Jump to content

The Demands of Justice


What demands the price of Justice?  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. When justice needs to be satisfied what is payment of the price satisfying?

    • Cosmological balance (natural law)
    • God's own laws/rules
    • Offense against God personally
    • Requirements for entry to the next level (Celestial)
    • Laws of our current situation
    • Something else entirely (comment below)


Recommended Posts

On 2/8/2021 at 5:57 PM, CV75 said:

Oh my, I am hardly the person to ask, I am not a scholar at all. From what I understand from Wikipedia, I do not believe that we “inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth.” Instead, I believe we inherit a fallen world with a veil over it, so we are bound to err both ignorantly and willingly. The Father behind the veil still exerts His grace.

If the proof text is verse 19, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,” I would say that the accountable are not made sinners by inheriting Adam’s genes, but are made sinners through our choices in the fallen world he left us. He made the world the way it is, and our bodies; he did not make our spirits that make the choices and do the sinning.

But what caught my eye about this passage is the third element in the atonement of Christ, the Father’s grace, in reconciling justice and mercy so that the refusal and demand, and the provision and denial, of these elements is strictly an interpersonal matter between us and Them.

I was working on a reply, lengthy and imo important and my computer shut OFF for some totally unexplainable reason.  OFF

One side or the other didn't like it I suspect.  ;)

I will reply when I get a chance, may be in a couple of days with my interpretation of Romans 5.   I think it is one of the most important chapters.   Poor Adam gets a bum rap imo, but perhaps I have a little bit of a different way of seeing it now that I have thought it through ;)

I see it pragmatically. 

When it says something like "because of our faith..." I take it literally.   What does that mean?

"Because of my belief in the atonement, I have faith that my sins are forgiven"  becomes "because I BELIEVE my sins are forgiven, they are, and my guilt is gone".

Because I believe in the possibility that the Adam story is an allegory- as had been said by legitimate authority in the church- and perhaps not historical, but MIGHT BE historical, even IF not historical, my BELIEF itself that my sins are forgiven gives me peace and heals my guilt- simply because of the belief that they HAVE BEEN forgiven.

It is very easy to see every word of that chapter that way.   Show me a place where one could NOT take it that way?

In the STORY of Adam, one man brings sin into the world, and one man, Christ, takes away that sin.   I read the story and possibly see it as an allegory.  Even as an allegory I understand that seeing the world that way is the best way to see the world and explain all this "religion stuff" ;)  about which, in my psychological reality MIGHT have happened, might not.

Perhaps in my interpretation - I myself could be "both men".

I have brought sin into my world as a kid, and I have taken it out through my faith in Christ!

But on a Pascal's wager kind of deal, the BELIEF makes my life better and comforts me immensely.

And then I receive what I take to be a spiritual "confirmation" that the story actually happened.

Did it really happen that way?   Irrelevant and unknowable.   

What's the difference? we take it on faith anyway!!   That inserts an aspect that either way, we win the wager and have a good life even if it is strictly false, and IF it is "false" we will never know anyway.

And so by "faith in Christ we are saved".

Yep- either way that statement is true.

YET I have certainty in my heart that He existed and still does.  Certainty.

Based on my faith as strong as the statement "murder is wrong"-  I KNOW that that is true!   I am absolutely certain that murder is wrong and I will never ever do that.

And yet if I die and there is no one there to tell me I was a good boy and pat me on the head-- I still had a life worth something!, because I had meaning in life and were being the best human being I knew how to be!

And how do I define the “best human being”?

Pragmatically as the culture has understood who the best human being is! 

That means Jesus Christ!

If nothing else, the image and story of Christ exemplifies what we find to be the “best and perfect” human being who could exist. 

The atheists could ascribe it all to tradition and culture and prejudice in favor of these beliefs.   Maybe they are right- but it makes no difference to me really.

I know that I am doing MY best to emulate the image of the BEST human who ever lived.

There never had to be a flood, or Moroni, a six day creation, evolution or no evolution or anything else because I KNOW that I am attempting to follow the best image of who we BELIEVE  DEFINES what a "best human" can be

And no other faith teaches that Christ was actually a HUMAN with a body like ours, and all of that.   THAT is our impervious strength against all the slings and arrows right there!!

Seeing the HUMANITY OF CHRIST is seeing the possibility that all mankind can emulate as an IDEAL even if nothing else.

THAT is our strength if we can ever see it. 

Seeing Christ as a PERFECT human and seeing us as potentially able to emulate Him totally makes us a completely CHRISTIAN, materialist, and therefore Humanist church as well as a restoration of Christianity 

Top that one, atheists!  ;)

 

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I was working on a reply, lengthy and imo important and my computer shut OFF for some totally unexplainable reason.  OFF

One side or the other didn't like it I suspect.  ;)

I will reply when I get a chance, may be in a couple of days with my interpretation of Romans 5.   I think it is one of the most important chapters.   Poor Adam gets a bum rap imo, but perhaps I have a little bit of a different way of seeing it now that I have thought it through ;)

I see it pragmatically. 

When it says something like "because of our faith..." I take it literally.   What does that mean?

"Because of my belief in the atonement, I have faith that my sins are forgiven"  becomes "because I BELIEVE my sins are forgiven, they are, and my guilt is gone".

Because I believe in the possibility that the Adam story is an allegory- as had been said by legitimate authority in the church- and perhaps not historical, but MIGHT BE historical, even IF not historical, my BELIEF itself that my sins are forgiven gives me peace and heals my guilt- simply because of the belief that they HAVE BEEN forgiven.

It is very easy to see every word of that chapter that way.   Show me a place where one could NOT take it that way?

In the STORY of Adam, one man brings sin into the world, and one man, Christ, takes away that sin.   I read the story and possibly see it as an allegory.  Even as an allegory I understand that seeing the world that way is the best way to see the world and explain all this "religion stuff" ;)  about which, in my psychological reality MIGHT have happened, might not.

Perhaps in my interpretation - I myself could be "both men".

I have brought sin into my world as a kid, and I have taken it out through my faith in Christ!

But on a Pascal's wager kind of deal, the BELIEF makes my life better and comforts me immensely.

And then I receive what I take to be a spiritual "confirmation" that the story actually happened.

Did it really happen that way?   Irrelevant and unknowable.   

What's the difference? we take it on faith anyway!!   That inserts an aspect that either way, we win the wager and have a good life even if it is strictly false, and IF it is "false" we will never know anyway.

And so by "faith in Christ we are saved".

Yep- either way that statement is true.

YET I have certainty in my heart that He existed and still does.  Certainty.

Based on my faith as strong as the statement "murder is wrong"-  I KNOW that that is true!   I am absolutely certain that murder is wrong and I will never ever do that.

And yet if I die and there is no one there to tell me I was a good boy and pat me on the head-- I still had a life worth something!, because I had meaning in life and were being the best human being I knew how to be!

And how do I define the “best human being”?

Pragmatically as the culture has understood who the best human being is! 

That means Jesus Christ!

If nothing else, the image and story of Christ exemplifies what we find to be the “best and perfect” human being who could exist. 

The atheists could ascribe it all to tradition and culture and prejudice in favor of these beliefs.   Maybe they are right- but it makes no difference to me really.

I know that I am doing MY best to emulate the image of the BEST human who ever lived.

There never had to be a flood, or Moroni, a six day creation, evolution or no evolution or anything else because I KNOW that I am attempting to follow the best image of who we BELIEVE  DEFINES what a "best human" can be

And no other faith teaches that Christ was actually a HUMAN with a body like ours, and all of that.   THAT is our impervious strength against all the slings and arrows right there!!

Seeing the HUMANITY OF CHRIST is seeing the possibility that all mankind can emulate as an IDEAL even if nothing else.

THAT is our strength if we can ever see it. 

Seeing Christ as a PERFECT human and seeing us as potentially able to emulate Him totally makes us a completely CHRISTIAN, materialist, and therefore Humanist church as well as a restoration of Christianity 

Top that one, atheists!  ;)

Of course, this allows that because we believe we have been atoned for, forgiven and to be resurrected and exalted, we are (and it doesn’t matter whether or how the life of Christ, or even a humble Jesus of Nazareth, played out or got passed down).

This allows, as I sometimes suggest, that prophecy is a plan (i.e., an expression of faith) that future peoples make happen (or “happen”) by faith.

This also allows that the man Jesus, because I believe, is made Christ. I think you alluded to this once before, when suggesting that the atonement of Christ was accomplished in some other way than commonly testified and reported as we have it in our canon.

In any case, the good effects demonstrate the value and need for religion for the atheist who recognizes it supports the evolutionary advantage of social morality.

Of the two, I feel the second statement conveys a deeper spiritual conviction: "Because of my belief in the atonement, I have faith that my sins are forgiven" becomes "because I BELIEVE my sins are forgiven, they are, and my guilt is gone". The first is belief, the second is knowledge, but notably, no proof but the absence of guilt is required for this knowledge. But sometimes people also arrive at the second statement when told in no uncertain terms (after the trial of their faith!).

So, the presence of the Christ (figurative or literal) serves as the substrate for all kinds of people who catalyze spiritual things differently.

Edited by CV75
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, CV75 said:

Of course, this allows that because we believe we have been atoned for, forgiven and to be resurrected and exalted, we are (and it doesn’t matter whether or how the life of Christ, or even a humble Jesus of Nazareth, played out or got passed down).

This allows, as I sometimes suggest, that prophecy is a plan (i.e., an expression of faith) that future peoples make happen (or “happen”) by faith.

This also allows that the man Jesus, because I believe, is made Christ. I think you alluded to this once before, when suggesting that the atonement of Christ was accomplished in some other way than commonly testified and reported as we have it in our canon.

In any case, the good effects demonstrate the value and need for religion for the atheist who recognizes it supports the evolutionary advantage of social morality.

Of the two, I feel the second statement conveys a deeper spiritual conviction: "Because of my belief in the atonement, I have faith that my sins are forgiven" becomes "because I BELIEVE my sins are forgiven, they are, and my guilt is gone". The first is belief, the second is knowledge, but notably, no proof but the absence of guilt is required for this knowledge. But sometimes people also arrive at the second statement when told in no uncertain terms (after the trial of their faith!).

So, the presence of the Christ (figurative or literal) serves as the substrate for all kinds of people who catalyze spiritual things differently.

Yes, exactly.  And I think that can be a useful tool for apologetics in a secular world.

The bottom line becomes spiritual experience can be what I believe it is,- direct communication from God himself, and the subjective element remains rational with an array of underlying  explanations.  One can have a testimony and be a fundamentalist or believe all of religion is allegory and have a testimony, or anything in between, including mixing and matching even seeing evolution as an allegory itself, for example.

Another way to say it is that the proof is in the pudding and the common element is personal revelation.  When God clobbers you and there is no other explanation other than a very clear demonstration that out there somewhere is an Intelligence far far beyond our abilities who yet knows and loves me- a feeling in your heart- then whatever explanation you want to make using words, > whatever words you want to use > becomes strictly a case of what story or paradigm you personally create.

You KNOW the feeling in your heart which cannot be spoken because literally there are no words to describe it!  A flood of warmth and love?  A still small voice?  How it happens is God's business and billions of people have made up their own stories over the years.

And remember the reason this feeling is not debatable is because it is about one's purpose in life- what path one wants to take toward total personal fulfillment!!   I cannot tell you what will best fulfill your "measure of creation and have joy therein!!

One may be an artist or a physician, a plumber or astronaut.   One may see your measure of creation as taking a path as a communist, ecologist, Catholic, Zoroastrian, Baptist or a score of secular ways to find meaning as well as many religious options.  One may be a Zoroastrian physician who wants to save the whales as a kind of "religion" which gives her life meaning.

And still that squares with the LDS view- which I find pragmatically to be the "best" precisely because it can accommodate all these variations rationally- with the safety valve that eventually ALL of mankind will SEE the pure functionality of the Covenant Path, precisely because of our view of the afterlife and eternal progression!!   After we "wake up dead"- assuming we will- ;)- we will look around and figure out that we ARE dead- and then proceed with that absolute certainty that there IS an afterlife- because we are IN IT!     If there is no afterlife.. it doesn't matter.  But it is still better - pragmatically I believe- to believe there IS

From there presumably there will be missionaries offering us options, including getting one's "work done"- ie: receiving LDS ordinances, or at least that is the most rational explanation for this whole Plan being totally just!   EVERYONE will progress, and if the path is NOT the LDS one literally- IF we are there to make our own way- as we are here, for example, forward we march hopefully in progression and not regression, "making our own worlds" literally or allegorically.

"OOPS- we should have been Buddhist!  Lookie there- this fellow has been through 7 lifetimes in his eternal progression!", and yet the notion of eternal progression is still a justifiable interpretation!   It makes "the system" both rational and just, just wanting in the details!  

For the last 2000 years there has been a major error, imo about how we see "reality" and we confuse our paradigms about seeing reality as one way or another, assuming that our VERBAL understanding - since it is always in language- is "correct" in that it corresponds to reality.  For example, if evolution is the case, there can be no God.

But there are two ways of seeing everything- one is the Public Reality - what society and science teaches- and that upon which we as a society agree upon.

That tells us that the earth's shape is linguistically defined as "a sphere")-note I did NOT say "The earth IS a sphere", there is a "vaccine for covid," (words left undefined but still 'true') and that to get to "Egypt" from "New York", one must travel "east."

Note that the alleged "truth" of any of those statements relies on linguistic definitions of each term in quotes.   Truth in those cases is not based on reality independent of the existence of humanity- but totally dependent on the existence OF humanity, linguistically!   What is "New York" "really"?   Get on a plane, fly over, and say "THIS- " !   Saying "the earth is a sphere" is saying - "Mankind defines the shape

But then there is also Private Reality- like "I really don't like that person"- or "I think the Democrats are right" or "I prefer chocolate ice cream" or "I want to be a fireman when I grow up" or "I know God exists, and Christ is his son"

Going in the right direction to get to Egypt has nothing to do with my preference for chocolate ice cream!!   Yet for me, both are absolutely true!

My great grandmother had a conversation with my dad when I was little.  Grandma had raised 5 children, was born in the 1860's, ran a business, was born in Poland, and got herself to America on a ship when the Prussian army led by Bismark decided to take over her country.  She wore black in her later years, and I remember the first time I saw the painting "Whistler's Mother"- I honestly thought it was a portrait of my grandma!

She was no dummy by any means, but was not exactly up on the atomic theory of the 1950's.  She never needed to be.   But one day my dad, an aerospace engineer, decided to talk to her about atoms.

"You know grandma, this chair you are sitting in, is made up of little tiny particles with other particles zooming around them, and though it seems solid, all those little pieces are going around and around- and there is actually space between them, and they are all in constant motion" said my Dad.

Grandma looked at him and looked at the chair and genuinely thought that he had gone totally wacko, and cried out for help with her grandson who was obviously somehow sick in his brain!

My dad's paradigm about reality in that conversation was the Public Reality taught by science ('objective".) and "true" to the extent of existing scientific paradigm.   Grandma's reality was her Private Reality- which was her EXPERIENCE of a chair- her stream of consciousness view which told her that a chair was solid, a comfortable place to rest, it might be ugly or beautiful or possess a score of experiential characteristics all of which were "true" from her perspective.

Which view was true?   Both!   Did one have anything to do with the other?  Not even slightly!!   Chairs can be made of buzzing atoms and be solid and beautiful and comfortable at the same time, depending on your perspective!!

God can be Master of the Universe and worlds without number, and note the fall of a sparrow.   And we have to be told He "knows our names"?  Come on!

My son was bright kid, now in his 30's.   He teaches science in High School because those were crucial years in his life, and he wants to help kids find their path.   I don't remember the remark, but I remember that he said something around 6 or so,  wise beyond his years, as kids often do.   I asked him "How did you KNOW THAT?"   His answer? "My brain told me!"   Poor kid was already listening to his dad!  ;)

 

More later... life intervenes, but I want to keep this ball rolling

 

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, exactly.  And I think that can be a useful tool for apologetics in a secular world.

The bottom line becomes spiritual experience can be what I believe it is,- direct communication from God himself, and the subjective element remains rational with an array of underlying  explanations.  One can have a testimony and be a fundamentalist or believe all of religion is allegory and have a testimony, or anything in between, including mixing and matching even seeing evolution as an allegory itself, for example.

Another way to say it is that the proof is in the pudding and the common element is personal revelation.  When God clobbers you and there is no other explanation other than a very clear demonstration that out there somewhere is an Intelligence far far beyond our abilities who yet knows and loves me- a feeling in your heart- then whatever explanation you want to make using words, > whatever words you want to use > becomes strictly a case of what story or paradigm you personally create.

You KNOW the feeling in your heart which cannot be spoken because literally there are no words to describe it!  A flood of warmth and love?  A still small voice?  How it happens is God's business and billions of people have made up their own stories over the years.

And remember the reason this feeling is not debatable is because it is about one's purpose in life- what path one wants to take toward total personal fulfillment!!   I cannot tell you what will best fulfill your "measure of creation and have joy therein!!

One may be an artist or a physician, a plumber or astronaut.   One may see your measure of creation as taking a path as a communist, ecologist, Catholic, Zoroastrian, Baptist or a score of secular ways to find meaning as well as many religious options.  One may be a Zoroastrian physician who wants to save the whales as a kind of "religion" which gives her life meaning.

And still that squares with the LDS view- which I find pragmatically to be the "best" precisely because it can accommodate all these variations rationally- with the safety valve that eventually ALL of mankind will SEE the pure functionality of the Covenant Path, precisely because of our view of the afterlife and eternal progression!!   After we "wake up dead"- assuming we will- ;)- we will look around and figure out that we ARE dead- and then proceed with that absolute certainty that there IS an afterlife- because we are IN IT!     If there is no afterlife.. it doesn't matter.  But it is still better - pragmatically I believe- to believe there IS

From there presumably there will be missionaries offering us options, including getting one's "work done"- ie: receiving LDS ordinances, or at least that is the most rational explanation for this whole Plan being totally just!   EVERYONE will progress, and if the path is NOT the LDS one literally- IF we are there to make our own way- as we are here, for example, forward we march hopefully in progression and not regression, "making our own worlds" literally or allegorically.

"OOPS- we should have been Buddhist!  Lookie there- this fellow has been through 7 lifetimes in his eternal progression!", and yet the notion of eternal progression is still a justifiable interpretation!   It makes "the system" both rational and just, just wanting in the details!  

For the last 2000 years there has been a major error, imo about how we see "reality" and we confuse our paradigms about seeing reality as one way or another, assuming that our VERBAL understanding - since it is always in language- is "correct" in that it corresponds to reality.  For example, if evolution is the case, there can be no God.

But there are two ways of seeing everything- one is the Public Reality - what society and science teaches- and that upon which we as a society agree upon.

That tells us that the earth's shape is linguistically defined as "a sphere")-note I did NOT say "The earth IS a sphere", there is a "vaccine for covid," (words left undefined but still 'true') and that to get to "Egypt" from "New York", one must travel "east."

Note that the alleged "truth" of any of those statements relies on linguistic definitions of each term in quotes.   Truth in those cases is not based on reality independent of the existence of humanity- but totally dependent on the existence OF humanity, linguistically!   What is "New York" "really"?   Get on a plane, fly over, and say "THIS- " !   Saying "the earth is a sphere" is saying - "Mankind defines the shape

But then there is also Private Reality- like "I really don't like that person"- or "I think the Democrats are right" or "I prefer chocolate ice cream" or "I want to be a fireman when I grow up" or "I know God exists, and Christ is his son"

Going in the right direction to get to Egypt has nothing to do with my preference for chocolate ice cream!!   Yet for me, both are absolutely true!

My great grandmother had a conversation with my dad when I was little.  Grandma had raised 5 children, was born in the 1860's, ran a business, was born in Poland, and got herself to America on a ship when the Prussian army led by Bismark decided to take over her country.  She wore black in her later years, and I remember the first time I saw the painting "Whistler's Mother"- I honestly thought it was a portrait of my grandma!

She was no dummy by any means, but was not exactly up on the atomic theory of the 1950's.  She never needed to be.   But one day my dad, an aerospace engineer, decided to talk to her about atoms.

"You know grandma, this chair you are sitting in, is made up of little tiny particles with other particles zooming around them, and though it seems solid, all those little pieces are going around and around- and there is actually space between them, and they are all in constant motion" said my Dad.

Grandma looked at him and looked at the chair and genuinely thought that he had gone totally wacko, and cried out for help with her grandson who was obviously somehow sick in his brain!

My dad's paradigm about reality in that conversation was the Public Reality taught by science ('objective".) and "true" to the extent of existing scientific paradigm.   Grandma's reality was her Private Reality- which was her EXPERIENCE of a chair- her stream of consciousness view which told her that a chair was solid, a comfortable place to rest, it might be ugly or beautiful or possess a score of experiential characteristics all of which were "true" from her perspective.

Which view was true?   Both!   Did one have anything to do with the other?  Not even slightly!!   Chairs can be made of buzzing atoms and be solid and beautiful and comfortable at the same time, depending on your perspective!!

God can be Master of the Universe and worlds without number, and note the fall of a sparrow.   And we have to be told He "knows our names"?  Come on!

My son was bright kid, now in his 30's.   He teaches science in High School because those were crucial years in his life, and he wants to help kids find their path.   I don't remember the remark, but I remember that he said something around 6 or so,  wise beyond his years, as kids often do.   I asked him "How did you KNOW THAT?"   His answer? "My brain told me!"   Poor kid was already listening to his dad!  ;)

 

More later... life intervenes, but I want to keep this ball rolling

Much of what you say here reminds me of D&C 88: "All kingdoms have a law given; And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions." I think you are describing the panoply of kingdoms that God's children create by virtue of the choices we make in the place, time and circumstance in which we find ourselves, and given that we are "co-eternal," have access to the greater (greatest? most great?) kingdoms whose inhabitants love and invite us to join them.

I think this approach at the very least diffuses the enmity that can arise between an atheist and a believer, at which point the atheist must determine whether or how he will apply this perspective to be happiest. It is then a matter of which kingdom, the atheist kingdom or the believer kingdom (rather, which inhabitant of the respective kingdoms), has what it takes to out-love and thereby out-invite the other?

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Much of what you say here reminds me of D&C 88: "All kingdoms have a law given; And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions." I think you are describing the panoply of kingdoms that God's children create by virtue of the choices we make in the place, time and circumstance in which we find ourselves, and given that we are "co-eternal," have access to the greater (greatest? most great?) kingdoms whose inhabitants love and invite us to join them.

I think this approach at the very least diffuses the enmity that can arise between an atheist and a believer, at which point the atheist must determine whether or how he will apply this perspective to be happiest. It is then a matter of which kingdom, the atheist kingdom or the believer kingdom (rather, which inhabitant of the respective kingdoms), has what it takes to out-love and thereby out-invite the other?

Agree! 

It totally destroys imo the atheist argument that there is no "objective evidence for God's existence" wielded by some very intelligent people, including Hawking and others

 Belief in God is not ABOUT anything objective, it is like knowing what is right or wrong, and one's purpose in life. There is no objective evidence that murder is wrong.

There is yet another aspect of this to cover to make it a full theory for scriptural interpretation, and that is how language creates reality AS WE KNOW IT, and perhaps that is already clear.

What we collectively know MUST be able to be expressed in language, virtually by definition! 

But many see this idea as secular philosophy but it has vast scriptural evidence illustrated in interpretations from Jews, Catholics, linguists, and theologians, in general.

I will put a few references together to create a short bibliography for my own use, but I will also post it so that others know that crazy Bukowski is not making this stuff up! ;)

That point backs up the whole notion that scripture RATIONALLY backs up not only one interpretation, but many, but imo especially the LDS view 

AND the view itself is humanistic,with God/Christ as the perfect human to emulate to make humanity itself perfected.

What could be more humanistic  than helping each human to fill their highest potential?

Humanism becomes theology!

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree! 

It totally destroys imo the atheist argument that there is no "objective evidence for God's existence" wielded by some very intelligent people, including Hawking and others

 Belief in God is not ABOUT anything objective, it is like knowing what is right or wrong, and one's purpose in life. There is no objective evidence that murder is wrong.

There is yet another aspect of this to cover to make it a full theory for scriptural interpretation, and that is how language creates reality AS WE KNOW IT, and perhaps that is already clear.

What we collectively know MUST be able to be expressed in language, virtually by definition! 

But many see this idea as secular philosophy but it has vast scriptural evidence illustrated in interpretations from Jews, Catholics, linguists, and theologians, in general.

I will put a few references together to create a short bibliography for my own use, but I will also post it so that others know that crazy Bukowski is not making this stuff up! ;)

That point backs up the whole notion that scripture RATIONALLY backs up not only one interpretation, but many, but imo especially the LDS view 

AND the view itself is humanistic,with God/Christ as the perfect human to emulate to make humanity itself perfected.

What could be more humanistic  than helping each human to fill their highest potential?

Humanism becomes theology!

 

Yes, those who control the language (e.g. definitions, interpretations) create the reality. For example, you redefined "humanistic/humanism" : there is no objective measure for being human or moral (using murder as an example), and in defiance of the definers-that-be, the Divine are, subjectively, perfect humans in the same way that we are humans with needs, problems and moral deficits.

ETA: Our daughter is recommending a book, "All Things New: Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between" by Fiona Givens and Terryl Givens. I have an inkling it might touch on some of these themes about how the original words and meanings used in ancient scripture back up the LDS view.

Edited by CV75
Link to post
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, those who control the language (e.g. definitions, interpretations) create the reality. For example, you redefined "humanistic/humanism" : there is no objective measure for being human or moral (using murder as an example), and in defiance of the definers-that-be, the Divine are, subjectively, perfect humans in the same way that we are humans with needs, problems and moral deficits.

ETA: Our daughter is recommending a book, "All Things New: Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between" by Fiona Givens and Terryl Givens. I have an inkling it might touch on some of these themes about how the original words and meanings used in ancient scripture back up the LDS view.

Oh yes, the Givens totally get it but usually have to dumb it down. Gotta check that book out!

The deal here is that we correctly differentiate between scripture and philosophy but I make sure that philosophy is used to INTERPRET scripture. That is unavoidable

But we can't justify changing Doctrine by saying something like "Well Jesus was not completely human because...."

The Father embodied? Absolutely!!

The key is that interpretations can be paradigms- and change with the times, while the scriptures are the scriptures. They may be added to or adjusted by Prophets, but not academics

"No, it really says..." doesn't work.

"One possible way to interpret this..." is not messing with the division between philosophy and scripture.

BUT philosophers of language already know that words are not actually about REALITY but about how we SEE reality, as you suggest.

There is always that difference between the CAUSES of our perceptions and the world as we envision it. We can never get to those causes because we see darkly through our mirrors- mostly learning more about how we see ourselves than what lies beyond! We get stuck in how we envision the world and can never get past that. 

We think that we are learning more about the world while we learn more about how we see the world, and how we define it.

"But the world was perfectly designed for us to use"

Yes, that is one paradigm. But another is that we have evolved through eons of struggle and death to make sense of it, to see what works, and die when we make a mistake. :)

Pick your paradigms carefully

;)

I still want to get those links up from the Catholic bishop and Jewish rabbi and the atheist saying the same thing about God (Mankind): that we create worlds of what is perceived as "reality" through words.

And yes, for us, God could be seen as a metaphor for "Humanity" and vice versa. ;)

Dan Peterson gives a great example of how language can mess up reason:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2021/02/for-want-of-a-butterfly-the-nail-was-driven-into-the-tree-with-a-cheetah-in-it-or-something-like-that.html

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yes, the Givens totally get it but usually have to dumb it down. Gotta check that book out!

The deal here is that we correctly differentiate between scripture and philosophy but I make sure that philosophy is used to INTERPRET scripture. That is unavoidable

But we can't justify changing Doctrine by saying something like "Well Jesus was not completely human because...."

The Father embodied? Absolutely!!

The key is that interpretations can be paradigms- and change with the times, while the scriptures are the scriptures. They may be added to or adjusted by Prophets, but not academics

"No, it really says..." doesn't work.

"One possible way to interpret this..." is not messing with the division between philosophy and scripture.

BUT philosophers of language already know that words are not actually about REALITY but about how we SEE reality, as you suggest.

There is always that difference between the CAUSES of our perceptions and the world as we envision it. We can never get to those causes because we see darkly through our mirrors- mostly learning more about how we see ourselves than what lies beyond! We get stuck in how we envision the world and can never get past that. 

We think that we are learning more about the world while we learn more about how we see the world, and how we define it.

"But the world was perfectly designed for us to use"

Yes, that is one paradigm. But another is that we have evolved through eons of struggle and death to make sense of it, to see what works, and die when we make a mistake. :)

Pick your paradigms carefully

;)

I still want to get those links up from the Catholic bishop and Jewish rabbi and the atheist saying the same thing about God (Mankind): that we create worlds of what is perceived as "reality" through words.

And yes, for us, God could be seen as a metaphor for "Humanity" and vice versa. ;)

Dan Peterson gives a great example of how language can mess up reason:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2021/02/for-want-of-a-butterfly-the-nail-was-driven-into-the-tree-with-a-cheetah-in-it-or-something-like-that.html

 

I'm reading this with an eye toward apologetics aimed at atheists/secularists/humanists, most of whom I suppose are as casual practitioners as people with religion who come across the Church and need a fairly distilled explanation that can resonate with them spiritually (aside from a loving and inviting demeanor). Fore those that need the lesson, this experience can also be pointed out as not objectively measurable.

If you can articulate how people thought and their paradigms in ancient times vs today, casting light on their oral traditions and writings which became scripture that carried into modern times, you might easily describe how God is conceptually Human. When I read the Old Testament for example, all the blessings are very much of this world (lands, children, flocks, etc.)... or are they? 

Link to post
On 2/10/2021 at 10:55 PM, mfbukowski said:

I was working on a reply, lengthy and imo important and my computer shut OFF for some totally unexplainable reason.  OFF

I've had that happen to me from time to time -- always when I am writing online for MDDB. Bluescreened. Kapowie.

Anyway, I have a backup plan for that. I use a Notebook alternative called Notepad++. I allows for multiple tabs, and it saves while editing. It's somewhat convoluted to remember to use it, and I don't always use it (not using it now in fact) but if I fear something might get lost, I copy/paste the MDDB thing I'm responding to into Notepadd++. And type into N++ instead. If my machine bluescreens, the next time I bring it back up Notepad++ has the text I forgot to save standing tall and looking good. I can close the program without saving anything and it keeps everything available for the next time it starts up. It magic! And it's totally free. When I finish writing in Notepad++ I just copy and paste back into MDDB. Of course things might need formatting, but that's a small price to pay. But only if your machine is Windows. It doesn't do Mac.

Notepad++

 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to post
4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm reading this with an eye toward apologetics aimed at atheists/secularists/humanists, most of whom I suppose are as casual practitioners as people with religion who come across the Church and need a fairly distilled explanation that can resonate with them spiritually (aside from a loving and inviting demeanor). Fore those that need the lesson, this experience can also be pointed out as not objectively measurable.

If you can articulate how people thought and their paradigms in ancient times vs today, casting light on their oral traditions and writings which became scripture that carried into modern times, you might easily describe how God is conceptually Human. When I read the Old Testament for example, all the blessings are very much of this world (lands, children, flocks, etc.)... or are they? 

Well it's clear to me that anciently in practically all cultures it boils down to a Father-Sky-God who was human- like the God of Abraham.  Look at Paulsen's "God of Abraham Issac and William James" https://philarchive.org/archive/PAUTGOv3  to see how clearly the 'modern" God of pragmatism- and I would argue, as P does, LDS beliefs- corresponds to a Super Human.  The word "Jupiter" is a corruption of "Zeus Pater" - literally "Zeus Father" which evolves linguistically into "Deus Pater"- or literally God Father.   That initial consonant remains with different pronunciations- or really "accents= accidents";) in pronunciation.   So everybody starts out pretty much with Sky Father Superman which of course one can see one way- as a primitive projection of sexist patriarchy or as we see Him as our LDS Heavenly Father.   Again, pick your paradigms with care!

So yes the rewards are of the world

The two concepts of Reality are directly traceable to two Greek philosophers- one is Plato and the other is Heraclitus.

I told the story of my father vs my great grandmother seeing reality differently- on that model, Grandma would represent Heraclitus and Dad would represent  Plato and the chain he started through Descartes.  

We have to go back to believing that all things are composed of 4 elements, earth, air fire and water.   Therefore all was describable in those terms.   For Heraclitus the most basic substrate or element of reality- Rorty might say the "unseen cause of our perceptions" was water and it was unknowable variations in that substrate that "cause" our perceptions.

Heraclitus was ultimately a pragmatist!  He saw the world much as I do- as a continually changing world unknowable except by our perceptions.   He saw it as made of experience which was constantly changing- we would call it a "stream of consciousness"- and in fact used the metaphor of a river to describe reality.  He is describing here our private reality that is constantly relational and changing.  He said that we can never step into the same river twice- a brilliant metaphor for how the world appears to us subjectively.  In a real river, stepping into it itself creates swirls and eddies, and changes the river.  The arrangement of the leaves and sticks washing downstream can never be the "same" so is it the "same river" or not?   Heraclitus might argue that it is not.

Some event happening can change our private worlds in an instant.  Someone dies.  Someone cuts in front of us on the freeway.  We hit a patch of ice or trip and fall- and the world itself- our personal world- changes drastically.   That is the world of contemporary Phenomenology and Pragmatism in fact, as well as OUR LDS view of spiritual experience.  Joseph goes into the woods to pray and the world is never the same afterwards.  The river of experience is now an entirely different river- God has shown Himself!

But Plato takes that one world, personal way of seeing everything and slices it in two.  This is often called "Platonic Dualism" or later as "Aristotelian Dualism" then "Cartesian Dualism"

There is the physical world around us which is an illusion, and then there is the "real" world of Forms.  Mostly we live in a world of illusion but reality itself is of a higher order- it is unchanging and eternal.  We know what a particular "chair" is- I am looking at one right now- it is an over stuffed chair with blue upholstery and was originally part of a sectional couch which wore out and now we use that part as a VERY comfortable "chair".   How do I KNOW it is a chair?

I know it is a chair because I have an IDEAL IMAGE of a CHAIR in my mind- in the Mental Reality which is unchanging.  It is an Ideal Form by which we recognize what a chair is regardless of the particular chair- it is an idealized description of a chair.

And so now we have the world of Forms- Or Ideas- of perfect chairs, which is unchanging.  We will always know what a chair is BECAUSE of the Unchanging reality accessible through reason.  Even though my overstuffed blue thing is called a "chair" it is LIKE a folding chair in church in function and generally in shape, we recognize BOTH as "chairs" because we have the mental abstract image in our minds of the form and function of what we call a "chair".

So there is an abstract well known and understood IDEA of a chair existing eternally.  

But there are obviously differences between my wonderful stuffed blue chair and folding chairs at church, but these are "accidents".  They are Particular to an individual chair.  So my chair may have the "accidents" of being blue and being stuffed and being comfortable, whereas the one at church may be brown and stiff and uncomfortable, they both fulfill the IDEA or FORM of CHAIRNESS to various degrees.

So using a different modern analogy, the world in which we are immersed is a world of particuars and appearances but is not real- what is real are abstractions and ideas which are reflected as it were in the particulars.   So going abroad in the world is like walking through a motion picture- nothing we see or feel is "real" because they are all just images of their ideal abstract selves, just as a movie is nothing but images which we might mistake AS "reality" and reflections of TRUTH which is always unchanging and abstract.

The best way to explain it is to think in terms of geometric shapes- which is appropriate since Plato was schooled by Pythagoras- yes- the triangle guy!   One can think abstractly about a Perfect triangle as a Form from which all other triangles derive.   So a farmer 2500 years ago in Greece could measure his personal field by using the abstract Form of triangles invented by Pythagoras even though the "accidents" of his particular field intervened in the form of rocks and hills and trees and pre-existing stone fences perhaps, etc.

That would be the pragmatic application of the abstract mathematical truth and demonstrates well I think why such a split between the ideal and the "real world" was necessary.

Unfortunately for them though- the "real world" was NOT the rocks and trees- but the Abstract Ideal.   THAT was about as far from a pragmatic approach you could get!

The measure of truth then in this abstract world is how much the words correspond to the FORM of truth- to the abstract idea of the Form of the thing.  How close is the muddy triangular  field with hills and valleys to Pythagoras'Triangle Ideal Field?   

"THAT is what I get to plant on this year" and THAT reality is it's humanistic importance and significance - completely divorced from the human reality, and seen only as important in the abstract. 

And seeing God as the Abstract Form of Goodness doesn't exactly give comfort when people die and winds blow

So is God personal?  Of course not!  To be human is to be changing and illusory- matter itself is an illusion- again what is real are FORMS.  Seeing God in human way is simply primitive.  A philosopher/churchman named Plotinus takes these ideas of Plato and brings them into Christianity.

God becomes goodness itself.  He cannot be human because that is to impose all the characteristics of fallen humanity onto the Abstract Form of Goodness itself.   God is the Idea of Ideas, absolutely transcendent.  

Well unfortunately it is hard to reconcile God's transcendence with a being who came to earth and was crucified for us and how that supposedly takes away our sins, and how three persons share their BEING and all the other contradictions of standard Christianity as we see it.  An abstract God does not mess around with matter- or least of all create out of it- that might get his hands dirty!  ;)   He - using the personal pronoun itself is an error really- - The Being - the Great I Am- the Self Existent One simply thinks and things appear ex nihilo.

But even saying that gets it wrong because we cannot fathom what those words even mean.  Does such a God "think"?  How is thinking an activity for One who does nothing else?  Does He "speak"?  But those are some of the contradictions between the philosophers and the scriptures that muddied Christianity with the usual problems.

And so the Great Divide comes into western thought.

By the time of the renaissance we find Descartes also with a great divide, but now it has morphed more concretely to Ideas vs Reality- or the divided worlds today as spirituality vs science.

This is manifested in the divide between appearances and "reality".   Reality is what is seen by science as "objective" reality, meaning that it is NOT about personal perception but about what can be linguistically stated so that it is measurable so that all can see the same reality.   Instead of Private Reality there is only Public Reality-these are terms/paradigms I am inventing/ plucking out of the air which I think describe the belief behind them better than other ways of saying it.

Over time the divide morphs into what we now know as "science vs religion" which is really just a conflation of private with public reality and private vs public truth.

The correspondence theory of reality reigns but is one of the most obvious no-brainer mistakes of all time in my mind.

How can words "correspond to reality" when reality- the underlying substrate which presumably "causes perceptions" by definition CANNOT BE PERCEIVED, since all we perceive are.... wait for it... ;).... perceptions???

Do we see atoms and quarks in grandma's chair or do we see beautifully stained wood and colored cloth upon which we can rest ourselves in complete comfort?  In the realm of our private experience how different is being "comfortable" and experiencing a wave of love and peace from "The Comforter"?   How can something we directly perceive as "comfort" be less real than quarks subatomic particles?

Which then is "real"?  ;)

The pragmatists and now the Neo Pragmatists and other movements see the need for combining private reality with public reality in a new science which does not yet fully exist, but is being created.  

The goal is to remove the great divide between reality and appearance and describe things phenomenologically. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nTRunosX8w

This last link goes to a revised and longer Rorty video than the old one.

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I've had that happen to me from time to time -- always when I am writing online for MDDB. Bluescreened. Kapowie.

Anyway, I have a backup plan for that. I use a Notebook alternative called Notepad++. I allows for multiple tabs, and it saves while editing. It's somewhat convoluted to remember to use it, and I don't always use it (not using it now in fact) but if I fear something might get lost, I copy/paste the MDDB thing I'm responding to into Notepadd++. And type into N++ instead. If my machine bluescreens, the next time I bring it back up Notepad++ has the text I forgot to save standing tall and looking good. I can close the program without saving anything and it keeps everything available for the next time it starts up. It magic! And it's totally free. When I finish writing in Notepad++ I just copy and paste back into MDDB. Of course things might need formatting, but that's a small price to pay. But only if your machine is Windows. It doesn't do Mac.

Notepad++

 

thanks I will check it out!

Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I've had that happen to me from time to time -- always when I am writing online for MDDB. Bluescreened. Kapowie.

Anyway, I have a backup plan for that. I use a Notebook alternative called Notepad++. I allows for multiple tabs, and it saves while editing. It's somewhat convoluted to remember to use it, and I don't always use it (not using it now in fact) but if I fear something might get lost, I copy/paste the MDDB thing I'm responding to into Notepadd++. And type into N++ instead. If my machine bluescreens, the next time I bring it back up Notepad++ has the text I forgot to save standing tall and looking good. I can close the program without saving anything and it keeps everything available for the next time it starts up. It magic! And it's totally free. When I finish writing in Notepad++ I just copy and paste back into MDDB. Of course things might need formatting, but that's a small price to pay. But only if your machine is Windows. It doesn't do Mac.

Notepad++

 

Oh btw, yes "I can see that"

Link to post
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh btw, yes "I can see that"

Sorry, I'm not getting the reference...

Link to post
20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well it's clear to me that anciently in practically all cultures it boils down to a Father-Sky-God who was human- like the God of Abraham.  Look at Paulsen's "God of Abraham Issac and William James" https://philarchive.org/archive/PAUTGOv3  to see how clearly the 'modern" God of pragmatism- and I would argue, as P does, LDS beliefs- corresponds to a Super Human.  The word "Jupiter" is a corruption of "Zeus Pater" - literally "Zeus Father" which evolves linguistically into "Deus Pater"- or literally God Father.   That initial consonant remains with different pronunciations- or really "accents= accidents";) in pronunciation.   So everybody starts out pretty much with Sky Father Superman which of course one can see one way- as a primitive projection of sexist patriarchy or as we see Him as our LDS Heavenly Father.   Again, pick your paradigms with care!

So yes the rewards are of the world

The two concepts of Reality are directly traceable to two Greek philosophers- one is Plato and the other is Heraclitus.

I told the story of my father vs my great grandmother seeing reality differently- on that model, Grandma would represent Heraclitus and Dad would represent  Plato and the chain he started through Descartes.  

We have to go back to believing that all things are composed of 4 elements, earth, air fire and water.   Therefore all was describable in those terms.   For Heraclitus the most basic substrate or element of reality- Rorty might say the "unseen cause of our perceptions" was water and it was unknowable variations in that substrate that "cause" our perceptions.

Heraclitus was ultimately a pragmatist!  He saw the world much as I do- as a continually changing world unknowable except by our perceptions.   He saw it as made of experience which was constantly changing- we would call it a "stream of consciousness"- and in fact used the metaphor of a river to describe reality.  He is describing here our private reality that is constantly relational and changing.  He said that we can never step into the same river twice- a brilliant metaphor for how the world appears to us subjectively.  In a real river, stepping into it itself creates swirls and eddies, and changes the river.  The arrangement of the leaves and sticks washing downstream can never be the "same" so is it the "same river" or not?   Heraclitus might argue that it is not.

Some event happening can change our private worlds in an instant.  Someone dies.  Someone cuts in front of us on the freeway.  We hit a patch of ice or trip and fall- and the world itself- our personal world- changes drastically.   That is the world of contemporary Phenomenology and Pragmatism in fact, as well as OUR LDS view of spiritual experience.  Joseph goes into the woods to pray and the world is never the same afterwards.  The river of experience is now an entirely different river- God has shown Himself!

But Plato takes that one world, personal way of seeing everything and slices it in two.  This is often called "Platonic Dualism" or later as "Aristotelian Dualism" then "Cartesian Dualism"

There is the physical world around us which is an illusion, and then there is the "real" world of Forms.  Mostly we live in a world of illusion but reality itself is of a higher order- it is unchanging and eternal.  We know what a particular "chair" is- I am looking at one right now- it is an over stuffed chair with blue upholstery and was originally part of a sectional couch which wore out and now we use that part as a VERY comfortable "chair".   How do I KNOW it is a chair?

I know it is a chair because I have an IDEAL IMAGE of a CHAIR in my mind- in the Mental Reality which is unchanging.  It is an Ideal Form by which we recognize what a chair is regardless of the particular chair- it is an idealized description of a chair.

And so now we have the world of Forms- Or Ideas- of perfect chairs, which is unchanging.  We will always know what a chair is BECAUSE of the Unchanging reality accessible through reason.  Even though my overstuffed blue thing is called a "chair" it is LIKE a folding chair in church in function and generally in shape, we recognize BOTH as "chairs" because we have the mental abstract image in our minds of the form and function of what we call a "chair".

So there is an abstract well known and understood IDEA of a chair existing eternally.  

But there are obviously differences between my wonderful stuffed blue chair and folding chairs at church, but these are "accidents".  They are Particular to an individual chair.  So my chair may have the "accidents" of being blue and being stuffed and being comfortable, whereas the one at church may be brown and stiff and uncomfortable, they both fulfill the IDEA or FORM of CHAIRNESS to various degrees.

So using a different modern analogy, the world in which we are immersed is a world of particuars and appearances but is not real- what is real are abstractions and ideas which are reflected as it were in the particulars.   So going abroad in the world is like walking through a motion picture- nothing we see or feel is "real" because they are all just images of their ideal abstract selves, just as a movie is nothing but images which we might mistake AS "reality" and reflections of TRUTH which is always unchanging and abstract.

The best way to explain it is to think in terms of geometric shapes- which is appropriate since Plato was schooled by Pythagoras- yes- the triangle guy!   One can think abstractly about a Perfect triangle as a Form from which all other triangles derive.   So a farmer 2500 years ago in Greece could measure his personal field by using the abstract Form of triangles invented by Pythagoras even though the "accidents" of his particular field intervened in the form of rocks and hills and trees and pre-existing stone fences perhaps, etc.

That would be the pragmatic application of the abstract mathematical truth and demonstrates well I think why such a split between the ideal and the "real world" was necessary.

Unfortunately for them though- the "real world" was NOT the rocks and trees- but the Abstract Ideal.   THAT was about as far from a pragmatic approach you could get!

The measure of truth then in this abstract world is how much the words correspond to the FORM of truth- to the abstract idea of the Form of the thing.  How close is the muddy triangular  field with hills and valleys to Pythagoras'Triangle Ideal Field?   

"THAT is what I get to plant on this year" and THAT reality is it's humanistic importance and significance - completely divorced from the human reality, and seen only as important in the abstract. 

And seeing God as the Abstract Form of Goodness doesn't exactly give comfort when people die and winds blow

So is God personal?  Of course not!  To be human is to be changing and illusory- matter itself is an illusion- again what is real are FORMS.  Seeing God in human way is simply primitive.  A philosopher/churchman named Plotinus takes these ideas of Plato and brings them into Christianity.

God becomes goodness itself.  He cannot be human because that is to impose all the characteristics of fallen humanity onto the Abstract Form of Goodness itself.   God is the Idea of Ideas, absolutely transcendent.  

Well unfortunately it is hard to reconcile God's transcendence with a being who came to earth and was crucified for us and how that supposedly takes away our sins, and how three persons share their BEING and all the other contradictions of standard Christianity as we see it.  An abstract God does not mess around with matter- or least of all create out of it- that might get his hands dirty!  ;)   He - using the personal pronoun itself is an error really- - The Being - the Great I Am- the Self Existent One simply thinks and things appear ex nihilo.

But even saying that gets it wrong because we cannot fathom what those words even mean.  Does such a God "think"?  How is thinking an activity for One who does nothing else?  Does He "speak"?  But those are some of the contradictions between the philosophers and the scriptures that muddied Christianity with the usual problems.

And so the Great Divide comes into western thought.

By the time of the renaissance we find Descartes also with a great divide, but now it has morphed more concretely to Ideas vs Reality- or the divided worlds today as spirituality vs science.

This is manifested in the divide between appearances and "reality".   Reality is what is seen by science as "objective" reality, meaning that it is NOT about personal perception but about what can be linguistically stated so that it is measurable so that all can see the same reality.   Instead of Private Reality there is only Public Reality-these are terms/paradigms I am inventing/ plucking out of the air which I think describe the belief behind them better than other ways of saying it.

Over time the divide morphs into what we now know as "science vs religion" which is really just a conflation of private with public reality and private vs public truth.

The correspondence theory of reality reigns but is one of the most obvious no-brainer mistakes of all time in my mind.

How can words "correspond to reality" when reality- the underlying substrate which presumably "causes perceptions" by definition CANNOT BE PERCEIVED, since all we perceive are.... wait for it... ;).... perceptions???

Do we see atoms and quarks in grandma's chair or do we see beautifully stained wood and colored cloth upon which we can rest ourselves in complete comfort?  In the realm of our private experience how different is being "comfortable" and experiencing a wave of love and peace from "The Comforter"?   How can something we directly perceive as "comfort" be less real than quarks subatomic particles?

Which then is "real"?  ;)

The pragmatists and now the Neo Pragmatists and other movements see the need for combining private reality with public reality in a new science which does not yet fully exist, but is being created.  

The goal is to remove the great divide between reality and appearance and describe things phenomenologically. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nTRunosX8w

This last link goes to a revised and longer Rorty video than the old one.

There is certainly a difference between apologetics and proselyting -- not that they cannot be somehow married together!

Link to post
10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Sorry, I'm not getting the reference...

My bad. It was part of a note to myself transferring text from one app to another, where my question to myself was "Can you see this?"

 How it got into this post I do not understand.

Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

There is certainly a difference between apologetics and proselyting -- not that they cannot be somehow married together!

That has been a problem for me, too.

Cartesian dualism, starting with Plato and Aristotle have so split ordinary human life experiences between science and religion so far that it never may be resolved.

We are now only a hundred years or so into thinking of this new way of thinking, and the church now scares its BYU boys into not being able to say that truth is relative, their jobs depend on not saying that. We don't want to mingle philosophy and scripture, do we ? Then we get a few who totally get it like Ostler and Givens who don't need BYU income who hint around the edges.  Faulconer totally gets it as a Heideggerian and is doing a great job with these younger phenomenologists like Mason etc, but it will take years before the general church population gets it, if ever.  Unchangeable truth is totally at odds with eternal progression without heavy mental gymnastics like that which was generated by McConkie's attempt at making God unable to progress in knowledge. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/seven-deadly-heresies/

So we live in "interesting times"

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

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My bad. It was part of a note to myself transferring text from one app to another, where my question to myself was "Can you see this?"

 How it got into this post I do not understand.

Oh, I got it now. I betcha it was a response to my previous signature, which was "Can you see this?"

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

That has been a problem for me, too.

Cartesian dualism, starting with Plato and Aristotle have so split ordinary human life experiences between science and religion so far that it never may be resolved.

We are now only a hundred years or so into thinking of this new way of thinking, and the church now scares its BYU boys into not being able to say that truth is relative, their jobs depend on not saying that. We don't want to mingle philosophy and scripture, do we ? Then we get a few who totally get it like Ostler and Givens who don't need BYU income who hint around the edges.  Faulconer totally gets it as a Heideggerian and is doing a great job with these younger phenomenologists like Mason etc, but it will take years before the general church population gets it, if ever.  Unchangeable truth is totally at odds with eternal progression without heavy mental gymnastics like that which was generated by McConkie's attempt at making God unable to progress in knowledge. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/seven-deadly-heresies/

So we live in "interesting times"

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

 

When you say their jobs depend on it, which classes/courses/institutes are you referring to? 

It may be a problem for the Brethren, too: I'm sure they are all for advancing scholarship in philosophical studies while also sensitive to how the Gospel message is presented so that people can experience, and then receive through ordinance, the Holy Ghost and discover that "absolute truth" is that most precious belief which is discerned as "real" and "tastes good," and that there are advancing levels of this perfect knowledge (Alma 32). As we find out later, works and words without end offer this perspective.

This is why I often say that faith and knowledge are the same thing, or two forms of the same thing, or at least a complementing oppositional pair that creates a new unit, or whole (like marriage).

Related to presenting the Gospel message, the invitation is to experiment on some some very few basics -- the most precious beliefs -- of the Restoration so people can build from there.

Link to post
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Unchangeable truth is totally at odds with eternal progression without heavy mental gymnastics like that which was generated by McConkie's attempt at making God unable to progress in knowledge. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/seven-deadly-heresies/

I don't think unchangeable truths are at issue with God's ability to progress.  More the idea that there is a finite body of truth that can all be known by a deity.  There are certainly unchangeable truths, but truth itself continues to expand and come into existence.

Either way though McConkie was wrong.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

I’m late to the thread, but I’ll go with natural law having the ledger.

Justice means that choices have consequences.  That’s a universal law. Cause and effect.  Action and reaction (I apologize if I sound like the Merovingian from Matrix Reloaded).

We can’t truly have agency without consequence.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
9 hours ago, CV75 said:

When you say their jobs depend on it, which classes/courses/institutes are you referring to? 

It may be a problem for the Brethren, too: I'm sure they are all for advancing scholarship in philosophical studies while also sensitive to how the Gospel message is presented so that people can experience, and then receive through ordinance, the Holy Ghost and discover that "absolute truth" is that most precious belief which is discerned as "real" and "tastes good," and that there are advancing levels of this perfect knowledge (Alma 32). As we find out later, works and words without end offer this perspective.

This is why I often say that faith and knowledge are the same thing, or two forms of the same thing, or at least a complementing oppositional pair that creates a new unit, or whole (like marriage).

Related to presenting the Gospel message, the invitation is to experiment on some some very few basics -- the most precious beliefs -- of the Restoration so people can build from there.

Anything I say about BYU is totally speculation.  What I do know is that they are not known to be a leading university in secular academic philosophy.   I cannot imagine why they could not be leaders in theology or that branch of philosophy but there are not.  I did not mean to imply, if I did that they would be "fired" if they had the wrong opinions- it's just that in my experience, in philosophy grad school there are strong and weak schools in every branch of philosophy and typically a department will specialize in something.

When I did my grad work I was at City U of NY Queens College which very strong in Pragmatism and the religious direction it can take.  It was the place to be and I had to move there from CA to NYC after a lot of investigations (early '70'S)

If anyone has further comments, or if I am wrong, let me know and I will correct my statements.  It's just a hunch from what I have seen, though maybe they are now getting strong in Heidegger 

AND I totally agree with the rest of your statements here

Incidentally I do believe in absolute and eternal truth about these matters, but the only way we could hold that imo is as personal beliefs.   I believe along with Wittgenstein and James and others that "certainty" is a psychological state, like being angry or loving etc.

And so I personally am absolutely sure that God lives, but I cannot prove that for others.  I have no doubt whatsoever because I communicate with Him.  So for me, his existence is absolute true and certain

I also agree with the yin and yang and the idea of an "opositional pair"- great phrase!   Sometimes more oppositional than others....  ;)

Joseph of course spoke about "proving contraries" which to me is actually speaking of dialectical thinking which of course fits well with the tradition within German philosophy starting with Schopenhauer and Hegel and then on to Kant, who came up with the whole idea that we create to an extent- our world through what he called the "synthetic apriori" but that is another story.

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think unchangeable truths are at issue with God's ability to progress.  More the idea that there is a finite body of truth that can all be known by a deity.  There are certainly unchangeable truths, but truth itself continues to expand and come into existence.

Either way though McConkie was wrong.

Well I just have trouble even understanding what a "finite body of truth" would mean.because knowledge is relational and in a changing universe which is indeterminate - which we postulate- how to even define "knowledge" becomes a problem.   I think it is just a comment best left unmade!   Yes God knows everything, whatever that means.   He is the greatest intelligence and that which he does not know doesn't exist because it has not been defined.  Why would he WANT to "know" the relationship between every particle in the universe on a continuous basis while they are all changing every nanosecond?

And what is a "body of truth? " The set of all possible true statements?  

That also seems to still be making the dualistic error that the correspondence theory of truth is stuck to statements which describe reality.

 That's one of those unspeakable statements I cannot even figure out what it could mean.   I am not even sure of what "know" means other than psychological certainty about a statement we take to be "true" .  So unless the statement is made- in language-  it cannot be "true".  Can you know false statements?   Why or why not?

I am not talking about knowing a statement which IS false, those are easy.  No, unicorns do not exist.  Well unless you talk about them as imaginary then in a sense they ejxist as imaginary beings.  Is it true or false the the replixquant exists?  

And on it goes.  There is no end to word games!

 

 

Link to post
5 hours ago, Rivers said:

I’m late to the thread, but I’ll go with natural law having the ledger.

Justice means that choices have consequences.  That’s a universal law. Cause and effect.  Action and reaction (I apologize if I sound like the Merovingian from Matrix Reloaded).

We can’t truly have agency without consequence.

Hume might disagree. ;)

 

Link to post
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Anything I say about BYU is totally speculation.  What I do know is that they are not known to be a leading university in secular academic philosophy.   I cannot imagine why they could not be leaders in theology or that branch of philosophy but there are not.  I did not mean to imply, if I did that they would be "fired" if they had the wrong opinions- it's just that in my experience, in philosophy grad school there are strong and weak schools in every branch of philosophy and typically a department will specialize in something.

When I did my grad work I was at City U of NY Queens College which very strong in Pragmatism and the religious direction it can take.  It was the place to be and I had to move there from CA to NYC after a lot of investigations (early '70'S)

If anyone has further comments, or if I am wrong, let me know and I will correct my statements.  It's just a hunch from what I have seen, though maybe they are now getting strong in Heidegger 

AND I totally agree with the rest of your statements here

Incidentally I do believe in absolute and eternal truth about these matters, but the only way we could hold that imo is as personal beliefs.   I believe along with Wittgenstein and James and others that "certainty" is a psychological state, like being angry or loving etc.

And so I personally am absolutely sure that God lives, but I cannot prove that for others.  I have no doubt whatsoever because I communicate with Him.  So for me, his existence is absolute true and certain

I also agree with the yin and yang and the idea of an "opositional pair"- great phrase!   Sometimes more oppositional than others....  ;)

Joseph of course spoke about "proving contraries" which to me is actually speaking of dialectical thinking which of course fits well with the tradition within German philosophy starting with Schopenhauer and Hegel and then on to Kant, who came up with the whole idea that we create to an extent- our world through what he called the "synthetic apriori" but that is another story.

Regarding "certainty" as a psychological state, I love how President Hinckley describes it in terms of "certitude":

1995 (he describes certitude in terms of the faith-knowledge dynamo): https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1995/10/faith-the-essence-of-true-religion?lang=eng "Certitude is certainty. It is conviction. It is the power of faith that approaches knowledge—yes, that even becomes knowledge."

2007: (he uses "know" and "certitude" synonymously and reviews his "great certitudes") : https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/04/the-things-of-which-i-know?lang=eng

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post

Some folks will never learn unless they hurt themselves.   To a certain extent, we're a race of hot-stove-touchers, at least for part of our developmental journey.   

And how exactly will those of us in that situation ever learn, if we're not burned by the stove?

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...