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

[Brade]

It is true. I know it is. But if someone else doesn't know it is true it will not be true to them.

This is a bit confusing. That statement could mean that if Bob doesnâ??t know Joseph Smith saw God then itâ??s false that Joseph Smith saw God. Whether or not Bob knows does not change the fact that if it did occur itâ??s true for Bob even if he believes itâ??s false. Perhaps when you say, â??it will not be true for themâ? you just mean they will believe itâ??s not true or something along those lines. Youâ??ll have to clarify that for me.

If a personal witness from God to you personally isn't going to cut it for you, what will?

Bat-Man, I feel like youâ??re not fully grasping the nuances of what Iâ??m saying. Just because I think there are good reasons to doubt that spiritual experiences of a certain sort do not justify claims to knowledge does not in any way undermine spiritual experiences of any sort as a basis for belief and commitment. I do, in fact, believe spiritual experiences are a wonderful reason to claim to believe things, even very strongly. Iâ??m curious about the relationship between a certain sorts of spiritual experiences and knowledge. When I say knowledge, Iâ??m referring to a specific philosophical definition that must meet certain conditions.

From some of your comments I get the impression you think Iâ??m some faith destroying atheist on a rampage or something. And, sometimes you come across as being a bit snarky. Just to be clear, Iâ??m a very â??activeâ? LDS that also happens to study philosophy. Nothing Iâ??m saying is intended to destroy faith. In fact, if what Iâ??m saying is right it strengthens faith and belief as a attitude toward religious practices.

Maybe the following story can help guide the discussion a little better. I really want you intuition on this.

Sitting in the middle of a large park is a giant steel box. Inside the box is a single red skittle. The box is completely sealed. There are no windows or doors or any means whereby somebody could peer inside to see the contents. A sign in front of the box reads â??There is a skittle in this box. What color is it?â? Bob and Tom happen upon the box at the same time and each reads the sign. Both decide to kneel down and pray about the color of the skittle. At nearly the exact same moment they each jump up and shout a color. â??Redâ? shouts Bob. â??Blueâ? shouts Tom. Bob turns to Tom and says, â??how do you know the skittle is blue?â? Tom says, â??while I was praying an image of a blue skittle appeared before me and I felt a strong positive feeling throughout my whole person that the skittle is blue.â? Tom says, â??how do you know the skittle is red?â? Bob replies, â??while I was praying an image of a blue skittle appeared before me and I felt a strong positive feeling throughout my whole person that the skittle is red.â?

Now, letâ??s get this out of the way first. I think both of them are justified to believe they way they do. That is to say, Bob is justified to believe the skittle is red. Tom is justified to believe the skittle is blue.

Next, the attitude of each of them is stronger than belief. Can we set aside our semantics about what people mean when they say â??know.â? Iâ??ll define what each person means in this case. When each of them says they â??knowâ? the color of the skittle they mean that not only do they have good reason to believe the colors they envisioned but their evidence also supports the further claim that their belief corresponds to what is actually in the box and the other personâ??s belief does not.

Iâ??ve already said they are both justified in their claim. Are they both justified in their claims to know? Well, in the case of Tom it seems fairly easy. He is wrong. Even if heâ??s justified to believe the skittle is blue because his own best evidence tells him that, it doesnâ??t seem right to say he knows because the truth value of his statement is false. The skittle in the box is not blue.

Bob, on the other hand, is right. The truth value of his statement is true. Now, there was no difference in each persons experience. So, while we have a case where a personâ??s beliefs are justified and true, there seems to be something intuitively fishy about granting Bob the right to claim that he knows.

I think Edmund Gettier draws out this fishyness in his brief but groundbreaking paper â??Is Justified True Belief Knowledgeâ? wherein he showed that justification, truth, and belief are insufficient for knowledge. The fishyness that Gettier draws out the problem of accidentally getting answers right. I think some parallels can be drawn here, even in the case of spiritual experience.

People that have spiritual experiences from which they claim to know things contradictory to what, say, Bat-Man knows, still describe their experiences using the same powerful language. They describe it as an experience that was experienced as coming from God in the experiencing of it. They talk about feeling immense love and a desire to do good and so on (those were from Ostlers paper).

In the case of spiritual experiences, what we want is a way to know, not just that we had an experience that felt such and such a way. But, we want to know that the experience was such and such a way. In other words, to claim to know, weâ??d need to know that the experience actually was from God and not just that it felt like it was from God. However, there doesnâ??t seem to be any way to know that last bit.

Stepping back to Bob and Tom. Their experiences were identical. Bob was right. But how could Bob know he was right? One way would be for Bob to know that his experience was the authentic one. But how could he know this? Tom, of course, rightly believes his experience is the authentic one for any of the reasons Bob would claim such a thing.

As I said, all of this is just to draw out the idea that while our beliefs our certainly justified by our spiritual experiences. In most cases (I donâ??t doubt there are some cases where spiritual experiences justify knowledge) our spiritual experiences do not justify claims to knowledge.

I believe that the basis of your thesis is flawed, as I recently have submitted several papers for publication in Computer Science through IEEE, please allow me to share my experience on this topic. Perhaps a more succinct, and specific topic would be: Mormons are not justified in making knowledge claims if their knowledge claims are based on the association of the spirit/peronal revelation with religious activity.

Otherwise, your thesis statement, as currently formulated, is vague and therefore inaccurate. The statement must be more specific and somehow limited to a finite space/problem - to state the 'good feelings' is the basis is too broad and can easily be generalized across other, non related topics. For example, "I know that Six Flags is the only true and living roller coaster park, based on the association of good feelings with roller coaster ride activity... or Peking duck is the only true and living Chinese food (or just food for that matter) based on the association of good feelings with food consumption activity.

See what I mean? The problem is the use of 'good feelings' - it is not sufficiently specific nor adequate to describe the direction of the Holy Spirit. As currently, formulated, your thesis statement "is correct" - however, as currently formulated it fundamentally flawed and would be acceptable for publication.

Cheers,

skender

Thank you for the input skender. I actually realized what you said shortly into the discussion and amended, although not in the first post, the statement and I think weâ??ve been talking about it in the revised terms for most of the thread. In other tips youâ??ve got would be useful though. You certainly have more experience in publication than I do.

[mfbukowski]

That said, if an angel were to appear in a very physical way, I would very seriously reevaluate my beliefs

But see, this is exactly the point. What you are objecting to is not that religous experience itself doesn't make us certain, but that "warm fuzzies" don't make us certain. It is a question of degree--

You agree that a STRONG religous experience would make you "revaluate your beliefs", while at the same time you say "If we convince ourselves we really know, we are only deluding ourselves."

I think this point is crucial. Is relgious experience a basis for revaluating our beliefs, or obtaining some degree of "certainty" or not? I think no one would expect one to change religions because of a warm fuzzy.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Yesterday, 11:55 PM

But see, this is exactly the point. What you are objecting to is not that religous experience itself doesn't make us certain, but that "warm fuzzies" don't make us certain. It is a question of degree--

You agree that a STRONG religous experience would make you "revaluate your beliefs", while at the same time you say "If we convince ourselves we really know, we are only deluding ourselves."

I think this point is crucial. Is relgious experience a basis for revaluating our beliefs, or obtaining some degree of "certainty" or not? I think no one would expect one to change religions because of a warm fuzzy.

Emotions and feelings come in different degrees. The most intense are usually the most rare. The point I would make is that we cannot be sure that the spiritual experience is coming from some supernatural being or from ourselves. None of us know what are bodies are capable of producing, so it is best to remain open minded as to what interpretations we get from them. This means that although we may come up with certain beliefs concerning them, we should understand we don't really know and be very willing to change our beliefs as new information both physical or spiritual is gained. Unfortunately this is not the case with most people, who will usually only entertain their particular beliefs and interpret spiritual and physical evidence with those beliefs in mind.

The angel example I gave would certainly be a spiritual experience but with a very physical side as well. Although I would certainly reevaluate my beliefs, I would still be open minded to other explanations. People do see things that appear real but are not.

BTW most who use the warm fuzzy term are usually meaning an array of experiences that they believe are probably internally generated. Also most missionaries and members do tell investigators that the good feelings they are feeling is the spirit.

[Brade]

Emotions and feelings come in different degrees. The most intense are usually the most rare. The point I would make is that we cannot be sure that the spiritual experience is coming from some supernatural being or from ourselves. None of us know what are bodies are capable of producing, so it is best to remain open minded as to what interpretations we get from them. This means that although we may come up with certain beliefs concerning them, we should understand we don't really know and be very willing to change our beliefs as new information both physical or spiritual is gained. Unfortunately this is not the case with most people, who will usually only entertain their particular beliefs and interpret spiritual and physical evidence with those beliefs in mind.

The angel example I gave would certainly be a spiritual experience but with a very physical side as well. Although I would certainly reevaluate my beliefs, I would still be open minded to other explanations. People do see things that appear real but are not.

BTW most who use the warm fuzzy term are usually meaning an array of experiences that they believe are probably internally generated. Also most missionaries and members do tell investigators that the good feelings they are feeling is the spirit.

Bender, I believe we're on point together. It seems that what you and I think is necessary, in the cases we're discussing, is for a person to not only know they've had an experience and know the content of that experience but also know that the experience is an authentic message from God. Knowing that last bit is quite different than know that the experience feels like it's coming from God. It's difficult to imagine a scheme from which an agent could get that last bit of information. I think in my skittle story above, that's what Bob would need to be able to justifiably assert that he knows. He would need to know that his method of truth getting is authentic and reliable. But, in the case of the skittle story, he doesn't know this and there isn't a way for him to know it. So, even though he's right, he's not justified in his claim to knowledge.

I think the difficulty is that emotions and feelings and, assuming they exist, genuine spiritual experiences do come, as you say, in different degrees. While I think most people can be convinced that a profound good feeling is not justification for being certain the next question is "well, what is?" And in one sense that's a difficult one to answer. I suppose if we accept with full force the skeptical arguments, there's not much we can have that attitude about. And, perhaps as mfbukowski has already pointed out, that attitude is really only applicable to analytic truths.

I think I ought to say one thing for those having trouble with this talk of people not being justified to claim such and such. In one sense that is a normative ethics issue. But that's not the sense I'm interested in. The reason for talking like this isn't so much about telling people what they ought to or ought not to do. Rather, the reason for talking this way is just to try to discover, so far as is possible by this analysis, what exactly does justify knowledge with respect to religious experience.

[mfbukowski]

I think the difficulty is that emotions and feelings and, assuming they exist, genuine spiritual experiences do come, as you say, in different degrees. While I think most people can be convinced that a profound good feeling is not justification for being certain the next question is "well, what is?" And in one sense that's a difficult one to answer.

I think this point is essential, and to some degree is a primary and preliminary question which should be answered even before we get into the religious experience question. Perhaps the real question here is "what is it like to (feel?) be certain about anything?" and THEN decide whether or not religous experience fufills those requirements.

I think this is the crux of the question. I think you have an unrealistic view of "certainty" in the first place, and then not surprisingly, you find that religous experience does not measure up to the unrealistic goal. But actually I think I am softening a bit myself. Am I as certain that God exists as I am that I exist? To be completely honest, for me it is a hard call. Either he is a part of me, or I am a part of Him. But is it then psychological? Am I calling part of my own mind "God?" I know I am not because I did not believe that He existed when he gave me experiences which convinced me that He did. I was an atheist at the time. I was literally convinced that He existed because of experiences I had. These were not warm fuzzies, these were things I experienced as "outside myself" and uncaused by me. At the moment they were occuring there was no doubt that this was something "out there" that was just as real as anything "out there".

For me, I think it is clear that religous experience is as "good" as other experiences which make us certain about things. It just has to be a dramatic experince I guess. I don't know why I had an experience that many others do not have, but I did, and continue to have them but less intense.

Why did Paul have his conversion experience? I don't know. Would he say he was certain? I don't doubt for a minute that he was certain. When you look at the behavioral changes between Saul and Paul, I don't know how you can say that religious experience does not give one certainty. Many give up family friends and old habits, and make dramatic lifestyle changes for the gospel. It is almost commonplace that this happens. Do we think they did this because they were uncertain of the path they were adopting? No, they were "certain". Certain enough to change their lives dramatically.

[Bat-Man]

This is a bit confusing. That statement could mean that if Bob doesnâ??t know Joseph Smith saw God then itâ??s false that Joseph Smith saw God. Whether or not Bob knows does not change the fact that if it did occur itâ??s true for Bob even if he believes itâ??s false. Perhaps when you say, â??it will not be true for themâ? you just mean they will believe itâ??s not true or something along those lines. Youâ??ll have to clarify that for me.

Yes, when I said "it will not be true for them" I meant something like "they will not believe it is true".

Bat-Man, I feel like youâ??re not fully grasping the nuances of what Iâ??m saying.

I have the same feeling, ba81. I can see that we are not connecting on all levels.

Just because I think there are good reasons to doubt that spiritual experiences of a certain sort do not justify claims to knowledge does not in any way undermine spiritual experiences of any sort as a basis for belief and commitment.

I believe it all comes down to who we are choosing to listen to when we learn anything.

Example: I wouldn't agree with someone who said "I know the Book of Mormon is not true"... because I have obtained my own knowledge from another source through my own experiences. I would agree with someone who said "I know the Book of Mormon is true', however, because that statement coincides with my own knowledge that I have obtained from who I know is telling the truth.

In my perspective, what you know isn't nearly as important as who you are learning from.

I do, in fact, believe spiritual experiences are a wonderful reason to claim to believe things, even very strongly.

I wouldn't believe something just because of a "spiritual" experience, though. I would first have to know that the "spiritual experience" came from God.

Example: Learning from Satan is a spiritual experience just as much as is learning from God (our Father)... in the sense that knowledge from both persons is obtained through a spiritual experience. The difference is in what you are learning (experiencing) and who you are learning from.

Both God (our Father) and Satan are spirits, with one having more of a body than the other.

Iâ??m curious about the relationship between a certain sorts of spiritual experiences and knowledge. When I say knowledge, Iâ??m referring to a specific philosophical definition that must meet certain conditions.

Good and true knowledge is obtained from God (our Father) and Evil and false knowledge is obtained from Satan.

... even though Satan will often tell you that what he is saying is true.

It all comes down to obtaining knowledge of good and/or evil.

... simply knowing something doesn't mean that what you know is true.

From some of your comments I get the impression you think Iâ??m some faith destroying atheist on a rampage or something.

No, that's not what I think about you. I simply think you have yet to learn about a lot of the basics.

And, sometimes you come across as being a bit snarky.

If what you mean by coming across snarky is what I would call being direct and to the point, as if I know something, that is true.

... and strangely enough not everyone will agree with what I am saying even though what I am saying is true.

Just to be clear, Iâ??m a very â??activeâ? LDS that also happens to study philosophy.

I see belief in all things "Mormon" as the pinnacle of philosophic thought when perceived logically, reasonably, and correctly.

Nothing Iâ??m saying is intended to destroy faith.

Faith is the state of being sure about something, and any person who will tell you he/she is sure about something is sharing his/her faith (or assurance) on that issue.

... and I don't seek to promote faith about something which I am sure is false.

In fact, if what Iâ??m saying is right it strengthens faith and belief as a attitude toward religious practices.

Yes, but if what you are saying is wrong it wouldn't do that, would it.

I don't draw from the faith of others when I am sure that they are wrong.

Maybe the following story can help guide the discussion a little better. I really want you intuition on this.

Sitting in the middle of a large park is a giant steel box. Inside the box is a single red skittle. The box is completely sealed. There are no windows or doors or any means whereby somebody could peer inside to see the contents. A sign in front of the box reads â??There is a skittle in this box. What color is it?â? Bob and Tom happen upon the box at the same time and each reads the sign. Both decide to kneel down and pray about the color of the skittle. At nearly the exact same moment they each jump up and shout a color. â??Redâ? shouts Bob. â??Blueâ? shouts Tom. Bob turns to Tom and says, â??how do you know the skittle is blue?â? Tom says, â??while I was praying an image of a blue skittle appeared before me and I felt a strong positive feeling throughout my whole person that the skittle is blue.â? Tom says, â??how do you know the skittle is red?â? Bob replies, â??while I was praying an image of a blue skittle appeared before me and I felt a strong positive feeling throughout my whole person that the skittle is red.â?

Now, letâ??s get this out of the way first. I think both of them are justified to believe they way they do. That is to say, Bob is justified to believe the skittle is red. Tom is justified to believe the skittle is blue.

Next, the attitude of each of them is stronger than belief. Can we set aside our semantics about what people mean when they say â??know.â? Iâ??ll define what each person means in this case. When each of them says they â??knowâ? the color of the skittle they mean that not only do they have good reason to believe the colors they envisioned but their evidence also supports the further claim that their belief corresponds to what is actually in the box and the other personâ??s belief does not.

Iâ??ve already said they are both justified in their claim. Are they both justified in their claims to know? Well, in the case of Tom it seems fairly easy. He is wrong. Even if heâ??s justified to believe the skittle is blue because his own best evidence tells him that, it doesnâ??t seem right to say he knows because the truth value of his statement is false. The skittle in the box is not blue.

Bob, on the other hand, is right. The truth value of his statement is true. Now, there was no difference in each persons experience. So, while we have a case where a personâ??s beliefs are justified and true, there seems to be something intuitively fishy about granting Bob the right to claim that he knows.

In your example, one person obtained true knowledge and the other person obtained false knowledge.

Do you know where good knowledge comes from?... and where false knowledge comes from?

The fact that someone has told someone something doesn't mean that what has been said is true.

... even if knowledge has been obtained through a spiritual experience.

God tells the truth and Satan tells lies... with Satan often claiming that what he is saying is true.

I think Edmund Gettier draws out this fishyness in his brief but groundbreaking paper â??Is Justified True Belief Knowledgeâ? wherein he showed that justification, truth, and belief are insufficient for knowledge. The fishyness that Gettier draws out the problem of accidentally getting answers right. I think some parallels can be drawn here, even in the case of spiritual experience.

Knowledge is simply the state of knowing something, but just because you know something doesn't mean you should believe it, or that what you know is true.

Example: I know that some people say the Book of Mormon is not true, and they claim to have knowledge that it isn't true, but just because someone has given them that knowledge doesn't mean that knowledge is true.

People that have spiritual experiences from which they claim to know things contradictory to what, say, Bat-Man knows, still describe their experiences using the same powerful language.

Two contradictory things can't be described using the same language. The difference is in the contradiction.

They describe it as an experience that was experienced as coming from God in the experiencing of it.

They may say they experienced something as coming from God, but if I have experienced something from God which contradicts what they are describing, I'm going to believe what I have experienced from God, myself, rather than believe what they say they have experienced which contradicts what God has told me.

I don't simply believe people when they say God has told them something. I find out for myself, from God, and then stick with what God has told me.

They talk about feeling immense love and a desire to do good and so on (those were from Ostlers paper).

People talk about all kinds of things but that doesn't mean that what they are saying is true.

Some people tell lies. Some people exaggerate. Some people are mistaken while simply going with their own best guesses and the best guesses of other people who are not God.

How am I to know who is telling the truth, and who isn't?

... that was a rhetorical question. Your answer would merely be your own answer.

... but just in case you are curious about my answer, to keep it simple, I find it best to learn about what is true directly from God and the people who God personally tells me are speaking for Him, while leaving what is not true to fall by the wayside when I discover the truth on that issue.

In the case of spiritual experiences, what we want is a way to know, not just that we had an experience that felt such and such a way.

Yes, but WHAT do you want to know?

If you want to know what is true, you should learn from God.

... and if you want to know what is evil, you should learn from Satan.

But, we want to know that the experience was such and such a way. In other words, to claim to know, weâ??d need to know that the experience actually was from God and not just that it felt like it was from God. However, there doesnâ??t seem to be any way to know that last bit.

The way is through faith (an assurance) from God while knowing there is a difference between good and evil.

Stepping back to Bob and Tom. Their experiences were identical. Bob was right. But how could Bob know he was right?

Through faith (an assurance) from God while knowing who God really is.

... while ignoring Satan who will proclaim to people that he is God.

One way would be for Bob to know that his experience was the authentic one. But how could he know this? Tom, of course, rightly believes his experience is the authentic one for any of the reasons Bob would claim such a thing.

We either know God (our Father), and Jesus Christ whom He sent... or we really don't.

As I said, all of this is just to draw out the idea that while our beliefs our certainly justified by our spiritual experiences. In most cases (I donâ??t doubt there are some cases where spiritual experiences justify knowledge) our spiritual experiences do not justify claims to knowledge.

I believe our spiritual experiences can be justification for the type of knowledge we want to obtain, though, if we learn from the appropriate source(s).

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 11:32 AM

I think this point is essential, and to some degree is a primary and preliminary question which should be answered even before we get into the religious experience question. Perhaps the real question here is "what is it like to (feel?) be certain about anything?" and THEN decide whether or not religous experience fufills those requirements.

As was said before we cannot be 100% certain about anything, but I do agree there are degrees of certainty. Our physical senses although not 100% reliable have shown through experience to be fairly accurate. I can trust my sight very well to allow me to navigate my way around. The emotions or feelings and yes spiritual experiences, which I think are probably feelings or emotions of a more intense and rare occurrences, do not have the same reliability that the physical senses do. I posted an article from the Ensign in an earlier post that I think shows this very well. There are more articles like this written as well. Reliability is very important in regards to certainty.

Am I as certain that God exists as I am that I exist? To be completely honest, for me it is a hard call. Either he is a part of me, or I am a part of Him. But is it then psychological? Am I calling part of my own mind "God?" I know I am not because I did not believe that He existed when he gave me experiences which convinced me that He did. I was an atheist at the time. I was literally convinced that He existed because of experiences I had.

I am very certain that I exist as well. I can feel, see, touch, hear, etc. I am also very certain that particular people in my life exist as well. I have interacted with them using all or most of the senses that I have. To be as certain that God exists as much as yourself or someone you know, you would have to experience God in the same ways as yourself and others. This would include both the spiritual and physical. If God was just part of your own mind that is Ok, but we would have to define God a little differently them most Christian's do.

These were not warm fuzzies, these were things I experienced as "outside myself" and uncaused by me. At the moment they were occuring there was no doubt that this was something "out there" that was just as real as anything "out there".

It's a big unknown world out there. I of course don't know the details of your experiences, so it is impossible to evaluate them in any way, but I think we may be capable of producing experiences that we may interpret come from the outside. When people are faced with experiences they cannot explain rationally, they sometimes come up with interpretations based on their own culture and beliefs that they are familiar with even though they may not share them at the time. I'm not trying to imply that people shouldn't come up with what they think might be the right interpretation, but that whatever their interpretation is, we cannot be absolutely certain and should try to remain open-minded to other explanations.

For me, I think it is clear that religous experience is as "good" as other experiences which make us certain about things. It just has to be a dramatic experince I guess.

What I stated above I think shows this is not the case, except you you of course

It just has to be a dramatic experince I guess. I don't know why I had an experience that many others do not have, but I did, and continue to have them but less intense.

A good number of People have dramatic experiences. What I find interesting is that they don't all come up with similar interpretations. You also cannot know whether other people who may have a different interpretation to there dramatic experience didn't have a similar experience to yours. If someone does come up with your interpretation them you can be more certain they may have had the same experience.

Why did Paul have his conversion experience? I don't know. Would he say he was certain? I don't doubt for a minute that he was certain. When you look at the behavioral changes between Saul and Paul, I don't know how you can say that religious experience does not give one certainty. Many give up family friends and old habits, and make dramatic lifestyle changes for the gospel. It is almost commonplace that this happens. Do we think they did this because they were uncertain of the path they were adopting? No, they were "certain". Certain enough to change their lives dramatically.

First Paul's story was about 2000 years ago. We are not even sure what happened back then. Many things could have easily been added or made up. Behavioral changes from dramatic experiences I think is fairly common, and I think can be a very positive thing. Many of them don't result in the person taking up Christianity or even religion, but many do. Did this happen to some who followed Jim Jones or maybe David Koresh. Were many of them certain as well. Enough to change their lives dramatically or even to give up their life.

[mfbukowski]

First Paul's story was about 2000 years ago. We are not even sure what happened back then. Many things could have easily been added or made up. Behavioral changes from dramatic experiences I think is fairly common, and I think can be a very positive thing. Many of them don't result in the person taking up Christianity or even religion, but many do. Did this happen to some who followed Jim Jones or maybe David Koresh. Were many of them certain as well. Enough to change their lives dramatically or even to give up their life.

Well the obvious person to bring up in your gallery of those having experiences is Joseph Smith. So was he certain of his experiences? If yes, would he be an example of the highest HEA coming from religious experience? And if HE wasn't certain, why or how should we be?

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 09:11 PM

Well the obvious person to bring up in your gallery of those having experiences is Joseph Smith. So was he certain of his experiences? If yes, would he be an example of the highest HEA coming from religious experience? And if HE wasn't certain, why or how should we be?

He claimed to have a lot of them. So have others that LDS people would probably think were lied about or they were delusional. I was not there so I must determine his claims(which he says have a bearing on my life) on the available information at hand. If one were to have what Joseph Smith claimed to have they could not of course be 100% certain, but they would have a great deal of certainty(many of his claimed experiences had a very physical component to them unlike most of the claims of divine communication from other people. It would also mostly fulfill the knowing you exist as well as you know God exists. You never know If some entity from an advanced civilization is fooling with us.

[J.S. Mill]

Or, if you want to take the spiritual tack, you never know if some malicious demon is trying to deceive you.

[Brade]

... simply knowing something doesn't mean that what you know is true.

So the fact that you claim to know Mormonism is true doesn't mean Mormonism is true. You just admitted what I'm I've been arguing for all along.

I simply think you have yet to learn about a lot of the basics.

That's what I mean about being snarky. And seriously...We disagree but I hardly think you're like some child that doesn't even know enough about "the basics."

... and strangely enough not everyone will agree with what I am saying even though what I am saying is true.

Sure, but remember that simply knowing something doesn't mean that what you know is true.

Faith is the state of being sure about something, and any person who will tell you he/she is sure about something is sharing his/her faith (or assurance) on that issue.

I disagree. Alma stated that "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things." Having perfect knowledge about something is being in a state of being sure about that thing.

In your example, one person obtained true knowledge and the other person obtained false knowledge.

Sure. The question is whether the person that obtained true knowledge is justified in claiming that he knows the skittle is red. If he isn't then it shows that having a true belief is not sufficient to justify saying that you know it. In the skittle case Bob and Tom's experiences were identical except for the color of the skittle they saw in their minds eye. For Bob to be able to claim, rightly, that he know the skittle in the box is red it seems intuitive that he would have to know that the experience he had was authentically from God. But, in our story, he has no way of knowing this. If he believes it, it's only because he favors his own experiences over another persons. That's perfectly alright. We all favor our own experiences over other peoples experiences and that's how we form our own beliefs. But, in the case of Bob and Tom, even though Bob ought to favor his own experience to form the correct belief that "the skittle is red" that isn't enough to justify him to claim that he knows it.

Knowledge is simply the state of knowing something

With all due respect, to know something means that you have satisfied some conditions of which knowledge is composed. To say knowledge is knowing is a tautology and, as a definition, is meaningless. For thousands of years it was agreed upon that knowledge was justified, true belief. Edmond Gettier came along in the mid 20th century and showed that model was an insufficient description of what knowledge is. Knowledge is much more than knowing. It's believing something true for good non-accidental reasons.

Example: I know that some people say the Book of Mormon is not true, and they claim to have knowledge that it isn't true, but just because someone has given them that knowledge doesn't mean that knowledge is true.

Two contradictory things can't be described using the same language. The difference is in the contradiction.

They may say they experienced something as coming from God, but if I have experienced something from God which contradicts what they are describing, I'm going to believe what I have experienced from God, myself, rather than believe what they say they have experienced which contradicts what God has told me.

That's right. I agree that you ought to form your beliefs that way. That's how I've formed my beliefs. But, how do you know that your beliefs correspond with reality? You don't. You just know that your experience is some certain way and another persons experience is a different way but that you're going to agree with your own experience. Whether your experience is the one that matches more closely with reality is yet to be determined.

People talk about all kinds of things but that doesn't mean that what they are saying is true. Some people tell lies. Some people exaggerate. Some people are mistaken while simply going with their own best guesses and the best guesses of other people who are not God.

Sure, and what evidence do you have that your experience is an experience from God and the other person's experience is not?

How am I to know who is telling the truth, and who isn't?

... that was a rhetorical question. Your answer would merely be your own answer.

Sure, your answer would favor your own experience. But that doesn't answer the question of which experience actually describes reality. For example, whether Joseph Smith saw God or didn't see God.

[Brade]

I think this is the crux of the question. I think you have an unrealistic view of "certainty" in the first place, and then not surprisingly, you find that religous experience does not measure up to the unrealistic goal. But actually I think I am softening a bit myself. Am I as certain that God exists as I am that I exist? To be completely honest, for me it is a hard call. Either he is a part of me, or I am a part of Him. But is it then psychological? Am I calling part of my own mind "God?" I know I am not because I did not believe that He existed when he gave me experiences which convinced me that He did. I was an atheist at the time. I was literally convinced that He existed because of experiences I had. These were not warm fuzzies, these were things I experienced as "outside myself" and uncaused by me. At the moment they were occuring there was no doubt that this was something "out there" that was just as real as anything "out there".

I can't help but think that our different ideas about truth make up most of the meat about our disagreement. As you described earlier, if I dropped this talk of "what's out there," most of the problems I'm addressing fade away. But I'm not convinced I ought to drop such talk. Furthermore, I do think there is a concept of certainty, knowledge, perfect knowledge or whatever that says "what I am saying I believe and I have irrefutable evidence that what I believe is the case 'out there' and I have sure that there is no statement, evidence, or experience that would give me reason to doubt what I am saying." I believe many Mormons believe spiritual experiences of the "good feeling" type are sufficient justification for that conceptual attitude, whatever you want to call it.

For me, I think it is clear that religous experience is as "good" as other experiences which make us certain about things. It just has to be a dramatic experince I guess. I don't know why I had an experience that many others do not have, but I did, and continue to have them but less intense.

Besides your use of the word certain, I'm on board with this. I believe religious experience is often as good a reason to form beliefs as, say, sense perception. But, there are reasons to doubt sense perception and religious experience. For those reason neither confer genuine knowledge (or certainty or the HEA or whatever you want to call it.)

Why did Paul have his conversion experience? I don't know. Would he say he was certain? I don't doubt for a minute that he was certain. When you look at the behavioral changes between Saul and Paul, I don't know how you can say that religious experience does not give one certainty.

I'm not sure that I would say that dramatic behavior changes are evidence of certainty. My behavior changed dramatically because of beliefs and hope and definitely not anything like knowledge or certainty.

Many give up family friends and old habits, and make dramatic lifestyle changes for the gospel. It is almost commonplace that this happens. Do we think they did this because they were uncertain of the path they were adopting? No, they were "certain". Certain enough to change their lives dramatically.

Sure and I think the fact that you can use the phrase "certain enough" shows that we're just not talking about the same concept. But, I think we already knew that. Anyway, please keep it up. I really appreciate your responses. You give me a lot to think about.

[Bat-Man]

So the fact that you claim to know Mormonism is true doesn't mean Mormonism is true. You just admitted what I'm I've been arguing for all along.

No. You misunderstood me... or misrepresented me... again.

I said: "...simply knowing something doesn't mean that what you know is true."

What I meant was: You (any person) can know something while knowing that it is false.

Knowledge does not = truth.

There is true knowledge, and there is false knowledge.

There is knowledge of good, and there is knowledge of evil.

The fact that a person claims to "know" something doesn't mean that what is known is true.... because knowledge alone doesn't = what is true.

To know what is true, you need to know what is true. Knowing what is false will not give you knowledge of truth.

That's what I mean about being snarky.

Try to deal with the substance of my posts, ba81... without getting personal... and I will do the same.

And seriously...We disagree but I hardly think you're like some child that doesn't even know enough about "the basics."

Okay, then without getting personal or attributing personal thoughts to you, I will say this:

There are people out there who don't have what I consider to be basic knowledge of good and evil.

... and if they don't understand there is actually a difference between good and evil.

The fact that someone claims to "know" something doesn't mean that what they know is true, because there is also false knowledge out there which a person can "know".

To me, this stuff is very basic, but for some people this seems to be over their heads.

... as if they have missed something, somewhere, to let them "know" there is a difference between good and evil and that a person can obtain knowledge of good just as well as knowledge of evil.

I hope you get my drift now.

Alma stated that "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things." Having perfect knowledge about something is being in a state of being sure about that thing.

Yes, I know that, and I know that what Alma said is true regardless of whether you do or not.

Let me ask you a question:

When someone says "I know [something]" to someone else, do you think that knowledge is automatically conveyed to the other person?

Example: If I were to say: "I know the Book of Mormon is true" do you think another man would automatically have the same knowledge of the Book of Mormon that I have, regarding it being true?

I don't think so, at least not if that man didn't already know that. I think that man listening would most likely only get the idea that I believe that I know it is true, with his own personal idea regarding the Book of Mormon still subject to his own decision. To him, the Book of Mormon could just as well be false as it could be true.

Now let's suppose that the man who listened thought something like this:

Hmm. He says that he knows the Book of Mormon is true. I wonder. Could it be true, really?

At that point, the man who listened has opened himself up to the possiblity that the Book of Mormon could be true, spurred on by someone else who claimed to know that it is true. The man who listened still doesn't know it is true, for himself, at that point, but he does see the possibility, and at that point he might then seek to gain knowledge, for himself, regarding whether or not it is true.

Do you know who will give you knowledge of what is good and true, and who will give you knowledge of what is evil and false?

Hint: God will tell you (and everyone else) what is good and true, and Satan will tell you (and everyone else) what is evil and false... with Satan often claiming that what is evil and false is good and true because Satan is a liar.

I think that's enough food for your thoughts at this moment.

[Brade]

No. You misunderstood me... or misrepresented me... again.

I'm not sure I have. And I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I just don't understand exactly what you're saying with respect to a few specific statements.

I said: "...simply knowing something doesn't mean that what you know is true."

If you do, in fact, know something then the content of your knowledge should be true. If the content of your knowledge is false and you believe it's true then you don't really know it. If I say I know I have no hands then for me to know that, as a fact, it would have to be true that I don't have any hands. If I have hands, then I'm not justified in claiming I don't have hands and therefore I can't know it. I may believe I have no hands owing to some dilusion when I, in fact, do have hands. But that doesn't mean I can, rightly, claim to know I don't have hands. If I do claim to know I have no hands then my claim is unjustified. The proposition "I have no hands" is false. You can't know that a false proposition is true because, well, it's false.

What I meant was: You (any person) can know something while knowing that it is false.

If I say, "I know I have no hands" but I have hands do I know that I have no hands? If the above statement is true then a person can say they know they have no hands when they do, in fact, have hands. Perhaps you mean that people can claim to know things that are false. That's a drastically different statement. I can claim to know I have no hands even if it's false that I have no hands. But, then my claim to know I have no hands is unjustified. Why? Because I have hands. In which case I don't really know I have no hands. Claiming to know something and knowing something are not the same.

Knowledge does not = truth.

You're right but truth is a necessary condition of kowledge. If what you believe is not true then you can't know it. A person that says they know they have no hands doesn't really know they have no hands if that have hands.

The fact that someone claims to "know" something doesn't mean that what they know is true, because there is also false knowledge out there which a person can "know".

How do you know the knowledge that you have of, say, that Joseph Smith saw God is true? You might say this, "I know it is true that Joseph Smith saw God because God told me so." The next obvious question is, "How do you know that it was God that told you so?" Based on what you've said it's entirely possible that you could be mistaken. Joseph Smith possibly didn't see God and the person claiming to know he didn't by God telling them could be right. I don't see how you have any way of knowing that what you claim to know is true. Put another way, there doesn't seem to be a way for you to know that your spiritual experience was from God. You might say, "well it felt strongly like it was from God." The reponse is that you might just be mistaken. It might very well feel like it is from God while at the same time the experience might no be from God.

Yes, I know that, and I know that what Alma said is true regardless of whether you do or not.

If what Alma said is true and you agree with it then you must not believe that having faith is the same as being sure as you said earlier.

When someone says "I know [something]" to someone else, do you think that knowledge is automatically conveyed to the other person?

Not at all.

Example: If I were to say: "I know the Book of Mormon is true" do you think another man would automatically have the same knowledge of the Book of Mormon that I have, regarding it being true?

No. They would know that you claim to know it's true.

Now let's suppose that the man who listened thought something like this:

Hmm. He says that he knows the Book of Mormon is true. I wonder. Could it be true, really?

At that point, the man who listened has opened himself up to the possiblity that the Book of Mormon could be true, spurred on by someone else who claimed to know that it is true. The man who listened still doesn't know it is true, for himself, at that point, but he does see the possibility, and at that point he might then seek to gain knowledge, for himself, regarding whether or not it is true.

Do you know who will give you knowledge of what is good and true, and who will give you knowledge of what is evil and false?

Hint: God will tell you (and everyone else) what is good and true, and Satan will tell you (and everyone else) what is evil and false... with Satan often claiming that what is evil and false is good and true because Satan is a liar.

I think that's enough food for your thoughts at this moment.

That story doesn't illustrate the problem. Let's suppose the man who listened said this:

"Well, I understand that you believe the Book of Mormon is true. I'm sure your a very good person. Nevertheless, God has told me that the Book of Mormon is not true."

The man then goes on to describe a very similar experience to the experience you use to justify your claim to know the Book of Mormon is true. Who is right? You will say you are. He will say he is. But, based on what you said earlier, just because you're claiming to know doesn't mean you're right. And, just because he's claiming to know doesn't mean he's right. You're both making claims. It's uncertain which one of you has got it right.

He may even go on to say all that stuff about knowlege from evil sources and all that. His belief, of course, is that you've obtained knowledge from an evil source and he has obtained knowledge from a good source. How do you know you're not the one being decieved?

The question is, how do you know your experience is authentic and if it is authentic that you've interpreted the content of the experience correctly?

[Bat-Man]

If you do, in fact, know something then the content of your knowledge should be true.

Wrong. Not everything is true. It is possible to know that something is false, and it is also possible to know something false while believing it is true.

If the content of your knowledge is false and you believe it's true then you don't really know it.

No. What you then have is false knowledge, or knowledge that is not true.

If I say I know I have no hands then for me to know that, as a fact, it would have to be true that I don't have any hands.

If you were to say you know you have no hands and you actually do have hands, what you would then have is false knowledge, or knowledge that is not true.

If I have hands, then I'm not justified in claiming I don't have hands and therefore I can't know it.

Actually, there is a way you can know that you do have hands, if you do have hands, even if you really believe that you can't know it.

I may believe I have no hands owing to some dilusion when I, in fact, do have hands.

Right, and what you would then have until you discovered the truth is false knowledge, or knowledge which is not true.

But that doesn't mean I can, rightly, claim to know I don't have hands.

Right, but as far as you would know you would be claiming to know that you do not have hands.

You would have false knowledge, rather than true knowledge.

... and there is such a thing as false knowledge, or knowledge which is not true, just as surely as there is a knowledge of lies and what is evil.

If I do claim to know I have no hands then my claim is unjustified.

Actually, it would be justified by your lack of true knowledge, which is the reason you would not know the truth. You would still know [something], but what you would know would not be true. What you would know would be false, or false knowledge.

The proposition "I have no hands" is false. You can't know that a false proposition is true because, well, it's false.

Right, so what you then have is false knowledge, or knowledge which is not true.

It would still be knowledge, though. Knowledge does not = truth.

If I say, "I know I have no hands" but I have hands do I know that I have no hands?

Yes. As far as you would know, you have no hands.... which is false knowledge, but still knowledge nevertheless.

If the above statement is true then a person can say they know they have no hands when they do, in fact, have hands.

Yes, and a person could actually say that, couldn't they.

A person could actually believe and state that they know that they have no hands, and if they actually did have hands what they would be believing and claiming to know would actually be false.

It would be false knowledge, or knowledge which is not true.

Perhaps you mean that people can claim to know things that are false.

Yes, but I'm also talking about being able to know that other people have false knowledge even though they may believe that their "knowledge" is true.

That's a drastically different statement.

It depends upon your perspective.

... If what you believe is not true then you can't know it.

Are you saying that I can't know if something is not true?

I disagree with that idea. I believe I can by knowing what is true.

How do you know the knowledge that you have of, say, that Joseph Smith saw God is true?

By knowing what is true and good while having a knowledge of both good and evil.

You might say this, "I know it is true that Joseph Smith saw God because God told me so." The next obvious question is, "How do you know that it was God that told you so?"

By knowing what and who is good (God), and what and who is evil (Satan). That's how I know.

I know God by knowing God, and I know Satan by knowing Satan, and from there I can see the difference between them as well as the difference between good (God) and evil (Satan).

Based on what you've said it's entirely possible that you could be mistaken.

Not in reality. People often say that anything is "possible", but in reality things are black or white, and good or evil, and once you know how to tell the difference between good and evil, you can know the difference between what is true and what is false.

Joseph Smith possibly didn't see God and the person claiming to know he didn't by God telling them could be right.

In reality, though, Joseph Smith really did see God... even if you believe that knowledge is false.

I don't see how you have any way of knowing that what you claim to know is true.

By knowing what truth is, ba81.

... as well as knowing who is good (God) and who is evil (Satan).

Put another way, there doesn't seem to be a way for you to know that your spiritual experience was from God.

It might seem that way to you, but I know there is a way and I have found it.

I've exceeded my quote limit so I'm using [bold] now.

You might say, "well it felt strongly like it was from God." The response is that you might just be mistaken. It might very well feel like it is from God while at the same time the experience might no be from God.

Are you starting to see why I have the impression that you don't know very much about the "basics" ?

There is such a thing as good (God) and evil (Satan), and by having that knowledge you can know anything, whether it be true or false.

If what Alma said is true and you agree with it then you must not believe that having faith is the same as being sure as you said earlier.

Faith starts out as an assurance, or the state of being sure, to some extent, and from there it grows to become a "perfect" knowledge when nurtured properly. It's still knowledge when it starts out as faith (or an assurance), though. It's just not "perfect" at that point.

It's very much like going from being kinda sure about something, to being pretty sure about it, to being really sure about it, and then to the point where you can then say that you have a "complete" or "perfect" knowledge because there is no doubt at all about it.

... with each issue learned line upon line, precept upon precept.

I'm bailing on you now, ba81. Learn from God. He can teach you much better than I can.

[Brade]

Bat-man, Just to be clear. You are asserting that people can know false things. In other words, on your view, Bob can know that I am a giant shrimp with 100 eyes. Now, you say that Bob can know this false bit of information and he can be justified in knowing it because as far as Bob thinks, I am a giant shrimp with 100 eyes. But now you've just reduced the word knowledge to mean any belief anyone can have whether it's based on fact or not. In other words, you've reduced knowledge to belief. On your view, for a person to know something it is not necessary for the thing they claim to know to be true.

Notice what happens now. You claim to know Mormonism is true. But, on your own view, your knowledge that Mormonism is true just means that you believe Mormonism is true. Remember, as you said, knowledge doesn't have anything to do with truth. When you express the statement "I know Mormonism is true" the truth of Mormonism is not expressed in that statement. This is because, on your view, truth is not a necessary part of what knowledge is.

On the contrary, I am holding the idea knowledge is truth sensitive. In otherwords, whether a belief is to be counted as knowledge depends, in part, on whether that believe is true. Some examples.

I know that there is a cat on that table if:

(1) I believe there is a cat on that table.

(2) I have good reason for my belief (I see a cat on that table).

(3) There is a cat on that table.

If (1) and (2) are satisfied but (3) is not then even if I do claim to know there is a cat on that table my claim is mistaken because there really isn't a cat on the table. So, I don't really know. In contrast, this is what you're saying.

I know that there is a cat on that table if:

(1) I believe there is a cat on that table.

(2) I have good reason for my belief (I see a cat on that table but I could be hallucinating)

(3) There is a cat on that talbe or there is not a cat on that table.

So, on your view if I believe there is a cat on that table and I have a good reason for that belief owing to a hallucination then what I have is knowledge that there is a cat on that table whether or not there is a cat on that table.

Moving on to Mormonism. Here is your view:

I know that Mormonism is true if:

(1) I believe Mormonism is true

(2) I have good reason to believe Mormonism is true (I've had a spiritual experience)

(3) Mormonism may or may not be true.

So, when you say that Mormonism is true you're not saying that it is or is not the case outside of what you believe and have reason to believe.

[Bat-Man]

Bat-man, Just to be clear. You are asserting that people can know false things.

Yes. Duh! I can know when someone is telling a LIE ! Can't you?

In other words, on your view, Bob can know that I am a giant shrimp with 100 eyes.

If you're not, though, it would be false knowledge, or knowledge which is not true.

Now, you say that Bob can know this false bit of information and he can be justified in knowing it because as far as Bob thinks, I am a giant shrimp with 100 eyes.

Somehow I'm getting the idea that you and I don't agree on what it means to be justified.

Would justice suit you better?

If someone accepts false knowledge, it serves them right to accept that lie, and justice is served.

Idiots with false knowledge on the left, please. Single file.

But now you've just reduced the word knowledge to mean any belief anyone can have whether it's based on fact or not.

Try really really really hard to understand what I am saying, ba81. You're missing the boat.

There is such a thing as false knowledge, or knowledge which is not true, and when people have that kind of knowledge what they know and believe is a lie... about whatever it is concerning their false knowledge.

You seem to think that a person can't know anything unless what they know is true, but a person can actually know what is false just as well as a person can know what is true.

If you'd simply slow down a minute and think before speaking, or writing, I think this thought would come to you fairly quickly, and I hope you will do that fairly soon now.

In other words, you've reduced knowledge to belief.

No. I'm simply saying that there is false knowledge, or knowledge which is not true, or truth.

... in addition to there being such a thing as knowledge of what is true.

Not everything that people know is true... FYI. Many people actually believe a LIE.

On your view, for a person to know something it is not necessary for the thing they claim to know to be true.

Right, because a person can know what is false, as well as knowing what is true.

Notice what happens now. You claim to know Mormonism is true. But, on your own view, your knowledge that Mormonism is true just means that you believe Mormonism is true.

No, it doesn't just mean that.

I know Mormonism is true, and because I know it is true, I believe it is true.

It is possible that I could know about Mormonism without knowing if it was true, or if it was false, though. That is not only possible, but it was the situation I was in before I found out it was true.

I knew Mormonism, but I didn't know if it was true or not, and now, I know it is true.

Here's a tip. Try this:

Instead of you focusing on the word "know" when I say "I know Mormonism is true", try focusing on the words "is true" instead.

Everyone "knows" something, but not everyone knows whether what they know is true, or not.

Remember, as you said, knowledge doesn't have anything to do with truth.

No. I didn't say knowledge "didn't have anything to do with" truth.

I said knowledge does not = truth.

... btw, if I knew how to use a does not = sign in my post, I would be using it here.

Knowledge does not = truth. Knowledge is knowledge, and truth is truth.

... and a lie is a lie.

You can know a truth just as well as you can know a lie.

I'm cutting this short again. I hope what I have said will help you, if only a little bit.

[Brade]

I think our difficulty revolves around this idea. Knowing information and knowing information is true are different. So, knowing the proposition "it is raining" and knowing that it is raining are different. The first, knowing the proposition "it is raining" does not depend on the truth of the proposition. My claim is that knowing that it is raining does depend on the truth of whether or not it is raining.

I think when you're talking about true and false knowledge you're talking about what I've just described as "knowing information." Your concept of knowing information is not truth sensitive just as "knowing information" is not truth sensitive. However, the topic of this thread and the issue I'm trying to address revolves around the second kind of knowing as in knowing that it is raining as opposed to just knowing of the proposition "it is raining."

Do you agree with this?

[J.S. Mill]

You're out of your league, Bat-Man.

[mfbukowski]

I can't help but think that our different ideas about truth make up most of the meat about our disagreement. As you described earlier, if I dropped this talk of "what's out there," most of the problems I'm addressing fade away. But I'm not convinced I ought to drop such talk. Furthermore, I do think there is a concept of certainty, knowledge, perfect knowledge or whatever that says "what I am saying I believe and I have irrefutable evidence that what I believe is the case 'out there' and I have sure that there is no statement, evidence, or experience that would give me reason to doubt what I am saying." I believe many Mormons believe spiritual experiences of the "good feeling" type are sufficient justification for that conceptual attitude, whatever you want to call it.

Again, I believe there is stuff "out there", I am not a solipsist, but really you can't talk about it. All you can experience is.... well, experience! Asserting that there is anything else to me is untenable. You certainly cannot KNOW about it! I think the only reason that people believe that there is something else is that they have never really thought about it. What is interesting about the notion is that we can't know anything that is not in some sense created by our perceptions of the world. So it is really human beings who create the world we know. Humans can only know what they know. It is a tautology and is obviously true. Resistance is futile! Give up your notions of an "external world" ! Seriously, how could this be wrong?

I'm not sure that I would say that dramatic behavior changes are evidence of certainty. My behavior changed dramatically because of beliefs and hope and definitely not anything like knowledge or certainty.

I think one of the strongest evidences of faith is the willingness to act on it. Lectures on Faith of course talks about faith as being a principle of action. For the pragmatists also, truth is defined in terms of that which makes a difference. for the pragmatists, if a proposition does not make a difference somehow, it cannot be true. I wonder if this applies to our discussion of certainty.

Suppose someone had the highest HEA about something. It would be good if you provided an example of a proposition about which you have the highest HEA. Maybe the proposition "I exist". Not perfectly Cartesian, but most would call that one pretty high HEA I would suspect.

Now suppose we take another proposition which we derive from religious experience. Say "I believe the Book of Mormon is true" (or know)

What difference in our lives is made by having the higher HEA on the one proposition and not having it on the other? How is my life different because I am more sure that I exist than I am that the BOM is true? What difference does this difference in certainty make in my life?

Suppose it was possible to shift my level of certainty that I exist to the same level as my knowledge of the truth of the BOM. Would that shift make a difference? Or what if I was more certain about the truth of the BOM -- as certain as I am that I exist.

Would that make a difference in my life? Would I be more faithful in my church callings, or feel better, or feel closer to God, or make my life better in some way?

I think that the shift in levels of certainty in these two propositions would make little difference in my life. If I was less certain that I existed, I would still act as I do. Why wouldn't I? On the other hand, were I more certain of the BOM, I think I would act the same. I am already pretty involved in church etc and there is only so much time in life to fufill ones responsibilities.

Does this make sense? Do you get my point? Pragmatists would say that if there is no difference in our lives which these differences in certainty make, then the difference in certainty does not exist, or at least is irrelevant. And pragmatists do not like propositions which are irrelevant.

Think of where the difference in the HEA makes a difference somewhere else. If it makes no difference elsewhere, the difference in the HEA is irrelevant.

And that is what I mean by "certain enough". I am certain enough of the truth of religious propositions derived from religious experience that more certainty would make no difference in my life. In other words, the increased certainty would be irrelevant.

[Brade]

Again, I believe there is stuff "out there", I am not a solipsist, but really you can't talk about it. All you can experience is.... well, experience! Asserting that there is anything else to me is untenable. You certainly cannot KNOW about it! I think the only reason that people believe that there is something else is that they have never really thought about it. What is interesting about the notion is that we can't know anything that is not in some sense created by our perceptions of the world. So it is really human beings who create the world we know. Humans can only know what they know. It is a tautology and is obviously true. Resistance is futile! Give up your notions of an "external world" ! Seriously, how could this be wrong?

I think one of the strongest evidences of faith is the willingness to act on it. Lectures on Faith of course talks about faith as being a principle of action. For the pragmatists also, truth is defined in terms of that which makes a difference. for the pragmatists, if a proposition does not make a difference somehow, it cannot be true. I wonder if this applies to our discussion of certainty.

Suppose someone had the highest HEA about something. It would be good if you provided an example of a proposition about which you have the highest HEA. Maybe the proposition "I exist". Not perfectly Cartesian, but most would call that one pretty high HEA I would suspect.

Now suppose we take another proposition which we derive from religious experience. Say "I believe the Book of Mormon is true" (or know)

What difference in our lives is made by having the higher HEA on the one proposition and not having it on the other? How is my life different because I am more sure that I exist than I am that the BOM is true? What difference does this difference in certainty make in my life?

Suppose it was possible to shift my level of certainty that I exist to the same level as my knowledge of the truth of the BOM. Would that shift make a difference? Or what if I was more certain about the truth of the BOM -- as certain as I am that I exist.

Would that make a difference in my life? Would I be more faithful in my church callings, or feel better, or feel closer to God, or make my life better in some way?

I think that the shift in levels of certainty in these two propositions would make little difference in my life. If I was less certain that I existed, I would still act as I do. Why wouldn't I? On the other hand, were I more certain of the BOM, I think I would act the same. I am already pretty involved in church etc and there is only so much time in life to fufill ones responsibilities.

Does this make sense? Do you get my point? Pragmatists would say that if there is no difference in our lives which these differences in certainty make, then the difference in certainty does not exist, or at least is irrelevant. And pragmatists do not like propositions which are irrelevant.

Think of where the difference in the HEA makes a difference somewhere else. If it makes no difference elsewhere, the difference in the HEA is irrelevant.

And that is what I mean by "certain enough". I am certain enough of the truth of religious propositions derived from religious experience that more certainty would make no difference in my life. In other words, the increased certainty would be irrelevant.

Yeah, I understand the pragmatist line. I'm just not a pragmatist. In a sense I do admire the pragmatist route even though I find the statement "if a proposition does not make a difference somehow, it cannot be true" quite jarring. There's just an intuitive recoiling against that idea. My mind instantly thinks of things that seem to me to be quite irrelevant and non-difference-making but are still true. The fact that some propositions have this property of being irrelevant just does not seem like a good reason to say they are not true. But again, I'm working under the umbrella of correspondence theory and so I'm sure you can at least appreciate why I find that notion distasteful.

I haven't given this idea much thought but it seems to me that the pragmatist is just setting aside an entire aspect of humanity. Curiosity. Being the analytic philosopher that I am I'm curious about what makes things up, in a sense. Knowledge, what is it? That's the question. Perhaps the answer won't make any real difference in my life. I can grant that. But I still have this curiosity. I want to try to figure it out. I get pleasure from the pursuit. For thousands of years humanity has been busily categorizing, labeling, deconstructing, reconstructing, conceptualizing and so forth. Much of what we've done is irrelevant. The pragmatist view is worthwhile in the sense that it's probably a bad idea to become completely preoccupied by these efforts when you've still got bills to pay and mouths to feed. However, It's difficulty to see why the fact that we ought to live our lives should have any bearing on the truth value of propositions. Pragmatism just seems to far in the other direction, if that makes any sense.

[Bat-Man]

I think our difficulty revolves around this idea. Knowing information and knowing information is true are different. So, knowing the proposition "it is raining" and knowing that it is raining are different. The first, knowing the proposition "it is raining" does not depend on the truth of the proposition. My claim is that knowing that it is raining does depend on the truth of whether or not it is raining.

I think when you're talking about true and false knowledge you're talking about what I've just described as "knowing information." Your concept of knowing information is not truth sensitive just as "knowing information" is not truth sensitive. However, the topic of this thread and the issue I'm trying to address revolves around the second kind of knowing as in knowing that it is raining as opposed to just knowing of the proposition "it is raining."

Do you agree with this?

I think you're very close to understanding what I am saying, but I would say things a little differently.

What I am saying is that when someone says "It is raining" that person's claim, or proposition as you call it, is either true or false. It is either true knowledge or it is false knowledge, being proposed by a person who is sharing their "knowledge".

It's not just "knowing information". It's knowing either true information, or knowing false information, or possibly both.

In your example, at that particular moment in time, in the place that person is talking about, it is either raining or it isn't raining... regardless of what that person or anyone else is saying.

Now, imagine, here comes that person who says: It is raining.

At that point, you now have some information that someone has given you, but unless you can see for yourself whether or not it is raining, all you have is the "knowledge" that person has given you, which is either false knowledge (or information) or true knowledge (or information).

It is really raining, or it isn't really raining... and whether or not it "could be" raining doesn't really matter on this issue.

What matters is: Is it raining, or isn't it?

How are you going to know... not whether or not someone has said it is raining, because someone has just told you that, but.... whether or not it is actually raining?

How would you know if that knowledge from that person was true, or if it was false?

Personally, I would know whether or not it is raining by:

1 ) going to wherever it is (reportedly) raining and seeing or feeling the rain drop down on me, if it is raining

or

2 ) using some instruments available to me (like maybe a video camera showing the rain) while having complete confidence in the use and operation of those instruments

or

3 ) knowing the person who is telling me it is raining, basing my knowledge of whether or not it is raining upon my personal relationship with the person who is telling me it is raining, while knowing whether or not that person has ever lied to me before or whether or not that person is the kind of person who would ever be wrong about anything.... after all, it might have been raining while that person was "out there" but perhaps it stopped after that person walked away from the rain.

That is how I would know whatever I would know, and my knowledge would either be false knowledge or true knowledge.

Are you getting the idea now?

God tells the truth... all the time about everything... and Satan tells lies or half-truths, which is what you call it when someone says something true in the process of telling a lie.

Some people claim the Book of Mormon was not written by men who were inspired by God to write it, but those who know WHO tells the truth all the time about everything (God, our Father) know better than to believe the people who are making or sharing that false claim, or false knowledge, about the Book of Mormon.

[Bat-Man]

You're out of your league, Bat-Man.

Thank you for your personal example of someone who is sharing false knowledge.

If it's my league, as you say it is, then I must of course be in my league.

[Brade]

What I am saying is that when someone says "It is raining" that person's claim, or proposition as you call it, is either true or false.

Right. This is just called the principle of bivalence. Propositions are either true or false.

It is either true knowledge or it is false knowledge, being proposed by a person who is sharing their "knowledge". It's not just "knowing information". It's knowing either true information, or knowing false information, or possibly both.

Knowing true information and knowing false information are both different than knowing that something is true or knowing that something is false. This is quite easy to show. For example, let's pretend I don't know anything about physics. I don't know what the concepts mass, force or acceleration mean. One day I see the words "Force is mass times acceleration" spray painted on a wall. I now know the information "Force is mass times acceleration." Now, that "force is mass times acceleration" is true. But I don't know that force is mass times acceleration. All I know is the statement "force is mass times acceleration."

Here's another example. Same as before. I don't know anything about physics. I see the statement "force is rabbit times grass" spray painted on a wall. Now, force is not rabbit times grass. Force is mass times acceleration. I know the information, the statement, "force is rabbit times grass." Just because I know the information "force is rabbit times grass" does not mean that I know that force is rabbit times grass. So, I know a false statement. But, I don't know that statement is true. Surely, it's impossible to know that statement is true because, well, it's not. This is why for 6000 years nobody in philosophy or theology, including Mormon theology, has ever asserted that one can have "false knowledge." I know you're probably realing right now but please keep reading. I'm going to try to sketch out why, in philosophy and theology, nobody believes you can have "false knowledge." It just has to do with the sense in which the word "knowledge" is being used in those contexts. First, to restate it, you simply cannot know that something which is false is true. On the other hand you simply cannot know that something is true which is false.

Sure you can know, that is to say you can have the information in your head, of false statements. But, having the information in your head of a false statement is not the same as knowing that statement is true. It's impossible to know that a false statement is true. I don't believe that you believe a person can know that false statements are true. I think when you're saying "false knowledge" you just mean that people can know, in the sense that they can have information in their head, information which is false. I have in my head a lot of information which is false but I don't believe that information is true and I certainly don't know it's true; simply because it's not true. It's false.

We can take it a step further. Some people don't just have information which is false, they believe information which is false is true. But that's not the same as knowing information which is false is true. As I've already asserted, it's impossible to know information which is false is true. When somebody believes information which is false is true they simply have a mistaken belief. They've just made a mistake somewhere. It's not that they know something is true which is false. They know some bit of information. That information is false. Therefore, they don't know that information is true.

Do you see that there are two senses in which we can talk about knowing? We can talk about knowing information. But knowing information doesn't necessarily have anything to do with knowing that information to be true or false. The first sense of knowing, knowing information, is trivial. There's nothing controversial about it. You must mean this first sense of knowing when you're talking about knowing true and false knowledge. If you mean the second sense, as in knowing that something which is true is false, then you're expressing a contradiction and I'm afraid you've run into a very difficult problem. More specifically, if you actually believe that it's possible for a person to know that a false statement is true then you're going to have to show that it's possible for a statement asserting a contradiction to be true. If you do a search on "the principle of explosion" in this forum you'll find several explanations of mine as to why it's impossible for a contradiction to be true. Specifically, I go through the logical steps that show that if a contradiction is true then everything and anything imaginable is true and false at the same time. Which would mean that it's true right now that I'm a giant shrimp with 100 eyes.

The second sense of knowing, knowing that something is true, is controversial. There's a lot to be said about it. It's the topic of this thread. In one sense what I'm interested in are the conditions of knowledge. What are the conditions that must be met for a person to be justified in claiming to know that something is true? This is the question. Just about everybody familiar with a little philosophy is familiar with the idea that to know something that "something" being known must be true. For that reason, when philosophically analyzing the issue, people tend not to go into the distinction between knowing information and knowing that something is true. It's just already assumed that when talking about such a question we're only interested in the second sort of knowing. That is to say, know that something is true. When stated that way it's obvious that to know that something is true it must be the case that the thing being known is true. So, in philosophy when the question is asked "what is knowledge" what is meant is "what does it mean to know that something is true." And again, I'm only interested in the second sense, the "knowing that something is true" sense.

Since, in epistemology (the study of knowledge), philosophers mean the second sense, they generally never use phrases like "true knowledge" and "false knowledge." To a philosopher studying the second sense as I've outlined it there's just no such thing as false knowledge. There's false information. And certainly people believe false information but it's impossible to know that false information is true. In epistemology there's just "knowledge." The term is not modified by the values "true" or "false" because knowledge, in the sense philosophers are interested in, is only knowledge when what is known is true.

The following statement of yours is evidence that you're using knowledge, at least in this instance, in the way that I'm using the word "information."

At that point, you now have some information that someone has given you, but unless you can see for yourself whether or not it is raining, all you have is the "knowledge" that person has given you, which is either false knowledge (or information) or true knowledge (or information).

I doubt you believe, as I've already said, that it's possible to know the statement "it is raining" is true if the statement "it is raining" is false. And, as I've said, it is possible to know the statement "it is raining" and for that statement to be false. But that's not the same as knowing that the statement "it is raining" is true when that statement is false.

Anyway, that's a lot of words on a very basic topic that I think we're really in agreement on. The confusion is just because you're using "knowledge" in a way that, with respect to this particular issue, it is not commonly used. I believe I'm reasonably certain that you're not holding the position that it's possible to know that something which is false is true. I hope you don't believe that. I don't think you do from what you've said even though, without explanation, it would seem that way. Now, I don't know that I can treat this subject, the difference between trivial knowledge (knowing information) and philosophically controversial knowledge (knowing that something is true), any more. It's the sort of thing that the audience to which I'm writing will already have a very clear understanding of and so it's not something that needs to be hashed out. However, if you have anything to say relating to the second sense of knowing as I've outlined it, please share.

[Bat-Man]

Right. This is just called the principle of bivalence. Propositions are either true or false.

Right, and information/knowledge is either true or false, so what you know is either true or false.

Knowing true information and knowing false information are both different than knowing that something is true or knowing that something is false.

In some sense, yes, but when it gets right down to it, what you know is either true or false.

There is no other option.

For example, let's pretend I don't know anything about physics. I don't know what the concepts mass, force or acceleration mean. One day I see the words "Force is mass times acceleration" spray painted on a wall. I now know the information "Force is mass times acceleration." Now, that "force is mass times acceleration" is true. But I don't know that force is mass times acceleration. All I know is the statement "force is mass times acceleration."

Okay, yes, but at that point what you know (that information) is either true or it is false, whether you know it is true or not.

Here's another example. Same as before. I don't know anything about physics. I see the statement "force is rabbit times grass" spray painted on a wall. Now, force is not rabbit times grass. Force is mass times acceleration. I know the information, the statement, "force is rabbit times grass." Just because I know the information "force is rabbit times grass" does not mean that I know that force is rabbit times grass. So, I know a false statement. But, I don't know that statement is true. Surely, it's impossible to know that statement is true because, well, it's not.

The reason you know it is impossible for that false statement to be true is because you know the truth. If you didn't know the truth, you might believe that false statement, and in so doing you would then be ascribing to false knowledge.

If you don't know what is true, you can believe what is false and thereby have false knowledge, but if you do know what is true, you can detect false knowledge when you see it... as it relates to that issue... because you do know what is true.

This is why for 6000 years nobody in philosophy or theology, including Mormon theology, has ever asserted that one can have "false knowledge."

Try substituting the words "false knowledge" for the words "knowing what is false" or "having knowledge which is not true". It's not that much of a stretch, ba81.

I know you're probably realing right now but please keep reading.

Heh. Okay. I've already endured this much from you already. What is another few minutes.

I'm going to try to sketch out why, in philosophy and theology, nobody believes you can have "false knowledge."

Please stop being ridiculous. Pretty please.

If what you know is false, you have false knowledge... on a particular issue.

It just has to do with the sense in which the word "knowledge" is being used in those contexts.

Just try thinking that the words "I know" do not necessarily mean "I know what is true".

It's a very basic thought, ba81. Maybe it would help if you just took more time to think.

First, to restate it, you simply cannot know that something which is false is true.

If you don't know what is true... on a particular issue... you can think you know that what you know is true while at that time having false knowledge.

"False knowledge" is knowledge which is not true.

On the other hand you simply cannot know that something is true which is false.

You can think and truly believe you do, and at that point you would have false knowledge.

Sure you can know, that is to say you can have the information in your head, of false statements. But, having the information in your head of a false statement is not the same as knowing that statement is true.

I do understand that, ba81.

It's impossible to know that a false statement is true.

But it is possible to think you know the truth when what you know is false. Do you see that?

I don't believe that you believe a person can know that false statements are true.

Good, because that's not what I believe.

I'm just saying a person can have false knowledge, or knowledge which is not true.

I think when you're saying "false knowledge" you just mean that people can know, in the sense that they can have information in their head, information which is false.

Yes, that is a big part of what I mean when I say that, but there is more to it that I have already tried to explain to you.

Some people don't know when they have false information in their head, sometimes, and at such times they will say they know something is true when that particular something they are claiming to know is true is actually false.

It is still possible to know what is true, though, about that particular something, but at that moment what they then know is false, and until they know the truth, they will continue to have that false knowledge.

Please go back and review everything I have already said now that you are getting a little closer to understanding what I have been talking about. You missed a lot from me because you didn't correctly understand me up to this point, but now it seem that you are headed in the right direction.

I have in my head a lot of information which is false but I don't believe that information is true and I certainly don't know it's true; simply because it's not true. It's false.

Perhaps what you think is false is actually true, though.

Have you ever through about that, ba81?

Some people talk about how what someone believes is true might actually be false.

I'm simply pointing out the way it looks from the other perspective right now.

Some people believe what is false while believing it is true, even going so far to state that they know it is true... when it is actually false... and that is what I call false knowledge.

We can take it a step further. Some people don't just have information which is false, they believe information which is false is true.

I've been saying the same things you are now starting to bring up, and yet you seem to be speaking (or writing) as if you are the one who is just now bringing it up.

We have been here before.

I'm switching to [bold] now because I have exceeded my quote limit.

As I've already asserted, it's impossible to know information which is false is true.

Whether you know it or not, a person can "know" or at least claim to "know" that what is really false is true... which is what I call having false knowledge.

... and I'm not saying that the knowledge they have is true. Please get that straight.

I'm saying that the knowledge they have on that issue is false... it is false knowledge.

When somebody believes information which is false is true they simply have a mistaken belief.

Here, let's try this:

What do you call *"it" when someone claims to know something is true when what they know is actually false... *and by asking what you call *"it" I am asking you to tell me what you call what they actually have?

They've just made a mistake somewhere.

Yes, just as someone has when they claim to know something is true when it is actually false.

It's a "mistake" to say you know something is true when it is actually false.

It's not that they know something is true which is false.

Right. It's that they know something is false which is true.

They know some bit of information. That information is false. Therefore, they don't know that information is true.

... yes... and what they do know, which is false, is false knowledge.

Do you see that there are two senses in which we can talk about knowing?

Yes... and there might be more than those two senses whether you know it or not.

We can talk about knowing information. But knowing information doesn't necessarily have anything to do with knowing that information to be true or false.

Yes, and that information which you "know" when you "know information" is either true or false... whether you know it is true or false... and if it is false information that you "know" what you have is what I call false knowledge.

Keep thinking about this, ba81.

I think you're getting closer to agreement with me, whether you know it or not.