Hope, Faith, and Knowledge in Testimony

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by All-American

How certainly must one "know" something in order to say that he knows it?

None of you can prove beyond all possible doubts that you exist. Heck, I can't prove that I exist. Cogito ergo sum isn't based on any hard evidence, after all-- maybe I only think that I am thinking? There simply comes a point where evidence suggests one explanation of observed phenomena to be the most plausible. There is no such thing as certain, absolute knowledge; just a certain point where the evidence toward one model of the universe is satisfactory.

Where, then, is that point in regards to one's testimony? I tend to think that a "belief" is something of which the speaker may or may not have any evidence to uphold. Once he has enough on which to hang his hat, I have no issue with him saying he knows it to be true, even if he hasn't seen angels or the like.

I do notice that one of the most powerful statements of testimony found in the hymnbook is "I Believe in Christ." Though, there is also "I Know that my Redeemer Lives."

Bottom line? Semantics. Probably irrelevant.

I think therefore I am = cogito ergo sum?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Which of course would be the ultimate unpardonable sin.

One man's hell is another's paradise

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

One man's hell is another's paradise

Yes. For example, the University of Utah would be my hell, and your paradise.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I think therefore I am = cogito ergo sum?

Yes.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The spirit of the occasion versus the Spirit communicating to me is a distinction.

Some people can be passionate without being articulate. If there is sincerity, and actual presence of the works of the Spirit, then the giving of the testimony will benefit me. If somebody is passionate, but rote, and not necessarily bring the works of the Spirit into the meeting, then I can be patient and not say much.

However, I find it worthwhile for there also to be the faithful, articulate and one who can bring the workings of the Spirit to the meeting. If everybody could do that, then the meetings would be more worthwhile.

I agree.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Just curious, SIEQ. Is it possible in your mind for someone to "know" Jesus is resurrected from the dead? If so, what would it take to satisfy your definition?

It is possible for someone to argue a notion of "spiritual knowledge" that would be rooted in an anthropology, sociology, or psychology of religion. James, Emerson, and some of the other thinkers whom I have great respect for have put some of the pieces in place for doing that very thing.

It is possible for someone to have a spiritual witness (as I do) that Jesus rose from the dead, but that witness does not constitute knowledge as it doesn't satisfy the demands of reason. Going all the way back to the pre-Socratics, you have positions of rationalism, empiricism, and mysticism. Religious claims of knowledge are mystical. I think they're valuable, but knowledge in our world is rooted in either rationalism or empiricism. Mystical knowledge can be very meaningful, but it lacks the factual foundation that rationalism and empiricism have.

Originally Posted by Tex

No, you are playing with words. You're hiding behind textbook definitions to mask your condescension. I certainly didn't denigrate anyone's beliefs ... Dehlin is welcome to believe what he wants. I simply challenged his right to question mine.

Tex, you said he had a lack of conviction. You were conflating belief and knowledge at your convenience and then distinguishing them when it suited your purposes.

Originally Posted by Tex

Wow, I guess the debate is over.

My point is simple. This issue cannot be circumscribed by "semantics." It deals with signifiers, with words, but the real issue is that when notions of belief and knowledge are allowed to be defined idiosyncratically they both fall down the relativist rabbit hole, and any notion of demonstrable knowledge is destroyed in the process. It flirts with an agnostic reality, an anti-knowledge reality, that is at cross-purposes with religious and spiritual values.

Further, I've rejected the idea that Mormons can't differentiate the two terms. In some respects they clearly do, as the preference for one term over the other in the context of testimony giving demonstrates.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

It is possible for someone to argue a notion of "spiritual knowledge" that would be rooted in an anthropology, sociology, or psychology of religion. James, Emerson, and some of the other thinkers whom I have great respect for have put some of the pieces in place for doing that very thing.

It is possible for someone to have a spiritual witness (as I do) that Jesus rose from the dead, but that witness does not constitute knowledge as it doesn't satisfy the demands of reason. Going all the way back to the pre-Socratics, you have positions of rationalism, empiricism, and mysticism. Religious claims of knowledge are mystical. I think they're valuable, but knowledge in our world is rooted in either rationalism or empiricism. Mystical knowledge can be very meaningful, but it lacks the factual foundation that rationalism and empiricism have.

So the short answer is "no."

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Tex, you said he had a lack of conviction. You were conflating belief and knowledge at your convenience and then distinguishing them when it suited your purposes.

I didn't say it--he did. His entire thesis is addressed to "disaffected" Mormons. I call that a lack of conviction. That's not a criticism, it just seems the word that fits. If that term doesn't suit you, then pick another, but please try to get my meaning.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

My point is simple. This issue cannot be circumscribed by "semantics." It deals with signifiers, with words, but the real issue is that when notions of belief and knowledge are allowed to be defined idiosyncratically they both fall down the relativist rabbit hole, and any notion of demonstrable knowledge is destroyed in the process. It flirts with an agnostic reality, an anti-knowledge reality, that is at cross-purposes with religious and spiritual values.

Further, I've rejected the idea that Mormons can't differentiate the two terms. In some respects they clearly do, as the preference for one term over the other in the context of testimony giving demonstrates.

I think the more salient point here is, when it comes to spiritual things it's hard to always be sure which word better describes how a person feels. You appear to think that without existential evidence, without some path you can follow via reason and logic, a person simply cannot possess "knowledge." I couldn't disagree more.

More to the point, I don't feel a need to critique others on which concept ("belief" or "knowledge") best applies to their particular level of understanding.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think the more salient point here is, when it comes to spiritual things it's hard to always be sure which word better describes how a person feels. You appear to think that without existential evidence, without some path you can follow via reason and logic, a person simply cannot possess "knowledge." I couldn't disagree more.

More to the point, I don't feel a need to critique others on which concept ("belief" or "knowledge") best applies to their particular level of understanding.

A feeling is an experience, a reaction to a set of circumstances, but alone is not evidence of knowledge.

You do "feel" a need to critique other's articulations, so how are you different than those you pejoratively critisize?

Without the ability to process experiences, datasets and information, how can one know anything substantial. I simply disagree. And because you reject the mechanics of reason, perception and human faculties you in supporting your thesis may not rely upon them. Good luck in supporting that argument without those tools.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A feeling is an experience, a reaction to a set of circumstances, but alone is not evidence of knowledge.

You do "feel" a need to critique other's articulations, so how are you different than those you pejoratively critisize?

Without the ability to process experiences, datasets and information, how can one know anything substantial. I simply disagree. And because you reject the mechanics of reason, perception and human faculties you in supporting your thesis may not rely upon them. Good luck in supporting that argument without those tools.

My concept of knowledge encompasses both the mechanics of reason and the operations of the Spirit. I don't see it as a mutually exclusive proposition, and it's not inconsistent to criticize those who do.