Which Is Closer To The Truth?

[Tarski]

Which is closer to the truth?

(I hope some answers are a little more intersting than just saying something like "both are true" and leaving it at that).

1) One comes to know that the LDS church is true by personal revelation from God. There will typically be a special moment, perhaps following a sincere prayer, where one has a private inner spiritual experience. This experience will have both an informational content (the church is true) as well being laden with a spiritual feeling or affect often described by a burning of the bosom or something similar. Somehow the experience itself provides its own epistemic warrant. Because of this, the person will be able to say that they "just know" the church is true and the person actually is justified in saying that they now know the church is true. (demands for an explanation of how the person knows may invite comparisons with how one knows what salt taste like and similar maneuvers that appear evasive or even conceptually empty to people of a scientific bent).

2) A testimony is developed slowly over time through active pragmatic experience with gospel principles and is in this sense broadly empircal. The knowledge associated with a testimony is never perfect or absolute and not that different from knowledge obtained in other areas through the praxis of living and testing things for oneself. In this sense a testimony is not obtained by a method that radically bypasses the usual human epistemological predicament.

[DarkScythe]

both due to everyone is different.

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

Both ARE true.

With most of us we develop in our faith, and ability to understand and put into practice the Gospel. Till we do recieve that witness from God that it is true.

It's is kinda like driving a car. We study and take a written test to see if we know the laws pertaining to driving on the public roads. Most everyone can and does pass that test. Then we take the actual driving portion of the test. We satisfy the state that we know the basics of know the law and can physically drive a car safely. However there is much much more know and do before we are really good at driving a car. To know within ourselves that whatever the situation we can safely drive through it.

[Tarski]

Is there no problem in terms of whether or how the subsequent belief is justified in the two cases?

For example, is someone well advised to join a church (any church) on the basis of an experience of type (1)?

For concreteness imagine that the person has been introduced to the church only 4 month earlier and has only attended for maybe two months. Let's say that this inner witness event happens after the 4th discussion from the missionaries and some reading of the Book of Mormon.

It seems to me that there is something to be learned by thinking carefully about the two cases from the point of view of epistemology, warrent for belief, rationality or however you want to phrase the issue.

No philosophically minded takers?

[wenglund]

For the sake of argument, I would say that #2 is closer to the "truth"--in part because of the seed/fruit distinction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 6, 2012 by wenglund

[Hamba Tuhan]

Based on my experience and observations, the only way to verify #1 is to act on the event by engaging earnestly in #2. By itself, #1 can provide reasonably strong motivation to continue with the process, but, left alone, its initial impact will fade. For investigators, joining the Church becomes an important part of pragmatic experience.

[mfbukowski]

We have discussed this many times before.

The very question is faulty- it presents two perfectly fine ways of coming to a justified belief and presumes that only one works.

Imagine a grid of dots- the question is asked how many dots are on the grid. You could count each one, or you could how many horizontally and how many vertically, multiple the two numbers and add any outliers.

How many question marks below?

????

Did you actually count them, or did you just see at a glance there were 4?

Both work.

This is the old "Moroni 10:4 versus Alma 32" question. Both work just fine

[mfbukowski]

It's kind of like a threshold issue, or flipping a light switch. It requires a given amount of pressure to flip a light switch- you can build it slowly or all in one push, but there is a point beyond which you have reached critical mass

But of course the amount of energy necessary varies from person to person

[mfbukowski]

For example, is someone well advised to join a church (any church) on the basis of an experience of type (1)?

Did you see the thread about Sudduth in the TP? He recently had a significant religious experience and became (pardon my ignorance of the proper terminology) a "Hari Krishna".

[asbestosman]

This is the old "Moroni 10:4 versus Alma 32" question. Both work just fine

Not only they both work, but I would argue Moroni 10:4 has Alma 32 as an implicit part of it and that Alma 32 includes Moroni 10:4 as an aspect of nourishing the seed. They're both part of the same process but emphasizing different aspects of it.

Which is closer to the truth: bread is made by grinding wheat or bread is made by baking dough containing a leaving agent?

Edited February 6, 2012 by asbestosman

[Zeta-Flux]

What does salt taste like? Is it impossible to communicate this information, or just very difficult, especially if someone has not tasted salt? And even if you communicate that information, does the receiver understand the affect tasting salt had on you?

If you explain what it is like to see to a blind man, does he enjoy rainbows like you do?

If you explain what it is like to hear to a deaf woman, does your description make her appreciate Bach?

If you heard the voice of God, would you choose to doubt yourself and deny your experience, or embrace your experience? Do the weaknesses of others make you doubt yourself?

Edited February 6, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Tarski]

We have discussed this many times before.

The very question is faulty- it presents two perfectly fine ways of coming to a justified belief and presumes that only one works.

Imagine a grid of dots- the question is asked how many dots are on the grid. You could count each one, or you could how many horizontally and how many vertically, multiple the two numbers and add any outliers.

How many question marks below?

????

Did you actually count them, or did you just see at a glance there were 4?

Both work.

This is the old "Moroni 10:4 versus Alma 32" question. Both work just fine

I think (2) makes a sort of sense even though I can't see the kind of things people point to ever being suffient to come to the conclusion that the church is true. The claims are just too far out. Better explanations seem to always win.

On the other hand, I can't imagine how one would defend (1) from the framework of any respectable theory of knowledge that I am aware of.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Tarski

[mfbukowski]

I think (2) makes a sort of sense even though I can't see the kind of things people point to ever being suffient to come to the conclusion that the church is true. The claims are just too far out. Better explanations seem to always win.

On the other hand, I can't imagine how one would defend (1) from the framework of any respectable theory of knowledge that I am aware of.

I suggest you read some William James, specifically his Varieties of Religious Experience. It's available on line.

Pragmatism is definitely a "respectable" theory of knowledge which has been very influential. Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature is a good place to start

I think the essential problem is thinking that we can actually perceive what is real, when all we perceive is a picture, representation, or description of our own experience.

We cannot get outside of our experience to anything else. I think the problem we have always had in discussing this is that you don't seem to "get" that. One must suspend one's beliefs and genuinely look at the aternative ways of seeing it to even understand if it is an approach that makes sense.

Edited February 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Not only they both work, but I would argue Moroni 10:4 has Alma 32 as an implicit part of it and that Alma 32 includes Moroni 10:4 as an aspect of nourishing the seed. They're both part of the same process but emphasizing different aspects of it.

Which is closer to the truth: bread is made by grinding wheat or bread is made by baking dough containing a leaving agent?

Indeed.

These problems ultimately are always in the way we speak about things- that's the only place they CAN be, since every proposition is in language and requires interpretation.

I don't know why that is so hard for some to understand. Interpretation is all we do as humans. They beleive there is a hard and fast "reality" out there somewhere outside of language and our perceptions, that we can somehow discover- but if there is, we can never talk about it anyway, since when we try to communicate it, we can only do so in language which requires interpretation by our audience.

It seems so prima facie true to me that it is hard for me to even understand those who are of a positivist bent. They cannot understand that what they are arguing about are words- nothing more nor less.

Edited February 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Tarski]

I suggest you read some William James, specifically his Varieties of Religious Experience. It's available on line.

Pragmatism is definitely a "respectable" theory of knowledge which has been very influential. Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature is a good place to start

I have read both. In fact, I read P&MN twice. We should discuss what you think the point of the story of the antipodeans might be.

[mfbukowski]

I have read both. In fact, I read P&MN twice. We should discuss what you think the point of the story of the antipodeans might be.

I would like to do that and talk about Boghossian too- but not this week- super busy! But I do want to do it.

[Zeta-Flux]

I think (2) makes a sort of sense even though I can't see the kind of things people point to ever being suffient to come to the conclusion that the church is true. The claims are just too far out. Better explanations seem to always win.

On the other hand, I can't imagine how one would defend (1) from the framework of any respectable theory of knowledge that I am aware of.

Which is closer to the truth?

(1) You start working on a difficult problem in mathematics. You come to know the solution by personal revelation. There will typically be a special moment (called an epiphany), perhaps following deep thought, where you have a private, inner, one could even say spiritual experience. This experience will have both informational content (how to solve the problem) as well being laden with a spiritual/emotional feeling or affect often described by an epiphany or something similar. Somehow the experience itself provides its own epistemic warrant. Because of this, you will be able to say that you know how to solve the problem, and you are actually justified in saying that you now know how to solve the problem. Demands on an explanation of how to solve the problem are met with the explanation being given, but demands for an explanation of how the epiphany occured are difficult, perhaps even impossible, to put completely into words.

(2) A solution is developed slowly over time through active pragmatic experience with mathematical principles and is in this sense broadly empircal. The knowledge associated with a solution is never perfect, or absolute, as you see room for more growth. It is not that different from knowledge obtained in other areas through the praxis of living and testing things for oneself. In this sense a solution is not obtained by a method that radically bypasses the standard student's ability.

[Deborah]

Based on my experience and observations, the only way to verify #1 is to act on the event by engaging earnestly in #2. By itself, #1 can provide reasonably strong motivation to continue with the process, but, left alone, its initial impact will fade. For investigators, joining the Church becomes an important part of pragmatic experience.

I agree with this assessment. My initial conversion was #1 but #2 has been an on-going process, and #1 kept me going when I had doubts.

[KevinG]

I had #1 but the missionaries insisted I complete the rest of the lessons before baptism and return to learn more after baptism so I could get more of #2.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Which is closer to the truth?

(I hope some answers are a little more interesting than just saying something like "both are true" and leaving it at that).

After reading them, they both are true and both can be true for the same person. In a sense I think you can gain a testimony as laid out in example one, and that testimony might continue to develop as in example two.

1) One comes to know that the LDS church is true by personal revelation from God. There will typically be a special moment, perhaps following a sincere prayer, where one has a private inner spiritual experience. This experience will have both an informational content (the church is true) as well being laden with a spiritual feeling or affect often described by a burning of the bosom or something similar. Somehow the experience itself provides its own epistemic warrant. Because of this, the person will be able to say that they "just know" the church is true and the person actually is justified in saying that they now know the church is true. (demands for an explanation of how the person knows may invite comparisons with how one knows what salt taste like and similar maneuvers that appear evasive or even conceptually empty to people of a scientific bent).

I would say that, at least for me, this is similar to my own experience. There was a defining moment with me.

2) A testimony is developed slowly over time through active pragmatic experience with gospel principles and is in this sense broadly empircal. The knowledge associated with a testimony is never perfect or absolute and not that different from knowledge obtained in other areas through the praxis of living and testing things for oneself. In this sense a testimony is not obtained by a method that radically bypasses the usual human epistemological predicament.

To me, this seems almost like you would be nurturing a testimony than trying to obtain one. However I still think both methods are viable.

I am curious, why do you care about this? What are your reasons for wanting to know. Not that I mind you asking these questions.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Robert F. Smith]

Did you see the thread about Sudduth in the TP? He recently had a significant religious experience and became (pardon my ignorance of the proper terminology) a "Hari Krishna".

He is therefore a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISCON), which you can read about at their website, http://iskcon.org/, and more broadly at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness By the way, they have a temple near Spanish Fork, Utah, and have celebrations there several times a year which are well attended.

[Robert F. Smith]

Which is closer to the truth?

(I hope some answers are a little more intersting than just saying something like "both are true" and leaving it at that).

1) One comes to know that the LDS church is true by personal revelation from God. There will typically be a special moment, perhaps following a sincere prayer, where one has a private inner spiritual experience. This experience will have both an informational content (the church is true) as well being laden with a spiritual feeling or affect often described by a burning of the bosom or something similar. Somehow the experience itself provides its own epistemic warrant. Because of this, the person will be able to say that they "just know" the church is true and the person actually is justified in saying that they now know the church is true. (demands for an explanation of how the person knows may invite comparisons with how one knows what salt taste like and similar maneuvers that appear evasive or even conceptually empty to people of a scientific bent).

2) A testimony is developed slowly over time through active pragmatic experience with gospel principles and is in this sense broadly empircal. The knowledge associated with a testimony is never perfect or absolute and not that different from knowledge obtained in other areas through the praxis of living and testing things for oneself. In this sense a testimony is not obtained by a method that radically bypasses the usual human epistemological predicament.

This is the traditional epistemic division between liahonas and iron-rodders, perhaps best captured for Mormons by the late Richard D. Poll, "What the Church Means to People Like Me," Dialogue 2/4 (Winter 1967):107-117, which see at http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=2869&CISOSHOW=2813 or at http://www.zionsbest.com/people.html.

[Maidservant]

Which is closer to the truth?

(I hope some answers are a little more intersting than just saying something like "both are true" and leaving it at that).

1) One comes to know that the LDS church is true by personal revelation from God. There will typically be a special moment, perhaps following a sincere prayer, where one has a private inner spiritual experience. This experience will have both an informational content (the church is true) as well being laden with a spiritual feeling or affect often described by a burning of the bosom or something similar. Somehow the experience itself provides its own epistemic warrant. Because of this, the person will be able to say that they "just know" the church is true and the person actually is justified in saying that they now know the church is true. (demands for an explanation of how the person knows may invite comparisons with how one knows what salt taste like and similar maneuvers that appear evasive or even conceptually empty to people of a scientific bent).

2) A testimony is developed slowly over time through active pragmatic experience with gospel principles and is in this sense broadly empircal. The knowledge associated with a testimony is never perfect or absolute and not that different from knowledge obtained in other areas through the praxis of living and testing things for oneself. In this sense a testimony is not obtained by a method that radically bypasses the usual human epistemological predicament.

For purposes of your question and how you set it up, I will choose #2, for which #1 becomes a valid experience (for some) within #2.

#1 is tricky, because if one is assuming that the mind (or?) produces the experience, then there is no point to it (or a point that embraces the validity of 'enclosed mind' experiences as indicative of God = God is in our mind?). But if a person is at least open to the possibilty that a being or for the LDS, an actual person like us, out there (God, Father, who?) might want to communicate with one of us, then #1 can happen (one or more times), even if it doesn't happen (for whatever reason).

Is there no problem in terms of whether or how the subsequent belief is justified in the two cases?

For example, is someone well advised to join a church (any church) on the basis of an experience of type (1)?

Definitely. That is between you and your heavenly Father. Heavenly Father can teach you directly and guide you for your life and also your preferences and understanding and circumstances and the questions you are asking have something to do with the answers. For the record (re another poster), I wouldn't mind being a Hare Krishna if I wasn't LDS, I read a lot of stuff there, a lot of light there. And the other day, I was reading the Swedenborgian religion, and I was floored, "That's me!" And then I was like, "Darn! But I'm LDS! Why would God put all this true stuff in another religion!" Ha ha. Then I realized I had learned all that stuff AS an LDS, and it's not strange to find it somewhere else too (other people seeking light). For the record, I have never had a "witness experience" on the Book of Mormon (but I have on other things, including the truth of prophets). But there are some very specific reasons I remain committed to my covenants, and my Father in heaven and I talk all the time throughout the day and my learning and living process is open-ended, and I don't "need" to stay LDS if he ever shows me something else. But it hasn't happened yet.

[Garden Girl]

Good morning, Tarski... hope this finds you well...

I have experienced both #1 and #2 at different times and levels... both have been important to me. When I was a 17 year old seminary student studying the BoM, I "felt" it was true as we went along. Finally, when we came to Moroni I accepted his challenge and received such a strong witness (my bosom burned, my heart pounded, I felt such joy yet peace) that that witness stayed with me the 34 years I was an inactive member... and is with me today.

Other times, since reactivating, it has been the steadiness of line upon line, precept upon precept that has deepened my testimony through the years and keeps me holding to the rod...

My studies during these 17 years since I reactivated have produced both, including on several occasions "the still small voice," which was particularly gratifying.

from the beach on a cloudy morning, occasional sunbeams streaming through the clouds...

GG

Edited February 9, 2012 by Garden Girl

[mfbukowski]

This is the traditional epistemic division between liahonas and iron-rodders, perhaps best captured for Mormons by the late Richard D. Poll, "What the Church Means to People Like Me," Dialogue 2/4 (Winter 1967):107-117, which see at http://content.lib.u...9&CISOSHOW=2813 or at http://www.zionsbest.com/people.html.

I can, in my mind's eye, see very clearly one extremely nervous Bishop.