The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[Brian 2.0]

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 rad in the scripture. Then I say 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.

Please don't take my response as discounting your experience. I believe you very well have had revelation of a truth directly to you from God that was confirmed later in scripture or Church talks.

I think the problem we are talking about is how there are some people that go through the same process you talked about, but get a different answer than you did. One that is then possibly contradicted in scripture. Or the people that go through the same process and you did and feel they have received revelation of God about the truthfulness of Jihad or something that we consider to be wholly untrue. The lack of consistency in the process you had is causing some to question the reliability of the process.

[AIT]

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.

Yes. And much like the positive feedback loop that occurs when a microphone is brought close to the speaker in a P.A. system I think that the more one believes they are experiencing personal revelation the more intense it will seem to them and then, Alakazam, they have a self-supporting belief in personal revelation.

Confirmation bias at its purest.

[elguanteloko]

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?

If we can't distinguish between him (and/or his influence) from a mere "natural" event, then, why add God in the formula?

[elguanteloko]

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.

Read post #334, please. We're already on page 18 of this thing and people have brought plenty of posts like yours and I think I've responded enough to the same line of thought.

[bookofmormontruth]

I just prayed and received a personal “revelation” that my best friend is going to marry the “wrong” person. I clearly know from the scriptures and from current Church leaders that we can’t receive “revelation” for others that are not under our stewardship.

I start to think to myself that maybe I am just being deceived by my own emotions since I already have great distrust and dislike (influence of satan) for my best friend’s fiancé, but what if G-d is really trying to let my best friend know through me that his choice is wrong? Who am I to question how G-d is going to communicate with me?

Ultimately, I make the choice knowing that I seriously cannot convince anyone or give any adequate, reliable or “best” explanation that my personal revelation was really from G-d. It is therefore more likely that my feelings were based on my bias emotions towards the fiance for anything more complicated (revelation from G-d) will re-write, ignore and suspend the well-established laws of logic and science. And, who am I to do such a thing anyway? No one would take me seriously, even if I tried to do such a thing.

After-all there are countless religious individuals doing the exact same thing around the world while claiming they received a “personal revelation” from G-d, yet it is obvious that they are being deceived by their own understanding. Thus, personal revelation becomes "useless" and therefore I really don’t know or have an adequate explanation for the end result of my original prayer.

[Brian 2.0]

Yes. And much like the positive feedback loop that occurs when a microphone is brought close to the speaker in a P.A. system I think that the more one believes they are experiencing personal revelation the more intense it will seem to them and then, Alakazam, they have a self-supporting belief in personal revelation.

Confirmation bias at its purest.

Completely agree. AIT, I feel like I would enjoy talking with you over a hard caffeinated cola.

Forgive me for having not read the pages upon pages of replies. but in them, did anyone give an answer to this question? If one has lost faith in the reliability of the process of receiving revelation (Alma 32) how can they regain that faith, or hold fast to the truth claims in the church.

It's hard because it often seems like if you've lost faith in faith, then there's not way back.

[elguanteloko]

thesometimesaint:

There are only two options: either God is distinguishable or he isn't (in principle). If he is then let's get to work and show he is indeed there and/or influences in any way. If he isn't then by parsimony we don't need to add him to the equations.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

So, if you believe in a doctor's diagnosis enough to take the medication, then the cure really will have been 'generated' by your belief? Or do you reserve your sarcasm for us lesser souls?

[AIT]

Completely agree. AIT, I feel like I would enjoy talking with you over a hard caffeinated cola.

sounds good my man.

Forgive me for having not read the pages upon pages of replies. but in them, did anyone give an answer to this question? If one has lost faith in the reliability of the process of receiving revelation (Alma 32) how can they regain that faith, or hold fast to the truth claims in the church.

It's hard because it often seems like if you've lost faith in faith, then there's not way back.

Well, I don't think you really can, not completely at least. People like John Dehlin, Don Wotherspoon, and others have found ways to deal with the "crisis of faith" that they may have experienced.

Personally I want to have as few false beliefs as possible and as many true beliefs as possible. In short, I want to be grounded in reality. Still, I understand that people may wish to adopt a more supernatural worldview to give their lives more meaning, purpose, etc. I think the method to do that is the same as going into it initially. Surround yourself with like-minded individuals who want to believe, read testimonials of faith-promoting experiences from individuals and faith-promoting folklore and be open and accepting of them because they are inspiring. I think that given enough time, in that environment, many people will become happy believers all over again.

It depend a lot on ones crisis of faith but I think that when we are speaking of re-evaluating ones core epistemology their entire worldview may change. Mine did.

[elguanteloko]

So, if you believe in a doctor's diagnosis enough to take the medication, then the cure really will have been 'generated' by your belief? Or do you reserve your sarcasm for us lesser souls?

Hamba, that is NOT what confirmation bias is, brother. Read the wiki article carefully. You need to start doing your homework by yourself, man.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Hamba, that is NOT what confirmation bias is, brother. Read the wiki article carefully. You need to start doing your homework by yourself, man.

I know what confirmation bias is, amigo. I'm just a little perplexed that, when you go through a certain process, the evidence is not the result of confirmation bias, but, when I go through the exact same process, you're cheerily confident that it is.

[Deborah]

Personally I want to have as few false beliefs as possible and as many true beliefs as possible. In short, I want to be grounded in reality.

Why is it you think those of us who remain true to the faith aren't grounded in reality. We may either have a different interpretation of the evidence or most likely more information than those who get a little bit of learning and then think they've found the "real" truth.

[elguanteloko]

I know what confirmation bias is, amigo. I'm just a little perplexed that, when you go through a certain process, the evidence is not the result of confirmation bias, but,

Again, that's why we give reasons and evidences to the best of our ability. I never claimed that belief in God was the result of confirmation bias but that it could be and that we have good reasons to think that it often does. Not only for the belief in God but for many beliefs we hold. Not all evidence is the same (though you haven't presented credible evidence, by the way). How do we know which is better? Surprisingly enough, we have to think and use the best methods we can get a hold of. I explained here already why your methods are horrible.

when I go through the exact same process, you're cheerily confident that it is.

You like to play the victim, don't you? I never said your conclusions were the result of confirmation bias, I never said God is the result of confirmation bias, I never said any of that. All I've been saying is that, by the best methods we know of, the belief in God/miracles/spirits/revelation, etc is NOT THE MOST PROBABLE explanation of events associated with them. That something is recognized as more probably doesn't mean that option is the winning option nor does it mean other the other options will surely loose or are false. There's a difference between "it is likely that", "it is possible that", and "it is the case that".

[elguanteloko]

Why is it you think those of us who remain true to the faith aren't grounded in reality. We may either have a different interpretation of the evidence or most likely more information than those who get a little bit of learning and then think they've found the "real" truth.

I know you didn't write this to me but I want to make myself clear; I hope you don't mind. I, elguanteloko, do NOT claim any monopoly on "the real truth" or "THE TRUTH" at all, nor do I think non-believers can claim it for themselves.... nor do I think any person can claim any such thing.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Agreed.

I think the experience carries with it it's own "stamp" that it comes from God. It is like driving over the ridge of a hill and having some incredible scene of the valley open before you and you almost involuntarily cry out "Beautiful!"

Can you be mistaken that it is "beautiful"? Is that a conclusion based on "evidence"?

Is there a "better explanation" than it being beautiful? Can you doubt that it is beautiful? But is the beauty "in your mind" or in the scene?

It is both- it is "in" the experience itself- we experience the scene AS beautiful, and cannot distinguish "where" that "evidence" of beauty is, and it doesn't matter.

Just as "yellowness" is a qualia included in the experiencing of canaries, the perception that "it is from God" is "carried" within the spiritual experience itself.

That is what defines spiritual experience - it would not BE what we call a "spiritual experience" if the notion that it was "from God" was NOT contained within the experience itself

WAS it "actually" from God, or could there be another "explanation"?

No, because then it would not be what we call a "spiritual experience". There is no way to determine it's source, all we know is that the experience itself "says" within it, it is "from God"

As the Nagel article in my siggy shows, brain states as perceived by someone else are irrelevant to the subjective experience itself- the subjective experience comes from an entirely different perspective and cannot be "exhausted" by an explanation which is soley objective.

To do so is, imo, a logical category error; it is to confuse a first person proposition with a third person proposition.

In any case, it will by its very nature no longer include the subjective point of view which defines the experience itself- and that IS the experience.

[elguanteloko]

Agreed.

I think the experience carries with it it's own "stamp" that it comes from God. It is like driving over the ridge of a hill and having some incredible scene of the valley open before you and you almost involuntarily cry out "Beautiful!"

Can you be mistaken that it is "beautiful"? Is that a conclusion based on "evidence"?

Is there a "better explanation" than it being beautiful? Can you doubt that it is beautiful? But is the beauty "in your mind" or in the scene?

It is both- it is "in" the experience itself- we experience the scene AS beautiful, and cannot distinguish "where" that "evidence" of beauty is, and it doesn't matter.

Just as "yellowness" is a quality experiencing canaries, the perception that "it is from God" is "carried" within the spiritual experience itself.

Does "yellowness" imply God and do canaries imply "it is from Neptune's power"?

That is what defines spiritual experience - it would not BE what we call a "spiritual experience" if the notion that it was "from God" was NOT contained within the experience itself

LOL Well, sure, we wouldn't name it like that.... and?

WAS it "actually" from God, or could there be another "explanation"?

No, because then it would not be what we call a "spiritual experience".

Imagine a time when cancer was thought to be the expression of the mystical powers of the planet Neptune. I'm going to play mf for a moment: "there can't be another explanation for this cancer other than Neptune's power because if it wasn't due to Neptune's power then it wouldn't be what we call cancer."

There is no way to determine it's source, all we know is that the experience itself "says" within it, it is "from God"

"There is no way to determine cancer's source, all we know is that the experience itself "says" within it, it is "from Neptune." "

There you have it, folks. Let's throw science out the window. No statistical analyses, no empirical research since our experiences "tell us" they are from Neptune because if they weren't then they wouldn't be what we call "Neptunean experiences." Let confirmation bias reign!

[Mordecai]

Does "yellowness" imply God and do canaries imply "it is from Neptune's power"? LOL Well, sure, we wouldn't name it like that.... and? Imagine a time when cancer was thought to be the expression of the mystical powers of the planet Neptune. I'm going to play mf for a moment: "there can't be another explanation for this cancer other than Neptune's power because if it wasn't due to Neptune's power then it wouldn't be what we call cancer." "There is no way to determine cancer's source, all we know is that the experience itself "says" within it, it is "from Neptune." There you have it, folks. Let's throw science out the window. No statistical analyses, no empirical research since our experiences "tell us" they are from Neptune because if they weren't then they wouldn't be what we call "Neptunean experiences." Let confirmation bias reign!

Where's the thumbs down button? Wow, you have fantastically poor comprehension. What MFB is saying is rather profound. You turn it on its head into something inane. Your comprehension is so poor, no one knows where to start with you. What's worse, you're unteachable. Completely unteachable. Even if we did know where to start, I don't think you'd get it.

[elguanteloko]

Where's the thumbs down button? Wow, you have fantastically poor comprehension. What MFB is saying is rather profound. You turn it on its head into something inane. Your comprehension is so poor, no one knows where to start with you. What's worse, you're unteachable. Completely unteachable. Even if we did know where to start, I don't think you'd get it.

I get what mf is saying and it's rather silly. I, unlike you, try and give reasons. Will you tell me what I got wrong in my response to him or will you keep on "pounding the table" as you've done so far?

[mfbukowski]

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.

[mfbukowski]

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?

Irrelevant.

The "explanation" for the experience is not part of the experience- and the most likely "explanation" is irrelevant to the correct explanation.

For the fourteen millionth time.

[mfbukowski]

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.

The key here is to find out what "truth" means in a religious context.

What is "true" is what gives you satisfaction in life, and works for you to produce a world view that allows you to make sense of your place in the universe.

That is actually what Alma 32 is about- it is not about scientific truth - about discovering "facts" about the world. It is about discovering yourself and what gives your life meaning.

[elguanteloko]

Irrelevant.

The "explanation" for the experience is not part of the experience-

Again, I'm not talking about the qualitative experience of "feeling God's influence" but what caused what we call "the feeling of God's influence".

and the most likely "explanation" is irrelevant to the correct explanation.

We agree but this doesn't get you anywhere. If the car is behind door 2 and not in 1,3,4,5, then you need to open the doors and find out where it is. If I say you have more chances if you pick door 3 after other doors have been opened (and, obviously, the car hasn't showed up), to argue "well, that doesn't mean the car is in 3, does it?" is hilariously silly.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I never said your conclusions were the result of confirmation bias....

Since you like to claim that you deal in facts, please once again be reminded of some:

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

[elguanteloko]

The key here is to find out what "truth" means in a religious context.

What is "true" is what gives you satisfaction in life, and works for you to produce a world view that allows you to make sense of your place in the universe.

That is actually what Alma 32 is about- it is not about scientific truth - about discovering "facts" about the world. It is about discovering yourself and what gives your life meaning.

Oh, OK. So religious "truth" isn't truth at all but just a feel-good belief that gives you satisfaction. Why have we been arguing all this time?

[mfbukowski]

(from post #304):

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.

That's obvious, for scientific truth, but that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about the best explanation which gives your life meaning.

Is that getting somewhere finally?