More than One Way to Know the Church is True

[Hamilton Porter]

This interview with Tarik Lacour is a must watch. He is a PhD student in philosophy at the University of Texas, also working on an MS in cognitive neuroscience. He joined the church based solely on logic. In one of his other interviews, he was incensed about a bishop who told a kid you don't have any reasons to believe; you just need faith.

Throughout this interview, the interviewer, an atheist, recognizes that LDS theism solves a lot of problems of Christian theism. He also recognized that you can tell a Mormon apart from an atheist based on his/her personality; the same cannot be said of Christians. In one sense, I'm not surprised. I had philosophy of religion at BYU with David Paulsen. Philosophically and Biblically, our views compare favorably with mainstream Christianity.

On the other hand, we emphasize Moroni's promise more than anything else. Some of us just aren't that good at feeling or discerning the Spirit. The only time I can say I realize felt it was when I returned to BYU after my mission, and could sense that the place was pure. If I try to produce a feeling anywhere, I usually fail. If someone where to ask me why I'm LDS, I'd say that it fits the Bible the best, and for its unparalleled transformative power in people's lives, including my own.

The Gospel of John has a lot about knowing the truth. Through its narrative, many people saw miracles. Many people were witnesses. A lot of critics like to masturbate off Richard Bushman's quote that "The Church's narrative is false." Nevermind that that phrase was taken out of context, they ignore other things Richard Bushman said, such as that the closer you get to original sources, the stronger Joseph Smith's position becomes. Early Latter-day Saints saw an abundance miracles.

This is in addition to our own experience with the commandments (7:17) and the witness of the spirit (14:26). I hope we pay attention to the many different ways we learn in our Come Follow Me study this year.

 

[Smiley McGee]

You raise an interesting point: is it possible for LDSs to live their faith without suggesting that the rest of Christianity is inept, or do they suffer from a superiority complex? 

41 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

A lot of critics like to masturbate off Richard Bushman's quote

…nice

[Hamilton Porter]

3 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

You raise an interesting point: is it possible for LDSs to live their faith without suggesting that the rest of Christianity is inept, or do they suffer from a superiority complex? 

Where did I suggest that? That was from the interviewer, who is an atheist.

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Where did I suggest that? That was from the interviewer, who is an atheist.

 

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

LDS theism solves a lot of problems of Christian theism. He also recognized that you can tell a Mormon apart from an atheist based on his/her personality; the same cannot be said of Christians. In one sense, I'm not surprised. I had philosophy of religion at BYU with David Paulsen. Philosophically and Biblically, our views compare favorably with mainstream Christianity.

 

[Hamilton Porter]

1 minute ago, Smiley McGee said:

Philosophically and Biblically, our views compare favorably with mainstream Christianity.

Yeah I believe that, that's why I'm a Latter-day Saint. I didn't say I was superior in any sense.

 

2 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

the same cannot be said of Christians. In one sense, I'm not surprised.

I was talking about our the comparative coherency and logic of our beliefs. I learned about it in David Paulsen's class, so I wasn't surprised when a third party recognized that.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

This interview with Tarik Lacour is a must watch. He is a PhD student in philosophy at the University of Texas, also working on an MS in cognitive neuroscience. He joined the church based solely on logic. In one of his other interviews, he was incensed about a bishop who told a kid you don't have any reasons to believe; you just need faith.

Throughout this interview, the interviewer, an atheist, recognizes that LDS theism solves a lot of problems of Christian theism. He also recognized that you can tell a Mormon apart from an atheist based on his/her personality; the same cannot be said of Christians. In one sense, I'm not surprised. I had philosophy of religion at BYU with David Paulsen. Philosophically and Biblically, our views compare favorably with mainstream Christianity.

On the other hand, we emphasize Moroni's promise more than anything else. Some of us just aren't that good at feeling or discerning the Spirit. The only time I can say I realize felt it was when I returned to BYU after my mission, and could sense that the place was pure. If I try to produce a feeling anywhere, I usually fail. If someone where to ask me why I'm LDS, I'd say that it fits the Bible the best, and for its unparalleled transformative power in people's lives, including my own.

The Gospel of John has a lot about knowing the truth. Through its narrative, many people saw miracles. Many people were witnesses. A lot of critics like to masturbate off Richard Bushman's quote that "The Church's narrative is false." Nevermind that that phrase was taken out of context, they ignore other things Richard Bushman said, such as that the closer you get to original sources, the stronger Joseph Smith's position becomes. Early Latter-day Saints saw an abundance miracles.

This is in addition to our own experience with the commandments (7:17) and the witness of the spirit (14:26). I hope we pay attention to the many different ways we learn in our Come Follow Me study this year.

 

Do you have a YouTube showing what critics do with the Bushman quote? 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Do you have a YouTube showing what critics do with the Bushman quote? 

If it's anything like the way he described it, I REALLY don't want to see that.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

This interview with Tarik Lacour is a must watch. He is a PhD student in philosophy at the University of Texas, also working on an MS in cognitive neuroscience. He joined the church based solely on logic. In one of his other interviews, he was incensed about a bishop who told a kid you don't have any reasons to believe; you just need faith.

Throughout this interview, the interviewer, an atheist, recognizes that LDS theism solves a lot of problems of Christian theism. He also recognized that you can tell a Mormon apart from an atheist based on his/her personality; the same cannot be said of Christians. In one sense, I'm not surprised. I had philosophy of religion at BYU with David Paulsen. Philosophically and Biblically, our views compare favorably with mainstream Christianity.

On the other hand, we emphasize Moroni's promise more than anything else. Some of us just aren't that good at feeling or discerning the Spirit. The only time I can say I realize felt it was when I returned to BYU after my mission, and could sense that the place was pure. If I try to produce a feeling anywhere, I usually fail. If someone where to ask me why I'm LDS, I'd say that it fits the Bible the best, and for its unparalleled transformative power in people's lives, including my own.

The Gospel of John has a lot about knowing the truth. Through its narrative, many people saw miracles. Many people were witnesses. A lot of critics like to masturbate off Richard Bushman's quote that "The Church's narrative is false." Nevermind that that phrase was taken out of context, they ignore other things Richard Bushman said, such as that the closer you get to original sources, the stronger Joseph Smith's position becomes. Early Latter-day Saints saw an abundance miracles.

This is in addition to our own experience with the commandments (7:17) and the witness of the spirit (14:26). I hope we pay attention to the many different ways we learn in our Come Follow Me study this year.

 

Agree completely, and have for 40 years.

Paulsen is great- most of this comes out of Kant and then through William James and Kuhn and the boys.

Note my siggy if you can- it's from Rorty.  Anti-realist neo Pragmatism.

I got my philos ba at UCLA and then did all my masters work at CUNY with some guys there who were into Process and Teilhard and James, but I did not want to teach philos and teach Aristotle 101 for years- teaching was not my thing, so I started a Real Estate business and stayed there to make some bucks.

Great thread, thanks !

Just to emphasize the important part of the Rorty quote- some devices do not display siggies- I will embold it below.

It shows that from a human point of view, our perceptions create the world AS WE KNOW IT.  If one thinks that over it is a priori true- "by definition" as it were.  The world as we know it HAS to be the World As We Know it.   There are no other possibilities!!  All we know is human experience- and that includes human religion.   We hear human experiences every testimony meeting!

Rorty:

 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.

Edited March 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

A lot of critics like to.....

Strongly suggest you cut the m word or the whole thread might disappear.....

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[MustardSeed]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Strongly suggest you cut the m word or the whole thread might disappear.....

 

Or at least you’ll lose respect for lack of restraint. 

[mfbukowski]

OK - just to keep this post from falling through the floor of the first page, I have gotten to about 1:10 minutes on the FIRST video, speaking of Dennett and phenomenal consciousness, and qualia- 

I really wish I could see this as text- it would probably have taken me 15 minutes to read this far, but I am going to plow through.

I am a total qualia freak and in my book if you are reading this - you are experiencing qualia and can't see how it would be dismissed.  A N Y W A Y, this is a major time sponge so everybody post something to keep it alive unless you are already gone and not reading this.

In that case, you don't have to read it.    

Dennet paper on this:

https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/whyhowconsciousness.pdf

We can at least pretend there are people actuallly interested in this stuff.

IMO Dennet'ts reasoning is circular.   More later

The problem I think is dualism.  Mental states do not "exist"- whatever that is supposed to mean.   In a sense NOTHING "exists" outside of a human mind- existence is a social phenomenon.  The only way a Sasquatch could "exist" is if they were part of the set of shared experiences of humans.

The very fact that there is such a word implies that in one sense the qualia "Sasquatch" "exists" at least in the dictionary.   We can discuss their alleged characteristics - hair, large, human like - without even having reliable evidence (sharable evidence )of ONE of them

Anyway, just trying to keep the thread going until all those who might possibly respond have a chance to at least listen to the presentations.

Edited March 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Smiley McGee]

On 3/7/2023 at 11:27 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

He joined the church based solely on logic.

 

On 3/7/2023 at 2:21 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

was talking about our the comparative coherency and logic of our beliefs.

I guess I’m doubtful of the role of rationalism in the acquisition of religious belief. Dig far enough into any theology with your rationalist shovel and I don’t think you hit logical bedrock or God, I think you’re more likely to encounter a set of ideals and values that are taken as self-evident, and are acquired by individuals via some social mechanism, not deduction.

It’s impossible to compare theologies without understanding these core values, ideals, and assumptions. 

Does logic play some role? Sure. Our framework has to make sense to us, but are we rationalizing our way into our beliefs, or are we more often performing some post hoc justification for beliefs we already think are good or useful? I think we tend to do the latter.
 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Smiley McGee
Grammar

[mfbukowski]

On 3/7/2023 at 10:27 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

Richard Bushman's quote that "The Church's narrative is false." Nevermind that that phrase was taken out of context, they ignore other things Richard Bushman said, such as that the closer you get to original sources, the stronger Joseph Smith's position becomes.

"FALSE narrative" without providing a theory of truth showing what that means?  What IS a narrative for that matter?  Is the US constitution a "narrative"?  Is it true or false? Is poetry true or false? 

Every statement in epistemology implies an entire metaphysical position which this one appears to lack.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

Does logic play some role? Sure. Our framework has to make sense to us, but are we rationalizing our way into our beliefs, or are we more often performing some post hoc justification for beliefs we already think are good or useful?

I first established my philosophical boundaries for any church, and went looking.

I found Mormonism based on philosophy and then saw how it fit my criteria, prayed about it, and got clobbered spiritually.

The criteria:

It had to be based on the notion that the world as we know it is "created" by human epistemology, as my Rorty quotes indicate.

It had to be based on humanism and the the REAL progression toward world peace.

It had to be universalist- no true God would burn his babies in hell forever.

If it had a Trinity concept, it would have to make sense in a human way: a team of three acting as one to perfect mankind worked perfectly.

It had to have a morality based on a model of universifiability, and the golden rule, a la Kant's categorical imperative. And then Kant provides the keys to a rational morality (essentially pragmatism via his synthetic a priori) to qualify the "best possible" grounds for morality.

And if God can communicate with mankind, it had to have  way to do that- the conscience would be a good example of an inner voice.

It would have to be doctrinally flexible, to adjust for changing times.

There would have to be very stringent and difficult criteria for leadership including experience in spiritual and worldly matters.

It would have to have room for mysticism as well, including meditation.

I found it. And my spirit rejoiced.

And here I am 43 years later.

Edited March 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

On 3/9/2023 at 10:12 AM, mfbukowski said:

I first established my philosophical boundaries for any church, and went looking.

I found Mormonism based on philosophy and then saw how it fit my criteria, prayed about it, and got clobbered spiritually.

The criteria:

It had to be based on the notion that the world as we know it is "created" by human epistemology, as my Rorty quotes indicate.

It had to be based on humanism and the the REAL progression toward world peace.

It had to be universalist- no true God would burn his babies in hell forever.

If it had a Trinity concept, it would have to make sense in a human way: a team of three acting as one to perfect mankind worked perfectly.

It had to have a morality based on a model of universifiability, and the golden rule, a la Kant's categorical imperative. And then Kant provides the keys to a rational morality (essentially pragmatism via his synthetic a priori) to qualify the "best possible" grounds for morality.

And if God can communicate with mankind, it had to have  way to do that- the conscience would be a good example of an inner voice.

It would have to be doctrinally flexible, to adjust for changing times.

There would have to be very stringent and difficult criteria for leadership including experience in spiritual and worldly matters.

It would have to have room for mysticism as well, including meditation.

I found it. And my spirit rejoiced.

And here I am 43 years later.

You shoulda been a Mennonite!

[Navidad]

More than one way to know the church is true. I gather that you are referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, right? If so, then what do you mean by "true?" If so, then how does a Baptist know that the Baptist church is true . . . ditto for Catholics . . . Mennonites . . . Lutherans, et al.? If the LDS church is "true" does that imply anything about other Christian institutions that are not LDS?

Edited March 10, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

More than one way to know the church is true. I gather that you are referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, right? If so, then what do you mean by "true?" If so, then how does a Baptist know that the Baptist church is true . . . ditto for Catholics . . . Mennonites . . . Lutherans, et al.? If the LDS church is "true" does that imply anything about other Christian institutions that are not LDS?

Of course not, and it would be nice if you dropped your one question which you repeat endlessly no matter what the topic is, "what do LDS think of Mennonites/Baptists etc

I am using colloquial LDS language and not including an entire metaphysics and epistemology OBVIOUSLY.

Pragmatic theory of truth, if there is one.

Rorty on truth

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You shoulda been a Mennonite!

Oh really? Are they the one true church?  Are they truer than the Mormons? Why SHOULD anyone be a Mennonite?

Gee, what church do you actually attend since all are equal?  

[Grug the Neanderthal]

56 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If the LDS church is "true" does that imply anything about other Christian institutions that are not LDS?

Yes, that they aren't the Lord's true and living church.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/9/2023 at 9:28 AM, Smiley McGee said:

Dig far enough into any theology with your rationalist shovel and I don’t think you hit logical bedrock or God, I think you’re more likely to encounter a set of ideals and values that are taken as self-evident, and are acquired by individuals via some social mechanism, not deduction.

How is this different from science?

Science is based on examining human perceptions and observations and replying to papers, a "social mechanism", as well.

All human thought is!

Even "logic" only gives us an abstract attempt at representing the rules the human mind finds essential.

But I believe God is the Ideal Human, so that's fine.

Instead  of talking about MECHANISMS like HOW is God omnipotent instead of why, and why we want Him to be, and how he created us that way so we could could create an image of perfection in GODS IMAGE.

Dunno, not familiar with LaCour as a philosopher yet. Gotta study up

Edited March 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, that they aren't the Lord's true and living church.

Since there are 99 other threads discussing this,could we stay on the topic here about philosophy?

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

How is this different from science?

Not sure it does differ. Topic is theology, so I addressed theology. 

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Not sure it does differ. Topic is theology, so I addressed theology. 

Yes I agree. That was my point, sorry to be confusing.

I DID say that all human thought was like that; I am a social constructivist.

But pre-linguistic experience is not, those are qualia which are discussed, erroneously imo, in the video with the atheist.

Yes qualia are private by definition, so what? It is language that makes them social and usable for social structures, like buildings and theories/paradigms

My quale of "red" is private until I call it red, then all associate it with their own private quale CALLED red, but which may match my quale called "green", but we will never know it, because the experiences are private.

What some people find tasty others may find "anything BUT tasty", but we can't know if the taste is the "same" for the both of us.

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Smiley McGee]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Since there are 99 other threads discussing this,could we stay on the topic here about philosophy?

Just take his comment as advocating some correspondence theory of truth, which is more typical of LDSs than endorsing rorty. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Smiley McGee
Grammar

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh really? Are they the one true church?  Are they truer than the Mormons? Why SHOULD anyone be a Mennonite?

Gee, what church do you actually attend since all are equal?  

You seem in a grumpy mood! I asked the OP what he means by "true." Isnt' that philosophical enough a question? I was just making a light-hearted suggestion given that the Mennonite church meets most of your criteria for what you were looking for! To answer your question - I attend whatever church meets our needs for worship, fellowship, and ministry and is close to where we live. The denomination is irrelevant.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Navidad