Faith and Knowledge

[statman]

I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that what we do in this life should matter much in the eternal perspective. If we believe in eternity, then this life is less than a nano-second. Is God so petty that our eternal fate would be sealed in that nano-second.

I'm not criticizing or mocking anyone who chooses to believe that life is some sort of test of faith, I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to me.

I would argue that it's not so much what we do, but ultimately what MOTIVATES us to do what we do that matters. Our goal in this life is to become more like God - to align our will with His. To think about and do things for the reasons that He would. Doing things for the wrong reasons doesn't actually make us very God-like.

There is value in doing things for 'the wrong reasons' - it is an outward expression of sacfifice and a direct manifestation of our faith. Combine that with prayer, and a desire to have the right motivations for our actions, and the Atonement can help us overcome the Natural Man within us all, and we can align our will to God's...

[statman]

This very thought has led many LDS to speculate about multiple mortal probations.

One of the 'great and important truths?'

We know what we know. We know that if we do X, we're promised Y. There is a lot we don't know. There may be other ways to Y, but none that we know about...

[UtahDan]

One of the 'great and important truths?'

We know what we know. We know that if we do X, we're promised Y. There is a lot we don't know. There may be other ways to Y, but none that we know about...

It is interesting how casually we use the word "know." I have deleted that word about a dozen times from my posts in this thread because when I think about it, it isn't really what I mean. It is partly a semantic game, but it is more than that too. I think you are saying that you have been told that X leads to Y and have accepted it. The "why" of your acceptance is what I have have been trying to strike at. It is not easy to put one's finger on and even so all the reasons seem very subjective.

[creekster]

It is interesting how casually we use the word "know." I have deleted that word about a dozen times from my posts in this thread because when I think about it, it isn't really what I mean. It is partly a semantic game, but it is more than that too. I think you are saying that you have been told that X leads to Y and have accepted it. The "why" of your acceptance is what I have have been trying to strike at. It is not easy to put one's finger on and even so all the reasons seem very subjective.

They are subjective. Even the criteria we use to evaluate if they are subjective are, by nature, subjective.

[UtahDan]

They are subjective. Even the criteria we use to evaluate if they are subjective are, by nature, subjective.

You might have just gone a step too far for me, but I do understand your point.

[Jacob]

One of the 'great and important truths?'

We know what we know. We know that if we do X, we're promised Y. There is a lot we don't know. There may be other ways to Y, but none that we know about...

I don't know what you meant by that first sentence.

But as for the 2nd paragraph, this whole discussion is about if or how we can know X or whether we can merely believe it or have faith in it. I use the word "merely" not meaning to demean belief or faith, only to distinguish it from knowledge.

I haven't seen a very good response so far to the points made by UD and others that we can't really gain any objective knowledge through feelings and emotions. The best we can do is believe very strongly.

Based on my current understanding of the scriptures, knowledge is not required, nor is it promised in this mortal life. Those who believe and exercise faith will be saved and gain eternal life. Eternal life is to know God.

OTOH, Alma gives us the test of planting a seed to gain knowledge. He says:

And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your dmind doth begin to expand.

But I have a hard time with expressing "perfect knowledge" in such a way as if this were a scientific experiment. Suppose someone takes the experiment and the experiment failed--the word didn't swill within them. Then have they achieved a "perfect knowledge" of the falsity of the same proposition?

This is the problem with expressing knowledge based on an entirely subjective experience.

[Sleeping in EQ]

It is interesting how casually we use the word "know." I have deleted that word about a dozen times from my posts in this thread because when I think about it, it isn't really what I mean. It is partly a semantic game, but it is more than that too. I think you are saying that you have been told that X leads to Y and have accepted it. The "why" of your acceptance is what I have have been trying to strike at. It is not easy to put one's finger on and even so all the reasons seem very subjective.

Indeed, and the word "we" gets thrown around too.

[statman]

It is interesting how casually we use the word "know." I have deleted that word about a dozen times from my posts in this thread because when I think about it, it isn't really what I mean. It is partly a semantic game, but it is more than that too. I think you are saying that you have been told that X leads to Y and have accepted it. The "why" of your acceptance is what I have have been trying to strike at. It is not easy to put one's finger on and even so all the reasons seem very subjective.

let me rewrite - Instead of 'we know what we know' - insert 'what has been revealed, has been revealed.' I wasn't talking about 'knowing' as much as I was talking about our knowledge about the reality of things is really limited.

we have the plan of salvation, where we make and keep covenants and are promised blessings (X leads to Y), but because our knowledge of the total truth of all things (many great and important things yet to be revealed), there may be other paths that lead to Y.

Now to what you've been meaning by 'know' - we can "know" personally, individually that something has been revealed/confirmed to us personally/individually. We can "know" that there are things we must do in this life, and search for inspiration as to how to personally accomplish those things. But I'm not much of a "know" guy. I think I understand the revealed principles of the gospel and revealed doctrine of the Church pretty darned well. But I also see that there are gaps, incongreuencies and (I don't like this word, but it's the best I have) contradictions. Many of the "knowers" simply don't see them. I get that. But I see them, fill in the gaps as best I can, and with what makes the most sense, and claim that "maybe this is true" in those areas.

There are a few things that I "know" (strongest sense of the word) for myself personally. Those lead me to accept a few other things as being also true. Both of those sets lead me to things that I must do as a result, or be harshly judged for my inaction. There are a whole lot of areas of "think," or "Believe," or "hope," or "maybe." But I "know" enough that I can accept the rest of the uncertainty...

[UtahDan]

Indeed, and the word "we" gets thrown around too.

Ha ha. Touche. I don't mean it as the royal we obviously, sometimes it is a softer way of saying "you." But in that instance I definitely meant to include myself. Maybe I should have limited my comments to me.

[UtahDan]

let me rewrite - Instead of 'we know what we know' - insert 'what has been revealed, has been revealed.' I wasn't talking about 'knowing' as much as I was talking about our knowledge about the reality of things is really limited.

I understood your point and I wasn't trying to be flip with you, please understand. Part of what lawyers are always doing is asking people to state the bases of their conclusions and assumptions. That is sort of what I am trying to do in this thread because I am genuinely interested in hearing the answers and maybe also to get anyone who hasn't thought about it to think about it. Or to re-think about it because my guess is that it is a bit of a moving target throughout ones life.

Just as an example, switching to the word "revealed" (by God) just begs the question of why you think it is revealed by God. I think my belief system is revealed by God because..... How that sentence is finished is interesting to think about. It leads to many other similar sentences. I think LA Ute has given the most direct answer to that so far.

[Portland Ute]

I think our tendency in LDS culture to conflate belief and knowledge is a byproduct of our emphasis on testimonies. A full 1/4 of our sacrament meetings consist of bearing of testimony. We tend to merge upon a common vocabulary.

I agree with OSC in that I fail to see why we are so eager to devalue the concept of belief. What is wrong with saying "I believe Christ lived"? This hits home for me since I have a close friend who was invited to be ordained a high priest. He had an interview with is stake president and his stake president asked him to bear his testimony and when he did so, he repeatedly used the expression "I believe...". His SP asked if he knew the church was true. My friend (who has a bit of a stubborn streak) refused to express himself that way and was therefore not allowed to be ordained. He attends the HP group but is still an elder, 2-3 years later.

Good for your friend. I think the SP was asking an inappropriate question to your friend. Testimony does not equal knowing with certainty. It equals faith and hope.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is part 2 from OSC:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/17313/Orson-Scott-Card-Faith-and-trust

To be honest, I was disappointed in the second installment.

[UtahDan]

I'm not the one claiming knowledge = justified, true belief. That is the concensus among professional philosophers. Actually, the wider consensus now is that knowledge = justified, trust belief + some other undetermined element. I am in the minority camp that knowledge = true belief, and that justification is not a necessary condition, but a condition that explicates the strength (for lack of a better word) of knowledge.

Re: "justification", professional epistemologists usually lie in one of several camps: Foundationalism, Reliablism, Coherentism, or similar theories of justification.

See my preceding post about theories of truth. truth and establishing truth (i.e. "justification" are quite distinct.) Just because you may not be able to establish the truth value of a particular belief does not make it any less true (or false).

Wikipedia has an "ok" article on epistemology:
Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also an article stub on justified, true belief:
Justified true belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry if I force you to repeat yourself, but I want to understand what you are saying. It seems to be that knowledge = true belief is sort of a useless concept because it only begs the question of how one determines whether the belief is true. I'm not even sure what is meant by true. My legalistic mind thinks not in terms of truth (that will surely become someone's sig. line) but in terms of evidence and likelihoods and burdens of proof. If I want to "prove" a fact, I must bring forward evidence that tends to show that that fact is true and that evidence must then meet whatever the burden is. More likely than not is a common one. Beyond a reasonable doubt is another.

The idea is not truth can be arrived at, but that when there is enough evidence that suggests something is true we accept that the evidence is sufficient. Not that a thing is true, not that there is no contrary evidence, but that the evidence is sufficient. This is how I conceive knowledge. The idea that much is not knowable because there will never be enough evidence which tends to show it, but as to other things there is so much evidence that one can rely on the proposition or concept.

This is why I say that I don't know how one would use your conception. It seems like you are saying the best icecream in the world is defined as the icecream I think is best. Have I missed something?

[LA Ute]

I know that we will never develop a consensus on this issue.

[UtahDan]

Wrong. The truth value of a belief/proposition is a necessary condition to knowledge. I have not stated or implied anything to the contrary. Again:
knowledge = justified, true belief. Knowledge does not equal merely justified belief.

This is a logical circle. It is not knowledge unless it is also true. Which just begs the question of how you know it is true. If the answer to that question is that there is evidence to support it and it is true then you have gone in a circle, no?