What Is The "Truth"?

[mfbukowski]

The only problem is, how do you know "what is or was or will be"?

How do you check "what is" when all you can experience is what you see and feel?

Heck, if you "truth IS what we experience" then we are not so far apart- but is what we experience "What is?"

I say that if you can't tell the difference, "for all practical purposes" what is IS what we experience. So why worry about the "what is" part if we can't know about it anyway?

This is the central problem with "correspondence" and why MOST philosophers (that's for elguanteloko - as if that matters one bit- ) look at truth differently than "correspondence" to something we cannot experience.

I can see how that third line really threw everybody off- considering I left out some words.

I suppose I just could have asked "do we see what IS, or just how things appear to us?"

My point is that it doesn't make much sense to distinguish between "what is" and how things appear. I have posted this a million times, but since y'all are having trouble understanding me again, maybe this will help.

There is no such "thing" as "Truth"- there are only useful, justified interpretations of experience. We only know an illusion is an illusion because when we act on it- poof- it disappears.

[Lightbearer]

So I have a few questions.

When you say or infer that something is "true", what do you actually mean?

Of course it depends on what level one is talking, if we are talking about what man's wisdom has taught us, then perhaps one could say there is such a thing as relative truth... but the truths of eternity are another thing. They cannot be relative. A spiritual truth revealed by God cannot be denied, that is why when someone bears their testimony they usually say they "know something is true" because it has been revealed to them, it has progressed from believing through a living faith which has turned into an actual knowledge that is just as real as any provable "fact" that exists. That I believe is why denying the Holy Ghost is such a great crime against God. Jacob explained it thus:

"Behold, my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old."

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 4:13)

I cannot speak for others but when I say that the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is true... I mean exactly that. I do not mean it in some relative or vague way. It is a fact, it is correct, it is not a lie or a fabrication, and cannot be contradicted. This is a bold claim but one in which I cannot compromise.

Given claims like, "What is true for me may not be true for you." Do different types of truth exist? If so what do you think they are?

Or do you think that there is or should be a unified definition of what truth is? If so what do you think such a definition would be?

No there are different claims for truth, and some may understand the truth quite differently, yet it really can only be one thing. The idea of "what is true for me may not be true for you" is only a "politically correct" way of disagreeing with each other. It keeps the peace, but is really meaningless in light of the following definition which I believe is the best definition of truth.

"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning."

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:24-25)

What I am saying is, either Joseph Smith saw God and Christ or he did not, both positions cannot be true! Either the one or the other is correct. When Jesus told the Jews He was the son of God, He either was or He was not... either He was right or true or the Jews who opposed Him were! Either the disciples stold His body or He did in deed rise from the dead. Both cannot be right or true. Deciding which one is true is the very definition of our faith. The hope of all true believers in Christ should be to obtain the mind of Christ. This can only come through the Holy Ghost as stated here:

"And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."(Book of Mormon | Moroni 10:5)

I firmly believe this is the only way to know the truths of eternity. The natural man alone can never know the truth.

[mfbukowski]

It must be nice to not think about things.

[HiJolly]

Of course it depends on what level one is talking, if we are talking about what man's wisdom has taught us, then perhaps one could say there is such a thing as relative truth... but the truths of eternity are another thing. They cannot be relative. A spiritual truth revealed by God cannot be denied, that is why when someone bears their testimony they usually say they "know something is true" because it has been revealed to them, it has progressed from believing through a living faith which has turned into an actual knowledge that is just as real as any provable "fact" that exists. That I believe is why denying the Holy Ghost is such a great crime against God. Jacob explained it thus:

I cannot speak for others but when I say that the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is true... I mean exactly that. I do not mean it in some relative or vague way. It is a fact, it is correct, it is not a lie or a fabrication, and cannot be contradicted. This is a bold claim but one in which I cannot compromise.

No there are different claims for truth, and some may understand the truth quite differently, yet it really can only be one thing. The idea of "what is true for me may not be true for you" is only a "politically correct" way of disagreeing with each other. It keeps the peace, but is really meaningless in light of the following definition which I believe is the best definition of truth.

Yes, truth is knowing what is, according to scripture. (I love how Jesus' witness is the same: "for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." And that after he had previously said "I AM".)

And we are taught that the only 'real' or sure way of knowing what 'is' is.... by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And you've received the witness. And so now if you agree with Mfbukowski, that means you have to back away from, or *DENY*, that witness, which will make you a son of perdition, which is why you say you cannot compromise.

My Dad has the same problem. I don't see a way out for either of you.

For my own part, I also received that witness, a living fire burning through me from crown of head to soles of feet. An overwhelming *knowing* that it is all true.

Yet I have compromised, or should I say I have re-interpreted my witness, and I can tell you, the Holy Ghost doesn't resent it, nor has He left me. I'm not sure I can really explain it, but I'm trying to think of a way. All mysteries seem to be tied up in paradox.

HiJolly

[mfbukowski]

It must be nice to not think about things.

I have to apologize for that.

This place is getting to me- I think I need a break. It wouldn't let me edit it.

[Mudcat]

deleted duplicate post

Edited August 18, 2011 by Mudcat

[Mudcat]

Of course it depends on what level one is talking, if we are talking about what man's wisdom has taught us, then perhaps one could say there is such a thing as relative truth... but the truths of eternity are another thing. They cannot be relative. A spiritual truth revealed by God cannot be denied, that is why when someone bears their testimony they usually say they "know something is true" because it has been revealed to them, it has progressed from believing through a living faith which has turned into an actual knowledge that is just as real as any provable "fact" that exists. That I believe is why denying the Holy Ghost is such a great crime against God. Jacob explained it thus:

Hi Lightbearer,

Hope things are good your way... been awhile I suppose.

I bolded a bit and wanted to make a comment on it. I may see things a bit differently on sinning against the Holy Ghost and how that relates to truth.

It is my thinking that the witness of the Holy Spirit, though certainly true, is not true in an irrefutable sense. If such were the case, then it would conflict with our agency in some sense. If we are to literally choose Christ, then the thought that we are offered irrefutable/indisputable evidence prior to choice would seem to take away the actual notion of "choice" in the process I would think.

However, I do think once a person chooses to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit, then they receive a spiritually absolute confirmation of their faith. It is the rejection of the Holy Spirit by the Christ believer, rather than the unbeliever that is sin against Him, IMO.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Ahab]

I can see how that third line really threw everybody off- considering I left out some words.

I suppose I just could have asked "do we see what IS, or just how things appear to us?"

My point is that it doesn't make much sense to distinguish between "what is" and how things appear. I have posted this a million times, but since y'all are having trouble understanding me again, maybe this will help.

It makes a lot of sense to me to distinguish between what "is" and how things only "appear" to be. It may not to you, but it does make a big difference to me and the amount of "truth" I am able to see and experience in my own life.

Satan can "appear" to be an angel (messenger) of light, as if he is helping you to see what there "is", but what he is doing when he makes things "appear" to be some way other than the way they really are is to deceive and lead away from what is, even though he's doing his best to make his deceptions appear to be what is true.

There is no such "thing" as "Truth"-

Wow. You're really losing it big time if you actually believe what you are saying.

there are only useful, justified interpretations of experience.

There are those, but there is actually something called "truth" and it corresponds to actual reality... what is, or was, or will be.

We only know an illusion is an illusion because when we act on it- poof- it disappears.

Some people continue to believe what is not true, or will not accept what is true, because it's more than they're ready to handle.

Hopefully someday they'll be ready for more, but if not, the only thing that willl go "poof" is what they might have been and what they might have experienced had they accepted more of what is actually true, or real, which they did not accept for some reason.

[Ahab]

Yes, truth is knowing what is, according to scripture. (I love how Jesus' witness is the same: "for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." And that after he had previously said "I AM".)

And we are taught that the only 'real' or sure way of knowing what 'is' is.... by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And you've received the witness. And so now if you agree with Mfbukowski, that means you have to back away from, or *DENY*, that witness, which will make you a son of perdition, which is why you say you cannot compromise.

My Dad has the same problem. I don't see a way out for either of you.

Heh, I think I have the same "problem", and it's the kind of a "problem" I love.

Why on Earth, or in Heaven, would I want to compromise?

I'm ready to go in ALL the way, and I don't want a way out.

For my own part, I also received that witness, a living fire burning through me from crown of head to soles of feet. An overwhelming *knowing* that it is all true.

Yet I have compromised, or should I say I have re-interpreted my witness, and I can tell you, the Holy Ghost doesn't resent it, nor has He left me. I'm not sure I can really explain it, but I'm trying to think of a way. All mysteries seem to be tied up in paradox.

The Holy Ghost won't "resent" you not accepting what he has told you because it's your problem and you have refused the help he has given you to help you get out of it.

It's not as if he's going to go skulking around in sadness and misery just because you have refused his help.. if that's what you've done.

He tried to help. You accepted, and then refused. Now all that awaits you is to receive all of the "reward" you have merited by your own choices.

Why would God want it any other way?

[HiJolly]

The 'problem' is one of receiving light to only one extent, and refusing further light because it seems to disagree or differ from the 1st light. The "seemingness" is only from the viewpoint of the initial light, and when further light is given, the apparent disagreement or contradiction is resolved in a wholly unexpected and unanticipated way and thus one sees the light more clearly, more fully and more beautifully.

Think of the story of the elephant and the blind men.

This process requires faith and humility and the presence of the Holy Ghost. This is what I am speaking of when I say 'compromise' -- which I admit is a horrible choice of a word. :-)

Ahab:

He tried to help. You accepted, and then refused. Now all that awaits you is to receive all of the "reward" you have merited by your own choices.

Why would God want it any other way?

I don't think you understand the love God has for His children.

"But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning

the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks

upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal

regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those

contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes "His

sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the

just and on the unjust." He holds the reins of judgment in His

hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according

to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, "according to the

deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil," or whether

these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India.

He will judge them, "not according to what they have not, but

according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will

be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by

that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great

Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to

their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the

laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of

obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in

relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be

made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all

of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has

done right."

-- Joseph Smith, Jr.

HiJolly

[mfbukowski]

There are those, but there is actually something called "truth" and it corresponds to actual reality... what is, or was, or will be.

How do you know it corresponds to "actual reality" and is not an illusion?

Where is "actual reality"? All I see is what my eyes tell me, what my ears hear etc and what my heart speaks to me. Where IS this "actual reality"?

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

There is an absolute reality, but the best we mere mortals can do is a close approximation.

[ERayR]

Seeing as how you are merely a projection on a computer projection of a question from my mind which is the only thing that actually exists...truth is solipsism. I ask for objectively observable evidence to the contrary. [/sarc]

A principle cannot be true for one person and not true for another person. There are no gray areas.

When I was a kid we had a neighbor who was very good to me so to me the truth was/is that he was a good guy. To the neighbor kids up the road the other way he was mean to. To them he was a mean s**. The truth about this man was not the same for both of us yet it was true.

[Ahab]

The 'problem' is one of receiving light to only one extent, and refusing further light because it seems to disagree or differ from the 1st light. The "seemingness" is only from the viewpoint of the initial light, and when further light is given, the apparent disagreement or contradiction is resolved in a wholly unexpected and unanticipated way and thus one sees the light more clearly, more fully and more beautifully.

Think of the story of the elephant and the blind men.

This process requires faith and humility and the presence of the Holy Ghost. This is what I am speaking of when I say 'compromise' -- which I admit is a horrible choice of a word. :-)

Heh, okay. Now that we have that all settled, let's go get some ice cream.

I don't think you understand the love God has for His children.

I do, to at least some extent, and I accept the fact that our Father will let us go to h*** if we really don't want to be with him.

Now how bout that ice cream?

[Ahab]

How do you know it corresponds to "actual reality" and is not an illusion?

Come on, now. You used to say things that led me to believe you knew the way to know what is true. What the heck happened to you?

Where is "actual reality"?

It's right here where we are, and everywhere else in all of existence.

All I see is what my eyes tell me, what my ears hear etc and what my heart speaks to me. Where IS this "actual reality"?

Are you lost? Have you forgotten how to find your way in this world?

Suppose you were on a set with Harry Potter and his cohorts, including he who some people don't like to mention by name.

Would you get so lost in all the action that you forgot where reality ended and fantasy began?

If you would, would you know how to find your way back while being able to tell the difference, again?

Let the force be with you, my young padawan.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski:

There is an absolute reality, but the best we mere mortals can do is a close approximation.

How would we measure how close we are if we can do a close approximation?

"Oh, when I put my yardstick on "absolute reality" I am about 3 inches off- Oh well, close enough for government work!"

You seem totally unaware of any of these arguments. You have to know what "absolute reality" IS before you can say you have a "close approximation"!

[mfbukowski]

Come on, now. You used to say things that led me to believe you knew the way to know what is true. What the heck happened to you?

I do.

Been saying the same stuff for 40 years now.

How do you get outside of language to describe what it allegedly "corresponds" to?

"The computer is on the desk" is a sentence in WORDS. It is either true or false, justified or not justified by observations. But we can only have OBSERVATIONS and speak about observations and make true or false statements about those observations, not some world that those observations supposedly "correspond to".

All we can speak about is our observations and only sentences about our observations can be true or false. There doesn't exist a "state of trueness" out there somehow in the world-

Anything you say is going to have to be in language obviously- and that is an observation about a slice of your experience you have made- it's not about what is "out there" somewhere outside of language and experience.

I suppose you will still not understand, but as elguanteloko has so generously pointed out, the majority of academic philosophers are on my side and do not subscribe to a "correspondence theory" of truth.

I suppose you will find that comforting. To each his own. Oh, you may not agree with that either.

[Ahab]

How do you get outside of language to describe what it allegedly "corresponds" to?

Descriptions can help, sometimes, but at other times you will have to experience something for yourself to know it is real (true) while realizing that what you have experienced is beyond description.

"The computer is on the desk" is a sentence in WORDS.

The computer on the desk is a statement about what exists in reality, and just as the statement, itself, is either true or false, so too is the reality of it either true or false.

If it's really there, it's true, and if it's really not there, it's false.

It is either true or false, justified or not justified by observations.

If it's there, it really doesn't matter whether or not you can observe that it's there. It's still there, nevertheless... and I know because I have seen it!!!

Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!

But we can only have OBSERVATIONS and speak about observations and make true or false statements about those observations, not some world that those observations supposedly "correspond to".

Silly rabbit. Where do you come up with those tricks?

All we can speak about is our observations and only sentences about our observations can be true or false. There doesn't exist a "state of trueness" out there somehow in the world-

You really believe that, don't you.

Anything you say is going to have to be in language obviously- and that is an observation about a slice of your experience you have made- it's not about what is "out there" somewhere outside of language and experience.

Are you going to start making sense sometime soon, again, I hope?

I suppose you will still not understand, but as elguanteloko has so generously pointed out, the majority of academic philosophers are on my side and do not subscribe to a "correspondence theory" of truth.

As if what people think when they are wrong really matters.

I suppose you will find that comforting. To each his own. Oh, you may not agree with that either.

I prefer to agree with what is true which also corresponds to reality.

To each their own, indeed.

[mfbukowski]

Descriptions can help, sometimes, but at other times you will have to experience something for yourself to know it is real (true) while realizing that what you have experienced is beyond description.

Exactimundo!

The computer on the desk is a statement about what exists in reality, and just as the statement, itself, is either true or false, so too is the reality of it either true or false.

Hmmmmmm. If "reality" can be true than it can be false also, right? Describe "false reality" as opposed to a "false statement about reality". Can't do it, because there is no such thing. "Truth" is about statements which are true or false- justified beliefs or unjustified beliefs. What is "false reality" ? A hallucination? So a hallucination is "real"- it's just false reality?? Can you see the problems there?

How many "things" are there in "false reality"? Butterflies that swim? People 87 feet tall? Polkadot lions that eat only orange Panda bears?

If there is no "false reality" there is no "true reality" either. Truth and falsity are not about reality but about statements about what we experience.

If it's really there, it's true, and if it's really not there, it's false.

Exactly how many "false things" ARE "there"? How many thousand can you imagine?

If it's there, it really doesn't matter whether or not you can observe that it's there. It's still there, nevertheless... and I know because I have seen it!!!

Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!

Good one! You see how silly it is?

Silly rabbit. Where do you come up with those tricks?

I wish I could take credit for them- but they are not tricks- just commonly accepted understandings of truth and falsity that do not involve correspondence to a world we cannot speak about. If we can speak about it- it is something we have experienced- but we cannot speak about what we have not experienced.

Try it. Tell me all about what you have not experienced! That is different than experiencing something we can't talk about- that is totally different. That is why we cannot talk or describe the taste of salt etc.

You really believe that, don't you.

So will you if you think about it for a bit.

I prefer to agree with what is true which also corresponds to reality.

Show me a "True what" that you have never experienced, and I will believe you!

Think about it- all we can talk about is what we have experienced, or others have experienced and "told" us about- Antacrtica, Mars, the craters of the moon etc. - and that incidentally also includes revelation and spiritual experience. THAT is why spiritual experience is just as "real" as seeing the computer on the table, or the taste of salt.

You know it when you see it, you know it when you feel it, and you can only talk about it to others who have had similar experiences. The way we experience things "IS" what reality is- to us.

And that my friends is your definition of "is" that everyone wanted me to give.

God exists because we can experience Him. If he lived in some "reality" independent of experience - duh- we couldn't experience Him. THAT is the central miracle and genius of Moroni 10:4- GOD CAN BE EXPERIENCED!

Show me a world that no one has experienced, which is what our experience supposedly "corresponds" to, and I might agree that experience "corresponds" to something-- but until you can do that- I ain't buying it!

And I am definitely not going to let you put MY God in some independent realm of "Truth" outside of what we can feel in our hearts. Ain't gonna let you do that!

Edited August 19, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

A God who exists in an eternal unchangeable realm which is beyond our experience is not a God who could hear and answer our prayers and with whom we could interact.

So for we who are LDS, God must be in some way experienceable to make him "real"

There can be no realm beyond experience and at the same time contain a God we can experience.

If you can figure out how to propose that, please enlighten me. That is the old Platonic God of the sectarians- the god who is everywhere and no where, eternal immutable and unchanging and beyond interaction with his children, living in a world beyond the possibility to experience.

I think God's world CAN be experienced and I think Joseph proved that. He had visions of what it would be like.

We need to postulate no realm beyond what can be experienced. We just don't need it for our theology and in fact the restoration destroyed the need for it, just as it destroyed the sectarian Platonic god.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

Edited August 19, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mudcat]

A God who exists in an eternal unchangeable realm which is beyond our experience is not a God who could hear and answer our prayers and with whom we could interact.

I dunno what your point is here Bukowski. Non-LDS Christians like myself would readily admit that God exists and also admit that our changing scenarios are certainly part of His realm.

There can be no realm beyond experience and at the same time contain a God we can experience.

This statement has issues. It suggests that God and his realm is either something we can fully experience now or does not exist. I dunno how you get around that?

If you can figure out how to propose that, please enlighten me. That is the old Platonic God of the sectarians- the god who is everywhere and no where, eternal immutable and unchanging and beyond interaction with his children, living in a world beyond the possibility to experience.

I know you have directed that elsewhere, but IMO it's just straw for the pile for the man your building here.

I think God's world CAN be experienced and I think Joseph proved that. He had visions of what it would be like.

Why do visions of what something would be like and an actual something be synonymous? You seem to believe that JS's visions were proof that such CAN be experienced in our present state. However, based upon what you have said throughout the thread, I don't see how you can actually postulate such.

We need to postulate no realm beyond what can be experienced. We just don't need it for our theology and in fact the restoration destroyed the need for it, just as it destroyed the sectarian Platonic god.

Bold mine. But, given what you have said, your specific theology is reliant upon the experiences of JS. edit add.. Do his experiences not out lie the bounds of your own? If not how so. If so, then how do you rely upon them?

Edited August 19, 2011 by Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

Bold mine. But, given what you have said, your specific theology is reliant upon the experiences of JS. edit add.. Do his experiences not out lie the bounds of your own? If not how so. If so, then how do you rely upon them?

Joseph's experiences do not lie outside the bounds of our own- their boundaries are of our creation depending on our lack of faith and righteousness. In fact we are encouraged to seek such experiences.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:1 "Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me and calleth on my name and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments shall see my face and know that I am.

D&C 88:68 Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way and according to his own will.

That's the entire point and contrast. Mormonism is based on personal revelation and personal experience of God himself. No such experience, no testimony. God is ontologically one of us- infinitely above, but nevertheless, fundamentally one of us. We experience him directly, though only partially in this life- yet we can in principle know him and become like him, even as his son knows him (John 17). We can and do have spiritual experiences including visions like Joseph- indeed it is said for those who get that far, that they will "see my face and know that I am"

Protestantism is based on the Bible, and as I understand it, can be summarized in the phrase "no private interpretation". All of revelation is given in the Bible once and forever- there is no need for personal revelation.

THAT is the difference, as I understand it. I do not pretend to be an expert however on Protestant, especially Evangelical theology. And clearly the influence of Neoplatonism remains; God is seen as unchanging - the word "perfect" indeed means unchanging. We are created creatures not even ontologically close to God. We cannot experience him directly. Our destiny is to praise him as inferiors forever.

In Mormonism, he is our Father and we can become like him.

[mfbukowski]

I dunno what your point is here Bukowski. Non-LDS Christians like myself would readily admit that God exists and also admit that our changing scenarios are certainly part of His realm.

I would see that as inconsistent. If he hears and answers prayers, he has entered into a relationship with us and is therefore subject to change. I am not too firm about that - there are clearly ways around that for you. But fundamental to Mormonism is a God who progresses.

This statement has issues. It suggests that God and his realm is either something we can fully experience now or does not exist. I dunno how you get around that?

No, not at all. We can experience as much as we are ready for. It is open for us to attain to full knowledge- all we have to do is qualify for it. It's up to us, and under our control according to our faith and righteousness. We can have our "calling and election made sure" in this life- meaning we can attain to being promised and annointed to become exalted. We are limited only by our own faith. Paul had visions, Peter raised people from the dead, John wrote the book of Revelation. Do you think he had experiences we cannot also have? Why not?

Why do visions of what something would be like and an actual something be synonymous? You seem to believe that JS's visions were proof that such CAN be experienced in our present state. However, based upon what you have said throughout the thread, I don't see how you can actually postulate such.

I don't know where you got that. If you point it out, I will try to explain the misunderstanding.

Edited August 19, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Mudcat:

Remember Stephen also saw Jesus "standing on the right hand of God"- so he also saw God- and John the Baptist, at the baptism of Christ also saw the "sign of the dove" and heard the voice of God, while Jesus was bodily present.

These are more examples of people like us, besides Joseph, having direct experience of God

[mfbukowski]

The point I am trying to make is that the experience of God we can have is just as "true" - yes, it is subjective, but true nevertheless- as any experience we have of anything.

We know subjectively if we are hungry or tired or thirsty or in love etc- and we can also know that God has spoken to us the same way. But we also experience chairs and tables and computers on desks directly as well. They are not hidden in a world "out there" that somehow magically "corresponds" to our experiences- our experiences ARE those objects.

Those experiences are not "subjective" because we can agree between us that yes indeed, the computer is on the desk. The fact that the two or 20 of us agree on that "fact" is what makes it "objective"- YET EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY EXPERIENCE IT SUBJECTIVELY

If you put "reality" into some realm which we do not experience directly, we do not experience anything directly including God. We cannot then know that we have "experienced" him "accurately", and yet we know that we have.

For those of us who have experienced him, we know there can be no doubt about what we have experienced. Experience is all we have.

Do I doubt that my wife exists? Does she "correspond" to something "out there" that I cannot really know exists? To me, that is just crazy talk, as is all of this stuff about "correspondence".

Edited August 19, 2011 by mfbukowski