The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[elguanteloko]

Absurd.

Well, I expect more explanation than that.

Miracles happen by faith.

MF, describing what is in contention as if it was a resolved issue already isn't going anywhere, brother. Why the different standard, mf? Why with some things that you take exist you apply a scientific standard but to other physical stuff that is said to influence some people's daily lives you don't bother to investigate with the same level of rigor? Why not? Don't tell me that not, tell me why not.

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 guess I haven't figured this one out? Who cares if that's what faith is. I'm asking you a very different question. Why should we apply a different standard to the cause of cancer and to corroborating spiritual (thought they are said to be physical) beings of Mormonism's claims? You can NOT test your claims properly, that's fine, but you haven't explained why the double standard.

And you still do not understand causality from a philosophical point of view.

You can go ahead and think that, man. Whatever you understand by "cause of cancer" is the same type of relationship I'm speaking of when I say "the cause of miracles or spiritual manifestations". Simple as that. With one you go on a tangent, with the other one you don't. How's that for a double standard, right?

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.

That question isn't important anymore because you seem to speak of the cause of cancer with the enough understanding that we need for getting somewhere. However you think the workings of cancer exist and/or are perceived (of if they are the same thing to you) then that's fine. That's all I need to get us somewhere.

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.

Here's what bothers me more about this, mf. At no time have I questioned your sincerity in our discussions but you have repeatedly done so with me. I might think you are wrong (and very wrong, at that) but never dishonest. I struggle through the issue and through people though you don't seem to be able to do the same thing.

....anyways. If you have an answer for why we should accept God's existence and influence only through our confirmation bias and not through more reliable methods or put the to the test (real tests, not verifications), then go ahead and we can move on. Telling me that "that's just how it works" is not a satisfactory answer anymore than "just because" is a good answer.

[elguanteloko]

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

I originally wrote the following:

To which you responded with this:

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

LOL I was being sarcastic, Hamba. Believing in pretty much anything will make you generate "evidence". If I believing in a unicorn's magic influence I will see "evidence" of that in my life all the time.

[elguanteloko]

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!

I wonder if this happens ("miracles") better than by mere chance or common variances that one notices more. Can we test that, mf, or should we just believe that there were spiritual interventions and question no more?

You should wonder, too.

[elguanteloko]

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.

amm... sir, by "reliable" we don't mean "infallible". By "objective" we don't mean "independent of all interpretation". If something is independent of all interpretation then you wouldn't analyze that something.

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.

Once again, faith is not really against what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the following:

Taken an event X

1) There are many explanations of what caused X.

2) Some of those explanations are better than others.

3) To choose which one is a better explanation we take into account simplicity, parsimony, consistency, etc.

Miraculous explanations for event X are some of the least likely to be the case because they meet few of these criterion as compared with other explanations.

Now, once you realize the above:

1) You may go ahead and NOT accept the most likely explanation but accept a miraculous one.

2) To not choose the most likely explanation does NOT mean you don't realize it isn't the most likely. (You don't need to think a given explanation - miraculous, for example - is the most likely to be the case for you to accept it)

To illustrate the point better read the following:

(from post #275 by elguanteloko)

Let's imagine the following scenario:

Someone put a gun in your son's room and (somehow) took his fingerprints and placed them in the crime scene of a murder the "someone" committed to incriminate your son. This someone made the perfect crime and he made ALL the possible evidence fit your son instead of him. He isn't even a suspect in the investigation. There is also no way of confirming that your son didn't do it since he was (let's say) asleep all the time in his room (he lives with you). You are his parent and you saw him and even talked to him at home while the real criminal was doing the killing. Let's also say that you saw all that happened with your own eyes (this is just impossible but go with it for now for the sake of the analogy).

Now, you know for a fact that your son didn't do it though you recognize all the evidence points to him being guilty. You give your testimony of the events but there isn't evidence on your son's side other than your testimony. You believe in your son but you realize he didn't do it. When you bring a reason in his favor there are stronger reasons to think he is guilty.

Now let's imagine that you did NOT see your son that night since you thought he was asleep all this time. You absolutely trust him but realize that all the evidence is against him and you can recognize that if you were the judge you would have to condemn him based on the evidence.

It is the same with faith here. You may trust God and you may even think he exists and he communicates with you but one can realize that miraculous explanations are NOT the most probable to be the case due to the evidence, all things considered. You may choose to trust your son and you may choose to trust in God and in his existence but you realize it isn't based on the most likely explanation to be the true.

[AIT]

I think elguanteloko is focusing on one of the most, if not the most, fundamental questions that, in my opinion, is incumbent upon anyone who claims personal revelation to address. This thread has been one of the most fascinating ones I've ever read here. I wish there was a way I could download it.

[Mars]

This thread is nothing more than a nuanced discussion of "How do you know, I mean, for reals?"

It's a good question, and one that must be asked, but what grills me is that the Montgomery Price's and the elguanteloko's of the world seem to think that I owe *them* the explanation, otherwise they will conclude it's hogwash.

I don't owe anyone an explanation of my faith, or why I think it was providence that guided me to where I am. I owe that strictly to myself. If elguanteloko isn't prepared to accept personal revelation as grounds for producing faith because we could be mistaken and he wants something more certain than chance, I probably won't convince him otherwise. After all, it is his decision...

[elguanteloko]

I think elguanteloko is focusing on one of the most, if not the most, fundamental questions that, in my opinion, is incumbent upon anyone who claims personal revelation to address. This thread has been one of the most fascinating ones I've ever read here. I wish there was a way I could download it.

Oh, quit it!

[elguanteloko]

This thread is nothing more than a nuanced discussion of "How do you know, I mean, for reals?"

It's a good question, and one that must be asked, but what grills me is that the Montgomery Price's and the elguanteloko's of the world seem to think that I owe *them* the explanation, otherwise they will conclude it's hogwash.

I don't owe anyone an explanation of my faith, or why I think it was providence that guided me to where I am. I owe that strictly to myself. If elguanteloko isn't prepared to accept personal revelation as grounds for producing faith because we could be mistaken and he wants something more certain than chance, I probably won't convince him otherwise. After all, it is his decision...

Read my last post, for Pete's sake! I'm NOT questioning your faith but what's around it.

[CV75]

I want to clarify that I don't have a problem with this statement at all. I don't have a problem with people believe that God, angels or spirits intervene in their lives, I really don't. My only objection is when they claim that their explanation is the most likely to be the case when it isn't.

It goes without saying that knowledge gained by evidence other than what is acceptable within a particular discipline must be rejected by that discipline. Why object to someone claiming that God did something when that is how his discipline works? No one can force anyone to compromise a discipline simply by explaining how another discipline works.

[Mars]

~sigh~

Sorry, wrong word. I tend to view my personal revelation as the reason for having faith, so forgive the semantics collision.

You *are* questioning the acceptance criteria and drawing the conclusion that personal revelation is, to use your word, useless. In my opinion that effectively comes to the same thing.

I did read your post, for what it's worth.

[Jeff K.]

Read my last post, for Pete's sake! I'm NOT questioning your faith but what's around it.

They are inseperably connected.

Like stating, I am not questioning your skin color, just your race.

or

I am not questioning your belief in God, just your belief.

[elguanteloko]

In my opinion that effectively comes to the same thing.

Any reasons you want to let us know?

[elguanteloko]

They are inseperably connected.

reasons, please. Why are they "inseparably connected" in some relevant way to what I'm saying?

[elguanteloko]

It goes without saying that knowledge gained by evidence other than what is acceptable within a particular discipline must be rejected by that discipline.

Are you speaking of science? If you have better methods for figuring out if something is not only confirmation bias or wishful thinking and whether something actually exists in the physical world (Gods/spirits) in a reliable way, please provide!

Why object to someone claiming that God did something when that is how his discipline works? No one can force anyone to compromise a discipline simply by explaining how another discipline works.

Well, that's fine. If you are saying you can't show miracles occur better than with mere chance then that's fine but, then, it seems you just believe because you want to. I'm not saying you shouldn't... I'm just laying out the situation here.

[Mars]

Any reasons you want to let us know?

I already said it:

The personal revelation, and the experience that gave it a context, is the reason why I chose to believe it came from God.

[Mars]

But you don't want that. You want my thinking as to why I think it came from God when the odds are against me, right?

You either want me to agree with you that it's highly unlikely that my personal revelation came from God, or you want me to convince you that it's not so unlikely.

Am I right?

[elguanteloko]

I already said it:

The personal revelation, and the experience that gave it a context, is the reason why I chose to believe it came from God.

That is OBVIOUSLY the case. Who cares if that's how you came to believe in God? Thanks for sharing but that isn't what I'm talking about. That I did X doesn't mean doing X was done the right way or through the best methods. Only the latter part ("X was done the right way or through the best methods") is what I'm questioning, NOT that you did X.

[AIT]

I don't owe anyone an explanation of my faith, or why I think it was providence that guided me to where I am. I owe that strictly to myself.

I think that's what's being asked here: How do you explain it, or more specifically, justify it, to yourself. Does having the most rational explanation matter to you? If not, why not?

[elguanteloko]

But you don't want that. You want my thinking as to why I think it came from God when the odds are against me, right?

Sure.

You either want me to agree with you that it's highly unlikely that my personal revelation came from God,

Bingo! Well, not just agree with me, I want you to understand it and see if it's better than what you hold now as being the best conclusion.

or you want me to convince you that it's not so unlikely.

Am I right?

Not this part, no. "Convince" someone of something is always way too hard. Using the best reasoning we can get our hands on is what I'm looking for (and what you should be looking for, too, IMHO). In other words, we can reason without being convinced. I'm not asking you to get convinced of what I'm saying but to think of what I'm saying and reason it out.

[Mars]

That is OBVIOUSLY the case. Who cares if that's how you came to believe in God? Thanks for sharing but that isn't what I'm talking about. That I did X doesn't mean doing X was done the right way or through the best methods. Only the latter part ("X was done the right way or through the best methods") is what I'm questioning, NOT that you did X.

Justification is not verification, I get you. I'm understanding and reading more of your posts than you think.

This is the part where I say "I choose to believe that because it came from God therefore I will act on it."

Then you say "But if you can be deceived, doesn't that illustrate your methodology was flawed? Did you really use the best methods?"

Then I say "I was the one who experienced it, how could I possibly convince you it was the best way? Why would I willingly subject my spiritual path to your criteria? Who are you that I should follow you?"

[Mars]

I think that's what's being asked here: How do you explain it, or more specifically, justify it, to yourself. Does having the most rational explanation matter to you? If not, why not?

Why do you get to be the judge of what I've done? Why do you get to say I'm being irrational? Who are you to set yourself up in that way over me?

[elguanteloko]

Justification is not verification, I get you. I'm understanding and reading more of your posts than you think.

This is the part where I say "I choose to believe that because it came from God therefore I will act on it."

Then you say "But if you can be deceived, doesn't that illustrate your methodology was flawed? Did you really use the best methods?"

Then I say "I was the one who experienced it, how could I possibly convince you it was the best way? Why would I willingly subject my spiritual path to your criteria? Who are you that I should follow you?"

No. Read post #304 (all of it) again if you did it already or very carefully if you haven't.

[elguanteloko]

Why do you get to be the judge of what I've done? Why do you get to say I'm being irrational? Who are you to set yourself up in that way over me?

Simple question, Mars. No one's judging here as you think we are.

[Jeff K.]

reasons, please. Why are they "inseparably connected" in some relevant way to what I'm saying?

It was illustrated to you several times.

[Jeff K.]

It seems you aren't clever by half.

You cannot seem to grasp that they are connected, like seeing and being able to identify colors. The connection is obvious to the sighted. It is significantly less so to the blind.