Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[Brade]

Well I would think you would have to define that "something" for this to work. That's not part of any truth theory I am aware of.

The "something" I'm talking about here is whether or not Jesus rose from the dead.

But I would have my own simple way to refute them- and it would rely on a Wittgensteinian understanding. Wittgenstein said that "there is no conceivable way of getting between language and the world and finding out whether there is a general fit between them".

I'm actually sympathetic to that idea -- that there is no way of getting between language and the world and finding out whether there is a fit between them.

THAT is the problem. The reason you were taught analytical philosophy instead of the metaphysics of reality is precisely for that reason. All we have to analyze is language, and it appears that you still believe in some kind of correspondence theory, which as far as I know, has been pretty much abandoned throughout most of the 20th century.

Yes, I still find myself pulled toward something like correspondence. Yes, I know that correspondence has been pretty much abandoned.

How could one ever "know" if any statement is the "truth" in the sense of correspondence to a world one cannot experience independent of language?

I don't know. I'm not sure that one could.

[mfbukowski]

The "something" I'm talking about here is whether or not Jesus rose from the dead.

Let's explore that a little. The actual quote is this:

That, of course, is the something of Jesus' rising or not rising with which that statement has to do.

It appears that you are speaking of some kind of "actual" knowable event- Jesus' rising or not rising- which the statement "has to do" or presumably corresponds to. In other words the "something" is an event in the world independent of anyone's linguistic expression of it. But as we will see, even you doubt that such a "something" exists, or is possible to express regardless of whether or not it does in some sense "exist". At any rate, what we have is something out there independent of language which is expressed IN language. But then you say this:

I'm actually sympathetic to that idea -- that there is no way of getting between language and the world and finding out whether there is a fit between them.

which seems to contradict what you say above about that "something" which gets expressed in language.

Yes, I still find myself pulled toward something like correspondence. Yes, I know that correspondence has been pretty much abandoned.

And so we have a dilemma. I appreciate your honesty.

Edited November 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Brade]

And so we have a dilemma.

Yep.

[mfbukowski]

Yep.

Rx

Read John Dewey's Quest for Certainty and call me in the morning.

Or at least google it and read all you can about it....

Edit: http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPQUCY&Cover=TRUE

Edited November 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[brainburn]

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.

You have no idea what you are talking about. YOU STILL HAVE NOT DEFINED OBJECTIVE

Objective means "scientific".

They most certainly don't mean that.

I am afraid you don't understand the words or any of this. You throw around terms without defining them and you are certainly not using them as they usually are in a philosophical context.

First of all, you might be talking about proving this or that to others. I never was. I'm talking about which ideas we can tell the Church accepts and the quotes that support these conclusions.

Second, I never concluded anything about your testimony except that it must be compatible with anti-realism. I even invited you to explain your position more clearly so I'm happy to change my thoughts on the matter. I'm sorry if this crosses some line, but I think my questions were sufficiently clear. If it still seems to you that I have no idea what I'm talking about, please follow my logic below and point out what I'm missing. You don't seem to be trying very hard to explain things to me.

Mfbukowski is an anti-realist. It is my understanding that opposite of anti-realism is philosophical realism. The two are incompatible.

Because it is not possible for a personal testimony to refer to realist propositions as true and be considered compatible with anti-realism, this might lead me to believe that mfbukowski holds no personal testimony which refers to the truth of any realist proposition. Is this true?

If it is true, I do think this puts you at odds with the Church. I just want to make it clear that I'm willing to change my point of view as soon as you explain how.

Third, you're right: I should have defined objective instead of presuming you knew what I meant. So, here it is: I mean objective as independent of the mind. (I remember typing this out earlier, but I guess I never submitted it.) So, tell me why I suspect the answer would be "yes" if I asked any GA the question: "Was the resurrection of Jesus independent of the mind?"

Because it's doctrine? Because it's a revelation?

Have they ever answered "I don't know" to such a proposition? Have they ever answered "no"?

It's all very confusing. It seems to me that figuring out what the Church thinks about realism and related topics is best done by looking for their explanation, in their own words. And since you seem to be the resident expert, I'm looking to you for help. But because you seem to take issue with presuming that GA's are educated in philosophical jargon (a bit strange to me, but I'll drop it...) let me just phrase it this way:

What LDS sources give explicit acknowledgement and support for the idea of anit-realism?

Now it's clear that jargon in the quote isn't necessary for you to demonstrate that someone understands the idea of anti-realism and holds to it. Can we move on? I'm dying to see a quote that shows one or any of the GA'sunderstands and supports the concept, regardless of whether they know the jargon. I'm sure you could provide a GC talk or two, like I said. I'm still looking through references to William James on lds.org.

Is my question clear, now? What terms am I misusing and how should they be used? What pieces am I missing which might change my view on the LDS situation with realism/anti-realism?

[mfbukowski]

The church takes no philosophical positions nor should it. All the opinions expressed are strictly my own speculation.

[mfbukowski]

Personal testimonies do not "refer" to anything- they are statements and say what they say. They most certainly do not "refer" to a philosophical position realist or non- realist.

Brainburn it seems you have not read the thread- I would encourage you to do so. And no, I am not inclined to argue the whole thing over again repeating all that has been said. There was much said about the nature of language and how one cannot bridge the gap between "reality" and language.

If you can explain how you do that, I would be interested. Most of 20th century philosophy has rotated around the notion that bridging that gap cannot be done.

[Brade]

I'm probably not going to read that book you linked too (at least not right now), but I am probably going to go through this soon. I want to better understand pragmatism, because I don't think I understand its nuances to sufficiently respond or assent to it. I have strong intuitions, as do most people (I think), to something like correspondence, and I haven't been bothered to really give them a challenge, but I'm feeling up to it these days. Just to keep the conversation going, I have the temptation to respond to this

that there is no way of getting between language and the world and finding out whether there is a fit between them.

by saying, yes, I don't see a way to get between language and the world, and as the truth of any proposition is a necessary condition of knowledge, we can never have knowledge for some very large set of propositions. Stop. Basically, my temptation is to what seems to be full blown skepticism. My understanding is that pragmatism accepts this as a consequence of understanding truth in a certain way. The pragmatists, it seems, then wants to say, "well, hang on, skepticism is too violent to our day to day discourse and so that we've been pushed into skepticism by admitting understanding truth in a certain way is so much the worse for that understanding. We need to revise what we understand by 'true'". And then the pragmatists project gets underway. Is my characterization on track? If I'm off, where have I jumped the rails?

Edited November 11, 2012 by Brade

[brainburn]

Personal testimonies do not "refer" to anything- they are statements and say what they say. They most certainly do not "refer" to a philosophical position realist or non- realist.

Can we just drop this and talk about whether the Church has ever understood and accepted anti-realism?

Brainburn it seems you have not read the thread- I would encourage you to do so. And no, I am not inclined to argue the whole thing over again repeating all that has been said. There was much said about the nature of language and how one cannot bridge the gap between "reality" and language.

I did read the thread and I'm pretty sure I understood it the first time. Why exactly does it seem to you that I haven't?

I thoroughly understand that if we want to talk about objective truth, it's uncertain (and maybe impossible to determine) whether our language corresponds in any degree to a reality independent of our minds. I accept this idea and reject any "metaphysics of correspondence".

I thoroughly understand that the only "truth" we can be certain about is relative to our point of view and personal experience. The "truth is what works for you" philosophy. I accept this definition of truth and have no pressing doubts as to whether most LDS accept this definition, as well.

But here's the thing:

While you and I understand these things, it's clear to me whether any prophet or GA does. Well...

The church takes no philosophical positions nor should it. All the opinions expressed are strictly my own speculation.

OK. I want to be very clear.... the church takes no philosophical positions, jargon or no jargon, at all? Not even on truth? There isn't even the semblance of a philosophy of truth expressed by GA's at the pulpit or in doctrine...

This can't be what you mean. Please explain.

Because I think you're mistaken. I think that the church is realist in some sense because there is an LDS "metaphysics of correspondence" and it's called revelation. Revelations of objective reality. Revelations of things which are true independent of any mind.

Might you reject that revelations of objective reality have ever been reported?

If not, do you not accept that God can bridge the gap for us, through the power of the Holy Ghost?

What I'm essentially asking is why might you doubt that revelation corresponds to objective reality?

[mfbukowski]

I thoroughly understand that if we want to talk about objective truth, it's uncertain (and maybe impossible to determine) whether our language corresponds in any degree to a reality independent of our minds. I accept this idea and reject any "metaphysics of correspondence".

What I'm essentially asking is why might you doubt that revelation corresponds to objective reality?

Is revelation given in language?

Figure it out for yourself here. You are contradicting yourself.

For me "objective reality" Is what is observed by science. I have not yet seen scientists confirm revelation or visions.

Edited November 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I'm probably not going to read that book you linked too (at least not right now), but I am probably going to go through this soon.

Great! I haven't read that book but it looks good to me!

The pragmatists, it seems, then wants to say, "well, hang on, skepticism is too violent to our day to day discourse and so that we've been pushed into skepticism by admitting understanding truth in a certain way is so much the worse for that understanding. We need to revise what we understand by 'true'". And then the pragmatists project gets underway. Is my characterization on track? If I'm off, where have I jumped the rails?

Not sure where you're going with this or what pragmatism has to do with skepticism and it seems you think that that link is a "given" but I am not sure where that's coming from.

Essentially all Pragmatists say is that "If a belief or statement doesn't explain anything or make any difference to how we act, fergeitaboutit". That is a tad colloquial to be sure but it captures the attitude- and Pragmatism IS an attitude or method more than anything.

Skepticism is more "I don't believe it until you prove it" and often leaves off what would qualify as "proof" or limits what qualifies as proof. Pragmatism basically says that if it's a useful distinction, why not keep it?

So a skeptic would say dreams and visions cannot be linked to any scientific "reality" and are therefore useless, whereas a Pragmatist would say- "Was this a useful dream/vision? How did it change my life? Am I a better person for the experience?" And if the answer is "yes" the experience can be seen as "true" in some sense thereby making a belief "justified" by the effects that belief produces in our lives.

The Ten Commandments can be said to reflect "true moral principles" because acting upon them produces a society which is more desirable than a society in which murder and stealing and indiscriminate sex on every street corner is condoned. Pragmatically the commandments "work"

Making engineering calculations on the stresses on an airplane wing "work" if the wing doesn't break off and stays in the air.

In both cases, the desired goal is obtained- the science in the airplane wing is "true" and the moral values in the commandments are "true" because in both cases, believing those principles produce the desired result.

To me, that doesn't have much to do with skepticism. Either the results work or not and the goal is achieved or not. It has nothing to do with some independent reality which cannot be experienced- it is not about metaphysics of substance or essences nor is it about some abstract idea of TRVTH which is approached by KNOWLEDGE, it either works or it doesn't. The belief is judged on its fruits. It's totally Alma 32 really.

[mfbukowski]

First of all, you might be talking about proving this or that to others. I never was. I'm talking about which ideas we can tell the Church accepts and the quotes that support these conclusions.

Second, I never concluded anything about your testimony except that it must be compatible with anti-realism. I even invited you to explain your position more clearly so I'm happy to change my thoughts on the matter. I'm sorry if this crosses some line, but I think my questions were sufficiently clear. If it still seems to you that I have no idea what I'm talking about, please follow my logic below and point out what I'm missing. You don't seem to be trying very hard to explain things to me.

Mfbukowski is an anti-realist. It is my understanding that opposite of anti-realism is philosophical realism. The two are incompatible.

Because it is not possible for a personal testimony to refer to realist propositions as true and be considered compatible with anti-realism, this might lead me to believe that mfbukowski holds no personal testimony which refers to the truth of any realist proposition. Is this true?

If it is true, I do think this puts you at odds with the Church. I just want to make it clear that I'm willing to change my point of view as soon as you explain how.

Third, you're right: I should have defined objective instead of presuming you knew what I meant. So, here it is: I mean objective as independent of the mind. (I remember typing this out earlier, but I guess I never submitted it.) So, tell me why I suspect the answer would be "yes" if I asked any GA the question: "Was the resurrection of Jesus independent of the mind?"

Because it's doctrine? Because it's a revelation?

Have they ever answered "I don't know" to such a proposition? Have they ever answered "no"?

It's all very confusing. It seems to me that figuring out what the Church thinks about realism and related topics is best done by looking for their explanation, in their own words. And since you seem to be the resident expert, I'm looking to you for help. But because you seem to take issue with presuming that GA's are educated in philosophical jargon (a bit strange to me, but I'll drop it...) let me just phrase it this way:

What LDS sources give explicit acknowledgement and support for the idea of anit-realism?

Now it's clear that jargon in the quote isn't necessary for you to demonstrate that someone understands the idea of anti-realism and holds to it. Can we move on? I'm dying to see a quote that shows one or any of the GA'sunderstands and supports the concept, regardless of whether they know the jargon. I'm sure you could provide a GC talk or two, like I said. I'm still looking through references to William James on lds.org.

Is my question clear, now? What terms am I misusing and how should they be used? What pieces am I missing which might change my view on the LDS situation with realism/anti-realism?

Read Alma 32 and tell me if a belief growing "sweet" to you is realist or anti-realist.

I really don't care what you call it. But that is pure Pragmatism at its best!

[TAO]

Because I think you're mistaken. I think that the church is realist in some sense because there is an LDS "metaphysics of correspondence" and it's called revelation. Revelations of objective reality. Revelations of things which are true independent of any mind.

Might you reject that revelations of objective reality have ever been reported?

If not, do you not accept that God can bridge the gap for us, through the power of the Holy Ghost?

What I'm essentially asking is why might you doubt that revelation corresponds to objective reality?

It's no more objective than we are. That is to say, it's like viewing what we consider reality. Unprovable, but totally believable. That's what revelation is. It's like... another sense, another source of information =).

You can't escape interpretation... nobody can. You can understand, but it's limited by your own thoughts. So revelation is comparable to another sense... not exactly 'objective reality' but as close to it as anybody can get. We might as well except it as objective because that's simply what we think is a practical thing to do =).

In fact, I have found that revelation is even cleaner than the sense. It can explain far more. It's like a conversation of intentions, of thoughts. In this sense, it is, I guess, better than many senses of information transfer.

Then again, this is completely my perspective... and not necessarily true. In fact, I probably got some thigns wrong... so yeah... better to talk to God about it really.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

Edited November 12, 2012 by TAO

[Brade]

Not sure where you're going with this or what pragmatism has to do with skepticism and it seems you think that that link is a "given" but I am not sure where that's coming from.

I'm just trying to understand pragmatism and what motivates it and I'm interested in a sort of taxonomy of ideas.

Essentially all Pragmatists say is that "If a belief or statement doesn't explain anything or make any difference to how we act, fergeitaboutit". That is a tad colloquial to be sure but it captures the attitude- and Pragmatism IS an attitude or method more than anything.

Right, I got that.

So a skeptic would say dreams and visions cannot be linked to any scientific "reality" and are therefore useless, whereas a Pragmatist would say- "Was this a useful dream/vision? How did it change my life? Am I a better person for the experience?" And if the answer is "yes" the experience can be seen as "true" in some sense thereby making a belief "justified" by the effects that belief produces in our lives.

I don't think that's quite right. A skeptic seems perfectly within his skeptical rights to say dreams and visions cannot be linked to any scientific reality, but dreams and vision are still moving and useful. But the skeptic probably won't say because her dreams are moving and useful they are true, or can be seen as true. Whether they are true or not the skeptic can't know, but she can go on as if they are true, or go with a hope that they are, or something along those lines. The pragmatists will want to say, I think, if you're going to go on as if they are true then you should just cast off your skepticism and accept that they are true. Of course, the pragmatists is then using "true" with a different sense.

To me, that doesn't have much to do with skepticism. Either the results work or not and the goal is achieved or not. It has nothing to do with some independent reality which cannot be experienced- it is not about metaphysics of substance or essences nor is it about some abstract idea of TRVTH which is approached by KNOWLEDGE, it either works or it doesn't. The belief is judged on its fruits. It's totally Alma 32 really.

I'm not trying to argue a philosophical point here. I'm more making an observation. It seems that pragmatists recognize that if truth is correspondence or something like it, then we should be skeptics because we cannot have knowledge under that notion of truth if truth is a condition of knowledge. It then seems that pragmatism is a response to this, in a way. The response is to observe that skepticism is too radical a position and does too much violence to our thought. Therefore, something must be wrong with how we got to skepticism. The pragmatist thinks, if I understand pragmatism, that what's wrong with what pushes people to skepticism is thinking that truth has to do with correspondence. If you reject that notion of truth, and accept a pragmatic one, then you don't get pushed into skepticism. I don't know how else to say it. Again, I'm simply trying to organize these ideas.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Brade

[canard78]

Coming to this topic rather late.

As to the battle of anecdotes, well, it is certain that the experiences that cause testimony to form are most definitely subjective.

Earlier someone ClosetDoubter I think) posted that they felt uncomfortable listening to people in Fast and Testimony meeting saying that they KNOW the Church is true, when they can't possibly KNOW that the Church is true.

Well, how does ClosetDoubter know that they DON'T know the Church is true? He doesn't. I don't. I do know that I know the Church is true. I don't know how else to put it. I don't just believe it, I know it. I can say that I believe that this particular 2x4 is 8 feet long, and when I measure it then I know it is (or isn't), but this sense of belief does not hold a candle to my feeling of certainty that Jesus is the Christ. If I were to say I believe that God lives it would sound like a tinkling bell or a sounding brass in my own ears, because the degree of certainty which I possess on this matter is not fairly expressed by the word "believe".

Too bad English does not have a word which fills in the gap between belief and knowledge where knowledge is what you get after you measure the 2x4 and find that it is exactly 8 feet long. Because that's what I mean when I say "I know the Church is true" or that "I know Jesus is the Christ" or that "I know that God lives."

Is there a κοινή (koine) Greek word which means this? Or a Hebrew word?

And I even later (for some reason the site has been blocked via my work BB server for a couple of weeks).

I think a few words or phrases that would be more accurate of the human experience leading to the this state might be:

"I feel certain"

There are some aspects of the gospel that I think we can say 'I know' about, but based on Alma 32, this really ought to come from the experience of applying principles.

Having said that, Moroni would disagree and asserts that by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know the truth of all things.

For me, this is only correct if we define 'revealed knowing' as 'feeling certain.' This is based on us having a spiritual/emotional experience so meaningful that all doubts and uncertainty is eliminated.

I like your length of wood analogy and, for me that sort in the gospel is only the Alma 32 only comes through repeatable experience. Like knowing reading the Book of Mormon in the morning will make me feel uplifted. I know because I can compare it to the days I don't. It's a repeatable experience.

Anyway, I'm late to the party so it's probably all been said before.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not trying to argue a philosophical point here. I'm more making an observation. It seems that pragmatists recognize that if truth is correspondence or something like it, they we should be skeptics because we cannot have knowledge under that notion of truth if truth is a condition of knowledge. It then seems that pragmatism is a response to this, in a way. The response is to observe that skepticism is too radical a position and does too much violence to our thought. Therefore, something must be wrong with how we got to skepticism. The pragmatist thinks, if I understand pragmatism, that what's wrong with what pushes people to skepticism is thinking that truth has to do with correspondence. If you reject that notion of truth, and accept a pragmatic one, then you don't get pushed into skepticism. I don't know how else to say it. Again, I'm simply trying to organize these ideas.

Very very close if not right on the money.

Pragmatists and Phenomenologists both see the simple correspondence theory as just plain inadequate to explain human reality which includes experiences of right and wrong, noumenal experiences, revulsion at extreme violence, the experience of choice and what it's like to be in love. These are completely part of what it is to be human, and then you have logical positivists claiming irrationally (to a pragmatist) that such experiences cannot be the basis for anything like "truth".

Surely there must be a way to incorporate these "facts of life" into a philosophical view which strives to capture all of human experience including scientific observation and that is what Pragmatism tries to achieve.

[brainburn]

Read Alma 32 and tell me if a belief growing "sweet" to you is realist or anti-realist.

I really don't care what you call it. But that is pure Pragmatism at its best!

I'm glad you've found an example for me. I'll study it again with your perspective in mind.

I'll have more to say but here's my first question: What is "perfect knowledge" to you and what scriptures/prophets support your interpretation?

Is revelation given in language?

Figure it out for yourself here. You are contradicting yourself.

I'd be contradicting myself if that was truly my answer. I agreed with you before you responded, actually. I didn't expect you to see it any other way. But if you're interested to know what I really think: I would agree with you but then also apply the same sort of thinking to non-language revelations that you feel.

I bet you've already refused to accept this exception, too. You seem hardcore. But let me explain a bit more to show why I think LDS have every premise they need to conclude they can know objective truth when they receive a revelation, through language or not. I enjoy your point of view, but I think your answer already demonstrates why you should reconsider whether you are at odds with the pronouncements of a certain group of philosophically uneducated men. I seriously doubt that any GA would agree or has even ever expressed that we can't have a revelation which is sufficient to "truly" correspond to objective reality. They definitely wouldn't settle with just interpreting a revelation's truth value purely pragmatically. On the subject of revelation (especially foundational revelations of the LDS paradigm), I'm convinced they're realists.

I'm even more convinced every time a member or GA explains that humans have the capacity (through the power of the Holy Ghost) to gain knowledge for which you hold zero uncertainty, whatsoever. Like canard78, said:

This is based on us having a spiritual/emotional experience so meaningful that all doubts and uncertainty is eliminated.

If we're looking for some sort of "pass" or bridge to confirm knowledge objectively true knowledge, could knowledge without uncertainty not be exactly what we mean by this pass?

Let me explain what I meant by revelations that you feel and expand my point, a bit:

Do you accept the feeling (removed from language) that "God is love" provides us knowledge we can "know" corresponds to the objective reality that God is love independent of any observer? I'm not sure if you personally accept this realist proposition for any non-pragmatic reason, but it think it's clear that the church understands that they know God is love is not relative to your point of view and "knowing" it is not just code for "it's useful". There is definitely something more to it.

When I hear anyone tell another that they can know God is love, it's clear that we accept something objectively more about God. That something more is that God is the same being to everyone. Do we just accept this something more on faith alone? Is "God is love independent of any human mind" only a pragmatic thing to believe and nothing more? Or...... is it a revelation of objective truth?

Similarly, what do statements like "I know the LDS church is the only true church on the face of the earth" really mean if they're not attempts to "pass" the gap? What about "Jesus is the only true savior" and "God is the only true God"? Do these statements really mean that the Church and LDS versions of Jesus and God are the only pragmatically useful concepts in existence or do we state these things because we've found a reliable bridge to objective truth? Is the plan of salvation just a useful idea or is it the map of objective reality which you can confirm as true knowledge? To refer to my point earlier, do we even have any doubts about these ideas? Do we accept them on faith or pragmatism, alone?

I hope the answer is obvious, but if you still refuse to make an exception, then I'd like to appeal to anyone LDS out there... Do you think that revelation creates knowledge which truly corresponds to objective reality? Does it bridge the gap? Is any of what I'm saying about revelation make sense to you?

[Brade]

Very very close if not right on the money.

Pragmatists and Phenomenologists both see the simple correspondence theory as just plain inadequate to explain human reality which includes experiences of right and wrong, noumenal experiences, revulsion at extreme violence, the experience of choice and what it's like to be in love. These are completely part of what it is to be human, and then you have logical positivists claiming irrationally (to a pragmatist) that such experiences cannot be the basis for anything like "truth".

Surely there must be a way to incorporate these "facts of life" into a philosophical view which strives to capture all of human experience including scientific observation and that is what Pragmatism tries to achieve.

Thank you. That's helpful to me.

[mfbukowski]

And I even later (for some reason the site has been blocked via my work BB server for a couple of weeks).

I think a few words or phrases that would be more accurate of the human experience leading to the this state might be:

"I feel certain"

There are some aspects of the gospel that I think we can say 'I know' about, but based on Alma 32, this really ought to come from the experience of applying principles.

Having said that, Moroni would disagree and asserts that by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know the truth of all things.

For me, this is only correct if we define 'revealed knowing' as 'feeling certain.' This is based on us having a spiritual/emotional experience so meaningful that all doubts and uncertainty is eliminated.

I like your length of wood analogy and, for me that sort in the gospel is only the Alma 32 only comes through repeatable experience. Like knowing reading the Book of Mormon in the morning will make me feel uplifted. I know because I can compare it to the days I don't. It's a repeatable experience.

Anyway, I'm late to the party so it's probably all been said before.

It has, but plus 1 anyway! Welcome!

[mfbukowski]

brain

Experience doesnt correspond to reality it IS reality. Religious experience is direct apprehension of reality as it really is and can be no other way.

Does that help?

[mfbukowski]

Maybe this will also help. "Reality as it is" IS not mind independent however of course.

[mfbukowski]

Brain

Maybe we are getting confused about the way I use the term "objective". For me what is "objective" is what is inter-subjective, shared, mutually experienced experience.

On the other hand, "subjective" is experience confined to one person which is not shared by others. So if I see a pink elephant, and no one else does, that is "subjective".

If you are with me in the room, and you see it too, that is starting to become "objective" but is not there all the way yet. If we put a net around the pink elephant in the room, and take him outside and a crowd forms, and all the people are pointing at the pink elephant, we are well on the way to calling "objective". If we take it to the zoo and the director of elphantology pronounces that it is a new, previously unknown variety of elephant, and all the elephant scientists in the world agree, then the existence of that elephant is now "objective" knowledge.

But notice the way it got that way was that first two of us saw the same thing, then a hundred, then in principle, all people everywhere could have seen it. It got written up in the elephant literature of the world and became a verbal, social, linguistic reality for all to experience- and thus achieved what could be called "objectivity".

But also notice that what MADE it objective was the fact that it was an inter-subjective experience. EACH PERSON SUBJECTIVELY EXPERIENCED THE SAME THING - a pink elephant- and so because of that fact, we deem that experience to be "objective".

The pink elephant is not "mind independent" - it was subjectively seen by many as an inter-subjective experience. Many individual minds saw (experienced) the same thing.

It's kind of like big-foot. Lots of people say they have had a subjective experience of big foot, but it is not one we all can share. No real pictures, no real fur, no bodies, no examination by scientists etc. We cannot just go out and experience big-foot at will. It is not an "objective" experience.

We can. on the other hand go to Antarctica or see the Eiffel tower for ourselves if we want to. We can look through a telescope and see Ursa Major or boil water and measure the temperature when it boils. All of those things are objective experiences precisely because we can each have them individually when we want to.

So with that in mind, let's look at this:

Do you accept the feeling (removed from language) that "God is love" provides us knowledge we can "know" corresponds to the objective reality that God is love independent of any observer? I'm not sure if you personally accept this realist proposition for any non-pragmatic reason, but it think it's clear that the church understands that they know God is love is not relative to your point of view and "knowing" it is not just code for "it's useful". There is definitely something more to it.

This seems quite obtuse to me, in short I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Being LDS I believe that the Godhead which comprises what we call "God" is a unified whole of three persons united in purpose- and in love in a kind of family relationship. What unifies the three can be said to be love. The term "God" describes the unity of the three persons, and that unity is love, therefore "God" is love.

Simple, direct, I don't know what you are having a problem with.

When I hear anyone tell another that they can know God is love, it's clear that we accept something objectively more about God. That something more is that God is the same being to everyone. Do we just accept this something more on faith alone? Is "God is love independent of any human mind" only a pragmatic thing to believe and nothing more? Or...... is it a revelation of objective truth?

It's an interpretation of scripture.

Why is that so hard? It seems quite straightforward to me.

Similarly, what do statements like "I know the LDS church is the only true church on the face of the earth" really mean if they're not attempts to "pass" the gap? What about "Jesus is the only true savior" and "God is the only true God"? Do these statements really mean that the Church and LDS versions of Jesus and God are the only pragmatically useful concepts in existence or do we state these things because we've found a reliable bridge to objective truth? Is the plan of salvation just a useful idea or is it the map of objective reality which you can confirm as true knowledge? To refer to my point earlier, do we even have any doubts about these ideas? Do we accept them on faith or pragmatism, alone?

I accept them the way I accept them.

If others accept them in a different way- that's their business. What's the big deal?

I hope the answer is obvious, but if you still refuse to make an exception, then I'd like to appeal to anyone LDS out there... Do you think that revelation creates knowledge which truly corresponds to objective reality? Does it bridge the gap? Is any of what I'm saying about revelation make sense to you?

Not really.

14 million Mormons (or whatever the number is) say they have experienced God in one way or another. Does that make it "objective"?

I think so but others would disagree. I don't care much how you define the terms either way, you can call it what you want.

Edited November 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Brade]

From James' Pragmatism we have this:

On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, it is ‘true.’”

As I understand it, he elsewhere describes the principle at work in general terms. The idea is to go on as if a belief is true, and if, by and by, the belief proves useful in the relevant way, then it should be regarded as true.

For the past several years I have been going on as if it weren't true that God exists and as if most of Mormonism's claims weren't true and have found that this hypothesis works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word. Therefore, ???

[TAO]

Brade, pragmaticism can be used to support either a God hypothesis or an atheistic one. What it can't be used to do very well is assert your correctness on others. That's it's strength, and it's weakness.

Nontheless, as Rorty said, it's best not to refer to it as truth... at least if you want other non-pragmatists to understand... it's better referred to as 'justification of belief' of some sort, in general. Then again, one can do what one wants.

Edited November 13, 2012 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

From James' Pragmatism we have this:

As I understand it, he elsewhere describes the principle at work in general terms. The idea is to go on as if a belief is true, and if, by and by, the belief proves useful in the relevant way, then it should be regarded as true.

For the past several years I have been going on as if it weren't true that God exists and as if most of Mormonism's claims weren't true and have found that this hypothesis works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word. Therefore, ???

Therefore do what you want according to your subjective experience.

What did you think I would say? We all have choices we all have to follow our own consciences. I was an atheist for years myself. I changed due to a spiritual experience later in my life. Maybe that will happen to you, maybe it won't.

Go and explore the fruits of atheism. If they are sweet to you, see if you grow as a person believing them. Alma 32 still applies.