Brade Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 Just to add a little more heat to the discussion:If you take faith must be based on 'correct knowledge', and if faith is NOT knowledge, then you can't (by definition) know that you have faith at all (even if you do have faith after all). If you know you have faith then you must know the object of your faith is true... but if you know the object of your faith is true, then you can't have faith but knowledge.You're jumping ahead!
Brade Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 Brade, do you draw a distinction between "belief" and "faith?"Yes.
Brade Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 DaddyG, in my mini-rant I failed to show proper appreciation for your post, which I think makes a good point and potentially offers a solution to the problem of Alma's seemingly odd notion of faith. The context of the other scripture you cited can, as you do, make the case that Alma wasn't defining faith in some novel way, but that he was just mentioning that what he's talking about (e.g. his religion) is true, and that if you have faith in the true things he's talking about, then you'll reap the rewards. I think that's a good explanation for the verse and it relieves the tension.Unfortunately, I don't think that's the common view among Mormons. I think the common view, as is being demonstrated in this thread, is that faith really means that the object of faith is true, and that if one hopes for something, and acts on that hope, but the object of that hope isn't true, then one doesn't have faith. This just seems absurd, and I think you agree.Actually, out of the principle of charity I think I should say that your view is Mormon view of faith, because your view actually makes sense, whereas the view taken directly from Alma 32, and apparently advocated by several Mormons is (1) at odds with the intuitive notion of faith, and (2) implies absurd things along of the lines of what elguanteloko is gesturing to.
KevinG Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 Brade said:Ok, I'm beginning to think that this thread should have begun with an elementary course in logic on conditionals, some basic rules of inference, and some elementary information on causal relations. DaddyG Says: add lelemntary English to that list.Alma said,If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.Brade said:That entails this:If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true.DaddyG says:That is a horribly incorrect reading of Alma.A better paraphrase of Alma would be this:If ye have faith you hope tor things which you do not yet see - but which things are already true.again. Alma is not saying faith makes things true, Alma is saying faith reveals things that are true. Please, please, please read the entire chapter and add D&C 93 for some context.
Jeff K. Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 Just to add a little more heat to the discussion:If you take faith must be based on 'correct knowledge', and if faith is NOT knowledge, then you can't (by definition) know that you have faith at all (even if you do have faith after all). If you know you have faith then you must know the object of your faith is true... but if you know the object of your faith is true, then you can't have faith but knowledgeThat is incorrect. Faith is based on truth, truth that cannot be seen or felt. Based on LDS definitions which I assume we are working with in an LDS forum, the Holy Ghost helps us have faith in things we cannot touch or feel or see but is true.Consider the color yellow. A blind man will not know what that color is or where it exists in nature because he has no knowledge of it. But he can have faith that yellow exists, and someone who knows yellow can guide him to it. He has faith that he moves towards yellow even when he cannot see it, but is guided towards it. Faith in something you cannot see or from which you have no evidence, but is true.
KevinG Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 Absurd things are definately being implied here. None of them having anything to do with Mormon doctrine.
KevinG Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 That is incorrect. Faith is based on truth, truth that cannot be seen or felt. Based on LDS definitions which I assume we are working with in an LDS forum, the Holy Ghost helps us have faith in things we cannot touch or feel or see but is true.Consider the color yellow. A blind man will not know what that color is or where it exists in nature because he has no knowledge of it. But he can have faith that yellow exists, and someone who knows yellow can guide him to it. He has faith that he moves towards yellow even when he cannot see it, but is guided towards it. Faith in something you cannot see or from which you have no evidence, but is true.But chartruse is not true yellow. Lemon is the only true yellow. Heathen!
Jeff K. Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 Hence the need for a true guide like the Holy Ghost.
KevinG Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 Simply put Alma is saying faith in the truth coupled with obedience (using reveled truth according to God's instructions) leads to revelation of more truth.Faith in untruthes leads to a dead end and those ideas should be cast out as unfruitful paths.Attend a Sunday School class and teach anything other than this about Alma and you will be politely ignored (as most LDS will try very hard to be polite to guests and will not laugh out loud at you).
Fig-bearing Thistle Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Yes.Can you put into words what that distinction is between belief and faith? As you see it?And if "YES" then please do so in your next reply. Edited July 23, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle
Fig-bearing Thistle Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 Actually, out of the principle of charity I think I should say that your view is Mormon view of faith, because your view actually makes sense, whereas the view taken directly from Alma 32, and apparently advocated by several Mormons is (1) at odds with the intuitive notion of faith, and (2) implies absurd things along of the lines of what elguanteloko is gesturing to.Brade, if you want to march to the beat of your own drum, while ignoring actual beat of the music, go ahead. It's your choice.
Brade Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 again. Alma is not saying faith makes things true, Alma is saying faith reveals things that are true. Please, please, please read the entire chapter and add D&C 93 for some context.And again, for the, I don't know how manyieth time, I'm not saying that Alma is saying that faith makes things true. That you think I'm saying that tells me that you do not understand the logic of conditionals and what they do or do not necessarily imply.
Brade Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 Brade, if you want to march to the beat of your own drum, while ignoring actual beat of the music, go ahead. It's your choice.Ok.
Brade Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Simply put Alma is saying faith in the truth coupled with obedience (using reveled truth according to God's instructions) leads to revelation of more truth.I actually agree with you, and I think that's the most charitable and sensible reading of Alma.Faith in untruthes leads to a dead end and those ideas should be cast out as unfruitful paths.I'm perfectly content to accept that too. However, several Mormon posters in this thread are asserting something much more than that. They're saying that it's impossible to have faith in propositions that are not true. You're saying that you can have faith in false propositions, it's just that that faith will not be fruitful. They're saying you cannot have faith in false proposition at all. Do you see the difference? I have changed my mind in this thread, if you hadn't noticed, because of what you've brought to the discussion. Initially, because some many members seem to take the view that you cannot have faith in false propositions, I suggested that that was probably the Mormon view of faith. But, you brought a more sensible reading of Alma to the table, one which takes into account the context of what he's saying, and one that is consistent with the standard and more sensible view of faith (i.e. that truth is not a condition of faith). Because your view, and reading of Alma makes more sense, I'm happy to accept that as the Mormon view of both Alma's words and the Mormon view of the nature of faith for the reason that I'd rather not attribute to Mormonism something as problematic and nonsensical as the other notion that some people are advocating here.Attend a Sunday School class and teach anything other than this about Alma and you will be politely ignored (as most LDS will try very hard to be polite to guests and will not laugh out loud at you).I've taught Sunday School class, and have taught what you've said there, and by far the majority disagreed what what I said in favor of the notion of faith that says that truth is a condition of faith and that if somebody has faith in some proposition, then that proposition is true. I've experienced that response several times, in several different teaching situations, in several different wards where I've held teaching callings (e.g. EQ, Gospel Doctrine). Edited July 23, 2011 by Brade
Fig-bearing Thistle Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 Ok.So, can you in your next reply, describe the distinction between "belief" and "faith?" As you see it?
Brade Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) So, can you in your next reply, describe the distinction between "belief" and "faith?" As you see it?Yes. And sorry for the delay, but, if you'll notice, I'm engaged in more lines of conversation in this thread than just ours. For one thing, a condition of faith, which is not a condition of belief, is that the object of faith is acted on. If I hope that Jesus is the son of God and that his teaching that I ought to be baptized is true, but I don't do anything about it, then I don't have faith that Jesus is the son of God and that his teaching that I ought to be baptized is true. Perhaps I have mere hope that Jesus is the son of God and that his teaching that I ought to be baptized is true, and to the extent that I believe those propositions, I have belief that they are true. I accept the Mormon view that faith contains as a condition a principle of action. Belief does not have that condition. People can, and often do, believe a great many things which they fail to modify their behavior around. Edited July 23, 2011 by Brade
Fig-bearing Thistle Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 Yes. And sorry for the delay, but, if you'll notice, I'm engaged in more lines of conversation in this thread than just ours. For one thing, a condition of faith, which is not a condition of belief, is that the object of faith is acted on. If I hope that Jesus is the son of God and that his teaching that I ought to be baptized is true, but I don't do anything about it, then I don't have faith that Jesus is the son of God and that his teaching that I ought to be baptized is true. Perhaps I have mere hope that Jesus is the son of God and that his teaching that I ought to be baptized is true, and to the extent that I believe those propositions, I have belief that they are true. I accept the Mormon view that faith contains as a condition a principle of action. Belief does not have that condition. People can, and often do, believe a great many things which they fail to modify their behavior around.Thanks, Brade.Let's go back to your original question. Let's assume a scenario where "P" = "planting these carrot seeds will yield corn stalks if I nurture and water them."If this is what P equals, then according to Alma, a person cannot have faith in P. But if "P" = "planting these carrot seeds will yield carrots if I nurture and water them.", then according to Alma, a person CAN have faith in P.
mfbukowski Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) I'm still waiting for someone to define "true" and how this has any relevance to a linguistic constructivist position.It seems we are all arguing about the color of virtue again.I guess I'll post this yet again Edited July 23, 2011 by mfbukowski
Fig-bearing Thistle Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) I'm still waiting for someone to define "true" and how this has any relevance to a linguistic constructivist position.It seems we are all arguing about the color of virtue again.Isn't the definition of "true" a self-evident one? Where would it advance us to define the self-evident."True" is simply "WHAT IS"; standing independent of human understanding or perception. Edited July 23, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle
Fig-bearing Thistle Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 I'm still waiting for someone to define "true" and how this has any relevance to a linguistic constructivist position.It seems we are all arguing about the color of virtue again.Isn't the definition of "true" a self-evident one? Where would it advance us to define the self-evident."True" is simply "WHAT IS"; standing independent of human understanding or perception.
Fig-bearing Thistle Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Gateway timeout. Ignore this double post. Edited July 23, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle
mfbukowski Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 I mean we can play the game as a logical exercise, but my question still is what relevance this has to Mormonism without a definition of "truth".The question is justification of beliefs- not whether or not we want to put the label "true" on it. As Rorty says, we know what it means- we know what it means in a testimony meeting to use that word- but what is being said there is that "my belief in the church is justified"All the syllogisms in the world are irrelevant in the face of that- you might as well be talking about the rules of addition and subtraction for their relevance.
Fig-bearing Thistle Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Gateway timeout: Please ignore this triple post. Edited July 23, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle
mfbukowski Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Isn't the definition of "true" a self-evident one? Where would it advance us to define the self-evident."True" is simply what "IS" independent of human understanding or perception.You don't want to go there.How do you know any of that "exists" if it is independent of perception? So you know the "computer is on the table" is true independent of perception? Good luck with that.Edit: my comments are mostly for Brade and presume an understanding of philosophical "truth" theories Edited July 23, 2011 by mfbukowski
Brade Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 You don't want to go there.How do you know any of that "exists" if it is independent of perception? So you know the "computer is on the table" is true independent of perception? Good luck with that.Can I just go ahead and say that this thread is for people who accept something like the common sense (that isn't meant derogatorily) notion of truth. I know you don't accept that notion, that your a pragmatist about truth, but I beg you not to turn this thread into a pragmatism vs every-other-truth-theory debate. Please?
Recommended Posts