How Do We Know Things?

[_William Schryver]

I confess that I used to be kind of a Star Trek devotee. Not when they were shown originally, but much later, when they were in syndicated reruns. Some of them were downright silly. But others actually had some depth and considerable import to them. At least I felt like I could glean something of real significance from them.

There is one episode that I found fascinating. I think it was called Spock’s Brain. The premise was kind of silly: some aliens (all female) appear and steal Spock’s brain, take it to their underground living quarters, and proceed to wire it up as their central control unit. Of course, Kirk and McCoy must somehow reunite Spock’s brain with his still-functioning body. So they locate the brain and demand that the aliens put it back in. The women appear, but they’re all manifestly incapable of doing anything so complex. The woman who is the leader, when pressed for answers, makes reference to “The Teacher.” Well, it turns out that “The Teacher” is some kind of a device that can be placed on one’s head, and after it performs its function, it can then be removed and the recipient of its effect is immediately endowed with stupendous amounts of knowledge and understanding. It was by this means that the leader woman was able to remove Spock’s brain and install it as their control unit. However, the effect doesn’t last very long, and so after a while, the woman resumed her normal level of knowledge, understanding, and capacities.

Well, she refuses to use “The Teacher” in order to restore Spock’s brain, and therefore Kirk orders McCoy to attempt it. McCoy ultimately consents, places the unit on his head, and after a few moments where it looks like the device will fry his brain, it is removed, and his eyes light up. He immediately commences the operation on Spock, exclaiming, “Why, it’s so simple, a child could do it.”

He works feverishly for several minutes, brimming with confidence and complete self-assurance. However, after a while, you can see uncertainty begin to sweep over his countenance, and before long he is perspiring heavily and consumed with self-doubt.

Of course, the effect of “The Teacher” has worn off. And he just can’t put it back on his head. He is left to his own devices to bridge the gap between how far he has gotten and how far he still has to go.

Well, of course, the script dictates that Spock’s brain be restored, and McCoy manages to restore Spock’s speech center, and with Spock’s assistance, the operation is completed successfully.

Now, what am I driving at here?

Well, many people have suggested that the effect of the Holy Ghost is simply some warm, fuzzy, peaceful, or comforting feeling. Many people here who no longer believe in the “Restored Gospel” nonetheless report having felt just such feelings during their tenure as believing Latter-day Saints.

I suppose I have felt such feelings myself at times. But, to me, that is not what I associate with the Holy Ghost; not what I would characterize as the basis of my knowledge. Rather, the experiences I have had that I associate with the “Holy Ghost” are very similar in nature to what that episode of Star Trek is hinting at with its “Teacher” device. It is a clarity of thought, an infusion of pure intelligence, a confident “knowing” of something. However, just like the effect of “The Teacher” on Dr. McCoy, the effect of the Holy Ghost does not last indefinitely. What was it that Joseph Smith wrote?

D&C 130

23 A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him.

And Jesus said to Nicodemus:

John 3

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

And yet, Nicodemus was confused, and answered, “How can these things be?” To which, Jesus then replied:

John 3

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

In my life experience, there is nothing that has been as real, as authentic as those fleeting moments when that supremely unique influence has “descended” upon me. Would that I could bottle it and drink of it at will. But it cannot be done. Not here. Not now. I wish it could be. It would make things so much easier. Instead, I am forced to wade through the doubts, just like Dr. McCoy did, and somehow find a way to bridge the gap between my doubts and fears and the next strengthening – the next knowing experience that blows my way.

That bridge is built with faith. But it is not blind faith. It is faith based on the solid recollection of what was once seen clearly, but is now only seen through a glass darkly.

That is how I know things.

[_Coggins7]

Tal,

My opinion is that there is some sleight of hand in Mormonism's supposed testimony. I don't think many people in the church have very serious spiritual experiences. I think given the pressure the church puts members under to have a testimony, and since that is so linked to "burning in the bosom" that people tend to read things into their lives that never really were there in the first place, not even as delusions.

There's another aspect to this too, and that's the tendency for cliques to have their own little private language that all members understand yet which doesn't really mean anything. Part of that is being brainwashed by sentences at an early age by reciting and being subjected to sentences used to describe gospel things or used in prayer which the speaker just seems naturally disposed to utter but without much of an ability to explicate. A couple guys at work today were having a conversation about football and talking trash. They interacted as if they understood clearly what each other was saying, but they weren't actually saying anything at all, and if pressed, wouldn't be able to clearly explain what they were saying.

Rather than thinking everyone around the world gets positive feelings out of their religion, I would say they get familiar feelings. The way I've said it before. Clearly growing up in a small town with a little ritual of going to grandma's house every week for milk and cookies, playing some games and singing a few of the same songs doesn't hold any significant truth content. But there will always be a yearning for those feelings of familiarity which no other grandma's house, no matter how superior the cookies, might compete with. I guess another way of saying the same thing is that most people think the best music ever written is the stuff they listened to when they were 16. There is nothing that can bring back the state of mind in me, and evoke the nastalgia like hearing Duran Duran, Tears for Fears, Depeche Mode, Eurasure, even if I never listen to any of it anymore. And I think that testimony, to the extent it exists at all, is linked closer to this kind of familiarity than it is to some kind of objective trickery.

The interesting thing about this is that this is nothing but a body of bare assertions, subjective impressions, logically disconnected claims and propositions, and what may be subconscious psychological material. Claims like "I don't think many people in the church have very serious spiritual experiences" are no different that clams that "I know the church is true".

You see, Gad just bore his testimony. But let a TBM do that...

Of course, Gad has no idea whatever what Mormons actually experience within the Church. He is wholly, utterly, and inexhaustibly ignorant of what goes on within this church and within the lives, minds, and hearts of its members, and he knows perfectly well that he is. Unless that is, he is like Kimberly, and does know perfectly well what goes on in the minds and hearts of others. You learn that stuff in college and on Oprah.

But to admit that would be to open the floodgates to serious, philosophically honest discourse, which might then lead to admittance of the above mentioned ignorance, which would then fry Gad's overwrought ego like an egg on the surface of Mercury in July, which might then lead to a serious bout of humility, which might then lead to being just a little more open to the claims of the Church then in the past, which might then lead to...

[_Roger Morrison]

What do you want to know, Roger?

Location, vocation, generation/era, believer in what, family status, traditionalist, liberal, conservative, "saved/redeemed", LDS, other sect?? To get a handle on where yer coming from, and why... Warm regards, Roger

[Gadianton]

Hi Wade

The "utility" such questions might have to some people is this:

Let's just say - I know this will sound positively outlandish - but let's just say that some people are devoting their lives to a religion based on their belief that that religion is all it claims to be, when in fact, there is no possible way it could be what it claims to be; and let's just say, that some of those people would wish to know if their belief was wrong.

They might wish to know that because, let's say, they have unique, extraordinary talents which cannot find full expression without transgressing some religious policy or doctrine or something. Let's say, for example, that a man might be a wonderful father, and do much good for the world in that capacity, but he remains celibate because he mistakenly, though with best intentions, believed Roman Catholicism was "the only true religion in the world", and that the highest service to God was to be a priest.

Or, let's take the opposite - people who should NEVER be parents, who instinctively rather dislike children even, but who wind up having children, and sometimes even a lot of children, simply because a man they think is a genuine prophet told them that God wanted them to.

Or, let's say a man or woman is attracted sexually primarily to members of his/her own sex; and they spend years thinking they have to "repair" themselves, years praying and fasting and struggling with feelings of self-reproach or discouragement, perhaps even years just struggling to not admit to themselves that they are gay. And perhaps, while they might not ever have wanted a sexually active life anyway for some reason, they might have been spared an awful lot of tears and heartache and counseling and fraudulent "priesthood blessings", etc. In that case, knowing that there is no good reason to regard homosexual inclination as a "spiritual defect" would have quite a bit of utility, I should think.

There are hundreds of hypothetical cases one can think of, which illustrate the utility of being able to distinguish TRUTH from FALSEHOOD; and you, Wade, ought to be ashamed of yourself for coming on here to in effect suggest otherwise. It says more about you than anyone else on here ever could - and it says something which, if you had any healthy sense of shame, you should be mortified by. In this regard, I really don't understand guys like you and "A Light In The Darkness" and "Dr. Peterson" - there is no sense of shame, no sense of embarrassment over what to 99% of normal people in the world, would be totally freaking mortifying. What has to happen to a guy, I wonder, for them to be missing that part of the self? Is it the religion? Would they have been like that anyway? I really don't know. All I know is, it surprises me everytime I come across it on here.

PS Your farmer example actually buttresses the argument for the utility of knowing the difference, for what a farmer needs are the most reliable weather forecasts possible, as opposed to some stupid folk magic prediction based on cat guts or a spun penny or astrology. That illustrates in the most forceful way the utility of being able to distinguish cheap tricks from reality.

Were my question about distinguishing between truth and falsehood, then what you just said may be pertinent. However, it wasn't. Rather it was in regards to the value in essentially wrangling semantically about the word "know". Perhaps in your haste to wax self-righteous, you forgot what your own subjectmatter was.

Care to try again?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I confess that I used to be kind of a Star Trek devotee. Not when they were shown originally, but much later, when they were in syndicated reruns. Some of them were downright silly. But others actually had some depth and considerable import to them. At least I felt like I could glean something of real significance from them.

There is one episode that I found fascinating. I think it was called Spock’s Brain. The premise was kind of silly: some aliens (all female) appear and steal Spock’s brain, take it to their underground living quarters, and proceed to wire it up as their central control unit. Of course, Kirk and McCoy must somehow reunite Spock’s brain with his still-functioning body. So they locate the brain and demand that the aliens put it back in. The women appear, but they’re all manifestly incapable of doing anything so complex. The woman who is the leader, when pressed for answers, makes reference to “The Teacher.” Well, it turns out that “The Teacher” is some kind of a device that can be placed on one’s head, and after it performs its function, it can then be removed and the recipient of its effect is immediately endowed with stupendous amounts of knowledge and understanding. It was by this means that the leader woman was able to remove Spock’s brain and install it as their control unit. However, the effect doesn’t last very long, and so after a while, the woman resumed her normal level of knowledge, understanding, and capacities.

Well, she refuses to use “The Teacher” in order to restore Spock’s brain, and therefore Kirk orders McCoy to attempt it. McCoy ultimately consents, places the unit on his head, and after a few moments where it looks like the device will fry his brain, it is removed, and his eyes light up. He immediately commences the operation on Spock, exclaiming, “Why, it’s so simple, a child could do it.”

He works feverishly for several minutes, brimming with confidence and complete self-assurance. However, after a while, you can see uncertainty begin to sweep over his countenance, and before long he is perspiring heavily and consumed with self-doubt.

Of course, the effect of “The Teacher” has worn off. And he just can’t put it back on his head. He is left to his own devices to bridge the gap between how far he has gotten and how far he still has to go.

Well, of course, the script dictates that Spock’s brain be restored, and McCoy manages to restore Spock’s speech center, and with Spock’s assistance, the operation is completed successfully.

Now, what am I driving at here?

Well, many people have suggested that the effect of the Holy Ghost is simply some warm, fuzzy, peaceful, or comforting feeling. Many people here who no longer believe in the “Restored Gospel” nonetheless report having felt just such feelings during their tenure as believing Latter-day Saints.

I suppose I have felt such feelings myself at times. But, to me, that is not what I associate with the Holy Ghost; not what I would characterize as the basis of my knowledge. Rather, the experiences I have had that I associate with the “Holy Ghost” are very similar in nature to what that episode of Star Trek is hinting at with its “Teacher” device. It is a clarity of thought, an infusion of pure intelligence, a confident “knowing” of something. However, just like the effect of “The Teacher” on Dr. McCoy, the effect of the Holy Ghost does not last indefinitely. What was it that Joseph Smith wrote?

D&C 130

23 A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him.

And Jesus said to Nicodemus:

John 3

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

And yet, Nicodemus was confused, and answered, “How can these things be?” To which, Jesus then replied:

John 3

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

In my life experience, there is nothing that has been as real, as authentic as those fleeting moments when that supremely unique influence has “descended” upon me. Would that I could bottle it and drink of it at will. But it cannot be done. Not here. Not now. I wish it could be. It would make things so much easier. Instead, I am forced to wade through the doubts, just like Dr. McCoy did, and somehow find a way to bridge the gap between my doubts and fears and the next strengthening – the next knowing experience that blows my way.

That bridge is built with faith. But it is not blind faith. It is faith based on the solid recollection of what was once seen clearly, but is now only seen through a glass darkly.

That is how I know things.

That is a beautiful conceptual pearl. I am grateful that you shared it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

In my life experience, there is nothing that has been as real, as authentic as those fleeting moments when that supremely unique influence has “descended” upon me. Would that I could bottle it and drink of it at will. But it cannot be done. Not here. Not now. I wish it could be. It would make things so much easier. Instead, I am forced to wade through the doubts, just like Dr. McCoy did, and somehow find a way to bridge the gap between my doubts and fears and the next strengthening – the next knowing experience that blows my way.

That bridge is built with faith. But it is not blind faith. It is faith based on the solid recollection of what was once seen clearly, but is now only seen through a glass darkly.

That is how I know things.

Let me ask you this. How do you know that it was the holy ghost doing/causing this? What do you say to those who have had similar experiences, but that are not attributable to the holy ghost (or at least, not attributable to your - the LDS - version of the holy ghost)? Wouldn't someone, who is not LDS, attribute those experiences to whatever it is that they've been taught causes those experiences? And then how do you know that they're wrong and you're right? Or how do they decide whether they're wrong, and you're right?

It just seems all rather subjective to me...

[_William Schryver]

Who Knows:

How do you know that it was the holy ghost doing/causing this?

I never said that I know it is the Holy Ghost. What I described were:

… the experiences I have had that I associate with the “Holy Ghost” …

I was describing my experience; the type of thing that I have come to associate with the term “Holy Ghost.” The intelligence I have received during those kinds of experiences is what I bank on in my life.

Look, people can choose to rely on whatever means is at their disposal in their search for knowledge, truth, and meaning. I’m simply telling you that I have had experiences such as I describe above, and that I have concluded that those experiences are consequent to an external influence (which I call the Holy Ghost) interacting with me. I have learned to trust the things that I have learned during those experiences. I also read books, contemplate things, and engage in intellectual exchanges with others. All these things are tools I use to acquire knowledge, truth, and meaning in my life. But, in the final analysis, I have learned to trust what I call “the Holy Ghost” above all my other intelligence-acquisition tools.

What do you say to those who have had similar experiences, but that are not attributable to the holy ghost (or at least, not attributable to your - the LDS - version of the holy ghost)?

I’m not sure what you mean. I am willing that all people seek knowledge, truth, and meaning in their own way; according to the dictates of their own conscience, reasoning powers, and even prejudices. It doesn’t matter to me either way. I do not doubt that there are many means utilized by people around the globe (and throughout this galaxy and beyond) to acquire intelligence. I’m simply speaking of my experience, in response to the question posed at the beginning of this thread.

Wouldn't someone, who is not LDS, attribute those experiences to whatever it is that they've been taught causes those experiences?

No doubt they would.

And then how do you know that they're wrong and you're right?

I don’t. That is, I don’t know that they’re wrong. I don’t even think about it, really. As far as my conviction of being “right” is concerned, I’m not sure that would even be an accurate characterization of what I feel about my knowledge. I have simply learned, within the unique parameters and circumstances of my own existence, to give my trust to the kind of intelligence I receive via my personal conduit. It speaks to me. It has relevance for me. Of those things that I claim to know, it has been the primary mechanism for their transmission. Whether they have meaning or relevance to others is beyond my capacity to determine.

It just seems all rather subjective to me...

How could it be otherwise?

[_wenglund]

It just seems all rather subjective to me...

Do you think it problematic that it is so subjective?

Are you aware of just how much of your daily life (not to mention your world view) is reliant upon or entails subjective perceptions--and in ways that are quite functional and useful?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

It just seems all rather subjective to me...

Do you think it problematic that it is so subjective?

Are you aware of just how much of your daily life (not to mention your world view) is reliant upon or entails subjective perceptions--and in ways that are quite functional and useful?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

By the way, I just came across an excellent article on Thinking Critically About the "Subjective"/"Objective" Distinction that I wish to commend to those interested. I learned that there is metaphysical objectivity and metaphysical subjectivity as well as epistemological objectivity and epistemological subjectivity. I also learned that various events and experience may contain elements of each. In other words, something can both be metaphysically objective and metaphysically subjective.

Enjoy!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

It just seems all rather subjective to me...

Do you think it problematic that it is so subjective?

Are you aware of just how much of your daily life (not to mention your world view) is reliant upon or entails subjective perceptions--and in ways that are quite functional and useful?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, the larger problem is that it's rather circular, in addition to being subjective.