Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[brainburn]

Sorry but I don't understand you at all.

So why don't you explain what it is exactly that you don't understand... I'm not incoherent and most importantly I'm trying to work with you.

[mfbukowski]

Plus you must not have read this post:

I could reword it, but it still shows I understood what you meant.

And you skipped right over it before you tried to tell me what you think I'm misunderstanding, again. Why can't ever start on the same page? You don't accept anything I say about God?

No that wasn't the point I was making. In fact if you actually read the thread you will see that I answered it TWICE in posts 284 and 294.

You still don't understand that there is a difference between making a statement about your beliefs and whether or not those beliefs are true.

You just don't get that. It has nothing to do with God. It has nothing to do with language and whether or not language "represents" reality.

I'm done.

Edited December 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So why don't you explain what it is exactly that you don't understand... I'm not incoherent and most importantly I'm trying to work with you.

OK explain the above post. Do you get it yet?

[CV75]

I think you are trying to analyse or delve into something that you (or I) have sufficient understanding of, or are qualified to do. For these reasons I don’t think that I would want to engage in that line of debate.

What's wrong with that? I don't see this so much a debate as an exchange of ideas and understanding, in the spirit of exploration and hopefully mutual edification.

Referencing the 2^nd and 3^rd full paragraphs of the post you replied to, I get “truth is what acts” from D&C 93: 30 (“All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.”)

I get “light is what is acted upon” from 93:29 (“Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”), and perhaps more directly stated in D&C 88:6-7, “He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ…”

Christ uses, or acts upon, this power to act upon other things (verses 7-13 and especially 12; “As also he is in … the light of the sun [moon, stars, stars], and the power thereof by which it was made… And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God [Who is Truth – John 14:6] to fill the immensity of space—The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.”).

Truth and light are also distinguished one from the other in 93:28, 29, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42 (verse 2 uses “true” as an adjective for “light”, indicating that light is dependent on truth). In most of these references, light is the “light of truth” indicating its origin is truth, which acts for itself to bring forth or use the light.

Truth and light can also be considered a “compound in one” where truth is a form of subjective reality and light is a form of objective reality (correspoding to truth), but I’m not sure if the though models / theories being discussed really allow that.

[brainburn]

No that wasn't the point I was making. In fact if you actually read the thread you will see that I answered it TWICE in posts 284 and 294.

You still don't understand that there is a difference between making a statement about your beliefs and whether or not those beliefs are true.

You just don't get that. It has nothing to do with God. It has nothing to do with language and whether or not language "represents" reality.

I'm done.

Holy cow, indeed. I'm sorry, but it's necessary that I tell you something very, very important: I am not as phenomenally stupid as you think I am.

Do you really think I can't tell the difference between language and what language refers to?

And I realize that you might have been making the point that the statement is language and the fact of whether Jesus rose from the dead is separate from the language.

Statements are independent of the truth value of things they refer to. The statement doesn't make itself true.

Your words:

"statement about your beliefs" is separate from "whether or not those beliefs are true"

That's exactly what I said. My words:

"the statement [of belief in the resurrection of Jesus]" is separate from "whether Jesus rose from the dead".

That is exactly what I said!

I could change the statement to be about myself and being a martian:

"the statement of belief in the martian origin of brainburn" is separate from "whether brainburn actually is a martian".

That is exactly what you said ---> "The statement "I know that brainburn is a martian" has nothing to do with whether or not you actually ARE a martian"

Plus, this is still just an objection you feel you need to correct... But I don't see where it even came from. I don't see how it's relevant to my argument. I don't see why you would bring it up. It's not part of my argument.

It baffles me that you think I would make such a twisted and absurd mistake. I'm not stupid enough to think that there is no difference between a belief statement and whether the statement is true. What does it even mean??? If I thought there was no difference between a statement and the truth, wouldn't that mean that I would allegedly think the statement and its truth value are the same thing? What? I can't even wrap my head around something that dumb.

Tell me: If I thought the statement "had something to do" with with what it refers to, what does that mean?

It's clear what the correct idea is in your mind, but what is the incorrect idea you think I have in my mind?

Please. Stop attacking absurd strawmans. Just stop. I don't understand why you're doing this just as much as you don't understand me, apparently.

So, let's get to the bottom of it.

A belief statement is separate from what it refers to. "is separate", "is different", "has nothing to do" I get it (at least the first two). The statement itself is just language and in many cases it can refer to something that is not language, but it's not the same thing as whether what it refers to is true. Can we move on?

What I'm concerned with is whether we can derive statements from revelation which we know refer to things that are true. The statement is still viewed as separate from what it refers to, so why can't we talk about it?

If you think I still don't get it... can I suggest deconstructing this last sentence with me?

With God, we know statements derived from revelation will refer to true things as they were, are, and will be.

"With God" - Because God is the ultimate scientist and is on the outside of our immediate experience, he can "peek around" for us and communicate the objective truth on the outside of our experience to us. He can be our correspondence bridge.

"weknow" - Scriptures clearly state that true knowledge about things as they were, are, and will be is possible.

"statements derived from revelation will refer" - Distinguishes the difference between the belief statement and whether the belief is true. The statement is separate from what it refers to, but it still makes sense to talk about whether what it refers to is actually true.

"to true things as they were, are, and will be" - Necessarily includes things outside of our immediate experience, made possible by the power of God.

So, now do you see that I'm not arguing that the statement makes itself true? It's about whether we can know a statement is true with God, not simply with the statement.

[mfbukowski]

I understand what you are saying but my point is philosophical. Yes "revelation reveals truth" using your language game but I have not been using that context. My point is epistemological and you are missing that point but it is not really important in our lives.

[brainburn]

I understand what you are saying but my point is philosophical. Yes "revelation reveals truth" using your language game but I have not been using that context. My point is epistemological and you are missing that point but it is not really important in our lives.

Excellent. So, what's your epistemological point as it relates to God and revelation?

[mfbukowski]

With God, we know statements derived from revelation will refer to true things as they were, are, and will be.

"With God" - Because God is the ultimate scientist and is on the outside of our immediate experience, he can "peek around" for us and communicate the objective truth on the outside of our experience to us. He can be our correspondence bridge.

So we can put on a blindfold and drive 60 mph down the road because God will reveal to us when to turn and when to brake.

The world was made in 6 days from nothing, the law of conservation of mass was lifted and water covered Mt Everest at a height of 29000 feet, donkeys speak, and bread becomes flesh and blood. Adam was God and Black people changed ontologically in a scientific way when the revelation was received and God changed his mind about the scientific truth of polygamy.

God told us how to make the atomic bomb and weapons of mass destruction and the only way we know anything about science is through revelation.

Interesting - I never quite looked at it that way.

[mfbukowski]

Excellent. So, what's your epistemological point as it relates to God and revelation?

He reveals himself directly to our minds just like every other experience we have about anything.

Not too complicated. All we can know is what we experience spiritually and otherwise. No correspondence, no peaking around experience, no bridges, no worrying about some unseen world beyond experience. He is as real as things science tells us, but he is not objectively observed like facts about science are. Knowing about God is like knowing that you are in love or that Jesus rose from the dead, or that murder is wrong or that a painting is beautiful. You know those in your mind and heart just like every other fact about anything you have ever learned.

What you see/feel/taste touch is real, and that includes God because we experience him directly

Pretty weird, huh?

Edited December 2, 2012 by mfbukowski