Proof!

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Does that mean that all truth is subjective and that no testimonies are transferrable? In other words, is all truth merely socially constructed and no demonstrable proof of anything is actually possible, except insofar as one is simply subjectively convinced of something? Do we believe just because we believe, or it that too much of a vicious circle? And does it lead to existentialism and to "death of God' theologies? Do far too many of us simply live on borrowed light? Is it even possible to be well anchored and grounded in the faith?

[mfbukowski]

The experience of God is subjective, not objective. If any perception of God is to be considered "true", then subjective experience MUST be able to be shown to be true.

So it is clear to me that those theories which make the subjective "provable" would affirm the experience of God, not deny it. Kierkegaard for example was very religious and totally affirmed "subjectivity" in the sense we are speaking of it here.

Am I missing something?

[mfbukowski]

Let me make it even more simple.

Premise: Any experience of God is subjective.

If God is to be considered "real" then any theory seeking to prove God, must allow for the subjective being "real".

Further, any theory which says that only the objective is "real" cannot account for God.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

So saying that "truth is subjective" is NOT "anti-God", it is pro-God.

[Coriantumr]

Often, we hear the sentiment that we should not prove things, but instead rely on faith - but is this scripturally based? There are quite a few scriptures that use the word "prove" and make it sound like we are supposed to "prove the Lord" and that He is going to "prove us" - that in the process of proving one another, we will come to know who we are, and who God is.

Example scriptures:

Old Testament | Malachi 3:10)

10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

If you pay your tithes - and you are blessed - is that proof of God and his nature? are there any stats anywhere that document the economic well-being of faithful temple-going tithe-paying LDS members, and compare that to the average economic well-being of the general population? and if there were such stats, could these be used as "proof" that tithing works?

Acts 9:22

22 But Saul (Paul) increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

Sounds like Paul was able to "prove" who Jesus was - sounds like there were some heated debates, which Paul won, that he was able to clearly provide "proof" to everyone.

Romans 12:2

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

In an age where what is good and what is evil is debated - is it really possible to "prove" without a shadow of a doubt that something is good? It appears we are supposed to be able to prove certain things.

1 Thessalonians 5:21

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

not "have faith in all things" or "believe in all things", but prove all things.

Just look at all these scriptures using the word "prove"

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

Im not really sure what kind of proof your talking about so here...

Archaeology

The Stela 5 - http://www.supportingevidences.net/the-izapa-stela-5-stone/

A stone found in Izapa Mexico depicting Lehi's vision of the tree of life as found in 1 Nephi 8.

Confirmed List - http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/02/growing-confirmation-of-book-of-mormon.html

Here is a list of what people knew about claims the BoM made in 1842 Vs. 2005

Example: In 1842 people said it was crazy to think people would write on metal plates. Now the world knows writing on metal plates was kind of a poplar thing to do, especially with the discovering of the Dead Sea Scrolls(the Copper scroll)

The Ten Commandments - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Lunas_Decalogue_Stone

The oldest copy ever found of the Ten Commandments was found in Los Lunas, New Mexico, dating before the time of Christ. This indicates that Christianity existed in the Americas BEFORE Columbus, even before Christ was crucified.

Behold my hands - http://www.bastison.net/RESSOURCES/Farce/57_Jones_Jesus.pdf

This is an excellent article on some little statues and murals they have been finding in Central America showing his hands that are pierced through the palms of the hands and through the feet.This would indicate that Christ DID visit America

White Indians - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Amazonian_Indians

As told about in the BoM. The white Indians also told tales of the their dark skinned brothers trying to hunt them down and kill them(Ruins in Ancient America by jack west)

El Mirador -

The largest pyramid in the world was found in Mexico. This would indicate Mayans had ancestors from the middle east (Egyptian Pyramids)

Let me know if you would like more on this section..... I have 6 - 2in binders full of BoM evidence

Book of Mormon Proving itself

The Twelve Wittnesses – The beginning of the BoM

The NEVER denied their testimony of the BoM even though many of them left the Church.

Multiple Authorship – http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Wordprint_studies

The BoM was produced in about 60 days, by Joseph dictating the words on the golden plates to a scribe. Yet, a computer Identified the Book of Mormon as having at least 24 different authors. Its fascinating how word print analysis works.

ALMA 7:10 – Jesus to be born at Jerusalem

People said this was a simple error Joseph Smith made because everyone knows Jesus was born at Bethlehem. However, upon the discovery of the dead sea scrolls we now know Bethlehem was providence inside Jerusalem.

ALMA CHAPTER 36 – One Giant Chiasm

Chiasm is an ancient form of writing by Hebrews to emphasize a point example: I drove to the store, picked up some milk, and drove home from the store. This Chiasm went ABA “B” being the main point of my sentence. Read this chapter versus 1 then versus 30, youll see the pattern. I have the whole thing highlighted in my scripture.

Ether 6:11 – Jaredites travel

This scripture states the jaredites were driven forth 344 days upon the water while traveling to the American continent. Which is amazing because that’s exactly how long it takes the pacific current to go from Asia to Central America. This info was not available during Josephs time.

I also have tons more on this section as well, let me know if you want more.

Bottom line, there is tons and tons of evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church. Its sad most people discount the evidences or try to explain them away. In fact, im 100% positive if an angel came down and declared this to the world, people would still doubt, they would still murmur. Look at Christ life... even after all the miracles he did people still doubted! There is never enough physical evidence for people. The best thing to do is pray about it. I didn't always believe in this Church, but I do now... It is a fact that this is Jesus's Christ church, the world can accept it or deny it... the choice is theirs. But I can say without any doubt, the Book of Mormon is true! We have a prophet on the earth today and im so happy to part of His church.

Good luck and I hope this helps

[Calm]

Care needs to be taken with many of your possible evidences.

The Stela 5 - http://www.supportin...-stela-5-stone/

A stone found in Izapa Mexico depicting Lehi's vision of the tree of life as found in 1 Nephi 8.

http://maxwellinstit...um=1&id=181

Confirmed List - http://philosophieso...-of-mormon.html

Here is a list of what people knew about claims the BoM made in 1842 Vs. 2005

This is a comparison chart created by John Clark, a noted archaeologist, during a talk at BYU several years back. This may be the talk or one like it:

http://maxwellinstit...um=2&id=376

The Ten Commandments - http://en.wikipedia....Decalogue_Stone

The oldest copy ever found of the Ten Commandments was found in Los Lunas, New Mexico, dating before the time of Christ.

http://www.fairlds.o...s/fj200806-html

El Mirador

The largest pyramid in the world was found in Mexico. This would indicate Mayans had ancestors from the middle east (Egyptian Pyramids)

The construction style of the pyramids are quite different, as far as I am aware. The pyramid shape is useful in building a stable large building and is used throughout the world, but one needs to study how they were built before making such comparisons. Egyptian Pyramids were tombs, MA pyramids had the purpose of a temple, placed at the apex of the building.

http://www.helium.com/items/1087183-pyramids-egypt-mayan

Edited July 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

mfbukowski said:

The experience of God is subjective, not objective. If any perception of God is to be considered "true", then subjective experience MUST be able to be shown to be true.

So it is clear to me that those theories which make the subjective "provable" would affirm the experience of God, not deny it. Kierkegaard for example was very religious and totally affirmed "subjectivity" in the sense we are speaking of it here.

Am I missing something?

Let me make it even more simple.

Premise: Any experience of God is subjective.

If God is to be considered "real" then any theory seeking to prove God, must allow for the subjective being "real".

Further, any theory which says that only the objective is "real" cannot account for God.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

So saying that "truth is subjective" is NOT "anti-God", it is pro-God.

Subjectivity suffers from the infinite regress of an understanding which feeds off of our status as humans who are truly prisoners of our senses, and who can know of nothing for certain. Our social constructions are therefore useful and practical, but do not constitute absolute knowledge (they merely help us to get by, and they run the gamut of socio-cultural fad and fashion), i.e., some of our social construction is in fact indirectly like the truth, but we cannot know for certain in what way. When such social constructions are wrong (as they often appear to be) the consequences can be dire or discomfiting, depending on how wrong -- at least in theory.

However, the worst effect of all encompassing subjectivity is the undifferentiated nature of it: All phenomena are treated as equally subjective, whether a direct vision of God, or an ineffable spiritual experience, or a rigorous chemistry experiment in a laboratory somewhere. Perhaps only pure math is considered non-subjective, but, even if so, it would be irrelevant to our understanding of the ultimate epistemological question: How can we know what we know? Or can we indeed know anything but these subjective approximations?

Are we truly going to see no substantive difference between peer reviewed advances in chemistry & physics, and the nature of religious ideas which (even if they are ultimately quite true) cannot be similarly demonstrated to be true. Even the axioms and theorems of geometry are based ultimately on supposition, even if the whole matrix does stand the test of time and is internally very coherent and logical. The same could be said for the theology of Thomas Aquinus.

I have always thought that there is a difference in quality and logic between claims that the Resurrection of Jesus can be "proved" true, and the nature of what might be "proved" by an archeological excavation report. And, for the sake of argument, most people consider this to be obvious.

[mfbukowski]

Bob

Thanks for your thoughtful response - I hope you know that I have a lot of respect for you and all your contributions to Mormon thought over the years, as well as many things I have learned from you, so I hope this is not too long a response.

Subjectivity suffers from the infinite regress of an understanding which feeds off of our status as humans who are truly prisoners of our senses, and who can know of nothing for certain. Our social constructions are therefore useful and practical, but do not constitute absolute knowledge (they merely help us to get by, and they run the gamut of socio-cultural fad and fashion), i.e., some of our social construction is in fact indirectly like the truth, but we cannot know for certain in what way. When such social constructions are wrong (as they often appear to be) the consequences can be dire or discomfiting, depending on how wrong -- at least in theory.

At a certain point I think we give up worrying about "absolute knowledge"- whatever that could even mean- and stop worrying about certainty with it. Even in the "hard sciences" there is no such thing as "certainty"- perhaps we get closer and closer measurements which sometimes force us to revise our paradigms, as happened, say in the Copernican revolution. As observations increased in detail, the old Ptolemaic model of the solar system just could not handle the new data and had to be abandoned.

I think the trick is to give up worrying about the illusion of "certainty" and simply go with "what works for now" since that is about the best we will ever have anyway. New paradigms are always hard to accept and as an "old dog" myself, had I not been intellectually "raised" in this way of thinking for the last 40 years it would be hard for me to accept it now I am sure. But now I can see it no other way. It is so perfectly obvious to me that I cannot see it in any other way any more and cannot understand why others do not instantly adopt this other paradigm.

Perhaps only pure math is considered non-subjective, but, even if so, it would be irrelevant to our understanding of the ultimate epistemological question: How can we know what we know? Or can we indeed know anything but these subjective approximations?

Pure math is simply tautological- it tells us nothing about the world on its own until we attach symbolic meaning to it..The principle behind 1+1=2 is strictly logical- what we "mean" by "1" entails that two of them is the same as the symbol "2". That is what "1" and "2" mean, literally by definition.

Where it gets useful is when we know that 21 cows and 43 cows make up a herd of 64 cows. We have put the logic of it into a symbolic situation where now the logic becomes useful. "1" is now not an abstract concept- it literally represents a cow, so that instead of putting my neighbor's herd into one corral with my herd, and counting all of them together, we can now symbolically construct what the answer to doing that would be. We would have 43 cows if we did that.

Whether in this simple example, or in vector calculus where the equation represents the trajectory of a missile, math gets its usefulness because it REPRESENTS other concepts. On its own, it does not represent "absolute" anything other than that the human brain cannot conceive that 1+1=2 could NOT be "true" because these terms are "true by definition", just as "bachelor" = ("unmarried man"). There is a reason we call these things "equations" because we know they are definitions, nothing more, nothing less, and that one side means the same as the other side. Math is a language like other natural languages, just more precise in meaning because it has been constructed to BE precise. "X" can represent a cow or a missile, but what is represents is still itself an ambiguous term.

But suppose we want it to represent the word "car". Does that include SUV's and minivans? Further definition is required to get the "equation" truly "equal" to achieve the purpose we want, to get the ambiguity our of the alleged "equation".

However, the worst effect of all encompassing subjectivity is the undifferentiated nature of it: All phenomena are treated as equally subjective, whether a direct vision of God, or an ineffable spiritual experience, or a rigorous chemistry experiment in a laboratory somewhere.

As I see it, to make a long story short, what we know is either 1) subjective and probably socially constructed or 2) inter-subjective and definitely socially constructed. But I think we cover all the bases within those two ways of seeing the issue.

There was a time for all of us as infants when we were pre-linguistic and we were taught about "things" - tables chairs, bottles, blankets etc. These subjective perceptions were given names which we learned, and those names were within a specific language, in a specific accent of that language. We learned colors by matching a subjective perception with the name for the color accepted by our culture. We learned the prejudices of our culture- as an American in the 1950's- that freedom was good and communists were bad, that some people were "colored" and all that goes with that. We learned "duck and cover" in case there was a nuclear war. We learned about cause and effect, that science was good, and that it was important to get an education- which further embedded us in our culture. We learned that God was "ineffable" and "transcendent" and "all-knowing" or some other set of assumptions. We learned that a certain feeling within us was the "Holy Ghost" just as surely as a certain perception was "red". We learned to match usual perceptions within our bodies as "hunger" and other bodily functions and what was appropriate to say publicly and what was not.

So we learned names for all these subjective states, and suddenly because they were named and now expressible, we uttered sentences which carried on those symbolic representations of our subjective experiences and expressed them to others. Others, presumably, had similar subjective states and so now our statements about colors for example became "inter-subjective". We could say "I'm hungry", expressing a subjective state, and because the other person learned the same name for a subjective state, they functionally understood that that meant that I wanted to eat some food.

So the way I see it, for each of us, all knowledge starts our being "subjective" because it is US- The person we refer to as the subject of a sentence starting with "I" who learns it from others. Each of us individually learned our multiplication tables, which are a social construct, but after we did so, we can convey that to others using the symbols of language in words or numbers- using other social constructs.

I have no personal experience dealing with the existence of Antarctica- I have to rely on what others have said about it, so really for me the existence of Antarctica is completely a "social construct".

Are we truly going to see no substantive difference between peer reviewed advances in chemistry & physics, and the nature of religious ideas which (even if they are ultimately quite true) cannot be similarly demonstrated to be true.

The peer reviewed scintific evidence can be repeated socially. That is the only difference. We can all test the fact that water boils at 212 degress, but religious truths are subjective truths. Only we can know which religious truths work for us individually to bring us closer to the divine.

Only I can know that I am hungry or that the spirit has told me something, but anyone can know that water boils at 212 degrees. Both may be true, but how we "justify" them as true is completely different One fact is subjectively known and the other is objectively known- that is the only difference.

I have always thought that there is a difference in quality and logic between claims that the Resurrection of Jesus can be "proved" true, and the nature of what might be "proved" by an archeological excavation report. And, for the sake of argument, most people consider this to be obvious.

Well I am not so sure about that. There are still plenty of people who actually think the truth of the gospel hangs on finding Zarahemla. That is why this forum exists, it seems.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................

At a certain point I think we give up worrying about "absolute knowledge"- whatever that could even mean- and stop worrying about certainty with it. Even in the "hard sciences" there is no such thing as "certainty"- perhaps we get closer and closer measurements which sometimes force us to revise our paradigms, as happened, say in the Copernican revolution. As observations increased in detail, the old Ptolemaic model of the solar system just could not handle the new data and had to be abandoned.

I think the trick is to give up worrying about the illusion of "certainty" and simply go with "what works for now" since that is about the best we will ever have anyway. New paradigms are always hard to accept and as an "old dog" myself, had I not been intellectually "raised" in this way of thinking for the last 40 years it would be hard for me to accept it now I am sure. But now I can see it no other way. It is so perfectly obvious to me that I cannot see it in any other way any more and cannot understand why others do not instantly adopt this other paradigm.

............................................

As I see it, to make a long story short, what we know is either 1) subjective and probably socially constructed or 2) inter-subjective and definitely socially constructed. But I think we cover all the bases within those two ways of seeing the issue.

..............................................

So the way I see it, for each of us, all knowledge starts our being "subjective" because it is US- The person we refer to as the subject of a sentence starting with "I" who learns it from others. Each of us individually learned our multiplication tables, which are a social construct, but after we did so, we can convey that to others using the symbols of language in words or numbers- using other social constructs.

............................................

The peer reviewed scientific evidence can be repeated socially. That is the only difference. We can all test the fact that water boils at 212 degress, but religious truths are subjective truths. Only we can know which religious truths work for us individually to bring us closer to the divine.

Only I can know that I am hungry or that the spirit has told me something, but anyone can know that water boils at 212 degrees. Both may be true, but how we "justify" them as true is completely different One fact is subjectively known and the other is objectively known- that is the only difference.

.........................................

So, if scientific evidence can be replicated by anyone with the necessary lab equipment, we call that "objective" (for convenience sake)? Or perhaps intersubjective, since they can be repeated socially.

I mentioned an archeological excavation report. and wonder whether you would agree that, taken together with many other reports and adequate discussion and time to correlate them in acceptable ways, the conclusions reached through intersubjective consensus by the archeological community might be considered "objectively true." At least for the nonce. Until more evidence is forthcoming and a new socially acceptable theoretical construct is adopted. Better, science is a process with shifts and turns which only calculus could chart.

At the same time you state (I think rightly) that religious truths are subjective, even if an entire congregation experiences a profound religious event as a body. This is true because replication and scientific measurement of that event would doubtless be impossible.

That leaves us with two sources for determining the truth of religious or theological claims: (1) tests of the logical coherence of such claims, (a) internally as a system, and (b) externally as a competing explanation of intersubjective reality; and (2) extrapolation from intersubjective reality in direct support of or parallel to the aforesaid religious or theological claims. I think that Mormonism shines in both parts of #1, and, in part #2, in a wide variety of ways, I consider the method of extrapolating from what is a matter of consensus to be a sound way of buttressing religious claims -- at least when considering the tremendous number of insights which can be marshaled to demonstrate the principle of the preponderance of evidence as a matter of Bayesian probability --which, by the way, only works for weird Mormon claims, since the Bible and Mahabharata were each transmitted the same way the Iliad & Odessey were transmitted (by purely human means).

Edited July 25, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

So, if scientific evidence can be replicated by anyone with the necessary lab equipment, we call that "objective" (for convenience sake)? Or perhaps intersubjective, since they can be repeated socially.

YES!

I mentioned an archeological excavation report. and wonder whether you would agree that, taken together with many other reports and adequate discussion and time to correlate them in acceptable ways, the conclusions reached through intersubjective consensus by the archeological community might be considered "objectively true." At least for the nonce. Until more evidence is forthcoming and a new socially acceptable theoretical construct is adopted. Better, science is a process with shifts and turns which only calculus could chart.

Absolutely.

At the same time you state (I think rightly) that religious truths are subjective, even if an entire congregation experiences a profound religious event as a body. This is true because replication and scientific measurement of that event would doubtless be impossible.

Yes- but certainly for those in attendance, the experience would be inter-subjective, and perhaps "objective". If I see a pink elephant walk through the room and we are the only two in the room, the natural reaction for me would be to turn to you and say "Did you see that?"

If you confirmed you saw it as well, we would have a lot to talk about. I tend to call such experiences "inter-subjective" whereas the boiling point of water would be "objective" because the experience of testing that is something anyone anywhere can do. Making another pink elephant appear is not in that category. So I would call your example of a profound religious event "inter-subjective".

That leaves us with two sources for determining the truth of religious or theological claims: (1) tests of the logical coherence of such claims, (a) internally as a system, and (b) externally as a competing explanation of intersubjective reality; and (2) extrapolation from intersubjective reality in direct support of or parallel to the aforesaid religious or theological claims. I think that Mormonism shines in both parts of #1, and, in part #2, in a wide variety of ways, I consider the method of extrapolating from what is a matter of consensus to be a sound way of buttressing religious claims -- at least when considering the tremendous number of insights which can be marshaled to demonstrate the principle of the preponderance of evidence as a matter of Bayesian probability --which, by the way, only works for weird Mormon claims, since the Bible and Mahabharata were each transmitted the same way the Iliad & Odessey were transmitted (by purely human means).

Yes, but I would add a third, and that would be the one William James and the Pragmatists explored, (including Rorty) which coheres perfectly with Alma 32, the idea that if the idea or experience brings you peace and joy, and "works" for you, then one is justified in using the term "true" as well to describe the experience.

At some point, I would argue, that when you have 15 million people confirming a testimony experience, anyone who is truly fair and objective might conclude that indeed "something is happening here that needs investigation"

[mfbukowski]

Here is a brilliant summary of the point:

[Robert F. Smith]

Here is a brilliant summary of the point: [media=]

Yeh, brilliant, for sure. Thanks. I like Rorty, and here are a couple of quotes from this lecture:

“Acquiring or losing belief in God is more like falling into or out of love than like winning or losing an argument.” (that one is for John Dehlin)

“The question of whether there is evidence for a belief is the question of whether there exists a certain human community which takes certain relatively non-controversial propositions as providing good reason for that belief. Where there is such a community, a community to which we want to belong, or to continue to belong, we have an obligation to our fellow human beings not to believe a proposition unless we can give some good reasons for doing so: Reasons of the sort that the relevant community takes to be good ones. Where there is no such community, we don’t. Nobody knows what would count as non-question-begging evidence for the claims of the Catholic or Mormon Church to be

the one true church

. But that does not, and should not matter to the Catholic or Mormon communities. Biologists, on the other hand, know quite well what counts as evidence for Darwinism or Creationism.”

[mfbukowski]

Yeh, brilliant, for sure. Thanks. I like Rorty, and here are a couple of quotes from this lecture:

“Acquiring or losing belief in God is more like falling into or out of love than like winning or losing an argument.” (that one is for John Dehlin)

“The question of whether there is evidence for a belief is the question of whether there exists a certain human community which takes certain relatively non-controversial propositions as providing good reason for that belief. Where there is such a community, a community to which we want to belong, or to continue to belong, we have an obligation to our fellow human beings not to believe a proposition unless we can give some good reasons for doing so: Reasons of the sort that the relevant community takes to be good ones. Where there is no such community, we don’t. Nobody knows what would count as non-question-begging evidence for the claims of the Catholic or Mormon Church to be

the one true church

. But that does not, and should not matter to the Catholic or Mormon communities. Biologists, on the other hand, know quite well what counts as evidence for Darwinism or Creationism.”

Thanks for the quotes- great selections.

So as far as the OP is concerned, I consider the case closed. "Proof" in this context has been shown.