New Video on Evolution and Latter-day Saints

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

So when I said that nothing really matters and you were offended by that that causes me to be puzzled.  Because that is what I get from your comments above. What works best for you, me or anyone when it comes to finding meaning in life is "truth" or at least that individual's truth.  That is fine but that is NOT what the LDS Church teaches about its truth claims nor what the vast majority of the believers think.  Based on what your position is a Catholic that finds their religion meets their needs best has as much truth as you even where those truth claims conflict.  The same for a skeptic like me, or an atheist.  

Is this a fair summary or not?

Not at all. Google antirealism.

We have been over it a million times

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not at all. Google antirealism.

We have been over it a million times

But that is exactly what you are saying. 

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But that is exactly what you are saying. 

Ok I'll get back to you.  Bad time.

Send a link to where I said that. Context is everything 

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not at all. Google antirealism.

We have been over it a million times

 

 

Antirealism: Foils for Scientific Realism

4.1 Empiricism

The term “antirealism” (or “anti-realism”) encompasses any position that is opposed to realism along one or more of the dimensions canvassed in section 1.2: the metaphysical commitment to the existence of a mind-independent reality; the semantic commitment to interpret theories literally or at face value; and the epistemological commitment to regard theories as furnishing knowledge of both observables and unobservables. As a result, and as one might expect, there are many different ways to be an antirealist, and many different positions qualify as antirealism (cf. Kitcher 2001: 161–163). In the historical development of realism, arguably the most important strains of antirealism have been varieties of empiricism which, given their emphasis on experience as a source and subject matter of knowledge, are naturally set against the idea of knowledge of unobservables. It is possible to be an empiricist more broadly speaking in a way that is consistent with realism—for example, one might endorse the idea that knowledge of the world stems from empirical investigation and contend that on this basis, one can justifiably infer certain things about unobservables. In the first half of the twentieth century, however, empiricism came predominantly in the form of varieties of “instrumentalism”: the view that theories are merely instruments for predicting observable phenomena or systematizing observation reports.

According to the best known, traditional form of instrumentalism, terms for unobservables have no meaning all by themselves; construed literally, statements involving them are not even candidates for truth or falsity (cf. a more recent proposal in Rowbottom 2011). The most influential advocates of this view were the logical empiricists (or logical positivists), including Carnap and Hempel, famously associated with the Vienna Circle group of philosophers and scientists as well as important contributors elsewhere. In order to rationalize the ubiquitous use of terms which might otherwise be taken to refer to unobservables in scientific discourse, they adopted a non-literal semantics according to which these terms acquire meaning by being associated with terms for observables (for example, “electron” might mean “white streak in a cloud chamber”), or with demonstrable laboratory procedures (a view called “operationalism”). Insuperable difficulties with this semantics led ultimately (in large measure) to the demise of logical empiricism and the growth of realism. The contrast here is not merely in semantics and epistemology: a number of logical empiricists also held the neo-Kantian view that ontological questions “external” to the frameworks for knowledge represented by theories are also meaningless (the choice of a framework is made solely on pragmatic grounds), thereby rejecting the metaphysical dimension of realism (as in Carnap 1950). (Duhem [1906] 1954 was influential with respect to instrumentalism; for a critique of logical empiricist semantics, see H. Brown 1977: ch. 3; on logical empiricism more generally, see Giere & Richardson 1997 and Richardson & Uebel 2007; on the neo-Kantian reading, see Richardson 1998 and Friedman 1999.)

Van Fraassen (1980) reinvented empiricism in the scientific context, evading many of the challenges faced by logical empiricism by adopting a realist semantics. His position, “constructive empiricism”, holds that the aim of science is empirical adequacy, where “a theory is empirically adequate exactly if what it says about the observable things and events in the world, is true” (1980: 12; p. 64 gives a more technical definition in terms of the embedding of observable structures in scientific models). Crucially, unlike logical empiricism, constructive empiricism interprets theories in precisely the same manner as realism. The antirealism of the position is due entirely to its epistemology—it recommends belief in our best theories only insofar as they describe observable phenomena, and is satisfied with an agnostic attitude regarding anything unobservable. The constructive empiricist thus recognizes claims about unobservables as true or false, but feels no need to believe or disbelieve them. In focusing on belief in the domain of the observable, the position is similar to traditional instrumentalism, and is for this reason sometimes described as a form of instrumentalism. (For elaborations of the view, see van Fraassen 1985, 2001 and Rosen 1994.) There are also affinities here with the idea of fictionalism, according to which things in the world are and behave as if our best scientific theories are true (Vaihinger [1911] 1923; Fine 1993)

 

So how does this fold into the post of your I commented on that you said I got it all wrong?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

So when I said that nothing really matters and you were offended by that that causes me to be puzzled.  Because that is what I get from your comments above. What works best for you, me or anyone when it comes to finding meaning in life is "truth" or at least that individual's truth.  That is fine but that is NOT what the LDS Church teaches about its truth claims nor what the vast majority of the believers think.  Based on what your position is a Catholic that finds their religion meets their needs best has as much truth as you even where those truth claims conflict.  The same for a skeptic like me, or an atheist.  

Is this a fair summary or not?

God is not making you burn in hell because you did the best you could.

We will all see the light eventually "every knee shall bow". LDS are Universalists.

We do work for the dead because there are billions who did not see the path while on earth; on the other side we will see what we can't see here.

Very busy day 

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok I'll get back to you.  Bad time.

Send a link to where I said that. Context is everything 

Well that was how I interpreted the post I responded to.

[Canadiandude]

On 11/13/2021 at 7:31 PM, CV75 said:

You reject the view of the non-overlapping magisterial and argue that scientific and religious arguments make (and have made) overlapping claims. Evidently you do not use “overlapping” to mean incompatible or competing (I was asking it that way for clarification), so what is an example of a common "existence claim" made as a result of a common religious and scientific inquiry?

Please read the part below the edit (the time stamp implies you would have seen it) and then respond to my questions.

Without reciprocity, there can be no real debate.

When I read your responses, I’m not convinced that your argument is sufficiently informed as to what the non-overlapping magisteria view is.

~

Answer my questions. 

First respond to the questions I asked of you so as to demonstrate your comprehension of the subject.

Provide your sources.

Then respond to the query in the pic. The time stamp implies you saw them and I previously left you sources to aid you in all of this.

~

I refuse to debate with you further until then.

 

[Canadiandude]

One last pic. 
 

I use pics b/c quoting myself doesn’t include the quotes I’m responding to for some reason.
 

Just so no one misunderstands my terms:

 

 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

 

Antirealism: Foils for Scientific Realism

4.1 Empiricism

The term “antirealism” (or “anti-realism”) encompasses any position that is opposed to realism along one or more of the dimensions canvassed in section 1.2: the metaphysical commitment to the existence of a mind-independent reality; the semantic commitment to interpret theories literally or at face value; and the epistemological commitment to regard theories as furnishing knowledge of both observables and unobservables. As a result, and as one might expect, there are many different ways to be an antirealist, and many different positions qualify as antirealism (cf. Kitcher 2001: 161–163). In the historical development of realism, arguably the most important strains of antirealism have been varieties of empiricism which, given their emphasis on experience as a source and subject matter of knowledge, are naturally set against the idea of knowledge of unobservables. It is possible to be an empiricist more broadly speaking in a way that is consistent with realism—for example, one might endorse the idea that knowledge of the world stems from empirical investigation and contend that on this basis, one can justifiably infer certain things about unobservables. In the first half of the twentieth century, however, empiricism came predominantly in the form of varieties of “instrumentalism”: the view that theories are merely instruments for predicting observable phenomena or systematizing observation reports.

According to the best known, traditional form of instrumentalism, terms for unobservables have no meaning all by themselves; construed literally, statements involving them are not even candidates for truth or falsity (cf. a more recent proposal in Rowbottom 2011). The most influential advocates of this view were the logical empiricists (or logical positivists), including Carnap and Hempel, famously associated with the Vienna Circle group of philosophers and scientists as well as important contributors elsewhere. In order to rationalize the ubiquitous use of terms which might otherwise be taken to refer to unobservables in scientific discourse, they adopted a non-literal semantics according to which these terms acquire meaning by being associated with terms for observables (for example, “electron” might mean “white streak in a cloud chamber”), or with demonstrable laboratory procedures (a view called “operationalism”). Insuperable difficulties with this semantics led ultimately (in large measure) to the demise of logical empiricism and the growth of realism. The contrast here is not merely in semantics and epistemology: a number of logical empiricists also held the neo-Kantian view that ontological questions “external” to the frameworks for knowledge represented by theories are also meaningless (the choice of a framework is made solely on pragmatic grounds), thereby rejecting the metaphysical dimension of realism (as in Carnap 1950). (Duhem [1906] 1954 was influential with respect to instrumentalism; for a critique of logical empiricist semantics, see H. Brown 1977: ch. 3; on logical empiricism more generally, see Giere & Richardson 1997 and Richardson & Uebel 2007; on the neo-Kantian reading, see Richardson 1998 and Friedman 1999.)

Van Fraassen (1980) reinvented empiricism in the scientific context, evading many of the challenges faced by logical empiricism by adopting a realist semantics. His position, “constructive empiricism”, holds that the aim of science is empirical adequacy, where “a theory is empirically adequate exactly if what it says about the observable things and events in the world, is true” (1980: 12; p. 64 gives a more technical definition in terms of the embedding of observable structures in scientific models). Crucially, unlike logical empiricism, constructive empiricism interprets theories in precisely the same manner as realism. The antirealism of the position is due entirely to its epistemology—it recommends belief in our best theories only insofar as they describe observable phenomena, and is satisfied with an agnostic attitude regarding anything unobservable. The constructive empiricist thus recognizes claims about unobservables as true or false, but feels no need to believe or disbelieve them. In focusing on belief in the domain of the observable, the position is similar to traditional instrumentalism, and is for this reason sometimes described as a form of instrumentalism. (For elaborations of the view, see van Fraassen 1985, 2001 and Rosen 1994.) There are also affinities here with the idea of fictionalism, according to which things in the world are and behave as if our best scientific theories are true (Vaihinger [1911] 1923; Fine 1993)

 

So how does this fold into the post of your I commented on that you said I got it all wrong?

Perfect quote. Good summary of anti realism. Gotta go.

Later, dude.

See if you can understand the quote.

We don't see reality, we see what's in our minds. Including God. We see science "as if" it is true, but it depends on paradigms. It keeps changing 

Same with God, we experience Him but disagree on the "data", but do our best.  After we die we will see it "as it is" and "every knee shall bow"

I will bold a point or two.

[Canadiandude]

There may be a reason why most church apologists so rarely publish in secular, peer-reviewed journals-—

-and it ain’t got nothing to do with the supposed ‘bias’ of said journals.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Please read the part below the edit (the time stamp implies you would have seen it) and then respond to my questions.

Without reciprocity, there can be no real debate.

When I read your responses, I’m not convinced that your argument is sufficiently informed as to what the non-overlapping magisteria view is.

~

Answer my questions. 

First respond to the questions I asked of you so as to demonstrate your comprehension of the subject.

Provide your sources.

Then respond to the query in the pic. The time stamp implies you saw them and I previously left you sources to aid you in all of this.

~

I refuse to debate with you further until then.

 

Edited / duplcaite

Edited November 16, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Please read the part below the edit (the time stamp implies you would have seen it) and then respond to my questions.

Without reciprocity, there can be no real debate.

When I read your responses, I’m not convinced that your argument is sufficiently informed as to what the non-overlapping magisteria view is.

~

Answer my questions. 

First respond to the questions I asked of you so as to demonstrate your comprehension of the subject.

Provide your sources.

Then respond to the query in the pic. The time stamp implies you saw them and I previously left you sources to aid you in all of this.

~

I refuse to debate with you further until then.

 

The latter part of that same post is not shown in this portion of the copied-and-pasted image here, where you used the phrase "overlapping existence claims". I used  "overlapping" to mean a "common" existence claim, or two claims having the same content. This is a much narrower scope than asking about the same general topic area claims since I was past discussing non-overlapping magisteria.

Edited November 16, 2021 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

Our purpose in being here should be to discuss and teach each other, not to  "win a debate".

I have seen that word a lot in this thread, and it appears that at least one poster will do anything to preserve his own ego, and consistently fails

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well that was how I interpreted the post I responded to.

Let's put it this way

In both science and religion we act AS IF the hypothesis is correct, and see if it works

So in Physics we acted as if Newton physics was a true paradigm / model of the world. We thought it was "true"

Then Einstein came along. Now we think Einsteins views are true

 They work better 

And we thought Catholicism was true

Reformation

Protestantism.

Restoration

We act as if theories are true, and each seems to work better than another.

But morals and religion are judged in our hearts, not empirically, because the beliefs are what works better for each of us

These paradigms are about subjective feelings, as the article says, are about "unknowables" when compared to science 

Edited November 17, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Olmec Donald]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In both science and religion we act AS IF the hypothesis is correct, and see if it works

... we thought Catholicism was true

Reformation

Protestantism.

Restoration

We act as if theories are true, and each seems to work better than another.

"Effectiveness is the measure of truth."  - A principle of Huna, as taught by Serge Kahili King

I do not expect my earthly belief system to survive five minutes into the next life, so am more interested in ideas which inform my behavior than ideas which constitute an unassailable doctrinal paradigm. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

"Effectiveness is the measure of truth."  - A principle of Huna, as taught by Serge Kahili King

I do not expect my earthly belief system to survive five minutes into the next life, so am more interested in ideas which inform my behavior than ideas which constitute an unassailable doctrinal paradigm. 

And THAT, my good sir is what I have been calling "Pragmatism " 

Yet it MIGHT be exactly right.

It's our best guess, in religion, as confirmed by the Spirit.

And lest anyone think I am making this up, here is a nice graphic. I would put myself on the right side, near Kuhn.

I also disagree with a lot of these placements, but pragmatically they are OK

https://images.app.goo.gl/pND8SFcdbv3WDnS8A

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Let's put it this way

In both science and religion we act AS IF the hypothesis is correct, and see if it works

So in Physics we acted as if Newton physics was a true paradigm / model of the world. We thought it was "true"

Then Einstein came along. Now we think Einsteins views are true

Ok but Einstein built on what Newton did and expanded the theories and yes overturned some.  But he did it with empirical evidence.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 They work better 

And we thought Catholicism was true

Catholics still believe it is true.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Reformation

Protestantism.

Protestants believe they have the truth.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Restoration

Latter day saints believe the restoration is true but Catholics and Protestants do not. They think their religion is better.  And they seem to come to the ultimate conclusions the same way LDS people claim to.  It is not like the rest of Christianity sees that the "restoration" is actually more true than prior religious theories like science did with Einstein and Newton.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We act as if theories are true, and each seems to work better than another.

But morals and religion are judged in our hearts, not empirically, because the beliefs are what works better for each of us

These paradigms are about subjective feelings, as the article says, are about "unknowables" when compared to science 

Yes I get this is what you believe.  My point is it seems by taking this approach people can come up with morals and religion in their hearts that works best for them but is in conflict with yours or mine.  You believe and feel that Mormonism gives the best answers for meaning in life for you. Well it did for me for much of my life but no longer does. I am on a different path and that path includes a conclusion that much of Mormonism has harmful at least for me (and I think for many people). I also believe there are parts of it that are clearly falsifiable which casts skepticism on the rest of it. But that is another topic.

So let's take you and me.  We both are exploring the unknowable and we both use subjective feelings to reach some of our conclusions. And those conclusions conflict.  What happens now?
 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ok but Einstein built on what Newton did and expanded the theories and yes overturned some.  But he did it with empirical evidence.

Catholics still believe it is true.

Protestants believe they have the truth.

Latter day saints believe the restoration is true but Catholics and Protestants do not. They think their religion is better.  And they seem to come to the ultimate conclusions the same way LDS people claim to.  It is not like the rest of Christianity sees that the "restoration" is actually more true than prior religious theories like science did with Einstein and Newton.

Yes I get this is what you believe.  My point is it seems by taking this approach people can come up with morals and religion in their hearts that works best for them but is in conflict with yours or mine.  You believe and feel that Mormonism gives the best answers for meaning in life for you. Well it did for me for much of my life but no longer does. I am on a different path and that path includes a conclusion that much of Mormonism has harmful at least for me (and I think for many people). I also believe there are parts of it that are clearly falsifiable which casts skepticism on the rest of it. But that is another topic.

So let's take you and me.  We both are exploring the unknowable and we both use subjective feelings to reach some of our conclusions. And those conclusions conflict.  What happens now?
 

Nothing.

We can be civil and not disuss religion or politics. 

A man convinced against his WILL - feelings- is of the same opinion still.

How's the weather?

Edited November 17, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Nothing.

We can be civil and not disuss religion or politics. 

Oh come on. Give me more than that.  Is my point inaccurate?  Do you understand why I still struggle with that?  But listen, I am good if there really is a God and our truth and way back to him becomes whatever our reality is that helps us find happiness and meaning to life. I like that.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Is my point inaccurate?  Do you understand why I still struggle with that? 

Inaccurate doesn't apply in unknowables.

You are just a realist on the far far left of chart.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

But listen, I am good if there really is a God and our truth and way back to him becomes whatever our reality is that helps us find happiness and meaning to life. I like that.  

Good! Remain open to your heart and find your path!

It might even be a circle!  That worked for me!

Logic says if man is God, then God is man. We are the creators of our world right now!

Go build one but provide room for verification of unknowables. Because you know it is wrong to murder.  Where does THAT come from?  Your conscience.

What the heck is THAT?

THAT is the tricky one and the only answer I could find on the far right of the chart.

Evolution is the verifiable reason emotions work, so they are REAL. Fear of a bear chasing you is good.

God speaking to you is good.

They cannot be ignored, at our peril unless we have a known mental disorder 

Go with your heart, it tells you what you need to figure out.

Edited November 17, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Craig Speechly]

Not that my opinion matters, but as a recent convert to the reality of evolution as the means through which current day humanity exists, The evidence seems overwhelming in support of evolution.  As a result, I now view the biblical story of Adam and Eve as myth.  Take whatever lessons you wish to take from its story.

[Craig Speechly]

Not that my opinion matters, but as a recent convert to the reality of evolution as the means through which modern day humanity exists, the evidence seems overwhelming in support of evolution.  As a result, I now view the biblical story of Adam and Eve as myth.  Take whatever lessons you wish to take from its story.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

Not that my opinion matters, but as a recent convert to the reality of evolution as the means through which modern day humanity exists, the evidence seems overwhelming in support of evolution.  As a result, I now view the biblical story of Adam and Eve as myth.  Take whatever lessons you wish to take from its story.

Many acknowledge it as a "temple play" much like the present temple presentation. Its function is to teach about earth life, not historical events

Welcome!

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by mfbukowski

[MrShorty]

Because there were several posts in this thread discussing the old Old Testament Institute manual and the problems with it (as well as a couple of references to Ben Spackman), I thought some who might be interested in where that chapter of the manual came from might enjoy this essay by Ben Spackman: https://benspackman.com/2021/12/the-1980-old-testament-institute-manual-why-you-should-ignore-it-for-teaching-genesis/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-1980-old-testament-institute-manual-why-you-should-ignore-it-for-teaching-genesis

He apparently was given access to "behind the scenes" information about the author and his drafts and views that eventually culminated in the lesson/chapter in question that some may find interesting.

[Stargazer]

On 11/17/2021 at 9:40 PM, Craig Speechly said:

Not that my opinion matters, but as a recent convert to the reality of evolution as the means through which modern day humanity exists, the evidence seems overwhelming in support of evolution.  As a result, I now view the biblical story of Adam and Eve as myth.  Take whatever lessons you wish to take from its story.

There's no reason to assume that there were never such persons as Adam and Eve, even if the tale told in the Bible is more allegorical than factual. There's plenty of reason for not believing that they left the Garden a mere 6,000 years ago. It will be interesting to finally learn how all that worked in actuality.

God tells the story often enough (Bible, books of Moses and Abraham) that it's clear He wants us to take it seriously, myth or not. 

What has impressed me about the biblical story is that the evolution of the solar system (earth, sun, and moon) as described in Genesis pretty much matches the progression as understood by astrophysics and paleontology (except for grass coming before life in the ocean). I'm a descendant of Native Americans, namely the Maidu people of northern California (but I'm just 1/16th, so I look like an average white guy). My people's creation story is completely fanciful and entirely mythical: you can read a version of it HERE. For all it's fancifulness, however, it involved a great world ocean, like that of Genesis. Given that a world ocean is also likely in reality (see HERE), that is an interesting coincidence, and may reflect a species-level understanding of creation.  The Maidu were an inland people, and knew little of the ocean, so their legend of a world-spanning ocean clearly originated from their deep past (or else they borrowed it from another people).