When Debate Doesn't Make Sense

[Guest]

Off the top of my head, I might say there are two primary constraints which our beliefs must conform to, if they are to have any chance of being true: one constraint is logic, the other is evidence.

Interesting point. Please provide evidence of its truth. I think it is accepted as a matter of course in epistemology that certain kinds of beliefs are warranted absent evidence. You are rejecting this here. Yet you are asserting a proposition that, as far as I can tell, has no evidence in its favor. If that is the case, how this this not trivially self-refuting?

[_Ray A]

Kindred in what, your anti-Mormon obsession?

Hey Ray A - no offense, but can you read? Here's what I wrote:

This post is for all those who have acknowledged that Mormonism cannot be what it claims to be. Hi Kindred Souls

Do you understand those words? They mean that "this post is for all those who have acknowledged that Mormonism cannot be what it claims to be". Since I too acknowledge that, we (the people to whom I am addressing this particular post) are kindred souls in that sense.

I see your reading comprehension hasn't improved much since last time I was on. Pity that Relief Society literacy programme a few years back didn't make it to Australia...!

Anyway, thank you for making my point for me. You and Coggins7 are putting on quite the show. Keep it up, especially the song jokes.

I await further corroboration of my point.

That's what I said, you are "kindred souls" in your anti-Mormon obsession.

[_Tal Bachman]

Coggins7 wrote:

1. Logic is not a proper template or reference for the validation of all possible phenomena or truth claims, and the severe limitations inherent in logical analysis delimit its use outside the spheres for which it is particularly suited.

---Oooh - I like that "delimit". Sounds so intellectual!

About your comment - perhaps you can tell me which sorts of beliefs can violate the rules of logic and still be true. I'm curious.

2. What counts as evidence within one frame of perceptual reference may be of little use in another. What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected is not the same as what would count as to what the mass and chemical composition of Jupiter is.

What, then, counts as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected?

By the way, it kind of seems that your answer here to my question above, is "no". Doesn't that make your shot about everyone else on this thread not being able to carry on a rational conversation, look............really, really embarrassing? Just wondering.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:

Quote:
1. Logic is not a proper template or reference for the validation of all possible phenomena or truth claims, and the severe limitations inherent in logical analysis delimit its use outside the spheres for which it is particularly suited.



-

--Oooh - I like that "delimit". Sounds so intellectual!

Sorry kid, I'll try not to use such big words or complex sentence structures so you can follow along.

About your comment - perhaps you can tell me which sorts of beliefs can violate the rules of logic and still be true. I'm curious.

When I tell my wife "I love you", for example.


Quote:
2. What counts as evidence within one frame of perceptual reference may be of little use in another. What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected is not the same as what would count as to what the mass and chemical composition of Jupiter is.

What, then, counts as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected?

Direct knowledge of it from God obtained through the principle of revelation. Actually, this is not evidence, but direct perception of truth, and hence, proof.

[_Coggins7]

Off the top of my head, I might say there are two primary constraints which our beliefs must conform to, if they are to have any chance of being true: one constraint is logic, the other is evidence. It seems to me that any belief which requires the disregard of either, or both, is almost certainly wrong (certainly by definition, it would be irrational).

These do not nearly exhaust the primary constraints. Others are the severe limitations upon perception imposed by the laws of language and the structure of language. Another are strict perceptual limitations in that our senses are capable of apprehending only a tiny fraction of the information around us in the physical world, let along spiritual realms claimed to exist. Another are serious perceptual limitations conditioned by culture, era, Zeitgeist, and personal intrapsycholgical dynamics.

Just to name a few. Perhaps Light could elucidate some others.

[_Tal Bachman]

Let me see if I'm following you here, Coggins7. You think that saying "I love you" to your wife, comprises a belief which violates the rules of logic. Ya?

Sad.

Let me help you out, old-timer.

Could it be that your confusion arises from mistaking a belief which violates a rule of logic with a sentiment which doesn't have anything to do with logic at all? I don't see how, for example, "I love you" has anything to do with logic - but that it does not, does not mean it "violates" any rules of logic. Of course it does not.

But logic does come to be relevant once we start forming beliefs about the world, doesn't it? For example, suppose you said:

"I believe that everyone who is kind and generous is good. Uncle Hugo is kind and generous, but he's not good at all".

There would be a problem with your belief, wouldn't there? Because this hypothetical belief, on its own terms, flouts a constraint of logic (in this case, the principle of coherence), it cannot be true. Indeed, it is not even intelligible, except as an error of thought.

***

You also write that the evidence that the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth didn't stay dead, is that God, or perhaps Jesus himself, gave you "direct revelation" of that. You then say, "actually, this is not evidence, but direct perception of truth, and hence, proof."

Coggins7, this statement itself is an example of incoherence. You claim X to be evidence, and then claim it is not evidence. So, I submit that logic constrains us to view this statement as nonsense.

Tangentially, if it were actually true that God himself told you that Jesus of Nazareth didn't stay dead, and that we won't stay dead either, how on earth could you ever argue that that didn't constitute, for you anyway, "evidence"? That evidence would be "conclusive" or constitute proof, sure, but it would still be evidence, wouldn't it? What more "evidence" could anyone ever hope for, than that the creator of the entire universe bothered to pass on an item of knowledge?

I suppose the question, though, is whether our certainty that God told us something or other, is actually knowledge that he did - for, it is very possible to be 100% certain that something is true, that isn't true at all; and Mormons most of all believe that, as they believe that only they are members of the world's only true religion, and that the hundreds of millions of other religionists out there who are 100% certain that their religion is all it claims, are WRONG. So, Mormons believe, by definition, that certainty and knowledge are not synonyms.

But, we couldn't even begin to hope to find out whether we had mistaken certainty for knowledge, if we didn't at least confine our reasonings to the constraints I mentioned; and that is something you make clear you won't do, Coggins7. Shame on you, then, for accusing others of not being able to have rational conversations, when you yourself, as you again show here, reject even the most basic standards of rationality.

Shame on you.

[_Coggins7]

Let me see if I'm following you here, Coggins7. You think that saying "I love you" to your wife, comprises a belief which violates the rules of logic. Ya?

Sad.

Let me help you out, old-timer.

Could it be that your confusion arises from mistaking a belief which violates a rule of logic with a sentiment which doesn't have anything to do with logic at all? I don't see how, for example, "I love you" has anything to do with logic - but that it does not, does not mean it "violates" any rules of logic. Of course it does not.

True, the statement, "I love you" does not violate the rules of logic in and of itself. However, calling love a "sentiment" isn't going to get you off the hook so easily My love for my wife is also a belief; it is a mental assent to a set of feelings and sentiments that has an intellectual component. I believe I love her. If I didn't believe it, the sentiment wouldn't exist or, if it did, could be disregarded. Love is much more than a sentiment. It is also a belief which can be supported by arguments as to why that belief is considered valid.

You also write that the evidence that the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth didn't stay dead, is that God, or perhaps Jesus himself, gave you "direct revelation" of that. You then say, "actually, this is not evidence, but direct perception of truth, and hence, proof."

Coggins7, this statement itself is an example of incoherence. You claim X to be evidence, and then claim it is not evidence. So, I submit that logic constrains us to view this statement as nonsense.

Stop playing head games if you want to have a serous discussion. This is what I actually said:

Direct knowledge of it from God obtained through the principle of revelation. Actually, this is not evidence, but direct perception of truth, and hence, proof.

I clearly delineated the concept of "evidence" from the concept of "proof" with respect to the principle of revelation.

Tangentially, if it were actually true that God himself told you that Jesus of Nazareth didn't stay dead, and that we won't stay dead either, how on earth could you ever argue that that didn't constitute, for you anyway, "evidence"? That evidence would be "conclusive" or constitute proof, sure, but it would still be evidence, wouldn't it? What more "evidence" could anyone ever hope for, than that the creator of the entire universe bothered to pass on an item of knowledge?

No. Evidence is the indirect remains or that which is indicative of, or suggestive of a primary phenomena that is no longer directly apprehensible. Revelation imparts direct knowledge, and hence, obviates the concept of evidence once it has been obtained.

I suppose the question, though, is whether our certainty that God told us something or other, is actually knowledge that he did - for, it is very possible to be 100% certain that something is true, that isn't true at all; and Mormons most of all believe that, as they believe that only they are members of the world's only true religion,

Yes, and this varies according to the methodology and perceptual tools one brings to that task.

and that the hundreds of millions of other religionists out there who are 100% certain that their religion is all it claims, are WRONG. So, Mormons believe, by definition, that certainty and knowledge are not synonyms.

[/quote]


Yes, certainty and knowledge are not synonymous. I'm not certain about all those hundreds of millions of other people either. I don't know, and neither do you, how certain they are, as a group or individually, of their religious convictions. I'm also not sure why this presents a problem for LDS theology, as the concept of revelation cannot be expressed in terms such that others can grasp in in a strictly intellectual fashion. It is an experience that involves the mind, but also other faculties. What others have experienced, or claim to have experienced, we cannot say, unless we have experienced it ourselves.

But, we couldn't even begin to hope to find out whether we had mistaken certainty for knowledge, if we didn't at least confine our reasonings to the constraints I mentioned; and that seems to be something that you won't do, Coggins7. Shame on you, then, for accusing others of not being able to have rational conversations, when you have rejected the standards of rationality from the outset. It is only you yourself that has now shown (not that it wasn't obvious before) that you are as unwilling as you are incapable of rational conversation about these things.

Shame on you.

What you have shown here is not that I have rejected rationality, which I clearly have not, but only that you have concocted an artificially truncated template to justify your apostasy from the Gospel that you now wish to impose on all conversations such that anyone who debates you must do so on your terms.

Sorry, but I'm not buying. You should think a little harder about what I said above. Our perceptual constrains are conditioned by far more than logic and evidence, and logic as an intellectual methodology with which to understand the world has itself, severe limitations.

For example, I can quite conclusively prove that Unicorns exist with a neat little syllogism. The only thing missing would be empirical confirmation, but if the premises are assumed to be true, then the conclusion must follow. Logic, depending upon our initial assumptions, can lead us as far astray as it can to some forms of truth.

Inductive logic, as a tool for understanding the world, is bound and delimited by the rules of language as well as the empirical world, which puts equally strong constraints upon what we can perceive and at what level of resolution. The problem is that if you take logic and empirical evidence as the sole arbiters of perception, your perceptual field will then be delimited and constrained by those principles and the boundaries they set, and you will have no way of ever moving beyond those boundaries unless you are willing to consider the possibility that their may be other things to perceive and that there may be ways and means to perceive it beyond the limited tools of empirical observation and logical ratiocination.

[_Coggins7]

About your comment - perhaps you can tell me which sorts of beliefs can violate the rules of logic and still be true. I'm curious.

I should really have pointed out here that beliefs themselves cannot be said to violate the rules of logic. Only the arguments; bodies or sets of statements claimed to be evidentially related to premises, can violate the rules of logic. When we critique a belief philosophically, unless it is demonstrably false on its face (Pyramids on Mars), we critique the arguments used to support the belief, not the belief as a whole.

We may attack the belief as a whole in the sense of deploying general statements or explanations against it, and these may be very effective for our purpose, but this is not logical argument per se

[_harmony]

About your comment - perhaps you can tell me which sorts of beliefs can violate the rules of logic and still be true. I'm curious.

I should really have pointed out here that beliefs themselves cannot be said to violate the rules of logic. Only the arguments; bodies or sets of statements claimed to be evidentially related to premises, can violate the rules of logic. When we critique a belief philosophically, unless it is demonstrably false on its face (Pyramids on Mars), we critique the arguments used to support the belief, not the belief as a whole.

We may attack the belief as a whole in the sense of deploying general statements or explanations against it, and these may be very effective for our purpose, but this is not logical argument per se

So why do some Mormons get so upset when critics attack the arguments used to support belief in the LDS paradigm? They aren't attacking the belief, so MAD's entire premise goes up in smoke.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Why then would we engage in an ongoing debate with Robert about rain, or World War II - or, perhaps, anything at all? If once we explained how opposites, by definition, cannot be identical, or laid out all the evidence that it was America who dropped the bombs, and Robert still maintained his positions............

Why?

If we continued debating Robert, wouldn't we be demonstrating similar psychological unsoundness? What other explanation could there be for our continued appeals to the twin gold standards of sound thinking to convince Robert of something, when we already know that Robert rejects those standards?

Just wondering...

Let me guess, you got into a debate with Charity didn't you?