David Bokovoy and a Kuhnian Approach to Mormonism

[_charity]

Of course you are. You might not realize it but you are. You have made it perfectly clear that since you already begin with a premise you believe to be absolute, that all other facts, data and evidences must be interpreted in ways to fit that premise. Anything to avoid leaving the faith (I.e. deducing from the facts that it isn't true).This would be considered psychological dysfunction in any other context. It is like an abused woman who keeps insisting her husband is a good man. She never prosecutes because her main premise is that he is a good man and she keeps changing her paradigm to account for the evidences presented by her scratches, bruises and her children who live in fear. This is a dysfunctional household for the same reasons you would have struggling LDS remain LDS even though they no longer accept the original premise that the Church is true.

From this, it seems you have COMPLETELY misunderstood the whole idea David expressed. Wow. Right over your head. David said nothing about changing facts. Or interpreting facts to fit the premise. Or about remaining faithful even "thought they no longer accept the orginal premised that the Church is true." I will refrain from calling you an idiot, as you respond when anyone disagrees with you, but let me say, this is pretty unbelievable.

Let me walk you through this.

1. Church member has a spiritual witness that the Church is true. A spiritual witness is not a paradigm.
2. Church member has a paradigm that the Church is true. Many different ideas about different aspects constitute the paradigm. One could be, for instance, prophets are infallible.
3. Church member discovers a FACT. e.g. A prophet has made a statement which is in error.
4. Church member does not dispute or ignore FACT or try to interpret the FACT so as to still permit prophet infallibility.
5. Church member examines paradigm and finds prophet infallibiliity to be in error, and adjusts paradigm.

The FACT is accepted, the paradigm adjusted, the spiritual witness was never denied.

Now do you have it? And now will stop with the stupid claim that David suggested ignoring or changing facts?

[_Runtu]

From this, it seems you have COMPLETELY misunderstood the whole idea David expressed. Wow. Right over your head. David said nothing about changing facts. Or interpreting facts to fit the premise. Or about remaining faithful even "thought they no longer accept the orginal premised that the Church is true." I will refrain from calling you an idiot, as you respond when anyone disagrees with you, but let me say, this is pretty unbelievable.

Let me walk you through this.

1. Church member has a spiritual witness that the Church is true. A spiritual witness is not a paradigm.
2. Church member has a paradigm that the Church is true. Many different ideas about different aspects constitute the paradigm. One could be, for instance, prophets are infallible.
3. Church member discovers a FACT. e.g. A prophet has made a statement which is in error.
4. Church member does not dispute or ignore FACT or try to interpret the FACT so as to still permit prophet infallibility.
5. Church member examines paradigm and finds prophet infallibiliity to be in error, and adjusts paradigm.

The FACT is accepted, the paradigm adjusted, the spiritual witness was never denied.

Now do you have it? And now will stop with the stupid claim that David suggested ignoring or changing facts?

Fascinating. Kevin says that David's position is that "all other facts, data and evidences must be interpreted in ways to fit that premise." You then walk him through a series of steps that do just that. And then you tell him to stop making a claim he didn't make.

Shaking my head over this one.

[_charity]

This post is completely and totally signature line worthy. This post captures just about everything that goes on daily at MAD. Trying to nail jello to the wall and talking colors to a blind person. This post fully illustrates my frustration when I was at MAD. It explains the methods used in FARM and FAIR articles and the character of the apologists and their arguments. The perfect example of how they think.

This thread is probably one of the most honest and revealing threads that I have read recently on the mind of the apologist. As Sethbag has responded earlier that all this has been stated before by critics but it seems to me that it is the first time that a major apologist and a major poster at MAD has admitted it.

This is a very enjoyable thread.

I am glad you are enjoying this. It is a little frustrating when the blind men keep insisting there is no such thing as color, and people who see color are only deluding themselves. We learned early on in our study of sensation that we are limited by our our senses. We have the five senses, hearing, sight, taste, feel, kinesthetic. We can invent measuring devices for these senses. We can measure light, even in frequencies not visible to our own eyes. But we can perceive light. What if there is some sensory mechanism we humans do not possess? We would be totally unaware of it, because we do not have any sensory mechanism to detect it.

But isn't it the heigth of arrogance to demand that there are only five sensory mechanisms with which any event may be experienced? Does your paradigm admit to the possibility that there may be something out there that others are experiencing that you , and others who deny the validity of the spiritual witness, aren't?

[_charity]

Fascinating. Kevin says that David's position is that "all other facts, data and evidences must be interpreted in ways to fit that premise." You then walk him through a series of steps that do just that. And then you tell him to stop making a claim he didn't make.

Shaking my head over this one.

Right back at you, runtu. The FACTS are not interpreted, as I clearly state. The paradigm is re-examined. In the example I gave, the fact (prophet makes a statement in error) is not changed, not interpreted. The pagadigm (prophet infallibility) is what changes. I really do not see how you don't understand that.

[_Runtu]

I am glad you are enjoying this. It is a little frustrating when the blind men keep insisting there is no such thing as color, and people who see color are only deluding themselves. We learned early on in our study of sensation that we are limited by our our senses. We have the five senses, hearing, sight, taste, feel, kinesthetic. We can invent measuring devices for these senses. We can measure light, even in frequencies not visible to our own eyes. But we can perceive light. What if there is some sensory mechanism we humans do not possess? We would be totally unaware of it, because we do not have any sensory mechanism to detect it.

But isn't it the heigth of arrogance to demand that there are only five sensory mechanisms with which any event may be experienced? Does your paradigm admit to the possibility that there may be something out there that others are experiencing that you , and others who deny the validity of the spiritual witness, aren't?

I for one would never discount the validity of a spiritual witness, except when said spiritual witness flies in the face of reality. A while back I heard a woman defending Jim Jones's actions. She said she knew he was a man of God because God had told her so. She said it was frustrating that people focused on the mass suicide instead of the good things Jones did for his people (presumably before he killed them all, of course). Her witness was very real to her; do you discount the validity of her spiritual witness? Why or why not?

[_Runtu]

Right back at you, runtu. The FACTS are not interpreted, as I clearly state. The paradigm is re-examined. In the example I gave, the fact (prophet makes a statement in error) is not changed, not interpreted. The pagadigm (prophet infallibility) is what changes. I really do not see how you don't understand that.

Obviously I'm a moron. :)

The fact (prophets make mistakes) is indeed interpreted, and the paradigm adjusted. Fine and dandy. What David has been saying is that there is one non-negotiable part of his paradigm that will never be adjusted (and you apparently agree with him). When a piece of the paradigm is beyond adjustment, then it's the evidence we percieve that gets adjust. Kevin is absolutely right on this point. That's why your analogy doesn't work. The prophet infallibility idea was adjustable. The truth of the church is not.

[_harmony]

The FACTS are not interpreted, as I clearly state. The paradigm is re-examined. In the example I gave, the fact (prophet makes a statement in error) is not changed, not interpreted. The pagadigm (prophet infallibility) is what changes. I really do not see how you don't understand that.

In order for one to accept prophet infallibilty, one must accept the idea of a prophet, which incidently has not stood up well under standard tests for reliability and validity.

What I'm saying is every basic premises of any paradigm need examination for reliability and validity. A spiritual witness is simply one test of reliability and validity, and while it can be one of the basic premises on which the paradigm is based, using it as the sole premise is both tenuous and impractical, as it's impossible to test a spiritual event.

[_charity]

I for one would never discount the validity of a spiritual witness, except when said spiritual witness flies in the face of reality. A while back I heard a woman defending Jim Jones's actions. She said she knew he was a man of God because God had told her so. She said it was frustrating that people focused on the mass suicide instead of the good things Jones did for his people (presumably before he killed them all, of course). Her witness was very real to her; do you discount the validity of her spiritual witness? Why or why not?

I don't discount the fact that she had some kind of experience that was very real to her. I would say she got her witness from the opposite source.

And I really do understand those people out there who claim that Mormons are lead, inspired, directed by Satan. I don't agree with them, but at least they do understand that type of experience.

On the other hand, the people who say there is no such thing just because they don't experience it themselves, or their misinterpret the cause, are arrogant beyond belief.

[cacheman]

I don't discount the fact that she had some kind of experience that was very real to her. I would say she got her witness from the opposite source.

And I really do understand those people out there who claim that Mormons are lead, inspired, directed by Satan. I don't agree with them, but at least they do understand that type of experience.

On the other hand, the people who say there is no such thing just because they don't experience it themselves, or their misinterpret the cause, are arrogant beyond belief.

charity,

I've had the kinds of spiritual witness you and others describe. My guess is that I give those spiritual experiences less weight than you do because they testified of the demonstrably false. But I would never say to anyone, least of all you, that your spiritual experiences were all in your head. I'm not you, and you are not me.

Of course, some apologists are clearly led, inspired, and directed by Satan. ;)

[_harmony]

I for one would never discount the validity of a spiritual witness, except when said spiritual witness flies in the face of reality. A while back I heard a woman defending Jim Jones's actions. She said she knew he was a man of God because God had told her so. She said it was frustrating that people focused on the mass suicide instead of the good things Jones did for his people (presumably before he killed them all, of course). Her witness was very real to her; do you discount the validity of her spiritual witness? Why or why not?

I don't discount the fact that she had some kind of experience that was very real to her. I would say she got her witness from the opposite source.

And I really do understand those people out there who claim that Mormons are lead, inspired, directed by Satan. I don't agree with them, but at least they do understand that type of experience.

On the other hand, the people who say there is no such thing just because they don't experience it themselves, or their misinterpret the cause, are arrogant beyond belief.

And you don't think stating that another's witness comes from "the opposite source" is arrogant? Who are you to say where her witness comes from?