Knowledge: Why Do You Draw the Line?

“The reasons we have for knowing God are quite unrelated to how we value the beliefs…”

Cannot the reasons we have for knowing God be the very reasons we have for valuing our beliefs the way we do?

Could I, for example, because of a near death experience, come to know God out of an intense need to be reassured of life’s continuance? And could not this intense need be a determining factor in how I value my belief in God?

Or am I not understanding you? When you talk about beliefs do you mean it in more of a creedal sense? In a way that has to do more with squaring oneself with religion than with real personal experience?

Certainly the cause can be the same but the value and the defense (justification) are different in certain key ways. For instance in the above you have a strong value but weak evidence. One can basically say that because I value this that is my justification (which is what I think your example shows). My point is that this is very poor thinking.

Clark,

OK, I see how I’m making some suppositions in my argument–that knowing God = a knowledge of life’s continuance. But let’s take Michael Dorfman’s machine into the future–and let’s suppose that I see all of my loved ones merrily continuing their existence in a resurrected state. Are my beliefs better justified now that I have seen rather than God merely telling me that it is so? I would say probably yes. But, that doesn’t mean that God’s telling me how it is cannot be used as a trump–that is, if I am familiar enough with God to know that he doesn’t lie. And so, if God tells me that the scriptures are true (for example) with regard to how they speak of life’s continuance, how is my evidence weak? It may be entirely subjective, but it isn’t necessarily weak.

Jack - God’s telling you can be used as evidence but not as a trump. I’m making a distinction there.

Abraham wasn’t in an argument about conclusions but rather had enough evidence to know. The question was whether he would do. That’s quite different from the trump issue.

As I see LDS theology the issue with Abraham isn’t epistemology but trust and will.

That’s not to say that there aren’t epistemological issues we can raise but there are no answers for them in the narrative.

Yes, but D&C 132 isn’t an example of epistemic trumping but just an issue of authority. So that’s not really relevant.

The presupposition in all discussion is that we know what we are supposed to do. The question is whether we are willing to do it.

I think some elements of historic accuracy is essential to its value. Consider the existence of Jesus. That is a lot of its value but if there was no Jesus then certainly that has big implications. And that, to me, is at least in theory falsifiable.

Certainly the Old Testament has areas of either debatable historical accuracy or even major errors. But that’s not really a big deal to most Mormons. (IMO) The value of some events clearly depends upon their historicity though. Although one could also question the actual value to theology. For instance if the story of Solomon turns out to be wildly exaggerated does that really make a theological difference? I can’t see that it does.

Clark - Thank you for continuing this thread. I was afraid I had offended you with my warped sense of humor. If I did, or anyone else, please forgive me. Sometimes who you are just comes out. I do not mean to be offensive.

If I understand you, what you are getting at, is how can we know something sure enough that it becomes a trump to inquiry. Your assumption seems to be, we can’t. I think I agreed with you, but then I wanted to understand how that works with the claim of the LDS church.

You then made some claims about the Church, that I have a hard time understanding in light of your being active in the Church. Like this one - “Apostles and Prophets can provide strong evidence but don’t act as a trump since their assertions can be overthrown as wrong due to human fallibility.”

I think we both understand that our A&P (apostles and prophets) can and do speak for themselves, write books, give talks etc., and such things should not be taken as anything more than their own opinions, and therefore fallible. But to take your blanket assertion, without any qualifications, would *seem* to crush the foundations of the Church.

For instance, to use your claim, the revelation about the priesthood and blacks, could be seen as nothing more than a fallible claim, meaning that blacks should still be denied the priesthood. I know, there was never a revelation saying they should not have the priesthood, but that does not help my claim so we will just ignore that. :) Or this one is even better.

Lets say the revelation saying we should stop letting men have more than one wife was not true due to the fallibility of the Prophet. That could mean that the FLDS really are the true church and not us. Do you see the problem that arises with your claim? Here is one for you.

Was Joseph Smith supposed to continue looking for the true church after his “First Vision”? Or did that experience put an end to his inquiry? If it did, should it have?

It is not that I really disagree with your claim, but for years now, I have tried to find a place to stand that you and people like you seem to be standing on. It seems to be elusive for me, as I have yet to find it. That is why I find your claim so troubling. I know where I stand is not any concern of yours, but I tend to look up to people like you, use you for a role model. Again, not your problem, but any help you can offer is always appreciated.

For instance, to use your claim, the revelation about the priesthood and blacks, could be seen as nothing more than a fallible claim, meaning that blacks should still be denied the priesthood.

I don’t see how that logically follows in the least. Also just because something is conceptually possible doesn’t mean it is actually possible. To draw an analogy if I am in my room and haven’t looked outside I can say “it might be raining” because it is conceptually possible that it is raining. But if it is a bright sunny day then it is obviously not possible then that it is actually raining.

I think you are confusing issues of conceptual possibility (or possibilities due to our ignorance of facts) from actual possibility (or what is possible given the actual states of affairs in the world). You have to keep those two separate.

Was Joseph Smith supposed to continue looking for the true church after his “First Vision”?

Not only was he supposed to but that inquiry is historically what led him to further revelations as well as seeking priesthood keys.

Certainly I agree with you about how some use the Bible. I believe that was the basis for Alan’s first post. In his second post I thought it was interesting that he gave more diverse examples such as folks using materialism as a trump.

The issues in Buddhism are certainly different although I’d argue on the basis of my reading of the Lotus Sutra and it’s analogy of children in the burning house that it ends up being nearly as troubling. After all a Christian might use an epistemological trump. I think the Lotus Sutra justified a kind of ethical “ends justifies the means” kind of trump where lying is fine so long as it gets people where one wants to go. (I’m not up on the history but I suspect this is justifying the mixing of Buddhism with various local superstitions and myths to get people to act in a Buddhist way - partially why of all the Buddhisms I’m most partial to Zen)

But isn’t his reasoning citing the story? I guess I’m not following you argument here.

I don’t think historical evidence is a trump either. My whole point is that there are no viable trumps.

Well I’m not really able to get into an exegesis of Buddhist texts any more that you probably are of Mormon ones. And I’m not saying all Buddhists read it the way I mentioned just as all Christians don’t read the Bible as a trump. More just noting a parallel. I think the mixing of Buddhism and local traditions that are seen by many Buddhists as fictions is undeniable. It’s been so long since college that I can’t say too much about the Lotus Sutra connection but I remember at the time it striking me as similar to how some Christians apply the Bible. That was really my only point - that this human tendency to use trumps is found everywhere.

But I’ll not belabor it - especially if it turns out I’m wrong. (grin)

As you say it’s undeniable people use trumps. I suspect if there is an answer it’s probably found in cognitive science. But I don’t know offhand of any studies on this.

I’m just saying it’s bad reasoning. But people certainly reason poorly all the time.

Regarding inquiry I think that inquiry is a general process. So one should always be open to new information and never cut off inquiry. My feeling is that Joseph continued to inquire but his knowledge was stable. In the same way I think any testimony to remain a testimony needs constant strengthening. Put an other way just because you once knew doesn’t entail that you’ll continue to have that testimony. So in that sense I think continuous inquiry is necessary and actually encouraged in our theology. (I can find quotes on this if you are interested - it’s actually commented upon regularly)

With regards to what makes apostles special witnesses I think it is more that they are “out there” for all to see. In a sense their testifying helps lead people to inquire in a fashion they might otherwise not have.

Clark: “Regarding inquiry I think that inquiry is a general process. So one should always be open to new information and never cut off inquiry. My feeling is that Joseph continued to inquire but his knowledge was stable. In the same way I think any testimony to remain a testimony needs constant strengthening. Put another way just because you once knew doesn’t entail that you’ll continue to have that testimony. So in that sense I think continuous inquiry is necessary and actually encouraged in our theology. (I can find quotes on this if you are interested - it’s actually commented upon regularly)”

While inquiry is encouraged, that is not the method the church teaches on strengthening a testimony. Last Sunday in priesthood quorum (and Relief Society) the lesson was on testimony. It was pointed out that to strengthen a testimony one needs to share that testimony. While not discussed in the lesson, there are good neurological reasons why this is so. Personally significant events are processed with an affective tag (Antonio Damasio, Descartes’ Error: Emotions, Reason, and the Human Brain). When we recall our testimony that affective tag helps us recall the event and helps us to experience that affective state. After expressing that testimony and experiencing the affective state it is replaced back in memory. As it is replaced back in memory with that affective tag, it strengthens that memory.

I’m going out on a limb here and state the reason why, I believe, this kind of activity works for you is that you enjoy (affective state) this kind of activity and are gifted with the ability to engage in theses types of interchanges. Not everyone is so gifted and thus do not have the skills to continually question their testimony. Its not that these challenges can’t be met. Its that others do not have skill and knowledge to meet these challenges. I believe that a testimony is a gift of God. To continually challenge that gift, when you don’t have the skill and knowledge, is a sure way to lose that gift.

Rich

All the church states is that bearing testimony will strengthen testimony. I simply provided the neurological underpinning of why bearing one’s testimony strengthens one’s testimony.

As Damassion and others have pointed out, for a personally significant event to be remembered it must have an affective marker or somatic marker as he calls it. For a spiritual experience to have personal meaning for us (a lasting memory) it must have an affective component to it. For us to be able to recall a spiritual experience that experience must have an affective component or it will not be recallable. [I personally think a spiritual experience is an affective experience.] This holds only for personally significant events. Memorizing a vocabulary list normally has no personal significance for us. These types of events are memorized through different memory mechanisms (generally repetition). People often think that repetition is the foundation of all memory. It is not.

Rich

I finally got through to FAIR. I searched using ‘Packer” and all I got was “What Women Know.” I read it but it didn’t seem to have much about testimony. Are you sure it was Pres. Packer that was referenced.

Rich

Rich, I’m really busy this afternoon but have a backlog of posts to do tonight. (Including your comments here and on the global warming post)

As to the Packer quote I was thinking of this one:

It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?”

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. “The spirit of man,” is as the scripture says, indeed “is the candle of the Lord.” (Prov. 20:27.)

It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. It is quite another to have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom that what you have testified is true. Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it? As you give that which you have, there is a replacement, with increase!

There are better ones though. Rereading the above I can see how you might assume it is just an affective experience.

Clark, I appreciate you responding so fast. But it is not necessary. You have a lot on your plate with chocolate company and everything. When you get the time and want to respond that’s great. Don’t feel this is an obligation.

One little response to your comment “Rereading the above I can see how you might assume it is just an affective experience.” I view it as knowledge justified through affection. That is what I meant by a spiritual experience is an affective experience.

Rich

The term justification is used here a bit differently than it is normally used in philosophy. Justification is the creation of knowledge (epistemology) which becomes the basis for behavior. It explains why we do what we do. This behavior is at the root of who we are (ontology). The foundation of that justification is an internal affective state. Now this is valid only for personally significant events within a person’s life. Personally significant events generally resides in that part of memory we call autobiographical memory.

Rich

I’m speaking of a special kind of knowledge. It is knowledge which has the potential to guide behavior since it becomes part of a person’s reality. That reality may have nothing to do with the external reality surrounding him. The reality which we create (generally involuntarily through affection) exists within our memories and is the reality which guides our actions. I’m talking about perceived reality which is the only reality we, individually, have, not truth in the philosophical sense.

Let’s pick a subject completely at random. I know, chocolate. Let’s say you met a man who had never tasted chocolate. You tell him where the beans came from, how they were processed, the rich buttery taste of the chocolate, etc. He has all this information in his head And yet he has no desire to try the chocolate. All that knowledge has failed to try the chocolate simply because he has nothing of a sensory nature to relate this information to. Finally you convince him to take a bite. He finds it wonderful and wants more.

You then find another person who had never tried chocolate and convince him to try the chocolate. Unlike the first person, this guy’s taste buds are incorrectly wired. What is sweet for others is bitter for him. He takes a bite, spits it out and refused to have anything to do with that chocolate.

They have both gained knowledge but knowledge which has led to different realities. Reality for the first person is chocolate is wonderful. It is now a part of his reality. For the second person chocolate is terrible. That is now part of hid reality. Same chocolate two different realities. The sense of taste created those two realities.

A man comes back from Iraq. Conditions are such in Iraq that at anytime 24/7 he is susceptible to being attacked. He must be constantly on the lookout. Fear has driven that fact deep into his memory. He comes back home; goes out to a restaurant. Once there he insists on sitting at a table where he will be sitting with a wall to his back. There is no one there that will hurt him. It is safe. He may intellectually know he is safe. It doesn’t matter. That is not his reality, His reality says nowhere is safe and his behavior conforms to his reality. His trip to Iraq has given him new knowledge; the knowledge that nowhere is safe. That was justified or created a reality for him through the emotion of fear.

A new baby puts everything he/she grabs into the his/her mouth. The mouth contains the most developed sensations of any part of the baby’s body. Through the sensations in the mouth, the baby is creating the reality of his/her world.

Does that help?

Rich

But it seems to me that perception is a means by which we gain knowledge of the reality around us. This new knowledge will be the basis for our future behavior. In other words, as we gain in this personally significant knowledge we are creating who we are. This is not how we gain knowledge which is not personally significant. This has significance for both epistemology and ontology.

Rich

Clark: “Right perception is how we gain knowledge but our perceptions especially in the fashion you outline can lead us astray.”

True. I’m not speaking of ‘knowledge’ as justified belief. I’m speaking of ‘knowledge’ as a creator of our subjective affective reality; that reality which triggers behavior. The importance of this is that behavior defines who we are. And affectation is how we internalize (or make real) that subjective reality.

There is, however, another type of knowledge or knowledge acquired in a different way. I term this ‘information’ as it can put actions into context but has no power to effect behavior. I’m currently trying to read Thomas Metzinger’s “Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity” [I think you would find this very interesting. He tries to merge philosophy and neurology. Only a small portion of I’m discussing here comes from his book.] Its 634 pages and it’s very hard for me to understand. He deals in concepts I have no background in. I’ve only read 125 pages. But I have read those pages over and over again. I’m just now beginning to understand what he is talking about. Here I am gaining knowledge through repetition. [It doesn’t help that I’m philosophically challenged.]

We have, therefore, two types of knowledge. Or, two types of gaining knowledge. The first is knowledge which ultimately affects behavior. The other is knowledge which puts behavior into context. One we acquire through the attachment of affection and the other we acquire through repetition for building context. The reason reading Metzinger is so hard for me but would be much easier for you is that you already have the context and I’m am trying to build context and trying to understand what he is saying as I read.

It is clear that I’m using the term knowledge as justified ‘information’. And, I’m using it in a functional manner. In the one case it is information justified by affection and becomes an aspect of my affectively perceived reality. The other is by justification through agreement with my preexisting context. The exact nature of the context is not relevant. It can be political context, religious context, social context, etc. In this circumstance, what I call information is similar to what Pierce calls belief. I don’t care for that word because of it’s association with behavior. When new information comes in which does not agree with the existing context, one of two things happen. We either ignore or reject the information; or, we change the context.

Not so with affectively perceived reality. Here we can hold conflicting realities. Different affectively created behavior patterns can be recalled from memory depending on the nature of the event triggering the recall. We don’t have a single reality but rather different affectively perceived realities. It may seem like we have conflicting realities but actually we have different realties based on the event that recalls it.

What I have rejected is the paradigm information – reason – knowledge - truth.

Instead I have information – affection – knowledge -affectively-perceived reality - behavior And, information – agreement – context. What about reason? Reason to me seems to be a process by which we reach a conclusion. In affectively-perceived reality the system is used to come to a decision which implies behavior. Deciding when next to meet implies behavior. Reason prioritizes value. In this case value is affectively defined.

In the second case reason seems to be a reshuffling and prioritizing of information based on the value relevant to the decision. We gain a new insight or a new way in which to view the preexisting information. This may allow us to use preexisting information in a new way or may indicate a need for more information. But it is not connected to behavior.

In western culture we use reason as an entity (as opposed to a process) with which to keep feelings and emotions in check (among other things). I say I am a rational man meaning I use reason to limit the effects of emotions in my behavior. Untrue. Only emotions can keep emotions in check. In reality I am an affective being who has the capability of using high level information processing (reason).

The Model That is Out There

Clearly there is a reality out there. But we don’t react to that reality. We react to a model of reality. We interact with reality with our sense. Our sense convert that interaction to electrical impulses and chemical substances. When the appropriate portions of the brain receives those impulses and chemicals it is converted into symbols which are used to replicate reality. The brain does not use just the incoming signals from our sense organs to create a model of reality. The initial impulses trigger the brain to use memory to complete the process and create the symbols used to create reality. Thus there is not a one to one relationship between reality – sensations – processing – model of reality. What actually happens is reality – sensations – processing (initial sensation + memory) – model of reality. Because the brain uses only a portion of the sensory signals and because it interjects memory to complete the transformation of that impulse into a symbol of an aspect of that reality, there is always the possibility that reality and our model of reality are not quite the same. This is a continuous process so that if there are changes in reality there are changes in our model or reality. What we respond to is actually a model of the change by noting the current model of reality with the preexisting model of reality.

Furthermore, if incoming events are deemed to have personal significance they are stamped with an affective marker. It becomes a part of our affectively-perceived reality. Thus our model of reality contains both affectively-perceived reality and processed contextual information. Because we model reality not simply replicate it, we have no access to Truth (that which is unchanging). The best we can do is to find that contextual truth which allows us to ask questions we could not prior to acquiring that contextual truth. In this instance I’m speaking of that truth which was information which became justified through agreement with context and called knowledge.

Now I know there is probably more to say or to say what I mean in a clearer way but I plumb run out of words. So, this will have to suffice for now.

Rich