God can write straight with crooked lines.

[I Have Questions]

I think there is considerable pressure to support all religious things Mormon and to disparage as less valuable all things non-Mormon

Says it all. You can tell when someone toes the party line and someone doesn't. Saying that you're open to all ideas but look, wow, they all point to Christ! The Mormon version! Isn't believable at all. But then, it's just carelessness. There could be sneakier ways to sound credible to outsiders but with no intention of questioning anything at all. But even those are relatively easy to spot. It's not hard to tell when someone is sacrificing a pawn.

Hinckley was a master of the pawn sacrifice

“We can respect other religions, and must do so. We must recognize the great good they accomplish. We must teach our children to be tolerant and friendly toward those not of our faith. We are not out to injure other churches. We are not out to hurt other churches. We do not argue with other churches. We do not debate with other churches. We simply say to those who may be of other faiths or of no faith, ‘You bring with you such truth as you have, and let us see if we can add to it’” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 277).

https://mrm.org/hinckley-quotes

[Limnor]

I'm no expert on all the positions, it's probably compatible with middle knowledge and other positions. It's easier to work with Leibniz's model. Here are all the possible worlds containing the free creature called Peter: Peter denies Jesus, he doesn't deny Jesus, he picks up a chainsaw sitting on the ground and goes TCM on everybody. Peter doesn't do anything until God chooses A.

Sounds an awful lot like God "chose" what Peter would do, to me. If not, how does the situation look if Peter were predestined? Here are the same list of choices I could force the creature Peter to make. He doesn't make any of them until God chooses A. What was different? We just say in one he was free and the other he wasn't.

I’m trying to understand how this problem works within Mormonism and the idea of the “world that was chosen.” I don’t mind saying it’s making my head hurt. Was Joseph looking for a way to “protect” God from responsibility?

Why I say this is because Joseph rejects creation ex nihilo. If intelligences are uncreated and agency is inherent to them, and if God organizes rather than creates from nothing, then God did not bring moral agency into existence. That would seem to remove God from being the ultimate source of moral failure.

And then there’s this—in classical theism, God creates you into a world you did not pre-choose. In Mormonism, you have already chosen to participate in this world. There was a council and even opposition to the point of war. So this world doesn’t align to Leibniz’s thoughts about “the one God picked.” It’s the one free beings chose to enter. Which seems to make God even “less” responsible.

But God still organized the system. And God still had foreknowledge. So why allow Peter to enter mortality knowing Peter would deny? Even if Peter consented, is God responsible for permitting what He foreknows?

[Limnor]

orange

I really enjoyed reading this post. The orange analogy especially. If “could have done otherwise” just means there are multiple logically possibilities, then the orange has that too. So that can’t be what freedom means.

Maybe the difference isn’t modal possibility but authorship. The orange’s motion is explained by external forces. When I make decisions and act, it includes reasons that I evaluate. That doesn’t necessarily prove libertarian freedom, but it suggests there might be something there.

Hume’s character point is interesting—if actions aren’t connected to character, they’re random, but if they are, they’re determined. So maybe the question isn’t “is free will random?” but “is agent-causation coherent?”

[Gadianton]

As for Mormonism, I think I've mentioned once or twice we're being exceptionally generous to MG by allowing him to claim to worship a "creator God", as his God is more like an advanced alien. To be fair, there are Mormons who are totally fine with this and see Mormonism as more logical because their God is relatable to sci fi. My best guess is that Mormons would be okay changing definitions and limiting God's power. God is a franchise owner, implementing a blueprint that has always existed. They believe matter existed independent of God, who just "organized it" into -- whatever is needed, like planets. To them, theology is more like the plotline of a story. Satan was handsome and smart but got cocky -- explanations like this. In fact, they do much better relating to existentialism than metaphysics because God is just like them, braving that tightrope and moving forward against external winds howling in his face, always at risk to "cease to be God" if he ever makes a mistake. The new MI is all existentialism/postmodernism. Mormons can make sense out of Sartre-like stories involving life ambiguity. They love "life wisdom". Metaphysics appears plain absurd.

The key here is to understand the old MI wasn't anything else in particular. Look at how educated Dan is, yet he has no idea that he's a materialist, and you can't even frame the conversation in such a way that he could comprehend why someone would suggest he's a materialist. Not because he isn't smart, Mormonism just wires you not to comprehend metaphysics. Hugh Nibley himself was a postmodernist and anti-realist, but skimmed along the surface. A BYU class can cover Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, anybody, without a lightbulb ever going on, they'll laugh at it, get A's on the test, and not ever see the point. Ask a Mormon to explain the Euthyphro dilemma, impossible. Not due to lack of intelligence. No way to frame it in their mind. And so the new MI isn't breaking from a tradition of modernists or anglo-analytic thinkers, because there has never been any attempt to ground Mormonism in the thought of any philosopher prior to Kierkegaard. Mormon favorites like Bruce R. McConkie or Cleon Skousen tried to explain Mormonism based on their own common sense and legal experience, seemingly in ignorance of what a philosophical question might be. They aren't using any traditional metaphysics that kids at the new MI are breaking from.

[Limnor]

There’s a bit of irony in BYU students laughing at classical metaphysics while philosophers elsewhere laugh at Mormon cosmology.

It seems like you’re challenging institutional apologists to engage more directly. I think that’s a reasonable request. If Mormonism rejects elements of classical theism, it still needs to explain what it’s putting in their place. What are Mormon responses to questions like what exactly is “being” or what makes something necessary? And if matter is eternal, what explains its existence?

MG, do you care to engage these thoughts?

[MG 2.0]

There’s a bit of irony in BYU students laughing at classical metaphysics while philosophers elsewhere laugh at Mormon cosmology.

It seems like you’re challenging institutional apologists to engage more directly. I think that’s a reasonable request. If Mormonism rejects elements of classical theism, it still needs to explain what it’s putting in their place. What are Mormon responses to questions like what exactly is “being” or what makes something necessary? And if matter is eternal, what explains its existence?

MG, do you care to engage these thoughts?

Whew! I think you'll be more likely to engage on a deeper level with someone trained in some of the nitty gritty stuff Gadianton is bringing up. I've said many times...I'm just a regular guy who likes to read and think about the world around me.

Gadiantion is above my pay level. But let me be clear, I don't take that as a reason to 'bow down' to his reasons for disbelief. At the end of the day, even though interesting, I find arguments against God (and in my particular case, Mormonism) unsatisfying and empty.

I'm happy to leave the deeper metaphysics to you guys. I'll read with interest and hop in if I believe I have anything worthwhile to offer. Which is what I have been doing. Unfortunately, in my opinion, much of what I have had do say has been ignored and/or circumvented to move the conversation elsewhere.

That's OK. I'm obviously not in control of what others say or do. I just observe. I'm just one person among many.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Whew! I think you'll be more likely to engage on a deeper level with someone trained in some of the nitty gritty stuff Gadianton is bringing up. I've said many times...I'm just a regular guy who likes to read and think about the world around me.

Gadiantion is above my pay level. But let me be clear, I don't take that as a reason to 'bow down' to his reasons for disbelief. At the end of the day, even though interesting, I find arguments against God (and in my particular case, Mormonism) unsatisfying and empty.

I'm happy to leave the deeper metaphysics to you guys. I'll read with interest and hop in if I believe I have anything worthwhile to offer. Which is what I have been doing. Unfortunately, in my opinion, much of what I have had do say has been ignored and/or circumvented to move the conversation elsewhere.

That's OK. I'm obviously not in control of what others say or do. I just observe. I'm just one person among many.

Regards,
MG

I didn’t really expect this response. Well some of it, sure, but not certain parts. For example, I expected “I’ve been ignored,” and “I just observe,” and even “I’m just a regular guy.” Because that’s generally your “go-to” shtick.

The denial of others’ lived experience is a bit of a surprise—even though the grammar Gad uses takes time to learn and understand, not to mention the depth and breadth of thinkers he references, it’s still his own lived experience beneath those words. It’s a little surprising that would dismiss his while granting your own.

But maybe that is due to the second comment that surprised me—even more so than anything you’ve said here. It’s the “bowing down” comment. I don’t think of this type of deeper engagement as bowing down. Once you say something like that, you really can’t claim earlier points as “circumvented.” Opting out because you don’t want to bow down is not the same as circumvention. Alternatively, maybe you mean you feel intimidated when you say “bowing down?” There is difference between intimidation and intellectual curiosity. If you have “the truth,” nothing should intimidate you. I suppose part of my bewilderment is that you wouldn’t want to gain “further light and knowledge,” no matter the source.

[MG 2.0]

Whew! I think you'll be more likely to engage on a deeper level with someone trained in some of the nitty gritty stuff Gadianton is bringing up. I've said many times...I'm just a regular guy who likes to read and think about the world around me.

Gadiantion is above my pay level. But let me be clear, I don't take that as a reason to 'bow down' to his reasons for disbelief. At the end of the day, even though interesting, I find arguments against God (and in my particular case, Mormonism) unsatisfying and empty.

I'm happy to leave the deeper metaphysics to you guys. I'll read with interest and hop in if I believe I have anything worthwhile to offer. Which is what I have been doing. Unfortunately, in my opinion, much of what I have had do say has been ignored and/or circumvented to move the conversation elsewhere.

That's OK. I'm obviously not in control of what others say or do. I just observe. I'm just one person among many.

Regards,
MG

I didn’t really expect this response. Well some of it, sure, but not certain parts. For example, I expected “I’ve been ignored,” and “I just observe,” and even “I’m just a regular guy.” Because that’s generally your “go-to” shtick.

It’s an honest description of my limits. Also, I'm not in any way claiming victim status. I'm acknowledging that I'm not doing the 'heavy lifting', philosophically, that Gadianton is doing. I suppose that might be why my contributions are easier to pass over.

The denial of others’ lived experience is a bit of a surprise—even though the grammar Gad uses takes time to learn and understand, not to mention the depth and breadth of thinkers he references, it’s still his own lived experience beneath those words. It’s a little surprising that would dismiss his while granting your own.

I'm not denying that Gadianton has his own "lived experience". However, I do not grant his experience to have veto power over my own. The simple fact is that we all treat our own experience(s) as authoritative and find the 'other side’s' conclusions unsatisfying.

I can't pretend to 'do metaphysics' at a deeper/graduate level. I'll freely admit that.

But maybe that is due to the second comment that surprised me—even more so than anything you’ve said here. It’s the “bowing down” comment. I don’t think of this type of deeper engagement as bowing down. Once you say something like that, you really can’t claim earlier points as “circumvented.” Opting out because you don’t want to bow down is not the same as circumvention. Alternatively, maybe you mean you feel intimidated when you say “bowing down?” There is difference between intimidation and intellectual curiosity. If you have “the truth,” nothing should intimidate you. I suppose part of my bewilderment is that you wouldn’t want to gain “further light and knowledge,” no matter the source.

Limnor, I think that it is important to remember that there is a line/division between honestly wrestling with arguments and letting someone else’s framework become the sole arbiter of what counts as rational or respectable belief.

That seems, at least to me, to be the default in many of these conversations.

Having “the truth,” as I understand it, doesn’t mean I have to chase every argument down to the bedrock (which you have a passion for), but it also doesn’t mean I’m closed to further light and knowledge.

I find it all interesting.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I don’t see engagement as conceding a single framework over any other. I see it as critical self-examination. Declining to cross-examine is different from being cross-examined. That’s all I was getting at.

[MG 2.0]

I don’t see engagement as conceding a single framework over any other. I see it as critical self-examination. Declining to cross-examine is different from being cross-examined. That’s all I was getting at.

If I don’t jump all the way in, it’s not because I’m afraid of scrutiny...I think I've born my fair share...it’s because I don’t grant that one framework gets to be the judge and jury over my own lived experience and convictions.

I grant that others have had their own lived experience which may include any one or more things that might be somewhat unique to them. For example, Gadianton's exploration of philosophical underpinnings of 'reality', which for him may supersede other forms/ways of 'knowing'.

Your life experience puts the Bible as the ultimate authority, and especially the apostle Paul, as the final arbiter of what 'Christian truth' entails and/or is allowed to entertain, maintain, etc.

I think we each need to accept that we have our own 'priors'. I'm pushing back on the idea that one set of priors...what counts as evidence, what kind of God is even possible, what metaphysics are ‘serious’/acceptable...gets to referee everybody else’s views. I see that going on here. That's fine as far as it goes I suppose. We should simply be 'up front' with that fact.

As I've said many times, to each his or her own.

Regards,
MG