Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[Montgomery Price]

while i can appreciate certain aspects of your point, i am unclear as to why you consider a spiritual forum appropriate for the discussion of a philosophical issue? The subject-object problem is a delight to discuss, but only within the confines of rational arguments, and such confines are hardly the entire scope of religious discussions....correct?

What.

Religion claims that the source of certain religious experiences are God and others originate in Satan. This sounds like "subject-object" to me. It also sounds very religious.

Allow me to borrow a phrase from you....

or in other words" I am establishing that [the subjective] is not always subjective"

Or in other words, "I am establishing that this category of subjective experience doesn't always establish objective claims, like they purport to."

Is the question as simple as "How do we determine, or by what standard, do we know what is objective"?

I believe Bertrand Russell clarified this issue with his notion of "Fact" vs. "Belief".

It is simply the removal of doubt.

Consider that whatever is attempting to 'know'(ie. your brain or soul) what is fact and what is belief is rather limited in that ability and therefore must engage in a sort of reality check. One must have an initial description of that which they intend to "check", which brings us to:

If we need an initial description from which to determine which elements of a relationship are of God, then there are many competing descriptions. The description you've provided just so happens to purport to be justified by those elements in question.

from here we can then proceed to discern that which is fact from that which is belief (in this context).

So, why is Moroni 7 so simple and effective and exempt from your assertion of being an "element in question"? because it is the same as someone saying "read". For it relies on the act of cognition* -Consciousness - which is the "standard" you seek.

*Cognition, in this context, would include the promptings of the Spirit - which becomes something i "know" because it has been found by the Consciousness to be a "true belief". See also the Cartesian Doubt.

No. When we wish to discern between the perceived elements of a relationship with God, Moroni 7 only claims we have some discernment faculty built in to our consciousness to tell what is good and evil. To support this claim, those in this thread have only referred back to some justification which presumes their relationship with God is genuine. Textbook question begging. Sorry.

[shalamabobbi]

general reply

I'm sorry to hear that no method works at all for you.

There is a method that works for me however.

Requiring me to explain the entirety of experiences that others may claim may seem something you believe I have to do in order to justify my own experiences, but this is where you are mixing the objective with the subjective again.

But you correct me to say that you are not claiming that the objective works for this either, in fact no method works. But that is all this is.. your claim. Shout it loud if you like. It doesn't amount to anything more.

So to repeat perhaps for the last time?..

It doesn't matter that others have other claims that disagree with my experiences. I am not making the claim that religion is proven by the scientific method. So for you to demand that it meets this standard is simply you stating what is necessary for yourself I guess.

Right and wrong, the conscience, and that which follows upon carefully following this guide that is written within me needs no more justification than the need to breathe air or to eat food in order to survive. It is an inherent part of who and what I am.

With regard to the transformation it was simply to allow a method by which to illustrate to you the futility of your objections.

If you say I cannot accept my own experiences because of contradictory claims of others, then neither can you accept your scientific experimental results if others claim to get contradictory results.

Do you see yet? Just because someone claims to do the experiment and not get the results does that negate your experiment?

If you distinguish between those who do the experiment correctly from those who do not, I can do the same with the religious experiment and distinguish between those who follow all the requirements from those who do not.

If you say that when those experimental methods are correctly followed the results agree, I can find new converts all day long and make the same claim.

The problem for you is illustrated when I said I could reject scientism because it creates contradictory claims between people of what determines right from wrong.

You say I cannot change the thread topic. But you see religion IS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. So a test to verify religion is about testing whether bringing one's life into harmony with God's commandments brings about the promised blessings of happiness and receiving a forgiveness for one's prior mistakes in life. That is the experiment. I determine the results myself. Is my life much better than before? Only I can answer that.

You are eighteen. If raised LDS perhaps you are confused between what you perceive the church to be directing you to do with what you think will bring you greater happiness. It is a challenging time in life. I wish you the best..

[subgenius]

What.

Religion claims that the source of certain religious experiences are God and others originate in Satan. This sounds like "subject-object" to me. It also sounds very religious.

then perhaps a more simplified "religious" response will be more palatable to you:

"The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. .. In the relative world the knower is different from the known, but in the Absolute Truth both the knower and the known are one and the same thing" - bhÄgavatam

This "sounds" like the "subject-object" problem may not be as you "stamp" it.

Or in other words, "I am establishing that this category of subjective experience doesn't always establish objective claims, like they purport to."

But inspection reveals that you have not "established" that.

If we need an initial description from which to determine which elements of a relationship are of God, then there are many competing descriptions. The description you've provided just so happens to purport to be justified by those elements in question.

for example? over-simplify a specific example for me, please.

No. When we wish to discern between the perceived elements of a relationship with God, Moroni 7 only claims we have some discernment faculty built in to our consciousness to tell what is good and evil. To support this claim, those in this thread have only referred back to some justification which presumes their relationship with God is genuine. Textbook question begging. Sorry.

Moroni & does not "claim" what is not a fact, unless you plan to "establish" that we do not have ability to discern good/evil? that we do not have a consciousness? Are you seriously proposing that good and evil are conditioned and are not "instinctual"?....how do you plan to argue out of the first cause?

[subgenius]

To know the difference between good and evil a person needs to know the difference between Satan and God, because if they don’t they may think something is good when in reality it is evil. Thus, whether all people know it or not, we all choose between good and evil even if we don’t know how to correctly label our choices as either good or evil.

Moroni 7 seems to indicate that knowing something is "good" is the confirmation of it being from God. Which i think is different than knowing what comes from God is good. (This is good, so it comes from God vs. This comes from God so it is good)

I believe that this distinction illustrates that the ability to discern "good" is rather autonomous and is as objective as breathing.

Correct. At first I don’t know whether my own thoughts are good or evil, unless I have already learned the correct answer to that issue from God, so until God shares his thoughts with me to give me the correct answer while I know it is God, I will continue to be either unsure or open to error if I accept a wrong answer from someone while believing the wrong answer is right.

I am not sure about this. I consider that knowledge of right/wrong is inherent, instinctual, or natural - a gift given from God as birth, like blood, lungs, etc..

More complex notions of right/wrong need distillation in order to remove many of the natural-man doubts imposed upon them, at which case i see the need for "faith" that their truth will be revealed.

It all depends upon who the confirmation is coming from, though, doesn’t it.

If people get confirmation of their thoughts from Satan, who will assure them they are right when they are wrong, they’ll continue to be wrong and yet sure they are right based upon the confirmation they received from Satan. On the other hand, if people get confirmation of their thoughts from God, they’ll be on the opposite side of the spectrum.

agreed to an extent, i would substitute "details" for your word "confirmation" above - which negates the argument that there are contradictory or conflicting "stamps"....there is, as stated, good or evil. God/Satan does not decide for you and though many things may be subjected to perceptual influence there are unarguable truths that transcend our individual bias or "subjectivity". Just as we may both may like different flavors we both desire food (and some food is good for all bodies and some food is bad for all bodies), and likewise in the spiritual sense there is a good and there is an evil - unchanged and uninfluenced by individual "tastes".

I have yet to see anyone argue that "self-evident" does not exist.

Right, but good luck trying to get Monty to admit the way has been provided while he denies that it has.

Yet he does not see the irony in his position of being supported purely by "doubt".

[Ahab]

Sure. I could experience elements of a relationship with God, but this still doesn't tell me how to determine which elements of the relationship are actually of God and which may not. All I'll have is a questionable experience.

You don't appear to have understood what I said. I said what you need is YOUR OWN personal relationship with God until you know that the person YOU know as God truly is God, and you're not going to get that from me or anyone else other than God.

The "until you know" point will come after you have experience enough elements of a relationship with God to be able to distinguish between him, and Satan, and yourself, and other people who are talking to you, and at that point you will "KNOW' that the person you know as God truly is God.

It is possible, because many people actually know who God is.

Yes, and the problem is that we can't distinguish between the methods which led them to those disagreements. Each method relies upon the perceived elements of a relationship with God. Everyone disagrees and when we ask each to justify their position, they all give the same answer. This is no solution.

Once you know you know God, you'll have gone through several stages where you thought you knew God but really didn't and you'll be able to recognize those same stages which other people are still going through as they go on their way to truly get to know God.

Sometimes people confuse Satan with God, and sometimes people confuse their own thoughts with God, and sometimes people confuse other persons with God, and ALL because they haven't had enough experiences with God to be able to tell the difference between God and those other people.

Once you know God, yourself, you'll be able to recognize when people are at those stages because you will have gone through all those stages, yourself.

So, your response to my argument, again, is to simply beg the question and explain how the disagreements don't matter once we accept the premise in question. I didn't call attention to the disagreements to be considered given the premise in question. They constitute the evidence which questions the premise. You've failed to understand this again.

I do understand the question, and I have been giving you the answer. The only way to know God is to have a personal relationship with him until you know that the person you know as God truly is God.

It's an experience that you have to experience, yourself, because you can't develop a relationship with God without getting to know him, personally.

And btw, whether or not you know it, you've already started the process. Now all you need to do is not give up and stop saying it can't be done and instead just DO IT!!!

He's ready and willing to help you get to know him.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Moroni 7 seems to indicate that knowing something is "good" is the confirmation of it being from God. Which i think is different than knowing what comes from God is good. (This is good, so it comes from God vs. This comes from God so it is good)

I believe that this distinction illustrates that the ability to discern "good" is rather autonomous and is as objective as breathing.

Right, but some people think something is good just because they like it, when in reality what they consider to be good is actually evil.

I am not sure about this. I consider that knowledge of right/wrong is inherent, instinctual, or natural - a gift given from God as birth, like blood, lungs, etc..

Through the light of Christ, yes, all of us can know the differehce between good and evil and right and wrong in every situation, but sometimes some people express true confusion because they really can't tell the difference and I think that's because they haven't had enough experience with good and evil to be able to tell the difference. I know that's happened to me, before. I acted on some impulse which I thought was a good impulse only later to find out that... oops, I shouldn't have been doing that. And then at that point my knowledge of good and evil was increased and I could more easily tell the difference.

I mean, really, if it was all too easy to tell the difference between good and evil and we truly desired to do good, we would never slip up and have a moment where we messed up. We'd always be good because we wanted to be good.

More complex notions of right/wrong need distillation in order to remove many of the natural-man doubts imposed upon them, at which case i see the need for "faith" that their truth will be revealed.

Right, and sometimes some people feel "sure" they have faith from God to proceed with an action only later to find out that their faith didn't really come from God and instead it came from their own desire to be sure about something which caused them to convince themselves, rather than being convinced by God.

agreed to an extent, i would substitute "details" for your word "confirmation" above - which negates the argument that there are contradictory or conflicting "stamps"....there is, as stated, good or evil. God/Satan does not decide for you and though many things may be subjected to perceptual influence there are unarguable truths that transcend our individual bias or "subjectivity". Just as we may both may like different flavors we both desire food (and some food is good for all bodies and some food is bad for all bodies), and likewise in the spiritual sense there is a good and there is an evil - unchanged and uninfluenced by individual "tastes".

Some people gravitate toward evil as something they like, though, and because they like it they consider it to be good, instead of the evil it is.

I could cite some examples that are prevalent in the world now, but I don't want to open up that can of worms here. Just think about it and I'm sure you'll realize you have seen the same thing.

I have yet to see anyone argue that "self-evident" does not exist.

What is "self-evident" to some people isn't evident to all people, though.

[subgenius]

Right, but some people think something is good just because they like it, when in reality what they consider to be good is actually evil.

Through the light of Christ, yes, all of us can know the differehce between good and evil and right and wrong in every situation, but sometimes some people express true confusion because they really can't tell the difference and I think that's because they haven't had enough experience with good and evil to be able to tell the difference. I know that's happened to me, before. I acted on some impulse which I thought was a good impulse only later to find out that... oops, I shouldn't have been doing that. And then at that point my knowledge of good and evil was increased and I could more easily tell the difference.

I mean, really, if it was all too easy to tell the difference between good and evil and we truly desired to do good, we would never slip up and have a moment where we messed up. We'd always be good because we wanted to be good.

Right, and sometimes some people feel "sure" they have faith from God to proceed with an action only later to find out that their faith didn't really come from God and instead it came from their own desire to be sure about something which caused them to convince themselves, rather than being convinced by God.

Some people gravitate toward evil as something they like, though, and because they like it they consider it to be good, instead of the evil it is.

I could cite some examples that are prevalent in the world now, but I don't want to open up that can of worms here. Just think about it and I'm sure you'll realize you have seen the same thing.

What is "self-evident" to some people isn't evident to all people, though.

agreed

[Ahab]

agreed

Alright, I'm glad we're agreed up to that point.

I also wanted to add a comment about what you said about we know what is good by knowing what is good, rather than knowing it is something from God or in agreement with what he considers to be good.

Remember Abraham? He was told to kill his son and he was going to do it because he was sure it was God who had told him to do it.

Now, ordinarily, a person who gets a prompting like that would think that killing someone, especially their own child, would NOT be a good thing to do.

So, was it good, or was it really evil? And how would you be able to know?

[HeatherAnn]

Well it's not that I am going more toward fundamentalism really, it's just that I am better at understanding how to "translate" between the Mormon vocabulary and the philosophical vocabulary all the time so I am now more comfortable with those who speak the fundamentalist vocabulary, much as your "translation" which happened in sacrament meeting for you.

Unfortunately, being that comfortable has its drawbacks- I switch back and forth in my posts between vocabularies so I am constantly bombarded with "But Mormons don't believe that"- when in fact it is just that most Mormons are not accustomed to looking at their beliefs that way, but the beliefs have not been altered- just the way of expressing them. God is still the creator, Christ is still the savior, our Father still has a body like ours, we are saved by his grace etc. Just as the ancient Greeks saw parallels between their gods and the forces of nature, I see the parallels between God and philosophical concepts about God. They are two sides of the same coin- simply different tools for expression for different purposes. I am trying to learn that translation process better so it communicates better to people who have no use for philosophy - I don't blame them because I also gave up philosophy for years myself when I needed to immerse myself in the Mormon vocabulary. It really is like learning another language- you start to forget how to say things in your native tongue and then you have to use both equally to remain fluent in both. That's where I kind of see myself now.

I think you nailed it when you spoke about the way Psychology sees things relative to the way Sociology might or philosophy might etc. I had some good conversations with John Williams over on the board which shall not be mentioned about that- semiotics parallels philosophy on these precise points about language creating reality and we were trying to communicate- he coming from semiotics and me from philosophy. That is also highly relevant to the notion of "postmodernism" which might interest you.

The important thing to realize is that we have to find truth where we find it- and incorporate it into our lives and not find any of this threatening. The model with the way we need to take people is the way God takes us and teaches us- he takes us how he finds us- ready for the temple or in the gutter, and he cleans us up and teaches us how to become like him. What language you speak- if it be a natural language or the kind of "languages" we are speaking now becomes irrelevant. The point is that we all need redemption from bad things we have done, we all need forgiveness and we all need love and understanding, regardless of how we understand that. We all need to try to become the best humans we can- if you understand that humanistically, or as "striving for the celestial kingdom" the result is nearly the same.

I happen to think one is actually better than the other, but that is where the idea of kingdoms of glory come it. Some of us will get better to being a perfect being than others- and some of us now are better than others. That is just blatantly true.

I love the stereogram analogy- I have often thought of that as well. Others look at the same thing and never "see" what is there because objectively it kind of is and kind of isn't. It's the way you see it. It's like explaining color to someone who has never seen it- you can't do it. Incidentally, that part about color is a very quick and dirty example of what I mentioned in another post above about the "Mary's Room" thought experiment- and also illustrates how commonly we use it around here.

The idea of changing vocabulary or definition sets, is helpful for me, thanks.

I've got to learn how to do that! I'm so used to things being interpreted one way, but I need & want to learn that it's ok if others see things differently than I do.

I do think that Psychology, Spirituality & Philosophy are very inter-related.

What do you mean by, "postmodernism"?

Easier said than done to not find truth threatening! lol

Seriously, Sometimes truth can seem very threatening, but of course, it's all how we define it.

"Nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - Shakespeare

I like how you suggested to accept people where they are... in the gutter or temple-ready... patience with ourselves & others. - We're works in progress.

True - we do all need forgiveness, love & understanding... I think we tend to seek it externally (since as babies & children, it was external) but it really happens withtin us.

What you mentioned about some being better at perfection than others is true, in a relative way.

In a Near-Death-Experience, a successful business guy, & leader seemed to be doing well, by societal standards, yet in the NDE, he realized, it was seemingly small acts, like when he comforted his sister one night, that really determined success, spiritually.

Edited August 4, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Montgomery Price]

To speak of objective sources in regards to the purely subjective, makes as little sense as speaking to the squareness of circles.

What do you mean by "purely subjective"?

It would seem to me that an experience with God would be considered on some level an objective interaction between two beings, you and God.

The content of a spiritual experience may be only fully accessible to the individual, but the interpreted source of the experience is a definite factor.

Just to clarify, first, there wasn't an objective evaluation of possible sources. The causal claim about the rare genetic trait was essentially based on the subjective statements of the people being studied. Those making the claim could not objectively determine if the subjects were actually experiencing the "bad" taste or not, or that the genetic trait was necessarily the "source" of the bad taste or not. There could be other factors that may have cause some of the subjects to experience a "bad" taste--like an aversion to the taste of the paper, itself, or having the genetic trait but failing to taste the "bad" because the taste bud may have been numbed or partially destroyed, etc.. Those making the claim could at best make a strong inductive case.

A strong inductive case can be made for the rare genetic trait because the methods we use to evaluate the experience are demonstrably reliable and reasonable to employ. My argument is that the inductive case for any specific source of a religious experience lacks the sort of evidence which make the inductive case for the genetic trait so strong and fails to provide any better evidence.

Second, again, I wouldn't make that claim beforehand because it wasn't at issue then. The question of "source" didn't cross our minds, and so there would have been no reason to make the claim.

Maybe, but irrelevant.

Third, had it crossed my mind, I can assure you that I would have rationally considered my taste buds as the "source" of my experience, which may likely have led me to consider the genetics behind my taste buds.

I understand. The point I am making is that sure, you can consider possible sources of your experience from such little evidence, but not establish any specific source. At that point, it's still an open question.

But, in terms of the paper strips, we didn't pretend to know the "secret." The issue of "source" or "secret" never came up to pretend about or otherwise. And, had it come up, at least some of us may have induced the so-called "secret," though not necessarily based on our own subjective experience alone--which is not what I am arguing or would argue. In some respect, the same goes for spiritual experiences.

See what I mean by your extension of my example proving problematic?

Yes, I see what you mean, but it doesn't addressing my argument. Of course, establishing the genetic trait as the source of the experience in the classroom is "problematic" because there was no means or reason to attempt so at the time. But this is the very difference I'm calling attention to when I make the analogy. In the case of the paper strip, you claim that you would not argue anyone would have induced the specific source "necessarily based on our own subjective experience alone". I'm waiting to hear how "the same goes for spiritual experiences", because any argument I've heard for establishing the specific source of any religious experience is necessarily based upon the subjective experiences in question.

Among other things--depending upon what you consider as a part of the experience or in addition to the experiences.

Why is it dependent on what I consider to be part of the experience or in addition?

Not in a precise philosophical sense of the word "knowledge", though I do in a practical, everyday use of the word.

So, I "know" Jesus lives is just meant in a practical, everyday way. OK.

Whether there is no similar mystery or not, what subjective means, if any, does one use to distinguish between the different sources of the two experiences?

We don't. We use objective means to make that determination. If the same sort of means we use to make that determination in this case are unavailable for religious experiences, then what means do we use, otherwise?

I trust that it will become clear as we proceed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Go ahead.

[Montgomery Price]

I'm sorry to hear that no method works at all for you.

There is a method that works for me however.

Requiring me to explain the entirety of experiences that others may claim useem something you believe I have to do in order to justify my own experiences, but this is where you are mixing the objective with the subjective again.

And from what you have explained, that method which works for you clearly doesn't work as well as you think. I am questioning whether one can determine certain elements of a relationship are of God, and the only answers provided have been predicated upon those elements in question.

But you correct me to say that you are not claiming that the objective works for this either, in fact no method works. But that is all this is.. your claim. Shout it loud if you like. It doesn't amount to anything more.

I'm not going to play this game. Your assertion that my claim is unsubstantiated is defied by your evasion of each demonstration made by me which substantiates the claim.

So to repeat perhaps for the last time?..

It doesn't matter that others have other claims that disagree with my experiences. I am not making the claim that religion is proven by the scientific method. So for you to demand that it meets this standard is simply you stating what is necessary for yourself I guess.

Repeat away...

I don't demand that it meets a scientific standard in order for you to make such specific conclusions about the source of your experiences. I claim that you don't have any reliable standard at all which leads you to such exclusive conclusions.

Right and wrong, the conscience, and that which follows upon carefully following this guide that is written within me needs no more justification than the need to breathe air or to eat food in order to survive. It is an inherent part of who and what I am.

If we don't have to justify "following the guide that is written within me", then why do others claim their conscience leads them to things which deny Christ? This establishes that one can think that "following the guide" will lead them to the correct conclusion, when it actually doesn't. So, we have the same problem again. How do we determine which experiences of "following the guide" are reliable and which are not, without begging the question by referring to our guide?

With regard to the transformation it was simply to allow a method by which to illustrate to you the futility of your objections.

That this is what you think was clear weeks ago. You've still yet to address the changes I made to your transformation. You've evaded every invitation to demonstrate the more precise form of the argument is "futile".

Did you even notice I added more words to the argument? Deal with it now:

(1) A scientific experiment can yield experimental results which support certain scientific hypotheses and lessens support of others.

(2) It is reported that many different experimental results have supported contradictory hypotheses.

(3) Therefore all relevant experimental results cannot be genuine.

(4) Because you've provided no way to determine whether the results of an experiment are genuine, we have no standard to determine that any hypothesis which purports to be supported by the relevant experimental result actually is.

(5) Relativity makes claims to be a theory verified by certain experimental results.

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Relativity, as verified by those experimental results in question, must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

If you say I cannot accept my own experiences because of contradictory claims of others, then neither can you accept your scientific experimental results if others claim to get contradictory results.

Do you see yet? Just because someone claims to do the experiment and not get the results does that negate your experiment?

I'll explain this very clearly once again. You are misrepresenting my argument and have again ignored its correction.

I only claim that we have no way to determine which experience is negated, only that one of the experiences, yet to be determined, must be. There is a difference between claiming this and the straw-man you've constructed which you have yet to acknowledge.

In the case of scientific experiments, we often do have ways to determine which experiment is negated. When we don't have reliable tools for any specific question, science doesn't pretend that it does nor does it claim that there is always some way to perfectly discern which experiments are valid.

If you distinguish between those who do the experiment correctly from those who do not, I can do the same with the religious experiment and distinguish between those who follow all the requirements from those who do not.

You can? With what standard which isn't based upon what is in question?

If you say that when those experimental methods are correctly followed the results agree, I can find new converts all day long and make the same claim.

Science often has a reliable standard which determines whether a method has been followed correctly which doesn't beg the question that method was supplied to answer. Religion cannot say the same.

The problem for you is illustrated when I said I could reject scientism because it creates contradictory claims between people of what determines right from wrong.

You say I cannot change the thread topic. But you see religion IS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. So a test to verify religion is about testing whether bringing one's life into harmony with God's commandments brings about the promised blessings of happiness and receiving a forgiveness for one's prior mistakes in life. That is the experiment. I determine the results myself. Is my life much better than before? Only I can answer that.

You are eighteen. If raised LDS perhaps you are confused between what you perceive the church to be directing you to do with what you think will bring you greater happiness. It is a challenging time in life. I wish you the best..

Ice-cream is the topic! So, instead of talking about ways to determine whether the ice-cream is sugar-free, let's talk about how much better vanilla tastes than chocolate!

[Montgomery Price]

then perhaps a more simplified "religious" response will be more palatable to you:

"The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. .. In the relative world the knower is different from the known, but in the Absolute Truth both the knower and the known are one and the same thing" - bhÄgavatam

This "sounds" like the "subject-object" problem may not be as you "stamp" it.

Alright. Demonstrate it.

But inspection reveals that you have not "established" that.

Haven't established that the category of experience purports to establish objective claims?

for example? over-simplify a specific example for me, please.

The Book Of Mormon as the most correct book on Earth is one starting point... and so is the Koran as the most correct book on Earth.

Moroni & does not "claim" what is not a fact, unless you plan to "establish" that we do not have ability to discern good/evil? that we do not have a consciousness? Are you seriously proposing that good and evil are conditioned and are not "instinctual"?....how do you plan to argue out of the first cause?

If you believe Moroni 7 is already a fact, then you are claiming that the perfect ability to determine whether an element of a perceived relationship is actually of God definitely includes figuring whether it leads someone to deny Christ. Can you demonstrate this without begging the question? I'd also like to hear how we know this ability is perfect, as well.

[Montgomery Price]

You don't appear to have understood what I said. I said what you need is YOUR OWN personal relationship with God until you know that the person YOU know as God truly is God, and you're not going to get that from me or anyone else other than God.

The "until you know" point will come after you have experience enough elements of a relationship with God to be able to distinguish between him, and Satan, and yourself, and other people who are talking to you, and at that point you will "KNOW' that the person you know as God truly is God.

It is possible, because many people actually know who God is.

Claiming I will know after I experience enough elements of a relationship with God still begs the question. You haven't explained anything.

Once you know you know God, you'll have gone through several stages where you thought you knew God but really didn't and you'll be able to recognize those same stages which other people are still going through as they go on their way to truly get to know God.

Sometimes people confuse Satan with God, and sometimes people confuse their own thoughts with God, and sometimes people confuse other persons with God, and ALL because they haven't had enough experiences with God to be able to tell the difference between God and those other people.

Once you know God, yourself, you'll be able to recognize when people are at those stages because you will have gone through all those stages, yourself.

You're still begging the question. It's possible to think you're advancing to a stage closer to God, when you actually aren't. So by what standard do you determine which experience of having a stage advance you towards God is reliable?

I do understand the question, and I have been giving you the answer. The only way to know God is to have a personal relationship with him until you know that the person you know as God truly is God.

It's an experience that you have to experience, yourself, because you can't develop a relationship with God without getting to know him, personally.

And btw, whether or not you know it, you've already started the process. Now all you need to do is not give up and stop saying it can't be done and instead just DO IT!!!

He's ready and willing to help you get to know him.

And Allah is ready and willing to help you get to know that Jesus is not the savior...

When I ask the question, "How do you determine which perceived elements of a relationship are of God?" The answer, "The only way know is to [perceive elements of a relationship with God]," begs the question..................... again.

[Ahab]

Claiming I will know after I experience enough elements of a relationship with God still begs the question. You haven't explained anything.

I have explained how you can know that you know God, when and if you actually do.

Now suppose you tell me what part of my explanation you don't understand.

You're still begging the question. It's possible to think you're advancing to a stage closer to God, when you actually aren't. So by what standard do you determine which experience of having a stage advance you towards God is reliable?

You would determine that based upon whether or not your experience actually brought you to a better understanding of "who" and/or "what" God actually is.

And Allah is ready and willing to help you get to know that Jesus is not the savior...

Allah? Who is Allah? Who cares what Allah thinks if what Allah thinks and wants to teach me is wrong?

If you think Allah is God, and if you think that by getting to know Allah you'll be getting to know someone who you should be learning from, then by all means go ahead and get to know Allah and learn as much as you can from him.

I already know Jesus Christ well enough to know that he is the one chosen by God, our Father in heaven, to be our Savior, so I already know that if Allah says something contradictory to what our Father and Jesus have told me then I really don't give a flying flip what Allah has to say about anything, if he even exists, because a person like that is just wrong.

When I ask the question, "How do you determine which perceived elements of a relationship are of God?" The answer, "The only way know is to [perceive elements of a relationship with God]," begs the question..................... again.

Maybe it would help you to first define "God", or explain what you mean when you use the term or word "God".

Once you figure out the kind of person or being you are trying to get to know, if you want to get to know God, you'll then be better equipped to figure out if you're meeting him if you run into somebody like that. Of course, you may still run into some imposters, but with enough personal experience you'll eventually be able to tell the difference between an imposter and the real deal.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Ahab

[DonBradley]

Hey MP,

Do you really think people only apply a pragmatic test to Mormonism because the Book of Mormon tells them to, or that people only believe God will answer them when they pray about the book because the book says so? The argument assumes that people are utter morons who will accept any implausible assumption they read in a book they have yet to verify.

People accept these tests of the Book of Mormon's truth, not simply because the book offers them, but because they have a plausibility that precedes their encounter with the book. Why shouldn't spiritual truth have pragmatic fruits and be testable by those fruits? Religionists have believed for millennia that spiritual truth does have such fruits and can be tested in this way. To most people it is just natural that this should be so, and such pragmatic thinking has been formalized philosophically by thinkers as weighty as William James and C. S. Peirce. (If, by the way, you're looking to expand your awareness of formal logic, which you rightly love, you ought to read Peirce. He adds to the traditional deductive and inductive forms of logic abductive logic, which is the type used more in many disciplines, such as history.)

It is also natural to most folks, and seems to follow from the idea of a theistic God, that He will, at least on certain very important things, give you guidance. The idea of God answering prayers wasn't invented by Moroni or Joseph Smith. It's as old as the idea of God. So, however compelling the logic may seem to you that the Mormon truth test is circular, it is only so if you ignore the foundations and content of pragmatism and theism as they exist outside the Book of Mormon.

Also, you're being too selective and literalistic in your choice of premises. You cite Nephi to show that there are two churches only, but how literal is this in LDS belief, or even in the Book of Mormon itself? The book affirms that righteous saints exist even before it's own emergence, affirms that God has spoken to all nations, etc., etc. To cite one particularly dichotomous passage is just cherry picking your evidence.

You have excellent reasoning skills and can lay out a wickedly valid case, in terms of formal logic. But your arguments on these things are a closed system, working from simplistic premises--and therefore reaching simplistic conclusions.

I say this, by the way, as one of your predecessors in laying out some of your same arguments here and elsewhere. The arguments were simplistic and wrong-headed then, and they still are now. Hopefully I'm not the only one who will see that, and hopefully you'll come to see it much earlier in your adult life than I have in mine.

Don

Edited August 8, 2011 by DonBradley

[subgenius]

Alright, I'm glad we're agreed up to that point.

I also wanted to add a comment about what you said about we know what is good by knowing what is good, rather than knowing it is something from God or in agreement with what he considers to be good.

Remember Abraham? He was told to kill his son and he was going to do it because he was sure it was God who had told him to do it.

Now, ordinarily, a person who gets a prompting like that would think that killing someone, especially their own child, would NOT be a good thing to do.

So, was it good, or was it really evil? And how would you be able to know?

Very interesting question.

My first reaction is to note that Abraham was being obedient, and i am not sure the notion of "good" is considered by either reader or Abraham. However, by default, God is incapable of "bad", correct? So, in that context the command to kill son could be seen as good, because the command was a test of obedience with no intention of ever being committed, but since the act was never accomplished it may remain arguable.

I have always understood this point as the one that reveals the distinction and source of the Law and of God - a question towards the true nature of God.

Not having been asked to slay my own by God i can not say...but Abraham apparently could, and his love of God surpassed the natural man urge to "preserve thy seed", which is perhaps why God stopped the act?

It seems to be clear in Moroni 7:15-16 that this ability to "know" is within us. The notion that our spirits are somehow "tabulaeu rosa" and bio-mechanical memory are the means by which we ultimately discern good and evil is a long row to how and i have yet to see a convincing argument to that end.

But, again, an interesting question.

[mfbukowski]

Hey MP,

Do you really think people only apply a pragmatic test to Mormonism because the Book of Mormon tells them to, or that people only believe God will answer them when they pray about the book because the book says so? The argument assumes that people are utter morons who will accept any implausible assumption they read in a book they have yet to verify.

People accept these tests of the Book of Mormon's truth, not simply because the book offers them, but because they have a plausibility that precedes their encounter with the book. Why shouldn't spiritual truth have pragmatic fruits and be testable by those fruits? Religionists have believed for millennia that spiritual truth does have such fruits and can be tested in this way. To most people it is just natural that this should be so, and such pragmatic thinking has been formalized philosophically by thinkers as weighty as William James and C. S. Peirce. (If, by the way, you're looking to expand your awareness of formal logic, which you rightly love, you ought to read Peirce. He adds to the traditional deductive and inductive forms of logic abductive logic, which is the type used more in many disciplines, such as history.)

It is also natural to most folks, and seems to follow from the idea of a theistic God, that He will, at least on certain very important things, give you guidance. The idea of God answering prayers wasn't invented by Moroni or Joseph Smith. It's as old as the idea of God. So, however compelling the logic may seem to you that the Mormon truth test is circular, it is only so if you ignore the foundations and content of pragmatism and theism as they exist outside the Book of Mormon.

Also, you're being too selective and literalistic in your choice of premises. You cite Nephi to show that there are two churches only, but how literal is this in LDS belief, or even in the Book of Mormon itself? The book affirms that righteous saints exist even before it's own emergence, affirms that God has spoken to all nations, etc., etc. To cite one particularly dichotomous passage is just cherry picking your evidence.

You have excellent reasoning skills and can lay out a wickedly valid case, in terms of formal logic. But your arguments on these things are a closed system, working from simplistic premises--and therefore reaching simplistic conclusions.

I say this, by the way, as one of your predecessors in laying out some of your same arguments here and elsewhere. The arguments were simplistic and wrong-headed then, and they still are now. Hopefully I'm not the only one who will see that, and hopefully you'll come to see it much earlier in your adult life than I have in mine.

Don

I was also an atheist before I was converted to Pragmatism first, and THEN, finally to the church at age 30.

I understand exactly what you are saying!

[subgenius]

Alright. Demonstrate it.

it will seem "illogical" to you because logic, by its own constraints can not consider "absolute" truths. But philosophically, consider that you have a conscious mind, that is an absolute truth because it is without doubt - and for you to doubt is simply to confirm your conscious mind. Ergo, the knower = the known.

demonstrated, next?

Haven't established that the category of experience purports to establish objective claims?

that is not what you said, you have conveniently edited...replace your above general "the" with your original intended specificity of "this" as seen by the following re-print of what you actually wrote.

"I am establishing that this category of subjective experience doesn't always establish objective claims, like they purport to."

So, still, you have not established that "this" category does not always establlsh objective claims.

The Book Of Mormon as the most correct book on Earth is one starting point... and so is the Koran as the most correct book on Earth.

not sure what you are driving at here...are you saying that the Koran states itself as the fullness of the gospel?

Perhaps, maybe, you mean as the most parsimonious conveyance of the principles and doctrines it teaches? at which case both texts could certainly make that claim.

If you believe Moroni 7 is already a fact, then you are claiming that the perfect ability to determine whether an element of a perceived relationship is actually of God definitely includes figuring whether it leads someone to deny Christ. Can you demonstrate this without begging the question? I'd also like to hear how we know this ability is perfect, as well.

i believe you are confused, because your statement here is confusing. And for the record, it is not perfect "ability" but perfect "knowledge". Maybe you should dumb this statement down for me.

It seems that you may actually have an example of something that you do not know is good or bad, correct? I mean to say, is there something you claim to be good or bad that you do not have a "perfect knowledge" of it being good or bad?

[Montgomery Price]

I have explained how you can know that you know God, when and if you actually do.

Now suppose you tell me what part of my explanation you don't understand.

I understand your explanation doesn't explain anything useful to answer my question.

I asked how you can determine which elements of a relationship are of God, and you've responded by claiming that the relationship itself will teach you. That is, you will experience a relationship with God that will lead you to determine which elements of the relationship are actually of God. Your response ultimately falls under the category of "perceived element of a relationship with God." You're still begging the question.

You would determine that based upon whether or not your experience actually brought you to a better understanding of "who" and/or "what" God actually is.

That standard is still insufficient. We know that many people experience "being brought to a better understanding of God" in the very same way you've suggested, but every person who experiences this can't each be experiencing what they think.

Allah? Who is Allah? Who cares what Allah thinks if what Allah thinks and wants to teach me is wrong?

If you think Allah is God, and if you think that by getting to know Allah you'll be getting to know someone who you should be learning from, then by all means go ahead and get to know Allah and learn as much as you can from him.

I already know Jesus Christ well enough to know that he is the one chosen by God, our Father in heaven, to be our Savior, so I already know that if Allah says something contradictory to what our Father and Jesus have told me then I really don't give a flying flip what Allah has to say about anything, if he even exists, because a person like that is just wrong.

But consider what they're saying in the context of problem I am calling attention to.

If the proper way to determine whether an perceived element of a relationship is of God is to figure for yourself whether that experience brings you to a better understanding of God, then we observe from the reports of others the same sort of problem. People who don't have a proper understanding of God, yet think they do, meet your standard.

For example, a person may become a Muslim, and find that he has experienced being "brought to a better understanding of God" when God confirms to him that the Koran is His chosen book and that the Mosque is his chosen "church". This is contrary to what a "better understanding of God" a Mormon might experience, being that the Book of Mormon is God's chosen book and the LDS church is his chosen church.

If he asked you the same question I have, and you responded in the same way... He would say that he has met your standard, and his experience is reliable. But you know that some of his experience is unreliable, so you must modify your standard to exclude those parts which are unreliable.

The point is that simply experiencing "being brought to a better understanding of God" is not always reliable. The same problem is then transferred to how we determine whether the experience of being "brought to a better understanding of God" is reliable or not.

Maybe it would help you to first define "God", or explain what you mean when you use the term or word "God".

Once you figure out the kind of person or being you are trying to get to know, if you want to get to know God, you'll then be better equipped to figure out if you're meeting him if you run into somebody like that. Of course, you may still run into some imposters, but with enough personal experience you'll eventually be able to tell the difference between an imposter and the real deal.

When posing my question, I use "God" to describe the God who has created the Universe with any specific qualities which would precludes any Universe with contradicting qualities. Things like which book is most correct, which people are appointed his prophets, who is the savior of mankind, which church is the chosen church, etc.

[Montgomery Price]

Hey MP,

Hello Don,

I'm very happy you've come to discuss this with me again. I don't blame you for not reading through the thread, but I've been learning and modifying my argument a bit and my argument is no longer well represented by my OP. So far, I think the best narrowing of my argument is this question:

By what standard do we determine that an perceived element of a relationship with God is actually of God?

I've intended this thread to focus on the arguments against the responses offered to this question. So far, each has answer has failed to avoid begging the question in some way by referring to methods derived directly from those elements in question or methods which are derived directly from books which are justified by those elements in question.

Do you really think people only apply a pragmatic test to Mormonism because the Book of Mormon tells them to, or that people only believe God will answer them when they pray about the book because the book says so? The argument assumes that people are utter morons who will accept any implausible assumption they read in a book they have yet to verify.

I believe many people, especially those indoctrinated in the Mormon church, have simply been raised to believe that the prophets have told you all you need to know about questioning Mormonism. That is, when an indoctrinated child becomes older and wishes to know whether Mormonism is true, they simply follow the test they've been lead to believe works, and accept the predicted results as valid simply because they were predicted. Many have been taught to avoid anything which is not faith-promoting, and they listen like "utter morons". It happens often enough for me to have witnessed it several times, and I stopped going to church 4 years ago.

But before we get side-tracked, this is not the focus of this thread nor the intention of my original argument. I discussed with Wade Englund the flaws in arguing that Moroni's Promise is justified by the Book of Mormon itself, and I agree with him. The circular reasoning I am exposing is with is in the responses to the question I gave as my narrowed argument above. Moroni's Promise falls under the category of "perceived element of a relationship with God", and is therefore offered circularly as a justification for the Book of Mormon being the guide to discernment on this issue.

People accept these tests of the Book of Mormon's truth, not simply because the book offers them, but because they have a plausibility that precedes their encounter with the book. Why shouldn't spiritual truth have pragmatic fruits and be testable by those fruits? Religionists have believed for millennia that spiritual truth does have such fruits and can be tested in this way. To most people it is just natural that this should be so, and such pragmatic thinking has been formalized philosophically by thinkers as weighty as William James and C. S. Peirce. (If, by the way, you're looking to expand your awareness of formal logic, which you rightly love, you ought to read Peirce. He adds to the traditional deductive and inductive forms of logic abductive logic, which is the type used more in many disciplines, such as history.)

Will do, but the assertions of religionists still lack substantiation.

Why should we believe that successful pragmatic application can answer a non-pragmatic question of epistemology?

The mistake many "utter morons" make is to believe that simply because results were predicted, the results are reliable. What convinces them is how happy the results make them, or how intensely they experience the questionable conviction.

For example, imagine you were engaged in a conversation online and the question of whether you were talking to a real person or a super-advanced ai program was raised. Let's call him Turing. For sake of the argument, every response given by Turing is indistinguishable from how a real person may respond. We can assume that if Turing is an artificial intelligence, he is programed to react with the capabilities of a human being.

When you decide to ask Turing whether he is a person or program, he claims that he is a real person. He then claims that to discover his identity all you need to do is follow his advice on how to improve your life and when your life improves, you'll know. Would you feel you had enough information to settle this question of whether you were talking to a person or a program? Obviously not. There's something beyond simple "fruits" or advice which supposedly answers the question, and that's what I'm trying to isolate.

So the question isn't "Why shouldn't spiritual truth have pragmatic fruits and be testable by those fruits?"... It's very possible.

The question is why should they?

It could very well be that pragmatic religious guidance is, in fact, pragmatically useful and this would be "natural" given if the epistemic guidance of religion is reliable. But that we should mix the two when settling epistemic questions hasn't been substantiated.

It is also natural to most folks, and seems to follow from the idea of a theistic God, that He will, at least on certain very important things, give you guidance. The idea of God answering prayers wasn't invented by Moroni or Joseph Smith. It's as old as the idea of God. So, however compelling the logic may seem to you that the Mormon truth test is circular, it is only so if you ignore the foundations and content of pragmatism and theism as they exist outside the Book of Mormon.

I've come to understand that this is the case with Moroni's Promise with Wade Englund's help. I had also understood the general concept prior to any discussion of problems concerning Moroni's Promise.

Also, you're being too selective and literalistic in your choice of premises. You cite Nephi to show that there are two churches only, but how literal is this in LDS belief, or even in the Book of Mormon itself? The book affirms that righteous saints exist even before it's own emergence, affirms that God has spoken to all nations, etc., etc. To cite one particularly dichotomous passage is just cherry picking your evidence.

You're right. The passages I gave in the OP are only possible responses to my question. They're not given as evidence for my argument, they're the possible responses and why I reject them. I've explained to many here that I'm asking for tools to answer the question, so to reject any tool offered (such as scientific evaluation) doesn't answer the problem, it just dismisses a possible solution.

The passage from Nephi is probably the most flexible of the passages I've listed concerning responses to my argument, but the others are clear in how they relate to establishing the question my argument poses, a different matter.

The criteria for knowing perfectly whether something is of God or Satan is to ask whether it leads someone to deny that Christ is the savior. But this standard is incompatible with the standard a Muslim may adopt, which would reject the idea that denying Christ is the savior is evil. While the passage may be offered as a solution to determining which perceived elements of a relationship are of God, it is also an example of a contradiction which establishes that someone may experience an element of a relationship with God which they think is reliable, but actually is not. This has caused lots of confusion... Hopefully, you'll understand what I mean and why this may seem to be cherry-picking.

You have excellent reasoning skills and can lay out a wickedly valid case, in terms of formal logic. But your arguments on these things are a closed system, working from simplistic premises--and therefore reaching simplistic conclusions.

I say this, by the way, as one of your predecessors in laying out some of your same arguments here and elsewhere. The arguments were simplistic and wrong-headed then, and they still are now. Hopefully I'm not the only one who will see that, and hopefully you'll come to see it much earlier in your adult life than I have in mine.

Don

Maybe you can reevaluate and we can move on. I'd like to learn some more of what you think.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Ahab]

I understand your explanation doesn't explain anything useful to answer my question.

I asked how you can determine which elements of a relationship are of God, and you've responded by claiming that the relationship itself will teach you. That is, you will experience a relationship with God that will lead you to determine which elements of the relationship are actually of God. Your response ultimately falls under the category of "perceived element of a relationship with God." You're still begging the question.

Tell me this: If you have a specific kind of person in mind when you use the word "God", how would you not find God and know that you found him and are getting to know him if you keep looking until you find someone who meets the qualifications you have in mind for who and what God is?

Seems obvious to me that you'd eventually find him if you just kept looking while measuring everyone up to see if they met your standard.

That standard is still insufficient. We know that many people experience "being brought to a better understanding of God" in the very same way you've suggested, but every person who experiences this can't each be experiencing what they think.

Maybe they have a different concept in their mind for who and what God is. Have you ever thought of that?

But consider what they're saying in the context of problem I am calling attention to.

If the proper way to determine whether an perceived element of a relationship is of God is to figure for yourself whether that experience brings you to a better understanding of God, then we observe from the reports of others the same sort of problem. People who don't have a proper understanding of God, yet think they do, meet your standard.

For example, a person may become a Muslim, and find that he has experienced being "brought to a better understanding of God" when God confirms to him that the Koran is His chosen book and that the Mosque is his chosen "church". This is contrary to what a "better understanding of God" a Mormon might experience, being that the Book of Mormon is God's chosen book and the LDS church is his chosen church.

If he asked you the same question I have, and you responded in the same way... He would say that he has met your standard, and his experience is reliable. But you know that some of his experience is unreliable, so you must modify your standard to exclude those parts which are unreliable.

I'lll put it this way: If their God doesn't meet the same standard I have in mnid for the person or persons I refer to as God, and their God(s) contradict what I know God has told me, then those persons they are referring to as God are not the one(s) I refer to as God.

[subgenius]

Monty

Your epistemology is blurry....

it is really not a difficult, strange, or unusual premise.

Care to comment on this?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-evident

OR

"When a man sees a woman walking down the street, the action of his consciousness is perception; when he notes that she is beautiful, the action of his consciousness is evaluation; when he experiences an inner state of pleasure and approval, of admiration, the action of his consciousness is emotion; when he stops to watch her and draws conclusions, from the evidence, about her character, age, social position, etc., the action of his consciousness is thought; when, later, he recalls the incident, the action of his consciousness is reminiscence; when he projects that her appearance would be improved if her hair were blond rather than brown, and her dress were blue rather than red, the action of his consciousness is imagination."

and dont forget

[mfbukowski]

monty

For a Pragmatist, there is no such thing as "non-pragmatic epistemology" or questions which cannot be handled by Pragmatism.

The question about the computer named Turing would be irrelevant because it is unknowable whether or not it was human. If a solution to a "problem" makes no practical difference, it never was a "problem" to begin with.

If Turing thinks acts, responds and speaks as a human, there is no way to distinguish him from a human, he IS a human for "all practical purposes".

If one gets a response from "God" which convinces one that it IS from God by it's content, there is no way to know if it is from God or not, and therefore the question becomes irrelevant.

It's like asking if that "red thing" is REALLY red or if it just "looks red", or if something tastes like salt, if it is REALLY salt?

Is this really a rabbit or a duck?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg/220px-Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg

[wenglund]

What do you mean by "purely subjective"?

I am speaking in a relative sense where the experience, for all intents and purposes, is not readily objectifiable.

It would seem to me that an experience with God would be considered on some level an objective interaction between two beings, you and God. The content of a spiritual experience may be only fully accessible to the individual, but the interpreted source of the experience is a definite factor.

Agreed. However, it is a far cry from the objective level at which we may share the experience of boiling water at a given temperature. The point being, the level of expectation for objectivity/subjectivity we place on a methodology ought to be in line with the level of objectivity/subjectivity of the the experience being assessed by the methodology.

A strong inductive case can be made for the rare genetic trait because the methods we use to evaluate the experience are demonstrably reliable and reasonable to employ. My argument is that the inductive case for any specific source of a religious experience lacks the sort of evidence which make the inductive case for the genetic trait so strong and fails to provide any better evidence.

You appear to be using the word "strong" to mean "more objectifiable." I doubt that anyone here would disagree that determining the "source" of the bad taste on the test strip is more objectifiable than determining the "source" of religious experiences. That is as may reasonably be expected given the greater amount of objectifiable evidence available for the taste experience than religious experiences. And, one would expect the methodologies utilizing the objectifiable evidence to assess the taste experience, would be more "reliable" in an objective sense.

Yet, the inductive case made (the methodology/evidence) for determining the source for rare genetic traits isn't as strong as the case that can be made for determining the "source" for boiling water.

Should we abandon the methodologies and beliefs about the rare genetic trait because it lacks the inductive, objectifiable "strength" and "reliability" in determining the source of boiling water? I don't believe so--because it is useful to us.

Likewise, we religionists don't think it wise to abandon our methodologies and belief on the bases that they lack the inductive, objectifiable "strength" and "reliability" in determining the rare genetic trait for the bad taste, and this because they are useful to us.

Besides, we religionists, and often we humans in secular matters, assess the strength of certain cases also based on the extent of subjective evidence, and this because it is useful to us. Such is how we end up with different political affiliations, and why we end up marrying and befriending different people, or buying different cloths, or taking different vacations, or picking different career-paths, etc.

In short, the lesser objectifiabiity of a given experience and its source, is not cause, in and of itself, to reject the methodologies and beliefs related thereto, particularly when such experiences and methodogies and beliefs have proved useful to us.

You, on the other hand, are free to think otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If a solution to a "problem" makes no practical difference, it never was a "problem" to begin with.

This is a profound point.

And, a "problem" is only really a "problem" when we really make it such.

Certain philosophers have a habit of inventing "problems" that don't exist for the rest of us--one of their biggest "problems" being the lack of meaningful solutions to their imagined and seemingly inconsequential "problems." Some people are debilitated puzzling over the philosophical "problem" of evil, while others are empowered through practically struggling with and somewhat conquering evil.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-