[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2014, 08:09 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(05-01-2014 06:59 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Ok, threats from environment will always be present, but the necessary shift is only from assuming a supernatural agent to a natural one.

And this is where reflective and intuitive beliefs come in.

(05-01-2014 06:59 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Well, it does take time.

Honestly , I don't .

If it's not a sound your brain has already gotten used to and logged away for future reference, you do. It's an evolutionary trait from which no one is free.

(05-01-2014 06:59 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  But again, even if I suspect agency in whatever situation it is never a supernatural one.

But it can be an unknown one, and that combines with other cognitive predispositions to create conceptualizations of abstractions and unknown entities in ways that can be called divine. For instance, all people who speak and think about science will at some point, and usually with regularity, conceive of science as an actor in a narrative with anthropomorphic features and agency. Not all, but the vast majority of people who speak and think about science will also think of it as all-knowing or potentially all knowing, and many will even think of it as potentially all-powerful. This is deifying science, and it's a result of cognition, not ignorance. It's doing the exact same thing to science that early humans did to whatever was making it rain (which was cognition + ignorance). These biases are a complex constellation of cognitive processes that our brain uses to make understanding the world more efficient and simple.

(05-01-2014 06:59 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Sadly, you are probably right. At least not entirely.

Why is it sad?

(05-01-2014 06:59 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  I disagree , assuming a natural agency opposed to a supernatural one actually increases our abilities to respond. That is evident enough throughout human history, is it not?

No, the cognitive predisposition is not fundamentally to supernatural entities, but to those that are unknown or non-natural (that is, abstract). The attribution of deity is another cognitive step away.

(05-01-2014 06:59 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Let's see where we are now.

You hear suspicious sounds at night, you assume agency , but obviously you don't assume a supernatural one. So far that is beneficial to the survival of our species.

But when you are faced with events in the environment who are beyond human capabilities , you assume a supernatural agent behind it. I would argue that this is not at all beneficial to our species. On the contrary.

Yes, but that's another cognitive process altogether.

(05-01-2014 06:59 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Correct?

Would this be a fair conclusion then ?

Belief in gods/deities ( or supernatural agents if you want ) is to a large extent caused by our brains being predisposed to assume (supernatural) agency, which is in turn caused by our (poor) understanding of our environment.

Would you agree that this conclusion is supported by the fact that the more educated (especially in natural sciences ) a person is, the less likely he is to believe in god?

I think that's definitely a big contributing factor, but certainly not the only or most significant one.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 08:15 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(05-01-2014 07:57 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(05-01-2014 02:07 AM)Chippy Wrote:  No it isn't but that does not entail that there is no such thing as more or less legitimate readings of a text.

I agree. There are usually demonstrably correct and incorrect readings, but most frequently when the languages, cultures, and time periods of the author and reader are in close proximity, if not the same.

(05-01-2014 02:07 AM)Chippy Wrote:  The legitimacy being determined not only by referencing authorial intent but also by referencing the lexicons of the period in which the text was authored.

What I believe Chas is objecting to is your revisionist reading of the BoM such that its anachronisms become insignificant or irrelevant.

Insignificant or irrelevant to what? To me? That's not Chas place to determine. To it's veracity? I've already said I'm not here to defend that.

(05-01-2014 02:07 AM)Chippy Wrote:  There is nothing in the BoM or in the narrative associated with its creation that indicates that it was not intended to be a historically accurate document.

This doesn't bear on my own personal conceptualization of the text and its provenance and value.

(05-01-2014 02:07 AM)Chippy Wrote:  I can appreciate the fictionalist approach to religious texts--I have read bits and pieces of Vaihinger's The Philosophy of 'As If'--and this at least appears to be your position in relation to the BoM and the LDS. If that is indeed your position perhaps you should state it explicitly. But I am having difficulty reconciling your apparent fictionalism with your theism. How deep does your fictionalist epistemology run?

I don't insist that "inspired" must mean "historical." Neither do I insist that anyone else should accept my point of view, except insofar as it relates to its validity to my worldview, which is something I'm always working on.

We can criticize another's reading of a text as not a reasonable interpretation or understanding, or by being driven by an agenda or a worldview.

I do not understand you reading (parts of?) the BoM as fiction, yet professing the Mormon faith.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 08:32 AM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2014 12:32 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
[Image: 44586596.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 08:33 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(05-01-2014 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  We can criticize another's reading of a text as not a reasonable interpretation or understanding, or by being driven by an agenda or a worldview.

I do not understand you reading (parts of?) the BoM as fiction, yet professing the Mormon faith.

And I can understand that, but I'm not here to be an apologist, and that's a road I'm not interested in going down here (as I've explained to another poster). Hopefully you and others can appreciate, or at least respect, that.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 08:36 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(05-01-2014 08:32 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  [Image: 44582135.jpg]

I'm happy to answer most any question from posters here, but you've been an enormously ignorant and belligerent asshole in every single post I've seen of yours, and I don't really care to go out of my way at all for you, nor, honestly, do I think you're intelligent enough to understand.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like maklelan's post
05-01-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(05-01-2014 08:36 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(05-01-2014 08:32 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  [Image: 44582135.jpg]

I'm happy to answer most any question from posters here, but you've been an enormously ignorant and belligerent asshole in every single post I've seen of yours, and I don't really care to go out of my way at all for you, nor, honestly, do I think you're intelligent enough to understand.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA: "....not intelligent enough to understand"......Magic Underwear. Laughat


Magic. Underwear.



ROFL

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 08:56 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(05-01-2014 08:48 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA: "....not intelligent enough to understand"......Magic Underwear. Laughat

Magic. Underwear.

ROFL

Yes, I see that's how you mischaracterize them, and that's part of the reason I've concluded you're not intelligent enough to understand how I really conceptualize of garments. That and the fact that you, as near as I can tell, don't ever take responsibility for your errors and misunderstandings, leave me with no confidence in your integrity or intelligence.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 09:20 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Ok,i have a few questions that comes from my ignorance towards mormonism. Is it mandatory to wear "magic underwear" or is it just a personal choice?
Can you shed some light in the mormon way of getting new members? As i understand it, the mormons have some sort of proselytizing ritual before some1 reaches adulthood or something



also,why dont ye make a "ask a mormon" thread?

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 09:23 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Come*

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(05-01-2014 09:20 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  Ok,i have a few questions that comes from my ignorance towards mormonism. Is it mandatory to wear "magic underwear" or is it just a personal choice?

I'd appreciate it if they were just called garments, and when an adult Latter-day Saint goes through the temple for the first time they make a promise to wear garments when reasonable as a symbol of the promises they make during the temple ceremony. Insofar as they serve as a reminder of those promises, and consequently help the wearer to keep those promises, they are thought to facilitate the blessings of those promises. In other words, they're not magic, they're just reminders, like a WWJD bracelet. Some Latter-day Saints have arrogated supernatural properties to them, which is what leads to the misunderstanding, but those people are moving well beyond the understanding promulgated by the Church itself.

(05-01-2014 09:20 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  Can you shed some light in the mormon way of getting new members?

Missionaries share a series of lessons about Latter-day Saint belief and practice, and if an individual accepts the invitations associated with each lesson, they can be baptized. Missionaries proselytize around the world to share their convictions and try to help others.

(05-01-2014 09:20 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  As i understand it, the mormons have some sort of proselytizing ritual before some1 reaches adulthood or something

No, there's no proselytizing ritual, and there's certainly nothing about reaching adulthood. The minimum age for baptism is 8, so children of Latter-day Saint parents can choose to be baptized beginning at that age.

(05-01-2014 09:20 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  also,why dont ye make a "ask a mormon" thread?

I'm not that interested in Mormonism as a topic of discussion here. I'm here mainly to share information about religion more generally, and the Bible more specifically. I don't like to see either topic maligned and mischaracterized in places like this.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: