Granted, IHAQ, there are a lot of examples we could point to where we can preface our presupposition with the words..."It's as if".
It is easy and it is even somewhat natural to go with a naturalistic explanation. I've gone that route at times. Many times. It's hard NOT to do that when you can see that there are some unexplained/unresolved "huh's?" that get in the way.
Regards, MG
Isn't the fact that a naturalistic explanation is "easy" and indication of explanatory power? If there is an explanation that has such explanatory power that is "easy," why would twisting yourself into pretzels to maintain an explanation that is "hard" be more likely to result in the truth?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote: Isn't the fact that a naturalistic explanation is "easy" and indication of explanatory power? If there is an explanation that has such explanatory power that is "easy," why would twisting yourself into pretzels to maintain an explanation that is "hard" be more likely to result in the truth?
It may or may not be. But the fact is, there are easy explanations and those that are harder to grapple with.
Res Ipsa wrote: Isn't the fact that a naturalistic explanation is "easy" and indication of explanatory power? If there is an explanation that has such explanatory power that is "easy," why would twisting yourself into pretzels to maintain an explanation that is "hard" be more likely to result in the truth?
It may or may not be. But the fact is, there are easy explanations and those that are harder to grapple with.
I like Joseph Smith's quote:
"By proving contraries, truth is made manifest."
Doing so may require effort beyond the "easy".
Regards, MG
Unless you can make the case that "hard to grapple with" is an indicia of truth, then you're simply making up an excuse to manufacture convoluted rationales to justify what you want to believe. But that's a feature of your approach and not a bug, right?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:Unless you can make the case that "hard to grapple with" is an indicia of truth, then you're simply making up an excuse to manufacture convoluted rationales to justify what you want to believe.
Are you able to think of examples where/when scientists, philosophers, inventors and other great thinkers and/or originators/creators came to truth after having "grappled"...often mightily...in and during the process?
If so, would you care to name some of them?
And if there are individuals that have had to grapple after truth in order to find it, shouldn't we follow that model? Rather than taking the easy...and often most traveled...road?
Res Ipsa wrote:Unless you can make the case that "hard to grapple with" is an indicia of truth, then you're simply making up an excuse to manufacture convoluted rationales to justify what you want to believe.
Are you able to think of examples where/when scientists, philosophers, inventors and other great thinkers and/or originators/creators came to truth after having "grappled"...often mightily...in and during the process?
If so, would you care to name some of them?
And if there are individuals that have had to grapple after truth in order to find it, shouldn't we follow that model? Rather than taking the easy...and often most traveled...road?
Regards, MG
Not in the way you propose to "grapple." When scientists find an explanation for a set of facts, they don't sit around trying to create a more convoluted explanation to grapple with on the grounds that the more convoluted explanation is likely to be right.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Since Satan is the author of "all lies" - his being God of this World as taught in LDS Temples makes a lot of sense when you see reality of what The Brethren teach and say.
“Those who never retract their opinions love themselves more than they love truth.” ― Joseph Joubert
Res Ipsa wrote:Not in the way you propose to "grapple." When scientists find an explanation for a set of facts, they don't sit around trying to create a more convoluted explanation to grapple with on the grounds that the more convoluted explanation is likely to be right.
I'm happy to let you take that course. When it comes to religious explorations and the like I have found that the path to discovery is often convoluted. Your experience and procedures for locating/finding truth varies somewhat from mine. Again, that's fine. We may end up in different places...but again, that's the natural course of things when we take different paths.
Res Ipsa wrote:Not in the way you propose to "grapple." When scientists find an explanation for a set of facts, they don't sit around trying to create a more convoluted explanation to grapple with on the grounds that the more convoluted explanation is likely to be right.
I'm happy to let you take that course. When it comes to religious explorations and the like I have found that the path to discovery is often convoluted. Your experience and procedures for locating/finding truth varies somewhat from mine. Again, that's fine. We may end up in different places...but again, that's the natural course of things when we take different paths.
Regards, MG
I don't see a justification for special pleading in the realm of "religious explorations" if the project is actual truth seeking. Frankly, I think it's a cop out. i think i understand pretty well how you approach the subject matter and I'm just fine with letting you figure out life, the universe, and everything. But when it leads you to promote silly nonsense like promoting your explanation over another by appealing to "hard to grapple with" as some kind of virtue, I'm going to push back.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
mentalgymnast wrote:I'm happy to let you take that course. When it comes to religious explorations and the like I have found that the path to discovery is often convoluted.
It seems more like the path to the pre-determined conclusion you wish to reach, is convoluted. Generally speaking, the route to truth is systematic. In fact, your own belief system advocates “precept upon precept”, which indicates a process of systematic building upon a foundation of each truth discovery. If your process is convoluted then it is contrary to how your own Church states truth is discovered.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
