Theists, is MDB a hostile environment?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

In such cases, Proverbs 26, 4-5 really gives one a difficult call in deciding how to answer.

Wow, that was a brutal indictment.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_MrStakhanovite]

Abstract numbers cannot causaly interact with this universe.

Why not, beyond just assumming that the physical universe must be causally closed? I'm a novice at this sort of stuff, so I apologize if my questions seem naïve.

Here is a good place to start, but it's wordy, if you need help, lemme know.

[_lostsheep]

Here is a good place to start, but it's wordy, if you need help, lemme know.

Ok, I’ve looked at the link you posted. If I am understanding correctly, it is stating that the standard definition of “an abstract entity is a non-spatial (or non-spatiotemporal) causally inert thing”. I suppose my questions would be

1) Is it possible that there are non-spatiotemporal entities that are not causally inert? The god of traditional theism would be non-spatiotemporal (or immaterial and eternal to use old fashioned language), but would certainly not be considered by theists to be causally inert but rather the first cause. And as the article states, “But Plato's Forms were supposed to be causes par excellence, whereas abstract objects are normally supposed to be causally inert in every sense.” Are there good arguments that non-spatiotemporal entities must of necessity be causally inert?

2) If there are non-spatiotemporal entities that are not causally inert, would numbers/mathematics fall into that category? The universe at its most fundamental level seems to have a mathematical structure so in what way would our physical universe participate in whatever mathematical world may exist? As the article puts it, “the challenge is therefore to characterize the distinctive manner of "participation in the causal order" which distinguishes the concrete entities. This problem has received relatively little attention. There is no reason to believe that it cannot be solved. But in the absence of a solution, this standard version of the Way of Negation must be reckoned unsatisfactory.”

[_Chap]

Here is a good place to start, but it's wordy, if you need help, lemme know.

Ok, I’ve looked at the link you posted. If I am understanding correctly, it is stating that the standard definition of “an abstract entity is a non-spatial (or non-spatiotemporal) causally inert thing”. I suppose my questions would be

1) Is it possible that there are non-spatiotemporal entities that are not causally inert? The god of traditional theism would be non-spatiotemporal (or immaterial and eternal to use old fashioned language), but would certainly not be considered by theists to be causally inert but rather the first cause. And as the article states, “But Plato's Forms were supposed to be causes par excellence, whereas abstract objects are normally supposed to be causally inert in every sense.” Are there good arguments that non-spatiotemporal entities must of necessity be causally inert?

2) If there are non-spatiotemporal entities that are not causally inert, would numbers/mathematics fall into that category? The universe at its most fundamental level seems to have a mathematical structure so in what way would our physical universe participate in whatever mathematical world may exist? As the article puts it, “the challenge is therefore to characterize the distinctive manner of "participation in the causal order" which distinguishes the concrete entities. This problem has received relatively little attention. There is no reason to believe that it cannot be solved. But in the absence of a solution, this standard version of the Way of Negation must be reckoned unsatisfactory.”

This issue, it has to be said. really deserves a thread of its own for those interested in pursuing it. Its relevance to the issue of whether MDB is a hostile environment for theists is so exiguous as to be negligible.

Having said that, it is one of the most high-level and unmalicious derails I have ever seen on this or any other board.

[_Hoops]

I can't say I have noticed a lot of discussion on the part of Hoops. It's usually more a matter of 'You don't understand the Bible' or 'Sure, you're always right aren't you?' one-liners.

In such cases, Proverbs 26, 4-5 really gives one a difficult call in deciding how to answer.

Do you don't want me to answer you anymore. Gotcha.

[_lostsheep]

The default position for many exmormons seems to be hostility towards theism. To the extent that a fair number of them post on a board like this one, then yes, that hostility will exist. Exmormons, I think, are generally hypersensitive to the possibility of being deceived by religion.

But if theists want to be vocal in their beliefs then they should be prepared to defend them and should expect questions and criticism. Goes with the territory.

[_lostsheep]

So you're in the "tip toe around theists/don't actually say what you think/BS them into thinking you value nonsense simply because they think it" camp. I see.

No, I’m about making Theists more thoughtful and deepen their own understanding of their faith from discussion. Reducing every Theist’s philosophical beliefs about God as mere “nonsense” is arrogant as all hell.

Yes, I do value Theist input, because I’m not some omniscient calculator, I suffer from the same cognitive limitations they do. Just because I’ve come to different conclusions than someone else, doesn’t mean I get to dismiss them as mere nonsense.

The caricatures of God you guys (the majority of the agnostic/atheist posters here) bring up and knock down are a far cry away from what serious believers actually think.

Having read Mormon themed boards like this one for a while now, I can't tell you how refreshing your attitude is. These are serious philosophical and religious questions that have engaged some of the best minds in the Western intellectual tradition on both sides of the theist/atheist divide. And a little bit of cognitive humility is always healthy for believers and unbelievers alike.

[_Chap]

I can't say I have noticed a lot of discussion on the part of Hoops. It's usually more a matter of 'You don't understand the Bible' or 'Sure, you're always right aren't you?' one-liners.

In such cases, Proverbs 26, 4-5 really gives one a difficult call in deciding how to answer.

Do you don't want me to answer you anymore. Gotcha.

Trite little one-liners, no.

Substantive responses that acknowledge that the topics you discuss are not necessarily susceptible of being settled by you on the basis that you say so, maybe yes. But tastes may differ, and I wouldn't like to see the other readers of this board deprived of the unique perspective you bring to these discussions (whatever that may be).

[_Chap]

So you're in the "tip toe around theists/don't actually say what you think/BS them into thinking you value nonsense simply because they think it" camp. I see.

No, I’m about making Theists more thoughtful and deepen their own understanding of their faith from discussion. Reducing every Theist’s philosophical beliefs about God as mere “nonsense” is arrogant as all hell.

Yes, I do value Theist input, because I’m not some omniscient calculator, I suffer from the same cognitive limitations they do. Just because I’ve come to different conclusions than someone else, doesn’t mean I get to dismiss them as mere nonsense.

The caricatures of God you guys (the majority of the agnostic/atheist posters here) bring up and knock down are a far cry away from what serious believers actually think.

Having read Mormon themed boards like this one for a while now, I can't tell you how refreshing your attitude is. These are serious philosophical and religious questions that have engaged some of the best minds in the Western intellectual tradition on both sides of the theist/atheist divide. And a little bit of cognitive humility is always healthy for believers and unbelievers alike.

On the other hand ... (and there always is another hand) ... I passed many years as a 'serious believer' myself. I was familiar with the Bible, was a member of a church in which there was a tradition of thoughtful and questioning preaching by clergy with a high level of intellectual formation, and I read a fair bit of theological and philosophical writing. (No, I am not interested in listing authors, nor in responding to questions of the 'But have you read X?' variety). I was, I think, a goodish example of the kind of educated believer who has a not-bad-at-all answer to most objections to religious belief, though I am not pretending that I was a C.S. Lewis, or even a DCP.

Nowadays, however, if someone asks me what the difference is between my belief in The Deity Formerly Known As Yahweh and a belief in Santa Claus, I might have to say something like

"Well, belief in Santa Claus has always been limited to children, and he has never been given the huge investment of centuries of prestige, artistic creativity, philosophical justification by the best minds available, emotional commitment and (from time to time) persecution of non-believers that the The Deity Formerly Known As Yahweh has had. But maybe in principle there is not such a great difference after all."

So from time to time I think it does no great harm for the Yahweh/Santa comparison to be raised on a board such as this. Not all theists are philosophically sophisticated or dialectically subtle (indeed, in my experience the majority are far from that, and unlikely to make much progress despite all Mr Stakhanovite's missionary work). It is unreasonable to impose higher standards on non-theists.

[_lostsheep]

On the other hand ... (and there always is another hand) ... I passed many years as a 'serious believer' myself. I was familiar with the Bible, was a member of a church in which there was a tradition of thoughtful and questioning preaching by clergy with a high level of intellectual formation, and I read a fair bit of theological and philosophical writing. (No, I am not interested in listing authors, nor in responding to questions of the 'But have you read X?' variety). I was, I think, a goodish example of the kind of educated believer who has a not-bad-at-all answer to most objections to religious belief, though I am not pretending that I was a C.S. Lewis, or even a DCP.

Nowadays, however, if someone asks me what the difference is between my belief in The Deity Formerly Known As Yahweh and a belief in Santa Claus, I might have to say something like

"Well, belief in Santa Claus has always been limited to children, and he has never been given the huge investment of centuries of prestige, artistic creativity, philosophical justification by the best minds available, emotional commitment and (from time to time) persecution of non-believers that the The Deity Formerly Known As Yahweh has had. But maybe in principle there is not such a great difference after all."

So from time to time I think it does no great harm for the Yahweh/Santa comparison to be raised on a board such as this. Not all theists are philosophically sophisticated or dialectically subtle (indeed, in my experience the majority are far from that, and unlikely to make much progress despite all Mr Stakhanovite's missionary work). It is unreasonable to impose higher standards on non-theists.

From my perspective its more interesting if the discussion can move beyond the Santa Claus or Easter Bunny level. To me it seems that the God/Easter Bunny comparison is more like the standard operating procedure than something that is raised from time to time, that is why I found the post refreshing.

If there are lots of philosophically unsophisticated theists out there then the same can also be said for atheists. Put a lot of those people together on a discussion board and what you usually end up with is some mixture of name calling and testimony bearing. I personally have had my fill of those things after a lifetime as a Mormon.