DCP: Objectivity is a myth because of quantum spookiness

[Philo Sofee]

Yeah... I dunno man. DCP does not have to go to the quantum or science at all to demonstrate pure objectivity is ridiculous to even imagine possible. Historians have demonstrated this for umpteen millenia. It is sorta weird going to science instead of the much more powerfully demonstrable discipline of history itself to show subjectivity and our own humanness and limitations are all we need to grasp...

[Gadianton]

That's particularly useful in regards to the Book of Mormon witnesses because Peterson can claim that their "spiritual eyes" encounter with the plates is just as real

You know that's a great point, and I didn't think of it. I will say though that I don't think he has thought of it either. But it would be interesting to see if he ever got backed into a corner such that he did go there.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Yeah... I dunno man. DCP does not have to go to the quantum or science at all to demonstrate pure objectivity is ridiculous to even imagine possible. Historians have demonstrated this for umpteen millenia. It is sorta weird going to science instead of the much more powerfully demonstrable discipline of history itself to show subjectivity and our own humanness and limitations are all we need to grasp...

Indeed, and that point is the proper usage of deconstruction as used in postmodernist philosophy. There is never a "correct" way to interpret historical events since events refract in an endless series.

What's different for neo-fundamentalism is that it's trying to take the wonderful humanistic principle of moral relativism and twist it into factual relativism. Since no one has definitively proven that Smith lied about the plates, then believing his claims is just as smart as not doing so. It doesn't matter that the preponderance of the evidence is that Smith was a scammer who got lucky for a time. Mormons who think he was a good guy are merely interpreting reality differently, not more naïvely.

[Alphus and Omegus]

That's particularly useful in regards to the Book of Mormon witnesses because Peterson can claim that their "spiritual eyes" encounter with the plates is just as real

You know that's a great point, and I didn't think of it. I will say though that I don't think he has thought of it either. But it would be interesting to see if he ever got backed into a corner such that he did go there.

Given his writings about NDEs and dowsing, I'd say he has at least approached this witness idea internally.

[Rivendale]

You know that's a great point, and I didn't think of it. I will say though that I don't think he has thought of it either. But it would be interesting to see if he ever got backed into a corner such that he did go there.

Given his writings about NDEs and dowsing, I'd say he has at least approached this witness idea internally.

NDE"s are god's cruel attempt at guilting everyone who has never had one.

[Philo Sofee]

Alphus & Omegus
Indeed, and that point is the proper usage of deconstruction as used in postmodernist philosophy. There is never a "correct" way to interpret historical events since events refract in an endless series.

Yep. It is why it is so important to go with probabilities instead of possibilities. There never has been such a thing as a "correct way to interpret" anything. There are always several ways, not just one only actual truth and way of knowing the past. All one has to do is go read some history books to see this obvious fact. I mean since 485 B.C. Herodotus is still being interpreted in many ways other than the ancients did, and the medieval scholars did, and how modern scholars do... No one can claim a final "real" knowledge of all the facts and how they fit in Julius Caesar's "Gallic War", Xenophon's "Anabasis", nor Thucydides "Peloponnesian War."

There has never been an at last finality to the Ancient Israel interpretation anymore than there has been of 2nd Temple Judaism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Christianity, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, or the so-called Dark Ages either, let alone the Old Testament or New Testament. Crimany look how the Book of Mormon interpretation constantly morphs and undergoes changes with serious ramifications. It seems to me pretty blasted silly Peterson brings in Quantum rather than history. He is on vastly more solid ground with historical evidence for his claim. I mean, just a few months ago we were treated to a new book by Francesca Stavrakopoulou, "God, An Anatomy," which, yet again, is another interpretation that is not just meaningless drivel either.

It's this way with ancient Israelite historical and archaeological Studies - William Dever, Beyond the Texts. Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm. Daniel McClellan, YHWH's Divine Images. It's in New Testament studies with Dennis R. MacDonald, Synopses of Epic, Tragedy, and the Gospels. Erin Vearncombe, Brandon Scott and Hal Taussig, After Jesus Before Christianity. Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, a New Historiographical Approach. Thomas Wayment's new translation of the New Testament - The New Testament A Translation for Latter Day Saints.

It's occurring non-stop in Mormon Studies with Cheryl Bruno, Dr. Nick Literski, Joe Swick, Method Infinite, on Freemasonry and Mormonism. It's with Don Bradley's new treatment (with many signal new unknown discoveries and approaches!) The Lost 116 Pages - Reconstructing the Book of Mormon's Missing Stories. And William L. Davis Visions in a Seer Stone - Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon. The only constant in historical interpretation is the changing of our knowledge as we keep looking, keep finding, keep re-learning, and changing our "knowledge" of what happened in the past, which is never final. All of these books are just brand spanking new to a mere 3 years old or so. We aren't talking this occurring over 40 years ago and stopping.

All of these I will read through this up-coming year. Some I have already finished, all others are in process. And when I am done, I will still have absolutely no logical, epistemological, let alone historical grounds of saying "O.K., I now know the truth of what happened in all these fields."

I mean, I just had Colby Townsend on my live show and he has shown how everything he is researching and writing about from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon to the availability of Enoch has changed because the final word has not been made on anything in Mormon scriptural studies! In some ways he is turning the entire Mormon scholarship topsy turvy! I will be kicking out at least 6 recorded interviews with him over the next few months. My live session with him was electrifying for its updating of incomplete knowledge of Hugh Nibley.

[Physics Guy]

DCP does not have to go to the quantum or science at all to demonstrate pure objectivity is ridiculous to even imagine possible. Historians have demonstrated this for umpteen millenia. It is sorta weird going to science instead of the much more powerfully demonstrable discipline of history itself to show subjectivity and our own humanness and limitations are all we need to grasp...

Exactly.

I have the feeling that Mormon apologists—and no doubt lots of other apologists, too—really want to be able to close cases and have them stay closed, damn it. They must be sick and tired of the way critics never just shut up and sit down, but always have some kind of comeback. Zombie hell must be exhausting.

So, more than arguments, apologists must really want talismans for ending debates.

Relevance isn't the point. Heisenberg, Dante, al Kindi—one name is as good to drop as another, as long as an esoteric language is involved, which only the qualified dare to translate. Further questions from the unlearned rabble can then be duly ridiculed. From the duty to explain and argue in detail, the apologists' hands have been washed.

[Alphus and Omegus]

DCP does not have to go to the quantum or science at all to demonstrate pure objectivity is ridiculous to even imagine possible. Historians have demonstrated this for umpteen millenia. It is sorta weird going to science instead of the much more powerfully demonstrable discipline of history itself to show subjectivity and our own humanness and limitations are all we need to grasp...

Exactly.

I have the feeling that Mormon apologists—and no doubt lots of other apologists, too—really want to be able to close cases and have them stay closed, damn it. They must be sick and tired of the way critics never just shut up and sit down, but always have some kind of comeback. Zombie hell must be exhausting.

So, more than arguments, apologists must really want talismans for ending debates.

Relevance isn't the point. Heisenberg, Dante, al Kindi—one name is as good to drop as another, as long as an esoteric language is involved, which only the qualified dare to translate. Further questions from the unlearned rabble can then be duly ridiculed. From the duty to explain and argue in detail, the apologists' hands have been washed.

The point of religious apologetics is not to offer correct answers, it's to offer any answers. When you have no facts to support your beliefs, you must attack reason with either luddite knownothingism or baffling believers with bullshiz.

[drumdude]

I now return briefly to writing up some notes that are inspired by and/or are based upon Michael Guillen’s Believing is Seeing: A Physicist Explains How Science Shattered His Atheism and Revealed the Necessity of Faith (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Refresh, 2021). They are, as I’ve previously explained, an initial hasty and unpolished pass on the topic that they address. I’ve been getting a kick, by the way, out of the overeager attempts by some on the Peterson Obsession Board to divine the argument that I’m making with what I’ve written here about the Guillen book — e.g., indignantly complaining that I’m attempting to discredit reason and rationality, to attack science, to argue that my religious beliefs must be “true” because we supposedly can’t confidently say anything about reality anyhow, to contend that, since everything is subjective, the supposedly subjective experiences of the Book of Mormon witnesses are just as valid as anybody else’s subjective feelings, and etc. and etc. As is usually (and black-comically) the case with them, they’re not even in the same conceptual ecosystem as I am. Extreme bias coupled with hostility, sloppy reading, undisciplined extrapolation, and a presumed gift for clairvoyance will do that to you.

Oh my gosh we hit a nerve!

I’m sure the book will make perfect sense to everyone except us when it’s published, Daniel! It will open up new landscapes of conceptual ecosystems!

[Rivendale]

I now return briefly to writing up some notes that are inspired by and/or are based upon Michael Guillen’s Believing is Seeing: A Physicist Explains How Science Shattered His Atheism and Revealed the Necessity of Faith (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Refresh, 2021). They are, as I’ve previously explained, an initial hasty and unpolished pass on the topic that they address. I’ve been getting a kick, by the way, out of the overeager attempts by some on the Peterson Obsession Board to divine the argument that I’m making with what I’ve written here about the Guillen book — e.g., indignantly complaining that I’m attempting to discredit reason and rationality, to attack science, to argue that my religious beliefs must be “true” because we supposedly can’t confidently say anything about reality anyhow, to contend that, since everything is subjective, the supposedly subjective experiences of the Book of Mormon witnesses are just as valid as anybody else’s subjective feelings, and etc. and etc. As is usually (and black-comically) the case with them, they’re not even in the same conceptual ecosystem as I am. Extreme bias coupled with hostility, sloppy reading, undisciplined extrapolation, and a presumed gift for clairvoyance will do that to you.

Oh my gosh we hit a nerve!

I’m sure the book will make perfect sense to everyone except us when it’s published, Daniel! It will open up new landscapes of conceptual ecosystems!

And a presumed gift for clairvoyance? Every Patriarchal blessing presupposes this gift ? It is glaring that he offered no counter arguments. It is in the same oratory pose as hidden codes planted in the attack against the 7th East Press and the Beavis and Butthead code hidden in classic "be sure to drink your Ovaltine" fashion. I challenge DCP on his next Physics in wonderland to address shoe mirrors.