Arthur, beg pardon? Negate myself in the end?

I like your appeal to authority, but let’s keep some things in mind…democracy works with a particular condition: we have protection for minority rights. For whatever it’s worth, let’s just remember that the U.S. Constitution would never have gotten off the ground precisely because the Founding Fathers were so wary of the potential of tyranny of the majority — a major concession — the bill of rights — had to be made. And the constitution furthermore allowed for checks and balances, etc.,

This is neither here nor there. I’m not trying to say you should believe it just because the FFs did. that would be an appeal to authority…but I would ask if you personally feel this is reasonable.

We don’t have time machines, unfortunately. But we also didn’t have time machines to determine the impact of giving women the right to vote, of the impact the abolition of slavery would have on the South’s economy, on states’ rights, etc., We didn’t have time machines to determine the impact a great number of radical social changes would have. Am I trying to wrap them all up and say they are all the same thing? No, but I’m saying that crippling conservatism and contentment with the way things currently are isn’t so uncontroversial as you might want it to be.

You’re right: people act on certain subjective value systems. Objective and external results may in many cases be irrelevant because people are operating on the subjectives instead. Yet, at the same time, people do internalize and value these subjective systems. “How can we trust that at all” is at heart of the same question a nonmember would ask a member who says, “Just have faith!” or “I have spiritual experiences that show this to be true.” The thing is…this doesn’t show that. It shows that subjectively, the spiritual experiences an individual has tell us about that individual. What may “work best” for him. It doesn’t show that objectively, what is borne of those spiritual experiences is true. (It doesn’t show that they are false either.)

So, in the end, we have very subjective belief systems. And we’re trying to work through our subjective experiences, others’ potentially differing subjective experiences, and a wild guess stab at what is externally and universally true. Even in the case that our wild guess stab is completely wrong, I think we should still try to find a medium that can be charitable enough to others’ subjective experiences without vitally compromising our own…if such thing is possible.

Well did Churchill say that Democracy is the worst form of government except everything else we’ve tried.

Issues like same sex marriage lead me to think of the following scenario.

Say I had a time machine that can travel into the future. If I could go forward and see the effects of same sex marriage on society, say same sex marriage had an overall benefit when all the factors were weighed (children growing up and being well-adjusted, nuclear families strengthened, etc.). If I came back in time and told everyone my findings, what would that change? Assuming everyone believed me. Would some people say, “Well, I’m going to vote against it anyway, because it’s just wrong.”

Now imagine the opposite is true. I discovered that same sex marriage had an overall negative impact. Some people would still say, “Well, it’s the right thing to do, so I’m going to vote for it no matter what the outcome is.”

If my hypothetical is accurate, then people are acting on a certain value system that is independent of the outward data or results. I would submit that this is an accurate look at people…

The point being that not only do we have our own systems of belief, but they seem to be based on so many different things… how can we trust that at all? It’s a good question.

We still get into problems with the general majority or consensus…for example…is killing wrong just because the majority of people disagree with it? Is it “right” if a majority do not agree with it? Is gay marriage wrong as long as a majority of people will vote it down, but right if a majority will vote it in?

Is it “right” if a majority of Christians consensually determine that Mormons aren’t Christian and are a dangerous cult?

Or shouldn’t there be a way to determine unpopular “rights” and “wrongs?”

Democracy is woefully inadequate because the general consensus can agree on thing that deliberately hurt minority positions. But, this is precisely why we have minority rights (unless the majority decides to write those out).

Of course, then again, what is “right” or “wrong” is subjective too…because for each question I propose, I could probably find people who’d be on both sides of the equation, people who would point out that I have personal biases that make me think some things are right/wrong/whatever…and in fact, that’s my point. Everyone has these biases…so a person’s ideas about right and wrong do not say anything about objective/universal rights and wrongs…rather, they reveal more about the individuals we are dealing with and their biases. So instead of hitting at something that is universally true, maybe the best we can do is hit at something many individuals can agree with. Or whatever.

It could very well be that “right” and “wrong” are universally meaningless terms, but we have just become so blind to our personal and subconscious subjective impressions that we want to project onto the universe. Yet, even if this is true, this is meaningless…because we are VERY GOOD at projecting the subjective as objective. We don’t just want to personally feel x is wrong…we want to be able to say, “I know x is wrong and everyone should recognize this.”

But then again, we DO need laws to govern the people, and those laws must be created based on a general majority or consensus. Do not kill, for instance. There seems to be general consensus on that. There may be those who have a personal system that says, “I must kill others and take their stuff.” We can’t entirely let everyone go by their own system, as internally consistent as it is. So what should the yardstick of general consensus be? I guess Democracy answers that question, in general. I guess once we move from the speculative or abstract, things get murky again.

Should we be able to drink alcohol? What about taking LSD? What about absynthe? What about salvia? Four different substances with mind-altering effects that we legislate completely differently. Why? Does everyone have their own personal system? Not really.

just rather that the picture is actually a lot more complex that it is. As Arthur writes in #7, he “ha[s] a system that [he's] worked out that works for [him].” If this is true, I have no place, and indeed, he is right to ask, “Who are YOU to do violence to that system.”

My only point is this…others also have systems that work for them. Systems with amazingly different conclusions than the one we may have. So we have to realize that our systems are formed by “what works for us,” and what makes sense subjectively to us, but this says rather little about what is objectively true or universally true. As long as we stay out of the game of trying to assert universal truths, no problem. But when we get into that game, we better be sure that we have something more to back that up than “what works for us,” when what “works” is subjective and can differ per person.

Andrew S – Thanks for your comment. It made a great counter-argument.

25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.

It’s a testimony that can never be taken away. “Look, I only know what I know and what I’ve seen. But I can tell you right now… I was blind before, and now I can see. Who are YOU to tell me I’m not?”

In my own life I equate it to my own testimony. “Never mind what the Bible says or the Book of Mormon says or Bart Ehrman or William Lane Craig or whomever. I know what I know. I know my own observations. I have a system that I’ve worked out that works for me. Who are YOU to do violence to that system? I know what I’ve observed. May God be my judge…”

I know for myself God exists, Christ is his son and the Savior, Joseph Smith and a man to follow, and the Book of Mormon is a pattern of truth. because of the process Arthur discussed. As Alma described these truths “enlarge my soul”, “enlighten my understanding” and are “delicious to me”.

Thanks Arthur for the post. I found it enlightening.

2. Just because one believe God exist does not mean He exist.

This is why, at the most fundamental level, I only say I “know” for myself – based on my own experiences, for now, subject to further clarification. Iow, I “know” some things for myself, but I might not know anything fully. I know what brings me joy, both now and over time in the past – but not fully in the future; I know what I wanted to believe at various points in my life and what I want to believe now – but not fully in the future; I know what has worked and works for me in my marriage previously and now – but not fully in the future; etc.

In fact, we do come with a conclusion something like what the meta-logicians have hinted at. We don’t really know about *truth* or not…but rather about what *works*. This is similarly so for any circularly reasoned argument — the premises can be valid, but then, the circularity does not allow us to establish soundness or truth.

I think, though, that going through the argument that WLC uses (which, he is a masterful debater, not going to lie), you come up with rather nihilistic and solipsistic arguments (which you alluded to, in fact). Which is not altogether problematic with me, but when Craig makes his points, this does not in and of itself justify his position. Rather, it tears down everything.

I think the argument that people are trying to make is…why are we compelled to believe certain things? For example, it could be true that the universe started 5 minutes ago, and that our willingness to believe in carbon dating (which could be a sensory sham, albeit a very consistent one) is based on things that are only circularly proven…but in this case, I guess to use the words of Elder Packer which have sometimes been used against him: “Some things that are true aren’t very useful.” And in this case, I think we should really figure out that we are going for useful, and in fact, this may be something better suited to be conflated with truth (but then again, making that argument only works because of the circular appeal of usefulness in finding “better suited” things). So, I would suppose that you can be compelled to believe that it makes most sense or that it is most useful to believe in God, in Godthinking, in higher planes, etc., in which case you go with what is most useful.

But as to the question of what actually is the case, the jury is still out on that, and for reasons that WLC presents. You could be attributing things incorrectly or taking bad faith claims. This isn’t to say abandon them…but don’t take everything so seriously.

lol, i got on a tangent and chewed your ear off and you didn’t even realize it until you got to this sentence!