Opinions of "Self-Identified" Latter- day Saints, Quantified

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you think now you were still hoping or was it just so engrained it didn’t feel natural not to do it?  Or something else (if you don’t want to answer, no problem, I am just curious and poking my nose everywhere like usual).

Poking is ok, but changing a few squiggles is not.

Dang squiggles..... 😜

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

changing a few squiggles is not.

Fibro brain is bad today so short term memory isn’t great and rereading seems like drudgery (usually I like to do that because I miss stuff so often)….did I say something before or did someone else that this connects to?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Fibro brain is bad today so short term memory isn’t great and rereading seems like drudgery (usually I like to do that because I miss stuff so often)….did I say something before or did someone else that this connects to?

Sorry, I was being obtuse again as usual - no, re: your last post about being nosey, above, I was joking about the difference between "picking" and "poking" is just a couple of squiggles, yet with vast difference in politeness when applied to discussions regarding noses. 

Simply put it's ok to poke your nose, but not ok to pick it.  😳😉

Edited February 19, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

Does this idea stem from your belief that evidence must be observable to someone else and not just the person experiencing it to count as evidence?  Or are you defining evidence this way for a different reason?

Sorry if I was not clear.  IT is not evidence for anyone but yourself.  How you choose to process it and rely on it for evidence for just you is up to you.  But it is not evidence for anyone else.

[OGHoosier]

"Inspired Fiction" vs. "Historical" seems like an unnecessary dichotomy, which Ostler's expansion theory was supposed to blow open. 

For me, I can't make sense of the BoM geographically. I curse the existence of Alma 22. I've never found a model that fit neatly, and it annoys me even though I'm aware that a) my assessment of various models is often very "gut"-oriented, and ancient maps were not great (see here for how Roman maps looked: https://www.historyhit.com/ancient-maps-how-did-the-romans-see-the-world/) Can't rule out the idea that Mormon was working with a similarly rough map, but idk.

So I can't say that I confidently think the Book of Mormon happened in any place. However, I think the people were real, I think the literary features indicate antiquity, and I note that the point of the Book of Mormon is to record the doings of particular prophets and saintly figures. For all that Mormon talks about preserving the memory of his fallen people, his record zooms over hundreds of years of that people with ease and only focuses on the doings of particular prophets. It's more of a hagiographic compilation than anything else. So I think God might have let the Book of Mormon take form in the mound-builder genre (for ease of initial impact) while preserving the hagiographies of prophets from a different place. 

Is that view "Inspired Fiction?" It's not up-and-down historicity, but it's not exactly fiction either.

 

EDIT: Random geekery on ancient maps for those who choose not to click the link:

The following is Strabo's map of Europe from the Geographica. He composed this around the time of Christ. Notice how France, though totally owned by Rome at this time and traversed by Roman infrastructure, is shrunk, which distorts the entire map. Italy is massively oversized and at the wrong angle to Greece. 

 

Or this 1898 reproduction of Pomponius Mela's map:

Edited February 19, 2024 by OGHoosier

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sorry if I was not clear.  IT is not evidence for anyone but yourself.  How you choose to process it and rely on it for evidence for just you is up to you.  But it is not evidence for anyone else.

I think that depends on the relationship and knowledge of the other who shares with you their evidence. My sister, if she shared anything spiritual with me I think I would accept her version as if I saw it with my own eyes, same with my husband and son. The level of self reflection and skepticism is high enough in both and they don’t exaggerate in that way, so I trust them (as long as they were acting normally).   There are some I would dismiss outright even if it perfectly lined up with my own expectations.  The rest, probably depends on what they claim. 

Edited February 19, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sorry if I was not clear.  IT is not evidence for anyone but yourself.  How you choose to process it and rely on it for evidence for just you is up to you.  But it is not evidence for anyone else.

I'm thinking that you are coming at this topic completely from the 'atheist POV' since the bolded statement would otherwise be a statement of fact applied to the entire world and that wouldn't make any sense.

Clearly, internal evidence can be (and often is) evidence for many other people, but it's understandable that it wouldn't be evidence for an atheist.  

If we stay within the parameters of what an atheist considers to be evidence, then I don't have a problem with your statement.  If you are attempting to apply your definition broadly to the word in general, then I'm going to pushback on that a little.

After all, a testimony is considered evidence in a court of law.  It doesn't make sense that a testimony cannot be considered evidence in a religious setting.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

we stay within the parameters of what an atheist considers to be evidence, then I don't have a problem with your statement.  If you are attempting to apply your definition broadly to the word in general, then I'm going to pushback on that a little.

 

There are no physical tests for establishing Restless Legs Disorder.  It is known from the descriptions of the internal experience.  And yet it is believed to be a disorder that affects maybe as high as 10% of the population.   (They should test for things to rule them out)

Edited February 19, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

Just now, Calm said:

There are no physical tests for establishing Restless Legs Disorder.  It is known from the descriptions of the internal experience.  And yet it is believed to be a disorder that affects maybe as high as 10% of the population. 

I was thinking of medical stuff too when I was posting.  There are so many symptoms that doctors have to take on someone's word because there is no way to validate them externally.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

"Inspired Fiction" vs. "Historical" seems like an unnecessary dichotomy, which Ostler's expansion theory was supposed to blow open. 

For me, I can't make sense of the BoM geographically. I curse the existence of Alma 22. I've never found a model that fit neatly, and it annoys me even though I'm aware that a) my assessment of various models is often very "gut"-oriented, and ancient maps were not great (see here for how Roman maps looked: https://www.historyhit.com/ancient-maps-how-did-the-romans-see-the-world/) Can't rule out the idea that Mormon was working with a similarly rough map, but idk.

So I can't say that I confidently think the Book of Mormon happened in any place. However, I think the people were real, I think the literary features indicate antiquity, and I note that the point of the Book of Mormon is to record the doings of particular prophets and saintly figures. For all that Mormon talks about preserving the memory of his fallen people, his record zooms over hundreds of years of that people with ease and only focuses on the doings of particular prophets. It's more of a hagiographic compilation than anything else. So I think God might have let the Book of Mormon take form in the mound-builder genre (for ease of initial impact) while preserving the hagiographies of prophets from a different place. 

Is that view "Inspired Fiction?" It's not up-and-down historicity, but it's not exactly fiction either.

 

EDIT: Random geekery on ancient maps for those who choose not to click the link:

The following is Strabo's map of Europe from the Geographica. He composed this around the time of Christ. Notice how France, though totally owned by Rome at this time and traversed by Roman infrastructure, is shrunk, which distorts the entire map. Italy is massively oversized and at the wrong angle to Greece. 

 

Or this 1898 reproduction of Pomponius Mela's map:

Great stuff. Good to see you!

[OGHoosier]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Great stuff. Good to see you!

I have a relapsing/remitting pattern of activity on this board, so I think I'll be back for a bit. 

I can't deny, on a gut level my solution above feels like cope. It feels like cheating to a certain extent. The dichotomy between "fiction vs. history" is SO deeply ingrained in LDS culture and the "solution space" for thinking about the Book of Mormon that deviating from it feels like special pleading or composing a "just-so story." However, it's not clear to me rationally why this would be the case. I still have the Spirit, which I believe is epistemically permissible (thanks to Philip Wiebe, Iain McGilchrist, and Roberto di Ceglie) and my convictions regarding the testimonies of the Witnesses, as well as my understanding of Joseph Smith (much in line with Richard Bushman and Don Bradley.) These are all observable points of evidence which a theory should account for (and I think mine does). A good theory accounts for evidence, it doesn't just get rid of it. Yet the "fiction v. history" monopolization of the BoM solution space is so total that any other theory feels like cheating.

Or rather, both critic and Church have said that "'fiction" or "history" are the two choices for so long that no other theory has the same level of "legitimacy", so to speak.

I would like to change that.

Edited February 20, 2024 by OGHoosier

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I have a relapsing/remitting pattern of activity on this board, so I think I'll be back for a bit. 

I can't deny, on a gut level my solution above feels like cope. It feels like cheating to a certain extent. The dichotomy between "fiction vs. history" is SO deeply ingrained in LDS culture and the "solution space" for thinking about the Book of Mormon that deviating from it feels like special pleading or composing a "just-so story." However, it's not clear to me rationally why this would be the case. I still have the Spirit, which I believe is epistemically permissible (thanks to Philip Wiebe, Iain McGilchrist, and Roberto di Ceglie) and my convictions regarding the testimonies of the Witnesses, as well as my understanding of Joseph Smith (much in line with Richard Bushman and Don Bradley.) These are all observable points of evidence which a theory should account for (and I think mine does). A good theory accounts for evidence, it doesn't just get rid of it. Yet the "fiction v. history" monopolization of the BoM solution space is so total that any other theory feels like cheating.

Or rather, both critic and Church have said that "'fiction" or "history" are the two choices for so long that no other theory has the same level of "legitimacy", so to speak.

I would like to change that.

I haven't seen your references, so I would love it if you could provide more info.

My position is philosophically based on the "beliefs" and conclusions of atheist well known philosophers- Kant ,Wittgenstein, William James, Rorty,Nagel, Heidegger and more and more-all of whom see personal experience as justifiable as "real".

The analogy I often use is color.   Is color "real" even though it is all experiences "in our brains" or minds or spirits, (to me interchangable as to the last two)

Is a red car "really red" even though it is an interpretation of a specific frequency of light waves as interpreted by our brains?   Color does not "exist" outside of perception- it is not "in the world?  Could such "qualia" be a model for what we call "spiritual impressions"?  In such a case, religious experience would be "about the world" in the same way that "red" is in the world and "real"

As I think we might have discussed before, Nagel, and atheist , whose paper "What is it like to be a Bat" was tremendously influential, also actually wrote a paper indicated that he had "hope" that there was no God because he really felt disturbed by the idea that such a thing could exist:

Nagel, Thomas, The Last Word, pp. 130–131, Oxford University Press, 1997. Dr Nagel (1937– ) is Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University.

https://www.scribd.com/document/320105135/Thomas-Nagel-The-Last-Word-Philosophical-Essays-Oxford-University-Press-USA-2001-pdf

See also:

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opth-2017-0021/html?lang=en

There has also been some discussion of a "God Gene", which might indicate the existence of abilities in the brain not unlike the ability whales (largest brains on earth) and even the relatively small brains of certain birds which enable them to fly for thousands of miles over oceans to reach tiny islands which is the breeding location for the species.  Whales are simply amazing in the abilities they show- not unlike the way, I imagine we feel being "prompted" to understand what we call "good" vs "evil".

Anyway, good to see you back! 

 

 

 

[Teancum]

On 2/19/2024 at 9:16 AM, Nofear said:

I think it is by design that God doesn't provide irrefutable external evidence to the world. It would defeat much of the purpose of mortality were it otherwise. Nonetheless, one can receive evidence sufficient to own needs.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2007/spiritual-experiences-as-the-basis-for-belief-and-commitment

 

And the skeptical side of my thinks this is just another excuse folded into what you believe about this life being a test.  And it buoys up the faith argument. I don't mean this in a snarky way.  But  this line of thinking seems all to convenient.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And the skeptical side of my thinks this is just another excuse folded into what you believe about this life being a test.  And it buoys up the faith argument. I don't mean this in a snarky way.  But  this line of thinking seems all to convenient.  

But if accurate, that could explain the convenience. Not all truths are inconvenient. 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And the skeptical side of my thinks this is just another excuse folded into what you believe about this life being a test.  And it buoys up the faith argument. I don't mean this in a snarky way.  But  this line of thinking seems all to convenient.  

Well, it would be scarcely a good theology if it offered explanations that run counter to plain observation, would it?
Same thing for science. For me, my science and theology, both, are only as good as their ability to help me understand or explain reality*.


* Religion can also help people be better. For some, perhaps most, that is all that is needed. Not so for me. While I very much appreciate the improvement aspect of my character religion brings but I also very much appreciate the insights Mormonism brings to my understanding of the universe.

[Teancum]

42 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Well, it would be scarcely a good theology if it offered explanations that run counter to plain observation, would it?

Yes if course.  But your position is simply another faith based affirmation.

 

42 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Same thing for science. For me, my science and theology, both, are only as good as their ability to help me understand or explain reality*.

Science is evidence based. The scientific method is devoid of faith based assumptions. It is designed to prove a theory wrong and if the theory survives it as assumed to be the best answer based on the knowledge we have. It does not start off with a position that something is true and then follows with trying to find whatever one can to affirm that truth.

42 minutes ago, Nofear said:

 

* Religion can also help people be better. For some, perhaps most, that is all that is needed. Not so for me. While I very much appreciate the improvement aspect of my character religion brings but I also very much appreciate the insights Mormonism brings to my understanding of the universe.

I used to think that. But I have found there is nothing good in people that cannot be found and had without religion. 

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm thinking that you are coming at this topic completely from the 'atheist POV' since the bolded statement would otherwise be a statement of fact applied to the entire world and that wouldn't make any sense.

No not an atheist POV.  How can your personal "spiritual" experience be evidence for anyone but you?  I cannot experience that. You can describe it to me.  Your fervent witness may convince me.  Or motivate me to seek some sort of similar experience for myself.  But I cannot experience your experience. This is why there are so many fervent metaphysical "spiritual experience that convinces people their particular belief is true but at the same time contradict so many others heart felt and cherished experiences.

 

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Clearly, internal evidence can be (and often is) evidence for many other people,

How so?

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

but it's understandable that it wouldn't be evidence for an atheist.  

I don't think whether or not someone is an atheist makes any difference.  A fellow believer may be more prone to accept your narrative of your own experience as true and confirming of theirs but you cannot experience it. 

 

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

If we stay within the parameters of what an atheist considers to be evidence, then I don't have a problem with your statement.  If you are attempting to apply your definition broadly to the word in general, then I'm going to pushback on that a little.

Feel free to push back. Explain your position and apply it to real life. Because all I read is you just don't agree.

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

After all, a testimony is considered evidence in a court of law.  It doesn't make sense that a testimony cannot be considered evidence in a religious setting.

I do not think the testimony in a court of law is anything like the witness or spiritual experiences that you feel confirms spiritual truths to use are ever used in a court of law.  I mean you really never hear something like "Well your honor I prayed about it last night and the Holy Ghost bore witness to me that the defendant is guilty of murder."  Testimony in court is in reference to actual physical events and evidence.  And from what I have read, eye witness accounts allegedly can be very unreliable.

[Analytics]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Science is evidence based. The scientific method is devoid of faith based assumptions. It is designed to prove a theory wrong and if the theory survives it as assumed to be the best answer based on the knowledge we have. It does not start off with a position that something is true and then follows with trying to find whatever one can to affirm that truth.

I agree, but there is one thing I would add to this. The human brain didn't evolve to be a purely rational arbiter of the truth. Rather, it evolved to help our genes propogante. Figuring out what's really true helps with survival. But getting along with your tribe also helps with survival. As our brains evolved, certain well-defined cognitive biases became hard-wired into our thinking. Many of these cognitive biases can be correctly understood as ways to facilitate us being true believers in the proposition that our specific tribe represents what is true, righteous, and pure.

In general, scientific thinking is designed to overcome our cognitive biases and figure out what's true. In contrast, religious thinking is designed to rely on cognitive biases to maintain faith in what our group believes. (That's why integrating people into the branch or ward is an essential part of missionary activity, btw)

With that background, when we go about deciding what to believe in our pluralistic, modern society, it's tricky to determine whether we are objectively and correctly evaluating the evidence, or whether we're merely rationalizing the beliefs that are most conductive to getting along. 

Do religious experiences constitute evidence for religion? We can all decide for ourselves, of course, but there are very specific and compelling reasons from multiple fields of study that all point to the conclusion that our brains do not and cannot interface with spiritual beings or spiritual forces.

[Teancum]

On 2/19/2024 at 11:38 AM, mfbukowski said:

Mi amigo!

Semantics, and category error.

If you personally observed a murder, and were the only "witness" would that count as evidence in court?

An eye witness is not the same as a spiritual witness. You would not get far if you said "Well your honor, the HG confirmed to me in prayer last night that the defendant is indeed a guilty murderer.  Come on. You know the difference.

On 2/19/2024 at 11:38 AM, mfbukowski said:

You betcha.

If you and 10 billion others favored or disfavored gay marriage, abortion, or whatever, is that evidence that those principles are true?  Just because others believe it too?

There are ways to determine and reason amongst us values and morals.  While they are all made up, we come to agree upon them.  Again a big difference.

On 2/19/2024 at 11:38 AM, mfbukowski said:

Nope.

Different categories.

And then semantics.  "GOD" is also a title; Krishna and Jesus,  Buddha and Allah, say, are seen by many as manifestations of the same being.  Is that evidence they right or wrong?

Nope 

Yet ALL of those can be seen as "THE Perfect Human" whose lives should be emulated, but none of these are "God".

Evidences of "reality" ? Nope, semantics!

I am all good with people living decent moral lives based on their own personal truths they believe some supernatural entity proclaimed to their soul.  Just don't say it is the only truth, the best truth, required for the highest heaven and expect everyone to take your word for it.  The metaphysical parts of the universe that speak to me says there is no revealed religion and no better path to anything after this life than another because that part of the universe that speaks to me does not affirm anything one way or the other about any after life.  That is my true path currently. Is yours better than mine?  If yes why?  If no why?

[Nofear]

 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes if course.  But your position is simply another faith based affirmation.

Science is evidence based. The scientific method is devoid of faith based assumptions. It is designed to prove a theory wrong and if the theory survives it as assumed to be the best answer based on the knowledge we have. It does not start off with a position that something is true and then follows with trying to find whatever one can to affirm that truth.

Based on the evidence of your comment I can pretty safely deduce there are some serious misconceptions about what faith is. I can't fault you too much though. Even among latter-day saints there are some misconceptions. It is perhaps a character flaw in myself that I really don't have the motivation to disillusion some of your misconceptions. Perhaps another discussion for another time. Though, I would encourage you to read the essay from Ostler that I linked earlier in the thread.
 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I used to think that. But I have found there is nothing good in people that cannot be found and had without religion. 

In theory and to some degree in practice yes. Mormonism makes no claim to a monopoly on good behavior (or even truth). Though, the social data is unambiguously clear on which paradigm (theistic vs non-theistic) is more efficient in promoting socially positive behaviors among its adherents.

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Nofear said:

 

Based on the evidence of your comment I can pretty safely deduce there are some serious misconceptions about what faith is. I can't fault you too much though. Even among latter-day saints there are some misconceptions. It is perhaps a character flaw in myself that I really don't have the motivation to disillusion some of your misconceptions. Perhaps another discussion for another time. Though, I would encourage you to read the essay from Ostler that I linked earlier in the thread.

Well I think I understand what faith is but I am always willing to be enlightened. Which Ostler essay?  Is it the FAIR link you provided?

3 minutes ago, Nofear said:

 

 

 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

No not an atheist POV.  How can your personal "spiritual" experience be evidence for anyone but you?  I cannot experience that. You can describe it to me.  Your fervent witness may convince me.  Or motivate me to seek some sort of similar experience for myself.  But I cannot experience your experience. This is why there are so many fervent metaphysical "spiritual experience that convinces people their particular belief is true but at the same time contradict so many others heart felt and cherished experiences.

 

How so?

I don't think whether or not someone is an atheist makes any difference.  A fellow believer may be more prone to accept your narrative of your own experience as true and confirming of theirs but you cannot experience it. 

 

Feel free to push back. Explain your position and apply it to real life. Because all I read is you just don't agree.

I do not think the testimony in a court of law is anything like the witness or spiritual experiences that you feel confirms spiritual truths to use are ever used in a court of law.  I mean you really never hear something like "Well your honor I prayed about it last night and the Holy Ghost bore witness to me that the defendant is guilty of murder."  Testimony in court is in reference to actual physical events and evidence.  And from what I have read, eye witness accounts allegedly can be very unreliable.

I did explain it.  I provided the example of how witness testimony is considered to be evidence in a court of law even when it cannot be proven.  Calm and I also discussed how medical evidence does not have to be provable and can exist only within the patient and doctors still consider it as evidence.   

You said that you didn't want to only stick with an atheist perspective (which is to say the perspective of whether or not there is a God).  Here are two examples that are not connected to that question where evidence is still evidence even if it is internal in nature and no one else can experience it. 

 

 

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I did explain it.  I provided the example of how witness testimony is considered to be evidence in a court of law even when it cannot be proven.

I think you are in error as to the comparison of an in court testimony to what and LDS testimony is and the credence a court of law would put on such a witness.  A I noted "Yes your honor, it is my witness, based on personal revelation by the Hoy Ghost that the defendant did in fact commit the murder. I saw is with my spiritual eyes."

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

  Calm and I also discussed how medical evidence does not have to be provable and can exist only within the patient and doctors still consider it as evidence.   

I must have missed that.  I have no idea what you mean by this comment.

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You said that you didn't want to only stick with an atheist perspective (which is to say the perspective of whether or not there is a God).  Here are two examples that are not connected to that question where evidence is still evidence even if it is internal in nature and no one else can experience it. 

 

 

I find the first one totally flawed. I will go back and review the medical evidence comment.

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I did explain it.  I provided the example of how witness testimony is considered to be evidence in a court of law even when it cannot be proven.  Calm and I also discussed how medical evidence does not have to be provable and can exist only within the patient and doctors still consider it as evidence.   

You said that you didn't want to only stick with an atheist perspective (which is to say the perspective of whether or not there is a God).  Here are two examples that are not connected to that question where evidence is still evidence even if it is internal in nature and no one else can experience it. 

I would suggest the disconnect between what you are saying and what @Teancum is saying is what the evidence actually implies. For example, if somebody feels a certain type of pain and stiffness, then that could be evidence that the person has fibromyalgia. Likewise, if somebody feels a certain transcendent spiritual experience when they read the Book of Mormon, then that could be evidence that the Book of Mormon is conductive to having that type of spiritual experience. However, such feelings might not be evidence that a group of Christian Mayans from 2000 years ago wrote a book in Reformed Egyptian on metal and then took the manuscript to New York so that Joseph Smith could conveniently find it 1,400 years later.

 

Edited February 21, 2024 by Analytics

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think you are in error as to the comparison of an in court testimony to what and LDS testimony is and the credence a court of law would put on such a witness.  A I noted "Yes your honor, it is my witness, based on personal revelation by the Holy Ghost that the defendant did in fact commit the murder. I saw is with my spiritual eyes."

I'm not comparing them other than in the way that they can both be about something that the person feels or believes internally that cannot be proven externally and yet is still considered evidence.

For example, a witness in court can testify to something they alone heard that cannot be verified.  They can testify to something they felt that cannot be verified by anyone else.

Whether or not something is externally verifiable or can be experienced by someone else doesn't impact whether or not it can be considered as evidence.  That is the point I'm trying to make.

 

Edited February 21, 2024 by bluebell