Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
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. :)
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. 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."
Does the LDS religion view ethics as teleological or deontological?
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).
(Of course, the LDS church doesn't have a published official answer to this questions. The above represents my opinion on the subject.)
View Full Discussion