No Evidence+Hope=Faith; Faith over time=>"Perfect" Knowledge

[_sock puppet]

Therefore, no evidence is a prerequisite for "perfect" knowledge.

No wonder Mormons bear their testimonies that they know the Church is true--there's no evidence for it.

[_angsty]

I wish some whip-smart Mormon philosopher would undertake a defense of Mormon epistemology. I would seriously read it. If I hadn't thought it was patently absurd before pursuing my degree, my Phil education surely would have sounded the death knell. I'm curious to know how they're putting it at BYU in a way that students can understand the basic problems, and yet maintain their belief in the Book of Mormon, etc. I just don't see how that is possible. Maybe I'm just not creative enough?

[_MCB]

Truly Gnostic in the negative sense of the word.

[_sock puppet]

Seems to me that religions promote faith (non-evidence hope) over evidence based epistemologies.

Alma 32 of the Book of Mormon seems to elevate even more, long-term faith (yet non-evidence hope) as something even superlative to faith, i.e. "perfect knowledge", which of course is not knowledge at all.

[_brade]

I wish some whip-smart Mormon philosopher would undertake a defense of Mormon epistemology. I would seriously read it. If I hadn't thought it was patently absurd before pursuing my degree, my Phil education surely would have sounded the death knell. I'm curious to know how they're putting it at BYU in a way that students can understand the basic problems, and yet maintain their belief in the Book of Mormon, etc. I just don't see how that is possible. Maybe I'm just not creative enough?

I've been championing such a defense from the apologists for some time now. In my opinion, a robust defense of religious epistemology is more important in protecting members from disbelief than all of this historical apologetics for the simple reason that if people sincerely, and defensibly, believe that God has told them, say, the Book of Mormon is what the church claims it is, then historical/archeological/scientific evidence to the contrary be damned.

The weakness of religious epistemology in my view, and the particularly laughable treatment it gets from general authorities, is the fundamental reason I've stepped away from Mormonism and organized religion generally.

[_angsty]

I've been championing such a defense from the apologists for some time now. In my opinion, a robust defense of religious epistemology is more important in protecting members from disbelief than all of this historical apologetics for the simple reason that if people sincerely, and defensibly, believe that God has told them, say, the Book of Mormon is what the church claims it is, then historical/archeological/scientific evidence to the contrary be damned.

The weakness of religious epistemology in my view, and the particularly laughable treatment it gets from general authorities, is the fundamental reason I've stepped away from Mormonism and organized religion generally.

Bingo Bingo Bingo! I completely agree. Upon my very first introduction to Kierkegaard's Postcript, I was of the mind that Mormonism would be well-served by an effort of that kind aimed at legitimating Mormon faith in the face of unfavorable scientific discovery. And it seems like such a natural need. I mean if you're acquainted with epistemology in the least, then Mormon views about knowledge and truth pose some interesting challenges. It would be far more productive to focus on developing a robust explanation and defense of Mormon religious epistemologies versus haggling over the legitimacy of the Bat Creek Stone, etc.

[_brade]

Bingo Bingo Bingo! I completely agree. Upon my very first introduction to Kierkegaard's Postcript, I was of the mind that Mormonism would be well-served by an effort of that kind aimed at legitimating Mormon faith in the face of unfavorable scientific discovery. And it seems like such a natural need. I mean if you're acquainted with epistemology in the least, then Mormon views about knowledge and truth pose some interesting challenges. It would be far more productive to focus on developing a robust explanation and defense of Mormon religious epistemologies versus haggling over the legitimacy of the Bat Creek Stone, etc.

My suspicion on why this doesn't happen is that, well, it's hard. It's a lot easier to take some historical criticism and write pages and pages that amount to saying something like, "Ultimately, this contrary evidence doesn't rule out the possibility that [insert religious claim here] is true.".

[_angsty]

Bingo Bingo Bingo! I completely agree. Upon my very first introduction to Kierkegaard's Postcript, I was of the mind that Mormonism would be well-served by an effort of that kind aimed at legitimating Mormon faith in the face of unfavorable scientific discovery. And it seems like such a natural need. I mean if you're acquainted with epistemology in the least, then Mormon views about knowledge and truth pose some interesting challenges. It would be far more productive to focus on developing a robust explanation and defense of Mormon religious epistemologies versus haggling over the legitimacy of the Bat Creek Stone, etc.

My suspicion on why this doesn't happen is that, well, it's hard. It's a lot easier to take some historical criticism and write pages and pages that amount to saying something like, "Ultimately, this contrary evidence doesn't rule out the possibility that [insert religious claim here] is true.".

I'm inclined to agree on that point as well. I wonder if there isn't also caution against applying practices developed by the philosophies of men with scriptural matters? I can't help but keep wishing. It would be interesting, if nothing else.

[_xolotl]

Therefore, no evidence is a prerequisite for "perfect" knowledge.

I always taught people on my mission that it was the other way around. Take the JST that says something like faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For example I would always teach people that it was impossible to have "true faith" in God unless he has previously answered your prayers etc. and they shouldn't get baptized unless true faith is being exercised. In other words they should only trust/believe if God has actually answered their prayers. If God, being perfect and a being that cannot lie, reveals the truth that the Book of Mormon was "true" or Joseph Smith was his prophet then you can have faith that being baptized is his will etc. The more faithful you are the greater the evidence builds up and the greater your faith in God becomes.

[_Alfredo]

I wish some whip-smart Mormon philosopher would undertake a defense of Mormon epistemology. I would seriously read it. If I hadn't thought it was patently absurd before pursuing my degree, my Phil education surely would have sounded the death knell. I'm curious to know how they're putting it at BYU in a way that students can understand the basic problems, and yet maintain their belief in the Book of Mormon, etc. I just don't see how that is possible. Maybe I'm just not creative enough?

I've been championing such a defense from the apologists for some time now. In my opinion, a robust defense of religious epistemology is more important in protecting members from disbelief than all of this historical apologetics for the simple reason that if people sincerely, and defensibly, believe that God has told them, say, the Book of Mormon is what the church claims it is, then historical/archeological/scientific evidence to the contrary be damned.

The weakness of religious epistemology in my view, and the particularly laughable treatment it gets from general authorities, is the fundamental reason I've stepped away from Mormonism and organized religion generally.

Absolutely. It's nearly all I ever use these forums for. I invite (or challenge, rather) any believer to give a convincing and thorough answer to the problem. I'd gladly return to church and "exercise faith".