Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[mfbukowski]

Anyone interested in Dewey's (and my) view of this should read these:

http://www.philosoph...P/MSU/GS02.html

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/dewey.htm

Edited November 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Lamanite]

Stargazer, (or anyone)

I came across this this morning. I'm curious to know how you explain the following.

Edmund Briggs and Samuel Gurley went to speak to Emma and Joseph Smith III about Joseph taking his rightful place as leader of the reorganized church. When they arrived they announced that they were missionaries from the reorganized church and then thrust a letter into Joseph's hand. It read:

"Through fasting and prayer, hath the answer from God come unto us, saying, 'Communicate with my servant Joseph Smith, son of Joseph the Prophet'...We are assured that the same Spirit that has testified to us, has signified the same things to you...The good and the true are throughout the land waiting the true successor...Arise in the strength of the Lord." (Newell, Avery. pp 268-269)

They are saying that they are speaking to God after both fasting and prayer regarding Joseph's succession as the "true" Mormon successor. It seems these men have met your standard for Knowledge and Truth. Religious experience = Knowledge and Truth.

What do you do with situations like this? Dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your subjective religious faith based experiences? There are a ton of different assertions of Truth in the world that are based on subjective religious experiences just like yours. Are they all right? Are they wrong? It seems to me that the product of these religious experiences is a faithful belief in something. Not knowledge or truth. Just an expression in some type of justified belief(s). Alma 32 seems to agree.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CV75]

Religious experience = Knowledge and Truth.

What do you do with situations like this? Dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your subjective religious faith based experiences? There are a ton of different assertions of Truth in the world that are based on subjective religious experiences just like yours. Are they all right? Are they wrong? It seems to me that the product of these religious experiences is a faithful belief in something. Not knowledge or truth. Just an expression in some type of justified belief(s). Alma 32 seems to agree.

Verse 27 does say to “believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.” So the manner of belief must align with the actual veracity of the object of faith (words, message, principle, etc.). Referring to verse 35, we also know that many confuse light and darkness (Isaiah 5:20). So when people fast and pray and have a religious experience, it must be in a manner that they can give place to God's truth. And for people to agree on that is a subjective experience.

[Bikeemikey]

I am afraid that you have missed something in your post. It is not in the Baptist or Evangelical vocabulary to claim that their church is true. However, what they do claim is: I know that Jesus lives....I know that God lives....they can say this. Catholics in general tend to downplay such expressions. They go to mass, take the communion, feel the presence of Christ etc.

But the mormons make the truth claim based on the book of mormon and the restoration. It is in their cultural vocabulary.

That's a great insight.

Have there been any studies demonstrating this?

[brainburn]

Clearly no GA means that the resurrection can be scientifically verified nor that God's existence can be either nor that any of Joseph's visions etc can be verified scientifically. How could they possibly have an "empirical dimension" (whatever that is supposed to mean) without being scientifically verifiable?

I mean objective more than empirical. In fact, for the sake of discussion I'm trying to have, let's just drop the empirical part.

And I didn't mean to ask for you to explain what you think GA's mean, I was asking for you to provide examples of one or two explaining it themselves.

I'm looking for something that reads effectively like this: "When you hear that we 'know Jesus rose from the dead', it can certainly be interpreted as an objective truth claim, but it is to be made clear that this is a serious misinterpretation. Our beliefs about the Savior actually have nothing to do with whether Jesus objectively exists, alive or dead. What we really mean is this.........."

Because this is what your comments would lead me to believe. I'm just trying to "confirm" it as LDS when I read it the words of someone who is unquestionably LDS. (I'm not so sure that you are) I'm not willing to bet that there simply aren't any GA's who apply objective meaning to their statements, regardless of whether they think it's possible to verify scientifically.

[TAO]

I mean objective more than empirical. In fact, for the sake of discussion I'm trying to have, let's just drop the empirical part.

Well, what do you mean by objective? You can't every verify anything with certainty, but it's practical to believe what you see, if you know what I mean. So in that sense, I suppose it is.

[mfbukowski]

Stargazer, (or anyone)

I came across this this morning. I'm curious to know how you explain the following.

Edmund Briggs and Samuel Gurley went to speak to Emma and Joseph Smith III about Joseph taking his rightful place as leader of the reorganized church. When they arrived they announced that they were missionaries from the reorganized church and then thrust a letter into Joseph's hand. It read:

They are saying that they are speaking to God after both fasting and prayer regarding Joseph's succession as the "true" Mormon successor. It seems these men have met your standard for Knowledge and Truth. Religious experience = Knowledge and Truth.

What do you do with situations like this? Dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your subjective religious faith based experiences? There are a ton of different assertions of Truth in the world that are based on subjective religious experiences just like yours. Are they all right? Are they wrong?

It seems to me that you have answered the question above yourself with your answer below.

It seems to me that the product of these religious experiences is a faithful belief in something. Not knowledge or truth. Just an expression in some type of justified belief(s). Alma 32 seems to agree.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Between the two churches, how do you know which is true? By their fruits and especially on a personal basis, Alma 32 "evidence".

There is no other answer possible, and I think that is perfect LDS doctrine. You learn the truth of a church by religious experience or testimony AND by living it- as said in Alma 32.

To me, this stuff I am "preaching" is about as doctrinal as you can get.

[mfbukowski]

I mean objective more than empirical. In fact, for the sake of discussion I'm trying to have, let's just drop the empirical part.

And I didn't mean to ask for you to explain what you think GA's mean, I was asking for you to provide examples of one or two explaining it themselves.

I'm looking for something that reads effectively like this: "When you hear that we 'know Jesus rose from the dead', it can certainly be interpreted as an objective truth claim, but it is to be made clear that this is a serious misinterpretation. Our beliefs about the Savior actually have nothing to do with whether Jesus objectively exists, alive or dead. What we really mean is this.........."

Because this is what your comments would lead me to believe. I'm just trying to "confirm" it as LDS when I read it the words of someone who is unquestionably LDS. (I'm not so sure that you are) I'm not willing to bet that there simply aren't any GA's who apply objective meaning to their statements, regardless of whether they think it's possible to verify scientifically.

I am not concerned about what those who have not studied philosophy mean by philosophical terms. Philosophy is a specialized field and uses terms in a specific way, and what it is largely about is defining those terms.

You don't hear psychiatrists saying people are "goofy" or "wacko", they speak in specific terms about specific diseases. Likewise laymen misuse specialized terminology all the time, using for example, the word "schizophrenic" to refer to what is technically "multiple personality disorder".

I don't expect GA's to be any more familiar with technically philosophical usages of the word "objective" than they would be with "bipolar disorder" or any other specialized jargon and wisely, that is why they avoid it.

In fact I would like to hear what you mean by "objective" and who's general philosophical view you use to define it. I am asking for the philosophical view because it is a shorthand way of defining it fairly precisely and quickly.

On the other hand, if it is your personal usage, I have no clue what you mean anyway and it might be useful for you to learn other definitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29

If you mean somehow knowledge of something independent of the mind, I don't believe that is possible. I am what might be called an "antirealist"

[mfbukowski]

Well, what do you mean by objective? You can't every verify anything with certainty, but it's practical to believe what you see, if you know what I mean. So in that sense, I suppose it is.

By jove, I think you've got it!

Edited November 9, 2012 by mfbukowski

[brainburn]

I am what might be called an "antirealist"

Ah! Then maybe this will be much easier...

Can you provide some LDS examples supporting antirealism?

[brainburn]

Ah! Then maybe this will be much easier...

Can you provide some LDS examples supporting antirealism?

And I think it's pertinent to add that I mean supporting in the same sense as before. Explicit support. I'm much less interested in indirect or implied antirealism. I'm looking for clear or explicit acknowledgements of the idea in very approachable language.

[Brade]

Clearly no GA means that the resurrection can be scientifically verified nor that God's existence can be either nor that any of Joseph's visions etc can be verified scientifically.

I agree that it's clear they don't mean that those events or objects are scientifically verified. It's also clear that they mean that those events happened and those objects exist apart from whether believing they did happen or do exist is profoundly motivating in their lives.

I am what might be called an "antirealist"

I think we basically get that. We know that you think that "the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it." What isn't clear is that that's what the church or, if you like, many or any, church leaders think about statements like "I know Jesus rose from the dead". So, let's just set aside whether it's right to think that statements like "I know Jesus rose from the dead" have to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and let's see what reason there is to think that any church leaders think that and have stated or implied as much.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Brade

[brainburn]

I agree that it's clear they don't mean that those events or objects are scientifically verified. It's also clear that they mean that those events happened and those objects exist apart from whether believing they did happen or do exist is profoundly motivating in their lives.

I think we basically get that. We know that you think that "the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it." What isn't clear is that that's what the church or, if you like, many or any, church leaders think about statements like "I know Jesus rose from the dead". So, let's just set aside whether it's right to think that statements like "I know Jesus rose from the dead" have to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and let's see what reason there is to think that any church leaders think that and have stated or implied as much.

Yup.

[mfbukowski]

I agree that it's clear they don't mean that those events or objects are scientifically verified. It's also clear that they mean that those events happened and those objects exist apart from whether believing they did happen or do exist is profoundly motivating in their lives.

I think we basically get that. We know that you think that "the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it." What isn't clear is that that's what the church or, if you like, many or any, church leaders think about statements like "I know Jesus rose from the dead". So, let's just set aside whether it's right to think that statements like "I know Jesus rose from the dead" have to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and let's see what reason there is to think that any church leaders think that and have stated or implied as much.

I don't see how that's relevant frankly.

I cannot read their minds and neither can anyone else. I am confident that were I able to sit down with anyone and discuss this face to fact that they would end up understanding it as I do, or at least acknowledge it as one perfectly valid way of describing this.

Remember that is what we are talking about- ways we describe this. We are talking about semantics here or didn't you understand that?

I mean - can we discuss this WITHOUT language?

Let me ask another question: How can one regard visions as "real" without acknowledging that everything "real" is in some sense an inter-subjective perception?

How can we get outside of what is "in our collective heads"? Show me that and I will acknowledge your position immediately. But no one can show that and never has yet.

Edited November 9, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think we basically get that. We know that you think that "the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it."

Let's look at that.

Why would one bear a testimony if he was not setting his BELIEFS apart from those of others. Why declare one's beliefs at all?

This is clearly a declaration of BELIEF about what one allegedly "knows" regardless of what that means philosophically- and not a declaration of what some might regard as "objective facts" whatever those are.

The entire context of declaring a testimony is the communication of a belief, so that the spirit can testify to the person who hears, in the hopes that a similar belief will result in the hearer.

No one says "I have a testimony that the earth is approximately 239,000 miles from the moon". What would be the purpose of that kind of utterance?

Edited November 9, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Ah! Then maybe this will be much easier...

Can you provide some LDS examples supporting antirealism?

I shown this to be compatible with many LDS thinkers many times- like Faulconer and Paulsen, McMurrin and others who acknowledge that William James for example, had views very compatible with LDS thought.

This has been discussed here many times before and I really don't feel like going over it all again. Google William James mormon and see what you get.

[Nathair/|\]

D&C 93:1

Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who ^aforsaketh his ^bsins and cometh unto me, and ^ccalleth on my name, and ^dobeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall ^esee my ^fface and ^gknow that I am;...

Until that day comes, I cannot see how anyone can know that Christ lives and is who he is. Until that day we continue to live in the realm of "looking through a glass darkly", a realm of uncertainty,belief, faith, hope.

I am reminded of Elder McConkie's last General Conference testimony:

And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person.

I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.

But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.

[brainburn]

mfbukowski,

You know I asked for explicit support not compatibility. I searched for "William James" on lds.org and I don't see anything that quite fits, yet. Maybe you could easily point to a GC talk or two?

[brainburn]

No one says "I have a testimony that the earth is approximately 239,000 miles from the moon". What would be the purpose of that kind of utterance?

Might it be similarly pointless to utter "I have a testimony that one day I will be reunited with my Father in heaven"?

And Nathair's post reminds me of another significant difference between thinkers of your sort and the GA's. They will explicitly state they will exist after death

[brainburn]

Might it be similarly pointless to utter "I have a testimony that one day I will be reunited with my Father in heaven"?

And Nathair's post reminds me of another significant difference between thinkers of your sort and the GA's. They will explicitly state they will exist after death

Oops. Can't edit my post.

GA's will explicitly testify they know their spirits will survive death and their bodies physically resurrected in an objective afterlife. There's no mistaking that these are realist testimonies of objective events. I'm not sure an antirealist like yourself can have such a testimony.

[Nathair/|\]

Might it be similarly pointless to utter "I have a testimony that one day I will be reunited with my Father in heaven"?

And Nathair's post reminds me of another significant difference between thinkers of your sort and the GA's. They will explicitly state they will exist after death

Now, hold on. I have the greatest respect for MfBukowski. He's my favorite philosopher in part because he speaks like a magician...or a prophet. I have absolutely no doubt he has just as strong a testimony as you or I do. He just defends its legitimacy in a way that wouldn't occur to most of us because he's asked the questions that don't occur to us.

[brainburn]

Now, hold on. I have the greatest respect for MfBukowski. He's my favorite philosopher in part because he speaks like a magician...or a prophet. I have absolutely no doubt he has just as strong a testimony as you or I do. He just defends its legitimacy in a way that wouldn't occur to most of us because he's asked the questions that don't occur to us.

I was only suggesting he doesn't have a testimony of any realist proposition because he's already made clear he is an antirealist.

[Calm]

Oops. Can't edit my post..

will be able at 25 posts, also start threads in this and the News forum instead of only Social.

[Calm]

Now, hold on. I have the greatest respect for MfBukowski. He's my favorite philosopher in part because he speaks like a magician...or a prophet. I have absolutely no doubt he has just as strong a testimony as you or I do. He just defends its legitimacy in a way that wouldn't occur to most of us because he's asked the questions that don't occur to us.

Well stated (no points, but if I remember I intend to come back when I have them).

[mfbukowski]

Might it be similarly pointless to utter "I have a testimony that one day I will be reunited with my Father in heaven"?

And Nathair's post reminds me of another significant difference between thinkers of your sort and the GA's. They will explicitly state they will exist after death

And so do I. I have no doubt. I have been close enough enough times to know.

But we are talking about proving that to others. Don't put me at odds with the church because I am not in any way at odds with it. You don't know me you don't know my history you know nothing about me or my testimony and you are treading on thin ice.