True/False Quiz About Faith

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You don't want to go there.

How do you know any of that "exists" if it is independent of perception?

We don't "know". We can put trust in our own perception--and then we might think that the information obtained from our perception is "knowledge". But sometimes that "perception" fails us. We can think we see something that may or may not really be there. We can't ever really "know" something that we perceive, unless we know for sure that our perception is infallible.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[mfbukowski]

Brade:

What i am questioning is not the validity of the logic, but the relevance of the discussion based around the obvious ambiguity of the meanings involved in the words in "church English", and the possibility of reaching any useful conclusions about the way actual Mormons speak and actual contradictions in the belief system which those supposed logical contradictions might uncover.

I mean the thread itself seems to be evidence of precisely what I am saying here.

[Brade]

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?

[mfbukowski]

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?

No problem- I will officially withdraw from the thread now.

Have fun all!

[wenglund]

Please assess each statement as either true or false:

Since your questions about "truth" address matters of faith rather than fact (i.e. the "truth" of these things are not factually/objectively determinate), one can only answer in faith rather than as fact.

1. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

True, according to my faith.

2. If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true.

True, according to Bob's faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

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).

Really? You have had people in your Sunday School classes that believed something would be true if they had faith in it regardless of that truth being independent and in the sphere that God has placed it (have you re-read D&C 93 yet?)?

Then they don't know their own doctrines, and perhaps if their teachers stuck to the curricula instead of trying to run a Jr. College philosophy symposium there wouldn't be so many confused class members declaring that their faith makes something true?

What a shame that you would admint to teaching and perpetuating false doctrine.

Edited July 23, 2011 by DaddyG

[Brade]

Really? You have had people in your Sunday School classes that believed something would be true if they had faith in it regardless of that truth being independent and in the sphere that God has placed it (have you re-read D&C 93 yet?)?

No, for the umpteenth time, you still seem not to understand a nuance of what I'm saying. I'm not saying that anyone believes or believed that something would be true if they had faith in it regardless of that truth being independent and in the sphere that God has placed it. I am not saying that. Please, I beg you, stop attributing that view to me, or to anyone else. Nothing I've said implies it. I am saying that people I've taught, and, if you read through this thread, people in this thread, do believe that if they have faith that something is true, then that thing is true. Please, I beg you to go to your local university and look up a philosophy professor there (better, a professor of logic) and ask him if the proposition 'If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true' means that Bob's faith that P is true causes P's truth. I assure you, and I'm certain that anyone posting in this thread with a grasp of elementary logic will back me up on this (even if they disagree with my overall point, mfbukowski, wade, any help here?), that that professor will tell you that the proposition 'If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true' does not necessarily imply that Bob's faith that P is true causes P's truth. They will tell you that that proposition means that truth is a condition of faith on that account.

Then they don't know their own doctrines, and perhaps if their teachers stuck to the curricula instead of trying to run a Jr. College philosophy symposium there wouldn't be so many confused class members declaring that their faith makes something true?

How is my asking them what that scripture in Alma means influencing their answer?

What a shame that you would admint to teaching and perpetuating false doctrine.

I'm sorry, but I seriously question your ability to read and think critically. Please demonstrate how anything I've said implies that I've taught false doctrine. Please go back a few posts and notice that I clearly said that what I taught was what you said about faith, and that upon teaching that, the majority of class members disagreed. Please show me how that entails that I taught false doctrine, unless you're admitting that your interpretation is false doctrine?

[Brade]

Since your questions about "truth" address matters of faith rather than fact (i.e. the "truth" of these things are not factually/objectively determinate), one can only answer in faith rather than as fact.

True, according to my faith.

True, according to Bob's faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for your answers Wade. Do you agree that if the relevant words in (1) and (2) mean the same thing, then it must be the case that either both are true or both are false? I think that should even be the case on your pragmatic-type truth theory. No? Also, do you agree with me that (2) follows from (1), again, assuming we're using words in each statement with the same meaning? And finally, do you agree with me that a conditional like 'If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true' does not necessarily imply a causal relation between the antecedent and consequent? This should be true of one's understanding of conditionals regardless of how one comes down on truth-theory, I think.

[Brade]

DaddyG, please read through the wiki entry on Causality. Specifically pay attention to this section. That you thought, and still insist on thinking despite my clear statements to the contrary, that my conditionals were causal conditionals, and not, as I've begged you to understand, non-causal conditionals, tells me you simply do not understand the logic of conditionals outside of the use of 'if...then' expressions in non-philosophical, non-technical contexts as in when somebody says "If you hit me, then I'll hit you back".

[Mark Beesley]

Please assess each statement as either true or false:

1. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

2. If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true.

This is a hilariously irrelevant quiz. The attempt to use some kind of logical imperative to dissect scriptural statements rendered in English--a language which, I am quite sure, is not the language of heaven--ignores the nuances of language itself. Consider a language which does not have a word to differentiate between what we call faith and belief. (German, for example.) Does it mean that for a German saint, belief is the same thing as faith, where for an Englishman, faith is more substantial than belief? Nah, it just means they have to understand the Things of God through the Sprit of God, not through logical imperatives. I suggest if you want to understand faith, what it is, and whether or not you have it, that you abandon reliance on pure intellect and give yourself over to instruction by the Spirit of God. Unless and until you can do that, you will never understand the Things of God, but good luck trying.

[Brade]

This is a hilariously irrelevant quiz. The attempt to use some kind of logical imperative to dissect scriptural statements rendered in English--a language which, I am quite sure, is not the language of heaven--ignores the nuances of language itself. Consider a language which does not have a word to differentiate between what we call faith and belief. (German, for example.) Does it mean that for a German saint, belief is the same thing as faith, where for an Englishman, faith is more substantial than belief? Nah, it just means they have to understand the Things of God through the Sprit of God, not through logical imperatives. I suggest if you want to understand faith, what it is, and whether or not you have it, that you abandon reliance on pure intellect and give yourself over to instruction by the Spirit of God. Unless and until you can do that, you will never understand the Things of God, but good luck trying.

Ok, thanks. Those aren't logical imperatives. One is simply implied by the other, quite straightforwardly. And German saints can perfectly well distinguish between what we English saints call 'belief' and 'faith' by using German to talk about the conditions of each. I speak a bit of German and know that they have words to disambiguate between the senses of the words they use. They may well use the Spirit of God to understand such things, but they also have perfectly good words to make the distinctions and understand the difference without the Spirit of God.

[Mark Beesley]

Ok, thanks. Those aren't logical imperatives. One is simply implied by the other, quite straightforwardly.

??? I'll just scratch my head and move on.

And German saints can perfectly well distinguish between what we English saints call 'belief' and 'faith' by using German to talk about the conditions of each. I speak a bit of German and know that they have words to disambiguate between the senses of the words they use. They may well use the Spirit of God to understand such things, but they also have perfectly good words to make the distinctions and understand the difference without the Spirit of God.

Ich bin nicht so sicher wie Du.

[Okrahomer]

??? I'll just scratch my head and move on.

Ich bin nicht so sicher wie Du.

Ich glaube der glaubt nicht daβ deine Vorstellung der Glaube richtig ist.

[Mike Richards]

Please assess each statement as either true or false:

1. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

2. If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true.

Is it a reasonable thing to think that (1) does not provide a general definition of faith, but a specific one for the specific circumstance in which it was given? In which case, both (1) and (2) are false in general, but true in the specific circumstance in which the definition in (1) was given. The only problem seems to come along when the general definition of faith is applied to (2) and everyone recognizes that it is not true.

Norwegian also uses the same words for faith and belief, and I don't remember them doing much in the way of distinguishing between the two--though that could just be me not remembering.

Also, I view Alma's statement of "things that are true" as lining up with the concept of the "assurance" or "substance" of things hoped for. If I believe something and hope it to be true, and then I experience things that confirm that hope/belief, then my faith is the "substance" (I also think in terms of density/depth) provided by that experience. That substance, in a way, verifies the truthfulness of the thing I believe--it verifies the truthfulness of the consequence I expected. I personally don't believe that this view of faith requires the entirety of the thing in which I have faith to be true--we can have lots of experiences that confirm true results of explanations that aren't true.

[mfbukowski]

I am saying that people I've taught, and, if you read through this thread, people in this thread, do believe that if they have faith that something is true, then that thing is true.

Yeah, that could be a misunderstanding and a mistaken interpretation of a pragmatic theory of truth, but you don't want me to talk about that.

If you believe something is true, that can make it "true for you", so a naive understanding of what that is, might be stated that way by someone not sophisticated in philosophical language. They understand the concept, they are just not expressing it very precisely.

Please, I beg you to go to your local university and look up a philosophy professor there (better, a professor of logic) and ask him if the proposition 'If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true' means that Bob's faith that P is true causes P's truth.

Yep you're right- see above. That is what they are saying, but what they mean might be what I described- that pragmatically, their faith makes it "true" for them.

I assure you, and I'm certain that anyone posting in this thread with a grasp of elementary logic will back me up on this (even if they disagree with my overall point, mfbukowski, wade, any help here?), that that professor will tell you that the proposition 'If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true' does not necessarily imply that Bob's faith that P is true causes P's truth. They will tell you that that proposition means that truth is a condition of faith on that account.

Well you should decide if you want me on the thread or not, but of course it does not necessarily imply that Bob has caused the truth of P. P could be independently true of Bob's faith or lack thereof - his faith in the proposition is irrelevant to the propositions truth.

I'm sorry, but I seriously question your ability to read and think critically. Please demonstrate how anything I've said implies that I've taught false doctrine.

I see nothing to imply that.

Please go back a few posts and notice that I clearly said that what I taught was what you said about faith, and that upon teaching that, the majority of class members disagreed.

Perhaps they did not understand your point. I have found that most Mormons really are "Pragmatic" thinkers- because such pragmatic beliefs are necessary to allow private revelation to be considered "true". You are teaching them things which are not within their usual patterns of thinking and confusing them perhaps.

[Brade]

Perhaps they did not understand your point. I have found that most Mormons really are "Pragmatic" thinkers- because such pragmatic beliefs are necessary to allow private revelation to be considered "true". You are teaching them things which are not within their usual patterns of thinking and confusing them perhaps.

I think most Mormons waffle between something like correspondence and pragmatism, almost unknowingly, but in response to whatever pressure might push them one way or another to relieve tensions between various Church teachings. Anyway, I should say that I probably won't be popping in here too much. I'm traveling right now and will be at a family reunion for about a week.

[KevinG]

I seriusly hope you don't try to turn your Sunday School classes into Jr. College philosophy seminars. You also need to understand that most of your students will be using language imperfectly and clear communication is a reciprocal process.

If you fail to address your audience in their mode and reference you fail to teach and all you have left is a false sense of superiority.

Having said that I really doubt Joseph's translation of Alma's words were really stated in the non-causal conditional.

[mfbukowski]

I think most Mormons waffle between something like correspondence and pragmatism, almost unknowingly, but in response to whatever pressure might push them one way or another to relieve tensions between various Church teachings. Anyway, I should say that I probably won't be popping in here too much. I'm traveling right now and will be at a family reunion for about a week.

I think the "man in the street" theory of truth is pretty clearly correspondence, but when you start to question it, I have found Mormons much more comfortable with a Pragmatic view, over say, coherence, once they understand the limitations of correspondence.

But of course we would disagree about that.

If there are any interested in learning more, here are the results of a google search on "theories of truth"

[KevinG]

I'm sorry, but I seriously question your ability to read and think critically.

Try communicating clearly.

[mfbukowski]

Having said that I really doubt Joseph's translation of Alma's words were really stated in the non-causal conditional.

[thesometimesaint]

Brade:

The Grand Paradox of Shroedingers cat.

There is a cat in a closed box. You can neither see nor hear the cat. Is the cat alive or dead? Which is the Truth? The answer is both, until you open the box.

[CV75]

Brade:

The Grand Paradox of Shroedingers cat.

There is a cat in a closed box. You can neither see nor hear the cat. Is the cat alive or dead? Which is the Truth? The answer is both, until you open the box.

I'm calling the ASPCA (or are they calling me?)...

[Jeff K.]

Nobody gets my references.

[Ahab]

Please assess each statement as either true or false:

1. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

True.

Rephrase: Faith is to not be 100% sure that something is true; therefore if you have faith you are less than 100% sure about what you have faith in while you hope for things which you are not 100% sure about and which you can't see and which you hope and feel sure are true.

2. If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true.

False.

Rephrase: If Bob has faith that P is true, then Bob is less than 100% sure that P is true while he feels sure and hopes that what he can't see about P is true.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Ahab

[wenglund]

Thanks for your answers Wade. Do you agree that if the relevant words in (1) and (2) mean the same thing, then it must be the case that either both are true or both are false?

As far as I can tell, yes.

I think that should even be the case on your pragmatic-type truth theory. No?

Yes.

Also, do you agree with me that (2) follows from (1), again, assuming we're using words in each statement with the same meaning?

Yes.

And finally, do you agree with me that a conditional like 'If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true' does not necessarily imply a causal relation between the antecedent and consequent?

Yes. I see it as having a definitional relationship.

This should be true of one's understanding of conditionals regardless of how one comes down on truth-theory, I think.

Correct.

Here, as I see it, is the rub. In the Lectures on Faith, the point is made that there is "true" faith and false faith. "True" faith is defined as having faith in things that are "true", and false faith is defined as having faith in things that are false.

Now, while Alma doesn't draw this distinction, the implication from the context would suggest that he is talking about "true" faith. In other words, ALma's statement could reasonably be revised to say: "Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have true faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

By extension, it may also reasonably be interpreted to suggest: "Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have false faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are false."

What this means is, depending upon the kind of faith that may be attributed to Bob (whether "true" or false) it may or may not follow or be true that, "If Bob has faith that P is true, then P is true."

The even bigger rub is, because we are talking about matters of faith and not fact, we can't, at this time, definitively determine whether Bob has "true" faith or not, nor can we determine whether Alma's statement (revised and by extension) is "true," thus drawing into question what value may be drawn from your philosophical exercise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-