OK -- I got the Thomas Riskas book, and I promise to read it
from cover to cover... later.

Right now, I'm ignoring the mandated reading order and am
skipping around in the book, to get a feeling of its flavor.

If it's not a violation of copyright, I'm seriously thinking
about tearing apart the binding and running the pages through
an automatic scanner -- doing OCR on the entire contents --
and generating an alphabetized index of the text's most
important or prominent words. That may take a while.

However, as I was thumbing through the book, munching on my
salted peanuts, and sipping a cool Heineken, I suddenly bit
down upon a rock that got mixed in with the nuts.

As luck would have it, this unfortunate dental incident
occurred just as I was pondering Riskas' use of words
such as "real" and "reality."

So, bear with me, as I ask an extended question here.

1. Is the rock that I bit down upon today a REAL object? I
have it here in my hand, can weigh it, measure it, etc.
But how can I be certain that it is REAL, in a way that
conforms to "real" in _Deconstructing Mormonism?_

2. As I bit down upon that pebble (and for far too long
thereafter) I felt pain. Not just a little pain, but the
sort of bothersome, distracting pain that demands relief.
Was that pain REAL?

3. Pondering the discomforting problem that the pain was
alerting my brain to, I became fearful that there might
be more rocks mixed in with the nuts. So I examined them,
one-by-one, in order to eliminate any more rocks and pain.
Was that fear REAL?

4. My unresolved fear quickly fostered a very indignant
reaction inside my mind, and I soon found myself disliking
the food company and food inspectors who had passed on
this free gift of an unsolicited rock in my nut bowl.
Was that dislike (I'll elevate the reaction to hatred) REAL?

5. At the same time, I also began to see that I was not
the only victim of unwanted rocks in packaged food, and I
began to feel a connection -- a comradeship to other victims.
Was that connection REAL?

And, having come to the end of my list, I also wonder --
if the #5 item "connection" can somehow be called REAL,
is it "real" in the same sense that the rock is "real?"

It would help if Mr. Riskas had included a glossary --
but perhaps, if I look further, I can find that helpful
resource in the writings of Mr. Nielsen.

That's about as far as I got. But next in my investigation
will be the concept of "exist" and "existence." Maybe I'll
have better luck in that quest for understanding.

Uncle Dale

I am real.

I like your train of thought. absolute truth and relative truth can almost be the same thing. ???

also.....the only tools we have as humans to tell what is 'real is our senses. sight touch sound taste and possibly emotion. very few people in a religion actually see or hear things etc. almost all things considered real are felt. this becomes problematic when a feeling that no one else can feel verify or confirm is the basis of you being right and others wrong.
esp whn others have feelings that contradict. how did god expect to be able to use human hearts to convey truth?? then tell us not to ever trust our own hearts. how do you use a relative concept to confirm an absolute concept??? doesnt really make sense. god says to follow him. but you have to rely on your own heart to figure out who 'he' is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2013 09:28PM by lotus.

lotus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> also.....the only tools we have as humans to tell
> what is 'real is our senses. sight touch sound
> taste and possibly emotion. very few people in a
> religion actually see or hear things etc. almost
> all things considered real are felt. this becomes
> problematic when a feeling that no one else can
> feel verify or confirm is the basis of you being
> right and others wrong.
> esp whn others have feelings that contradict. how
> did god expect to be able to use human hearts to
> convey truth?? then tell us not to ever trust our
> own hearts. how do you use a relative concept to
> confirm an absolute concept??? doesnt really make
> sense. god says to follow him. but you have to
> rely on your own heart to figure out who 'he' is.

I am ready to accept the fact that there are other minds
"out there," besides just my own. A lifetime of experience
has convinced me that I am not alone, imagining all my
surroundings and interactions.

So, generally speaking, I rely heavily upon confirming
perceptions voiced by other people. "Do I really see a
red two-door Ford ahead of me on the road?" If six people
I've come to trust say, "No, Dale that's a red four-door
Toyota," then I'm willing to accept that additional input
in making a final determination as to what is real.

But, in reading a book, it's the author and me -- with
Kai Nielson silently peaking over my shoulder. I do not
have that additional feedback and input -- and I'm getting
stuck in the vocabulary, right off the bat.

Maybe I need to recalibrate my reality sensors.

UD

Uncle Dale,

I don't know if this helps, but page xvii, footnote 1:

'Real doubt' as used here and throughout this book is, in a Peircean context, taken to mean doubt that actually affects our lives; that has practical consequences for our actions and beliefs. In a religious context, it persistently or recurrently disturbs and rattles or threatens the faith of believers and stimulates serious inquiry. Such doubt, and the sincere questions that express it, are to be distinguished from the state that merely being 'skeptical,' or fro mere Cartesian, universal, or 'paper,' doubt.

Satan Claus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uncle Dale,
>
> I don't know if this helps, but page xvii,
> footnote 1:
>
> 'Real doubt' as used here and throughout this book
> is, in a Peircean context, taken to mean doubt
> that actually affects our lives; that has
> practical consequences for our actions and
> beliefs. In a religious context, it persistently
> or recurrently disturbs and rattles or threatens
> the faith of believers and stimulates serious
> inquiry. Such doubt, and the sincere questions
> that express it, are to be distinguished from the
> state that merely being 'skeptical,' or fro mere
> Cartesian, universal, or 'paper,' doubt.

Yes, I actually did read that part -- the author's dwelling
upon doubt is lengthy and detailed. And, of course, real
doubt is something more serious than whimsical doubt or
pretended doubt -- both of which I have encountered in
hopeless conversations with adamant Mormon defenders.

So, I'm more or less comfortable with the assertion that
belief entails doubt and that religious professions, when
carefully examined, generally include much room for doubt.

It's the author's use of "real" apart from doubt or
personal professions, that has caused me to pause in my
reading of the book.

Like I said earlier, I'm seriously considering constructing
a digital index, so that I can quickly and comprehensively
review all the instances where Riskas speaks of "real/reality."
I'm not convinced that he has been thorough and consistent;
but, then again, my brain refuses to hold thousands of lengthy
paragraphs in short-term memory for comparisons and analysis.

For example: If "real" means something that actually exists,
does that definition extend to feelings, emotions, perceptions
and abstractions? Or, is the author consistently using "real"
in the sense of real objects -- "things" that can be measured
and quantified?

I do not know. Without a glossary, I find myself lost, in
attempting to comprehend and understand the vocabulary,
precisely as the author intends it to be understood and applied.

UD

Got it.

I thought about scan the sucker in too. A glossary would be *very* helpful. The footnotes add some good insight, but, as you say, trying to remember each point/definition is a bit tough.

How did you get it? I am on the fb private pg..but I do not have the book....

memyself Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How did you get it? I am on the fb private pg..but
> I do not have the book....

The author sent out some free copies. If you contact him
via his Las Vegas business web-page, maybe he can inform
you if he has any more available.

UD

Ty Dale :)

Hi Dale. Sorry about the rock you bit down on.

Glad to read that you're wrestling with what you're reading so far.

I assume what you might be struggling with is the "problem of reality" presented on pp. 22-24 of Chapter 1, correct?

If so, none of what's written there has anything to do with whether or not you really bit into a rock or whether or not you really experienced pain when you did, etc..

The "problem with reality" addressed in these pages is the problem with Meta-Physical Realism, as stated and referenced. The implications of this problem are fundamental to my analytical deconstruction of the Mormon faith.

tomriskas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Dale. Sorry about the rock you bit down on.
>
> Glad to read that you're wrestling with what
> you're reading so far.
>
> I assume what you might be struggling with is the
> "problem of reality" presented on pp. 22-24 of
> Chapter 1, correct?
>
> If so, none of what's written there has anything
> to do with whether or not you really bit into a
> rock or whether or not you really experienced pain
> when you did, etc..
>
> The "problem with reality" addressed in these
> pages is the problem with Meta-Physical Realism,
> as stated and referenced. The implications of this
> problem are fundamental to my analytical
> deconstruction of the Mormon faith.


Boy, you've got a good memory, Tom. I had to go back to
half a dozen different thumbed-down-corner pages to locate
the spot where the mental anxiety set in -- and, yes, it
was page 23. However there is nothing particularly puzzling
about the contents at that point. The question of how
"real" will be considered thereafter was more my concern.

And yes, fundamental -- I agree fully. I may have inadvertently
stumbled upon the key-word for the entire book.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yes, fundamental -- I agree fully. I may have
> inadvertently
> stumbled upon the key-word for the entire book.
>
> UD




If the author manages to put the 'fun' before the mental parts I might consider reading it.
I need a little fun.

joan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uncle Dale Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And yes, fundamental -- I agree fully. I may
> have
> > inadvertently
> > stumbled upon the key-word for the entire book.
> >
> > UD
>
>
>
>
> If the author manages to put the 'fun' before the
> mental parts I might consider reading it.
> I need a little fun.


Half a dozen more one-liners and you'll have a marketable
Comedy Central stand-up routine.

My husband says I'm very funny and should do stand up comedy.
The pathetic part is I too think I'm very funny and laugh at my own jokes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2013 02:14AM by joan.

Hokay. I just read through this whole thread . . . I want what these guys are smokin'.

;o)

Interesting analogy. I dont know if this helps or hinders but K. Gibran wrote-"pain is the braking of your shell of understanding. Breaking away from the reality we're taught is definatly painful. Empathy for fellow victims, is a very natural & one of the better human qualities. Hatred towards the perpatrator also normal. Trying to vent or apply that anger contructivly(sp?);Wisdom. After all this SORRY ABOUT YOUR TOOTH! Call or e-mail 'em about it. save the rock,maybe theyll help it you have a dental bill!

Go see a real dentist to make sure you didn't crack your tooth.

If you forgo novocain, you may experience some real pain.

If that doesn't do it, you may feel a different kind of pain when the bill arrives.

If you don't pay the bill, the bill collector will see to it that you experience that pain over and over until you produce some real money. Monopoly money will not work.

Dale,

Perhaps this isn't the appropriate thread to take this subject further, but I'll share this in reply in answer to your concern about "how 'real' will be considered thereafter."

Essentially, as I see it, your guide will be the context in which the words "real" or "reality" are used in the text.

E.g. the sentence "This is a real problem" uses the word "real" as a descriptive modifier of the word "problem". As such we know we're not dealing with "real" in the context of "reality." The text of the sentence provides the context in which to derive a sense of what the term "real" means, as it is used in this sentence.

However, the statement "God and Jesus Christ are real beings" presents an entirely different context for the word "real." From the text we take this sentence as an allegedly "true" proposition or statement of "fact" that could be re-constructed as the statement "It is true that God and Jesus Christ literally (really) exist as beings." The stated "fact" in this staement is the "that clause" "that God and Jesus Christ literally exist."

In the latter example the use of the word "real" is intended by the speaker or writer to convey that it is a Truth, independent of language or what we can prove or disprove, that God and Jesus Christ are real, i.e. that they are are, a priori, "factual realities."

It is this second use of the concept of reality, and corresponding use of the words "real" and "reality" that constitutes the "problem of reality" I point to in Chapter 1.

What Nielsen and other notable thinkers such as Quine, Putnam, Davidson, Rorty, Sellars, Goodman, etc argue, and what I as well have embraced as the basis of my a priori Atheism, is the anti-"Realist" view that opposes the "Meta-Physical Realism" embraced by those philosophers, theologians and religionists, including naturalist theologians and believers, who are still intellectually stuck in the Platonic, Cartesian and Kantian traditions, i.e those classic philosophical traditions which have been roundly discredited and dismissed as being incoherent given the advancements of science and the philosophy of science.

The anti-Realist position, which is, again, the one I embrace in the book in my analytical deconstruction of Mormonism, simply holds that "reality" is a social construct; a construct we as humans create through language on the basis of our observations of, and interactions with, the physical, materialist world and universe we inhabit as products of it.

This view does not deny that are many "real" (material, physical) objects and phenomena in the world and universe.

What it does reject as incoherent is the worldview or belief that the "reality" we construct with our use of language actually corresponds to the world and universe as they really are, or to any alleged "reality in them, or transcendent to them. While we can and do certainly have sensory experiences in connection with such objects and phenomena (e.g. you biting down on a rock), the truth remains that we cannot know anything about reality, or even about our experiences with what is real (i.e. exists) without the use of language.

In the end, all we can reasonably (and coherently) aspire to is the best, provisionally justified beliefs or knowledge about the world and universe we can get, given the fact of human fallibilism. Such provisional, justified knowledge is the only reality (not "Reality") we can know, and the only truth (not "Truth") we can get about the world and the universe.

For us to obtain such justified knowledge, the statements or assertions we make about what we consider to be real (or reality) must, a priori, be justifiable, at least in principle. For this to be so, they must be intelligible (literally understandable) and coherent (not self-contradictory) with specifiable truth-conditions that can, in principle at least, be confirmed or disconfirmed.

If this a priori condition cannot be met, in say the statement that "God exists," where the term 'God' as a referring expression requires a specific reference range of intelligible, coherent and factually meaningful primary, secondary and relational attributes unique to it, then such an assertion would be considered factually vacuous, and such an alleged existent ('God') would necessarily be deemed a factual non-reality.

This is how we determine whether or not alleged undefinable, meaning-transcendent, spatio-temporally and biologically transcendent and unverifiable existents (i.e. gods, spirits, intelligences) are "real" or not. It's all in the language, not in alleged language transcendent or ineffible experience.

Common sense should lead us to acknowledge that we cannot know anything true (i.e. justified) about what actually and specifically exists, including what we experience or think and believe exists, without language.

If this is so, and I think it is, then, as I write in my Foundational preface to the book, if there is a problem with Mormon or other forms of theistic 'God-talk' (and there is, to be sure!), then there is a serious problem indeed (and there is, to be sure!).

Hope this helps.

T

I'm now expecting this to be a big, heavy book, in every sense of the word! It will be a good intellectual challenge.

Seems to me like Tom R is channelling Bob McCue. It'll be fun to try and make it through many paragraphs, out-of-the-box concepts, and big words.

I'm thinking the Tom R Book Club we talked about forming (on various other threads) may turn into a lifelong pursuit! (That's how long it'll take to get through the whole thing!).

But I'm always up for a challenge. I will definitely read a foreword or a vocab list or whatever other helps are in the book.

What I really like about this is that we've often discussed here the merits of agreeing on definitions and the importance of choosing our words at least precisely, if not wisely, in order to maximize good communication. Wars have been waged due to failure to connect in this way.

We may have to impose deadlines for reading and discussing each chapter or we'll never get through. :)

Dale, sorry about your tooth. I agree it sounds like a trip to the dentist may be in order. I guess you'll know whether to go or not depending on how the (real) pain develops (or not).

That made me wince. Even in Paradise, it would seem, the Real world will get ya every time. Other than the dental incident, the image of sitting by the water, sunshine, cool breeze, snacks and bevvies in hand,is an enviable one. Except it's all sunshine and warm breeze here on the West Coast today so envy is not required. Take care.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2013 07:24PM by Nightingale.

tomriskas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Hope this helps.
>
> T


Yes, it _really_ does (no pun).

And I'll read the rest of the book with all of what you
just said in mind.

My next quest (and maybe you can help and maybe not)
concerns existence.

I am uncertain as to how I can know that something exists.
My eyes see an iron paperweight on my table. But scientists
tell me that what I see, feel, and otherwise perceive is
deceptive. The iron is actually made up of atoms, with
space in between. And, to make matters worse, I'm also
told that the atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles,
with a great deal of space in between -- and that some
of those particles are actually waves -- and that what
seems to be solid matter is, once again, made up of
quarks with a great deal of space in between.

And, to make matters worse, I'm now told that the empty
space is a breeding ground for virtual particles that
come and go, leaving everybody uncertain as to just
how much solidity and how much space and how much
electromagnetism comprise a seeming solid hunk of metal.

When I discover that "existing objects" are really such
problematic, intangible collections of unknowns, I begin
to doubt that the physical world exists in any degree
better than Plato's Ideals and other seeming abstractions.

So, it might be helpful if you could provide me with a
clue about how I should understand exist/existence in
your book.

That's all for now -- after that, I need a nap.

UD

Exist, existence, real, reality. ...It's all about how language is used at a particular time, in a particular context, and for a particular, determinative purpose.

Existence in a subatomic context is different than existence in a biological context, which is different than existence in a physical context.

In one sense, to say something "exists" is to say it is "real", and vice versa. Existence is reality in the particular domain we're referring to, given that what we're referring to is actually known as such, i.e. as a self-evident, unremarkable fact or a warranted (justified) assertion.

To say that the "iron paperweight on your table" does not exist as such because all it really is is an array of sub-atomic particles is reductionistic sophistry. Both statements are correct in different contexts, and both, in theory, pertain to the same object.

We can say in a particular context, as Alex Rosenber does, that "the physical facts fix all the facts," or that everything is essentially, or at bottom, comprised of "bosons and fermions" and perhaps be on sound scientific footing. And yet saying so, even if provisionally justified in principle or in fact, doesn't mean that all that "exists" are bosons and fermions, or that a "person" and a "particular array of bosons and fermions" do not both "exist" as different manifestations or representations the same existent.

Not sure what distinctions in the book you are struggling with in this regard. If you point to particular pages and examples in the book maybe I can be of more help. What I would advise against, for what it might be worth, if anything, is getting sidetracked in the Cartesian pursuit of "Certainty" and the Platonic pusuit of "The Ideal" or "Absolutes". Both pursuits are "fool's errands" from my perspective.

Again, what we're after, and all we can ever reasonably expect to get, given the fact of fallibilism, are the best justified beliefs (i.e. knowledge) we can get at a particular time, in a particular context, for a particular, deteminative purpose. Not anything like "Truth" or "Certainty" or "Things as they 'Really' are".

Hats off to you Dale for recognizing the importance of these fundamental concepts, and for digging in to understand some important distinctions. I mean that sincerely.

This might help as you read on...hopefully by going back and reading pp. xlix-lx in the Introduction, and then the Foundational Preface and Chapters 1 and 2 before reading the chapters in which I analyze the different aspects of Mormon theology (chs. 3-6).

I make this suggestion, with respect for your curiosity and desire to get a lay of the land, only to say that I have written the book as I have to provide an essential foundation for more fully understanding and appreciating the weight of the analysis performed in Chapters 3-6. My concern is that if readers unfamiliar with the analytical approach I use don't carefully do the foundational reading as suggested (not "mandated"), they might get lost in the weeds, or not get the full impact and import of the analysis performed.

It is, of course, up the reader, and few, I suspect, will heed my suggestions out of an understandable desire and eagerness to get to the meat of the analysis. In all honesty, I share your tendency to first go through the book. I'm just saying...

Cheers.

T

Another mind blowing question. I've read a lot of the "thinkers" on the subject. It really is a hard one to wrap my brain around. You can argue my real existence is in doubt and I can counter that my self awareness is enough. Counter that self awareness isn't in itself anything more than a thought needing a home. And so it goes.....

I have, many times taken that concept apart layer by layer in an attempt to arrive to a place that even just "felt" right. Something I could work with to understand who or what i really am. After all, that could answer a lot of other things.

I've almost thought myself crazy trying to bring it to an understandable level.

I'll be interested to tag along and see where you take this one...

Thanks for the clarifications Tom! A few more people have reported receiving the book, so I think we're getting close to getting something going.