Southerton Answers FARMS & FAIR

[Daniel Peterson]

Then you agree that some important experiences are necessarily and by definition subjective, and none of us is able to give a definitive answer.

Please explain to me how subjectivity necessarily entails inability to answer a question definitively. If you mean, merely, that a subjectively certain person cannot bludgeon another person who lacks that subjective certainty into submission, you're obviously right. But I assume that you mean something more significant than that.

12 million Mormons may be wrong. 100 million Catholics may be right. Or we may all be wrong.

Those are certainly among the logical possibilities, whether we're talking about subjective spiritual experiences or formal written arguments based upon publicly available archival evidence. Each individual must, inescapably, decide for himself or herself.

So how can your statement: "If a mental process leads to a conclusion that does not in fact match reality, it's incorrect -- however it originated and whatever may have been the factors that affected it. And incorrectness provides presumptive evidence of defect." hold true, for the subjective? How can anyone match reality to that which is inherently unmatchable, due to its subjectivity?

My statement holds true whether we are actually capable of matching an inward conviction to outward reality or not, presuming (as I do) that such an outward reality actually exists in the first place. We match our inward convictions against external reality in a number of ways, formal and informal, by means of direct sense perception, inference from data, extrapolation from data, etc. This is, to a very large degree, what ordinary, everyday mental life is about.

[Moksha]

bump

[Corky Wallace]

Dr. Peterson,

Presumably your description also applied to the Heaven's Gate group. They used subjective interpretation to conclude it was time to rejoin a spaceship of which there was some objective evidence of existing, within their ideology (the comet Hale Bopp), and, together, employed an impressive act of faith to (presumably) allow that rendezvous occur.

Is this not a similar situation? (I'm not comparing LDS to the HG group, only the mix of subjective & objective in searching for truth.)

[Daniel Peterson]

Presumably your description also applied to the Heaven's Gate group.  They used subjective interpretation to conclude it was time to rejoin a spaceship of which there was some objective evidence of existing, within their ideology (the comet Hale Bopp), and, together, employed an impressive act of faith to (presumably) allow that rendezvous occur.

Is this not a similar situation?  (I'm not comparing LDS to the HG group, only the mix of subjective & objective in searching for truth.)

I've never said that all positions are equally valid. I've simply said that all human reasoning, beyond the simplest and most trivial, is affected by emotion, psychology, personal history, loyalties, desires, etc. This is neither difficult to grasp nor, I think, open to dispute.

[Corky Wallace]

Dr. Peterson,

I would agree with that.

Have a nice Monday.

[King Folly]

I've simply said that all human reasoning, beyond the simplest and most trivial, is affected by emotion, psychology, personal history, loyalties, desires, etc.

I totally agree... And it's the exact reason why the it doesn't matter to me one iota that lots of intelligent people interpret the evidence regarding Mormon origins differently than I do. I respect that their reasoning is affected by all those things you mentioned (as is mine).

--Steve

[Blink]

I've never said that all positions are equally valid. I've simply said that all human reasoning, beyond the simplest and most trivial, is affected by emotion, psychology, personal history, loyalties, desires, etc. This is neither difficult to grasp nor, I think, open to dispute.

Thus there is no right, no wrong. All is subjective. All is subject to circumstance. All is open to interpretation, based on emotion, psychology, personal history, loyalties, desires, etc. Is that what you're saying?

[juliann]

I've never said that all positions are equally valid.  I've simply said that all human reasoning, beyond the simplest and most trivial, is affected by emotion, psychology, personal history, loyalties, desires, etc.  This is neither difficult to grasp nor, I think, open to dispute.

Thus there is no right, no wrong. All is subjective. All is subject to circumstance. All is open to interpretation, based on emotion, psychology, personal history, loyalties, desires, etc. Is that what you're saying?

And I could have sworn the first thing said was "I've never said that all positions are equally valid." How that translates into "there is no right, no wrong"!! is beyond me. Good luck in squeezing what was said into your little box.

[Corky Wallace]

Juliann,

So what are the means of determining degree of validity?

- is it numbers of adherents? growth rate / activity rate?

- is it (as some of the Polygamists believe) the degree of opposition found in the world? (Hence their claim the mainline LDS has apostacized - Satan feels less of a need to challenge the modern church, courtesy Wilford Woodruff.)

- numbers of suicides-to-get-to-glory? (bombers, comet seekers, et al)

- intensity of manifestation by the spirit? (don't let one of those Pentacostals break your leg rolling into you.)

I think Blink's point is there is no consistent, objective means of determining validity, based on the criteria provided.

[Daniel Peterson]

I've never said that all positions are equally valid.

[Blink]

I've never said that all positions are equally valid.

[Del March]

Since I agree that all positions are subject to personality, personal history, emotions, loyalties, etc, then how is it that some positions are more valid and others less valid? Based on whose criteria? Reality? Isn't each individual's perception of reality subject to that very same personality, personal history, emotions, and loyalties? So, isn't each person's perception of reality subjective, and not objectively based?

Sorry to butt in on your discussion, but this is a subject that has always fascinated me.

Personally, I believe that there isn't a single truth in the world that is recognised by absolutely everyone (not that I can prove it, of course ). And I believe that reality is indeed very much subjective.

Now, as to what makes some positions more valid than others, I would say that it is agreement on some basic rules. Individuals or groups of people agree (either by force or by vote, either universally or majoritarily, etc...) on some basic rules. The positions that respect those rules then become more valid than those that don't respect those rules.

Or people can depend on an outside authority to dictate those rules. This is what many religious people do: we depend on God to dictate what the basic rules are.

Now, since I believe in God, I also believe that in the end only God's rules will matter. But in the meantime, people can choose whatever set of rules they want.

Del

[Corky Wallace]

Life & truth are a mix of objective & subjective.

Most of the important truths are objective, in my subjective opinion - ie, the price of coffee today. (In truth, I haven't categorized them enough to confidently assert "most".)

Some subjective truths become more objectively true through more time, research and observation - ie, Utah has better football & basketball teams than BYU.

Some subjective truths can't become more objectively true - ie, "head to head, Buddha would have beat Mohammed in a wrestling match."

Some subjective truths become less objectively true - ie, the principal ancestors of Native Americans came from the Mideast 2400 years ago.

For Dr. P - I misstated my point about "criteria provided" - I should have stated "measurable criteria available".

However, I am beginning to get a sense that not all positions are equally valid. I think there might be some tee-shirts to be sold with this statement.

Happy Tuesday ! ! ! !

[Dan Vogel]

Del March,

And I believe that reality is indeed very much subjective.

Is reality subjective? Or do you mean our perception of reality is subjective?

And it is your statement about reality also subjective?

BTW, Southerton has viewed this thread and is not impressed with what he saw.

[Del March]

And I believe that reality is indeed very much subjective.

Is reality subjective? Or do you mean our perception of reality is subjective?

And it is your statement about reality also subjective?

You're right. What I meant is in fact that I believe that everyone's view of reality is subjective. I do think that reality itself is objective, but I don't believe that any human being has ever truly seen reality for what it is. We are all too limited in our grasp of reality (limited senses, for example), and in our reasoning.

And of course my belief and opinion are highly subjective!

Del

[Confidential Informant]

BTW, Southerton has viewed this thread and is not impressed with what he saw.

And this amounts to what, exactly?

Are we all supposed to be disappointed that dear Simon wasn't impressed?

Several credentialed people who have read Simon's work are less than impressed also. So what?

Maybe Simon's just miffed that his book was obsolete before it hit the press?

C.I.

[Corky Wallace]

Dan,

Oh YEAH? Well, YOU tell SOUTHERTON that GOD wants HIM to CEASE AND DESIST his disruptive ways and contrarian "scientific" crappola. He is demolishing many good people's salvations and is certainly a spawn o' Satan.

Like Southerton can rain down lightning bolts, or something!

(big tongue-in-cheek)

[Daniel Peterson]

BTW, Southerton has viewed this thread and is not impressed with what he saw.

That's it, I guess. I might as well just go out and end it all. Shucks.

[Blink]

BTW, Southerton has viewed this thread and is not impressed with what he saw.

Gosh, and some of us at least were trying so hard!

[ink]

I have always (before FARMS and FAIR) thought that the way their skin color was changed was by intermarrying with the natives.  This would also change the DNA of their offspring, of course.

THAT'S NOT DOCTRINE (and a good thing it isn't, otherwise you'd be racist for implying that God frowns on interracial marriages -- oops, Ezra Taft Benson already said that [as a MAN, not a PROPHET, I presume ]). But it's nice that you have your relativistic truth, just like every other Mormon.

Dr. Southerton's interpretations are obviously driven by an agenda, and must be read with that in mind.  He has said nothing which convinces me that DNA studies disprove the Book of Mormon, or convincingly refutes the experts published by FARMS.

An agenda seeking scientific proof of the Book of Mormon, in my opinion. I imagine that FARMS/FAIR would be singing quite a different tune had he found semetic DNA in Native American bloodlines. That is how science works; a hypothesis is tested via an experiment.

While we're on the subject, where is the "sliver bullet" scientific proof that the Book of Mormon is true? Where is the DNA evidence that supports its claims? Where is the geographic model that fits the story? Where are the artifacts (armour/swords/metals/etc.) that are spoken of? Where are the language descendents? Where are the old world animals? Where are the prophesies coming true about the Lamanites becoming white and delightsome?

Ahh, that's right. Only "antimos" need proof.

[Daniel Peterson]

I have always (before FARMS and FAIR) thought that the way their skin color was changed was by intermarrying with the natives.

[praetorian1964]

A Message board haiku

Sarcastic rejoinder.

Snide dig.

Appeal to authority.

Evasive reponse.

Sly innuendo.

Regards,

[leeuniverse]

BTW, Southerton has viewed this thread and is not impressed with what he saw.

So, I was much less impressed by his "one page whinning" article that is supposed to be a scholarly rebuttal to most of the LDS apologetics arguments out there, for which there are 100's of pages of.

Not impressed at all for someone who's supposed to be so much smarter than the rest of us brainwashed.

[Dan Vogel]

Del March,

You're right. What I meant is in fact that I believe that everyone's view of reality is subjective. I do think that reality itself is objective, but I don't believe that any human being has ever truly seen reality for what it is. We are all too limited in our grasp of reality (limited senses, for example), and in our reasoning.

And of course my belief and opinion are highly subjective!

How do you know reality is different that what we experience?

Does one have to experience reality in totality, to experience reality?

In your previous post, you said that you believe in God

[Dan Vogel]

Confidential Informant,

And this amounts to what, exactly?

Are we all supposed to be disappointed that dear Simon wasn't impressed?

Several credentialed people who have read Simon's work are less than impressed also. So what?

Maybe Simon's just miffed that his book was obsolete before it hit the press?

You are reading too much into what I said. I was speaking only of this thread. I also said it because I thought the thread was becoming irrelevant to the issue of Southerton