DiscussMormonism.com

Ray A wrote:Alma 32 describes a step by step process that eventually ties in with Jesus' Parable of the Sower. This will still probably never satisfy those looking for "hard empirical evidence" (let's say, of the Dawkins type), but it does describe another kind of evidence, which is just as real to those who experience it fully. It's saying that we have a choice: we can let faith grow, or we can let it die. And in my view it grows stronger and stronger in the direction we choose, so that those who grow in faith eventually come to a perfect knowledge (in that thing), and those who let it die, grow more and more convinced that it's either all a lie or a fantasy - until they know nothing of the word of God, and may even mock and scorn it.

sock puppet wrote:Here Ray A wrote

Ray A wrote:Alma 32 describes a step by step process that eventually ties in with Jesus' Parable of the Sower. This will still probably never satisfy those looking for "hard empirical evidence" (let's say, of the Dawkins type), but it does describe another kind of evidence, which is just as real to those who experience it fully. It's saying that we have a choice: we can let faith grow, or we can let it die. And in my view it grows stronger and stronger in the direction we choose, so that those who grow in faith eventually come to a perfect knowledge (in that thing), and those who let it die, grow more and more convinced that it's either all a lie or a fantasy - until they know nothing of the word of God, and may even mock and scorn it.

What is a perfect knowledge in a thing?

Why cannot a perfect knowledge be had of it through empirical observation alone? Why does their need to be evidence-less hoping for it as a prerequisite?

brade wrote:
First, I'd like to know what the expression "perfect knowledge" even means? Taking the standard view, to know P is to have a justified believe that P, and P is true. If perfect knowledge is something better than ordinary knowledge, what condition do we need to add?

Tarski wrote:Direct unmediated spiritual contact with the object of knowledge unconditioned by langauge, representation or cognitive apparatus.
(Thus no brain is involved (chuckle)--that would be a mediated form of knowledge)

RayAgostini wrote:

Tarski wrote:Direct unmediated spiritual contact with the object of knowledge unconditioned by langauge, representation or cognitive apparatus.
(Thus no brain is involved (chuckle)--that would be a mediated form of knowledge)

The brain is actually involved, because it is the "apparatus" through which we perceive. A sort of "Internet connection"?

Is This Your Brain On God?.

Talking about "the science of spirituality" may seem weird to some, but it's an area that needs much more explanation and analysis, preferably by those who don't hold predetermined conclusions.

RayAgostini wrote:Talking about "the science of spirituality" may seem weird to some, but it's an area that needs much more explanation and analysis, ... .