Imagine that you read a post entitled "Meaning and Existence" submitted by a Muslim "true believer" (call him Omar). Omar has made clear in the past that he KNOWS (capital K) that Allah has communicated to him directly that Islam is the one and only True Way. He has no evidence, nor faith; he says that he knows he has "knowledge". By extension, he knows then that anything which appears to disconfirm Islam or his knowledge that God spoke to him, is doing just that - merely appearing to do so, for he already KNOWS, with metaphysical certitude, that "disconfirming evidence against Islam" is NOT POSSIBLE. Neither is a "conclusive argument". Nothing is. After all, by definition, one can't "know" something to be true, which isn't really true. The truth of Islam can not admit of doubt now - no matter what.
Continuing...
But THEN...........Omar asks for a "lucid", "reasoned", and "philosophically serious" response to his "Meaning and Existence" essay, an essay spurred by Omar's "Islamic paradigm".
What do you say? What's the point of saying anything? How can a "philosophically serious" discussion be had with Omar, when Omar himself has begun by baldly acknowledging - though he seems unable to admit it to himself - that the sort of discussion he wishes to have is fundamentally incompatible with philosophical seriousness?
Do you understand, Coggins7? This doesn't mean you're not intelligent. It doesn't even mean, logically, that God never spoke to you, or that you're wrong. But it does necessarily mean that a "paradigm" (your word) such as the one within which you have expressed yourself here, and which you are committed to remaining attached to, is ultimately totally antagonistic to "philosophical seriousness",
"Philosophical seriousness" is a description of the intellectual discipline, sophistication, nuance, and methodological focus one brings to any discussion, whether that be a discussion of theology, metaphysics, politics, ethics, or whatever. There is no problem for a Mormon or anyone else, regardless of the degree of certainty he brings to the table regarding the central tenets of his belief system, as long as he's willing to engage dissenting opinions in a manner that facilitates understanding of that claimed knowledge while acknowledging the sincere oppositional views of others. I have never seen any serous LDS scholar or apologist walk away from the arena of ideas because of his testimony. Apparently, that is what you are saying I should be doing.
The reality, of course, is that unless you have the same testimony I do, that testimony is not available to you in any direct manner. Therefore, Mormons and non-Mormons engage in philosophical discussions and debates regarding the premises and principles upon which our beliefs are based. The end of all this is, of course, to persuade the other to seek the testimony.
I'm not sure why to think that because I know some central truths regarding my religion, It somehow follows that I should refrain from philosophical thought and critical debate and discussion with others with the intent of persuading them that the Gospel is plausible, has merit, and should be pursued further?
just as would Omar's paradigm, or a devout Moonie's, or a devout Wiccan's. And that means that while you have probably done as good a job as can be done to make Mormonism seem philosophically/intellectually respectable or believable to yourself, that this far different from you, right now, being capable of having a truly philosophically serious discussion about it.
The only way one could not have a philosophically serous (critical, rigorous, imaginative) discussion about the Church, or any church, is if that person, as a person, was not of a philosophical temperament. You are implying a premise or core concept here you're not stating openly.
Now, if we attempted to engage Omar, and he refused to respond to our questions, or merely kept bearing his testimony of Islam
When have I, or any other serious apologist just walked away from the table like this?
I think you and I would agree that we could not have a "philosophically serious" discussion with Omar about his chosen topic - that it was impossible. But of course, Coggins7 - this is what you have done here; and I am left to conclude the same thing.
Here are your own two examples:
1.) I wrote:
Quote:
Do you think it is possible - not likely, just possible - that Joseph Smith might not always have told the truth about his experiences?
You reply:
Quote:
Your premise assumes the nonexistence of the phenomena of testimony, or confirmatory revelation. You beg the question.
The sophistry continues...
Can you see, Coggins7? Even a little bit? You are smart, but something has happened to you with regards to the religion which has meant so much to us. You do not respond to the question. You do a little trick that I used to play on myself, and which Robert Millett recommends missionaries do consciously. I call it "flipping". We "flip" a question asked to us, which we do not want to answer - which, at some level, we perceive as threatening to that pleasing mental state we are in - into another one altogether; or, our brain spontaneously misinterprets it, so that we don't, or can't, seriously contemplate it. In any case, we do not consider, or respond to, the question.
What appears to be going on here, Tal, is that you have worked out a very, what is to you, convincing ad hoc psychological theory regarding how Mormons become and maintain themselves as Mormons, and then you have attempted to project this subjective fantasy (that is, unless you can demonstrate convincingly that it is any more than this) onto all other Mormons. This self justificational, explanatory framework that you've created to explain why you have left the Church and its doctrines-while millions of others have not, and have no intention of ever doing-I understand functions as a defense mechanism that, at least on the surface, allows you to reframe your apostasy and your fundamental reasons for it in terms of a delusional mental state affecting most or all other Mormons, from which you finially emerged into the glorious light.
My question is why you feel the need to externalize your own inner reasons for leaving the Church and reframe yourself as some kind of courageous maverick riding over the dusty plains to save the Mormons who have not yet seen the light that you have seen? Why not just leave the Church and move on, and see how things seem some years from now. You may not like the Church. Millions of others love it and there are many millions more to come who are going to embrace it. Why bother with them? If they are happy, and you are happy outside of it, why the need to concoct vapid psychological hypothesis regarding the alleged mental states of those who do not see things your way?
To elaborate, there is absolutely nothing in my question that implies there is no such thing as "confirmatory revelation" or "testimony".
Except logically. If I know that water boils at 212 degrees, then even if you don't know it, I have no need to accept the possibility that
it might not be true. The case is the same with my knowledge of God and the truth of Joseph Smith's teachings, the only substantive difference being that the one is empirically demonstratable, while the others are not, at least not to outside observers in an objective way. Of course, your claims regarding the interior mental states of missionaries in the field aren't any more demonstrable than Joseph's claim that he held gold plates in his hands. But this has not prevented you from making the claims. In fact, I have no way of ascertaining the claims you have made here about your own mental state when you were a missionary. This could be self delusion on your part, or a
convenient memory of your mental state as a missionary functioning now as a useful perceptual rationalization to justify your present psychological condition. I just don't know.
And of course there is no begging of any question in my question. I asked you a question meant to uncover whether, cognitively, you are right now able to contemplate the possibility that you have made an error with regards to Joseph Smith's stories and claims. It was a question about the particular mental state you are in right now. And, you "flipped" it; you have made it into something it is not, so as to neutralize it, I suppose. I am sorry to say that that is telling.
And of course, you beg the question. If I give in and say that yes, there is some possibility, if even so slight, that I have made a cognitive error regarding my testimony, this implies that very possibility, ie., that my testimony could be a perceptual error. However, the very concept of testimony, if such has actually been received, rules out the possibility of cognitive errors of this kind upon the fundamental principles of the Gospel. When John answered Jesus that he was "the Christ, the Son of the living God", and Jesus answered him back by telling him that flesh and blood had not revealed it unto him but "my Father which is in Heaven", A core problem for John had been solved. He knew (not believed) that Jesus was The Christ. This was no longer a matter of faith for him.
How this precludes philosophical discussion with those who do not believe, I am at a loss to comprehend, and you haven't shown any reason, as of yet, why I should believe this to be the case.
Even granting that there is a God, granting that one of the many religions on earth is his "only true one", granting that he tells some people which religion that is:
Do you think it is possible - not likely, just possible - that Joseph Smith might not always have told the truth about his experiences? Yes or no?
Some of this answer, upon reflection, will probably hinge upon what you mean by "tell the truth" (did Jesus always "tell the truth" about the Kingdom of Heaven. Well, yes, but he hid much of it in parabolic teaching and he made his listeners grasp and reach for the meaning. Do the synoptic gospels tell the truth about the life of Christ? Yes, but in bits and pieces, some books leaving out or adding elements missing in the other texts).
2.) Perhaps you have in effect answered this question in responding to my point four. You wrote:
Quote:
I have the direct and sure knowledge within myself that Joseph did not lie about his persona experiences regarding the origins of the Church
As I mentioned above re: Omar, this is simply a bearing of a testimony, Coggins7. Can you understand why it is not possible to explore, discuss, search for, answers to questions about - to have a "philosophically serious" discussion about - meaning and existence with someone who keeps announcing, "I already have sure and direct knowledge about meaning and existence, and I know I'm 100% right!"? It's not possible. It's like talking to a robot or a Jehovah's Witness or something. It's not possible.
This is a waste of both my time, and yours. Nice try Tal, but I can quite clearly see that the real premise of your entire world view relative to the Church and Mormons is that you cannot forge a suitable weapon against the Gospel so long as the confirmation of the Gospel's truths remain beyond the range of your weapons or so perfectly concealed that you have no idea where to aim. Indeed, a testimony is beyond rational, philosophical analysis for the same reason it is quite beyond rational philosophical description to the one who has one. A description of it can only be approached in the poorest manner with human language, and only indirectly.
Omar cannot know anything about my claim of testimony nor I about his (and I'm not sure Muslims even make similar claims as Mormons regarding spiritual confirmation, but assuming they do); the only way we could know is to experience what the other has experienced. The philosopher, no matter how brilliant and intellectually sophisticated, must just sit and watch all of this and twiddle his thumbs. He has come to the end of this perceptual field at that point, and hence, to the end of philosophy as a useful tool of analysis. Or rather, as a tool that can discover any truth beyond that perceptual field.
But why we cannot still discuss the concept of testimony as understood by LDS, and the various doctrines in isolation from it, as a matter of philosophical persuasion and at least a substantive understanding of LDS claims, is still beyond me.
Question: if I cannot, because I have complete certitude about something, have a philosophically serious discussion with you regarding how, why, and the meaning of the certitude, then why are you having it with me? Further, why is it of any importance to you whether the Church is true or not? What is your alternative?
Think of it, Coggins7 - how could you have a "philosophically serious" discussion with Omar about his views on "meaning and existence from an Islamic paradigm", if he kept dodging your questions and then talking about his "sure and direct knowledge" from Allah that he's ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT?
For God's sake, Coggins7, tell me this makes some sense to you!
[/quote]
Omar and I, if he were a serious Islamic intellectual or believer, could have a perfectly serious discussion with me about his religion. You keep introducing a caveat here that doesn't exist for Mormons generally as to their ability to explain, elucidate, and defend their views from alternative views. Nobody is dodging anything.
You have set a very high epistemological bar here, and since I don't know what your theory of knowledge really is, or how you view the universe in general now, I cannot comment upon it. However, the Gospel challenges one to find out for oneself, in the dark night of one's own soul, whether the Church is true.
Failing to approach that challenge upon the basis that one somehow already knows the answer (the Church isn't true), especially because one imagines a dearth of empirical support, is no different than what you allege is the subjective psychological retreat to testimony.
How do you know that it is not you retreating into the illusion of what the material world and your perception and interpretation of it-manifests to your sense-or appears to- from the spiritual realities made manifest through spiritual means?
We see only the narrow bandwidth of reality our senses allow us to see, and no further.