|
View Poll Results: What is your opinion of FARMS? | |||
Den of liars and cheats | 3 | 15.00% | |
Perfect acronym; I think of a funny farm | 2 | 10.00% | |
High powered academics doing ground breaking work | 1 | 5.00% | |
Honest advocates | 9 | 45.00% | |
Option 1 & 2 | 5 | 25.00% | |
Option 3 & 4 | 0 | 0% | |
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-24-2007, 12:28 AM | #121 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
|
07-24-2007, 12:49 AM | #122 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
The mudslinging is funny but illogical.
As noted earlier, I'd be happy to critisize the weakness of apologetics per se, and specifically of FARMS. However, LDS members should be interested in, academic honesty reviewing their history, the place of their theology in terms of world dynamics and quality apologetics that should improve. FARMS should NOT have teamed up with BYU. But what were they to do. Who else would fund them? It was a dilemma which has bad consequences no matter what. Accurate Mormon History is evolving, and will continue to evolve. The theology when viewed in light of academia will evolve. Yet we will remain noncreedal. In one way, it appears both camps argue while each knows the answer, so they construe the evidence in light of the known evidence. The Believer Camp will endeavor to construe the "evidence" in a light most favorable to Belief. The Disbeliever Camp knows just as fervently that none of the allegations are true according to modern observations. The reality is, much of the matters upon which Believer rely is void of any empirical proof. Disbelievers assume that there is nothing that exists which can't be proven empirically. In academic setting, that is perhaps the only reasonable position to take, but in terms of episteme, is it categorically true? Philosophy has debated this concept for millenia without complete resolution. In terms of the informed believer and disbeliever, neither side is a bunch of fools. One side may be more cautious, i.e., the empiricists, and the other side less cautious in believing what cannot be seen scientifically, but that doesn't make the groups full of ninnies incapable of reason. And although I largely agree with much of Solon's propositions, I disagree if he concludes LDS should not enter the academic arena and should not examine their articles of faith under the scholarly microscope. We might not like what we see, but that does not mean we shouldn't look. It may just be the way God desires us to refine our faith. Faith coupled with reason is an important endeavor that can enrich our lives. If others find no enrichment, they will find it elsewhere, in the arts, science, outdoors or athletics. We LDS should be willing to acknowledge when our stuff isn't very good, and work on improving it. In some respects our faith is at a disadvantage, because in large part, our faith is the "anti" intellectual faith. Unlike historic Christianity, Judaism and Islam, our faith did not grow up as a result of priestly debates on finer points of principles of faith. (I argue some of those points were charades for political purposes but not always). We intentionally kept it simple, so that faith would be easy. Did we engage in the homoiousias and homoousias debate in arriving at the nature of God? No. We claimed a nonverifiable by empirical means a vision. However, because we grew up outside the traditional religious circles, does that mean we should forever ignore the debates? If you come from Seattle's perspective, you are likely to miss anything which ultimately proves to be legitimate. He may say otherwise, but he has already concluded no Biblical God exists, so he will necessarily construe evidence in that light. We necessarily construe evidence in a light favorable to our views. Very few, if any, actually look at evidence and ask, what does it mean. We aren't tabula rasas.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
07-24-2007, 12:55 AM | #123 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
Again, I have not really waded through this thread so if this is off-base, someone tell me so and I will be quiet again.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
07-24-2007, 01:11 AM | #124 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, he cannot support his position because there are some careful people, i.e., David Paulsen, associated with FARMS. He has some legitimate criticism, if FARMS is intended to be solely academic, but it's not. He has a legitimate gripe in that FARMS sometimes tries to pass itself for something it is NOT. It is not a bastion of world reknowned scholars in antiquity, the ancient world and languages. It has some who are not ignoramsuses, and some who are trying to elevate the level of discourse. What is apologeia? It depends. In one respect, it is nothing more than an arguable, rhetorical defense for the faithful, not for the disbelievers, defending the principles and faith of the believers. In my mind, FARMS tries to be too many things for too many people. It tries apologia, tackling archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, ancient texts, some philosophy, and other disciplines on top of the rhetorical defense. It doesn't have enough resources, enough expertise or the funds to tackle all of those angles from a cautious, academic perspective. Few organizations would. It is just scraping the surface of possibilities.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-24-2007, 01:11 AM | #125 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
AA, you're right that Adam's post calls out SU for being certain in his unbelief, but Adam's rhetorical choice was to be correspondingly certain in his belief. Thus, the discussion devolves into a he-said/he-said third-grade argument. Nevertheless, modern convention seems to be to disbelieve until persuaded otherwise. I don't want to speak for him, but IMO SU seems to be working from this accepted default.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) |
|||
07-24-2007, 01:17 AM | #126 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
So I believe you're being cautious in describing his active, not passive, disbelief.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-24-2007, 01:27 AM | #127 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
|
Quote:
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) |
|
07-24-2007, 01:35 AM | #128 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
It can be done effectively. For example after the Documentary Hypothesis became vogue and virtually accepted as commonplace, a very erudite and studious Italian Jew, Umberto Cassuto, took it on, and forced scholars to reevaluate what they had accepted as "true." We LDS are often so anxious to prove ourselves to be correct, we can tend to jump the gun and not even understand the academic questions asked.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
07-24-2007, 03:49 AM | #129 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings." "I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar." "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." "I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." "In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of the priests." "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God." "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." I think these statements are fair characterizations of how I see the possibility of a God. Was Eistein inconsistent in denying belief in the traditional biblical god (what he calls a "personal god") yet professing belief in "God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists?" So I have made a value judgment. Big deal. I don't shrink from that. I reject the Mormon God, partly, as described in my last paragraph below, because of its fruits. I have made the judgment based on my senses and reasoning that the traditional Judeo-Christian God of dogma, ordinances, revelation, angels, blind obedience, hostility to liberty and history and science, and (for much of its history) racism and genocide, is not believable to me. Least of all is Joseph Smith's story credible to me for reasons as numerous as stars in the sky and as instinctive as breathing. But to compare my disbelief in angels with diselieving something for which there is tangible evidence, including photographs and rocks, and that I lived with in real time, such as that men walked on the moon, is what is pure rhetoric. A last refuge of those who have nothing to say. Now, Spinoza is widely regarded as an atheist, possibly the first known atheist since Classical antiquity. Yet Einstein considered him a believer of sorts. Traditional Judeo-Christianity would consider Einstein, Spinoza and myself atheists because we do not believe in a "biblical God," even though we are happy to consign God to the realm of mystery, and focus on living as virtuously as possible in the here and now. So the belief that I ascribe to is in fact qualitatively different than the belief in a biblical god rejected by most scientists and I submit many of America's founding fathers. Still as you can see from my posts I spend as much time as any lay person who goes to church reading and thinking about religious subjects. Religion is a facinating subject. But LDS culture is not, and that is probably my primary problem with the LDS Church. You might notice me absent from the chatter about sacrament meeting and home teaching. And FARMS represents the part of LDS culture least attractive to me--anti-historical, disingenuous, chauvenistic, insensitive to mystery, aestheticcally shoddy, and worse than ant-intellelctual and anti-science, i.e., carrying on a pretense of being intellectual and scientific. I have to judge a religion largely based on the quality of its art and literature, the coherence of its founding story and cosmology, the vibrancy and beauty of its culture. Mormonism doesn't work for me on these grounds. In the final analysis, Mormonism fails my aesthetic sensibility. I prefer the ancient Greeks. Yes, it's a value judgment. Someone said earlier their faith has to be reasonable, make sense. I agree. Mormonism also fails me on that basis. Einstein's God does not, in my judgment.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 07-24-2007 at 04:24 AM. |
|
07-24-2007, 03:57 AM | #130 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
By the way, has anyone come up with that list of scholars who have reviewed the Book of Mormon as literature yet?
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|