The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[mfbukowski]

Come on, mf, they are good questions. Just answer these two, if you may:

What is trying to discover the cause of certain types of cancer, mf?

Is God the perceptions you have in your mind or is God what causes those perceptions in your mind?

Shouldn't be that hard.

They are not hard at all- you just won't understand the answers.

Discovering the cause of cancer is a scientific inquiry, in which objective observations and hypotheses progress toward determining facts about objective reality.- that is, observations which may be replicated by anyone using the same methods. When I do thus and so, I get the same experience every time, and so does everyone else who does thus and so. Some of these observations will result in finding materials which kill the cancer and not the patient. That is the goal.

As for the other, Is a chair the experience of a chair you have in your mind, or is a chair what causes the experience in your mind?

It's unknowable AND irrelevant!

All we know or can talk about are experiences.

Read your Kuhn. Read some Dewey, James et al. But especially read your Nagel, which you still have not obviously.

If you don't read the assignments, you won't understand the subject matter.

[elguanteloko]

They are not hard at all- you just won't understand the answers.

Discovering the cause of cancer is a scientific inquiry, in which objective observations and hypotheses progress toward determining facts about objective reality.- that is, observations which may be replicated by anyone using the same methods. When I do thus and so, I get the same experience every time, and so does everyone else who does thus and so. Some of these observations will result in finding materials which kill the cancer and not the patient. That is the goal.

Why can't we apply the same standard to the existence of a physical, all(or almost)-powerful being that is said to be an influence in stuff of this world? If we say that God caused X, why couldn't we say that God (like the cause of cancer or chairs or forces) can be tested to see if he is the cause of X? If Mormonism says that God can work miracles, why couldn't we test whether God was the cause of those events people claim to be miracles? God's influences (and God himself) are NOT mere ideas, they are claimed to be as real as the cause of cancer (take "reality" to be whatever you want here; God and his influences are claimed to be just on the same level as the cause of cancer as far as reality goes). Why the different standard?

As for the other, Is a chair the experience of a chair you have in your mind, or is a chair what causes the experience in your mind?

It's unknowable AND irrelevant!

All we know or can talk about are experiences.

Read your Kuhn. Read some Dewey, James et al. But especially read your Nagel, which you still have not obviously.

If you don't read the assignments, you won't understand the subject matter.

Thanks. I don't think we need to focus more on the second question. Again, though, I've read Kuhn but apparently you are interpreting him different or probably just misunderstood him (or probably I did). I've read Dewey and James but, again, I don't get the relevance. As with Nagel, I've read some articles a while back and he has been writing for a while now; what do you want me to read?

[bookofmormontruth]

Which one do you think we should adopt: require good evidence or not require good evidence? Should we require good evidence for some things but not for others, perhaps? If so, why the double standard?

I am actually more interested in how and why you lost your faith. That's just me though.

I will let you know when I want to play on your little merry go around that you have setup here.

[elguanteloko]

I am actually more interested in how and why you lost your faith. That's just me though.

I will let you know when I want to play on your little merry go around that you have setup here.

Wow. Direct and with character. I like you all of a sudden.

OK but I'll PM you. I don't want this to go off the subject.

[Stargazer]

So you have experiences, but again, how do you know they came from the source you say they came from? Just because we happen to think a miracle happened doesn't mean it happened and some other type of criteria is needed other than "ah! that's what it was because that's what I was expecting."

After all this painful but instructive communication I think I understand where you are coming from.

It is this: we are all describing experiences which, though they may be very positive and have resulted in some good outcomes, and while you may be willing to grant the experiences you are unwilling to grant the interpretation of the source(s) of these experiences. In short, in those experiences which we say are of God, you don't find enough evidence that should even convince US that they are of God, and you are somewhat consternated that we, who may seem to be otherwise intelligent beings, are willing on very thin or nonexistent evidence to say we know from Whom they come.

Does this approach your viewpoint on this at all?

Assuming that the answer to this is yes, then I think I can put this whole thing to rest. We're at an impasse. There is no way forward without an important ingredient, and that ingredient is a willingness to take a step into the darkness. In fiction writing, which in this case is probably a bad-but-still-apt analogy, an author knows that his reader knows that the story they are about to read is fiction. It is his job to provide enough of a backdrop and a story so as to cause the reader to become, for the moment, willing to suspend disbelief, at least for the duration of the story. If the author makes no misteps in his story and his telling of it, this suspension of disbelief will continue until the story has concluded.

In the present case, you are completely unwilling to take a step into the darkness. We say these things are of God, and your objection is: How can you know? You CAN'T know! Therefore I cannot take that step.

God is calling to you, through us who have shared our deep experiences. If you persist in knowing the matter in the same manner as the chemists who can demonstrate that oxygen plus hydrogen produces water, then all is lost.

God has a problem. He cannot force you to believe, because it will not cause you to grow in the ways he wants and needs for you to grow. If he were to provide you the oxygen plus hydrogen type of evidence he would tear away your free agency from you. Because then you would be forced to believe. Until you are willing to take that step into the darkness and as Alma 32 suggests, have hope that these things might be true, you will be at a standstill, and no amount of questioning will bring you a single millimeter forward. Until you abandon your requirement for certainty you are lost.

None of us, to the best of my knowledge at least, has received a full-on unmistakeable vision or even physical visitation from the Almighty that proclaimed with a voice of power that Here I AM. Each of us who have shared our experiences with you have taken the experiences which we did experience, and compared them with what Joseph Smith and other of the prophets and the scriptures have said. We have taken that step into the darkness of uncertainty, and in those subsequent steps have received further confirmation. We have great faith and hope that the path is correct. I ascribe it all to God because of what has been said by those who claimed they have seen great visions and revelations, and I have found my own experiences -- in a somewhat less dramatic fashion -- to be consistent with these greater ones.

But because my experiences are private by their very nature you cannot "share" in them in the same way I can. The only thing I can do is hope that my honest retelling of my experience will cause hope to grow in you (and the others who will read these things) and in that hope perhaps you will eventually come to see that there is light also for you to obtain.

Trust. Don't assume your intellect is the be all and end all. There is no other way.

[scooby]

We know that Satan can deceive us into thinking something was a revelation when it wasn't.

We know God will not command us about everything we have to do.

We know we will make mistakes.

If we receive a revelation and it clearly goes against the scriptures then it isn't from God.

Not everything is in the scriptures (what job you should take, what to make legal or illegal, etc).

Now, let's say you pray and you think you received a revelation. If it clearly goes against the scriptures then you know it isn't from God. However, you could be mistaken when interpreting the scriptures or when interpreting the revelation because of Satan. Satan may be the one deceiving you into thinking it is a revelation from God when it isn't in the first place. You know also that it could be just your mind since God will NOT admonish you in everything you have to do or should do. It seems that at the end of the day you have no sure source but you have to trust in the Lord (have faith).

Then, of what use is "personal revelation"?

The problem I see here is that, for the sake of your examination, you have reduced revelation to a singular, critical moment or event. That's not to say revelation cannot occur as a single event, but I think that any difficulties a sincere seeker of truth might encounter at any given moment can be made up for in the grander design—that true revelation, in other words, has a prevalence for the honest, and that God is not a one-session psychiatrist.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Sure it does! Actually, there's even a term for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Back in December, my doctor told me that the inability to raise my left arm over my head was caused by what he hoped was a very small tear in my shoulder muscle. He then prescribed for me an anti-inflammatory which, he said, would immediately lessen the pain and also speed up the healing of the tear, which would be gone in 2-6 weeks if the diagnosis was correct. Choosing to trust him, I acted on that trust by filling the script and taking the anti-inflammatories. The pain immediately disappeared, though, when I occasionally forgot a dose, it came back again. Then, after two weeks, I stopped taking the medication completely, and everything was fine.

According to you, my recovery, however, was just an instance of confirmation bias?

[Hamba Tuhan]

None of us, to the best of my knowledge at least, has received a full-on unmistakeable vision or even physical visitation from the Almighty that proclaimed with a voice of power that Here I AM.

It wouldn't matter if we had. If Señor Crazy Glove were to experience such a vision or visitation, he would simply conclude that he was delusional since, having already determined that there's no God, this would be the simplest, most 'honest' explanation for him. Consequently, he would have no trouble dismissing us as delusional as well.

[elguanteloko]

After all this painful but instructive communication I think I understand where you are coming from.

It is this: we are all describing experiences which, though they may be very positive and have resulted in some good outcomes, and while you may be willing to grant the experiences you are unwilling to grant the interpretation of the source(s) of these experiences. In short, in those experiences which we say are of God, you don't find enough evidence that should even convince US that they are of God, and you are somewhat consternated that we, who may seem to be otherwise intelligent beings, are willing on very thin or nonexistent evidence to say we know from Whom they come.

Does this approach your viewpoint on this at all?

Closer, my friend, though I'm not consternated over it. It's understandable though it's wrong. Also, I'm sure each one here can get that God isn't the best explanation for what they call miracles or spiritual experiences though they choose to go with that answer. See the analogy I posted on post #275, page 14 of this thread.

Assuming that the answer to this is yes, then I think I can put this whole thing to rest. We're at an impasse. There is no way forward without an important ingredient, and that ingredient is a willingness to take a step into the darkness.

You got it! Yes, indeed. However, I'm not going against faith here; I'm only making the point that by all best accounts, the evidence does not point to "miracles" being caused by God as being the best explanation. You may choose to go with it but it isn't the best. Again, I make this point more clear in post #275.

In fiction writing, which in this case is probably a bad-but-still-apt analogy, an author knows that his reader knows that the story they are about to read is fiction. It is his job to provide enough of a backdrop and a story so as to cause the reader to become, for the moment, willing to suspend disbelief, at least for the duration of the story. If the author makes no misteps in his story and his telling of it, this suspension of disbelief will continue until the story has concluded.

Yes, I mean, it isn't like you are going to be thinking each time you "see the purported effects of prayer" that God or spiritual forces are not the best explanation for them any more than you think each time you kiss your wife that those feelings are the product of evolutionary processes or something of the sort. That one recognizes a fact doesn't mean you are going to be thinking about it all the time. Enjoy the movie, brother!

In the present case, you are completely unwilling to take a step into the darkness. We say these things are of God, and your objection is: How can you know? You CAN'T know! Therefore I cannot take that step.

You may take the step into the darkness or take the "leap of faith" Kierkegaard made so famous if you want. That speaks nothing of the picture I'm presenting here. Read post #275.

God is calling to you, through us who have shared our deep experiences. If you persist in knowing the matter in the same manner as the chemists who can demonstrate that oxygen plus hydrogen produces water, then all is lost.

God has a problem. He cannot force you to believe, because it will not cause you to grow in the ways he wants and needs for you to grow. If he were to provide you the oxygen plus hydrogen type of evidence he would tear away your free agency from you. Because then you would be forced to believe. Until you are willing to take that step into the darkness and as Alma 32 suggests, have hope that these things might be true, you will be at a standstill, and no amount of questioning will bring you a single millimeter forward. Until you abandon your requirement for certainty you are lost.

None of us, to the best of my knowledge at least, has received a full-on unmistakeable vision or even physical visitation from the Almighty that proclaimed with a voice of power that Here I AM. Each of us who have shared our experiences with you have taken the experiences which we did experience, and compared them with what Joseph Smith and other of the prophets and the scriptures have said. We have taken that step into the darkness of uncertainty, and in those subsequent steps have received further confirmation. We have great faith and hope that the path is correct. I ascribe it all to God because of what has been said by those who claimed they have seen great visions and revelations, and I have found my own experiences -- in a somewhat less dramatic fashion -- to be consistent with these greater ones.

But because my experiences are private by their very nature you cannot "share" in them in the same way I can. The only thing I can do is hope that my honest retelling of my experience will cause hope to grow in you (and the others who will read these things) and in that hope perhaps you will eventually come to see that there is light also for you to obtain.

Again, that experiences are private has NOTHING to do with my point.

Trust. Don't assume your intellect is the be all and end all. There is no other way.

I'm sorry but if you believe in God just because that makes you happy then I can only say that I feel terribly dishonest with myself when I do that. Imagine that people are happy in ignorance but you know better and they tell you to just leave that understanding aside and live your life as they do. Thanks but no thanks.

[elguanteloko]

It wouldn't matter if we had. If Señor Crazy Glove were to experience such a vision or visitation, he would simply conclude that he was delusional since, having already determined that there's no God, this would be the simplest, most 'honest' explanation for him. Consequently, he would have no trouble dismissing us as delusional as well.

I don't know what I would do but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that an actual angelic visitation is NOT the most likely thing to be the case nor is it the best explanation for the event. I'm not saying you couldn't believe it was an angel or that even I couldn't believe it was an angel; you may very well do so. The point is that we can step back from our beliefs and realize some explanations are better than others and angelic visitations, gods, spirits, etc are NOT the best explanations even if you choose to take them as the ones being the case. To accept a belief you don't need to accept it is the most likely. See post #275 in which I give a better analogy.

[elguanteloko]

Back in December, my doctor told me that the inability to raise my left arm over my head was caused by what he hoped was a very small tear in my shoulder muscle. He then prescribed for me an anti-inflammatory which, he said, would immediately lessen the pain and also speed up the healing of the tear, which would be gone in 2-6 weeks if the diagnosis was correct. Choosing to trust him, I acted on that trust by filling the script and taking the anti-inflammatories. The pain immediately disappeared, though, when I occasionally forgot a dose, it came back again. Then, after two weeks, I stopped taking the medication completely, and everything was fine.

According to you, my recovery, however, was just an instance of confirmation bias?

How could it be? Well, it can.. if you don't know what confirmation bias is.

[elguanteloko]

The problem I see here is that, for the sake of your examination, you have reduced revelation to a singular, critical moment or event. That's not to say revelation cannot occur as a single event, but I think that any difficulties a sincere seeker of truth might encounter at any given moment can be made up for in the grander design—that true revelation, in other words, has a prevalence for the honest, and that God is not a one-session psychiatrist.

I'm sorry, scooby, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. My apologies. Can you explain a little bit more what you mean, please?

[Hamba Tuhan]

How could it be? Well, it can.. if you don't know what confirmation bias is.

I know perfectly well what confirmation bias is. According to you, if I exercise trust in something enough to act on it, I then obtain evidence of that thing's correctness as a result of confirmation bias. Nonsense.

[zerinus]

No! The point is I AM knocking at your door.

What can I do for you that you are knocking on my door? What can I help you with?

[Libs]

El, here is an example of confirmation bias, just the reverse of what you have been presenting to us. Fact is, you could be a victim of confirmation bias, yourself.

An example from a recent study asking the question “how did religion evolve?” provides an example of confirmation bias. Try and notice the error(s) while reading.

Religion evolved as a byproduct of preexisting mental capacities, and not because it fulfilled a specific function of its own-though it can facilitate cooperation in society, a study concludes.

Why religion emerged among early humans remains a source of contention among scholars. Many scientists believe religion is ultimately based in the brain, but that still leaves unclear how and why these behaviors originated and how they may have been shaped during evolution. Some archaeologists think religion came about partly as a strategy by some people to grab power, simply by claiming some sort of secret knowledge.[2]

– http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100208_religion

.

.

.

.

.

.

Notice the error? They made (at least) two assumptions, and the data in their study “confirmed” their bias that religion somehow evolved from natural man — not God — because they failed to consider (or look for) what contradicted their beliefs:

•Evolution is true.

•No God exists.

Evolution[3] remains an unscientifically proved assumption; it can’t explain how we got here scientifically (that is, with verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments). The study looked where it wanted to — to an unscientific method. A classic case of confirmation bias.

Second, if God exits, the bias in the study renders it not only useless, but dangerously misleading. We’ve written much on atheism[4] already, but in brief atheism is by definition illogical[5] as it’s impossible to state as fact God doesn’t exist unless you posses all knowledge in the cosmos. Atheists (by definition) lack critical thinking skills and fail to employ logic in their reasoning.

It’s neither scientific nor free-thinking to exclude vast areas for consideration, and it this case it’s an example of confirmation bias — so much so the study becomes worthless.

[elguanteloko]

I know perfectly well what confirmation bias is. According to you, if I exercise trust in something enough to act on it, I then obtain evidence of that thing's correctness as a result of confirmation bias. Nonsense.

No.

[elguanteloko]

What can I do for you that you are knocking on my door? What can I help you with?

Heed the good word. Read the posts and get what they say.

[elguanteloko]

El, here is an example of confirmation bias, just the reverse of what you have been presenting to us. Fact is, you could be a victim of confirmation bias, yourself.

Anyone could. That's why we present reasons and evidence.

[zerinus]

Heed the good word. Read the posts and get what they say.

I did, and told you what you needed to know.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I know perfectly well what confirmation bias is. According to you, if I exercise trust in something enough to act on it, I then obtain evidence of that thing's correctness as a result of confirmation bias. Nonsense.

No.

Er, yes, that's precisely what you claimed.

I originally wrote the following:

Acting upon faith in what is true generates evidence in abundance.

To which you responded with this:

Sure it does! Actually, there's even a term for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

You specifically identified confirmation bias as the 'term' which describes the abundant positive evidence obtained by trusting in something enough to act upon it.

[Lightbearer]

You sure can go around in circles.

Actually I think you have cornered the market in that area!

[mfbukowski]

The problem I see here is that, for the sake of your examination, you have reduced revelation to a singular, critical moment or event. That's not to say revelation cannot occur as a single event, but I think that any difficulties a sincere seeker of truth might encounter at any given moment can be made up for in the grander design—that true revelation, in other words, has a prevalence for the honest, and that God is not a one-session psychiatrist.

This is an extremely important point.

It is not a single instance of subjective "evidence"- such evidence is built up over years of repeated little evidences, or a few "big" miracle-level evidences and many many little ones.

So in many cases one may not be able to say "THIS" was the "Cause" of my testimony- a testimony is a cumulative collection of all these instances of evidence.

Thanks for reminding us of that!

[Jeff K.]

Anyone could. That's why we present reasons and evidence.

Neither reason nor evidence is objective since both are interpretive of your ability to see and understand a process. If you cannot see and understand the process then no amount of reason and evidence (neither of which you can see) will suffice. You will simply note that it does not exist.

Elguanteloko reminds me of Harald the Christian in the 1989 movie Erik the Viking. His lack of capacity for faith means he cannot see what is going on around him in Valhalla.

[mfbukowski]

Why can't we apply the same standard to the existence of a physical, all(or almost)-powerful being that is said to be an influence in stuff of this world? If we say that God caused X, why couldn't we say that God (like the cause of cancer or chairs or forces) can be tested to see if he is the cause of X? If Mormonism says that God can work miracles, why couldn't we test whether God was the cause of those events people claim to be miracles? God's influences (and God himself) are NOT mere ideas, they are claimed to be as real as the cause of cancer (take "reality" to be whatever you want here; God and his influences are claimed to be just on the same level as the cause of cancer as far as reality goes). Why the different standard?

Absurd.

Miracles happen by faith. Tests are the opposite of faith. There is a stupid thread right now on this subject which has dragged on for a zillion inane posts- the question can be handled in the above ten words. And you still do not understand causality from a philosophical point of view.

Thanks. I don't think we need to focus more on the second question. Again, though, I've read Kuhn but apparently you are interpreting him different or probably just misunderstood him (or probably I did). I've read Dewey and James but, again, I don't get the relevance. As with Nagel, I've read some articles a while back and he has been writing for a while now; what do you want me to read?

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Wrong answer.

This is the very question which is of the most importance on this thread- the nature of what is or is not "real" and how our perceptions of what is "real" are in our minds- collectively and culturally, in the case of science, or subjectively in each of our individual lives.

There IS no question but that one, and I have repeatedly answered that question and given references both here and on other threads in which I have tried again and again to discuss this ONE POINT with you and you have repeatedly ignored or side-stepped the answers- and the references, and not read what I have suggested you read to even HAVE a conversation.

Again and again you have shown that you don't have the theoretical framework to deal with the answers I have given, and have no clue what philosophical school I am even discussing.

I got drawn into this stupid discussion by thinking that you might be sincerely seeking answers which I am in a position to help you understand - but you will not even try to understand where I am coming from, even a LITTLE.

When someone asks a question and then does not listen to the answer, one can conclude that the questioner is not sincere.

I hope I have learned this lesson about you permanently this time. I am here for sincere discussion, not to play games. My time is worth more than you can imagine- and you are wasting it.

[CV75]

That is, scientific theories can only be shown to be false but never confirmed in the strict sense of the word or shown to be true. Of course, if you get the same experimental result over and over again then the theory is corroborated though NEVER shown to be "true". One of the things aspects of science that distinguishes from other pursuits is that a theory must be able to make very risky predictions, testable predictions that can corroborate the theory. Furthermore, and probably most importantly, scientific theories must be falsifiable or able to be shown wrong with a certain experiment.. If your theory predicts that "q" will arise when you do "p" but then you do "p" and you don't get "q", then you know that "p" isn't the case and your theory is falsified.

I think it has been clear that you are not considering the approach or the view of the “other pursuits” you are questioning, and so the questions are irrelevant—you already have satisfactory answers in the context of your own “pursuit.” I suggest you: ask your questions and consider the answers, the best you can, in two ways: 1) from the point of view of the pursuit you are examining; 2) from the point of view of your own pursuit; unless you are just experimenting with the limits of science in exploring spirituality.