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

[LifeOnaPlate]

I still get lots of temporal blessings as one who no longer believes

Undoubtedly you would. As you ought to know, Mormonism doesn't teach that orthodoxy is the most important aspect of religious faith. More emphasis is placed on actions, whether or not one recognizes the exact "truth" behind the actions.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukouwski,

Most of us here are not trained philosophers. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say: (Truth changes)

I know you just spend an entire post trying to explain it, but I'm still a bit confused. Perhaps my thinking is 'tainted' by the wrong approach to 'truth'.

You also said this, which I cropped from the above quote:

I like this. This sound alot like what Blake Ostler taught in his August 2007 Sunstone presentation.

Well the odd thing is that I actually found Mormonism from the philosophical end. My training was at a secular university and I was an atheist through most of it, so what I think is often an odd mix of post-modernism and Mormonism, which would typically be strange bedfellows. But I find that American philosophy (pragmatism) fits perfectly with American religion (Mormonism) which is perhaps not so surprising after all. I found academia "inauthentic" so I left that behind, but have continued as an amateur for years. Political correctness is not my thing.

But I have always believed in the primacy of experience - that is all we have to deal with. And I have always believed that expressing experience is practically impossible linguistically. So to point to philosophers who hold those positions - they would be William James and Ludwig Wittgentstein's later philosophy

I have been referred to Ostler's work recently, and have to get started reading his stuff. I guess he is coming from a similar background tradition. I really don't know much about the standard Mormon theologians since I don't have any connection to BYU either, except what I now find on the internet. So I appreciate your recommendations.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make in plain language is that for 2000 years, western philosophy has had this idea that somewhere out there is this thing called "Truth" which is this eternal immutable glob of whatsis that propositions somehow correspond to, and the fact of their correspondence to that stuff of reality is what makes propositions true. This sort of thing started with Plato.

Practically no one in philosophy thinks this way anymore, but you see it all the time in theology where that eternal immutable whatsis has been turned into God.

As Mormons we know that is NOT God but we talk about God many times using the old theological words and concepts, which totally confuse the issue.

So to me, "unchanging truth" doesn't exist, which if you say on a Catholic board will get you at least 85 nasty replies.

Truth is a property of a sentence. It is a linguistic thing. Either the sentence (proposition) is true or it's not. There are sentences that are always true which philosophers call "a priori" propositions, like a=a or the transitive property of equality, etc. But there is no such thing as "truth" out there independent of language.

That's all I was saying.

[mfbukowski]

Spiritual experiences may not "work" for certain epistemologists in qualifying as a means for deriving 'knowledge" (as they define the term).

However, spiritual experiences do "work" in changing peoples lives for the better and greatly improving the human condition--and isn't that what we are all striving for, including in our pursuit of "truth" and "knowledge".

Think about it. If we are looking for justification for something, wherein lay the far greater value to mankind: philosophers quibbling fruitlessly over the word "know", or people who have had spiritual experiences acting on those experiences and on balance doing much good?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

EXACTLY!

And this is why I found philosophy "inauthentic". And I think those certain epistemologists are dead wrong.

[wenglund]

Ah but you wrote your response for a reason. To me it was to say that your expectations were superior to others. I don't think expectations will really matter in this life or the next. Its what we do here and now that matters.

Ignoring for the moment your failed attempt at mind-reading, and in response to your last two sentences, I can only speak for myself, but I can assure you that the height at which I have set the bar of expectations has had a profound effect on what I do here and now in this life. It shapes and informs numerous layers of my mortal journey. That is how experctations tend to work. And, this makes sense, particularly given that according to my belief in the restored gospel, my expectation for the after-life are somewhat contingient upon what I do here and now in this life.

But, this is taking the discussion somewhat afield of the topic, and so for my part I will leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bat-Man]

... But there is no such thing as "truth" out there independent of language.

That's all I was saying.

... and that is the part of what you were saying that I don't agree with.

... at least not if I understand you correctly.

Are you saying that if you can't express something in words, that something isn't true?

Haven't you ever seen or experienced something you couldn't convey using words?

... because they were and still are simply "inexpressible" through the power of language, alone.

I know of a lot of things which the tongue can't express, nor can the ear hear.

... and I thank God that He knows a better way to communicate with me.

[wenglund]

Anyway, the point I was trying to make in plain language is that for 2000 years, western philosophy has had this idea that somewhere out there is this thing called "Truth" which is this eternal immutable glob of whatsis that propositions somehow correspond to, and the fact of their correspondence to that stuff of reality is what makes propositions true. This sort of thing started with Plato.

Practically no one in philosophy thinks this way anymore, but you see it all the time in theology where that eternal immutable whatsis has been turned into God.

I am wondering if philosophers have finally figuring out what your average human has tacitly surmized all along: that "truth" and "knowledge" have value only in so far as they enhance the human condition.

Your humble farmer doesn't anguish over the Problem of Knowledge or the Mind/Body Problem first raise by Descartes and as yet not definitively answered by philosophers. Rather, he takes what agricultural information he has garnered over the years and plants his potatoes, cultivates, and harvests them at the end of the season, thus providing food for the hungry and an increased quality of life for he and his family. He doesn't need to solve the Problem of Knowledge in order to do good. In fact, he may do more good by not concerning himself with that problem, and devoting his energies instead to raising crops.

This is not to suggest that philosophy in general, or epistemologists in particular, are of no value, because I believe much good has derived from those schools of thought--most noteably modern science. It is just that the law of diminishing marginal utility applies. There is a point at which the pursuit of "truth" and "knowledge", or the kinds of approaches we may take in pursuing those things, will begin to diminish the success of the pursuit, and perhaps even become a barrier thereto.

In principle, Kant made this clear in his Critique of Pure Reason, in which he not only used reason to point out the limits of pure reason, but evinced how reason can turn on itself to its own ultimate destruction and in some ways to the disbenefit of the human condition.

At a point, the passion with which one may pursue "truth" and "knowledge" (where it becomes the end rather than the means), or the approach one may take in one's pursuit thereof (where it becomes too rigid and narrow and closed), may end up diminishing one's capacity to see the "truth" and worse yet diminish one's capacity to become the very best person possible and achieve a fulness of joy and love with others.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bender]

LifeOnaPlate

I wouldn't deny spirituality to them. Indeed, my own holy book prohibits doing such and in fact explicitly states otherwise. Again, I feel as though you are trying to call into question the nature of spiritual inquiry in regards to various religions, but so far you haven't yet said anything that would effectively question Mormon teachings.

Sure I question the nature of spiritual inquiry, as I stated before in other threads and why I think we all should. It is only my opinion and whether you want to agree with it or not is of course up to you

Undoubtedly you would. As you ought to know, Mormonism doesn't teach that orthodoxy is the most important aspect of religious faith. More emphasis is placed on actions, whether or not one recognizes the exact "truth" behind the actions.

As I'm sure you would as well. I wasn't implying that it was. I was only responding that as far as temporal blessings (and even spiritual ones) that I haven't seen any change even though my beliefs have.

[Bender]

wenglund Posted Today, 10:37 AM

Ignoring for the moment your failed attempt at mind-reading, and in response to your last two sentences, I can only speak for myself, but I can assure you that the height at which I have set the bar of expectations has had a profound effect on what I do here and now in this life. It shapes and informs numerous layers of my mortal journey. That is how experctations tend to work. And, this makes sense, particularly given that according to my belief in the restored gospel, my expectation for the after-life are somewhat contingient upon what I do here and now in this life.

But, this is taking the discussion somewhat afield of the topic, and so for my part I will leave it at that.

LOL I can only go by what you say and how I interpret it. I think the bar analogy is wrong. It tries to put one expectation above another when they may not even be related. Also Atheists and agnostics may not have all the same expectations. Some of those expectations that an atheist or agnostic may have can have just as profound affect on them as your expectations do on you. Expectations only really even matter if they are true and attainable. This is why it is important to examine the LDS epistemology as well as other ones.

[Uncertain]

The problem here is that pesky insistence on "representing universal truth". Truth is a property of propositions, not of the universe. Revelation is communication, and is therefore like discourse -- meant for a specific person at a specific time in their lives.

I challenge you to explain what you mean by anything "representing universal truths", or what it means to "reveal information" on a "universal truth".

The very statement implies that truth exists outside of propositions, that this truth is somehow "universal" whatever that means, and that there exists somehow "information" on this universal truth

So now we have all these entities floating around, truth, information, and a method, all of which are supposedly "universal" but none of which exist.

Hi mfbukowski,

Thank you for your thoughts. By universal truth I mean something that is true for everyone. For example the statement that the LDS church is the only church with Gods authority on the earth. Is a statement about universal truth that is no else on the earth has Gods authority but the LDS church. This fact if true is universal it is an objective fact about our existence on earth. As such if I have two statements 1. LDS church is only church with Gods authority 2. RLDS church is only church with Gods authority. Only one of them can be correct they are mutually exclusive.

Another bugaboo is that everyone will receive the same revelations from God. Not so.

If God really communicates to us individually and knows our circumstances, he will "take us where we are" and lead us in the direction he wants us to go.

This may not be (immediately) to the LDS Church. If I am in siberia and the only church is 25 miles away and is Russian orthodox, would God tell me to become LDS? Possible, but not likely! Probably the best thing for me is to become Russian orthodox for now.

Or if I live in LA and I am addicted and on the street and the only one who finds me and helps me is Baptist, would God tell me to be baptist? I believe he could. It is my best path for now.

Or if I have never had a spiritual experience in my life, but I want to be Catholic, could that be the best thing for me? Possibly.

Actually I by and large agree with this. I also believe God may very well lead us to the correct path tailored for us the path that leads to increased spiritual growth. However I am not sure how this addresses my argument as outlined. Here it is again in another form:

If a method X says both A and B are correct but A and B are mutually exclusive. Then if there does not exist some objective non-circular means to determine why method X got it wrong. Method X is not a reliable means to determine which of A and B are right or if either of them are right. If LDS epistemology does indeed state that mutually exclusive propositions are both correct (i.e. LDS church is the one church with Gods authority versus say the RLDS church is the one church with Gods authorith). Then if there does not exist some objective non-circular means to determine why LDS epistemology got it wrong then LDS epistemology is not a reliable means to determine which church is the one true church.

It may very well be LDS epistemology is still a good way to locate local truth (Whereby local is defined as what is best for me not what is best for everyone). But if spiritual experiences teach mutually exclusive statements are both true. Then without some objective non-circular means to tell why spiritual experiences got it wrong. Spiritual experiences are not a reliable means to determine between the conflicting statements.

Furthermore if I understand you correctly you are arguing that God may lead someone to a church that is best for them but the church does not contain a fullness of Gods truth (i.e. leading someone to be a Baptist or Catholic etc ). If this is the case how do you know this is not what happened to you maybe God lead you to the LDS church not because it has a fullness of truth but just because this is the path that is best for you. Maybe the Hindus are the most correct religion and for this particular earthly experience you need to be LDS. So that when you are reincarnated you will be better prepared to follow the most correct path Hinduism . It seems to me arguing God may lead us to the correct path for us but not necessarily the most correct church considerably weakens the claim that spiritual experiences are a reliable means to determine universal truth. After all maybe God is just leading you to a local truth.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[JDave]

I am wondering if philosophers have finally figuring out what your average human has tacitly surmized all along: that "truth" and "knowledge" have value only in so far as they enhance the human condition.

...

At a point, the passion with which one may pursue "truth" and "knowledge" (where it becomes the end rather than the means), or the approach one may take in one's pursuit thereof (where it becomes too rigid and narrow and closed), may end up diminishing one's capacity to see the "truth" and worse yet diminish one's capacity to become the very best person possible and achieve a fulness of joy and love with others.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I know you've said similar things many times before. But I thought you did a really nice job of putting it together this time. Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

... and that is the part of what you were saying that I don't agree with.

... at least not if I understand you correctly.

Are you saying that if you can't express something in words, that something isn't true?

Haven't you ever seen or experienced something you couldn't convey using words?

... because they were and still are simply "inexpressible" through the power of language, alone.

I know of a lot of things which the tongue can't express, nor can the ear hear.

... and I thank God that He knows a better way to communicate with me.

We really have to be careful that we don't argue about stuff that is just words. That is essentially one of my points. And I think that this seeming "disagreement" is one great example.

"All" I am saying is that the idea of truth only applies to what we talk about. I guess there is a sense in which we could have a "true experience" but I am not quite sure what that really means.

I agree precisely without you that experience cannot -- and I would say cannot ever--- really be expressed in words. The reason we can talk about things at all is because our experiences are all so similar.

As I have said, all sighted people know what "red" is and there is no doubt whatsoever between people that when a red car drives past, all would agree that that car was red. The proposition "a red car just passed" would be true

But try to explain red to a blind person, and you can't.

The EXPERIENCE of red cannot be directly communicated linguistically, but we all agree on what that experience is.

What we have to watch is that because we can say things by putting words together in a certain way we sometimes think that the words actually mean something.

Suppose we ask the question "What color is virtue?" That is an english sentence which appears to have meaning. Silly people might actually start arguing about if virtue is green or blue, thinking poetically or something --

But we all know that virtue is neither green nor blue! BECAUSE WE CAN ASK THE QUESTION DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE QUESTION IS ABOUT ANYTHING REAL.

Well in my opinion, that is the same thing as a discussion about objective truth. Truth is not something which has tangible existence any more than virtue is something that has a color.

That is not to say there is no virtue, nor that experiences are not "true". I would suppose that a "false" experience would be something like an optical illusion or hallucination.

But I don't think that truth exists independently outside of us the way God does. "I am the way the truth and the life" means that all light, knowledge and truth is obtained THROUGH Jesus Christ, not that he is actually made of "truth stuff"

So my point is simply let's not get hung up on words and go off debating about "Truth" as an absolute because we will never make sense of it.

[mfbukowski]

I am wondering if philosophers have finally figuring out what your average human has tacitly surmized all along: that "truth" and "knowledge" have value only in so far as they enhance the human condition.

Your humble farmer doesn't anguish over the Problem of Knowledge or the Mind/Body Problem first raise by Descartes and as yet not definitively answered by philosophers. Rather, he takes what agricultural information he has garnered over the years and plants his potatoes, cultivates, and harvests them at the end of the season, thus providing food for the hungry and an increased quality of life for he and his family. He doesn't need to solve the Problem of Knowledge in order to do good. In fact, he may do more good by not concerning himself with that problem, and devoting his energies instead to raising crops.

This is not to suggest that philosophy in general, or epistemologists in particular, are of no value, because I believe much good has derived from those schools of thought--most noteably modern science. It is just that the law of diminishing marginal utility applies. There is a point at which the pursuit of "truth" and "knowledge", or the kinds of approaches we may take in pursuing those things, will begin to diminish the success of the pursuit, and perhaps even become a barrier thereto.

In principle, Kant made this clear in his Critique of Pure Reason, in which he not only used reason to point out the limits of pure reason, but evinced how reason can turn on itself to its own ultimate destruction and in some ways to the disbenefit of the human condition.

At a point, the passion with which one may pursue "truth" and "knowledge" (where it becomes the end rather than the means), or the approach one may take in one's pursuit thereof (where it becomes too rigid and narrow and closed), may end up diminishing one's capacity to see the "truth" and worse yet diminish one's capacity to become the very best person possible and achieve a fulness of joy and love with others.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I couldn't agree with you more. Philosophy MEANS "love of wisdom" which it may have been in the time of the Greeks, but not anymore. I got into it for that love of wisdom, and I thought it could be found there. But that's not there anymore

It does have a good function however. It's main utility is to help us think clearly and point out when we are speaking unclearly. But to devote your life to helping others speak clearly was not what I wanted to do with my life, so I left.

Before I joined the church when I first got a glimmer of the idea that the gospel was true, in my elitist ivory tower, I kept saying over and over to myself "How could it be possible that the true church of Jesus Christ was entrusted to a bunch of farmers in UTAH?" WHAT DO THEY KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING?

Now I fully appreciate how profound it is that He who was born in a stable entrusted His truth to those who would fully comprehend all that that meant.

[Bat-Man]

"All" I am saying is that the idea of truth only applies to what we talk about.

I thought that's what you were saying, and that is what I do not agree with.

I guess there is a sense in which we could have a "true experience" but I am not quite sure what that really means.

I think that means you would be experiencing truth or more about what truth really is.

Let's try this approach and see how this works, for you:

Do you realize there are more "truths" out there that you haven't "experienced" yet?

Does the fact that you haven't "experienced" those "truths" mean those truths don't really exist?

Suppose nobody is around to talk about those truths. Would that mean those truths didn't exist?

If a tree actually falls in the woods and nobody is around to see it, or hear it, or take note of that fact, does that mean that tree really hasn't fallen in the woods?

If nobody on this planet talked about God, would that mean God didn't really exist?

Feel free to answer those questions in any way you want to, while knowing that however you answer, there are true answers to those questions whether or not you realize that fact or talk about those truths with anyone else.

I agree precisely without you that experience cannot -- and I would say cannot ever--- really be expressed in words. The reason we can talk about things at all is because our experiences are all so similar.

Good point. Those who have witnessed the power of the Spirit of God can relate to each other through those experiences because they all have had similar experiences, while those who haven't had any experiences with the Spirit of God... or who don't realize they have had those experiences... consider all this Spirit stuff to be a lot of foolishness.

Things of the Spirit are foolishness to the natural man.

Things of the Spirit must be experienced by the Spirit, personally, before a person can learn of or by the Spirit of God.

... and yet the Spirit of God, and God, our Father, are still out there, really truly, whether or not some people are aware of those truths or talk about those truths with each other.

As I have said, all sighted people know what "red" is and there is no doubt whatsoever between people that when a red car drives past, all would agree that that car was red. The proposition "a red car just passed" would be true

But try to explain red to a blind person, and you can't.

As someone else said earlier in this thread, you could actually describe it, but whether or not the person you were describing it to would "get it" is a different issue.

The EXPERIENCE of red cannot be directly communicated linguistically, but we all agree on what that experience is.

We can if we have experienced it, otherwise it is (or seems to be) a lot of foolishness.

What we have to watch is that because we can say things by putting words together in a certain way we sometimes think that the words actually mean something.

Heh, another good point.

Words by themsselves mean nothing unless we understand what the words are trying to convey.

I'm going to stop "picking" on you, now. I don't want to come across as overbearing, with you.

I think we agree on a lot of what you are saying, but yet at the same time you seem to not believe some of the truth I am trying to share with you.

[wenglund]

Wade, I know you've said similar things many times before. But I thought you did a really nice job of putting it together this time. Thanks!

That was kind of you to say. As with most all things, perhaps I am getting better with practice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Furthermore if I understand you correctly you are arguing that God may lead someone to a church that is best for them but the church does not contain a fullness of Gods truth (i.e. leading someone to be a Baptist or Catholic etc ). If this is the case how do you know this is not what happened to you maybe God lead you to the LDS church not because it has a fullness of truth but just because this is the path that is best for you. Maybe the Hindus are the most correct religion and for this particular earthly experience you need to be LDS. So that when you are reincarnated you will be better prepared to follow the most correct path Hinduism . It seems to me arguing God may lead us to the correct path for us but not necessarily the most correct church considerably weakens the claim that spiritual experiences are a reliable means to determine universal truth. After all maybe God is just leading you to a local truth.

I think there is a confusion here between two different points. 1- What is the best path for me right now, and 2- Which church has the most truth?

I think that Mormonism is the "Unified Field Theory" of theology. It is the absolute best description or model of how God deals with his children which has ever existed so far. As such, it holds the keys to living a happy life as well as it's own internal perfect organizational structure which cannot be equaled anywhere. This is another way of saying that it has the "true keys of the priesthood". I also believe that like any model or description which works, that it is subject to change, based on the experiences of its leaders. In relgious parlance we call that "ongoing revelation".

Notice how all this parallels the way science is structured. Both are based in some sense on experience, and the best theory we have is subject to becoming better.

As you point out, what path is the best for me at any given time is another question. Great scientific discoveries have been made through errors. People can be led to personal truth as well through their own errors.

How do I know that this church contains more truth than Hinduism? (which, incidentally I have studied- I was once also a Buddhist and a Catholic) Because it explains more about where I have come from and where I am going in a comprehensive theory that fits perfectly with my personal philosophy which I have developed over a lifetime of experience learning all I can about the world.

In other words, I know this church is true.

[mfbukowski]

Let's try this approach and see how this works, for you:

Do you realize there are more "truths" out there that you haven't "experienced" yet?

Does the fact that you haven't "experienced" those "truths" mean those truths don't really exist?

Suppose nobody is around to talk about those truths. Would that mean those truths didn't exist?

If a tree actually falls in the woods and nobody is around to see it, or hear it, or take note of that fact, does that mean that tree really hasn't fallen in the woods?

If nobody on this planet talked about God, would that mean God didn't really exist?

Oh I get you now. No I am not a solipsist! I said that early on! Ok I think I see your point.

I have never been to Antarctica but I have not doubt it exists! I know it exists because others have been there and written about it taken pictures etc.

Ihave my experiences and then I also have the experiences of others -- if they are "true" statements of their experiences. And I verify that truth if their experience is replicated for me-- it it works for me. If I get on a boat to Antarctic and it's not there --- their assertion that it existed was never true.

Space aliens? Don't know if they exist or not -- some have alleged they do, but it's not conclusive!

If you really want to get into it, I think that what we know as "reality" is a product of culture in the broadest possible sense. I have my personal experiences, then I have what I have heard from other people. If I were just dropped alone on this planet, I might think that the sky was a big canopy with holes in it at night etc. -- or that the earth was flat or whatever.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a "sound"? I don't know --- do you want to call those vibrations in the air it makes "sound" or not? It is a definitional issue. I think it is not "sound" it is vibrations. Waves. Put a tape recorder there and play it back, it is "sound" when you hear it. But it's a linguistic issue and is not important. Call it sound or not!

If nobody talked about God we wouldn't know if he existed or not. That is the only issue. What we don't know we don't know. And I would include "experience" here because we can experience God without talking about it. That happens all the time. One of the ways I know He exists is a sense that some intelligence is out there. I stop at a red light, and without thinking turn around to see someone staring at me. How did I know that? On some level, I think I experienced it. Ever heard of a guy named Rupert Sheldrake? Google -- oops after Prop 8 let's boycott google --anyway yahoo that name and check it out.

We don't know about the existence of Xyzibig. Does that mean that Xyzibig does not exist? Not to us! I cannot prove it it exists or not, and it literally does not make sense to talk about! Why would we want to?

But if I experience Xyzibig, was it a halucination? I don't know yet. But if you are sitting there with me and say "Did you see/hear/feel/ THAT?", suddenly I think that SOMETHING was there. But maybe it was or was not Xyzibig.

See how goofy it gets?

You get a thousand people experiencing Xyzibig and now you've got something to talk about!

But see if you start saying things like "Truth is timeless" you are saying things you probably don't really want to say. Like was the Book of Mormon true before this world was created? Why would you want to say that? What does it get you? Will the Book of Mormon be true in 14 eons in the future when the earth doesn't exist anymore? Why would you want to assert that? What does it get you?

[Uncertain]

I think there is a confusion here between two different points. 1- What is the best path for me right now, and 2- Which church has the most truth?

I think that Mormonism is the "Unified Field Theory" of theology. It is the absolute best description or model of how God deals with his children which has ever existed so far. As such, it holds the keys to living a happy life as well as it's own internal perfect organizational structure which cannot be equaled anywhere. This is another way of saying that it has the "true keys of the priesthood". I also believe that like any model or description which works, that it is subject to change, based on the experiences of its leaders. In relgious parlance we call that "ongoing revelation".

Notice how all this parallels the way science is structured. Both are based in some sense on experience, and the best theory we have is subject to becoming better.

As you point out, what path is the best for me at any given time is another question. Great scientific discoveries have been made through errors. People can be led to personal truth as well through their own errors.

Hi mfbukowski,

I have very little quarrel with anything you said here. As I mentioned I am a religious pluralist any religion that works for you is fine with me. I think the very best reason to join a given religion. Is because the given religion is the best path to a better more fulfilling life very much like what I understand Wade to be saying. I am just not convinced a personal spiritual experience is a reliable means to identify the church that contains the most truth.

How do I know that this church contains more truth than Hinduism? (which, incidentally I have studied- I was once also a Buddhist and a Catholic) Because it explains more about where I have come from and where I am going in a comprehensive theory that fits perfectly with my personal philosophy which I have developed over a lifetime of experience learning all I can about the world.

In other words, I know this church is true.

Again I do not doubt that LDS theology fits your personal philosophy the best out of all options you have studied. But I am sure you are aware your experience is not unique. For example this quote from Ghandi:

"Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being â?¦ When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita." (Young India: June 8, 1925)

Is he also justified in saying he knows Hinduism is true? After all it certainly seems to fit with his personal philosophy. Certainly he credits the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita with making him the person he was. And if he is justified in claiming he knows Hinduism is true. What is an objective observer to make of all this? Who is right Ghandi who claims to "know" Hinduism is true and you who claims to "know" Mormonism is the most correct path. By what objective measure are we to decide between the two claims? My own approach is to go with the one that makes the most sense to you and makes you the best person you can be. However I recognize doing so is no guarantee that the religion picked represents the religion with the most truth.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfbukowski,

I have very little quarrel with anything you said here. As I mentioned I am a religious pluralist any religion that works for you is fine with me. I think the very best reason to join a given religion. Is because the given religion is the best path to a better more fulfilling life very much like what I understand Wade to be saying. I am just not convinced a personal spiritual experience is a reliable means to identify the church that contains the most truth.

Again I do not doubt that LDS theology fits your personal philosophy the best out of all options you have studied. But I am sure you are aware your experience is not unique. For example this quote from Ghandi:

"Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being â?¦ When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita." (Young India: June 8, 1925)

Is he also justified in saying he knows Hinduism is true? After all it certainly seems to fit with his personal philosophy. Certainly he credits the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita with making him the person he was. And if he is justified in claiming he knows Hinduism is true. What is an objective observer to make of all this? Who is right Ghandi who claims to "know" Hinduism is true and you who claims to "know" Mormonism is the most correct path. By what objective measure are we to decide between the two claims? My own approach is to go with the one that makes the most sense to you and makes you the best person you can be. However I recognize doing so is no guarantee that the religion picked represents the religion with the most truth.

All the Best,

Uncertain

My answer to that is don't worry about it. Who cares what others tell you? Find out for yourself! It's all just talk! It is not a real problem in anyone's life. It is almost voyeuristic. We sit here debating which church is true and figuring out why the other guy is wrong. fegetabout it. Listen to your mother and go outside and play!!

[Uncertain]

My answer to that is don't worry about it. Who cares what others tell you? Find out for yourself! It's all just talk! It is not a real problem in anyone's life. It is almost voyeuristic. We sit here debating which church is true and figuring out why the other guy is wrong. fegetabout it. Listen to your mother and go outside and play!!

This is some dang good advice

[Bat-Man]

Oh I get you now. No I am not a solipsist! I said that early on! Ok I think I see your point.

That's good. I'm glad we understand each other a little better now.

I have never been to Antarctica but I have not doubt it exists! I know it exists because others have been there and written about it taken pictures etc.

Is the way you know Antarctica really exists really because other people have said so and taken pictures which they have claimed are from or of that place? Is that really what you are saying?

What do you think it is that causes you to believe what those people have said and shown you?

Is it nothing more than an acceptance of their word, including what they claim is real evidence?

I believe there is something more going on within you when you realize something is true.

... but, then again, I could be wrong about that, as far as you are concerned.

I do know there is more going on within me, though, when I realize someone is sharing a truth.

Space aliens? Don't know if they exist or not -- some have alleged they do, but it's not conclusive!

How do you define what an "alien" is?

Anything that is not native to this Earth is an alien, in my perspective.

Where do you think you came from?

If you really want to get into it, I think that what we know as "reality" is a product of culture in the broadest possible sense. I have my personal experiences, then I have what I have heard from other people. If I were just dropped alone on this planet, I might think that the sky was a big canopy with holes in it at night etc. -- or that the earth was flat or whatever.

I think I see what you mean. People can believe all kinds of things when left to their imaginations.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a "sound"? I don't know --- do you want to call those vibrations in the air it makes "sound" or not? It is a definitional issue. I think it is not "sound" it is vibrations. Waves. Put a tape recorder there and play it back, it is "sound" when you hear it. But it's a linguistic issue and is not important. Call it sound or not!

I didn't ask you if the tree made a sound.

I asked you if you would think a tree that actually fell in the woods really had fallen, if you had not heard it or seen it or seen evidence of that fact.

I am saying that if it actually fell, it fell, and your knowledge of that fact isn't required in determining whether or not the tree had really fallen.

If nobody talked about God we wouldn't know if he existed or not.

But He still would exist, though, even if we didn't know about Him or talk about Him.

What we don't know we don't know.

Yes, but just beacuse you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't true.

See how goofy it gets?

Yeah.

Some people can get really goofy.

[mfbukowski]

That's good. I'm glad we understand each other a little better now.

Is the way you know Antarctica really exists really because other people have said so and taken pictures which they have claimed are from or of that place? Is that really what you are saying?

What do you think it is that causes you to believe what those people have said and shown you?

Is it nothing more than an acceptance of their word, including what they claim is real evidence?

Oh come on! How do you know Anartica exists? Have you been there?

[Brade]

To me your thesis seems reductive. To me, the kinds of experiences that actually support religious faith are more complex than "good feelings," even when the persons involved have not articulated them that way. Individuals are more diverse than that. Sargon mention different preferences in the Myers-Briggs type indicator, which includes the differences between T and F decision making, and could also include the differences between S and N information gathering. I could have brought up different levels of cognitive growth suggested by the Parry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

So I see a wider range of experiences behind a faith commitment. Mormonism is inconvenient, and expensive, not only with respect to time and money, but in its relationship with the outside cultures, something made obvious to me even while I grew up in Utah. Numinous, mystical, moral pull, awe at the creation, reorientation and reconciliation (that is, thinking and feeling changes in response to experience) with respect to questions about the purpose of life, the existence of moral and natural evils, acceptance of death, key historical events, social experiences, ritual and mythic experiences, etc. I see individuals giving different emphasis to different based on personality type, and developmental growth. Before deciding that any individual was basing his faith on "mere good feelings", I'd walk them through my essay, and ask them to reflect a bit further on what they had experienced.

My mother, for example, has said that for her Mormonism is a happy way to live. But I know enough about my Mom's spiritual life to know that I cannot reduce her faith to that statement. Rather, I can expand my perception of her through it.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

First, thank you to everyone participating. I wish I had the time respond in depth right now. Hopefully this weekend I'll find some time.

I recognize that my thesis as stated seems reductive. I think I've just not done a good job at unpacking it yet. Not only that, I'm still feeling around. Your comments are very helpful (that goes for everyone). So, to be more specific (or maybe general), my intention is not to reduce spiritual experiences to good feelings. My own spiritual life is a good enough reason to avoid doing that. Nevertheless, I believe what I'm trying to assert is that even in the case of powerful mystical experience, and even when those experiences are actually from the Holy Ghost, such experiences fail to provide proper justification for the highest doxastic attitude. Doxastic attitudes being disbelief, belief, faith, knowledge, certainty and so on.

Unfortunately there is a bit of word game to sort through here. I believe this has already been brought up. I know I brought it up in a previous thread. The specific doxastic words the general population uses are sometimes not used in exactly the same way a philosopher uses them. In that sense it's a bit unfair to attack, say, a church members use of the word know without being more specific or defining terms on both sides.

Having said that, perhaps this works better, at least in the respect of being more clear, as a thesis to work with. Spiritual experiences are not sufficient justification for the highest doxastic attitude. Put that way I'm not presupposing a reduction of spiritual experiences to good feelings. In fact, I could grant that they may very well be genuine spiritual experiences caused by external and divine sources. Also, I'm not getting hung up on any specific word. If you believe "knowledge" is the highest doxastic attitude then that's the word I'm talking about to you. If another person uses knowledge in a way more in line with what I would call belief and uses certainty to mean what I would call knowledge, then the highest attitude for that person is certainty and that's what I'm talking about.

Also my claim is very narrow. I'm not claiming that spiritual experiences are not good reason for commitment to religious ideas, behavior, ways of life or communities. In fact, I think I could maintain that spiritual experiences are good reason for commitment to religious ideas, behavior, ways of life or communities. I simply deny that by virtue of a spiritual experiences you've apprehended anything factual about the universe besides "I had an experience and it was like this and it felt like this and it makes me feel like I ought to do this and believe that".

[JDave]

I simply deny that by virtue of a spiritual experiences you've apprehended anything factual about the universe besides "I had an experience and it was like this and it felt like this and it makes me feel like I ought to do this and believe that".

I think I could understand your position if you clarified what is sufficient justification for your fancy term for knowledge/certainty/belief. Sorry if you need to dumb it down for me.

How does someone apprehend something factual about the universe? How does one truly learn a fact about God save through a spiritual experience?

I think if you can expound on those items I will understand your thesis better.

[Bat-Man]

Oh come on! How do you know Anartica exists? Have you been there?

Does anyone (but God) really need to explain everything to you before you can know it is true?

I asked you to tell me how you know something is true when someone says something.

... and I was simply using Antarctica as an example.

When someone tells you something do you automatically believe that what they are saying is true?

If what a person says, with words alone, isn't quite enough to do it for you, is it a picture that makes you believe them?

If I were to show you a picture and say this is (so and so) would you then believe what I told you?

There is, or at least there should be, something else going on to let you know that what someone is saying is true.

Come on, mfbukowski. Put your shoulder to the wheel here and give me a true answer.

.. btw, I really liked you in Monsters, Inc.

Mike fbukowski!

Who would have thunk it.... that I would actually talk to you, here, on this web site.

[mfbukowski]

Spiritual experiences are not sufficient justification for the highest doxastic attitude

Just a quick couple of questions. What IS sufficient justification for the highest doxastic attitude? Are only a priori statments in this category? How does spiritual experience differ from other experiences?

If these questions do not help you define it better, don't bother with them.