***QUOTE***
TOUCHSTONE SAID:
Steve,
Let's keep it simple, then.
Joe is a devout Mormon, and makes the following statement:
“I, Joe, have received a revelation from the Holy Spirit that the Gordon B. Hinckley is a true prophet of God. And that further more, all of the past presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been chosen of God as prophets, seers and revelators.”
That's not the Mormon Prayer. This would be a separate kind of revelation. Now, if this is Joe's claim, how does it get dismissed, according to your post? Specifically, how might you dismiss it in a way that doesn't leave Exapologist dismissing *your* testimony on the same grounds?
Is there a way?
***END-QUOTE***
1.Before answering his specific question, let’s step back a few paces. Touchstone and the interlocutor are acting as if no one is entitled to claim knowledge by acquaintance or mount an argument from experience unless everyone is entitled to do the same.
But this is absurd. Given, on the one hand, the fact that we all rely on experience as a major source of information, then knowledge by acquaintance, and existential arguments, are unavoidable.
On the other hand, every appeal to knowledge by acquaintance is not a legitimate appeal. Certain conditions must be met.
As I’ve said before, the argument from religious experience is a subdivision of the argument from experience generally, which is—in turn—a subdivision of knowledge by acquaintance.
There is nothing special about the argument from *religious* experience that isn’t applicable to experience in general.
Paradigm examples of knowledge by acquaintance would include perceptual beliefs as well as mnemonic beliefs.
2.Are we going to say that an appeal to sense knowledge is illicit unless an appeal to sense knowledge is inerrant?
Or take our memories. In many cases, it’s not possible to verify our memories.
And it’s also possible, as we all know, to misremember a personal experience.
Does this mean that no appeal to memory is licit unless every appeal to memory is licit?
Once again, that’s absurd. We all rely on memory, even if our memories sometimes fail us.
Now there are some philosophers who would take that position. But, if so, they wouldn’t limit their scepticism to religious experience. Rather, they would apply their scepticism to experience in general.
So the average critic of religious experience doesn’t have this option unless he intends to slit his own throat in the process.
3.Let’s go back to Touchstone’s hypothetical: “Now, if this is Joe's claim, how does it get dismissed, according to your post?”
This existential claim is subject to a variety of undercutters and defeaters. I’ve gone over all that ground before.
4.” Specifically, how might you dismiss it in a way that doesn't leave Exapologist dismissing *your* testimony on the same grounds?”
As I’ve said on several occasions now, I don’t regard the argument from experience as automatically binding on a second party.
Whether we accept or reject someone’s testimony is contingent on a variety of criteria, viz. the character of the witness, as well as his competence. Was he an eyewitness? Did he rely on firsthand information? Is his testimony corroborated? How does his testimony cohere with our worldview? With what’s possible or probable?
Is the critic going to say that we should never accept anyone’s testimony unless we accept everyone’s testimony?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhen you say:
Whether we accept or reject someone’s testimony is contingent on a variety of criteria, viz. the character of the witness, as well as his competence. Was he an eyewitness? Did he rely on firsthand information? Is his testimony corroborated? How does his testimony cohere with our worldview? With what’s possible or probable?
I get the idea that you *don't* understand the point about subjectivity here at all. In the previous post, "Chuck Liddell" responded to "Joe Mormon" with a would-be refutation of Joe Mormon's revelation based on *his* understanding of Alma 7:10 and a quote from Brigham Young.
Setting aside that this is a clumsy critique in and of itself (see here for a common example of Mormon answers to this charge), one wonders:
Do we suppose the Mormons look at that and say 'Ya know, we'd never thought of that. You've pretty much demolished Mormonism, there, Chuck!'? I get the sense from "Chuck" that he thinks his critique is something like that. And to him, I'm sure it is. But to the Mormon, it just looks ignorant and foolish.
When you ask, "Is his testimony corroborated?", you're begging the central question of *who* decides what constitutes "corroborated" or not. Clearly, from your posts, you feel entitled to pronounce judgment on this question, and any others. Your arguments are compelling, because you say so, and your critics? Their arguments are lame because you say so.
So maybe you can tell me *who* determines, for example, what the *right* worldview is to "cohere with" in your statement above. Are you assuming we *start* with your worldview in judging Mormon's claims?
When you ask this:
How does his testimony cohere with our worldview?
You're indulging yourself, at the expense of others, to the baseline worldview, what you call "our worldview". But that worldview is just as subjective as a Mormon's or an atheists (with an atheist's being arguably *less* subjective). "Chuck Liddell" responds with the virgin birth question, and then *really* wants an answer from Joe Mormon, as if he thinks Mormons are caught in their own trap! Apparently, he's so stuck in thinking that everyone else's arguments are subordinated to *his* paradigm, that he doesn't suspect that Mormons might have an internal rationale that resolves this.
That's just a lot of self-flattery, isn't it? Ask a Mormon if that's a "gotcha" and he will laugh just like Paul Manata laughs when Exapologist points to an eschatological "gotcha" in Paul's framework.
Gotcha's are in the eye of the beholder. "Victorious" arguments are in the eye of the reader. You're free to accept or deny others claims as you see fit, as am I. I don't rule out all such experiential claims, nor do I accept them all at face value.
But I don't make pretenses to having some right to decide what is objectively "true" that supercedes a Mormon's or an atheist's, or another Christians. I believe what I believe, and I believe it fully. I reject what I see as untrue or incorrect. But it's not over til it's over, and these questions won't be settled while we're here clogging up the Internet.
You said:
Is the critic going to say that we should never accept anyone’s testimony unless we accept everyone’s testimony?
Not at all. You can accept or reject any testimony you want. Just don't pretend that *your* rejections are binding on *them*. They're not, unless you are prepared to accept their (and other) dismissals of your Christian faith as binding on you.
-Touchstone
T-Stone
ReplyDeleteDespite the hand-slaps in your comments (btw, can we now all agree that you're not the "nice and loving" poster you pretended to be?), youre response has some problems:
1. A PROPHET didn't write that rejoinder. So he, like me, cannot interpret what the prophets say.
2. The rejoinder said that the Father *is* the holy spirit.
But then I have Mormon prophets who tell us that the holy spirit is not the father.
D&C tells us:
"22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not ddwell in us."
Further, at Mormon.org, we are told:
"The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, along with God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ."
And therefore it looks as if I have plenty of Mormons (prophets included) who teach that the Spirit IS NOT the father or the son.
But in the rejoinder you sent me to, they tell us:
"Now, the Bible tells us that God is a Spirit, and that he
is holy; therefore, God
himself must the Holy Spirit. So we see that there is no contradiction
in saying that Jesus
was begotten by the Holy Ghost and also is the Son of God."
And so it looks like you're all tied up like a pretzle.
We saw how that perosn gets around Alma 7:10, but then I contradicted him with his own prophets!
Anyway, Alma 7:10 reads: "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our fore- fathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and CONCEIVE BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.."
And so are you telling me that the prophets "interpret" this to mean that Jesus WAS NOT copnceived by the Holy Spirit?????
Is that what "interpretation" means to you? That, for example, we could all read a word, "blue," and they would "interpret" that word as really reading, say, "pink?"
And so you and your Mormon friends are not out of their dilemma yet.
Chuck and Touchstone,
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what you two are arguing about? Do you not believe that the Mormons might be in heaven along with the other Christian sects?
Jesus knows the hearts of those who call on his name.
Mormons. Catholics. Lutherans. Baptists. Jehovah Witnesses. These groups all call upon the name of Jesus, and He will hear them!
Hey Chuck,
ReplyDeleteLet's just get this clear, then. Who has a better understanding of Mormon theology: you, or the Mormons?
If you claim it's *you*, then Exapologist has similarly disproven orthodox Christianity -- or take your pick of any number of claimed "debunkings" of Christianity.
I provided the link for interest for those who cared to see what Mormons commonly say on the issue. You're simply amplifying the basic problem here by suggesting *you* understand Mormon theology better than they do in identifying contradictions.
So, let's spare ourselves the run down the rabbit hole with regard to perceived contradictions with the economical Godhead in Mormon theology. That's an interesting enough topic, but totally secondary. The primary question is: You are entitled to your opinion and judgment as to contradictions, but on what grounds would you say that your opinion should carry any more weight that Joe Mormon's?
Are you willing to accept external critiques of Christianity, as you offer external critiques of Mormonism? If not, I have to wonder why not? If you're somehow an authority on Mormonism, why isn't Loftus similarly authoritative about Christianity?
-Touchstone
gentle_S is obviously an atheist trying to parody Christianity.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, let's say that there will be a couple Mormons in heaven. That would be hard, but let's say they were ignorant of Mormon teaching, they went into a Mormon church. Heard the Bible read. believed that Jesus was the only way. Trusted in him. And then died. Then you might have a "Mormon" in heaven.
I'd say that if someone were to stay in the Mormon church for a extended period of time, or believed Mormon doctrine, then they would not be in heaven.
Anyway, the issue is about right and wrong.
Someone can still go to heaven and be wrong about things.
The baptists may be right. And so many paedobaptists who enter hevane would have been wrong.
It's pretty simply, gentle_s.
Gentle_Savior,
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I don't claim to know if Mormons are saved or not. I don't know enough, and am not an authority on the subject. I love and respect my Mormon friends, even though I think they are seriously mistaken on many issues. My Mormon friends think I'm similarly mistaken, and love me right back, all the same. We are on equal footing in that regard.
-Touchstone
Tito Ortiz,
ReplyDeleteI am not an atheist, and am saddened that you would even say such a thing. Tito, I think you are a Christian, but I don't know why you would presume to know my heart.
Only Jesus knows the hearts of men and women.
I do agree with you, however. There will be Mormons in heaven. And baptists. And even "paedobaptists," whatever that is.
Doctrine does differ from church to church. That is due to man. Jesus is God, and those that call on his name will be saved.
Agape.
touchstone,
ReplyDeletethank you for your kind words.
I love when people can find common ground, and take joy in our Savior, rather than incite hate and other bad feelings, simply because people think differently on things.
T-stone,
ReplyDeleteI don't think you understand what an internal critique is.
Basically, your position would lead to the conclusion that there can be NO internal critiques. That famous method, is simply a myth.
You also seem to confuse not giving up with losing. People can keep talking, but that doesn't mean anything.
You gave a link to what NON-PROPHETS said on the issue. If THAT non-Prophet understand Mormon theology, then THIS non-prophet does!
Furthermore, I can understand words. I can understand that when one guy says that P and someone else says ~P, then that's an *apparent* contradiction.
Why would there even be a response to my problem if there wasn't a prima facie problem?
Now, you seem to miss the force of my critique. Let's say your guy resolves the problem. Well, I cite other prophets who disagree with your guy. The problem is the contradictions between prophets.
Furthermore, is it a revealed truth that only prophets can properly interpret god's word?
If so, then YOU can't know that only prophets can properly interpret god's word.
If you can know that, then you, a non-prophet, can know what revealed truth states.
Well, then so can I.
And I can see P and ~P when i run across it.
Now, you gave me a resolution.
I gave a response, using THE WORDS of MORMONS.
Apparently you think that YOU can understand what YOU read, but I, somehow, can't understamd what I read.
Anyway, I'll still wait for your response to the problem, other than your hand waving.
Touchstone said:
ReplyDelete---
Let's just get this clear, then. Who has a better understanding of Mormon theology: you, or the Mormons?
---
Let's just get THIS clear, then. Who has a better understanding of YEC theology: you, or the YEC?
(In other words, by your own standards, you ought to shut up already.)
By the way, this is also an internal critique.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"Chuck" said:
ReplyDelete---
Basically, your [Touchstone's] position would lead to the conclusion that there can be NO internal critiques.
---
Which is itself an attempt at an internal critique.
Touchstone falls into classic relativistic nonsense. Basically, he is saying that there is no way to critique two positions, A and B, because A makes up the rules of A and B makes up the rules of B. Therefore, someone in B cannot understand someone in A in order to critique A's position.
But of course one must ask: how does Touchstone know this? How does he know that the rules in A are different from the rules in B unless there is some way he can compare the two rules systems? In short, if it is impossible for B to know A's rules, then it is impossible for B to know that A's rules contradict B's rules.
In short, in order for Touchstone's position to be right, it must be wrong. Touchstone's position itself must know the positions of BOTH A and B in order to say that it is impossible for A to know B's position and vice versa! Thus, because A says that it is possible to critique B's postion internally, Touchstone must be able to critique A's position internally to come to the conclusion that A is wrong in doing so.
In other words, Touchstone is asking that we grant him omniscience so that he can claim everyone is ignorant.
As is pretty much always the case when you comment: very well put, CalvinDude! :-)
ReplyDeleteCalvinDude,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
In short, in order for Touchstone's position to be right, it must be wrong. Touchstone's position itself must know the positions of BOTH A and B in order to say that it is impossible for A to know B's position and vice versa! Thus, because A says that it is possible to critique B's postion internally, Touchstone must be able to critique A's position internally to come to the conclusion that A is wrong in doing so.
I require no such knowledge. I only understand with a neutral starting point. If I believe A, and and have B presented to me, and B is predicated upon "special knowledge" that I'm not privvy to, then I can certainly say it's possible that B is wrong. I can suppose it, and believe it. But epistemically, I don't have the basis to assert it as an objective truth, because part of B's rationale is based on subjective experiences, which I'm not party to.
You've mischaracterize my position, then. It's perfectly possible for A to know B's position. It's not a necessary conclusion, however for A to conclude that he knows B's position. In fact, if B says "No, you don't understand", that might be a good clue that, well, you don't understand!
Possible? Sure. Proven and necessary. Not even.
I don't require exhaustive or even nominal knowledge of B to understand that my external critique of B is based on subjective evidence. If it is, then I'm left with a subjective conclusion. It's perfectly possible that I've come to the right conclusion, but epistemically, it would only be a subjective assessent.
Which is fine. Subjective assessments are good things. I'm just suggesting that some here are inclined to think that their subjective assessments are *objective* assessments.
I hope that clears that up!
CalvinDude,
ReplyDeleteMissed your earlier comment on YEC. I think YEC is wholly untenable in light of the evidence we have from God's creation. If one gives weight to the scientific evidence available, it's extremely problematic, in my view.
But I certainly understand that some simply say "science is a hoax, or an atheist conspiracy, or the physical world is just a very elaborate illusion, and isn't real..."
None of those rebuttals are things I can prove. Science *might* be a hoax. We might be human "batteries" existing in a Matrix-like dream mentally, even as we convalesce in our bio-pods tended by the machines...
Laying out my criticisms of YEC theology doesn't settle the matter, at all. Rather, I'm pointing out that to the extent one accepts the scientific knowledge base as valuable epistemically, one runs into debilitating problems with YEC interpretations.
But I don't think you'd find me saying YEC ideas are "demolished", as I realize that it's possible that science *is* all an illusion, which would pave the way for YEC to remain in force.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again. I don't think my comments here or elsewhere prove *anything*. The only success I might have would come from those who find what I say to be meaningful and convincing. Which means, I really don't ever get to know if I've been successful, or to what degree.
Which is fine. I'm content to just lay out my argument, and let people judge its merits for themselves.
-Touchstone
Touchstone,
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you are "strict" when you originally say something, but when you are called on it you suddenly retreat to "jello" mode and don't really mean what you said you meant, etc.
Basically, your qualifications return you to a complete case of epistemic anarchy. To demonstrate, you say:
---
I think YEC is wholly untenable in light of the evidence we have from God's creation. If one gives weight to the scientific evidence available, it's extremely problematic, in my view.
---
You can replace "YEC" with anything and "evidence...from" with any other reason, qualify it with "in my view" and be done with it.
So, I think Touchstone's intellect is wholly untenable in light of the evidence we have from his Triablogue comments. If one gives weight to the Triablogue evidence available, it's extremely problematic, in my view.
Or: I think Bush's presidency is wholly untenable in light of the evidence we have from the Daily Kos. If one gives weight to the Daily Kos evidence available, it's extremely problematic, in my view.
Everything boils down to "in my view" in the above. But if you are going to use this as your epistemic method:
I think Touchstone's method is wholly untenable in light of the evidence we have from his method. If one gives weight to the methodic evidence available, it's extremely problematic, in my view.
This is all fun and games if you want to play language games; but if you're actually looking for an epistemic method the one you provide is sorely lacking.