Unofficial Australian LDS Website

Unofficial Australian LDS Website
« Knowledge »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Dec 21, 2009, 12:09pm

Unofficial Australian LDS Website :: General :: Non LDS :: Knowledge

Author

Topic: Knowledge (Read 533 times)

wasonce
Greenie

member is offline

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 13

Knowledge
« Thread Started on Jan 29, 2008, 9:48am »

I have been looking into the Mormon church for sometime now. You may have seen my earlier posts. I have also been studying epistemology as part of a post graduate degree. I’m now left with a confusing dilemma which I will attempt to “unpack” through the following Socratic conversation and then I’d invite comments.

Missionary: I KNOW the church is true.
Wasonce: Generally claiming to “know” something involves the following three components:

a. It must be true
b. It must believed to be true
c. It must have adequate evidence to show it is true

For example, it was believed for a long time that the Earth was flat and that it was the centre of the known universe. Mariners used these“ facts” in celestial navigation and successfully crossed the known world. In fact, the known evidence was not adequate as it did prove the Earth was flat and central to the universe but neither of these “facts” were true as later evidence showed.

May I ask what evidence you have to support your knowledge?

M: Do you know what salt tastes like?
W: Yes, but this hardly seems like the same kind of knowledge as that claimed when I say I know the Earth is round. In fact, since the only evidence I can have personally for the taste of salt is my own experience of it, I cannot explain it to anyone else but I also couldn’t guarantee that in every instance of experiencing a salt like taste, I am, in fact, tasting salt, therefore I am capable of being wrong when I say “what I am currently tasting is salt…” Knowledge is an absolute and, by definition, cannot be wrong since this would prove it wasn't knowledge.
M: I know the church is true in the same way as you know what salt tastes like. I have had a personal witness from God that it is true.
W: I have said that I could taste something that may mislead my senses into thinking it’s salt. In order to say for sure I am tasting salt, I would need other evidence; in fact I would need adequate evidence to prove that it is salt and not merely something that is salty. Do you have adequate evidence that your “personal witness” came from God?
M: I have no doubt that it was from God because of a burning in my bosom…
W: And you believe that to be adequate evidence that allows you to claim “knowledge.”
M: Yes. You could also have the same experience. I might also ask how you know you love your wife. Surely that is something you “know.”
W: I think claiming to love my wife has more in common with belief than knowledge. In our culture we have certain behaviours that we associate with love and, when we demonstrate these behaviours, we accept them as evidence of an internal feeling. I don’t think we are using the word “know” in relation to love in the same way as we do to empirical knowledge such as knowledge that the world exists, that the ground is under our feet etc. There appears to be various kinds of knowledge which could be labelled “concrete knowledge” or belief based knowledge etc.

The knowledge you are claiming to have about the truthfulness of your church seems to owe much more to belief than it does to knowledge since an ordinary person would think that knowledge is capable of being explained and supported with adequate evidence. I wouldn’t accept your personal witness from God nor your burning in the bosom as adequate evidence that supports your claim nor would I accept is as "knowledge" if I experienced it myself since I am capable of being mislead, therefore I am left wondering why you don’t simply say, “I believe the church is true,” since religion is based on faith in things unseen.

M: To say “I know…” has more gravity as a claim than “I believe…”
W: I agree but, in this instance, you are using the word “know” in a way in which it is not normally used in our culture. You’re right when you say this claim has more gravity and surely that’s why you are making it instead of being more accurate and saying “I believe…”
M: When the President of the church says, “I know the church is true I believe he would be capable of producing the adequate evidence of which you speak but this would take away your faith.
W: Yes, I don’t need faith that the ground is under me when I get out of bed, so I think you are saying that the President of the church wants us to have faith which we don’t have or need when we have knowledge. I therefore think that the tendency of church members to tell others they “know” is misleading in that it is an attempt to exploit the greater gravity of claims of knowledge when compared to claims of belief.

In our culture there is no responsibility placed on someone to prove their belief as there is to prove their “knowledge.” Since God is all good, what do I make of the fact that he either encourages you through your prophet to make a misleading claim or allows you to do it? Doesn’t the fact that you are using words in a misleading way prove that your church is not of God since we would say that misleading people is NOT good?

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Bevan
Greenie

member is offline

Joined: Feb 2006
Gender: Male

Posts: 16
Location: Australia

Re: Knowledge
« Reply #1 on Jan 31, 2008, 7:48pm »

You are delving deeper and asking challenging questions.
There are indeed genuine answers to you questions.

They are challenging questions I believe because you are presenting them to the very individuals that for one reason or another utilise these very thought and reasoning processes.

One critique, rather than an all ‘good’ God, The scripture I believe speaks of an all ‘Just’ God. Meaning He can justly act in anger and in mercy according to His sovereignty.

My suggestion to help you on your area of interest would be to familiarise yourself with people that have come ‘full circle’ and articulate the contrasts in the reasoning patens they have personally experienced.

Take care,

Bevan.

www.saintsalive.org
www.towertotruth.net

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Steve O'Neil
Administrator

The Big Boss
member is offline

Aus LDS Webmaster

Joined: Jul 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 110
Location: Kalgoorlie, WA

Re: Knowledge
« Reply #2 on Apr 25, 2008, 11:22pm »

Everyone bases their faith on different criteria so I can only comment on what my own is based on. Like many people in the church I have had personal experiences that have convinced me that this is God's church and that he wants me to be a part of it. It's certainly not blind faith or some warm fuzzy feeling. The reason I am certain these experiences are from god are twofold.
Firstly, the witnesses I have had are consistent with my knowledge of the Bible's guildlines for discerning truth. The fruits of the spirit as described by Paul I've seen and experiences in many ways to the point where I couldn't possible deny them. Additionally my studies of the hebrew language, archaeology, history and other areas further convinces me of this.
Secondly, in my investigation of other churches I find far too much that is inconsistend with the Bible. I belive in Christianity because I have had many faith building experiences with Jesus Christ but for me, none of the other christian churches fit with what the bible teaches despite their claims (which for the most part amount to - we're the established system so we must be right). Now as is the practice in our church I generally don't criticise other faiths but it is investigation of the other christian faiths and the realisation of how far from biblical teachings they are, that has left me convinced that the LDS church is the only one that truly fits with the bible. The real irony is that many mainstream churches reject us as christians for basing some of our beliefs outside the bible (such as the book of mormon) while many of their own beliefs are based on creeds which I think clearly contradict the bible. They poke in to obscure aspects of our faith looking for cracks without noticing some of the gaping holes in their own philosophies, and then claim vicotory when we don't attack in kind.
What it boils down to is that it's a personal thing. It's hard exactly to explain how you can know something for certain.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Webmaster
Unofficial Australian LDS Website
http://www.oneil.com.au

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free

This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Boards & Free Forums!