Religious Epistemology

[CV75]

The assertion that "one way" works better is a subjective statement of belief and experience, however, it doesn't come close to being identified as an absolute truth.

All truth is ultimately subjective because its source, God, is subjective. As a living being, He is not absolute (or static).

[Calm]

So then hypothetically speaking lets say I understand the message and I'm not sure if it is true or not. Also lets say I love some particular sin - lets go with promiscuity. I know that to join your church and seek after the celestial kingdom in this life I would have to give it up. What incentive is there for me to stop sinning in this life when I can enjoy my sin now and wait to the Millennium (or sooner) for someone to go through the temple practices for me on my behalf? And if it turns out you are wrong about the afterlife then I will still have enjoyed my sin in this life.

If you are not willing to change now to put aside your sin instead of revelling in it, what makes you think you will be anymore likely to do so in the next life? It may be even harder to do so because of the additional years for saturating yourself in it. Perhaps by then you will have convinced yourself this is the best life you could want and you see no need to change. It is not like you will be a completely different person in the next life than in this one. If you feel 'happier' when sinning, what would motivate you to change in the next life? If you don't feel happier sinning, that should be enough motivation for changing in this one right now, though of course if something is a habit it may take awhile to fully repent.

You will also have to go through the purification process and if it is not a true repentance, but one born out of fear then I am not sure how you will be able to access the atonement and if not, then that means you suffer the consequences of all those sins you did in mortality, the negative consequences are likely not only equal to the pleasure you received from them due to your awareness of the effects sinning has on your spirit and body and mind, but also because almost all sin has an effect on others and thus the consequences of your sin are far reaching and may return upon you a hundredfold of the pleasure you experienced long before.....so for those who will only repent out of fear this might be a good reason to consider it.

Edited July 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Dealing with religious "points of view" is not dealing with truth. We only have a very subjective guess as to the value of the point(s) of view and a number of different perceptions and perspectives.

The assertion that "one way" works better is a subjective statement of belief and experience, however, it doesn't come close to being identified as an absolute truth.

I like what your saying but I think you've drifted out of the realm of propositional truth.

Big UP!

Lamanite

It is the one that makes sense for me out of the way the Lord has structured the world and man's time on it. I believe God is efficient in his use of resources so that people will progress as quickly as they desire and so that as little unnecessary suffering occurs in both this life and the next. This means to me that considering the vast numbers of people outside the faith in proportion to those inside of it over the eons, it seems like those holding the gospel are more of along the lines of the minimal number that would be needed to give the faith an anchor to set things up for crucial events, in particular Christ's mission and the Millennium when it all comes together. If so, then it would seem that much of what we need to learn to progress in the life and all that we need to learn to prepare for the next step can be done outside of the Church, if one needed to learn things only taught in the Church before we went postmortal, then the vast majority of people would fail. So it seems for exaltation, mortality holds many, many variations of the path to allow people to progress to where they decide to join the path and most times that joining will be in the next life. There comes a point beyond which all must travel due to the uniqueness of the opportunities, but there is nothing I see excluding some other paths having duplication of essential experiences of learning and people obviously have the choice of joining the primary pathway at any time in their lives if it is present in their lives that is.

If other pathways weren't worthwhile...don't work to bring one at least closer to the primary path or even lead one away into a deadend of despair and sin, then a whole lot of people are wasting a whole lot of time....I think God is too smart to set things up that way, When the pathways available aren't and can't be changed to be worthwhile thus the rest of their life would merely be storing up sins that they suffer for now and later as well as cause others to suffer, that might be a justification for removing that community from current existence and sending them to the next life to set them on a working path again.

All theories of how God's plan is supposed to play out here on earth must take into account that the vast majority of people have not had the gospel in their life or at best a very limited part of it and so we must ask ourselves for those who don't, what is going on in their lives that is of a benefit to them? What would God, the greatest Organizer, be doing with organizing mortal life this way?

Edited July 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Dealing with religious "points of view" is not dealing with truth. We only have a very subjective guess as to the value of the point(s) of view and a number of different perceptions and perspectives.

The assertion that "one way" works better is a subjective statement of belief and experience, however, it doesn't come close to being identified as an absolute truth.

I like what your saying but I think you've drifted out of the realm of propositional truth.

Big UP!

Lamanite

But here's the deal. I guess I don't know what you mean by propositional truth.

Religious truths cannot be verified except by the believer. You can't go and take a picture of God from a rocket. There is no physical evidence, nor will there ever be, of the existence of God. There are no logical proofs for God which work.

You can only know that God exists by a feeling in your heart.

So the question becomes- are feelings in your heart definable as "true"?

I say they are. I think that "Murder is wrong" is true. The only way that is verifiable is by feelings inside of me- there is no way to prove it scientifically.

I think "God exists" is true- and it is "verified" the same way that "murder is wrong" is verified- by feelings in my heart.

I think the statement "I married the right woman" is also true in the same way

I think the statement "I can choose to answer this post or not" is also true in the same way.

Others:

"I know the sound of a trumpet is different than the sound of a violin"

"I like chocolate chip cookies"

"I miss Dan Peterson and wish he were back posting here"

"I am a Dodger fan"

"I love my children"

"I believe there are other planets with life on them"

"I think I will go to Walmart later this afternoon"

"I find that the LDS church gives my life meaning"

"I have a testimony that the church is true"

"I believe that God exists"

Notice that all of these start with the word "I". That means they are subjective statements. Only I can verify if they are true or not. But I could have phrased them differently.

These are not statements about the state of the "world" whatever that means BECAUSE none of them can be verified by others, in a scientific way,

They are statements about my beliefs- they are really about me and not about anything else.

[mfbukowski]

Lamanite

Does this passage make sense to you? I am trying to find phrasing which will communicate my point of view, and some seem to get it instantly and others don't.

Here, Rorty argues that all language is contingent. This is because only descriptions of the world can be true or false, and descriptions are made by humans who must make truth or falsity, as opposed to truth or falsity being determined by any innate property of the world being described.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency,_Irony,_and_Solidarity

I only cited the article for copyright purposes- there's no need to read it.

The basic idea is that all sentences/propositions etc are made in language. Language is a kind of "representation" of the world and not the world itself.

So truth then is a property of language itself- not about the world.

Imagine that all you see is a movie or a picture that comes through your senses. All you can talk about is the movie. You can never get out of the movie to check and see if what you see really "corresponds" to anything outside the movie. So why bother worrying about it?

We just talk about what we seen in the movie and what the movie is about and THAT becomes our reality.

Is that clear?

Or suppose we were all born with the same color sunglasses on- and we all agreed that all the colors we saw were such and so.

Would we be seeing "real color"? Would our statements correspond to the real world? Would statements about color be "true"?

Not in this example. But in such a world would it matter??

Or let's make it really radical- suppose we only saw infrared? How would "truth" be different if we could only see infrared?

Can we ever get outside of what we experience?

[TAO]

Mfb, you should post your Rorty video up about truth, that you posted in that other thread a few weeks ago. =D Such a good job at explaining the difficulties of the word 'truth'!

[mfbukowski]

Mfb, you should post your Rorty video up about truth, that you posted in that other thread a few weeks ago. =D Such a good job at explaining the difficulties of the word 'truth'!

You got it! I should just memorize what he says! I have posted it enough times that I should have it memorized already!

[mfbukowski]

Another brilliant and similar statement:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184

What is being defended here? Ultimately this is all about religious experience: When God speaks to your heart, is that subjective experience "real" or "true"- and in what sense?

If objective reality is the only reality, mental phenomena along with religious experience are not real, so there is no sense in which one can say that testimony shows "truth".

This form of epistemology- call it whatever you will- is the only justification possible for religious experience. But that's no problem as far as I am concerned, because all other epistemologies in my opinion are incorrect.

[Lamanite]

Perhaps viewing the double slit experiment and then re-evaluating your concept of Truth would be helpful. How you justify your beliefs doesn't necessarily qualify that belief as being true. It may seem to work best for you but it doest make it real or true.

[media=]

The idea of an object being at rest or in motion is another way to challenge our concept of "reality" or "truth". Determining motion usually begins with the relative perspective of the observer. So which reality is correct?

Absolute truth is a really weird thing, and in order to fit our faith based claims into a workable theology, I have been wondering lately if we mistakenly assert religious beliefs, as Universal Truths.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited July 25, 2012 by Lamanite

[Calm]

Perhaps viewing the double slit experiment and then re-evaluating your concept of Truth would be helpful. How you justify your beliefs doesn't necessarily qualify that belief as being true. It may seem to work best for you but it doest make it real or true.

[media=]

The idea of an object being at rest or in motion is another way to challenge our concept of "reality" or "truth". Determining motion usually begins with the relative perspective of the observer. So which reality is correct?

Absolute truth is a really weird thing, and in order to fit our faith based claims into a workable theology, I have been wondering lately if we mistakenly assert religious beliefs, as Universal Truths.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Think of the difference between someone sitting in a plane and someone looking up at it...which one is actually moving if neither feels movement? Edited July 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[CV75]

Absolute truth is a really weird thing, and in order to fit our faith based claims into a workable theology, I have been wondering lately if we mistakenly assert religious beliefs, as Universal Truths.

I think it is common to mistake belief for faith, and so religious beliefs can certainly be mistaken for Universal Truths. As I mentioned above, God as an Exalted Man is the embodiment of truth, and as a Man, is subjective, making truth subjective. I think the term "absolute" (like "saved") can be used to mark certain milestones or principles along a never-ending continuum, but since everything is connected and nothing ever ends, God doesn't sit still and neither does His experieince with Truth.

[Lamanite]

Think of the difference between someone sitting in a plane and someone looking up at it...which one is actually moving if neither feels movement?

Right. Which reality is true? I think what I'm finding is that in our current state of existence Truth is unapproachable. What we are left with is justifiable beliefs. I need a whole lot more time to vet these ideas. None of my ideas are rock solid.

As far as the human religious experience goes, I'm fairly certain it comes nowhere near being identified as True.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I think it is common to mistake belief for faith, and so religious beliefs can certainly be mistaken for Universal Truths. As I mentioned above, God as an Exalted Man is the embodiment of truth, and as a Man, is subjective, making truth subjective. I think the term "absolute" (like "saved") can be used to mark certain milestones or principles along a never-ending continuum, but since everything is connected and nothing ever ends, God doesn't sit still and neither does His experieince with Truth.

Sorry, I missed this post. I dig what you're saying. By using a continuum within the Truth equation allows for a lot of latitude in defining and understanding Truth. It's an interesting maneuver.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CV75]

Sorry, I missed this post. I dig what you're saying. By using a continuum within the Truth equation allows for a lot of latitude in defining and understanding Truth.

Yes, and God’s truth is better than mine until I become one with Him, at which point we subjectively experience one shared truth. But that doesn’t make His truth absolute; on the contrary, absolute truth is defined and delineated, so being stuck with it is a form of damnation (no progress) where only so much truth is tolerated (as in D&C 88:32). Now He is still absolutely God and the embodiment of all truth as far as we are concerned, no question!

[Gervin]

I think what I'm finding is that in our current state of existence Truth is unapproachable.

For me, Truth is approachable through the claim by Christ that he is truth. His statement requires some serious thought about how one goes about approaching the claim.

[mfbukowski]

Right. Which reality is true? I think what I'm finding is that in our current state of existence Truth is unapproachable. What we are left with is justifiable beliefs. I need a whole lot more time to vet these ideas. None of my ideas are rock solid.

As far as the human religious experience goes, I'm fairly certain it comes nowhere near being identified as True.

Big UP!

Lamanite

You are exactly right

http://www.marxists....ks/us/dewey.htm

Listen again carefully to the video in post 32. That is what he says.

You have to realize that things are not "true" - statements and propositions are true or false. "Truth" is not a property of things but of statements, and statements are ultimately someone's interpretation of their own experience, or shared experience.

In moonlight is a red car "red"? It is actually a shade of grey. You might know that in the daylight it is "red" but what color is it "really" red or grey??

After all, it can't be both...... or can it?

The truth is in the statement not in the thing. What is true varies according to the circumstance- it is what works best.

If you send someone looking for a red shirt on the clothesline in the moonlight he will never find it. The shirt is NOT red under those circumstances.

Edited July 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

In moonlight is a red car "red"? It is actually a shade of grey. You might know that in the daylight it is "red" but what color is it "really" red or grey??

Just for fun: If I compare the car as viewed in the celestial kingdom, under the best light (the glory of the sun), with the same car as viewed in the telestial kingdom, I think God and His Son’s joint heirs would experience the car as red, and in the lesser kingdoms it would appear, let’s say, 50 or more shades of gray… Anyway, the “true color” is the one God sees, more because of whom God is and what He experiences with His advantages than what the color actually is. But we say the “true color is red” as a vote of confidence in God, and someday we may indeed see it as red (1 Corinthians 13:12).

I would say this is more an expression of faith than justifiable belief, and that it extends to how God sees religion and shares that vision with us. It is also why I think, in comparison with faith justifiable belief is as useful and reliable in finding truth as any other kind of belief. Neither has a permanent place in the practice of spiritual truth since at that point, they are replaced with faith.

Slight tangent:

I’m not sure what the inhabitants of the telestial kingdom would see, or what would happen to them, should God suddenly appear to them. On earth as mortals we would be consumed unless “quickened.” But His Spirit is “seen” by the light by which we choose to walk (John 8:12; 11:9, 10; Isaiah 50:11), so to some His truth would be perceived as “red”, and to others only as darkness (Isaiah 5:20). This must be is how His children see (or not see) Him in the resurrection and in their assigned kingdom and why they can only be administered to by the light they are willing to receive (D&C 76:86-89, 88:32).

[mfbukowski]

Just for fun: If I compare the car as viewed in the celestial kingdom, under the best light (the glory of the sun), with the same car as viewed in the telestial kingdom, I think God and His Son’s joint heirs would experience the car as red, and in the lesser kingdoms it would appear, let’s say, 50 or more shades of gray… Anyway, the “true color” is the one God sees, more because of whom God is and what He experiences with His advantages than what the color actually is. But we say the “true color is red” as a vote of confidence in God, and someday we may indeed see it as red (1 Corinthians 13:12).

That's a very interesting metaphor indeed.

Maybe that would be a fruitful way of thinking about how we are co-definers of reality with God, as mini-gods in embryo. As he does we all take "matter unorganized" and make it into what we all see subjectively and then give it a name to define what it is.

That is symbolized in the scriptures, I think, when Adam gives names to all the creatures and when God "calls" or defines a creative period with the words "and the evening and morning he called the 'first day'". We also create by defining- Columbus is called the "discoverer" of the new world when in fact all the people who lived here for thousands of years before him might dispute that "fact". All he did of course was define the new world for the Europeans, and of course he got the definition wrong thinking he had discovered India- but we still until recently called (defined) native Americans as "Indians".

So perhaps, following your point, we can say poetically that only God sees the world in its true colors while we only see the shades of grey.

I have thought many times about what it would be like to be able to see maybe radio waves or in infrared or ultraviolet and how that would re-define our notions of what is "real".

The problem though with this view I think is that it still presents a dualism between the true world and the way we see the world- and then comes the usual question, that if we cannot see the "true world" how do we even know it exists?

On the other hand we are definitely seeing things through a glass darkly!

The answer to the problem is that I think we see things in a different context than God does- his picture is beyond our ability to understand and frame the "language" to express. He speaks one language and we speak another. That may be seen in the metaphor of the "Adamic" language as being a perfect language.

So instead of saying he sees the true reality I would prefer to just say we see it too, just small portions of what he sees. That is also consistent with our LDS naturalistic idea that eventually, theoretically, true science could in principle reveal all that God knows, how spirit and matter are the same, but spirit is more refined etc.

[CV75]

I think the lhe link between this:

if we cannot see the "true world" how do we even know it exists?

and this:

we are definitely seeing things [albeit] through a glass darkly!

is faith. I think we can see the true world by degrees, beginning most fundamentally with that universal ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

The answer to the problem is that I think we see things in a different context than God does- his picture is beyond our ability to understand and frame the "language" to express.

Yes, while His view is open for sharing, we have proven that we can only sense it on some level, and not fully.

So instead of saying he sees the true reality I would prefer to just say we see it too, just small portions of what he sees.

Yes, I agree since I really don't know all He sees; I just have faith that He sees the true reality.

[mfbukowski]

It's fascinating to me that people deny that our perceptions of reality are not subjective.

Here we sit agreeing and disagreeing- that is what the board is for.

We pick which arguments we agree with, which ones we disagree with, and the very fact of disagreement proves that we live in our little subjective worlds.

Why is education valued? Because we see the value of each individual and their potential to contribute their subjective talents to the pooled talents of humanity. We want each to be "productive citizens", who are independent and make their own choices. We want them to "do something with their lives".

We all have our own subjective needs, wants, preferences, talents and were all raised with different subjective experiences, differences in parenting, birth order, differing parental skills and conditions, different inbred talents, different ethnicities, economic conditions and cultures and other differences too numerous to even conceive.

What is important to us is different and not objectively definable, we just know what works for us when we see it or feel it. Some shop at Walmart, others wouldn't think of it. Some are vegans, others carnivores. We are young, old, disabled, enabled, in great shape or sickly. We are fat, thin, wear blue jeans or would not be caught in them. We have messy houses or are neatniks. We have different sexual preferences and are male or female. We are liberal or conservative.

Yet with all these differences, there is something common to all of us. We all live in an objective world which we share and which gives us choices.

The subjective self is what makes choices, defines our preferences, agrees and disagrees, decides to do it now or do it later, and what picks what is important to us, and decides if we will be scientists or artists, police officers or judges. It decides whom to marry, where to go for a honeymoon, what church - or no church- is right for us. It decides if we are atheists or believers, poets or policemen.

But you cannot deny that that subjective self is a figment or our imagination. That is truly "where" each of us lives and spends our lives.

Yet we all also have a world we all share. We all need to pick up eggs milk and bread at the corner store, or go to the big box store a little farther away and hope to save some money. We will turn the ignition key and all the knowledge of science and physics will kick into operation to carry us down the road a ways.

But absolutely without question it is our subjective selves which decides if it is worth the drive.

That is what we are talking about here.

[mfbukowski]

The problem atheists have with the outlook is that belief in God is "just brain chemicals" is that then non-belief in God is equally "just brain chemicals".

Now the question becomes whose chemicals are correct?

Edited July 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If all beliefs are "just chemicals" including the belief in Scientism and the belief that the only truth is out there, then what happens to what is out there?

Suddenly it becomes in here.

[CV75]

That is what we are talking about here.

...and if it isn't ultimately subjective, what's the point?

[CV75]

mfb, who are you talking to? Did someone get kicked out and their posts erradicated?

[yootaw]

I have nothing substantive to add to the discussion, but want to express thanks for everyone who has posted here. This has given me plenty to think about!