mfbukowski Posted August 9, 2011 Posted August 9, 2011 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-I think this whole thread is analogous to a protracted argument about whether or not that drawing is a rabbit or a duck.The "problem" is actually caused by those who think it must be one or the other.
Ahab Posted August 9, 2011 Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) 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.I would say that if one gets a response from "God" and accepts that response as one that has come from "God", then to the person who received that response "God" is whoever or whatever gave that response.People have all kinds of different ideas about who and what God is, you know, and to find who and what they consider to be "God" all it takes is to find someone who fits their idea of who and what God is.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.wikime...it_illusion.jpgIt is what it is as well as whatever you consider a rabbit or a duck or the color red to be. Edited August 10, 2011 by Ahab
shalamabobbi Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 This argument is to establish that determining the sources of our religious experiences is, epistemically, an open question. But unlike the methods of science, religious methods have declared it doctrine that the method works; that, epistemically, it's a closed question. If you can't tell which elements of a relationship are of God, then you can't tell whether that element has somehow produced knowledge. If you can't tell whether an epistemic tool produces knowledge, then that tool has failed to fulfill its purpose. This is not what we should expect if Mormonism was correct in asserting its epistemic tools do fulfill their purpose.The purpose as I understand it is perhaps different than the purpose as you understand it. If the purpose is to produce happiness then I decide whether that purpose has or has not been fulfilled. Is that real knowledge? It is for me. The gospel's purpose is not to be a tool by which to establish the reality of God in some scientific objective manner. We can simply have faith or hope that it is so. And guess what? It still works. It still fulfills its purpose.That God exists can be determined from enough personal experiences. Otherwise it is a strange universe indeed that allows others to read the thoughts that were in my mind a couple of weeks ago, but only if they have the LDS version of the priesthood. Or a universe that can by a certain voice without fail advise me of events before they take place without a miss. Or a universe that can make physical beings appear to others in a manner that they share that experience in their separate minds. Or a universe that can instantly heal an impotent hand, again if it is done by an LDS prophet. Add it all up and it becomes a very strange universe indeed..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?Science does not address ultimate truth as you seem to understand from your response to the brain in a vat argument. Science is pragmatic in it's approach ignoring the question of ultimate truth. From etana's post on the thread "Did God create the universe" we may be a holographic projection in a 2-dimensional reality.source: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/how-an-argument-with-hawking-suggested-the-universe-is-a-hologram.arsThe book "Black Hole Wars" by Susskind is where I first read about this. Does it change anything? Is it epistemically a closed question that the world is the way we perceive it intuitively? Does it matter?As you didn't care whether or not you were a brain in a vat since it doesn't change anything, so I can follow the teachings of God by faith simply because it makes my life better..***********************Call me old fashioned but I believe motivation is behind everything.The fact that we believe in agency and exercise our freedom of conscience and allow others theirs, let them worship(or not) how where or what they may, would be an indication to me that the LDS belief system accepts the fact of "contradictions" as you call them. Simply pointing to the existence of contradictions does not make truth claims invalid.Why am I happy when I deal honestly with my neighbor rather than cheat him? To be able to answer the question presupposes the existence of that which provides the answer and is circular. So your asking why at this level seems more an attempt to justify some sort of deviant behavior rather than an honest question of justification for the behavior..What is it about believing in the reality of God that affects anything besides behavior. Yet you ignore the question of behavior as though it is beside the point of your objection.Perhaps this illustrates your motivation.Would you behave one way if God were to be proven as a fact of life, and a different way if His non-existence could be established without any doubt? If so, then perhaps that is why you are obsessed with the question of His epistemic reality.God has said that belief and faith are important. Why? Allowing that God really exists and knows all the answers, that would be a pretty big endorsement for faith/belief. Why?Why not simply show Himself to everyone and end the debate? Why isn't He concerned with the reliability and justification of the method? It would seem if this were so important He would be.He must be interested in some quality other than the ability to reach conclusions based upon the senses and an extension thereof. Could it be that behavior cannot be justified at the level you are demanding? Could it be that good and evil cannot be proven at that level? Could it ultimately simply be that there is a segregation going on? That those who will obey certain laws will reside in certain places with others of like mind, and those who become a law unto themselves will go with others of that same mind? That maybe no one is being forced into anything, to believe or otherwise, that agency is simply being respected. That since agency has been given to us, the onus is upon us to exercise that agency? To choose good over evil does not require any epistemic test or proof. Would you try to convince me to disobey a commandment of God? Where is your epistemic proof that to do so carries no ill consequences?? Lack of epistemic proof for A is no proof of B. And this is a significant error in your reasoning when either A or B must be chosen. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 This is a profound point.It is! I just wish I had been the first to voice it- that's pure William James.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. Or if it is possible for God to be "real" if he can only be experienced subjectively.
Recommended Posts