![\"Boswell](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2016\/01\/800px-James_Boswell_and_Samuel_Johnson_plaque_Edinburgh.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s a nice piece by Jeff Lindsay that I commend to your attention:\u00a0 \u201cCherishing the Book of Mormon\u2019s Teachings on the Fairness of God\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n I\u2019ve posted several items recently on what is sometimes called \u201cthe hard problem of consciousness,\u201d on the question of what subjective awareness is and how consciousness arises (if it does) from the physical brain.\u00a0 Some reductionists, faced with what seems to be an intractable problem, perhaps an insoluble one, have taken to denying that consciousness exists in the first place.\u00a0 And thus, if it doesn\u2019t even exist, to saying that it therefore poses no problem in need<\/em> of a solution.\u00a0 It seems to me, though, that consciousness is the one thing that we simply cannot<\/em> deny.\u00a0 (Perhaps, of course, I\u2019m misunderstanding them; I have more reading to do in this area.). To deny it is, I believe, to the conscious of the fact that we deny it.<\/p>\n It isn\u2019t surprising to me, in that light, that when Ren\u00e9 Descartes (1596-1650) undertook his famous method of \u201cuniversal doubt\u201d (as described in his 1637 Discourse on Method<\/em>, the one thing that he could not deny \u2014 the one thing, therefore, that he could erect his philosophy upon with absolute confidence and certainty \u2014 was his own consciousness.\u00a0 Hence his famous cogito, ergo sum<\/em> (originally, je pense<\/i><\/span><\/span>,\u00a0donc je suis<\/i>) or \u201cI think, therefore I am.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I realize that this story, which probably occurred in 1763, probably represents a misunderstanding of Bishop Berkeley\u2019s idealism and that, therefore, Samuel Johnson\u2019s response to Berkeley doesn\u2019t really refute Berkeley at all.\u00a0 But I almost invariably think of it when I come across claims that human consciousness is mere illusion.\u00a0 If I\u2019m not conscious, who is having the illusion<\/em>?<\/p>\n After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley\u2019s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, \u2018I refute it THUS.\u2019 . . .\u00a0 To me it is not conceivable how Berkeley can be answered by pure reasoning; but I know that the nice and difficult task was to have been undertaken by one of the most luminous minds of the present age [presumably Edmund Burke], had not politicks \u201cturned him from calm philosophy aside.\u201d What an admirable display of subtilty, united with brilliance, might his contending with Berkeley have afforded us! How must we, when we reflect on the loss of such an intellectual feast, regret that he should be characterised as the man, [James Boswell (1907\/1791)\u00a0The life of Samuel Johnson<\/em>, Vol. 1, London: Dent, pp. 292-293]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n In a comment posted elsewhere online, Professor Trevor Luke, who specializes in the cultural history and literature of the Late Roman Republic and Early Empire at Florida State University in Tallahassee, wrote the following, with which I wholeheartedly agree:<\/p>\n In antiquity, people argued and shed blood over theology. Arian or Athanasian. Monophysite. Docetic. Nicaean. Chalcedonian.<\/p>\n Over time, starting with the Council of Nicaea, a certain orthodox theology took root. It did so in fits and starts. It did so with arguments, fist fights, political strife, and bloodshed, until the majority of the Christian world accepted the Trinitarian theology of the creeds.<\/p>\n It is a fascinating history, and it makes a certain kind of sense when you follow it blow by blow.<\/p>\n But I still don\u2019t think that orthodox theology should be the measure of authentic Christian identity. There were three centuries of Christianity before Nicaea. There were many thousands, even millions of non-Trinitarian Christians following Nicaea.<\/p>\n I get the idea that every group will set its own standard for belonging. I just don\u2019t think that salvation is found in adhering to the ivory-tower details of theological statements.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In fact, I\u2019m happy to say that I argued for a similar point of view in Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints<\/em><\/a> (1992, 1998).\u00a0 Which reminds me of a definition from Ambrose Bierce, The Devil\u2019s Dictionary<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAdmiration<\/strong>, n.: Our polite recognition of another\u2019s resemblance to ourselves.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Here\u2019s something from the Christopher Hitchens Memorial \u201cHow Religion Poisons Everything\u201d File<\/em>\u2122 that specifically illustrates one of the horrors that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints<\/a> is attempting to visit upon the innocent and unsuspecting citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Cong0:\u00a0 \u201cThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Partners with Other Religions to Promote Marriage in DR Congo:\u00a0\u201cMarriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the family is central to the Creator\u2019s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.\u201d\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n You will perhaps recall the two blog entries \u2014 \u201cHearts of Darkness\u201d<\/a> and \u201cSeeking \u2018wealth\u2019 in the DR Congo\u201d<\/a> \u00a0\u2014 from a while back in which I related how a small troop of the Church\u2019s more zany and unhinged critics were accusing the Interpreter Foundation of \u201ccolonialist\u201d ambitions in the DR Congo.\u00a0 The accusations came because one of the Foundation\u2019s vice presidents (Jeff Bradshaw) and two of our filmmaker friends (James Jordan and Russ Richins) had headed there to gather footage for a series of short films on the origins and rise of the Church in the Congo and on the stories of some of those involved in its emergence.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cWho born for the universe narrow\u2019d his mind,
\nAnd to party gave up what was meant for mankind ?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/a>