The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[elguanteloko]

It was illustrated to you several times.

Actually this is the first time someone tells me what you told me. I know this because I was surprised your post showed more understanding about the point I'm making than all other previous posts of yours (and of many others).

[Mars]

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.

My reasons for accepting my personal revelation are that I choose to believe that God exists and is knowable. Like mfbukowski and several others said over the course of a few pages, I believe God is going to help a guy along in whatever context he needs it - this accounts for someone finding God in Islam, Catholicism, and Mormonism. Wherever they are on their spiritual progression, I believe that God will move them along rather than stand idly by waiting for them to pick up on the claims of Mormonism, fairly judge them and bring them to His feet in prayer. That way God can be just and judge people according to what they did with the knowledge they had.

[Jeff K.]

It isn't the first time, it was a basic tenet through most of this conversation. I think everyone thought that you could easily distinguish it, and yet, it appears that perhaps the very basics seem to escape you in regard to the point raised. Reread the posts and you will more clearly understand what you seem to be so desperately dancing around.

[elguanteloko]

My reasons for accepting my personal revelation are that I choose to believe that God exists and is knowable. Like mfbukowski and several others said over the course of a few pages, I believe God is going to help a guy along in whatever context he needs it - this accounts for someone finding God in Islam, Catholicism, and Mormonism. Wherever they are on their spiritual progression, I believe that God will move them along rather than stand idly by waiting for them to pick up on the claims of Mormonism, fairly judge them and bring them to His feet in prayer. That way God can be just and judge people according to what they did with the knowledge they had.

That's perfectly fine.

However, my point is, do you realize that spiritual explanations or miraculous ones for events we call miracles are NOT the most likely to be the case for the reasons I have already mentioned here?

[elguanteloko]

It isn't the first time, it was a basic tenet through most of this conversation. I think everyone thought that you could easily distinguish it, and yet, it appears that perhaps the very basics seem to escape you in regard to the point raised. Reread the posts and you will more clearly understand what you seem to be so desperately dancing around.

I'll try harder and see if I made a mistake. Thanks.

[Jeff K.]

However, my point is, do you realize that spiritual explanations or miraculous ones for events we call miracles are NOT the most likely to be the case for the reasons I have already mentioned here?

Most likely does not negate the exitence of alternative views, in fact the argument is fallacious.

[elguanteloko]

Most likely does not negate the exitence of alternative views, in fact the argument is fallacious.

I'm NOT saying it negates the possible fact that another explanation, though less likely, is the correct one. I've said that many times.

[Brian 2.0]

I appreciate this topic. In fact, I was going to post much this same thing. I have yet to read all 18 PAGES! of replies so I'll try to do that before getting into it... but I have been having such questions recently as to the "reliability" of faith (process outlined in Alma 32) for determining "truth."

If I want to know the truthfulness of something, is the process outlined in Alma 32 a reliable way to do that?

Simply looking at the extremely varied conclusions people have come to in regards to "religious truth" seem to indicated that it is not a reliable way. Much less the varied responses that can happen from the process itself (misunderstand a feeling, satan influence, disobedience influencing results, etc.)

The whole core of what I believe is based on truths that I know via this process (Alma 32), so in finding the process unreliable, it can cause a lot of issues, to say the least.

[elguanteloko]

I appreciate this topic. In fact, I was going to post much this same thing. I have yet to read all 18 PAGES! of replies so I'll try to do that before getting into it... but I have been having such questions recently as to the "reliability" of faith (process outlined in Alma 32) for determining "truth."

If I want to know the truthfulness of something, is the process outlined in Alma 32 a reliable way to do that?

Simply looking at the extremely varied conclusions people have come to in regards to "religious truth" seem to indicated that it is not a reliable way. Much less the varied responses that can happen from the process itself (misunderstand a feeling, satan influence, disobedience influencing results, etc.)

The whole core of what I believe is based on truths that I know via this process (Alma 32), so in finding the process unreliable, it can cause a lot of issues, to say the least.

This is the best exposition of my view I've been able to articulate (from post #304):

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.

[Mars]

I re-read post #304 and I think I'm assuming that you're implying that if you picked the less likely reason, i.e. the miraculous one, you did it because you have confidence in your methodology, which means your question is "Why do you think what you did was correct?" Perhaps I am wrong in that. All apologies if I have misrepresented your position.

That's perfectly fine.

However, my point is, do you realize that spiritual explanations or miraculous ones for events we call miracles are NOT the most likely to be the case for the reasons I have already mentioned here?

Yes. I do realize that.

If there is indeed a God, and if indeed He is knowable, then the miracle of my personal revelation becomes less of a miracle and more of a likelihood, as God in this state would be prone to help His children find out who He is. But that's a bit of a paradox. We can't rely on that explanation until we can prove it, and we can't prove it because it relies on that explanation.

I realize that for all intents and purposes we can't unequivocally prove to any interested person that God exists and is knowable, and validate the believer's personal revelation.

But I do not believe that we simply sprang into being and will go forth into nothingness.

[Brian 2.0]

This is the best exposition of my view I've been able to articulate (from post #304):

I understand your post, but I think I'm getting at something a little bit different. Instead of taking the decision all to yourself and weighing evidence and trying to come to a conclusion based off of all that you know about something (your #3), you bring that question (or your answer to that question) to God for help in answering.

Feeling as though you received communication from God in that answer then serves as your evidence. I know XYZ to be true because God told me it was.

This communication can serve as your evidence, and can feel like the best evidence of all, trumping all science/reason/logic/etc. It then does become, in your mind, the "most likely" simply because God has told you so. In fact, it moves beyond "most likely" into actually truth. It isn't "likely" it "is"

This is the process I often used for religious matters, but I now have a hard time seeing it as reliable.

[Mars]

No one's judging here as you think we are.

~grunt~

Maybe.

[elguanteloko]

I re-read post #304 and I think I'm assuming that you're implying that if you picked the less likely reason, i.e. the miraculous one, you did it because you have confidence in your methodology, which means your question is "Why do you think what you did was correct?" Perhaps I am wrong in that. All apologies if I have misrepresented your position.

You can pick the less likely explanation for a bunch of reasons but that doesn't mean you have to accept that the choice you made was the more likely one. To pick B doesn't mean you think B is the most likely to be the case. If I have 90% chance of winning if I choose X (and I realize this fact), I can still choose Y or Z for other reasons though I know each one has 5% of getting me the prize.

Yes. I do realize that.

Then we are on the same page!

If there is indeed a God, and if indeed He is knowable, then the miracle of my personal revelation becomes less of a miracle and more of a likelihood, as God in this state would be prone to help His children find out who He is.

The chances don't change like this. That one of the three doors has the car behind it and the other two don't have anything doesn't mean you have more or less of a chance of getting the car (33%).

But that's a bit of a paradox. We can't rely on that explanation until we can prove it, and we can't prove it because it relies on that explanation.

Again, chances don't speak of "expectation" (taking expectation to mean the hope of something instead of likelihood). Some of us just go with the best we've got, man, nothing more.

I realize that for all intents and purposes we can't unequivocally prove to any interested person that God exists and is knowable, and validate the believer's personal revelation.

But I do not believe that we simply sprang into being and will go forth into nothingness.

You might not believe, and? That's besides my point. This is a talk for another time.

[CV75]

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!

Spiritual processes are not so much about figuring something out but receiving principles that transcend, overarch and underpin the application of other disciplines that do figure things out.

I would explain further, but according to the evidence you have provided about your approach, you would only object because you hold to a singular discipline on this matter in a particularly biased way. The problem is not that you would find my explanation or discipline invalid, but that you would object to my providing and explaining it at all. That is useless.

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.

The situation being how things seem to you? I am pointing out that it is one thing to object to a certain discipline, but to object to someone merely explaining it reflects poorly on how the otherwise effective discipline of the objecting party is applied, and on how ineffectively other disciplines are likely to be applied.

[elguanteloko]

I understand your post, but I think I'm getting at something a little bit different. Instead of taking the decision all to yourself and weighing evidence and trying to come to a conclusion based off of all that you know about something (your #3), you bring that question (or your answer to that question) to God for help in answering.

If "communication with God" is what is in question, I seriously doubt asking God to communicate the answer will help.

Feeling as though you received communication from God in that answer then serves as your evidence. I know XYZ to be true because God told me it was.

What is in question here is communication since "the influence God/spirits have on our lives" is the question. Communication with God is part of the question.

This communication can serve as your evidence,

It can't when "the communication" is the question.

[Brian 2.0]

I guess I'm agreeing with you here. And I need to read all the replies to see what they are.

Because the communication IS in question (for me). So when I have these questions and am told to "read and pray about it" it doesn't help. Because they are asking me to use a methodology to help validate the methodology.

[Deborah]

Very often the experiences I have had have been completely unexpected or not at all what I was looking for. Yet they were so profoundly what was needed at the time and so miraculous in their appearance that I would either have to believe they came from God or that coincidences of such nature are very prevalent in my life. And I've come to believe there are no coincidences.

Indeed I think very often that the course we set in our life determines whether these events occur in our lives. Take something like "The Secret", which is basically saying that our thoughts go out and then the universe reflects back on those bringing us great things. The power of positive thinking, the power of "As a man thinketh...." Now of course I believe all these philosophies stem from faith, either in ourselves or in the universe or in God, or in all three. But it is the power of faith that is the force which moves our lives in the direction we need to go and which brings about these "miraculous" events that enrich our lives, increase our faith, and move us further forward where we need to go.

[elguanteloko]

Spiritual processes are not so much about figuring something out but receiving principles that transcend, overarch and underpin the application of other disciplines that do figure things out.

"Spiritual processes" are what we are trying to figure out since they are what we are questioning.

I would explain further, but according to the evidence you have provided about your approach, you would only object because you hold to a singular discipline on this matter in a particularly biased way.

I've repeatedly stated to mfbukowski that this is NOT the case. I recognize there are many other ways of inquiry and knowledge than the empirical sciences like pure mathematics, logic, philosophy, etc. However, I see no reason why a physical, corporeal God and the supposed influence he has on the world and in many individuals' lives by working miracles, etc, shouldn't be tested through science. You aren't the first one here that says "well, there are other methods of inquiry than science" but you guys fail to show how that excepts God's existence and influence from scientific study.

The problem is not that you would find my explanation or discipline invalid, but that you would object to my providing and explaining it at all. That is useless.

Again, I accept science is NOT the only method of inquiry but if you say God's power influences the physical world then that isn't really outside of science.

The situation being how things seem to you? I am pointing out that it is one thing to object to a certain discipline, but to object to someone merely explaining it reflects poorly on how the otherwise effective discipline of the objecting party is applied, and on how ineffectively other disciplines are likely to be applied.

...

[elguanteloko]

And I've come to believe there are no coincidences.

There you have it. There's nothing you and I can talk about, then. Since there aren't coincidences then everything must have a "purpose" or intended direction. Humans are famous for getting the "purpose" assumption wrong and if you assume such a ludicrous claim then I can't help you.

[AIT]

~grunt~

Maybe.

It really is just a question. I am just inquiring, not judging. I just want to know the thought process and judgments you use. Maybe rationality is not as important as building and preserving faith for you.

In my epistemology evidence is important, a more rational explanation is preferred to a less rational one, and judgment can, and should be suspended if consistent evidence indicative of the truth is lacking.

To use an example.

Someone claims to you to have seen Bigfoot. How do you respond to them? If they say they just looked, and saw him, there he was, bigfoot, just like the color yellow example.

My response would be to accept that this person saw *something* that appeared to them to be bigfoot-like and that without further evidence to support an extraordinary claim like bigfoot, that would be as far as they should go. Experiencing something does not carry with it an implicit explanation of what IT is. That is the subject of further inquiry.

[AIT]

I guess I'm agreeing with you here. And I need to read all the replies to see what they are.

Because the communication IS in question (for me). So when I have these questions and am told to "read and pray about it" it doesn't help. Because they are asking me to use a methodology to help validate the methodology.

Bingo. You recognize the circular nature of this epistemology. I think it can work if you are inside of it in an isolated, protected environment. Some people can, some can't. But I think the real problems come when you look for the consistency of results that should exist if the methodology is sound.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

"Again, I accept science is NOT the only method of inquiry but if you say God's power influences the physical world then that isn't really outside of science."

Since the Saints believe that God uses his power overwhelmingly through natural processes. How would anyone tell the difference?

[Deborah]

Humans are famous for getting the "purpose" assumption wrong and if you assume such a ludicrous claim then I can't help you.

Since I haven't asked for your help, no loss.

[Brian 2.0]

But I think the real problems come when you look for the consistency of results that should exist if the methodology is sound.

BIngo to you. There's the rub.

We're not talking about some minor side issue like BOM archeology or global flood. We're talking about the very root of the tree of a testimony.

[Alla]

I'm asking how you justify that there is a divine intervention in all of that of a physical, all-powerful deity. VERY different questions.

There were times when I received revelations. It is when I asked God questions and He gave me answers. When God answers it comes like thoughts in my head. And I just know(I AM POSITIVE, I AM SURE in my heart) that it is right answer. Later I hear the same things in Church, or read in the scripture. Then I say to myself:"WOW, I already knew it". I never read about it, I never heard about it. I only asked God and I got those ideas in my head and that strong feeling that I can not explain.

I could say that that was just coincidence but I BELIEVE that it was not. There are many times when I ask God for some blessings when it is seems impossible I could have them. But I receive them. I can say:"it is just a coincidence". But I believe it is not.

So, my "I know" is better to describe as "I believe that I know".

Any time I say "I know" it is a matter of faith. I just KNOW what I feel, I KNOW what idea come to my head while I BELIEVE they were revelations from God. If you remember in the Bible talks about two or three witnesses. Holy Ghost is one witness. Then later i hear the same things from somebody, or read about it. So, I have another voice that confirms to me that what Holy Ghost told me is actually true.

This is THE FOUNDATION of my faith.

P.S. Are you an atheist or agnostic? And I hope I gave you the right answer this time.