Reason After Authority
Over at Mormon Metaphysics Clark has a great post worth reading about how much of the discussion surrounding the nature of truth can be replaced by a discussion regarding how to adjudicate disagreements. I am very much on board with this suggestion and thought I’d provide a bit of history to this conversation.
Even Galileo owed his formulation of dynamics to no experimental discovery. He tells that he rarely resorted to experiment except to convince his Aristotelian opponents, who demanded the evidence of the senses; and all his life he retained the very considerable error that g, the acceleration of gravity, is fifteen feet per second…
In the Renaissance, as always, men turned to the careful observation of nature only after every other idea and authority had failed. What the revival of ancient learning did for science was to bring a wealth of conflicting suggestions into men’s ken, and force them to appeal to reason to decide; just as the Reformation by its warring interpretations of the Bible similarly forced a religious rationalism.
-John Herman Randall Jr., The Making of the Modern Mind, Pg. 218
What this passage is meant to suggest is that in the Scientific Revolution and the Protestant Reformation appeals to reason and empirical observation came only after appeals to authority had been made and were themselves a way of adjudicating situations in which there were competing authorities. Regardless of whether one agrees with the priority suggested by this passage, the strongest point worth making is that there are means other than reason and evidence by which disagreements might be settled.
Within this context it is worth noting that one is hard pressed to find authorities within the LDS priesthood that are at a similar level such that they can be placed in competition with one another. Only one person is allowed to have a particular level of keys and authority over any stewardship (see D&C 28), thus leaving no need or room for appeals to reason and empirical evidence to settle disagreements. It is only by artificially placing priesthood authorities in competition with one another that reason and evidence could ever appear to be necessary.
Wouldn’t generally observed facts also present a potential “competition” with authority? For example, even if Young, Richards, and other priesthood leaders were kept in their proper line of authority, members of Martin Handcart Company could reasonably grow dubious regarding Richards’ promises of safe delivery when the snows did in fact come and their loved ones died.
Or consider a family in which father tells the children they will not be injured if they jump off the roof. Mother may fall in line and not dispute father’s authority, but the kids will still likely doubt the truth of father’s statements when their legs break on contact.
Comment by Dave K — June 3, 2015 @ 7:53 am
Yup, that’s really the issue. What is the relationship of evidence with authority. As I understand Jeff he thinks authority always trumps evidence which I just can’t agree with.
The problem of inter-authority debate is also a problem even if Jeff brushes it aside. Maybe it was growing up in the “McConkie” era when McConkie’s writings trumped any other general authority for some people, but I think there’s more conflict there than Jeff wants to admit.
Comment by Clark — June 3, 2015 @ 10:05 am
I think the key issue is what counts as evidence. I have been maintaining that every form of authority takes for granted a large amount of shared worldview built on particular types of evidence. For example, linguistic, conceptual and sensory. If there is a commandment to visit the sick, one needs to navigate using the senses to where the sick are and one needs to understand conceptually and with the senses who is sick.
Sometimes a line of thought is pursued of “God’s ways are not man’s ways” but the very idea “God’s ways” is a human construct. We only have man’s ways as ways of being.
Scripture may be the word of God but it’s read by human minds in human languages.
Comment by Martin James — June 3, 2015 @ 11:26 am
Dave,
From what I understand, there is a basic difference between believing what you have seen with your own eyes in your day to day life and actively seeking out, gathering and selecting data that you hope will decide some issue. The mentality in the quoted passage was basically that which Francis Bacon was tried so hard to overthrow with his insistence upon an experimental method to decide issues. (It is worth nothing that Bacon totally rejected the Platonic/Pythagorean idea that math was the language of reality in any sense.)
Also, I think the passage is talking about how a scholar would settle some issue that is fairly removed from the everyday experience of the common man. Within the scholastic tradition disputes were settled by appeals to the authority of God (from the Hebrew tradition) and the authority of the past, or what had stood the test of time (from the Greek tradition). It was when contestations arose both between and (especially) within these two sources of authority that the transition was made to rationalism and experimentalism.
Personally, I don’t think the medieval mind would have seen your examples as source of authority. Instead, I think they would have hypothesized some external or extenuating factor for why some prophecy didn’t go as planned, etc. The rise of the authority of evidence basically consisted in a conscious choice to block out such factors.
Clark,
“he thinks authority always trumps evidence”
I don’t think I would ever put it that bluntly. Rather, I would say that evidence gathered by human reason never ought to trump a righteous and duly ordained priesthood authority – however, evidence can lead us to seek personal revelation and it is this, not evidence, that can trump the authority.
“when McConkie’s writings trumped any other general authority for some people”
I would say that such people were simply wrong and that they were wrong in a very dangerous way. By allowing authority figures to be placed side by side or, worse still, allowing lower authorities to trump higher ones, they open the door to the contention and disputation of human reasoning. Of course many of these people who took McConkie so seriously were pretty theologically minded and it is this very mentality that I am pushing against.
Comment by Jeff G — June 3, 2015 @ 11:34 am
Rather, I would say that evidence gathered by human reason never ought to trump a
righteous and duly ordained priesthood authorityProphet of God personally confirmed by the Spirit. The two are not close to being the same and shouldn’t be conflated. Authority provides nothing except order.Comment by Howard — June 3, 2015 @ 8:59 pm
I’m still trying to put my finger on what seems odd to me about this whole train of thought.
Here is another stab at it. I think it is because there is a “render unto Ceasar” aspect to this. That is if one believes in the priority of religious authority then there really isn’t a reason to be concerned with justification through reason because one has already determined that religious authority takes precedence. And if one hasn’t, then one won’t argue for religious authority. But you seem to me to be trying to argue for religious authority, but argument isn’t the way religious authority works. It seems contradictory to me. To be for Jesus is to renounce power and social justification not argue for using Jesus.
I know that you think it helps people to return to faith to argue against those arguing religiously with no-religious tools, but that seems a bit like stopping a war by shooting the participants rather than laying down one’s arms.
Comment by Martin James — June 3, 2015 @ 8:59 pm
I should have said prophesy personally confirmed by the Spirit from a Prophet of God.
Comment by Howard — June 3, 2015 @ 9:13 pm
It’s the prophesy that must be confirmed not a blanket approval of all the words spoken by one who is personally confirmed by the Spirit because of course a Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as one.
Comment by Howard — June 3, 2015 @ 9:15 pm
Jeff (4) But the blunt form is what you’re saying. Not to go in circles but I think there’s an important distinction between having a burden of proof and having a trump. You can’t account for the situations where there’s a abundant evidence someone is wrong but an individual hasn’t received personal revelation.
Admittedly in practice such matters don’t come up often. Typically because church authorities are conservative in how they use that authority. But there are plenty of cases where say a Stake President misuses authority that I don’t think you can account for but should.
More or less your position depends upon the ease of personal revelation but it’s not always easy. Further as I said earlier you downplay the hermeneutic issues of interpreting personal revelation. My experience is that many people claim personal revelation that isn’t (I typically think they are sincere I should add). Further just in my own life trying to understand the inspiration let alone the implications is difficult at times.
Comment by Clark — June 4, 2015 @ 9:11 am
Howard (6-8) I think that is problematic along a similar line to Jeff’s. What you’ve done is say that a leader only has authority when you have a confirmation by personal revelation. Again this avoids the hermeneutic issues of interpreting revelation. More to the point though it means that authorities can’t really act. Even relatively uncontroversial claims need personal revelation to be authoritative. Yet it seems to me if only as a practical matter we have to assume a leader is being authoritative when they use the permissions granted by a position. So if a Bishop tells the Priests to redo the sacrament prayer I shouldn’t need personal revelation to confirm that.
I recognize that both you and Jeff are primarily looking at big truth claims. Yet it’s the more minor issues that seem significant to my eyes.
The bigger question to me is why adopt these absolutist positions (always treat as true unless revelation vs. never treat as true unless revelation) when there’s a very workable middle ground that resolves most cases the way we would want them resolved. Just say there’s a high burden of proof. Evidence might overrule this, but it has to be very strong evidence.
I guess I just don’t quite see the why of these positions.
Comment by Clark — June 4, 2015 @ 9:16 am
Whoops, screwed up the comment number references. My bad. Hopefully you guys can figure it out still.
BTW Jeff (4), I think the problem with McConkie being treated so authoritatively wasn’t lower authorities trumping higher ones. Typically the higher authorities simply weren’t speaking authoritatively on those topics. But I might be missing what you mean by “higher.”
Comment by Clark — June 4, 2015 @ 9:18 am
Howard,
Do you have a justification for crossing out that particular line? Since the secular world is so against priesthood authority, I have no doubt that you can provide one of their reasons, but can you provide some justification from the gospel?
” a Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as one”
I fully agree. Just because the official declarations of a righteous priesthood holder are binding does not mean that each and every word he says is binding as well.
Martin,
“you seem to me to be trying to argue for religious authority, but argument isn’t the way religious authority works. It seems contradictory to me.”
I think the phrase you’re looking for is “performative contradiction“. The problem with your objection is that I am not contradicting myself since I am NOT against human reason. Rather, I am against human reasoning trumping authoritative statements. Thus, I am caught in a contradiction only if I claim that my own reasoning trumps some authoritative statement – something which I am very open to.
Clark,
” there’s an important distinction between having a burden of proof and having a trump”
What is this important difference? I assume “burden of proof” leaves open the possibility of un-ordained people stabling the ark when they think they have good reason to do so while trump does not. And this is exactly the point. No person is authorized to receive revelation outside of their stewardship, and no person is allowed to make decisions that they have not been authorized to make. I simply find no justification in the gospel for unauthorized people taking upon themselves the authority to lead others – this being very different from a person taking it upon themselves to provide welcomed information to their leaders.
“But there are plenty of cases where say a Stake President misuses authority that I don’t think you can account for but should.”
What do you mean “misuses”? According to whose standard are such misuses being measured? If we are simply talking those of empirical science or some such thing, then I see no reason why a stake president ought to be held to such standards. If, on the other hand, we are talking about personal unrighteousness, then I most definitely do take such things into account.
“My experience is that many people claim personal revelation that isn’t”
But how in the world do you come to that conclusion? The only way we can know if somebody else is inspired is by receiving personal revelation for ourselves regarding that very question. In other words, the person him or herself is NOT an authority on that question since, and neither are you.
“The bigger question to me is why adopt these absolutist positions (always treat as true unless revelation vs. never treat as true unless revelation) when there’s a very workable middle ground that resolves most cases the way we would want them resolved.”
The concern that mostly motivates me is that there is a strong tendency to uncritically accept so many of the moral and epistemological values, standards and definitions that the world teaches us and that this strongly skews our perception of the “middle ground” you speak of. Of course, almost all of our practical day to day lives fall within this middle ground, but my big, absolute positions are meant to adjust the way we are facing and striving within this middle ground.
Comment by Jeff G — June 4, 2015 @ 12:56 pm
Jeff G., at the risk of sounding trite, may I propose a ‘chicken and egg’ question? Here is the question: If authority trumps reason, then why is reason the basis for our upholding authority in the first instance?
The church clearly teaches that we should not accept its claims to authority as a matter of course. Rather, we must FIRST gain our own witness. Maybe that witness is a strong spiritual manifestation. Maybe its a slower ‘see the fruits’ process. Maybe it’s a logical conviction. Maybe it’s relying on others’ witness/judgment. Maybe a combination of all of these. But whatever it is, the individual is relying on themselves firstly in the decision to trust the authority.
In such a world, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the authority is subordinate to the individual’s judgment/witness? In other words, if my basis for trusting the prophet is that “the spirit tells me to” then can’t I reasonably stop trusting the prophet if “the spirit tells me to”? Now substitute ‘reason’ for ‘spirit’.
Comment by Dave K — June 4, 2015 @ 1:12 pm
Dave,
Sorry if I was assuming too much in my post. My perspective differs in many subtle points and I’m trying my best to balance clarity and strength of justification against long-winded-ness.
I would absolutely agree that personal witness trumps mortal authorities, but not personal judgement. A big part of what I am pushing against is the idea that personal witness is something other than an appeal to a higher authority. In other words, the only thing that trump a righteous authority, is a higher righteous authority.
I would also clarify that by “reason” I do not mean any and all mental activity. Rather, I mean the culture of relatively recent advent described by Alvin Gouldner as the “culture of critical discourse (CCD)”:
I hope that’s a bit clearer. Thus, when Randall says that reason and observation only entered the picture when authorities were held up as equals, the point I wish to make is that if we never take church authorities as equals, then we never have a motive to appeal to reason in Gouldner’s sense. This is not to say that we should never reason, only that we can never construe ourselves as authorities that are in some sense equal to those above us.
Comment by Jeff G — June 4, 2015 @ 1:48 pm
I don’t think you are making a contradiction as much as stating a statement that only people who already agree with you that reason doesn’t trump authority will agree with. I guess you could say you are just warning them not to use reason as a trump and some may realize that they agree with you that but didn’t know that they agreed with you before you explained it to them.
By what faculty, procedure or (fill in the blank) do we come to know whether our assessment of the hierarchy of authority is correct?
If we used the war in heaven for example, can we identify any tradition for what particular kind of mistake (if it was a mistake rather than a choice) that led the 1/3rd to choose the choice they did?
This makes me wonder if you see recognizing an authority as an authority is a choice that determines one’s moral/religious obligations or whether one could be mistaken about who is “really” the authority.
What is the status of why a particular being is a God and how did you come to know enough about God or Gods to make the determination?
Is the personal witness an appeal to God or an appeal to some form of cosmic law which obedience to makes God, god? is there an authority higher than God? How would you know?
Comment by Martin James — June 4, 2015 @ 3:59 pm
If a person has a personal witness that they are the highest authority, in the exact same way that you have a personal witness that God is the highest authority, are they equally justified in their conclusion? Why or why not?
Comment by Martin James — June 4, 2015 @ 4:03 pm
Martin,
Well of my thoughts will be judged most approvingly by those whose standards most closely parallel my own…. but that is no different than any other mindset. Personally, I think the whole idea of agreeing upon assumptions before we move forward is totally bogus, both in practice and principle. Learning to interpret the world differently is more like, indeed a case of learning to speak another language and it would be strange indeed if people criticized a Spanish teacher for speaking English to her first term students.
“By what faculty, procedure or (fill in the blank) do we come to know whether our assessment of the hierarchy of authority is correct?”
I’ve given the same answer so many times, that I simply have to assume that I don’t understand what you are asking.
“whether one could be mistaken about who is “really” the authority.”
Ordinations are always witnessed and presented before a congregation for this very reason. When there is any doubt, a succession crisis is a great example, we simply follow the same path that the missionaries teach: pray about it. There is no higher authority, nor is there any reason to assume that all people will or ought to receive the same answer.
“Is the personal witness an appeal to God or an appeal to some form of cosmic law which obedience to makes God, god?”
This is the Euthyphro dilemma and the idea that the ultimate laws or truth are the “REAL” source of authority is an attempt by scholars to circumvent traditional authorities. It is for this reason that intellectuals tacitly appeal to this ideology by construing personal revelation as if it were empirical data rather than the consultation of an authority figure. All of these are interpretations that do little if nothing other than marginalize priesthood authority figures.
“If a person has a personal witness that they are the highest authority, in the exact same way that you have a personal witness that God is the highest authority, are they equally justified in their conclusion?”
I read that 4 times and I’m still not sure what you’re asking. In the first case, if somebody receives a witness about him or herself, then they are already treating the source of the witness (God) as higher than him or herself. If somebody truly was the highest authority, then they would have no need of outside witnesses.
Comment by Jeff G — June 4, 2015 @ 4:55 pm
I’m trying to push the discussion to the non-human realm and I don’t think you answered any of the questions about the non-human beings.
What word do you use for the “experience” of contacting a non-human being?
Prayer and visions are two examples. Let’s say I pray and I am visited by two beings. How do I tell which being is the higher authority?
I have a hard time understanding how prayer works in your worldview. Is it an empirical experience? If it is not, then what kind of experience is it? Do you believe our brains behave in certain ways when we have visions?
The appeal to authority still leaves the question open as to how communication with dirty occurs. Your approach seems to humanize authority and leave unanswered how non-human authority communicates with humans.
The consultation is still empirical even if the justification of the communication is non-empirical.
Comment by Martin James — June 4, 2015 @ 6:48 pm
That’s a very helpful caveat Jeff (14). I thought you meant reasoning in general. I’d just say that references to background, responsibilities, or authorities often don’t run afoul of the ad homen fallacy. The disagreement appears to be more over how much weight you give them.
As for why there’s distinction between burden of proof and trump (12) it seems fairly straightforward. Consider an authority tells you to do something wrong but you don’t (for whatever reason) have a revelation on the subject. Yet there is strong evidence they are wrong. What do you do? In your scheme you still have to obey whereas for me if there is sufficient evidence you don’t. That’s a clear and important difference.
This isn’t a minor issue. I can think of many people in my experience who have had just such problems including a cousin who’s mission president was asking missionaries to do improper things. I also grew up in the east coast during the era of the baseball baptisms, so this isn’t a problem. Now I think the usual way that many liberal Mormons say to address it is improper. But this sort of thing happens more than you might think.
I don’t think the only way we can know whether someone was inspired is by inspiration. If someone comes up to me and says the sky is pink when I see it is blue, no revelation is necessary.
But there’s also the issue of what counts as inspiration. Does my reading of the scriptures count, for instance? If someone says something mistaken that I can see is mistaken by an appeal to the scriptures, baring a revelation, what should I do?
Comment by Clark — June 4, 2015 @ 6:50 pm
Jeff (12) “The concern that mostly motivates me is that there is a strong tendency to uncritically accept so many of the moral and epistemological values, standards and definitions that the world teaches us and that this strongly skews our perception of the “middle ground” you speak of. Of course, almost all of our practical day to day lives fall within this middle ground, but my big, absolute positions are meant to”
I fully agree with that. I just think there’s a way to be skeptical of the values and assumptions of the academy without adopting the authoritarian stance of a trump.
Comment by Clark — June 4, 2015 @ 6:51 pm
“By what faculty, procedure or (fill in the blank) do we come to know whether our assessment of the hierarchy of authority is correct?”
I’ve given the same answer so many times, that I simply have to assume that I don’t understand what you are asking.
Yes, I mean the hierarchy of non-human authority.
“If a person has a personal witness that they are the highest authority, in the exact same way that you have a personal witness that God is the highest authority, are they equally justified in their conclusion?”
I read that 4 times and I’m still not sure what you’re asking. In the first case, if somebody receives a witness about him or herself, then they are already treating the source of the witness (God) as higher than him or herself. If somebody truly was the highest authority, then they would have no need of outside witnesses.
But you are already presuming that God is the source of the witness. Isn’t that backwards. How does one know that the source of one’s witness is God?
Comment by Martin James — June 4, 2015 @ 7:19 pm
Here is more of what concerns me about this line of reasoning.
1. I believe that the LDS religion requires us to be atheist about other gods and religions. Whether it is the first commandment or being a covenant people or the revelations to Joseph Smith, the conclusion I some to is that it is a sin to believe that most of the Gods believed in by humans today and over the ages do not exist. In numerical terms Mormons are mainly atheist about most gods of human history.
2. The LDS God is absolutely compatible with scientific truth. This is very helpful in keep us oriented to what God is. Any Gods or concepts of God that are incompatible with scientific truth are not real. Now, we don’t have perfect knowledge of scientific truth, but I hold that empirical truths can help us from worshiping false gods.
3. This is why I am pushing so hard for understanding empirically how people understand God’s authority. I maintain that since our God is real and other Gods are not real, that what happens when receive an answer to our prayers about what God is must be empirically different from what happens when other people believe in their gods. Religion in general is an enemy to God. Only our specific religion is helpful to our relationship with God. Scientific truth to the extent that we can know it, is a knowledge of God and his works.
4. All religious practices are compatible with scientific truth because they are possible. I mean how could tithing or home teaching violate scientific laws. But religious beliefs can be untrue. It is with belief that the issue of understanding God comes in.
5. In my opinion, defending authority in general, rather than seeing LDS authority as one form of carrying out God’s work, increases the likelihood of an inaccurate conceptualization of what God is and an affinity for authority in general which is a sin against God as the only authority.
Comment by Martin James — June 5, 2015 @ 8:30 am
Here is more of what concerns me about this line of reasoning.
1. I believe that the LDS religion requires us to be atheist about other gods and religions. Whether it is the first commandment or being a covenant people or the revelations to Joseph Smith, the conclusion I come to is that it is a sin to believe that most of the Gods believed in by humans today and over the ages exist. In numerical terms Mormons are mainly atheist about most gods of human history.
2. The LDS God is absolutely compatible with scientific truth. This is very helpful in keep us oriented to what God is. Any Gods or concepts of God that are incompatible with scientific truth are not real. Now, we don’t have perfect knowledge of scientific truth, but I hold that empirical truths can help us from worshiping false gods.
3. This is why I am pushing so hard for understanding empirically how people understand God’s authority. I maintain that since our God is real and other Gods are not real, that what happens when receive an answer to our prayers about what God is must be empirically different from what happens when other people believe in their gods. Religion in general is an enemy to God. Only our specific religion is helpful to our relationship with God. Scientific truth to the extent that we can know it, is a knowledge of God and his works.
4. All religious practices are compatible with scientific truth because they are possible. I mean how could tithing or home teaching violate scientific laws? But religious beliefs can be untrue. It is with belief that the issue of understanding God comes in.
5. In my opinion, defending authority in general as a process for truth, rather than seeing LDS authority as one form of carrying out God’s work, increases the likelihood of an inaccurate conceptualization of what God is and an affinity for authority in general which is a sin against God as the only authority.
Comment by Martin James — June 5, 2015 @ 8:35 am
Martin, how do you distinguish between believing something false about God and believing a false God? For instance I think the formal doctrine of the trinity is wrong, but I wouldn’t say the God they believe in doesn’t exist. Rather I’d say they believe some false attributes about God.
I agree with you that figuring out inspiration and interpreting it correctly is a much bigger problem than Jeff is letting on. This applies to authority too. It’s a Mormon doctrine that not everything a person does is acting as an authority. So Pres. Monson could say something about politics without doing so as a prophet. We have to be able to interpret what the authorities say but also when they are acting as an authority. Same problem as with inspiration.
I don’t think you’re right to say, “only our specific religion is helpful to our relationship with God.” While there are truths only we have and only we have the authority, it seems clearly a doctrine of the church that other faiths have truths and that the light of Christ can work in those faiths to draw people to God.
Comment by Clark — June 5, 2015 @ 11:55 am
I wouldn’t say Jeff is trivializing the problem of deciding what we must follow and what we don’t. I think he’s saying we should respect the authority of a person and take what they say seriously. We should “wrestle before God” with any discrepancies between our understanding and the words of authority, rather than using our reason to discount it.
But I agree that Mormonism does not require us to be atheist about other religions and gods. Quite the opposite. We are to find light wherever it is. Our theology is built on assimilating the parts of other religions which comprise light and truth. We are encouraged to search and ponder…and that means more than just Church-produced publications. It gives us access to the whole of the human-divine experience.
There are doubtlessly other powers besides God the Father’s. If there weren’t, there would be no choice. The trick is that He and Jehovah are the only living God. All other powers are finite. He is our Creator. Our Father. His power is limitless, His glory endless. And we can choose whether we will inherit all that He has, worlds without end, or choose a more controllable and finite power.
You cannot “understand empirically” the authority of God. It is simply not comprehensible with the tools we have. You might as well try to measure an apple with a ruler. But God’s power and authority can be sensed and felt subjectively…organically.
No one can truly define how to KNOW for someone else. It’s something you simply have to experience for yourself.
Comment by SilverRain — June 5, 2015 @ 12:47 pm
“how do you distinguish between believing something false about God and believing a false God? For instance I think the formal doctrine of the trinity is wrong, but I wouldn’t say the God they believe in doesn’t exist. Rather I’d say they believe some false attributes about God.”
I think this is actually an enormous problem that has been papered over by the commonalities of a Judeo-Christian heritage that apply less and less going forward.
Whether it is the spiritual but not religious, liberal Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, or the many other belief systems, we can’t take for granted that we are using the term God the same way.
A god without body, parts or passions is not our God. Period, full stop. This doesn’t mean that they don’t have truths from God but the God they worship doesn’t exist.
We can learn truths from others and other churches but it seems highly unlikely that truths about the nature of God are among them. This has been part of my concern with Jeff G. about semantics. Once the attributes get significantly different people are talking about different things.
The LDS doctrine that God has a tangible body makes our relationship to science and religion completely different from most other Christian religions and intentionally and fundamentally so since it necessitated the restoration.
The difference in these doctrines seems to be avoided by both those with political and cultural affinities to other religious people over against atheists and also by those who are uncomfortable with the difficulty of the attempt to reconcile literal beliefs to science.
But this is what must be reconciled. I think it much more likely that our concepts of God’s physicality and tangibility are inadequate due to absorbing ideas of God from historical beliefs and other practices than it is the case that our science is getting further and further from consistency with God.
Our God is an empirical God not just a spiritual one and I greatly fear that Jeff’s moves against empirical reason dilute the uniqueness of our literal and physical connection to God rather than celebrate them. God’s tangibility and empirical reality is independent of God’s church and authority. I’m not saying he is directly denying this, I’m just saying that it steers attention away from the import of certain empirical LDS beliefs like the literal gathering of Israel and Kolob.
I don’t think he believes this to be the case and it may not be, but there are precious few anymore that celebrate both the literal doctrines of the LDS church and the splendid discoveries of science including all we have learned about the creation through empirical science.
Comment by Martin James — June 5, 2015 @ 12:47 pm
Silver,
Light and truth are not Gods. When I say atheist I mena to say the Gods are not Gods. I agree that the teachings may have value but the Gods are false.
Experience is an empirical thing even if we don’t know how to measure it yet. What kind of an entity do you think does the knowing and the experiencing if not an empirical one? Are you not a thing?
Comment by Martin James — June 5, 2015 @ 1:06 pm
SilverRain (25) if Jeff was only take them seriously I don’t think there’d be a disagreement. But Jeff is saying that unless personal revelation states otherwise you have to believe what they say.
That’s why I raised the distinction between burden of proof and trump. Burden of proof means reason can overrule the authority given enough evidence. Trump means that it can’t be overridden (except for the caveat of personal revelation).
Comment by Clark — June 5, 2015 @ 1:08 pm
I’m not sure I agree with that Martin. First the problem is simply the problem of reference in language. It’s a classic problem in philosophy of language that applies as much to regular people. Are we talking about a theoretic being represented by our description or are we talking about the actual being (if it exists) that we’re trying to reference via a description. There’s typically a certain undecidability there.
As for learning about God’s nature, I think there’s plenty we can learn there from non-Mormons. While I don’t fully agree with everything he says, Blake Ostler’s done some very interesting theological work here in his volumes on Mormon theology. In particular I think Levinas’ thinking about both other minds and God is extremely helpful in a Mormon setting. I think other thinkers are as well. Not everyone agrees but I think Duns Scotus is very helpful.
Now admittedly some of these things are working out implications of our beliefs rather than new doctrines. But that’s still new knowledge.
I’m not sure Jeff is making a distinction between spiritual and empirical, although I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that opposition. While I’m not sure, I suspect Jeff thinks that church authorities in practice actually say relatively little about truth claims so there’s a huge area open for empirical investigation. The only issue is where there’s a conflict he thinks we always believe the authority unless personal revelation gives a trump.
Comment by Clark — June 5, 2015 @ 1:16 pm
Martin,
“How do I tell which being is the higher authority?”
That only matters if they disagree with one another. Otherwise, the fact that they are above you is the only thing that matters.
“Is it an empirical experience?”
Who cares? It seems like you’re trying to force such things into conceptual boxes that were not invented until 400 years ago, when the whole point is that those boxes aren’t all that important. It was primarily during the 18th century that empirical data came to replace some the authority that rationalism had, during the previous 100-200 years appropriated from traditional, priesthood authorities. Since we still believe in such traditional authorities, why should we stress too much about rationalism or empiricism?
“Your approach seems to humanize authority and leave unanswered how non-human authority communicates with humans.”
Of course I do. Why would we ever think that authority is not essentially human in nature, especially since God is Himself human. In other words, revelation is a fundamentally inter-personal and social experience.
Clark,
Sorry about that, I thought that I had already cleared that up with you. For future reference, my views are VERY influenced by Gouldner and, to a lesser extent, Habermas. I should mention, however, that one way of packaging my thesis is that “ad hominem” is NOT fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy is based in the idea that goodness and/or rightness exist independent of the person such that the legitimacy of the latter can be cashed out in terms of the former. In other words, it presupposes that the wrong side of the Euthyphro dilemma is right.
“Consider an authority tells you to do something wrong but you don’t (for whatever reason) have a revelation on the subject. Yet there is strong evidence they are wrong. What do you do?”
Easy, present the authority figure with the evidence, let them decide and then follow them either way (unless, of course, personal revelation says otherwise). If anything other than personal revelation or other such appeals to higher authority is allowed to trump authority figures, this opens the door for human reasoning (such as evidence) to trump revelation. Authority is the only way to keep church teachings pure. Even if it’s not perfect, it’s still better than being led by human reason.
“But this sort of thing happens more than you might think.”
I seriously doubt it. I am by no means blind to the shortcomings of our leaders having been on the wrong end of several such instances. It seems to me that the real worry should be that most members aren’t able to rely upon their own personal revelation in order to disobey leaders. The problem, however, is that an appeal to evidence and human reasoning has an even stronger tendency to prevent people from trusting their own personal revelation. In other words, evidence and reason don’t clear the way to God, but are instead the addition of further obstacles.
“If someone says something mistaken that I can see is mistaken by an appeal to the scriptures, baring a revelation, what should I do?”
Easy, follow your own personal revelation and, most importantly, keep that revelation personal. If another person (who does not have stewardship over you) is genuinely inspired to say something to you, this in no way entail any responsibility on your part to obey them. Their revelation is no less personal than yours is.
Martin,
“By what faculty, procedure or (fill in the blank) do we come to know whether our assessment of the hierarchy of (non-human) authority is correct?”
There is a deep conceptual confusion here that I have addressed on several occasions: Your question presupposes that there is some standard of right that exists outside of or beyond all such authority figures. Again, this is to accept the wrong side of the Euthyphro dilemma and is exactly what I am calling into question.
“How does one know that the source of one’s witness is God?”
Well, Joseph Smith had some good ideas on the subject. Basically what it boils down to is that you have to keep asking God. If you don’t believe that this will work, then you have much, much bigger fish to fry than whether or not my model is right.
“Any Gods or concepts of God that are incompatible with scientific truth are not real. Now, we don’t have perfect knowledge of scientific truth,”
Well then in what sense can science help us if we are never sure what the truth is? Most importantly, who decide what is and is not compatible? Science likes to pretend that their categories and values are the “natural” and “non-negotiable” ones that we must follow, just because – but this is false. Their categories and values were invented and continue to evolve over time. Why should we assume that this evolution is converging rather than diverging from the categories and values that God wants us to use? Most importantly, if you need science to tell you that other gods don’t exist, then again, you have bigger fish to fry since the strong majority of history did NOT have science to help them.
“I maintain that since our God is real and other Gods are not real, that what happens when receive an answer to our prayers about what God is must be empirically different from what happens when other people believe in their gods.”
Why? The only reason why you would think that there must be some kind of consistency across different people’s experience with revelation is if such revelations were not limited to their stewardship – which is exactly what I am arguing against. I have no way of knowing, and no need to actually know what happens between God and His other children. I stand in no need of saying that revelation is true or false. Furthermore, the appeal to science in this case only diverts time and effort from where it should be on issues like these: personal revelation. In other words, since revelation is bound by stewardships, science is unnecessary, incapable and somewhat idolatrous.
Comment by Jeff G — June 5, 2015 @ 1:22 pm
Clark,
“It’s a Mormon doctrine that not everything a person does is acting as an authority. So Pres. Monson could say something about politics without doing so as a prophet.”
There’s a lot of confusion here. For one, you seem to equate being authoritative with “speaking as a prophet”. I absolutely reject this. Furthermore, I don’t think it at all difficult to figure out when a priesthood leader is speaking officially/authoritatively or not. I also sense the concept of “falliblity” doing some inappropriate work. While fallibility might get in the way of “speaking as a prophet” it does nothing whatsoever to get in the way of speaking authoritatively. The only thing that gets in the way of speaking authoritatively is personal unrighteousness, not fallibliity.
With regards to other religion, if anything my model is too liberal, since it totally blocks our attempts to pass judgement on other people’s experiences with the divine. Since I totally reject the consistency of revelation across stewardships, there is no way for me to correct what they take to be reveal by God in their own lives. I can be inspired to speak my own view, but such people ought to believe what God tells them over me.
Silver,
“We should “wrestle before God” with any discrepancies between our understanding and the words of authority, rather than using our reason to discount it.”
Perfect. Once again, you put my points so much better than I do. We have been taught all our lives in school, the media, etc. that critique and reason are the only things that prevent us from abuses of authority and other falsehoods, but this is totally false. We believe that God can tell each and every one of us what to do and it is by wrestling with God rather than scientists that we walk the straight and narrow.
Martin,
” I’m just saying that it steers attention away from the import of certain empirical LDS beliefs like the literal gathering of Israel and Kolob.”
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “empirical” since the gathering of Israel is the furthest thing form an empirical belief that I can imagine. Since my model makes God a priesthood holder among others both below (us) and above (other Gods) Him, where all morals and ideals flow from embodied persons rather than the other way around, I can’t even begin to see how I “dilute” God’s nature.
Clark,
“But Jeff is saying that unless personal revelation states otherwise you have to believe what they say.”
Pretty much. Unless a higher authority (mortal or not) says otherwise, then there is no legitimate reason to disobey. The whole idea of a burden of proof that can be met by evidence is a scholarly invention that has no place in the gospel.
“I suspect Jeff thinks that church authorities in practice actually say relatively little about truth claims so there’s a huge area open for empirical investigation.”
Well, “truth claims” is pretty ambiguous, which I why I try not to use that word. There are two aspects of truth that separated from each other with the fact/value distinction: “truth is an accurate representation of the way reality is” and “truth is a righteous guide”. Science speaks a great deal about the former but very little of the latter, while church authorities speak a great deal of the latter but very little of the former. Which of these counts as “truth”? I think history shows that the latter conception is closest to the original meaning that we find in the scriptures. However, I also think that within our modern context, the former conception (which is actually a recent departure from or transformation of the latter) is taken to be standard. This ambiguity is the source of much confusions, distinction mongering and long-windedness in my threads.
Comment by Jeff G — June 5, 2015 @ 1:48 pm
OK, I get it. But I think there is still one point amiss.
My question about the faculty by which we know what authority is does not entail that there is a standard of right outside authority, it is about how I recognize authority.
How do I know whether I am mistaken about who is an authority?
Let me ask it another way. By what faculty does one receive an answer to prayer?
How do you know that you have no way of knowing what happens between God and his other children? Is that within your stewardship to know that?
P.S. science is quite aware that it’s categories are not natural and are imperfect. its a given that they are approximate.
Comment by Martin James — June 5, 2015 @ 1:49 pm
This definition will do for empirical “based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.”
literal “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory”
gathering “an assembly or meeting, especially a social or festive one or one held for a specific purpose.”
So, do you believe we can measure the size of the gathering of israel and count the number of Israelites so gathered?
If so, that’s empirical. If not, then what is the meaning of “literal” in “literal gathering”?
Comment by Martin James — June 5, 2015 @ 1:58 pm
Furthermore, I don’t think it at all difficult to figure out when a priesthood leader is speaking officially/authoritatively or not.
Certainly the majority of cases are easy. I think you are (as with inspiration) discounting the many problematic cases. Give a concrete example, my wife’s Bishop told her to stop dating me when we had been dating a month. Acting as an authority or not? (Clearly he was wrong – but that’s not in question)
It’s these many problematic cases that pose difficulties for your model that I think you are just discounting out of hand. Your model works for the clear cases but not the unclear cases. Yet your solution effectively is that the unclear cases don’t happen. I think you discount them precisely because you don’t want to engage with the problem of interpretation.
Comment by Clark — June 5, 2015 @ 2:07 pm
“In other words, revelation is a fundamentally inter-personal and social experience.”
And therefore an empirical one.
What leads you to believe that you can separate human reason from other forms of human inter-personal and social experience? It is with our reason that we understand that communicative experience.
I am at least somewhat comforted by the idea that you don’t think these ideas are compelling since it is not within your stewardship to teach them authoritatively. I don’t know that you ever admitted this before when I said that you don’t have the authority to teach these doctrines.
I am much relieved that you basically admit no one else has any need to believe your model. If you are only using it for personal use, well then go ahead.
Changing the conversation a bit. I’m trying to see something for a minute from your perspective. How do you interpret “knowledge” as used in D&C 121. in your authority perspective what does the word knowledge mean?
Comment by Martin James — June 5, 2015 @ 2:18 pm
to quote some more D&C 121
And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars—
31 All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times—
That’s pretty darn empirical to me.
Comment by Martin James — June 5, 2015 @ 2:23 pm
Yikes, this is why I mostly observe these conversations, rather than participate. They run away from me so quickly, and I feel positively idiotic. *L*
Martin—”Empirical” is an illusion when you try to transfer it from one person to another (or even one moment to another) particularly when you’re talking about spiritual matters. Because spiritual phenomena are shaped and changed by the observer—rather like the Observer Effect—you can’t observe spiritual matters without changing them.
Therefore, finding some observable, repeatable formula for spiritual experiences is ultimately a dead end. You can teach basic principles, you can teach frameworks wherein revelation and spiritual experiences may occur. But you cannot guarantee that they will occur. Especially not that they will occur in the same way.
“But Jeff is saying that unless personal revelation states otherwise you have to believe what they say.”
I know Jeff already agreed with you that this is what he’s saying, and so I may be completely wrong here (correct me if so, Jeff,) but I think one thing about this is definitely NOT what he’s saying.
He’s not saying you have to believe it: he’s saying you should follow it. That is not the same thing.
Comment by SilverRain — June 5, 2015 @ 3:09 pm
Jeff can correct me if I’m misreading him but I’m pretty sure he’s making a stronger claim than just obedience in a political sense. He’s saying we have to believe. Thus all the discussion about truth. We’re it just about authority to direct actions I’d have far less trouble with his comments.
Comment by Clark — June 5, 2015 @ 3:45 pm
SilverRain,
Thanks for commenting. It helps me realize I have no idea why Jeff’s theory drives me to distraction. I’m not that much interested with the people questioning authority using reason that concern him. But the approach he takes to get there drives me (more) bonkers!
Comment by Martin James — June 5, 2015 @ 4:50 pm
Martin,
Regarding the physical faculty involved in revelation, I don’t care, nor do the prophets seem all that clear on the subject. I don’t see why I should care either.
I think a lot of what your issue with celestial authorities (I refuse to call them “non-human”) is that you see that if external standards do not constrain the authority of a person, then it seems arbitrary – thus leaving no important difference between good and bad authority.
The problem of arbitrariness, however, comes because the the explanatory regress stops, not because it stops at a person rather than some cosmic standard. After all, why is that standard not arbitrary? This search for non-arbitrary fundamentals upon which we can ground and hang everything else has failed. The closest thing we have to a fundamental is our lived social experience which sometimes forces us to stop what we are doing and ask questions until we get a acceptable answer. What question ought to be asked and what answers ought to be taken as acceptable are determined by the practical costs and benefits associated with them – and celestial beings are no different.
Within the celestial context in which social interactions inevitably produced morals and values, 1/3 part of heaven evidently saw more legitimacy in another authority and went their way. This option is still very open to each of us. But if we want to receive all the promises that God offers us, then we will choose Him as our authority. The question I think you are asking is whether there is something deeper and prior to the rebellion of this 1/3 than merely choosing a different tradition and authority? The only answer I can give is “I don’t know”, but luckily we all accepted the authority of Christ so the time for those kinds of questions is past.
“How do you know that you have no way of knowing what happens between God and his other children?”
Since they are outside of my stewardship, I have no right to receive revelation regarding them and their lives. The best I can get in revelation regarding how I should interpret their lives in a way that is non-binding upon anybody else.
“So, do you believe we can measure the size of the gathering of israel and count the number of Israelites so gathered?”
No, I don’t think you can do this in any kind of empirical. The church’s doctrine concerning spiritual grafting make appeals to authority the only option we have for “counting” such people.
Clark,
“I think you are (as with inspiration) discounting the many problematic cases.”
But problematic by what standards? Why, for example, did your wife continue dating you? If she received personal revelation on the subject, then there is nothing problematic here. The bishop was inspired. So was your wife. So what?
The only reason we would think there is a problem here is the assumption of universal consistency which is exactly what I am rejecting. Universal consistency was itself a method devised to resolve disagreements between competing authorities, but in the case of your wife there were no competing authorities. It is for this reason that universal consistency is superfluous.
“I think you discount them precisely because you don’t want to engage with the problem of interpretation.”
And I think the “problem of interpretation” is a contrived manner by which people unnecessarily cling to assumptions like universal consistency. The whole point of priesthood stewardship is that if a person is personally righteous, then their interpretation just ISN’T an issue. They have the right and authority to interpret their experiences within the boundaries set by their stewardship.
Martin again,
“And therefore an empirical one.”
That is not what empirical means. The social sciences are not at all empirical in the sense of the natural sciences. Such experiences are certainly interpretive, but I don’t see what the problem is with that.
“What leads you to believe that you can separate human reason from other forms of human inter-personal and social experience?”
I’ve answered this over and over again.
“it is not within your stewardship to teach them authoritatively.”
With that I completely agree. Of course, a person who takes human reasoning to be authoritative (like you do) is not able to dismiss them so cavalierly – not at least without tacitly agreeing with me.
Regarding “knowledge”, it can mean so many different things. Know-how – which seems unproblematic to me since that is all that I’m saying science can give us, knowledge by acquaintance which seem pretty unproblematic as well, and know-that which is basically statements that people cannot legitimately call into question.
Silver,
Don’t worry, you’re doing ay-okay in my book…. and not just because you’re somewhat on my side. Often times a new perspective with very different mental furniture is exactly what we need to clear some things up.
Clark and Silver,
I am talking about the morality of beliefs and communications so when Clark said “we have to believe”, I took him as saying that it is unrighteous for us to believe otherwise. With this I fully agree. Anything more than that is compulsion that has no place in my model. Anything less than that, however, quickly leads to the types of intellectualism that I am most definitely condemning.
Comment by Jeff G — June 5, 2015 @ 6:21 pm
“Why, for example, did your wife continue dating you? If she received personal revelation on the subject, then there is nothing problematic here. The bishop was inspired. So was your wife. So what?”
“And I think the “problem of interpretation” is a contrived manner by which people unnecessarily cling to assumptions like universal consistency.”
Umm. So it’s not an issue of interpretation. Two people can mean exactly opposite things and both be right? That’s a bridge too far for me. Well actually a bridge and a highway too far. That’s worse than relativism. Basically meanings don’t matter at all.
Surely that’s not really what you’re saying.
Further if we reject non contradiction doesn’t it logically follow that nothing I say, do or believe is actually ever in contradiction to an authority?
Comment by Clark — June 5, 2015 @ 8:57 pm
I just think our semantics are too dissimilar for me to understand what you are saying. Moreover, you don’t care about many of the things I treasure about Mormonism like it’s connection to cosmology and natural science.
I can think of no way for me to ever know what you mean by authority. I am not interested in explanation, I’m interested in know-that. I can’t figure out how to get the know-that about morals from your theory because it relies on words which I have no way of understanding the meaning of.
You think this is an evasion or a questioning of authority. To me it is not. It’s just having no way of figuring out what you mean. The things you say are unproblematic are extremely problematic to me. Things like what know-how means in relation to human beings. I don’t think it is at all obvious what to make of the natural science of human beings. The issue is authority to me it is semantic. Words just aren’t that effective. I have bigger fish to fry as you say.
Thanks for the work in trying to explain your theory to me though. I very much appreciate the effort.
Comment by Martin James — June 5, 2015 @ 9:38 pm
In the words of Eliza R. Snow,
“Truth is reason; truth eternal.”
This is my first real comment on an LDS blog in about 5 years. So I’m keeping it short and sweet.
Comment by Jeff Day — June 6, 2015 @ 6:57 pm
Just to expand a little, I think this really does highlight a key problem. It’s fine to reject traditional conceptions of truth (empiricist or other idealisms, realisms like correspondence, pragmatic verification, etc.) in preference to a more Rorty styled type “what works.” However even Rorty would say that two disagreeing parties agree on a large body of “facts” such that argument is even possible as intelligible. He doesn’t reject non-contradiction but (largely borrowing from interpretations positivists like Carnap, William James, and others) sees there being incommensurate paradigms that are undecidable. His more thoroughgoing approach is due to that. How do we decide when our discourses can’t really be commensurate. That is what do we do when it appears we don’t mean the same thing even when we are talking about a common phenomena like say mind.
What you are pushing is something more radical. You’re arguing that even when it appears we can understand each other and are speaking from shared languages or paradigms that contradiction still doesn’t matter. I don’t think Rorty would agree there. That is, I think he’d see continuing discourse as resolving the conflict, but not by simply abandoning the whole notion of contradiction.
It’s fine to take that position. But the critique I raised seems irresolvable for you. That is if non-contradiction doesn’t matter then it logically follows that we are never in conflict with an authority. The only way to avoid that is to raise the issue of interpretation which you seem to be at pains to avoid.
Comment by Clark — June 8, 2015 @ 9:12 am
Clark,
“Surely that’s not really what you’re saying.”
It’s not far off. The law of non-contradiction is only relevant when there is a competition between two equal authority figures – and in your example there is no equality between authority figures. We don’t have to reject the law of non-contradiction, since we never had to bring it up in the first place. The logical positivists were right to say that “the principles of logic and mathematics are true universally simply because we never allow them to be anything else.” – Ayer
With regards to the “problem of interpretation”, I find no such problem in the scriptures. It is for this reason that I write it off as a problem that has been contrived by those (I don’t necessarily mean you) who think 1) human reason and evidence is important because 2) righteous authority figures are not to be fully trusted because 3) they and their interpretations are fallible. Again, the scriptures provide little, if any support for any of these claims. 1) human reasoning is always placed in a position inferior to righteous authority figures, 2) we are taught follow, not murmur against or criticize righteous authority figures, and 3) the fallibility of our leaders is never acknowledged to undermine their leadership in any way – only personal unrighteousness does this.
“It’s fine to reject traditional conceptions of truth…”
But that’s the point, none of those theories are all that traditional. They only pretend to be the original meanings of the words rather than late-coming departures from their truly “traditional” meanings.
“I don’t think Rorty would agree there.”
You’re most definitely right. Given his strong rejection of authority figures, he would most likely be horrified by my model. His “continuing discourse” amongst equals is what the scriptures call “contention, disputation and confusion.” But this is exactly what makes him and not me the moral and epistemelogical relativist.
“That is if non-contradiction doesn’t matter then it logically follows that we are never in conflict with an authority.”
Again, I’m not rejecting non-contradiction, simply demoting it below the asymmetries of authority. Non-contradiction only matters when there are competing authorities on equal standing and a hierarchy of stewardships has no such thing.
Martin,
“Moreover, you don’t care about many of the things I treasure about Mormonism like it’s connection to cosmology and natural science.”
Why in the world would you think this? Natural science is a fantastic tool which has allowed us to do many great and terrible things. All the same, it is a false-priesthood that must always be constrained by the true priesthood rather than the other way around.
Comment by Jeff G — June 9, 2015 @ 2:10 pm
Jeff G,
Consider this about Clark’s point. Let’s say that I believe in following authority and scripture and that I also believe that authority and scripture are often ironic.
Certainly there are case in the scriptures of speaking in code.
I say there is always competition between ironic and non-ironic understandings.
Many authority following mormons believe that prophets speak in ways that satisfy public (non-mormon) pressure but mean something different.
You don’t really believe science exists only scientists. I’m always completely baffled by why you conflate experience with reason. Experience isn’t a false priesthood, it’s God’s creation.
BTW, the only thing you’ve said that really, truly strikes me as mormon is that God is a human.
Comment by Martin James — June 9, 2015 @ 4:46 pm
Martin,
Within my model, scripture is never on par with living authorities. Scriptures are the writings of dead people who never had and never will have stewardship over us. This is not to say that they are worthless by any stretch – only that they get whatever legitimacy they have from living authorities and thus could never be used to trump them. (This completely sidelines the majority of apologetics.)
Thus, I don’t see you example as being at all problematic or pressing. If you can’t figure out when a priesthood authority is being ironic when they are speaking directly to you – (in Gen. Conference, for example, rather than press releases, PR reps, etc.), then you’ve got bigger problems.
“You don’t really believe science exists only scientists.”
I don’t know about that. Science is a culture, a set of values and standards, a practice by which people make a living, conceptual engineers, etc. To say that such things do not exist is strange to say the least.
“I’m always completely baffled by why you conflate experience with reason.”
Again, not sure where this is coming from. Perhaps I stopped drawing a distinction between the for the sake of not repeating myself, if only because the two go hand in hand within our culture – especially as we perceive science.
That said, I never said “experience” is a false priesthood. Science and scholarship in general is though.
The idea that experience can and does (de)legitimize a claim, however, was very much aimed at sidelining priesthood authority. The historical record makes this perfectly clear. Even the first scientists saw experience as pretty much worthless since it is so equivocal, fallible and untrustworthy (see Descartes). This is why they almost always preferred thought experiments to actual experiments prior to the Royal Society.
Also, you are extremely confused about the nature of empirical data. The whole point of insisting that data be empirical (thanks to the British Empiricists) was to specifically sideline and disqualify private experiences such as personal revelation. The empiricists would be horrified by your attempt to construe personal revelation as empirical data. What’s most perverse is that they made empirical data binding upon people precisely in order to subvert personal revelation, but you accept their exaggeration of empirical data as a defense of personal revelation.
Do you not see the confusion in this? Personal revelation was not originally “data” in any sense of the word, let alone of the empirical stripe. Your attempts to use the enlightenment interpretation of experience for revelation is to accept the conceptual transformation that was at the heart of the enlightenment attack on revelation. The danger in accepting this trojan horse should be pretty obvious.
BTW, if you don’t think the centrality of living prophets who are ordained to the priesthood isn’t Mormon, I don’t know what is. This is the entire point of JS’s restoration.
Comment by Jeff G — June 9, 2015 @ 5:16 pm
With regards to the “problem of interpretation”, I find no such problem in the scriptures.
Not a lot of time so a deeper response will have to wait. But I’m surprised you say this. It seems a common problem in the scriptures. The whole First Vision was guided because Joseph was aware of the problem of interpretation. But it pops up in many places including the narrative to the Book of Mormon.
In particular though I just don’t see how you can discount interpreting texts. Again, the problem I raised seems unaddressed, just avoided. How do I and my Bishop know we are talking about the same thing?
Comment by Clark — June 9, 2015 @ 9:28 pm
Jeff G.
“Thus, I don’t see you example as being at all problematic or pressing. If you can’t figure out when a priesthood authority is being ironic when they are speaking directly to you – (in Gen. Conference, for example, rather than press releases, PR reps, etc.), then you’ve got bigger problems.”
Really. REALLY? Have you never been married? My experience is that everybody understands things differently. Almost every comment here reflects a different understanding. Maybe that is why you get so exasperated at having to explain yourself over and over.
I think your overly human centered view of the world and historical and philosophical approach is mistaken. Worse, its boring because what you think exists often doesn’t and most of what exists you don’t care about.
Comment by Martin James — June 10, 2015 @ 7:22 am
Just checking to see if you’d catch the humor in the boring comment.
But seriously this next sentence is a wonder. What do you mean by “nature” in the following sentence.
“Also, you are extremely confused about the nature of empirical data.”
What, precisely, determines the “nature” of empirical data and how would one know if one was confused about it?
Comment by Martin James — June 10, 2015 @ 8:39 am
“Moreover, you don’t care about many of the things I treasure about Mormonism like it’s connection to cosmology and natural science.”
Why in the world would you think this?
Answer, the pure light of Christ, of course. The still small voice speaks it to me.
Comment by Martin James — June 10, 2015 @ 1:03 pm
Sorry about the delay.
Clark,
I see the first vision as the strongest confirmation of my model. I fully agree that interpretation of scripture is highly problematic, which is exactly why is plays such a peripheral role in my model. Reason and scripture produce numerous possible interpretations that are not able to be clarified by the dead author. In the case of revelation to living priesthood holders, however, if there is any doubt we can simply ask them. Thus, revelation to authorities is the solution to the problem within the first vision. What separates JS from all the other people having visions, etc. is that he was ordained to receive them for other people.
I would also suggest that this so called problem of interpretation seems to presuppose a few things that I simply cannot accept. First, an interpretation – roughly speaking – is merely filling in answers to questions that the speaker has no (yet) explicitly given. Thus, the question of meaning is settled the exact same way in my model as any other question: by asking the person that had stewardship over the issue since their answer counts more than anybody else’s answer. Second, I fully reject the idea of moral ideals. The idea of stewardship is far more concerned with the purity within moral boundaries than approaching any kind of optimized moral point. Thus, we can and do interpret speech acts in all sorts of ways so long as we do not violate certain moral boundaries that constrain such interpretation.
I have little doubt that this answer will not satisfy you, but I think this has more to do with the fact that I simply do not see how interpretation is a more pressing of an issue for my model than it is for anybody else. If you could spell out the tension in more detail, I might have a better answer. As things stand, I see this problem of interpretation as a sub-set of the (rather contemptible) appeal to the fallibility of leaders.
Martin,
“What, precisely, determines the “nature” of empirical data and how would one know if one was confused about it?”
There is a whole slew of literature on the subject. Empiricism arose as a response to the Cartesian’s exaggerated emphasis on mathematical rationalization. It quickly became a theory of meaning – Largely under the influence of Locke – and the entire point of theories of meaning is to rule out some statements and meanings as “meaningless.” Thus we find the radical empiricist David Hume saying that any claim that does not have naturalistic empirical data and/or mathematical reasoning should be consigned to the flames as utter meaninglessness not worthy of serious attention. The logical empiricists would later say things very similar to this when they replaced the emphasis of mathematical reasoning with predicate logic. All of these empiricists insisted that appeals to private inward experience – such as mystical experiences, etc. – were totally illegitimate.
Comment by Jeff G — June 11, 2015 @ 2:40 pm