cksalmon wrote:It seems that what David is saying, fundamentally, is that his underlying paradigm will never change. Given his spiritual witness, it will always be the case that Book of Mormon is true, etc. When he speaks of "paradigm shift," he seems to mean a reimagining of secondary issues such that the primary paradigm is never allowed to be contradicted.
This is far from a thorough-going embracing of the possibilty of true "paradigm shift." This is paradigm maintenance.
This is clear when David suggests that "pardigm shift" is a much better option than denying one's spiritual witness.
Paradigm maintenance.
CKS
Well, that's Kuhn's main thesis: we aren't in the business of discovering new things, but rather maintaining our current paradigms of belief. It's when those "crises of faith" (Kuhn's term) occur when we see anomalies that our belief system can't explain, we have to restructure the paradigm just enough to accommodate the anomaly.
Judging by David's post and the response to it, I'd say Kuhn was onto something.
Of course many other illustrations of paradigm shifts could be provided. I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions. Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism.
Speaking personally, I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning one’s spiritual convictions.
This thinking is spot on: Instead of thinking the Earth on which we stand is rock solid, we need to account for continental drift through plate tectonics. Similarly, the lack of archeological, linguistic and biological data to support the foundations of Mormonism gives rise to an appreciation of it on an allegorical level through the usage of symbolic interpretation.
moksha wrote:This thinking is spot on: Instead of thinking the Earth on which we stand is rock solid, we need to account for continental drift through plate tectonics. Similarly, the lack of archeological, linguistic and biological data to support the foundations of Mormonism gives rise to an appreciation of it on an allegorical level through the usage of symbolic interpretation.
I guess it depends on what works for you. If Mormonism works on that level for you, go for it. My problem with Mormonism is twofold: it's not true, and it's not a particularly good way of living. Fix those two problems, and I'm in. :)
Of course many other illustrations of paradigm shifts could be provided. I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions. Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism.
Speaking personally, I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning one’s spiritual convictions.
This thinking is spot on: Instead of thinking the Earth on which we stand is rock solid, we need to account for continental drift through plate tectonics. Similarly, the lack of archeological, linguistic and biological data to support the foundations of Mormonism gives rise to an appreciation of it on an allegorical level through the usage of symbolic interpretation.
This is why Moksha remains one of my favorite posters! And you know what's best about this comment, is that this is exactly the way he really thinks!
Moksha wrote:This thinking is spot on: Instead of thinking the Earth on which we stand is rock solid, we need to account for continental drift through plate tectonics. Similarly, the lack of archaeological, linguistic and biological data to support the foundations of Mormonism gives rise to an appreciation of it on an allegorical level through the usage of symbolic interpretation.
I guess it depends on what works for you. If Mormonism works on that level for you, go for it. My problem with Mormonism is twofold: it's not true, and it's not a particularly good way of living. Fix those two problems, and I'm in. :)
Seek for your own truths. I find there are many admirable points to the way the average LDS person lives - service to others, emphasis on family, good genealogical records, marvelous Jell-O. You need not adhere to any harsh ways of believing or being. Substitute a tranquil or loving approach instead and it will help improve your Provo experience.
moksha wrote:Seek for your own truths. I find there are many admirable points to the way the average LDS person lives - service to others, emphasis on family, good genealogical records, marvelous Jell-O. You need not adhere to any harsh ways of believing or being. Substitute a tranquil or loving approach instead and it will help improve your Provo experience.
Well, I hope you don't think I'm being harsh with people. I'm getting along quite nicely here. I like my neighbors and the ward members. I do agree that church members are generally overflowing with kindness, and that is absolutely the result of the church and its teachings.
Moksha wrote:This thinking is spot on: Instead of thinking the Earth on which we stand is rock solid, we need to account for continental drift through plate tectonics. Similarly, the lack of archaeological, linguistic and biological data to support the foundations of Mormonism gives rise to an appreciation of it on an allegorical level through the usage of symbolic interpretation.
I guess it depends on what works for you. If Mormonism works on that level for you, go for it. My problem with Mormonism is twofold: it's not true, and it's not a particularly good way of living. Fix those two problems, and I'm in. :)
Seek for your own truths. I find there are many admirable points to the way the average LDS person lives - service to others, emphasis on family, good genealogical records, marvelous Jell-O. You need not adhere to any harsh ways of believing or being. Substitute a tranquil or loving approach instead and it will help improve your Provo experience.
All I can say to this is Amen! Except for the marvelous Jell-O part. I'll also respond to my friend Runtu's message here on the thread by stating that I am quite confident that his shift will eventuallly take him right back into the Church, even if I have to drag him full circle myself.
cksalmon wrote:It seems that what David is saying, fundamentally, is that his underlying paradigm will never change. Given his spiritual witness, it will always be the case that Book of Mormon is true, etc. When he speaks of "paradigm shift," he seems to mean a reimagining of secondary issues such that the primary paradigm is never allowed to be contradicted.
This is far from a thorough-going embracing of the possibilty of true "paradigm shift." This is paradigm maintenance.
This is clear when David suggests that "pardigm shift" is a much better option than denying one's spiritual witness.
Paradigm maintenance.
CKS
That's correct. That is the one view I'm unwilling to change. Everything else is negotiable.
Enuma Elish wrote:That's correct. That is the one view I'm unwilling to change. Everything else is negotiable.
Will Schryver described this as working backwards from a testimony, so that every piece of information is seen through the prism of testimony. That worked for me for many years.
Runtu wrote:Well, I hope you don't think I'm being harsh with people. I'm getting along quite nicely here. I like my neighbors and the ward members. I
I doubt anyone would ever think you harsh Runtu. You are one of the most polite posters ever. Harshness can creep into any religion whenever we allow ourselves to be less than loving of the "others". This is something you are never guilty of doing. Your good spiritual fruit is manifest whether you are a believer or not.