments for metaphysics are weak. The positivist argument though wasn't that the arguments were weak but that metaphysics typically was meaningless.

I get the sense that both you and mfbukowski are trying to back me into the positivisms corner...and as I stated earlier...I'm not that dogmatic in my worldview...however I am very skeptical of metaphysical or mystical super powers that remain untestable.  I tend to want evidence for fanciful claims and am skeptical of claims that are dependent on feelings for support.  I reject priesthood power claims, a god that intercedes in our life or any other claims of the metaphysical....but ethics and symphonies...you have my attention.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Johnnie Cake