DiscussMormonism.com

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 2:26 pm

So much is contained in that little qualifying word “just.”

Lol. I have such a terrible habit with that word. Try as I might I see it creeping in way too often.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 2:18 pm

I can think of reasons to discount Big Foot and Nessie. I can think of good reasons to discount the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, human experience of interaction with other sentient entities is so pervasive that I have a difficult time dismissing it. I may have no clear idea of what is going on there, but I don’t put it in the same box as Nessie and Big Foot.

The more the better. It's not as if there aren't as compelling sounding stories about bigfoot or Nessie as personal experiences as people have for god or a spirit world. But there are just so many more people who claim personal experience with god and the spirit world. I don't see much difference aside from quantity here though. And I don't think it good practice to think something is true or real simply because many think it is. It may give us good reason to pause and consider it. But for many of us, we've stated what we think is probable long after having paused and given good consideration to the claim. The way this discussion has gone feels like those defensive of a spirit world or god think those who find no good reason for these things haven't thought about it, nor heard it all before. That's obviously not the case.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 2:37 pm

Could you clarify who you are referring to when you say “other sentient entities” ?

Why? What difference does it make? That would be one helluva long list.

The more the better. It's not as if there aren't as compelling sounding stories about bigfoot or Nessie as personal experiences as people have for god or a spirit world. But there are just so many more people who claim personal experience with god and the spirit world. I don't see much difference aside from quantity here though. And I don't think it good practice to think something is true or real simply because many think it is. It may give us good reason to pause and consider it. But for many of us, we've stated what we think is probable long after having paused and given good consideration to the claim. The way this discussion has gone feels like those defensive of a spirit world or god think those who find no good reason for these things haven't thought about it, nor heard it all before. That's obviously not the case.

I should hope that the difference would be as painfully obvious to you as it is to me. For example, Loch Ness is a lake in Scotland. It is only so big.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 3:05 pm

The more the better. It's not as if there aren't as compelling sounding stories about bigfoot or Nessie as personal experiences as people have for god or a spirit world. But there are just so many more people who claim personal experience with god and the spirit world. I don't see much difference aside from quantity here though. And I don't think it good practice to think something is true or real simply because many think it is. It may give us good reason to pause and consider it. But for many of us, we've stated what we think is probable long after having paused and given good consideration to the claim. The way this discussion has gone feels like those defensive of a spirit world or god think those who find no good reason for these things haven't thought about it, nor heard it all before. That's obviously not the case.

I should hope that the difference would be as painfully obvious to you as it is to me. For example, Loch Ness is a lake in Scotland. It is only so big.

I'm saying there's little difference, as I see it, between personal testimonies of the LN Monster and God or the spirit world. Not that there isn't any difference on the claim or validity of the claims themselves.

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 2:53 pm

I'll quote Steven Pinker from his book Rationality:

As with most words in common usage, no definition can stipulate its meaning exactly, and the dictionary just leads us in a circle: most define rational as "having reasons," but reason itself comes from the Latin ration-, often defined as "reason".
A definition that is more or less faithful to the way the word is used is "the ability to use the knowledge to attain goals." Knowledge in turn is standardly defined as "justified true belief." We would not credit someone with being rational if they acted on beliefs that were known to be false, such as looking for their key sin a place they knew the keys could not be, or if those beliefs could not be justified--if they came, say, from a drug-induced vision or a hallucinated voice rather than observation of the world or inference from some other true belief.

--Rationality pg 36

Hilarious. I guess the people who found their keys other ways did not really find them. That would be irrational, after all.

Earlier, in hopes to explain the use further, he says:

Just as citizens should grasp the basics of history, science, and the written word, they should command the intellectual tools of sound reasoning. The include logic, critical thinking, probability, correlation and causation, the optimal ways to adjust our beliefs and commit to decisions with uncertain evidence, and the yardsticks for making rational choices alone and with others. These tools of reasoning are indispensable in avoiding folly in our personal lives and public policies. They help calibrate risky choices, evaluate dubious claims, understand baffling paradoxes, and gain insight into life's vicissitudes and tragedies.

Preface, XIV

I think that’s a fine rule of thumb for day-to-day practical living.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 3:16 pm

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 2:53 pm

I'll quote Steven Pinker from his book Rationality:



--Rationality pg 36

Hilarious. I guess the people who found their keys other ways did not really find them. That would be irrational, after all.

Wow...that completely mistook what was said.

Earlier, in hopes to explain the use further, he says:



Preface, XIV

I think that’s a fine rule of thumb for day-to-day practical living.
[/quote]

Same. But I thought that was my point, not yours. Ah well.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 3:03 pm

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 2:37 pm

Could you clarify who you are referring to when you say “other sentient entities” ?

Why? What difference does it make? That would be one helluva long list.

Ok. I will assume then you are referring to interactions that are spiritual in nature, and that there is no factual, non-spiritual evidence of these entities, or of their sentience.

On the other hand, human experience of interaction with other sentient entities is so pervasive that I have a difficult time dismissing it.

Human experience that is interpreted as interaction with other sentient entities may be pervasive, but there is also significant research and knowledge about how the brain works that explains these interpretations. There is no evidence that these experiences are explained by anything like sentient entities outside the brain. I grant it’s a belief, but the pervasiveness of brain activity only convinces me of the pervasiveness of brain activity. And of the incredible and amazingly wondrous expanse of the human imagination (a.k.a. brain activity).

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 3:38 pm

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed May 18, 2022 3:03 pm

Why? What difference does it make? That would be one helluva long list.

Ok. I will assume then you are referring to interactions that are spiritual in nature, and that there is no factual, non-spiritual evidence of these entities, or their sentience.

On the other hand, human experience of interaction with other sentient entities is so pervasive that I have a difficult time dismissing it.

Human experience that is interpreted as interaction with other sentient entities may be pervasive, but there is also significant research and knowledge about how the brain works that explains these interpretations. There is no evidence that these experiences are explained by anything like sentient entities outside the brain. I grant it’s a belief, but the pervasiveness of brain activity only convinces me of the pervasiveness of brain activity. And of the incredible and amazingly wondrous expanse of the human imagination (a.k.a. brain activity).

Absolutely. Many apologists like to claim that the human imagination is in part evidence of spiritual influence. I would simply point out that there are few living organisms that can actually plan for the future and plot tactical alternatives. Similar to Chimpanzees that actually plan warfare against competing groups. This ability to construct alternative futures seems to be a tool that believers use as evidence of an unseen, unfalsifiable realm.

I'm saying there's little difference, as I see it, between personal testimonies of the LN Monster and God or the spirit world. Not that there isn't any difference on the claim or validity of the claims themselves.

There is a huge difference between a cryptid that is alleged to live in a lake in Scotland and millennia of experiences of divinities.