Why Is Moroni'S Promise, A Mormon Belief, Considered A Valid Epistemic Test Of Mormon Belief?

[Deborah]

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"...

I already essentially said that, but it isn't the same promise as the BOM promise and it usually doesn't require any study; it's a one time, immediate moment that they experience. They go to church and come home and tell everyone how they have been saved because the spirit overwhelmed them. I know many EV's and other Christians who have had this experience and it's nothing like what my experience in the church has been.

[Montgomery Price]

Well here I go violating my own exit rules- let's see how this ONE goes.

Glad to see you stay.

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.

This doesn't resolve anything. They still "learned" incompatible things, and there is still no way to prefer one experience over the other.

Well Na na ne na na to you too!

I explained why the question is irrelevant, and why you should answer my questions because it should help your own purpose...

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.

Yes, religion can attempt to provide purpose, but you haven't explained how we can verify this or how "works for us" establishes our experiences as reliable.

Let me try to make this much simpler. You're missing my point. Now, if you claim science is limited in this area, then so be it. Let's set aside discussion of science, and I will grant for the time being that science can't answer the question of whether our spiritual experiences can be relied upon. Now, accepting this in now way establishes what I have asked you to explain over and over again. What alternative reasons do you propose establish our experiences as reliable?

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.

How does this verification happen? What about it convinces you that it's reliable?

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.

You're not adding anything significant to the discussion. You're just rambling.

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.

More rambling. Let's advance the discussion. Again, given all of what you insist on explaining... How can we know that our spiritual experiences are reliable?

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".

You don't seem to understand Occam's razor. It's not the simplest explanation, but the explanation with the least amount of unwarranted assumptions. I still don't know why you're bringing any of this up...

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.

I understand them, and again... I don't see how they are relevant to my question. You're not explaining it very well, apparently. You can claim that I can't provide an account of spiritual experience as a follower of "Scientism" might, but regardless, you're still left with the task of establishing them as reliable independent of what science has to say about anything. Please, establish.

[Montgomery Price]

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.

Deborah, I'm sorry. But this is just comical. It's not a fallacy. It's your preconceived belief based on what is in question. How you established that the spirit will not lead anyone to believe in Jesus Christ is the same way someone of a different faith might establish that their own supernatural guide will never lead someone to believe in Jesus Christ.

They can turn this "fallacy" around on you:

"[insert non-Christian God] will not lead someone to believe in Jesus Christ. Anything that leads to that is not of [insert non-Christian God]."

You're missing the basic point of my objection.

[CV75]

There can be contradictions between the results acquired from Moroni's Promise and say, the divinations of a mystic. How can you prefer a personal experience specific to the doctrines and revelations of Mormonism (such as the directions given in Moroni's Promise) over any other claim that similar personal experience gained spiritual knowledge of what can't be considered Mormon doctrine or revelation?

Of course there would be contradictions between the results coming from applying two diametrically opposed methods. The justification for Moroni's Promise relates to God's mercy; the justification for mystical divination does not. One method is how to love God, the other is how to disregard Him. Moroni's promise will lead to one set of personal spiritual experiences, and mystical divination to another. If a mystical divination could ever lead one to conclude that the Book of Mormon is true, it is not by the power of the Holy Ghost (just as those who misapply the promise do not receive a witness by the power of the Holy Ghost).

[Montgomery Price]

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.

This only establishes what you experience. It doesn't make your subjective experiences reliable.

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".

Why are you explaining this to me? I already understand. Why won't you simply answer my question?

So spiritual stuff gets evaluated by subjective criteria and objective gets evaluated by objective criteria

So, walk me through the evaluation that has led you to believe your spiritual experiences can be relied upon. It's a simple request. All you've done so far is put quote marks around "verified".

So 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.

For the last time, I have already granted that there are some tools that may not work for our discussion. Now, what tools do establish that she is beautiful, and how did you arrive at this conclusion?

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.

That value you hold doesn't establish the belief as a reliable representation of reality at all. Do you know what I mean by reliable? I don't mean whether it reliably provides meaning to your life. Anything can provide meaning to your life if it "works for you", but it doesn't mean that the supposed source of this meaning is accurate. What establishes it as reliably accurate?

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 experience

Objective 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?

This is becoming tiring. Please, stop wasting your words. I could recognize the difference before you explained. This is becoming demeaning.

Montgomery

What 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?

Funny. I've actually been in the hospital for the past week struggling with Crohn's disease. Sitting in my little hotel right now. I was in this exact situation 10 months ago, when they were attempting to diagnose me. For the first month or two we couldn't figure it out, but after testing and evaluation, it was concluded that I did have Crohn's. It is still true, however, that we don't know why Crohn's disease happens, but we have our educated guesses. The fact that a cause has not been discovered doesn't negate any possible cause, it just means we can't definitively say what that cause is.

So, to answer your question:

Subjective experiences can be just as true as ones that can only be objectively verified, but we still must establish good reasons for believing our subjective experiences to be reliable.

[Pahoran]

Why do you presume I'm unable when I simply chose not to give a specific example?

You mean, apart from the fact that you have repeatedly asserted that such examples are available to you? And that you chose to start this thread on this topic, and to construct your argument as you did? And that it is the expected usage on this forum, when asked to support your assertions, you do so?

Why am I not surprised?

As to that, I'd rather not speculate.

The example is perfectly valid, and has undoubtedly occurred. There's no reason for you to avoid it.

If you're referring to your smug "Jack and Jill" hypothetical, I'm sure you think it is valid for some purpose or other. But given that it does not answer the question I asked, it appears to be a red herring. As such, I see no reason to be distracted by 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.

I refer you to your earlier assertion:

What matters is that Moroni's Promise can't be preferred over any other spiritual epistemic tests that have lead others to differing and often incompatible conclusions.

Thus Monty. Now, given your prejudicial view of us as "gullible" and "credulous," you might have written that, expecting us to merely accept your pontifical verdict. I, however, am challenging that verdict, and would like to see the evidence upon which it is based.

And I am satisfied that you have no such evidence. Therefore, the conclusion is that there are no such "spiritual epistemic tests" as you seem to merely assume exist.

You just seem to want to occupy me with more research when the example I gave is perfectly sufficient.

Sorry Monty, but the suffiency of your hypothetical example for your interlocutors is just not for you to say. I, personally, find Moroni's Promise to be entirely sufficient for me, and find this kind of cavil utterly unconvincing; but if I were to be so arrogant as to insist that what is sufficient for me is therefore sufficient for everyone else, you would object, and rightly so, that I was being frightfully arrogant about it.

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.

Well, duh!

Oddly enough, nobody has disputed that.

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.

Yes, I do remain insistent. I would like to discuss these in detail. I would like to examine, carefully, just what they regard as the sources of their conviction and compare them with Moroni's Promise.

That is just what I am looking for, in fact.

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.

Read that back to yourself, aloud. Do you even begin to grasp how arrogant it sounds?

Mere hypotheticals aren't good enough. Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

One test justifies the other, and each has an internal and logical structure that justifies their reliability. So, you should have no problem explaining logically why I should believe any one of the tests actually produces results that can be relied upon.

Assuming that I understand you correctly, then on a practical level, it isn't a matter of logic, but rather something that one may or may not accept at face value depending upon one's spiritual paradigm.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Montgomery Price]

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.

And there is no problem with this as long as my prequalifications are reasonable to hold.

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?

I was only pointing out that what you said doesn't matter. I have no interest in accusing you of having unreasonable prequalifications until you present them.

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?

You can try and convince me why the spiritual tools are reliable. It's frustratingly difficult to even get someone to try. Of course spiritual tools are "up to the task", but do they remain standing after evaluation?

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

Again, you're making the same mistake as many others on this board. Explaining how the source in question claims you should take the test has, in no way, established the test as reliable. Until you explain why the instructions demonstrate that the results can be relied upon, they're just instructions for something we can't verify.

[Montgomery Price]

Assuming that I understand you correctly, then on a practical level, it isn't a matter of logic, but rather something that one may or may not accept at face value depending upon one's spiritual paradigm.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then what is the best way to discern which spiritual paradigm is to be preferred?

Edited June 29, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[LeSellers]

you're making the same mistake as many others on this board. Explaining how the source in question claims you should take the test has, in no way, established the test as reliable. Until you explain why the instructions demonstrate that the results can be relied upon, they're just instructions for something we can't verify.

And that is your roadblock.

You want absolute proof it is reliable, but you won't make the effort to try. When you know, you know.

Lehi

[Montgomery Price]

Of course there would be contradictions between the results coming from applying two diametrically opposed methods. The justification for Moroni's Promise relates to God's mercy; the justification for mystical divination does not. One method is how to love God, the other is how to disregard Him. Moroni's promise will lead to one set of personal spiritual experiences, and mystical divination to another. If a mystical divination could ever lead one to conclude that the Book of Mormon is true, it is not by the power of the Holy Ghost (just as those who misapply the promise do not receive a witness by the power of the Holy Ghost).

You're only explaining how within the Mormon paradigm, one method is superior. Well, of course. Within the mystic's paradigm, Moroni's Promise is equally as useless for discovering the mystic's truths as you believe the mystic is for verifying the BOM. So what? This doesn't resolve the problem of which to choose, because as you agree is obvious... they both give different results, but you've still given no reason to prefer one method or result over the other.

[Montgomery Price]

And that is your roadblock.

You want absolute proof it is reliable, but you won't make the effort to try. When you know, you know.

Lehi

Does it make you feel better to whimsically assume I want absolute proof? I want someone to try a little harder than "When you know, you know." These sort of fuzzy, self-serving phrases are terribly weak, yet there all most have in response to questioning. Even if you have to dig it out of all the unnecessary attempts at spiritual guidance that are inevitably wrapped around every discussion of Moroni's Promise...

What exactly am I excluding, and why am I unreasonable in excluding it.

[KevinG]

One issue with trying to explain the promises in Moroni and James is that the single moment of epiphany (sometimes described as "I know when I know" or "a feeling" doesn't really do the gifts of the Spirit justice.

Moroni and James were talking about a specific witnes of a specific knowledge... In my experience the gifts of the Spirit are much more complex and comprehensive.

D&C 46 has a much more comprehensive list of these gifts and manifestations of the Spirit. I think it behooves us to rememer the broader scope of spiritual gifts and not limit ourselves to a single event or epiphany. I beleive that this line of thinking can cheat us of the richer and more complex knowledge of the blessings and gifts we can receive from God.

D&C 46:7But ye are commanded in all things to ^aask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all ^bholiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, ^cconsidering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and ^dthanksgiving, that ye may not be ^eseduced by evil ^fspirits, or doctrines of devils, or the ^gcommandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.

8Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived ^aseek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;

9For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a ^asign that they may ^bconsume it upon their lusts.

10And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your ^aminds what those ^bgifts are, that are given unto the church.

11For all have not every ^agift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

12To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.

13To some it is given by the ^aHoly Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14To others it is given to ^abelieve on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

15And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the ^adifferences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his ^bmercies according to the conditions of the children of men.

16And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the ^aSpirit may be given to every man to profit withal.

17And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of ^awisdom.

18To another is given the word of ^aknowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge.

19And again, to some it is given to have ^afaith to be healed;

20And to others it is given to have faith to ^aheal.

21And again, to some is given the working of ^amiracles;

22And to others it is given to ^aprophesy;

23And to others the ^adiscerning of spirits.

24And again, it is given to some to speak with ^atongues;

25And to another is given the interpretation of tongues.

26And all these ^agifts come from God, for the benefit of the ^bchildren of God.

There are many reasons (other than lack of faith or sin) why a witness may not be delivered when first asked for. I know meny members who after years of desiring such a witness have had to take their walk of faith without that sigular moment. The fact that they are still obedient and even still asking (questioning) should be reason for admiration.

[Xander]

We are, at the behest of the mods, all trying really really really really really hard to be nice to you

You could have fooled me.

and that despite the fact that, instead of making the slightest effort at reciprocating, you are milking your "invited" status to the utmost.

How so? This thread interests me.I've shared my own story as it pertains to the subject at hand.What's the problem, aside from your inability to address my post in a faith-promoting manner? You know you're not going to get any softball pitches with me, so I understand your need to get rid of me as soon as possible. But if this happens it will be because the Mods have rescinded their invitation, not because you managed to bully me out. I've had very cordial discussion about this topic with many a Mormon. But for some reason some LDS folks on the internet are hypersensitive when former members share their experience with the "testimony confirmation." Why is your experience sacred and mine some form of "malice"? Why is yours legitimate and mine not genuine? Because it has to be?

I recommend, therefore, that you do not make yourself the subject of any discussion

I haven't. The discussion is about the validity of the Mormon method of determining truth. I didn't start this thread or this topic. Nothing I have said is off topic. If you have a problem with the topic, then you should take your concerns to the mods and not come complain to me because you don't like me sharing my perspective on the topic at hand. But consider your intolerance for other perspectives, noted.

Leading with the chin is a really bad idea, especially when your glass jaw goes all the way to the back of your skull.

Does such petulant rhetoric really pass for wit and score you apologetic points on this forum? If you cannot address my points, questions or evidence, then trying to poison the well with me isn't doing yourself any favors.

[ldsfaqs]

The epistemic test proposed by Mormonism is not exempt from justification, yet it seems often taken for granted. In fact, I haven't heard a conversion story yet that didn't simply presume the test as valid, before using it to test whether Mormonism is valid.

This is not to say that more substantial conversions stories exist... but to wonder is it not problematic that a great number of Mormons clearly overlooked the need to justify the basis of their conversion?

This is not to say that the justification does not exist, for I'm sure many here won't hesitate to provide justification soon enough... but to wonder if a believing Mormon failed to justify their conversion, are they rewarded for their credulity?

It's undisputed that these sorts of blind conversions have taken place. I think it is then required that blind faith be justified in order for a Mormon worldview to appear consistent.

But if we attempt to justify it, we should remember that Mormon doctrine prescribes a straight and narrow path, distinguishing itself as the best option among several. Declared revelation must obviously be given careful attention in comparison to other faiths. If the justification can be equally applied to a path that simply differs from the Plan of Salvation, then we are still left with an inconsistency. The argument cannot justify the optimal path and one or more non-optimal paths equally. This leaves no way to determine revealed doctrine as the superior, revealed path it is presumed to be. For this reason, the justification must be specific to Mormon doctrine.

No Faith of anyone is "blind". Everyones faith is built on some sort of evidences, degrees thereof, and level of accuracy.

No Mormon simply prays, and then they are converted. The read, they study, they learn, they listen, they observe, they compare this new thing with past experiences, etc.

Prayer is simply an important component to be led and inspired by God, not leaning solely on our own intellects. Involving God inspires and informs, allows us to see and understand things, that doing on our own will not always bring, especially in a timely manner. How many atheists out there just give up on seeking if there is a True Church, simply because there are so many competing ideas and Churches? When God is involved, sparks and enlightenment can happen. I know, because it's happened to me many times, even in my own reconversion to the Church. If it wasn't for my true faith, there would have been no miracle.

Does Moroni's Promise require justification as a reliable epistemic test?

Yes, there is always some justification.

If it does, what is it and how do you explain the credulous, unjustified acceptance of Moroni's Promise by a significant number of Mormons?

I would strongly disagree with your premise, see above. Most normal people understand that they are not simply "accepting" the promise, for the promise is built upon certain requirements, thus not alone. And what acceptance there is, is in recognition of the fact that we are to take all things to God, beyond ourselves, so as to be taught.

If it does not, and you accept that blind faith and the credulous conversions of others are somehow valid, what explains the use of blind faith as conversion specifically to Mormonism?

Again, there is no such thing as "blind" faith. The question is depth, evidences, and reliability. Mormonism has the highest degrees of all three, even perfectly so, hence one of many reasons why I'm a Mormon. I've deeply compared, and experienced, and it's the real deal.

[wenglund]

Then what is the best way to discern which spiritual paradigm is to be preferred?

Ask God in faith to guide and direct you (James 1:5).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 29, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

For the last time, I have already granted that there are some tools that may not work for our discussion. Now, what tools do establish that she is beautiful, and how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Are you serious? You want objective criteria for establishing that the Mona Lisa is beautiful?

I can't help you. Sorry.

Experience IS reality- it is not something which is or is not "reliable". Experiences verify propositions. How do you know any experiences are reliable? How do you know the thermometer really says what the boiling temperature of water is?

I hope your disease gets better and wish you well.

[elguanteloko]

Experience IS reality- it is not something which is or is not "reliable". Experiences verify propositions. How do you know any experiences are reliable? How do you know the thermometer really says what the boiling temperature of water is?

Problem is, mf, that within that "experience" or "reality" (however you choose to name it) some things are more justified than others. Saying that 2+2=5 is not justifiable through the best methods we see. Things like beauty, color, taste, etc are not what one questions when non-believers question believers. Within that world of 'experiences' or 'reality' you have wrong reasons like "my computer broke down because I smoked yesterday 100 miles away from it". WITHIN that word of experience you have wrong reasons and you have right reasons. Saying that something caused or gave rise to your feelings when we can do much more reliable tests to see if that is likely to be correct, is irresponsible.

Edited June 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[mfbukowski]

Subjective experiences can be just as true as ones that can only be objectively verified, but we still must establish good reasons for believing our subjective experiences to be reliable.

You put the cart before the horse.

Subjective experience defines what we believe- not the other way around. Your obsessive need for "reliability" is in fact a subjective need and a subjective value

You want objective criteria for establishing what is "beautiful"? You can't figure out what you like or don't like for yourself? You need to verify that "Chocolate tastes good", and that in fact that subjective experience may NOT be "reliable"?

No, I am not in a position to help you with that.

Relax and avoid stress. It's bad for your health.

Why do you think I brought up stomach pain? It was not coincidence.

[mfbukowski]

Montgomery

How do you personally know what you like, anyway? How do you know for sure?

What if you're wrong? Does that bother you? After all, you want subjective experience to be "reliable"!

Do you see how absurd that sounds?

[mfbukowski]

What exactly am I excluding, and why am I unreasonable in excluding it.

You are excluding knowing your own mind and what makes you content in life, and sticking to it. You are excluding creating your own version of what is real and important in life instead of parroting scientism to the point of absurdity- of not knowing what you want for yourself without someone else's view of what is "reliable".

Is any of this getting through? I am concerned about you!

[Xander]

Again, there is no such thing as "blind" faith. The question is depth, evidences, and reliability. Mormonism has the highest degrees of all three, even perfectly so, hence one of many reasons why I'm a Mormon. I've deeply compared, and experienced, and it's the real deal.

What is reliable about the "pray and know" method? By what metric are you using to assert that it is reliable? Simply because it worked for you? In any other context, reliability would be determined by frequency of success. So shouldn't the fact that this method usually results in no answer or a negative answer, say something about its reliability?

For example, scientific methods yield certain degrees of success. This method adopted by Mormons yields an unknown rate of success.

If I pray to know if something is true, can I test its reliability? Should I be able to test the reliability before accepting it as reliable?

For example, why can't someone just pray about anything to know if it is true?

If someone has three cards with three different shapes, and holds one in front of my blindfolded eyes, shouldn't I be able to pray and ask God which shape it is? Shouldn't we be able to test it in this way before trusting our mind to interpret the chemical reactions in our body that produce this "knowledge" as God's attempt to communicate to us? The Bible does say, after all, we can know the truth of all things, so why is it limited to strictly to knowing if a Book, a Prophet or a Church is true? So it seems that I should be able to test the prayer method and then record the hits and misses to determine a level of reliability.

And what do we do with the millions of folks who pray and receive answers to the contrary? Do their test results not count at all?

[mfbukowski]

Problem is, mf, that within that "experience" or "reality" (however you choose to name it) some things are more justified than others. Saying that 2+2=5 is not justifiable through the best methods we see. Things like beauty, color, taste, etc are not what one questions when non-believers question believers. Within that world of 'experiences' or 'reality' you have wrong reasons like "my computer broke down because I smoked yesterday 100 miles away from it". WITHIN that word of experience you have wrong reasons and you have right reasons. Saying that something caused or gave rise to your feelings when we can do much more reliable tests to see if that is likely to be correct, is irresponsible.

I don't do that and neither does anybody else. Hume convinced me there were no "causes" anyway. You are still stuck with the correspondence theory of truth and will not even try to read up on any other view.

"Things" do not "give rise" to feelings as if there are "things" which are separate from experiences. All we can talk about are experiences- that's all there is- experience and talk about it. No correspondence, nothing else is knowable.

I can tell you are not doing your homework!

[mfbukowski]

It's clear to me this is coming down to personality types.

Either you get it or you don't.

[elguanteloko]

I don't do that and neither does anybody else. Hume convinced me there were no "causes" anyway.

You can say that, that's fine, but we are speaking in the same sense science uses the term. When trying to see what brings forth lung cancer or causes lung cancer or however you want to name that, we are speaking of not a more confusing relationship. Does mercury "cause" cancer? Research seems to point strongly to a correlation so as to take VERY careful measures. It is in this sense that I'm speaking of when I say that what is in question is what "causes" so-called spiritual experiences. Is a God producing them the most parsimonious explanation? Doesn't seem to me that it is, call it cause, call it however you may.

You are still stuck with the correspondence theory of truth and will not even try to read up on any other view.

Not at all. My view of truth is completely pragmatic. Justification and usefulness are concepts I use have in mind when speaking of truth. Even in a pragmatic sense, mf, we can speak of relationships the results of which points to some methods of inquiry being more trust-worthy than other ones. Once again, I'm using "cause" with the same pragmatic justification than any one studying the "causes" of skin cancer is using. You can reject the concept if you want, but pragmatically we can speak using it and you know what I'm talking about. If the doctor says you need to stop smoking because you'll die soon if you don't, that isn't the time to say "well, Hume said that causation...".

"Things" do not "give rise" to feelings as if there are "things" which are separate from experiences.

I never said they were "separate from experiences", you are forming yourself a huge strawman of what I'm actually saying. I specifically said that WITHIN OUR EXPERIENCES there are good justifications, bad justifications, and better justifications. The "God" explanation or justification for why we have what we call religious experiences is NOT the most parsimonious and not the most likely to be correct because it isn't the best justified.

All we can talk about are experiences- that's all there is- experience and talk about it. No correspondence, nothing else is knowable.

Again, I was speaking of WITHIN OUR EXPERIENCES and of the justifications that take place WITHIN OUR EXPERIENCES.

I can tell you are not doing your homework!

just quit the strawman, mf, and read carefully what I'm typing. I'm using a completely pragmatic approach to the problem and I know you have no problem with it. Hume's attack on causation is impervious to the pragmatic use of it. Even he had to use it to go to his pub of choice and to condemn books on metaphysics to the flames.

If you want to place another standard for confirming the existence of a PHYSICAL God, then please explain why that should be the case. We are not speaking of feelings of beauty, or of fulfillment. We are speaking of a PHYSICAL God who is said to have PHYSICAL effects on the world around us. How doesn't that fall within the purview of science?

Edited June 29, 2011 by elguanteloko