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

[mfbukowski]

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.

I know. We have Charles Bukowski, Claude Hooper Bukowski in Hair, and a few others. It's the Polish equivalent of Smith. Look in the Chicago or Milwaukee phone book, and you will find pages and pages of us!

I guess I am just dumb. I don't get what you're driving at here at all. In conversation, how do I know if someone is telling the truth? It depends. Do they have a reason to lie? Are they shifty eyed and nervous?

But I suspect that is not what you are asking.

[wenglund]

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.

I am not convinced either--at least not to the point of absolute certainty.

In fact, I am not even convinced that a personal spiritual experience is a reliable means of identifying, with absolute certainty, that a given religion is the best path to a better and more fulfilling life.

However, I do think it may serve one well as a starting point for respective journeys of faith.

At least for me, receiving an ostensive spiritual witness to the "truthfulness" of the restored gospel (as per Moroni 10) gave me cause to enter onto the path as well as a measure of faith that the Church is "true". But as one who tends to require more evidence of truthfulness than those who are more trusting,, and this so as to muster in my somewhat skeptical mind the energy needed to continue on the path, I have needed multiple spiritual experiences, and even more important, I have needed to experience, first hand, that the restored gospel is what it claims to be, or more correctly stated, it will do for me what it claims to do (as per Alma 32).

Over the course of my spiritual journey, I have received multiple witnesses and also to some degree realized the blessings of obedience to gospel principles and practices, and have thereby grown in faith that the restored gospel is "true", to the point that I am now very confident that it is. The combination of epistemic approaches (Moroni's ostensive approach and Almas experiencial approach) has worked reliably for me.

As for whether the same could be said of Hindu's or other religious traditions, I am not sure. This is something I will let them speak for themselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bat-Man]

I know. We have Charles Bukowski, Claude Hooper Bukowski in Hair, and a few others. It's the Polish equivalent of Smith. Look in the Chicago or Milwaukee phone book, and you will find pages and pages of us!

Sorry, I was trying to be funny. I didn't realize you were actually related to those people.

... in more than the Adam and Eve sense... if you know what I mean.

I guess I am just dumb. I don't get what you're driving at here at all.

I won't fault you for that. I'll just try to be a little more articulate with you.

... and please bear with me, because I don't have an over abundance of patience.

In conversation, how do I know if someone is telling the truth?

Yes. That is what I was asking you.

How do you know when someone is telling you the truth.

It depends. Do they have a reason to lie? Are they shifty eyed and nervous?

Some people are very sincere, and very sincerely just wrong.

How do you determine when to believe someone, and when to put their idea on a shelf, so to speak, until at some point you later find a way to figure out if what someone was saying is true?

Do you have to wait until you see for yourself to believe?

Are you one of those kinds of people?

I am. But what is it you have to see to know that something is true, when you see it?

Let's take something basic, or at least something that is considered to be based in our Church.

Do you believe Jesus Christ is the son of our Father in heaven, and the redeemer of the world?

If so, what is it that gives you a reason to believe that?

Do you believe that simply because someone else has told you that is true?

Is that what did it for you?

If so, who was that person you chose to believe, and why did you chose to believe that person?

... or the person that person believed, etc, etc, etc.

Or, if that's still not quite clear enough for you, suppose you believe what you believe because you believe God is the one who told you something.

Why would you choose to believe God, if God told you something?

What is it about what you believe that gives you a good reason to believe it?

... Hint: notice the word "good" in that statement?

Do you know the difference between good and evil?

I hope that helps you to see where I am coming from.

I have run out of patience, for now.

[wenglund]

Hi ba81,

You may have already considered this, but if the target audience for your paper is your philosophy professors or academics in your field of study, then I wouldn't pay my comments much mind because I bring to the table quite a different perspective than them (mine is a man-on-the-street perspective whereas their's is a perspective steeped in philosophical intellectualism), and whatever terminology and reasoning you put forward that may crash and burn with me, may fly magnificently with them.

Besides, by esoterically rephrasing your thesis as "spiritual experiences are not sufficient justification for the highest doxastic attitude", that may have placed the issue beyond the horizons of my perspective anyway.

With that said, if LDS spiritual experiences can be demonstrated to consist of both ostensive and experiencial learning, would you still consider them insufficient justification for the hightest doxastic attitude?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

... and please bear with me, because I don't have an over abundance of patience.

Yes. That is what I was asking you.

How do you know when someone is telling you the truth.

Some people are very sincere, and very sincerely just wrong.

How do you determine when to believe someone, and when to put their idea on a shelf, so to speak, until at some point you later find a way to figure out if what someone was saying is true?

Do you have to wait until you see for yourself to believe?

Are you one of those kinds of people?

I am. But what is it you have to see to know that something is true, when you see it?

Do you know the difference between good and evil?

I hope that helps you to see where I am coming from.

I have run out of patience, for now.

Well I think I would run out of patience too- each of those questions could probably fill a book or two. Unfortunately I am still not sure where you are going with this.

I think I can say that I know at least some of these things by "direct experience" in the same way I know that I am looking at a red car. In some cases there is less certitude than that, but the experience is the same. It would be like looking at a car perhaps in the fog and asking "is that car red or burgandy? No maybe light brown?" I think that "knowing the truth of all things" can get to an experiential level.

John Dewey speaks about belief in terms of "warranted assertibility". That is, you have enough evidence through experience in the broad sense ("I have had 30 years experience in the Church") to reach quite a level of certitude on many of those questions.

And for what it is worth, I am an extremely skeptical person. I typically believe no one, and question everyone's motivation. Maybe that is why questions about certitude are so important to me.

[Bat-Man]

Unfortunately I am still not sure where you are going with this.

Alright. I'll just come right out with what I have on my own mind, rather than trying to see where you are coming from and what it takes for you to see something, yourself.

In my perspective, everything good is of God, and everything evil is of Satan, and I accept what I accept (or believe) because I believe it is good, and I am drawn more to good than to evil.

If I am speaking to someone who doesn't believe in God, or Satan, I might state the above a little differently, perhaps not even mentioning the words "God" or "Satan", but the idea would still be the same regarding why I believe what I believe.

I believe what I believe because I believe it is good, and I am drawn to what is good because that is what I am looking for.

So, now, with that in mind, let me ask you, again.

Why do you believe what you believe?

What is it that causes or motivates you to believe what you believe?

Do you know the difference between what is good and what is evil?

I believe we will all find what we are looking for.

I think I can say that I know at least some of these things by "direct experience" in the same way I know that I am looking at a red car. In some cases there is less certitude than that, but the experience is the same. It would be like looking at a car perhaps in the fog and asking "is that car red or burgandy? No maybe light brown?" I think that "knowing the truth of all things" can get to an experiential level.

What does it profit a man to look at a red car and yet lose his own soul?

Do you have an affinity for red cars, or something?

Why do you care if the car is red, or blue, or green, etc. ?

WHY do you believe what you believe about anything?

WHY do you know what you know?

John Dewey speaks about belief in terms of "warranted assertibility". That is, you have enough evidence through experience in the broad sense ("I have had 30 years experience in the Church") to reach quite a level of certitude on many of those questions.

Is being certain or sure about something something which is important to you, personally?

Why might that be, to you?

What is it that causes you to think or believe anything at all about anything?

And for what it is worth, I am an extremely skeptical person. I typically believe no one, and question everyone's motivation. Maybe that is why questions about certitude are so important to me.

Okay, then please tell me... and note that this is a QUESTION...

WHY is it important for you to be sure about anything?

WHY is it important for you to know anything?

What is it about what you know that causes you to believe it, or to have found out about it in the first place?

This is a question of motive, and not just a question about what you do know.

[mfbukowski]

I am not convinced either--at least not to the point of absolute certainty.

In fact, I am not even convinced that a personal spiritual experience is a reliable means of identifying, with absolute certainty, that a given religion is the best path to a better and more fulfilling life.

However, I do think it may serve one well as a starting point for respective journeys of faith.

At least for me, receiving an ostensive spiritual witness to the "truthfulness" of the restored gospel (as per Moroni 10) gave me cause to enter onto the path as well as a measure of faith that the Church is "true". But as one who tends to require more evidence of truthfulness than those who are more trusting,, and this so as to muster in my somewhat skeptical mind the energy needed to continue on the path, I have needed multiple spiritual experiences, and even more important, I have needed to experience, first hand, that the restored gospel is what it claims to be, or more correctly stated, it will do for me what it claims to do (as per Alma 32).

Over the course of my spiritual journey, I have received multiple witnesses and also to some degree realized the blessings of obedience to gospel principles and practices, and have thereby grown in faith that the restored gospel is "true", to the point that I am now very confident that it is. The combination of epistemic approaches (Moroni's ostensive approach and Almas experiencial approach) has worked reliably for me.

As for whether the same could be said of Hindu's or other religious traditions, I am not sure. This is something I will let them speak for themselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, I agree with this completely. I think if you read my previous posts I myself cited a "combination approach" of the Alma 32 experiment and a Moroni 10: 4 experience.

My only point is that both of these are "experience" -- the Alma approach is more like a scientific study, while the Moroni approach is a sudden realization.

My posts about the "special sense" that I could believe could be wired into some of us were about what we here are terming the "Moroni experience";

Not everyone has those. Many have never had anything like that.

[mfbukowski]

Alright. I'll just come right out with what I have on my own mind, rather than trying to see where you are coming from and what it takes for you to see something, yourself.

In my perspective, everything good is of God, and everything evil is of Satan, and I accept what I accept (or believe) because I believe it is good, and I am drawn more to good than to evil.

If I am speaking to someone who doesn't believe in God, or Satan, I might state the above a little differently, perhaps not even mentioning the words "God" or "Satan", but the idea would still be the same regarding why I believe what I believe.

I believe what I believe because I believe it is good, and I am drawn to what is good because that is what I am looking for.

So, now, with that in mind, let me ask you, again.

Why do you believe what you believe?

What is it that causes or motivates you to believe what you believe?

Do you know the difference between what is good and what is evil?

I believe we will all find what we are looking for.

What does it profit a man to look at a red car and yet lose his own soul?

Do you have an affinity for red cars, or something?

Why do you care if the car is red, or blue, or green, etc. ?

WHY do you believe what you believe about anything?

WHY do you know what you know?

Is being certain or sure about something something which is important to you, personally?

Why might that be, to you?

What is it that causes you to think or believe anything at all about anything?

Okay, then please tell me... and note that this is a QUESTION...

WHY is it important for you to be sure about anything?

WHY is it important for you to know anything?

What is it about what you know that causes you to believe it, or to have found out about it in the first place?

This is a question of motive, and not just a question about what you do know.

Holy cow, I mean why would you want to know this about me-- what is the point?

I want to get it right because I want to do and be the best I can.

I distrust people because my mother always told me how great I was, and she was a manipulative person.

So now are you my shrink?

[Sargon]

So now are you my shrink?

That tends to be part of his MO on this board. In fact, I think he actually has a background in psychology or something.

[J.S. Mill]

To me, this is very bad epistemology. Of course, as always, it depends on what the terms mean. But it appears to me that you are back into that neo platonic dualism that gripped the western world for 2000 years.

What exactly is a "mental state" and what is the "outside world"? All we have is our experience to even show that there is an "outside world". No I am not a solipsist.

How can you know anything other than your experience? All of us reading this are sitting at a computer of some kind, experiencing that computer through vision and touch. That is our experience. We see it we touch it, we read it.

But aren't these all mental states as well? Our brains are processing and ordering the perceptions of the patterns of light and dark in these letters we are reading, and forming those patches of perception -- those pixels -- into words and concepts and ideas. This is a mental state! It is experience!

We cannot know more about those pixels than what we experience of them. We may be engineers and know exactly how they display on the screen, or we may be dummies like me, in which case it is all a mystery-- and that knowledge affects our perceptions of them.

So how do we perceive anything "out there" which is NOT experience --- NOT a "mental state"? All that you see around you is constructed by your eyes and brain working together to bring all those patterns together.

ALL WE DO, ALL DAY EVERY DAY is "use mental states as sufficient evidence for claims about the outside world". We wouldn't know there was an outside world in the absence of mental states!!! That is called unconsciousness!!

You're right, I phrased this extremely poorly. I meant to say a few things: one, that other people's inner mental states are an inadequate warrant for belief (and believe it or not, this is exactly what Mormons are asking me to accept when they justify their beliefs to me on personal revelatory grounds), because they are inaccessible to me. Second, that if you want to use the evidence of your own inner mental states to justify your beliefs publicly, and not just to yourself, then it needs to be tempered by an appreciation for the evidence other people can gather. I think this is an important distinction our thread has been missing so far: like all other types of philosophy, epistemology has a few implicit assumptions built into it. These include the idea that you engage in epistemological discussions with beings that possess a similar intelligence to yours; that there is at least some common evidentiary ground which must be worked off of; that reason is an appropriate method of determining truth, et al. Revelatory epistemology fails the crucial second criterion. When you appeal to evidence that is inaccessible to me, you act as if I'm not even part of the discussion. Asking me to accept such evidences really isn't any better than shouting "DUCKIES!" and expecting me to nod my head in agreement. Epistemology just doesn't work that way.

Now, none of this is to say that personal revelation could never be an appropriate method of determining truth for the individual who receives it (I brought up the fundamentals of epistemology to make precisely this distinction). If I were to receive a powerful experience that no one else did, but which nonetheless seemed very real to me, I would probably treat it much the same as Mormons do their apparent revelations. But would I expect other people to believe things based on my experience alone? No. Would I consider the new belief system predicated upon my experience to be epistemologically valid in the full, social sense of the word? I don't see how I could.

[mfbukowski]

You're right, I phrased this extremely poorly. I meant to say a few things: one, that other people's inner mental states are an inadequate warrant for belief (and believe it or not, this is exactly what Mormons are asking me to accept when they justify their beliefs to me on personal revelatory grounds), because they are inaccessible to me. Second, that if you want to use the evidence of your own inner mental states to justify your beliefs publicly, and not just to yourself, then it needs to be tempered by an appreciation for the evidence other people can gather. I think this is an important distinction our thread has been missing so far: like all other types of philosophy, epistemology has a few implicit assumptions built into it. These include the idea that you engage in epistemological discussions with beings that possess a similar intelligence to yours; that there is at least some common evidentiary ground which must be worked off of; that reason is an appropriate method of determining truth, et al. Revelatory epistemology fails the crucial second criterion. When you appeal to evidence that is inaccessible to me, you act as if I'm not even part of the discussion. Asking me to accept such evidences really isn't any better than shouting "DUCKIES!" and expecting me to nod my head in agreement. Epistemology just doesn't work that way.

Now, none of this is to say that personal revelation could never be an appropriate method of determining truth for the individual who receives it (I brought up the fundamentals of epistemology to make precisely this distinction). If I were to receive a powerful experience that no one else did, but which nonetheless seemed very real to me, I would probably treat it much the same as Mormons do their apparent revelations. But would I expect other people to believe things based on my experience alone? No. Would I consider the new belief system predicated upon my experience to be epistemologically valid in the full, social sense of the word? I don't see how I could.

Well if we leave the Duckies out, I think I would pretty much agree!

I think the distinction between one's own certitude and that of others in your experience is a good one. You cannot be certain of what I know. You are not me, and our experiences and mental patterns and really all that make us uniquely human do just that- make us unique.

So I agree that when we expect others to participate in our own personal experience -- that is an unreasonable expectation.

I think that I can have a great deal of certitude in my religious position while not expecting that you would have the same certitude by following my methodology in all cases

But I think that the same metholodologies would work for many people who were perhaps "wired" the same way. And I think that is what Moroni 10 is about ultimately -- it is a call to those for whom that methodology works.

[J.S. Mill]

Well if we leave the Duckies out, I think I would pretty much agree!

So you'd agree that revelation is epistemologically invalid?

I think the distinction between one's own certitude and that of others in your experience is a good one. You cannot be certain of what I know. You are not me, and our experiences and mental patterns and really all that make us uniquely human do just that- make us unique.

I don't think the mind's uniqueness is as important a characteristic here as its opacity to people outside it.

I think that I can have a great deal of certitude in my religious position while not expecting that you would have the same certitude by following my methodology in all cases

Sure. I don't think you realize the ground you're ceding, though -- that arguments that appeal to personal revelation can never work.

But I think that the same metholodologies would work for many people who were perhaps "wired" the same way. And I think that is what Moroni 10 is about ultimately -- it is a call to those for whom that methodology works.

This "special wiring" thing is certainly possible, but it wouldn't make arguments from personal revelation any better even if it were true, because there still wouldn't be any publicly-available evidence yet. (The specially-wired group could easily provide such evidence if it were for real, though. Researchers could isolate people from the group, then ask them to pray on some new moral issue (the outcome of which couldn't have already been deducible from other beliefs held by the group), then pronounce the results of the prayer. If everyone gives similar answers, or if a great deal of them give identical answers, then this would constitute strong, publicly-available evidence for "special wiring", and the stuff that goes along with it.)

[Brade]

Scanning through the thread I get the sense that most people agree that it's not alright to have the highest epistemic attitude (HEA) about religious propositions. Does anyone disagree with this? In other words, does anyone believe it is alright to have the HEA about religious propositions? If you do believe it is alright to have the HEA about religious propositions do you agree that in asserting "I have the HEA about X" means "there is no possible evidence or state of affairs that could cause me to doubt X." Is that right?

William Alston has argued extensively that religious experience does sometimes provide a rational basis for belief. This is to say, as I've been putting things, religious experience is sometimes sufficient justification for saying that you believe something to be so. But that's as far as Alston is prepared to go. I'm inclined to think Alston is right on this. In fact, that's how I'm living my life. I, in fact, do behave and believe religious things based on my experience. Additionally, I think I've had some pretty striking religious experiences. Nevertheless, I can't help but shake the intuition that even for the strongest religious experiences all I can say I know, with anything close to certainty, is that I've had an experience and that in the experiencing of the experience I felt as if it was coming from something external to myself and so on. While I find this a compelling reason to believe certain things, I don't find it a compelling reason to know them. Things like "Joseph Smith saw God at a certain time in the past." If, while pondering Joseph Smith's description of his experience I have an overwhelming religious experience does that justify me to say that what is being described actually happened? I don't think so. I may be inclined to look into it more or even commit myself fully to the belief. However, it still seems all I can be certain of is that I had an experience while doing such and such.

[mfbukowski]

Scanning through the thread I get the sense that most people agree that it's not alright to have the highest epistemic attitude (HEA) about religious propositions. Does anyone disagree with this? In other words, does anyone believe it is alright to have the HEA about religious propositions? If you do believe it is alright to have the HEA about religious propositions do you agree that in asserting "I have the HEA about X" means "there is no possible evidence or state of affairs that could cause me to doubt X." Is that right?

Sorry, but my answer to this, stated this way, would be no. We have two different threads going here and we need to make a distinction which I think has not been discussed and that is that I can know something which I might not be able to express to you, or convince you of logically.

It's like Joseph Smith's statement (paraphrasing) "I knew what I had experienced, and I knew that God knew. I could not deny it"

I think that you can be as certain about those kind of things as you can be certain about anything. Certain Certain Certain. period.

Joseph knew without a doubt. (suppose, for the skeptics) I think we can know without a doubt But here we are 180 years later still debating if Joseph knew.

Knowing for yourself is one thing, but lingustically expressing that and "arguing" for it is another. But then you find thousands of others that believe the same things for the same reasons, all independent of your private experience.

It becomes a cultural phenomenon. Is such knowledge testable by scientific experiment as JSMill suggests trying? I don't think so.

If private experience is private, it is non-linguistic. If it is non-linguistic, it cannot be rationally expressed. That is why we call it "faith" because it is not "reason". It is not derived by argument and logic, it is derived by experience. So we can argue all day about whether or not I know or Joseph knew.

But like Joseph, we can know it is true, and know that God knows that we know.

But "I know that I know" is about as unconvincing an argument as you can come up with!

[mfbukowski]

I was in a drugstore yesterday, and I never go the magazine stand. Yesterday I went past the magazine stand and I had the impression to pick up a magazine. I didn't have time to do so, so I bought it. 5 bucks- so what?

I get it home, and find an article precisely on what I am researching for a project I am working on, giving me evidence out of my area of expertise for exactly what I need to make the project work. In a magazine I would not even ordinarily look at in a million years.

Now what is that?

[Brade]

Sorry, but my answer to this, stated this way, would be no. We have two different threads going here and we need to make a distinction which I think has not been discussed and that is that I can know something which I might not be able to express to you, or convince you of logically.

It's like Joseph Smith's statement (paraphrasing) "I knew what I had experienced, and I knew that God knew. I could not deny it"

I think that you can be as certain about those kind of things as you can be certain about anything. Certain Certain Certain. period.

Joseph knew without a doubt. (suppose, for the skeptics) I think we can know without a doubt But here we are 180 years later still debating if Joseph knew.

Knowing for yourself is one thing, but lingustically expressing that and "arguing" for it is another. But then you find thousands of others that believe the same things for the same reasons, all independent of your private experience.

It becomes a cultural phenomenon. Is such knowledge testable by scientific experiment as JSMill suggests trying? I don't think so.

If private experience is private, it is non-linguistic. If it is non-linguistic, it cannot be rationally expressed. That is why we call it "faith" because it is not "reason". It is not derived by argument and logic, it is derived by experience. So we can argue all day about whether or not I know or Joseph knew.

But like Joseph, we can know it is true, and know that God knows that we know.

But "I know that I know" is about as unconvincing an argument as you can come up with!

Hmmm...I don't think I'm disputing that people know they have experiences. I'm disputing whether or not those experiences, that they know they have, are a good means of claiming certainty that, not only you had an experience, but that experience confirms a larger body of propositions about the way the universe is.

If I have a mystical experience in which I feel completely enveloped in love, as in pure love is running directly through every part of my body, and I have this experience while, say, reading the Book of Mormon, is that good reason to go about claiming that there is no possible body of information or state of affairs that could give me reason to disbelieve that a man named Nephi decapitated a man named Laban at some time in human history. It seems, rather, that all I can rightly claim to such a strong degree is that I had a mystical experience while reading the Book of Mormon in which I felt completely enveloped in love. I don't see how one gets from I had a mystical experience to being certain about the truth function of historical or doctrinal statements.

William Alston has made the strongest case for religious belief. But even while believing mystical experience can be good grounds for rational belief and commitment he does not make, what I see as a further claim, that mystical experience is the right grounds for an attitude of certainty about religious beliefs. However, I see many religious people, in Mormonism and many other faiths, claiming to be certain about specific statements. But I simply don't see how the certainty these people have can be a relation of theirs between themselves and the statements they assert based on the evidence they offer.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 10:49 AM

I was in a drugstore yesterday, and I never go the magazine stand. Yesterday I went past the magazine stand and I had the impression to pick up a magazine. I didn't have time to do so, so I bought it. 5 bucks- so what?

I get it home, and find an article precisely on what I am researching for a project I am working on, giving me evidence out of my area of expertise for exactly what I need to make the project work. In a magazine I would not even ordinarily look at in a million years.

Now what is that?

An age old story told by almost everyone. I have had this type of experience many times in my life. I have also noticed that many in other religions as well as the non-religious tell the same story. Is it Divine communication? I think that is one possibility among many, many of which we may not be even aware of. I think we like to grab onto our favorite interpretations to this type and other mystical experiences as the only explanation. I think all we really can only know is that the experience is real as ba81 was explaining. Coming up with certain beliefs based on our experiences is Ok as long as were aware that those beliefs could be wrong and need changing if new information is gained.

[J.S. Mill]

I was in a drugstore yesterday, and I never go the magazine stand. Yesterday I went past the magazine stand and I had the impression to pick up a magazine. I didn't have time to do so, so I bought it. 5 bucks- so what?

I get it home, and find an article precisely on what I am researching for a project I am working on, giving me evidence out of my area of expertise for exactly what I need to make the project work. In a magazine I would not even ordinarily look at in a million years.

Now what is that?

It's a coincidence, unless it happens more often than one could expect from mere happenstance. Your implicit claim is that it does, and this can actually be tested via the scientific method. Maybe we should set some parameters and round some test subjects together?

[wenglund]

Actually, I agree with this completely. I think if you read my previous posts I myself cited a "combination approach" of the Alma 32 experiment and a Moroni 10: 4 experience.

My only point is that both of these are "experience" -- the Alma approach is more like a scientific study, while the Moroni approach is a sudden realization.

Yes, the word "experience" can be a bit confusing since it may refer to several different things.

Both ostensive and experiencial learning are "experienced" by the student. However, with the former the learning, itself, is what is experienced, whereas with the later the learning is by experience. The former is an event and the latter a process. The former consists of being told and witnessed to by a trusted source, whereas with the later one learns of oneself the "truth" of a given notion. The former is a matter of listening and learning, whereas the later is a matter of doing and learning. On the part of the student, the former is a passive experience and the later is proactively experienced. The one consists of planting a seed of "truth", whereas the other consist of the bearing of the fruit of "truth". It is the difference between classroom and applied knowledge, "book knowledge" and "on-the-job training".

Effective instructional design incorporates both approaches in the widely proacticed "tell, show, do" model of teaching. So, it make sense that the master teacher (Christ) would utilize it as well when educating his people about spiritual "truths".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Scanning through the thread I get the sense that most people agree that it's not alright to have the highest epistemic attitude (HEA) about religious propositions. Does anyone disagree with this? In other words, does anyone believe it is alright to have the HEA about religious propositions? If you do believe it is alright to have the HEA about religious propositions do you agree that in asserting "I have the HEA about X" means "there is no possible evidence or state of affairs that could cause me to doubt X." Is that right?

My answer would be the same for secular propositions as it would be for religious propositions. If the HEA is a level of thought where "there is no possible evidence or state of affairs that could cause me to doubt X", then I question whether, in our finite human state, where we see if as through a glass darkly, such a level could be attained in relation to any proposition--including those propositions now considered by me to be scientific facts.

But, that may just be me.

If this is true of others, then I am not sure what value there is in puruing the question?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Hmmm...I don't think I'm disputing that people know they have experiences. I'm disputing whether or not those experiences, that they know they have, are a good means of claiming certainty that, not only you had an experience, but that experience confirms a larger body of propositions about the way the universe is.

If I have a mystical experience in which I feel completely enveloped in love, as in pure love is running directly through every part of my body, and I have this experience while, say, reading the Book of Mormon, is that good reason to go about claiming that there is no possible body of information or state of affairs that could give me reason to disbelieve that a man named Nephi decapitated a man named Laban at some time in human history. It seems, rather, that all I can rightly claim to such a strong degree is that I had a mystical experience while reading the Book of Mormon in which I felt completely enveloped in love. I don't see how one gets from I had a mystical experience to being certain about the truth function of historical or doctrinal statements.

Well I sort of agree and sort of don't agree. I think that if we are talking about the "Moroni" experience, what I have experienced I think I would describe as a semi verbal "YES" when I asked if the BOM was true, but it was a phenomenal "yes" that was ecstatic, instantaneous and nearly an out of body experience. I have no possible doubt that it came from outside myself. It included all those feelings of love and being carried away in the spirit. I personally have no doubt that "God told me " that the BOM was true. But it is up to me to decide what that means. I am being as honest as I can.

I see it as a verification that the path I was on was without question the correct one for me.

And since that time, I have had many smaller "testimonies" which also have built up layer upon layer to reach the level of surety I now have.

But I am a very skeptical person. You may not believe that, but I really trust no one but myself. Ok my wife too.

Does my knowledge that the BOM is true include the "fact" that Nephi decaptiated Laban historically and that (say) Alma the elder died in exactly x year AD?

I don't know that it includes that information. Is it possible that my experience means that the BOM is historically true? Yes. Is it possible that my experience means that the BOM is "inspired fiction" as believed by the Disciples of Christ? I cannot exclude that possibility.

Do I "know the church is true" in the sense that I have no doubt that it contains more truth than any other church and links and unifies scientific and philosophical theories with christianity in a way that no other church possibly could? Without a doubt yes.

Have I similarly experienced the power of the priesthood and witnessed healings etc with my own eyes? Yes I have.

When I am "in tune" have I experienced floods of intelligence telling me to call people who needed my help? Yes, on a nearly daily basis.

Have I known what to say to people when I- mfbukowski -- had no idea what to say and it suddenly appeared in my mind? Yes, often.

So call it what you will, that is my honest experience for what it is worth.

[J.S. Mill]

For the record, I think this HEA stuff is a bit chimeric -- the specter of Cartesian skepticism will preclude absolute certainty unless and until a major epistemological breakthrough is made. Frankly, I don't see this ever happening (but I'm not willing to place the HEA on that .

[Brade]

I personally have no doubt that "God told me " that the BOM was true.

Do I "know the church is true" in the sense that I have no doubt that it contains more truth than any other church and links and unifies scientific and philosophical theories with christianity in a way that no other church possibly could? Without a doubt yes.

The terms in bold represent the specific attitude I am questioning. What does it mean to "know without a doubt?" I suggest it means something like this. There is no possible state of affairs, evidence, experience, statement, or process, which, if I were faced with such things, I would regard as evidence for the case that what I now claim to know without a doubt I would then doubt. I believe this is an approximation of what one is saying when one says "I know without a doubt."

The trouble is that all we need to do is imagine some silly scenario and ask, if that happened would you doubt what you now claim to know? If you say 'yes' then you must admit that there is some possible state of affairs that would cause you to affirm less strongly what you formerly claimed you could never affirm less strongly. And doing that is a weakening of your position. If you say 'no' you will appear absurdly dogmatic and unreasonable. I'm not all that familiar with Kierkegaard but I believe he took the second position. He essentially said that faith in God and such is unreasonable. He wasn't saying that we shouldn't have faith in God. In fact, I believe Kierkegaard would say we ought to have belief in God, namely, because God exists. But, he would say "ultimately my belief (or certainty or whatever) that God exists is unreasonable."

[mfbukowski]

The terms in bold represent the specific attitude I am questioning. What does it mean to "know without a doubt?" I suggest it means something like this. There is no possible state of affairs, evidence, experience, statement, or process, which, if I were faced with such things, I would regard as evidence for the case that what I now claim to know without a doubt I would then doubt. I believe this is an approximation of what one is saying when one says "I know without a doubt."

The trouble is that all we need to do is imagine some silly scenario and ask, if that happened would you doubt what you now claim to know? If you say 'yes' then you must admit that there is some possible state of affairs that would cause you to affirm less strongly what you formerly claimed you could never affirm less strongly. And doing that is a weakening of your position. If you say 'no' you will appear absurdly dogmatic and unreasonable. I'm not all that familiar with Kierkegaard but I believe he took the second position. He essentially said that faith in God and such is unreasonable. He wasn't saying that we shouldn't have faith in God. In fact, I believe Kierkegaard would say we ought to have belief in God, namely, because God exists. But, he would say "ultimately my belief (or certainty or whatever) that God exists is unreasonable."

Well we certainly speak that way, but I think the meaning is different than what you are asserting it means. I am actually beginning to agree with JS Mill on something which is that what you seek may be illusory.

To me, "without a doubt" means something like "I have no doubt (now) that this is the case". It means what it says, nothing more nothing less. At this time I have no doubt that something is the case. It does NOT mean "this is absolutely true and will remain so forever". If I ever mean to say "this is absolutely true and will remain so forever" (which I personally probably would never say) I would put it that way.

Thirty years ago I may have said "I have no doubt that communism will be around for hundreds of years". I would have been mistaken if I had said that, but thirty years ago, I can tell you I would have had a lot of company.

Seven or eight years ago, virtually anyone would say "I have no doubt that Pluto is a planet". Pluto is no longer a planet.

Many people two years ago would say that they had "no doubt" that a black man would not be president two years from then.

Would virtually everyone say that they have "no doubt" that the pyramid of Cheops will still exist in a hundred years? I think we might all say that. I will. I have not doubt that it will be there. But I could be mistaken. Perhaps some terrorist will use it to detonate an atomic bomb and it will be vaporized. It could possibly happen, but I have no doubt that it will not. Look at the world trade center -- if you had told me that the empire state building would outlive the wtc, I would have been seriously surprised. But modern life is full of surprises.

Absolute certainty can only be achieved I think with assertions that are rather uninteresting, namely a priori assertions, like a=a or 1+1=2. This assertions are true "by definition" -- when we assert them we are defining their own terms -- but they are absolutely true.

When we go around asserting this like this, I don't think we are saying for a second that we cannot think of a scenario which would make what we do not doubt untrue.

We could have a nuclear halocaust tomorrow which would make ALL of these discussions totally moot. But I have no doubt that we won't. To an extent everthing we "know" is taken on faith. Especially when we are talking about the future, which you are doing here.

We can probably imagine a future situation which could negate practically anything. So what?

What you seek is an illusion which you can construct out of language, but which does not exist. You are seeking to find "inductive certainty", where only deductive certainty exists. Deductive certainty takes place in the realm of deduction. I know with total certainty that 16/32 is the same as 1/2. That is deductive, it is ultimately a priori, and it is absolutely certain. It is certain because it is "true by definition". What we mean by one set of terms is the same as what we mean by the other set of terms

The purpose of discourse and truth is navigation of the universe. It is what works. As you drive a car, what is on the left now can be on the right in a few minutes. And I have no doubt about that.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 11:19 AM

I know with total certainty that 18/32 is the same as 1/2. That is deductive, it is ultimately a priori, and it is absolutely certain. It is certain because it is "true by definition".

Not in my math classes. You might want to edit this. 18/32 is not the same as 1/2. I'm sure it was a typo