How Do We Know Things?

[_Who Knows]

Who Knows:

It just seems all rather subjective to me...

How could it be otherwise?

Well, I guess I can't reconcile the subjectivity with LDS teachings (I don't think they can be).

What you've described regarding obtaining truth and knowledge (and a testimony of the LDS church), is the same thing someone else has described regarding their version of truth and knowledge and testimony of their church. The 2 cannot be true at the same time. Yet both insist so. Thus, the reason for my 'subjectivity' problem. There's no way to measure the 2 objectively, to determine which one is right.

Of course, then you might say something like 'there's many paths to god'. But again, that's contradictory to the LDS church.

Do you think it problematic that it is so subjective?

Yes, very! Especially given the fact that supposedly my fate for ETERNITY rests on this 'blink of an eye' earth test.

edit - Let me re-phrase that. I find it problematic only when looking at religions claiming theirs is the one and only path to god. If there is a god, and there are many different paths there, then no, I see no problem with it.

[_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-

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

How so? (As I understand things, ultimately all empistmologies/paradigm are "rather circular" in nature. Such is unavoidable with finite minds, and such is the limit of pure reason.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_AmazingDisgrace]

It might not be a problem if we were talking about a truth-detecting method that simply confirms to one person, "proposition A is true" and to another, "proposition B is true," where A and B are independent. The problem comes when A entails the statement "B is not true." When the two propositions are mutually contradictory, no epistemological method that affirms both A and B can be reliable in finding the truth of either A or B.

[_Tal Bachman]

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

1.) Victoria, BC, Canada

2.) Musician but hopefully grad student soon (should hear back within a week for start of October term).

3.) Since discovering that Joseph Smith wasn't the kind of prophet the church he founded claims him to be, and did not have the sorts of experiences he claimed to have had, I have not had any particular religious beliefs - though that is not for want of desire. I would very much like to know who or what, if anything, created the universe, and us, or what the ultimate "secret" to life is. If there is a God, I would very much like to meet him, as I imagine he/it/she/they would be very engaging, and no doubt in for a good belly laugh on the idea that Joseph Smith's church is "the only true religion in the universe".

4.) I was married within eleven months of returning home from my mission to Argentina (in December, 1990). My wife and I now have eight wonderful children.

5.) I'm not sure what you mean by "traditionalist"; I suppose I am traditional in some ways.

6.) In terms of liberal/conservative, I try to be as sensible and realistic as possible about the world and politics as I can be, concomitant with general humanitarian impulses.

7.) I'm not a member of any church, though I'm sure for purposes of numbers, Mormon church bureaucrats enjoy counting the ten of us as Mormons.

[_wenglund]

Who Knows:

It just seems all rather subjective to me...

How could it be otherwise?

Well, I guess I can't reconcile the subjectivity with LDS teachings (I don't think they can be).

What you've described regarding obtaining truth and knowledge (and a testimony of the LDS church), is the same thing someone else has described regarding their version of truth and knowledge and testimony of their church. The 2 cannot be true at the same time. Yet both insist so. Thus, the reason for my 'subjectivity' problem. There's no way to measure the 2 objectively, to determine which one is right.

Of course, then you might say something like 'there's many paths to god'. But again, that's contradictory to the LDS church.

Do you think it problematic that it is so subjective?

Yes, very! Especially given the fact that supposedly my fate for ETERNITY rests on this 'blink of an eye' earth test.

edit - Let me re-phrase that. I find it problematic only when looking at religions claiming theirs is the one and only path to god. If there is a god, and there are many different paths there, then no, I see no problem with it.

Do you have a similar problem with "subjective" secular matters, including those where mortal life and limb may hang in the balance? And, if so, do you deal with the problem in the same way you do with religious matters?

For example: Suppose your child was diagnosed with cancer, and various doctors suggested different treatment plans, and they each differed with one another as to the child's prognosis. Since there is currently no empirical means to determine factually which, if any, of the doctors are right, you would be faced with a "subjective" decision. What would you do? Throw your hands in the air and say "I don't believe in doctors or medicine"? ;-)

I certainly wouldn't. I would make the best choice I could, and hope and have faith that it was the right choice, trusting in my preferred doctor. I approach "subjective" decisions about eternal life in much the same way. I have faith, trust, and confidence in the Supreme doctor. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Do you have a similar problem with "subjective" secular matters, including those where mortal life and limb may hang in the balance? And, if so, do you deal with the problem in the same way you do with religious matters?

For example: Suppose your child was diagnosed with cancer, and various doctors suggested different treatment plans, and they each differed with one another as to the child's prognosis. Since there is currently no empirical means to determine factually which, if any, of the doctors are right, you would be faced with a "subjective" decision. What would you do? Throw your hands in the air and say "I don't believe in doctors or medicine"? ;-)

I certainly wouldn't. I would make the best choice I could, and hope and have faith that it was the right choice, trusting in my preferred doctor. I approach "subjective" decisions about eternal life in much the same way. I have faith, trust, and confidence in the Supreme doctor. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Uh, Wade, the one thing you wouldn't do in this case is say, "Never mind what anyone else says. I'm going with my feelings." You would make an educated guess, wouldn't you? Or would you just say, "I get a warm feeling inside when I talk to the faith healer"?

[_Who Knows]

Do you have a similar problem with "subjective" secular matters, including those where mortal life and limb may hang in the balance? And, if so, do you deal with the problem in the same way you do with religious matters?

For example: Suppose your child was diagnosed with cancer, and various doctors suggested different treatment plans, and they each differed with one another as to the child's prognosis. Since there is currently no empirical means to determine factually which, if any, of the doctors are right, you would be faced with a "subjective" decision. What would you do? Throw your hands in the air and say "I don't believe in doctors or medicine"? ;-)

I certainly wouldn't. I would make the best choice I could, and hope and have faith that it was the right choice, trusting in my preferred doctor. I approach "subjective" decisions about eternal life in much the same way. I have faith, trust, and confidence in the Supreme doctor. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Uh, Wade, the one thing you wouldn't do in this case is say, "Never mind what anyone else says. I'm going with my feelings." You would make an educated guess, wouldn't you? Or would you just say, "I get a warm feeling inside when I talk to the faith healer"?

Besides the fact that there isn't only 'one true' way of treating diseases. One treatment may work for one person, while another one may work for someone else.

Like I said earlier, if that's the way that god (if he exists) works, then that's fine. (one religion works for one person, while another works for someone else).

But again, you fail to address the fact that this is inconsistent with the LDS church. See (and address) amazingdisgrace's post.

edit - additionally, we have examples to base our decision on. ie., 95% of patients survived cancer through X treatment. we have no such test data when it comes to religion - ie., 100% of Mormons (who follow the commandments) have been 'saved'.

[_wenglund]

It might not be a problem if we were talking about a truth-detecting method that simply confirms to one person, "proposition A is true" and to another, "proposition B is true," where A and B are independent. The problem comes when A entails the statement "B is not true." When the two propositions are mutually contradictory, no epistemological method that affirms both A and B can be reliable in finding the truth of either A or B.

Let's test your conclusion using the epistemological method called "science". In an abstract of an article called "For the Problem of the Correspondence Principle" there stated:

Really, Newtonian mechanics is based on the statement that the motion of a free material point is determined only by choice of system of reference (i.e. the motion is not attribute of a material point). However, the new theory negate this main statement: namely, the motion is attribute of a quantum particle (i.e. its motion does not depend on a choice of system of reference). From the logical point of view, it means that the quantum theory and Newtonian mechanics contradict each other in principal point. Therefore, one of them is a true theory, and another is a false theory if they are used for the description of the same object in one and the same sense.

This being true, then according to your reasoning, science is not reliable.

Examples of other competing or contradictory propositions/hypothesis/theories in science become considerably more plentiful with the soft sciences. Should they be tossed to the wind along with religion? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Let's test your conclusion using the epistemological method called "science". In an abstract of an article called "For the Problem of the Correspondence Principle" there stated:

Really, Newtonian mechanics is based on the statement that the motion of a free material point is determined only by choice of system of reference (I.e. the motion is not attribute of a material point). However, the new theory negate this main statement: namely, the motion is attribute of a quantum particle (I.e. its motion does not depend on a choice of system of reference). From the logical point of view, it means that the quantum theory and Newtonian mechanics contradict each other in principal point. Therefore, one of them is a true theory, and another is a false theory if they are used for the description of the same object in one and the same sense.

This being true, then according to your reasoning, science is not reliable.

Examples of other competing or contradictory propositions/hypothesis/theories in science become considerably more plentiful with the soft sciences. Should they be tossed to the wind along with religion? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Uh, Wade, that two theories contradict each other does not mean the whole of science is unreliable. What a strange conclusion.

[_Who Knows]

More beating around the bush from wade with silly examples. surprise, surprise.

Deal with the logic of AD's post.