Stuffing A Turkey Through The Beak: Leading With Doubt

[Kenngo1969]

... I would venture to say that "knowing" the church to be true is more bravado than reality. Can one "know" the unknowable?

...

There is knowledge that is gained by empirical means, and knowledge that is not gained by empirical means. (As the poet said, "The heart knows reasons that reason knows not of.") But I cannot deny what I know simply because my knowledge was not gained through empirical means. You may call that bravado if you wish.

[KevinG]

I know what I believe.

[KevinG]

Didn't Kerry used to be a ululater for the faithful? Why the 360 in where he places his zealotry?

[Ahab]

There is knowledge that is gained by empirical means, and knowledge that is not gained by empirical means. (As the poet said, "The heart knows reasons that reason knows not of.") But I cannot deny what I know simply because my knowledge was not gained through empirical means. You may call that bravado if you wish.

If you know anything it is through empirical means. Maybe you should take a look at wiki or a dictionary to see what empirical means.

[Ahab]

... is "believe" a weaker describer than "know" when talking about the unknowable?

There isn't anything that can't be known, in some way, so you might as well get rid of the word unknowable.

And no, believe is not a weaker describer than know, and knowledge without belief in that knowledge doesn't do any good. Knowing something is basically to have a sense or an awareness of something... whatever it is... just as someone can have a knowledge of the gospel by being aware or having a sense of what the gospel involves. To believe it is another but related issue, and to believe it you have to first at least be aware or have a sense of what it is.

[KevinG]

My beef with the believe vs. know argument is those dogmatic souls who in their hubris declare that if they do not have the refined instruments to measure it - "it" must not exist. Therefore attempting to negate my experience with God and things beyond our typical mortal experience.

The belief that our sciences have reached the point that they can explain all human experience is a flawed article of faith.

[Ahab]

My beef with the believe vs. know argument is those dogmatic souls who in their hubris declare that if they do not have the refined instruments to measure it - "it" must not exist. Therefore attempting to negate my experience with God and things beyond our typical mortal experience.

As far as I know I've never seen anyone attempt to do that. Doubters are usually asking for a way to know what someone else claims to know while thinking that if there is no way to know it then it is not something that can be known. There must be a way to know something if it is something that can be known. Some people just don't know what that way is, so someone needs to tell them how they can know. And even then they may continue to doubt even though you have told them how they can know.

The belief that our sciences have reached the point that they can explain all human experience is a flawed article of faith.

What makes you think so? And what do you mean by "our sciences"? I believe we can know all things through science, including all things pertaining to God.

[KevinG]

I believe we can know all things through science, including all things pertaining to God.

Infinity cannot be measured with finite tools.

[Ahab]

Infinity cannot be measured with finite tools.

We are not limited to finite tools.

[bcuzbcuz]

My beef with the believe vs. know argument is those dogmatic souls who in their hubris declare that if they do not have the refined instruments to measure it - "it" must not exist. Therefore attempting to negate my experience with God and things beyond our typical mortal experience.

The belief that our sciences have reached the point that they can explain all human experience is a flawed article of faith.

What you think you know I can not argue against. That, to me, is a belief. What you declare you know by something other than your "gut feeling" I ask for evidence. Since I firmly believe our senses are not reliable, and I can conduct experiments that show our senses can be fooled, I therefore doubt that a feeling is enough to support "knowing".

[KevinG]

What you think you know I can not argue against. That, to me, is a belief. What you declare you know by something other than your "gut feeling" I ask for evidence. Since I firmly believe our senses are not reliable, and I can conduct experiments that show our senses can be fooled, I therefore doubt that a feeling is enough to support "knowing".

I do not ask people to believe because I had a spiritual manifestation (please do not downgrade such a remarkable epiphany to "gut feeling" that is a stunt to closely associated with anti-mormonism). I do ask them to know for themselves as Brigham taught.

Because modern science cannot reach into my soul and measure my experience does not mean it does not exist or that I cannot know it.

[Ahab]

What you think you know I can not argue against. That, to me, is a belief. What you declare you know by something other than your "gut feeling" I ask for evidence. Since I firmly believe our senses are not reliable, and I can conduct experiments that show our senses can be fooled, I therefore doubt that a feeling is enough to support "knowing".

Maybe it would help if you thought of "knowing" simply as being absolutely certain about something, to the point where you don't have any doubts about what you claim to know. It doesn't mean you can't be wrong. There is something I refer to as false knowledge, which is to be absolutely certain about something while being wrong about what you claim to know.

So, to summarize, faith is to be sure/certain about something you are aware of, while still not being absolutely sure/certain, and in either case you chose to either believe or not believe something pertaining to what you feel sure/certain about. And in any case, you could still be wrong about what you claim to feel sure/certain about.

Thus the phrase "I know this is true and I have no doubts about it" equates to "I am absolutely sure/certain this is true and I have no doubts about what I am claiming to be absolutely sure/certain about".

[PoisonWell]

I do not ask people to believe because I had a spiritual manifestation (please do not downgrade such a remarkable epiphany to "gut feeling" that is a stunt to closely associated with anti-mormonism).

So because antis do it, we shouldn't even explore the topic?

Almost all religions have spiritual manifestations. I don't understand why people equate spirit with knowledge.

[KevinG]

So because antis do it, we shouldn't even explore the topic?

Please don't put words in my statements. I said don't be insulting not don't explore. Perhaps you can learn to explore without mischaracterizing other people's beliefs and statements instead of compounding a mischaracterization with an unfounded accusation?

Almost all religions have spiritual manifestations. I don't understand why people equate spirit with knowledge.

Perhaps you should learn: D&C 93:36 The glory of God is bintelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

[pmccombs1]

I do not ask people to believe because I had a spiritual manifestation (please do not downgrade such a remarkable epiphany to "gut feeling" that is a stunt to closely associated with anti-mormonism). I do ask them to know for themselves as Brigham taught.

Because modern science cannot reach into my soul and measure my experience does not mean it does not exist or that I cannot know it.

I'm always interested in these arguments. Person A, who has thought about things carefully, says, "You can't know." To this, Person B retorts, "But I do know, and you can't tell me that I don't." Which is true enough. I'll invoke Adam Smith now and say that the typical human sympathy rests with Person B, for we all resent when someone else presumes to tell us what we believe, think, know, or feel. It's as if the blind were to rebuke the seeing for claiming the existence of color!

I think that's why atheism doesn't spread through these arguments; they just aren't persuasive.

In systems of epistemology, there are different standards that measure when knowledge is justifiable. Some people subscribe to one system, other people prefer another. Of course, we rarely think of ourselves in terms of belonging to one epistemic school or another, rather we might categorize people based on how they come to accept or reject claims about reality. Ultimately, knowledge is a personal thing. Only the subjects themselves can say whether or not they "know," and we can only measure another's claim according to our own system of epistemology which we can't force other people to adopt. If we are wise, we realize that we can't question another's claim to knowledge; we may only question whether or not we think it justified.

Now, it appears that Bcuzbcuz is a reliabilist. For reliabilists, subjective evidence is insufficient to justify knowledge, even if the evidence has been obtained and validated by multiple subjects. Suppose the fact of your "remarkable epiphany" is undisputed, or even if the reliabilist has a vision or miracle of his or her own, that still isn't good enough! Reliabilists are bound to say that there is a class of unknowable things because reliability is thought to increase to the extent that things can be sensed and measured outside of the human experience. Reliabilists know that people argue about contradictory subjective evidence, including religious witness. Religious experiences are very diverse, very powerful, and also inconsistent with regard to what they say about reality. Therefore, these experiences can't make part of the set of things that constitute "Knowledge" for reliabilists.

Against the reliabilists, some philosophers will get really nit-picky and question whether or not it's possible to be truly objective, or point out that everything ultimately reduces to subjectivity (which is essentially true), but the reliabilists seem to operate on a continuum and are unconcerned if pure objectivity can ever be achieved or not. True reliabilists generally admit to a basically agnostic position of not knowing "for sure".

I finally understood reliabilism when I encountered an ex-Mormon Catholic who had received a very powerful spiritual manifestation that led her out of the LDS church and into the Catholic church. Then I found there were many others just like her, and I asked myself, "wait a minute, isn't it supposed to happen the other way around?" You see, I thought the Holy Ghost only confirmed Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the reality of the restoration--and and other things that are compatible with those truths. I didn't think the Holy Ghost would suggest that those things were actually false. Then I found an agnostic who received the Holy Ghost, and then an atheist, of all people! These were all confirmed by a deep, sublime "remarkable epiphany" in their own, divergent paths. Whose revelation is legitimate? How can I know that my Holy Ghost was the real Holy Ghost without begging the question? If there is only one truth, then only one "knowledge" is justified, and there ought to be a reliable way to find out which it is.

It turns out that, if you seek with real intent (nothing wavering!) and fear not, only believe; you can get a testimony of the Mormon Church. And the Catholic Church. And the tenets of spiritual agnosticism. And whatever else you can think of! I've done it. These principles of "real intent" and so forth are very useful in establishing "plausibility structures" around allegedly true narratives. These are the strategies that hypnotherapists use, by the way. When we yield to those strategies, we can enter the narrative and it will become very real. In fact, realer than real. Even the empirical senses can participate in this reality that our stories create for us.

The human mind is tractable. Human experience is not reliable. This is the importance of reliabilism, and I should like very much to read some apologia that deals with these plausibility structures, narratives, mental states, evidentialism, and divergent spiritual experiences. After all, the witness of the Holy Ghost is our claim to knowledge. Reliabilism is a direct challenge to that. What is our answer to it?

[teddyaware]

Yes, of course, Paul is speaking of knowing that "Jesus is the Christ". This was easy to distinguish in his day because there was effectively one Judeo-Christian religion growing in the world. But later it is different when applied to a singular religious paradigm. Anyone can quote Paul, appealing to his logic as "proof" that you KNOW. But Paul wasn't preaching about how to know the truth of the restoration, or of the reformation, or of the founding of the Church of Rome, etc. He was pointing out that knowing Jesus is the Christ is given by the Spirit of God. There is nothing in Paul, et al. the apostles' writings that give authority to apply their words to everything else, and there is especially the warning against false Christs and wolves with false doctrines entering into the flock, and of a falling away that was inevitable, and finally of a "restitution of all things", but without any particulars as to how that "restitution" would occur, or when. This of course leaves any and every asserted claim to it equally valid on the face of it. And "failure" remains wholly subjective. Only the original meaning of knowing that Jesus is the Christ remains. Misappropriating scripture to later times and situations is the folly of religion makers and defenders....

You are incorrect on all counts with this one. I mean no disrespect, but I'm somewhat astonished that someone as bright as you could be so presumptuous when it comes to interpreting Paul's clear intent of meaning in these verses. If you looked up 1 Corinthians 2,, you would have read these two verses that immediately preceed the ones I quoted:

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (1 Cor 2)

You say that in verses 11-16 "Paul is speaking of knowing that Jesus is the Christ" But the preceeding two verses make it very clear that Paul is speaking of "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him;" he's not at all referring to gaining a testimony that Jesus is the Christ. Verse 10 clears things up all the more, for Paul goes on to tell us that the "Spirit searcheth all things ... deep things. So it's again patently obvious that here Paul is not here speaking in particular of a testimony of Christ, but he's speaking of all things (that means everything) that pertains to God and his kingdom.

You later go on to say, "Misappropriating scripture to later times and situations is the folly of religion makers and defenders...." I don't know if you are now or ever were a Latter-day Saint, but that idea is utterly rejected in the Book of Mormon. The verse of scripture I'm about to quote is one very well known by most active members of the LDS Church, and it teaches us that when studying the scriptures we should to do the exact opposite of what you say. Check it out:

"23 And I did read many things unto them (Nephi's brothers) which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning."

This practice of likening all scripture to our own modern lives is encouraged, not discouraged in the LDS Church.

Finally, I have a question for you; and I ask it with all due respect: Do you believe the Spirit of God has ever revealed truth to you?

Edited April 12, 2013 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

After all, the witness of the Holy Ghost is our claim to knowledge. Reliabilism is a direct challenge to that. What is our answer to it?

The witness of the Holy Ghost remains our reliable answer to it, on a personal and individual level. Nobody has to start doubting what the Holy Ghost has told them just because what someone else says contradicts what the Holy Ghost has told them. Each person can have a personal witness from the Holy Ghost, and each person should stick to what the Holy Ghost has told them, personally. At that point anything contradictory is seen as only a personal opinion, rather than a witness from the Holy Ghost, because a witness from the Holy Ghost wouldn't contradict another witness from the Holy Ghost.

[KevinG]

The witness of the Holy Ghost remains our reliable answer to it, on a personal and individual level. Nobody has to start doubting what the Holy Ghost has told them just because what someone else says contradicts what the Holy Ghost has told them. Each person can have a personal witness from the Holy Ghost, and each person should stick to what the Holy Ghost has told them, personally. At that point anything contradictory is seen as only a personal opinion, rather than a witness from the Holy Ghost, because a witness from the Holy Ghost wouldn't contradict another witness from the Holy Ghost.

True. But it is amazing how many people who say God told them I was in a cult get offended when I tell them "God must not have wanted you in the Mormon church".

(for the humor impaired the above was a joke)

[volgadon]

Pmc, you seem to be suggesting that Person B hasn't thought about things carefully. If I've misunderstood, I apologise.

[PoisonWell]

Please don't put words in my statements. I said don't be insulting not don't explore. Perhaps you can learn to explore without mischaracterizing other people's beliefs and statements instead of compounding a mischaracterization with an unfounded accusation?

Perhaps you should learn: D&C 93:36 The glory of God is bintelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

lol okay then. I'm not sure where I mischaracterized your statement or made any accusations. Could you point out to me where I did that?

Because I honestly wasn't meaning to offend you, only to further explore the topic.

Also, I don't see what that verse means in this context. I always thought it was about recieving a good education and learning, not about believing through spirit.

Edited April 11, 2013 by PoisonWell

[wenglund]

I don't doubt for a minute that the Mormon community has words that are singularly defined within the community and that have a completely different meaning in the world at large.

I have my doubts about that. Nevertheless, is beside my point. The LDS use of the word "know" fits comfortably within the worlds vernacular (at least the English speaking portion of the world).

But that wasn't the thrust of my post. I was referencing my comment in regards to a parents statement about their child.

Your statement started out that way. However, it quickly went to speaking generally about "people" in the Church and "members" of the Church. Either way, my response stands.

I don't have any opinion on whether you, for example, "know" the church is true or whether you "believe" the church is true.

Fine. However, you did express your opinion about "people" in the Church and "members" of the Church in general. My response stands.

Would your acquaintances in the church suddenly turn and look at you if you were to use the word "believe" when you offer your testimony?

Typically, when I have done so on occasion, they haven't turned and looked at me since they were already looking at me.

This isn't mentioned in order to garner a response. It's none of my business. But is "believe" a weaker describer than "know" when talking about the unknowable?

That is for each of us to decide for ourselves. Either word may be appropriate given one's own personal assessment.

The point being, neither you nor I nor anyone else is in a valid position to decide this for them. And, instead of nit picking the words that people/members may use in their testimonies, we will all be better served to seek instead to reasonably try to understand them--i.e. go from pridefully critiquing to humbly listening. What is most important is the meaning, and not the words used to convey the meaning. Focusing on the words inanely reverses that priority.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

What you think you know I can not argue against. That, to me, is a belief. What you declare you know by something other than your "gut feeling" I ask for evidence. Since I firmly believe our senses are not reliable, and I can conduct experiments that show our senses can be fooled, I therefore doubt that a feeling is enough to support "knowing".

In regards to the testimony of others, you are free to question and doubt. However, you are not in a valid position to dictate for others what they may or may not "know" or "believe."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[PoisonWell]

In regards to the testimony of others, you are free to question and doubt. However, you are not in a valid position to dictate for others what they may or may not "know" or "believe."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, you don't get to dictate what people believe, (and there's little use trying) but you can prefer that they use the word 'believe' when that's what they mean.

[PoisonWell]

Then I found an agnostic who received the Holy Ghost, and then an atheist, of all people! These were all confirmed by a deep, sublime "remarkable epiphany" in their own, divergent paths. Whose revelation is legitimate? How can I know that my Holy Ghost was the real Holy Ghost without begging the question? If there is only one truth, then only one "knowledge" is justified, and there ought to be a reliable way to find out which it is.

I can confirm this. The only times I've ever felt something that I'd call 'the spirit,' (and I've been in the church since I was born) have been after I first mentally (or spiritually, whatever you'd like to call it) left the church.

[wenglund]

I'm always interested in these arguments. Person A, who has thought about things carefully, says, "You can't know." To this, Person B retorts, "But I do know, and you can't tell me that I don't." Which is true enough. I'll invoke Adam Smith now and say that the typical human sympathy rests with Person B, for we all resent when someone else presumes to tell us what we believe, think, know, or feel. It's as if the blind were to rebuke the seeing for claiming the existence of color!

I think that's why atheism doesn't spread through these arguments; they just aren't persuasive.

In systems of epistemology, there are different standards that measure when knowledge is justifiable. Some people subscribe to one system, other people prefer another. Of course, we rarely think of ourselves in terms of belonging to one epistemic school or another, rather we might categorize people based on how they come to accept or reject claims about reality. Ultimately, knowledge is a personal thing. Only the subjects themselves can say whether or not they "know," and we can only measure another's claim according to our own system of epistemology which we can't force other people to adopt. If we are wise, we realize that we can't question another's claim to knowledge; we may only question whether or not we think it justified.

Now, it appears that Bcuzbcuz is a reliabilist. For reliabilists, subjective evidence is insufficient to justify knowledge, even if the evidence has been obtained and validated by multiple subjects. Suppose the fact of your "remarkable epiphany" is undisputed, or even if the reliabilist has a vision or miracle of his or her own, that still isn't good enough! Reliabilists are bound to say that there is a class of unknowable things because reliability is thought to increase to the extent that things can be sensed and measured outside of the human experience. Reliabilists know that people argue about contradictory subjective evidence, including religious witness. Religious experiences are very diverse, very powerful, and also inconsistent with regard to what they say about reality. Therefore, these experiences can't make part of the set of things that constitute "Knowledge" for reliabilists.

Against the reliabilists, some philosophers will get really nit-picky and question whether or not it's possible to be truly objective, or point out that everything ultimately reduces to subjectivity (which is essentially true), but the reliabilists seem to operate on a continuum and are unconcerned if pure objectivity can ever be achieved or not. True reliabilists generally admit to a basically agnostic position of not knowing "for sure".

I finally understood reliabilism when I encountered an ex-Mormon Catholic who had received a very powerful spiritual manifestation that led her out of the LDS church and into the Catholic church. Then I found there were many others just like her, and I asked myself, "wait a minute, isn't it supposed to happen the other way around?" You see, I thought the Holy Ghost only confirmed Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the reality of the restoration--and and other things that are compatible with those truths. I didn't think the Holy Ghost would suggest that those things were actually false. Then I found an agnostic who received the Holy Ghost, and then an atheist, of all people! These were all confirmed by a deep, sublime "remarkable epiphany" in their own, divergent paths. Whose revelation is legitimate? How can I know that my Holy Ghost was the real Holy Ghost without begging the question? If there is only one truth, then only one "knowledge" is justified, and there ought to be a reliable way to find out which it is.

It turns out that, if you seek with real intent (nothing wavering!) and fear not, only believe; you can get a testimony of the Mormon Church. And the Catholic Church. And the tenets of spiritual agnosticism. And whatever else you can think of! I've done it. These principles of "real intent" and so forth are very useful in establishing "plausibility structures" around allegedly true narratives. These are the strategies that hypnotherapists use, by the way. When we yield to those strategies, we can enter the narrative and it will become very real. In fact, realer than real. Even the empirical senses can participate in this reality that our stories create for us.

The human mind is tractable. Human experience is not reliable. This is the importance of reliabilism, and I should like very much to read some apologia that deals with these plausibility structures, narratives, mental states, evidentialism, and divergent spiritual experiences. After all, the witness of the Holy Ghost is our claim to knowledge. Reliabilism is a direct challenge to that. What is our answer to it?

This is probably not the right thread to discuss this, but my short answer would be: 1)Each of the revelations may be legitimate in their own right. 2) The Holy Ghost may have been real in each case. 3) There may not be "one truth," or rather their may be multiple "truths" that are justified in our finite state. More importantly, "truth" ought not be the end objective, but a means to the end (growth towards our very best selves). 4) Reliability, then, ought not be a gage of "truth," but rather a gage for what does or doesn't works in growing us towards our best selves. Also, the Holy Ghost isn't a lone gage of the "truth." In addition to Moroni 10, is Alma 32, the former often acting as the seed for faith, with the latter taking us through to fruition and thereby providing confirmation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-