Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 38 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said: Just as this is a very common claim by affiliated people about the unaffiliated. And so it goes, you're a mindless, gullible, deluded believer/you're a selfish, immoral, self-centered slouch. The stereotypes sometimes control how people who are outwardly different are treated. A police officer, for example, may pull you over only because you are from a racial minority ("driving while black"). Whether affiliated or not. I treat you the same, remaining civil and restrained. Even when I have been victimized by those who have made such false assumptions. Too bad that our society is rapidly losing that sense of propriety and mutual respect.
rockpond Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: If the teachings and doctrines of the LDS scriptures are true, then these people ARE leaving the Church because they lack a revelatory knowledge of the truth of the LDS faith. Those who are leaving may be perfectly capable of reciting most of the teachings of the Church In a wrote fashion, but that is not the kind of saving knowledge the scriptures talk about. Saving Gospel knowledge is a combination of intellectually knowing the teachings of the Church coupled with present, living revelation from the Holy Ghost that the teachings are actually true, alive and spiritually powerful. A mere intellectual recitation of a particular doctrine can be classified among what Paul called dead works; while a recitation of Gospel truth, coupled with the witness and power of the Holy Ghost, is a living work of the Spirit. You are drawing a distinction between gospel truth and what we teach week-to-week, year-to-year in the LDS Church. They aren't always the same thing. And therein lies the problem. We need to stop pointing blame at active, faithful individuals who leave because there are problems with the doctrine and dogma that they were taught in the church. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Sigh... Your judgments are tiresome. Is it impossible to think that good people can understand a religion yet not agree with it or believe in it? There are indeed some people who understand Mormonism and who do not agree with it. What I have said is that the vast majority of those leaving for so-called doctrinal or dogmatic reasons typically do not understand what they are saying. And it is only difficult to say that for those who actually do not understand the faith. I meet that level of ignorance frequently on this board. The Roman Governor Pliny the Younger, for example, certainly was a brilliant man. However, his writings on early Christians evince a fundamental lack of understanding of the new religion. He executed plenty of them and commented on them (he is an excellent historical source), but he really missed the point. He found the early Christians tiresome and dogged in their beliefs. I always recommend that one at least understand the nature of what he is rejecting for intellectual reasons.
Gray Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: There are indeed some people who understand Mormonism and who do not agree with it. What I have said is that the vast majority of those leaving for so-called doctrinal or dogmatic reasons typically do not understand what they are saying. And it is only difficult to say that for those who actually do not understand the faith. I meet that level of ignorance frequently on this board. The Roman Governor Pliny the Younger, for example, certainly was a brilliant man. However, his writings on early Christians evince a fundamental lack of understanding of the new religion. He executed plenty of them and commented on them (he is an excellent historical source), but he really missed the point. He found the early Christians tiresome and dogged in their beliefs. I always recommend that one at least understand the nature of what he is rejecting for intellectual reasons. The same is true, and probably to a greater extent, of those who join the faith. Quite often they know very little about it when they join. Of course, if you ask a dozen members what the nature of Mormonism is, you might get half a dozen different answers - even if you were to include senior church leaders in your survey. 2
rockpond Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 38 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The average person (whatever his religious background) may be a "faithful" member of any religious group without actually knowing very much about that religion. That may be "ridiculous" in your eyes, but it is a fact, and can be readily verified by asking such a person key questions -- just the way Jay Leno used to ask intelligent people on the street serious questions ("Jay Walking"), and receiving seriously flawed answers, among which were some real howlers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJlY9C7YWzI . Certainly people who leave for social reasons are very much justified. Their personal feelings are their rationale, and they are experts on their own feelings and needs. I do not question their reasons for leaving, and that will always constitute the vast majority of those leaving. I specifically referred to those claiming to leave for doctrinal or dogmatic reasons as typically being flawed in their appraisals of the Mormon religion. I base that on my experience here on this board and in many other venues, when hearing or reading the reasons for people leaving. I agree with Ash as to their typically flawed understanding of the Mormon faith. You might want to quote what they have actually said about how LDS history has been taught by the Church. I too have been critical of some of the ways this has been done, but maybe not in the ways in which you imagine. We have had many long discussions of this question on this board, and we have frequently disagreed as to the true nature of Mormon history and whether it has been effectively taught in official manuals. I am not going to bother to provide the quotes. You are familiar with them and will either put them in the context that works for your and your POV or you will dismiss them. The fact that you would relate this very serious and painful issue to Jay Leno's comedy bit tells me what I need to know. I agree with HJW, your judgments are tiresome. And, in the end, your attitude isn't helpful to moving the ball forward.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: There are indeed some people who understand Mormonism and who do not agree with it. 1- What I have said is that the vast majority of those leaving for so-called doctrinal or dogmatic reasons typically do not understand what they are saying. And it is only difficult to say that for those who actually do not understand the faith. I meet that level of ignorance frequently on this board. The Roman Governor Pliny the Younger, for example, certainly was a brilliant man. However, his writings on early Christians evince a fundamental lack of understanding of the new religion. He executed plenty of them and commented on them (he is an excellent historical source), but he really missed the point. He found the early Christians tiresome and dogged in their beliefs. 2- I always recommend that one at least understand the nature of what he is rejecting for intellectual reasons. 1- My experience is very different. Most of the people I come across at church who are most "in" have no clue about some of the troubling doctrines, practices and history. Obviously there are also many people who are "in" who understand these things very well. Information does not speak for itself. People interpret the information they receive in different ways. They weight the import of different items in different ways. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand. It is quite condescending to think that everyone else must agree with you because if they don't, they just don't understand as well as you. 2- I agree that people should really understand what they are accepting or rejecting for intellectual reasons. It troubles me when someone reads one troubling detail and is "out". But I think that is more rare. The people who are leaving the church today often have a very good understanding of the doctrine and history of the church. Many times their understanding is better than those who stay.
rockpond Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 1- My experience is very different. Most of the people I come across at church who are most "in" have no clue about some of the troubling doctrines, practices and history. Obviously there are also many people who are "in" who understand these things very well. Information does not speak for itself. People interpret the information they receive in different ways. They weight the import of different items in different ways. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand. It is quite condescending to think that everyone else must agree with you because if they don't, they just don't understand as well as you. 2- I agree that people should really understand what they are accepting or rejecting for intellectual reasons. It troubles me when someone reads one troubling detail and is "out". But I think that is more rare. The people who are leaving the church today often have a very good understanding of the doctrine and history of the church. Many times their understanding is better than those who stay. This has been my experience as well. I entered into a faith crisis at a time when I was studying, praying, and teaching more than any other time post-mission. I was serving as an early morning seminary teacher. And though I was feeling the Spirit testify to me on a near daily basis, it didn't prevent me from having to re-construct my faith from the ground up. What I'm left with, that which allows me to stay in the church, isn't accepted as valid by a majority of active church members. While there may be "one true gospel" and one right way to understand it there is no consensus of belief among church members. To pretend that there is, is to ignore the problem. 1
Gray Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: 1- My experience is very different. Most of the people I come across at church who are most "in" have no clue about some of the troubling doctrines, practices and history. Obviously there are also many people who are "in" who understand these things very well. Information does not speak for itself. People interpret the information they receive in different ways. They weight the import of different items in different ways. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand. It is quite condescending to think that everyone else must agree with you because if they don't, they just don't understand as well as you. 2- I agree that people should really understand what they are accepting or rejecting for intellectual reasons. It troubles me when someone reads one troubling detail and is "out". But I think that is more rare. The people who are leaving the church today often have a very good understanding of the doctrine and history of the church. Many times their understanding is better than those who stay. Well, I think that there is a bias due to the internet. We often encounter people online who are out (or in!) for intellectual reasons. But like Robert I suspect that most who leave just sort of float out because church no longer does it for them. I don't think most members of the church (active and inactive) are thinking too deeply about any of this. I think there is also a minority, made up of believing and unbelieving Mormons, that is very concerned with intellectual issues. They tend to congregate in places like this. Just a hunch. Edited January 5, 2017 by Gray 1
rockpond Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 7 minutes ago, Gray said: Well, I think that there is a bias due to the internet. We often encounter people online who are out (or in!) for intellectual reasons. But like Robert I suspect that most who leave just sort of float out because church no longer does it for them. I don't think most members of the church (active and inactive) are thinking too deeply about any of this. I think there is also a minority, made up of believing and unbelieving Mormons, that is very concerned with intellectual issues. They tend to congregate in places like this. Just a hunch. What do you mean by "intellectual reason" or "intellectual issues"?
Gray Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 13 minutes ago, rockpond said: What do you mean by "intellectual reason" or "intellectual issues"? Some examples. On the leave-taker side, people who leave (or have doubts) over: Concerns about Joseph Smith's behavior Concerns about BOM historicity Social justice issues On the staying put side, people who stick with Mormonism because: They find it philosophically rich The are impressed with BOM parallels with antiquity They believe Mormonism is filled with unique goodness not found anywhere else Just a few examples. As opposed to people leaving because going to church makes them depressed, or people staying because they have so many good friends in Sunday School. 1
rockpond Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, Gray said: Some examples. On the leave-taker side, people who leave (or have doubts) over: Concerns about Joseph Smith's behavior Concerns about BOM historicity Social justice issues On the staying put side, people who stick with Mormonism because: They find it philosophically rich The are impressed with BOM parallels with antiquity They believe Mormonism is filled with unique goodness not found anywhere else Just a few examples. As opposed to people leaving because going to church makes them depressed, or people staying because they have so many good friends in Sunday School. I see those as matters of faith: Concerns about Joseph Smith's behavior = What is the role of a prophet? How much do we follow the prophet vs listening to personal revelation (especially when the contradict)? Concerns about BOM historicity = If the book isn't what it claims to be, what does that say about the prophets? Scripture in general... literal or allegorical? Social injustice issues = How does Christ want us to treat others? Do we really believe in D&C 134 / Article of Faith 11? I think it's inappropriate to reduce those (and similar) concerns to "intellectual issues". It's important to realize that people who leave for those reasons may very well be leaving for reasons that are deeply embedded in their faith.
pogi Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Oh gosh I am so tired of this. No one listens. Yes MFB, I am sure you are right, everyone else is the problem. What if I just don't subscribe to the paradigm of relativism which rejects the concept of absolute truth? I get confused when you say that "truth is relative", and in almost the same breath you say "we get to say that there is one truth for all." Those are mutually exclusive ideas to me. How do you reconcile them? Relativism means so many different things to different people, so be clear what you mean by relativism, otherwise you are just confusing as hell. Relativists laugh at the idea of "one truth for all". Quote Relativism. ... The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths... Edited January 5, 2017 by pogi
HappyJackWagon Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 Rockpond and Gray, I think you both make good points. I think that in some ways we've been conditioned to discount intellectualism as if it is completely separate from faith. We'll hear warnings about the pride of the learned or about how someone "thought himself out of the church" etc. But our minds inevitably inform our belief upon which we structure our faith. I hate to see people make knee-jerk reactions and respond in rash ways to new information because I hope that there is an effort to gain perspective on how intellect, spirit, emotion all play a role in religious decisions. People will come to different conclusions and I'm fine with that. I want people to make informed decisions and in my experience, the people I know personally have left after significant study and deliberation. It has not been a decision that has been made lightly. 1
Gray Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, rockpond said: I see those as matters of faith: Concerns about Joseph Smith's behavior = What is the role of a prophet? How much do we follow the prophet vs listening to personal revelation (especially when the contradict)? Concerns about BOM historicity = If the book isn't what it claims to be, what does that say about the prophets? Scripture in general... literal or allegorical? Social injustice issues = How does Christ want us to treat others? Do we really believe in D&C 134 / Article of Faith 11? I think it's inappropriate to reduce those (and similar) concerns to "intellectual issues". It's important to realize that people who leave for those reasons may very well be leaving for reasons that are deeply embedded in their faith. I think they are intellectual issues, meaning these are deeply considered issues that can cause someone to lose or gain faith. They also have emotional impact, of course. I'm not trying to reduce anything. When I say "intellectual issues" to me that's something weighty and important. Edited January 5, 2017 by Gray
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: The same is true, and probably to a greater extent, of those who join the faith. Quite often they know very little about it when they join. Of course, if you ask a dozen members what the nature of Mormonism is, you might get half a dozen different answers - even if you were to include senior church leaders in your survey. Probably. Most people join the faith (Mormonism) based on the witness of the Holy Spirit, and not based on any sort of intellectual appraisal. There are exceptions (Bukowski comes to mind), but even they may end up with a personal testimony. At the same time, most members were simply born into the faith, obtaining a real testimony years later. The lack of an intellectual understanding of the faith is common for several reasons: Most people don't have any understanding of theology, philosophy, or the history of religions. Thus, they have no intellectual template with which to compare the various ways of understanding religion. Many religions have formal, professional seminaries which require mastery of languages, history, liturgy, and theology, before allowing ordination into the clergy. All of that provides some sort of minimal context for understanding the religion of which one is a part. Mormons don't generally concern themselves with such learning. 1
bcuzbcuz Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: I suspect that most who leave just sort of float out because church no longer does it for them. "No longer does it for them?" What does that even mean? As an inactive, former member, that concept of lazily "floating out" from the church, is amusing and insulting. Maybe it's a concept that "floats your boat" to think those who are no longer enthralled with or devoted to Mormonism were merely part-time hangers-on with a rather weak faith that over time dissolved, but that definition certainly does not pertain to me nor my now deceased wife. On the other hand, I never had ANY interest, what-so-ever, of finding or contacting other like-minded individuals who had either left the church or were contemplating such a move. It really wasn't until last year, after more than 30 years of inactivity, when asked directly, that I declared, in detail, why I no longer viewed Mormonism as a path to salvation. The reason I stated was exactly the same reason that my wife and I had come to, with that momentous decision back in 1975. It wasn't until the internet developed sites like this that I realised we were not alone in our striving to find purpose and meaning in our existence beyond the confines of Mormonism.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 3 hours ago, rockpond said: I am not going to bother to provide the quotes. You are familiar with them and will either put them in the context that works for your and your POV or you will dismiss them. You said " The Brethren have begun publicly acknowledging that the narrative taught to members was not always accurate or sufficient" Just not sure that this is an accurate characterization of what they said. It is always helpful to actually quote them rather than just assuming that your summary is fair. 3 hours ago, rockpond said: The fact that you would relate this very serious and painful issue to Jay Leno's comedy bit tells me what I need to know. I agree with HJW, your judgments are tiresome. And, in the end, your attitude isn't helpful to moving the ball forward. Depends, I suppose, on what sort of game you are playing. To me this is not a game. Jay Leno did not guffaw and make fun of anyone. Instead he simply asked questions which each person should have been able to answer. That they could not should be an embarrassment to those claiming that they have such deep understanding. They usually do not. You simply missed the point. "Moving the ball forward" would presumably mean congratulating people despite their ignorance. That is one of the notions behind social grading in school. 1
Gray Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Probably. Most people join the faith (Mormonism) based on the witness of the Holy Spirit, and not based on any sort of intellectual appraisal. There are exceptions (Bukowski comes to mind), but even they may end up with a personal testimony. At the same time, most members were simply born into the faith, obtaining a real testimony years later. The lack of an intellectual understanding of the faith is common for several reasons: Most people don't have any understanding of theology, philosophy, or the history of religions. Thus, they have no intellectual template with which to compare the various ways of understanding religion. Many religions have formal, professional seminaries which require mastery of languages, history, liturgy, and theology, before allowing ordination into the clergy. All of that provides some sort of minimal context for understanding the religion of which one is a part. Mormons don't generally concern themselves with such learning. I think the same holds true, perhaps to a greater extent, in Christianity at large. Even though professional ministers are often well informed and well educated in these matters (especially Catholic and mainline protestant), none of that is passed down to the congregation. At least that's the impression I've gotten from trying to have conversations with Catholics and protestants online (admittedly a poor sample). 1
Gray Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: "No longer does it for them?" What does that even mean? As an inactive, former member, that concept of lazily "floating out" from the church, is amusing and insulting. Maybe it's a concept that "floats your boat" to think those who are no longer enthralled with or devoted to Mormonism were merely part-time hangers-on with a rather weak faith that over time dissolved, but that definition certainly does not pertain to me nor my now deceased wife. On the other hand, I never had ANY interest, what-so-ever, of finding or contacting other like-minded individuals who had either left the church or were contemplating such a move. It really wasn't until last year, after more than 30 years of inactivity, when asked directly, that I declared, in detail, why I no longer viewed Mormonism as a path to salvation. The reason I stated was exactly the same reason that my wife and I had come to, with that momentous decision back in 1975. It wasn't until the internet developed sites like this that I realised we were not alone in our striving to find purpose and meaning in our existence beyond the confines of Mormonism. Like I said, people like you or like Robert (people who seriously consider these issues) are most likely to be found discussing these matters on the internet. I do think that many people float out of the church. They also float into the church. That is not to say they are lazy, that is just to say that most people don't seriously consider the kinds of issues discussed here. Edited January 5, 2017 by Gray 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: 1- My experience is very different. Most of the people I come across at church who are most "in" have no clue about some of the troubling doctrines, practices and history. Obviously there are also many people who are "in" who understand these things very well. Information does not speak for itself. People interpret the information they receive in different ways. They weight the import of different items in different ways. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand. It is quite condescending to think that everyone else must agree with you because if they don't, they just don't understand as well as you. You just agreed with me, despite saying that your experience was "very different." You said "Most of the people I come across at church who are most "in" have no clue about some of the troubling doctrines, practices and history." And when they leave, they leave just as ignorant. I don't give your suggestion that there is an "in" crowd in Church serious belief -- I don't see it. People who have an actual understanding of Mormonism are as rare as hen's teeth. Most Mormons are practicing Mormons. That is, they believe in the basics without reflecting on them because they have a testimony. They do not have an intellectual understanding of the religion. If they leave they take that same ignorance with them, but now without a testimony. The level of theological, historical, and religious ignorance among Mormons is an objective fact. It has nothing to do with whether they agree with me or not. Indeed, when I was young and shared that same level of ignorance, I was simply unaware of what I didn't know, and I made a lot of false assumptions on that basis. On the other hand, God does not expect any degree of sophistication in such matters. They are simply not essential to an acceptance of the Gospel, nor of continuing to live it. Mormonism is praxis, not systematic theology. One need only have a testimony by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the living of the religion which most impresses God, and that is what the Brethren teach. 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: 2- I agree that people should really understand what they are accepting or rejecting for intellectual reasons. It troubles me when someone reads one troubling detail and is "out". But I think that is more rare. The people who are leaving the church today often have a very good understanding of the doctrine and history of the church. Many times their understanding is better than those who stay. I simply do not see those leaving the Church demonstrating (in their books, articles, or blog comments) any sort of "good understanding of the doctrine and history of the" LDS Church. Nor do they have a good general understanding of religion in general, or of the Bible specifically. That leaves them without adequate context. Hard to make good judgments without context. 3
rockpond Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: I think they are intellectual issues, meaning these are deeply considered issues that can cause someone to lose or gain faith. They also have emotional impact, of course. I'm not trying to reduce anything. When I say "intellectual issues" to me that's something weighty and important. Fair enough. It just concerns me when some people (not you or necessarily anyone in this conversation) consider intellectual issues and faith issues as somehow mutually exclusive. There is, obviously, considerable overlap. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, Gray said: I think the same holds true, perhaps to a greater extent, in Christianity at large. Even though professional ministers are often well informed and well educated in these matters (especially Catholic and mainline protestant), none of that is passed down to the congregation. At least that's the impression I've gotten from trying to have conversations with Catholics and protestants online (admittedly a poor sample). Very true. What is surprising is that Mormons do better than mainstream Christians on tests of knowledge of the Bible, for example. 2
rockpond Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You said " The Brethren have begun publicly acknowledging that the narrative taught to members was not always accurate or sufficient" Just not sure that this is an accurate characterization of what they said. It is always helpful to actually quote them rather than just assuming that your summary is fair. Depends, I suppose, on what sort of game you are playing. To me this is not a game. Jay Leno did not guffaw and make fun of anyone. Instead he simply asked questions which each person should have been able to answer. That they could not should be an embarrassment to those claiming that they have such deep understanding. They usually do not. You simply missed the point. "Moving the ball forward" would presumably mean congratulating people despite their ignorance. That is one of the notions behind social grading in school. Not playing a game here either. Then again, I didn't use a comedy bit as a comparison. Leno most certainly did "guffaw" and make fun of people. That was the point. And I imagine that there was considerable editing going on to make the sketch as funny as possible. When I spoke of moving the ball forward, I refer to improving how we as a church respond to questions and challenges to faith. Consider Elder Ballard's address last February to CES instructors wherein he acknowledges the need to "inoculate" the younger generation, challenges them to provide accurate context and understanding of the restoration, encourages transparency, and warns against "overclaiming". "Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, “Don’t worry about it!” Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church."
rockpond Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I simply do not see those leaving the Church demonstrating (in their books, articles, or blog comments) any sort of "good understanding of the doctrine and history of the" LDS Church. Nor do they have a good general understanding of religion in general, or of the Bible specifically. That leaves them without adequate context. Hard to make good judgments without context. If this were true (I'm not agreeing that it is, universally)... Who do we look to when a person who was raised in the church, graduated from seminary, graduated from BYU, served an honorable mission, attends church nearly every week, does personal scripture study, has held callings and served in leadership positions for decades decides to leave the church for doctrinal issues? Does the institution hold any of the blame for failing to properly teach what you claim is the correct contextual understanding of the gospel? Or is it just that person's fault for failing to "get it" after devoting their entire life to the church? 1
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, pogi said: Yes MFB, I am sure you are right, everyone else is the problem. What if I just don't subscribe to the paradigm of relativism which rejects the concept of absolute truth? I get confused when you say that "truth is relative", and in almost the same breath you say "we get to say that there is one truth for all." Those are mutually exclusive ideas to me. How do you reconcile them? Relativism means so many different things to different people, so be clear what you mean by relativism, otherwise you are just confusing as hell. Relativists laugh at the idea of "one truth for all". Different paradigms. There are things that always work. Murder is always wrong, the race cannot survive with that paradigm that murder is acceptable. The race can survive with the paradigm that there is absolute truth since the very term is ambiguous. Is "Murder is always wrong" an "absolute truth"? I have no clue what absolute truth means- truth is a property of sentences. The race can also survive with the idea that truth is relative- and it has for years. Both are paradigms some accept. Neither can be proven "correct"because the whole notion of proving correct assumes that there IS "correct". As I have said repeatedly, relativists acknolwedge that even relativism is only relatively "correct", if that sentence even is intelligible. But the notion of absolute truth is unintelligible. You cannot even define it yourself. It is not possible, it has been disproven again and again. I will give you yet another article that you will neither read nor understand. I am only doing this for readers who actually CAN understand this article because I know you cannot. If you can refute this article- good luck- but then we will have something to talk about and you will be famous!! You will have revolutionized philosophy! https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ Quote According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’. There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there. The deflationary theory has gone by many different names, including at least the following: the redundancy theory, the disappearance theory, the no-truth theory, the disquotational theory, and the minimalist theory. There is no terminological consensus about how to use these labels: sometimes they are used interchangeably; sometimes they are used to mark distinctions between different versions of the same general view. Here we will use ‘deflationism’, and ‘the deflationary theory of truth’ to denote the general view we want to discuss, and reserve other names for specific versions of that view. So you assert that there is absolute truth, without defining it in a way which has been refuted. Good for you. Someone else asserts that there is no absolute truth. Good for them. If either floats your boat, you are right because neither position can be defined coherently. But of course you will do neither because you will not understand the article nor will you read it. That is not my fault- I have done all I can.
Recommended Posts