|
Man Of The World
Sunday, 26 March 2006
Prophets, Drugs, and Spiritual Laboratories
Topic: Buskirk Review
Scientists, notably Sagan and Richard Feynman do have some strong rhetoric
against authority. Though I think they probably aren't quite so naive about it
as they might come across at times. Certainly, I can agree that science would
come to a dead stand still if no one took any science on shall we say, "faith."
There simply aren't enough hours in the day to confirm every experiment relevant
to one's field prior to accepting them as true. And even if there were enough hours,
it would be a terrible waste of time and resources. The important, and
relatively straightforward point about authority is that in science, a patent
clerk can revolutionize physics. And that in physics, revolutions are a good. In
Mormonism, there is no concept of rejecting the revelations of a prophet. And if
there is ever, the rejection of a revelation, that rejection must come from
another prophet. At any point in Mormon history, the current prophet has always
been irrefutably right. For those who think I exaggerate, please conjure up in
your mind one doctrine, or matter of revelation, not opinion, that has
ever been wrong. The problem isn't with authority, but supposed absolute and
incontestable authority, the very kind the Mormon prophet claims.
Continuing on with how we might know religious truth, Dr. Buskirk cites Boyd
K. Packer's salt as the sensus divinitatis in his well-known talk,
The candle of the Lord.(304)
To that I respond with Alice in Chain's, Junkhead,
You Can't Understand A User's Mind But Try, With Your Books And Degrees
If You Let Yourself Go And Open Your Mind I'll Bet You'd Be Doing Like
Me And It Ain't So Bad!
A Heroin addict might fail to articulate what his drug is like. But that
doesn't mean we should take that leap of faith and find out for ourselves. If
the religious experience is truly incommensurable, it's pointless to sell
it as enlightenment. Equally likely, is that it's a trip into the "deranged and
frenzied" as Korihor taught. You take a 50-50 chance. Maybe I'll try the
red pill, maybe I won't. Maybe I'll try heroin, or perhaps Mormonism. If Anne
Sulliven could figure out how to communicate with Helen Keller, then Packer is
left without excuse.
Finally, Dr. Buskirk quotes Henry Eyring,
“I have often met
this question: ‘Dr. Eyring, as a scientist, how can you accept revealed
religion?’ The answer is simple. The Gospel commits us only to the
truth. The same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion.
Try it. Does it work?”
How would the same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion
when religion, according to Dr. Buskirk, occupies the domain of a completely
different category? How do you "try" moral obligations and come to the decision
that they "work?"
Posted by gadianton2
at 4:27 PM
Dragons and the Law of Consecration
Topic: Buskirk Review
Dr. Buskirk's commentary on Sagan's Dragon in
the garage prefaces his Positivism-Popper-Kuhn tour of the philosophy of
science.(20) It's an awkward beginning, however. He seems to realize
falsification is Sagan's tool of choice(22), but somehow confuses Sagan's, “If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no
conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean
to say that my dragon exists?” with a strict example of the positivist idea
that only statements with empirical content have meaning,
In the absence of experimental,
hard evidence, the claim is simply meaningless. This idea stems from
a group of philosophers in the early part of the twentieth century in
Europe who called themselves logical positivists.(20)
The invisibility of the dragon
in this case is merely incidental. It's not so much that the invisible dragon is
difficult to detect, but that the dragon hypothesis turned and twisted until
it seemed to retain none of its original content, the dragon didn't necessarily begin as an
invisible dragon in the mind of the person making the claim. The criticism of
the dragon hones in on the ad hoc revisions of what we all understand a
dragon to be such that any honest assessment of the claim seems pointless. Can Dr. Buskirk
imagine a reasonable way in this scenario to meaningfully speak of the Dragon's
existence?
Sagan's reasoning is sure to even find a place in
religious commentary. How many times has Hugh Nibley, for instance,
been critical of the early church fathers for "spiritualizing" key doctrines and
even his own church for "spiritualizing" the law of consecration? In
Approaching Zion he writes,
A bishop told me this month that people coming
to renew their recommends when they are asked whether they keep all their
covenants frequently answer no, explaining that they do not keep the law of
consecration. A General Authority recently told me that the important thing is
to observe the law of consecration "spiritually." Yes indeed, say I, and the law
of tithing also - how much better to observe it spiritually than in a gross,
material way - a great comfort to the rich. And yet the express purpose of both
those laws is to test the degree of our attachment to material things, not to
provide an exercise in "spiritual" semantics. (AZ p. 280)
We might ask, from Nibley's perspective, what on earth does it mean to
live a law that decrees all material things to be held in common, spiritually?
What does it mean to talk about a being the rest of the planet identifies as an
animal that roasts its enemies in flames as an invisible, incorporeal entity
that breaths "heatless fire?" As a Chemistry professor, would Dr. Buskirk
acknowledge the meaning of fire without heat?
Moving away from Sagan per se for a moment, Karl Popper didn't believe that
absent falsifiability, ideas become worthless. They just cease to be matters of
science. Karl Popper himself believed that by their very nature,
philosophical and metaphysical theories - his own bread and butter - are irrefutable. (Popper Selections,
p.214). More will be said on this topic later as it is
relevant to Dr. Buskirk's white space on the matter of philosophy.
I don't want to spend too much time on the rest of his summary of the
philosophy of science through Kuhn, I'd just like to raise a question that might
easily be overlooked. If science and religion respectively access the proposed
categorically different domains of the descriptive and the normative
respectively, why the concern to blunt the edge of science? If his distinction
correctly reflects reality, then science can work with 100% absolute certainty
and imply nothing for religion. Questioning the objectivity of science buys
religion nothing while rescuing Dr. Buskirk's
and Sagan's common enemy, pseudoscience. On the grounds of Dr. Buskirk's
distinction, the relativistic reading of Kuhn salvages invisible dragons and
body thetans, not gospel doctrines.
Posted by gadianton2
at 4:04 PM
Updated: Sunday, 26 March 2006 4:07 PM
Is it true that UFO research is a cult?
Topic: Buskirk Review
There is an interesting question about the science, or pseudoscience status of
the portion of UFO investigation which feigns no interest in meaning but
simply demonstrating the reality of an alien presence as a matter of fact. Dr. Buskirk is right with
Sagan on this one and dismisses all of it out of hand as pseudoscience.
Now, I would invite those FARMS buffs who agree whole heartedly with
Buskirk's assessment to reconsider their position. Those of us who follow
FAIR are accustomed to Dr. Daniel Peterson starting a thread where he introduces
the latest FROB, noting one or two of his favorite pieces and sarcastically
referring to the authors as "merciless hacks," while then going on to enumerate
their degrees and scholarly attainments. The problem it would seem, there is no
shortage of critics who dismiss Book of Mormon research as pseudoscience the
same way Dr. Buskirk dismisses UFO research. The point we're suppose to take I
suppose, is the critics typically don't have the perceived educational
background relevant to make an assessment on the quality of the research
involved. John Gee is a real Egyptologist, Brant Gardner is a real Mesoamerican
researcher, while credential wise, their critics are mere hobbyists. So I'd like to
point out, one of the most well known UFOologists, Dr. Stanton Friedman, is a
real physicist and was a classmate of Carl Sagan's at MIT. And infamously, the
(late) John Mack, a Harvard psychiatrist on the topic of abduction. There are in
fact many with advanced degrees within the UFO community. I just ask
those who demand the LDS critics to see Book of Mormon studies as real,
scholarly research, to be consistent and at least grant some UFO research the status
of fringe science, rather than outright pseudoscience and fantasy of no
worth like Dr. Buskirk does.
Posted by gadianton2
at 3:57 PM
The Alien Landscape
Topic: Buskirk Review
A critic of Stephen Greer observes,
The CSETI difference is Greer's impatience with the traditional
notion that we have to wait passively for them to show up. He believes we can prime the
pump. Armed with a hardware cornucopia (high-power halogen lights, radar detectors,
walkie-talkies, still and video cameras),
BUT,
Greer for years
has studied both Transcendental Meditation and the Baha'i religion. TM emphasizes that
civilization advances through quantum leaps in consciousness, while Bahaism stresses the
spiritual oneness of mankind....
"The craft is round," Lisa says. "A ball. With many different lights around it. They
communicate telepathically. If you say, 'Come in peace,' they'll come. If you think negatively,
they won't come."
"Right, right," says Greer. "That's very true."
http://www.mufon-ces.org/docs/outsidemagazine.pdf
The technology has a context, ultimately a spiritual, faith demanding one.
To read about Billy Meier's photographs, see here
http://www.billymeier.com/photos.htm. These photographs have been the
subject of intense debate between believers and debunkers. Though Meier's
apologists are passionate, according Meier's website, "the
decision as to their authenticity [the photos] ultimately lies with each and
every individual." And the context of the technology is spiritual and social
enlightenment:
Semjase had met Billy Meier face to face more than 135 times. She had brought
other ETs with her - Ptah, Asket, and Quetzel. They all looked human. They had
been coming to Earth for a long time. They gave Billy Meier amazing information
about everything from science to philosophy. They were concerned about us -
humans - their little brothers. We were, and still are, destroying ourselves and
our planet. Nuclear-weapons proliferation, famine, disease, and pointless
religions that miss the goals of spiritual evolution were the key topics of
their message.
http://www.tjresearch.info/Dilettoso.htm
There is the interplay between technology, proof, and spiritual
enlightenment, and of course the existential journey of the discovery process.
In Billy's words,
By the mid-1970s, I was prepared for the spiritual philosophy to which the
Pleiadians educated me. It is a philosophy emphasizing the immortality of the
individual spirit or soul, and its purpose in life is to learn, even when it
means making mistakes and learning from the mistakes. The learning goes on in
successive lifetimes, or reincarnations, over which time the soul gradually
evolves and accumulates memories and knowledge normally unavailable to us except
as feelings of conscience.
http://raphael-labro.org/billy_meier2.html
I'm just curious what exactly, makes Joseph Smith's life and message so much
different than Meier's? What makes Joseph Smith a prophet, and Meier a
pseudo-scientist? How does Meier's "scientism" fail to wholesale miss
the domain religion gives us access to? Or has Buskirk simply lumped the
entire UFO community together as one entity and is not aware that there is
in fact, irrespective of Sagan's more narrow case, a strong religious streak within the
alien community? In fact, in these cases it would appear the "science" is a mere supplement to a
greater goal. Take a look at the names of some Pleiadian books: "Family of
Light," "Bringers of Dawn," "Comes the Awakening." Where are the warp drive
schematics?
The various kinds of alien reports over the years yield a cosmic narrative. While Mormons have the
aristocratic falling out in heaven, the creation, and Noah and the ark, alien
mystics have their own backdrops to stage mankind and its problems:
http://ufo.whipnet.org/alien.races/exopolitics.org/index4.html
http://galactic.to/kjole/nordic/human-et-history.html
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/alien_races.html
The accounts vary. But typically you have all alien races stemming from the Lyrians.
Dr. Buskirk should be tickled to learn of the Grays, a race of technology
crazed control freaks devoid of any humanity who blew up their home world
in nuclear war and fled underground where they've mutated from normal human form
into the little gray guys with big eyes (it's dark down there). They are all, I
suspect unequivocally, logical positivists. And they are the ones responsible for abductions and cattle mutilations. The kind of weekend activity we of course, expect
out of men of the enlightenment who don't have a church where they can "surround
themselves with symbols and objects linked with the divine." (10) The Pleiadians,
on the other hand, having already overcome many of their own social problems are religious
sages. They stand with Buskirk against the totalizing of narrow thinking
modernism and
call man back to his spiritual roots. But they, like the angels in Mormonism,
weave a fabric of nuanced spiritual experience along with impressive real-life
encounters and photographic evidence. Not everyone gets to see Moroni or heft
the plates, but all are welcome to meditate and receive "sudden strokes of
ideas" (31) from the Pleiadian.
And let's not forget the grand-daddy of all
alien cults, Heaven's gate.
Where is their obsession with technology and scientific explanations? Hard
Sci-Fi just doesn't sell universally to all those who reject traditional
religion. It would seem there is a strong religious appeal, religious by
Dr. Buskirk's criteria, not Sagan's, within the UFO world.
Posted by gadianton2
at 10:47 AM
Updated: Sunday, 26 March 2006 11:09 AM
It's ok to Laugh at People who Believe in Aliens rather than Angels
Topic: Buskirk Review
Because that's just pseudoscience. Dr. Buskirk agrees with Sagan on the absurdity of UFO
research and also includes "fundamentalists" in
his grouping of those who provide neither scientific nor religious value,
This craving for certainty
is manifest in the searching for signs of UFO visitations; proponents
claim that there is hard evidence, including photographs, movies,
physical marks on abductees, and a crashed flying saucer stored in
Area 51. These physical data relieve the UFO believer of the difficulty
of developing faith in an unseen God, offering instead a cheap certainty.
Rather than cultivating personal experiences of the sacred,
UFO cults replace faith with credulity and blind trust in supposed
scientific evidence. Not only can science supposedly prove the existence of these
alien or higher beings, but it can to some extent explain their powers.
Of course, the foundational story of Mormonism begins with three literal
witnesses to a set of Golden Plates, and then eight more witness who don't get
to see, but can touch and heft the plates. And does Buskirk follow FARMS at all?
It seems there is plenty of interest in establishing through the historico-critical
method, the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses, archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, and
Parallels to the ancient world. Granted, the FARMS associates I've
interacted with don't see their attempts as aiming for "absolute certainty" but
plausibility, and following Dr. Peterson, possibly the upper hand in the
evidential debate. But I don't think Dr. Buskirk really understands the
diversity of UFO
communities. For instance, Acolytes of Billy Meier, famous for his photographs
of spacecraft, like FARMS, will boast the credibility of their evidence, but they don't believe the matter
as settled with the absolute
certainty Dr. Buskirk talks about. In fact, they emphasize the "personal
responsibility" of those who undertake UFO studies to "decide for themselves."
For a great many of these people, a personal, spiritual journey is involved. The
aliens reveal themselves to those who are ready. Consider the
well-known Dr. Stephen Greer, founder of CSETI, who takes tour groups into the mountains to communicate
with alien crafts. Sometimes those experiences entail a literal close
encounter, but the usual it would seem to be is "telepathic"
communication, the efficacy of that communication mitigated by personal desire
for enlightenment. Which bring us to the next point,
Alien cults display faith in science—a kind of scientism—to the
point of a near worship of technology. Humans now love new toys: shiny new
cars, MP3 players, flat-screen televisions... Men and women thoroughly indoctrinated
in the modern worldview can satisfy their religious needs
without the supposed mystic mumbo-jumbo of traditional religion.
Better yet, it’s rather easy. No faith is required, and the aliens don’t
ask much in return...far more appealing than a Galilean Jewish peasant who
lived two millennia ago.
Dr. Buskirk is way off here. Alien buffs are often openly New Agey and mystical. If
it makes sense to speak of a post-modern world, without question, "Alien cults"
are are a good fit for that landscape. The techno-geek private
investigators exist, but that clinical world doesn't appeal to many of those who
are religiously obsessed with aliens.
And to the extent that technology does impress the faithful, consider, as
Buskirk does later in his essay, that Jesus Christ built his following in part
by turning water into wine and raising the dead. Like Meier or Joseph
Smith, Jesus launched his religious campaign with material feats. The next
segment will document a little bit of Meier and Greer and some of the variable terrain within the alien
landscape Dr. Buskirk I don't believe has encountered. And that terrain,
it seems to me, can be an awful lot like Mormonism at times.
Posted by gadianton2
at 9:21 AM
Saturday, 25 March 2006
Why hasn't Carl Sagan experienced the Sacred?
Topic: Buskirk Review
Dr. Buskirk believes in maintaining a categorical purity between the domain of
science and the domain of religion, religion is the realm of the normative and
science, the descriptive.(8) But "meaning, purpose, and ethics"(31)
somehow derive from
spiritual and mystical experiences which I gather, are the results of
"encountering the
sacred." Yet he isn't clear on how those experiences expressly relate to
meaning, purpose or ethics. He observes,
"In an infinitely old universe with an infinite
number of appearances of galaxies,..(wonders go here)" Sagan admits, “Whenever I think about any of these discoveries,
I feel a tingle of exhilaration. My heart races.” This sense of wonder
makes him an excellent science writer and teacher, but ultimately such
wonder does not satisfy the same purpose or meet the same needs as
religion. No sense of purpose or meaning, no ethical demands, can be
founded solely on the findings of science.(12)
But strangely, he later recounts this story of Moses as an
authentic "spiritual" experience,
These experiences
have a transcendent character to them, seeming otherworldly, contrasting
the reality and majesty of the sacred with the nothingness of man.
As Moses remarked following his vision of all of creation: “Now, for this
cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed”
(Moses 1:10). The emotions that accompany religious experiences vary
from person to person: some people feel an emotional warmth associated
with spiritual experiences..(31)
It's not clear that the experience of Moses meets Dr. Buskirk's definition of religion,
and if it does, why Sagan's doesn't. His argument; "you can't get an ought from an is," but that
seems to say nothing of Sagan being overcome by what in fact, is. Moses
in a similar way is overcome by what is. As was Abraham when beholding
the inner workings of stars, according to Nibley's commentary on The
Apocolypse of Abraham. Did Moses or Abraham behold ethical demands?
Did they behold purpose? Did they behold nothing of what is when they
viewed everything God had created? One might try and rescue Dr. Buskirk's
position by claiming that ethical demands are part of what God created, but that
would be no more ingenious than saying Carl Sagan beheld the United States
Constitution and would complicate his categories. While
the experience of Moses may differ here in degree, it's not clear at all
that it differs in kind from Sagan's. Naturalists may be overcome with
how small man is when looking through a telescope as a religious person is when
beholding creation in a vision. A lot, however, turns on what Dr. Buskirk means by
"meaning, purpose, and ethics," which isn't clear. By ethics, does he mean
personal, moral inclinations, or does he really mean ethics, the reasoned
understanding of moral inclination and obligation in the abstract?1 Having a vision and looking through a telescope may both be morally inspiring, but neither tells us what we ought to do or why we ought to do it.
But Dr. Buskirk isn't consistent in his articulation of science. Science it
appears, can give us purposes and obligations, but only if those purposes and
obligations are bad,
I argue that although technology may be neutral, science comes with
some unchallenged philosophical baggage that has been damaging at several
levels(18).2
This "philosophical baggage" whereby men become "cogs in a machine"(16)
is nothing other than the notion of final cause or teleology at work - which is
the explicit domain of religion according to Dr. Buskirk. It is after all,
the "religious" articulation of purpose that predestines some men to eternal damnation, if for no other
reason, than for the righteous to appreciate their own state of joy.3
Mankind as mere cogs goes hand in hand with the presupposition that an external
purpose of life must exist.
These "religious" assumptions about the
world were a real challenge for Darwinian evolution to overcome in its uphill
social battle as described by Edward J. Larson in his wonderful book,
Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. And that's not
just because of Darwinism's challenges to religion, but its challenge to western
presuppositions generally. Rejecting both special creation and the privileged
heredity of Lamarckism, not to mention tracing the origins of humans back to
Africa, Darwinism failed to be a welcome discovery for those encumbered by the
baggage of Aryan mythology(147). One might say that if purpose is the domain of
religion, some of the failures of secularism might be attributed to men of
science only succeeding to divorce themselves of God half way.
1. See the definition of morality in the
Catholic Encyclopedia
2. Another way of arguing would be to say that
the "philosophical baggage" which comes along with science could
create meaning and purpose for Carl Sagan.
3.
The End of the Wicked Contemplated by the Righteous -
Jonathon Edwards
Posted by gadianton2
at 8:28 AM
Updated: Saturday, 25 March 2006 8:43 AM
Friday, 24 March 2006
My Commentary On Buskirk's Review of Sagan
Topic: Buskirk Review
This is my commentary on Allen R. Buskirk's,
Science, Pseudoscience, and Religious Belief from FARMS' review of
books, which is a review of Carl Sagan's, The Demon Haunted World. Note
that, whenever a number appears in parentheses by itself, it refers to the Adobe
Reader page number of Dr. Buskirk's essay.
---
First I want to comment on Buskirk's introduction and conclusion. He cites
a Wall
Street Journal review in the beginning,
"Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World” [is] a repetitious, cloying,
sanctimonious, self-regarding—yet oddly entertaining—sermon on the evils of
superstition."
And Dr. Buskirk himself concludes, "Although I appreciate the reminders of the need for clear
thinking and evidence, ultimately Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World offers little
positive contribution to current dialogue
concerning religion and science."
I agree with both statements. I've never seen Sagan cited in any book or
paper on the philosophy of science and I'd be surprised if the case ever were
otherwise. But books that shelve with dignity in a university do very little to
educate the masses. Sagan's work was an ambitious and much needed introduction
to thinking critically. Its controversial and entertaining style only ensured
that it would strike enough emotion within the reader, whether anger, awe, or
amusement, to be read cover to cover. If a better book than his should have been
written, then someone should have written it.
I wasn't, however, surprised to find agreement with
Buskirk on a number of his criticisms of
Sagan. In fact, I'm glad FARMS did this review because frankly, Sagan was a bit
narrow minded and pretentious - as are some, or many, of his followers who
decided they could stop learning altogether after finishing his book.
Religiously minded folks who have been around the block a bit should have little
problem finding flaws in Sagan's philosophy. I hope that upsets some critics,
but in a way that they become even better critics, and not just apologists.
I wouldn't say though, that my agreement with
Dr. Buskirk runs very deep. I found his categorization of science and religion
too rigid and the place of philosophy in his world especially problematic, and I
don't think he succeeded in articulating examples of religion or religious
knowledge in a way that fits his own definition religion's domain. I also think
he doesn't appreciate the diversity within what he considers pseudoscience, he
seems to fail to realize that if Sagan can only see science at work in the
world, then the misrepresentations likely aren't unique to "traditional
religion." I address this and more. Actually, I already have done the
addressing, I just need to do the posting.
Posted by gadianton2
at 10:28 PM
Updated: Friday, 24 March 2006 10:29 PM
Thursday, 16 March 2006
Meat, Potatoes, and Beer
Topic: The Miracle Of Sin
It's been a rough week at work and consequently, my schedule has been thrown off quite badly. This meant last night, because I worked very late, I came home and only had the motivation to make some macoroni and cheese, play on the comp a bit, and go to bed. The problem here is, the night before I had worked out very hard and I even managed to get some exercise in at work last night. So I just wasn't eating the right food, or enough of it. Therefore, I woke up this morning fatiqued and sickly and work today was a struggle. But I knew there was cure for my condition, left a little early, and got started. First thing was to hack off a couple of slabs of beef and get them in a lemon juice and soy sauce marinade. A half hour later, with what strength I had left I managed to put them on the grill. I use a high flame as my goal is to sear the outside while leaving the inside a little rare. With the proper marinade, searing, a little Montreal Steak Seasoning and some garlic, even a cheaper cut will taste incredible. Along with the steak I had mashed potatoes with just a little salt and butter and mixed vegetables I cook with a few drops of olive oil and lemon juice. But the key factor that tied it all together was a cold bottle of Lawson Creek Red Ale. What a meal. Solid but not too heavy, and just enough alcohol to get that slightly warm feeling. I could feel my former strength being restored. With a good night's sleep, I'll be back to normal by tommorow. Something a Mormon will never know is the enhancement the right alcoholic beverage can bring to a good dinner. They'll take a Tylenol with codine or any other number of drugs which bring about a far more pronounced altered state than what Satan has provided for us in the natural remedy of beer. But moderation be damned, there will not be a drop of alcohol ingested (unless it's Robotussin and they don't bother to think about it then). I urge all my Mormon brothers and sisters to go to the store and buy a six pack of beer. In the name of the vain images of the world, Amen.
Posted by gadianton2
at 8:06 PM
Updated: Thursday, 16 March 2006 8:10 PM
Monday, 13 March 2006
The Real World
Topic: Postmodernism
I wanted to follow up on the second point I made in the last post since this is one of the main issues many take with postmodernism. Kant brought the issue of mind constructing reality to the table. The world as a "construction" isn't new with postmodernism. And clearly, the belief that mind, or society "constructs" reality doesn't necessitate everything just being one gigantic fantasy. The heritage which gives rise to postmodernism certainly includes Edmund Husserl. Husserl doesn't see the point to epistemology, he thinks psychology is the way to go, and especially, how the mind "intentions" objects before it. His study is phenomenology. Now, in Husserl's project, this is a rigid, cold, scientific undertaking. Yet, it involves "bracketing" the real world, or refraining judgement on what "really exists" independent of the mind. This of course, led to misunderstandings by many of those who read him. Another important continental figure who didn't see the need to make explicit a "real world" is Ferdinand Saussure. He constructed a theory of signs where there are signifiers and signifieds, the signifieds being mental imprints, but without explicating a reference to something in the "real world." Again, Saussure perceived his own research as thoroughly evidential and scientific. It's important now to point out that "empericism," the self-described school of thought for a great many of those who condemn continental thinking in totality in fact also tends to ignore or even flat out deny a "real world." On the more extreme side is the position of instrumentalism, which basically understand the readings from instruments, any referents being purely speculative. In fact, the anti-realist attitude itself was invented by one of the great heros of those who oppose continental thinking and postmodernism, William of Ockham. Ockham was opposed to the idea of universals being "real" objects. A universal is basically a set. In other words, is there a such thing as "people,"(or just Jane, Ted, and Bob)? Ockham says no. Now, there are plenty of conceptions of realism, and denying universals doesn't necessitate denying other "realities" but it sets a precedent and certainly might have some startling implications. Consider the fact that in number theory, numbers are commonly defined as sets. If you look at a few different groupings of objects, they might all have "Seveness" in common. But for a true empericist, only the objects themselves exist. Or take the philosophy of mind, is the mind a "ghost in the machine"(Ryle) or are there only neurons and synapses? When standing in the middle of campus, do you ask yourself, "where's the university?" And what about moral statements? In what way are so-called obligations "real things" if one is an empericist? Any one of these philosophers or positions I've mentioned can be the subject of endless debate. I'm not trying to give my opinion on who I think is right, but I'm just pointing out that the tradition from which many point fingers at "postmodernism"(which remember is often confused with anything at all continental) is itself replete with the same "failing" of ignoring or questioning "reality." I will state my own position on one thing, to demand a clear confession of a "real world" and the potency of science and facts is pointless. Such naive realism doesn't help answer any interesting philosophical questions or even help science. I know, I still haven't got to any postmodernism yet.
Posted by gadianton2
at 9:38 PM
Updated: Monday, 13 March 2006 9:49 PM
Friday, 24 February 2006
Learning to Drink Beer
Topic: The Miracle Of Sin
Those who leave the church, especially males, should at some point enjoy drinking beer. There are of course, exceptions. But acceptable exceptions do not include reasoning such as, "I just can't stand the taste" or "I like to be in control" or "I don't want church members to think I left the church because of sin, so I'm going to live the 'moral' aspects of the gospel better than the average member!" The last excuse here I've dealt with in the first post of this series. Sin can play a healthy role in an apostacy. And besides, no Mormon will ever believe an apostate didn't sin horrifically even if all the evidence points otherwise. A taste for beer is sometimes acquired. But in my case, and in other cases I'm aware of, beer becomes desirable even before the first sip simply because the easier-to-drink options become too sweet. To never desire a beer might indicate one isn't drinking at all. And while there are no "sins" in atheism, it's unfortunate that some would prefer to not enhance their lives with the relaxation and happiness alcohol can bring. Which brings us to our next point, the "buzz" not being worth the tradeoff of losing control. Losing control of course, is part of enjoying life. Those who wish to never be out of control should refuse to ever have another orgasm. A rewarding experience is often punctuated by loss of control. To tie it all together then, overcoming the fears and superstitions of Mormonism should lead most apostates to enjoy drinking. And enjoying drinking will almost always lead to beer consumption, for many, beer will become the staple alocholic beverage. The next post in this series will educate the apostate on the various beer choices.
Posted by gadianton2
at 6:49 PM
Newer | Latest | Older
|
« |
March 2006 |
» |
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
XML/RSS
|