Native American use of Sacred Metal Tablets

[_EdGoble]

The problem is when those things which we decide are facts, aren't.

Yes, and again, who is going to decide that for me? You? Nope. Me.

[Guest]

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact.
2 + 2 = 4 = true is a fact.
"The Book of Mormon is true" is a nonsensical statement as we don't know what "true" in this context means.
"The Book of Mormon is historical" is not a fact, as it isn't.
"The Book of Mormon is the word of god" is not a fact as there is to many unresolved presumptions inhereted with the statment, so highly debatable.

Why do I have the feeling most people will not agree with your special use of the word "fact"?

[_Themis]

I understand your sentiment Ed Goble. But what I question is perfect knowledge? I don't think there is such an animal. Not from a mortal, finite limited point of view. I'm open to a discussion of that but if we're talking science then we'll never get perfect knowledge but that's not what it's all about. It's about probability because that is what reality in this universe is based upon. Notice I don't say possibility. All things are possible but not all things are probable, and only what is more probable is closer to real. That is how science works so far as what little I understand.

Ed is a good example of self delusion over a period of years. Quite common and to be found in all other religions as well as non-religious. His latest statement doesn't even make much sense. One of the reasons I like to ask certain questions about knowing and spiritual experiences is to see if one can clearly articulate how they think they know something is true. So far nothing good about knowing some subjective spiritual experience is from a divine source or how one would know their interpretation is accurate. I feel I could clearly state how I think I know something is true.

[_Philo Sofee]

I understand your sentiment Ed Goble. But what I question is perfect knowledge? I don't think there is such an animal. Not from a mortal, finite limited point of view. I'm open to a discussion of that but if we're talking science then we'll never get perfect knowledge but that's not what it's all about. It's about probability because that is what reality in this universe is based upon. Notice I don't say possibility. All things are possible but not all things are probable, and only what is more probable is closer to real. That is how science works so far as what little I understand.

Ed is a good example of self delusion over a period of years. Quite common and to be found in all other religions as well as non-religious. His latest statement doesn't even make much sense. One of the reasons I like to ask certain questions about knowing and spiritual experiences is to see if one can clearly articulate how they think they know something is true. So far nothing good about knowing some subjective spiritual experience is from a divine source or how one would know their interpretation is accurate. I feel I could clearly state how I think I know something is true.

Yep, that's the impression I am getting as well. His certainty is what is so interesting. We are ALWAYS the easiest ones to fool ourselves. A good dose of Jerry Coyne (Faith Verses Fact) or David Eller (Natural Atheism) would be a good tonic to the delusion.

[_Maksutov]

In a culture where certainty is routinely and ritually feigned ("a testimony is found in the bearing of it"), nothing is certain.

[_Philo Sofee]

In a culture where certainty is routinely and ritually feigned ("a testimony is found in the bearing of it"), nothing is certain.

Man that's for sure.......

[_Themis]

Certainty is something common for many religions to promote in their members, and LDS do it more then the average. Mak is right about LDS using ritual and routine to promote certainty in it's members. One of the best ways to get certainty in a member is get them to have very emotional/spiritual experience that they are told to interpret a certain way and you will likely have someone believing it for life. It is very hard at this point to get them to evaluate the experience in a rational way. Emotions are key here, and the stronger the better. I've met many on my mission who had this with their religions interpretations and we learned quickly we had little chance to change their minds. It's one of the main reasons most people don't change religions in their life, and for many who do, they end up later in life back in the religion they grew up in.

[_mikwut]

Hi Ed, Mak and Themis,

I hope you would allow me to be a dual contrarian. I agree partially with Ed and I agree partially with Mak and Themis. The issue to me doesn't seem to be certainty - because each of you is claiming some of that word in what your arguing for. The issue to me rather seems to be reliability. We have an intuition of God, or the sacred or whatever you want to label that intuition. How reliable is that intuition and in what scope is it reliable? I agree with Ed that we can accept it is generally reliable in the broadest scope. I disagree with Ed on the narrower scope of its reliability. We cannot use this intuition for historical facts; we use history for that. But, we can use it for hope, meaning and purpose. Here I would criticize Ed's use of language. 'Belief' is not an appropriate label when discussing these issues along side science, history, ie. empirical facts. The language of hope and trust is more appropriate and it is betraying one faculty at the expense of another to say my intuition tells me so but my ability to clearly perceive empirical reality tells me different. The two must be consistent.

Likewise respecting Mak and Themis. It is perfectly appropriate to criticize Ed with respect to empirical facts and science but that bludgeon stops when the empirical data stops beause that is seemingly the only tool you are utilizing in your arguments. And when the empirical data stops it is inappropriate to simply throw our intuitions completely out the door. For example, we know that humans are intuitively very good and correspondence exists with our intuition and certain reality in some areas and not others. For example, people are excellent at intuitive grammar. Children for example without much effort conform to certain rules of grammar intuitively, ie. not knowingly conforming to the rules of grammar. But, people are very poor at intuitively understanding say statistics.

It does very little good in progressing the dialogue to simply say in so many ways "Science!", and contra, "Faith!". Articulating what is reliable and why and what is not and why and then corresponding that to the ultimate good and why is productive dialogue.

regards, mikwut

[_Maksutov]

Hi Ed, Mak and Themis,

I hope you would allow me to be a dual contrarian. I agree partially with Ed and I agree partially with Mak and Themis. The issue to me doesn't seem to be certainty - because each of you is claiming some of that word in what your arguing for. The issue to me rather seems to be reliability. We have an intuition of God, or the sacred or whatever you want to label that intuition. How reliable is that intuition and in what scope is it reliable? I agree with Ed that we can accept it is generally reliable in the broadest scope. I disagree with Ed on the narrower scope of its reliability. We cannot use this intuition for historical facts; we use history for that. But, we can use it for hope, meaning and purpose. Here I would criticize Ed's use of language. 'Belief' is not an appropriate label when discussing these issues along side science, history, ie. empirical facts. The language of hope and trust is more appropriate and it is betraying one faculty at the expense of another to say my intuition tells me so but my ability to clearly perceive empirical reality tells me different. The two must be consistent.

Likewise respecting Mak and Themis. It is perfectly appropriate to criticize Ed with respect to empirical facts and science but that bludgeon stops when the empirical data stops beause that is seemingly the only tool you are utilizing in your arguments. And when the empirical data stops it is inappropriate to simply throw our intuitions completely out the door. For example, we know that humans are intuitively very good and correspondence exists with our intuition and certain reality in some areas and not others. For example, people are excellent at intuitive grammar. Children for example without much effort conform to certain rules of grammar intuitively, ie. not knowingly conforming to the rules of grammar. But, people are very poor at intuitively understanding say statistics.

It does very little good in progressing the dialogue to simply say in so many ways "Science!", and contra, "Faith!". Articulating what is reliable and why and what is not and why and then corresponding that to the ultimate good and why is productive dialogue.

regards, mikwut

Thank you for your contribution. I find that it adds nothing to the thread, however. We are quite capable of discussion without you inserting yourself as some kind of proposed facilitator.

[_Themis]

Hi Ed, Mak and Themis,

I hope you would allow me to be a dual contrarian. I agree partially with Ed and I agree partially with Mak and Themis. The issue to me doesn't seem to be certainty - because each of you is claiming some of that word in what your arguing for. The issue to me rather seems to be reliability. We have an intuition of God, or the sacred or whatever you want to label that intuition. How reliable is that intuition and in what scope is it reliable? I agree with Ed that we can accept it is generally reliable in the broadest scope. I disagree with Ed on the narrower scope of its reliability. We cannot use this intuition for historical facts; we use history for that. But, we can use it for hope, meaning and purpose. Here I would criticize Ed's use of language. 'Belief' is not an appropriate label when discussing these issues along side science, history, ie. empirical facts. The language of hope and trust is more appropriate and it is betraying one faculty at the expense of another to say my intuition tells me so but my ability to clearly perceive empirical reality tells me different. The two must be consistent.

Likewise respecting Mak and Themis. It is perfectly appropriate to criticize Ed with respect to empirical facts and science but that bludgeon stops when the empirical data stops beause that is seemingly the only tool you are utilizing in your arguments. And when the empirical data stops it is inappropriate to simply throw our intuitions completely out the door. For example, we know that humans are intuitively very good and correspondence exists with our intuition and certain reality in some areas and not others. For example, people are excellent at intuitive grammar. Children for example without much effort conform to certain rules of grammar intuitively, ie. not knowingly conforming to the rules of grammar. But, people are very poor at intuitively understanding say statistics.

It does very little good in progressing the dialogue to simply say in so many ways "Science!", and contra, "Faith!". Articulating what is reliable and why and what is not and why and then corresponding that to the ultimate good and why is productive dialogue.

regards, mikwut

My arguments and questions have always revolved around reliability. Certainty is a recent discussion in which many religious people like Ed like to assert certainty. This is a trait found in many religions, especially LDS. Intuition is the interpretive stage of our experiences as we add meaning to them. My questions have always been about reliability here, and I have not made any kind of argument, in regards to certainty, saying things like our spiritual experiences are not from a divine source. It is about how one thinks they know they are from a divine source and how one knows they got the right interpretation, or intuition if you like. I was not asking for any proof or scientific evidence to support Ed's assertions about his subjective spiritual experiences. Just to articulate how he thinks he knows his interpretations are true/accurate.