My Faith: Hard-Core Common Sense

[Babs]

So, if we're going to debate how much God involves himself in the world, then, depending on your beliefs, WTF?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/18/foo...ex.html?hpt=T2

what do you mean wtf? Kids have seizures all the time.

[wuapinmon]

what do you mean wtf? Kids have seizures all the time.

Exactly. There are many Mormons who would tell you that it was God's will that this child died, and that his mission is now continuing on the other side, etc. If you're a determinist, then God does a lousy job of explaining why. If you're a deist, then it was outside his control. If you're are interventionist, then why not; if you were the friend of this kid's parents, what can you tell them that doesn't sound trite?

That's my point. WTF?

[woot]

Exactly. There are many Mormons who would tell you that it was God's will that this child died, and that his mission is now continuing on the other side, etc. If you're a determinist, then God does a lousy job of explaining why. If you're a deist, then it was outside his control. If you're are interventionist, then why not; if you were the friend of this kid's parents, what can you tell them that doesn't sound trite?

That's my point. WTF?

I used to get very frustrated with friends and family in the church whose Calvinist leanings emerged whenever anything bad happened. "It's God's will," they'd say, or "It was meant to be," or "He was needed on the other side," etc. Mormon doctrine doesn't teach anything like that, and yet it seems to be the easiest thing to believe so many accept it.

I'm reminded of the movie "Four Lions," in which one of the wanna-be terrorists blows himself up by tripping over a sheep while carrying explosives. The ensuing discussion over whether it was Allah's will that he blow himself up by tripping over a sheep is painfully hilarious.

[UtahDan]

I used to get very frustrated with friends and family in the church whose Calvinist leanings emerged whenever anything bad happened. "It's God's will," they'd say, or "It was meant to be," or "He was needed on the other side," etc. Mormon doctrine doesn't teach anything like that, and yet it seems to be the easiest thing to believe so many accept it.

I'm reminded of the movie "Four Lions," in which one of the wanna-be terrorists blows himself up by tripping over a sheep while carrying explosives. The ensuing discussion over whether it was Allah's will that he blow himself up by tripping over a sheep is painfully hilarious.

I think it is simply the most comforting thing to believe and that is why people say it.

[Sleeping in EQ]

It's obvious that the sun goes around the earth, and that the diversity of life could never be explained through natural means. Yet, everyone was wrong about both of those things. Let's not conflate mass ignorance with common sense.

I'm not a fan of the concept of common sense to begin with, as it doesn't seem to be very common.

The idea that the sun goes around the earth was soft-core common sense and was eventually, and utterly, refuted. As I said in the first post in the thread:

"I discriminate between soft-core common sense beliefs, which later discoveries can nullify, and hard-core common sense beliefs, which later discoveries cannot nullify because they are inevitably presupposed by all people in all their activities, including scientific, philosophical, and theological activities."

In this instance, common sense isn't being used in its popular or ideological iterations. It's literally collective human perception without exception.

I'll post my next assertion when I get a chance, but for now try to not let the "common sense" language bother you. It bothered me too, at first, because I have been trained to understand commonsense as ideological--that's not how it's being uesd here.

[creekster]

The idea that the sun goes around the earth was soft-core common sense and was eventually, and utterly, refuted. As I said in the first post in the thread:

"I discriminate between soft-core common sense beliefs, which later discoveries can nullify, and hard-core common sense beliefs, which later discoveries cannot nullify because they are inevitably presupposed by all people in all their activities, including scientific, philosophical, and theological activities."

In this instance, common sense isn't being used in its popular or ideological iterations. It's literally collective human perception without exception.

I'll post my next assertion when I get a chance, but for now try to not let the "common sense" language bother you. It bothered me too, at first, because I have been trained to understand commonsense as ideological--that's not how it's being uesd here.

Which is the point i was trying to make. The only thing that could be undisputed and is universally assumed in that way is the fact of consciousness, which one could not deny without being unable to consider. Everything else is, it seems to me, subject to being disproven later. That seems to leave nothing but Descartes' formulation.

[Moliere]

I'm guessing that SIEQ will completely reject:

1. Calvinism (he already has)
2. Spinozaism (pantheism, but not sure about panentheism)
3. Molinism (for sure!)
4. Aquinasism (God exists outside of time) Aquinas was a firm believer in free will, and in the first part of his Summa Theologica, question 83, article 1, after citing the Apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus, Chapter 15, he writes:

Dude, use the spoiler function!!! Now there is no reason for me to read any of SiEQs upcoming posts!

[jay santos]

Soft core and hard core common sense is kind of the difference between LDS doctrine and policy. If something changes that we thought was doctrine, we just say it was never doctrine, it's just a change in policy change.

[Sleeping in EQ]

In the initial post I asserted the following as hard-core common sense:

"every person unavoidably assumes existence in a world of other things and persons as real as s/he is."

The claim I'm making here is that every person is part of a process of perception.

Premise--I'm now going to elaborate this claim by suggesting that perception is a process with three interdependent parts: a perceiver, a means of perception, and something being perceived.

I first encountered this idea in-depth in the writings of MIT physicist Norbert Wiener. He was explaining the operation of electromagnetic technologies such as radar. I have since encountered it in a wide range of philosophical approaches.

Assertion--In order to have perception, you have a kind of trinity (I am not knowingly making the creedal, theological claim here) of inter-related moments in a process. Put simply, a perceiver cannot exist unless a means of perception exists and something being perceived also exists. The acceptance of any one of these concepts implies acceptance of the other two concepts.

Assertion--On one level, human beings have tended to equate perception with information consciously taken in by the senses of sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. On another level, biologists and other scientists know very well that cells have a kind of perception that is obscured at the level of the conscious mind (I'll say more about consciousness later). That is, "you" are not consciously aware of all of your cells' perceptions, let alone the perceptions of more minute aspects of yourself. To wit, as you and your dog watch each other, it is correct to say that, on one level, one strand of DNA is perceiving another strand of DNA.

Discrimination--It therefore depends on what "level" of perception one is interested in if one is to think of a human being as a singularity or as a plurality (yes, this is one way to question what the definition of "is" is). The human body engages in perceptions that are not perceived by the conscious mind and therefore consciousness evidences my approach to perception, right down to the mind's perception of the body that is distinct from the perceptions that parts of the body have of the body and of each other.

Teaser--I will next draw out some implications of this notion of perception for faith and reason. This means I'll also take up what creekster is saying about Descartes and about Descartes' troubling mind-brain dualism.

Again, I appreciate you all having this conversation with me.

[woot]

In the initial post I asserted the following as hard-core common sense:

"every person unavoidably assumes existence in a world of other things and persons as real as s/he is."

The claim I'm making here is that every person is part of a process of perception.

Premise--I'm now going to elaborate this claim by suggesting that perception is a process with three interdependent parts: a perceiver, a means of perception, and something being perceived.

I first encountered this idea in-depth in the writings of MIT physicist Norbert Wiener. He was explaining the operation of electromagnetic technologies such as radar. I have since encountered it in a wide range of philosophical approaches.

Assertion--In order to have perception, you have a kind of trinity (I am not knowingly making the creedal, theological claim here) of inter-related moments in a process. Put simply, a perceiver cannot exist unless a means of perception exists and something being perceived also exists. The acceptance of any one of these concepts implies acceptance of the other two concepts.

Assertion--On one level, human beings have tended to equate perception with information consciously taken in by the senses of sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. On another level, biologists and other scientists know very well that cells have a kind of perception that is obscured at the level of the conscious mind (I'll say more about consciousness later). That is, "you" are not consciously aware of all of your cells' perceptions, let alone the perceptions of more minute aspects of yourself. To wit, as you and your dog watch each other, it is correct to say that, on one level, one strand of DNA is perceiving another strand of DNA.

Discrimination--It therefore depends on what "level" of perception one is interested in if one is to think of a human being as a singularity or as a plurality (yes, this is one way to question what the definition of "is" is). The human body engages in perceptions that are not perceived by the conscious mind and therefore consciousness evidences my approach to perception, right down to the mind's perception of the body that is distinct from the perceptions that parts of the body have of the body and of each other.

Teaser--I will next draw out some implications of this notion of perception for faith and reason. This means I'll also take up what creekster is saying about Descartes and about Descartes' troubling mind-brain dualism.

Again, I appreciate you all having this conversation with me.

I'm interested to see where you're going with all this, but you completely lost me with the bolded line. It is true that we aren't conscious of most of our bodily functions, but how does that lead to your argument here? Perhaps this isn't essential to your plans, but it seems problematic if so.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I'm interested to see where you're going with all this, but you completely lost me with the bolded line. It is true that we aren't conscious of most of our bodily functions, but how does that lead to your argument here? Perhaps this isn't essential to your plans, but it seems problematic if so.

What I'm getting at is:

DNA, which is contained by all living things--even by single-celled organisms and viruses--carries information. Genes, which I believe are a distinct portion of a cell's DNA, code perceptible information (Have not some scientists decoded at least some information from some genes? Is not one cell's genetic information perceived by another cell? Perhaps I am mistaken).

In this way, I am suggesting that even DNA is part of the human perception process. In the language of my field (communication studies) we would say that "genes encode messages (or information)" and that this information establishes the possibility and parameters for all living perception.

To give a rather stupid example, I could not perceive the smell of a rose if my genes did not allow my cells to detect the chemicals producing its fragrance. Moreover, I would not be aware that my cells had detected the fragrant chemicals if my genes did not allow its perception by my conscious mind.

I am not claiming that DNA is alive. I am claiming that DNA--the building blocks of life, even though not alive itself--is a "means of perception" or within the scope of my definition of perception.

I hope this helps.

[woot]

What I'm getting at is:

DNA, which is contained by all living things--even by single-celled organisms and viruses--carries information. Genes, which I believe are a distinct portion of a cell's DNA, code perceptible information (Have not some scientists decoded at least some information from some genes? Is not one cell's genetic information perceived by another cell? Perhaps I am mistaken).

In this way, I am suggesting that even DNA is part of the human perception process. In the language of my field (communication studies) we would say that "genes encode messages (or information)" and that this information establishes the possibility and parameters for all living perception.

To give a rather stupid example, I could not perceive the smell of a rose if my genes did not allow my cells to detect the chemicals producing its fragrance. Moreover, I would not be aware that my cells had detected the fragrant chemicals if my genes did not allow its perception by my conscious mind.

I am not claiming that DNA is alive. I am claiming that DNA--the building blocks of life, even though not alive itself--is a "means of perception" or within the scope of my definition of perception.

I hope this helps.

Ok I'll buy it. I thought you were referring to the DNA of two individuals communicating with each other (you and your dog, if I remember the context).

I'm still not sure what you're getting at, and I think you run the risk of using a Deepak Chopra-style argument (he can't open his mouth without bastardizing irrelevant scientific principles that he doesn't understand in an attempt to cover up the gaping holes in his arguments). I'll be patient, but I can't imagine how the transfer of genetic information within an individual could possibly help your argument.

[Babs]

Genes, which I believe are a distinct portion of a cell's DNA, code perceptible information (Have not some scientists decoded at least some information from some genes? Is not one cell's genetic information perceived by another cell? Perhaps I am mistaken).

I think you mean receive, not perceive. Perception implies a conscious awareness acquired through the senses, so cells can't perceive anything. I think the suggestion that they can and do was what made woot do a double take.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Ok I'll buy it. I thought you were referring to the DNA of two individuals communicating with each other (you and your dog, if I remember the context).

I'm still not sure what you're getting at, and I think you run the risk of using a Deepak Chopra-style argument (he can't open his mouth without bastardizing irrelevant scientific principles that he doesn't understand in an attempt to cover up the gaping holes in his arguments). I'll be patient, but I can't imagine how the transfer of genetic information within an individual could possibly help your argument.

I'm familiar with Deepak Chopra, but I don't really value him as anything more than a positive thinker kind of a guy. I'm trying to lay things out in a step-by-step fashion so that my reasons are evident. I haven't mentioned the transfer of genetic information to help my argument so much as I'm trying to share a sense of its scope.

I'm also trying to share my thought processes along the way, and one of the central ones has been "the problem of perception" that is at the core of faith claims about "feeling" God's influence or "seeing with the eyes of faith" or "hearing the still, small voice." Faith is articulated through the language of perception, and being that I'm a communication studies guy, it's a great entry point for me.

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I think my approach, when unfolded, is compatible with science. As far as I am aware, it certainly isn't in conflict with the project of science. I trust that guys like yourself will tell me when I've parted ways with science.

[woot]

I'm familiar with Deepak Chopra, but I don't really value him as anything more than a positive thinker kind of a guy. I'm trying to lay things out in a step-by-step fashion so that my reasons are evident. I haven't mentioned the transfer of genetic information to help my argument so much as I'm trying to share a sense of its scope.

I'm also trying to share my thought processes along the way, and one of the central ones has been "the problem of perception" that is at the core of faith claims about "feeling" God's influence or "seeing with the eyes of faith" or "hearing the still, small voice." Faith is articulated through the language of perception, and being that I'm a communication studies guy, it's a great entry point for me.

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I think my approach, when unfolded, is compatible with science. As far as I am aware, it certainly isn't in conflict with the project of science. I trust that guys like yourself will tell me when I've parted ways with science.

I'm quite interested to see the rest of the argument.