Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[Calm]

So, people basically give their testimonies, not their sure knowledge, of the gospel as they see within Mormonism.

I believe there are some aspects of many testimonies that amount to "sure knowledge" for that particular individual (perhaps they are 'sure' on the WoW, but not tithing for example) and they feel similar to how JS describes his reaction to his revelatory experiencein regards to that individual concept/precept/?:

For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it

Having said that, I would think most would also see it as "absolute truth" only for themselves and not for others who have not yet shared the same revelatory confirmation.

[Kevin Christensen]

Tal writes:

there is simply no good reason to believe that the creator of the universe is consistently revealing his will for everyone on earth through one 'appointed' man or woman. There just isn't.

The italics in the original, and Tal's presence on this board carry the implication that to be LDS is to believe this, despite "no good reason." Yet D&C 1, Alma 29, Moroni 7, and much in the discourses of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, just to cite a few, offer a very different picture of revelation. Revelation comes to all sorts of people and denominations through a variety of channels.

However, while inaccurate, such a grandious picture does set up a brittle background expectation which is much easier to dismiss than the real picture. And asking whether a phenomena is real calls forth a completely different set of decisive criteria than does asking whether something is perfect or ideal.

Alma 32, incidentally, makes an important distinction between those who orient their lives based on "cause to believe" and those who "know." "Cause to believe" is more open ended and flexible, allowing for growth and change. Is this not real? Alma asks? The answer can be "yes" without one's knowledge being perfect.

As a small child I could see fossil bones and the rocks at a quarry, and know that they were real, and real "cause to believe." The reality of the bones has not changed. But they in no way provided either the child who looked, or the adults who were painstakingly extracting them with a perfect knowledge.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Tal Bachman]

Kevin writes:

The italics in the original, and Tal's presence on this board carry the implication that to be LDS is to believe this, despite "no good reason." Yet D&C 1, Alma 29, Moroni 7, and much in the discourses of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, just to cite a few, offer a very different picture of revelation. Revelation comes to all sorts of people and denominations through a variety of channels.

---Of course that is LDS doctrine, Kevin - just as much as it is doctrine that in the end, there is only one authorized mouthpiece to reveal the will of Jesus Christ to the world, to the point where any revelation received by any church member, or any other person of any other religion, which conflicts with the "revealed will of the Lord through the prophet", can be known by that fact, to not be accurate, or at least, to be incomplete. When the revelations of Warren Jeffs (or Thomas Monson for that matter) and Gordon B. Hinckley conflict, whose do you stick with? GBH's, of course.

It may be the case that God, or Something Up There (SUT?), sometimes speaks to us as individuals. It sure seems like it. But that those "sudden strokes of intelligence" really are the creator of the universe talking to us is unclear to me, and many people. Sometimes I feel like there are something like radio waves buzzing around, that we sometimes pick up - at least, again, that's how it seems - but I don't really have any good reason to believe that either, though. At the very least, I can say that those sorts of Pink Floydian David Chalmers space-out ideas (while doubtful) seem more plausible to me, than that some priest somewhere, of some religion somewhere, is the "only authorized mouthpiece of God to the world"...What could possibly be the argument for that, except a long string of entirely unwarranted assumptions as premises, all selected seemingly with the purpose of allowing us in the end to conclude that which we would most like to conclude?

By the way, how do you do the quote thing on here? I don't see a "Q" at the top of the typing box...

[Tarski]

It may be the case that God, or Something Up There (SUT?), sometimes speaks to us as individuals. It sure seems like it. But that those "sudden strokes of intelligence" really are the creator of the universe talking to us is unclear to me, and many people. Sometimes I feel like there are something like radio waves buzzing around, that we sometimes pick up - at least, again, that's how it seems -

Perhaps what is "buzzing around" is cultural memes (and electrical signals in the brain).

Of course, Stu Hameroff thinks that the field of quantum gravity is the source of "platonic values".

Frankly, that sounds a bit wacky to me.

[urroner]

By the way, how do you do the quote thing on here? I don't see a "Q" at the top of the typing box...

Hit the reply button in the post you want to quote.

[Greg Smith]

Hit the reply button in the post you want to quote.

I think what tal wants is the ability to mark material as quoted. I think what you want is the button that looks like a cartoon bubble at the top (just to the left of the # sign, mid screen, on mine.)

Greg, The Everhelpful....

[koakaipo]

I believe there are some aspects of many testimonies that amount to "sure knowledge" for that particular individual (perhaps they are 'sure' on the WoW, but not tithing for example) and they feel similar to how JS describes his reaction to his revelatory experiencein regards to that individual concept/precept/?:Having said that, I would think most would also see it as "absolute truth" only for themselves and not for others who have not yet shared the same revelatory confirmation.

Well, for future reference, I defer to you cause you are one of the smartest folks on this board!ha.

Yes, how you described it makes sense to me too from a personal perspective. I wonder if there are sometimes doubts to even revelatory experiences, but that may be my own problem and no one else's!

I have to find the actual quote, but I had in mind Joseph Smith's definition of sure knowledge in relation to turning your back on the spirit once you basically have the heavens opened up to you. I was using that quote in particular as a marker for my points, because I thought it made a very stark distinction.

[Greg Smith]

But when I pressed the issue about perfect books not holding water as a standard of truth (Joseph Smith also said the b of m was the most correct book on earth)

False analogy. Joseph Smith never claimed the Book of Mormon was perfect. The Book of Mormon averes both potential and actual errors in itself. Focusing on revelation, inerrant texts or messangers are unnecessary.

I did get the response I was looking for. They told me that god would lead me to the truth if I was sincere in my quest.

How would I know I was being lead?

Feelings. Peace. Signs..

See, this is where I would part company. One certainly will not get "signs." (Or, if you do get a sign, it won't be because you went looking for one. Signs follow them that believe. But, if I don't yet believe, or have cause to believe, I can't expect signs.

And again, while one might use the term "feelings," I don't think that properly captures the experience. Of course, this depends on what

they

mean when they describe it.

As I said before, the best word I can find for use in a public forum is "told"--as in "I haven't told anti-Mormons about my experience, but they think they're experts on it." At the risk of repeating myself, I find that emotion may be an after-the-fact consequence of revelation, but is not revelation per se. That being said, I would be suspicious of revelation that did not leave me at peace mentally and emotionally afterward, even if it was about something I didn't particularly want to do. (An event which happens rather more than I'd choose, frankly....)

And, I would definitely have to add the idea that revelation virtually always pushes us to do things, to alter behavior, serve others, etc.

(one person recounted a tale in Islam where a pagan truth seeker was wrestling with wether or not Islam was true and the next day when he was about to bow down to his idol, a dog came into his hut and urinated on the idol. This was "proof" that Allah was the real god). Other methods were mentioned.

Now that is something I would love to hear in fast and testimony meeting. (I once saw a dog pee on our Church in France. Perhaps I was out of tune and was being Sent A Message. But, that dog's urine was running down the cobblestones, and another dog was licking it up. I'm not sure what to conclude from that--perhaps the FRENCH were being sent a message--but it made that whole "dog to his vomit" scripture much more vivid than it ever had been before....)

Kind regards,

Greg

[Pahoran]

Hi all

Before addressing structurecop's question here, I just wanted to express to Orpheus that I would be happy to apologize for "lecturing the mods", if you will let me know where I have lectured the mods; if I ever have, I sure haven't intended to - I only wanted to let the moderators know that I didn't intend my other thread as a "personal thread". I also would like to point out with your permission, that the quote of mine inserted in your post wasn't intended as a troll thing at all; it was a reference to my embarrassment at how often I said the word "like" in the interview which started this whole thread! That's all I was referring to. I can't even imagine what else it might have been taken to mean...(?).

Perhaps it is simply the fact that you came here as a rank newbie and took it upon yourself to tell everyone how the board should be run. I am confident that if the majority of the particpants here wanted MA&D to simply be a clone of the fora where you hold court, it would be. The fact that it is not adds to the diversity of the cyberworld.

Please don't imagine that having a hit single out there grants you celebrity status here.

I am unaware of any convincing argument or evidence to support the claim that "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true". I am, however, aware of many good reasons to believe that feeling something is true, is not a good reason to conclude that we know it is.

That's quite all right. You are not addressing any LDS position.

But the real problem with even discussing this statement, as we are trying to do, is this: the first sentence in the preceding paragraph begs the whole question, in that I mentioned "argument" and "evidence", both of which would be meaningless but for a pre-commitment on my part to the value of reason (not that there's any way around this). Do you see what I mean?

In other words, the very claim "I feel it is true, therefore, I know it is true", makes the prospect of discussion, debate, evidence, argument, and every other province of homo sapiens (as opposed to, say, those of the polyp hydra, or any other primitive organism in possession of nerve cells), an absolute absurdity, an impossibility.

So that we actually have something to talk about, let us take your "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true" formula as a kind of hostile shorthand for an LDS testimony. On that basis, it is your position that believing Latter-day Saints are--what, exactly?

I think the word you are looking for is untermenschen, i.e. "sub-humans."

The claim itself is a rejection of the ultimate value of reason, and necessarily, all those other things which can only be comprehended - which only have meaning - through the use of, because of, reason.

Indeed? Are you telling us that if reason is not the only way by which things can be known, it is therefore worthless? Must we give it our unswerving and undiluted allegiance before it can be of any use to us at all? Is reason then our servant or our master? "I am reason that brought thee out of darkness; thou shalt have no other knowledge without me," is that it?

Not all of us are quite that idolatrous, Tal. Some of us accept that there are some things that can be known by means of reason, and some things that cannot be. In fact, there are some things that apparently never can be.

Have you heard of Kurt G

[beastie]

Ben -

No. This isn't the case at all. And this is why your argument here (and Tal's) is partly so problematic. Moroni never talks about "feelings" (except once, in reference to the Lamanites being beyond them). He says that God will "manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost". Does Moroni base his belief on "feelings"? And if not, then why are you trying to assert that this is the model of the challenge? Even if we take Joseph Smith as the author, who claimed to have been standing in the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ, who claimed to have been visited numerous times by angels, who claimed to hear the voice of God - does Joseph suggest that this witness is necessarily mere "feelings"? This is why this entire thread, dealing with LDS epistemology is problematic (as I noted several days ago). Feelings are perhaps the least of the LDS justifications for epistemological claims.

We are really talking about a variety of experiences, which is why the word â??revelationâ? is a bit problematic. (and cal, Iâ??m embedding my answer to you here about whether or not I believe revelation can be categorized as a type of feeling).

The vast majority of LDS believers have never received a revelatory experience in which an actual being appeared or spoke in audible words. So when weâ??re talking about how the Moroni model is interpreted, it seems misleading to start talking about those sort of revelations. By far, most LDS, when they say they have received an answer to this prayer, are talking about the feeling type of revelation â?? the burning of the bosom, whatever that means to the individual. If feelings are the least of the LDS justifications for epistemological claims, then the majority of LDS are in trouble, because this is what theyâ??re talking about, normally, in their testimonies, not visions of some sort.

Whether or not revelations â?? the feelings type, not the visionary type â?? can be categorized as feelings depends a great deal on the individual example. In my experience, when I talked to people in more detail about why they believed JS was a prophet when I was still in the church but wavering in faith, fighting a full loss of faith â?? most of these experiences definitely fit within the category of feelings. My home-teacher, for example, told me that he believed JS was a prophet because the church made sense to him, he liked the emphasis on families, and he felt good at church. Iâ??m not sure how the churchâ??s teachings making sense fit under the â??revelationâ? umbrella, but he appeared to interpret the â??feeling goodâ? at church a sort of witness. That clearly is a feeling.

Some numinous events are in a realm beyond feelings that could feasibly be imagined within the realm of daily life. These are the ones that experiments tried to locate within the brain, and were found to be originating in the fields controlling emotion, self-consciousness, and body representation. The book I read that delved into these experiments in more detail stated that in these events, the individual seemed to lose sense of bodily boundaries (body representation) and hence had a feeling of â??unityâ? with the universe or God. Their self-consciousness was heightened, and they often had a sense of euphoria or intense peace. Emotions are one component of that type of experience, although it pulls in other factors.

One reason we â?? including believers, as my quotes showed â?? use the word â??feelingâ? is that itâ??s not a visual or auditory experience, nor are people normally â??hearingâ? words in their mind (although some may), but it is an intense â??experienceâ? that is completely internalized â?? and what other word do we have to connote that but â??feelingâ?? Awe, reverence, euphoria â?? these are feelings. Theyâ??re not words, theyâ??re not pictures, theyâ??re not something we touch â?? theyâ??re feelings.

Hopefully that helps, Iâ??m not sure I can think of another way to say it.

Back to Ben â??

QUOTE

In my experience, believers are normally including both of these factors when they refer to the BoM as â??trueâ?. If you are going to only refer to the spiritual teachings as â??trueâ? that changes the conversation entirely.

But what is under consideration isn't what I am referring to, but what Moroni was referring to, isn't it?

I donâ??t think the Moroni verse makes it plain that he is talking only about the spiritual claims within the book. Moreover, he says â??by the power of the HG ye may know the truth of all thingsâ?. He doesnâ??t say â??ye may know the truth of spiritual claims onlyâ?. ALL things. So while you may disagree with the traditional LDS who thinks that God â??tellsâ? him/her the BoM is â??trueâ??, that means that JS actually had ancient gold plates that he translated, and those plates were actually written by real people who once lived on this continent, it seems they are just as justified in that interpretation as you are.

I donâ??t care how you interpret it, but I think that if you are interpreting outside the traditionally understood framework you should carefully specify that.

By â??external worldâ? I mean claims about events or facts that either occur or did not occur, or are accurate or not accurate, independent of any personâ??s belief in it. Either the Nephites were real people who lived on the ancient American continent, or they were purely literary creations. The truth of that is independent of anyoneâ??s belief.

Because not having a standard, or a way of measurement doesn't actually relate to the reliability of the method. What method do you know of that can determine morality and ethics and what is the standard?

How else can you measure the reliability of a method except BY a standard? This is a confusing question.

When you begin discussing morality, you are discussing â??internal realitiesâ? that exist dependent upon oneâ??s beliefs. I think itâ??s important to clarify which kind of â??truthâ? or reality we are talking about, hence my use of the term â??external realityâ?. Many religious claims are spiritual claims, but they are usually embedded in claims that would exist or not exist in the external reality, apart from anyoneâ??s belief or lack of belief. It is the claims regarding external reality that I am discussing. (thatâ??s why if we agree to shift the conversation to the BoM being â??trueâ? only means that it teaches true spiritual principles it changes the conversation entirely).

[Greg Smith]

Is the LDS revelatory experience (ala Greg Smith's useful elucidations above) productive of absolute knowledge? That is, given that some experience, in excess of mere "feelings" has occurred, what is the rationale for arguing to unassailable knowledge thereby (if one does so, in fact, argue)?

I suppose its partly a question of what "absolute" knowledge would look like, or whether we're capable of it. (Brigham Young opined that the "poor, weak, groveling inhabitants of the earth" were unable to receive a revelation in its fulness, and would therefore filter it through their own biases and preconceptions.)

We grow from grace to grace, etc.

It's certainly something that, at this point (for some few things), that I'm comfortable applying the label "know" to: God's existence, His love and concern for us, Christ's role as redeemer, and the Book of Mormon as source of divine knowledge.

Does that mean there is nothing at all that could conceivably alter my views on these? No. But, there would have to be something that accounted for all the data (both secular and experiential) than those conclusions, and I have a hard time imagining what that could be.

I say I "know" things all the time; I "know" the earth is round, I "know" water is hydrogen and oxygen in a specific ratio. I "know" my wife loves me. Now, could I be persuaded otherwise? Sure--with really powerful data that explained everything better than my current model--but, again I have trouble picturing what that would be.

I think Stephen J. Gould's definition of "fact" captures my attitude: it would be perverse for me to withhold my assent from those things, so I "know" they are true.

I'm not sure anyone gets any better than that anyway.

Many other things I'm pretty sure of, or believe pretty fervently, and I might call "know" in an informal sense, though would be less surprised at radical revisions of them, but still surprised.

If such knowledge is unassailable, what is the rationale for treating it as such?

I don't know that I would say "unassailable," because in principle at least I'm open to more information and revelation. In practice, I have trouble figuring out what would assail at least the core things. Expand on, perhaps. Overthrow, doubtful--just like I can't see the molecular configuration of water altering (though more subtle understandings of bond angles, Brownian motion, dipole moments, etc. might well show that far more is going on under the hood than I have suspected....)

My rationale is that God spoke to me, and told me in such unmistakable, undeniable, astonishing, unexpected ways that he burned it into my doubting heart and post-Enlightenment-rationalist soul. I trust Him not to lie to me, in the sense that He'll tell me as much of the truth as I can handle. (He certainly withholds many things, but I don't consider that lying.) He's proven Himself to me far too often. (I worry about myself more than Him.) And, I've seen Him do it for other people with no actions on my behalf.

Now, I suppose it could have some other source, like an alien intelligence or something. But, I'm dust in the wind before the kind of power put on me and into my life. If it isn't a benign, benevolent entity behind it all, I'm sunk anyway. May as well go with the flow.

And, it is incredibly benign and benevolent, though it pushes me into things I'd really rather not do, and rescues me from rather horrible scrapes. It's also un-manipulable, and seems to respect my personal integrity more than I'd like, sometimes.

Or, I'm just so deluded that there is no help for me. That capacity for delusion does not seem to have carried over into the rest of my life, but it must remain at least a theoretical possibility. But, not one I lose sleep over. If I'm mad, what's the point?

Or, if you don't treat it as such, how do you treat it and why?

"I do not know the meaning of all things, but I know God loveth his children."

That includes me, and it includes everyone else. So, I treat what I "know" as my best understanding of the present, confident that God can straighten me out as needed, and that He's actively working in everyone else's case to the extent they'll let him and their circumstances allow.

I hope that after interacting with me, if people don't want to become Mormons, they go back to their own faith tradition rededicated to it, more faithful to it and its most noble attributes, and better examples of it.

I would consider that success.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Calm]

Well, for future reference, I defer to you cause you are one of the smartest folks on this board!ha.

If you could see me, I'd be blushing.

Yes, how you described it makes sense to me too from a personal perspective. I wonder if there are sometimes doubts to even revelatory experiences, but that may be my own problem and no one else's!

I have doubts too and am willing to admit the possibility that there are other explanations out there for what has happened to me personally and to others.

I just haven't seen any that appear complete and close enough to satisfy me as much as the spiritual hypothesis.

However, I have heard others speak with more certainity and I am willing to take that certainty at face value, so to speak.

[koakaipo]

Calmoriah:

Agreed-

I don't mean to be a suck up or anything, I swear, but not only are you one of the smartest, but one of my favorite-estest---cause your presence tends to make everyone act 20 years older on threads---including myself! haha (Which of course means we end up at around 25 years.....ha)

[Noggin]

As I said before, the best word I can find for use in a public forum is "told"--as in "I haven't told anti-Mormons about my experience, but they think they're experts on it." At the risk of repeating myself, I find that emotion may be an after-the-fact consequence of revelation, but is not revelation per se.

How about I tell you mine? This will let you know that I understand. Probably one of the more pivotal times of my life happened when I was preparing to leave on my mission. Long story short, suffice it to say I was the all american pie in the sky Mormon boy. I had trusted that the church was true but wanted a witness. I was sincere, I was humble, I asked in prayer. An answer came into my body that the church was true. I had read the quote from Joseph Smith about revelation being akin to pure intelligence flowing into you so I was expecting that. One moment I believed the church was true (acting on a hunch) and the next moment I knew it was true. BUT. The feeling came afterward. There was joy in the realization that god had communicated with me. It made me feel loved. I felt connected with the heavens. I felt special. I felt, ah, alive and it was quite the experience.

So there I demonstrate how I know how feelings play out in the context of mormon revelatory process. I simplified my experience but I wanted to let you know that I do understand. Next part:

Noggin wrote: They told me that god would lead me to the truth if I was sincere in my quest. How would I know I was being lead?

Feelings. Peace. Signs..

Greg responded:

See, this is where I would part company. One certainly will not get "signs." (Or, if you do get a sign, it won't be because you went looking for one. Signs follow them that believe. But, if I don't yet believe, or have cause to believe, I can't expect signs.

Pure intelligence flowing into a brain is not a sign? One minute I doubted or did not know the church was true and the next minute I did? That is a sign. It convinced me enought to give 2 years of my life as a missionary. I went looking for some solid way I could tell people in Spain that I knew the church was the only true church on earth. I was not interested in doing missionary work with hollow words and I explained that to god at the time prior to this experience. I had done the work, read the book of mormon multiple times, studied it all out in my mind and now before I went out as a missionary, I wanted to be able to say "I knew" on whatever level, means, methodology god had in mind. As a missionary, people mocked me, declined me, you know the drill. But I did not waiver until I met Pedro the Jehovah's Witness who, through a series of discussions, revealed to me that he, likewise, "knew" that I was in error and the Watchtower Society was gods only true church on earth.

We spoke at great length. I did not lead him on. He explained to me how he knew and it was eerily similar to my experience. He spoke of how he converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses and his struggle to believe their message was, how did he say it, like Jacob wrestling with the angel. He woke up one morning and poof! all doubts about the watchtower society were gone. He was filled with great joy and he never looked back.

I shrugged it off. I parted ways. And I never forgot it. My companion and me were spooked by it and nervously we even role played the next morning in spanish about what it would be like dying and going before the judgment seat of Christ only to have Christ tsk tsk and gently say,

But why would you not listen to my servant Pedro? He clearly witnessed my truth to you that day?

We had a good laugh at that one we did. But.

It haunted me until a decade and a half later I finally had to go and study with other religions to see if this experience happened elsewhere. I found out that it did and does, Greg.

For a long while I remained LDS with the troubled outlook that god existed but he did not really care what religion one belonged to as long as they were faithful to its tenets of faith. That worked for a long, long time. And woo hoo. Look at me now, a non theist, hardly worth an ounce of envy.

Is any of this making sense?

Noggin

[Tarski]

There is no way around this. I suppose then, in a profound way, the feelings-claim doesn't even merit an attempt at rational refutation. It can't even enlist any argument on behalf of itself, without underminging itself.

Yes but unfortunately, reason and science cannot undergird themselves either. Even atheist, physicist and hyperrationalist Steven Weinberg recently pointed this out at the Beyond Belief Conference (he says that this has been understood at least since Hume). The best we can do is assert rationalism as a value. Weinberg called it a moral choice and said that it cannot be supported in the strong sense by rational argument.

His talk is on the video link below

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=60...elief&hl=en

Another problem I see is that there is a false dichotomy between what we describe as feeling and other forms of cognition. For example, what does one make of the sense of conviction and certainty one feels when one reads an airtight mathematical proof? Could that feeling be mistaken? Sure! Why is there even such a sensation? Does the brain instantiate a proof itself in such a case--I think not. This was Penrose's mistake in Emperors New Mind. Seeing that something is true is not the same as the brain computationaly instantiating a proof of said theorem. This is true even if the reason one "sees" that it is true is becuase of having recently seen a proof (maybe the proof is subtly wrong).

Also, I think that the number of things that we must, in the course of a lifetime, accept because of our mere sense or feeling that it is true is quite great. One cannot do exhaustive research or follow to the end every logical consequence of ones everyday beliefs to ferret out any possible inconsistencies. Rationality has its limits and making a choice based on a feeling is just par for the course in this life.

An example comes to mind. Hilary Putnam spent some time analyzing the following problem:

Suppose that there were in fact a heaven and hell. Suppose further that one is offered one of two decks of cards (deck A and deck B.) and told that drawing an ace would result in going to heaven and anything else would result in hell. Now suppose you get to choose the deck and suppose you learn that deck A has almost all aces while deck B contains only one ace.

Which deck is the rational choice and why? The point ends up being that we have to decide on how to understand probability. There are several ways to approach probability philosophically and Putnam purports to show that none of them are good enough to give a foundation reason to choose deck A even though it seems obvious. For example, the relative frequency approach to probability doesn't seem to help because this experiment will only, and can only, be repeated once by the person in question.

Anyway, after pages and pages one of the most rational men to ever live essentially gives up finding a rational basis for the choice and yet he feels, somehow knows, that choosing deck A is correct.

Finally, one has to take the seriously the person that says they only use the word "know" because in certain cases it is unseemly not to. For example, I would never explain to my child that I only think she will be a good person when she grows up. Naturally I don't actually know that but I feel fine saying "I know you will be a good person when you grow up". This is an emotional/sacred thing and religious assertions can be seen in the same way.

Does this mean that I think the belief in Mormonism is justified? No it doesn't. But it does mean that simply battering a religious person with "you don't really know" is of only limited value.

[Zeta-Flux]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

Have you heard of Kurt G

[Zeta-Flux]

Yes but unfortunately, reason and science cannot undergird themselves either. Even atheist, physicist and hyperrationalist Steven Weinberg recently pointed this out at the Beyond Belief Conference (he says that this has been understood at least since Hume). The best we can do is assert rationalism as a value. Weinberg called it a moral choice and said that it cannot be supported in the strong sense by rational argument.

His talk is on the video link below

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=60...elief&hl=en

Another problem I see is that there is a false dichotomy between what we describe as feeling and other forms of cognition. For example, what does one make of the sense of conviction and certainty one feels when one reads an airtight mathematical proof? Could that feeling be mistaken? Sure! Why is there even such a sensation? Does the brain instantiate a proof itself in such a case--I think not. This was Penrose's mistake in Emperors New Mind. Seeing that something is true is not the same as the brain computationaly instantiating a proof of said theorem. This is true even if the reason one "sees" that it is true is becuase of having recently seen a proof (maybe the proof is subtly wrong).

Also, I think that the number of things that we must, in the course of a lifetime, accept because of our mere sense or feeling that it is true is quite great. One cannot do exhaustive research or follow to the end every logical consequence of ones everyday beliefs to ferret out any possible inconsistencies. Rationality has its limits and making a choice based on a feeling is just par for the course in this life.

An example comes to mind. Hilary Putnam spent some time analyzing the following problem:

Suppose that there were in fact a heaven and hell. Suppose further that one is offered one of two decks of cards (deck A and deck and told that drawing an ace would result in going to heaven and anything else would result in hell. Now suppose you get to choose the deck and suppose you learn that deck A has almost all aces while deck B contains only one ace.

Which deck is the rational choice and why? The point ends up being that we have to decide on how to understand probability. There are several ways to approach probability philosophically and Putnam purports to show that none of them are good enough to give a foundation reason to choose deck A even though it seems obvious. For example, the relative frequency approach to probability doesn't seem to help because this experiment will only and can only be repeated once by the person in question.

Anyway, after pages and pages one of the most rational men to ever live essential gives up finding a rational basis for a choice and yet he feels, somehow knows, that choosing deck A is correct.

Finally, one has to take the seriously the person that says they only use the word "know" because in certain cases it is unseemly not to. For example, I would never explain to my child that I only think she will be a good person when she grows up. Naturally I don't actually know that but I feel fine saying "I know you will be a good person when you grow up". This is an emotional/sacred thing and religious assertions can be seen in the same way.

Does this mean that I think the belief in Mormonism is justified? No it doesn't. But it does mean that simply battering a religious person with "you don't really know" is of only limited value.

Tarski, this is probably the first post you have written which I could have written myself. Scary! Excellent points.

[beastie]

When I was on my mission in France, I had experiences with other believers that demonstrated they had their own forms of "revelation" even if they didn't use the same terminology, too. The one I remember most vividly was a catholic lady who told me about sitting in mass one day and suddenly a light like brilliant sunlight bathed her and filled her with joy and peace. She interpreted that to mean catholicism was the right road back to God.

Of course, I was the most shook up after talking at length with an atheist, and gradually realizing her argument made more sense than mine. I was able to "shelve" the experience, but I guess it was an omen.

[asbestosman]

Have you heard of Kurt G

[Tarski]

Tarski, this is probably the first post you have written which I could have written myself. Scary! Excellent points.

I thought I would try my hand at an argument that puts one toe accross party lines.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

This isn't quite correct. One of Godel's theorems was that any logical system which is complicated enough (e.g. any system capable of expressing addition and multiplication in the integers) and which also states that itself is consistent is not freee from internal contradictions (i.e. it is impossible to prove that a complicated system is conherent, unless it is already incoherent). The other theorem, again, depends on how complex the system is that one is working in.

So, technically speaking, if one came up with a very simple set of rules which our universe satisfies, then it might be possible to come to all truth within that model of our universe. If our universe is finite, for example, I don't doubt that such a model is possible.

I bring this up only to point out that while Godel's theorems are significant (both mathematically and philosophically) they really can't be used to say that there are things in this universe which are unknowable.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

True, but I didn't say "unknowable." I said "can never be proved by rational means." That is to say, we might know them, we just couldn't prove them, or establish any method by which to prove them.

Tarski's illustration of the two packs of cards is an interesting example of this. Evidently it is impossible under probability theory to prove that pack A is the better choice; but that doesn't mean it isn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Does this mean that I think the belief in Mormonism is justified? No it doesn't. But it does mean that simply battering a religious person with "you don't really know" is of only limited value.

Like the post, T

PS: I responded as soon as I finished reading the post and before I read the later comments....just so you know my acclaim wasn't tainted by my respect for Zeta.

PPS: Perhaps I will even nominated it for Post of the Day...I'll have to review the thread, but at this point, it's the Post of the thread for me as well.

[asbestosman]

I bring this up only to point out that while Godel's theorems are significant (both mathematically and philosophically) they really can't be used to say that there are things in this universe which are unknowable.

I think you're right, but could there be mathematical models or questions where the answer is unknowable? I think that for us the answer is yes. I wonder if even God could have unknowable questions posed to Him or whether His knowledge definately transcends Turing machines. Can God solve the Halting problem?

[Zeta-Flux]

When I was on my mission in France, I had experiences with other believers that demonstrated they had their own forms of "revelation" even if they didn't use the same terminology, too. The one I remember most vividly was a catholic lady who told me about sitting in mass one day and suddenly a light like brilliant sunlight bathed her and filled her with joy and peace. She interpreted that to mean catholicism was the right road back to God.

Of course, I was the most shook up after talking at length with an atheist, and gradually realizing her argument made more sense than mine. I was able to "shelve" the experience, but I guess it was an omen.

beastie,

Once a lady bore her witness to me of her testimony of Jesus Christ. I felt the Spirit bear witness to her words, and for a moment didn't know what to do. I think many missionaries have similar experiences, and do not discount them, but accept them as true witnesses.

On the other hand, I've also seen people receive knowledge, and then use it in ways God has not authorized. I had companions with whom I shared a few of my sacred experiences, who then tried to twist them and use them against me by manipulating me. I can believe that the Catholic lady you spoke of bore a true witness. But without having experienced it for myself (and having experienced similar things, and knowing they are prone to exaggeration, etc...) I can believe that God only witnessed that He was pleased with where she was in her life at the time. Depending on what further light she shared, I could definitely expand this understanding. I know members of the Church who I believe have misunderstood what they have received. They jump from "I was praying to God to know if it is wrong to kill" to "and I felt in my heart and mind it was wrong, and then knew Joseph was a prophet." To me, this is just wrong. It is also why I enjoy it during testimony meeting when people *explain* the experiences that led them to their testimonies.

Maybe I am wrong to judge such things, but from my own experiences with revelation, in hindsight I have seen how I have sometimes misunderstood (direct) answers. It is a process.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[Zeta-Flux]

True, but I didn't say "unknowable." I said "can never be proved by rational means." That is to say, we might know them, we just couldn't prove them, or establish any method by which to prove them.

Tarski's illustration of the two packs of cards is an interesting example of this. Evidently it is impossible under probability theory to prove that pack A is the better choice; but that doesn't mean it isn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

Sorry to confuse the issue with "unkowable" vs. "can never be proved by rational means." Go ahead and change those terms in my post.

But what I said I think still stands. Appealing to Godel as an authority on this issue is somewhat less than ideal. On the other hand, Tarski's example is exactly spot on (but sometimes difficult to convey).