12:20 I knew my heart was burning and that I was not creating it????? How is the feeling of knowing something is true and being wrong different from knowing something is true and being correct?
This talk tiptoes around some serious theological and philosophical issues. Early on, he concedes that personal experiences are subjective and unique. Now he does not say that objective truth cannot be grounded in the subjective. In fact he goes on to explain that he knows the truth of all LDS truth claims because of his personal experiences. At the end however, he very subtly critiques the personal experiences of someone who does not believe LDS truth claims. So in his own case he is appealing to personal experience and that’s enough to establish objective truth claims. But in the case of others, he appeals to a standard outside of their personal experience. Now he does not tell us what that standard is but he did tell us how he knows his worldview is true so we would have to assume the standard he is appealing to in order to correct others is his own personal experience. So now we see glimpses of his worldview: that his personal experiences are valid and the personal experiences of those who have a different worldview are invalid. So why not just come right out and say this? Because that’s a terrible argument and no one would ever take him seriously…and they shouldn’t.
Not even close to what happened. Right at 5:39 he says “the fact that I have some experience doesn’t mean you have some reason to believe [me]. It only means that you might find something usual about what I say.” Nice paragraph you sent that would be true if he actually argued like that, but he didn’t He literally argued that the only things you KNOW are your experience via your brain working with your heart. Everything else is seen through a lens, like a camera. He also argued that experience is subjective, not truth. You conflated the two.
Where has this been? How did I miss this!!!
12:20 I knew my heart was burning and that I was not creating it????? How is the feeling of knowing something is true and being wrong different from knowing something is true and being correct?
Thank you. I read your paper on re-vision-ing the deity of Mormonism (Trinity) and i agree with it.
Very insightful and helpful.
Thanks!
The Myth of Religious Experience by Nick Zagwell is a paper that addresses his arguments.
Simply outstanding
Book of Mormon centrally
Some Nephite inscriptions or artifacts would be nice! Some inscriptions written in Reformed Egyptian would be nice too!
27:17 - 27:25 what?
Your brains filters your experience. You don’t experience reality itself but rather interpret reality into a way that MAKES SENSE to you.
@@rdrzalexamy experience is different, it king hit me without me expecting it
WHYARETHEINTRODUCTIONSSOVERYVERYLOUDATEVERYFAIRCONFERENCE?!?!?! I love these lectures, but MOTHER OF PEARL they start out booming!
Book of Mormon central
Given how the human brain functions so poorly in these matters don’t we need objective hard evidence for believing this or any other religion is true?
This talk tiptoes around some serious theological and philosophical issues. Early on, he concedes that personal experiences are subjective and unique. Now he does not say that objective truth cannot be grounded in the subjective. In fact he goes on to explain that he knows the truth of all LDS truth claims because of his personal experiences. At the end however, he very subtly critiques the personal experiences of someone who does not believe LDS truth claims. So in his own case he is appealing to personal experience and that’s enough to establish objective truth claims. But in the case of others, he appeals to a standard outside of their personal experience. Now he does not tell us what that standard is but he did tell us how he knows his worldview is true so we would have to assume the standard he is appealing to in order to correct others is his own personal experience. So now we see glimpses of his worldview: that his personal experiences are valid and the personal experiences of those who have a different worldview are invalid. So why not just come right out and say this? Because that’s a terrible argument and no one would ever take him seriously…and they shouldn’t.
Not even close to what happened. Right at 5:39 he says “the fact that I have some experience doesn’t mean you have some reason to believe [me]. It only means that you might find something usual about what I say.”
Nice paragraph you sent that would be true if he actually argued like that, but he didn’t
He literally argued that the only things you KNOW are your experience via your brain working with your heart. Everything else is seen through a lens, like a camera.
He also argued that experience is subjective, not truth. You conflated the two.