Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s relevant because CV75 is arguing that instead of evaluating the validity of certain claims using a scientific paradigm, we instead need to switch paradigms.  And I’m pointing out that the very people who are making the claims are rooted in a binary paradigm.  

To introduce an alternative approach would also violate their very strong convictions.  They would arguably be just as opposed to a post modern philosophical approach as they are opposed to the idea that their claims are proven false through modern scholarship.

Essentially I’m saying that the ground rules for paradigm evaluation are set by the people who subscribe to a certain way of thinking.  

Also, the claims can still be evaluated using a scientific lens and found to be false scientifically.  At the same time they could be true in some other meta narrative sense.  Both can be correct according to what you’re suggesting.  You can hold both ideas simultaneously which those biblical literalists could not. 

Uh huh

I am glad perhaps now you get it?

I think I am still not seeing your point in this. We have been discussing that between us now for over a year.

It's like the simple example in the article.

If John is standing on the threshold is he in the room or outside of it?

What I see most discussions on this board amounting to,  is one side saying no very clearly he's in the room and the other side so you no, very clearly he's outside the room, and both be absolutely certain about their point.

I often look at both and just shake my head.

So I guess I still don't see your point on this

This is where Kevin talks about the Perry's scheme and intellectual development and toleration of ambiguity.

Most psychologists see toleration of ambiguity as and important part of cognitive development. You could Google it if you want.

Edited December 30, 2018 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s relevant because CV75 is arguing that instead of evaluating the validity of certain claims using a scientific paradigm, we instead need to switch paradigms.  And I’m pointing out that the very people who are making the claims are rooted in a binary paradigm.  

To introduce an alternative approach would also violate their very strong convictions.  They would arguably be just as opposed to a post modern philosophical approach as they are opposed to the idea that their claims are proven false through modern scholarship.

Essentially I’m saying that the ground rules for paradigm evaluation are set by the people who subscribe to a certain way of thinking.  

Also, the claims can still be evaluated using a scientific lens and found to be false scientifically.  At the same time they could be true in some other meta narrative sense.  Both can be correct according to what you’re suggesting.  You can hold both ideas simultaneously which those biblical literalists could not. 

Where you have created a paradigm where "crossovers" exist (and haven't explained exactly how that works by the way--your examples don't describe what you're proposing) you would indeed need to what I suggested you do. It's your paradigm; deal with it!

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Where you have created a paradigm where "crossovers" exist (and haven't explained exactly how that works by the way--your examples don't describe what you're proposing) you would indeed need to what I suggested you do. It's your paradigm; deal with it!

Agreed

I have not been following your exchange, but justifiable paradigms need to be able to account for competing paradigms, and show how they account for whatever qualifies as "data" in a preferable way.

 

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Where you have created a paradigm where "crossovers" exist (and haven't explained exactly how that works by the way--your examples don't describe what you're proposing) you would indeed need to what I suggested you do. It's your paradigm; deal with it!

I’m not sure I follow your specific criticism. Going back to the 6000 year old earth example again for illustrative purposes.  This religious claim can be evaluated using science and proven false according to a scientific paradigm.  Please explain how an alternative paradigm ought to be introduced, and specifically how you would get a biblical literalist to accept or even understand it.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh huh

I am glad perhaps now you get it?

I think I am still not seeing your point in this. We have been discussing that between us now for over a year.

It's like the simple example in the article.

If John is standing on the threshold is he in the room or outside of it?

What I see most discussions on this board amounting to,  is one side saying no very clearly he's in the room and the other side so you no, very clearly he's outside the room, and both be absolutely certain about their point.

I often look at both and just shake my head.

So I guess I still don't see your point on this

This is where Kevin talks about the Perry's scheme and intellectual development and toleration of ambiguity.

Most psychologists see toleration of ambiguity as and important part of cognitive development. You could Google it if you want.

I agree that many discussions here are talking past one another.  My criticism of CV75 that he hasn’t yet addressed is how does a person argue for evaluating something through a paradigm that the people holding a particular view would clearly reject.  If paradigms matter, shouldn’t the paradigm of black and white thinking be applicable to those who hold a biblical literalist view?  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that many discussions here are talking past one another.  My criticism of CV75 that he hasn’t yet addressed is how does a person argue for evaluating something through a paradigm that the people holding a particular view would clearly reject.  If paradigms matter, shouldn’t the paradigm of black and white thinking be applicable to those who hold a biblical literalist view?  

Who's saying it's not "available" and what does that mean? it's a free country nobody's going to be put in jail for their opinions.

But imo those folks become cannon fodder for guys like poor old Bill Reel who was one himself when what he needed was education in logic and innoculation against Black and White thinking.

He still sees it that way and where is he for that? Still raving for good old black and white. And then we have Mr. Vogel. 

I see that as undesirable for society in general. authoritarianism leads to all kinds of evils in a culture. Look at Germany 80 years ago.

Again it's the Perry scheme. In plain English the more people are educated in humanities the more they become relativistic and tolerant of ambiguity.  Not the politically correct thing to say but nevertheless that's the way I see it.

Take away the smoke and mirrors and that is what Perry is saying. 

Freshmen come in authoritarian and go out seeing things as more complicated as they see more of the world.

Preparing for a major flak.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2018 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m not sure I follow your specific criticism. Going back to the 6000 year old earth example again for illustrative purposes.  This religious claim can be evaluated using science and proven false according to a scientific paradigm.  Please explain how an alternative paradigm ought to be introduced, and specifically how you would get a biblical literalist to accept or even understand it.  

A few posts ago I gave a link to my original reply, which addresses precisely this and excuses me from doing what you are asking. I don't like repeating posts, so if you have a specific question about a specific point of clarification in that post, I'd be happy to respond if I feel I haven't already.

In the spirit of a thought experiment, I wouldn't bother getting a biblical literalist to accept either my original or alternative evaluation method; I would use them on his claims and be content since they serve my purposes. I would even use them without the biblical literalist knowing what I was doing, or needing him to know or appreciate what I was doing. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that many discussions here are talking past one another.  My criticism of CV75 that he hasn’t yet addressed is how does a person argue for evaluating something through a paradigm that the people holding a particular view would clearly reject.  If paradigms matter, shouldn’t the paradigm of black and white thinking be applicable to those who hold a biblical literalist view?  

People "argue for evaluating something through a paradigm that the people holding a particular view would clearly reject" all the time (look at anthropologists, no matter how well they integrate and empathize for the sake of authentic observation). A biblical literalist view is not necessarily black-and-white thinking; this is how they have such creative ways to counter their detractors, and it is black-and-white thinking that leaves their detractors so frustrated.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Agreed

I have not been following your exchange, but justifiable paradigms need to be able to account for competing paradigms, and show how they account for whatever qualifies as "data" in a preferable way.

According to @hope_for_things example, the biblical literalists are doing just that LOL

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

According to @hope_for_things example, the biblical literalists are doing just that LOL

As are those who subscribe to other fundamentalist contemporary religions like scientism, positivism, and rabid environmentalism. 

After all The Authorities are never wrong.

They just switch paradigms every few years.

 

Edited December 30, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

People "argue for evaluating something through a paradigm that the people holding a particular view would clearly reject" all the time (look at anthropologists, no matter how well they integrate and empathize for the sake of authentic observation). A biblical literalist view is not necessarily black-and-white thinking; this is how they have such creative ways to counter their detractors, and it is black-and-white thinking that leaves their detractors so frustrated.

You’ve got my brain all tied up in a knot now.  I thought you were arguing that an alternative paradigm should be used to evaluate religious claims.  One that completely brackets anything that could be proven false through scholarly means.  Now you’re in favor of anothopology and that they use scholarly tools to evaluate cultures.  

You do know that anthropologists look at religions and evaluate practices like prayer, healings, curses, magic, etc.  I thought you were against this kind of thing, so your statement has me quite confused.  

As for biblical literalists, there are many who maintain somewhat sophisticated sounding apologetics to defend their beliefs, but I’m not sure this makes them nuanced in a way that they hold contradictory ideas in parallel.  They have creative explanations for things, like my Joseph Fielding Smith example with the dinosaurs bones from other planets theory.  I would be interested in knowing where that idea came from originally, it’s a pretty creative idea.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

According to @hope_for_things example, the biblical literalists are doing just that LOL

No, I’m saying if you setup rules that say religious claims that have components that can be evaluated using a scholarly paradigm, are out of bounds, then you ought to at least be consistent with your application of those same rules when applied to a group like the biblical fundamentalists.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who's saying it's not "available" and what does that mean? it's a free country nobody's going to be put in jail for their opinions.

But imo those folks become cannon fodder for guys like poor old Bill Reel who was one himself when what he needed was education in logic and innoculation against Black and White thinking.

He still sees it that way and where is he for that? Still raving for good old black and white. And then we have Mr. Vogel. 

I see that as undesirable for society in general. authoritarianism leads to all kinds of evils in a culture. Look at Germany 80 years ago.

Again it's the Perry scheme. In plain English the more people are educated in humanities the more they become relativistic and tolerant of ambiguity.  Not the politically correct thing to say but nevertheless that's the way I see it.

Take away the smoke and mirrors and that is what Perry is saying. 

Freshmen come in authoritarian and go out seeing things as more complicated as they see more of the world.

Preparing for a major flak.

 

 

I don’t think you’re being fair to Bill or to Vogel.  I followed some of your exchange with Dan on the BoA thread and I found his points much more logically consistent.  

I agree about authoritarianism and see it as a major concern for society at large, but also a huge problem in Mormonism.  It’s arguably one of the worst aspects of Mormonism.  

For this very reason I can’t fault many ExMormons for lashing out at the structure that perpetuates this problem.  It’s a natural consequence. 

There’s my flak, hopefully not too harsh.  😄

[CV75]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You’ve got my brain all tied up in a knot now.  I thought you were arguing that an alternative paradigm should be used to evaluate religious claims.  One that completely brackets anything that could be proven false through scholarly means.  Now you’re in favor of anothopology and that they use scholarly tools to evaluate cultures.  

You do know that anthropologists look at religions and evaluate practices like prayer, healings, curses, magic, etc.  I thought you were against this kind of thing, so your statement has me quite confused.  

As for biblical literalists, there are many who maintain somewhat sophisticated sounding apologetics to defend their beliefs, but I’m not sure this makes them nuanced in a way that they hold contradictory ideas in parallel.  They have creative explanations for things, like my Joseph Fielding Smith example with the dinosaurs bones from other planets theory.  I would be interested in knowing where that idea came from originally, it’s a pretty creative idea.  

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I’m saying if you setup rules that say religious claims that have components that can be evaluated using a scholarly paradigm, are out of bounds, then you ought to at least be consistent with your application of those same rules when applied to a group like the biblical fundamentalists.  

Good anthropologists apply a wide array of scientific disciplines, and typically seek to understand and not to disabsue their subjects of alternative, competing or non-secular claims as to how they and their norms came to be. They view their subjects not at odds, and may even appreciate a shared history or heritage. On the other hand, viewing their subjects’ claims in terms of trespassing “crossovers” and so correcting their facts, understanding and sense of identity would be very bad science.

I won’t comment further on your scientific studies of literal biblical claims, biblical literalists, or biblical fundamentalists.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Good anthropologists apply a wide array of scientific disciplines, and typically seek to understand and not to disabsue their subjects of alternative, competing or non-secular claims as to how they and their norms came to be. They view their subjects not at odds, and may even appreciate a shared history or heritage. On the other hand, viewing their subjects’ claims in terms of trespassing “crossovers” and so correcting their facts, understanding and sense of identity would be very bad science.

I won’t comment further on your scientific studies of literal biblical claims, biblical literalists, or biblical fundamentalists.

In addition to being respectful those same good anthropologists will not confuse supernatural and superstitious beliefs with reality. 

[mfbukowski]

On 12/13/2018 at 7:40 AM, CV75 said:

A claim is a claim no matter its "sphere" and is evaluable across different systems, according to your earlier posts. Just as someone claims to know the future, or how to heal by magic, or the reasons for spiritual well-being, someone claims to know the reasons for marrying his wife. This knowledge “is in another sphere of evaluating" and "can be objectively evaluated," according to what you have been saying. How many times was he right or wrong in knowing these reasons, and how did this relate what their  marriage actually is?

Indeed!  One's own unique value system of preferences, education, previous experiences, up bringing, physical and mental strengths and weaknesses and all that makes each of us unique in our own "sphere" creates the "calculus" from which we make these subjective decisions which end up being "objective" in a certain way- known only to us.

I have mislaid items and then asked myself "Where would I have put that?" only to go and find the thing in what I thought was the most "logical" place that I would have put it.  And it is not a "remembering"- it is a re-creating of a decision made long ago using the same internal "rules" I have for organization and its subjective logic.

So too with finding my wife.  In my youth I had many girlfriends who were actually quite similar in many many ways all according to my subjective yet in a sense - for me at least- "objective" criteria for a forever companion.  I finally found my sweetheart and we - really- you can ask her-  have had so far 40 years of bliss punctuated with spirited "discussions" on every topic imaginable.

And then I found a poem I wrote in my youth describing the woman I wanted to find- and it described perfectly my wife and mother of my children !  It was an "objective" confirmation of the "subjective" evidence that this type of woman would be "right for me", even down to the line "with spits and spats in the face of boredom, with eyes on visions of future glory".  I actually need spirited discussion to be happy!

And this is before I was a member not even knowing what I meant at the time by "future glory"

I find letters and journals from my youth, of long forgotten events - until I re-read them- and find myself thinking the same way I do now about virtually everything.  Oddly I can trace how these same ways of thinking have led to different practical results in my life and how I have altered my interpretations of the same types of thoughts.   I have always been  concerned about social welfare and was very left wing and now I find myself just as concerned about social welfare, but after more experiences with how government works and doesn't I have become conservative and my concern for social welfare has turned more toward "teaching a man to fish" instead of giving him the fish.

But yet both strategies come our of the same way of seeing the world as a brotherhood of man and helping those in need, but doing so in ways modified by my personal experience with what works and what doesn't- in my own criteria.

So yes within myself subjectively I see the same "objective reality" within my own "sphere" of knowledge which is consistent and constant and for me is "absolute truth", yet I know it differs from others "absolute truth"

[mfbukowski]

On 12/27/2018 at 1:24 PM, hope_for_things said:

It depends on the claim.  If the religious claim has to do with someone's personal feelings about the religion or personal visionary experience these things are very difficult if not impossible to evaluate using the tools of science.   If the religious claim is something that crosses over into a scholarly discipline, i.e. a claim of ancient historicity for a civilization of people, then that claim clearly can be evaluated using scholarly tools.  

Sigh.

But the claim of historicity is itself a religious claim!

When did the historical event of the atonement happen?   Some might say 33 AD but that would be wrong.  It was not a historical "event" at all -   it is a dialetheistic proposition like "John is in the room" or not- when he is on the threshold

From one point of view it is an event- a spiritual event that happened but it is not something you will find in history books.  Death of Christ? Yes!  Atonement- the spiritual effects of that death?  No !!

Different contexts, different spheres, different truths!

You find "atonement" in religious books and PERHAPS "death of Jesus" in history books.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

Bolding added

Quote

The proponents of dialetheism mainly advocate its ability to avoid problems faced by other more orthodox resolutions as a consequence of their appeals to hierarchies. According to Graham Priest, "the whole point of the dialetheic solution to the semantic paradoxes is to get rid of the distinction between object language and meta-language".[2] Another possibility is to utilize dialetheism along with a paraconsistent logic to resurrect the program of logicism advocated for by Frege and Russell.[8] This even allows one to prove the truth of otherwise unprovable theorems such as the well-ordering theorem and the falsity of others such as the continuum hypothesis.

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

My UCLA buddy David Lewis.

You think I am making this stuff up? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lewis_(philosopher)

Who wudda thought this fits with Mormon Worlds Without End? 

Quote

The last two chapters of the book (Signalling Systems and Conventions of Language; cf. also "Languages and Language", 1975) make the case that the use of a language in a population consists of conventions of truthfulness and trust among members of the population. Lewis recasts in this framework notions such as those of truth and analyticity, claiming that they are better understood as relations between sentences and a language, rather than as properties of sentences.

Or properties of "reality" about which we cannot speak.... duh.... without .....wait for it.....  language

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sigh.

But the claim of historicity is itself a religious claim!

When did the historical event of the atonement happen?   Some might say 33 AD but that would be wrong.  It was not a historical "event" at all -   it is a dialetheistic proposition like "John is in the room" or not- when he is on the threshold

From one point of view it is an event- a spiritual event that happened but it is not something you will find in history books.  Death of Christ? Yes!  Atonement- the spiritual effects of that death?  No !!

Different contexts, different spheres, different truths!

You find "atonement" in religious books and PERHAPS "death of Jesus" in history books.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

Most people making the claim of historicity are speaking in a scholarly sense.  We covered this ground earlier when i learned that you aren’t talking about scholarly historicity, but a new category I hadn’t encountered before.  

As for questions about Jesus some are very difficult to evaluate in a scholarly sense.  For example, most biblical scholars would agree that Jesus was a real human and not just a mythical figure.  But we don’t have many details about his life.  Are the Luke or Matthew nativity narratives complete fiction?  We don’t know in a scholarly sense.

The atonement is a theological question, not a scholarly one.  The resurrection I believe would qualify as both a religious question and a scientific one.  Unfortunately we have no supporting scientific evidence to corroborate the resurrection.  

My point about historicity is directly tied to claims of BoM historicity, and that question I see as a question that clearly can be evaluated using scholarship.  Do you disagree?  

[CV75]

23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

In addition to being respectful those same good anthropologists will not confuse supernatural and superstitious beliefs with reality. 

Not relevant. For all we know, they may well confuse them but that doesn't change what they are doing or how well they are doing it. Their science is changing, and may well in 1,000 years end up in the supernatural/superstitious category. The same with you and the supernatural and superstitious beliefs you hold to. To what end are you scientifically testing someone's biblically-informed understanding that the earth is 6,000 years old? Are they going to pray about the true age of the earth? Are you going to pray about the truthfulness of the Bible?

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Most people making the claim of historicity are speaking in a scholarly sense.  We covered this ground earlier when i learned that you aren’t talking about scholarly historicity, but a new category I hadn’t encountered before.  

As for questions about Jesus some are very difficult to evaluate in a scholarly sense.  For example, most biblical scholars would agree that Jesus was a real human and not just a mythical figure.  But we don’t have many details about his life.  Are the Luke or Matthew nativity narratives complete fiction?  We don’t know in a scholarly sense.

The atonement is a theological question, not a scholarly one.  The resurrection I believe would qualify as both a religious question and a scientific one.  Unfortunately we have no supporting scientific evidence to corroborate the resurrection.  

My point about historicity is directly tied to claims of BoM historicity, and that question I see as a question that clearly can be evaluated using scholarship.  Do you disagree?  

Yeah there's no evidence that way

It's a spiritual context.

We have been over it a million times

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah there's no evidence that way

It's a spiritual context.

We have been over it a million times

I’m willing to grant that BoM historicity is a religious question for you.  But it’s also a scholarly question and can be evaluated that way as well.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Not relevant. For all we know, they may well confuse them but that doesn't change what they are doing or how well they are doing it. Their science is changing, and may well in 1,000 years end up in the supernatural/superstitious category. The same with you and the supernatural and superstitious beliefs you hold to. To what end are you scientifically testing someone's biblically-informed understanding that the earth is 6,000 years old? Are they going to pray about the true age of the earth? Are you going to pray about the truthfulness of the Bible?

I’m not talking about testing someone’s “understanding” about a belief in a 6000 year old earth.  I would be testing the 6000 year old claim to see if any evidence supports it.  I imagine an Anthropologist might test the cultural influences that contribute to the beliefs of the people in a specific context.  That might be interesting to understand as well.  

I don’t understand your questions about prayer and the Bible or age of the earth.  How is that relevant?  

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m willing to grant that BoM historicity is a religious question for you.  But it’s also a scholarly question and can be evaluated that way as well.  

It is a mystery to me why one would care to do that quite honestly. 

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It is a mystery to me why one would care to do that quite honestly. 

It makes perfect sense to me.  Correlation, Literalism, folklore, tradition and supernaturalism are contributing factors.  Essentially you’re promoting a way of looking at things that is very foreign to the average person.