Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[Storm Rider]

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, ???

What are you looking for here? Do you what you think is best for you. Of course, we each will bear the consequences of our choices and you will not escape the same thing; it is a Karma thing.

You are not unique and many of us have walked similar paths as yours. We each have to learn at our own pace; make a choice and learn.

[Brade]

How do pragmatists understand the law of noncontradiction?

[TAO]

Thus, Brade, why the pragmatic definitoin of truth isn't necessarily equal to the classical definition. It is more comparitive to justification. And things can be contradicting in justification; it's justified to go and eat that piece of pie over there, and it's also justified not to go eat that piece of pie.

Edited November 13, 2012 by TAO

[Brade]

Thus, Brade, why the pragmatic definitoin of truth isn't necessarily equal to the classical definition. It is more comparitive to justification. And things can be contradicting in justification; it's justified to go and eat that piece of pie over there, and it's also justified not to go eat that piece of pie.

Yes, I think that's about how it goes. I'm actually writing my own attempt to address noncontradiction from the pragmatist perspective, but saw that you made a reply. I'll finish mine up and post it anyway, even though I think I'm essentially saying what you are.

[Brade]

How do pragmatists understand the law of noncontradiction?

I'm going to try to answer my own question and the pragmatists here can tell me if I've got it right. I think it should go something like this, and doesn't seem too complicated. The law of noncontradiction says that two statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. The pragmatist notion of truth is that a statement is true insofar as it is relevantly useful* at an index (to a certain person, at a certain time, in a certain context, etc.). Since the index will be different for two seemingly contradictory statements in most cases of apparent contradiction (cases of religious differences, etc.), it isn't the case that each statement has the same sense at the same time. Put another way, the difference in index ensures a difference in sense. Here's an example.

If Bob finds the statement "God exists" true and Tom finds the statement "God does not exist" true it isn't the case that each statement has the same sense with the sole exception of one's carrying negation. This is because when we say "Bob finds the statement 'God exists' true", we understand "true" to mean "relevantly useful" and understand that its usefulness is restricted, in this case, to Bob. We should understand something similar for Tom. Fully unpacked and understood in the pragmatic light "God exists is true" and "God exists is not true" must be understood as something like "'God exists' is relevantly useful to Bob" and "'God exists is not true' is relevantly useful to Tom". The two previous statements are clearly not contradictory.

Am I on track here?

Edit: I meant to say something about my use of "relevantly useful". I'm using that expression because I don't think I need to define what pragmatic usefulness is to address the narrow question of contradiction. If you're a pragmatists then feel free to understand "relevantly useful" however you like. If you're not a pragmatist, understand it in the most charitable and robust sense for pragmatism, or just don't bother with it at all because it isn't relevant (pun intended) to this question.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Brade

[mfbukowski]

How do pragmatists understand the law of noncontradiction?

It all depends on your definitions.

Quite seriously. It's all words you know. When you deconstruct it all enough, if it contradicts it contradicts. That is "bad".

[mfbukowski]

Thus, Brade, why the pragmatic definitoin of truth isn't necessarily equal to the classical definition. It is more comparitive to justification. And things can be contradicting in justification; it's justified to go and eat that piece of pie over there, and it's also justified not to go eat that piece of pie.

If you want to enjoy a piece of pie, it's justified.

If you want to keep your calorie count down and your blood sugar below a certain point, it isn't justified. It all depends on what you want. Is it justified to use a hammer or screw driver?

It all depends on what you want to do with it.

[mfbukowski]

I'm going to try to answer my own question and the pragmatists here can tell me if I've got it right. I think it should go something like this, and doesn't seem too complicated. The law of noncontradiction says that two statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. The pragmatist notion of truth is that a statement is true insofar as it is relevantly useful* at an index (to a certain person, at a certain time, in a certain context, etc.). Since the index will be different for two seemingly contradictory statements in most cases of apparent contradiction (cases of religious differences, etc.), it isn't the case that each statement has the same sense at the same time. Put another way, the difference in index ensures a difference in sense. Here's an example.

If Bob finds the statement "God exists" true and Tom finds the statement "God does not exist" true it isn't the case that each statement has the same sense with the sole exception of one's carrying negation. This is because when we say "Bob finds the statement 'God exists' true", we understand "true" to mean "relevantly useful" and understand that its usefulness is restricted, in this case, to Bob. We should understand something similar for Tom. Fully unpacked and understood in the pragmatic light "God exists is true" and "God exists is not true" must be understood as something like "'God exists' is relevantly useful to Bob" and "'God exists is not true' is relevantly useful to Tom". The two previous statements are clearly not contradictory.

Am I on track here?

Edit: I meant to say something about my use of "relevantly useful". I'm using that expression because I don't think I need to define what pragmatic usefulness is to address the narrow question of contradiction. If you're a pragmatists then feel free to understand "relevantly useful" however you like. If you're not a pragmatist, understand it in the most charitable and robust sense for pragmatism, or just don't bother with it at all because it isn't relevant (pun intended) to this question.

Yep that's about it!

And for moral questions it comes quite close to JS Mill's utilitarianism. Everybody always says this introduces relativism into the equation- if killing people "works" for you then it's justified.

That of course is not the case- one can see it in terms of what is "best" for humanity as a whole ignoring homicidal maniacs.

This fits well with an evolutionary perspective- those morals are best which work for all mankind the best- thereby we can end up with something like the Kantian Categorical Imperative or the Golden Rule.

Scripturally I like the Didache which is a first-century document which speaks of the "way of life" (following the commandments) and the "way of death" (not following the commandments) which essentially is a Christian defense of utilitarianism.

In that perspective human life is held in the highest regard and what promotes it is "justified" and what extinguishes it is not justified.

There's a guy named Royce who writes a lot about the evolution of morality and I believe that indeed that is essentially the point here.

Putting it in LDS terms, I believe that worshiping a Human God as we do eventually leads us to affirming a kind of theistic humanism.

But that's skipping a few steps!

Edit- noting typo- that was Joyce not Royce who writes on the evolution of Morality- Royce does too kind of but I meant Joyce.

Edited November 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[TAO]

Yes, I think that's about how it goes. I'm actually writing my own attempt to address noncontradiction from the pragmatist perspective, but saw that you made a reply. I'll finish mine up and post it anyway, even though I think I'm essentially saying what you are.

Haha! Cool! We are on the same page =).

In any case, I think classical pragmatists and postmodern pragmatists might answer your question a little differently; I relate a bit more to the postmodern side, so you might have to go and look and see how a classical answers it (though they will both be rather similar).

Edited November 14, 2012 by TAO

[CV75]

In addition to post #86, here's another General Conference talk about knowing, where the speaker asserts, "I know of a surety that all of this is true.":

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/learning-with-our-hearts?lang=eng

[Brade]

In addition to post #86, here's another General Conference talk about knowing, where the speaker asserts, "I know of a surety that all of this is true.":

http://www.lds.org/g...hearts?lang=eng

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the question we were on had to do with how such assertions ought to be understood. We know church leaders make those claims, but what isn't clear is exactly what they mean by them.

[CV75]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the question we were on had to do with how such assertions ought to be understood. We know church leaders make those claims, but what isn't clear is exactly what they mean by them.

I've only been popping in and out--my posts were in response to an earlier observation by the OP that the GAs are careful not to say things like "I know the Curch is true"--but within a week I stumbled upon two references from the last General Conference alone.

In reply to the question, "How should such assertions be understood, and what does the asserter mean by them?" I'd hate to muddle up the discussion with non-philosophical terms or cover territory that has been covered already. But I'll take a risk anyway, and if my rematrks are not on task, no need to reply back.

In both the talks I read (the prior one by President Monson), I think the speaker is using the assertion "I know..." as a focal point for inviting or encouraging the hearers to do some thing(s) that will result in their finding out certain beneficial things (Gospel experiences, understanding and principles) for themselves--it is a call to due dilligence.

Due dilligence in the things that are invited to be done will lead to a state of being that is more valuable than mere personal verification of the data contained in the sentence "I know that [Gospel is true]." While independent confirmation is important, it is only one of the results included with a person becoming something/someone better than he was before, by virtue of the Gospel.

I think the assertions are best understood as invitations to explore for oneself. By asserting these things, the asserter means that the actions and resulting experience and meaning of that experieince have been the best contributors to his sense of well-being, and he has utmost confidence that they will work for others. Personally, I see no better reason to make such assertions in Gospel-related matters.

So to answer the OP, I think that due diligence is what knowing has to do with the matter that is known.

[mfbukowski]

I've only been popping in and out--my posts were in response to an earlier observation by the OP that the GAs are careful not to say things like "I know the Curch is true"--but within a week I stumbled upon two references from the last General Conference alone.

In reply to the question, "How should such assertions be understood, and what does the asserter mean by them?" I'd hate to muddle up the discussion with non-philosophical terms or cover territory that has been covered already. But I'll take a risk anyway, and if my rematrks are not on task, no need to reply back.

In both the talks I read (the prior one by President Monson), I think the speaker is using the assertion "I know..." as a focal point for inviting or encouraging the hearers to do some thing(s) that will result in their finding out certain beneficial things (Gospel experiences, understanding and principles) for themselves--it is a call to due dilligence.

Due dilligence in the things that are invited to be done will lead to a state of being that is more valuable than mere personal verification of the data contained in the sentence "I know that [Gospel is true]." While independent confirmation is important, it is only one of the results included with a person becoming something/someone better than he was before, by virtue of the Gospel.

I think the assertions are best understood as invitations to explore for oneself. By asserting these things, the asserter means that the actions and resulting experience and meaning of that experieince have been the best contributors to his sense of well-being, and he has utmost confidence that they will work for others. Personally, I see no better reason to make such assertions in Gospel-related matters.

So to answer the OP, I think that due diligence is what knowing has to do with the matter that is known.

Agreed, as usual!

[CV75]

Agreed, as usual!

Thank you--it's a great experieince just simply having been understood!

[mfbukowski]

Thank you--it's a great experieince just simply having been understood!

Well I made the comment earlier somewhere on this thread that the objective of testimonies was more about inviting others to try it for themselves than anything else.

I mean it is a very unusual thing to hear someone say "I know this is true: " and then tell some crazy story about angels an gold plates and people coming back from the dead etc.

The only reason you would say, essentially, "I know this story, crazy as it is, is true..." is to invite others to find out for themselves. I mean just the sense of the words leads you to that. Suppose someone perfectly sane in appearance told you that they were abducted by aliens- what would be the purpose of telling you that? What would be your reaction?

I would think :"Why is this person telling me this??" The only possible reason is that he is in effect saying "You have got to check out this crazy alien abduction thing because I am telling you it happened to ME!

The statement is somewhat shocking- WHAT? YOU were abducted by aliens??

If you think about it the whole church website speaking about "I am a Mormon" with normal folks telling us they believe in angels and gold plates and a prophet on the earth today is all about inviting others to check it out, and as you say, do your "due diligence".

What else could the purpose be? "Hey everybody- I'm crazy and I know these crazy things are true!"? Uh, I don't think so!

Do you take that as a philosophical statement? No. How else do you take it than as an invitation to check it out?

And then we get up in church and tell each other that each of us has had a similar experience. Pardon the reference but it is kind of like an AA meeting!

"Uh, Hi, I'm Bob, and I have had a religious experience too....I've been a member 32 years...."

The statement has the avowed purpose of saying "I have tried this and know it works for me, and you should try it too if you have not!"

It has nothing to do with a statement of philosophical "knowing" of some ontological reality- it is saying "This works! Try it!"

[CV75]

If you think about it the whole church website speaking about "I am a Mormon" with normal folks telling us they believe in angels and gold plates and a prophet on the earth today is all about inviting others to check it out, and as you say, do your "due diligence".

In the case of the OP*, I think some have difficulty seeing or describing the link between an event occurring and the assertion of knowledge that the event occurred.

(1) The Event generates (2) News (and dissemination of the news) of the event which allows one to (3) Receive news of the event which allows one to (4) Confirm the news of the event which allows one to say, (5) “I know the event occurred.”

The breakdown between 1 and 5 would occur in steps 3 and 4 since without step 2 the event might as well not have happened (for the sake of someone saying he knows about it). The breakdown is compounded when one pre-empts or undermines steps 3 and 4 by assuming an actual event is imaginary and knowledge of it cannot be had (Alma 30:13, 15, 24, 26, 28, 48).

When this happens, the "prove it to me" stance replaces due dilligence, where someone is in effect saying, "I will not receive it and I will not confirm it until you prove it to me, or at least convince me it is worth my while." And so we get to the question as to how to receive or confirm in a way (“believe in a manner”—Alma 32) that leads to being able to say “I know [the event occurred / the principle is true].” This is about the workings of the Spirit and the role of agency in overcoming the barriers to steps 3 and 4.

*EDIT: Correction, the other OP, "What Does The Statement "I Know Jesus Rose From The Dead" Have To Do With Jesus Rising From The Dead?"

Edited November 15, 2012 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

I enjoyed this post because you are saying essentially the same thing I am, using perhaps more religious language than I would, but the message is about the same.

In the case of the OP*, I think some have difficulty seeing or describing the link between an event occurring and the assertion of knowledge that the event occurred.

(1) The Event generates (2) News (and dissemination of the news) of the event which allows one to (3) Receive news of the event which allows one to (4) Confirm the news of the event which allows one to say, (5) “I know the event occurred.”

The way I would say this is that through language and the description of the event, it becomes part of what we are said to "know" culturally; "facts" like those about the assassination of Lincoln, the landing on the moon, and even such mundane things as the day a given person was born. The so called "event" is not separable from the cultural description of the event- the event IS the description as it is conveyed linguistically through the culture.

The breakdown between 1 and 5 would occur in steps 3 and 4 since without step 2 the event might as well not have happened (for the sake of someone saying he knows about it).

Exactly. If there was no report of the "event" it would not even exist in a sense- it would become culturally insignificant even if it was tremendously significant for the individuals involved. There was recently a witnessed kidnapping in the LA area where a young girl was abducted and some evidence was found- some clothing. But no one has been reported missing and there was no other evidence. If the event had not been witnessed, no one would even know that "something" happened. Yet I am sure the event was greatly significant for the girl being abducted though no trace of her has been found. There is no crime, there is only a marginal investigation because no one knows what or who to look for. One only wonders how many times such things happen when NO ONE knows about them- and for all practical purposes because they are not witnessed, one can almost say they "never happened". There is no record, no one saw it- except those involved and they are not saying anything.

New species of fish are "discovered" in fish markets in the orient all the time. Fishermen know where the fish live, how to find them and cook them and have been doing so for hundreds of years, yet these species are "new" and "undiscovered" because modern science has not yet been informed of their existence.

The breakdown is compounded when one pre-empts or undermines steps 3 and 4 by assuming an actual event is imaginary and knowledge of it cannot be had (Alma 30:13, 15, 24, 26, 28, 48).

Yep. Again- who knows how many highly significant events happen which are never reported? The answer is "nobody" precisely because they are unreported or never make it into the cultural knowledge base of the culture at large. It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" question. Do the vibrations presumably it creates in the atmosphere qualify as what we define as "sound" if they are not heard? What if only a chipmunk hears them and only an anthill is disturbed as the tree falls? If the event has no human significance, did it even "happen"?

It becomes a semantic question of how one wants to define it.

When this happens, the "prove it to me" stance replaces due dilligence, where someone is in effect saying, "I will not receive it and I will not confirm it until you prove it to me, or at least convince me it is worth my while." And so we get to the question as to how to receive or confirm in a way (“believe in a manner”—Alma 32) that leads to being able to say “I know [the event occurred / the principle is true].” This is about the workings of the Spirit and the role of agency in overcoming the barriers to steps 3 and 4.

Indeed. And the big difference then is these kind of experiences are subjective and all the reports of the millions of members of the church don't count for anything until one has experienced it for oneself. That is the huge difference.

So this is kind of the converse of the fish discovered in the market. In the fish market case you have something perhaps subjectively known by a few fishermen- where the fish lives and how to catch it that is NOT known in the larger culture; in the case of testimony, you have something known the the larger (Mormon) culture which is not known subjectively to the individual.

The difference is that in the case of the fish, one can produce an objective artifact- the fish- which can be seen and observed by all.

In the case of the testimony on the other hand, all one can do is believe the objective reports of those who have a testimony, but the "discovery" must be made by each person, internally and subjectively.

[CV75]

The way I would say this is that through language and the description of the event, it becomes part of what we are said to "know" culturally; "facts" like those about the assassination of Lincoln, the landing on the moon, and even such mundane things as the day a given person was born. The so called "event" is not separable from the cultural description of the event- the event IS the description as it is conveyed linguistically through the culture.

***

If the event has no human significance, did it even "happen"?

It becomes a semantic question of how one wants to define it.

***

the "discovery" must be made by each person, internally and subjectively.

Very interesting! You mentioned another barrier to steps 3 and 4: semantics, and in turn the meaning of events as molded by the language that is used to describe them. The language of the Spirit (“the tongue of angels”) would smooth these out, though some ground is covered by the Lord providing the message to “all nations, of their own nation and tongue (Alma 29: 8 )”, which I take to refer to communication style and culture as well as linguistics and terminology). Is there any philosophical description of the phenomenon of “getting it” outside the use of physical language or symbols (something like psychic memes—or is that getting too fringy)?

So a related question might be about which events actually occurred and which are only imaginary, and whether (or at what point or upon what subject) knowing the difference is important. This demonstrates another barrier to 3 and 4, the subjective need to know and what the object of that need is.

[Brade]

So a related question might be about which events actually occurred and which are only imaginary...

But that's kind of the pragmatists' point. There's no way to know whether any events that we report to each other through language correspond to the way the stuff that makes up the world was/is/or will be arranged. All we know is how useful (in the relevant pragmatic sense) it is to have some beliefs and how certain we feel about them (about their usefulness or their correspondent truth if we happen to be laboring under that belief).

[CV75]

But that's kind of the pragmatists' point. There's no way to know whether any events that we report to each other through language correspond to the way the stuff that makes up the world was/is/or will be arranged. All we know is how useful (in the relevant pragmatic sense) it is to have some beliefs and how certain we feel about them (about their usefulness or their correspondent truth if we happen to be laboring under that belief).

So, by defining an event as knowledge and acceptance of its report, there are two options in how the event can “occur”: 1) as the result of the coercion of that knowledge and acceptance from the reporter to the recipient, or 2) as the result of the reporter inviting the recipient to receive the report and then obtain that knowledge and acceptance. This is why future events can be formulated, known and accepted by faith. The event can also occur as a result of knowledge coming from an imaginary or actual source.

By defining knowledge as the outcome of an event, there is only one choice: the imposition of that knowledge and acceptance upon those directly and indirectly impacted by an actual event (meaning the lack of knowledge for those not impacted). Because the event is not imaginary, reporting and language about it are irrelevant to knowing about it, and there is no such thing as language and reporting processes independent of pre-occurring events. Future events cannot be known.

Using the resurrection of Christ as an example:

By defining its occurrence as knowledge and acceptance of its report based on the testimony of others, people can passively know and accept it as a result of osmosis or they can find out for themselves. Their own resurrection is formulated, known and accepted by faith as a given outcome. The LDS value of finding out for oneself is an indicator that the resurrection of Christ has better results for those that have active faith in it rather than a casual belief in it. This plays out in how much and how well one knows and lives by the event.

There is also a basis in D&C 93 and 88 for ultimately defining knowledge as the outcome of Christ’s Resurrection/Redemption. I won’t belabor the details, but the light shines in the darkness and the knowledge of a Redeemer is imposed upon us all on a spiritual level; it is our acceptance of and action upon this knowledge that saves or condemns us. Because the Resurrection/Redemption is the foundation of all existence, human reporting and language about it are irrelevant as knowledge of it exists in our eternal makeup and is brought to the surface in mortality by our response to the Light of Christ and the power of the Spirit. No alternative or unrelated events to the Resurrection/Redemption can be known.

While I believe the LDS faith accommodates and even synthesizes both viewpoints, the pragmatist view is more in line with the initial steps that all accountable persons must take in this life to move past the carnal mind which works in opposition to the inherent light we possess.

[brainburn]

mfbukowski,

I'd really like to discuss more about what you have to say, but the more I think about what is worth my time typing out, the more I realize I should just start my first thread as soon as I get enough posts. It'll mainly target your flavor of pragmatism/anit-realism and how you (and apparently many others on this board) use it to approach Mormonism/religion. I'm not so sure, but you may be the type who might just think less of me for critiquing something I might understand very little. But maybe that'll just be a chance for you to change my mind! Or maybe someone else will change yours? I'm very interested in gathering all points of view on the subject.

But in the mean time while I think about my approach, I still have a few burning questions about you, personally.

In attempting to figure out what you think about any realist epistemology in Mormonism, it would seem from your responses to my questions that you don't see objective realism in Mormonism, at all. Mormonism including prophets, doctrine, revelations and scripture. Is this an accurate characterization of your view or do you accept Mormonism is realist in some form?

Would it also be fair to say you really don't accept direct revelations of the Mormon model of objective reality as "true" in any non-pragmatic sense?

What I'm really trying to get at is this: are you a Pragmatist/anit-realist first and Mormon second or the other way around? Do you derive what you accept about Mormonism entirely from what your pragmatism accepts? Or does some part of Mormonism come before any pragmatic evaluation, at all?

[brainburn]

And maybe another way to put it would be do you think we can know whether pragmatism fits into something greater or beyond a pragmatic view? Is pragmatism the only tool to understanding our own reality or are there "useful" tools beyond the limits of pragmatic interpretations (such as maybe revelation)?

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

I'd really like to discuss more about what you have to say, but the more I think about what is worth my time typing out, the more I realize I should just start my first thread as soon as I get enough posts. It'll mainly target your flavor of pragmatism/anit-realism and how you (and apparently many others on this board) use it to approach Mormonism/religion. I'm not so sure, but you may be the type who might just think less of me for critiquing something I might understand very little. But maybe that'll just be a chance for you to change my mind! Or maybe someone else will change yours? I'm very interested in gathering all points of view on the subject.

But in the mean time while I think about my approach, I still have a few burning questions about you, personally.

In attempting to figure out what you think about any realist epistemology in Mormonism, it would seem from your responses to my questions that you don't see objective realism in Mormonism, at all. Mormonism including prophets, doctrine, revelations and scripture. Is this an accurate characterization of your view or do you accept Mormonism is realist in some form?

Would it also be fair to say you really don't accept direct revelations of the Mormon model of objective reality as "true" in any non-pragmatic sense?

What I'm really trying to get at is this: are you a Pragmatist/anit-realist first and Mormon second or the other way around? Do you derive what you accept about Mormonism entirely from what your pragmatism accepts? Or does some part of Mormonism come before any pragmatic evaluation, at all?

You still haven't told me what you mean by "objective" and honestly I don't think you are getting this.

You will not change my mind- I am hard wired to think this way after doing so and studying it for 40 years. My entire being and way of existing is tied into this view. I could not be a Mormon without thinking this way.

I honestly do not want to be unkind, but I simply do not have the time right now in my life to try to discuss it much with you. Perhaps others could help you see it- Tao might be a good choice, and now I think Brade gets it as well though he does not necessarily agree with the position- he seems to have a good intellectual grasp of it.

If you start a thread I will respond, but I don't know that a direct dialogue with you would be productive because it seems you don't really want to understand it this way. I am just being honest-

Revelation is true reality as all we can call real is our experience. Revelation is as real as my fingers typing this on the keyboard because both are human experience and my personal experience. I do not CALL that "objective" however, for me, that word refers only to scientific knowledge based on experience which is verifiable by many people

What I call "objective knowledge" is synonymous with "scientific knowledge". I am sorry but science will never verify the existence of God as science is presently constituted because it specifically has elected to NOT investigate human subjective experience.

Perhaps I am using the language in a peculiar way, perhaps you are, but your persistent refusal to define your terms makes it impossible to communicate.

[TAO]

Brainburn, I can assure you, mfb probably respects your more for questioning his point of view. To agree with people is very easy. To ask questions, genuine ones, is much harder. =)

In any case... to be accurate... postmodern (language-based) pragmatists don't see objective reality at all. Or at least, they think that even if it exists, it's a pointless conversation because there is no way to overcome the communication barrier. They think there is no way to show such exists. That doesn't mean that we look at our spiritual sense as less accurate than our physical ones, of course... in fact, I would say it is more accurate. But you can't show objectivity because of the limits of reality that we have.

In any case, I'm Mormon before I'm pragmatic. However, like most, I'm willing to negotiate a little if it doesn't really harm much. This is one of those things; I don't need to believe in an objective reality to be a Mormon; I simply need to have faith in the spirit.

[mfbukowski]

And maybe another way to put it would be do you think we can know whether pragmatism fits into something greater or beyond a pragmatic view? Is pragmatism the only tool to understanding our own reality or are there "useful" tools beyond the limits of pragmatic interpretations (such as maybe revelation)?

Pragmatism is the only possible view which makes revelation equivalent to scientific knowledge, but acknowledges that it is a different kind of knowledge than scientific or objective knowledge. Revelation is subjective knowledge but is just as certainly about reality as objective knowledge.

I see Pragmatism as the only way to "save" revelation as being about anything "real", and keep revelation from being consigned to the realm of hallucination.