According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[Nathair/|\]

You have given no evidence for any of this because there isn't any. If you read Blake Ostler you will even find out that it is debatable that the church has "doctrine" at all- as opposed to orthopraxis- much less a specific doctrinally prescribed philosophical view including the correspondence theory of truth.

In fact if the church DID have such a position it would put the philosophical theorist (say for example Descartes or Russell or whoever above revelation. Aristotle arguably came up with the correspondence theory of truth - and guess what- Aristotle was a Greek pagan. This is the precise reason the church does NOT take philosophical positions- because they are the positions of philosophers- not prophets.

The restoration was necessary to rid ourselves of those Greek heresies including Neoplatonism and now you tell me that we should perpetuate those errors in the Restoration and that indeed such errors are officially recognized doctrine.

I would never dare to assert that my view is "church doctrine"- yet you assert that correspondence is! As I have repeatedly stated the church does not take positions on philosophies in fact it eschews "the philosophies of men" as all here know.

The correspondence theory is totally incompatible with personal revelation being regarded as "true" in any way. William James saw that clearly a hundred years ago, and now you attack what is essentially his position without any clear argument or with no evidence for anything you have stated.

You repeatedly attack me without any evidence for your position whatsoever and attack my belief in the church. You have gone beyond the margins of civil discourse

I read something recently, I think it was James Faulconer, that pointed out that orthofidelus is even more important than praxis, but you're right, doxis is the least of the three.

[mfbukowski]

I want to discuss whether anti realism really does contradict the Church on such am important issue as revelation. I think it does and that's all I care to stand by at this time. I will no longer mention anything about mfbukowski himself just to be safe.

One way to do that of course would be to show that the church supports the philosophical position of "Realism". One easy way to do that, IF it does, would be to show a General Authority deriving a quote or argument from a Realist philosopher, since none have published in philosophical journals on the subject.

You could start here for example, and then find any references from any General Authorities to any of the philosophers mentioned in this article.

Of course besides that, you would have to show that the GA's statement was also "doctrinal" which of course can be problematic. After all, occasionally GA'S make non-doctrinal statements and they acknowledge that. In fact there was a talk about that this year. I could look that up if it would be helpful.

The best way of showing something is doctrinal of course is to find it in the standard works, but of course it is not likely you will find any references to any philosophers there.

[mfbukowski]

I read something recently, I think it was James Faulconer, that pointed out that orthofidelus is even more important than praxis, but you're right, doxis is the least of the three.

Well I am becoming quite a fan of Faulconer though I haven't read much of his stuff yet. I liked his essay on Deconstruction quite a lot. But of course we have Paulsen and McMurrin as well who were clear Pragmatists and the trend toward Pragmatism in the church is clear I think as manifested by articles and blogs like this one: http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/

[mfbukowski]

And of course we have Paulsen- and his God of Abraham Issac and William James which I have quoted a number of times before. And there is a commentary on it on FAIR which includes this interesting quote:

So what I do in this section, and I won’t refer to it much more, is to set out in rather technical language what I understand to be James’ theory of pragmatic meaning. Maybe just the one quote from James in the middle of page 115–a little bit more. James says:

The mind [is] an essentially teleological mechanism. I mean by this that the conceiving or theorizing faculty . . . functions exclusively for the sake of ends that . . . are set by our emotional and practical subjectivity altogether. It is a transformer of the world of our impressions into a totally different world–the world of our conception; and the transformation is effected in the interests of our volitional nature, and for no other purpose whatsoever. (James 1979b, 94-95; emphasis in original)

James thus sees our cognitive activities–concept formation, belief acquisition, theory construction, and so on–as instruments molded by our desires and interests whose natural endpoint is action or conduct. Their role is to redirect us into experience better prepared to overcome obstacles to what we will. Based on these assumptions, our beliefs, theories, and concepts are pragmatically meaningful to the extent that they contribute to the achievement of our concrete or practical ends (Suckiel 1982, chaps. 2-3).<a href="http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-the-god-of-abraham-isaac-and-joseph-smith-defending-the-faith#en30">³⁰

So, skip over to p. 117, where I attempt to apply- well not to apply but to show how James applies his theory of pragmatic meaning to the question of the nature of God:

Armed with this more precise formulation of James’s criterion of pragmatic meaning, we should now be able to understand more clearly his pragmatic arguments for and against particular views of God’s nature. In some cases, James argues that a particular attribution is devoid of pragmatic meaning altogether; in other cases, he argues that it lacks significant pragmatic meaning or that it is pragmatically inferior to some alternative attribution.

So we start with the metaphysical attributes, the claim that God is absolutely simple, immutable, impassible, non-temporal, etc.

James, first of all, before he looks at that set of attributes criticizes what he calls the a priori method of theologizing. In the a priori method of theologizing one usually starts with the definition of God like St. Anselm did. For St. Anselm God was described as “that than which no greater can be conceived”–the greatest conceivable being.

And then from that formulation of what it means to be a perfect being he determines simply through deductive logic what God must be like. James finds that method unacceptable:

What is their deduction of these metaphysical attributes but a shuffling and matching of pedantic dictionary-adjectives, aloof from morals, aloof from human needs. . . . One feels that in the theologians’ hands, they are only a set of titles obtained by a mechanical manipulation of synonyms; verbality has stepped into the place of vision. . . . Instead of bread we have a stone; instead of a fish, a serpent. Did such a conglomeration of abstract terms give really the gist of our knowledge of the deity, schools of theology might indeed continue to flourish, but religion, vital religion, would have taken its flight from this world. (James 1985, 352)

With regard to the particular metaphysical attributes that one deduces by using this method James says:

Take God’s aseity, for example; or his necessariness; his immateriality; his ‘simplicity’ or superiority to the kind of inner variety and succession which we find in finite beings, his indivisibility, and lack of the inner distinctions of being and activity, substance and accident, potentiality and actuality, and the rest; his repudiation of inclusion in a genus; his actualized infinity; . . . his self-sufficiency, self-love, and absolute felicity in himself:–candidly speaking, how do such qualities as these make any definite connexion with our life? And if they severally call for no distinctive adaptations of our conduct, what vital difference can it possibly make to a man’s religion whether they be true or false?

For my own part, . . . I must frankly confess that even though these attributes were faultlessly deduced, I cannot conceive of its being of the smallest consequence to us religiously that any one of them should be true. Pray, what specific act can I perform in order to adapt myself the better to God’s simplicity? Or how does it assist me to plan my behavior, to know that his happiness is anyhow absolutely complete? . . .

So much for the metaphysical attributes of God! From the point of view of practical religion, the metaphysical monster which they offer to our worship is an absolutely worthless invention of the scholarly mind. (351-53)

This is the rejection of metaphysics I mentioned on the mysticism thread, in favor of a philosophical definition. And it shows the mind to be the creator of teleology

[harfad]

One way to do that of course would be to show that the church supports the philosophical position of "Realism". One easy way to do that, IF it does, would be to show a General Authority deriving a quote or argument from a Realist philosopher, since none have published in philosophical journals on the subject.

You could start here for example, and then find any references from any General Authorities to any of the philosophers mentioned in this article.

Of course besides that, you would have to show that the GA's statement was also "doctrinal" which of course can be problematic. After all, occasionally GA'S make non-doctrinal statements and they acknowledge that. In fact there was a talk about that this year. I could look that up if it would be helpful.

The best way of showing something is doctrinal of course is to find it in the standard works, but of course it is not likely you will find any references to any philosophers there.

Again, I find your insistence that the concepts of truth, reality, knowledge and knowability, should only be discussed within the framework of academic philosophy, and not of revealed religion or scripture, to be problematic. Philosophy does not have a monopoly over that vocabulary, nor over the concepts that they represent. They are as much the subject of discourse within scripture and revealed religion, as they are in philosophy. If you want to insist that they should only be discussed within the framework of academic philosophy, you should do that on a philosophy board, not on one that is dedicated to the discussion of religion.

I agree with brainburn that the philosophical concept of anti-realism is not compatible with Mormonism. This in no way questions the moral character or personal worthiness of someone holding that position. What I do find disturbing about the above post, however, is that it comes across as saying that the concepts of truth, reality, and knowledge as discussed in academic philosophy partake of a paradigm so different from that of revealed religion or scripture that no comparison between the two is possible. A General Authority wanting to demonstrate that the philosophical concept of anti-realism is incompatible with Mormonism cannot use Mormon revelation or scripture to do so, but is restricted to quoting only from "realist" philosophers—to do what? To determine the compatibility of anti-realism with Mormonism? How absurd! If that be the case, then I would say anything to do with what you call "academic philosophy," or any concept discussed within that framework, has no place in a forum dedicated to the discussion of religion in general, and of Mormonism in particular. It has no place in this thread, it has no place in this board, and it has no place in Mormonism, period. That would be like going to a forum devoted to a discussion of geology, and insist on talking about baseball. People may find it amusing at first, but the amusement will soon wear thin, and they will start telling you that you are in the wrong place, talking about the wrong thing.

Edited November 27, 2012 by harfad

[mfbukowski]

If that be the case, then I would say anything to do with what you call "academic philosophy," or any concept discussed within that framework, has no place in a forum dedicated to the discussion of religion in general, and of Mormonism in particular. It has no place in this thread, it has no place in this board, and it has no place in Mormonism, period. That would be like going to a forum devoted to a discussion of geology, and insist on talking about baseball. People may find it amusing at first, but the amusement will soon wear thin, and they will start telling you that you are in the wrong place, talking about the wrong thing.

Well I suggest that you start your own forum free from the "philosophies of men", and good luck with that one. Every word you speak is a philosophy of men, some are academic philosophy and some are of the barber shop variety, but they are all philosophy.

And I do like talking "philosophy" in the barber shop and should do so more often because I always need a haircut.

The overall objective here is communication and when one starts speaking about subjects in ways in which philosophy can clarify, you can be sure I will jump in.

The moderators here decide what is proper for this board, not you, and indeed one of the rules of the board prohibits board "nannies" which is precisely what you are being at the moment.

I'll take my chances with the mods, thank you very much.

Have a really good day now, ya know?

[mfbukowski]

A General Authority wanting to demonstrate that the philosophical concept of anti-realism is incompatible with Mormonism cannot use Mormon revelation or scripture to do so, but is restricted to quoting only from "realist" philosophers—to do what? To determine the compatibility of anti-realism with Mormonism? How absurd!

It's pretty absurd all right but not for the reasons you may think.

Why would a General Authority argue against a philosophical position held by so many faithful Mormons? Do you think that might be a mistake considering that to do so he would have to take a different philosophical position thereby showing that the church DOES take positions on these silly philosophies of men which are not important in the eternities?

It would be like the first presidency endorsing a political candidate or making a statement for or against evolution or the age of the earth or some other academic issue. They are concerned with eternal truths- and yes, I do believe there are such things- not how one generation decides to describe them- and indeed that is what philosophy and science and all of it is- one generation of mankind making up stories to explain the eternal.

And you want them to make a stand on this and lay all that is eternal at the altar of academia?

Pretty absurd indeed.

All I am after is the best explanation my little brain can think up- it only has to last me 80 years or so (considering I started at age 20 and hope to live to see 100) All it has to do is get me to the other side where a whole new set of experiences- of reality- begin.

But even then they will be my experiences

We can talk about those when we are over there and we can start this up again with something more behind it.

[mfbukowski]

People may find it amusing at first, but the amusement will soon wear thin, and they will start telling you that you are in the wrong place, talking about the wrong thing.

You are a real sweetheart. Folks seem to like me here, just fine.

[Calm]

You are a real sweetheart. Folks seem to like me here, just fine.

Not just like, love....

[harfad]

Well I suggest that you start your own forum free from the "philosophies of men", and good luck with that one. Every word you speak is a philosophy of men, some are academic philosophy and some are of the barber shop variety, but they are all philosophy.

And I do like talking "philosophy" in the barber shop and should do so more often because I always need a haircut.

The overall objective here is communication and when one starts speaking about subjects in ways in which philosophy can clarify, you can be sure I will jump in.

The moderators here decide what is proper for this board, not you, and indeed one of the rules of the board prohibits board "nannies" which is precisely what you are being at the moment.

I'll take my chances with the mods, thank you very much.

Have a really good day now, ya know?

You just don't get it do you. I am not "nanying" anybody. You are excluding yourself from a Mormon discussion by jumping on a train that says, "By by to Mormon discussion".

Edited November 27, 2012 by harfad

[mfbukowski]

Not just like, love....

Gorsh

[mfbukowski]

You just don't get it do you. I am not "nanying" anybody. You are excluding yourself from a Mormon discussion by jumping on a train that "By by to Mormon discussion".</p>

Whatever that means. I think it needs some editing.

Not too convincing whatever it means.

[harfad]

You are a real sweetheart. Folks seem to like me here, just fine.

LOL! I like you too. I am just finding your discussions becoming increasingly irrelevant to Mormonism.

[Nathair/|\]

You are a real sweetheart. Folks seem to like me here, just fine.

Not just like, love....

You're lucky. Calmoriah love is special.

[harfad]

Whatever that means. I think it needs some editing.

Done.

[mfbukowski]

You're lucky. Calmoriah love is special.

I think we should just call her "Calm"!

[mfbukowski]

LOL! I like you too. I am just finding your discussions becoming increasingly irrelevant to Mormonism.

1- you can ignore me

2-I think you are wrong. If you think Mormonism includes muddled thinking, I disagree.

3- If you choose to try to defend your positions and cannot, that is not my problem. We used to have actual atheists around here but I guess they are all gone now for whatever reason.

And guess what? Others who are not Mormon actually read these threads looking for ways of seeing Mormonism which are not yet "mainstream".

Have you ever been to this site?

I'm a Mormon

While our backgrounds and experiences are diverse, we share a deep commitment to Jesus Christ, to each other, and our neighbors. Watch these stories of faith in the everyday lives of Mormons. You can also meet Mormons here .

Why do you think the church has that site?

[brainburn]

I've seen LDS sources that support both views, without any more problematic contradictions than Gospel principles of faith/knowledge, testimony (knowing)/conversion (being), objectivity/subjectivity, salvation and damnation/degrees of glory, etc.

You've found support for two opposite ideas in LDS sources?

[brainburn]

You have given no evidence for any of this because there isn't any. If you read Blake Ostler you will even find out that it is debatable that the church has "doctrine" at all- as opposed to orthopraxis- much less a specific doctrinally prescribed philosophical view including the correspondence theory of truth.

In fact if the church DID have such a position it would put the philosophical theorist (say for example Descartes or Russell or whoever above revelation. Aristotle arguably came up with the correspondence theory of truth - and guess what- Aristotle was a Greek pagan. This is the precise reason the church does NOT take philosophical positions- because they are the positions of philosophers- not prophets.

The restoration was necessary to rid ourselves of those Greek heresies including Neoplatonism and now you tell me that we should perpetuate those errors in the Restoration and that indeed such errors are officially recognized doctrine.

I would never dare to assert that my view is "church doctrine"- yet you assert that correspondence is! As I have repeatedly stated the church does not take positions on philosophies in fact it eschews "the philosophies of men" as all here know.

The correspondence theory is totally incompatible with personal revelation being regarded as "true" in any way. William James saw that clearly a hundred years ago, and now you attack what is essentially his position without any clear argument or with no evidence for anything you have stated.

You repeatedly attack me without any evidence for your position whatsoever and attack my belief in the church. You have gone beyond the margins of civil discourse

I don't buy the "official doctrine is debatable" game, at least for revelation. Revelation is integral to the Mormon paradigm and there's no shying away from it. It's absolutely necessary and I haven't heard anything close to otherwise. Whether it's "official doctrine" or not is really just an afterthought.

The question I find relevant is whether the LDS view of revelation clearly implies a realist correspondence theory.

You find it to be "totally incompatible". Could you explain exactly why you think that is? Do LDS sources support it or is this still in the "philosophical dark" as far as the Church's stance?

And to be clear, you do not agree that knowing "things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" implies correspondence, but actually doesn't work even if we try? I don't get it.

For example, how does knowing "things as they are to come" work without correspondence?

And in Alma:

44 For I am called to speak after this manner, according to the holy order of God, which is in Christ Jesus; yea, I am commanded to stand and testify unto this people the things which have been spoken by our fathers concerning the things which are to come.

45 And this is not all. Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety?

46 Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have ^bfasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of ^crevelation which is in me.

48 I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name.

How could this possibly interpret this without a correspondence theory of truth? And according to your view, how is the correspondence theory even incompatible? I think it fits perfectly and it's the only thing that fits.

And I also think that revelation corresponds to objective reality is God's philosophy passed down to us, not something man invented. It's God's tool so it can never fail. When God speaks about what is objectively true, his words describe "things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" and there's your correspondence theory of truth. That's my evidence. Correspondence follows from God's nature and revealed scripture that describes what kind of truth can be a part of revelation.

And I'm also curious, could you explain what "eternal truth" means to you in the context of our discussion about any possible correspondence theory of truth?

[mfbukowski]

I don't buy the "official doctrine is debatable" game, at least for revelation. Revelation is integral to the Mormon paradigm and there's no shying away from it. It's absolutely necessary and I haven't heard anything close to otherwise. Whether it's "official doctrine" or not is really just an afterthought.

The question I find relevant is whether the LDS view of revelation clearly implies a realist correspondence theory.

You find it to be "totally incompatible". Could you explain exactly why you think that is? Do LDS sources support it or is this still in the "philosophical dark" as far as the Church's stance?

And to be clear, you do not agree that knowing "things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" implies correspondence, but actually doesn't work even if we try? I don't get it.

For example, how does knowing "things as they are to come" work without correspondence?

And in Alma:

44 For I am called to speak after this manner, according to the holy order of God, which is in Christ Jesus; yea, I am commanded to stand and testify unto this people the things which have been spoken by our fathers concerning the things which are to come.

45 And this is not all. Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety?

46 Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have ^bfasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of ^crevelation which is in me.

48 I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name.

How could this possibly interpret this without a correspondence theory of truth? And according to your view, how is the correspondence theory even incompatible? I think it fits perfectly and it's the only thing that fits.

And I also think that revelation corresponds to objective reality is God's philosophy passed down to us, not something man invented. It's God's tool so it can never fail. When God speaks about what is objectively true, his words describe "things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" and there's your correspondence theory of truth. That's my evidence. Correspondence follows from God's nature and revealed scripture that describes what kind of truth can be a part of revelation.

And I'm also curious, could you explain what "eternal truth" means to you in the context of our discussion about any possible correspondence theory of truth?

You are not understanding that any understanding of anything is in your mind or in someone's mind.

There is no understanding of anything without a mind doing that, including God's mind.

Understanding and knowledge has nothing to do with anything "outside" the mind- how could it get "into" the mind if it was?

We cannot get outside ourselves to see anything to check to see if what is "outside" corresponds to what is "inside". I really do not know what is so difficult about that.

Knowing things as they are is knowing them as we experience them THAT is the way things ARE. So if I see a tree, it is a tree. If I see a vision, it is a vision. Both are "really" trees and visions. Sometimes we make mistakes with optical illusions etc- but that is because our perceptions are fooled etc. But for the most part, what we experience is what IS. When God speaks to you he speaks in your mind- not in the world. When God speaks to you the person next to you will not hear it- that is because it is subjective, not objective, meaning that the person next to you will not hear it unless God wants him to. That experience is "REAL" as real as anything because anything that is "REAL" can be experienced directly.

There is no way to get "outside" experience to check the "source" of the experience by stepping out of your mind as it were to check what is outside your mind. You cannot get outside of what your mind is telling you is happening- THAT is experience.

What you are insisting on in correspondence is that the mind can somehow get outside of itself to check to see things how they are outside of your- and everyone's mind. It just cannot be done.

What can't you understand about that? Let's start there.

But I feel like we have been over this a hundred times and it is useless

[mfbukowski]

On another thread, this was quoted and I think it says it well.

All Knowing is Personal

In his book Science, Faith and Society (1946), Polanyi set out his opposition to a positivist account of science, noting that it fails to recognise the role which personal commitments play in the practice of science. While teaching at Manchester, Polanyi was invited to give the prestigious Gifford Lectures in 1951-2 at Aberdeen. A revised version of his lectures were later published as Personal Knowledge (1958). In this book Polanyi claims that absolute objectivity (objectivism) is a false ideal, because all knowledge claims (including those which are derived from rules) rely on personal judgements.^[4] He denies that a scientific method can yield truth mechanically. All knowing, no matter how formalised, relies upon commitments. Polanyi argued that the assumptions which motivate critical philosophy are not only false, they serve to undermine the commitments which motivate our highest achievements. He advocates a fiduciary post-critical approach, in which we recognise that we believe more than we can prove, and know more than we can say.

A knower does not stand apart from the universe, they participate personally within it. Our intellectual skills are driven by passionate commitments which motivate discovery and validation. Polanyi suggests that great scientists not only identify patterns, they identify the significant questions which are likely to lead to a successful resolution. An innovator risks their reputation by committing to a hypothesis. He gives the example of Copernicus, who declared that, contrary to our experience, the Earth revolves around the Sun. He claims that Copernicus arrived at the Earth's true relation to the Sun not as a consequence of following a method, but via "the greater intellectual satisfaction he derived from the celestial panorama as seen from the Sun instead of the Earth."^[5] What saves this approach from the charge of relativism is his conviction that our tacit awareness connects us with objective realities.

Polanyi rejected the claim by British Empiricists that experience can be reduced into sense data. Our experience is interpreted, and our interpretations often rely upon acquired practices. Knowing more than we can say explains how apprentices acquire non-explicit knowledge i.e. pupils improve their skills by observing a master. His writings about science influenced Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, although he denies that "indwelling" within (sometimes incompatible) interpretative frameworks traps us within them. Our shared tacit awareness connects us with objective realities. All articulation becomes meaningful by evoking our tacit awareness. Contrary to the views of his colleague and friend Alan Turing, whose work at The University of Manchester prepared the way for the first modern computer, he denied that minds are reducible to collections of rules. His work influenced the critique by Hubert Dreyfus of "First Generation" Artificial Intelligence.

It was while writing Personal Knowledge that he identified what he calls the "structure of tacit knowing". He viewed it as his most important discovery. He claimed that we experience the world by integrating our subsidiary awareness into a focal awareness. In his later work, for example his Terry Lectures, later published as "The Tacit Dimension" (1966) he seeks to distinguish between the phenomenological, instrumental, semantic, and ontological aspects of tacit knowing, as discussed (but not necessarily identified as such) in his previous writing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

[mfbukowski]

Regarding correpondence please read this and then refute this objection if you can

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth

Vagueness or circularity

Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or he or she does not.

If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It is difficult to see how a candidate truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.

On the other hand, immediately the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, he or she is operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But the only way to support the truth of this theory of the world that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is circular.^[7]

Empiricists are often associated with the correspondence theory of truth and they tend to be atheists because the existence of God cannot be proven, and spiritual experience is regarded as hallucination.

Thus the correspondence theory as stated by empiricism is often linked to atheism. God is not "real" because he cannot be observed scientifically.

I have said all this before- if we don't make progress here, we are SO done.

[mfbukowski]

For example, how does knowing "things as they are to come" work without correspondence?

This is scarily obvious and it is hard to understand why you would ask such a question. Knowing things as they are to be would only be possible in a vision or dream from God or some other source. It would be knowing something "in your mind" which precisely does NOT correspond to anything in the world YET.

You have a vision of the Battle of Armageddon. Show me what your vision corresponds to in the "real world". Please. And good luck.

[brainburn]

You don't need to repeat yourself if you would interpret my terms the way I explained and realize that I'm discussing something separate to what you're trying to explain to me. I don't feel like I can go on talking to you either unless we figure out why we continue to be talking about two different ideas. I'm not going to tell you what you're talking about, because I would only tell you that you're correct. Instead, I'll try to relate what we already agree on as best I can. We really haven't talked about what I really want to talk about. We almost did when I mentioned including God and you entertained that for a moment.

That's another important thing. I'm talking from the theistic perspective. I'm not defending the things you feel the need to refute. And don't want to talking about one human being proving things to another through language. I'm talking about a different scenario that includes God (as viewed in lds revelation). I'm not defending an atheistic or science-based position.

What you fail to understand is that I agree with you on every major point. I follow your logic. It's only up until you include God in the matter does the answer to the correspondence question change.

Edited November 28, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

What you fail to understand is that I agree with you on every major point. I follow your logic. It's only up until you include God in the matter does the answer to the correspondence question change.

You think that because God is real (and of course He is) then any statement about him should "correspond" to his reality but that is not what the philosophical discussion is about.

The correspondence theory of truth is actually about epistemology- it is about how we can KNOW that a scientific statement is "true"- it's not about metaphysics or what is real. I think that might be the confusion.

Correspondence is based on a common sense view about simple statements like "The cat is on the mat". You write the sentence and then you look at the cat, and indeed if the cat "really is" on the mat, the statement corresponds to reality and thus is true. The cat moves off the mat and the statement is false. This is epistemology- how you can KNOW something is true. It is a very simplistic way of thinking and for most simple statements it works just fine. We know when the cat is on the mat and the system works.

But then we get into more complex problems like the reality of experiencing love or religious experience and the correspondence breaks down as an insufficient way of seeing it. There is nothing "in the world" which is observable to allow you to "know" you are in love or are receiving a spiritual experience from God- yet you know it deep in the fiber of your being- there are no doubts, and you do "KNOW"- but how do we make this consistent with an explanation of how we know the cat is on the mat?

This is where correspondence breaks down. We know something that doesn't correspond to something observable in the world. So how do we resolve this conflict?

We realize that what we really KNOW when we speak about the cat being on the mat is not that the cat IS on the mat necessarily, but that our perceptions TELL us that he is. When you think about it, that is the common factor between knowing that the cat is on the mat and knowing that you are in love or that God has spoken to you.

It's not an issue of something "in the world" it is an issue of knowing your PERCEPTION or EXPERIENCE OF THE WORLD. That is the common factor here. Your eyes tell you that the cat is on the mat- you perceive that it is the case- you experience it. You also experience love and you experience God speaking to you.

So now, as philosophers are wont to do, what theory can we put forth to explain both kinds of cases as having truth value? What is the commonality between knowing you are in love and knowing the cat is on the mat? How can we put it in language to have one common description of how we know both kinds of propositons?

Well obviously it is the Pragmatic approach- that all we know or can know is what we perceive or experience. We experience the cat being on the mat and we experience being in love or having God speak to us. That is the common thread here. If we postulate that "reality" is what we experience- nothing more nothing less, suddenly we have a unified way of seeing everything around us. Hearing God's voice is just as real as the cat being on the mat. What a scientist experiences is just as real as those things as well. So now we have God on the same footing as science- God is experienced in a different way, but taking all of human experience as "real" in some way includes God and atoms and quantum mechanics and love and the cat on the mat all in one way of seeing the great whole.

So Pragmatism kind of becomes the "unified field theory" of all that is known and is knowable and what is "real" all in one unified way of seeing it all, from God to atoms to love to religious experience. We are all together in the pool of human experience and we all contribute in our own small ways. We help God organize reality in our own little way in our own little worlds and contribute our own little worlds into the pool of all the worlds humanity has organized. The Man of Holiness has organized us all and we help him organize worlds without number.

I can't think of anything more beautiful than thinking about this- that's why I do it so much!