LDS Epistemology - What Can We Know? How Can We Know It?

[Brade]

I thought I could provide some interesting discussion that has nothing to do, directly, with SSM and proposition 8! Not only that but by participating, whether you agree with me or not, you'll be helping me out tremendously.

I'm planning on writing a paper this semester about LDS Epistemology. Specifically, my thesis is this. Mormons are not justified in making knowledge claims if their knowledge claims are based on the association of good feelings with religious activity. As it stands, I believe many Mormons do believe it is right to make such claims on exactly that basis. I would like to show why such claims cannot be made on that basis. Now, I may need to tighten this thesis up in some way. I'm not sure just yet. Hopefully this discussion will help me determine whether or not I need to do that. In the process here, we'll certainly need to define our terms more clearly (i.e. good feelings, to know, etc.).

I should mention that I'm not interested in proving Mormonism false (if such a thing were even possible). I am, in fact, a practicing and believing Mormon. I'm simply interested in a very specific philosophical question about the justification of religious knowledge claims. And I simply question a common justification. Having said that, if you're going to respond, please do so respectfully and thoughtfully. Even if you do believe Mormonism is false, try to avoid, if at all possible, making statements outside the scope of the specific question. Even if we find a powerful and cogent argument for why Mormons can't make knowledge claims on the basis I have sketched that does not mean Mormons have no basis for belief and commitment to Mormonism. To show they (we) don't we would have to raise more questions and provide more arguments which would be outside of the scope of this topic.

I know this is something a lot of us have weighed in on in the past. I have in mind a few very well spoken individuals with whom I've had discussions on this very basis before. Please weigh in again. If you haven't been a part of this discussion before, jump in. Even if you don't feel like you don't have a good argument behind your assertion or belief, express what you can. We'll all go from there and, hopefully, work together.

Finally, notice I have yet to offer any argument for my position. This is for a few reasons. First, I'm running low on time today. Second, I've yet to take the time to sketch things out in a clear way. Getting a clear handle on why I believe my thesis is right is part of the reason for this thread. When I get a chance I'll probably dig up some statements made by myself and others from past threads on this issue and either link or post to them.

[J.S. Mill]

Personal revelation of any stripe is a tricky epistemology to deal with, because most of the assumptions required for epistemological discourse are not met. In fact, an important assumption for any kind of discourse is not met -- common evidentiary ground. The evidence that epistemologies of revelation appeal to is necessarily of an inner psychological nature that no one else can directly share; no one outside of the person making the claim can ever impugn or verify such evidence. My hunch is that this is by design: beliefs which would otherwise be unjustifiable find a sort of refuge when they are paired with a revelatory epistemology, so you might expect the flimsiest ideas to be undergirded by this particular epistemology. Justifying far-fetched claims is especially easy when they are about some future state, or something similarly beyond the ken of current science, because then there are no competing explanations to deal with. As might be expected, revelatory epistemology runs into trouble when it pretends to be a convincing argument across minds -- if religious claim x can be supported by an appeal to the inner thoughts of the mind of religious person X, then anti-religious claim ~x can be supported by an appeal to the inner thoughts of the mind of non-religious person ~X. Therefore, either revelatory epistemology leads to a logical contradiction (x and ~x), or religious people must provide evidence for the further claim that their inner thoughts are superior.

[Jason]

Equating good feelings with the witness of the spirit is a mistake.

[Luigi]

Equating good feelings with the witness of the spirit is a mistake.

Maybe you ought to let the Church know that Jason:

"As taught in the Bible, â??The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, [and] temperanceâ? (Galatians 5:22â??23). These feelings from the Holy Ghost are personal revelation to you that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is true." from http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-...ow-this-is-true

[LDSToronto]

I'm planning on writing a paper this semester about LDS Epistemology. Specifically, my thesis is this. Mormons are not justified in making knowledge claims if their knowledge claims are based on the association of good feelings with religious activity. As it stands, I believe many Mormons do believe it is right to make such claims on exactly that basis. I would like to show why such claims cannot be made on that basis. Now, I may need to tighten this thesis up in some way. I'm not sure just yet. Hopefully this discussion will help me determine whether or not I need to do that. In the process here, we'll certainly need to define our terms more clearly (i.e. good feelings, to know, etc.).

Ah, thank you, this is refreshing!

I think your thesis needs to be more specific because there are two items that lack clarity:

1) The phrase 'knowledge claims' is vague. Are you referring to claims of truth about the Church itself? If so, you have little to do because you are really just exploring the fallacy 'Petitio Principii' or 'Beg the question'. But, if you are opening it up to a different type of knowledge (secular claims, moral issues), that may be a little more interesting.

2) Justification is a loaded term. Do you mean that the claims are not valid, or do you mean something else? Justified implies a judgment - will you explore the source of that judgment? For instance, Mormons may be justified amongst other Mormons, but not justified in a court of law, a refereed journal, etc.

Good topic.

H.

[Jason]

Perhaps I should have said "exactly equating". "Good feelings" are how the experience of the spirit is often described, but the experience of the spirit is in fact distinct from just "good feelings" derived from other sources.

[Luigi]

Perhaps I should have said "exactly equating". "Good feelings" are how the experience of the spirit is often described, but the experience of the spirit is in fact distinct from just "good feelings" derived from other sources.

How so?

[Garden Girl]

Hi Luigi...

It is normally our critics that use phrases like "good feelings" or "fuzzy feelings" to mockingly describe what we refer to as the witness of the Spirit...

I have received the witness of the Spirit on numerous occasions, and good feelings or fuzzy feelings hardly approaches the feeling in most instances... sometimes it is stronger than others, but for the most part, my experience has been quite unmistakeable... but try to describe it? How do you describe the taste of sugar, or salt?

I've heard the still small voice... yes, it's quiet, but it is vocal and fills one's person with complete assuredness and is absolutely distinct... but try to describe it?

Unless one has actually experienced receiving a spiritual witness or hearing the still small voice, they would have difficulty relating because it is so hard to describe in mere words. But I and others here certainly know the difference between "fuzzy feelings" and the "Spirit" and all the mocking will never change that...

Garden Girl

[LDSToronto]

Perhaps I should have said "exactly equating". "Good feelings" are how the experience of the spirit is often described, but the experience of the spirit is in fact distinct from just "good feelings" derived from other sources.

BTW, I don't get the impression that BA81, in his thesis, is attempting to equate 'good feelings' with the witness of the spirit. In fact, I think he's going for a distinction between good feelings that happen as a result of being in religious service and the witness of the spirit, and how one can't use the former to make a claim of knowledge: for example, I know the church is true because I feel good when I do my home teaching.

H.

[Jason]

How so?

How is salty different from bitter?

[Luigi]

Hi Luigi...

It is normally our critics that use phrases like "good feelings" or "fuzzy feelings" to mockingly describe what we refer to as the witness of the Spirit...

I have received the witness of the Spirit on numerous occasions, and good feelings or fuzzy feelings hardly approaches the feeling in most instances... sometimes it is stronger than others, but for the most part, my experience has been quite unmistakeable... but try to describe it? How do you describe the taste of sugar, or salt?

I've heard the still small voice... yes, it's quiet, but it is vocal and fills one's person with complete assuredness and is absolutely distinct... but try to describe it?

Unless one has actually experienced receiving a spiritual witness or hearing the still small voice, they would have difficulty relating because it is so hard to describe in mere words. But I and others here certainly know the difference between "fuzzy feelings" and the "Spirit" and all the mocking will never change that...

Garden Girl

Hi Garden Girl,

I didn't intend to mock and simply meant to point out that even the Church uses descriptions of good feelings to describe the Spirit.

You pointed to salt as an example of how the Spirit is distinct but difficult to describe. I would then ask 'how does one know that he/she is tasting salt?"

We know when we taste salt because we know what salt is-a certain mineral of a distinct chemical makeup. We assume people experience tasting salt in similar ways and we're probably right since there appears to be no blaring distinction in the sensory organs among humans which detect salt.

Now you might say that we do that with spiritual experiences. Certainly the parameters we use to describe a spiritual experience are much broader and less defined than intaking salt and that creates the first problem but let's say for sake of the argument that we're able to establish those parameters in enough detail that we all could agree on when they are met. Let's even say for sake of the argument that every individual who meets those parameters has a remarkable experience that each describes as dinstinct from other positive internal experiences. Does that show the existence of a Spirit communicating those experiences? No. It simply shows a similar emotional response to those parameters in the individual's environment.

Demonstrating a correlation between prayer (or other religious activities) and these profound experiences-and yes having experienced them myself I felt they were dinstinct from other positive feelings-in no way demonstrates divine causation.

[Luigi]

How is salty different from bitter?

See my response to Garden Girl on this one.

[Sargon]

A common self-image of critics of the LDS Church is that they have somehow transcended above the masses of the LDS population and have reached a new height of enlightened rational inquiry. From atop this lofty peak they look down upon the miserable Mormons who know not how to find truth because they allegedly do not follow the 'correct' rules of logic, rationality, and scientific inquiry, and instead follow after the vain imaginations of their untrustworthy emotions.

Most LDS would not recognize such a perspective of their plight. Instead, they believe that they use the same methods of epistemology for arriving at religious truth claims as they would in a scientific research project. Objectivism is impossible, but we still try.

On a related note, the very popular Briggs-Myers Type Indicator test concludes that many people simply are naturally inclined to make their decisions based on intuition, gut feelings, emotions, and not on strict rational inquiry. This school of thought believes that people are hard-wired from birth to prefer one method over another.

If this proves to be true, it wouldn't be an outrageous accusation to suggest that roughly half of the human population trusts 'intuition' over rational inquiry. Modern critics argue that such an approach to life is devoid of merit, not being a reliable indicator of truth. They set up logical arguments (surprise) to prove it. Whether or not such an approach to life is superior, inferior, or equally meritorious is to be seen. What won't change, however, is the fact that roughly 1/2 of the human population makes major, and minor, life decisions based on 'intuition'.

Can it be such a terrible way to live if so many people are so successful with it?

[J.S. Mill]

Yes, it could.

[Sargon]

Now you might say that we do that with spiritual experiences. Certainly the parameters we use to describe a spiritual experience are much broader and less defined than intaking salt and that creates the first problem but let's say for sake of the argument that we're able to establish those parameters in enough detail that we all could agree on when they are met. Let's even say for sake of the argument that every individual who meets those parameters has a remarkable experience that each describes as dinstinct from other positive internal experiences. Does that show the existence of a Spirit communicating those experiences? No. It simply shows a similar emotional response to those parameters in the individual's environment.

Demonstrating a correlation between prayer (or other religious activities) and these profound experiences-and yes having experienced them myself I felt they were dinstinct from other positive feelings-in no way demonstrates divine causation.

If enough people observed the same experience within a set of parameters, it would certainly be enough to confidently conclude that the experience was in fact genuine, especially if as part of the experience it is experienced as coming from God.

Many things are established due to circumstantial evidence. For example, it is widely believed that a black hole exists at the center or our galaxy. Strangely enough, such a thing is not directly observable. We can only observe the effects of its existence. We see the effect it has on the orbits of nearby stars, and so forth. When enough data is accumulated, we can confidently conclude through circumstantial evidence that what we are observing are the effects of a black hole.

So it is with the experience of the Spirit. For the individual, he can weigh the observations that he makes over the course of various spiritual experiences. For some, the data all point circumstantially to a divine source. For others, it does not.

The LDS Church does not claim that every person is capable of having spiritual experiences that are sufficiently 'strong' (for lack of a better word) to lead them to conclude that the Church is indeed true. In fact, the D&C says:

Section 46

13 To some it is given by the aHoly Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to abelieve on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

Many LDS have testimonies of the gospel that are largely supported by the testimonies of others, and that is ok.

[J.S. Mill]

I hope you realize that the last sentence of your last post dramatically undermines the validity of Mormons' revelatory epistemology.

[Sargon]

I hope you realize that the last sentence of your last post dramatically undermines the validity of Mormons' revelatory epistemology.

It doesn't undermine it, much less dramatically undermine it. When it is remembered that Mormon was intimately familiar with Alma's epistemology (Alma 32), it can be read within that context. Things can be known by the spirit, but there are degrees of 'know'.

[Luigi]

It doesn't undermine it, much less dramatically undermine it. When it is remembered that Mormon was intimately familiar with Alma's epistemology (Alma 32), it can be read within that context. Things can be known by the spirit, but there are degrees of 'know'.

The underlying problem is that the existence of 'the spirit' has never been established let alone that this spirit communicates in the mode Mormons suggest.

[Garden Girl]

Luigi... you crack me up ... all I meant by referring to the well known phrase regarding salt and sugar, is that it is hard to put into words... for instance, a voice that is gentle.. soft... but "pierces" the depth of the soul, fills the mind and heart... a witness that is more than just a confidence... surpassing "knowing"...

Demonstrating divine causation? When you've come to walk daily in harmony with the Spirit and are in tune, yes, to me, yes... scientifically? no...

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine...

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me..." John 10: 14, 27.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance..." John 14:26

GG

[LDSToronto]

If enough people observed the same experience within a set of parameters, it would certainly be enough to confidently conclude that the experience was in fact genuine, especially if as part of the experience it is experienced as coming from God.

Not necessarily. Arthur Miller's The Crucible is an example from literature that shows that a large group of people can come to an incorrect set of conclusions based on a group-wide ecstatic experience.

Many LDS have testimonies of the gospel that are largely supported by the testimonies of others, and that is ok.

I'd suggest the scripture means that some will have the gift to recognize the spirit when they hear the testimony of a believer, and that will in turn strengthen or even begin their own testimony. Testimony, however, can never be based on another person's testimony - parable of the 10 virgins and the lamps.

H.

[Sargon]

The underlying problem is that the existence of 'the spirit' has never been established let alone that this spirit communicates in the mode Mormons suggest.

"Established" is code here for "accepted as factual by the scientific community." We certainly don't claim that it is. We believe that we have sufficient reason to have faith in God.

My personal conclusions (as of now) are that religion in general is a concept which cannot, nor should it be, absolutely proven or "established" (code word). The foundational core of religion is faith. If God does not exist, I am not in trouble by believing in him anyway. I find much happiness and peace in this life by believing in God. If this mortal life is the only existence that I get, I prefer to continue living it in the happy way that I am.

Regarding Mormonism in specific, it is my opinion that it has at least as good of a chance as any other religion of being correct. It is also my opinion that it is most likely to contain more truths than any other religion. I've reached those conclusions through as many avenues of inquiry that I can.

[Sargon]

Not necessarily. Arthur Miller's The Crucible is an example from literature that shows that a large group of people can come to an incorrect set of conclusions based on a group-wide ecstatic experience.

I'm not sure it is very analogous to Mormonism. There are none of the "witnessess" like Mormonism has of the plates, of angels, of miracles, or visions of God. Mormonism was never meant to rely solely on untestable spiritual experiences. Yes, it is very important. But no, it isn't our only guide. Unlike the events of the Salem Witch Trials, Mormonism has survived longer than a few weeks. It wasn't based on "ecstatic" experiences anyway, but on "still, small" experiences.

I'd suggest the scripture means that some will have the gift to recognize the spirit when they hear the testimony of a believer, and that will in turn strengthen or even begin their own testimony. Testimony, however, can never be based on another person's testimony - parable of the 10 virgins and the lamps.

H.

I'll avoid getting into an in-depth discussion of this passage, unless you think it is absolutely necessary. I don't think it is.

[Luigi]

"Established" is code here for "accepted as factual by the scientific community." We certainly don't claim that it is. We believe that we have sufficient reason to have faith in God.

Faith to me seems little more than means for sustaining support for religious leaders by instilling the idea that they should not have to provide evidence of the legitimacy of their claims.

My personal conclusions (as of now) are that religion in general is a concept which cannot, nor should it be, absolutely proven or "established" (code word). The foundational core of religion is faith. If God does not exist, I am not in trouble by believing in him anyway. I find much happiness and peace in this life by believing in God. If this mortal life is the only existence that I get, I prefer to continue living it in the happy way that I am.

If it makes you happy and you are open to others finding greater happiness somewhere else then I can respect that.

Regarding Mormonism in specific, it is my opinion that it has at least as good of a chance as any other religion of being correct. It is also my opinion that it is most likely to contain more truths than any other religion. I've reached those conclusions through as many avenues of inquiry that I can.

I see no reason why it would contain more truth than other religions but I respect people selecting religion out of personal preference if they admit as much.

[LDSToronto]

I'm not sure it is very analogous to Mormonism. There are none of the "witnessess" like Mormonism has of the plates, of angels, of miracles, or visions of God. Mormonism was never meant to rely solely on untestable spiritual experiences. Yes, it is very important. But no, it isn't our only guide. Unlike the events of the Salem Witch Trials, Mormonism has survived longer than a few weeks. It wasn't based on "ecstatic" experiences anyway, but on "still, small" experiences

I agree with everything you say here, but in the context of the thesis that was first presented, this is not the case that is interesting. I think the thesis is attempting to explore whether there is justification in the knowledge claims (and I'm still uncertain what knowledge claim really means) when one receives good feelings from religious experience, but those good feelings are not necessarily brought about by the Holy Ghost or Spirit of Christ.

Maybe BA81 can clarify his/her thesis?

I'll avoid getting into an in-depth discussion of this passage, unless you think it is absolutely necessary. I don't think it is.

Agreed.

H.

[Brade]

Phew, thereâ??s lots to reply to. Hopefully I address all the major points brought up. Here we go...

Ah, thank you, this is refreshing!

I think your thesis needs to be more specific because there are two items that lack clarity:

1) The phrase 'knowledge claims' is vague. Are you referring to claims of truth about the Church itself? If so, you have little to do because you are really just exploring the fallacy 'Petitio Principii' or 'Beg the question'. But, if you are opening it up to a different type of knowledge (secular claims, moral issues), that may be a little more interesting.

2) Justification is a loaded term. Do you mean that the claims are not valid, or do you mean something else? Justified implies a judgment - will you explore the source of that judgment? For instance, Mormons may be justified amongst other Mormons, but not justified in a court of law, a refereed journal, etc.

Good topic.

H.

Great questions. This helps me carve my view out. So, by knowledge claims I mean something like â??I know the Church is true.â? So, Iâ??m not referring to claims the Church is making but claims individuals make based on some evidence they have. And, by evidence Iâ??m specifically referring to the fact that at least some bit of their evidence is spiritual in nature. Please let me know if you think that clarifies things a bit.

I suppose you could put justification in terms of validity. By saying they are not justified I simply mean it is not right for them to make the claim they are making based on the evidence they have. At this point I think I want to say Mormons are not justified in making these sorts of claims on this certain sort of evidence even amongst other Mormons.

Personal revelation of any stripe is a tricky epistemology to deal with, because most of the assumptions required for epistemological discourse are not met.

Thank you for your response! Youâ??ve given me some good thoughts to consider. I think youâ??re right that assumptions of epistemological discourse are not met. But, a lot of epistemological theories donâ??t require any sort of discourse conditions. The justified, true, belief model just says that for a proposition X to count as knowledge an agent has to believe X, for good reasons, and X must be true. Maybe you could argue that the â??for good reasonsâ? part assumes discourse conditions but I canâ??t recall anyone that has.

In fact, an important assumption for any kind of discourse is not met -- common evidentiary ground. The evidence that epistemologies of revelation appeal to is necessarily of an inner psychological nature that no one else can directly share; no one outside of the person making the claim can ever impugn or verify such evidence.

There are things that no else can directly verify which I believe it is still right to count towards knowledge on my part. For example, my thinking, just now, about my hands being cold. Suppose I had never expressed that idea but did have that idea. I think I could justifiably say â??I know I had the idea of my hands being cold.â? Itâ??s not clear to me that because that claim cannot be verified Iâ??m not justified believing that â??I know I had the idea of my hands being cold.â?

Blake Ostler makes this same point in Spiritual Experience as the Basis for Belief and Commitment.

I had a thought about buying a hamburger three minutes ago. That's not unusual for me. It would be irrational for me to doubt that I had this thought, and yet this thought is not available as public evidence, it's not replicable, but I would be insane to doubt that I actually had this thought (and it was a rather good thought!).

...beliefs which would otherwise be unjustifiable find a sort of refuge when they are paired with a revelatory epistemology...

I happen to agree here but Iâ??m not sure this is a bad thing for revelatory epistemology. Alma 32 to has this to say:

Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it. And now, how much amore cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

Not knowing, in a sense, protects us from being held accountable for things we might not have the character to live according to. If God personally revealed to me right now everything I need to do in order to be a Celestial being I believe I could rightly say I know a lot. Nevertheless, I also happen to know that my character has me far away from being able to live according to all the rules of heaven. If I knew everything it seems right to hold me accountable for that knowledge. But, I wonâ??t be able to live according to it. As Alma says, Iâ??ll be in violation of knowledge and that wonâ??t help me at all. This isnâ??t to say that knowledge is never good. As I develop the character to act according to certain rules or laws my sure knowledge of those laws can grow accordingly. So, in a sense, belief is a protection.

Now, I think most Mormons are mistakenly thinking they know something when, in fact, they actually just believe it. That is to say they are making an unjustified claim. This can be bad in a practical sense for two reason I can think of. The first is related to what I just said. By claiming knowledge of so many things for which they actually ought to only claim belief they believe they are accountable for those propositions in a way they are not. And, if itâ??s a fact that they donâ??t have the character to live according to those propositions but they believe they know them to be true for certain they will hold themselves accountable in a way that is more intense than if they only believed those things and when they fail to live up to what they think they know they may, as people sometimes say, beat themselves up over it. Second, claiming to know something for certain when youâ??re unjustified in making that claim means you believe youâ??ve reached the final goal in that thing when, in fact, you have not. So, such a person might stop pursuing knowledge in that thing and doing so would be premature. I think that in some cases making unjustified knowledge claims stunts spiritual growth. None if this is an argument for the thesis. These are just possible negative effects of doing what I say one ought not do.

if religious claim x can be supported by an appeal to the inner thoughts of the mind of religious person X, then anti-religious claim ~x can be supported by an appeal to the inner thoughts of the mind of non-religious person ~X. Therefore, either revelatory epistemology leads to a logical contradiction (x and ~x), or religious people must provide evidence for the further claim that their inner thoughts are superior.

Right. I do think that this leads to a logical contradiction. x and ~x cannot be a true statement. I suppose my question here, and this is something Iâ??m not quite settled on, does the mere fact of a competing claim undermine my own justification to knowledge.

Jason, I think you might be right that itâ??s false that good feelings are a witness of the Spirit. However, as Luigi has pointed out, it seems the common thought in the Church is that when good feelings, however you want to describe them, are associated with religious activity this means those good feelings are a witness of the Spirit. I believe Luigi provided a good citation of this belief.

BTW, I don't get the impression that BA81, in his thesis, is attempting to equate 'good feelings' with the witness of the spirit. In fact, I think he's going for a distinction between good feelings that happen as a result of being in religious service and the witness of the spirit, and how one can't use the former to make a claim of knowledge: for example, I know the church is true because I feel good when I do my home teaching.

There may in fact be a distinction between good feelings and a witness of the Spirit but Iâ??m not sure yet if a distinction matters. Maybe it does and I just need to think this through a bit more. I definately want to say that if somebody claims â??I know the Church is trueâ? based on the fact that they feel good when they to their home teaching, that is not sufficient grounds to claim to â??knowâ?. But even if it were true that the feelings they were having when they were home teaching were from the Holy Ghost, Iâ??m still not sure it is right to make knowledge claims from such an experience.

Demonstrating a correlation between prayer (or other religious activities) and these profound experiences-and yes having experienced them myself I felt they were dinstinct from other positive feelings-in no way demonstrates divine causation.

I think this is right.

A common self-image of critics of the LDS Church is that they have somehow transcended above the masses of the LDS population and have reached a new height of enlightened rational inquiry. From atop this lofty peak they look down upon the miserable Mormons who know not how to find truth because they allegedly do not follow the 'correct' rules of logic, rationality, and scientific inquiry, and instead follow after the vain imaginations of their untrustworthy emotions.

Most LDS would not recognize such a perspective of their plight. Instead, they believe that they use the same methods of epistemology for arriving at religious truth claims as they would in a scientific research project. Objectivism is impossible, but we still try.

On a related note, the very popular Briggs-Myers Type Indicator test concludes that many people simply are naturally inclined to make their decisions based on intuition, gut feelings, emotions, and not on strict rational inquiry. This school of thought believes that people are hard-wired from birth to prefer one method over another.

If this proves to be true, it wouldn't be an outrageous accusation to suggest that roughly half of the human population trusts 'intuition' over rational inquiry. Modern critics argue that such an approach to life is devoid of merit, not being a reliable indicator of truth. They set up logical arguments (surprise) to prove it. Whether or not such an approach to life is superior, inferior, or equally meritorious is to be seen. What won't change, however, is the fact that roughly 1/2 of the human population makes major, and minor, life decisions based on 'intuition'.

Can it be such a terrible way to live if so many people are so successful with it?

Excellent post Sargon. Point well taken. Iâ??m not claiming that itâ??s a terrible way to live at all! In fact, I think itâ??s a great way to live. Nevertheless, I think knowledge is an important concept to get clear. It, intuitively, means something more than belief. But what exactly? In the context of Mormonism I believe that having good feelings, whether just good feelings or feelings from the Spirit, is a fantastic reason for a life of belief and commitment to Mormonism. All Iâ??m saying is that such things do not count toward knowing a thing, but only toward believing it. And, as I just said, belief is a great thing and a perfectly good reason to behave. Unlike knowledge, I believe belief is tiered. There can be weak belief and strong belief and everything in between. I donâ??t believe knowledge works the same way. Either you know something or you donâ??t. I take knowledge to be the strongest epistemological claim one can make. And it means something very strong. Which, I believe, is one reason we ought to be clear on what justifies it. If we go about making unjustified knowledge claims all the time we can confuse a lot of things for a lot of people and by that practice alone I think knowledge looses itâ??s meaning.

Now, I donâ??t think knowledge is never justified in religious contexts. LDS scriptures speak about it all the time. But, I think there are several scriptural accounts that lend themselves to the interpretation that knowledge claims are justified by much stronger evidence than good feelings (however strong or distinct they might be described). I believe Mormon scriptures paint a picture of what justifies knowledge claims that is more in line with what we intuitively think justifies knowledge claims.

If enough people observed the same experience within a set of parameters, it would certainly be enough to confidently conclude that the experience was in fact genuine, especially if as part of the experience it is experienced as coming from God.

Many things are established due to circumstantial evidence. For example, it is widely believed that a black hole exists at the center or our galaxy. Strangely enough, such a thing is not directly observable. We can only observe the effects of its existence. We see the effect it has on the orbits of nearby stars, and so forth. When enough data is accumulated, we can confidently conclude through circumstantial evidence that what we are observing are the effects of a black hole.

Iâ??m not sure I can follow that. It seems to be going by the principle that if a thing is believed by enough people for the same reasons it must be true. That might be a good reason for believing something but I donâ??t think itâ??s a good enough reason to claim to know it is actually the case.

The LDS Church does not claim that every person is capable of having spiritual experiences that are sufficiently 'strong' (for lack of a better word) to lead them to conclude that the Church is indeed true.

True, but in my entire life Iâ??ve never heard a single LDS testimony use the word believe in place of know. Maybe it happens. Iâ??ve just never experienced it. I donâ??t know that this is good evidence in favor of my view and it might be a little outside of the scope of what Iâ??m talking about. However, I have wondered at times where these people are that are only justified in believing. It seems that everyone believes they know.

Things can be known by the spirit, but there are degrees of 'know'.

I donâ??t think this is right. Iâ??ve already addressed it a little above. In our regular speech it seems that the common usage of know is to mean certain. There most certainty are no degrees of certainty, despite how people use the term (almost certain and such). Itâ??s unclear to me why we ought to think of â??knowâ? differently in religious contexts than in regular everyday life. Now, I do think there is some cross use going on in the scriptures. That is to say I think that sometimes when the scriptures say â??knowâ? they mean â??beliefâ? and sometimes when they say â??beliefâ? they mean â??knowâ?. To make it more confusing we have the concepts of â??certain knowledgeâ? or â??perfect knowledgeâ? in the Book of Mormon. You might think that because there is â??perfect knowledgeâ? and â??knowledgeâ? there are at least two levels of knowledge. But I donâ??t think the Book of Mormon authors were trying to be philosophically precise. I donâ??t think they should have been concerned with philosophical precision. So, there is a bit of a semantics game going on here.

A question worth exploring is whether or not when Mormons use the term â??knowâ? they are using it in the same way philosophers use the term â??know.â? Perhaps by â??knowâ? they mean something more like strong belief. In which case, â??perfect knowledgeâ? is more analogous to what a philosopher thinks of as regular old â??knowledgeâ?. Thatâ??s something that could undermine my whole thesis I think. Still, a lot of Mormons claim to â??know without a shadow of a doubtâ?. That translates to certainty to me. Furthermore, many claim such things on the basis of good feelings associated with religious activity.

My personal conclusions (as of now) are that religion in general is a concept which cannot, nor should it be, absolutely proven or "established" (code word). The foundational core of religion is faith. If God does not exist, I am not in trouble by believing in him anyway. I find much happiness and peace in this life by believing in God. If this mortal life is the only existence that I get, I prefer to continue living it in the happy way that I am.

This is what I happen to believe too. I believe such a belief undermines the idea that one knows since I think that to know is to imply having absolutely proven. I donâ??t think for something to be absolutely proven to me means that it must be publicly demonstrate-able but I do think the evidence must be stronger than good feelings even if they are distinct and strong.

I think the thesis is attempting to explore whether there is justification in the knowledge claims (and I'm still uncertain what knowledge claim really means) when one receives good feelings from religious experience, but those good feelings are not necessarily brought about by the Holy Ghost or Spirit of Christ.

I think I've already addressed this somewhere above. But, I think I would add, and even if they are brought about by the Holy Ghost or Spirit of Christ. In either case, being mere good feelings or good feelings from the Spirit, I think that would be a good reason for some measure of belief. And I think that belief would be a good enough reason to continue to behave in Mormonish ways and believe Mormon things.