Why Is Moroni'S Promise, A Mormon Belief, Considered A Valid Epistemic Test Of Mormon Belief?

[elguanteloko]

Yes, of course I believe in science and that LSD "produces" hallucinations, and though I plead the 5th on why, I can tell you that LSD has nothing on "real" spiritual experience.

OK, then if LSD produces hallucinations, what produces those things we call spiritual experiences?

[mfbukowski]

Please keep plugging away. Some of us are really learning from what you have had to say. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks!!

[mfbukowski]

The CONTENT of an experience is the same as the experience (since there are no experiences without content, but the experience is the content) and since we can know with reasonable justification that the cause of the hallucinations was LSD when we find it in the blood... you get the point.

First grade stuff, mf.

"The experience IS the content".

Wow, heavy man. I have no idea what that means. Your insults just illustrate your ignorance, again, of the philosophical point here. You would do better without them, but you never seem to learn that.

Frankly, I am only answering this because of Wade's kind words

You are talking about generic hallucinations- LSD causes generic hallucinations. THAT is the simple and rather trivial point you are making, that "LSD causes hallucinations". You are missing the important point.

Whether or not the "content" of the hallucination is pink elephants or giant spiders or flying through fluffy clouds, or an animated Aztec Calendar Stone depends, I believe, on a persons psychological makeup and very specific content which is already found in a person's brain- like dreams for instance.

And there are fundamental differences between the LSD experience and religious experience. First, with the LSD experience, one has to find a source for the drug. That is part of the experience. Then one gets out one's money and pays for it. One waits for a good time to "do" the drug. One then puts it in one's mouth. One then waits for the drug to start effecting one's brain. One then sees things, like watching a movie. Some people lose control and do not realize they are "watching a movie"- again psychological content comes into play- one's familiarity with the drug, one's level of control, etc.

Like being drunk- does one know one's limits or not?

In short, the full "experience" INCLUDES the full content- buying the drug, ingesting it, waiting for it to "come on" etc. as well as some knowledge that "all" it is is the effects of a drug one has ingested.

And even with all that- the PHENOMENOLOGICAL pictures one sees are not "caused" by the drug- and cannot properly be said to be "caused" by the drug at all- the drug provides the necessary conditions for the brain to see hallucinations, but the specific contents of the hallucinations- like dreams- are brought into the stew by the individual's brain. One cannot say what the "cause" of the fluffy clouds was the drug- when another using the same drug has a vision of spiders.

And as the quote in my siggy mentions, philosophically and logically, ANY theory which accounts only for the physical side of of an experience does not have the correct point of view- ie: the objective point of view- to fully describe or "include" the subjective experience. Can't be done. A full explanation of a subjective experience can never be logically equivalent to a physical "explanation" because each point of view is different. It is like saying that the sound of a trumpet is logically equivalent to a graph representing all the frequencies and their overtones and harmonics in the sound itself. Such a graph may be useful in analyzing the sound objectively, - but it is not the same as the experience of the sound, and never can be.

In the LSD examples, the specific "cause" of the spiders or the fluffy clouds is part of the individual's personal make-up. The LSD provides the "catalyst"- the necessary condition for the experience to occur- and I am using the word "catalyst" very intentionally here.

Catalysts for experiences, spiritual or otherwise do not have to be drugs, of course, they can be anything- seeing a rug which reminds you of your mother, and suddenly an entire scene from your childhood floods into your mind, etc. And of course in LDS parlance, we have various "catalyst" theories for revelation. One catalyst could be an Egyptian manuscript which resonates with one's recent understanding of other spiritual points.

Again, the "cause" for any specific spiritual experience cannot ever be determined scientifically- not only because of all the psychological variables which in principle could perhaps be programmed in a computer- the problem is a logical one in the very difference in point of view.

Any graph or intended representation of the physical aspects of an experience IS NOT the experience itself. A graph, no matter how good it is, is not the sound of a trumpet, and doesn't contain the experience of that sound, and it never can.

[Deborah]

what produces those things we call spiritual experiences?

The Spirit.

[Doctor Ninja]

I want to compliment you on your cool, calm, unprejudiced, scholarly, and well-reasoned response.

Exactly why I have stopped replying to him. A time out might be necessary. I hope him the best though.

[Pahoran]

lol, OK

Here's one for each:

They lied for the first case about the dream and in the process then got to believe afterwards. Sounds outrageous but a thousand times more likely than a holy spirit doing it. Lying is much more parsimonious than a holy spirit.

For the second one they just believed, how is that strange? There are many churches where you will find people crying all over the place and speaking funny.

I'm reminded of the story of Thomas Jefferson, who when told that meteorites had been observed by credible academics, retorted that he could more easily believe that two yankee professors could lie than that rocks could fall from the sky.

So you're in good company, Crazy Glove. There are plenty of people willing to let their own prejudices control the evidence.

So what do you think was the motivation for those people to lie? Why would they invent such a story on the spot? What would they hope to gain by it?

Your "lie" theory raises more questions than it answers. But it also demonstrates that there really isn't any evidence that you would accept as damaging to your theory. If your theory doesn't account for the evidence, then the evidence is to be simply dismissed.

Isn't that right?

Regards,

Pahoran

[elguanteloko]

"The experience IS the content".

Wow, heavy man. I have no idea what that means.

It means that we are speaking of a cup and the water in it is the experience (analogous, of course). To say, "what's the content of the water" is to miss the point that the water IS THE CONTENT with respect to the cup.

You are talking about generic hallucinations- LSD causes generic hallucinations. THAT is the simple and rather trivial point you are making, that "LSD causes hallucinations". You are missing the important point.

Oh, wait. Do you think I'm trying to say spiritual experiences are hallucinations? Because I'm not. I'm just using an analogy. One could say that the taste of salt is produced by salt in the same way and that is not to mean spiritual experience are tastes. lol

Whether or not the "content" of the hallucination is pink elephants or giant spiders or flying through fluffy clouds, or an animated Aztec Calendar Stone depends, I believe, on a persons psychological makeup and very specific content which is already found in a person's brain- like dreams for instance.

so? That doesn't mean LSD doesn't produce hallucinations and that something else produces spiritual experiences. What is that something, mf?

And there are fundamental differences between the LSD experience and religious experience.

Really? I wasn't going to figure that one out. (sarcasm)

First, with the LSD experience, one has to find a source for the drug. That is part of the experience. Then one gets out one's money and pays for it. One waits for a good time to "do" the drug. One then puts it in one's mouth. One then waits for the drug to start effecting one's brain. One then sees things, like watching a movie. Some people lose control and do not realize they are "watching a movie"- again psychological content comes into play- one's familiarity with the drug, one's level of control, etc.

This gave me a bad idea, mf. When the moment comes I'm going to ask you for advice.

Like being drunk- does one know one's limits or not?

irrelevant.

In short, the full "experience" INCLUDES the full content- buying the drug, ingesting it, waiting for it to "come on" etc. as well as some knowledge that "all" it is is the effects of a drug one has ingested.

mf, I was speaking of the experience of hallucinating ONLY, not about all the experiences you can come up with. The experience of tasting salt is the taste of salt. The experience of how you got the salt is another story. We are speaking only of the experience of salt.

soooo, salt produces the experience of "saltness", LSD produces hallucinations (though they may vary in what you see, that's irrelevant; the point is that they produce hallucinations), what produces spiritual experiences?

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[wenglund]

Exactly why I have stopped replying to him. A time out might be necessary. I hope him the best though.

I think some slack is in order. Kevin has been swimming for some time in a cesspool, and so it may take him some time to adjust and figure out what may or may not be appropriate in a chlorinated pool with lifeguards. In some ways, he is obviously not yet aware of what he may be doing that is inappropriate here. The charitable thing to do is give him some time and kindly direction and even somewhat ignore his imperfections.

Thanks, -Wade ?Englund-

[KevinG]

Exactly why I have stopped replying to him.

Bingo! I tire of the degrading pot shots like "that's the only thing approaching reason you posted" and the TEXT SHOUTING to make a point. That plus the exessive verbiage to say something as simple as "the LDS testimony lacks empirical evidence of a cause to define it as knowledge even if you consider it truth."

(Of course Gettier would not eliminate the possibility of truth because of the lack of objectively observable knowledge.)

To make the leap from that basic epistmicalogical construct to comparing the LDS spiritual experience to an LSD hallucination is poor logic and disrespectful of anyone who experiences spiritual manifestations with no evidence of mental disorder or chemical dependency.

Faux ignorance is another annoying debate technique I wont engage. For example when I ask if someone is a proponent of the testimony as mass hallucination theory and their response is "huh?" I expect them to be consistent enough not to bring up LSD hallucination three pages later as an analogy.

Yeah... I was done with this discussion a few days ago.

Edited June 30, 2011 by DaddyG

[Bernard Gui]

Indeed, and as I think everyone should say with the great Isaac Asimov, "I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."

You have been presented 2 spiritual experiences that were shared by multiple people, none of which expected or planned or sought the experience. There were no hallucinogens involved, nor did the participants collude on a desired outcome.

I am interested in your honest scientific critique of the experiences.

"They were lying" or "they just believed" is neither honest nor scientific.

Show your cards or fold.

Bernard

Edited June 30, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Pahoran]

Kevin,

Since you love to suppose that I can't deal with your arguments, I'd like to address something you wrote.

Well, we were told one thing and then experienced another. The Church decided that Temple sealings on US soil are more sacred than sealings in Brazil.

Call for references, please. From what source can I find this information?

In Brazil we could have a civil wedding one day, and a Temple sealing the next.

And is this because of the Church having different policies, or because of Brazilian law?

You see, here in New Zealand, for years marriage law required that a marriage ceremony had to be performed "with open doors." Thus, Church members could not be married in the Temple; they had to be married in a civil ceremony first and then sealed afterwards. The Church therefore allowed this to take place on the same day, or on subsequent days if there was a distance to travel (and the couple were chaperoned in the interim.)

Note, however, that the sealing had to be done as soon as possible after the civil ceremony. Otherwise, there was a 12-month waiting period.

A few years ago, the law was changed to permit actual temple marriages. As a result, it is no longer acceptable to the Church for couples to have civil weddings; the sealing is the wedding.

My family was informed that they were only allowed to view some cheesy ring ceremony that meant nothing to anyone. But no vows could be exchanged because in some mysterious way, that would be a desecration to a US-based temple sealing. So much so that it would take a full year to scrub the spiritual filth from your soul, so that you'd be worthy again for a temple sealing. But in Brazil, you could totally exchange vows and defile your soul, the day before being sealed in the temple. I mean, that makes perfect sense, right?

The way you have told it, no; of course it doesn't make sense.

But then, you clearly never intended it to.

However, once we correct for your irrational hatred of the Church of Jesus Christ, we find something that does make perfect sense. In Brazil, the law has requirements for wedding ceremonies that preclude a Temple sealing; probably an "open doors" requirement. Thus, in order to not penalise couples who want to be married in the Temple, and who would be married in the Temple if the law allowed, the Church's policy reflects the reality of Brazilian marriage law. So, couples can have a civil ceremony and be sealed ASAP afterwards. Just like it used to be in New Zealand.

However, in the US, there is no such legal disability. If a couple really want to be married in the Temple, then they can be; there's nothing to stop them from doing so.

Therefore, those who choose not to be married in the Temple are choosing to wait 12 months for their Temple sealing. That's their choice.

And all that garbage about "scrub the spiritual filth from your soul" and "totally exchange vows and defile your soul" is made up entirely out of whole cloth, isn't it?

Pahoran is one of the easiest opponents I've ever faced, to be frank. And I'm pretty sure he knows it too.

Still strutting about and crowing, I see.

Well of course you are; it's your number one talent.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Faux ignorance is another annoying debate technique I wont engage. For example when I ask if someone is a proponent of the testimony as mass hallucination theory and their response is "huh?" I expect them to be consistent enough not to bring up LSD hallucination three pages later as an analogy.

Yeah... I was done with this discussion a few days ago.

PWND. That was a great read.

[elguanteloko]

OK, Pahoran and Bernard Gui need to get something about explanations:

We are speaking of a fixed set of events. Events do NOT explain themselves. "That car is moving", "The house is burning", "The tomato is flying", "The book is being read", etc are events. The explanation for each of those events is NOT in those events themselves as I have stated them. As you have stated the events, they do NOT explain themselves. People started crying and believed. Why? You say it was God and I say they sincerely believed with no need for a super-powerful being. From these two explanations one is more likely than the other, clearly.

You guys don't have any "scientific" explanation for any of those events and neither can there be since they are well past. Almost any explanation I can come up with will be more plausible than the extremely unlikely explanation you guys came up with. We are NOT speaking of the evidence (since there is none other than a description of the events, not as part of a study) but of the EXPLANATION for those events. If I see my car that was stolen 2 weeks ago being driven by my neighbor that, when confronted, says he just woke up from sleepwalking for 2 weeks and that he didn't steal the car intentionally.... guess what? that is NOT a very likely explanation for what I saw. Why not? Because that is so extremely unlikely and lacks any serious support that I won't believe it and it would be silly if I did. The lack of support for his rather ludicrous explanation is a reason to not believe it and believe something that seems MUCH more likely, i.e. he stole it.

Now, read the explanations I gave in this, hopefully, new light.

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[mfbukowski]

soooo, salt produces the experience of "saltness", LSD produces hallucinations (though they may vary in what you see, that's irrelevant; the point is that they produce hallucinations), what produces spiritual experiences?

Please read the rest of the post. Again, ordinarily I would not answer this.

Most subjective experiences, especially spiritual experiences cannot be said to have a "cause"- they are too complex. They have "catalysts". And the "catalyst" for spiritual experiences can be anything.

I would call the "taste of salt" a "perception". I don't want to make a hard and fast dualism between perceptions and experiences- but I think that perceptions are one element of a total experience- just for the sake of explanation. But an experience might be said to contain many perceptions, perhaps like one may say a dream contains many elements.

Jumping from a perception to a spiritual experience is just too big of a jump.

What was the "cause" of World War 1? Answering "a bullet" would be far to simple to do any attempt an an explanation justice (a full explanation of WW1 probably being impossible) of anything like a "cause".

There were multiple, complex "causes" the isolation of which would so distort the explanation as to make it meaningless.

Again, you do not appear to be even reading my posts- you skim a few lines and throw out an ill-considered reply which is already covered in the post you are making.

I write half a page, you tell me you "already got that point" and then proceed to show me you have not understood any of it. The usual stuff.

Edited June 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My family was informed that they were only allowed to view some cheesy ring ceremony that meant nothing to anyone. But no vows could be exchanged because in some mysterious way, that would be a desecration to a US-based temple sealing. So much so that it would take a full year to scrub the spiritual filth from your soul, so that you'd be worthy again for a temple sealing. But in Brazil, you could totally exchange vows and defile your soul, the day before being sealed in the temple. I mean, that makes perfect sense, right?

I saw this while reading Pahoran's post. This is flat out false and I dare say a lie (I am not willing to call it that yet). I have first hand knowledge that this is false. When my Sister-in-law married her husband, they were married first in the temple then they had a ring ceremony and exchanged vows. So you see this idea that "But no vows could be exchanged because in some mysterious way, that would be a desecration to a US-based temple sealing." is false.

[elguanteloko]

Please read the rest of the post. Again, ordinarily I would not answer this.

Most subjective experiences, especially spiritual experiences cannot be said to have a "cause"- they are too complex. They have "catalysts". And the "catalyst" for spiritual experiences can be anything.

ok, do you think ANY of those "catalysts" is God or God's power in some shape or form? Whatever you think the "causes" are and as complex as you think they may be, is God one of those million contributing factors?

[Jeff K.]

Shouldn't we really expect better?

Edit because sometimes I miss letters.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Ares]

Still strutting about and crowing, I see.

Well of course you are; it's your number one talent.

We are getting a lot of reports about the tone or arrogance that is permiating these discussions. - everyone (this means you too Xander) need to dispense with these throw away pot shots. This is beyond annoying and will result in closed discussions, suspentions or bannings FOR ANY POSTER WHO CONTINUES TO INDULGE IN THEM.

Indulging in pot shots includes the person who feels they are allowed one more response to the ongoing chain of insults. Just like a sports referee, I don't care who threw the first punch- I'm throwing out the person who threw the punch I saw.

[Pahoran]

OK, Pahoran and Bernard Gui need to get something about explanations:

We are speaking of a fixed set of events. Events do NOT explain themselves. "That car is moving", "The house is burning", "The tomato is flying", "The book is being read", etc are events. The explanation for each of those events is NOT in those events themselves as I have stated them. As you have stated the events, they do NOT explain themselves. People started crying and believed. Why? You say it was God and I say they sincerely believed with no need for a super-powerful being. From these two explanations one is more likely than the other, clearly.

But you also decided that those who foresaw the missionaries' visit lied about it. Note that this is an admission of failure on your part; your theory cannot account for the reported experience, so you have to dismiss it. You then smugly point to how well your theory accounts for all the evidence you will allow to be admitted! And you actually expect your argument to be taken seriously?

You guys don't have any "scientific" explanation for any of those events and neither can there be since they are well past. Almost any explanation I can come up with will be more plausible than the extremely unlikely explanation you guys came up with. We are NOT speaking of the evidence (since there is none other than a description of the events, not as part of a study) but of the EXPLANATION for those events. If I see my car that was stolen 2 weeks ago being driven by my neighbor that, when confronted, says he just woke up from sleepwalking for 2 weeks and that he didn't steal the car intentionally.... guess what? that is NOT a very likely explanation for what I saw. Why not? Because that is so extremely unlikely and lacks any serious support that I won't believe it and it would be silly if I did. The lack of support for his rather ludicrous explanation is a reason to not believe it and believe something that seems MUCH more likely, i.e. he stole it.

Now, read the explanations I gave in this, hopefully, new light.

There is no "new light." You have applied a weak, inapt and ridiculous analogy. The car-stealing neighbour has an obvious motive to lie; what motive do you impute to Elder Gui's investigators? That they really really wanted to join the Church, and had to invent a story before the missionaries would take them seriously? Why couldn't they just say "come in" and leave it at that?

The "parsimonious" explanation is not that they lied, but that they told the truth. Their subsequent actions are consistent with that.

You need to adjust your theory, instead of merely dismissing the evidence.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran please forgive me for using you as an example: Drop the word "smugly" and this post is a good example of sticking to the topic. -Ares

Edit: That's fine. Actually it looks like you and I were editing the post at the same time; see also the magenta insertion. Is it better now?

Ahhhh I jumped on it too quickly- thank you for the self edits! -Ares

[Doctor Ninja]

Bingo! I tire of the degrading pot shots like "that's the only thing approaching reason you posted" and the TEXT SHOUTING to make a point. That plus the exessive verbiage to say something as simple as "the LDS testimony lacks empirical evidence of a cause to define it as knowledge even if you consider it truth."

(Of course Gettier would not eliminate the possibility of truth because of the lack of objectively observable knowledge.)

To make the leap from that basic epistmicalogical construct to comparing the LDS spiritual experience to an LSD hallucination is poor logic and disrespectful of anyone who experiences spiritual manifestations with no evidence of mental disorder or chemical dependency.

Faux ignorance is another annoying debate technique I wont engage. For example when I ask if someone is a proponent of the testimony as mass hallucination theory and their response is "huh?" I expect them to be consistent enough not to bring up LSD hallucination three pages later as an analogy.

Yeah... I was done with this discussion a few days ago.

Great! I am two days behind then!

[Pahoran]

We are getting a lot of reports about the tone or arrogance that is permiating these discussions. - everyone (this means you too Xander) need to dispense with these throw away pot shots. This is beyond annoying and will result in closed discussions, suspentions or bannings FOR ANY POSTER WHO CONTINUES TO INDULGE IN THEM.

Indulging in pot shots includes the person who feels they are allowed one more response to the ongoing chain of insults. Just like a sports referee, I don't care who threw the first punch- I'm throwing out the person who threw the punch I saw.

Well, he was strutting about and crowing. And in a post that wasn't even addressed to me. IOW, he didn't throw a punch, he threw an elbow.

But you are right, of course, and your warning is noted.

Regards,

Pahoran

[elguanteloko]

But you also decided that those who foresaw the missionaries' visit lied about it.

Man, I'm not saying they lied, I'm saying that is a MUCH more likely explanation. Do you recognize the difference?

Note that this is an admission of failure on your part; your theory cannot account for the reported experience, so you have to dismiss it.

Not a failure but I dismiss, NOT the case, but your explanation. Really, nothing different than if you attributed the sun going up every morning to the forces of gnomes or something.

You then smugly point to how well your theory accounts for all the evidence you will allow to be admitted! And you actually expect to be taken seriously?

Once again, there is NO explanation for the events in the events themselves; there was just a description of the events. We are all looking for an explanation of those events and there OBVIOUSLY are some that are more likely than others.

There is no "new light." You have applied a weak, inapt and ridiculous analogy. The car-stealing neighbour has an obvious motive to lie; what motive do you impute to Elder Gui's investigators?

You still don't get it. As crazy as you think my explanations are, yours are even less believable. That is the whole point. Attributing event X to as many Gods as you can count (not that you do this but I'm just giving an example) is ALWAYS going to be less likely than a mere naturalistic explanation or one that is more parsimonious like those I'm offering. Google what parsimony is, brother, seriously.

That they really really wanted to join the Church, and had to invent a story before the missionaries would take them seriously? Why couldn't they just say "come in" and leave it at that?

It must have been God, then... of Neptune's power, or the influence of fairies. Why not?

The "parsimonious" explanation is not that they lied, but that they told the truth. Their subsequent actions are consistent with that.

Since them telling the truth requires something extremely unlike, that is not the most parsimonious explanation. That is like if I said aliens visited me when you can clearly detect I used heroin and you defend me because you said "Him telling the truth is the most parsimonious explanation." mmm, sorry but it isn't.

You need to adjust your theory, instead of merely dismissing the evidence.

What evidence? There is none. There is only a description of the events but no evidence for any explanation. There's no more evidence that God did it to say they lied or gnomes did it or fairies enchanted them or anything else.

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Doctor Ninja]

Pahoran please forgive me for using you as an example: Drop the word "smugly" and this post is a good example of sticking to the topic. -Ares

How about "priggishly" instead?

20 lashes with a wet noodle for you!!! -Ares

[mfbukowski]

ok, do you think ANY of those "catalysts" is God or God's power in some shape or form? Whatever you think the "causes" are and as complex as you think they may be, is God one of those million contributing factors?

Mak made a distinction between his personal religious beliefs which are firmly LDS and his academic examination of Biblical texts, and I make the same distinction between my "objective" philosophical stance and my subjective religious stance. He mentioned that as a Biblical scholar, he must remain agnostic because that is the nature of the context of biblical scholarship. The resurrection cannot be proven as an historical event, nor can it's significance- the resurrection of the savior of the world.

Taking a similar stance, objectively, I see no need to postulate the existence of God because God in fact does not "exist" (yet) objectively. That is an expression in a scientific language context, and it is true. There is no objective or logical evidence for God at all, period. My entire philosophical approach does not require God- it is based on pragmatism, utilitarianism and a kind of linguistic constructivist approach. One of my favorite philosophers is Rorty, who was an atheist (I think he is wrong about subjectivity- that is where he goofs up imo)

Subjectively, however, I know that God is my Father and friend, and talk to him all the time- and he talks back! I have had many experiences I know are from him- without any doubt whatsoever- total 100% certainty. God can only be "known" subjectively, on a personal level.

Furthermore, I believe even on a somewhat objective basis that Mormonism is the most true picture of what I have experienced over all the years of my investigation of my own experiences academically in a philosophical context as well as a spiritual context. I think the idea of eternal progression and the view that God is a human is just pure genius, and I am sure that a country bumpkin like Joseph could not possibly have come up with that on his own.

If you want an analogy we used earlier, I think you are living in a world of charts and graphs of the alleged "sound" of a trumpet- objective evidence, while I hear the sound of the music of the spheres. I am willing to fully engage my subjectivity because I don't fear that it might not be "reliable"- because I know that there is no such thing as an objective experience (one we can share) which is totally "reliable" either- except as a tool for a specific purpose.

And those specific purposes are for the most part, not that important in anyone's life.

I fully trust both my subjective and objective "sides" because I know there is no conflict between them!

The only experiences which, for the most part, are important in anyone's life are the subjective ones.

Are you sure this is not at least starting to sound a little familiar?

Edited June 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

This is excellent! You are now beginning to realize that the so-called "tests" aren't just intended as epistemic tools, but they also function as decision-making tools--methodologies for choosing between divergent faith paths as well as methodologies for how best to proceed upon a given faith path.

An epistemic test is a methodology for choosing between divergent faith paths.

What we are talking about, then, isn't an objective development of knowledge bases, but criteria for making life choices the outcomes of which may be uncertain--like what to major in at college, which career path to take, who to marry, whether to have children or not and how many, who to vote for in up-coming elections, what car to buy, what health regimen to adhere to, where to live and what house to buy and with what to furnish it, which roads to take when commuting to work, where to go on vacation and when, how often to brush your teeth and what to brush them with, etc. etc.

We are talking about the objective development of knowledge because you testify that you "know" and not that you prefer this choice because of some presumed outcome.

It helps for you to realize this because it may shed some light on how unsuitable it may be to use "reliability" (inter-rater reliability in particular) as the ultimate test for evaluating decision-making methodologies in matters of faith (secular or religious).

My point is that it doesn't help your case to consider reliability to be unsuitable. This doesn't get us any further to the truth, it simply eliminates what you believe can't lead us there. Sure, for the sake of the argument, I can grant that a method that attempts to establish reliability doesn't apply, but obviously, this simple fact doesn't mean your method is any better. It must be evaluated based on it's own merits, regardless of whether my method fails. So, I have repeatedly requested an explanation for why someone can prefer one experience over the other with any method? If there is no proper method to compare and conclude that one experience is superior to the other, then why do we behave as if they have been compared and one is better?

Let's take, for example, decision-making methods people use in determine which major to pursue in college. Educational and career counselors tend to offer essentially the same methods to assist students in making choices, and yet these methods obviously yield a broad diversity of results. According to your way of thinking, because of the diversity of results, these methodologies are unreliable/unjustified, thus leaving you without reason to believe in them or put them to use. Nor, for that matter, might you feel obliged to offer preferred alternatives to these methodologies, but may reserve making decisions only on those matters that can be objectively determined using the scientific method.

The preference is not in question, the source is. There is a broad diversity of results because there is a wide variety of preferences. The problem is not the whether preferences contradict, it's whether these preferences are valid for determining what exists independently of our preference. I've yet to hear a convincing explanation for why preference = knowledge.

I don't know about you, but this doesn't make sense to me. Using reliability as the ultimate test, or even just a test of decision-making methodologies in matters of faith, seems terribly misguided to me. Rather, I would think that the decision-making methodologies in such matters ought to be accessed based on what they are designed to do--i.e. make the very best decisions suitable to each individual and the achievement of their respective end objectives.

First of all, the end objective hasn't been established to exist. I can choose Door 1 because the host said that it has the best prize, but my desire to receive the best prize has nothing to do with whether the host is lying or misinformed. We can't recognize that these methods lead to knowledge, yet we use them as basis for testifying of knowledge regardless. For what good reason?