New Video on Evolution and Latter-day Saints

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Of course. To the victors go the spoils. History is a handmaiden, you can dress her up anyway you like..

 

Parts of the "TRUTH" can be found many places. It's still fun when I have the time. 

If it happened to you, you KNOW it's true

All others pay cash.

Otherwise it's hearsay and won't stand up in court.

Judge Judy taught me that.  🙃

But seriously, that's why we need "our own testimonies" of the teachings of the church. It's like marriage.

You only know it's true if you are living it.

Third party objective observers are irrelevant

 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 11/9/2021 at 2:48 PM, Canadiandude said:

How is one to know it’s false, if we can’t be really certain of any process of knowledge-production?

The opposite of knowing what is a justified belief: justified = the statement produces "the measure of its creation". You perform the action in the statement,  and get the result you want.

If I tell you Elm St. is two blocks that way, and it is, it is justified or "true".

If Elm St, is not there, the statement was not justified, or "false"

If you do the Moroni promise and get the expected result, your belief is justified. If not, it's not.

Pretty simple stuff.  And yes, Tylenol works for some people and doesn't for others.

Pretend the church is Tylenol.

Certainty is a psychological state, based on our experience, nothing more or less.

The truth does not "correspond" to the world, it cannot. Words are not things, they are words and therefore automatically ambiguous. The are SYMBOLS, not the thing itself

When you say "chair", it could be any kind of chair, not the kind you were thinking of.

Read the Rorty quote below until it makes sense

If it doesn't I will take you through it line by line.

It makes sense even to me and blew my mind the first time I read it. Speaking of reality is social constructivism 

This way of seeing changed my life and my religion.

All my best

Edited November 11, 2021 by mfbukowski

[rodheadlee]

On 11/7/2021 at 9:45 AM, california boy said:

Thanks Rod for your answers.  I really appreciate that.  It is pretty much in line with what I was taught, except, I was taught that Adam brought physical death into the world.  

Given the op of this thread, do you think this is still the Church's position?  Or has it become a little less defined and more up to the individual to figure out?

I don't know. To tell you the truth I have not been to church in 3 years.

[Canadiandude]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The opposite of knowing what is a justified belief: justified = the statement produces "the measure of its creation". You perform the action in the statement,  and get the result you want.

If I tell you Elm St. is two blocks that way, and it is, it is justified or "true".

If Elm St, is not there, the statement was not justified, or "false"

If you do the Moroni promise and get the expected result, your belief is justified. If not, it's not.

Pretty simple stuff.  And yes, Tylenol works for some people and doesn't for others.

Pretend the church is Tylenol.

Certainty is a psychological state, based on our experience, nothing more or less.

The truth does not "correspond" to the world, it cannot. Words are not things, they are words and therefore automatically ambiguous. The are SYMBOLS, not the thing itself

When you say "chair", it could be any kind of chair, not the kind you were thinking of.

Read the Rorty quote below until it makes sense

If it doesn't I will take you through it line by line.

It makes sense even to me and blew my mind the first time I read it. Speaking of reality is social constructivism 

This way of seeing changed my life and my religion.

All my best

Except it’s not like Tylenol at all. One can isolate the effects of Tylenol, and even if people’s reactions aren’t exact in terms of how much a dosage affects them, (or how if allergies, chemical intolerance, etc), we can still study and get a sense of an overall pattern to how the medication affects most people.
 

We can still explain why without any sky hooks.

The doctrine of the church is that it’s beliefs and practices are divinely legitimate regardless of people receiving different revelations- that if you pray with real intent, and follow the guidance of Moroni’s promise and other avenues of attempting to receive a spiritual witness, that x will occur, and that this x signifies y.
 

~

Contrary to your previous assertion, the church does actually claim to be deity’s ‘truest’ church now upon the earth-

What do I mean by that?

That only it has the authority to dispense sacred, necessary ordinances, and speak on deity’s behalf in revealing divinely-legitimized  doctrines.

This claim has moderated somewhat to better acknowledge the good that others do and the ‘light of Christ’ that inspires others, but the exclusivity remains present.

The church does not concede that receiving revelation for doctrines and practices contrary to current doctrines & practices of ‘the gospel’ as somehow legitimizes the former.

Furthermore, the fact that these spiritual confirmations in and between faiths are so unreliable, and the what they signify so uncertain (validity), disqualifies them as sufficiently rigorous in evidencing the divine.

~

If the Postmodernist can’t even be certain of the pages of the text, or the careful mechanisms of induction and deduction, then I don’t understand how it can justify ascribing validity nor any sense of reliability to ‘the text itself’.

And this becomes especially problematic when you claim to know through personal revelation that the church is true, but then use a philosophical tradition who’s theological commitments run counter to that of the former’s ontology, and more.

You have offered no way of knowing whether your claims are sufficiently valid, nor reliable, relative to any other claim.

~

Look, I’m happy to go on, but I ask that you first acknowledge your error in misrepresenting my statement re: agnosticism and evolutionary theory.

I already asked multiple times to be represented fairly (heck, pleaded even) and at this rate, I’m convinced that you are arguing in bad faith, and it appears you already believe so of me.

You have put me down several times over the course of yesterday without sufficiently convincing me either of your teapot, or that postmodernism actually even helps the Latter-Day Saint’s position.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Canadiandude

[Canadiandude]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The opposite of knowing what is a justified belief: justified = the statement produces "the measure of its creation". You perform the action in the statement,  and get the result you want.

That doesn’t signify anything.

How do you do know what is justified, unjustified, the measure of something’s creation?!

You said previously we couldn’t even sufficiently trust with our senses or be certain of external world.

You make an interpretative association with a scriptural term but have yet to legitimate the validity and reliability of the scripture, let alone your interpretation of it.

You mentioned before that you took the measure of its creation to mean ‘family’ yet how have you arrived at this assumption and how can you be confident that there even is a measure? Some purpose? 
 

Why is ?biological reproduction the divine measure and not something else, or even nothing? 

How do you rule out all these other possibilities?!

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Canadiandude

[Canadiandude]

I’ll engage no further on the subject until my debater acknowledges what I actually said that started this entire exchange.

Until then, maybe the ‘armchair student’ would like to engage further with Dr. Peterson at the Interpreter re: postmodernism’s usefulness in justifying church doctrines & policies.

[CV75]

Just now, Canadiandude said:

I’ll engage no further on the subject until my debater acknowledges what I actually said that started this entire exchange.

Until then, maybe the ‘armchair student’ would like to engage further with Dr. Peterson at the Interpreter re: postmodernism’s usefulness in justifying church doctrines & policies.

What is the most important point you are trying to make, and why?

I ask because @mfbukowski's most important point is the Rorty quote in his signature. It appears that he is trying to make that point to show that your beliefs are just as good any anybody's as long as you are happiest by holding them (and barring anyone stopping you to protect community boundaries as defined by the most vulnerable in it).

[Canadiandude]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

What is the most important point you are trying to make, and why?

I ask because @mfbukowski's most important point is the Rorty quote in his signature. It appears that he is trying to make that point to show that your beliefs are just as good any anybody's as long as you are happiest by holding them (and barring anyone stopping you to protect community boundaries as defined by the most vulnerable in it).

Because he hasn’t  ‘shown’ anything, nor am I convinced that quote actually encapsulated what he was saying.

His was not merely an argument re: ethics, but majorly focused on ontological and religious knowledge claims.

He has not demonstrated how the processes by which he knows that his claims are sufficiently valid and reliable, as opposed to any other plausible methods or claims.

He has not actually demonstrate how he can actually combine in a mutually supportive way as the theological commitments of the church with his postmodernist commitments.

But aside from that I’d ask something of the board:

Why is it that when believing member is misrepresented by a nonbeliever, everyone rushes in to note the lack of legitimacy in the act, but when a believer misrepresents a nonbeliever, ya’ll suddenly become bystanders?

~

Honestly this bugs me more than everything else. 

I never once said I personally was superior, but was continuously treated by the debater as though I was somehow lacking in education (which is rich upon potentially learning his own qualifications).

I never said that to be an evolutionist is to be or become agnostic.

Nobody vouched for me, or acknowledged these issues so as to continue the debate in good faith.

I’m less concerned that people arrive at the same position re: god as I do- yet not only were my methods for arriving at this position invalidated, but my dignity too at times.

~

So be it. I value reciprocity, and I can give as good as I get. 
 

~~
 

I cement in your minds what a post-Latter-Day-Saint is, and too many of ya’ll further cement my current view of the church.

edit: and its members.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Canadiandude

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I cement in your minds what a post-Latter-Day-Saint is, and too many of ya’ll further cement my current view of the church.

edit: and its members.

Excellent.

And so there is no reason to more waste time on this.

We just cannot communicate which has been frustrating beyond belief.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

when a believer misrepresents a nonbeliever, ya’ll suddenly become bystanders

Probably because we are less familiar with a nonbeliever’s beliefs since we do not share as many of them or at least assume we don’t (if we shared lots, they would be a believer like us or the reverse) and therefore we feel less confident we understand what they are saying.  It follows that if we don’t understand it is better to let them speak for themselves rather than adding to the confusion with our probable misinterpretations. 
 

But maybe I am projecting my reasons for being a bystander onto others. 

[Canadiandude]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Probably because we are less familiar with a nonbeliever’s beliefs since we do not share as many of them or at least assume we don’t (if we shared lots, they would be a believer like us or the reverse) and therefore we feel less confident we understand what they are saying.  It follows that if we don’t understand it is better to let them speak for themselves rather than adding to the confusion with our probable misinterpretations. 
 

But maybe I am projecting my reasons for being a bystander onto others. 

That’s a possible explanation yes, though I’m not sure that the misrepresented statement was so complex or foreign, that it couldn’t have been interpreted in a more neutral to favourable light.

I could be wrong in this uncertainty however.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Canadiandude

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

My error

Edited November 11, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

I never said that to be an evolutionist is to be or become agnostic.

I never said that either, I already answered it. As I said before, I am myself an "evolutionist" and about as certain as can be that God exists.

I have some great conversations with God, and postmodernism, Pragmatism and phenomenology (also see William James and Kierkegaard) are THE channels to justify religious experience philosophically 

You get deeper and deeper with every post

Edited November 11, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is the most important point you are trying to make, and why?

I ask because @mfbukowski's most important point is the Rorty quote in his signature. It appears that he is trying to make that point to show that your beliefs are just as good any anybody's as long as you are happiest by holding them (and barring anyone stopping you to protect community boundaries as defined by the most vulnerable in it).

Exactly 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

I’ll engage no further on the subject until my debater acknowledges what I actually said that started this entire exchange.

Until then, maybe the ‘armchair student’ would like to engage further with Dr. Peterson at the Interpreter re: postmodernism’s usefulness in justifying church doctrines & policies.

You know nothing about this issue, or me, and are on thin ice. 

Phenomenology is the cornerstone of most of the young professors coming out of BYU today 

I have already answered you on the "agnostic" issue.

"Faulconer received his B.A. in English from BYU. He then received master's and Ph.D. degrees in philosophy from Pennsylvania State University. His area of interest in philosophy is contemporary European philosophy, particularly the work of Martin Heidegger and late 20th- and early 21st-century French thinkers, particularly as that work bears on religious experience. Faulconer was the founding editor of Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy. He was a visiting professor at the Higher Institute for Philosophy, Catholic University of Leuven (1995–96) and a visiting researcher in the library of the École Normale Supérieur (2000-2001).

Faulconer is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Faulconer

Also my relationship with Dr. Peterson and Interpreter is just fine, thank you

Dr Paulsen is a Pragmatist, following James, and Patrick Mason is another Heideggerian.

Edited November 11, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Canadiandude]

On 11/8/2021 at 12:17 PM, Canadiandude said:

Post it here if you find it. I’m game.

I don’t need people to arrive at the same state of agnosticism I’m at but I do think it’s high time for greater room for nuance.

I’d rather that fewer Sunday School lessons require a brave student to have to educate their peers on the basic mechanics of evolutionary theory.

This is how you responded, after quoting me:

On 11/8/2021 at 12:31 PM, mfbukowski said:

One need not be an agnostic to accept evolution, as long as we have an immanent God who is an "organizer" who can fiddle with the "laws of nature" at will. And then of course the story of Adam is about "everyman" if we see it that way.

We all have our own Falls from innocence 

I then asked for you to show where I claimed otherwise regarding the beginning half of your sentence.

I would end up asking this repeatedly. 

If I never made such a statement then why make the countering of such a statement the focus of your response to me.

In my next post you then decided to also focus upon what was supposedly erroneous,

So, naturally, I decided to stop focusing upon what we had in common, since, apparently, correcting the nonmember heathon was more important than finding things in common, and I have a superiority complex to correct.

~

We then had our debate, in which I did my best reciprocate the tone as it evolved.

I’m no slouch myself.

~

The cute video was below par. (I said it was cute and for only those unsure of what I meant by teapot)

‘I clearly need to read x, y, z.’

‘Positivism is dead’

(you never asked if I was a positivist, or materialist, or…)

Many. A. Smirk.

A Yawn.

More weird remarks about the planet Pluto which didn’t make sense considering my acceptance of social constructs. 

I suddenly care about how much god weighs??

And let’s not forget that the only model off constructivism that exists is apparently the ‘thick’ variety.

~

The passive aggression continued. You’ve learned our Latter-Day-Saint ways well. 

A lot of my questions however remained unanswered, many of which I repeated. That’s fine. 

~

But there was at least one really easy Q you could have answered:

”No, you never said that to be an evolutionist was to be/become an agnostic”

~

Night.
 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

No, you never said that to be an evolutionist was to be/become an agnostic”

~

There.   No you only implied it

"You never said that to be an evolutionist was to be/become an agnostic”

And I never said you said it.

And I have said several times I am an evolutionist and a believer 

What's your problem? I have said again and again that one can be both an evolutionist and a believer. 

And you have failed to answer ANY of my replies. 

Goodbye.  Have a nice life.

You are on ignore. Hope you read some of that stuff.

 

[Canadiandude]

7 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

But there was at least one really easy Q you could have answered:

”No, you never said that to be an evolutionist was to be/become an agnostic”

The question I wanted answered was evidence that I had ever implied that to be an evolutionist was to be/become agnostic.

Again:

I implied no such thing.

The statement in “ “ was the only honest answer to my repeated question that mfbukowski could possibly have responded with.

~

Yet he couldn’t ever bring himself to say as much.

~

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And you have failed to answer ANY of my replies. 

Goodbye.  Have a nice life.

You are on ignore. Hope you read some of that stuff.

And the belittling, passive aggression, and ‘you clearly haven’t read x, y, z’ talk continues. 

As for the top sentence, that is a blatant lie. 

I answered more of his own queries than he did mine.

 

~

You too are on ignore. You refuse to argue in good faith.

…just as soon as I discover where the ‘ignore’ function even is on here. Heh.

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Canadiandude

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Because he hasn’t  ‘shown’ anything, nor am I convinced that quote actually encapsulated what he was saying.

His was not merely an argument re: ethics, but majorly focused on ontological and religious knowledge claims.

He has not demonstrated how the processes by which he knows that his claims are sufficiently valid and reliable, as opposed to any other plausible methods or claims.

He has not actually demonstrate how he can actually combine in a mutually supportive way as the theological commitments of the church with his postmodernist commitments.

But aside from that I’d ask something of the board:

Why is it that when believing member is misrepresented by a nonbeliever, everyone rushes in to note the lack of legitimacy in the act, but when a believer misrepresents a nonbeliever, ya’ll suddenly become bystanders?

~

Honestly this bugs me more than everything else. 

I never once said I personally was superior, but was continuously treated by the debater as though I was somehow lacking in education (which is rich upon potentially learning his own qualifications).

I never said that to be an evolutionist is to be or become agnostic.

Nobody vouched for me, or acknowledged these issues so as to continue the debate in good faith.

I’m less concerned that people arrive at the same position re: god as I do- yet not only were my methods for arriving at this position invalidated, but my dignity too at times.

~

So be it. I value reciprocity, and I can give as good as I get. 
 

~~
 

I cement in your minds what a post-Latter-Day-Saint is, and too many of ya’ll further cement my current view of the church.

edit: and its members.

I do skim or pass over posts involving contested interpersonal communication; I figure the interlocutors can settle those by themselves one way or another without my vouching for one or the other. I am interested in the #1 point they are making on the thread topic, hence my question to you, and I’m still not clear on yours.

[Canadiandude]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I do skim or pass over posts involving contested interpersonal communication; I figure the interlocutors can settle those by themselves one way or another without my vouching for one or the other. I am interested in the #1 point they are making on the thread topic, hence my question to you, and I’m still not clear on yours.

Except that to skim and pass over them is to ignore how conversations evolve.

The bulk of our latter commentary had very little to do with evolution-

and not just my posts either. If my points are worth critiquing with such a standard in mind, then so are his.

I disagree that the aforementioned 1# point you are referring to was the bulk of what the other debater was saying, or that my responses in contestation were off the mark, or somehow illegitimate

~
 

I reject the view of the ‘Non-overlapping magisteria’. Religions are a part of the natural universe and make claims as to what exists/does not exist in said universe, many of which can be  investigated, tested, and weighed against alternative (including secular) explanations.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Canadiandude

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

Except that to skim and pass over them is to ignore how conversations evolve.

The bulk of our latter commentary had very little to do with evolution-

and not just my posts either. If my points are worth critiquing with such a standard in mind, then so are his.

I disagree that the aforementioned 1# point you are referring to was the bulk of what the other debater was saying, or that my responses in contestation were off the mark, or somehow illegitimate

~
 

I reject the view of the ‘Non-overlapping magisteria’. Religions are a part of the natural universe and make claims as to what exists/does not exist in said universe, many of which can be  investigated, tested, and weighed against alternative (including secular) explanations.

Absolutely, and I’m also jumping in late. So, what is your #1 point?

[Canadiandude]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely, and I’m also jumping in late. So, what is your #1 point?

I’d argue that it would be my last sentence in my prior statement, as many of my comments could fall under it.

But as my debater and I are now ignoring one another, there’s no point carrying on.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I’d argue that it would be my last sentence in my prior statement, as many of my comments could fall under it.

But as my debater and I are now ignoring one another, there’s no point carrying on.

I see. In what ways do science and religion (let's say the Church's religion) share the same areas of inquiry?

I should probably back up and ask, when you say that religions (and by extension, sciences) are a part of the natural universe and make claims as to what exists/does not exist in said universe, and it was people who placed both religion and science into the natural universe in the first place as tools to deal with the world around them, right?

[Canadiandude]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I see. In what ways do science and religion (let's say the Church's religion) share the same areas of inquiry?

I should probably back up and ask, when you say that religions (and by extension, sciences) are a part of the natural universe and make claims as to what exists/does not exist in said universe, and it was people who placed both religion and science into the natural universe in the first place as tools to deal with the world around them, right?

Not sure. I’d have to examine the statement more to ensure it’s saying what I mean and nothing that I don’t.

traps n all.
 

Many religions  claim that there exists a god, which is making a claim about the actual existence of something, out there. Many religions contend that this  power communicates with them, grants special abilities, and requires certain practices and beliefs.

Yet the processes by which one supposedly comes to ‘know’ of these things tend to be insufficiently valid and/or reliable for the claims being made, and often unfalsifiable.

But again the debate between the user and I is over, and while I could re-hash it all over again with yourself, I’m not entirely certain your position and his is exactly the same-—

- and as you previously pointed out, it would just take the conversation farther from the posts topic at hand.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Not sure. I’d have to examine the statement more to ensure it’s saying what I mean and nothing that I don’t.

traps n all.
 

Many religions  claim that there exists a god, which is making a claim about the actual existence of something, out there. Many religions contend that this  power communicates with them, grants special abilities, and requires certain practices and beliefs.

Yet the processes by which one supposedly comes to ‘know’ of these things tend to be insufficiently valid and/or reliable for the claims being made, and often unfalsifiable.

But again the debate between the user and I is over, and while I could re-hash it all over again with yourself, I’m not entirely certain your position and his is exactly the same-—

- and as you previously pointed out, it would just take the conversation farther from the posts topic at hand.

Up to you. When you feel free of any traps, proceed. But even by making your statement about religion, I suppose you are not suggesting that people use science to inquire into the existence of God, as converts to our religion have.

That aside and keeping in line with the topic, the Church declares that God organized His children spiritually and then naturally upon this earth, communicates with them through various means, and that we can know these things for ourselves through prayer and the attendant thoughts and feelings (spiritual mental states) associated with reading the scriptures, trying the commandments, fellowship with the saints, etc. How correct, repeatable and provable the results of these series of events within this method can be attested to by those who experience them. The inquiry is, who am I / where did I come from / where am I going? The why is to obtain a better experience in mortality and beyond, for ourselves and others.

Scientists of the various theories of evolution conclude that today's human beings evolved as a result of the action of physical laws upon earth's raw materials (I use that term broadly to include both non-living and living things), and publish based on how correct, repeatable and provable they consider the results of the processes within their respective method to be. The inquiry is, who are we / where did we  come from / where are we going? The why is to obtain a better experience in mortality, for ourselves and others.

So it seems the "origin of man" has two different scopes of inquiry, at least the way I presented them. Can you bridge them into a common inquiry?

ETA: My question as i was backing up was badly worded, I'll try again:

I should probably back up and ask, when you say that religions (and by extension, sciences) are a part of the natural universe and make claims as to what exists/does not exist in said universe, you mean it was people who placed both religion and science into the natural universe in the first place as tools to deal with the world around them, right?

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by CV75