Now that I'm slowly getting caught up at work, I hope to be able to write a bit more thoughtful and original stuff - especially on religion. I know a lot of readers aren't particularly religious or, if they are, not Mormon. But I did want to bring up some Mormon issues for two reasons. For one, LDS oriented philosophy is still in its infancy. A lot of issues are still being thought out. For an other, I suspect most people aren't that familiar with Mormonism the way other religions or sects are. So even those who aren't Mormon might find something of interest. So what I want to outline are what problems or issues need to be more carefully considered by Mormons. Of course, in practice, that tends to be the questions I find interesting. I'm sure I'll neglect a lot of good questions. So feel free to add to my list.
Reconciling responsibility and the infinite past
This is actually a topic Blake Ostler and I discussed a lot here last year. I've not returned to it for some time - mainly due to the lack of time I've had since early summer. The conflict is that Blake makes compelling arguments that a robust sense of responsibility is required by LDS theology and that in turn requires Libertarian free will. But LDS theology also requires an infinite past and not a beginning at the big bang, which seems rather established science. The choices are to reject LDS notions of an infinite past and have a fairly recent absolute creation (problematic in my view) or to allow multiple universes such as one finds commonly speculated upon in contemporary physics and originated by physicist Andrei Linde. The problem is that with such multiple universes, if there is robust information flow between them, then Libertarian free will is wrong. The choices seem to reject or redefine LDS theology. If one does this to the infinite past, as I think many are want to, then I think the charge could be made that redefinitions of responsibility by compatibilists also are acceptable.
The Role and Place of Theology
This is less an problem than simply a discourse that I think hasn't run its course yet. Several philosophers, such as Jim Faulconer, have brought up the claim that there is a fundamental divide between scriptures and theology. The idea is that scriptures focus in on narrative in a fashion that really isn't reconcilable to theology. The danger that I see in this is that it opens up the idea that religion is fundamentally a "literary truth." That is, akin to the sense of truth one has in literature. Yet I think most Mormons demand at least some semblance of historicity to certain important texts like the New Testament or Book of Mormon, even if they accept that accuracy may sometimes be wanting at times. That is, if we separate out a "propositional" or facticity approach to scripture, do we lose something important about scripture? My personal opinion is that we have a mix of both. But certainly this is something that needs more formalized discussion.
Faith
I'd like to see a more robust consideration of faith from an LDS perspective. Do we offer a real competing alternative to traditional theological senses of faith? A lot of LDS thinkers either directly or indirectly engage with Kierkegaard and that whole existential project. To what degree can or ought Kierkegaard be applied to LDS thought? To what degree do we reject that whole approach? This is, I suspect, a request for a bringing to light of strains of existential thought among LDS thinkers that has been there for quite some time. We all see them, but I don't think the limits have been considered. Is there a unique existentialist or perhaps more Heideggarian form of LDS thought? To what degree does our religion demand difference from the mainstream of those traditions?
Naturalism and Materialism
Mormonism is often termed a materialistic religion. Even acknowledging the ambiguity in typical materialistic terminology, to what degree is this correct? Clearly there are major LDS thinkers that aren't materialists. While there have been historical papers that address the LDS flirtation with scientism, to what degree in the modern era ought we be considered materialists, if at all?
Idealism
I've never seen a real discussion of LDS idealism as opposed to LDS materialism, which is discussed quite a bit. I think this needs address, if only to deal with the very vague claims regarding 19th century hermeticism and neoPlatonism in early LDS thought as well as the parallels and influence of such transcendentalists like Emerson on early LDS thought. One question that's very interesting to me is whether someone like Brigham Young might be considered an idealist of some stripe. To what degree, if any, can texts like D&C 93 be read idealistically?
Consequentialism
I'd guess that most LDS tend towards consequentialism of some sort. Is this really compatible with LDS thought? Is rule based utilitarianism ala Mill? Does Mormon thought offer a solution to the problems of conducting the consequentialist calculus? What about natural law theories, which appear the runner up in terms of prevalence in LDS thought?
Grace
I almost didn't include this one, if only because it has been so thoroughly discussed the last decade. I honestly think that a lot of the issues have been worked out here. But clearly there are still many unknowns. (I should add that there was an interesting and active discussion on this topic last month at LDS-Phil)
Mormon Minds
I may be alone, but I really wonder if LDS though entails there being a unique LDS view of what the mind is. Clearly we reject purely neurological reductionism. But what else do we add? Do we end up adopting a thoroughgoing uncalculable unconscious?
In reference to the Mormon Minds question, I think the best way of framing it from an LDS perspective is: What is an intelligence? If you can answer that one, then I think you have the answer to pretty much any topic related to philosophy of mind. The problem is, I really don't have a clue as to what kind of question that even is, or what the answer would look like.
I would also like to have answered the question: What should the role of philosophy be in Mormon thought? In general I think most Mormons are either ambivalent or hostile towards philosophy, which is a shame in my opinion.
Another question that has always interested me is: Is a unified theory/philosophy of Mormon ethics possible? If so what is it? This is obviously an alternative way of asking the question about consequentialism. I reframed it because I don't think Mormonism itself tends towards consequentialism, even if many LDS do.
Questions that always interests me are on the nature of God. Is he omniscient? What does being omniscient entail? In this context what do the often used terms "eternal progression" and "one eternal round" signify? I think LDS are in a unique position to answer these kinds of questions because we claim to have a lot of positive knowledge about the nature of Deity, and we also tend to think of God as being much more like ourselves than do other religions. By the way to any future BYU students, don't bring up these questions in a religion class. If you do, be prepared to pay for it (yes I speak from experience here).
an infinite past or is it merely a relatively infinite past -- i.e. 4-5 billion years? At what remove, a million years, a billion years, ten billion years, is finite time effectively infinite for the purposes of discussion -- if -- this level of reality is meaningful and not merely a soap film across a more substantial reality that sits outside of time.
As to faith, I think it is well said that:
There are really several kinds of faith inside the religious discussion of the word and it does not help the discussion that they are all referred to by the same word.
There is faith that is hope not yet rising to knowledge, somewhat like a belief, but aspirational rather than motivational.
There is faith that is the foundation of action, but where it stems from experience rather than knowledge. Little children operate VCRs and DVDs that way.
Then there is faith where one reaches into the spiritual world and makes contact.
While the three often share elements, the difference is more than just changing connotations.
Philosphers rarely talk about the faith that consists of reaching into the spiritual world and making contact, yet it is by far the most important.
"The idea is that scriptures focus in on narrative in a fashion that really isn't reconcilable to theology"
What I want to know from all those who think narrative theology is so cool, is that if this is what Mormonism offers, why on God's green earth do you need 60 thousand missionaries? Why does anyone really need to be Mormon?
"to what degree in the modern era ought we be considered materialists, if at all?"
I think to the extent that Materialism would make a difference to anything. For instance, are there any other materialists except Mormons who believe in libertarian freedom? What does it matter if an "intelligence" is a material entity if it behaves just like a disembodied mind?
"Is this [conseq.] really compatible with LDS thought?"
As you've pointed out, it's impossible to tell how Mormon ethics are grounded. Sometimes they are, "Men are that they might have joy." Sometimes not, "Without God etc. etc... there would be no law."
Mormons I meet tend to be nonconsequential when they're justifying their own moral views, "homosexuality is wrong but polygamy was ok because God said so." And they tend to be consequentialists when critiquing other religions, "How can you believe in a God who would send babies to hell?"
What is LDS philosophy based on anyway? It seems to me as the years pass, the church teaches less and less about anything. While for the earlier church, and maybe even the churfh forty years ago, figuring out the big questions seemed to be important. I don't think today's church has any interest whatsoever in really scrutinizing WHY there needed to be an earth life, a fall, a savior and so on.
Gad:
"What I want to know from all those who think narrative theology is so cool, is that if this is what Mormonism offers, why on God's green earth do you need 60 thousand missionaries? Why does anyone really need to be Mormon?"
What about narative theology somehow negates the need to be Mormon? I guess I don't see it.
"I think to the extent that Materialism would make a difference to anything. For instance, are there any other materialists except Mormons who believe in libertarian freedom? What does it matter if an "intelligence" is a material entity if it behaves just like a disembodied mind?"
What does a disembodied mind act like? I don't even know how to give content to a disembodied mind, let alone one that acts.
"What is LDS philosophy based on anyway? It seems to me as the years pass, the church teaches less and less about anything. While for the earlier church, and maybe even the churfh forty years ago, figuring out the big questions seemed to be important."
Yes, it was important; it was a time of doctrinal development and exploration. At the center of Joseph's thought was the idea that God would not give if we do not do something prior (the case of Martin Harris translating), and this was expressed to other members. What we learned, however, is that some issues are indeterminate and largely inconsequential, not to mention highly speculative.
"I don't think today's church has any interest whatsoever in really scrutinizing WHY there needed to be an earth life, a fall, a savior and so on."
But does it need to answer fully the question "why" in order to have efficacy? Most members, I imagine, could care less about most questions of "why."
Clark,
I don't see how libertarian free will must be rejected if we accept an infinite past. Could you expound on this more?
Kevin, basically it's the idea that there must be information flow between universes and that universes are formed as a whole. But that entails static space, even if it is indeterminate. Therefore no libertarian free will.
"What about narative theology somehow negates the need to be Mormon? I guess I don't see it."
The church sends out 60k missionaries to teach a literal, formulaic black and white message which has a single interpretation. There is far less urgency in a world where scripture can't have a systematic interpretation, as in such a world multiple interpretations can be equally valid. It's great for tolerance and all that stuff which actually means something to the world, but it does away with the urgency to make everyone read the scriptures the same way and rigidly adhere to the Mormon requirements of repentence and baptism.
"I don't even know how to give content to a disembodied mind, let alone one that acts."
? I don't get how your response answers my point.
"But does it need to answer fully the question "why" in order to have efficacy? Most members, I imagine, could care less about most questions of "why.""
The topic of this thread is the place of theology in Mormonism and the status of certain theological concepts in Mormonism. If Mormons don't care about answering those questions in a technical and formal way, if there isn't enough information to do anything but strained speculation, and if it is of no consequence anyway, then it sounds like you and I more or less agree.
Clark,
If I understand this correctly, the Linde theory is highly speculative. Don't you think it is way too early to conclude that multiple universes somehow preclude the eternality of libertarian free will?
I'll address some of the other comments over the coming days.
Geoff, the reality of Linde universes is somewhat speculative, as is string theory and many other theories in theoretical physics. It's certainly ungrounded by experiment and thus perhaps not yet really science. However something like a Linde universe is required for LDS theology or else the big bang is false.
My comments merely draw out the philosophical implications of Linde universes. So their existence or non-existence seems peripheral to that. They pretty much entail four-dimensionalism.
Clark: Your take on multiple universes, like the entire endeavor, is speculation squared. It all depends on the nature of the information flowing between the universes. Moreover, even within a block universe there are always possibilities for pockets of novelty. For now it seems way too bold to suggest that there could be enough information about the information flowing between universes to suggest that it conflicts with novelty and libertarian free will.
However, the role of philosophical thought and theology in LDS thought seems to me to be a very important topic. I agree with Jim F. that what happens in scripture is not theology. However, I believe that we must be more careful about the various types of theological thought that we are talking about, just as Nick Wolterstorff said when he responded to Jim F. at Yale. I certainly don't want to do theology the way that evangelicals do -- assuming that salvation hinges on getting the right formulations of doctrines or that we must understand theological positions with adequate precision to be acceptable Christians. I like theology in the sense of exploring and gaining insight rather than setting boundaries.
Gad: I have argued that LDS ethics is grounded in the nature of eternal intelligences to realize their natures fully. However, that means that LDS ethics is grounded in love, for entering into intimate relationships of indwelling unity is what leads to realization of this eternal nature. Moreover, because divinity literally emerges into a new unity of power and knowledge as a collective unity in the Godhead, LDS ethics is also grounded in the nature of God. I treat the gound of LDS ethics in the third chapter of vol. 2 of my book Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God, which should be on bookshelves later this week.
Blake, I don't think I'm being that speculative. The idea of an endless past means that there has to be something before the big bang. And the very nature of the big bang puts limits on what that is. I could have said the same things without mentioning Linde or theoretical physics. I just think it wise to point out that these ideas are being seriously entertained within physics.
The question really is how one can have an infinite past that is reconcilable to physics.
The idea that within a block universe there are pockets of "novelty" seems difficult to reconcile without simply suggesting that four-dimensionalism isn't incompatible with novelty at all, in which case the problem disappears. But that then goes against the whole foreknowledge (or variants) argument with libertarian free will. If you have an argument for how this can be reconciled I'd be interested.
Another philosophical question that I would love to have an answer to is: What is the nature of revelation? On what basis can one claim that one knows something based on revelation? How much dependence on revelation would a Mormon theology require? By that I don't mean things like visions or pronouncements from prophets, I have no experience with that nor will I ever likely have such experiences. I am talking about everday, run of the mill inspiration about things such as whether or not the Book of Mormon is true, what to teach in a Sunday School lesson, choice in marriage partner, etc.
We often talk of revelation and inspiration in Mormon doctrine/theology and we put a lot of weight behind revelation being essential. Yet, we don't talk much, if any, about the precise nature of revelation/inspiration, we seem to assume that it happens and that it is interpreted and understood appropriately. I am not sure that these assumptions are warranted.
That's true. I did neglect both epistemological issues as well as ethical issues. And of course revelation has physical, ontological and linguistic issues.
A few additional thoughts.
First regarding narrative theology. I'll confess that I'm just not up on that too much. As I understand it, the main bone of contention within debates about narrative theology is that of reference. That is does reference matter and to what degree we can make sense of reference without getting into discussions of facts or related issues. If one accepts the important of reference in narrative then I think the objections I raised (as well as perhaps those of "Gadianton") are eased. However at the same time one has to ask how really different one is at that point from propositional theology. That is, exactly how is the idea of reference not wrapped up in the very questions of proposition. Perhaps the manner of discussion will be somewhat different. But one could, after all, simply argue that systematic theology with propositions is just an other kind of narrative.
Regarding my gaps. I think the issue of love, as Blake discusses it, is one issue. I think the closely related issue is the idea of the Other as discussed in the Heideggarian tradition by figures like Levinas or Derrida. The more interesting question, and one I'm least adept at discussing, is less the issue of meta-ethics than particular ethics. That is, what is or isn't ethical for Mormons. The problem with Levinasian ethics and, I suspect, what Blake outlines in his forthcoming book, is moving from the general questions to more particular questions. (Although as I understand it this might be a problem for many ethical systems)
I'd mentioned consequentialism, which seems to have less trouble with this, but then has the frequently discussed problems of cutting off the calculus.
With regards to epistemology there is the question of the nature of revelation that David mentioned, but also interesting questions about when it is even appropriate to trust or distrust God. Then there are epistemological issues that uniquely appear in Mormonism. Such as what to do when there is a conflict between authority and personal revelation. (Something significantly rolled up into the succession crisis and then certain event in the 19th century)
I also think there are, for Libertarian Mormons, interesting questions regarding epistemology and when to trust God. (Presumably issues those Mormons would share in common with Open Theists)
Could you please provide the links to the relevant topics where the responsibility/infinite topics were discussed last year? I confess that I don't really see the problem, perhaps some context would at least allow me to undertand what you and Blake see the problem to be.
Do you have any plans to attempt to answer these questions with an original philosophy? Do you plan to answer these questions by referring to solutions in the philosophical literature?
David, the list was more for some ideas about where there were deficiencies in LDS thought. I'm not qualified for several of the topics (such as the more applied ethics).
The whole infinity debate pretty well was interspersed with debate about free will. It ranged in at least a dozen of posts. Here's a broad Google query for articles. Some aren't relevant, but it'll find you the ones that are. I might put up a post tonight or tomorrow that summarizes things.
Thanks for the link. If you want to summarize the debate for your own benefit, or if you think others will enjoy it then by all means make the summary. I read several of the posts and I think I have a vague idea as to that the issues were. Unfortunately, I tend to lose interest in free will debates pretty quickly. I thought this one might be different as it concerned very speculative physics along with some esoteric readings of Mormon scripture. That'll teach me a lesson.
There is an expanding and collapsing universe theory in which there was time and universe before the big bang.
Yes, but it ends up being isomorphic to the case of multiverses with just the reduced case of a single universe at a time.
The issue of information transfer still matters as does the problem of the big bang as well.
Gad:
"The church sends out 60k missionaries to teach a literal, formulaic black and white message which has a single interpretation. There is far less urgency in a world where scripture can't have a systematic interpretation, as in such a world multiple interpretations can be equally valid."
"Can't have a systematic interpretation" is not equivalent with "multiple interpretations can be equally valid." It's a black-and-white fallacy: it can only be this way or that way, either the scriptures are literally true or they are wholly false. Either way, the Church is not big into systematic theologies so the message isn't so black and white as you think since there is a lot of leeway past the very basics (which themselves aren't clearly defined).
"'I don't even know how to give content to a disembodied mind, let alone one that acts.'
? I don't get how your response answers my point."
It starts by saying that I don't think you have a point. You ask about "a material entity [that] behaves just like a disembodied mind" but I don't even know what a "disembodied mind" is like. As studies in embedded consciousness (such as the works of Susan Hurley, Andy Clark, Mark Johnson, Alva Noe, etc.) argue, the mind is not disembodied but is radially spatial and situated. So, it was a question of meaning: what on earth is a disembodied mind? You seem to assume that the concept itself has meaning, hence allowing us to compare it immediately with a material entity, but I don't think it does.