Tacenda Posted September 22, 2020 Posted September 22, 2020 6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: Regarding "I would also like to hear why believers should apply one standard of examination for non religious claims and hold religious claims to a completely different standard." I don't. See Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. https://www.religion-online.org/book/myths-models-and-paradigms-a-comparative-study-in-science-and-religion/ The Baloney Detection Kit 1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.” AKA Peer Review Helaman 9:1, Behold, when it came to pass that when Nephi had spoken these words, certain men who were among them ran to the judgement seat; yea even there were five who went, and the said among themselves, as they went, "Behold we will know of assurity..." Just so you remember that, as N. R. Hanson observed in The Logic of Scientific Discovery that "All data are theory-laden." Notice that the five who went saw and were so astonished that they collapsed, and others who found them soon accused the five of being murderers. 2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. Joseph Smith to Daniel Rupp, "By proving contraries truth is made manifest." Truth being "knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come." 3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. John 7:48 "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" 4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. For instance, Matthew 28 describes the resurrection, and mentions the claim that "His disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept." Which of the two hypotheses best explains the subsequent behavior of the Apostles and the fact the guards were not punished? This would be a good place to mention Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and to explore the pragmatic criteria used for selecting among multiple working hypothesis. 5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will. Consider Othello. Has he followed the evidence to his conclusion that Desdemona has betrayed him and that smothering her is the best course of action for him to take? 6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging. Nibley, "A manager is someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing because to a manager the cost is the value. The cost is what makes it manageable." From Leaders and Managers. Every form of measurement is also a filter that ignores other qualities. I think back on how an investigator argued that he measured King Benjamain's discourse, and other ways of measuring that he completely overlooked. https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-1644/ 5. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them. I recall Dehlin and Coe arguing against the Book of Mormon on grounds that there was no evidence of brass helmets and iron arrrow heads. I pointed out that the Book of Mormon never mentions brass helmets or iron arrow heads. Dehin's response was to delete my observations. I recall Brent Mefcalfe claiming that the Book of Mormon is false because there is no evidence of an Ancient Near Eastern culture in Mesoamerica. I pointed out in a Sunstone essay that the best place to expect to find Ancient Near Eastern cultures would be the Ancient Near East, and that Brant Gardner had found it much more fruitful to learn about Mesoamerican Culture and then look for that in the Book of Mormon. That is the root insight of the Second Witness commentaries. 6. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. Trump labels everything he doesn't like as "fake news" or "A hoax." Simple. Kuhn points out that simplicity and aesthetics are important criteria for paradigm choice, but not the only ones. 7. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result. I collected 28 different Biblical Tests for true and false prophets. I found that anyone could have done it, and no one had. So I also collected Biblical passages on what a person should do to see truth. It all turned out to be very practical and useful. I think it is better than Sagan's kit. And I studied the reasons Biblical peoples gave for rejecting true prophets. 70 reasons that all boiled down to saying variations of "It's not what I think" and/or "It's not what I want." And the recommendations for seeing truth amount to practical ways of putting what a person thinks and desires at risk, as sacrifices of a broken heart and a contrite spirit made in order to find what is real. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets Always ask how science works in practice, rather than just in theory. Ian Barbour is very good at this. https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/chapter-6-paradigms-in-science/ The whole book is very much worth a close reading. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA I recall that you'd told Dehlin to give you an interview and he wouldn't? If wrong I'm so sorry. I wonder if he'd think about doing one. It would be a nice balance to the podcast. I'd love for him to interview you!!
Kevin Christensen Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: I recall that you'd told Dehlin to give you an interview and he wouldn't? If wrong I'm so sorry. I wonder if he'd think about doing one. It would be a nice balance to the podcast. I'd love for him to interview you!! I volunteered around 10 years ago. He did not make me a priority. I've long thought that if I had been a name scholar or had a colorful grievance story to exploit, he might have made an effort. Then after the Maxwell Institute stuff in 2012, I emailed him to take me off the candidate list. Later, I noticed that he had deleted my comments from the Coe interview, while leaving other comments from people who threatened to hire professionals to destroy my reputation. I wouldn't do an interview with Dehlin now. I was interviewed once by Bill Reel, before he turned, and once by FAIR. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
Tacenda Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: I volunteered around 10 years ago. He did not make me a priority. I've long thought that if I had been a name scholar or had a colorful grievance story to exploit, he might have made an effort. Then after the Maxwell Institute stuff in 2012, I emailed him to take me off the candidate list. Later, I noticed that he had deleted my comments from the Coe interview, while leaving other comments from people who threatened to hire professionals to destroy my reputation. I wouldn't do an interview with Dehlin now. I was interviewed once by Bill Reel, before he turned, and once by FAIR. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Understand! Too bad, because it's a echo chamber now. Around 10 years ago there was more balance.
Hamba Tuhan Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) On 9/22/2020 at 2:47 AM, Fair Dinkum said: While I have never read his book ... You definitely should read the book! I did so when I was quite young. I distinctly remember the first three paragraphs from the 'Baloney Detection' chapter. They are an excellent way of injecting Sagan himself into this discussion that you have started: Quote My parents died years ago. I was very close to them. I still miss them terribly. I know I always will. I long to believe that their essence, their personalities, what I loved so much about them, are - really and truly - still in existence somewhere. I wouldn't ask very much, just five or ten minutes a year, say, to tell them about their grandchildren, to catch them up on the latest news, to remind them that I love them. There's a part of me - no matter how childish it sounds - that wonders how they are. "Is everything all right?" I want to ask. The last words I found myself saying to my father, at the moment of his death, were "Take care." Sometimes I dream that I'm talking to my parents, and suddenly - still immersed in the dreamwork - I'm seized by the overpowering realization that they didn't really die, that it's all been some kind of horrible mistake. Why, here they are, alive and well, my father making wry jokes, my mother earnestly advising me to wear a muffler because the weather is chilly. When I wake up I go through an abbreviated process of mourning all over again. Plainly, there's something within me that's ready to believe in life after death. And it's not the least bit interested in whether there's any sober evidence for it. So I don't guffaw at the woman who visits her husband's grave and chats him up every now and then, maybe on the anniversary of his death. It's not hard to understand. And if I have difficulties with the ontological status of who she's talking to, that's all right. That's not what this is about. This is about humans being human. I suspect Sagan found the reunion with his parents deeply satisfying and, in the end, not all that surprising. Edited September 23, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan 2
Calm Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I suspect Sagan found the reunion with his parents deeply satisfying and, in the end, not all that surprising. It is nice to hear how much he loved his parents and enjoyed being with them. I was thinking using “Baloney” was highly disrespectful of religious beliefs (as I assumed he included them in that category) but maybe his book isn’t as bad as that led me to believe in its tone. Edited September 23, 2020 by Calm
Ahab Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) 20 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: The volume of evidence to support evolution is overwhelming. Whether or not you accept it...evolution is real, it happened, it is true. I believe you believe that but I can see that you really don't have any evidence for that belief even though you believe you do. And you could just as easily say the same thing to me about many of my beliefs. So I will leave that point at that point. Quote Respecting some of my great grandparents...some were Neanderthal ... how do I know this? Because I carry within me the evidence. Nearly 2% of my DNA is from my Neanderthal grandparents, These non homo sapiens ancestors died out over 40,000 years ago, some 34,000 years before the claimed Adam & Eve were supposed to have lived as the first human beings on earth. So to answer your question , yes I do have evidence to prove otherwise. Even if that were true, and as you now know I believe it isn't, you're not going far enough backwards. What about the ancestors of your so-called Neanderthal grandparents? What were the parents of those ancestors? So what kind of being do you think you really are, the main kind of being that you and ALL of your ancestors started out to be? If what you believe about evolution is true then you are simply a mutated form of whatever the origin of your species was before it started becoming mutated into what you are now, whatever you are, which is not what I am. Quote To steer this thread back to its intended questions, The means that Carl Sagan outlined to test claims has been repeatedly used to disprove evolution and yet it remains unscathed and remains as the only theory for the human race that literally explains our very existence with evidence. Take away evolution and all life on earth makes no sense. Baloney. Poppy ****. A fantastic story that deserves to be a work of science fiction right up there with Star Wars and Star Trek but not something that should be believed as actual history of what we have always been. Edited September 23, 2020 by Ahab
Ahab Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) duplicate Edited September 23, 2020 by Ahab
Ahab Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 21 hours ago, smac97 said: I'd be happy to read whatever authoritative sources you have about pre-adamites, Genesis 6. That would be us and other kinds of beings before Adam came down to this planet, if I have correctly surmised what you mean by pre-adamites. I'll provide a link to get you going but this topic probably belongs in a different thread. https://www.gospeldoctrine.com/old-testament/genesis/genesis-6
smac97 Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 14 minutes ago, Ahab said: That would be us and other kinds of beings before Adam came down to this planet, if I have correctly surmised what you mean by pre-adamites. I'm not sure you are surmising correctly. See here and here and here and here for what I meant by "pre-adamites." I think Harold B. Lee put it well: Quote I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought was fully grounded in the faith. I asked. “What about the pre-Adamic people?” She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?” I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also. …’” (Moses 3:7.) I asked, “Do you believe that?” She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error. Missionaries going out into the field often ask how we reconcile the teachings of the scriptures with the teachings of the scientists in accordance with the temple ordinances. In reply I occasionally refer to the revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in Kirtland in 1833, concerning the great event that is to take place at the commencement of the millennial reign when the Lord shall come; the Lord said: “Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things— “Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof— “Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.” (D&C 101:32–34.) Then I say, “If you and I are there when the Lord reveals all this, then I’ll answer your questions—how the earth was made, how man came to be placed upon the earth. Until that time till we have is the support and security that we have in the scriptures, and we must accept the rest by faith.” The entire article is worth a read. 14 minutes ago, Ahab said: I'll provide a link to get you going but this topic probably belongs in a different thread. https://www.gospeldoctrine.com/old-testament/genesis/genesis-6 Probably. Thanks, -Smac
Glenn101 Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 On 9/21/2020 at 2:32 PM, 2BizE said: With Mormonism, the Mormon choice is rarely the simple solution. For example, the question of who wrote the Book of Mormon is asked. Simple answer: Joseph Smith, et al took ideas and framework from View of the Hebrews and other contemporary works of literature from the time period to write it. That is not a simple answer. It is a simplistic answer. 2
mfbukowski Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) On 9/21/2020 at 9:47 AM, Fair Dinkum said: Carl Sagan was an unabashed, unapologetic atheist. In his book Demon Haunted World he offers his Baloney Detection Kit... a means whereby a person can cut through fanciful claims and get on a path to finding truth. While I have never read his book, a link to his balcony detection kit did pop up on my internet browser today and as I read through this list it gave me pause and made me wonder how LDS Truth Claims would fair if subjected to this list of tests. I didn't get to far into the thought experiment before I realized that I had to admit that the foundational claims of our religion would not pass this level of scrutiny. As someone who has already had to make major compromises to my faith and have had to gravitate to a more nuanced, non traditional faith in order to maintain any belief, I would appreciate the thoughts of those of you who have already navigated these treacherous waters and been able to reach a safe harbor with their faith intact. I would also like to hear why believers should apply one standard of examination for non religious claims and hold religious claims to a completely different standard. The Baloney Detection Kit Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.” AKA Peer Review Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. That's the problem right there- the rest is circular reasoning. Spiritual "evidence" can never be duplicated by another person - therefore demanding "peer review" of what God has told us individually is impossible. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven by peer review, by definition. OUR presumption is that we come here as individuals to FIND the experience we call "God" - subjectively- and our feelings are not by definition available to others- otherwise they would not be "our" experiences- they would be shared experiences. What we find to be true, our perceptions and how we see the world, the circumstances of our birth, what works for us to give us meaning in life- NONE of these MOST IMPORTANT aspects of our life are duplicated in others. Yet we have the FACT that billions of people have had experiences - indiscribable experiences - which have led them to a belief in a Supreme Being. For those individuals these experiences are as "real"- whatever that means- as anything else they see or experience or know- as anything else. You know things about you that are "real" that I can never experience- I will never experience what it is to "be you". I don't remember your memories of what it was like to be 5 years old- and you do not remember mine. How can we peer review those experiences? The very assertion that we could try is simply absurd. Likewise how can anyone else know what MY experiences of "God" are like, since they cannot possibly experience as I do ?? So right here, his initial assumption RULES OUT THE POSSIBILITY of "peer review" of certain experiences while demanding peer review to make such experiences "real". And yet Sagan as a human being has had these experiences. He has found love, he has his beliefs, like atheism, he has his politics, he has his morals, his sense of right and wrong, his preferences in colors and foods and what kind of house to buy, all based on his experiences, which are BEYOND PEER review. NONE of us have experienced his life and what works for him in finding meaning, so it should be clear to him that much of the world would disagree with him on how difficult life has been for him. So his argument is circular from word one! He wants peer review for subjects and feelings which are NOT peer review able from the start of the game. His views are therefore self- contradictory and no more correct than the exact same arguments as brought up by Dennet, Hitchens, and all the other contemporary atheists. There's nothing there. It is a waste of words to go over what language cannot express because there is no language to share what cannot be shared! "Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.” AKA Peer Review" Here it is not possible to independently confirm the facts, nor is it possible to have peer review. End of argument. Edited September 23, 2020 by mfbukowski 2
Ahab Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: That's the problem right there- the rest is circular reasoning. Spiritual "evidence" can never be duplicated by another person - therefore demanding "peer review" of what God has told us individually is impossible. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven by peer review, by definition. OUR presumption is that we come here as individuals to FIND the experience we call "God" - subjectively- and our feelings are not by definition available to others- otherwise they would not be "our" experiences- they would be shared experiences. What we find to be true, our perceptions and how we see the world, the circumstances of our birth, what works for us to give us meaning in life- NONE of these MOST IMPORTANT aspects of our life are duplicated in others. Yet we have the FACT that billions of people have had experiences - indiscribable experiences - which have led them to a belief in a Supreme Being. For those individuals these experiences are as "real"- whatever that means- as anything else they see or experience or know- as anything else. You know things about you that are "real" that I can never experience- I will never experience what it is to "be you". I don't remember your memories of what it was like to be 5 years old- and you do not remember mine. How can we peer review those experiences? The very assertion that we could try is simply absurd. Likewise how can anyone else know what MY expces of "God" are like, since they cannot possibly experience as I do ?? So right here, his initial assumption RULES OUT THE POSSIBILITY of "peer review" of certain experiences while demanding peer review to make such experiences "real". And yet Sagan as a human being has had these experiences. He has found love, he has his beliefs, like atheism, he has his politics, he has his morals, his sense of right and wrong, his preferences in colors and foods and what kind of house to buy, all based on his experiences, which are BEYOND PEER review. VERY FEW of us have experienced his disabilities, so it should be clear to him that much of the world would disagree with him on how difficult life has been for him. So his argument is circular from word one! He wants peer review for subjects and feelings which are NOT peer review able from the start of the game. His views are therefore self- contradictory and no more correct than the exact same arguments as brought up by Dennet, Hitchens, and all the other contemporary atheists. There's nothing there. It is a waste of words to go over what language cannot express because there is no language to share what cannot be shared! "Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.” AKA Peer Review" Here it is not possible to independently confirm the facts, nor is it possible to have peer review. End of argument. Wow you did it again. You said something else I don't agree with and I can't even understand why you would say something like that. But I suppose you understand what you said and agree with yourself. My understanding of what "peer review" is is to have one or some of my peers review something I claim to have experienced in my own life, to see if they can relate to and experience the same kind of thing. Like how I might ask one or some of my peers to review an experience that has helped to make me happy, to see if it also helps to make them happy, or at least understand how it has helped to make me happy. Not that all of my peers will agree with me, or see what I see, but there have always been some who can relate to me on some level. That is then what I would call a shared experience. When I laugh and see other people laughing, for example, I see that we then have something in common. A sense of humor that is compatible and shared among all of us who are laughing. I think we often share experiences with others, and have the same understanding on many issues, including experiences where each of us has learned many of the same things from God while knowing who we are referring to as God.
mfbukowski Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 On 9/22/2020 at 8:00 AM, Kevin Christensen said: Regarding "I would also like to hear why believers should apply one standard of examination for non religious claims and hold religious claims to a completely different standard." I don't. See Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. https://www.religion-online.org/book/myths-models-and-paradigms-a-comparative-study-in-science-and-religion/ The Baloney Detection Kit 1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.” AKA Peer Review Helaman 9:1, Behold, when it came to pass that when Nephi had spoken these words, certain men who were among them ran to the judgement seat; yea even there were five who went, and the said among themselves, as they went, "Behold we will know of assurity..." Just so you remember that, as N. R. Hanson observed in The Logic of Scientific Discovery that "All data are theory-laden." Notice that the five who went saw and were so astonished that they collapsed, and others who found them soon accused the five of being murderers. 2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. Joseph Smith to Daniel Rupp, "By proving contraries truth is made manifest." Truth being "knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come." 3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. John 7:48 "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" 4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. For instance, Matthew 28 describes the resurrection, and mentions the claim that "His disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept." Which of the two hypotheses best explains the subsequent behavior of the Apostles and the fact the guards were not punished? This would be a good place to mention Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and to explore the pragmatic criteria used for selecting among multiple working hypothesis. 5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will. Consider Othello. Has he followed the evidence to his conclusion that Desdemona has betrayed him and that smothering her is the best course of action for him to take? 6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging. Nibley, "A manager is someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing because to a manager the cost is the value. The cost is what makes it manageable." From Leaders and Managers. Every form of measurement is also a filter that ignores other qualities. I think back on how an investigator argued that he measured King Benjamain's discourse, and other ways of measuring that he completely overlooked. https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-1644/ 5. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them. I recall Dehlin and Coe arguing against the Book of Mormon on grounds that there was no evidence of brass helmets and iron arrrow heads. I pointed out that the Book of Mormon never mentions brass helmets or iron arrow heads. Dehin's response was to delete my observations. I recall Brent Mefcalfe claiming that the Book of Mormon is false because there is no evidence of an Ancient Near Eastern culture in Mesoamerica. I pointed out in a Sunstone essay that the best place to expect to find Ancient Near Eastern cultures would be the Ancient Near East, and that Brant Gardner had found it much more fruitful to learn about Mesoamerican Culture and then look for that in the Book of Mormon. That is the root insight of the Second Witness commentaries. 6. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. Trump labels everything he doesn't like as "fake news" or "A hoax." Simple. Kuhn points out that simplicity and aesthetics are important criteria for paradigm choice, but not the only ones. 7. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result. I collected 28 different Biblical Tests for true and false prophets. I found that anyone could have done it, and no one had. So I also collected Biblical passages on what a person should do to see truth. It all turned out to be very practical and useful. I think it is better than Sagan's kit. And I studied the reasons Biblical peoples gave for rejecting true prophets. 70 reasons that all boiled down to saying variations of "It's not what I think" and/or "It's not what I want." And the recommendations for seeing truth amount to practical ways of putting what a person thinks and desires at risk, as sacrifices of a broken heart and a contrite spirit made in order to find what is real. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets Always ask how science works in practice, rather than just in theory. Ian Barbour is very good at this. https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/chapter-6-paradigms-in-science/ The whole book is very much worth a close reading. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Thanks- a great approach to these same arguments we hear over and over: using their own principles to show how they are either irrelevant or how they simple misuse their own principles against them. Thanks again for a bell-ringer Kevin! 1
mfbukowski Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 On 9/22/2020 at 2:11 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Do you agree with my follow-up comment about the burden of proof being on the unbeliever who undertakes to demolish our beliefs? For what it's worth, my simple answer would be "yes" but that applies primarily, I think, to any non-believer in anything. Proving a negative is like trying to plug holes in a sieve which has the ability to make its own holes. I have never found any one who can (demolish our beliefs) including atheist philosophers who have pretty much given up on the entire notion of "proving" God's existence or non-existence. It is very much like trying to "demolish" one's political views- the very attempt is folly. Religion and politics encompass entire world views and are not "facts" to be proven or disproven. Even for those who leave churches, I have found, stay "religious" in their approach to life, simply adopting an alternate view of some kind of cosmic "salvation" or taking on what they think is "anti-religion" as a religion itself. It is commonplace here for former believers to switch from belief to non-belief, while still holding their non- belief with more zeal than they ever had as believers. But there are always other ways of looking at things I used to be an atheist Maoist Communist and now have become a politically conservative member of the Church of Jesus Christ, but my zeal to save the world is just as strong, and all that has changed is my point of view on the certainty of the falsity of Cartesian metaphysics and the role that language plays in our understanding of "reality" But obviously I have already addressed that perhaps too much on this board.
Ahab Posted September 23, 2020 Posted September 23, 2020 On 9/22/2020 at 2:11 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Do you agree with my follow-up comment about the burden of proof being on the unbeliever who undertakes to demolish our beliefs? I think the burden of proof, if it can be called a burden, is on the one who is able to provide some evidence. For example, when God tells us something then God is the one who is providing the evidence we accept. We can only tell people that he told us something, that he gave us our evidence. If they want the same thing then only God can provide it because all we can do is tell others what he told us. That is our own testimony. What others need is their own testimony from God.
mfbukowski Posted September 24, 2020 Posted September 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Wow you did it again. You said something else I don't agree with and I can't even understand why you would say something like that. But I suppose you understand what you said and agree with yourself. My understanding of what "peer review" is is to have one or some of my peers review something I claim to have experienced in my own life, to see if they can relate to and experience the same kind of thing. Like how I might ask one or some of my peers to review an experience that has helped to make me happy, to see if it also helps to make them happy, or at least understand how it has helped to make me happy. Not that all of my peers will agree with me, or see what I see, but there have always been some who can relate to me on some level. That is then what I would call a shared experience. When I laugh and see other people laughing, for example, I see that we then have something in common. A sense of humor that is compatible and shared among all of us who are laughing. I think we often share experiences with others, and have the same understanding on many issues, including experiences where each of us has learned many of the same things from God while knowing who we are referring to as God. In a sense I agree with your point- but NO message from God is the "same" for each of us. At least I know that MY personal experiences from God could not possibly be duplicated by others because they include - mentally- references to things that happened in my youth, and other personal experiences that others have never had. One recent example- I just returned from a recent vacation. On the trip, I had a very brief conversation with a guy while I was filling my gas tank. He asked me where I was from. I responded and told him, and he told me where he was from. He was "on his way home" to a town East of the gas station. I told him I was on my way to a point of interest about 100 miles to the west of the gas station, as well known as the Grand Canyon. My wife also had a brief conversation with his wife, and we commented that they seemed like "nice folks" and took off in our respective journeys. Our gps was not working because we were in a remote area. All there were were 2 lane highways. We studied the map carefully. All we could figure out was that this looked like the 2-lane highway that went to where we wanted to go. We set off. The drive we figured would take about 1.5 hours. The area was remote and hilly. We were in an RV, a fairly large vehicle. The scenery was beautiful. We enjoyed looking at the mountains and the scenery. There were no turn outs- it seemed like the road was primarily through a VERY rural area, with the side roads being mostly dirt roads leading to a farm-house/ranch etc. We continued for about an hour. There were no signs or arrows pointing to the attraction we were headed for. We had no evidence except the old map we had that we were on the right road, and started getting a bit concerned. It was not a serious problem- we had food and water and gas and an RV- worst case would probably be that we went an hour out of the way and we would have to go back. But should we go back? There was a rare "wide spot" in the road and we decided to pull over and have a prayer. We prayed to know what would be the right course, have a drink of water and a snack and then continue. After the prayer, we decided to continue forward- the "worst" consequence was a few hours being lost from our trip. I put the RV in gear and looked in the mirror. We had not seen much traffic until then, but when I looked in the mirror, there was a long line- probably 10 vehicles - following a lead car- probably a slow driver- coming up the hill to where we were. I wanted to get out on the road before that first car, but decided it would be dangerous because even though he was going slow, he was getting closer by the second. I decided to wait. Oh great! Now we are going to be stuck behind a slow driver on a 2 lane highway, going up a hill!! Ugh! But safety first! I flipped on my turn indicator and watched the mirror waiting for an opportunity. The last car, thankfully, was finally approaching. But wait. Now he was slowing down! What the heck? Why was he doing that?? He pulled up next to our RV and stopped, on the pavement of the road, blocking us from getting out of the wide spot in the road, and the road itself - but the traffic had subsided and there was nobody behind him! I could not possibly get around him- we were STUCK. I started wondering about where I had left my pistol..... They rolled down the window. I could not see her face, but it was a woman's voice "Hey- how you doing? You need any help? We recognized your rig!" It was the "nice folks" from the gas station!! I said "Wow it is good to see you!! We were just wondering if we were headed toward ...(the attraction) and couldn't figure out if we were on the right road!! But you said you were headed the other way toward (town)! "You're going to the Grand Canyon?? We both used to work there and decided to take an extra day and drive up the hill for the memories and how it has changed- and here we find YOU! We know it like the back of our hands! Yes you are on the right road, you just go straight up the road and the road ends and you take a right, and you'll see signs from there!" "Oh wow!! I can't thank you enough! "No problem! Drive safely, and have a good trip!" And off they went. I looked at my sweetheart, who had tears in her eyes. I did too. We KNEW - both of us simultaneously- that we had been helped by the Lord. No possible doubt- and the Spirit verified it. We saw those folks as "angels" who were inspired to help us, through inspiration of the Lord. We even mentioned the "three Nephites" as examples of experiences of a more serious nature about whom we have spiritual evidence. But this was more of a "tender mercy" out of the bounty of the Lord. We thought that their decision to re-visit their previous employment places, where they had met, was an inspired decision. Who knows why else the Lord wanted them to head up the hill? Why were they about a half hour behind us? Why did we stop for that period of time? Why did they happen to be the LAST car in the procession thereby allowing them to stop in the middle of the road? So in that sense you are right. In a sort of way we as peers had the same experience and had no doubt about the Lord's intervention, and know there must have been some advantage for those who stopped to help us as well, to which of course we were not privy. Perhaps a visit to their "old stomping grounds" helped them somehow in their marriage- or- who knows? The Lord does, we do not. In a sense it was "peer reviewed" because two of us had- I believe- the "same experience" which convinced us of the truth of the assertion that we received help from God. On the other hand this is not ordinarily what "peer review" is!! Usually the reviewers are experts in their fields and experts in the scholarship if the situation. For Egyptology, they would have to be known as Egyptologists. For science they would have to be scientists in the narrow discipline in which the article being reviewed belonged. In science the results of experimentation would have to be wide spread. Anyone anywhere at sea level can boil water and see instantly that yes, water "boils" at 212 degrees F. THAT is peer review for everyone! It is a "fact". And yet it depends on all of us agreeing that "Fahrenheit" is the scale to use, we have to agree those definitions. We have to specify our "altitude"- another human conception. We have to be able to communicate those numbers to other humans who can try the experiment for themselves. Can that apply to my experience on the road my wife"s? Absolutely not! Others could well explain it as not at all explainable or without need for explanation! For them it was a "coincidence"! It was just a random occurrence - and our allegedly "spiritual" reactions were simply emotional Pavlovian reactions to our mythical beliefs in which we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed and conditioned to associate such happenings with a mythical person who lives in the sky And so in that sense there is NO WAY could a religious experience be considered "peer reviewed". We reached our conclusions before the experience happened. There is no way to define that our experiences were the "same". We have no "peers" who were with us in that situation at that moment having the "same" experience and INTERPRETING the experiences we had. I know this is a long answer but you are my buddy and I hope it helps. 2
mfbukowski Posted September 24, 2020 Posted September 24, 2020 2 hours ago, Ahab said: I think the burden of proof, if it can be called a burden, is on the one who is able to provide some evidence. For example, when God tells us something then God is the one who is providing the evidence we accept. We can only tell people that he told us something, that he gave us our evidence. If they want the same thing then only God can provide it because all we can do is tell others what he told us. That is our own testimony. What others need is their own testimony from God. .... which means by definition it cannot be "peer reviewed" because each experience is different and no two have exactly the "same" experience as opposed to, for example, boiling water and finding the thermometer reads "212 degrees F" at sea level.
mfbukowski Posted September 24, 2020 Posted September 24, 2020 (edited) Duplicate. Edited September 24, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted September 24, 2020 Posted September 24, 2020 (edited) Having trouble with the edit function..... Oy vey! Edited September 24, 2020 by mfbukowski stupidity ;)
mfbukowski Posted September 24, 2020 Posted September 24, 2020 Triplicate - I will figure this out eventually....!
Nofear Posted September 24, 2020 Posted September 24, 2020 16 hours ago, mfbukowski said: And so in that sense there is NO WAY could a religious experience be considered "peer reviewed". And that is very true. I can talk about my spiritual experience that gives support for the truth claims of the Church. Another my have what they deem a spiritual experience that denies the truth claims of the Church. What then? Well, I can only go with my own experience. Nonetheless, God has not left us without some checks and balances. For example prophets. It's not a "peer review" but consistency with the prophets is something that can give us greater confidence that our personal experiences. Sometimes prophets have made mistakes so we don't just follow them blindly. But that also doesn't mean we discard the prophets because of fallibility. (Not that you were saying that--not at all. The reply just used your text, it isn't to you directly.) 1
Ahab Posted September 24, 2020 Posted September 24, 2020 16 hours ago, mfbukowski said: In a sense I agree with your point- but NO message from God is the "same" for each of us. At least I know that MY personal experiences from God could not possibly be duplicated by others because they include - mentally- references to things that happened in my youth, and other personal experiences that others have never had. One recent example- I just returned from a recent vacation. On the trip, I had a very brief conversation with a guy while I was filling my gas tank. He asked me where I was from. I responded and told him, and he told me where he was from. He was "on his way home" to a town East of the gas station. I told him I was on my way to a point of interest about 100 miles to the west of the gas station, as well known as the Grand Canyon. My wife also had a brief conversation with his wife, and we commented that they seemed like "nice folks" and took off in our respective journeys. Our gps was not working because we were in a remote area. All there were were 2 lane highways. We studied the map carefully. All we could figure out was that this looked like the 2-lane highway that went to where we wanted to go. We set off. The drive we figured would take about 1.5 hours. The area was remote and hilly. We were in an RV, a fairly large vehicle. The scenery was beautiful. We enjoyed looking at the mountains and the scenery. There were no turn outs- it seemed like the road was primarily through a VERY rural area, with the side roads being mostly dirt roads leading to a farm-house/ranch etc. We continued for about an hour. There were no signs or arrows pointing to the attraction we were headed for. We had no evidence except the old map we had that we were on the right road, and started getting a bit concerned. It was not a serious problem- we had food and water and gas and an RV- worst case would probably be that we went an hour out of the way and we would have to go back. But should we go back? There was a rare "wide spot" in the road and we decided to pull over and have a prayer. We prayed to know what would be the right course, have a drink of water and a snack and then continue. After the prayer, we decided to continue forward- the "worst" consequence was a few hours being lost from our trip. I put the RV in gear and looked in the mirror. We had not seen much traffic until then, but when I looked in the mirror, there was a long line- probably 10 vehicles - following a lead car- probably a slow driver- coming up the hill to where we were. I wanted to get out on the road before that first car, but decided it would be dangerous because even though he was going slow, he was getting closer by the second. I decided to wait. Oh great! Now we are going to be stuck behind a slow driver on a 2 lane highway, going up a hill!! Ugh! But safety first! I flipped on my turn indicator and watched the mirror waiting for an opportunity. The last car, thankfully, was finally approaching. But wait. Now he was slowing down! What the heck? Why was he doing that?? He pulled up next to our RV and stopped, on the pavement of the road, blocking us from getting out of the wide spot in the road, and the road itself - but the traffic had subsided and there was nobody behind him! I could not possibly get around him- we were STUCK. I started wondering about where I had left my pistol..... They rolled down the window. I could not see her face, but it was a woman's voice "Hey- how you doing? You need any help? We recognized your rig!" It was the "nice folks" from the gas station!! I said "Wow it is good to see you!! We were just wondering if we were headed toward ...(the attraction) and couldn't figure out if we were on the right road!! But you said you were headed the other way toward (town)! "You're going to the Grand Canyon?? We both used to work there and decided to take an extra day and drive up the hill for the memories and how it has changed- and here we find YOU! We know it like the back of our hands! Yes you are on the right road, you just go straight up the road and the road ends and you take a right, and you'll see signs from there!" "Oh wow!! I can't thank you enough! "No problem! Drive safely, and have a good trip!" And off they went. I looked at my sweetheart, who had tears in her eyes. I did too. We KNEW - both of us simultaneously- that we had been helped by the Lord. No possible doubt- and the Spirit verified it. We saw those folks as "angels" who were inspired to help us, through inspiration of the Lord. We even mentioned the "three Nephites" as examples of experiences of a more serious nature about whom we have spiritual evidence. But this was more of a "tender mercy" out of the bounty of the Lord. We thought that their decision to re-visit their previous employment places, where they had met, was an inspired decision. Who knows why else the Lord wanted them to head up the hill? Why were they about a half hour behind us? Why did we stop for that period of time? Why did they happen to be the LAST car in the procession thereby allowing them to stop in the middle of the road? So in that sense you are right. In a sort of way we as peers had the same experience and had no doubt about the Lord's intervention, and know there must have been some advantage for those who stopped to help us as well, to which of course we were not privy. Perhaps a visit to their "old stomping grounds" helped them somehow in their marriage- or- who knows? The Lord does, we do not. In a sense it was "peer reviewed" because two of us had- I believe- the "same experience" which convinced us of the truth of the assertion that we received help from God. On the other hand this is not ordinarily what "peer review" is!! Usually the reviewers are experts in their fields and experts in the scholarship if the situation. For Egyptology, they would have to be known as Egyptologists. For science they would have to be scientists in the narrow discipline in which the article being reviewed belonged. In science the results of experimentation would have to be wide spread. Anyone anywhere at sea level can boil water and see instantly that yes, water "boils" at 212 degrees F. THAT is peer review for everyone! It is a "fact". And yet it depends on all of us agreeing that "Fahrenheit" is the scale to use, we have to agree those definitions. We have to specify our "altitude"- another human conception. We have to be able to communicate those numbers to other humans who can try the experiment for themselves. Can that apply to my experience on the road my wife"s? Absolutely not! Others could well explain it as not at all explainable or without need for explanation! For them it was a "coincidence"! It was just a random occurrence - and our allegedly "spiritual" reactions were simply emotional Pavlovian reactions to our mythical beliefs in which we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed and conditioned to associate such happenings with a mythical person who lives in the sky And so in that sense there is NO WAY could a religious experience be considered "peer reviewed". We reached our conclusions before the experience happened. There is no way to define that our experiences were the "same". We have no "peers" who were with us in that situation at that moment having the "same" experience and INTERPRETING the experiences we had. I know this is a long answer but you are my buddy and I hope it helps. I've had the same kind of thing happen to me before, too. And whether you call that type of experience a coincidence or providence the experience is still the same kind of thing. Do you know what I mean? Do you understand me? You and I are peers, my good buddy, and what we "call" or "name" that type of experience doesn't really matter all that much as long as we can both relate to the same types of experiences.
Ahab Posted September 24, 2020 Posted September 24, 2020 40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Having trouble with the edit function..... Oy vey! LOL. too funny
Ahab Posted September 24, 2020 Posted September 24, 2020 16 hours ago, mfbukowski said: .... which means by definition it cannot be "peer reviewed" because each experience is different and no two have exactly the "same" experience as opposed to, for example, boiling water and finding the thermometer reads "212 degrees F" at sea level. I was talking about the "God is no respecter of persons" kind of thing. You and I have both received the same answers from God on many different issues, along with many other members of our Church, and even some non-members, and it wasn't because we collaborated with each other to come to an understanding with each other. God provided the evidence and we simply accepted it, on those things that God told us. So if others want the same kind of evidence that we have received then they need to get it from God. All we do is tell others what he has told us.. 1
mfbukowski Posted September 24, 2020 Posted September 24, 2020 9 minutes ago, Nofear said: And that is very true. I can talk about my spiritual experience that gives support for the truth claims of the Church. Another my have what they deem a spiritual experience that denies the truth claims of the Church. What then? Well, I can only go with my own experience. Nonetheless, God has not left us without some checks and balances. For example prophets. It's not a "peer review" but consistency with the prophets is something that can give us greater confidence that our personal experiences. Sometimes prophets have made mistakes so we don't just follow them blindly. But that also doesn't mean we discard the prophets because of fallibility. (Not that you were saying that--not at all. The reply just used your text, it isn't to you directly.) Agree completely. BUT..... on the other hand we have to look at the Documentary Hypothesis and realize that there is a lot of confusion about who the "prophets"/authors of scripture actually were. All of those documents could simply have ancient origins and the ones with whom the editors agreed got in and "cut and pasted" under the name of say, Isaiah, or whomever. I am absolutely certain that spiritual experiences are from God AND I am absolutely certain that they are the only "evidence" we have of any gospel truths. Period. We need to learn that a true skeptic can always shoot holes in our beliefs IF AND ONLY IF we think we have any conventional "evidence" to back them up. The sooner we learn that God DOES speak to us and that that is the only way we can KNOW Him the sooner we will abandon what I consider childish beliefs that somehow there are signs and wonders which prove His existence in any conventional way That is how philosophy led me to an impenetrable testimony- because I KNOW that there is no justification in a conventional sense for religious utterances. Direct mystical connection with God himself is the ONLY way. You either get that and accept it or you don't. It is direct non-verbal communication as one has for example with someone you love that is the only "proof". The second you put it into language - otherwise known as the philosophies of men- you can find a way to doubt it. Direct personal revelation is the only possible way to certitude about the existence of God and His ability to communicate with us. And so I have absolutely no problem standing before a congregation and saying "I KNOW that God lives", because I do! Total skepticism can lead to eternal truth once you "hear" that still small voice when the blowhard whirlwind of men's voices is finished!
Recommended Posts