The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[SilverKnight]

You can see that from at least 3 or 4 posters I can name off the top of my head on this very thread- without actually re-reading anything: SilverKnight, HiJolly, and me have all expressed similar sentiments- Lehi also I believe, and maybe others I am not remembering at the moment.

In fact that view is pretty mainstream, imo. Of course there are always a few who don't get it and think that these questions are about scientific "facts" and persist in asking inane questions about objective knowledge about the existence of God, supposing that only things observable to science are "real", and then the thread goes on and on until everyone gets bored and quits trying to convince them that they are off base.

It is pretty rare that you find an LDS person who devotes a whole lot of time worrying about cosmic mysteries, philosophical paradoxes, and historic anomalies.

They have a religious cosmology that resonates with their humanity and provides pretty good answers to the eternal questions of the soul. Armed with that they are content to spend their time bringing brownies to widows and bringing fatherless boys to camp outs. They're content to let the cosmic conundrums lie and the mysteries of the universe remain unanswered.

[Jeff K.]

I find Dewey objectionable. But I believe the basic philosophy in this case is sound. By their fruits you shall know them. In other words an efficacious life, ie one that does good and seeks to enhance man and man's humanity as brothers in Christ. We should not, we cannot hold back on our desire to improve man's lot by running in circles attempting to answer what is unanswerable beyond the testimony.

I know that God lives and I follow Him. The proofs will have to be my work and the results will be known in the next life. Conundrums while entertaining do little to enhance who we are and therefore are almost meaningless untill all knowledge is possessed.

[CV75]

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"?

Faith (in its correct definition) leads to revelation in its many true forms which leads to knowledge in its many true forms.

[CV75]

...which leads to faith (in its correct definition) ...

[elguanteloko]

A seeing man bears his testimony to a blind man that he knows what yellow looks like. "Its a beautiful color" he testifies. "It brightens my day".

"Can you describe it to me?" asks the blind man.

"Sadly no" says the seeing man. It is something you must experience to completely understand.

"Then it can't be true. You are misled, and there is no yellow" says the blind man.

again, I'm granting all your experiences as they are, Jeff. The explanation of those experiences is what is questioned here, NOT the experiences.

[elguanteloko]

I just found Elguanteloko in another forum on this board saying this, which somewhat clarifies his position here:

"Going with the best explanation is not faith. Going with what you know is not the best explanation is faith."

haha! well, this is a whole different discussion by itself.

[elguanteloko]

And therein lies your problem.

Lehi

I know. Remember, kids: don't doubt, accept!

"But I hear people clamor on all sides: Don't argue! The officer says: Don't argue, drill! The tax collector: Don't argue, pay! The pastor: Don't argue, believe!" -- Immanuel Kant

[elguanteloko]

You've just reminded me of an experience I had one evening when I was working in America. A co-worker and I had ended up at a cheap Mexican place after working overtime, and we got talking about faith. Her husband was a formerly lapsed Church member who had returned 'with vengeance,' and both of her children had chosen to be baptised as well. All three of them desperately wanted the mum to join them at Church, but she just didn't believe any of it. They kept telling she needed to have faith, but that just sounded like a lame excuse to her. If there really were a God, she claimed, then he'd be willing to make things easy for her and just give her something obvious she could accept.

I asked her to give me an example. She said it would help if, for example, He would show Himself to her and tell her that 'Mormonism' was the right way. I thought about this and then felt inspired to ask her a question. I asked her to assume for a moment that, on her way to her car that night, God did descend in a pillar of light and tell her that He was real and wanted her to become a Church member. Then I asked her how far down the road she would get before she'd convinced herself it hadn't actually happened. She considered the question and then answered honestly that she wouldn't make it home before having done so.

I then pointed out that the one thing she'd just asked for as evidence was something she was still prepared to discount. She agreed. I then asked her if there really was anything God could do to convince her otherwise, and she admitted that there wasn't. No wonder He didn't even try. Her faith in her preferred explanations was unshakable.

Brother, going with the best explanation is not faith. Going with what you know is NOT the best explanation is faith. Look, man, I have little problem with faith itself, seriously, but I'd like religious people to realize what they are dealing with. You haven't answered my question about what you think the most reliable and best explanation is to some specific event. I don't see how someone could dispute that your religious explanation is NOT the most likely thing to be true. You may go ahead and trust a non-likely explanation and that's faith but I just want you to realize that what I'm proposing here (and has been proposed by others before) is not directly against faith itself. We are non-believers for a reason and it isn't that hard to see what the reason is if you get what I'm trying to convey.

[elguanteloko]

@Hamba:

I realize the faith stuff I said needs more explanation so here it is what a originally wrote in my facebook page and a small discussion I had with a guy that responded to it:

elguanteloko: Going with the best explanation is not faith. Going with what you know is not the best explanation is faith.

Roberto: I would say more that faith is the absence of doubt (or affirmation of a proposition) where doubt is justified.

Most Christians, for example, would say that God + Jeebus is the best explanation for life, the universe, and everything. They would never say they know it's not the best explanation, nor in their inner heart of hearts would they think it wasn't the best explanation (as my own Christian experience testifies). However, they would also say that there's a lot about God + Jeebus that you simply have to "just believe" even if the hypothesis appears unevidenced or problematic.

elguanteloko: "I would say more that faith is the absence of doubt (or affirmation of a proposition) where doubt is justified."

-- Could be, though this is besides my point. My point is that faith requires that you realize your explanation is not the most probable but you choose to trust that explanation. Take miracles, for example. I think some (few) Christians can easily see their miraculous explanations are not the most likely but few choose to throw themselves into those explanations. I don't think it's faith to think that someone is typing on the other side of the internet (you). Now, I said what you said was besides my point because you can, once you have the faith I'm talking about, be totally convinced or doubt the choice you picked but you still trust it. To trust, for me, almost by definition requires one's realization that it (what you trust) goes against the odds.

That conception of faith you talk about is also against careful common understanding. It requires no faith to think that the computer in front of me is actually black (it is) since I'm seeing it. Few people will tell you that you need faith for such a belief. Now think of a more "shaky" belief. For example, think that the computer was made in Japan. That isn't something I'm directly aware of but I "trust" in what the label says. This is easy to doubt but this gets closer to what we call faith. In other words, the more we can doubt something ("can", not that we actually do) we seem to tend to name it more "faith in a choice" when you pick a choice among the explanations. Again, though, this common understanding is a little bit besides my point but I just wanted to say why what you mentioned as faith (and many people do take to be faith) is not consistent with other events we tend to name "faith".

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 24 May 2011 - 06:38 AM, said:

A seeing man bears his testimony to a blind man that he knows what yellow looks like. "Its a beautiful color" he testifies. "It brightens my day".

"Can you describe it to me?" asks the blind man.

"Sadly no" says the seeing man. It is something you must experience to completely understand.

"Then it can't be true. You are misled, and there is no yellow" says the blind man.

again, I'm granting all your experiences as they are, Jeff. The explanation of those experiences is what is questioned here, NOT the experiences.

Then you have missed the point. To those who have seen the color yellow. The conversation is clear, and while some no longer like the color, or have sought other colors, one must experience sight to understand it. The explanation becomes clear to those who see. It is not merely the experience, but explaining the experience of sight and color to a man who cannot see, or in some cases, chooses not to see.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Most LDS do see it that way - they believe in mormonism because it works and produces good things.

Precisely. And it does work...predictably, reliably, and consistently.

[elguanteloko]

Then you have missed the point. To those who have seen the color yellow. The conversation is clear, and while some no longer like the color, or have sought other colors, one must experience sight to understand it. The explanation becomes clear to those who see. It is not merely the experience, but explaining the experience of sight and color to a man who cannot see, or in some cases, chooses not to see.

....once again, I'm not questioning the experience (of color or of anything else) but the explanation of what caused the experience.

[elguanteloko]

Precisely. And it does work...predictably, reliably, and consistently.

Really? Would you be willing to test it more objectively?(I'm talking about miracles here)

[Deborah]

....once again, I'm not questioning the experience (of color or of anything else) but the explanation of what caused the experience.

Those of us who have had the experience don't question what caused it. Since you didn't have the experience how can you question it?

[elguanteloko]

Those of us who have had the experience don't question what caused it.

So I imagine if I give you ANY explanation of any given event you will accept it ipso facto, correct?

Since you didn't have the experience how can you question it?

Tell that to a judge when he asks for evidence that person A killed person B. "Why do you question the cause if you weren't there?"

[Hamba Tuhan]

Brother, going with the best explanation is not faith. Going with what you know is NOT the best explanation is faith.

I find it funny that you somehow have convinced yourself that you're more practical than all the rest of us. Speaking for myself, I am in all instances of my 'faith' going with the best explanation based upon repeated experience.

I don't see how someone could dispute that your religious explanation is NOT the most likely thing to be true.

Of course you don't, and therein lies the problem: You simply can't see what I can.

You may go ahead and trust a non-likely explanation and that's faith....

You've only got part of the process here. My faith consists of trusting an only partially likely explanation enough to act upon it and then assess if the outcome seems to have justified the initial trust or not. If it does, then it strengthens my trust. Lather, rinse, repeat, with the end result being coming to know that one's trust has not been misplaced at all.

We are non-believers for a reason and it isn't that hard to see what the reason is if you get what I'm trying to convey.

Yes, the reason is obvious. Armed with a priori assumptions, you've placed untested faith your preferred explanations, and, like my friend in America, there is nothing anyone, God included, could ever do to shake your faith in them.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Really? Would you be willing to test it more objectively?(I'm talking about miracles here)

Yep, I plan to test it objectively again today.

[elguanteloko]

Yep, I plan to test it objectively again today.

Good! How do you plan on doing that?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Good! How do you plan on doing that?

Come and see.

[elguanteloko]

I find it funny that you somehow have convinced yourself that you're more practical than all the rest of us. Speaking for myself, I am in all instances of my 'faith' going with the best explanation based upon repeated experience. [

"Repeated experience" is not really a test, Hamba.

Of course you don't, and therein lies the problem: You simply can't see what I can.

You haven't answered my questions, Hamba. Seriously, just answer them and we can move on. Not that hard.

You've only got part of the process here. My faith consists of trusting an only partially likely explanation enough to act upon it and then assess if the outcome seems to have justified the initial trust or not. If it does, then it strengthens my trust. Lather, rinse, repeat, with the end result being coming to know that one's trust has not been misplaced at all.

First of all... what is a "partially likely explanation"? That's a weird combination of words you chose there. Also, google what "falsification" is so you see why you aren't getting what proper testing is.

Yes, the reason is obvious. Armed with a priori assumptions,

you don't have a priori assumptions, Hamba?

you've placed untested faith your preferred explanations, and, like my friend in America, there is nothing anyone, God included, could ever do to shake your faith in them.

You must be joking, right? There are a myriad of things God can do to change my mind. Again, I don't have faith in my assumptions but they seem to be the most likely to be correct as far as I can see and as far as I've seen other question them. I'm asking you very specific things, Hamba, and you don't even dare to answer them. Will you answer them directly or keep on evading them?

[jo1952]

So I imagine if I give you ANY explanation of any given event you will accept it ipso facto, correct?

Tell that to a judge when he asks for evidence that person A killed person B. "Why do you question the cause if you weren't there?"

For whatever reason, you seem to enjoy the darkness more than light. From your OP, you seem to be aware that there IS darkness (Satan), and you are wary that he will be the one who is the cause of your thoughts should you take a leap of faith and seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Ironically, satan is using your fear of him to keep you in the darkness you currently feel comfortable with.

If you really want the answers to your questions, you will have to find them out for yourself by actually experiencing them. Until that time, no amount of others trying to share their experiencing of Light will ever be enough sharing for you to be able to understand. You must experience this first hand.

If you are truly sincere in desiring to receive the answers personally, you have already been given the steps to accomplishing it. It will be necessary for you to exercise personal faith. If you so desire, I am sure there are many posters who would be more than happy to pray for you as you dare to exercise your faith. Just keep us posted.

Love,

jo

[mfbukowski]

I find Dewey objectionable.

Well I find his politics totally off- but I think he was a product of his times.

But I think his philosophical ideas apart from the education and political stuff is right on the money.

Of course in my communist days, I would have disagreed with my present self. Now THAT might be an interesting discussion- me vs me!

[elguanteloko]

Come and see.

?

I'm asking what your criterion for testing are, brother. What are they?

[elguanteloko]

Well I find his politics totally off- but I think he was a product of his times.

But I think his philosophical ideas apart from the education and political stuff is right on the money.

Of course in my communist days, I would have disagreed with my present self. Now THAT might be an interesting discussion- me vs me!

I normally don't care if the thread derails a little bit... but come on, mf, this is just way too far from the point.

[elguanteloko]

For whatever reason, you seem to enjoy the darkness more than light.

.....O...K......

From your OP, you seem to be aware that there IS darkness (Satan), and you are wary that he will be the one who is the cause of your thoughts should you take a leap of faith and seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Ironically, satan is using your fear of him to keep you in the darkness you currently feel comfortable with.

I don't believe in those things.

If you really want the answers to your questions, you will have to find them out for yourself by actually experiencing them. Until that time, no amount of others trying to share their experiencing of Light will ever be enough sharing for you to be able to understand. You must experience this first hand.

I was (still am officially, though) a Mormon. I had a "testimony" and saw many "miracles"... IRRELEVANT. I'm not asking for experiences nor am I questioning them but the CAUSES of those experiences.

If you are truly sincere in desiring to receive the answers personally, you have already been given the steps to accomplishing it.

I took them and I took them many many many times. I actually was never as involved in the Church and never studied as much about it than right when my testimony was falling.

It will be necessary for you to exercise personal faith. If you so desire, I am sure there are many posters who would be more than happy to pray for you as you dare to exercise your faith. Just keep us posted.

LOL yeah, sure.

Do you understand I'm questioning what caused the experience and not the experience of a miracle, Jo?