Proof!

[Calm]

but all tests there are an infinite number of ways to get it wrong in which case the problem is not with the concept, but in setting up the test conditions correctly.... any good scientist knows the importance of setting up a good test.

But with one of the factors being the human element, you also have infinite variation that is impossible to control for.

For example, if as I stated above, you have one individual that has the gift of faith and another the word of knowledge...how can the scientist know which is which and how to create a test that equally matches each individual with the evidence so they have an equal chance of believing?

1 Cor12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Edited July 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[changed]

Your last question is the broadest and constitutes a serious subject all by itself. First, however, it is necessary to say what all these scriptural references actually mean:

Of the citations you provide, only Acts 9:22 applies a Greek word (sumbibadzo "advise, instruct, inform; prove, offer proof") suggesting the sort of forensic or intellectual proof offered in debate or a courtroom. QED. The only other KJ NT translation of "prove, proved," which can have juridical application is at Romans 3:9 (proaitiaomai "prove a charge or accusation").

Rom 12:2, I Thess 5:21, on the other hand, use the most common such Greek word (dokimadzo) translated by the KJ NT as "prove, proved" (so also at Lk 14:9), which means "test, tested," as for a number of words in the KJ OT translated "prove, proved":

For example, the KJV frequently translates Hebrew nasa as "prove, proved," where "test, tested" is the real meaning, as at Ex 16:4, 20:20, Ps 26:2 (where it is used in parallel with "examine"), and the same word elsewhere means "try, tried" (II Chron 32:31.

At Malachi 3:10, however, the Hebrew is bahan (so also Gen 42:15-16), which again means "test."

Such biblical passages might best be understood in light of Alma 32, which covers the issue in detail and is even suggestive of the experimental method used in the sciences.

OK, I love getting out the Lexicon too - do you use the BLB?

Here are all the scriptures with symbibazō: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4822&t=KJV

in which prove is defined as:

1) to cause to coalesce, to join together, put together

a) to unite or knit together: in affection

2) to put together in one's mind

a) to compare

b) to gather, conclude, consider

3) to cause a person to unite with one in a conclusion or come to the same opinion, to prove, demonstrate

a) to teach, instruct, one

If I just look up prove: http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=prove&t=KJV

Just for the KJ Bible... Here are the words translated prove:

5254

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5254&t=KJV

974

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H974&t=KJV

1381

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1381&t=KJV

3985

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3985&t=KJV

etc. etc. - some interesting info there, I'll have to read through it.

[changed]

But with one of the factors being the human element, you also have infinite variation that is impossible to control for.

For example, if as I stated above, you have one individual that has the gift of faith and another the word of knowledge...how can the scientist know which is which and how to create a test that equally matches each individual with the evidence so they have an equal chance of believing?

yes, there are different gifts, but we are all promised the gift of the Spirit - we are all each given the light of Christ (conscience), there are some things that apply to all of us, so that all of us can gain a testimony through the same channels.

The test the scientist has to do is a test on themselves of coarse They have to become their own test subject.

Edited July 12, 2013 by changed

[changed]

whoops, delete.

Edited July 12, 2013 by changed

[volgadon]

My friend Tyler Andersen (who has a degree in rhetoric) wrote a fascinating paper on "proof." http://www.withoutend.org/infallibleproofs/ It should help better understand what was meant by proof in the Hellenistic world.

[thesometimesaint]

The proof for these things is not in empirical proofs but in the form of personal revelation. If you are looking to have all things proven empirically then you are going to be disappointed.

Agreed.

[Robert F. Smith]

My friend Tyler Andersen (who has a degree in rhetoric) wrote a fascinating paper on "proof." http://www.withouten...fallibleproofs/ It should help better understand what was meant by proof in the Hellenistic world.

Thank you for calling that to our attention.

However, with all due respect to honest rhetoricians, Andersen neglected to discuss the sophists by name, nor their modern day heirs: politicians and lawyers (who are so frequently one and the same). It's about winning through forensic debate, not about seeking the truth. Athens sentenced Socrates to death precisely because his mode of inquiry threatened the status quo of sophistry.

[Robert F. Smith]

changed, on 11 July 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

But we can take data - we can test it out, we can use the scientific meathod on it.

Hypothesis: If I follow the comandments I will be blessed.

Test: Follow the commandments.

Observations / results: Is life better?

Verify results - talk to others who have done the same test, etc. etc.

I think we really need to get away from propogating the notion that religion is somehow not scientific - you can test it out just like you can test anything.

ERayR, on 11 July 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

What happens if life doesn't get better? If your back still hurts constantly, if you still are unable to provide the necessities? If all this happens and you still have had that personal revelation from the spirit so you still believe? Where is your empirical evidence?

Agreed.

So how would you estimate the value of Alma 32 under such circumstances? Is empirical evidence involved at all? If so, how?

Are there any techniques for proving any sort of religious proposition true?

[Calm]

Are there any techniques for proving any sort of religious proposition true?

They've tried to test the effectiveness of prayer on healing by having people pray for patients in hospital, both with their knowledge and without. IIRC, they found no difference between those they had prayed for and those they didn't and therefore concluded there was no measurable effect. However, they could not take into account whether or not the patients they didn't have prayed for by the volunteers were prayed for (or not) by others so their control group really wasn't functional as such.

They've tried to measure the weight of the soul by precise measurements of someone before and after death. No go on that one either.

Haven't heard of any other religious concepts being tested, but there are probably some.

[ERayR]

changed, on 11 July 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

But we can take data - we can test it out, we can use the scientific meathod on it.

Hypothesis: If I follow the comandments I will be blessed.

Test: Follow the commandments.

Observations / results: Is life better?

Verify results - talk to others who have done the same test, etc. etc.

I think we really need to get away from propogating the notion that religion is somehow not scientific - you can test it out just like you can test anything.

So how would you estimate the value of Alma 32 under such circumstances? Is empirical evidence involved at all? If so, how?

Are there any techniques for proving any sort of religious proposition true?

Yes it can be tested and proven but not empirically.

[Questing Beast]

...

So, where is the proof? what constitutes proof? what good proofs have you seen?

As already said by others, the proof is in your personal life, to your satisfaction. If the time ever comes that I decide that my life was just coincidentally "blessed", my religious paradigm will undergo the biggest shift ever. The only reason why I remain a LDS in living standards is because my convictions vis-a-vis cause and effect were developed over years of living "the standards". That lifestyle has always worked for me. I've proven that prayer works, that tithing works, that the WoW works, that personal revelation works, that obedience to eternal truths works. The religion that taught them to me is not exclusively true, that's the only major shift I have seen in my religious world view....

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes it can be tested and proven but not empirically.

Would you care to expand on that -- maybe with an example?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

As already said by others, the proof is in your personal life, to your satisfaction. If the time ever comes that I decide that my life was just coincidentally "blessed", my religious paradigm will undergo the biggest shift ever. The only reason why I remain a LDS in living standards is because my convictions vis-a-vis cause and effect were developed over years of living "the standards". That lifestyle has always worked for me. I've proven that prayer works, that tithing works, that the WoW works, that personal revelation works, that obedience to eternal truths works. The religion that taught them to me is not exclusively true, that's the only major shift I have seen in my religious world view....

So, Beast, do you conclude from experience that religious "truth" is a social construction, and that it is entirely subjective? What does it mean to suggest that religion "works"?

[ERayR]

Would you care to expand on that -- maybe with an example?

How do you prove empirically that you have received a spiritual manifestation or maybe a vision? What do you take to show this publicly?

[mfbukowski]

Haven't heard of any other religious concepts being tested, but there are probably some.

It's so sad that people misunderstand it this much. You might as well weigh people before and after playing Beethoven's Fifth to see if they are now heavier or lighter due to a change in mood caused by the music.

[mfbukowski]

Would you care to expand on that -- maybe with an example?

Alma 32. Either it is "sweet" or it isn't.

What is "sweet" cannot be empirically proven. Either you taste it or you don't.

[Questing Beast]

So, Beast, do you conclude from experience that religious "truth" is a social construction, and that it is entirely subjective? What does it mean to suggest that religion "works"?

All of mortality is subjective. We even have to believe that "natural laws" won't change on us, because we don't actually know this is the case. So yes, all religious "truth" is subjective, and a complex of social construction and personal experience. All religion "works" for those that want it to. I made a very deliberate decision, a singular moment of decision, when I first had JS's polyandry made known to me. My disaffected brother put me onto it, and I was incredulous at what he described succinctly. I said that if polyandry was "true", then JS could not "remain" a prophet in my mind: there was only so far that sexually morality could bend before breaking, and polyandry would pass that breaking point in my mind. When I said that, my brother said, "Read it (In Sacred Loneliness) and weep, brother, I did." I did read it, but I did not weep, for I was already prepared. I did, however, decide that I'd go away from my religious construct of a lifetime. I "jumped off the cliff" of religious belief, and then I took a look around and at myself to see what had just happened. I felt the same, other than not believing anything dogmatically: I still accepted that "God" was real, but now I held no concept in mind about what "God" means aside from Cause. I've been feeling my way forward ever since, never having discarded any of the moral laws or commandments that are core to living a "religious" life. I never wanted to do away with those things I have taught and practiced while raising a family. Neither has my brother, but he also severed association with the Church, I have not. It is difficult to feel connected to the Church beyond socially. But I have a more powerful conviction of the reality of "God" than I ever did before. "God" has gotten much bigger in my mind. If I was, instead, desiring to be a hedonist instead of a believer, an atheist instead of a believer, I doubt that my "moment of decision" would have resulted in a stronger belief in "God"! Instead, something anti religious would have intruded consciously, whereas before it had motivated me unconsciously, or unacknowledged by me. Religion does not "work" for people who actually feel antipathy toward it. If/when they return to being religious, or pick up religion for the first time, or even more likely, have religion "remolded" in a totally different paradigm (e.g. General Butt Naked, who I have referenced already today), a convert does believe that religion works. So "working religion" is always subjective. But then, as our bukowski continuously points out, all of this world is perceived subjectively and that is inescapable.... Edited July 15, 2013 by Questing Beast

[volgadon]

Thank you for calling that to our attention.

However, with all due respect to honest rhetoricians, Andersen neglected to discuss the sophists by name, nor their modern day heirs: politicians and lawyers (who are so frequently one and the same). It's about winning through forensic debate, not about seeking the truth. Athens sentenced Socrates to death precisely because his mode of inquiry threatened the status quo of sophistry.

To be fair, it wasn't really the focus. He had to explain a little what rhetoric was before highlighting its esoteric use.

[thesometimesaint]

All of mortality is subjective. We even have to believe that "natural laws" won't change on us, because we don't actually know this is the case. So yes, all religious "truth" is subjective, and a complex of social construction and personal experience. All religion "works" for those that want it to. I made a very deliberate decision, a singular moment of decision, when I first had JS's polyandry made known to me. My disaffected brother put me onto it, and I was incredulous at what he described succinctly. I said that if polyandry was "true", then JS could not "remain" a prophet in my mind: there was only so far that sexually morality could bend before breaking, and polyandry would pass that breaking point in my mind. When I said that, my brother said, "Read it (In Sacred Loneliness) and weep, brother, I did." I did read it, but I did not weep, for I was already prepared. I did, however, decide that I'd go away from my religious construct of a lifetime. I "jumped off the cliff" of religious belief, and then I took a look around and at myself to see what had just happened. I felt the same, other than not believing anything dogmatically: I still accepted that "God" was real, but now I held no concept in mind about what "God" means aside from Cause. I've been feeling my way forward ever since, never having discarded any of the moral laws or commandments that are core to living a "religious" life. I never wanted to do away with those things I have taught and practiced while raising a family. Neither has my brother, but he also severed association with the Church, I have not. It is difficult to feel connected to the Church beyond socially. But I have a more powerful conviction of the reality of "God" than I ever did before. "God" has gotten much bigger in my mind. If I was, instead, desiring to be a hedonist instead of a believer, an atheist instead of a believer, I doubt that my "moment of decision" would have resulted in a stronger belief in "God"! Instead, something anti religious would have intruded consciously, whereas before it had motivated me unconsciously, or unacknowledged by me. Religion does not "work" for people who actually feel antipathy toward it. If/when they return to being religious, or pick up religion for the first time, or even more likely, have religion "remolded" in a totally different paradigm (e.g. General Butt Naked, who I have referenced already today), a convert does believe that religion works. So "working religion" is always subjective. But then, as our bukowski continuously points out, all of this world is perceived subjectively and that is inescapable....

There is nothing in the laws of physics to preclude effects coming before cause, but such has never been observed.

All perception is idiosyncratic, but within certain boundaries. IOW We all build ice cream castles in the sky, but few of us move in.

[volgadon]

All perception is idiosyncratic, but within certain boundaries. IOW We all build ice cream castles in the sky, but few of us move in.

I wouldn't say that.

Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind

Cannot bear very much reality.

[Calm]

We all build ice cream castles in the sky, but few of us move in.

You've reminded me of the homemade strawberry lemonade ice cream in the freezer....now that would be something to build one's castle out of. I know what I am having for lunch.

I am also now going to have to look for a castle mold because I love the idea of ice cream castles and think they would be perfect for birthdays....especially the older I get.

Edited July 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

There is nothing in the laws of physics to preclude effects coming before cause, but such has never been observed.

The problem is not in the observation but in the semantics. If the "effect" came before, it would not be called that. Same with causes. They are only defined as "causes" because they come before.

[Robert F. Smith]

Alma 32. Either it is "sweet" or it isn't.

What is "sweet" cannot be empirically proven. Either you taste it or you don't.

Yeh, there is no accounting for taste.

So, as with test-driving the latest model of whatever style car you prefer, isn't there an element of personal taste in autos, as well as personal taste in religion? Like a box of chocolates, you never know which kind you're gonna get. Can the Holy Ghost influence our taste? Can we be surprised?

Edited July 16, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

Yeh, there is no accounting for taste.

So, as with test-driving the latest model of whatever style car you prefer, isn't there an element of personal taste in autos, as well as personal taste in religion? Like a box of chocolates, you never know which kind you're gonna get. Can the Holy Ghost influence our taste? Can we be surprised?

Well I know I am surprised all the time!

But I think that there is a lot more to it than just personal taste- through language and our social interaction, we see what works for others as well.

I don't have to become a drug addict to decide that that is not a good course to follow even though my first snort of cocaine may be the "sweetest" experience I have ever had. So "sweetness" has multiple meanings on multiple levels of course.

So I think that indeed we can learn that there really is a "best" truth or best truth for all of humanity- we can have that revealed to us, but I think also it can be deduced logically just from practical experience about how the world works. If no one follows the traffic laws, life is continually in peril.

If everyone is immoral, society does not flourish. So I think that just pragmatically one can deduce "absolute truths" that seem to work for all of humanity.

We can observe those truths because they are the 10 commandments and God told us they are absolutes we should never break, or we can follow those maxims because we see the pragmatic truths they represent sociologically.

I personally follow them for both reasons and see other reasons as well.

[Ahab]

Yeh, there is no accounting for taste.

So, as with test-driving the latest model of whatever style car you prefer, isn't there an element of personal taste in autos, as well as personal taste in religion? Like a box of chocolates, you never know which kind you're gonna get. Can the Holy Ghost influence our taste? Can we be surprised?

Or can someone taste something sweet and just not like it? I have a son who doesn't particularly care for sweets, even though he will eat some now and then and think it's okay. I, on the other hand, am a sweet junkie, or at least I would be if I didn't watch out.

But, yeah, the Holy Ghost can help us to like some things we don't like, initially. Not everybody likes to be corrected of the errors of their way, and the Holy Ghost certainly does a lot of that, but after a while we can learn to appreciate having him help us to become a better person.