What Is The "Truth"?

[mfbukowski]

Mark, I thought I was following you ok until you said "If correspondence is true, spiritual experience is not."

I think I need a little help on that one.

If our perceptions of things outside ourselves are accurate, isn't that correspondence?

HiJolly

Howdy!

Well if we are really going to get into this, let me try to explain it first as I would and then quote an article which would help you see the point.

You have hit exactly on the problem itself, and that is in what constitutes our "perception of things". The problem is that all we have is PERCEPTIONS and we cannot see "Things" as they are, just our perceptions (experience) of them.

We can never get "beyond" perception to see the "thing in itself"- so in effect we can never find out if indeed our PERCEPTION "corresponds" to the "thing in itself". So, using Occam's razor- there is no need to speak about "things in themselves" or what they supposedly "correspond" to since we can never perceive or experience- or find out anything about what a "thing in itself" is.

Things in themselves are a world we cannot see taste or touch or perceive -- because all we can see taste touch and perceive are - duh! - our perceptions.

So if that is the case, we can never know what truth IS if we cannot get to what a statement is supposed to "correspond" to, if we can never get outside our perceptions.

So we can't ever KNOW if those perceptions are "accurate". All we can do to frame statements, is to frame them so they are coherent with themselves speaking in terms of perceptions alone.

So we perceive what we call the "sky" is what we call "blue" and we say "The sky is blue".

But we are not really seeing "the sky" as a thing- what we are seeing is our perception of light coming through the atmosphere- and that is what we call "the sky" even though it is just a perception of light.

And because our eyes filter it that way, we define that experience as "blue".

But when you think about it- what you are talking about there is perceptions and language- you are literally saying that "What we perceive as what we call the "sky" is what we call "blue".

There is no "correspondence" there between something being "represented" by the words "sky"- there is just a perception of blueness caused by our eyes receiving light bouncing off oxygen molecules, which we define as "an experience of blueness"

We say "The sky is blue" making it sound as if there is a "thing" somewhere which really IS "blue", when in reality there is no such "thing" as the "sky". There is nothing anywhere we can go to see if the statement "the sky is blue" is - using your word- "accurate" or not- it is just a statement about how we see things.

But that doesn't mean those statements cannot be true or false- if the statement was made "The sky is red" and in fact it was blue- the statement would be false.

We would be saying that "What we perceive and define as the "sky" has the color we perceive as what we define as "red", and that would be false because in fact, it would be what we perceive and define as "blue".

So all we can really talk about is our perceptions and experiences- there is never a way to get "outside" of experience or perception to see if these perceptions are in some way "accurate".

Let me go to wikipedia and show you some objections it gives to the correspondence theory of truth, and maybe that will help. I will make comments during the quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theories_of_truth

Objections

The theory is only as plausible or usable as phenomena are known to us

In other words, correspondence only makes sense if we can differentiate between what is "real" and what is "appearance". We cannot. So we can only talk about appearances.

One attack on the theory claims that the correspondence theory succeeds in its appeal to the real world only in so far as the real world is reachable by us.

Same objection I was trying to state.

The direct realist believes that we directly know objects as they are. Such a person can wholeheartedly adopt a correspondence theory of truth.

So that would probably represent Ahab here. What you see is "real". The problem is we do not see God or anything spiritual. All we have of spiritual matters are our experiences of them. But what then to these spiritual experiences "correspond" to?? Nothing! Without anything to correspond to which is "real" on this view- spiritual experience is an illusion. This is the view of Montgomery Price, Tarski, elguanteloko and all the others here who adhere to this theory of truth. They typically don't know they are adhering to it, but they are!

That is the trap of the correspondence theory, in my opinion, for those of use who believe in the "reality" of spiritual experience. A Pragmatic theory of truth and experience acknowledges the "validity" of spiritual experience.

(William James- Varieties of Religious Experience)

The rigorous idealist believes that there are no real objects. The correspondence theory appeals to imaginary undefined entities, so it is incoherent.

This view is on the other side of Pragmatism- and what people often accuse me of. Idealism I suppose is best defined as a "brain in a vat" view- so "things" are not real, only ideas about things are real. Pragmatists on the other hand think "things" are real in a sense- but we can only know about them through our perceptions and experience- that is were I fit.

The sceptic believes that we have no knowledge. The correspondence theory is simply false.

This would be a thorough going atheist nihilist who doesn't believe in right or wrong etc. Of course all of these are somewhat caricatured because I am describing each in just a few words.

Other positions hold that we have some type of awareness, perception, etc. of real-world objects which in some way falls short of direct knowledge of them. But such an indirect awareness or perception is itself an idea in one's mind, so that the correspondence theory of truth reduces to a correspondence between ideas about truth and ideas of the world, whereupon it becomes a coherence theory of truth.[6]

Too complicated to get into here.

Vagueness or circularity

Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or he or she does not.

If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It is difficult to see how a candidate truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.

This is my point, just better stated.

On the other hand, immediately the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, he or she is operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But the only way to support the truth of this theory of the world that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is circular.[7]

Yep. And that is why I do not hold to the correspondence theory of truth.

[mfbukowski]

Mark, I thought I was following you ok until you said "If correspondence is true, spiritual experience is not."

So the short answer to this is that if correspondence is correct, then the Tarskis and Montgoemery Prices of the world are right, and spiritual experiences are an illusion because they do not "correspond" to any "thing"

The good news is that most philosophers do not subscribe to correspondence any more, for the reasons in the wikipedia article cited above.

Correspondence goes back to Aristotle and Plato and was brought into Catholicism through Neoplatonism almost at the very beginning of Christianity, and in my opinion, was a major contributing factor in the Apostasy.

But that would be for another thread.

[mfbukowski]

I'm going to cut this short now and ask you to respond to what I have already said. Hopefully some light bulbs are going off in your head now and you can now see and experience what I have been talking about. If not, we can take this even slower and only one or two steps at a time.

LOL

Don't bother brother.

[zerinus]

So the short answer to this is that if correspondence is correct, then the Tarskis and Montgoemery Prices of the world are right, and spiritual experiences are an illusion because they do not "correspond" to any "thing"

The good news is that most philosophers do not subscribe to correspondence any more, for the reasons in the wikipedia article cited above.

Correspondence goes back to Aristotle and Plato and was brought into Catholicism through Neoplatonism almost at the very beginning of Christianity, and in my opinion, was a major contributing factor in the Apostasy.

But that would be for another thread.

Since the Lord has closely identified "truth" with "knowledge," a discussion of the former will not be adequate without a consideration of how something is known, or the theory of knowledge, which in philosophy is called epistemology.

Edited August 27, 2011 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

Since the Lord has closely identified "truth" with "knowledge," a discussion of the former will not be adequate without a consideration of how something is known, or the theory of knowledge, which in philosophy is called epistemology.

Uh, what do you think we have been discussing?

Read up on it a bit, ok?

In fact, in that article read up on "constructivism" - That is basically what I am presenting here, and have been for the last 40 years of my life

I see the Lord as the main Constructivist of the universe! He organizes it through the power of the Word.

But I suppose that is a bit beyond this thread

Edited August 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

In fact, now that Zerinus has brought it up, this is a good explanation of what I am trying to say in this thread.

I only have one problem with this explanation- what it mentions about God

http://en.wikipedia....st_epistemology

Overview

Constructivism has roots in chemistry, education and social constructivism. Constructivism criticizes objectivism, which embraces the belief that a human can come to know external reality (the reality that exists beyond one's own mind). Constructivism holds the opposite view, that the only reality we can know is that which is represented by human thought (assuming a disbelief or lack of faith in a superhuman God). Reality is independent of human thought, but meaning or knowledge is always a human construction.^[3]

Constructionism and constructivism are often used interchangeably. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, as well as tables, chairs and atoms are socially constructed. Kant, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of the power of ideas to inform the material realities of people's lives.^{[citation needed]}

The expression "Constructivist epistemology" was first used by Jean Piaget, 1967, with plural form in the famous article from the "Encyclopédie de la Pléiade" Logique et Connaissance scientifique or "Logic and Scientific knowledge", an important text for epistemology. He refers directly to the mathematician Brouwer and his radical constructivism.

Of course I am a theist, and the reason this theory fits with Mormonism is right here:

"Reality is independent of human thought, but meaning or knowledge is always a human construction"

One can see this entire theory as theistic when one sees that God is a man- a "human" if you will, who is the "Constructor" (organizer) of the universe and we are little "mini-gods" mirroring his construction as we construct linguistic truths and knowledge as we advance in knowledge.

And one day, if we are worthy, we can "grow up" and be like our Father and become "constructors" of universes, should he decide to bless us with this ability.

That is what I am trying to get across here.

For those who get this stuff, let me just say that the "social constructivist" aspect is, as I see it, extended in the eternities through the Patriarchal Order.

We as a sealed together family of humanity can form the ultimate "social constructivist" culture- a culture of gods constructing universes for the glory of our Father.

Edited August 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[HiJolly]

So.... Correspondence requires a materialist view of 'reality', thus dismissing all spiritual experience of God, Heaven, Love, and any other intangibles.

EXCEPT we believe in a tangible God, which you claim we can't see. And of course we have evidence in language and experience that God is visible, tangibly so. Yes?

And constructionist views say that anything we know, is a result of being informed of X knowledge by someone who knows it because they learned it from another who knew it.

Turtles all the way down, as it is said. And this fits Joseph Smith's view to a 'T'. Generations of Gods without end, not beginning nor end to it, ever.

Deep stuff. Not sure I'm able to agree that constructionism is any better than correspondence.

HiJolly

[Ahab]

So.... Correspondence requires a materialist view of 'reality', thus dismissing all spiritual experience of God, Heaven, Love, and any other intangibles.

No, correspondence doesn't require that. Some people have just tagged that on to what they think of as "correspondence" and then think it is required when it really is not.

The word "correspondence" simply refers to one thing "corresponding" (or being in some relation) to some other thing, and things in reality really do correspond to other things.

Dismissing the whole concept of what correspondence really is and how things in reality really relate to other things in reality reminds me of how some people dismiss the whole concept of the Trinity simpy because their version of it doesn't.... heh, I"ll use the word "correpond" here... to what they think of when thinking of 3 persons who are God.

The problem with atheists or people who believe God has no form or sustance in reality is that they think God doesn't exist simply because they haven't experienced him, or them, yet... or that is they think they haven't... and yet proof of God's existence is right there in front of their face when they look in a mirror or at other things in reality.

[HiJolly]

No, correspondence doesn't require that. Some people have just tagged that on to what they think of as "correspondence" and then think it is required when it really is not.

Mark has already described how if we cannot confirm the correspondence between reality and perception, then that correspondence is useless. I agree with that, but presented a case where God is tangible, which kinda, to my way of thinking, blows away his objection. We have to have faith in the interim.

I think correspondence does logically require confirmation. And so for some, it will never work in the spiritual realms as it does in the physical.

Looking forward to Mark's response.

HiJolly

[mfbukowski]

Mark has already described how if we cannot confirm the correspondence between reality and perception, then that correspondence is useless. I agree with that, but presented a case where God is tangible, which kinda, to my way of thinking, blows away his objection. We have to have faith in the interim.

I think correspondence does logically require confirmation. And so for some, it will never work in the spiritual realms as it does in the physical.

Looking forward to Mark's response.

HiJolly

"Oh- he's tangible hey? Where is he- show me? You believe in some testimony of a guy having hallucinations or making it all up? Show me God and I will show you Ahura Mazda or some other imaginary being"

They would say....

I think the flaw in your argument is that you are not Mormon because Joseph reported his experience- once or twice conflictingly etc- but that YOU yourself have had that it experience and it coheres with Joseph's report. That is why you would be willing to defend Joseph's account because you yourself have had the experience- not because you can show anybody else "What" that experience "corresponds to".

You cannot call down for that other person a spiritual experience when they ask you - "Oh yeah?? Show me the experience of God"- that experience has no 'source'- nothing it corresponds to which you can show me to prove it's true!"

It just doesn't work that .

You take Joseph at his word because you have also had such an experience- the REALITY IS the experience- NOT what it "corresponds" to. You cannot yourself produce a thing which the experience corresponds to to show that other person.

In science, we believe Antarctica exists because we can in principle go there and see it for ourselves. Yes we trust that it exists because we have seen pictures etc- but the experience is replicable by ANYBODY.

In principle, if we had a cyclotron and knew enough, any one of us could theoretically have the same experience a physicist has in studying particle physics. The whatsis meter would still form the same graph or whatever it does.

I am not saying there is not a possible way to see correspondence and make it harmonize with the gospel- people much smarter than me have been doing it for years. In fact Brade on this board is a correspondence guy and has been trained in philosophy- but if I am not mistaken his testimony is headed south- he made one post, and then I invited him to respond to defend correspondence but he either didn't see it or chose not to respond.

Brade if you are out there- now is the time, sir!

But for me, when I know MY experience of God correlates with Joseph's and yours and everyone in testimony meeting- I know that that experience has something in it which is "real" which does NOT "correspond" to a scientifically replicable experience. I don't need it to be replicable by every person in the world- I just need to know what I know, and know it is not a hallucination or some kind of emotional aberration to make it something we call "real".

It is "real" because it is a real force in my personal life, and I have had personal experiences that 13 million other people report having. Those reports may ultimately be irrelevant - but I have had my own experience confirming them

So for me, your example does not show a "tangible" God- in fact your argument is a kind of constructivist argument- we believe Joseph's experience and do not believe an experience of Gabriel appearing to Mohammad or Mary appearing to the children of Fatima

Why not? Because we have not had a similar experience. Mary or Gabriel did not appear to me, nor did God the Father and the savior appear to me (yet- please God!) but I HAVE had an experience which coheres with Joseph's experience and not Mohammad's.

So I know that Joseph was not hallucinating even though there might be discrepancies in the stories- hypothetically if you want to see them as discrepancies- but on the other hand, if there are discrepancies with Gabriel and Mohammad I might be all over those discrepancies because I have not had my own verification.

So for me the best explanation of that is not "correspondence"- it is a coherence, Pragmatist, constructivist theory of truth. There are just too many holes I see in making correspondence work- which is itself a Pragmatic way of seeing it!

It doesn't work for my needs!

[zerinus]

"Oh- he's tangible hey? Where is he- show me? You believe in some testimony of a guy having hallucinations or making it all up? Show me God and I will show you Ahura Mazda or some other imaginary being"

They would say....

I think the flaw in your argument is that you are not Mormon because Joseph reported his experience- once or twice conflictingly etc- but that YOU yourself have had that it experience and it coheres with Joseph's report. That is why you would be willing to defend Joseph's account because you yourself have had the experience- not because you can show anybody else "What" that experience "corresponds to".

You cannot call down for that other person a spiritual experience when they ask you - "Oh yeah?? Show me the experience of God"- that experience has no 'source'- nothing it corresponds to which you can show me to prove it's true!"

It just doesn't work that .

You take Joseph at his word because you have also had such an experience- the REALITY IS the experience- NOT what it "corresponds" to. You cannot yourself produce a thing which the experience corresponds to to show that other person.

In science, we believe Antarctica exists because we can in principle go there and see it for ourselves. Yes we trust that it exists because we have seen pictures etc- but the experience is replicable by ANYBODY.

In principle, if we had a cyclotron and knew enough, any one of us could theoretically have the same experience a physicist has in studying particle physics. The whatsis meter would still form the same graph or whatever it does.

I am not saying there is not a possible way to see correspondence and make it harmonize with the gospel- people much smarter than me have been doing it for years. In fact Brade on this board is a correspondence guy and has been trained in philosophy- but if I am not mistaken his testimony is headed south- he made one post, and then I invited him to respond to defend correspondence but he either didn't see it or chose not to respond.

Brade if you are out there- now is the time, sir!

But for me, when I know MY experience of God correlates with Joseph's and yours and everyone in testimony meeting- I know that that experience has something in it which is "real" which does NOT "correspond" to a scientifically replicable experience. I don't need it to be replicable by every person in the world- I just need to know what I know, and know it is not a hallucination or some kind of emotional aberration to make it something we call "real".

It is "real" because it is a real force in my personal life, and I have had personal experiences that 13 million other people report having. Those reports may ultimately be irrelevant - but I have had my own experience confirming them

So for me, your example does not show a "tangible" God- in fact your argument is a kind of constructivist argument- we believe Joseph's experience and do not believe an experience of Gabriel appearing to Mohammad or Mary appearing to the children of Fatima

Why not? Because we have not had a similar experience. Mary or Gabriel did not appear to me, nor did God the Father and the savior appear to me (yet- please God!) but I HAVE had an experience which coheres with Joseph's experience and not Mohammad's.

So I know that Joseph was not hallucinating even though there might be discrepancies in the stories- hypothetically if you want to see them as discrepancies- but on the other hand, if there are discrepancies with Gabriel and Mohammad I might be all over those discrepancies because I have not had my own verification.

So for me the best explanation of that is not "correspondence"- it is a coherence, Pragmatist, constructivist theory of truth. There are just too many holes I see in making correspondence work- which is itself a Pragmatic way of seeing it!

It doesn't work for my needs!

What you are saying makes no sense. “Truth is knowledge of things as they are”. According to that formula, there are three parts to this equation:

Truth = Knowledge + Being

Or, putting it another way:

Truth = Being + Knowledge of that being

That means that if a supernatural being (like God) exists, and I am able to know it, that defines a truth about that being—in this case the truth that there is a God. The fact that that truth or experience cannot be replicated by everyone does not alter the reality of that truth, or the “correspondence” of it with reality.

There are some kinds of reality that we cannot experience by our volition alone, because it involves somebody else’s volition. As they say, “It takes two to tango”. For example, I can’t be a friend to Mr X on Facebook unless unless Mr X chooses to accept me as a friend. Now let’s suppose Mr X has hundreds of friends on Facebook, all of whom report that it is the greatest thing on earth to be a friend of Mr X on Facebook! But when I try to become his friend he refuses to accept me as a friend! That does not mean that the greatness of being a friend to Mr X on Facebook doesn’t “correspond to reality”. It simply means that I am not able to experience it because he doesn’t want me to. Experiencing God is like that. He chooses who will experience Him. It cannot be experienced by anyone on their terms alone. God has set His own terms that need to be satisfied before He chooses to allow someone to experience Him. And since He is stronger than anyone else, we have to play by His rules. We cannot do it on our own terms alone.

The fact that some people fail to qualify by His rules does not make the reality of his existence any less real. If truth = knowledge, then it takes one intelligent being in the universe to have that knowledge to make that “truth” real, or “correspond” to reality, even if no other intelligent being was able to experience it.

Edited August 27, 2011 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

What you are saying makes no sense. “Truth is knowledge of things as they are”.

How do you know "how they ARE"?

All you have is what you experience, what we all experience. Name one thing which exists, which no one has ever experienced.

Please.

[zerinus]

How do you know "how they ARE"?

All you have is what you experience, what we all experience. Name one thing which exists, which no one has ever experienced.

Please.

According to the scriptural definition, if something hasn't been experienced (i.e. known), then it doesn't exist. "Truth" is knowledge. If "knowledge" of it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. It is not part of reality; therefore it is not truth.

Edited August 28, 2011 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

It's cute that you post in red, but I am not going to reformat everything because you made that choice. It is a waste of time imo.

That means that if a supernatural being (like God) exists, and I am able to know it, that defines a truth about that being—in this case the truth that there is a God. The fact that that truth or experience cannot be replicated by everyone does not alter the reality of that truth, or the “correspondence” of it with reality.

It does not alter the "reality" and I never said it did. Show me what your experience of God "corresponds" to.

There are some kinds of reality that we cannot experience by our volition alone, because it involves somebody else’s volition. As they say, “It takes two to tango”. For example, I can’t be a friend to Mr X on Facebook unless unless Mr X chooses to accept me as a friend. Now let’s suppose Mr X has hundreds of friends on Facebook, all of whom report that it is the greatest thing on earth to be a friend of Mr X on Facebook! But when I try to become his friend he refuses to accept me as a friend! That does not mean that the greatness of being a friend to Mr X on Facebook doesn’t “correspond to reality”. It simply means that I am not able to experience it because he doesn’t want me to. Experiencing God is like that. He chooses who will experience Him. It cannot be experienced by anyone on their terms alone. God has set His own terms that need to be satisfied before He chooses to allow someone to experience Him. And since He is stronger than anyone else, we have to play by His rules. We cannot do it on our own terms alone.

Do you doubt that Mr X exists? He has a Facebook account doesn't he? It's a poor analogy. By the way I never said that we had to experience everything "by our own volition". That has nothing to do with the point.

I never said anything that contradicts that. The point is that you cannot show me what the experience of God corresponds to.

It is a subjective experience like being in love or having a pain in your knee. I can't see your pain or what you will choose

The fact that some people fail to qualify by His rules does not make the reality of his existence any less real.

Then where is he? I don't see him anywhere!

If truth = knowledge, then it takes one intelligent being in the universe to have that knowledge to make that “truth” real, or “correspond” to reality, even if no other intelligent being was able to experience it.

Unfortunately truth does not equal knowledge. They are independent variables.

Please note everyone- I am just pretending in these arguments that I subscribe to a correspondence theory of truth - in fact I do not of course.

Here is the bottom line: a coherence constructivist Pragmatist view of truth allows a notion of truth which squares perfectly with all of science and all that is known to mankind.

With a correspondence theory, we get all the nonsense we are used to around here from the atheists, and it is a far superior way of looking at truth. Anyone read any Kuhn? This sort of theory is exactly what he is talking about.

[mfbukowski]

According to the scriptural definition, if something hasn't been experienced (i.e. known), then it doesn't exist.

Good. That makes me "scriptural"

"Truth" is knowledge. If "knowledge" of it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. It is not part of reality; therefore it is not truth.

Not sure what that means. Too many ambiguous "its".

OK gotta get ready for Sunday- back Monday or Tuesday

[ERayR]

"Oh- he's tangible hey? Where is he- show me? You believe in some testimony of a guy having hallucinations or making it all up? Show me God and I will show you Ahura Mazda or some other imaginary being"

They would say....

I think the flaw in your argument is that you are not Mormon because Joseph reported his experience- once or twice conflictingly etc- but that YOU yourself have had that it experience and it coheres with Joseph's report. That is why you would be willing to defend Joseph's account because you yourself have had the experience- not because you can show anybody else "What" that experience "corresponds to".

You cannot call down for that other person a spiritual experience when they ask you - "Oh yeah?? Show me the experience of God"- that experience has no 'source'- nothing it corresponds to which you can show me to prove it's true!"

It just doesn't work that .

You take Joseph at his word because you have also had such an experience- the REALITY IS the experience- NOT what it "corresponds" to. You cannot yourself produce a thing which the experience corresponds to to show that other person.

In science, we believe Antarctica exists because we can in principle go there and see it for ourselves. Yes we trust that it exists because we have seen pictures etc- but the experience is replicable by ANYBODY.

In principle, if we had a cyclotron and knew enough, any one of us could theoretically have the same experience a physicist has in studying particle physics. The whatsis meter would still form the same graph or whatever it does.

I am not saying there is not a possible way to see correspondence and make it harmonize with the gospel- people much smarter than me have been doing it for years. In fact Brade on this board is a correspondence guy and has been trained in philosophy- but if I am not mistaken his testimony is headed south- he made one post, and then I invited him to respond to defend correspondence but he either didn't see it or chose not to respond.

Brade if you are out there- now is the time, sir!

But for me, when I know MY experience of God correlates with Joseph's and yours and everyone in testimony meeting- I know that that experience has something in it which is "real" which does NOT "correspond" to a scientifically replicable experience. I don't need it to be replicable by every person in the world- I just need to know what I know, and know it is not a hallucination or some kind of emotional aberration to make it something we call "real".

It is "real" because it is a real force in my personal life, and I have had personal experiences that 13 million other people report having. Those reports may ultimately be irrelevant - but I have had my own experience confirming them

So for me, your example does not show a "tangible" God- in fact your argument is a kind of constructivist argument- we believe Joseph's experience and do not believe an experience of Gabriel appearing to Mohammad or Mary appearing to the children of Fatima

Why not? Because we have not had a similar experience. Mary or Gabriel did not appear to me, nor did God the Father and the savior appear to me (yet- please God!) but I HAVE had an experience which coheres with Joseph's experience and not Mohammad's.

So I know that Joseph was not hallucinating even though there might be discrepancies in the stories- hypothetically if you want to see them as discrepancies- but on the other hand, if there are discrepancies with Gabriel and Mohammad I might be all over those discrepancies because I have not had my own verification.

So for me the best explanation of that is not "correspondence"- it is a coherence, Pragmatist, constructivist theory of truth. There are just too many holes I see in making correspondence work- which is itself a Pragmatic way of seeing it!

It doesn't work for my needs!

For me this is exactly right. My experience does not replicate Josephs or someone elses experience but it corresponds to those experiences. It points the same way.

[zerinus]

Show me what your experience of God "corresponds" to.

It corresponds to the reality of His being, His existence, independent of me.

Do you doubt that Mr X exists? He has a Facebook account doesn't he? It's a poor analogy.

It is not a poor analogy. I can know that he exists; but I cannot experience what it is like to be his friend—until he decides to accept me as a friend.

I never said anything that contradicts that. The point is that you cannot show me what the experience of God corresponds to.

I just did. See above.

It is a subjective experience like being in love or having a pain in your knee. I can't see your pain or what you will choose.

Not at all. The fact that some people cannot share in that experience, does not make it “subjective” for those who can. As I said, “It takes two to tango”.

Then where is he? I don't see him anywhere!

Because He doesn’t want to tango with you. I know it is a bit tough for you, but that is the way it is.

Unfortunately truth does not equal knowledge. They are independent variables.

Unfortunately the Lord doesn't agree with you. "Truth is knowledge of things . . ."

[zerinus]

Good. That makes me "scriptural"

Not sure what that means. Too many ambiguous "its".

OK gotta get ready for Sunday- back Monday or Tuesday

It looks to me like you are deliberately being obtuse.

[ed2276]

I don't know if anyone has actually cited to D&C 93 yet. I have seen allusions to it. But, truth is defined quite well there Mudcat. I would suggest you read D&C section 93 and see if it adds anything of value to your understanding of truth.

D&C 93: 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come

[mfbukowski]

It looks to me like you are deliberately being obtuse.

Not at all. I don't have to try at all. It comes quite naturally.

[zerinus]

Not at all. I don't have to try at all. It comes quite naturally.

To be that obtuse I am sure it would take some effort.

[zerinus]

deleted

Edited August 28, 2011 by zerinus

[HeatherAnn]

...Unfortunately truth does not equal knowledge. They are independent variables.

Please note everyone- I am just pretending in these arguments that I subscribe to a correspondence theory of truth - in fact I do not of course.

Here is the bottom line: a coherence constructivist Pragmatist view of truth allows a notion of truth which squares perfectly with all of science and all that is known to mankind.

With a correspondence theory, we get all the nonsense we are used to around here from the atheists, and it is a far superior way of looking at truth. Anyone read any Kuhn? This sort of theory is exactly what he is talking about.

Truth is perspective... which changes, so truth is also a process.

The gospel is "God's spell" - good news - or new perspectives of truth.

We'd LOVE to think that there is someone with all of the answers... a church with THE TRUTH (with a capital T).

How safe & wonderful we'd feel... & how illusional we'd be.

[mfbukowski]

Truth is perspective... which changes, so truth is also a process.

The gospel is "God's spell" - good news - or new perspectives of truth.

We'd LOVE to think that there is someone with all of the answers... a church with THE TRUTH (with a capital T).

How safe & wonderful we'd feel... & how illusional we'd be.

Yeah, I realized today how stupid it was for me to argue with my brothers and sisters about what theory of truth works best for them.

As if I know.

Of course I am very confident of my perspective and I do believe that our church is the truest on the earth today and has all we need- I don't think that is an illusion at all.

Edited August 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[HeatherAnn]

Yeah, I realized today how stupid it was for me to argue with my brothers and sisters about what theory of truth works best for them.

As if I know.

Of course I am very confident of my perspective and I do believe that our church is the truest on the earth today and has all we need- I don't think that is an illusion at all.

If you thought it was an illusion, then it wouldn't really be an illusion.

I believe the LDS church is the best religious organization in the world, but I know it doesn't have all the truth & nothing but the truth.

It's organized by imperfect people... Even Jesus is portrayed by imperfect people in imperfect ways, to be perfect. lol

I like that you mentioned, "what works best for them." That sums up the process of truth well, I think.

Line upon line... we learn more & can love ourselves & others better.

God is love... Love is based on understanding & truth. The more understanding, the more truthful, the more loving, the more Godlike.

Love is not for the faint of heart... because often the truth isn't pretty.