Log asked, in a previous post:
“Suppose the honest in heart knows that he doesn't possess knowledge, but only supposition, belief, or opinion on a certain topic - would such publish his belief, supposition, or opinion as fact? Or would he clearly label his beliefs, suppositions, or opinions as such?”
An honest person does not portray as "true" what
he doubts to be true or knows (or suspects) to be false. If he
has doubts, qualifications or suspicions about the truthfulness or falsity of a
matter, he ought to reveal those apprehensions -- if he reveals anything at
all.
One who claims to "know" when he merely
"believes" is a poser.
Ought we not to use the same criteria by which a murderer is convicted to establish our
"testimonies"? Do we know God lives that well? As well as we "know" someone “did it”, based on
the evidence? Would we be willing to "sentence” someone to actual,
physical death, as it were, based on the “sureness” of our “spiritual witness”? Or risk death ourselves?
Someday we may be called upon to do just that, even as
Abraham and Nephi did! Did Nephi have a “sure knowledge”? Or did he merely “believe”
really, really, strongly when he cut
off Laban’s head? By doing so, Nephi not only killed Laban, but he made himself subject to capital punishment,
if he were found out and captured by the Jews. He put it all on the line for his “testimony”.
Fortunately, rather than kill, most often we are asked to
merely live for what we know to be
true, i.e., to live the gospel. (Living is preferable to killing or dying. It
has the added benefit of “do-overs” if we make a mistake!) In the end, living
or dying for one’s knowledge is “evidence” that one truly “knows” (or thinks he knows!). We trust that Peter “knew”,
because he was willing to live – and die -- for his knowledge.
I wonder how many of us, serving on a jury, would be willing
to “convict” the other guy if we knew his sentence would be later meted out on us (hopefully including the lawyers!) if
we “got it wrong”, if the conviction was later overturned or found to be
mistaken. What if persons “bearing testimony” were held to that same high
standard? (I think they will be.)
However, few – if any -- of us (even scientists!) operate in
the realm of "absolute truth" or “perfect knowledge”. Newton, for all
his greatness, only approximated truth (building on the work
of Galileo and others), later to be superseded by Einstein, whose own “revelations”
were, likewise, superseded.
What is knowledge but an expression of our apprehension
of truth. I would bet my life on the
existence of China, though I’ve never been there. Would I do the same regarding
the “truthfulness” of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Absolutely. And for the same reasons.
Knowledge is experience and nothing else.
ReplyDelete3 Nephi 11:15
15 And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.
Anything short of experience is not knowledge but supposition, belief, or opinion (rumor, hearsay, etc.).
Experience of what? Did George Washington exist? Do you "know" that for a fact? Have you "experienced" him?
DeleteWould you bet your life on it?
How far are you willing to go with this? Can knowledge be gained by merely reading books? Hearing stories? Visiting places? Do books contain knowledge?
There is a difference between "knowledge" and "perfect knowledge" or to "know of a surety", for sure. But to know you can kill someone, for example, without actually doing it, doesn't mean you don't "know" you can, does it?
"Experience of what?"
DeleteExperience of anything. Anything less than experience is not knowledge, but supposition, belief, or opinion.
So I don't know that George Washington existed. I only believe he did.