![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) (→The Logical Necessity of God at a Cognitive Distance) |
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) (→Review of Criticism) |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
====Recognition of the Charge as Valid==== | ====Recognition of the Charge as Valid==== | ||
It is true that we cannot prove that spiritual experience comes from God. The recognition of the charge that it is impossible to prove empirically that spiritual experience comes from the divine is (almost paradoxically) an essential step to answering the charge. | It is true that we cannot prove that spiritual experience comes from God. The recognition of the charge that it is impossible to prove empirically that spiritual experience comes from the divine is (almost paradoxically) an essential step to answering the charge. | ||
− | ==== | + | |
− | + | ====The Global Problem of Skepticism==== | |
+ | The first line of response is drawing attention to the Global Problem of Skepticism. The problem is defined as the inability to base a belief on other beliefs for validity. For instance, I, the author of this article, shall articulate a belief I hold: "I am a male". That belief is dependent on others to be valid. For instance, I have to have been born, and to be born I have to have a DNA signature which I grew out of—so on and so forth. Some philosophers, such as the famous Rene Descartes, went back within his noetic structure (the web of beliefs we hold) and found the one belief he believed didn't depend on others to be believed and articulated the very famous phrase, "Je pense, donc je suis". This phrase was translated into Latin as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum Cogito ergo sum]"("I think, therefore I am" i.e. "I exist"). This articulation of belief gave way to other popular facets of Cartesian philosophy such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon Descartes' Demon]. The Demon was one that could control our reality and make us think that we are living in it while we really weren't. This is what is known as the Global Problem of Skepticism: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <embedvideo service="youtube">PqjdRAERWLc</embedvideo> | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Global Problem of Skepticism has demonstrated that we can never have pure certainty that there is an external reality that exists independent of our own cognition. But perhaps if we rely on ''transcendent knowledge'' then we can solve this problem. Moroni tells us that once we feel the Spirit we can know that Christ ''is'' (i.e. that he lives [Moroni 10:7]). | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perhaps we could place Christ at the position of the Mad Scientist or Demon (just in the material sense. Not with the same intentions). The Spirit can be means by which we receive knowledge from him. Since the Spirit transcends the seen reality, it may be that the knowledge we receive by the Spirit is the only true meta knowledge we can ascend to. | ||
====The Logical Necessity of God at a Cognitive Distance==== | ====The Logical Necessity of God at a Cognitive Distance==== | ||
− | + | This cognitive distance between us and God is necessary though! President Ezra Taft Benson, thirteenth President of the Church taught that "[every] man eventually is backed up to the wall of faith, and there he must make his stand."<ref>Ezra Taft Benson, "The Book of Mormon is the Word of God" General Conference 1975 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/the-book-of-mormon-is-the-word-of-god?lang=eng}}</ref>. | |
− | President Ezra Taft Benson, thirteenth President of the Church taught that "[every] man eventually is backed up to the wall of faith, and there he must make his stand."<ref>Ezra Taft Benson, "The Book of Mormon is the Word of God" General Conference 1975 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/the-book-of-mormon-is-the-word-of-god?lang=eng}}</ref>. | ||
Latter-day Saint theology teaches that agency, or the ability to make decisions between good and bad decisions, is central to the human experience. Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that in the premortal realms, a counsel was convened between God and his spirit children (us). In the Book of Moses where this counsel is portrayed in the most detail, God strongly emphasizes the importance of human agency ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/4.1-3?lang=eng Moses 4:1-3]). This agency gave humans the ability to choose eternal life according to the power of the Christ or captivity according to the power of the Devil ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.27-28?lang=eng 2 Nephi 2:27-28]). If there were an empirically pristine epistemological nexus to the divine, would this not compel humans to believe in the existence of God, thus violating the agency that he supposedly granted them? This cognitive distance between us and God is actually essential to Latter-day Saint epistemology and may thus paradoxically become an evidence for its validity. | Latter-day Saint theology teaches that agency, or the ability to make decisions between good and bad decisions, is central to the human experience. Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that in the premortal realms, a counsel was convened between God and his spirit children (us). In the Book of Moses where this counsel is portrayed in the most detail, God strongly emphasizes the importance of human agency ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/4.1-3?lang=eng Moses 4:1-3]). This agency gave humans the ability to choose eternal life according to the power of the Christ or captivity according to the power of the Devil ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.27-28?lang=eng 2 Nephi 2:27-28]). If there were an empirically pristine epistemological nexus to the divine, would this not compel humans to believe in the existence of God, thus violating the agency that he supposedly granted them? This cognitive distance between us and God is actually essential to Latter-day Saint epistemology and may thus paradoxically become an evidence for its validity. | ||
Line 46: | Line 52: | ||
Thus, God has set us at a cognitive distance from Him out of respect for our freedom. Because such distance is necessary to permit faith, God's existence must be ambiguous. The world must be capable of appearing as if there were no God precisely to make room for us to come to a genuine relationship with him.<ref>Blake T. Ostler, ''Fire on the Horizon: A Meditation on the Endowment and Love of Atonement,'' (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 17. ISBN: 978-1-58958-553-9</ref></blockquote> | Thus, God has set us at a cognitive distance from Him out of respect for our freedom. Because such distance is necessary to permit faith, God's existence must be ambiguous. The world must be capable of appearing as if there were no God precisely to make room for us to come to a genuine relationship with him.<ref>Blake T. Ostler, ''Fire on the Horizon: A Meditation on the Endowment and Love of Atonement,'' (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 17. ISBN: 978-1-58958-553-9</ref></blockquote> | ||
− | + | Thus it is obvious that when Latter-day Saints speak of "knowing" they don't mean it in a philosophically empirical sense, but this may be a way of "knowing" that approaches it. | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
====The Ancient Conception of "Knowledge"==== | ====The Ancient Conception of "Knowledge"==== | ||
The conception of "knowing" for the ancient authors of scripture was very different than the way that modern philosophers might conceptualize "knowing". | The conception of "knowing" for the ancient authors of scripture was very different than the way that modern philosophers might conceptualize "knowing". | ||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
Perhaps the Latter-day Saint understanding of knowledge should be closer to the Hebrew understanding of knowledge instead of the Greeks since they affirm the historical authenticity of their sacred texts. Since the Book of Mormon reflects this understanding of the ancient Hebrews and early Christians, it may be used as an evidence of its truthfulness and a means to provide an answer to the Greek mind which seeks to understand everything with the head. | Perhaps the Latter-day Saint understanding of knowledge should be closer to the Hebrew understanding of knowledge instead of the Greeks since they affirm the historical authenticity of their sacred texts. Since the Book of Mormon reflects this understanding of the ancient Hebrews and early Christians, it may be used as an evidence of its truthfulness and a means to provide an answer to the Greek mind which seeks to understand everything with the head. | ||
− | Latter-day Saints should focus on maintaining the understanding of knowledge provided by the Hebrews and early Christians while preparing a defense for those that think like the Greeks. That seems to be the message of many scriptures (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 1:3; D&C 71; D&C 88:118). | + | Latter-day Saints should focus on maintaining the understanding of knowledge provided by the Hebrews and early Christians while preparing a defense for those that think like the Greeks. That seems to be the message of many scriptures (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 1:3; D&C 71; D&C 88:118). Though couldn't spiritual experience be claimed by people who aren't perfectly mentally healthy? |
====The Principle of Credulity==== | ====The Principle of Credulity==== | ||
Christian philosophers have sought to defend the validity of spiritual experience as a valid means of knowing truth. One in particular, Richard Swinburne, developed a principle to develop defend religious experience as a valid means of knowing that God exists known as the [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/religious-studies/article/principle-of-credulity-and-religious-experience/D5A06710F9E38AE70405F443F2AE64E8 Principle of Credulity]. The principle basically states that if the experience suggests to the person that X is so, then X is. Another important part of the argument is that if we have no reason to believe that a person didn't experience something genuine, then we should accept the experience as a valid means of knowing truth. | Christian philosophers have sought to defend the validity of spiritual experience as a valid means of knowing truth. One in particular, Richard Swinburne, developed a principle to develop defend religious experience as a valid means of knowing that God exists known as the [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/religious-studies/article/principle-of-credulity-and-religious-experience/D5A06710F9E38AE70405F443F2AE64E8 Principle of Credulity]. The principle basically states that if the experience suggests to the person that X is so, then X is. Another important part of the argument is that if we have no reason to believe that a person didn't experience something genuine, then we should accept the experience as a valid means of knowing truth. | ||
− | Challenges have obviously arisen to the argument such as what is known as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations argument from inconsistent revelations] or the "Avoiding the Wrong Hell Problem". The argument may be strengthened with principles of stewardship, light of Christ, false spirits, and so forth outlined in [[Question: How do members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view the concepts of spiritual experience and the obtainment of testimony?|Latter-day Saint pneumatology]]. | + | Challenges have obviously arisen to the argument such as what is known as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations argument from inconsistent revelations] or the "Avoiding the Wrong Hell Problem". The argument may be strengthened with principles of stewardship, light of Christ, false spirits, and so forth outlined in [[Question: How do members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view the concepts of spiritual experience and the obtainment of testimony?|Latter-day Saint pneumatology]]. Those parts of our pneumatology that relate to our epistemology helps us answer other important objections to spiritual experience as a means of knowing truth. |
+ | |||
+ | ====Exhausting Potential Defeaters==== | ||
+ | As previously mentioned, accompanying the charge of circularity of spiritual experience are usually arguments of diversity, from neuroscience, and from unreliability against the Spirit. If we can answer all of these charges, can we logically conclude that the experience may yet still come from a divine/outside source? See the above internal hyperlinks (shaded in light blue) for responses to the three major arguments against the use of spiritual experiences. But is there other evidence for the validity of Latter-day Saint epistemology? | ||
====Top-Down Revelation==== | ====Top-Down Revelation==== | ||
Line 81: | Line 84: | ||
====Empirical Evidence for Restoration Scripture as Grounding Spiritual Epistemology==== | ====Empirical Evidence for Restoration Scripture as Grounding Spiritual Epistemology==== | ||
− | Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists | + | Another evidence that might help ground our spiritual epistemology and pneumatology comes for the rational and empirical case made by Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists over the years for the veracity of both ancient and modern revelation. If we can demonstrate evidence of the authenticity of the revelations themselves, then this could provide evidence for the framework through which Latter-day Saints understand and interpret spiritual experience.<ref> See Brant A. Gardner, “Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History” (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015); Brant A. Gardner, “Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon” 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007); John L. Sorenson, “Mormon’s Codex” (Provo and Salt Lake: BYU Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2013); John Welch et al., “Knowing Why: 137 Evidences that the Book of Mormon is True” (American Fork: Covenant Communications, 2017); Noel B. Reynolds (ed.), “Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins” (Provo: FARMS, 1997). For an overview of evidence for the Book of Abraham, see [[Book of Abraham/Evidences|here]]. For evidence for the Book of Moses see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, "In God's Image and Likeness" (Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2009); Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David Larson, "In God's Image and Likeness 2: Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel" (Salt Lake City: Interpreter Foundation, 2014).</ref> |
====Blake Ostler's Kantian Argument==== | ====Blake Ostler's Kantian Argument==== | ||
− | Blake Ostler | + | One last evidence for the validity of the epistemology came from Blake Ostler at the 2007 FairMormon Conference in Utah. Ostler, basing himself in the [https://www.britannica.com/topic/noumenon Kantian distinction and conceptualization of noumena and phenomena], made this argument: |
::Now I ask again, can humans really know anything? Does the experience come from God, or do we merely interpret it to be experienced as coming from God? I’m going to deal with the strongest arguments that I know. | ::Now I ask again, can humans really know anything? Does the experience come from God, or do we merely interpret it to be experienced as coming from God? I’m going to deal with the strongest arguments that I know. | ||
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members believe that commitment and belief to any doctrine of the Church (primarily to commitment to and belief in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a divine record) may be established through spiritual experience. This is known as having an experience with the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.
Critics of the Church, particularly of a secularist persuasion, claim that to affirm that this experience gives one knowledge of any thing that is supposedly meta-truth is circular reasoning, given that one cannot prove that the experience comes from a divine source.
Members of the the Church also affirm the existence of other types of spirits and angels that perform either good or bad tasks on behalf of the divine or the devil. They also affirm the existence of a soul that is composed of the intricate and intimate union between body and spirit and the existence of God and the Devil. The assumed existence of these personages and entities is used for a variety of core theological propositions relating to Latter-day Saint epistemology. For example, they are used to interpret the religious experience of those people belonging to different faith traditions. They are also used to counter phenomenological criticism stemming from neuroscience and psychology. Finally, they are used to counter criticism of the supposed unreliability of spiritual experience to establish truth. Since these entities cannot be proven to exist empirically, critics assert that Latter-day Saint epistemology doesn't rest on firm grounds.
The charges of circularity are usually accompanied by the criticism stemming from diversity, neuroscience, and reliability to strengthen the argument that the experiences do not come from a divine source. Responses to these criticisms can be found at the internally hyper-linked sources (light blue).
Latter-day Saints have generally formed an argument in their mind that supposedly proves the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The argument usually takes the following form:
P1) The Book of Mormon presents a way to know that it is true--by receiving revelation from the Holy Ghost that it is true. The Book of Mormon and the Bible present a few ways to recognize the influence of the Holy Ghost[1]
P2)I have prayed about the Book of Mormon and received what it and the other scriptures describe as the Holy Ghost.
C) Therefore, the Book of Mormon is true.
This argument, as framed currently, is not inherently circular since we have independent verification of a particular proposition. But this argument is fallacious once recognized that we can't empirically prove that the Spirit exists. What if the "Spirit" was just the reaction of chemicals within our bodies? Thus the claimed circularity.
Thus, we still haven't really answered the charge. How can we prove that the witness actually comes from an outside influence such as God? Latter-day Saints will hopefully recognize that the first argument is fallacious and that we need to provide a more robust response to the criticism.
This charge of circularity is what Latter-day Saint philosopher and theologian Blake T. Ostler has termed the "Veridicality Objection".[2]
This article reviews that criticism and provides some avenues of response in discussions of the validity of the use of spiritual experiences in Latter-day Saint epistemology.
With an introduction to the criticism in place, we can now survey different elements of response. These elements can combine to give us a robust answer against the charge.
It is true that we cannot prove that spiritual experience comes from God. The recognition of the charge that it is impossible to prove empirically that spiritual experience comes from the divine is (almost paradoxically) an essential step to answering the charge.
The first line of response is drawing attention to the Global Problem of Skepticism. The problem is defined as the inability to base a belief on other beliefs for validity. For instance, I, the author of this article, shall articulate a belief I hold: "I am a male". That belief is dependent on others to be valid. For instance, I have to have been born, and to be born I have to have a DNA signature which I grew out of—so on and so forth. Some philosophers, such as the famous Rene Descartes, went back within his noetic structure (the web of beliefs we hold) and found the one belief he believed didn't depend on others to be believed and articulated the very famous phrase, "Je pense, donc je suis". This phrase was translated into Latin as "Cogito ergo sum"("I think, therefore I am" i.e. "I exist"). This articulation of belief gave way to other popular facets of Cartesian philosophy such as Descartes' Demon. The Demon was one that could control our reality and make us think that we are living in it while we really weren't. This is what is known as the Global Problem of Skepticism:
The Global Problem of Skepticism has demonstrated that we can never have pure certainty that there is an external reality that exists independent of our own cognition. But perhaps if we rely on transcendent knowledge then we can solve this problem. Moroni tells us that once we feel the Spirit we can know that Christ is (i.e. that he lives [Moroni 10:7]).
Perhaps we could place Christ at the position of the Mad Scientist or Demon (just in the material sense. Not with the same intentions). The Spirit can be means by which we receive knowledge from him. Since the Spirit transcends the seen reality, it may be that the knowledge we receive by the Spirit is the only true meta knowledge we can ascend to.
This cognitive distance between us and God is necessary though! President Ezra Taft Benson, thirteenth President of the Church taught that "[every] man eventually is backed up to the wall of faith, and there he must make his stand."[3].
Latter-day Saint theology teaches that agency, or the ability to make decisions between good and bad decisions, is central to the human experience. Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that in the premortal realms, a counsel was convened between God and his spirit children (us). In the Book of Moses where this counsel is portrayed in the most detail, God strongly emphasizes the importance of human agency (Moses 4:1-3). This agency gave humans the ability to choose eternal life according to the power of the Christ or captivity according to the power of the Devil (2 Nephi 2:27-28). If there were an empirically pristine epistemological nexus to the divine, would this not compel humans to believe in the existence of God, thus violating the agency that he supposedly granted them? This cognitive distance between us and God is actually essential to Latter-day Saint epistemology and may thus paradoxically become an evidence for its validity.
Blake T. Ostler:
To have a genuine relationship, it was necessary for persons to leave God's presence and enter into a situation where His existence, glory, and power were not obvious to make room for both moral and religious faith--a situation where persons could freely enter into a genuine relationship without being coerced to do so buy the obviousness of His overwhelming power and glory. Thus, God has set us at a cognitive distance from Him out of respect for our freedom. Because such distance is necessary to permit faith, God's existence must be ambiguous. The world must be capable of appearing as if there were no God precisely to make room for us to come to a genuine relationship with him.[4]
Thus it is obvious that when Latter-day Saints speak of "knowing" they don't mean it in a philosophically empirical sense, but this may be a way of "knowing" that approaches it.
The conception of "knowing" for the ancient authors of scripture was very different than the way that modern philosophers might conceptualize "knowing".
Blake T. Ostler explained:
There is a vast difference between the way the Hebrews felt we come to knowledge of truth and the way the Greeks thought of it. Whereas the Hebrews and early Christian writers of scripture constantly refer to the heart as an instrument of knowledge and choice, the philosophers rarely, if ever, do. The Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament regard the heart as the source of knowledge and authentic being. For the Greeks, the head is the place of knowing everything we know.
[. . .]
The head is a piece of complex flesh that knows only a beginning and ending. By "head" I mean that complex system that includes our brain and central nervous system, which translates sense experience and gives rise to the categories of logic, language, and thought. It knows only what can be learned through the sense of our bodies and categories of reason. The head is the source of the ego—or the categories by which we judge ourselves and create or self image.
In contrast, the heart is the home of our eternal identity. It can be opened or shut, hard or soft...The heart must be "penetrated" (D&C 1:2), "pricked" (Acts 2:37), "melted" (Josh. 2:11), or "softened" (D&C 121:4) so that truth is known, pretense is given up and humility in God's presence can be manifested.[5]
Perhaps the Latter-day Saint understanding of knowledge should be closer to the Hebrew understanding of knowledge instead of the Greeks since they affirm the historical authenticity of their sacred texts. Since the Book of Mormon reflects this understanding of the ancient Hebrews and early Christians, it may be used as an evidence of its truthfulness and a means to provide an answer to the Greek mind which seeks to understand everything with the head.
Latter-day Saints should focus on maintaining the understanding of knowledge provided by the Hebrews and early Christians while preparing a defense for those that think like the Greeks. That seems to be the message of many scriptures (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 1:3; D&C 71; D&C 88:118). Though couldn't spiritual experience be claimed by people who aren't perfectly mentally healthy?
Christian philosophers have sought to defend the validity of spiritual experience as a valid means of knowing truth. One in particular, Richard Swinburne, developed a principle to develop defend religious experience as a valid means of knowing that God exists known as the Principle of Credulity. The principle basically states that if the experience suggests to the person that X is so, then X is. Another important part of the argument is that if we have no reason to believe that a person didn't experience something genuine, then we should accept the experience as a valid means of knowing truth.
Challenges have obviously arisen to the argument such as what is known as the argument from inconsistent revelations or the "Avoiding the Wrong Hell Problem". The argument may be strengthened with principles of stewardship, light of Christ, false spirits, and so forth outlined in Latter-day Saint pneumatology. Those parts of our pneumatology that relate to our epistemology helps us answer other important objections to spiritual experience as a means of knowing truth.
As previously mentioned, accompanying the charge of circularity of spiritual experience are usually arguments of diversity, from neuroscience, and from unreliability against the Spirit. If we can answer all of these charges, can we logically conclude that the experience may yet still come from a divine/outside source? See the above internal hyperlinks (shaded in light blue) for responses to the three major arguments against the use of spiritual experiences. But is there other evidence for the validity of Latter-day Saint epistemology?
Latter-day Saints often approach deity with questions in their hearts and minds that they wish to seek answers for and believe they will receive answers for through prayer. Additionally, Latter-day Saints often provide priesthood blessings of counsel and comfort to those that may want or need them. Two of the most extraordinary aspects of Latter-day Saint epistemology are the ability to receive a "no" to a question that the questioner wanted to receive a "yes" to in prayer and the ability to receive miraculous knowledge through miraculous experience including everything mentioned as gifts of the Spirit, warnings about eminent danger, revelation about specific people given during priesthood blessings, and other phenomena. These events can properly be described as "top-down" revelation in Latter-day Saint epistemology as this is God correcting the mental framework of the person occupying it and giving us specific knowledge. This is distinguished from "bottom up" revelation where the subject has to correct their own state of mind before seeking revelation (D&C 9:7-9). Requirements for this include that Latter-day Saints and other individuals interested in receiving revelation become worthy of the Spirit's influence including trusting in God enough so that they believe that he will answer (Matthew 14:21; Mosiah 2:37; Alma 7:21; Mormon 9:27; D&C 6:36D&C 97:17), and that they then ask God for inspiration. Top-down revelation is what we testify to every fast and testimony meeting. We are providing evidence for the reality of the Spirit's influence as people live worthy of it and seek its whisperings.
Another evidence that might help ground our spiritual epistemology and pneumatology comes for the rational and empirical case made by Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists over the years for the veracity of both ancient and modern revelation. If we can demonstrate evidence of the authenticity of the revelations themselves, then this could provide evidence for the framework through which Latter-day Saints understand and interpret spiritual experience.[6]
One last evidence for the validity of the epistemology came from Blake Ostler at the 2007 FairMormon Conference in Utah. Ostler, basing himself in the Kantian distinction and conceptualization of noumena and phenomena, made this argument:
Taken together, these can combine to provide Latter-day Saints a robust answer to the Veridicality Objection and sustain this central part of their noetic structure for further conversion and retention efforts.
Notes
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now