Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted August 20, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 20, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: But each individual in those group examples that you've given has a different and unique subjective interpretation and relationship to the experience. The event happened in a group setting, but the meaning of the event is unique and individual. That is essentially all I'm saying. I too have had profound experiences in group settings. Can you elaborate on why the experiences people have while reading a religious text, like the BoM aren't completely subjective phenomena? As for feelings and thinking, I'm not making a distinction between the two. Its all interconnected through our senses and our conscious and subconscious thought processes. I don't know where one ends and the other begins, but that is all part of what I'm talking about when I say "feelings". Thanks for the link, I didn't read the older posts in the thread yet, so I appreciate you re-linking this one. It sounds interesting. It also sounds like the author is attempting to point to common threads in thinking/feeling, but not to "objectively prove the existence of a God", so in that sense agrees with what I was saying. Its interesting though, if we can't "objectively prove the existence of a God", why the correlated & orthodox Mormon position seems so oriented towards this way of thinking. I could get along much better in Mormonism if it evolved to a post proof paradigm. I've had experiences that are particularly profound because it wasn't just me there. And not just me and something I interpreted or felt/decided was God. But, for instance, me and my wife both having a shared experience with God was something that was notable because it was emphatically NOT just unique and individual. As to "not completely subjective" reading of the Book of Mormon or other scriptures, many years ago when I lived in Lawrence, Kansas, Alyson Von Feldt attended the other ward in our building. One week, we were having a lesson on Sherem in Jacob 7, and since I had been reading The Great Angel, I saw something about Sherem's arguments that I had not realized before. While walking with Shauna to my car, we passed Alyson who said, "Do you think Sherem was a Deuteronomist?" We'd made the same connection, the same day in different Sunday school classes because we were not only having the same lesson, but also because were were both reading Barker, and contextualized things in the same way. Back when I wrote Paradigms Crossed, I observed that while we don't always interpret things the same way, the things exist and do exert some pressure to be accounted for. The variables are selectivity, contextualization, subjectivity, and time. These differ and lead to variant interpretations, they are the different soil for the same seed in the parable of the sower. But constraints also exist along with the things we have to experience and interpret. Puzzle definition and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, and future promise. If you pay attention to those, you can progress from being one of the blind men over-generalizing from their bit of the elephant, to understanding the elephant as such. And from there, even get to know the elephant as an individual with a history and personality and geneology and ancestry, and place in the cosmos. If, on the other hand, some of the blind men step back from controversy, and decide, well, "It's all subjective interpretation," and "For me, the interpretation of spear is good enough", they also cut themselves off from progress. Correlated and Orthodox are what they are due to pedagogy and human development. Mormonism is much larger than that, and allows for, and indeed, encourages and demands, further growth and development. It's about gaining "further light and knowledge" rather than nailing down orthodoxy. And part of the "further light and knowledge" is understanding that people have to start somewhere, and that there will always be someone at the correlated and orthodox thinking stages, but that does not mean everyone has to stay there. I draw on Ian Barbour (a physicist interested in science and religion) and Ninian Smart (a scholar of comparative religion), but the Sophic Box and Mantic Vista essay is mine. I am the author. As I am for this one. http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/model_of_experience.pdf Best, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited August 20, 2018 by Kevin Christensen 5
hope_for_things Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: I've had experiences that are particularly profound because it wasn't just me there. And not just me and something I interpreted or felt/decided was God. But, for instance, me and my wife both having a shared experience with God was something that was notable because it was emphatically NOT just unique and individual. I think I understand what you're saying, but since I can't get inside you or your wife's head I can only imagine what it is either of you experienced. I'm also not trying to be dismissive when I ask this question, but I would like to know why you believe that your experience is uniquely individual, and in what sense that could be objectively measured? Is there a way to setup an empirical test to control for bias and influence from your spouse to determine how you each individually interpreted the experience? I think there might be ways to do this to some degree but it would require very strict rules to be setup to eliminate the possibility of participants being influenced by each other, even non-verbal communication during the event could influence the other person. Taves thesis in Revelatory events actually explores this idea of how group dynamics influence individuals having religious experiences. Law enforcement agencies have standard practices in place when interviewing eye witnesses where they don't allow the witnesses to talk to each other so that they can try to get independent accounts of events, because it is well known how shared memories influence other witnesses. There have been interesting studies about the reliability of witness accounts from a scientific perspective and there are many factors throughout an experiential timeline that can have significant influence on how people report their experiences. I would argue that its not possible in an epistemological sense for two individuals to have the same exact subjective experience, because everything is filtered through our own unique mind and that is colored by a lifetime of personal experience. Unless we can develop objective tests to measure the subjective and at that point the evidence transitions those observations from the subjective into the objective. There have been some studies in neuroscience that might point to a future when we're better able to measure what are now subjective experiences in some scientific way, but we are just in the infancy of beginning to understand the brain at this point. 2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: As to "not completely subjective" reading of the Book of Mormon or other scriptures, many years ago when I lived in Lawrence, Kansas, Alyson Von Feldt attended the other ward in our building. One week, we were having a lesson on Sherem in Jacob 7, and since I had been reading The Great Angel, I saw something about Sherem's arguments that I had not realized before. While walking with Shauna to my car, we passed Alyson who said, "Do you think Sherem was a Deuteronomist?" We'd made the same connection, the same day in different Sunday school classes because we were not only having the same lesson, but also because were were both reading Barker, and contextualized things in the same way. Because two people experience something similar doesn't make it objective. You even recognize the similar influencing cultural and environmental factors that certainly would have contributed to what I would call an increased probabilistic likelihood for you both to have this similar idea occur to to you separately. Why is this an example of an objective shared experience? 2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: Back when I wrote Paradigms Crossed, I observed that while we don't always interpret things the same way, the things exist and do exert some pressure to be accounted for. The variables are selectivity, contextualization, subjectivity, and time. These differ and lead to variant interpretations, they are the different soil for the same seed in the parable of the sower. But constraints also exist along with the things we have to experience and interpret. Puzzle definition and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, and future promise. If you pay attention to those, you can progress from being one of the blind men over-generalizing from their bit of the elephant, to understanding the elephant as such. And from there, even get to know the elephant as an individual with a history and personality and geneology and ancestry, and place in the cosmos. If, on the other hand, some of the blind men step back from controversy, and decide, well, "It's all subjective interpretation," and "For me, the interpretation of spear is good enough", they also cut themselves off from progress. This is interesting. I would agree that we could say that both of you experienced something, but I don't think we can say that what you experienced "exists" out there in the universe. We have no way of measuring that objectively. You both could have been primed to experience something similar through by your environment and culture and the circumstances around you both. I would say that we don't have any evidence in the case of religious experiences to support the idea that the elephant even exists. Wouldn't the only evidence we have at this point be that the people around the elephant are describing their individual sensory experiences, but that we don't have any evidence that the actual cause of those experiences is something out there in the world, it could be a cause just within their own mind at this point. I'm not sure what you mean by cutting yourself off from progress. That sounds like a religious theological faith claim to me. The idea that we have to just trust that what others say exists, actually does exist, and only after we trust can we have access to hidden knowledge, is a religious claim that I don't really see rational evidence for. This is also a mechanism for getting people to believe in all kinds of fantasies that have caused a lot of harm over the course of human history. 2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: Correlated and Orthodox are what they are due to pedagogy and human development. Mormonism is much larger than that, and allows for, and indeed, encourages and demands, further growth and development. It's about gaining "further light and knowledge" rather than nailing down orthodoxy. And part of the "further light and knowledge" is understanding that people have to start somewhere, and that there will always be someone at the correlated and orthodox thinking stages, but that does not mean everyone has to stay there. I think this is too simplistic, and its based on an assumption that there is some grand schema in place that accounts for various different orientations to thinking. The idea that there is an organized pattern and that people who think more naively are just at an earlier step along the path, but its part of a grand plan of how people should develop is an idea that I don't subscribe to. I see a lot more chaos involved from my experience. I don't think there is necessarily something important about certain orthodox propositions. As someone increasingly interested in history I see many examples of negative orthodoxies throughout the human and Mormon enterprise, as I'm sure you'd acknowledge as well. It seems naive to assume that correlated Mormonism doesn't also have numerous positions that will also be looked at as mistakes and negative through the lens of future Mormons and society at large.
mfbukowski Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 4 hours ago, Exiled said: It's funny you say this as I was thinking about the proper response to the child interviews question and church authority. The church only has the authority we give it, as you say, so parents should simply refuse the bishops these interviews and take back their control over their children and this ought to be the message of the hunger strike. Sure. So that means they do not acknowledge the authority of the priesthood, the ordinances, they are no longer married, their baptism was invalid, and they are no longer members, no temple recommend etc. No problem. That has always been their choice. What was your point again?
He is life Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 I have had many discussions with Born Again Christians. It is their belief that they are saved through their belief in Jesus Christ. They also believe that salvation does not require works. I believe people are drawn to this religion because there are few requirements for salvation with this belief.
mfbukowski Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: But each individual in those group examples that you've given has a different and unique subjective interpretation and relationship to the experience. The event happened in a group setting, but the meaning of the event is unique and individual. That is essentially all I'm saying. I too have had profound experiences in group settings. Can you elaborate on why the experiences people have while reading a religious text, like the BoM aren't completely subjective phenomena? As for feelings and thinking, I'm not making a distinction between the two. Its all interconnected through our senses and our conscious and subconscious thought processes. I don't know where one ends and the other begins, but that is all part of what I'm talking about when I say "feelings". Thanks for the link, I didn't read the older posts in the thread yet, so I appreciate you re-linking this one. It sounds interesting. It also sounds like the author is attempting to point to common threads in thinking/feeling, but not to "objectively prove the existence of a God", so in that sense agrees with what I was saying. Its interesting though, if we can't "objectively prove the existence of a God", why the correlated & orthodox Mormon position seems so oriented towards this way of thinking. I could get along much better in Mormonism if it evolved to a post proof paradigm. It has never been anything else. "We come to Earth to be tested and walk by faith." I have never in my life heard of a Mormon say you can prove God's existence. And what's wrong with our most intimate personal decisions being "subjective"? I will never understand how people can defend the subjectivity of sexual practices while attacking subjectivity of religious preferences. I just don't get it. Edited August 20, 2018 by mfbukowski 2
hope_for_things Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It has never been anything else. "We come to Earth to be tested and walk by faith." I have never in my life heard of a Mormon say you can prove God's existence. And what's wrong with our most intimate personal decisions being "subjective"? I will never understand how people can defend the subjectivity of sexual practices while attacking subjectivity of religious preferences. I just don't get it. Thanks, I agree. Perhaps you can respond to what Kevin is saying then, because I’m trying to understand it. He seems to be claiming there is something objective about the experiences he and his spouse have experienced. He also claimed something objective about experiences with the BoM. See my responses above where I’m asking for clarification on those points. Maybe I’m misunderstanding him, he hasn’t replied yet, but I was wondering what you thought. Thanks
mfbukowski Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks, I agree. Perhaps you can respond to what Kevin is saying then, because I’m trying to understand it. He seems to be claiming there is something objective about the experiences he and his spouse have experienced. He also claimed something objective about experiences with the BoM. See my responses above where I’m asking for clarification on those points. Maybe I’m misunderstanding him, he hasn’t replied yet, but I was wondering what you thought. Thanks Kevin is probably the smartest person I've ever had direct contact with. He is more than capable to explain his own position. Language is highly ambiguous and I can see probably a dozen ways that these types of evidence might be seen as "objective". The usual definition includes two people are more getting the same result. I think 15 million people getting the "same result" qualifies for "objective" in that sense. But the real question that you keep missing and never answering is why you think objectivity is important anyway? It's like the Evangelical who keep saying "but it's not in the Bible" when you ask them why the Book of Mormon can't be scripture. Two people after listening to different lessons about the same subject coming to the same conclusion sounds like an "objective" result to me. When I speak about an observation being subjective I am talking about the fact that we can never know that what you call Blue in your perception may not be what I call Green in mine, even though we use the same words. My point is about the ambiguity of language not the definitions of words. Edited August 21, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I think I understand what you're saying, but since I can't get inside you or your wife's head I can only imagine what it is either of you experienced. I'm also not trying to be dismissive when I ask this question, but I would like to know why you believe that your experience is uniquely individual, and in what sense that could be objectively measured? Is there a way to setup an empirical test to control for bias and influence from your spouse to determine how you each individually interpreted the experience? I think there might be ways to do this to some degree but it would require very strict rules to be setup to eliminate the possibility of participants being influenced by each other, even non-verbal communication during the event could influence the other person. Taves thesis in Revelatory events actually explores this idea of how group dynamics influence individuals having religious experiences. Law enforcement agencies have standard practices in place when interviewing eye witnesses where they don't allow the witnesses to talk to each other so that they can try to get independent accounts of events, because it is well known how shared memories influence other witnesses. There have been interesting studies about the reliability of witness accounts from a scientific perspective and there are many factors throughout an experiential timeline that can have significant influence on how people report their experiences. I would argue that its not possible in an epistemological sense for two individuals to have the same exact subjective experience, because everything is filtered through our own unique mind and that is colored by a lifetime of personal experience. Unless we can develop objective tests to measure the subjective and at that point the evidence transitions those observations from the subjective into the objective. There have been some studies in neuroscience that might point to a future when we're better able to measure what are now subjective experiences in some scientific way, but we are just in the infancy of beginning to understand the brain at this point. Because two people experience something similar doesn't make it objective. You even recognize the similar influencing cultural and environmental factors that certainly would have contributed to what I would call an increased probabilistic likelihood for you both to have this similar idea occur to to you separately. Why is this an example of an objective shared experience? This is interesting. I would agree that we could say that both of you experienced something, but I don't think we can say that what you experienced "exists" out there in the universe. We have no way of measuring that objectively. You both could have been primed to experience something similar through by your environment and culture and the circumstances around you both. I would say that we don't have any evidence in the case of religious experiences to support the idea that the elephant even exists. Wouldn't the only evidence we have at this point be that the people around the elephant are describing their individual sensory experiences, but that we don't have any evidence that the actual cause of those experiences is something out there in the world, it could be a cause just within their own mind at this point. I'm not sure what you mean by cutting yourself off from progress. That sounds like a religious theological faith claim to me. The idea that we have to just trust that what others say exists, actually does exist, and only after we trust can we have access to hidden knowledge, is a religious claim that I don't really see rational evidence for. This is also a mechanism for getting people to believe in all kinds of fantasies that have caused a lot of harm over the course of human history. I think this is too simplistic, and its based on an assumption that there is some grand schema in place that accounts for various different orientations to thinking. The idea that there is an organized pattern and that people who think more naively are just at an earlier step along the path, but its part of a grand plan of how people should develop is an idea that I don't subscribe to. I see a lot more chaos involved from my experience. I don't think there is necessarily something important about certain orthodox propositions. As someone increasingly interested in history I see many examples of negative orthodoxies throughout the human and Mormon enterprise, as I'm sure you'd acknowledge as well. It seems naive to assume that correlated Mormonism doesn't also have numerous positions that will also be looked at as mistakes and negative through the lens of future Mormons and society at large. You know I consider you a friend but I really wish you could see this post for about 5 seconds from my eyes. You speak of things existing out in the universe but you have never seen anything out in the universe. All you have seen is your perceptions. All you know is what other people have told you about their perceptions. "It's only clouds Illusions I recall we really don't know clouds at all."* I just wish that would click for about 5 minutes. It is very subjective. (Joni Mitchell, "Both Sides Now")* Edited August 21, 2018 by mfbukowski
Meerkat Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) On 8/15/2018 at 5:26 AM, Stargazer said: (does the "altar call" constitute the result or the cause of such?). If so, what is the nature of the confirmation? One of my Protestant (probably Baptist) coworkers in my former place of employment once told me that he had "felt" a call to the ministry at one time, but had finally decided to disregard it. He didn't explain how the "call" manifested itself? A voice? A vague impression? Was it God that gave him that "call" or was it something else? I happen to believe that the Spirit works with all men and women in the furtherance of God's work, so perhaps that "call" did come from God. An evangelist came to our storefront Lutheran Church in Cordova, Alaska when I was a boy. When he gave the alter call, my heart had been spiritually impacted by his testimony of Jesus Christ. I went forward and "gave my life to Christ." Walking out into the brilliant, starry night sky, I looked up and thought "Yesterday, I didn't know anything about Jesus Christ (although I had attended and listened to the lessons each Sunday and attended Vacation Bible School every summer.) The difference was the Spirit that testified to me that He lives and loves me, a sinner. I thought "Yesterday I didn't know this. What happens if tomorrow, I forget?" The question was prophetic. The following day, I did forget. I went down many dark paths in the following years. Through the virtue of the girl who later became my wife, (and probably Christ leading me to her,) my heart was turned to Christ again. I felt such joy, I wanted to go into the ministry. I did feel "called." While dating, we attended several churches. All were sincere and taught good things about Jesus Christ. But none felt right to me. Leaving on our honeymoon, I told God I was so confused, I couldn't make that decision. He would need to show me. We left for Mexico for a month. We saw the ruins and heard the legend of Qezocoatl. We passed through Salt Lake City on the way home. Walking onto Temple Square, I was filled with the Spirit. I felt the joy. Hearing about Christ in America and the Book of Mormon, I determined to read and pray about it. We were baptized five months later. That was 45 years ago. We have been rejoicing ever since. I believe Christ influences the hearts of many in all religions with a spiritual experience to do good. As they act on that impulse, their confirmation is affirmed. They put their trust in the minister or other Church leader. They act on what they are taught, and are blessed for that obedience. It feels right. They see no reason to change. They have experienced a spiritual experience, and further confirmations. I believe it is the same Spirit working in most religions to encourage better behavior. I side with CS Lewis, who said, paraphrasing "Often, people do the works of God. They love God, and they manifest that love by loving their neighbor as themselves. Many worship God, unaware." I believe that when people become meek and lowly enough to prayerfully read the Book of Mormon, the Spirit will lead them into a path rich with Spiritual experiences leading to wisdom, understanding and a deeper and more meaningful personal relationship with God. They can bring all the good they have with them and be added upon through the teachings, fellowship, Spirit, ordinances performed with God's authority, and many opportunities for Christlike service. Probably the most important part is the sacred ordinances that must be performed by authority, for each person to progress on their heavenly path. That has been my experience. All my spiritual experiences with Christ, in and out of this Church, have been identical, in my opinion, leading ultimately to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. Edited August 21, 2018 by Meerkat 2
changed Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) Revelation is not limited to the LDS faith - the idea of personal revelation is throughout the bible, my favorite passage about the spirit comes from 1 Kings 19: 12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. See the works of Thomas Aquinas on revelation Quakers' beliefs stress individual revelation, but the Bible is truth. All personal light must be held up to the Bible for confirmation. The Holy Spirit, who inspired the Bible, does not contradict Himself. Jewish beliefs - “revelation is a continuous process, confined to no one group and to no one age.” Indeed, according to Reform Judaism, God can “change Her mind.” As such, Sinai is constantly taking place, and it is the role of the individual to listen closely to what God is saying. Muslim - believe in their Prophet Muhammad who brought forth the Quran through revelation has many similarities to the LDS faith... The Hindus have received their religion through revelation, the Vedas (the oldest books in existence). Revelation is the goal of many meditation and excercise practices - see https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zp6ncdm/revision/4 Most religious faiths are based on revelation... are there any faiths that are not based on revelation? Edited August 21, 2018 by changed 1
Kevin Christensen Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I think I understand what you're saying, but since I can't get inside you or your wife's head I can only imagine what it is either of you experienced. I'm also not trying to be dismissive when I ask this question, but I would like to know why you believe that your experience is uniquely individual, and in what sense that could be objectively measured? Is there a way to setup an empirical test to control for bias and influence from your spouse to determine how you each individually interpreted the experience? I think there might be ways to do this to some degree but it would require very strict rules to be setup to eliminate the possibility of participants being influenced by each other, even non-verbal communication during the event could influence the other person. Taves thesis in Revelatory events actually explores this idea of how group dynamics influence individuals having religious experiences. Law enforcement agencies have standard practices in place when interviewing eye witnesses where they don't allow the witnesses to talk to each other so that they can try to get independent accounts of events, because it is well known how shared memories influence other witnesses. There have been interesting studies about the reliability of witness accounts from a scientific perspective and there are many factors throughout an experiential timeline that can have significant influence on how people report their experiences. I would argue that its not possible in an epistemological sense for two individuals to have the same exact subjective experience, because everything is filtered through our own unique mind and that is colored by a lifetime of personal experience. Unless we can develop objective tests to measure the subjective and at that point the evidence transitions those observations from the subjective into the objective. There have been some studies in neuroscience that might point to a future when we're better able to measure what are now subjective experiences in some scientific way, but we are just in the infancy of beginning to understand the brain at this point. Because two people experience something similar doesn't make it objective. You even recognize the similar influencing cultural and environmental factors that certainly would have contributed to what I would call an increased probabilistic likelihood for you both to have this similar idea occur to to you separately. Why is this an example of an objective shared experience? This is interesting. I would agree that we could say that both of you experienced something, but I don't think we can say that what you experienced "exists" out there in the universe. We have no way of measuring that objectively. You both could have been primed to experience something similar through by your environment and culture and the circumstances around you both. I would say that we don't have any evidence in the case of religious experiences to support the idea that the elephant even exists. Wouldn't the only evidence we have at this point be that the people around the elephant are describing their individual sensory experiences, but that we don't have any evidence that the actual cause of those experiences is something out there in the world, it could be a cause just within their own mind at this point. I'm not sure what you mean by cutting yourself off from progress. That sounds like a religious theological faith claim to me. The idea that we have to just trust that what others say exists, actually does exist, and only after we trust can we have access to hidden knowledge, is a religious claim that I don't really see rational evidence for. This is also a mechanism for getting people to believe in all kinds of fantasies that have caused a lot of harm over the course of human history. I think this is too simplistic, and its based on an assumption that there is some grand schema in place that accounts for various different orientations to thinking. The idea that there is an organized pattern and that people who think more naively are just at an earlier step along the path, but its part of a grand plan of how people should develop is an idea that I don't subscribe to. I see a lot more chaos involved from my experience. I don't think there is necessarily something important about certain orthodox propositions. As someone increasingly interested in history I see many examples of negative orthodoxies throughout the human and Mormon enterprise, as I'm sure you'd acknowledge as well. It seems naive to assume that correlated Mormonism doesn't also have numerous positions that will also be looked at as mistakes and negative through the lens of future Mormons and society at large. It not uniqueness that I'm trying to demonstrate, nor pure objectivity, but rather, to point to what is real. There is a passage in the D&C 52:14, 18 where the Lord says "I give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived...by this pattern ye may know the spirits in all cases under the whole heavens." Uniqueness, by definition, does not fit a pattern, except its own. And as N. R. Hansen observed in Patterns of Scientific Discovery, "All data is theory-laden", so the notion of pure objectivity doesn't exist. The presence of subjective observers with human limits and foibles and various theories always intrudes to one degree or another. But patterns are important because patterns lead to the ability to make predictions, and reliable predictions permit us to make decisions towards results that we can have a degree of faith in while awaiting the outcome. Quote I would conclude that interpretive beliefs are brought to religious experience as much as they are derived from it. There is a greater influence in religion than in science “from the top down”: from paradigms, through interpretive models and beliefs, to experience. But the influence “from the bottom up,” starting from experience, is not totally absent in religion. Although there is no neutral descriptive language, there are degrees of interpretation. Therefore religious beliefs, and even paradigms, are not totally incommensurable. There can be significant communication between paradigm communities. One cannot prove one’s most fundamental beliefs, but one can try to show how they function in the interpretation of experience. (Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms, 124) One of the reasons I spent a lot of effort looking for scriptures that described spiritual experiences, and why I also have read several books on comparative religion is to see whether my own experiences were unique, or fit patterns. It's the patterns that lead to predictions. Also the notion of patterns is as close as I can get to objectivity, as long as I remember that I'm not eliminating subjectivity. I have had four different people who did not know one another all tell me the same spiritual experience, a particular experience that I have not had. It involved the person being involved in a personal and spiritual emotional crisis, at the end of their rope, and determined find God and willing to accept whatever God offered. Each of the four literally climbed to a high place, overcoming considerable opposition to do so, and each praying with fulness of heart and soul, and each being answered in a profound way, and given specific advice, being filled with love, and being changed by the experience as they returned from their high place. While I was not a witness to the individual experiences, I am a witness to the pattern. A missionary companion, a sister, a friend from high school, and my wife. And I can compare what they experienced. I could rationalize away their experiences, or come up with a way to explain them away, but what guarantee would I have that my rationalization constituted objective proof? That is one of my main complaints about Taves. Her predictions about the Book of Mormon amounted to the production of bulk, not of the details of the content. Her approach the Book of Mormon is notably superficial. A theme of my responses to Vogel and Riskas is the limitations and characteristic pattern of positivism. Quote During the 1930’s and 1940’s the positivists had taken science as the norm for all meaningful discourse. Religious language was considered neither true nor false, but meaningless. The positivists had declared the famous Verification Principle, which states that, apart from tautologies and definitions, statements are meaningful only if they can be verified by sense data.69 Accepting an oversimplified view of science as the prototype for all genuine knowledge, they dismissed religion as “purely emotive.” During the 1950’s positivism came under increasing attack, but many of its assumptions were perpetuated in the empiricism which came to replace it as the dominant interpretation of science. Among the empiricist claims were the following. (1) Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in a pure observation-language independent of any theoretical assumptions. (2) Theories can be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data. (3) The choice between theories is rational, objective and in accordance with specifiable criteria. Philosophers under the sway of such empiricism continued to say that religion can legitimately make no cognitive claims. (Barbour, 3) I would recommend that you get and read Barbour's little book. You can get it used or on Kindle, or even find it on the web. It is exceptionally clear, relevant, and helpful. He shows exactly what is wrong with these common positivist claims. Best, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited August 21, 2018 by Kevin Christensen correcting a word 1
Kevin Christensen Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Kevin is probably the smartest person I've ever had direct contact with. He is more than capable to explain his own position. Language is highly ambiguous and I can see probably a dozen ways that these types of evidence might be seen as "objective". The usual definition includes two people are more getting the same result. I think 15 million people getting the "same result" qualifies for "objective" in that sense. But the real question that you keep missing and never answering is why you think objectivity is important anyway? It's like the Evangelical who keep saying "but it's not in the Bible" when you ask them why the Book of Mormon can't be scripture. Two people after listening to different lessons about the same subject coming to the same conclusion sounds like an "objective" result to me. When I speak about an observation being subjective I am talking about the fact that we can never know that what you call Blue in your perception may not be what I call Green in mine, even though we use the same words. My point is about the ambiguity of language not the definitions of words. That nice Mark, but this also means you ought to meet more people. Best, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
hope_for_things Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 13 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Kevin is probably the smartest person I've ever had direct contact with. He is more than capable to explain his own position. Language is highly ambiguous and I can see probably a dozen ways that these types of evidence might be seen as "objective". The usual definition includes two people are more getting the same result. I think 15 million people getting the "same result" qualifies for "objective" in that sense. But the real question that you keep missing and never answering is why you think objectivity is important anyway? It's like the Evangelical who keep saying "but it's not in the Bible" when you ask them why the Book of Mormon can't be scripture. Two people after listening to different lessons about the same subject coming to the same conclusion sounds like an "objective" result to me. When I speak about an observation being subjective I am talking about the fact that we can never know that what you call Blue in your perception may not be what I call Green in mine, even though we use the same words. My point is about the ambiguity of language not the definitions of words. You seem to be contradicting what you said earlier. If personal religious experience is a subject experience, then just because two people claim to have similar experiences, it doesn't change the subjectivity. Or 15M for that matter. All 15M are uniquely different. You are also getting me wrong about the "real question". I don't think objectivity is important for religious questions. Its Kevin that claimed objectivity. I'm the one saying these experiences aren't objective. Why don't you ask him why he thinks objectivity is important? I'm saying no religious experiences are objective, and yet they are still important as subjective personal experiences. Its orthodox Mormons that think these experiences need to be objective, not me. I'm just trying to have a conversation to understand why some people think these experiences are objective.
hope_for_things Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You know I consider you a friend but I really wish you could see this post for about 5 seconds from my eyes. You speak of things existing out in the universe but you have never seen anything out in the universe. All you have seen is your perceptions. All you know is what other people have told you about their perceptions. "It's only clouds Illusions I recall we really don't know clouds at all."* I just wish that would click for about 5 minutes. It is very subjective. (Joni Mitchell, "Both Sides Now")* Mark, I don't think you're understanding what I said. Its Kevin that is making the claim that something was out there in the universe, some objective religious experience that both he and his spouse experienced simultaneously, and I'm essentially taking your position that these things aren't out there and that there is no way to measure them objectively. You should be proud, I'm taking your position here.
Kevin Christensen Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) It's not that I am claiming "objectivity" (see my essays going back to the early 1990s and really, seriously, really, get and read Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion... if you can get through Taves, you could certainly get through Barbour), but I am saying that what I have experienced and claimed is not completely subjective. There is a difference. And think about how to objectively measure love. There have been times when my wife has said, "If you loved me, you wouldn't have done, or not done, this or that." According to those measures, she had a case. But those measures were not necessarily the only or best or most comprehensive and ways to measure. Another measure is that I am still with her, through nearly 40 years. Should that count? Are those 40 years objectively meaningless or does that accumulated persistence and ongoing effort count for something? Is there anything objective and measurable there even if everything that could be measured is not, and even if there are somethings about love that cannot easily be measured? Just sayin, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited August 21, 2018 by Kevin Christensen 1
hope_for_things Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: It not uniqueness that I'm trying to demonstrate, nor pure objectivity, but rather, to point to what is real. There is a passage in the D&C 52:14, 18 where the Lord says "I give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived...by this pattern ye may know the spirits in all cases under the whole heavens." Uniqueness, by definition, does not fit a pattern, except its own. And as N. R. Hansen observed in Patterns of Scientific Discovery, "All data is theory-laden", so the notion of pure objectivity doesn't exist. The presence of subjective observers with human limits and foibles and various theories always intrudes to one degree or another. But patterns are important because patterns lead to the ability to make predictions, and reliable predictions permit us to make decisions towards results that we can have a degree of faith in while awaiting the outcome. I would agree with you about finding patterns and making decisions based on these patterns. I think that is what we as humans have evolved to do, and we do it well for the most part, but sometimes our perceptions and biases get in the way, as we aren't always logical about how we think and we are very good at finding patterns in chaos, and imbuing it with meaning where its just random data. A good book on this that you might enjoy. https://www.amazon.com/Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules-Lives/dp/0307275175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534864546&sr=8-1&keywords=the+drunkards+walk I do think there is value in distinguishing between the subjective and the objective. I don't know exactly what you mean by "pure objectivity". I recognize there are limits humans and their abilities to perceive the universe. Science doesn't claim "pure objectivity". Science is all about testing and replication. These things are objective, but that doesn't mean they are 100% set in stone or immune to new information that could change how we understand things. I see this as a great strength, not a weakness in the scientific method. Personal subjective experiences, like religious ones, up to this point in history haven't been open to objective evaluation, we don't have the tools to measure and observe these experiences objectively (other than some new neuroscience studies). I agree with you saying that patterns exist and you attempt to make decisions based on these patterns, that makes a lot of sense, but unless we can study these patterns in a scientific sense, they haven't become objective, and getting a bunch of testimonials from individuals doesn't make these patterns objective, they are still in the subjective realm. Just like a bunch of testimonies of aliens or bigfoot. Unless we have actual data that can be evaluated objectively, these are just testimonials and they are still subjective and can't be evaluated in an objective sphere. 2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: One of the reasons I spent a lot of effort looking for scriptures that described spiritual experiences, and why I also have read several books on comparative religion is to see whether my own experiences were unique, or fit patterns. It's the patterns that lead to predictions. Also the notion of patterns is as close as I can get to objectivity, as long as I remember that I'm not eliminating subjectivity. I have had four different people who did not know one another all tell me the same spiritual experience, a particular experience that I have not had. It involved the person being involved in a personal and spiritual emotional crisis, at the end of their rope, and determined find God and willing to accept whatever God offered. Each of the four literally climbed to a high place, overcoming considerable opposition to do so, and each praying with fulness of heart and soul, and each being answered in a profound way, and given specific advice, being filled with love, and being changed by the experience as they returned from their high place. While I was not a witness to the individual experiences, I am a witness to the pattern. A missionary companion, a sister, a friend from high school, and my wife. And I can compare what they experienced. I could rationalize away their experiences, or come up with a way to explain them away, but what guarantee would I have that my rationalization constituted objective proof? That is one of my main complaints about Taves. Her predictions about the Book of Mormon amounted to the production of bulk, not of the details of the content. Her approach the Book of Mormon is notably superficial. Those experiences are great, and amazing and what life is all about. I totally affirm those experiences. I don't think that makes them objective, and I personally don't think anything supernatural was happening. But that is my personal belief, and I'm fine with people thinking otherwise. I actually think Taves is quite respectful as well, and doesn't discount the power of these spiritual experiences. She just takes a naturalistic approach, and I do as well. I'm just trying to be honest when I say that, but not at all dismissive. Let me give an example, I was talking to my Aunt who is very orthodox, and her spouse (my uncle) died recently. She was telling me about some experiences she had recently with the spirit of my uncle visiting my Aunt. I asked if she just heard his voice or saw him, and she claims to have seen him in spirit form and have had conversations with him. Now, I didn't say anything to her about my personal ideas, other than ask questions. I could tell that these experiences gave her great comfort with losing her spouse. I'm so glad that these experiences happened to comfort her. I personally believe they were likely a cause of her subconscious mind, but I'm not going to tell her that, because she would likely not agree with me for one, but even if she did agree with me, the experiences themselves would have less meaning to her than they do now. I think many elements of religious experiences can be very enriching for those who experience them. 2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: I would recommend that you get and read Barbour's little book. You can get it used or on Kindle, or even find it on the web. It is exceptionally clear, relevant, and helpful. He shows exactly what is wrong with these common positivist claims. Ok, thanks
hope_for_things Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 36 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: It's not that I am claiming "objectivity" (see my essays going back to the early 1990s and really, seriously, really, get and read Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion... if you can get through Taves, you could certainly get through Barbour), but I am saying that what I have experienced and claimed is not completely subjective. There is a difference. And think about how to objectively measure love. There have been times when my wife has said, "I you loved me, you wouldn't have done, or not done, this or that." According to those measures, she had a case. But those measures were not necessarily the only or best or most comprehensive and ways to measure. Another measure is that I am still with her, through nearly 40 years. Should that count? Are those 40 years objectively meaningless or does that accumulated persistence and ongoing effort count for something? Is there anything objective and measurable there even if everything that could be measured is not, and even if there are somethings about love that cannot easily be measured? Just sayin, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA I think love is the perfect example for religious experience, and I like to use that comparison. I think our relationship to our spouse and our relationship to religion are essentially the same. We love our spouse and that relationship works for us, we feel its true and we have a sense of trust and comfort towards our spouse. Our experiences are real. But our love is not objective. Its manifest through our actions, and our actions are objective, but the experience of love is not objective its subjective. The same with a relationship with the church. Its like the love relationship, its real, its true, its special, but our experience is subjective. That doesn't make it less real, its really real. I don't know how many times I need to say that. I think these relationships are real, and powerful, and meaningful. I'm not discounting any of that. They just aren't objective, meaning you can't measure them scientifically as something that exists outside of the person. You can measure the effects they have on the participants, but the actual experience of the relationship is in our minds and hearts and is unique and individual and subjective.
mfbukowski Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I would agree with you about finding patterns and making decisions based on these patterns. I think that is what we as humans have evolved to do, and we do it well for the most part, but sometimes our perceptions and biases get in the way, as we aren't always logical about how we think and we are very good at finding patterns in chaos, and imbuing it with meaning where its just random data. A good book on this that you might enjoy. https://www.amazon.com/Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules-Lives/dp/0307275175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534864546&sr=8-1&keywords=the+drunkards+walk I do think there is value in distinguishing between the subjective and the objective. I don't know exactly what you mean by "pure objectivity". I recognize there are limits humans and their abilities to perceive the universe. Science doesn't claim "pure objectivity". Science is all about testing and replication. These things are objective, but that doesn't mean they are 100% set in stone or immune to new information that could change how we understand things. I see this as a great strength, not a weakness in the scientific method. Personal subjective experiences, like religious ones, up to this point in history haven't been open to objective evaluation, we don't have the tools to measure and observe these experiences objectively (other than some new neuroscience studies). I agree with you saying that patterns exist and you attempt to make decisions based on these patterns, that makes a lot of sense, but unless we can study these patterns in a scientific sense, they haven't become objective, and getting a bunch of testimonials from individuals doesn't make these patterns objective, they are still in the subjective realm. Just like a bunch of testimonies of aliens or bigfoot. Unless we have actual data that can be evaluated objectively, these are just testimonials and they are still subjective and can't be evaluated in an objective sphere. Those experiences are great, and amazing and what life is all about. I totally affirm those experiences. I don't think that makes them objective, and I personally don't think anything supernatural was happening. But that is my personal belief, and I'm fine with people thinking otherwise. I actually think Taves is quite respectful as well, and doesn't discount the power of these spiritual experiences. She just takes a naturalistic approach, and I do as well. I'm just trying to be honest when I say that, but not at all dismissive. Let me give an example, I was talking to my Aunt who is very orthodox, and her spouse (my uncle) died recently. She was telling me about some experiences she had recently with the spirit of my uncle visiting my Aunt. I asked if she just heard his voice or saw him, and she claims to have seen him in spirit form and have had conversations with him. Now, I didn't say anything to her about my personal ideas, other than ask questions. I could tell that these experiences gave her great comfort with losing her spouse. I'm so glad that these experiences happened to comfort her. I personally believe they were likely a cause of her subconscious mind, but I'm not going to tell her that, because she would likely not agree with me for one, but even if she did agree with me, the experiences themselves would have less meaning to her than they do now. I think many elements of religious experiences can be very enriching for those who experience them. Ok, thanks I don't have time to answer your objections at the moment but I would suggest you look at James theory of radical empiricism. We can discuss it later. The point is that true scientific investigation should include all those threads of meaning insignificance that we experience. So seeing a bear in the woods is not just about a genus and species and the location of the animal it is about the sensation of fear and all of our previous experiences with bears happening in one experience. The point ultimately is that there is no such thing as subjectivity or objectivity it must all be regarded as one Human Experience. James and the phenomenologists sought to set up a science of Human Experience blending both objective and subjective into the study of human experience. And that includes human spiritual experience. That is why you see a lot of phenomenologists at BYU. Anyway look at this. The point is that there is no hard-and-fast distinction between objective and subjective. But collapsing that distinction one could end up saying that everything is objective or everything is subjective, two sides of the same coin, two perspectives on seeing one world. Of course universal statements like that never work. Radical empiricism seeks to obliterate the distinction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism The article implies that James eschews Revelation but that's not the case. He wrote an entire book on it called the varieties of religious experience. Like rorty his point is simply that we cannot talk about what is ineffable. Visions and intuitions cannot be put into language so there's no point in trying to talk about them. To even attempt to discuss them it would be to distort them. They are not subject to empirical observation. Excuse spelling and capitalization issues this was dictated on my phone. Edited August 21, 2018 by mfbukowski
hope_for_things Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 21 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I don't have time to answer your objections at the moment but I would suggest you look at James theory of radical empiricism. We can discuss it later. The point is that true scientific investigation should include all those threads of meaning insignificance that we experience. So seeing a bear in the woods is not just about a genus and species and the location of the animal it is about the sensation of fear and all of our previous experiences with bears happening in one experience. The point ultimately is that there is no such thing as subjectivity or objectivity it must all be regarded as one Human Experience. James and the phenomenologists sought to set up a science of Human Experience blending both objective and subjective into the study of human experience. And that includes human spiritual experience. That is why you see a lot of phenomenologists at BYU. Anyway look at this. The point is that there is no hard-and-fast distinction between objective and subjective. But collapsing that distinction one could end up saying that everything is objective or everything is subjective, two sides of the same coin, two perspectives on seeing one world. Of course universal statements like that never work. Radical empiricism seeks to obliterate the distinction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism The article implies that James eschews Revelation but that's not the case. He wrote an entire book on it called the varieties of religious experience. Like rorty his point is simply that we cannot talk about what is ineffable. Visions and intuitions cannot be put into language so there's no point in trying to talk about them. To even attempt to discuss them it would be to distort them. They are not subject to empirical observation. Excuse spelling and capitalization issues this was dictated on my phone. Two main comments on this: One is that I think in practice in our society there is great value in distinguishing between objective and subjective. All the hard sciences are based on empirical evidence that is measured, tested and replicated. So if you are suggesting that there really isn't a distinction, then what would you recommend we do with all these hard sciences? Should we just throw them out and go back to the stone age? Ultimately I don't understand why this philosophical theory is such an important point to make. My second comment is I'm concerned about using clear language that people can understand. Objective and subjective are easier terms practically speaking even though there have been complicated philosophical debates on these topics. Think about this for example. If there is no difference between the objective and subjective then whats the difference between whether or not the Golden Plates actually existed as an tangible object or whether they existed just inside the mind of Joseph? So when Kevin or anyone says that what they experienced religiously was objective, then I expect to have evidence to support that claim. When the presented evidence isn't actually testable and/or verifiable and I point that out, you are really changing the position by making a philosophical point that there isn't an ultimate difference between the subjective and the objective. If there wasn't a difference then the person making a claim for objectivity wouldn't be making that claim. There is a difference for most people, or everyone defending a tangible set of Gold Plates and a Historical BoM on this message board, wouldn't have a tizzy fit every time someone like myself says they don't believe in the historicity of these things.
mfbukowski Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Two main comments on this: One is that I think in practice in our society there is great value in distinguishing between objective and subjective. All the hard sciences are based on empirical evidence that is measured, tested and replicated. So if you are suggesting that there really isn't a distinction, then what would you recommend we do with all these hard sciences? Should we just throw them out and go back to the stone age? Ultimately I don't understand why this philosophical theory is such an important point to make. My second comment is I'm concerned about using clear language that people can understand. Objective and subjective are easier terms practically speaking even though there have been complicated philosophical debates on these topics. Think about this for example. If there is no difference between the objective and subjective then whats the difference between whether or not the Golden Plates actually existed as an tangible object or whether they existed just inside the mind of Joseph? So when Kevin or anyone says that what they experienced religiously was objective, then I expect to have evidence to support that claim. When the presented evidence isn't actually testable and/or verifiable and I point that out, you are really changing the position by making a philosophical point that there isn't an ultimate difference between the subjective and the objective. If there wasn't a difference then the person making a claim for objectivity wouldn't be making that claim. There is a difference for most people, or everyone defending a tangible set of Gold Plates and a Historical BoM on this message board, wouldn't have a tizzy fit every time someone like myself says they don't believe in the historicity of these things. Everything that happens in your mind, happens...... wait for it........... think about it....... IN YOUR MIND! Where else does it happen -- in someone else's mind? Then how could you know it? This theory, that objective evidence is required for a truth claim, is only in your mind as " positivism" and that theory is long-dead but you persist in having it in your mind. Everything you know is all in your mind, right or wrong real or imaginary. What you know may be in other places too -- like out there in the world --but if it's not in your mind you STILL don't know about it. There's a lot of stuff that's not in your mind and so you don't know about it. The global Revolution happening right now on Xerxes 7 is not in your mind so you don't even know that Xerxes 7 exists. (kidding, but illustrating a true principle.) A correct "Theory of Everything" is also not in your mind or anyone else's. How many years have we been talking about this exact point and only this exact point?? And yet the point is STILL not in your mind. You do not comprehend that positivism is dead, and why it is, - and this is precisely the point of why positivism is dead, is that true statements do not require empirical evidence. And indisputably, everything that you know is in your mind and therefore to some degree is subjective, precisely because" it makes sense "to you. Because of who you are and your subjective experiences your mind goes thru the process of evaluating a statement and if it agrees with your beliefs, your mind tells you "it makes sense". In other words it is a subjective process based on your beliefs. Right now you still believe in positivism. I don't. Every reply you make says in essence "but you have no evidence for this." Yeah, so what's wrong with that? And if you understood anything I have said you understand that science is in its own sphere of knowledge. Of course science requires evidence because belief in the scientific method requires that. Science IS positivism, and it works within its Realm. Some things are not in the realm of science, including its own assumptions. So by no means am I "throwing out science".PLEASE READ THIS LINK https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Logical-positivism-a-dead-philosophy Miyanaga says: "What failed was not the lasting intuition of Positivism or Logic, but rather the attempt these philosophers made at creating a new language of pure Logic to predicate all Positivist experiences. To this day, the leap from experience to mathematics is made manually and often painfully, through trial and error, through falsification, and through brute force. Scientists rely on their imagination, philosophic intuition, and their training in mathematics, logical formulation, experimentation, and their overall integrity as a scientist. But to this day, physics is the logical predication of observations. And every physicist is evidence of this. Unfortunately for philosophers, Logical Positivism ran its course, and there is really not much to talk about. This means that it made progress and graduated the realm of philosophy, contributing the fruit of its labor into mainstream science. Physics students may not even be aware of the notion, but what they are doing is precisely Logical Positivism put to practice. But what is ubiquitous is not worth mentioning because there is not much to talk about. Physicists are busy talking about physics -- as it should be. For that, they have all the philosophers that preceded them to thank." REALITY CANNOT BE PUT INTO LANGUAGE OR MATH, WHICH IS ITSELF A LANGUAGE. BECAUSE OF THIS INHERENT AMBIGUITY. ONE LITERALLY CANNOT SPEAK ABOUT REALITY AND EXPECT A TRUE SENTENCE TO "REPRESENT" REALITY. WHAT COUNTS AS "EVIDENCE" IN A LANGUAGE IS NOT "REALITY" BECAUSE REALITY IS NOT LANGUGE "Evidence" is what a community of investigators wants to count as "evidence". Scientist define what they want to count as evidence for and by themselves. That is why physics is no longer relevant to philosophy. They have defined their own subjective vocabulary to speak to each other. Well no one can blame me for not trying. Edited August 23, 2018 by mfbukowski 3
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Everything that happens in your mind, happens...... wait for it........... think about it....... IN YOUR MIND! Where else does it happen -- in someone else's mind? I feel like you’re trying to resolve a problem that doesn’t exist and in doing so you’re missing my specific points. I read the article and have no problem with what the author said about physics and positivism. But I don’t think that applies directly to my comments in this thread. I’m going to ask one question that I think might help move us forward and I’d like you to answer it directly for me. I’m putting on my orthodox believer hat for this question. Here we go... Assuming that Moroni was a human that lived 1600 years ago on the American continent and that buried Gold plates in a hill side so they could be discovered at a future date and translated into modern English, is there any difference at all between the reality of the story of Moroni and the reality of the story of Frodo Baggins? If there is a difference in the reality of those two stories, can you please clearly explain what that difference is based on my assumption above that the Moroni story is historical.
mfbukowski Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I feel like you’re trying to resolve a problem that doesn’t exist and in doing so you’re missing my specific points. I read the article and have no problem with what the author said about physics and positivism. But I don’t think that applies directly to my comments in this thread. I’m going to ask one question that I think might help move us forward and I’d like you to answer it directly for me. I’m putting on my orthodox believer hat for this question. Here we go... Assuming that Moroni was a human that lived 1600 years ago on the American continent and that buried Gold plates in a hill side so they could be discovered at a future date and translated into modern English, is there any difference at all between the reality of the story of Moroni and the reality of the story of Frodo Baggins? If there is a difference in the reality of those two stories, can you please clearly explain what that difference is based on my assumption above that the Moroni story is historical. We can only speak about differences that are made in our lives. Bilbo Baggins tells me nothing about spirituality. That's the difference. It does not tell me about Jesus Christ it does not improve my life in any possible way. The story of Bilbo Baggins makes absolutely no difference in my life whatsoever. The story about Jesus Christ improves my life on a daily basis and teaches me important lessons about how to live. I also believe that one actually happened the other does not even purport to have actually happened. The last point makes no difference in my life, but it is a difference. Edited August 23, 2018 by mfbukowski 2
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: We can only speak about differences that are made in our lives. Bilbo Baggins tells me nothing about spirituality. That's the difference. It does not tell me about Jesus Christ it does not improve my life in any possible way. The story of Bilbo Baggins makes absolutely no difference in my life whatsoever. The story about Jesus Christ improves my life on a daily basis and teaches me important lessons about how to live. I also believe that one actually happened the other does not even purport to have actually happened. The last point makes no difference in my life, but it is a difference. Ok, good, so a narrative based on factual history is substantively different than a narrative based on a creative fictional account. If we can both agree on that point then I need to ask another question. Why do you have a problem whenever I keep trying to discuss evidence to support historical claims being different than evidence to support spiritual claims? These two types of claims are clearly different as we both just acknowledged in the Moroni and Frodo hypothetical comparison above. Where are we disconnected?
mfbukowski Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ok, good, so a narrative based on factual history is substantively different than a narrative based on a creative fictional account. If we can both agree on that point then I need to ask another question. Why do you have a problem whenever I keep trying to discuss evidence to support historical claims being different than evidence to support spiritual claims? These two types of claims are clearly different as we both just acknowledged in the Moroni and Frodo hypothetical comparison above. Where are we disconnected? Where do I say this? Show me the quote I actually said that it makes no difference. Edited August 23, 2018 by mfbukowski
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I also believe that one actually happened the other does not even purport to have actually happened. Right here. One actually happened and the other didn’t.
Recommended Posts