Neanderthal temple work

[manol]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh come on!

I saw this guy walking down the street the other day...

https://images.app.goo.gl/vPSzMbGxifCQQNNt9

And this guy had a career as a professional wrestler, and even inspired an animated movie character.  Can you guess who?

https://prowrestling.fandom.com/wiki/Maurice_Tillet

 

 

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I’m not convinced that humans are definitionally exceptional. Why do you believe this is empirically observable? Also, why do you believe that human/non-human delineations must exist?

Because a fish and a human are not the same, therefore human/nonhuman delineations do exist as a matter of reality. To say otherwise is utterly obtuse. 

[MikeFoxtrot]

 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Our religion (where faith passes as knowledge, or where the two function as the same thing, or are two forms of the same thing, or corroborating mental states of the same mind) doesn’t claim that God (plural) produced mortal animals in his image, but that he created Adam (male and female) in his image, and other things not in his image (see Genesis). Interpretations of that doctrine can certainly vary, which renders the communicated covenants and spiritual experiences, and not our biological genesis and nomenclature, to be the means to identify his heirs. Given this is an imperfect world, reasonable facsimiles and perceptions of his image would count.

I would count Adam (a human) as an animal. Is that in conflict with your understanding of the creation?

Edited July 2, 2022 by MikeFoxtrot

[MikeFoxtrot]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Short explanation:  We cannot understand God using science.

Is there even room for the word “yet” after “cannot?”

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We cannot make experimental observations.  By definition He is far above our understanding, or would not be God.

By whose definition?

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It would be like an ant trying to study quantum mechanics.

I doubt very many humans could outshine ants in accurate explanation of quantum mechanics, but this would be a tricky claim to corroborate or falsify, which I take to be your point about the sciences of men, mingled with scripture.

Does the falsifiability of a claim make you lean more or less toward an inclination to believe it?

[MikeFoxtrot]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Weren't there, were you? Looks like it was Adam and Eve who were made in His image, not some Neanderthal. Nothing was said about any other being. Are you going to argue from omission? I.e. since they weren't mentioned, of course they must be included because ... reasons?

I see no reason to take the Genesis account as literal, so I don’t think a specific mention of certain human species is necessary to classify them as humans with a heavily-guarded capital H.

I’d bet my favorite hat that Neanderthals  weren’t mentioned because the humans who thought up the creation stories found in Genesis couldn’t imagine the true story of humanity, but had an allegory in mind. To take the story as accurately portraying an actual event in world history because… reasons… would require quite a bit of contortion to justify.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Sure, it's possible, and for all I know they have completed their test, as a species, and have moved on.

I like that answer. It’s an interesting concept. 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

They're not here any longer, in case you've missed it, and only remnants of their DNA exist in ours. Supposedly.

They represent 2-5% of most humans with European ancestry (aka white folk). And this is supposed from the clear DNA evidence, which is an interesting study if you’re ever looking for a late night journey into internet rabbit holes. 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I am not at all sure, however, if I have understood you correctly. Your words, "which would likely be almost unrecognizable from modern humans," are unclear. Are you saying that Neanderthals are similar enough to humans to be lumped in with them, or the opposite?

I’ve been pretty consistently saying that Neanderthals are/were humans. Like how humans are apes and how orcas are dolphins. 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yep. Absolutely. In fact, the entire Universe is the backdrop. Although outside this solar system, the rest of the universe is only tenuously tangential to our corner of it.

Do you believe there is life outside of our solar system?

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Just how familiar are you with Latter-day Saint theology? You sound very much like someone who is quite limited in his understanding of it.

I know enough about Latter-day Saint theology to assume nothing about the actual beliefs of a Latter-day Saint until they make claims about such. 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And to be honest, this entire topic sounds like a rather ham-handed attempt to mock Christian beliefs.

I’m sorry if you don’t like my topic. I’m not interested in being disrespectful. I’m here for the discourse, and I’ve found mocking, though sometimes tempting, to be detrimental to a good conversation. 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Are you, by some chance, familiar with an old user of this forum who hasn't posted in a really long time? He called himself 44Foxtrot. 

I’m sorry. They were likely long before my time, and my Foxtrot side of the family is all still in the old country. 

[MikeFoxtrot]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Suppose the "image of God" is the image of a perfect, ideal, image of perfection of that certain species, designed so that each species could have a mental image, assuming such a thing is even understandable to that particular species, to provide a Standard of Perfection of action, thought and intent of that Ideal Image?

What if, as Plato might have thought, that God IS the image/form/ substance of the Ideal Human, to be seen as if we all had an absolutely Perfect Father?

Suppose Jesus IS that Image for US?  Then suppose Jesus REALLY DID HAVE A FATHER who is an Ideal Father

And so the paradigm/ story grows about what characteristics that Ideal Image Father would need to have to Be "real"?

And so if we were alien Zorks and wanted to be perfect Zorks, we would see that Ideal Zork as God, etc?

And then suppose that is the case, but our Father is the only God we need to worry about listening to...?

Wouldn’t a platonic form be unchanging, and a platonic god, therefore be static?

(and if this is a silly question, go easy on me. Remember, I’m a plumber)

[MikeFoxtrot]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Because a fish and a human are not the same, therefore human/nonhuman delineations do exist as a matter of reality. To say otherwise is utterly obtuse. 

Okay. Good. We agree. A fish and a human are different. One difference is that fish have gills, humans have lungs, etc.

If we were to list out differences and similarities between fish and humans, we could fill pages with just our limited knowledge of zoology.

The differences between Neanderthals and humans were mostly microscopic, which is why I wonder about the need for hard delineations between homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

I’m also still curious about your claims of empirical observations. 

[Pyreaux]

57 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Is there even room for the word “yet” after “cannot?”

By whose definition?

I doubt very many humans could outshine ants in accurate explanation of quantum mechanics, but this would be a tricky claim to corroborate or falsify, which I take to be your point about the sciences of men, mingled with scripture.

Does the falsifiability of a claim make you lean more or less toward an inclination to believe it?

Well, I for one, think the Latter-day Saints (barring outsider philosophy, some that comes with conversion) are often very non-mystical. "Mysticism" as in something beyond proof or disproof (and therefore "safe" to those who think so). But our non-adherence to mysticism is almost the main factor when people distinguish us with classical theology. There is no belief in a trinity because we don't use metaphysical language. The only things that come close to being mystical is often still grounded in reason, like "Eternal Progression". We don't fully understand it, but we think and express it in reasonable terms, using words like "embryos" and "evolution". The religion is founded on the idea of personally experimenting with and experiencing the divine. One can deduce logically that there must be a God and if there is a God he must answer prayers. One prays, He answers. Or other simple tests in the form of "we say do this and you will be blessed," or "in the future this will happen." Such messages are tested every day. To trust one's own experiences is all very rational. Though it doesn't conform to a scientific test in the sense that the results often can't be shared, and others may not have the same results universally across the board. Was it Dr Dan Peterson who gave the analogy of the dowsing rod? If not everyone gets positive results out of using a dowsing rod to find water, but when you do it, it works 80% of the time (but not 100%), at what point are you convinced about dowsing rods? Whose to say acceptance of dowsing rods would be the "irrational" call?

Edited July 2, 2022 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Is there even room for the word “yet” after “cannot?”

By whose definition?

I doubt very many humans could outshine ants in accurate explanation of quantum mechanics, but this would be a tricky claim to corroborate or falsify, which I take to be your point about the sciences of men, mingled with scripture.

Does the falsifiability of a claim make you lean more or less toward an inclination to believe it?

Sure.  But we have to change the nature of science to be able to work within the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle which essentially says one cannot separate the observer from what is observed.   We need something like William James' Radical Empiricism.   I have explained it many times here but suggest you read this.  Sorry, very busy time for me.  The bottom line is that the observer always affects what is allegedly "observed" in quantum mechanics and also really any attempt to classify what we see as "reality" because what WE SEE OF REALITY is not ALL of reality- it is only what WE SEE of reality.

Most people don't get that- on this board maybe 2 or 3.   I have been studying this formally in philosophy now for nearly 50 years.  If you really want to get into it, we can but you can read it for yourself so you know I am not some wacko!  My favorite occupation is building guitars and would love to be a plumber.  It is a marvelous thing to see your contribution to the world daily.   While I was able to, I did a lot of plumbing.

So yes, there is room for "yet" and LDS doctrine requires it since we see God as an embodied part of this universe and not 'transcendent" because he works with existing matter as we do.  Sorry if my previous plumbing analogy offended you.  Obviously you are a very intelligent guy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism#:~:text=Radical empiricism is a philosophical,a place in our explanations.

https://www.britannica.com/science/uncertainty-principle

I do not understand how ants can know more about quantum mechanics than humans.   I mean we invented it

No philosophers have had a consistent theory of "truth" in 2500 years so I don't know what "falsifiabilty" means, and no I don't care what others believe, so someone else's idea of "falsifiability" is not relevant to the way I think.       I look for propositions which are consistent with a good paradigm, then see if the paradigm "works" for me I test it out as Alma 32 suggests and see if it sweetens my life.

That to me, is the essence of what being LDS is about and I try to live it as well as I can.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Okay. Good. We agree. A fish and a human are different. One difference is that fish have gills, humans have lungs, etc.

If we were to list out differences and similarities between fish and humans, we could fill pages with just our limited knowledge of zoology.

The differences between Neanderthals and humans were mostly microscopic, which is why I wonder about the need for hard delineations between homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

I’m also still curious about your claims of empirical observations. 

What claims are you speaking of? Regarding my own position, I only claim empirical verification of the claim that there very clearly are categories of human and non-human, which you have just granted. 

Regarding Neanderthals, here's what I said: 

Quote

So, in other words, if Neanderthals had spirits from the Great Council, they were human. If they did not, they were not, regardless of their respective capacities. I do not know the answer to this question and thus take an agnostic stance. 

My wider observation is that , from an evolutionary biology perspective, at some point in the evolutionary timescale there had to be a point where "human" came into being. Some minimal level of traits which qualify a human had to be achieved for the first time, and "humans" existed where there were none even one generation prior. Given that there was a broad stretch of history where "humans" did not exist and now we do, then there has to be a time when that changed. That's it. That's literally all I meant to say.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

 

I would count Adam (a human) as an animal. Is that in conflict with your understanding of the creation?

Yes, because in my paradigm "Adam" (human beings) is distinguished, by name, from the several other named classes of creation. It would make as much sense to consider the firmament an herb. The Adam class of creation assigns purpose and meaning to the several other classes through invention, discovery, or revelation from various paradigms. I don’t speak for how the other classes comprehend us or each other. I have no objection as to whether Neanderthals have the same Heavenly Father as we do, or how anyone might tie them to the same "Adam" that we are.

Edited July 3, 2022 by CV75

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

The differences between Neanderthals and humans were mostly microscopic, which is why I wonder about the need for hard delineations between homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

Hasn’t it been scientists that have created the hard delineations by assigning Neanderthals to a different species?

Though some appear to limit humans to Homo sapiens and others limit humanity to the genus Homo. If one uses the latter definition, Neanderthals would be seen as human beings and my guess that individual, if a member of the Church, would be more likely to assume they were spirit children of God.  But it would be speculation, not revelation.  No real need to draw lines then, imo, just recognize there are differences that may or may not make a difference. 

[Saint Bonaventure]

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Okay. Good. We agree. A fish and a human are different. One difference is that fish have gills, humans have lungs, etc.

If we were to list out differences and similarities between fish and humans, we could fill pages with just our limited knowledge of zoology.

The differences between Neanderthals and humans were mostly microscopic, which is why I wonder about the need for hard delineations between homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

I’m also still curious about your claims of empirical observations. 

I haven't seen anyone else doing the street epistemology thing around here. I've been fascinated as it's moved from Boghossian's book to, at times, an organized and even coordinated approach.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hasn’t it been scientists that have created the hard delineations by assigning Neanderthals to a different species?

Though some appear to limit humans to Homo sapiens and others limit humanity to the genus Homo. If one uses the latter definition, Neanderthals would be seen as human beings and my guess that individual, if a member of the Church, would be more likely to assume they were spirit children of God.  But it would be speculation, not revelation.  No real need to draw lines then, imo, just recognize there are differences that may or may not make a difference. 

And notice the differentiation if any is defined by humans, so as always the theory behind it is created by humans.  It's not "out there", it's in the human mind and perceptions!

 

[MikeFoxtrot]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Hasn’t it been scientists that have created the hard delineations by assigning Neanderthals to a different species?

Much of what I’ve read basically uses human as a euphemism for the genus homo, as you’ve noted below

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Though some appear to limit humans to Homo sapiens and others limit humanity to the genus Homo. If one uses the latter definition, Neanderthals would be seen as human beings and my guess that individual, if a member of the Church, would be more likely to assume they were spirit children of God.  But it would be speculation, not revelation.  No real need to draw lines then, imo, just recognize there are differences that may or may not make a difference. 

 

[MikeFoxtrot]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I haven't seen anyone else doing the street epistemology thing around here. I've been fascinated as it's moved from Boghossian's book to, at times, an organized and even coordinated approach.

I don’t think my style is street epistemology, per se, though I have watched some YouTube stuff on it, and I do lean toward the Socratic method in conversations. 

[MikeFoxtrot]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been studying this formally in philosophy now for nearly 50 years.  If you really want to get into it, we can but you can read it for yourself so you know I am not some wacko!

How much formal study should be required for a basic grasp of theology?

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My favorite occupation is building guitars and would love to be a plumber.  It is a marvelous thing to see your contribution to the world daily.   While I was able to, I did a lot of plumbing.

My brother builds guitars. I built one with him that I play every day. If I could choose, I’d definitely do that instead of plumbing. Much less digging. 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So yes, there is room for "yet" and LDS doctrine requires it since we see God as an embodied part of this universe and not 'transcendent" because he works with existing matter as we do.

Does it behoove god to remain hidden from the vast majority of mortals?

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not understand how ants can know more about quantum mechanics than humans.   I mean we invented it

I think it’s like how my girlfriend makes me get things down from the high shelves. It’s all about scale and proximity.

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No philosophers have had a consistent theory of "truth" in 2500 years so I don't know what "falsifiabilty" means, and no I don't care what others believe, so someone else's idea of "falsifiability" is not relevant to the way I think.       I look for propositions which are consistent with a good paradigm, then see if the paradigm "works" for me I test it out as Alma 32 suggests and see if it sweetens my life.

That to me, is the essence of what being LDS is about and I try to live it as well as I can.     

How do you accommodate for confirmation bias, etc.?

And does pragmatism trump truth or do you see the two as inextricably linked?

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I see no reason to take the Genesis account as literal, so I don’t think a specific mention of certain human species is necessary to classify them as humans with a heavily-guarded capital H.

If it's myth, and the God that it portrays is also mythical, then all we're arguing about is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Fun, but ultimately purposeless.

If it isn't myth, and represents a genuine revelation from God, then the absence of a mention of Neanderthals means nothing more than this: God's immediate concern is with homo sapiens. Why should He then mention to Moses the no-longer-extant Neanderthals? If they were also in the image of God on a par with us, then He has no doubt already taken care of their salvation, since they are long gone. And if they were not in His image, then they have gone on to whatever reward or fate any other non-divine species has gone on to. And we need not concern ourselves with them, because their salvation, if needed, has been taken care of.  His omission of the need for us to care should be Word enough on the subject. Did Christ die on the cross and atone for them, as well? We've not been informed of this. And if Christ did not die on the cross for them, then there is no need for temple ordinances for them.

As for the literalness, it doesn't need to be literal. The Genesis chapter 1 story actually tracks science in a number of respects. The initial verses seem to correspond to the early proto-stellar solar system, with "let there be light" marking the ignition of the sun, then the early formation of the planet and its subsequent state of being covered in a world ocean, followed by the appearance of dry land as continental drift fires up. It goes variously after that, but the progression of life up until the very recent creation of humans is more or less in the same order as happened in the actual events.  Some people, literalists to the core, imagine that it all had to take place in six 24-hour periods. I'm perfectly content with a 4.5 billion year old solar system. 

And it is full-on baloney that the earth was created in 4004 BC, or even that Adam and Eve were incarnated at that time. I'm pretty sure it happened much earlier.

19 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I’d bet my favorite hat that Neanderthals  weren’t mentioned because the humans who thought up the creation stories found in Genesis couldn’t imagine the true story of humanity, but had an allegory in mind. To take the story as accurately portraying an actual event in world history because… reasons… would require quite a bit of contortion to justify.

You'd bet your favorite hat? Since there's no-one around who could falsify your proposed idea, it's a pretty safe bet! 🙂 

Allegory? Sure. Not that there couldn't be anything literally true about the story. Although much of it is, yes, figurative. Such as the Adam's rib thing, which is actually kind of doctrinal from an LDS point of view. 

I'm pretty sure much of the Genesis story is allegorical or figurative, with some literal events thrown into the later history. 

19 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I like that answer. It’s an interesting concept. 

It's actually supportable in scripture. LDS scripture, anyway. 

Have you ever heard of the Fermi Paradox? 

19 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

They represent 2-5% of most humans with European ancestry (aka white folk). And this is supposed from the clear DNA evidence, which is an interesting study if you’re ever looking for a late night journey into internet rabbit holes. 

Certain verses in Genesis suggests a race of giants that men supposedly interbred with. Maybe those are the remnants of the Neanderthals, and how their DNA found it's way into our genome.

19 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I’ve been pretty consistently saying that Neanderthals are/were humans. Like how humans are apes and how orcas are dolphins. 

Of course they are a genus of Homo. We're obviously closely enough related to have interbred with them. But not with any other apes. Orcas are of the same family as dolphins, but not of the same genus, so they are not dolphins and cannot interbreed with them. There are known to have been two other species in their genus (Orcinus), now extinct, which perhaps could have interbred with them. 

If you want to define Neanderthals as humans, that's your right. I'm pretty sure there isn't a paleontologist who would go that far, however.

19 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Do you believe there is life outside of our solar system?

To quote a scene from a certain film starring Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey, "Well, if there wasn't, it would be an awful waste of space."

19 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I know enough about Latter-day Saint theology to assume nothing about the actual beliefs of a Latter-day Saint until they make claims about such. 

Something like quantum superposition? You can't know the actual state of the system until the state vector is collapsed by observation! LOL! I love it!

19 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I’m sorry if you don’t like my topic. I’m not interested in being disrespectful. I’m here for the discourse, and I’ve found mocking, though sometimes tempting, to be detrimental to a good conversation. 

Oh, I like your topic very much, actually. Having never interacted with you before, nor, having been absent from the forum for several months, I didn't really know for sure where you were coming from. This was just my ham-handed way to measuring where you were on the continuum. 

19 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I’m sorry. They were likely long before my time, and my Foxtrot side of the family is all still in the old country. 

I looked briefly for a Social Hall post introducing yourself and didn't see one, so was just wondering. Is your actual first name Mike, btw? If so, I am also one such.

Edited July 3, 2022 by Stargazer

[mfbukowski]

error

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by mfbukowski

[MikeFoxtrot]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If it's myth, and the God that it portrays is also mythical, then all we're arguing about is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Fun, but ultimately purposeless.

Love of the game is enough purpose for me.
I may take the position that the creation account is a myth, that god is a byproduct of our monkey brains, and that zero angels exist to dance on pins (pins, I can be convinced exist, though). But, though I feel pretty confident in my stance on those topics, the fact that people disagree with me on topics like this always sparks my curiosity, helps me assess my own epistemology, and hones my belief system. So, I’m always down to measure some angel tracks on pins.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If it isn't myth, and represents a genuine revelation from God, then the absence of a mention of Neanderthals means nothing more than this: God's immediate concern is with homo sapiens. Why should He then mention to Moses the no-longer-extant Neanderthals? If they were also in the image of God on a par with us, then He has no doubt already taken care of their salvation, since they are long gone. And if they were not in His image, then they have gone on to whatever reward or fate any other non-divine species has gone on to. And we need not concern ourselves with them, because their salvation, if needed, has been taken care of.  His omission of the need for us to care should be Word enough on the subject. Did Christ die on the cross and atone for them, as well? We've not been informed of this. And if Christ did not die on the cross for them, then there is no need for temple ordinances for them.

Will there be no-salvation-needed animals in the celestial kingdom (like, cows, giraffes, lions, lambs, etc.), and, if so, is that a possibility for other members of the homo genus?

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for the literalness, it doesn't need to be literal. The Genesis chapter 1 story actually tracks science in a number of respects. The initial verses seem to correspond to the early proto-stellar solar system, with "let there be light" marking the ignition of the sun, then the early formation of the planet and its subsequent state of being covered in a world ocean, followed by the appearance of dry land as continental drift fires up. It goes variously after that, but the progression of life up until the very recent creation of humans is more or less in the same order as happened in the actual events.  Some people, literalists to the core, imagine that it all had to take place in six 24-hour periods. I'm perfectly content with a 4.5 billion year old solar system. 

What a delightful can of sidetracking worms this topic would be.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You'd bet your favorite hat? Since there's no-one around who could falsify your proposed idea, it's a pretty safe bet! 🙂

Well, it’s a pretty cool hat. If I weren’t sure of the bet, I would have bet your hat.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Allegory? Sure. Not that there couldn't be anything literally true about the story. Although much of it is, yes, figurative. Such as the Adam's rib thing, which is actually kind of doctrinal from an LDS point of view. 

I'm pretty sure much of the Genesis story is allegorical or figurative, with some literal events thrown into the later history.

How do you determine which is literal history and which is added for allegorical purposes?

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Have you ever heard of the Fermi Paradox?

Not in this context, but when I’m not discussing religion, I moonlight in, among other topics, ufo discussions, so I’m pretty familiar.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Certain verses in Genesis suggests a race of giants that men supposedly interbred with. Maybe those are the remnants of the Neanderthals, and how their DNA found it's way into our genome.

I don’t know why those stocky little thick’ums would have been called giants, but I’ve considered this angle in light of the mention of crossbred humans in Genesis 6. 
 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Of course they are a genus of Homo. We're obviously closely enough related to have interbred with them. But not with any other apes. Orcas are of the same family as dolphins, but not of the same genus, so they are not dolphins and cannot interbreed with them. There are known to have been two other species in their genus (Orcinus), now extinct, which perhaps could have interbred with them. 

Orcas cannot interbreed with dolphins, because they are too far removed from their common ancestors, like we are from chimps and bonobos, but they are still in the same family.
 

However, this brings to mind the concept of ring species:
https://tinyurl.com/RingSpeciesSalamander
 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Having never interacted with you before, nor, having been absent from the forum for several months, I didn't really know for sure where you were coming from. This was just my ham-handed way to measuring where you were on the continuum.

Nice to meet you. I think I’ve only been on this site for a couple of weeks, so I’m still expecting at least a few more people to label me as a rabid anti before I manage to fully employ my devilish charm. 

 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I looked briefly for a Social Hall post introducing yourself and didn't see one, so was just wondering. Is your actual first name Mike, btw? If so, I am also one such.

I will go check out the social hall. I didn’t realize there was a safe get-to-know-you zone. And Mike is my pseudonym, though I did covet the name as a child.

[MikeFoxtrot]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

error

 

My favorite type of comedy. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

How much formal study should be required for a basic grasp of theology?

My brother builds guitars. I built one with him that I play every day. If I could choose, I’d definitely do that instead of plumbing. Much less digging. 

Does it behoove god to remain hidden from the vast majority of mortals?

I think it’s like how my girlfriend makes me get things down from the high shelves. It’s all about scale and proximity.

How do you accommodate for confirmation bias, etc.?

And does pragmatism trump truth or do you see the two as inextricably linked?

OK well I started a post answering this, had computer problems, and then just decided to go for it with a different approach.

Let's get started with some real philosophy I learned in grad school (mentioned only to let you know that I am not making this up- it is a real movement called "Neopragmatism) and then see how application of that paradigm answers your questions here.

Richard Rorty is know to be a "lucid philosopher" meaning he explains things clearly and he is also a Neopragmatist, arguably.   This quote appears in every post I make, so hopefully people actually read it, but no one does.   Here it is yet again:

Quote

 

 To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

Explanation:

Of course there is a world "out there" which does not depend in any way upon the human mind.  Duh!  If you think that the world is ALL IN YOUR HEAD, and NOT REAL, then they have a nice bed waiting for you in your local Looney Bin.  NO the world is not a Hallucination!!! 

But logical problems DO arise ( the "mind/body propblem") when TALKING about that world out there indpendent of human beings and their "mental states)  BECAUSE ALL WE CAN SEE OR KNOW about that "independent reality" MUST BE FILTERED THROUGH a HUMAN BRAIN.!

We CANNOT KNOW anything about the world outside us because all we can know is what HUMANS PERCEIVE of that "reality".   NO OBSERVATIONS are of "reality independent of humans" since ALL OBSERVATIONS come through human brains with all their prejudices, and limitations of perceptions.

Color for example is not a "REAL" phenomenon indpendent of human perception, the pitch of music likewise is not "out there"- the way things look CANNOT BE the way things "really are" because eveything is filtered through a human mind!!

So what is "truth"?   The man in the street will say that if something is "true" then it is about what "REALLY IS!"

BUT WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT REALLY IS< WE CAN ONLY KNOW APPEARANCES, and then how they are communicated in languages which are even more separated from "independent  reality" because of the problems and inaccuracies of language itself!   AND THEN another human brain filters the squiggles on the page or grunt ing sounds of language it sees and hears, and then INTERPRETS those grunts and squiggles as that other human brain understands them!

So what we end up with is not a "description of reality independent of humans" but a thoroughly filtered, twisted, grunted and squiggled symbolization of what started at first as a human observation and not INDEPENDENT REALITY at all!!!

So now let's get back to your questions:

Quote

How much formal study should be required for a basic grasp of theology?

"Required"?  By whom?  How much do you want to study theories about God?   How important is it to you?

For me it took me a long time to find a paradigm that would accomodate what was "sweet" to me.   And that one chapter- Alma 32 PLUS the Moroni challenge was all I needed to fit my paradigm above.   Done. 

Truth is what is sweet, and God can speak to you and His Voice IS SWEET  Alma 32 and Moroni 10 AND a religious experience confirming both.   

Done.

Quote

My brother builds guitars. I built one with him that I play every day. If I could choose, I’d definitely do that instead of plumbing. Much less digging. 

I love building guitars and furniture because it is like solving a puzzle.  When I don't feel like puzzles, digging is great because then I can get tangible progress without thought.  Great stuff either way!

Quote

Does it behoove god to remain hidden from the vast majority of mortals?

The paradigm says he doesn't do that at all- that every knee shall bow eventually.   It's a test according to the paradigm/ theory and that REQUIRES us to search for God to learn about the world.   But we will all be resurrected to a kingdom anyway, says the paradigm.   I am perfectly comfortable with that.

Quote

I think it’s like how my girlfriend makes me get things down from the high shelves. It’s all about scale and proximity.

So ants know more about quantum mechanics than humans.   Holy ____ I hope that is a joke.

Quote

How do you accommodate for confirmation bias, etc.?

What's to accomodate for?   The very fact that you asked that indicates that you are in FAVOR of and therefore "biased" to believe that such a phenomenon exists and is relevant.  There is no such thing as "objectivity" and THAT is the problem no one sees.  They are looking out at an imaginary "reality independent of humans" which they could not see anyway.   It's like wearing the heaviest sunglasses you can get and wearing them to the paint store to find the "right shade of green".

It's an absurd idea.  Of course we are all biased- that's not relevant.  The trick is making the biases "work"

Quote

And does pragmatism trump truth or do you see the two as inextricably linked?

 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/2/2022 at 3:15 PM, MikeFoxtrot said:

Wouldn’t a platonic form be unchanging, and a platonic god, therefore be static?

(and if this is a silly question, go easy on me. Remember, I’m a plumber)

Yep you are right-our God is immanent and an actual glorified human with a body which would be an abomination to Plato.

THAT is the difference.

BUT the IDEA of man being in the image of God is very relevant.  THAT was actually the basis for what is seen as the "Apostasy"- the difference between the Hebrew immanent God and the Platonic "Form of Goodness" which is what was Plato's notion of what is knwn as God.

That means God does NOT have any human attributes and why He cannot be consistently seen as a "Father".

So it was the introduction of these Platonic ideas into Christianity that we see as the cause of the Apostasy.   Plotinus was a big factor.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism_and_Christianity

Quote

 

Early Christians including Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine were influenced by Neoplatonism, but none accepted it uncritically and they rejected absolute monism and its emanationists' views.[1] Certain central tenets of neoplatonism served as a philosophical interim for the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo on his journey from dualistic Manichaeism to Christianity. As a Manichee, Augustine had held that evil has substantial being and that God is made of matter; when he became a neoplatonist, he changed his views on these things. As a neoplatonist, and later a Christian, Augustine believed that evil is a privation of good and that God is not material. Perhaps more importantly, the emphasis on mystical contemplation as a means to directly encounter God or the One, found in the writings of Plotinus and Porphyry, deeply affected Augustine. According to his own account of his important discovery of 'the books of the Platonists' in Confessions Book 7, Augustine owes his conception of both God and the human soul as incorporeal substance to neoplatonism. But Augustine was also critical of Neoplatonism doctrines and their formulations, and he rejected the Neoplatonsts immaterialism.[2]

Other Christians assimilated Neoplatonism ideas,[3] especially in their identifying the neoplatonic one, or God, with Yahweh. The most influential of these would be Origen, who potentially took classes from Ammonius Saccas (but this is not certain because there may have been a different philosopher, now called Origen the pagan, at the same time), and the late 5th century author known as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. absolute monism and its emanationism

 

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by mfbukowski

[MikeFoxtrot]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Required"?  By whom?  How much do you want to study theories about God?   How important is it to you?

I think I was unclear. I’ll amend my question.
 

How much formal study would a person need in order to be able to grasp enough of the principles Christianity to receive exaltation? Because ~50 years feels excessive. 
 

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I love building guitars and furniture because it is like solving a puzzle.  When I don't feel like puzzles, digging is great because then I can get tangible progress without thought.  Great stuff either way!

I describe plumbing as flow puzzles, and I agree about woodwork. As for digging, you may be able to do it without thinking, but my high mileage body tends to keep my mind on all of the achey mechanics of proper shovel use. As a younger man, I did like a full day of back work, though.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The paradigm says he doesn't do that at all- that every knee shall bow eventually.

Your “eventually” does quite a bit of the heavy lifting here.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I hope that is a joke.

It is, though I maintain that most people use the phrase “quantum mechanics” as a euphemism for “I don’t know.”

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What's to accomodate for?   The very fact that you asked that indicates that you are in FAVOR of and therefore "biased" to believe that such a phenomenon exists and is relevant.  There is no such thing as "objectivity" and THAT is the problem no one sees.  They are looking out at an imaginary "reality independent of humans" which they could not see anyway.   It's like wearing the heaviest sunglasses you can get and wearing them to the paint store to find the "right shade of green".

It's an absurd idea.  Of course we are all biased- that's not relevant.  The trick is making the biases "work"

I suppose I just like going through the fruitless effort of recognizing my bias and seeing if it is the difference-maker between my understanding of reality and a contrasting claim. It seems like you are either suggesting that bias is not a factor for someone accepting claims, etc. or that bias is only beneficial, and, therefore, should be embraced. Have I missed your point entirely here?

 

I like how this Rorty fellow explains things. Usually, I find philosophers to be mostly chefs of the word salad variety. 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

How much formal study would a person need in order to be able to grasp enough of the principles Christianity to receive exaltation? Because ~50 years feels excessive. 
 

No, I never meant that 50 years was needed.   It could be 2 minutes for one who totally repented and got a testimony of the church paradigm and a certainty that it was God's church.  But there IS some training in the temple that is required, and that takes 1 year of membership to qualify for.  But guess what- if you "qualify" on day one, God knows that and you could theoretically be "qualified" in one second flat because God knows you and your heart.  Just ask God what you need to do!!

I just meant that I have been studying the details between Rorty's paradigm and the church paradigm- Rorty for the logic and church for the revelations and spirit- for a long time looking for flaws and I have not found one- and see that Rorty's view (He is an atheist) accomodates church doctrine perfectly.   And not only Rorty but nearly all of contemporary physics and philosophy.

The paradigms work together perfectly so there are NO comments which cannot be shown to be "untrue" or incompatible with secular ideas once you understand both the church AND the secular, "rational" side.   But God is your judge and knowing philosophy is, if anything probably a handicap.

Quote

I describe plumbing as flow puzzles, and I agree about woodwork. As for digging, you may be able to do it without thinking, but my high mileage body tends to keep my mind on all of the achey mechanics of proper shovel use. As a younger man, I did like a full day of back work, though.

Oh, pain.  Yeah that is pretty unavoidable, and I was talking about what I like in a general sense.   Today actually doing it is another question entirely 

Quote

Your “eventually” does quite a bit of the heavy lifting here.

NO NO- misunderstanding my fault!  I meant for everyperson who ever lived, it will happen "eventually".   THAT is our belief.   Imagine having been raised in a cave and never going outside for your entire life.   People tell you that there is this huge fire in the sky called the "sun".  But that's ridiculous to you!   A fire in the sky??  Impossible!   All you know is your cave that is dark all the time.

Then "eventually" you get to the top of the cave and go outside at noon.  You see that the sun is REAL- the most real thing there is!

So we belive that all people who ever lived will eventually learn about Christ- even after they have died- there are missionaries on the other side in "heaven" teaching the full gospel even though they think they are now in heaven

Eventually virtually EVERYONE who has lived will accept the existence of the "sun" when they finally get out of the cave of their own disbelief!  They will see, they will know.

Quote

It is, though I maintain that most people use the phrase “quantum mechanics” as a euphemism for “I don’t know.”

I am a philosophy guy not a physics guy but I have studied all I can find about quantum mechanics, and for me QM is perfectly compatible and even "proves" at least one or two aspects of the gospel- that as Rorty suggests, we cannot know anything about some "reality" beyond what we are able to observe.

Quote

I suppose I just like going through the fruitless effort of recognizing my bias and seeing if it is the difference-maker between my understanding of reality and a contrasting claim. It seems like you are either suggesting that bias is not a factor for someone accepting claims, etc. or that bias is only beneficial, and, therefore, should be embraced. Have I missed your point entirely here?

Pretty much. 

The point is that everything you think you know is biased simply by being a human being and having a human brain, so don't worry about "bias"- it's a fact of life.  What is important is what works in any given paradigm/theory.   If the theory "works" it doesn't matter if it is also "biased"- you have just found a "bias" that works!

Right now you are biased into thinking you are a human being.     But that seems to work just fine for you. 

Just a point- your bias might actually be "true" and therefore helpful!   I am definitely biased in favor of the church- there is no such thing as objectivity.   I am biased to believe that I love my wife and she is the "best" for me.  I am biased toward chocolate chip ice cream.  And Jesus Christ.

Quote

I like how this Rorty fellow explains things. Usually, I find philosophers to be mostly chefs of the word salad variety. 

Good!