Share this Podcast

Comments 30

    1. Hmmm. Not sure you can fairly call anything a “report” or even take something seriously that has an image like the one this has or that has a voice so clearly opinionated. And if you mean to include Mormon Matters as one of the podcasts with the purpose the piece claims of representing voices that put forth that kind of “we’ll stay only if church changes” ultimatum, know that I don’t see this podcast that way.

  1. AND that is the heart of the matter.  The gospel of Yeshus has nothing to do with pragmatism, but with the Word of God, which has little to do with pragmatism.  Was it pragmatic to follow the God into the wilderness?  The Children of Israel turned to a pragmatic mindset and concluded that “it would be better to have remained a slave in Egypt” than to follow the Word of God. Pragmatically, David would not have put 5 smooth stones into his pouch, and slain Goliath.  Christ would not have fulfilled His mission….etc, etc.   Some of the many examples of how pragmatism destroys: the refused to completely destroy the pagan cities of whoredom, child sacrifice, and Nephillim….survival of the fittest and paganism brought them down.
    The problem with Mormonism is that is built with fake bricks and held together with mortar of sand.  The bricks are the 9 versions of the first vision (google it), the revised version of View of the Hebrews (the most correct book, with 3500 “corrections” within the first few decades), the fiction of the Pearl of Great Price, and the satanic rituals of freemasonry (google: five points of fellowship which was Druidic).

    I am almost ready to publish my book, which is about 100 pages, without references, but with links to more than 100 hours of video, and a couple dozen websites that speak for themselves.   

  2. I thought this was a particularly good podcast. Randy and Chris really knew their James. I liked the push back on Jared for a moment. The problem with James (and probably Dewey as well) is that they blend a little too much of liberal (and I mean the technical term for “liberal”) sentimentalism in with what is really a coherently constructed project built upon some rather set parameters.

    The problem with Jared’s point of view on sentimental or even emotive ethics is that it assumes a kind psychological universalism that denies the cultural component to how values structure sentiment (rightly pointed out by Chris). That said, Jared is totally right to point out that values (in the neo-Kantian sense of the term), as those elements that structure one’s epistemological stance, are ethical arguments. However, that doesn’t mean that there’s necessarily a common ethical ground that different value systems are build upon. It’s clearly not going to work for everyone to discuss the ethical effects of pain, exploitation, or suffering (and it hasn’t worked since Socrates-it’s a modernist fantasy), because those things mean different things to different people. In other words, they value something differently. This is the whole point of pluralism. You can’t just assume the commensurability of valued effects [everyone on the podcast was sentimentally horrified by and gave coherent reasons against FGM, but that doesn’t really tell me anything about the ethical stand of FGM, it only tells me about FGM’s place among the guests’ value-commitments for the undesirability of pain or gendered power differentials] Nearly all ethicists today–from MacIntyre to Parfit are going to tell you that you have to seriously deal with “tradition” or “world-view” to one extent or the other. Even hardcore correspondence people are going to tell you that although there may be an objectively “real” truth or good, it is embedded within a social reality that is intersubjectively made. The experimental philosophy crowd as been real hot on this stuff lately. For them everything seems to come down to intuition and sentiment. However, they have only just started to realize (through cross-cultural experiments) that intuition and sentiment is also an effect [this is where pragmaticism totally rocks teleology]. Pragmatism asserts that intuition, sentiment, and the final cause of becoming is a process. There is no end game and there is no beginning. You can say that one picks values based upon sentiment, but where do those sentiments come from? I think it was Mead who said something along the lines that we are the sum total off all that has come before us and all that will come after, we are a locus of the aspirations and values of generations long forgotten and not yet realized, and yet we are ultimately constrained to cohere to both temporal realities. We are constrained by the limitations of the categories we have inherited, and by their telos.To bring it back down to earth… I study religion in a culture where penile bleeding, scarification, and sometimes ritual homosexuality has been widely practiced. I can tell you one thing for sure. Although there may be pain,  what that pain means may be a pretty different thing that what our liberal sentiments want to make it mean. In pain hurts for everyone just like it does everywhere, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily cognized as the same way. Pain may also be something that reveals, makes relations, and cleanses. Furthermore, where I study there’s little sense of an autonomous individual “self” like what we’ve inherited in the western tradition (there has been a ton written about this), so where do the liberal rights of self determination fit into that. The simple answer is that they don’t. Liberalism makes very little sense unless you’ve got individuals in the first place. Values are changing and are being contested but I think you probably want to step back for a moment and realize that you can’t presuppose a commonality of values in intercultural dialog, must less in religious dialog. The innovation of pragmatism is that it allows for a pluralist theory of truth and values while maintaining that any such theory must be coherent AND correspond to a cosmological world view. It’s not that anything goes but ethics (because apparently we all agree on ethics, or on the consequences of ethical decisions. [Jared-utilitarianism is your downfall-run. It’s a relativism that pres