What Does The Statement "I Know Jesus Rose From The Dead" Have To Do With Jesus Rising From The Dead?

[harfad]

Have you seen movies where witnesses are cross examined in court, and criminal convictions are made on the basis of that testimony by a judge or a jury? Usually the more witnesses there are to an event, the more credible is the testimony. If testimonies were statements about witness only, and had no relevance to the event being testified of, they would be useless as a means of convicting someone in a court of law. "I know that Jesus rose from the dead" is a testimonial statement which may or may not be true, but it definitely has something to do with the event being testified of, such as the following testimonies related by St Paul:

[harfad]

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ adied for our bsins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he arose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was aseen of bCephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was aseen of babove five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was aseen of me also, as of one born out of due time. (1 Cor. 15)

[TAO]

bukowski, I'm hope you're in here reading this, because I guess this is what I get for asking non-philosophers to assess a philosophical question. I'm seriously loling right now.

Well the problem is that there is one way to answer philisophically, and another way to answer non-philisophically.

[harfad]

Assuming that Paul was not lying or making those stories up, they are evidences that Jesus rose from the dead. They have something to do with Jesus rising from the dead, not just about the "I", whoever that "I" happens to be.

[TAO]

No, I used exactly the wording that was used in the thread you're talking about. This thread isn't about what is or is not proven.The intent of the pol is to get a sense for how people understand statements like "I know Jesus rose from the dead".

Well you are going to have to realize that your two options don't get enough context for the beliefs people have. It's kind of like asking whether people do or don't oppose raising taxes, and then failing to ask why. There is alot more info which is important and paints a better picture than a simple poll like this.

Do you understand them to have something to do with whether Jesus rose from the dead, or not? That's the purpose of this thread and poll. That's it.

I understand it relates to the belief of whether Jess rose from the dead or not. But as to whether it relates to the reality of it, that's a topic of a whole nother debate. I have my own belief on it, but I can't by any means prove it to others. Understand the dilemma I have in answering? Because the way it is stated misrepresents my opinion on the issue. I believe it relates to whether he did or didn't, but I don't believe it crosses the communication barrier very well; in other words, it is a statement which cannot be used by other people relaibly oftentimes.

Edited November 10, 2012 by TAO

[Brade]

I believe it relates to whether he did or didn't

Great, full stop, pick number two.

but I don't believe it crosses the communication barrier very well; in other words, it is a statement which cannot be used by other people relaibly oftentimes.

Good. Now that is a separate matter.

[mfbukowski]

bukowski, I'm hope you're in here reading this, because I guess this is what I get for asking non-philosophers to assess a philosophical question. I'm seriously loling right now.

Hey I think they are doing pretty well! It looks like the Mormon position is pretty clear in a "common sense" way to Mormons generally. But I promised on the other thread that I am not going to post here so I won't! I am kind of trying to have a discussion with Brade over there and don't want to get bogged down repeating here what I am saying there etc!

[mfbukowski]

Well, clearly you believe as I do that the phrase "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has something to do with whether Jesus rose from the dead. But it's not an uncontroversial matter in philosophy, as the other thread is demonstrating. Also, as bukowski has rightly pointed out in the other thread, the subject of the sentence "I know Jesus rose from the dead" is "I".

See what I mean?

[TAO]

Great, full stop, pick number two.

Okay.

Good. Now that is a separate matter.

But that's the point. To me it is not a seperate matter. That's probably due to a habit I got while growing up with Asperger's. Whenever someone asks me a question, I am not considering the answer to the question; I am considering how they want me to answer the question. I am considering their expectations and looking at them and choosing the most proudent path. So to me, this really isn't a seperate matter; it is all entertied and related in my viewpoint. The details, in other words, matter, in this case.

Edited November 10, 2012 by TAO

[CV75]

Speaking for myself, I agree with statement #2 since it is something I say. I might use any variant of [know/belive/testify/have faith that/know by the power of the Holy Ghost that] in relation to Jesus actually having risen from the dead. And so the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead," to me, certainly has something to do with the idea or question of whether He did or not.

So when I hear others say, "I know Jesus rose from the dead," I assume they mean te same thing I do unless they subsequently explain it differently. I also assume their statement has something to do with the idea or question of whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead.

[mfbukowski]

So far all we have proven is that the entire concept is ambiguous and can be seen both ways. I think we knew that when the question was asked.

[blackstrap]

Suppose I say," I know that Jesus rose from the dead,as did Lazarus " . What does that say about the event ?

[Brade]

So far all we have proven is that the entire concept is ambiguous and can be seen both ways. I think we knew that when the question was asked.

I certainly knew that from the beginning. What I was after was what proportion of people go one way or another. Honestly, I'm surprised option 1 isn't getting more adherents. For a while now I've been under the impression that lots of religious people generally, and Mormons in particular, and Mormons active on the internet in even more particular, were taking a pragmatic turn. A big part of why I wanted to pose the question was to see just how big a turn that is, and, again, I'm surprised to see it isn't bigger than it is.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Brade

[wenglund]

To paraphrase President Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of the word "know" is. Or, said another way, it depends on whether we know what "know' means.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I certainly knew that from the beginning. What I was after was what proportion of people go one way or another. Honestly, I'm surprised option 1 isn't getting more adherents. For a while now I've been under the impression that lots of religious people generally, and Mormons in particular, and Mormons active on the internet in even more particular, were taking a pragmatic turn. A big part of why I wanted to pose the question was to see just how big a turn that is, and, again, I'm surprised to see it isn't bigger than it is.

I'm not.

I do this for a living

[Damien the Leper]

The phrase "I know" declares some degree of certainty and, unfortunately, is arrogant at times as well. From an atheist perspective I can't say that I know God does not exist. Such a statement is ridiculous, presumptuous and should be rejected outright without further discussion because of the arrogant certainty of the statement. Likewise, the equal and opposite of such a statement or claim is also ridiculous, presumptuous and rejected outright because it is also arrogantly certain. Faith nor modern revelation sustain or provide a solid foundation for the claim since it is exactly that...a claim and not a fact.

It would be laughable to put Zeus or Osiris, the unreason, on the same shelf as gravity and mathematics, or reason. It's simple logic and reasoning.

[Tacenda]

I certainly knew that from the beginning. What I was after was what proportion of people go one way or another. Honestly, I'm surprised option 1 isn't getting more adherents. For a while now I've been under the impression that lots of religious people generally, and Mormons in particular, and Mormons active on the internet in even more particular, were taking a pragmatic turn. A big part of why I wanted to pose the question was to see just how big a turn that is, and, again, I'm surprised to see it isn't bigger than it is.

Kind of like they are with Noah's Ark and the age of the earth?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I just want to run this quick poll to satisfy my curiosity. I'm mainly interested in what active members think, but, of course, anyone is welcome to report.

?don't get it?

[CV75]

I think the bottom line is that due diligence is what knowledgeable statements have to do with the event they report.

[Alvino]

Well, clearly you believe as I do that the phrase "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has something to do with whether Jesus rose from the dead. But it's not an uncontroversial matter in philosophy, as the other thread is demonstrating.

I'm not terribly interested in Epistemology, but, are you saying here that the truth requirement for a belief to be knowledge is not, for the most part, uncontroversial? I also don't see the importance of pointing out the 'I' part of the statement. If any subject utters that statement and it is true, then Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Alvino

[KevinG]

• I agree with:
  
• the statement "I know semantics are about knowing" has nothing to do with whether or not semantics have anything to do with really knowing.
  
• the statement "I know semantics are about knowing" has something to do with whether or not semantics have anything to do with really knowing.
  

[Brade]

• I agree with:
  
• the statement "I know semantics are about knowing" has nothing to do with whether or not semantics have anything to do with really knowing.
  
• the statement "I know semantics are about knowing" has something to do with whether or not semantics have anything to do with really knowing.
  

Oh gosh, you got me.

[RadioFreeDeath]

I chose the second option and consider myself a full pragmatist a la quine and james. Many have suggested that what James is suggesting, is actual a better access to reality. From the stanford philosophical dictionary discussing James' pragmatic argument for believing in God.

"Mature religious belief can, and perhaps should, be based on evidence but… the evidence can be accurately assessed only by men and women who possess the proper moral and spiritual qualifications. This view was once a Christian commonplace; reason is capable of knowing God on the basis of evidence—but only when one's cognitive faculties are rightly disposed. (Wainwright 1995, 3)."

If Wainwright is correct, then James's argument is not just a pragmatic argument, but also an epistemic argument, since he is arguing that one of the pragmatic benefits is a more reliable access to reality. So, the chasm between the epistemic and the pragmatic is not unbridgeable, since James's Will to Believe argument spans the gulf between the pragmatic and the epistemic."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/#WilJamWilBelArg

How i read that, is that while our ability to understand reality may be limited to attempted to cope with the universe and find beliefs that work, this same process has greater epistemic access to actually knowing. In this case, " I know Jesus rose from the dead" Is tested on the function. WHat that means for this sentence, is the knowing Christ rose from the dead has truth relevence as it works for me. Because it has relevance, this gives me epistemic evidence that CHRIST did actually rise from the dead. In this sense. So as a pragmatist that chose the second option.

There is an essay by Cornell West a great pragmatist on Christs ressurection called "A Philosophical view of Easter". Here he argues the pragmatic value of believing Christ actually rose from the dead.

So in sum 1) Our beliefs are merely a function of coping with the universe by finding what works and calling it truth 2) A belief working provides an epistemic connection such as believing an event actually happened lends credence to that event happening 3) I believe "Christ rose from the dead" this suggests that he did indeed rise from the dead and is indeed proof of such an event.

[mfbukowski]

I chose the second option and consider myself a full pragmatist a la quine and james. Many have suggested that what James is suggesting, is actual a better access to reality. From the stanford philosophical dictionary discussing James' pragmatic argument for believing in God.

"Mature religious belief can, and perhaps should, be based on evidence but… the evidence can be accurately assessed only by men and women who possess the proper moral and spiritual qualifications. This view was once a Christian commonplace; reason is capable of knowing God on the basis of evidence—but only when one's cognitive faculties are rightly disposed. (Wainwright 1995, 3)."

If Wainwright is correct, then James's argument is not just a pragmatic argument, but also an epistemic argument, since he is arguing that one of the pragmatic benefits is a more reliable access to reality. So, the chasm between the epistemic and the pragmatic is not unbridgeable, since James's Will to Believe argument spans the gulf between the pragmatic and the epistemic."

http://plato.stanfor...WilJamWilBelArg

How i read that, is that while our ability to understand reality may be limited to attempted to cope with the universe and find beliefs that work, this same process has greater epistemic access to actually knowing. In this case, " I know Jesus rose from the dead" Is tested on the function. WHat that means for this sentence, is the knowing Christ rose from the dead has truth relevence as it works for me. Because it has relevance, this gives me epistemic evidence that CHRIST did actually rise from the dead. In this sense. So as a pragmatist that chose the second option.

There is an essay by Cornell West a great pragmatist on Christs ressurection called "A Philosophical view of Easter". Here he argues the pragmatic value of believing Christ actually rose from the dead.

So in sum 1) Our beliefs are merely a function of coping with the universe by finding what works and calling it truth 2) A belief working provides an epistemic connection such as believing an event actually happened lends credence to that event happening 3) I believe "Christ rose from the dead" this suggests that he did indeed rise from the dead and is indeed proof of such an event.

Welcome welcome and a very interesting post.

I am not sure that I am willing to completely go along with your conclusion number 3 in the last sentence, at least in this context but feel no need to go into it here.

[Brade]

This is an unexpected turn. RadioFreeDeath, I hope you'll join the other thread where we've been having the more philosophical discussion.