Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[Calm]

Spiritual experiences, just like all other experiences, will have an emotional component. This indeed may be very strong feelings in the sense of intensity. Or it may be strong in the sense of postiveness/assertiveness.

Emotion attached to spiritual experiences may or may not be include your "euphoria". I've had a profound spiritual experience that was no more emotional than answering the phone. It was straight, factual information given to me, no emotion attached to it that stood out enough to remember.

[Calm]

How many citations referring to spiritual events as "feelings" would I have to provide for them to count?

I am not debating the use of the term "feelings". I am not debating the strength or intensity of these "feelings".

What I am debating is the suggestion that the manuals mean the same thing as you do when you are using the term. You are placing spiritual feelings on the same continuum as "run of the mill" feelings and only varying them according to strength. I on the other hand, and I believe the manual intends to do the same, place spiritual feelings on to a whole nother graph, so to speak.

Emotions are only one of the continuums that spiritual experiences are made up of, they are not the sum total of the experience.

[beastie]

Although cal's last response makes it clear that all the citations in the world won't justify my statements in her mind, because I "mean" something different than the authors mean* (despite my attempts to emphasize how strong these feelings can be and how "apart" they can be from daily feelings), I still offer some more documentation for the benefit of others.

These are citations from conference talks:

Remember How Thou Hast Received and Heard

Susan L. Warner

Second Counselor in the Primary General Presidency

Each of us has memories of spiritual feelings. Some of us remember spiritual feelings from our earliest childhood. Some of us may have memories of feelings when we first discovered the Lordâ??s true Church. Almost all have spiritual feelings connected with the love of mother, father, brothers, and sisters. We may remember feelings of love and belonging that have come while serving in the kingdom with our fellow Saints. We may remember feeling spiritually renewed on a Sabbath evening after attending church, studying the gospel together, and sharing testimonies. We may remember earnest feelings that have accompanied fervent prayer, the comfort of the Holy Ghost in times of trial or sadness. We may remember the sorrow and the joy of deep repentanceâ??of feeling forgiven and cleansed. We may remember profound feelings of gratitude for the Saviorâ??s atoning gift of love to us.

The Spirit Giveth Life

Elder Loren C. Dunn

Of the First Quorum of the Seventy

While the Spirit of the Holy Ghost will witness to a person that this is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gift of the Holy Ghost comes only after a person has been baptized into the Church. It can be identified with feelings of peace and assurance to the prayerful and honest seeker for truth, and thus the scripture:

â??Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heartâ? (D&C 8:2). â??Therefore, you shall feel that it is rightâ? (D&C 9: 8 ).

Alma was making sure that the members of the Church had not just received the gift of the Holy Ghost, but also had truly received the sanctifying and cleansing power of that great Spirit. He said the way you can tell is when you become refreshed spiritually, as if you had been born anew. He said that the feelings and attitudes of your heart will be truly for the good. That your very appearance will begin to take upon itself the image of Christ.

If the testament of the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with feelings, why do the scriptures specifically mention the HEART as the dwelling place?

Building a Bridge of Faith

Elder Charles Didier

Of the Presidency of the Seventy

The gift of the Holy Ghost is the foundation of the bridge of faith. Salvation comes only by Jesus Christ and by our divine exercise of faith in Him, allowing us to repent of our sins and to receive the ordinances of salvation, the railings of the bridge. The inner feelings and promptings to overcome the obstacles of life and to make righteous choices will come by listening to the voice of the Holy Ghost. Crossing the bridge of faith may not be as easy as we may think. A bridge will only resist the storms because of the strength of the pillars of its foundation. Storms in life, crises of faithâ??such as death, serious illness, loss of a job or financial securityâ??are part of our mortal existence. Sometimes these crises may be exacerbated to the point where one may even question the very existence of a God and of a Savior. A cry for increased faith at such a time will always be answered by the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, a â??constant companion, â?¦ an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truthâ? (D&C 121:46).

The Joy of Living the Great Plan of Happiness

Elder Richard G. Scott

Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

â?¢ Obey the inner feelings that come as promptings from the Holy Ghost. Those feelings are engendered by your righteous thoughts and acts and your determination to seek the will of the Lord and to live it.

How many citations do you need? There are many more.

Whether or not the spiritual feelings are of a different species than emotional feelings, the fact is that the word â??feelingsâ? is used by believers to describe them.

* the fact is that literally NO ONE can fully understand what another human being "means" when talking about internal states, which is another reason using such internal states as an objective measure of the accuracy of an historical claim is ill-advised

[juliann]

So according to Beastie, love is just another of those unreliable and silly "feelings". From Beastie's chosen source to tell us how wrong we are... "Almost all have spiritual feelings connected with the love of mother, father, brothers, and sisters. " I now live in fear that tomorrow I will find out Beastie's TRUTH that feelings aren't to be trusted and I will drop all that goofy love stuff for my child.

It is always amazing to me how much countermopologists will reject just to prove to themselves that Mormonism is wrong. That is what makes them so fascinating to watch.

[beastie]

So according to Beastie, love is just another of those unreliable and silly "feelings". From Beastie's chosen source to tell us how wrong we are... "Almost all have spiritual feelings connected with the love of mother, father, brothers, and sisters. " I now live in fear that tomorrow I will find out Beastie's TRUTH that feelings aren't to be trusted and I will drop all that goofy love stuff for my child.

It is always amazing to me how much countermopologists will reject just to prove to themselves that Mormonism is wrong. That is what makes them so fascinating to watch.

This is such an outrageous distortion of my words that it is an indication that you simply cannot refute what I actually said.

Whenever this topic comes up, predictably at least one believer will respond with something like the above. Oh, these critics don't think any feelings have value or purpose!

Is that really the best you can do?

[beastie]

Here are my actual words that demonstrate how aggressively Juliann distorted my statements in order to be able to provide some refutation (never mind it wasnâ??t a refutation of my actual argument).

So according to Beastie, love is just another of those unreliable and silly "feelings". From Beastie's chosen source to tell us how wrong we are... "Almost all have spiritual feelings connected with the love of mother, father, brothers, and sisters. " I now live in fear that tomorrow I will find out Beastie's TRUTH that feelings aren't to be trusted and I will drop all that goofy love stuff for my child.

It is always amazing to me how much countermopologists will reject just to prove to themselves that Mormonism is wrong. That is what makes them so fascinating to watch.

I actually said:

Feelings and intuitions are necessary and very useful in terms of navigating through the world. These intuitions and feelings are often based on the fact that we pay attention to language (verbal and nonverbal) on a not-quite-conscious level, and our brains are processing that information along with the information we consciously process. We then get a "feeling" that someone is lying, because we have subconsciously processed nonverbal cues that have often been associated with lying in the past.

Emotions exist for reasons, and those reasons often have to do with navigating relationships. But they also can be the result of the subconscious level of processing mentioned above. If someone has had years of experience developing certain skills, the brain is processing minute details we're not consciously paying attention to, but may "tell" us something "feels" wrong with the current process.

However, these are both entirely different scenarios then the Moroni challenge. The Moroni challenge is about accessing accurate information about external realities. If one wants to evaluate whether or not a specific historical event occurred, reading one text and then listening to one's "feelings" about it is a process unsupported by either science, logic, or what we know about human evolution and emotions.

Note how the conversation has now shifted. The context of the discussion was specifically whether spiritual feelings can be used as reliable measures of the truth of certain claims relating to external realities and events. Ie, Moroni is talking about feelings being used to measure whether or not the Book of Mormon is â??trueâ?. (now whether or not that means what believers normally interpret it to mean could be a different conversation, but normally believers think that the BoM is â??trueâ? not only because it contains spiritual truths but because it was actually translated by the power of God from ancient golden plates and relates the story of an actual people who existed in history).

Now, suddenly, a rejection of feelings as a reliable measure in such as case becomes the rejection of love for a child.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

Feelings and intuitions are necessary and very useful in terms of navigating through the world. These intuitions and feelings are often based on the fact that we pay attention to language (verbal and nonverbal) on a not-quite-conscious level, and our brains are processing that information along with the information we consciously process. We then get a "feeling" that someone is lying, because we have subconsciously processed nonverbal cues that have often been associated with lying in the past.

Emotions exist for reasons, and those reasons often have to do with navigating relationships. But they also can be the result of the subconscious level of processing mentioned above. If someone has had years of experience developing certain skills, the brain is processing minute details we're not consciously paying attention to, but may "tell" us something "feels" wrong with the current process.

Unless your mirror neurons aren't working properly. Some people (Aspergers, Autism) do not have this intuition and do not get these same "feelings based on the fact that we pay attention to language (verbal and noverbal) on a not-quite-conscious level". Doesn't happen. Or if it does it does not occur in the same way as someone who has mirror neurons that respond appropriately.

I wonder how they are in the God belief department? I'll have to ask my daughter as well as do a HW Wilson Search.

[beastie]

Unless your mirror neurons aren't working properly. Some people (Aspergers, Autism) do not have this intuition and do not get these same "feelings based on the fact that we pay attention to language (verbal and noverbal) on a not-quite-conscious level". Doesn't happen. Or if it does it does not occur in the same way as someone who has mirror neurons that respond appropriately.

I wonder how they are in the God belief department? I'll have to ask my daughter as well as do a HW Wilson Search.

That would be fascinating! It seems that some people just don't have the natural ability, so to speak, to access this sort of experience at all. It would be fascinating to discover is some underlying neurological component could be implicated.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

Well I'm not finding much. Not one piece of research. If anyone else could find something that would be great. I'll try to spend more time on this over the coming week.

Well mirror neurons are what allows us to have empathy and relate to each other. The firing of those mirror neurons allow us to essentially watch someone else do something and FEEL it at the same time as if we ourselves were doing it. It's pretty neat stuff. I think.

Let me add though that lots of autistic children talk to spirits and animals. I am curious how they are when they grow up and are a part of organized religion.

[Nomad]

The word "feeling" does not, in my opinion, describe the influence of the Holy Ghost. Neither do I believe that Joseph Smith would have ever described it as such. He used terms such as "intelligence" to describe it. I am reminded (if you will all forgive me) of an old Star Trek episode where Dr. McCoy places an alien device (called "The Teacher") on his head and is suddenly endowed with the ability to perform an otherwise impossible surgery to restore Spock's brain (which had been removed by the aliens.) Once he had placed "The Teacher" on his head, he was instantly astounded by how simple the procedure would be to perform. "A child could do it ..." he says. So long as he is under the influence of "The Teacher" he is able to "see" what must be done. But its influence is inherently transitory, and once it leaves him, he is left to his own devices to finish the job (which, of course, he does -- since it was written that way in the script, and Spock had to survive until the next episode.)

My point is that, in my opinion, the influence of the Holy Ghost is well-explained by this simple metaphor from a 60's TV episode. It imparts raw intelligence, and under its influence one can, in fact, "see" things as they really are. It transcends "feelings". It is light, intelligence, raw understanding. For those familiar with its functions, it is distinctly different from any emotional state of mind.

[beastie]

Well I'm not finding much. Not one piece of research. If anyone else could find something that would be great. I'll try to spend more time on this over the coming week.

Well mirror neurons are what allows us to have empathy and relate to each other. The firing of those mirror neurons allow us to essentially watch someone else do something and FEEL it at the same time as if we ourselves were doing it. It's pretty neat stuff. I think.

Let me add though that lots of autistic children talk to spirits and animals. I am curious how they are when they grow up and are a part of organized religion.

I've always been interested in why some people, even if they've been brought up in an environment that led them to expect spiritual events, do not seem to be able to access that sort of experience. It isn't related to belief or lack of belief, because I've seen both exbelievers and current believers share that, despite their best attempts, they have simply not been able to have these spiritual experiences. It seems to me that some people are "wired" for it and some may not be.

I've even wondered if recognizing this divide had something to do with past theologies that taught ideas about "elect".

[Greg Smith]

I often use the word mystical to try and avoid this whole "it's not JUST feelings" argument. I realize that LDS do not normally utilize the phrase.

I'm not saying you're claiming that "mystical" is used by the LDS. But, "mystical" means something quite specific in religious studies, and the LDS experience has very little to do with it. Using "mystical" just clouds the water, in my opinion. I've read about mysticism (Jewish, mostly) and it's nothing like what I'm trying to describe.

In your subsequent posts, you get quite uptight when people don't buckle to the use of "feelings" when you cite similar words in talks, etc. It's worth repeating what I said earlier in this thread:

"Feelings" can mean a number of things:

* emotions

* intuitions

* sensation (as in heat, cold, tactile, etc.)

* 'gestalt'

* etc.

None of these obtain here, though one certainly might feel some of these things as a consequence of revelation, they are not revelation.

Thus, the problem is that "feelings" is at great risk of the fallacy of equivocation in this discussion. There is no good term for what is being described that also doesn't have other connotations, the application of which connotations will confuse the issue and not lead to understanding.

It's not just that these aren't "every day feelings," it's that they aren't really even the same class or type of experience.

I'm trying to convey that I understand it's more than just every-day feelings. But since I'm a critic, apparently no word I use suits. (even if church curriculum uses the same phrase, see my citation above re: feelings)

There is a certain irony in claiming that the simplest material (Gospel Principles manual, for example) is going to get the nuances that are here under discussion.

All teaching involves some simplification, but small simplifications can often save a great deal of explanation.

As I have said before, when we talk amongst ourselves, with people who have had the same types of experiences (and with whom we have shared such experiences) a verbal shorthand is appropriate. (The Gospel Principles material can't describe the experience anyway; it merely attempts to prepare people to understand it when it happens.)

However, being a critic you're going to have a tendency, don't you think, to minimize the very things that we are going to think are important. Since you haven't had the experience yourself, perhaps you ought to let us describe it as best we can, and not get too upset when we don't agree with how you seem to be portraying it.

If you want a term that removes a lot of the baggage that can be unwittingly carried along, try "revelation" or "LDS revelatory experience." You can even leave the quotes to show you don't accept it as real revelation.

If you really want to be fair about how the LDS understand the matter, and you're not going to believe us, perhaps you should turn to material that actually attempts to answer the question with some rigor, rather than accounts that refer to the experience without subjecting it to much analysis or explication.

Jeffrey R. Holland:

First of all, revelation almost always comes in response to a question, usually an urgent question—not always, but usually. In that sense it does provide information, but it is urgently needed information, special information. Moses’ challenge was how to get himself and the children of Israel out of this horrible predicament they were in. There were chariots behind them, sand dunes on every side, and a lot of water immediately ahead. He needed information to know what to do, but it wasn’t a casual thing he was asking. In this case it was literally a matter of life and death.

You will need information too, but in matters of great consequence it is not likely to come unless you want it urgently, faithfully, humbly. Moroni calls it seeking “with real intent.” (Moroni 10:4). If you can seek that way and stay in that mode, not much that the adversary can counter with will dissuade you from a righteous path. You can hang on, whatever the assault and affliction, because you have paid the price for real conviction.

Like Moses in that vision, there may come after the fact some competing doubts and confusion, but it will pale when you measure it against the real thing. Remember the real thing. Remember how urgently you have needed help in earlier times and you got it. The Red Sea will open to the honest seeker of revelation. The adversary has power to hedge up the way, to marshal Pharaoh’s forces and dog our escape right to the water’s edge, but he can’t produce the real thing. He cannot conquer if we will it otherwise. If we exert all our powers, the light will again come, the darkness will again retreat, the safety will be sure. That is lesson number one about crossing the Red Sea by the spirit of revelation. - Jeffrey R. Holland, “Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence,” Liahona (June 2000): 34, from a devotional address given at Brigham Young University on 2 March 1999.

Note that revelation is about "information," and that the revelatory experience is a different order of thing that other doubts and confusion (which have an element, in themselves, of both rational and emotional processes).

See, for example, a discussion of the application of Moroni's promise:

Note that the word read is not even included in this verse [Moroni 10:4, versus Moroni 10:3]; rather, the verb is receive. In other words, after the person has (1) read the Book of Mormon and (2) pondered the dealings of God with the peoples of the Book of Mormon and the Bible, he must then put himself in a frame of mind where he would be willing to “receive” or “accept” all these things. Then he must ask “with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ.” Sincere pondering of the scriptures helps put a person in an appropriate frame of mind to ask for—and receive—divine guidance. Daniel H. Ludlow, “I Have a Question,” Ensign (March 1986): 49.

Note once again the intellectual stance—“frame of mind”—as well as the transition from reading to receiving.

Richard G. Scott:

Read the Book of Mormon. “With a sincere heart [and] real intent,” begin to read. Ponder the words. Often pause and ask your Heavenly Father “if these things are not true.” Continue to read, to ponder, and to ask. It will not be easy reading. There will be roadblocks along the way. Persist.

Approach your Father in Heaven having expelled your prejudices and biases. Leave your heart open to receive the impressions that come from eternal sources. Many inspiring treasures will be revealed to you. There will, in time, come into your heart and mind an assurance that Jesus Christ is the living Son of the living Father. With it will come a knowledge that Joseph Smith is the prophet of the Restoration and that there are apostles and prophets on the earth today. Richard G. Scott, “We Love You—Please Come Back,” Ensign (May 1986): 10.

If we will follow on a regular basis the process that Moroni outlines, we will receive much more revelation from the Lord. Spiritual impressions will be imprinted more indelibly upon our minds and our hearts. We will see things that we have never seen before. We will understand things we have never understood before. Further, reading the scriptures with these added insights will cause us to repent and improve our lives. - Gene R. Cook, “Moroni’s Promise,” EnsignApr. 1994, 12.

Note impressions "imprinted more indelibly" where: our minds and our hearts. "See things"; "understand things," "insights." All of that just isn't covered under the rubric of "feelings," no matter how you want to use the word.

----

I also think you completely misunderstand what is being conveyed when someone writes:

Moreover, sometimes LDS are taught not to even expect strong feelings:...[you are here then citing LDS article] promptings of the Spirit. My encounters with members of the Church had not been spectacular, but yet they had been very significant. (emphasis yours)

Its not that the experience or "feelings" are "weak," as you seem to conclude. Its that this is not a flashy, dramatic sort of thing--it is, rather, solemn and piercing, deep rather than loud. As the author says, they are "very significant." That's not a sign of the "feeling," being "unstrong," that's a sign of the profundity and life-changing nature of the experience, while remaining quiet and simple.

"Spectacular" is not an synonym for "strong."

---

And, as for the neuroimaging stuff.... I've looked at this sort of thing, and the types of things studied again don't really match the LDS revelatory experience. They tend to involve Tibetan Buddhist meditation, or Carmelite nuns, and the like. While I have respect for those traditions, and find their accounts of their experiences interesting, they are utterly foreign to my religious experience.

(This is another reason why the term "mysticism" is more likely to confuse than help in this discussion, since a lot (?most/?all) of the neuroimaging material was done on people engaged in what can more properly be labeled 'mysticism' in the conventional sense.)

In the absence of a neuroimaging study on an LDS person claiming revelation, I would be wary of equating two processes that involve quite separate "techniques," and produce disparate end-products. Unless, of course, one wants to beg the question by assuming they are merely a variety of the same thing at the outset. But, I'm sure you don't want that.)

Kind regards,

Greg

[beastie]

Greg,

First, you are engaging in mind reading by saying I am being "uptight" when people object to the word "feelings". Second, shorthand or no, you, nor any other human being, really knows what has occurred within another human being in terms of private numinous events. It is impossible by its very nature. Third, anyone who says that I dismiss or minimize spiritual feelings has no idea what they're talking about. I have repeatedly referenced my own numinous event in regards to the BoM and have never minimized its intensity or impact. The fact that I now understand it within a different framework than you do does not mean I minimize it.

Oh, and one last point. I don't care what word you use to describe the experience. It still is a problematic method by which to ascertain the truth of claims that have to do with external reality, such as whether or not a particular historical event took place.

The fact is that human beings have these experiences within far different contexts. We tend to associate the context with the event, but it seems that the events occur across context.

[Greg Smith]

Greg,

First, you are engaging in mind reading by saying I am being "uptight" when people object to the word "feelings".

I apologize. Let me rephrase: you certainly seemed a bit uptight with phrases like "This is such an outrageous distortion of my words that it is an indication that you simply cannot refute what I actually said."

That impression persists in this post, I might add, but if you're the picture of cool sanguinity on your end, I can readily accept that. Again, I apologize for mischaracterizing your reaction.

(This is a good illustration of how one can innocently misunderstand what someone means about internal states, by the way....)

Second, shorthand or no, you, nor any other human being, really knows what has occurred within another human being in terms of private numinous events. It is impossible by its very nature.

Exactly. Which is why I think I ought to be able to define the terms used to describe MY private numinous events. Since you have a lot of Mormons here objecting to the terms you are using to characterize what Mormon revelation is, that might be a hint (if undersanding and dialogue are your goals, rather than scoring points as a 'critic') that you are missing the point about their experiences.

I note, though, that you're happy to postulate what neuroimaging might say about such events in other people, though. Aren't people with PET scanners and fMRI "other human being" that cannot "really know...what has occured within another human being"?

If such people have anything to tell us at all, then perhaps the people who've had the experiences themselves might have something to tell us too--again, if we wish to understand.

Third, anyone who says that I dismiss or minimize spiritual feelings has no idea what they're talking about. I have repeatedly referenced my own numinous event in regards to the BoM and have never minimized its intensity or impact. The fact that I now understand it within a different framework than you do does not mean I minimize it.

I don't believe I said you minimized anything. I said you seemed to misunderstand and mischaracterize them, as well as using a religious term ("mysticism") that was more confusing than helpful because of its meaning.

I apologize if I misstated your position and said you trivialized such things, but I can't seem to find myself actually doing so on a quick reskim...

Mea culpa in advance, if necessary.

Oh, and one last point. I don't care what word you use to describe the experience.

Well, if you don't care what word to use, why the multiple posts as rebuttal when people reject the "feelings" label?

It still is a problematic method by which to ascertain the truth of claims that have to do with external reality, such as whether or not a particular historical event took place.

....did you read the rest of your post?

You just got done telling me how no one can know what these events are like for someone else. I agree--wholeheartedly. NOW you're telling me that you know enough about such events as they happen in me and others to assert that the use to which I put them is "problematical"?

What makes you think YOUR events are the same as MINE? (Mine has kept me in the Church, knowing (I wager) everything that you do about its history, doctrine, founding personalities, etc. Yours hasn't. That might be a hint that they aren't the same thing, no?)

I agree that such things are a problematic way to convince someone else of a historical reality (such as, say, the resurrection of Christ, or the appearance of God and Christ to Joseph Smith), but I see nothing inherently problematic in using for my own, personal use. If God speaks audibly to me, for example, then I might be entirely justified in concluding that He exists.

(Similarly, if I see a sauropod dinosaur in the wilds of British Columbia, I'm justified in believing that all sauropods aren't extinct, whatever someone else might think.)

Especially since, as you wisely point out, neither of us knows what the other one has experienced.

But, such events were never intended to convince others--they're for private consumption only.

Joseph Smith would agree, having famously said that if he hadn't experienced what he had, even he wouldn't believe it.

The fact is that human beings have these experiences within far different contexts. We tend to associate the context with the event, but it seems that the events occur across context.

Again, I'm not sure how you can assert that this events are the same thing in different contexts, since:

a> you have no access to my experiences; and

b> we can't seem to agree with the language to describe them, which would seem to suggest we aren't talking about the same thing.

We, in fact, DON'T know that "the fact is" as you state it. It's the point under discussion--are all "numinous" experiences created equal? Or, are there differences of kind, as well as degree?

You're begging the question again. And, you should know better, because you've admitted you can't get in my head and I can't get in yours. But, somehow, you still know enough to explain my events away...

I'm willing to grant that yours were self-induced, random neurochemical events, or merely products of social conditioning.

Somehow, I don't think you'll be as catholic in return...or, is it possible some Mormons get real, unmistakeable revelation?

Kind regards,

Greg

[beastie]

I'm too tired to take on your entire post right now, but have to say this:

I apologize. Let me rephrase: you certainly seemed a bit uptight with phrases like "This is such an outrageous distortion of my words that it is an indication that you simply cannot refute what I actually said."

Greg -

I am certainly uptight about Juliann's seemingly deliberate distortion of my comments. It is odd to me that you interpreted that otherwise.

That irritation has nothing to do with caring about the word "feelings" in particular.

I mean, for heaven's sake: how any person could distort my comments into what she did is beyond me.

[juliann]

I mean, for heaven's sake: how any person could distort my comments into what she did is beyond me.

Well let's see....you say that no one can really know anyone else's "feelings"...while you proceed to know that whatever it is those Mormons are experiencing it can't be real. Then, when presented with the obvious double standard and question begging, you use a Mormon talking about love of family members to prove that Mormons really do talk about "feelings". Well, is love a feeling or not, beastie? It was your quote.

[Calm]

Although cal's last response makes it clear that all the citations in the world won't justify my statements in her mind, because I "mean" something different than the authors mean* (despite my attempts to emphasize how strong these feelings can be and how "apart" they can be from daily feelings)

So does this mean you are saying your previous statement that "mystical experiences" and "normal, run-of-the-mill 'feelings' still are within the same category, just of different intensities." is incorrect?

This statement was what I based my conclusions about your position on. If you are now revoking that statement to the point that you are saying they are in different categories, are different types of "feelings" I have no issue with you here.

[Calm]

Unless your mirror neurons aren't working properly. Some people (Aspergers, Autism) do not have this intuition and do not get these same "feelings based on the fact that we pay attention to language (verbal and noverbal) on a not-quite-conscious level". Doesn't happen. Or if it does it does not occur in the same way as someone who has mirror neurons that respond appropriately.

I wonder how they are in the God belief department? I'll have to ask my daughter as well as do a HW Wilson Search.

This would be very interesting to find out. I will ask around a few people I know who have experience in this area (though Juliann probably would know more) and see if they have anything to say.

[Calm]

My point is that, in my opinion, the influence of the Holy Ghost is well-explained by this simple metaphor from a 60's TV episode. It imparts raw intelligence, and under its influence one can, in fact, "see" things as they really are. It transcends "feelings". It is light, intelligence, raw understanding. For those familiar with its functions, it is distinctly different from any emotional state of mind.

I would agree with this strongly except to add that emotions will still be present (it's the human condition unless there's something really wrong with people) and may make their presence felt strongly or may be so weak they are essentially forgotten. In that sense, it is an "emotional state of mind;" however, it is not primarily an emotional state of mind and is significantly different from states of mind where emotions are the main controlling/overwhelming experience.

[Calm]

None of these obtain here, though one certainly might feel some of these things as a consequence of revelation, they are not revelation.

Thus, the problem is that "feelings" is at great risk of the fallacy of equivocation in this discussion. There is no good term for what is being described that also doesn't have other connotations, the application of which connotations will confuse the issue and not lead to understanding.

It's not just that these aren't "every day feelings," it's that they aren't really even the same class or type of experience.

A very clear, to my mind and heart at least, appraisal of the issue, much better than mine own.

[Tal Bachman]

Hi all

Before addressing structurecop's question here, I just wanted to express to Orpheus that I would be happy to apologize for "lecturing the mods", if you will let me know where I have lectured the mods; if I ever have, I sure haven't intended to - I only wanted to let the moderators know that I didn't intend my other thread as a "personal thread". I also would like to point out with your permission, that the quote of mine inserted in your post wasn't intended as a troll thing at all; it was a reference to my embarrassment at how often I said the word "like" in the interview which started this whole thread! That's all I was referring to. I can't even imagine what else it might have been taken to mean...(?).

On to structurecop. He wrote this:

"I agree that the 'I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true' philosophy is problematic on its own. If there is any question, a quick look at all the 'apostate' groups should show how that thinking can be twisted. On the other hand, however, are all the anecdotes where individuals show a 'sixth sense' or intuition that guides them to make unreasonable but life-saving or altering decisions. How do you reconcile the preponderance of such stories with the skeptic's perspective that 'truth' cannot be divined through feelings alone?"

SC, thanks for your civil tone.

You are right that there are loads of stories, and even properly-conducted tests, which suggest that intuition - or what is sometimes called intuition - can be very accurate. "Intuition" by David Meyers, and "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell, are two recent books written for a popular audience which discuss intuition success stories.

One problem, though, is that they also discuss many intuition failure stories; and this is only fair, being that guesses, hunches, intuitions, often fail us. Indeed, it is very easy after the fact to look at an event, the possibility of occurrence of which we contemplated, and say, "I knew that would happen - I just felt it!"; but it is not very common to say, if the event does not occur, that we really thought we knew for certain that it would happen, but then found out we were totally wrong. So what I'm saying in a roundabout way is, that while intuition plays a role in our lives, I don't know that there is a "preponderance" of evidence that it is consistently a more accurate basis for making judgments than, say, a critical examination of every fact we can access relevant to the phenomenon or question at hand. (In one of Owen Flanagan's books, he notes that numerous studies show that testing is a more accurate means of predicting success at graduate schools than personal interviews with deans or admissions directors, despite the ongoing preference for interviews at some schools).

Another problem here is that the very word "intuition" can be used so broadly. For example, people commonly use it to describe guesses made on very sparse (or basically zero) information, as well as for very rational inferences based on careful research into a wide range of factors. It's rather like lumping a Jeanne Dixon or John Edwards prediction for the New Year, predictions based on nothing but pure imagination, in with fact-based, inductively-derived forecasts. If a computer counted up by twos to the number 13,998, virtually everyone would feel confident in forecasting that the next number will be 14,000; but if that is "intuition", then perhaps we need a new word for astrological prophecies, or vice versa.

Another good example of "intuition" far more accurate than astrology-style guessing, is in the experiment Antonio Damasio discusses in one of his books (can't remember which now and too lazy to look), in which he had subjects play a particular card game which required some calculation of odds to succeed in, but which was structured so as to virtually disallow that calculation to be done consciously - and the subjects would improve at the game (thus demonstrating unconscious reasoning).

Another example of "unconscious reasoning" (as opposed to a pure guess) is the phenomenon of "feeling of rightness". One experiment demonstrating this involves asking mathematicians to solve a complex math problem, with say thirty steps, and then noting at what point they start to "intuit" they are on the wrong track (sometimes very early on). The point is that no actual mistake has been detected consciously by the mathematicians at the point they stop; they cannot explain why they have a "feeling of wrongness"; yet, when the problem is analyzed, it is seen that in fact, they have already made a mistake, and were right to stop and start over. (This phenomenon is discussed in several articles [and that particular test is described in one of them] in a great book which I recommend to anyone with an interest in consciousness, a spare fifty bucks, and no life, called "Essential Sources in the Study of Consciousness". See http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Sources-Sc...F8&s=books).

So, back to your question...

I am unaware of any convincing argument or evidence to support the claim that "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true". I am, however, aware of many good reasons to believe that feeling something is true, is not a good reason to conclude that we know it is.

But the real problem with even discussing this statement, as we are trying to do, is this: the first sentence in the preceding paragraph begs the whole question, in that I mentioned "argument" and "evidence", both of which would be meaningless but for a pre-commitment on my part to the value of reason (not that there's any way around this). Do you see what I mean?

In other words, the very claim "I feel it is true, therefore, I know it is true", makes the prospect of discussion, debate, evidence, argument, and every other province of homo sapiens (as opposed to, say, those of the polyp hydra, or any other primitive organism in possession of nerve cells), an absolute absurdity, an impossibility. The claim itself is a rejection of the ultimate value of reason, and necessarily, all those other things which can only be comprehended - which only have meaning - through the use of, because of, reason. There is no way around this. I suppose then, in a profound way, the feelings-claim doesn't even merit an attempt at rational refutation. It can't even enlist any argument on behalf of itself, without underminging itself. It can be no wonder that neither I, nor anyone else (since it is an impossibility), knows of a "convincing argument" that "convincing arguments" never really can be "convincing arguments" (since - as the claim goes - we know we know because we feel we know). You know? (Rimshot)

The only "refutation" this claim really merits is one that also makes just bare enough use of reason to form a sentence or thought, but which doesn't rise much further beyond instinct/the nervous system: "Oh yeah? Well I feel that you're wrong! And my feelings are just as valid as your feelings!".

My concern with this sort of thing (apart from it constituting a relinquishing of our own miraculous cognitive capacities) is that it seems that it sets everything down a path which can only culminate in a battle of wills to power, of non-rational might, with brute, a-rational beasts competing via force of some type or other...over whatever: territory, "converts", followers, audio space, air waves, women, property, etc. It in effect denies (not to repeat myself too much) the essence of homo sapiens ("knowing man"), and grants that in the end, his rational faculties are chimerical, or at least, of no real use in sorting through what has reason to believed, from what does not (since again, it makes the whole concept of "a reason to believe" an absurdity). And since even the actual conception of the claim itself, and its (inadequate) defenses, could only have come about because of the (unconscious?) granting to reason of primacy over feelings (when's the last time you think a hamster spoke such a claim to himself?), it seems to me pretty much self-refuting. But why such antagonism to the human brain? Nature, or God, or whoever, has never created any more brilliant truth detection system ever...Intuitions, feelings, emotions, experiences, all subserve our rational faculties and ability to navigate complex problems. In some emergency cases, their immediate assumption of dominance over calculation will save our lives...but as a guide to life, how can we ever subscribe to "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true"?

Christopher Hitchens, commenting on strange claims such as the one we're discussing, once wrote that, "that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". And I might even go him one further: "that which is asserted without evidence, probably ought to be dismissed without evidence". Any fool can make unevidenced, and inherently untestable, assertions about the world, the cosmos, the meaning of life, the past, the future, the government, their neighbours, God, their favourite football team, angels, physics, anything - just as any fool can believe them. But why be fools if we can avoid it? Why else do we have minds?

This post is long enough already, so I should end it.

There is no human being reading this who could hear a man say, "I know the Holocaust was basically a hoax, because the feelings I get when I read David Irving's books confirm that it was", without not only not taking the man's feelings as a reason to believe the Holocaust was a hoax, but thinking that the man was in a very poor psychological state. And even people on this very board who would hear a Muslim say, "I know Islam is the only true religion in the world, because I have felt Allah's power through the Koran, and at mosque, telling me just that", would instantly disbelieve him, and think that his way of "knowing" was unreliable to the point where they could barely (if at all) find it in themselves to take his claim with any seriousness at all...but I confess it is very difficult to find any fundamental difference between these particular claims (which all of us would rightly disregard), and any other claim of knowledge (which perhaps some of us wouldn't), which was reducible to, "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true".

[maklelan]

One problem, though, is that they also discuss many intuition failure stories; and this is only fair, being that guesses, hunches, intuitions, often fail us. Indeed, it is very easy after the fact to look at an event, the possibility of occurrence of which we contemplated, and say, "I knew that would happen - I just felt it!"; but it is not very common to say, if the event does not occur, that we really thought we knew for certain that it would happen, but then found out we were totally wrong. So what I'm saying in a roundabout way is, that while intuition plays a role in our lives, I don't know that there is a "preponderance" of evidence that it is consistently a more accurate basis for making judgments than, say, a critical examination of every fact we can access relevant to the phenomenon or question at hand. (In one of Owen Flanagan's books, he notes that numerous studies show that testing is a more accurate means of predicting success at graduate schools than personal interviews with deans or admissions directors, despite the ongoing preference for interviews at some schools).

I've seen the same, but I've noticed every time my decision (that I thought was inspired) turned out differently, I actaully benefitted more from that outcome than I otherwise would have. I was praying about where to move last year, and felt confirmation about a certain apartment complex, but when I moved in I had the one apartment with tons of mold, a roommate that washed his feet in my sink every night, a heater that didn't work, and my best friends in another ward. I hated it and thought I had completely screwed up my entire year, but I met my wife in that little ward. There's a Toaist story about a farmer who became the proud new owner of a beautiful horse. His neighbor came over and said he was such a fortunate man for having captured this horse (imagine a long, long time ago in China when they just caught wild horses). The farmer asked, "What is fortune?" The next day the farmer's son was breaking the horse and it bucked him, breaking his arm. The neighbor commented, "What a stroke of misfortune!" The farmer quipped, "What is misfortune?" Later an enemy attacked the country and all able-bodied men were called upon to go fight. The farmer's son couldn't go because of his arm. The first few battalions sent out, including the one from that village, were completely wiped out. The country later won the war, and the farmer and his son spent their days in peace. Good and bad are subjective, and only God has the perfect perspective on it all.

Another problem here is that the very word "intuition" can be used so broadly. For example, people commonly use it to describe guesses made on very sparse (or basically zero) information, as well as for very rational inferences based on careful research into a wide range of factors. It's rather like lumping a Jeanne Dixon or John Edwards prediction for the New Year, predictions based on nothing but pure imagination, in with fact-based, inductively-derived forecasts. If a computer counted up by twos to the number 13,998, virtually everyone would feel confident in forecasting that the next number will be 14,000; but if that is "intuition", then perhaps we need a new word for astrological prophecies, or vice versa.

Which is why I am hesitant to accept it when people who are otherwise barely active in the church tell me about their spiritual promptings. Too many people who have never really felt the Spirit of the Lord attribute everything in their lives to it.

[Noggin]

What makes you think YOUR events are the same as MINE? (Mine has kept me in the Church, knowing (I wager) everything that you do about its history, doctrine, founding personalities, etc. Yours hasn't. That might be a hint that they aren't the same thing, no?)

Hi Greg, I'll jump in with this. There are millions of non mormons who say the same thing to their apostate comrades. You sound much like those Jehovah's Witnesses who patiently chide away at the forer JW's on the JW forum. Or the Catholics. It's quite common for the still faithful Catholic, Muslim, JW or Evangelical Christian to say much if not all of what you are saying here for reasons why you choose to remain faithful. After all, with the problems in each of these religions, there has to be some sort of glue to hold the smart ones in tightly into the fold. Those who take the time to learn the history, the weaknesses, the arguments of their respective religion... some of them will falter and leave Catholicism, JW, Evangelical Christianity, Islam and a good many will turn to their god and seek after him for assurance.

And you know? In each of these religions, the assurance comes time and time again. Powerful witnesses. There are a million Greg Smiths in each of the world religions. Each of them equally convinced that they are in the One True Religion. Each of them ironclad assured, as god is their witness, that they have not erred in choosing to stay instead of walk out the door for good.

Noggin

[structurecop]

There is no human being reading this who could hear a man say, "I know the Holocaust was basically a hoax, because the feelings I get when I read David Irving's books confirm that it was", without not only not taking the man's feelings as a reason to believe the Holocaust was a hoax, but thinking that the man was in a very poor psychological state. And even people on this very board who would hear a Muslim say, "I know Islam is the only true religion in the world, because I have felt Allah's power through the Koran, and at mosque, telling me just that", would instantly disbelieve him, and think that his way of "knowing" was unreliable to the point where they could barely (if at all) find it in themselves to take his claim with any seriousness at all...but I confess it is very difficult to find any fundamental difference between these particular claims (which all of us would rightly disregard), and any other claim of knowledge (which perhaps some of us wouldn't), which was reducible to, "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true".

Tal, thanks for your very thoughtful and well-documented response.

Truth be told, this very topic is why I had a very difficult time as a missionary. I never felt entirely justified in telling complete strangers that their spiritual experiences were either incomplete, misleading, or patently false when all I had to base my version of the truth on was similarly obtained evidence.

I think that where possible assertions of spiritual truth should be backed with testable physical evidences, or at least lots of anecdotes. Some examples of these are the healing stories, the "still small voice" that leads people to avert tragedy, and so on. One story that always comes back to me is that of Phoenix Police Officer Stan Cronin, who received a spiritual prompting to totally disregard department policy when responding to a burglary call that resulted in saving his life. You can read the story here. Knowing the kinds of regulations and training he worked with on a daily basis, his decision to break with procedure is something unheard of and under normal circumstances could have cost him his life.

I have a deep understanding of the skeptic's viewpoint -- belief in God and especially in an organized Church is counterintuitive. Still, I have had far too many experiences to summarily dismiss it all as a hoax or natural propensity of the human mind. Perhaps some day the definitive scientific proof will explain all my experiences and those of others. Until that day, I can't not believe.

[Noggin]

Which is why I am hesitant to accept it when people who are otherwise barely active in the church tell me about their spiritual promptings. Too many people who have never really felt the Spirit of the Lord attribute everything in their lives to it.

Maklelan it's statements like this one that drive me nuts. I feel like I should applaud you and greg for having such huge capacitors for spirituality. I am not mocking you. I got a few knickers in a twist when I suggested that god plays favorites. But there have been a couple refs made that seem to suggest that a chosen few really "know" what the spirit feels like and those who leave the church just never knew. I know you did not actually say that here, but you and greg have alluded to a sort of special privelege of a whammy sort of spiritual experience. I thought I had spirituality down pat before I exited Mormonism. I paid a price (you would argue I did not put out enough currecny). I learned the ropes (you would argue I did not read enough or the right books on roping). I felt things. Powerful things. But found out that many people in many religions also feel the spirit "testifying" to them that their religion is the one true religion. Every religion has the glue that keeps the questioning smart ones in tact. You wouldn't venture to say that there aren't any super smart seriously doubting & questioning Jehovah's Witnesses? I know one. She has told me that since I left Mormonism behind, that is just a sign from Jehovah that I am now ready to join the watchtower society. When we talked, she confided some very powerful experiences in how she knew, for example, all other religions but JW were in grievous error. What cements her in her faith? How are you and greg any different?

Noggin