Gray Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 On 1/19/2019 at 1:39 AM, Stargazer said: All the time. I see. Yes, all the time.
Calm Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Gray said: That could certainly be interpreted as your own inner voice. Diabetes has symptoms, one can subconsciously start to note them until they start to bubble up into your consciousness. Or it could be interpreted as coincidence. Again, not saying one interpretation is best, just pointing out that these experiences can be interpreted in many ways. Except there were no symptoms except one that had been explained by a nurse I trusted as relating to puberty. And the second option was an infection (no fever or pain, but that happens) We had very, very limited exposure to type 1 diabetes at the time. Wasn't among our family. There were several other more likely possibilities I could have gone to first. Plus there have been a myriad of times I have had my inner voice put things together and bubble up in my life as you say. None of them happened that way. And I tend to be very confident in my diagnosis ability, so no need for it to have that sledgehammer, the universe stopped effect. It is possible that it was my own unconscious or a coincidence. But the one time in my life a voice comes up with an unasked for solution and it is accurate seems unlikely to be a coincidence. A very strange and unique occurrence of my inner voice is more likely, but still contrary to the rest of my experience. The other time in my life I heard a voice there is no way to confirm whether it was right or wrong as it was about which choice was best, not information and I was asking, even begging for help...so I don't share that as even anecdotal evidence of the Spirit. But the diabetes thing still blows me away...even framed in terms of my own inner voice, it was such a unique experience. Edited January 22, 2019 by Calm
Gray Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: Except there were no symptoms except one that had been explained by a nurse I trusted as relating to puberty. And the second option was an infection (no fever or pain, but that happens) We had very, very limited exposure to type 1 diabetes at the time. Wasn't among our family. There were several other more likely possibilities I could have gone to first. Plus there have been a myriad of times I have had my inner voice put things together and bubble up in my life as you say. None of them happened that way. And I tend to be very confident in my diagnosis ability, so no need for it to have that sledgehammer, the universe stopped effect. It is possible that it was my own unconscious or a coincidence. But the one time in my life a voice comes up with an unasked for solution and it is accurate seems unlikely to be a coincidence. A very strange and unique occurrence of my inner voice is more likely, but still contrary to the rest of my experience. The other time in my life I heard a voice there is no way to confirm whether it was right or wrong as it was about which choice was best, not information and I was asking, even begging for help...so I don't share that as even anecdotal evidence of the Spirit. But the diabetes thing still blows me away...even framed in terms of my own inner voice, it was such a unique experience. Whatever the source, I'm glad it worked out!
Calm Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Whatever the source, I'm glad it worked out! As well as it could. I would have been happier if the inspiration waited a few years to hit (as in didn't need to). Puberty and diabetes and moving up to junior high hitting all at the same time was a disaster for her. Apparently that age is most common for type 1 though. Edited January 22, 2019 by Calm 1
clarkgoble Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 On 1/18/2019 at 4:28 PM, hope_for_things said: I can imagine what evidence might look like. There could be contemporary accounts from the Romans about the burial of Jesus, and perhaps accounts from the soldiers that were guarding the tomb. There could be other accounts as well by actual eye witnesses, instead of what we have today (gospel narratives written 2-3 generations after the death of Jesus, written for particular narrative theological purposes). I should have been clearer - what evidence likely to be found. While I don't dismiss textual evidence pro or con that may pop up from the 1st century, I find it rather unlikely any such evidence would be coming. Also I think there's a certain problem with textual evidence. For instance if we found a new 1st century text that could be dated to say the period 30 AD - 50 AD that claimed a first person witness of the resurrection, we'd not believe it. Why would we believe the opposite beyond our prejudices? So I'm not sure texts actually are a terribly persuasive bit of evidence even if they were forthcoming. The problem is that there's no way to tell from a text if the claim of being an eyewitness is trustworthy - given the large amounts of pseudopigrapha and polemic of the era I think there would always be compelling reasons to distrust them. On 1/18/2019 at 4:28 PM, hope_for_things said: Religions in the affluent Western world are dwindling in relevance at a rapid pace. Whether a more fundamentalist approach to religion is good for society as a whole is a more important question to me than if Mormonism or a particular denominational branch of religion can retain membership numbers in a declining membership environment. I confess "what's good for society" is less concern to me than truth. That is I don't view any truth claim as having its value in terms of its social cash value. Consider say evolution which brought eugenics and worse in the early 20th century. Yet I'd say that cash value of evolution wasn't a good thing to focus in on. (This is partially why I don't like pragmatic conceptions of truth that focus on the cash value for the individual or society rather than something more akin to a traditional conception of truth) To your social question though I'd say we have to unpack what we mean by fundamentalist as well. After all if we ignore truth claims and hermeneutics of texts, one might very well say we're merely losing one form of fundamentalism (Evangelicals, Baptists, etc.) while gaining an other (secularized religion, social justice warriors, etc.). Whether these more secular quasi-religions amount to much in broad terms is of course still an other question that'll take time to discover. I suspect while part of it is applying basic human cognitive biases in a non-religious environment, an other part is simply a manifestation of deeper political tensions that are bubbling up across the west right now. (So for instance you have the rise of religion as a signifier in deeply secular Europe among the far populist right - it's not that they're particularly religious or believe the claims but it's a social marker)
clarkgoble Posted January 23, 2019 Posted January 23, 2019 On 1/19/2019 at 8:22 AM, mfbukowski said: You still don't see that science is only a collection of subjective experiences, on which the subjects agree. Why they agree matters a great deal here.
hope_for_things Posted January 23, 2019 Author Posted January 23, 2019 2 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I should have been clearer - what evidence likely to be found. While I don't dismiss textual evidence pro or con that may pop up from the 1st century, I find it rather unlikely any such evidence would be coming. Also I think there's a certain problem with textual evidence. For instance if we found a new 1st century text that could be dated to say the period 30 AD - 50 AD that claimed a first person witness of the resurrection, we'd not believe it. Why would we believe the opposite beyond our prejudices? So I'm not sure texts actually are a terribly persuasive bit of evidence even if they were forthcoming. The problem is that there's no way to tell from a text if the claim of being an eyewitness is trustworthy - given the large amounts of pseudopigrapha and polemic of the era I think there would always be compelling reasons to distrust them. I would agree with you that the kind of evidence I proposed isn't likely to be found, based on what we have already, it would be somewhat unprecedented to find that kind of evidence. I also agree that if one piece of evidence were uncovered that went against the grain of how most scholars view events taking place, it might be hard to believe that evidence unless it is otherwise corroborated other sources. Of course, the more evidence that might corroborate a theory about how the past happened, the more those predominant theories will change. I think for the most part that scholarship will bend towards the strength of the evidence. 3 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I confess "what's good for society" is less concern to me than truth. That is I don't view any truth claim as having its value in terms of its social cash value. Consider say evolution which brought eugenics and worse in the early 20th century. Yet I'd say that cash value of evolution wasn't a good thing to focus in on. (This is partially why I don't like pragmatic conceptions of truth that focus on the cash value for the individual or society rather than something more akin to a traditional conception of truth) To your social question though I'd say we have to unpack what we mean by fundamentalist as well. After all if we ignore truth claims and hermeneutics of texts, one might very well say we're merely losing one form of fundamentalism (Evangelicals, Baptists, etc.) while gaining an other (secularized religion, social justice warriors, etc.). Whether these more secular quasi-religions amount to much in broad terms is of course still an other question that'll take time to discover. I suspect while part of it is applying basic human cognitive biases in a non-religious environment, an other part is simply a manifestation of deeper political tensions that are bubbling up across the west right now. (So for instance you have the rise of religion as a signifier in deeply secular Europe among the far populist right - it's not that they're particularly religious or believe the claims but it's a social marker) I can unequivocally say that what is good for society is much more important to me than denominational membership. This positions is influenced by my operating paradigm that doesn't believe in an interventionist God. If a person does believe in an interventionist God that has a particular plan for creation and that is going to judge people in an afterlife for the actions they took in this life, then the idea of literal truth would matter very much. But this is where I'm not sure I understand your perspective Clark. You are one of the smartest people I've interacted with on these message boards, much more educated and articulate than I could ever hope to be on the topics of philosophy and religion. And yet I'm not sure why you seem to believe in the basic premise of many western religions that there is some kind of religious truth that is correct that we can orient ourselves towards. It sounds very traditional orthodox Mormon, the idea that there is one truth that God has established and inspired people to write in the form of scriptural canon and that we can judge whether something is true or not if it aligns with the correct interpretation of these scriptural texts, because the text itself has some discernible meaning in it that was inspired by God. I would also note that truth is important to me as well, but these days I typically try to distinguish between religious truths (spiritual ideas and metaphors that have some kind of pragmatic meaning in life) and scholarly and scientific truth. I frequently get in trouble with our friend MFB on this message board whenever I even invoke the word truth (he called me out in another thread today, complaining that I still don't get it) whenever I even attempt to say that truth matters at some level. I think truth does matter, but when I say that I'm typically talking first and foremost about scholarly and scientific truth. I also think that religious truth (metaphor and pragmatic truth) matters to me personally and for society as well, but I don't know of a reliable method of proving that my religious truths are better than another persons religious truths. I think if it works for someone and if it helps them to be more kind, loving, and a good contributor to society, then it doesn't matter to me how they get there. Their actions matter more to me than the language they use to describe what motivates them to do good.
clarkgoble Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: If a person does believe in an interventionist God that has a particular plan for creation and that is going to judge people in an afterlife for the actions they took in this life, then the idea of literal truth would matter very much. Yup that's all I'm really saying - although I'd probably quibble over what it means to judge people. But that's neither here nor there. 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: If a person does believe in an interventionist God that has a particular plan for creation and that is going to judge people in an afterlife for the actions they took in this life, then the idea of literal truth would matter very much. But this is where I'm not sure I understand your perspective Clark. You are one of the smartest people I've interacted with on these message boards, much more educated and articulate than I could ever hope to be on the topics of philosophy and religion. And yet I'm not sure why you seem to believe in the basic premise of many western religions that there is some kind of religious truth that is correct that we can orient ourselves towards. It sounds very traditional orthodox Mormon, the idea that there is one truth that God has established and inspired people to write in the form of scriptural canon and that we can judge whether something is true or not if it aligns with the correct interpretation of these scriptural texts, because the text itself has some discernible meaning in it that was inspired by God. I think the text ultimately is a catalyst for revelation. However for things we don't know directly it can provide a set of beliefs more tied to "burden of proof" than direct knowledge. That is I don't claim direct knowledge over most of what's in scripture. I believe it mainly because I think a burden of proof has to arise showing it false. But there's lots of things I believe about scripture but I'd not say I know. There's some things perhaps a typical Mormon who hasn't thought about the issues much might believe, such as Jonah in the whale. (That's not a knock on naive believers - just that once you investigate it the calculus changes I think) I tend to assume the Old Testament is fairly corrupt, so it doesn't get as much burden of proof as say an other text might. So I'm rather careful about the providence of texts when interpreting them and when deciding what's an artifact of the text rather than an accurate representation fo what happened. To anticipate Mark, I take accurate representation to be what an ideal community of inquirers with unlimited technology would agree upon. So while I'm a fairly traditional orthodox Mormon, much of that is over burden of proof. (And the fact that I think we don't know what is or isn't accurate as we think) But if there's evidence I certainly pay close attention to it. That might move me out of what a more literalist member, say a person who sees McConkie's Mormon Doctrine as an accurate portrayal of everything, might believe. So I'm fine with the broad outline of the Documentary Hypothesis (which to me sounds like what the Book of Mormon teaches and explains a lot of BoM features). I'm fine with evolution and a rejection of young earth creationism etc. While I use texts, I use them discriminately. I don't see them as the source of truth. As I said, they're at best a catalyst and then maybe producing a burden of proof for believe combined with a healthy recognition of fallibilism. 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I would also note that truth is important to me as well, but these days I typically try to distinguish between religious truths (spiritual ideas and metaphors that have some kind of pragmatic meaning in life) and scholarly and scientific truth. I frequently get in trouble with our friend MFB on this message board whenever I even invoke the word truth (he called me out in another thread today, complaining that I still don't get it) whenever I even attempt to say that truth matters at some level. To me there's just truth and I think that way of speaking is what everyone means. Where I disagree with Mark is over whether the pragmatic maxim is a criteria of meaning or a criteria of truth. I say it's about meaning, not truth. Truth to me is just a claim about what people would say given sufficient inquiry. (And it might be that there's no experience that could let us distinguish a difference so we'd say there's no truth about the matter) If what I assert now is what that future inquiry would lead, then I'm correct in saying my assertion is true. So to me I think we can dispute the meaning of religion but I'm not sure it's helpful saying religious truth is somehow different from mathematical or scientific truth. Again I think that way of talking confuses issues of meaning with issues of truth. There are some subtle issues there (more related to translation and quotation) but in practice they don't matter much.
hope_for_things Posted January 24, 2019 Author Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I think the text ultimately is a catalyst for revelation. However for things we don't know directly it can provide a set of beliefs more tied to "burden of proof" than direct knowledge. That is I don't claim direct knowledge over most of what's in scripture. I believe it mainly because I think a burden of proof has to arise showing it false. But there's lots of things I believe about scripture but I'd not say I know. There's some things perhaps a typical Mormon who hasn't thought about the issues much might believe, such as Jonah in the whale. (That's not a knock on naive believers - just that once you investigate it the calculus changes I think) I tend to assume the Old Testament is fairly corrupt, so it doesn't get as much burden of proof as say an other text might. So I'm rather careful about the providence of texts when interpreting them and when deciding what's an artifact of the text rather than an accurate representation fo what happened. To anticipate Mark, I take accurate representation to be what an ideal community of inquirers with unlimited technology would agree upon. So while I'm a fairly traditional orthodox Mormon, much of that is over burden of proof. (And the fact that I think we don't know what is or isn't accurate as we think) But if there's evidence I certainly pay close attention to it. That might move me out of what a more literalist member, say a person who sees McConkie's Mormon Doctrine as an accurate portrayal of everything, might believe. So I'm fine with the broad outline of the Documentary Hypothesis (which to me sounds like what the Book of Mormon teaches and explains a lot of BoM features). I'm fine with evolution and a rejection of young earth creationism etc. While I use texts, I use them discriminately. I don't see them as the source of truth. As I said, they're at best a catalyst and then maybe producing a burden of proof for believe combined with a healthy recognition of fallibilism. Thanks for this explanation, some follow up thoughts that would help me better understand. For your burden of proof paradigm approach. It seems to me that the underlying assumption here is that the unique traditions handed to you (assuming you were born into Mormonism) in the form of your religious upbringing, time period, and western world culture, receive a great weight of privilege in your model. For example, if you were born into the 8th century in the Middle East, or if you were born into the 17th century in China, your method of waiting for a burden of proof to arise to prove something false gives a great privilege the cultural assumptions in the environment you are living in. If you're only going to question those assumptions where a large burden of proof is presented to contradict your environmentally influenced ideals, this method would would lead you to a very different result relative to the time & place that you might be living in. It seems to me, that if your goal is to operate by truth to the greatest possible extent, that you wouldn't start by assuming that the traditions of your unique upbringing and environment are correct. It seems to me that you would question everything and seek to test and challenge everything, if your goal were to operate by truth. 11 hours ago, clarkgoble said: To me there's just truth and I think that way of speaking is what everyone means. Where I disagree with Mark is over whether the pragmatic maxim is a criteria of meaning or a criteria of truth. I say it's about meaning, not truth. Truth to me is just a claim about what people would say given sufficient inquiry. (And it might be that there's no experience that could let us distinguish a difference so we'd say there's no truth about the matter) If what I assert now is what that future inquiry would lead, then I'm correct in saying my assertion is true. So to me I think we can dispute the meaning of religion but I'm not sure it's helpful saying religious truth is somehow different from mathematical or scientific truth. Again I think that way of talking confuses issues of meaning with issues of truth. There are some subtle issues there (more related to translation and quotation) but in practice they don't matter much. Thanks for this. I value effective communication, and not having a philosophical background I feel that I'm often not articulating what I'm thinking very well and in a way that maximizes effectiveness. I like the way you're explaining this, and I want to consider talking about religious truth as religious meaning instead of using the term truth, just to more clearly communicate and differentiate from the other kind of truth that is oriented toward fact or fiction. It gets complicated when people talk about the BoM being true, or the church being true in our Mormon culture. In a very strict sense, the BoM isn't any more true than the dictionary is true or the LoTR is true. Books aren't true, regardless of genre, its just not an accurate use of the term to say that an entire book (a collection of writings by an author or multiple authors) is true. Also, saying the church is true is problematic as well. Is Yoga true? Is Target true? How about the Utah Jazz, are they true? Is Microsoft true? How can an institution be true or false? Using this term the way Mormons do in our culture has already bent the meaning quite significantly so that a straightforward definition of true and false isn't really that easy to figure out. Edited January 24, 2019 by hope_for_things
mfbukowski Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: To anticipate Mark, I take accurate representation to be what an ideal community of inquirers with unlimited technology would agre So we get to wait for infinity until we know what is true. Sounds like religion to me. That's how I think about God. "We'll know when we get to heaven" But we're not there yet, so there are no answers beyond your biases of what WILL be. We will know someday, not ever in my life time And what is unlimited technology? Nothing new is inventable? Sounds like Peirce to me. Edited January 24, 2019 by mfbukowski
clarkgoble Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: It seems to me that the underlying assumption here is that the unique traditions handed to you (assuming you were born into Mormonism) in the form of your religious upbringing, time period, and western world culture, receive a great weight of privilege in your model. I've prayed about the scriptures and have had their truth confirmed for me. But I also have had confirmed a healthy fallibilism. (And indeed I think Ether 12 and 1 Nephi 13 demand that) In particular as I said I think the Old Testament is quite corrupt particularly as a reflection of pre-exilic beliefs. So I wouldn't say it's merely a reflection of received tradition. Rather I think I try my best to question tradition in a skeptical way. 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: For example, if you were born into the 8th century in the Middle East, or if you were born into the 17th century in China, your method of waiting for a burden of proof to arise to prove something false gives a great privilege the cultural assumptions in the environment you are living in. I think you're assuming I'm giving the burden of proof due to it being my tradition. That's not correct. I give them a burden of proof because of what I know about the scriptures in a general sense. The analogy would be to a science textbook. Authors of science textbooks are fallible humans and there are errors in them. However I assume what they say is correct unless I overcome a burden of proof showing that they are. I do think that some things get a bit of a burden of proof. My view of social systems in that sense is rather Burkean. That is I think social structures end up "tested" over time and are socially useful so we should be cautious in changing them. However simultaneously I'm also extremely skeptical and think we need to inquire vigorously and always question such received systems. It's of course worth asking whether I'd be as skeptical had I been raised in a family without that basic scientific approach to the world. I'll confess I have no way of knowing that. Certainly I'd be different. How I'd have turned out I can't say. I'm not sure that says much about whether these views and methods are themselves fruitful though nor does it address whether here and now I can know things. That is I don't think we can or should embrace social determinism nor treat the social as arbitrary. Quote It seems to me, that if your goal is to operate by truth to the greatest possible extent, that you wouldn't start by assuming that the traditions of your unique upbringing and environment are correct. I certainly agree. But that's not what I do. If anything I attempt to do the exact opposite. Quote I like the way you're explaining this, and I want to consider talking about religious truth as religious meaning instead of using the term truth, just to more clearly communicate and differentiate from the other kind of truth that is oriented toward fact or fiction. Yup and I'll fully confess that "religious meaning" in this sense isn't something I'm terribly interested in. Certainly there's lots of different ideas broadly construed as religious that individuals find significant. My personal stance is that I'm not interested in finding something significant if it's not true in a traditional sense in some sense. It might of course be enjoyable. I enjoy lots of things. I'm not sure those who focus on religious meaning mean that though. More power to them of course if they think it helps them. It's just not something I personally find relevant for my life. (Which is not to say I don't enjoy investigating other religions and thinking about them carefully - particularly ones like Buddhism - just that my concerns are again usually truth or at least understanding arguments.) Quote It gets complicated when people talk about the BoM being true, or the church being true in our Mormon culture. In a very strict sense, the BoM isn't any more true than the dictionary is true or the LoTR is true. Well by true I mean truly by God and historical and accurate in some sense even if fallible. So I'm clearly using it in a short hand. Although I'm fine calling a book like the dictionary true as in the sense of broadly accurate even if there are mistakes and it's incomplete. Ditto a textbook. I'd not call LoTR or any fiction true. History books get a bit more complicated. But you're right to call me out on the use as being unclear relative to a book. I'd say that relative to the scriptures I'm careful about what that entails. Quote Also, saying the church is true is problematic as well. I don't think so. Truth has a broad set of meanings in English and doesn't only relate to propositional truth. I've discussed how the Church is true before. I think it's perfectly fine English although I think the Hebrew sense gets at my use better. Truth means reliable in some strong sense. Quote Using this term the way Mormons do in our culture has already bent the meaning quite significantly so that a straightforward definition of true and false isn't really that easy to figure out. It's standard English. If you talk about a true friend you're really not abusing the language in the least. Nor are you if you talk about a spouse being true to their spouse. Even truing a wheel fits this use. It's true we typically, thanks to the role of the Enlightenment, talk about truth relative to epistemology. But there's a pretty common set of other uses. 2
hope_for_things Posted January 24, 2019 Author Posted January 24, 2019 58 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I've prayed about the scriptures and have had their truth confirmed for me. But I also have had confirmed a healthy fallibilism. (And indeed I think Ether 12 and 1 Nephi 13 demand that) In particular as I said I think the Old Testament is quite corrupt particularly as a reflection of pre-exilic beliefs. So I wouldn't say it's merely a reflection of received tradition. Rather I think I try my best to question tradition in a skeptical way. I think you're assuming I'm giving the burden of proof due to it being my tradition. That's not correct. I give them a burden of proof because of what I know about the scriptures in a general sense. The analogy would be to a science textbook. Authors of science textbooks are fallible humans and there are errors in them. However I assume what they say is correct unless I overcome a burden of proof showing that they are. I do think that some things get a bit of a burden of proof. My view of social systems in that sense is rather Burkean. That is I think social structures end up "tested" over time and are socially useful so we should be cautious in changing them. However simultaneously I'm also extremely skeptical and think we need to inquire vigorously and always question such received systems. It's of course worth asking whether I'd be as skeptical had I been raised in a family without that basic scientific approach to the world. I'll confess I have no way of knowing that. Certainly I'd be different. How I'd have turned out I can't say. I'm not sure that says much about whether these views and methods are themselves fruitful though nor does it address whether here and now I can know things. That is I don't think we can or should embrace social determinism nor treat the social as arbitrary. I don't doubt that relatively speaking you are quite skeptical and rigorous in your search for truth. I want to clarify the point I'm making about relative paradigm approaches. Lets take your science textbook example, except instead of a science textbook, lets replace it with a book of fables. There are many books of fables found in cultures all over the world. The stories found in these books are extremely diverse. Aren't you essentially saying that you start with a general sense that the stories in the book of fables passed down in your tradition contains truths that are far superior to the fables of other traditions? For example, why should you start with an assumption of an afterlife, when someone in India is starting with the assumption that everyone will be reincarnated. Why start with the assumption of monotheism? Why start with the assumption of divine male or female? Why not start with an assumption of aliens populating the earth? I'm trying to make a point that the very general sense you're granting is a sort of privilege built into your paradigm. I will also acknowledge that to some degree or another all of us are caught up in this dilemma, as we all give privilege to how we see things as informed by our environment. Its not possible to eliminate this privilege, but just acknowledging and being aware of this phenomenon can help a person to be more reflective. (I'm not even saying you need to do this, you are great, I'm just commenting on the points you're making.) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Yup and I'll fully confess that "religious meaning" in this sense isn't something I'm terribly interested in. Certainly there's lots of different ideas broadly construed as religious that individuals find significant. My personal stance is that I'm not interested in finding something significant if it's not true in a traditional sense in some sense. It might of course be enjoyable. I enjoy lots of things. I'm not sure those who focus on religious meaning mean that though. More power to them of course if they think it helps them. It's just not something I personally find relevant for my life. (Which is not to say I don't enjoy investigating other religions and thinking about them carefully - particularly ones like Buddhism - just that my concerns are again usually truth or at least understanding arguments.) For me, religious meaning is the core of what is important about religion. I don't think we really get much in the form of truth from religion. I think we have tradition, ritual, community practice, service, connection with ourselves, and a sense of connection with the universe from religion. Its all about the experience, and not much about truth from what I see these days. Relationships with my loved ones have nothing to do with truth, but are the most meaningful parts of my existence. Religion can play a huge part in this and in that sense I think it can be a very important part of life. 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Quote It gets complicated when people talk about the BoM being true, or the church being true in our Mormon culture. In a very strict sense, the BoM isn't any more true than the dictionary is true or the LoTR is true. Well by true I mean truly by God and historical and accurate in some sense even if fallible. So I'm clearly using it in a short hand. Although I'm fine calling a book like the dictionary true as in the sense of broadly accurate even if there are mistakes and it's incomplete. Ditto a textbook. I'd not call LoTR or any fiction true. History books get a bit more complicated. But you're right to call me out on the use as being unclear relative to a book. I'd say that relative to the scriptures I'm careful about what that entails. The problem with this is that other people mean something very different when they say the BoM is true. I know people who believe it is true and it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. This is part of what creates the problem, is that people don't share the same assumptions and meaning when they are using this term. What other books do you refer to as true? Even if you think the dictionary might fit the use of this term, would you in practice ever use the term true to describe the dictionary? I'm not sure I've ever heard it used for anything but religious texts. 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: I don't think so. Truth has a broad set of meanings in English and doesn't only relate to propositional truth. I've discussed how the Church is true before. I think it's perfectly fine English although I think the Hebrew sense gets at my use better. Truth means reliable in some strong sense. It's standard English. If you talk about a true friend you're really not abusing the language in the least. Nor are you if you talk about a spouse being true to their spouse. Even truing a wheel fits this use. It's true we typically, thanks to the role of the Enlightenment, talk about truth relative to epistemology. But there's a pretty common set of other uses. Thanks for the link. I do recall reading this back in the day, and its nice to read over as a refresher. As for other meanings for the word true, yes, those are grammatically correct meanings, and I wasn't suggesting challenging that usage. I don't think that calling an institution "true" is a very accurate or even appropriate term to use. Outside of religions that are in competition with each other, I just can't imagine people calling other groups, organizations, even life practices, true. It just seems to me a quite inappropriate description that not only doesn't make sense to many people outside of the tribe, but also doesn't explain with clarity how a traditionally orthodox practitioner experiences their relationship with the church. In other words its way too vague and the purpose it serves seems somewhat shallow upon reflection.
clarkgoble Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Lets take your science textbook example, except instead of a science textbook, lets replace it with a book of fables. There are many books of fables found in cultures all over the world. The stories found in these books are extremely diverse. Aren't you essentially saying that you start with a general sense that the stories in the book of fables passed down in your tradition contains truths that are far superior to the fables of other traditions? For example, why should you start with an assumption of an afterlife, when someone in India is starting with the assumption that everyone will be reincarnated. Reincarnation is a type of afterlife (IMO). However I think you're missing what I'm saying one should do. The whole reason I know was because I questioned. I was brought up with a deep desire for inquiry and complete dissatisfaction with "given answers." So if someone told me (as I'm sure they did) that mine was better, then I questioned that and tried to find out if that were true. Likewise when in school (where I was the only Mormon out of a student body of 1300) when people made claims about why my tradition was worse I questioned it. I think I actually heard the criticism far more than I heard the praise. Now youth being youth, I'm sure I wasn't as critical as I should have been as a young teen and undoubtedly thought I knew much more than I actually did. That seems to be entailed by genetics and the onset of adolescence. However I also just saw all problems as only answerable through empirical inquiry. That oriented even at a very young age all my thinking. So I think you are making assumptions about my intellectual development that simply weren't true. Again not knowing what part of my personality is my genetics, what part my spirit, and what part my environment I can't really say how I'd have developed in a radically different situation. Anymore than you really can. So I'm not sure such counterfactuals tell us much. Further, I'm not sure such things tell us much about method. Einstein may well have thought very differently had he been born in 17th century India. However that doesn't mean he wasn't right about quantum mechanics and relativity. The nature of our inquiry counts far more than our starting point. Quote I'm trying to make a point that the very general sense you're granting is a sort of privilege built into your paradigm. Not sure how you are using "paradigm" but if you're using it in Kuhn's original sense as including methods, inquiry and so forth then yes, I think some paradigms should be privileged over others. Scientific inquiry in contemporary physics simply should be privileged over approaches from the medieval or ancient world. They tell us more, are more accurate and so forth. I fundamentally oppose cultural relativism. Some approaches simply are more fruitful than others. Quote The problem with this is that other people mean something very different when they say the BoM is true. I know people who believe it is true and it has nothing to do with historical accuracy. I don't see how that is a problem. Certainly some people see "truth" in a very different fashion relative to scripture. I think they're wrong and don't mind discussing the issue with them. That we differ doesn't seem to be much of a problem to me. Quote What other books do you refer to as true? All my science and math books. Probably a fair number of my history books. Quote Even if you think the dictionary might fit the use of this term, would you in practice ever use the term true to describe the dictionary? I'm not sure I've ever heard it used for anything but religious texts. That's an odd claim to make. I bet you haven't googled "true book" or "book is true." There's even a popular series by Scholastic for kids using the term. Allow me to quote a somewhat well known poem by Wallace Stevens using the phrase: The house was quiet and the world was calm. The reader became the book; and summer night Was like the conscious being of the book. The house was quiet and the world was calm. The words were spoken as if there was no book, Except that the reader leaned above the page, Wanted to lean, wanted much most to be The scholar to whom his book is true, to whom The summer night is like a perfection of thought. The house was quiet because it had to be. The quiet was part of the meaning, part of the mind: The access of perfection to the page. And the world was calm. The truth in a calm world, In which there is no other meaning, itself Is calm, itself is summer and night, itself Is the reader leaning late and reading there. Edited January 25, 2019 by clarkgoble 2
Recommended Posts