Conflicting Truth Claims

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Then I must ask the follow up question--do you believe God would confirm by the Spirit the truth of any religion other than yours?

No.  Joseph Smith taught there are three spirits - the spirit of God, the spirit of man, and the spirit of the devil.

I think most spiritual "confirmations" are the spirit of man.

[consiglieri]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No.  Joseph Smith taught there are three spirits - the spirit of God, the spirit of man, and the spirit of the devil.

I think most spiritual "confirmations" are the spirit of man.

The question then becomes whether you think Church leaders are immune from the second two types of "confirmation."

Obviously Joseph Smith wasn't.

Have things gotten better since?

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Zakuska said:

This is demonstrably false.

Truth is all a matter of perspective.

It is "true" this cylinder in a circle under one perspective.

It is "true" this cylinder in a square under one perspective.

But the Gobal truth is its a cylinder.

It is global truth I am talking about. The other two are not really truths, but true perspectives.

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Thank you for giving such good examples, Rain.

Five years ago, I would have agreed with you.

Now I find myself disagreeing.

I think one of the fundamental problems of religious thought is this either/or dichotomy--either one thing is true or it is not true.

I have come to believe it is not so much "either/or" as it is "both/and."

I believe everything you say in your post can be true, even those things that are mutually exclusive.

I believe both that Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life and that he is not.

I believe baptism is both required and it is not required. (See D&C 137)

I believe both that we are reincarnated and that we are not.

Both sides can be true.

At least for me.

I honestly can't see how both sides can be true. 

[consiglieri]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

It is global truth I am talking about. The other two are not really truths, but true perspectives.

I honestly can't see how both sides can be true. 

That's okay.

Maybe I am all wet, Rain.

But I sometimes think about how truth can change over time just during the course of my own life.

What I believed was true one year after I joined the Church is very different from what I believe to be true 37-years later.

I have come to the point where I don't think that some sort of absolute and concrete metaphysical "Truth" exists out there and I am either closer to it or further from it depending on how close my belief approximates that "Truth."

Rather, I think the truth I believe then has led to the truth I believe now.  And the truth I believe now will lead to the truth I will believe tomorrow.

It is very much a matter of perspective, but I am not talking about perspective equating to truth, but rather different perspectives revealing more truth to us.

I like the example of the cylinder given above.

It reminds me of Thoreau in Walden, when he described a walker in the woods viewing a mountain from a certain angle, but the mountain continues to change as the walker continues to walk, thereby revealing to the walker a different view of the mountain, and a new view with every step.

(Okay, Thoreau said it better, but that is the basic gist of the idea.)

But it is still more than that, because the mountain is a quantifiable mass if one could look at it from all directions at once.

This is more like the idea of something changing simply because we are viewing it.

The mere act of viewing something, I understand, may change the object being viewed.

I think maybe beliefs are similar.

At any rate, it is a good model for me which helps me to not look down or discount the religious experiences of others.

[TOmNossor]

Mark,

I thought you would remember some of that.

I think I will jump in to your relativist comments a little.

The radical relativism that says or seems to say that there is no object reality, only perceptions.  No truth only what seems best.  I am not certain if you are applying such a thing, but at present I subscribe to the dogmatism, “relativism is baaaaaad!”  At least that “radical relativism” as I called it.

 

I am surely many hours and many years behind you in my exploration of philosophical thought.  A 10000ft summary that has stuck in my head (for right or wrong) is that post-Descartes, philosophers expressed the difficulty of the observer and the observed.  How do we know what we see is what is there and not almost totally a product of the lens we use to observe.  In response to reading Ostler, I became a fan of Whitehead.  I have read Process and Reality and another wonderful book by a Catholic priest, Father Hosinski.  Again at 10000ft and in my simple way I have seen in Whitehead a response to the object/observer problem that I find more satisfactory than the “radical relativism” I see (again 10000ft and simple) in some philosophers.

 

Some of the difficulties of language are important to note, but we can get through many of these.  Some difficulties associated with the inability to distinguish what is my lens and what is the object I observer are important to note too, but we are better off if we get through these too.  Whitehead offers a way through IMO.

 

I hope the above makes a tiny bit of sense.

 

I am presently reading the free book Catholic Answers sent me, “The Apostasy that Wasn’t.”  Very simple and easy to get through.  When I am feeling like more of a challenge, I am reading about the Copenhagen Interpretation vs. Many Worlds and lots of other non-religious junk.  I say this because I am creating an excuse as to why I do not think I will dive into Wittgenstein (or Whitehead) soon.  Thus, I will have to cede the educated ground rapidly here!!!

 

Good to talk with you again!!!

Charity, TOm

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

But I sometimes think about how truth can change over time just during the course of my own life.

What I believed was true one year after I joined the Church is very different from what I believe to be true 37-years later.

I have come to the point where I don't think that some sort of absolute and concrete metaphysical "Truth" exists out there and I am either closer to it or further from it depending on how close my belief approximates that "Truth."

Rather, I think the truth I believe then has led to the truth I believe now.  And the truth I believe now will lead to the truth I will believe tomorrow.

It is very much a matter of perspective, but I am not talking about perspective equating to truth, but rather different perspectives revealing more truth to us.

I like the example of the cylinder given above.

It reminds me of Thoreau in Walden, when he described a walker in the woods viewing a mountain from a certain angle, but the mountain continues to change as the walker continues to walk, thereby revealing to the walker a different view of the mountain, and a new view with every step.

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

Sounds a bit like the various sequential truths in science:  Newtonian truth, Einsteinian truth, Quantum truth, etc.  Each successively moves further along the scientific "truth" spectrum toward absolute truth, but never quite reaches it.  As our perspective takes in more aspects or nuances, it develops in unexpected ways to reveal more truth.  

However, I think that our discussion of the religious sphere of truth may get short-shrift when set over against science and logic.  This thread soft-pedals religious inspiration and revelation in ways that may only reflect the abilities of a neophyte.  The inspiration and testimonies of the Brethren have even come into question.

It may be well to reflect on the detailed guidance given by the late Apostle Richard G. Scott.  In a couple of particularly powerful conference addresses, he provided a step-by-step tutorial on how one may receive detailed and concrete inspiration and revelation, which turns out to be far more than a mere feeling.  See his “To Acquire Spiritual Guidance,” LDS General Conference, Oct 2009, published in Ensign, 39/11 (Nov 2009), online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng ; and his "How to Obtain Revelation and Inspiration for Your Personal Life," 182nd LDS General Conference, April 2012, published in Ensign, 42/5 (May 2012):45-47. online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/how-to-obtain-revelation-and-inspiration-for-your-personal-life?lang=eng&query=scott,+(name%3a"Richard+G.+Scott") .  His words are quiet, but his personal message extraordinary.  He brings new material to the debate on epistemology through detailed personal example.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The question then becomes whether you think Church leaders are immune from the second two types of "confirmation."

Obviously Joseph Smith wasn't.

Have things gotten better since?

No.  They aren't.  They are also sometimes subject to the law of the Church (common consent) as much as the law of God.

Just because God allows them to make a certain decision doesn't always mean it's what God wants them to do.  God often allows mistakes to be made.

[The Nehor]

My truth claim can beat up your truth claim.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/15/2015 at 4:30 PM, consiglieri said:

.The mere act of viewing something, I understand, may change the object being viewed.

Think about it.

It CREATES what is viewed.  The "view" is in your mind/brain/perspective, not "out there"

Something is out there but it's not what our brain makes.  How could we check what is in our brain vs what is outside our brain?  How do we get outside to see what that something  is like without our brain?

Edited December 16, 2015 by mfbukowski