Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts
Logic is a method for determining that one's thought process will accurately [and algorithmically] lead one from true premises to true conclusions.
Science, then, is only one particular means of using logic. With that being the case, if your intention is for someone to prove their thoughts reasonable, you can't restrict them to scientific means.
What you call feelings I would call the sum conclusions of your experience and an excellent guide to making judgements about the world.
Let's call it "personal experience," then, and move on.
Me: Now, in order to logically prove that his dream was prophetic, you'd have to consider probabilities of many things (e.g., a coincidental occurrence, your friend's honesty, etc.) [...] you'd rely on what you know of the person and of life in general to come to a very logical conclusion that would have no place as "scientific proof."
You: From the evidence you've given, we'd need to investigate more, through the scientific method to determine if this was coincidence or precognition.
Is this further investigation any different than what I prescribed?
Have you met such a person, by the way?
The example was made up, but I've met many people who have made claims that are just as improbable and that would need to be evaluated in a similar fashion.
So far, of people who have claimed to have ESP, be precognitive, translate mystic texts with magic rocks, etc., I am aware of none who can stand up to the scientific method and maintain their claims in the face of actual testing and public observation.
Why is public observation required for it to be logical? What are you ruling out when you say "actual testing" and why?"
But ultimately, you would maintain that God knows better than any person what acts are good and will have the best possible results, yes?
Yes. (I'll reference this as "QA" (question A) and "AA" (answer A) from here on out.)
So if God says do X, you will do X without question, yes?
"Without question" is going too far, as there are things that must be answered prior to dedicating oneself to doing X:
- What is the nature of God? (This includes QA, as well as questions concerning God's justice, honesty, motivations, glory, etc.)
- Did God say to do X?
Given that the answer to #1 implies that God knows what is best and will instruct a person in the manner most proper to obtaining that "best," and given the answer to #2 is yes, then I would be all for doing X.
So the foundation of your ethics is deontological, not teleological and not virtue based. You will do as God commands regardless of your own conclusions on the presumption that God knows best. That is to say, if you do or do not agree with any commandment contained in any text or speech you believe divinely inspired, you will follow it regardless of your own ethical beliefs about any given command from your own limited perspective. Yes or no? Would you sacrifice your son ala Abraham or not?
I don't agree that my answers above force me into a deontological corner. It is only because of knowledge of God's character/nature that one follows God's commands. Using your Abraham example, Abraham acted to carry out God's command to sacrifice his son because Abraham knew the nature of God. Thus, although he didn't yet understand specifically how obeying would make him a better person or exactly what good consequences would follow, those were his incentives to obey the command. He trusted God based on his past experiences with Him.
Later on in hindsight, I'm sure Abraham was able to understand the entire situation - if not completely, at least much better than he did while tying Isaac to the altar. Of course, this understanding would then teach him more about the nature/character of God and he would likely be better able to answer questions 1 & 2 in the future.
RSS
RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts
I brought up feelings because it seems you hold the scientific method as the one and only means of determining what is logical.
Logic is a method for determining that one's thought process will accurately [and algorithmically] lead one from true premises to true conclusions. The scientific method is some practical rules of thumb regarding observation and experiment maintained in a framework of logical thought; rather than determining logic, it is determined by logic.
What about a situation like this, then: A friend of yours tells you of a dream he had the night previous in which he saw a dog oddly standing on a residential roof. To his surprise, he happened upon this odd scene during his morning commute. Now, in order to logically prove that his dream was prophetic, you'd have to consider probabilities of many things (e.g., a coincidental occurrence, your friend's honesty, etc.), but I doubt the scientific method would have anything to do with it. Instead, you'd rely on what you know of the person and of life in general (things that would fall under what I previously called "feelings") to come to a very logical conclusion that would have no place as "scientific proof."
What you call feelings I would call the sum conclusions of your experience and an excellent guide to making judgements about the world. When I talk about feelings, I mean the emotional responses I have to events.
Further, logic is not a method of proving what exists in the world. It is a means of ensuring that one's thought process preserves the truth. Logic couldn't tell you why such an event happened, only experience, observation and testing would lead you to that reliably. From the evidence you've given, we'd need to investigate more, through the scientific method to determine if this was coincidence or precognition. Have you met such a person, by the way?
So far, of people who have claimed to have ESP, be precognitive, translate mystic texts with magic rocks, etc., I am aware of none who can stand up to the scientific method and maintain their claims in the face of actual testing and public observation. James Randi is offering a lot of money to the person who can. Brandishing my Occam's Razor, I think I can put forth a pretty simple hypothesis why no one has met his challenge yet.
Both, in addition to being virtuous. Because of the nature of god, He gives commands that, if followed, will result in the best possible consequence: "the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39) Thus, a morally right action, like being honest, is according to command (deontological), has good consequences (teleological), and makes one a better person (virtuous).
But ultimately, you would maintain that God knows better than any person what acts are good and will have the best possible results, yes? So if God says do X, you will do X without question, yes? So the foundation of your ethics is deontological, not teleological and not virtue based. You will do as God commands regardless of your own conclusions on the presumption that God knows best. That is to say, if you do or do not agree with any commandment contained in any text or speech you believe divinely inspired, you will follow it regardless of your own ethical beliefs about any given command from your own limited perspective. Yes or no? Would you sacrifice your son ala Abraham or not?
(Of course, the LDS church doesn't have a published official answer to this questions. The above represents my opinion on the subject.)
I was interested in your thought to be honest. :)
View Full Discussion