Montgomery Price Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 Reliable for what purpose?What possible scientific test would be reliable to show you what political party to join, or if this is the right time to buy silver?Reliable for discerning what is most likely to be true.I don't see how your examples are relevant. What establishes subjective experiences as reliable if you dismiss any objective evaluation as inapplicable? Is there a logical argument, or do you only have a pragmatic reliance? If we can't establish our experience as reliable, then why build your house upon the sand?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I really didn't think I had to spell it out. Here's a simple example:Jack believes in God and that this God answers prayers.Jill believes in God and that this God answers prayers.Jack asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jack experiences responds with a positive answer.Jill asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jack experiences responds with a negative answer.What justification can be given for Jack's experience that can't be given for Jill's experience?What is sad is the during Moroni's promise there is nothing about receiving a negative answer. In fact I cannot find any were in all of scripture about receiving a negative answer. If you meant negative means no, and positive means yes that is a different story.
Montgomery Price Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 What is sad is the during Moroni's promise there is nothing about receiving a negative answer. In fact I cannot find any were in all of scripture about receiving a negative answer. If you meant negative means no, and positive means yes that is a different story.I never posited that Jack and Jill were using Moroni's Promise. It's unneccessary. They both simply asked the God they experience, and they each believe the answer they received is reliable.
Pahoran Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I really didn't think I had to spell it out. Here's a simple example:Jack believes in God and that this God answers prayers.Jill believes in God and that this God answers prayers.Jack asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jack experiences responds with a positive answer.Jill asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jack experiences responds with a negative answer.What justification can be given for Jack's experience that can't be given for Jill's experience?Oh, so you aren't able to provide examples of religious belief systems that rely upon "spiritual epistemic tests" usefully comparable to Moroni's Promise.So you are obliged to resort to shifting the goal posts.Why am I not surprised?Regards,Pahoran
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Reliable for discerning what is most likely to be true.What do you mean by "true"?How do you decide who is your "true love"?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I never posited that Jack and Jill were using Moroni's Promise. It's unneccessary. They both simply asked the God they experience, and they each believe the answer they received is reliable.So were is the logical connection that because the both believe in their answers that mean they are really both wrong. Correct me if I am wrong but that sounds like a non-sequitur. I believe that both answers could be correct and are very much likely correct. You, on the other hand, see this as a contradiction.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Oh, so you aren't able to provide examples of religious belief systems that rely upon "spiritual epistemic tests" usefully comparable to Moroni's Promise.So you are obliged to resort to shifting the goal posts.Why am I not surprised?Regards,PahoranIndeed, I missed this when replying. Good catch.
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) I really didn't think I had to spell it out. Here's a simple example:Jack believes in God and that this God answers prayers.Jill believes in God and that this God answers prayers.Jack asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jack experiences responds with a positive answer.Jill asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jill experiences responds with a negative answer.What justification can be given for Jack's experience that can't be given for Jill's experience?Jack, your son, likes to poke wires into electrical outlets despite getting shocked several times, because he can't see the connection between sticking the wire in, and getting shocked. He also seems to like to poke small pets with sticks and often runs into the street.Jill your daughter, never ever would poke a wire into an electrical outlet, she loves her pets and is well mannered.Do you treat Jack and Jill the same?Years later, Jack and Jill discuss how they were raised. Jack is angry with you for your not treating him the same as Jill. He feels he never got the warm fuzzys you gave Jill and instead you were stern with himWhat justification can be given for Jack's experience that can't be given for Jill's experience? Edited June 28, 2011 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) nevermind Edited June 28, 2011 by mfbukowski
Montgomery Price Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 What do you mean by "true"?How do you decide who is your "true love"?By true I mean reality, and I see no reason to believe that anything like true love exists. Whatever you mean by that.Why are these questions relevant? Are you going to answer my questions now?
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 That we have a pragmatic reliance on subjective experiences does not establish our subjective experiences as reliable. Simply having or being restricted to subjective experience doesn't establish it as reliable. You may claim that we are missing the greater picture by preferring reliable. objective justifications for our beliefs, but there's nothing about our subjective experiences that suggests they discern what is beyond science any better than science can.Can you see that science is limited to its own context in the world- if it were not- we would not be having this discussion! Can you see that the socio-political institutions had to first consider that Man and God were NOT the center of the universe for Copernicus to make his revolution?I am certain you do not use scientific criteria for deciding which candidate to vote for, why you think that capitalism is good or bad, or if abortion should be illegal.Why can't your beloved science answer these questions?Please answer the question to the best of your ability.
Montgomery Price Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 Oh, so you aren't able to provide examples of religious belief systems that rely upon "spiritual epistemic tests" usefully comparable to Moroni's Promise.So you are obliged to resort to shifting the goal posts.Why am I not surprised?Regards,PahoranWhy do you presume I'm unable when I simply chose not to give a specific example? Why am I not surprised? The example is perfectly valid, and has undoubtedly occurred. There's no reason for you to avoid it.If you want me to start reporting the several incompatible personal experiences of others then we'll just end up having the same conversation. You just seem to want to occupy me with more research when the example I gave is perfectly sufficient. It is indisputable that there are many who deny that Mormonism is the path for them because they believe they've found what is superior through their own personal experience. If you remain insistent, I can go interview my girlfriend's aunt about her vision quest and why she only accepts pagan flavors of belief. Or I can find the Jehovah's Witness who believes with all his heart that he is one of the chosen to be saved because of his experience with God. Or I can find the abductee who spoke to the alien who claimed to be Joseph Smith. Or I can find the believer who asked God whether the mainstream church has fallen into apostasy, and received the answer that another BOM-believing church and different Prophet should be followed. This doesn't change anything because it all falls back to their personal experience. Now, if you'd please respond to question in my previous post. The Jack and Jill example is simple and sufficient. No need to complicate anything further.
Montgomery Price Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 So were is the logical connection that because the both believe in their answers that mean they are really both wrong. Correct me if I am wrong but that sounds like a non-sequitur. It only means that they can't know which is right, and as I'm becoming fond of saying... If we can't know the results of the test to be reliable, why build your house upon the sand?I believe that both answers could be correct and are very much likely correct. You, on the other hand, see this as a contradiction.I'm having trouble fathoming what you could mean by the answer that the BOM is true and false at the same time poses no contradiction.
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) By true I mean reality, and I see no reason to believe that anything like true love exists. Whatever you mean by that.Why are these questions relevant? Are you going to answer my questions now?No, I don't think you would understand the answers, and frankly it would take too long and we have all been over this before. There are many ways of understanding what "reality" is and how we know about it. There are many ways for humans to "be", and the world is a complicated place.Have a good thread and a good break from school- see you next time. I don't mean to be condescending, but seriously, take a course on the philosophy of science and look at Pragmatism and read some Kuhn. Honestly I think it will help you understand this stuff better. I really do like you but I don't have the time right now. Edited June 28, 2011 by mfbukowski
Montgomery Price Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 Jack, your son, likes to poke wires into electrical outlets despite getting shocked several times, because he can't see the connection between sticking the wire in, and getting shocked. He also seems to like to poke small pets with sticks and often runs into the street.Jill your daughter, never ever would poke a wire into an electrical outlet, she loves her pets and is well mannered.Do you treat Jack and Jill the same?Years later, Jack and Jill discuss how they were raised. Jack is angry with you for your not treating him the same as Jill. He feels he never got the warm fuzzys you gave Jill and instead you were stern with himAre you saying that one lacked the prerequisites for proper revelation. What if I said that only proper revelation comes from the belief in several hundred Gods acting in this universe instead of one? What defines which prerequisites we accept as valid? Can you see that science is limited to its own context in the world- if it were not- we would not be having this discussion! Can you see that the socio-political institutions had to first consider that Man and God were NOT the center of the universe for Copernicus to make his revolution?I am certain you do not use scientific criteria for deciding which candidate to vote for, why you think that capitalism is good or bad, or if abortion should be illegal.Why can't your beloved science answer these questions?Please answer the question to the best of your ability. No one has ever claimed that science has no limits. I can answer your irrelevant question after you answer mine. What establishes our spiritual experiences as reliable has nothing to do with whether science can answer questions about our practical lives. Science could possibly have something to say about our spiritual experiences, but even if we find that it can't... this in no way finds you your rock. Spiritual experience remains a foundation of sand, regardless of your views on science, until you demonstrate otherwise. So, please.
Montgomery Price Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 No, I don't think you would understand the answers, and frankly it would take too long and we have all been over this before. There are many ways of understanding what "reality" is and how we know about it. There are many ways for humans to "be", and the world is a complicated place.Have a good thread and a good break from school- see you next time. I don't mean to be condescending, but seriously, take a course on the philosophy of science and look at Pragmatism and read some Kuhn. Honestly I think it will help you understand this stuff better. I really do like you but I don't have the time right now.I'm sorry, but I don't appreciate your hand waving. You seem to think that I can only understand the world in one way, and am not open to alternative ways of understanding. This isn't true, it only seems that way because I don't find any reason to accept the alternatives proposed. I've repeatedly asked for those reasons, and you persist in attempting to explain to me that I need to allow for these alternatives and realize that science can't answer all of our important questions... I am attempting to allow for those alternatives by requesting arguments for their acceptance. I've realized these things long before I ever exchanged words with you. I'm just waiting for you to provide something better.
LeSellers Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) I don't find any reason to accept the alternatives proposed. I've repeatedly asked for those reasons, and you persist in attempting to explain to me that I need to allow for these alternatives and realize that science can't answer all of our important questions... I am attempting to allow for those alternatives by requesting arguments for their acceptance. I've realized these things long before I ever exchanged words with you. I'm just waiting for you to provide something better.While this may be true, the jury is out (unlike the one in O'bama's southside Chicago), it is also true that you will not accept any evidence that does not meet your prequalifications. You are judging the Mona Lisa with a thermometer. Any reading you get will be, by the nature of the objects involved, useless. Lehi Edited June 28, 2011 by LeSellers
Montgomery Price Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 While this may be true, the jury is out (unlike the one in O'bama's southside Chicago), it is also true that you will not accept any evidence that does not meet your prequalifications. You are measuring a painting with a thermometer. Any reading you get will be, by the nature of the objects involved, useless. LehiAnd you will not accept any evidence that does not meet your own prequalifications... What does this prove?If everyone insists that I'm evaluating spiritual experience with the improper tools, then I invite them to provide the proper tools and explain why they can be relied upon. After asking several times, this has yet to happen. Regardless of whether science can answer questions about our spiritual experiences, why should we believe them to be reliable?
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Well here I go violating my own exit rules- let's see how this ONE goes.Are you saying that one lacked the prerequisites for proper revelation. What if I said that only proper revelation comes from the belief in several hundred Gods acting in this universe instead of one? What defines which prerequisites we accept as valid? I am saying that each child needed to learn differently and so were taught differently. Am I supposed to be shocked that there might "be" several hundred Gods acting in this universe? I am not. I actually have no clue what you are talking about in that last question. No one has ever claimed that science has no limits. I can answer your irrelevant question after you answer mine. Well Na na ne na na to you too!What establishes our spiritual experiences as reliable has nothing to do with whether science can answer questions about our practical lives.Of course it does- that is precisely the crux of the issue. We construct our own subjective "reality" which interacts with the objective "reality" we all agree on. Religion teaches us about what generates meaning in our lives and gives us purpose- and it can only be "verified" subjectively by what works for us in our lives.As I said before- that does not mean that "religion is only a feeling"- in a previous post I discussed the fact that it "verifies" for us our beliefs about the world which cannot otherwise be verified. The SIGNIFICANCE of historical events has little to do with historicity actually; when a given battle happened and the raw data associated with it usually has no bearing on the significance or importance of that battle for real human beings, and it is the same with religious events. The First Vision, for example cannot be proven to be historical. Yet I can BELIEVE that it occurred and give that event as much or as little significance as I desire in my life, subjectively. Being a believer or disbeliever comes BEFORE (through subjective experience) data for belief- we all see data based on our beliefs first- even for scientists. The scientific method is to examine the data and then come up with a HYPOTHESIS which supposedly explains the hypothesis.The idea and context come first, the objective results come next. The data are mute- they don't say a word- it is up the the scientist to INTERPRET (give order) to the data.That is essentially what Kuhn is saying- first comes the paradigm, (the belief) and THEN the data is hammered into the paradigm. The cultural context for Copernicus had to exist before the "data" could be seen to fit the paradigm. Notice that is what we call "Occam's razor"- it is an explanation which we invent out of whole cloth which we THEN perceive explains all the data. The explanation comes first, the data then "snaps" into position. Occam said the most simple explanation was the "best"- yet we know the most simple explanation is not always the most true.But the point is that the EXPLANATION comes before we see that the data fits- THEN we decide the explanation must be "true" because it is the most simple- and THAT is what we have pre-decided is important: the moral imperative - unprovable- that the "simplest explanation" is the "best". Science could possibly have something to say about our spiritual experiences, but even if we find that it can't... this in no way finds you your rock. Spiritual experience remains a foundation of sand, regardless of your views on science, until you demonstrate otherwise. So, please.This is only partially articulated, but spiritual experiences are NOT a "foundation of sand" for SPIRITUAL BELIEFS (subjective belief) - but they are a miserable foundation for scientific belief. I hope we can resume the discussion based on you showing some understanding of these principles.
Deborah Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 In what way can you justify Moroni's Promise as reliable without justifying the spiritual experience which led someone to not believe in Jesus Christ?Basic fallacy: the spirit will not lead someone to not believe in Jesus Christ. Anything that leads to that is not of the spirit of God.
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I'm sorry, but I don't appreciate your hand waving. You seem to think that I can only understand the world in one way, and am not open to alternative ways of understanding. This isn't true, it only seems that way because I don't find any reason to accept the alternatives proposed. I've repeatedly asked for those reasons, and you persist in attempting to explain to me that I need to allow for these alternatives and realize that science can't answer all of our important questions... I am attempting to allow for those alternatives by requesting arguments for their acceptance. I've realized these things long before I ever exchanged words with you. I'm just waiting for you to provide something better.It's pretty simple. Subjective experience "verifies" what is true subjectively (ie: personal preferences, what works for me, what I believe to be the case, my sense of self, my sense of freedom, my sense of what is important, my values, why I believe what I believe, whether or not I am hungry or in love or feel a pain in my knee or am depressed or what religious beliefs make my life fulfilling ....... need I continue? Only I can know if I am in love or not or if this religious explanation works better for me than that one.On the other hand, objective experience "verifies" what I THINK (notice that qualification) we can all observe together- the temperature at which water boils, how far away the sun is, if Sputnik exists, how many gallons of water go over Niagara falls.... need I continue? We all can measure and see these things together and see that our experiences match each other. Yep, when I put the thermometer into the boiling water it always reads the same, and you do the same experiment and you get the same results.That is what we mean by "objective".So spiritual stuff gets evaluated by subjective criteria and objective gets evaluated by objective criteriaSo as Lehi has said, you don't put the thermometer on the Mona Lisa to see if she is "beautiful" or not. Doesn't work.So the historicity of the resurrection is one question and how I feel about it is another. It cannot be historically verified- no cameras available- and dubious witnesses with 2 thousand year old data. Not strong science to say the least- not objective at all.Yet if the BELIEF in the resurrection changes my life, gives it meaning, gives me a reason to get out of bed in the morning and cures my depression, I would call that "subjectively true" just as much as it is "true" that I had a pain in my knee last night, and it went away this morning. You cannot know that because you are not inside my head. You cannot know who I love or don't so you cannot know if I am lying when I say "I love your sister"- yet there is truth value there. It is either true or false that I love your sister, it is either true or false that the BELIEF in the resurrection changes my life- it is either true or false that my knee hurt yesterday and now it doesn't.Subjective truth- subjective experienceObjective truth - objective experience.So to say that I am basing my belief in the resurrection on my feelings is wrong. The resurrection either was or was not an historical event- but I CAN say that my BELIEF in the resurrection is based on spiritual expeience. I haven't crossed the divide. Subjective belief verified by subjective evidence.See the difference?Got it?
LeSellers Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 And you will not accept any evidence that does not meet your own prequalifications... What does this prove?It proves (and your response above indicates you do as I claimed), that you are unwilling to accept evidence, however valid, that goes against your preconceptions. Now, you have accused me of doing the same thing. So I ask you, what is it you want to prove to me but which I refuse to employ tools adequate to the task? If everyone insists that I'm evaluating spiritual experience with the improper tools, then I invite them to provide the proper tools and explain why they can be relied upon. After asking several times, this has yet to happen. Regardless of whether science can answer questions about our spiritual experiences, why should we believe them to be reliable?Spiritual tools are the only ones up to the task you pretend to want to do. But you refuse to employ them. How, then, can we show you?As to Moroni's promise, there are three key components. First is faith in Jesus Christ. Second you have to read the Book of Mormon with real intent, and third ask if it is true. I submit that most people who claim to have done so, do none of these things 100%. They pretend that merely reading it is reading with real intent. That praying is enough, without praying to know if it's true. (This one is the easiest, so it's the one most people actually do). And they do it without true faith. But of the three, if we had to rank them according to their impact on the outcome of the trial, I'd say that having "real intent" is the most critical piece, and it's the one that most fail to do. Because, to have real intent, one must do as Lamoni's father did. That prayer is the only one that meets the requirement. "If thou art God, ... I will give away all my sins to know thee." Yes, it's a total commitment before knowing what is required. But that's the standard. If you will not do all He requires, why should he reveal Himself (or the truth of His words)? Were He to do so, it would condemn you, and that is antithetical to His purposes. Lehi
AIT Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Oh, so you aren't able to provide examples of religious belief systems that rely upon "spiritual epistemic tests" usefully comparable to Moroni's Promise.So you are obliged to resort to shifting the goal posts.Why am I not surprised?Regards,PahoranIt seems to me that the Evangelicals definitely rely upon a sort of "spiritual epistemic test". They don't use the phrase: "Gaining A Testimony", or "Receiving A Confirmation" to describe the experience.They call it: "Being Saved"...
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 MontgomeryWhat if your stomach hurts terribly and you go to the doctor and they can find nothing wrong?Are you lying because your subjective experience cannot be verified objectively? What about all those things which only you personally know to be true? What happened behind the woodshed, what you thought about last night etc?Cannot subjective experiences be just as true as ones which can only be objectively verified?
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 It seems to me that the Evangelicals definitely rely upon a sort of "spiritual epistemic test". They don't use the phrase: "Gaining A Testimony", or "Receiving A Confirmation" to describe the experience.They call it: "Being Saved"...Excellent point I have tried to bring up with Mr Bowman on numerous occasions; yet they supposedly do not believe in "ongoing revelation".
Recommended Posts