Andrew Callahan: The “authority” from church leaders is just the intuition they received and you yourself commented about the difficulty of conveying your intuition.

All authority (as used in epistemology) is simply a reference to another source of knowledge. As quoted above, with the scientific method, “No scientist can start researching properly without first reading what others have learned from their experiments.” We wouldn’t say, “The ‘authority’ from an astronomer is just the empirical readings he took from his telescope, and since I haven’t taken the readings myself, they are unusable.” We use the astronomer’s data because he has access to instruments that I don’t. We use the prophets’ words because he has access to revelatory sources in a way or degree that we don’t.

The “sensory” perception of trying out a commandment and “seeing the results of obedience” is more intuition, since I have to try to figure out what it means that I did or did not get the job, pay raise, etc. after I did or did not pay tithing, fast on Sunday, attend the temple, etc.

Don’t we do the same in the scientific method? Interpreting results is a process all its own, trying to discern to which variables we attribute the outcome.

And, even your example of “reason” comes again from intuition of others communicated to us, that we must then try out.

Just as when a study of thirty American male subjects ages 30–40 draws a conclusion that I tentatively apply to my fifty British male patients ages 25–35. Reason tells me that, while no study comments on my exact situation, I can apply related studies to my specific situation.

All of your methodologies seem like “intuition” to me.

The scientific methodologies in my examples above seem largely based on “sensory data” to me, with the other three sources applied secondarily. That’s the point: science uses all four sources of knowledge, but emphasizes sensory data. Religion uses all four sources of knowledge, but emphasizes intuition.

Authority is always subject to close examination to determine if the authority seems credible.

That’s why we invite every individual to pray about the Book of Mormon, to get a witness for themselves that it’s true instead of relying solely on another’s words.

I love how he believes true religious knowledge is gained from experience; and that these experiences change our interpretive framework, and therefore cannot just be explained away by our interpretive framework. I like his point that logic and reason must rest upon certain assumptions; and thus reason alone can never bring us to truth, because inferences will always rest on pre-rational premises. He also said, “All logic is ex post facto to prove what we already feel is true.” These are just a few of the many things I enjoyed about the article; I’ve written on a similar subject in “Odd Realities and Moral Imperatives,” “Don’t Apologize: Is Christian Apologetics Counter-intuitive?” and “Missiles and Revelation.” Nathan has written about it as well in “My Spiritual Nose” and “The Spiritual Laboratory.”

Ostler’s article has contributed some thoughts I will probably write more about in the future.

Sensory would, to me, be something like “seeing the gold plates.”

Reasoning would “if the gold plates are real and tangible, then . . . ”

Authority would come from someone with credible experience including sensory and reasoning experience, hence Joseph Smith who “saw” the gold plates could speak from authority. However, authority is always subject to close examination to determine if the authority seems credible.