Tolerance of Ignorance . . . or

[paulpatter]

This is interesting because (1) I happen to live the "Mormon way", (2) I understand that strengthening my belief in Mormonism is my responsibility and I engage in that process quite regularly, and yet, as an active Mormon I am somewhat skeptical of certain sorts of knowledge claims.

Your statement seems to suggest that one must have 100%, verifiable knowledge about an issue or entity--be it religion or some other matter--in order to accept it. Example: People afflicted with Morgellons Disease are positive they are being attacked by biting parasites. Their skin displays itchy, hairy lesions. Doctors don't know what causes the disease; therefore, if I accept your reasoning, I could be tempted to dismiss Morgellons as a serious medical condition. Another example: Some people are actually allergic to water. Inasmuch as our bodies are 60% water, doctors cannot explain--with anything approaching certitude--why such a condition exists. Should they then dismiss it?

There are many things about which we are justified in being skeptical. That does not mean, however, that they do not exist.

[Brade]

Your statement seems to suggest that one must have 100%, verifiable knowledge about an issue or entity--be it religion or some other matter--in order to accept it.

I don't think my statement does suggest that, but if you're right and my statement does suggest, by its meaning, what you say that it does, then I take it back because I don't believe that "one must have 100%, verifiable knowledge about an issue or entity...in order to accept it". For example, I believe (i.e. accept) that my truck is now in my driveway, but I don't know that it is. I'm typing this from my bed and I can't see my driveway from here. I certainly don't have 100% verifiable evidence that my truck is in my driveway. Nonetheless, I believe my truck is in my driveway.

[ancientpaths]

I don't know why the believers are touchy. We Knowers aren't.

Come on, you don

[Mark Beesley]

Come on, you don

[ancientpaths]

P.S. I know people who have put Moroni's promise to the test and did receive a witness. To do so is not begging the question. It is testing a hypothesis.

Well, thanks for the reply.

Let me try just once more. I understand the idea of "testing a hypothesis." But how do you test the test method? How do you verify that this process produces truth? My question concerns the validity of the testing method. There is an a priori assumption that the testing method is valid. How is this verified? What guarantees that the testing method actually produces true results?

The reason I described this as begging the question is that the logical flow is this: Assume that the test method is a valid test method --> apply the test method --> receive verification that the test method is a valid test method. This sounds circular to me.

I understand that in your personal case your "witness" came, as you say, "pursuant to other actions on your part." So, in a similar way and personally for you can you explain how you tested/verified the "test method" you used to identify the "witness" that came to you?

Thanks, -ap

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Well, thanks for the reply.

Let me try just once more. I understand the idea of "testing a hypothesis." But how do you test the test method? How do you verify that this process produces truth? My question concerns the validity of the testing method. There is an a priori assumption that the testing method is valid. How is this verified? What guarantees that the testing method actually produces true results?

The reason I described this as begging the question is that the logical flow is this: Assume that the test method is a valid test method --> apply the test method --> receive verification that the test method is a valid test method. This sounds circular to me.

I understand that in your personal case your "witness" came, as you say, "pursuant to other actions on your part." So, in a similar way and personally for you can you explain how you tested/verified the "test method" you used to identify the "witness" that came to you?

Thanks, -ap

I look at it through the prism of verses 6 and 7 afterwards...

By the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of ALL things.

I applied Moroni's principle to the Bible too and got the same response.

I conversely applied Christ's principle (see John 7:17) to the Book of Mormon and could prove that it was from God.

[Thorkyll]

Why does the testimony of LDS Christians bother some people?

In a recent thread LDS Christians who had the gall to say that they know there is a God were consistently challenged. How can you know? You can't know. You're stupid. The pi

[Mark Beesley]

Let me try just once more. I understand the idea of "testing a hypothesis." But how do you test the test method? How do you verify that this process produces truth? My question concerns the validity of the testing method. There is an a priori assumption that the testing method is valid. How is this verified? What guarantees that the testing method actually produces true results?

You do a blind test. Something similar has been done with regard to Moroni's promise more than once. The most famous example I can think of is Vincenzo Di Francesca, an Italian priest who found a copy of The Book of Mormon without cover or title page. Nevertheless, he received a witness it was true without ever having spoken to missionaries.

The reason I described this as begging the question is that the logical flow is this: Assume that the test method is a valid test method --> apply the test method --> receive verification that the test method is a valid test method. This sounds circular to me.

It may, but at some point doesn't every test method suffers the same criticism? Doesn't the quantity of the testing dispel the uncertainty at some point?

I understand that in your personal case your "witness" came, as you say, "pursuant to other actions on your part." So, in a similar way and personally for you can you explain how you tested/verified the "test method" you used to identify the "witness" that came to you?

Not here. Not on a public board.

A question for you: Is there fact about which you are comfortable about saying, I know?