Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[cksalmon]

Heh. These discussions can be fun can't they?

They certainly can.

At any case, I have rambled on too long.

I realize that this may not have answered your questions, but perhaps it will lead to more aware discussion.

Ben

Ben:

You haven't answered my questions in the way that I would have liked you to answer my questions. But you were under no obligation to do so, of course.

But you have, indeed, answered my questions to a great degree and with an admirable transparency. I'll chew on your answers.

I appreciate your willingness to dialogue.

Best to you.

CKS

[Greg Smith]

My next question is directed especially at Ben McGuire and Greg Smith, the two most prolific respondents on this particular thread, I think.

Ben's response will be better than mine, because he seems to have grasped the question better than I have. (Though there was a great deal of his that resonated with me...)

For the purpose of elucidation, rather than evangelism, what would bridge the gap between the propositions

(1) I assent to my belief in God's revelation of X

and

(2) I question my belief in God's revelation of X

and

(3) I deny my belief in God's revelation of X?

I had difficulty parsing this adequately to answer meaningfully. Do you have an example or scenario that might clarify what you're asking?

Thanks,

Greg

[Tal Bachman]

Benjamin, that is interesting...

[Tal Bachman]

Benjamin, I just re-read this post more closely after finding out you were LDS.

You wrote:

"Why is it that you feel the need to suggest that an LDS approach (complete with an appeal to Moroni's "challenge" isn't something that is seriously considered or given a great deal of thought and contemplation?"

---Why would you ascribe a view to me which I didn't espouse? It is obviously true that lots of people put tons of "serious consideration" and a "great deal of thought" and "contemplation" into whether to join a particular movement, including Mormonism. Not everyone does, but some do. Brigham Young, for example, studied Mormonism for two years prior to baptism.

"And what do you mean by the word "good"?"

---I meant, quality of life issues: emotional, physical, spiritual, financial well-being, etc.

"How do you know that a statement that "X is good" is true?"

---We don't always know, Benjamin.

"Can this statement be different for different people in different cultures with different languages and different econmic states, who function under different laws in different socities?"

---Of course.

You write:

"Your own language is contradictory, filled with the same kinds of challenges that you claim to be overcoming. And so it rings rather hollow to me. You reject ambiguity is all that it amounts to, and claim that your own views have none. But this is transparent to many of us."

I'm not sure what in fact was unclear or "contradictory" in the language I used in my posts, but I did not "reject ambiguity:. I'm not even sure what "rejecting ambiguity" would mean, since - barring one's achievement of omniscience - it seems that certain things will be forever ambiguous.

Moreover, were it not for "feelings" and "emotions", I'd be sucking rocks right now instead of living off of song royalties; I LIKE feelings and emotions, and as I've mentioned, I think it's undeniable that part of ourselves does play a part in how we reason. And I think it is very obvious that in many cases, the ultimate rationales for our decisions may be for us inscrutable...

More specifically, if you really believe that "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true" - a statement which to me has all sorts of problems - is a true statement (whatever you would mean by the word "true"), that's okay, you can believe that. I just don't. If you want me to elaborate on why I don't, I can - but I'm wondering that the point would be, if in the end a "convincing argument" wouldn't mean that much to you anyway (?)...

[beastie]

I admit to not having the time to keep up with all the posts on this thread, but I noticed a page or so back the discussion of whether or not members of other faiths' spiritual "witnesses" are comparable to the LDS' testimony of the truthfulness of the church. It occurred to me that it may be more appropriate to focus on the testimonies of LDS off-shoot groups instead, since they use the same language, more or less, and the same formula. Testimonies of the sealed portion and of Koyle's dream mine might have potential. I also happen to be reading Avery's biography of JS' youngest son, David, "From Mission to Madness - Last Son of the Mormon Prophet" and was struck by the sincerity of Joseph and David's testimony of the RLDS church.

Just one brief passage from the book, page 54:

In a period when visions, voices, and spiritual experiences were signs of Godâ??s approval, David evidenced his own inspiration in his ability to compose hymns even as he sang them. Briggs reported: â??It was a delightful musick. Bro David told me today he could by the Spirit sing off new hims and in new tunes often when the Spirit rested on him, he said he knew Joseph (my insert, Joseph III) was a prophet and any honist man who will become quanted with him will know it too he says, often when the Saints come here and soon as they tuch his hands the Spirit witnesses to them that Joseph is a proph, he (David) bore strong testimony of the Book of Mormon and the Reorganization and of its doctrines being true.â?

The book also makes it clear that Joseph III would not accept the invitation to lead the RLDS church until he was certain God had called him to that position.

[Bach]

Greg,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Normally, I like to read through the entire thread before responding, so I know that I'm not simply repeating a response someone else made before I returned. This topic has been moving pretty quickly, though, so I'm going to just take my chances.

first things first:

If its not true, it should be. :-)

Yes, as I said--this is what people find so offensive, that Joseph actually claimed to learn something about reality, and wouldn't allow it to be allegorized. Again, its much more than 'feeling, or intuition.' As for perception, well--seeing is a perception. If one SEES God, presumably that has fairly significant episimological weight, no? I think one is justified in concluding something by it.

I still don't think that sight and "revelation" are on the same level, though, because part of the reason we trust our sight is that we very often share optical observations with other people, and this sharing plays an important role in verifying what we perceive. The question "Did you see that?" is very often more than just rhetorical. There are close analogues with the other four senses as well.

I think it would do us well to explore this "offensive"ness of the revelatory epistemology. Why do people often take umbrage at it? Probably because of the implicit claim that occurs in most "revelation": 'not only is my perception of events right; if your perception disagrees with mine, yours must be wrong'. To not allow for this implicit claim would be to embrace a logical contradiction in most circumstances. This is problematic for revelation as an epistemology, however, because it has to apply to people in general and not just specific individuals. If one person gets knowledge from revelation, and another person gets knowledge that contradicts the first from the same source, then one of them must be wrong, and the source must have been wrong at least once. Supporters of this epistemology often try to weasel out of this logic by saying that when two people receive conflicting answers, then one of them must have applied the epistemology incorrectly, but this gets us nowhere, because there's no way to show that one of them did it wrong. Until a method for determining what does and doesn't count as revelation is formulated, revelation will always be a dubious epistemology.

C'mon, you have to pick up both ends of this stick. If what people believe (from religious sources or other--see Marxism, Freudianism, etc.) is going to affect the lives of others (and in a society of law, it will, often) then the Church and its members have the right to oppose the effects of such beliefs with which they disagree.

You can't consistently claim the right to critique faith-based positions that you don't like because they affect the lives of others, and then fault the Church for not adopting a political "anything goes" position on items which violate the Church's sense of what should affect others' lives. If, for example, abortion is morally wrong and a net ill to society (in which I must live, with my family), then the Church and its members must oppose it, and cannot remain neutral on such an issue.

It doesn't seem right to predicate the rules that everyone has to follow on something so ineffable as personal revelation, though. Laws that are based solely on incommunicable thoughts will never be able to satisfactorily rebut criticisms that they're arbitrary, because of their very nature. Don't think that I'm just taking a "Religious people should all shut up!" tack, though -- I think that religious organizations and people have every right to try to influence government, so long as their reasonings rest on knowledge we can all more or less agree upon.

This is partly, I suspect, why "feeling" (in the conventional) sense is not excluded from revelation either. Satan (or some other malignant force, a la Descartes' demon) is probably made less likely by God's ability to fill us with love, peace, joy, and serenity, even (or especially) when it would be least expected or possible.

Surely a very powerful malevolent power could counterfeit these feelings -- or trick us into thinking that there is correlation between them and the "righteous" supernatural force, when that thought is in actuality detrimental to our well-being.

But, at the limit, how does one KNOW one is reading this blog? Or know one hears a voice of a loved one on the phone? People do hallucinate such things, dream such things, or confuse such things. Yet, we do not then presume that all such examples are necessarily delusions or mistakes. This is not a problem for Mormon epistemology, but simply epistemology in general. Few people live in a pose of extreme skepticism over-all.

Again, I think that any statement that lumps all perceptions into the same category is wrong-headed.

[Pahoran]

Benjamin, I just re-read this post more closely after finding out you were LDS.

You wrote:

"Why is it that you feel the need to suggest that an LDS approach (complete with an appeal to Moroni's "challenge" isn't something that is seriously considered or given a great deal of thought and contemplation?"

[section elided]

More specifically, if you really believe that "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true" - a statement which to me has all sorts of problems - is a true statement (whatever you would mean by the word "true"), that's okay, you can believe that. I just don't. If you want me to elaborate on why I don't, I can - but I'm wondering that the point would be, if in the end a "convincing argument" wouldn't mean that much to you anyway (?)...

To quote material in a post:

1) Click the "reply" button at the bottom of the post itself instead of the generic "reply" at the top and bottom of the page. That will quote the entire post in a single block. That's what I did, above. Note that the quoted text can still be edited, as I also did. The purpose was simply to illustrate the technique.

2) Type out some stuff--or copy and paste some stuff--and then highlight it. Click the little "word balloon" icon at the top of the reply window (9th icon from the left, next to the # sign.) That will quote that block of text.

For example, next time you want to relax a little and really be yourself, you might go back to Shades's board (The Sty) or Ranting fanatical Maniacs (The Compound) and say something substantive and consequential like "Peterson might not be such a great mound of lard if he didn't stuff his face with Krispy Kremes all the time." Someone who finds that might quote it here as:

Peterson might not be such a great mound of lard if he didn't stuff his face with Krispy Kremes all the time.

See how it works?

Now it happens that you keep reciting the following mantra:

"I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true"

Are the quotes supposed to simply be scare quotes, or do you purport to be quoting someone? If so, whom, other than yourself?

I question this, because it does not appear to be an LDS statement, or derived from an LDS source. It looks like the kind of caricature of LDS thought that is popular in certain disreputable circles where, oddly enough, you seem to also be popular.

Now caricature does seem to be an easy way to get a few cheap guffaws--just ask your buddy Steve Benson, the prize-winning cartoonist--but it has not been generally found to be a useful tool of interfaith dialogue.

What do you think?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Greg Smith]

I still don't think that sight and "revelation" are on the same level, though, because part of the reason we trust our sight is that we very often share optical observations with other people, and this sharing plays an important role in verifying what we perceive. The question "Did you see that?" is very often more than just rhetorical. There are close analogues with the other four senses as well.

It depends on the revelation. There are times when it may outrank sight, or it may include sight.

I suppose the reason that I turn to those sorts of analogies is because:

a> there are a common touchstone; and

B> revelation (to me, at least) is every bit as real, as literal, and as 'tangible' as sight, sound, etc.

I think it would do us well to explore this "offensive"ness of the revelatory epistemology. Why do people often take umbrage at it? Probably because of the implicit claim that occurs in most "revelation": 'not only is my perception of events right; if your perception disagrees with mine, yours must be wrong'. To not allow for this implicit claim would be to embrace a logical contradiction in most circumstances.

Yes, I agree that this may be implicit, but even if the speaker doesn't intend it at all, a reasonably coherent listener can probably draw his own conclusions. One can hear the wheels turning: "Hmmm. He says he knows God exists. But I _don't_ believe in God.....Wait a minute......."

No body likes being thought wrong, or being told they are wrong (only obliquely). But, if the skeptic would think for a minute, THEY are sending the same message to the believer, in reverse. This is an unavoidable situation, ultimately. Yet some people (both believers--kill the infidels!) and unbelievers (ban religion! teaching children religion is child abuse!) get more unreasonable and worked up than others.

One can see similar dynamics in politics, where both sides may marshall evidence, but in the end it comes down to underlying philosophical stances which are tightly held, rarely altered at their core, and not really the product of a mere dispassionate analysis (though those that hold them, like the religious, may believe or claim they are).

This is problematic for revelation as an epistemology, however, because it has to apply to people in general and not just specific individuals.

This would be true if revelation was the only epistemology, but it isn't. I can accept (and likely do) every rationalist, scientific-based epistemology going. In fact, my faith virtually requires me to. (This is not unique to Mormonism; it has been pointed out that the scientific method arose in Christian Europe partly because of the epistemologic assumptions which Christians brought to the table.)

So, talking about revelation doesn't deny me any other epistemologic routes any more than being sighted means that I'm deaf and unable to smell.

If one person gets knowledge from revelation, and another person gets knowledge that contradicts the first from the same source, then one of them must be wrong, and the source must have been wrong at least once.

Of course. And, if (say) a schizophrenic claims to see bugs climbing down the walls, and I look at the walls and see nothing, I usually don't get a focus group together to figure out if there "really" are or aren't bugs. I have enough confidence in my visual senses that I'm pretty comfortable deciding if what's being claimed fits my data or not. People only get worked up, in my experience, if they are insecure in their own epistemology (or, if they see someone else's epistemology as a threat in some other way--e.g. a terrorist who thinks that God has told him to kill me. I don't care what he thinks God told him; I do care very much if he starts to act on it!)

I'll say again--I don't think anyone is arguing that revelation is a good way to settle PUBLIC disputes. But, I don't think it's intended to. But, why would that bother me, when it's for my own epistemologic purposes?

(This is, incidentally, why I think religious freedom so essential--there's no "neutral" way to answer the questions that religion deals with, and it would be arrogant to try. So, leave everyone alone as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights.)

Supporters of this epistemology often try to weasel out of this logic by saying that when two people receive conflicting answers, then one of them must have applied the epistemology incorrectly, but this gets us nowhere, because there's no way to show that one of them did it wrong.

But, I'm not interested in "proving" someone wrong. Why should I be? If God will speak to me, He'll speak to others. And, there's probably not much anyone can say to me that can "outrank" what God told me. He'll have to straighten me out, ultimately, if I need it.

Until a method for determining what does and doesn't count as revelation is formulated, revelation will always be a dubious epistemology.

For public consumption, of course. But, hence the repeated LDS insistence that you don't follow anyone blindly, and that you have to have revelation individually to guide you. You can't abrogate decision-making up the 'hierarchy,' so to speak, much as anti- and ex-Mormons like to pretend you're supposed to.

It doesn't seem right to predicate the rules that everyone has to follow on something so ineffable as personal revelation, though. Laws that are based solely on incommunicable thoughts will never be able to satisfactorily rebut criticisms that they're arbitrary, because of their very nature. Don't think that I'm just taking a "Religious people should all shut up!" tack, though -- I think that religious organizations and people have every right to try to influence government, so long as their reasonings rest on knowledge we can all more or less agree upon.

But (to play devil's advocate) what says that in a democracy we MUST use reasoning ideas as our rationale for things? It seems that if you are going to allow people to make choices, people must be allowed to make choices on whatever basis they choose: good data or bad data, or no data at all.

Why can't someone's reason for advocating public policy be something as simple as, "Because that's the way I want it?" People who advocate for the right to smoke in public places don't need to argue that smoking is safe, or contributes to societal well-being. Their line can be essentially, "We want to do this, and you shouldn't be able to stop us." One can clearly see that they aren't appealing to 'data' for this stance, or are using a philosophical stance ("libertarianism," for example) but that's true of religiously-driven arguments as well--any reasonable person should be able to tell if I'm shouting "God says don't let gays marry," or "Gay marriage is a bad idea because of the following outcomes to society...."

[Note that I personally much prefer the sort of decision-making you're talking about; things are a horror show when people DON'T make decisions collectively based on that sort of thing, to a degree, and you don't need religion to drive people into disaster. (Just reading a biography on Mao's Cultural Revolution....)]

But, sadly, our evaluation of data (and even our accumulation of data) is going to be driven by prior conceptions, biases, and what we place value on. (The "neutral observor" of science is a myth, and since no one can be free of bias about the society in which they must live and raise their family, it is even less so here.) So, this idea that there won't be arbitrary bases for at least some public decision making seems to me to be a bit of a pipe dream.

Thus, I agree with the authors who wrote:

It is important to distinguish between the moral witness of religious people who speak out strongly about an issue that offends their moral conscience, and the use of religion as a strategic means to advance the fortunes of a particular party or candidate. - Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, "Is God a Republican?" The American Prospect September–October 1996.

Why isn't my "moral conscience"--even if derived in part from religion, and even if differing from YOUR moral conscience--every bit as good a reason to motivate my decisions about social policy, just because yours might be agnostic? And, note that the stance that "objective data should be the guiding star of public policy" is an epistemologic and philosophical presumption not subject to rational proof every bit as much as "God wants us to obey Sharia" is.

Surely a very powerful malevolent power could counterfeit these feelings -- or trick us into thinking that there is correlation between them and the "righteous" supernatural force, when that thought is in actuality detrimental to our well-being.

Yes. But, as I wrote in a later post, if that's the case, then I'm dust before the wind before such power anyway, and "resistence is futile." :-) Given that it has always been very benevolent, never forced me, never coerced me, and won't seem to do those things even when I'd rather it did, assumptions of good intentions toward me seems to be reasonable, since I'm hosed if it wishes me ill anyway. :-)

Again, I think that any statement that lumps all perceptions into the same category is wrong-headed.

I can understand that. As I said, I use that kind of language simply because that's how they seem to me. Revelation seems every bit as real as the other (and sometimes MORE real).

Smell and seeing are vastly different senses--one is specific, involves photons hitting my retinal cells and being transduced into neural impulses. Smell is a lot more visceral, less-well articulated, more atavistic, I can't conjure up imaginary "smells" as well as I can sights, and it involves molecules of stuff dissolving into mucus and triggering electrical impulses. Yet, one does not feel more "real" or more "believable" to me than the other. Insisting they are different orders of experience, rather than merely different types, would seem strange and artificial.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Smith]

Okay, but my question was not about the metaphysical nature of man's will, but about more practical matters: evidence and epistemology. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that you affirm (1) merely on the basis of a free will choice to do so, despite any and all other factors.

I, Like someone else too I noted, had difficulty understanding your original question. Yes I think it boils down to my free will. I do note that there are various influences that try to swing a choice so to speak but ultimately its up to me to choose what I believe. But because you use the word epistimology I guess you are looking for why do we think something is from God? Am I getting warm?

[Tal Bachman]

Riddled, if you read this, see my response to, I think it was Kevin Christensen, re: Mormon revelation, as well as my original post. I think you will find my comments were not a caricature at all. My initial comments, for example, didn't single out Mormonism; but even if they had, it is just as true to say that Mormons believe that every person - even non-Mormons - may receive revelation, as it is to say that in the end, there is only one man authorized to speak on behalf of God to the world, namely, whoever the president of the LDS church is at that moment.

[juliann]

Moreover, were it not for "feelings" and "emotions", I'd be sucking rocks right now instead of living off of song royalties; I LIKE feelings and emotions, and as I've mentioned, I think it's undeniable that part of ourselves does play a part in how we reason. And I think it is very obvious that in many cases, the ultimate rationales for our decisions may be for us inscrutable...

Let me guess...you are inscrutable but those Mormons aren't. And you are the one to explain it all. Trouble is...you have picked the wrong forum. We allow Mormons to talk back here.

If you want me to elaborate on why I don't, I can - but I'm wondering that the point would be, if in the end a "convincing argument" wouldn't mean that much to you anyway (?)...

It would mean a great deal to me. You do it so...convincingly. Please proceed. Many of us are reading your every word waiting for you to produce something beyond your source of income.

[Analytics]

Let me guess...you are inscrutable but those Mormons aren't. And you are the one to explain it all. Trouble is...you have picked the wrong forum. We allow Mormons to talk back here.

It would mean a great deal to me. You do it so...convincingly. Please proceed. Many of us are reading your every word waiting for you to produce something beyond your source of income.

What a bizarre response. It appears you agree with what Tal actually said, but decided to â??guessâ? that he meant something completely different and then attack him for it.

I recall that Daniel Peterson steadfastly insists that his wit be called irony rather than sarcasm. The distinction is that while irony simply means saying the opposite of what you mean, sarcasm entails mockery and scorn.

Your sarcasm isnâ??t impressive; it would be more becoming if you actually addressed his points, rather than gloat in your ability to respond.

[Bach]

It depends on the revelation. There are times when it may outrank sight, or it may include sight.

I suppose the reason that I turn to those sorts of analogies is because:

a> there are a common touchstone; and

B> revelation (to me, at least) is every bit as real, as literal, and as 'tangible' as sight, sound, etc.

The difference of verifiability is still there. That's all I'm trying to get you to agree to.

Yes, I agree that this may be implicit, but even if the speaker doesn't intend it at all, a reasonably coherent listener can probably draw his own conclusions. One can hear the wheels turning: "Hmmm. He says he knows God exists. But I _don't_ believe in God.....Wait a minute......."

No body likes being thought wrong, or being told they are wrong (only obliquely). But, if the skeptic would think for a minute, THEY are sending the same message to the believer, in reverse. This is an unavoidable situation, ultimately. Yet some people (both believers--kill the infidels!) and unbelievers (ban religion! teaching children religion is child abuse!) get more unreasonable and worked up than others.

One can see similar dynamics in politics, where both sides may marshall evidence, but in the end it comes down to underlying philosophical stances which are tightly held, rarely altered at their core, and not really the product of a mere dispassionate analysis (though those that hold them, like the religious, may believe or claim they are).

Right; I was just giving an explanation of why it's seen as so offensive.

This would be true if revelation was the only epistemology, but it isn't. I can accept (and likely do) every rationalist, scientific-based epistemology going. In fact, my faith virtually requires me to. (This is not unique to Mormonism; it has been pointed out that the scientific method arose in Christian Europe partly because of the epistemologic assumptions which Christians brought to the table.)

So, talking about revelation doesn't deny me any other epistemologic routes any more than being sighted means that I'm deaf and unable to smell.

Revelation is again different from sight, sound, etc. because none of the others claim to be inerrant. If revelation claims that it alone is never wrong, and if it ever conflicts with other epistemologies, then it must also claim that the others are inferior.

(This is, incidentally, why I think religious freedom so essential--there's no "neutral" way to answer the questions that religion deals with, and it would be arrogant to try. So, leave everyone alone as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights.)

Well, what are a person's rights? Do we decide which rights are inviolable on religious grounds? Many people do, so your neat little prescription here is somewhat problematic.

But, I'm not interested in "proving" someone wrong. Why should I be? If God will speak to me, He'll speak to others. And, there's probably not much anyone can say to me that can "outrank" what God told me. He'll have to straighten me out, ultimately, if I need it.

Perhaps you're not primarily concerned with proving people wrong, but you are concerned with justifying your own beliefs, which (I believe) we agreed earlier are of a zero-sum nature vis-a-vis other people's beliefs.

(Note: Italics = quotes from here on out.)

For public consumption, of course. But, hence the repeated LDS insistence that you don't follow anyone blindly, and that you have to have revelation individually to guide you. You can't abrogate decision-making up the 'hierarchy,' so to speak, much as anti- and ex-Mormons like to pretend you're supposed to.

That's not what I was suggesting. I suppose my criticism here is one of meta-epistemology: how can an epistemology be useful if we don't know that we're doing it right?

But (to play devil's advocate) what says that in a democracy we MUST use reasoning ideas as our rationale for things? It seems that if you are going to allow people to make choices, people must be allowed to make choices on whatever basis they choose: good data or bad data, or no data at all.

Why can't someone's reason for advocating public policy be something as simple as, "Because that's the way I want it?" People who advocate for the right to smoke in public places don't need to argue that smoking is safe, or contributes to societal well-being. Their line can be essentially, "We want to do this, and you shouldn't be able to stop us." One can clearly see that they aren't appealing to 'data' for this stance, or are using a philosophical stance ("libertarianism," for example) but that's true of religiously-driven arguments as well--any reasonable person should be able to tell if I'm shouting "God says don't let gays marry," or "Gay marriage is a bad idea because of the following outcomes to society...."

[Note that I personally much prefer the sort of decision-making you're talking about; things are a horror show when people DON'T make decisions collectively based on that sort of thing, to a degree, and you don't need religion to drive people into disaster. (Just reading a biography on Mao's Cultural Revolution....)]

But, sadly, our evaluation of data (and even our accumulation of data) is going to be driven by prior conceptions, biases, and what we place value on. (The "neutral observor" of science is a myth, and since no one can be free of bias about the society in which they must live and raise their family, it is even less so here.) So, this idea that there won't be arbitrary bases for at least some public decision making seems to me to be a bit of a pipe dream.

I agree that it's impossible to completely eliminate arbitrary reasonings from political discourse. Still, if we agree that arbitrariness is bad when it occurs in public decision-making, then surely we would want to eliminate thinking that is prima facie arbitrary; religious reasoning falls under this category due to the individualness of its epistemology, I think.

Thus, I agree with the authors who wrote:

Why isn't my "moral conscience"--even if derived in part from religion, and even if differing from YOUR moral conscience--every bit as good a reason to motivate my decisions about social policy, just because yours might be agnostic? And, note that the stance that "objective data should be the guiding star of public policy" is an epistemologic and philosophical presumption not subject to rational proof every bit as much as "God wants us to obey Sharia" is.

Yeah, sure, we could all be living in the Matrix. I think, though, that this argument obfuscates the fact that people of differing religious orientations (and experiences) still agree that the liquids flow down hill (ceteris paribus), water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen, and so forth. Even if there is no antidote to radical skepticism, and even if there are no ultimate givens, there are at least things that we can agree about on the level of societies, and these are what should factor into our societal decision-making.

Yes. But, as I wrote in a later post, if that's the case, then I'm dust before the wind before such power anyway, and "resistence is futile." :-) Given that it has always been very benevolent, never forced me, never coerced me, and won't seem to do those things even when I'd rather it did, assumptions of good intentions toward me seems to be reasonable, since I'm hosed if it wishes me ill anyway. :-)

I'm not saying it's unreasonable, just that it isn't rock-solid.

[Tal Bachman]

Uh, yeah, Analytics - I read that and thought, "What the heck...?".

Juliann wrote: "Let me guess...you are inscrutable but those Mormons aren't. And you are the one to explain it all. Trouble is...you have picked the wrong forum. We allow Mormons to talk back here."

?

Perhaps the problem is what the word "inscrutable" is thought to mean. I meant by it, "obscure, not necessarily understandable, or only with great difficulty understood, mysterious", etc.

Or, another source of this comment might be that I didn't express myself clearly enough. Here is my comment again: "...I think it is very obvious that in many cases, the ultimate rationales for our decisions may be for us inscrutable...". I don't know what could be unclear about that, but you never know.

It is difficult for me to imagine many folks disagreeing with my statement as it stands. Certainly it is possible for folks to disagree with entirely different statements - like, that certain individuals, or classes of individuals, may be entirely scrutable, while others are not at all - but I can't imagine any reasonable person ever believing such a thing. I am surprised even that anyone could think they'd detected that underlying thought from anything I've written.

As far as elaboration goes, I am happy to do that, though I hope those replying respond to what I actually write. If that doesn't happen, I might just end up thinking there really was no good counterargument to what I wrote; and then whatever real defects in my reasoning would remain undetected by me, wouldn't they?

Just one simple comment to start off with, then. Maybe I can put it in question form:

Doesn't the statement, "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true", unavoidably render the words (and therefore, the concepts which they represent) "to feel" and "to know" synonomous?

[Pahoran]

Doesn't the statement, "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true", unavoidably render the words (and therefore, the concepts which they represent) "to feel" and "to know" synonomous?

Only if whoever actually says it also says "I know, therefore I feel."

Which brings us back to: whose statement is it?

Why do you keep avoiding this question, Tal?

Whom are you quoting, if not your own self?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bach]

Doesn't the statement, "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true", unavoidably render the words (and therefore, the concepts which they represent) "to feel" and "to know" synonomous?

I don't think so; I think it just renders "feeling" a species of the genus "knowing".

[Analytics]

lds4u.com paraphrases what Preach My Gospel instructs missionaries to teach thusly:

This message of the restoration is either true or it is not. We can know that it is true by the power of the Holy Ghost as God promised in Moroni 10:3-5. If you desire to know whether or not the The Book of Mormon is true, you must first read and ponder it, and then must ask Heavenly Father in prayer if it is true. To do this, we address Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ. We thank him for our blessings and ask whether or not The Book of Mormon is true. Nobody can know spiritual truths without prayer.

In response to our prayers, the Holy Ghost we tell us the truth through our thoughts and feelings. The feelings of the Holy Ghost are gentle, quiet, and powerful. When we start feeling that the gospel is true, we want to know all that we can about the restoration.

Knowing that The Book of Mormon is true leads to knowing that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored through him.

I believe Tal's statement is an accurate representation of LDS thought: if you pray and then feel that it is true, that is the Holy Ghost causing you to know it is true.

[Pahoran]

lds4u.com paraphrases what Preach My Gospel instructs missionaries to teach thusly:

Ah yes, the deceitfully named "lds4u" propaganda site. Whose is it again?

I believe Tal's statement is an accurate representation of LDS thought: if you pray and then feel that it is true, that is the Holy Ghost causing you to know it is true.

Thank you. IOW, you are unable to find any such statement as the one he puts in quotation marks--if you were, you would certainly produce it--but you, who like him consciously rejects the Church's truth claims, think it "represents" them fairly.

Well, you would.

So we're agreed: it's a caricature, then.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Greg Smith]

The difference of verifiability is still there. That's all I'm trying to get you to agree to.

Different, I agree, but not impossible. Future events may verify things (though recall bias is a risk, and one which everyone will have to navigate for themselves). Signs which follow belief may be confirmatory.

And, revelation doesn't just happen to individuals. Presidencies in the church seek revelation together, as do spouses. Some of the more dramatic revelations of my life have been to me and my wife separately and yet simultaneously. Another person's witness confirms and strengthens our confidence in our own.

Revelation is again different from sight, sound, etc. because none of the others claim to be inerrant. If revelation claims that it alone is never wrong, and if it ever conflicts with other epistemologies, then it must also claim that the others are inferior.

The source of revelation may be inerrant, but (as I've illustrated at length) I don't necessarily think the conclusions I draw from it must be inerrant. (And, as per Brigham Young--a closet post-modernist on this point, who knew?--our mortal state makes perfect understanding impossible at this stage.)

Besides, revelation typically does not conflict with the other epistemologies--"mind and heart," is the D&C description. Part of the process of 'studying things out in your mind' requires the use of the other epistemologic routes.

Well, what are a person's rights? Do we decide which rights are inviolable on religious grounds? Many people do, so your neat little prescription here is somewhat problematic.

On whatever grounds we decide rights exist, I don't think they can be made rationally coercive. The whole idea of people having "rights" is a fairly novel one, in some ways, and I don't think you can logically deduce rights without presuming certain axioms. Those axioms may seem self evident to you and me, but history would suggest that they are not. Why OUGHT such axioms to be adopted, and not others?

Perhaps you're not primarily concerned with proving people wrong, but you are concerned with justifying your own beliefs, which (I believe) we agreed earlier are of a zero-sum nature vis-a-vis other people's beliefs.

I don't need to justify my beliefs, nor do I expect that my beliefs will compel people to change theirs. You will note that I'm not on a JW board justifying my beliefs or attacking theirs.

My only hopes would be:

a) that those who share my belief in revelation not be swayed from that belief by sophistry or bad arguments

that those who might value the addition which revelation can make to their lives would consider it as an option where they might not otherwise.

(Note: Italics = quotes from here on out.)

That's not what I was suggesting. I suppose my criticism here is one of meta-epistemology: how can an epistemology be useful if we don't know that we're doing it right?

We can know we're doing it right, in the main, and that God will be merciful to our flaws. Indeed, that assurance is critical.

How do we know any epistemology is right? Usually by the way in which all data (or most of it) hangs together. As Chesterton said, it is the collection of multiple, small 'scrappy bits' of evidence that most convinces the mind.

I agree that it's impossible to completely eliminate arbitrary reasonings from political discourse. Still, if we agree that arbitrariness is bad when it occurs in public decision-making, then surely we would want to eliminate thinking that is prima facie arbitrary; religious reasoning falls under this category due to the individualness of its epistemology, I think.

I don't grant that it is arbitrary, though, because it has not been my experience that it IS arbitrary.

In fact, my sense that people have "rights" is really more arbitrary. I've always had it, it's probably a product of my culture and intellectual upbringing, etc., whereas my 'spiritual reasoning,' if you will, has undergone development quite out of my own expectations.

And, again, I'm not sure we have a right to eliminate a deeply held belief from expression simply because others cannot directly access it. Things like the civil rights movement, for example, flew in the face of the deeply held beliefs of many, but were also themselves the products of deeply held beliefs that might be justified by appeals to objective data, but are not ultimately derived from them.

Why shouldn't people be slaves, after all? At bottom, because it feels wrong or we intuit that it is wrong by processes that are not wholly rational. (There are plenty of societies--cf ancient Greece) where slavery was considered entirely proper and rational.

But, I cannot be as happy, finally, living in a society that permits slaves as in one that does not--and so, I ought to be able to oppose it simply on those grounds. If not, then what's the point of democracy if I'm not allowed to advocate for those things which (in my judgment) will make me and others the happinest? If areas of my judgment are to be ruled non-admissible because they are non-rational and non-self-evidence, that seems to rather beg the question AND privilege someone else's happiness over mine on non-rational and non-self-evident grounds.

Yeah, sure, we could all be living in the Matrix. I think, though, that this argument obfuscates the fact that people of differing religious orientations (and experiences) still agree that the liquids flow down hill (ceteris paribus), water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen, and so forth.

You have heard of the flat earth society and the young earth creationists, haven't you? Or the so-called "yogic flyers"? Yet, I would argue that a flat earth or young earth is equally untenable on rational grounds.

But, there are plenty of science things that go against 'common' epistemologic assumptions: quantum mechanics, or aspects of chaos, for example. Those who appreciate the "truth" of the matter are simply using "better" epistemologic tools--this is the case of the flat earther, who claims simply that you have misunderstood the evidence, or that there is better evidence that you haven't accessed yet.

But, as far as QM goes, I have to take it on faith and trust. I can't do the math, and haven't seen the experiments. I have, in fact, more personal reasons for trusting revelation than I do QM.

Even if there is no antidote to radical skepticism, and even if there are no ultimate givens, there are at least things that we can agree about on the level of societies, and these are what should factor into our societal decision-making.

I agree that they should factor in. But, I must admit that this conviction is one for which I can give no "rational" justification, ultimately. And, I don't see how 'factoring them in' means other things have no value whatever in the conversation.

Yes. But, as I wrote in a later post, if that's the case, then I'm dust before the wind before such power anyway, and "resistence is futile." :-) Given that it has always been very benevolent, never forced me, never coerced me, and won't seem to do those things even when I'd rather it did, assumptions of good intentions toward me seems to be reasonable, since I'm hosed if it wishes me ill anyway. :-)

I'm not saying it's unreasonable, just that it isn't rock-solid.

No, but I don't claim 100% certainty, since I don't have 100% certainty in ANYTHING--though I'm happy to talk about 'knowledge' anyway.

After all, if the odds are (say) 99% in favor of me being right, and only 1% in favor of me being wrong, it seems imminently rational for me to go for the greatest odds. After all, if I choose not to believe, then I have a 99% chance of being mistaken. (I'm here differing with Kierkegaard, who felt there could never be rational basis for belief, based upon ideas of infinites.)

Kind regards,

Greg

PS Sorry about double-spaced paragraphs. Anyone know how to avoid that? It happens intermittently to me.

[Greg Smith]

lds4u.com paraphrases what Preach My Gospel instructs missionaries to teach thusly:

I believe Tal's statement is an accurate representation of LDS thought: if you pray and then feel that it is true, that is the Holy Ghost causing you to know it is true.

You didn't miss this sentence did you?

Nobody can know spiritual truths without prayer.

In response to our prayers, the Holy Ghost we tell us the truth through our thoughts and feelings.

"Thoughts and feelings." An entirely different matter. Which is why what I suspect is a weak attempt at parody from Tal is just that--parody, or caricature.

Good for a few laughs, if not very accurate or useful to understanding.

If, of course, understanding is the goal?

Kind regards,

Greg

[Analytics]

Ah yes, the deceitfully named "lds4u" propaganda site. Whose is it again?

Thank you. IOW, you are unable to find any such statement as the one he puts in quotation marks--if you were, you would certainly produce it--but you, who like him consciously rejects the Church's truth claims, think it "represents" them fairly.

Well, you would.

So we're agreed: it's a caricature, then.

Regards,

Pahoran

Just to quible, I have not searched for that specific statement, and if I could produce, I wouldn't bother.

Having said that, it is a caricature of sorts--it does express the idea more tersely than a Latter-day Saint authority would say it.

Regardless, the strength of Talâ??s position doesnâ??t rely upon the specific wording he used. So if it will cause this discussion to go forward, perhaps we can use my quote as a starting point. Do you believe I fairly paraphrased what Preach My Gospel says in that section, or was that a caricature, too?

[cksalmon]

Ben's response will be better than mine, because he seems to have grasped the question better than I have. (Though there was a great deal of his that resonated with me...)

I had difficulty parsing this adequately to answer meaningfully. Do you have an example or scenario that might clarify what you're asking?

Thanks,

Greg

I'll try. I'm better with universals than particulars, but I suppose that's the philosopher part of me coming out.

Let's take sort of a standard test case: the LDS revelatory experience re: BoM antiquity. You can flesh that out in whatever ways are appropriate to you personally.

So, we have three theoretically possible responses (at some indefinite point [let's call it t-xâ??"time-x"] after having experienced an LDS revelatory experience about BoM antiquity at t-0â??i.e., "time zero"):

(1) A person may remain in the grip of the perceived import of that experience, such that he can properly say at any given t-x, "I assentâ??or, I continue to assent to my belief that God has revealed to me BoM's antiquity."

(2) Another possible response at some t-y, let's say, might be, "I question my belief that God actually did reveal to me BoM's antiquity." Or, perhaps better, "I'm not sure that God did reveal to me BoM's antiquity."

(3) A third possible response at some t-z might be: "I deny my former belief that God actually did reveal to me BoM's antiquity"; or, "God did not reveal to me at t-0 BoM's antiquity."

I'm curious to hear from someone who has undergone the experience at t-0 what could bridge the gap between (1) and (2), or between (2) and (3), or, indeed, between (1) and (3). In other words, having undergone the revelatory experience at t-0, is there any possibility of expressing (2) or (3) at some later time?

If there is, what would move one from (1) to (2), or from (2) to (3)? What is allowed to override, if anything, the confirmation expressed at t-x?

Hope that hasn't further muddied the waters.

Best to you.

CKS

[juliann]

Perhaps the problem is what the word "inscrutable" is thought to mean. I meant by it, "obscure, not necessarily understandable, or only with great difficulty understood, mysterious", etc.

Or, another source of this comment might be that I didn't express myself clearly enough. Here is my comment again: "...I think it is very obvious that in many cases, the ultimate rationales for our decisions may be for us inscrutable...". I don't know what could be unclear about that, but you never know.

It is difficult for me to imagine many folks disagreeing with my statement as it stands. Certainly it is possible for folks to disagree with entirely different statements - like, that certain individuals, or classes of individuals, may be entirely scrutable, while others are not at all - but I can't imagine any reasonable person ever believing such a thing. I am surprised even that anyone could think they'd detected that underlying thought from anything I've written.

You seem to like, fall back on cutesy or disingenuousness a lot. You are right...who wouldn't agree with that? But there you are on other boards, denigrating and demeaning Mormons for who they are and what they allegedly think while you use words like inscrutable when you actually have to talk to Mormons...which I can only assume you mean to apply to yourself considering your conspicuous disdain for us shown elsewhere. Your word carries a primary meaning of not lending itself to investigation. That is exactly what you are arguing against here...when it comes to Mormons. You investigate us relentlessly. Are we to infer that you do it knowing that it is impossible to discover anything? Then we would be foolish to think that you set out to do anything but mock.

This is how you began, inscrutable one,

Also, I don't know that there IS any difference between "Mormon epistemology" (supposing that is not a contradiction in terms on the core point at issue) and any other claim reducible to "I feel that it's true, therefore I know that it's true"...

I guess I missed the part where you attribute inscrutability to Mormon epistemology. In fact, you think Mormons are so easily understood that you can reduce us to a bumper sticker slogan. So just who is inscrutible? Mormons? Who do you think you are kidding and why are you trying so hard? The best you can do is pop off "that's interesting" or "I didn't know you weren't Mormon" when one of us won't use your pre-fabricated bumper stickers. Call in the calvary...you will need more than Analytics.

Meanwhile, it would be nice if you would exlain why your social construction of knowledge is worthy of consideration and stop the square dancing. But I suspect that is why you suddenly remembered the word inscrutable.

[Not quite me]

You seem to like, fall back on cutesy or disingenuousness a lot. You are right...who wouldn't agree with that? But there you are on other boards, denigrating and demeaning Mormons for who they are and what they allegedly think while you use words like inscrutable when you actually have to talk to Mormons...which I can only assume you mean to apply to yourself considering your conspicuous disdain for us shown elsewhere. Your word carries a primary meaning of not lending itself to investigation. That is exactly what you are arguing against here...when it comes to Mormons. You investigate us relentlessly. Are we to infer that you do it knowing that it is impossible to discover anything? Then we would be foolish to think that you set out to do anything but mock.

This is how you began, inscrutable one,

I guess I missed the part where you attribute inscrutability to Mormon epistemology. In fact, you think Mormons are so easily understood that you can reduce us to a bumper sticker slogan. So just who is inscrutible? Mormons? Who do you think you are kidding and why are you trying so hard? The best you can do is pop off "that's interesting" or "I didn't know you weren't Mormon" when one of us won't use your pre-fabricated bumper stickers. Call in the calvary...you will need more than Analytics.

Meanwhile, it would be nice if you would exlain why your social construction of knowledge is worthy of consideration and stop the square dancing. But I suspect that is why you suddenly remembered the word inscrutable.

Good heavens, Juliann. A few more italics, and we could serve cannoli for dessert.

Behind all the outrage, you make a pretty good point: why do we privilege certain kinds of knowledge over others?

[Tal Bachman]

You seem to like, fall back on cutesy or disingenuousness

Thanks for saying I'm cute, honey. You don't seem so bad yourself...: P

You are right...who wouldn't agree with that?

But if that is how you feel, Juliann, then all you're saying is that you agree with what I wrote. So what are you actually talking about here? Moreover, in admitting that you actually agree with what I wrote, you're actually just confirming exactly what Analytic concluded after reading your post. (?)

But there you are on other boards, denigrating and demeaning Mormons for who they are and what they allegedly think while you use words like inscrutable when you actually have to talk to Mormons...which I can only assume you mean to apply to yourself considering your conspicuous disdain for us shown elsewhere.

Juliann - do you know what the word "inscrutable" means? I don't know what you're talking about here. It's not a swear word. I didn't even think it was particularly obscure. And I didn't even use it to refer to any one group of people, Mormon or non-Mormon, but to the ultimate causes of the decisions of human beings, for those human beings. What I said was that it seems obvious that often the ultimate rationales for our decisions are inscrutable to us (difficult to know for us), the decision-makers.

You are correct that I think Mormonism is not what it claims to be, just like six billion other people on this planet, and have said as much publicly. So? Is that supposed to be a devastating hit by someone who helps moderate a Mormon discussion board? After all, by virtue of crediting Joseph Smith's D&C autobio, you yourself think that every other religion on the planet is likewise not what it claims to be. There are upwards of 300,000 religions on the planet supposedly. So, the big difference between us on this point, seems to be that as far as you can tell, 279,863 religions aren't what they claim to be, and as far as I can tell, 279,864 aren't. One out of nearly three hundred thousand, Juliann. But it is even worse - because by virtue of crediting and subscribing to JS's D&C autobio, you also necessarily believe that the creed of every other religion on earth is an "abomination". I wouldn't say that - but you would - you must, unless you think Joseph Smith invented that story. So who, really, is more prone to denigrating?

Judging by a few of the posts on here, manners don't seem like a super high priority around here (not that that's unusual in bulletin-board-land); but what you take to be disingenuousness is an attempt to be polite in reply to a post of yours which struck me as really pretty odd, in a forum with a lot of believers. Can you understand that? Besides, it might actually have been poor writing on my part. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

It rather seems to me that if I'd been as rude to you as some others on here are to others, that you would criticize me far more harshly than you do them (if you do at all); but if I try to remain civil, you accuse me of disingenuousness. If I don't phrase things as bluntly as I would talking to people whose understanding of Mormonism is the same as mine (see, I just did the polite thing again), then, for you, I'm guilty (of dissembling). But, if I do phrase things as bluntly, then I'm also guilty (of not being respectful of other people's beliefs!) . Either way, The Accuser finds the subject guilty. Why?

Your word carries a primary meaning of not lending itself to investigation. That is exactly what you are arguing against here...when it comes to Mormons. You investigate us relentlessly. Are we to infer that you do it knowing that it is impossible to discover anything? Then we would be foolish to think that you set out to do anything but mock.

Juliann, I understand you are upset here. You probably think I have said many unfair and untrue things about Mormonism. I may have, though if I did, it wasn't that I thought they were unfair or untrue, but just the opposite. If it means anything to you, I am happy to be held accountable for what I've written elsewhere, explain it to you, respond to it, apologize for it as the case may be, whatever. I'm not being disingenuousness - I'm serious.

But I ask that you consider whether the upset you feel might be clouding your ability to understand on what I've actually written here. For example, I did not say "Mormonism was inscrutable". I did not say "Mormons are inscrutable". I did not say, "Non-Mormons are better than Mormons", or "Dogs are inscrutable, but cats aren't", or anything other than what I said - that it seems that often, for a decision-maker, the ultimate rationale for his/her decision may be inscrutable. Do you see? Even you admitted that that seems like a true statement. So why keep making up untrue statements and ascribing them to me? My original statement doesn't even have anything to do with Mormonism per se. It has to do with human decision-making.

I guess I missed the part where you attribute inscrutability to Mormon epistemology.

Huh?

In fact, you think Mormons are so easily understood that you can reduce us to a bumper sticker slogan.

What in the world are you talking about? I hardly ever talk about "Mormons"...What is this, like clan affiliation for you? If so, I understand that, but that's not what this is about for me at all.

I often have talked about Mormon truth claims, and how I think they ought to be evaluated. Is an individual, a truth claim, or a truth claim, an individual? I may have all the respect in the world personally for the Muslims, Moonies, or Mormons I know - but just like you, I may view what they believe in as false. I mean, even what you believe about Mormonism will be at variance with what other devout members believe. But you taking issue with what they think, isn't equivalent to you taking issue with them, is it? There are only certain types of folks who become unable to distinguish criticism of claims from persecution of individuals. I'd hate to think you were one of them...

So just who is inscrutible? Mormons? Who do you think you are kidding and why are you trying so hard? The best you can do is pop off "that's interesting" or "I didn't know you weren't Mormon" when one of us won't use your pre-fabricated bumper stickers. Call in the calvary...you will need more than Analytics.

If you go back and read what I've written here, Juliann, I think you may find that your comments don't have anything to do with my comments...And to tell you the truth, I'm having flashbacks of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", where Arthur keeps saying a particular word that drives "The Knights Who Say 'Nee'" absolutely bananas, but no one can figure out what the word is, or why it should cause such a hassle. There seems to be something here about the word "inscrutable" which has set you off, which has prompted you to make responses to points I never made, nor ever would make!

Meanwhile, it would be nice if you would exlain why your social construction of knowledge is worthy of consideration and stop the square dancing. But I suspect that is why you suddenly remembered the word inscrutable.

Ah, that cursed word - why did I use it, my friend?! I feel like I accidentally stepped on your broken toe or something....

Would "mysterious" have been any better?

I'm happy to talk about knowing and stuff; but really, we can't talk about anything unless you and I agree to respond to what each other writes - not about other positions which we don't subscribe to. If we don't, we'll only look like weirdos, or at least, weirder than we already look.

So...what did you think of the question I asked above about synonomousness?