Jeanne Posted January 29, 2020 Posted January 29, 2020 On 1/28/2020 at 12:19 PM, Boanerges said: I have actually never heard faith defined that way - as something we're sure of. Just saying. I agree. Faith is not being sure.
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) Oops, error Edited January 30, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) Certainty and doubt about anything are "merely" psychological states. How could they be anything else? How does one escape having psychological States? How do you keep such states out of your mind? You don't and shouldn't. Edited January 30, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
Ahab Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Certainty and doubt about anything are "merely" psychological states. How could they be anything else? How does one escape having psychological States? How do you keep such states out of your mind? You don't and shouldn't. You stay out of one state by going into another state. Can you feel certain about something and doubtful about the very same thing at the very same time? No of course you can't. So just get that idea out of your mind. You can and should. You're welcome.
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 2 hours ago, Ahab said: You stay out of one state by going into another state. Can you feel certain about something and doubtful about the very same thing at the very same time? No of course you can't. So just get that idea out of your mind. You can and should. You're welcome. You did not understand my post. As I said and you admitted: Quote How does one escape having psychological States? How do you keep such states out of your mind? You don't and shouldn't. You admitted it right here: Quote You stay out of one state by going into another state. Exactly. You cannot keep psychological states "out of your mind" My point was about epistemology. We cannot know anything that is not a psychological state- knowing something is not about what is "true" or about a state of the world outside our minds, it is always a statement about our psychological state. That doesn't mean that we won't be wrong or that what we believe is not justifiable and therefore cannot be called "true"- it will still have been a state of mind. And a state of mind is not "erroneous" either- whether or not it results in justifiable and true conclusions, it is still a mental state. See the Rorty quote below. You're welcome.
Boanerges Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 13 hours ago, Ahab said: You stay out of one state by going into another state. Can you feel certain about something and doubtful about the very same thing at the very same time? No of course you can't. So just get that idea out of your mind. You can and should. You're welcome. No, but I can believe something and have questions or doubts about it at the same time. As far as I can tell, my Savior asked nothing more than belief in Him (or His name). 1
Calm Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Boanerges said: No, but I can believe something and have questions or doubts about it at the same time. As far as I can tell, my Savior asked nothing more than belief in Him (or His name). And enough trust and love to act on that belief to seek him even with doubts. An active belief rather than a passive one. The devils believe, after all...whatever that means. Their belief leads to fear for them. So a purifying belief seems appropriately to lead to greater love and trust in God. https://biblehub.com/greek/4103.htm Quote 1. trusty, faithful; of persons who show themselves faithful in the transaction of business, the execution of commands, or the discharge of official duties: δοῦλος, Matthew 24:45; Matthew 25:21, 23; οἰκονόμος, Luke 12:42; 1 Corinthians 4:2; διάκονος, Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 1:7; Colossians 4:7; ἀρχιερεύς, Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 3:2; of God, abiding by his promises, 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:24; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; Hebrews 10:23; Hebrews 11:11; 2 Timothy 2:13; 1 John 1:9; 1 Peter 4:19; add, 1 Corinthians 4:17; Colossians 4:9; 1 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 5:12; πιστός ἐν τίνι, in a thing, Luke 16:10-12; Luke 19:17; 1 Timothy 3:11; ἐπί τί, Matthew 25:23; ἄχρι θανάτου, Revelation 2:10. one who kept his plighted faith, Revelation 2:13; worthy of trust; that can, be relied on: 1 Corinthians 7:25; 2 Timothy 2:2: Christ is called μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, Revelation 1:5; with καίἀληθινός, added, Revelation 3:14; (cf. Revelation 19:11). of things, that can be relied on: ὁ λόγος, 1 Timothy 3:1; 2 Timothy 2:11; Titus 1:9; (Titus 3:8; οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι, Revelation 21:5; Revelation 22:6); with πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος added, 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 4:9; τά ὅσια Δαυις τά πιστά (see ὅσιος, at the end), Acts 13:34. 2. easily persuaded; believing, confiding, trusting(Theognis, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Plato, others); in the N. T. one who trusts in God's promises, Galatians 3:9; is convinced that Jesus has been raised from the dead, opposed to ἄπιστος, John 20:27; one who has become convinced that Jesus is the Messiah and the author of salvation (opposed to ἄπιστος, see πιστεύω, 1 b. γ. and πίστις, 1 b.) (a believer😞Acts 16:1; 2 Corinthians 6:15; 1 Timothy 5:16; with the addition of τῷ κυρίῳ, dative of the person in whom faith or trust is reposed, Acts 16:15; plural in Colossians 1:2 (where cf. Lightfoot); 1 Timothy 4:10; 1 Timothy 6:2; Titus 1:6; Revelation 17:14; οἱ πιστοί, substantively (see Lightfoot on Galatians, p. 157), Acts 10:45; 1 Timothy 4:3, 12; with ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ added (cf. Buttmann, 174 (152)), Ephesians 1:1; εἰς Θεόν κτλ. 1 Peter 1:21 L T Tr text WH; πιστόνποιεῖν τί, to do something harmonizing with (Christian) faith (R. V. a faithful work), 3 John 1:5. Edited January 30, 2020 by Calm 1
Ahab Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 14 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You did not understand my post. As I said and you admitted: You admitted it right here: Exactly. You cannot keep psychological states "out of your mind" My point was about epistemology. We cannot know anything that is not a psychological state- knowing something is not about what is "true" or about a state of the world outside our minds, it is always a statement about our psychological state. That doesn't mean that we won't be wrong or that what we believe is not justifiable and therefore cannot be called "true"- it will still have been a state of mind. And a state of mind is not "erroneous" either- whether or not it results in justifiable and true conclusions, it is still a mental state. See the Rorty quote below. You're welcome. Okay. I see your point now and agree. It would have more clear to me sooner if you had simply added the word "all" to your statement so that you had said: You cannot keep ALL psychological states "out of your mind". You can keep one out at a time, though, as I was saying. And by the way I have had a few moments in my life when it felt like I did not have any psychological states going on in my mind, like when I have been stunned or absolutely flabbergasted by something. Kind of like a computer locking up. There was something going on inside of me though otherwise I would have been "gone" or "totally out of it", as we sometimes call that when that happens. But anyway I think I see your point now. When I say I know something I am saying "I" know it as well as saying what it is that I "know".
Ahab Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Boanerges said: No, but I can believe something and have questions or doubts about it at the same time. As far as I can tell, my Savior asked nothing more than belief in Him (or His name). Yes, but that would not be what I would call the same thing. When you believe something you beiieve "it" even if you have questions "about" it. Other issues that pertain to it that you don't quite understand or know what to believe "about" it. Like how I believe the planet we are on is floating around somewhere in space and how that has something to do with gravity, but I don't know all about everything to do with that. I still have questions "about" that, and yet I still believe what I said I believe. So when we believe something, and when we are sure about something, we are sure on that point and have no doubts on that point even though we may have doubts and questions that are somehow connected to that specific point. That's all I was saying. Edited January 30, 2020 by Ahab
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Ahab said: Okay. I see your point now and agree. It would have more clear to me sooner if you had simply added the word "all" to your statement so that you had said: You cannot keep ALL psychological states "out of your mind". You can keep one out at a time, though, as I was saying. And by the way I have had a few moments in my life when it felt like I did not have any psychological states going on in my mind, like when I have been stunned or absolutely flabbergasted by something. Kind of like a computer locking up. There was something going on inside of me though otherwise I would have been "gone" or "totally out of it", as we sometimes call that when that happens. But anyway I think I see your point now. When I say I know something I am saying "I" know it as well as saying what it is that I "know". I think that we confuse truth with knowing. We can know a lot of things which are not true, or justified. People often say " Oh you BELIEVE THAT but you don't KNOW" when knowing is just a state of belief taken all the way to certainty. I think it is perfectly justified to say "I know the church is true" if one simply holds that belief to the point of psychological certainty. In that case one does in fact know. There IS no other standard possible for the word "knowledge", it is a belief which has progressed to the point of certainty. And yet maybe next week, doubt will creep in. It's a constant flux. Edited January 30, 2020 by mfbukowski
Ahab Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: I think that we confuse truth with knowing. We can know a lot of things which are not true, or justified. People often say " Oh you BELIEVE THAT but you don't KNOW" when knowing is just a state of belief taken all the way to certainty. I think it is perfectly justified to say "I know the church is true" if one simply holds that belief to the point of psychological certainty. In that case one does in fact know. There IS no other standard possible for the word "knowledge", it is a belief which has progressed to the point of certainty I agree with your point on what knowledge is but I don't think you are considering the complete statement of someone who is saying they know something. Not only are they saying they "know" or feel certain about what it is they are saying they know, but they are also saying they are certain that what they are saying they know is "true". So not only are they saying something about their level of certainty, but also about what they are certain of. Plus they are also saying "they" know it, or in their words "I" know... whatever. Someone else who hears them say that may not agree and maybe for good reason but they should realize that "testimony" is coming from that other person and doesn't have to agree with their own perspective. They can still feel "certain" about that even if the one hearing them saying that is not certain about that and may in fact be certain themselves that the opposite is true. Just something to keep in mind when other people try to communicate their ideas. They are sharing things from their own perspective, regardless of what those who hear them think or feel about what they are saying.
mfbukowski Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ahab said: Just something to keep in mind when other people try to communicate their ideas. They are sharing things from their own perspective, regardless of what those who hear them think or feel about what they are saying. Which is the only "truth" there is : perceptions upon which a community agrees. We call some of those "science" when the scientific community agrees on them, in their own sphere. Biologists have their community, physicists have theirs, etc. In science the perceptions are always repeatable. Anywhere in the world we will perceive that water boils at 212 Fahrenheit. That is verified by anyone who wants to try the experiment. Religion however has a different subject matter. It is about what is important in life and what is important to the individual. It is about foundational beliefs that work within a community. Science does not deal with what is important and what is not important. It's simply deals with "facts" anyone can observe. But what is important in life varies from person to person. One may find that money is the most important thing in their lives, others may look for Eternal salvation. In my personal definition, whatever you find most important in life becomes your "religion." Our LDS religious community believes certain tenets and so we also exist as a community of knowledge upon which we agree or we would not be LDS. So in many ways our community of belief and Truth is similar to biologists or physicists community of Truth. Within our community we have a psychological state of certainty about certain tenets and doctrines, and that is what forms the community. See section 93 about spheres of Truth. Quote 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. There is no "existence" of things 'unknown". They begin "existence" (to us) when they become known. Do undiscovered species "exist" to us? In what sense? Edited January 30, 2020 by mfbukowski
Ahab Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Which is the only "truth" there is : perceptions upon which a community agrees. We call some of those "science" when the scientific community agrees on them, in their own sphere. Biologists have their community, physicists have theirs, etc. In science the perceptions are always repeatable. Anywhere in the world we will perceive that water boils at 212 Fahrenheit. That is verified by anyone who wants to try the experiment. Religion however has a different subject matter. It is about what is important in life and what is important to the individual. It is about foundational beliefs that work within a community. Science does not deal with what is important and what is not important. It's simply deals with "facts" anyone can observe. But what is important in life varies from person to person. One may find that money is the most important thing in their lives, others may look for Eternal salvation. In my personal definition, whatever you find most important in life becomes your "religion." Our LDS religious community believes certain tenets and so we also exist as a community of knowledge upon which we agree or we would not be LDS. So in many ways our community of belief and Truth is similar to biologists or physicists community of Truth. Within our community we have a psychological state of certainty about certain tenets and doctrines, and that is what forms the community. See section 93 about spheres of Truth. Don't have time to copy and paste right now. There was a time in my past when I would not have agreed with some of what you are saying that I do agree with now. Still some points I don't agree with regarding what truth is, but I agree with most of your comments than not. Mostly pertaining to what is good and what isn't. People do have different preferences regarding what they like and don't like. What some people would say is good some other people would call yucky or bad or sometimes even evil. This is all just a big plot to determine how to divvy people up, I think. Some on this hand and some on that hand, depending on what some people like and don't like, each group getting to live with others who are more like them than not. That's what we see now, and how it will always be. Wherever we go, there we will be, and there will be other people like us around us and we will all feel like we are how we should be, possibly even oblivious to the fact that people live better lives than we do. Edited January 30, 2020 by Ahab
Boanerges Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) For the record I never said I was certain of anything or know anything for certain or otherwise. In fact, I said nearly the opposite. Honestly I don't even know what the statement "I know the church is true" means, and I don't know the church is true or even necessarily believe it is (whatever it means for it to be true). Ten years ago I might have said I didn't understand what it meant when someone said they choose to believe. I do understand that now because I choose to believe despite my questions and doubts. I think that speaks more to that basic idea of faith expressed in Hebrews. Edited January 31, 2020 by Boanerges 1
smac97 Posted January 31, 2020 Author Posted January 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Boanerges said: For the record I never said I was certain of anything or know anything for certain or otherwise. In fact, I said nearly the opposite. Honestly I don't even know what the statement "I know the church is true" means, and I don't know the church is true or even necessarily believe it is (whatever it means for it to be true). ten years ago I might have said I didn't understand what it meant when someone said the choose to believe. I do understand that now because I choose to believe despite my questions and doubts. I think that speaks more to that basic idea of faith expressed in Hebrews. I wonder if this is more a matter of semantics? That by "doubts" you mean "uncertainty," rather than "disbelief"?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I wonder if this is more a matter of semantics? That by "doubts" you mean "uncertainty," rather than "disbelief"? That’s an important distinction that many fail to draw. Alma 32 (the analogy of planting a seed and nurturing it) recognizes uncertainty as a part of the process, but it also urges us not to cast out the seed with our unbelief. That’s what some risk doing by championing doubt. Edited February 1, 2020 by Scott Lloyd 2
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 9 hours ago, smac97 said: I wonder if this is more a matter of semantics? That by "doubts" you mean "uncertainty," rather than "disbelief"? Fine line. Very fuzzy boundaries anyway Ya dunstan whu I'm sayin?
Boanerges Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 On 1/31/2020 at 11:01 AM, smac97 said: I wonder if this is more a matter of semantics? That by "doubts" you mean "uncertainty," rather than "disbelief"? Perhaps. There are definitely things I disbelieve, some things I am just uncertain about and some things I mostly believe but have questions about. For example, I do not believe (or I disbelieve) the Book of Mormon is a record of an ancient civilization in the Americas or that there were really gold plates. However, that does not mean the book could not have been given by the gift and power of God (perhaps as an allegory/parable) or that it does not testify of Christ in much the same way I testify of Christ. I choose to believe it was given by the gift and power of God and it clearly does testify of Jesus Christ. I have lots more doubts, disbeliefs and uncertainties, but I think that one illustrates the point. 1
hope_for_things Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 14 minutes ago, Boanerges said: Perhaps. There are definitely things I disbelieve, some things I am just uncertain about and some things I mostly believe but have questions about. For example, I do not believe (or I disbelieve) the Book of Mormon is a record of an ancient civilization in the Americas or that there were really gold plates. However, that does not mean the book could not have been given by the gift and power of God (perhaps as an allegory/parable) or that it does not testify of Christ in much the same way I testify of Christ. I choose to believe it was given by the gift and power of God and it clearly does testify of Jesus Christ. I have lots more doubts, disbeliefs and uncertainties, but I think that one illustrates the point. It might me interesting to explore the word "certainty" and what it means to be certain about religious concepts in the first place. I tend to think of certainty as more of a feeling or sense people have. Like an orientation about how someone relates to something on an emotional level. For example, I'm certain that my wife loves me and is faithful to me. I have a very strong sense of certainty about that because I haven't had any experiences or seen any evidence to the contrary. But if I'm honest about this feeling of certainty, I recognize that I can't possibly be 100% certain about her faithfulness. There is always a chance that perhaps I'm wrong. Could I potentially be examining her behavior closer, just to make sure I'm right, maybe I could look more closely at her financial transactions or sneakily monitor her coming and going more closely, or take a peek at her cell phone text messages, all in an effort to verify if she's truly being faithful to me. But I really have no desire to do any of that, because I have a comfort in my heart with my feeling of certainty about her. I think this applies to religion as well. If people feel certain about their beliefs they likely have no desire to more closely examine those beliefs. They have no cause to doubt that their certainty is well founded. This seems to be the case with faith crisis, as people can be perfectly happy with their relationship to the church and to their beliefs about it, until something happens that causes them to question.
mfbukowski Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, hope_for_things said: It might me interesting to explore the word "certainty" and what it means to be certain about religious concepts in the first place. I tend to think of certainty as more of a feeling or sense people have. Like an orientation about how someone relates to something on an emotional level. For example, I'm certain that my wife loves me and is faithful to me. I have a very strong sense of certainty about that because I haven't had any experiences or seen any evidence to the contrary. But if I'm honest about this feeling of certainty, I recognize that I can't possibly be 100% certain about her faithfulness. There is always a chance that perhaps I'm wrong. I am certain that certainty is a psychological State like the one you describe. It has nothing to do with the state of the world. And some very powerful philosophers agree with me. Of course they came up with the idea before I did, and never heard of me, but still they agree with me. I mean A=A, right? I am certain. https://www.giffordlectures.org/lectures/quest-certainty https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/wittgenstein/section4/ Edited February 6, 2020 by mfbukowski
hope_for_things Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I am certain that certainty is a psychological State like the one you describe. It has nothing to do with the state of the world. And some very powerful philosophers agree with me. Of course they came up with the idea before I did, and never heard of me, but still they agree with me. I mean A=A, right? I am certain. https://www.giffordlectures.org/lectures/quest-certainty https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/wittgenstein/section4/ Thanks much for the geeky philosophy links. Figures that people much smarter than I have already thought about these things. 🙂 1
mfbukowski Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 On 2/6/2020 at 6:34 AM, hope_for_things said: Thanks much for the geeky philosophy links. Figures that people much smarter than I have already thought about these things. 🙂 Well, I don't think "smarter" is the case, they have simply been " trained in the ministry " of philosophy. It introduces categories of thought that are new, and new perspectives on the world, as if one could look at the world through someone else's brain. It's simply a new way of thinking and seeing the world that one can learn, like learning a language. I suppose you have to be a little bit odd just to want to learn that language though. How many hours have we discussed stuff like this? You ain't no dummy. 1
hope_for_things Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Well, I don't think "smarter" is the case, they have simply been " trained in the ministry " of philosophy. It introduces categories of thought that are new, and new perspectives on the world, as if one could look at the world through someone else's brain. It's simply a new way of thinking and seeing the world that one can learn, like learning a language. I suppose you have to be a little bit odd just to want to learn that language though. How many hours have we discussed stuff like this? You ain't no dummy. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm a glutton for punishment. BTW, are you familiar with Brittney Hartley's new book? I started reading it recently and its not bad. Nothing earth shattering, but is a nice introduction. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=mormon+philosophy+simplified&i=stripbooks&crid=2V12RSC6TXZ7&sprefix=philosophy+for+mormons+%2Caps%2C191&ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_23
Scott Lloyd Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 (edited) On 1/30/2020 at 6:27 AM, Boanerges said: No, but I can believe something and have questions or doubts about it at the same time. As far as I can tell, my Savior asked nothing more than belief in Him (or His name). Hmm. Nah. Questions, yes. Doubts, no. Belief and doubt are mutually exclusive. Not so with belief and questions. Edited February 10, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
mfbukowski Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 On 2/7/2020 at 2:25 PM, hope_for_things said: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm a glutton for punishment. BTW, are you familiar with Brittney Hartley's new book? I started reading it recently and its not bad. Nothing earth shattering, but is a nice introduction. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=mormon+philosophy+simplified&i=stripbooks&crid=2V12RSC6TXZ7&sprefix=philosophy+for+mormons+%2Caps%2C191&ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_23 Thanks, wasn't aware of it.
Recommended Posts