Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[Ahab]

You're still reasoning in a circle. Let me clean up what you wrote:

M: How do you determine that God is the source of your experience?

A: I know God is the source of my experience because of my intimate relationship with God.

M: But others report intimate relationships with God which they believe establish beliefs contradictory to your own.

A: I don't care, because I trust in my relationship with God.

What you fail to realize, Ahab, is that to call attention to the reports of personal relationships with God which contradict your own is to question that the experience of having a relationship with God is sufficient to accept each of the elements of your perceived relationship.

No, the fact that others say God has told them something that contradicts what God has told me doesn't cause me to question my own relationship with God. It causes me to question theirs, but not mine, because I know I am hearing from God.

So to respond to this objection by appealing to the experience in question, you miss the point of my objection.

If your point is to say that I should question my own relationship with God because other people say God has told them something which contradicts what God has told me, then I have already told you why that isn't a problem for me.

That is what I understand your point to be, and I have already shot it down enough to feel no need to do so again.

[mfbukowski]

Never mind.

Edited July 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[HeatherAnn]

Thinking about it a little more, maybe I can clarify it a little better. I am certain that the subjective experience is coming from "outside": - ie- I will "receive" thoughts I would never come up with on my own, I will have sudden feelings which seem "out of the blue"- with nothing I can do to account for why I would suddenly feel that sense of peace, or knowledge, or know to call someone on the phone etc.

The feeling comes with a sense of great certainty that it is from "outside", but in moments of doubt, I can say to myself "Oh- come on- you just came up with that yourself". Not at the time, but afterwards etc.

But when I feel that doubt, I think about it and it is clear that it doesn't matter "where" those thoughts came from at all- I would change nothing about my beliefs, about the way I live, etc BECAUSE of the level of doubt I have at that moment of doubt.

It is simply the best way I know how to live which makes me happiest regardless of anything else.

So am I "mistaken" about the thoughts coming from "outside"? In moments of doubt I cannot be sure- but while they are happening there is no possibility of doubting them. They are what they are.

But even in moments of certainty- I know that those thoughts are coming from a place of incredible peace and love and beauty. Does that mean that the "source" is "God"? Can't know for sure- but "where" ever it is, I would not mind being there forever. It's like a window opens up to another place where I would love to be forever to feel that feeling forever.

That says it better than I did above.

This was inspiring, Mf!

Truth is important - & it can help in healing, yet sometimes when truth is limited to logic, it can be anything but healing.

We are here to have joy - so let's! Why get all worked up about the logical process of spirituality - which isn't logical.

We'll never understand many things - but's that's ok.

Belief is powerful - so since we ARE going to fill in the gaps, we might as well make it work for us rather than against us.

I believe that depending on our thoughts & feelings, we resonate with related spiritual energies... hense, "many mansions."

I believe that although we are responsible & are empowered for ourselves, we also have potential spiritual help around us (in body & spirit).

Edited July 28, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[HeatherAnn]

Frustrated? No?

Does my tone make me seem frustrated?

But do I notice this misleading rhetoric... yes, I do.

(1) A religious experience can carry with it a self-authenticating quality or "stamp" which validates certain religious truth claims and invalidate others.

(2) It is reported that many different "stamps" have validated contradictory religious truths.

(3) Therefore, all relevant "stamps" cannot each be genuine.

(4) Because there has been no way provided to reliably determine whether a "stamp" is genuine, we have no standard to determine that any truth which purports to be verified by those relevant "stamps" actually is.

(5) Mormonism makes claims to truth which purport to be verified by these "stamps" which are in question.

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Mormonism, as verified by those "stamps" in question, must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

Put simply, if you accept that an experience can be self-authenticating, then you must allow this standard to others who report experience which contradict Mormonism. This establishes that someone can think their experience is self-authenticating, when the sense of self-authentication is actually an illusion. I don't mean that the contradiction invalidate your experience or others, I'd just like to know why you are sure that your sense of self-authentication is genuine while others are illusions?

I'm not sure if I understand you, so correct me (as niceley as possible) if not.

The LDS church acts like a democracy (admittedly - somewhat rote - when everyone votes but they're not counted lol). Leaders pray for inspiration & apply it to their stewardship - consulting with each other. Mormonism teaches that individuals are entitled to personal revelation, UNIQUE to them & their circumstances.

Each person views truth uniquely. You know, the story about the blind villiagers being blocked in the road by something they weren't sure what it was. Each felt a part - one, the trunk, one felt the tusks, another felt the skin, one an ear & another the tail. Each believed it to be something unique - not until they compared experiences, did they realize it was an elephant.

Generally... truth is in perspective, the more perspectives, the more truthful.

What do you mean, "why you are sure that your sense of self-authentication is genuine while others are illusions?"

Have you been reading my other writings lol - I've written a lot about illusions - how everything is illusion - including me saying that everything is illusion!

Our perspective is limited, so we can't help but think illusionally - yet, there are more healthy & inspiring illusions than others... Still, all illusions need to be filtered through common sense.

Basically, what I was trying to explain before through my personal contradictory experience - is that I realized I was fooling myself! I was aware of my lack of awareness, lol. I realized I was interpreting the spiritual feeling to mean what I wanted it to mean. We don't always know what spiritual feelings mean - we do our best to guess & learn through trial & error. Progress is what's important - so one way or the other, we'll learn & hopefully enjoy... & that's important.

Edited July 28, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for indulging me. I'm trying to understand your viewpoint. You use subjective/objective a little differently that I would. In my opinion: subjective things (interpretations, standards, feelings) only exist in the mind, whereas objective things (persons, objects, events) allegedly exist outside of ourselves.

Yes and no- think about it- those things you say are in your mind- can I see them? Can you show them to me? No, because they are in YOUR mind.

If you can show something to me, then we can both experience it- and the fact that we can both experience it is what makes it "objective". We sometimes speak of it being "in the world" but when you think about it, what you are really saying is that it is "co-experienceable" - a word I just made up. If we were in a room together, and saw a pink elephant, we would turn to each other and say "Did you see that?"

Why? Because we want to know if the other person saw it also- making it somewhat "objective." I say somewhat because now we go tell others that we saw a pink elephant- and what will be the response? "Oh yeah? SHOW ME!"- That is the position Joseph and Oliver were in.

If we can actually show them, it becomes truly objective. If we can call in the scientists- and they verify that the elephant is not painted or altered- we have perhaps discovered a new species.

The more possible observations one can make- the more people can corroborate the experience- the more "objective" the thing becomes. Big Foot? Space Aliens? Some say they have seen them- but we don't believe precisely because only a few people have reported them as "existing". All that word "existing" means is that many people have seen (experienced in some way ) the thing

Why do you believe that the existence of the Eiffel Tower is verified even if it can be experienced by more than one person at the same time? Are you saying that multiple witness of something is enough justification to say that thing exists? Even though multiple people are allegedly viewing the same thing at the same time, aren't we all still stuck with our subjective interpretations of what we are seeing?

Hopefully we have answered that. But yes, we are still stuck in our own "subjective" viewpoint which we can never escape. The only criterion we have for what is "objective" is other's corroboration.

But that is the whole point. We are always stuck in our own subjective worlds- it is where we live and where every decision we make "is"- it is where we fall in love and decide to eat a cookie, or have a pain in the knee. And sometimes we get feelings we describe as "God" speaking to us etc. We use those feelings to create our own worlds, base decisions on them, etc. just as much as we base decisions on how we think, our values, how we were raised, what our mothers did or did not do to us in childhood etc. Are those things "real"? Of course! They have to be! We live our lives in the subjective- making decisions and doing all we do. Everything that is real to us- even sitting here reading this- or typing- is happening in our subjective state!

So how do we distinguish what we all can talk about? We can only talk about what is "objective" the very act of "putting it into words" defines the experience into language- cuts it chops it up, selects portions and objectifies it, and then puts it "out there" into the objective where others can experience some shadow of our personal subjective world. But it is a shadow- an edited and interpreted chunk of the whole of what is "real" to us- our personal experience of subjectivity. What is "real" to us is IN HERE- not what we can express objectively.

Would you give both of these statements equal epistemic validity:

1. My stomach aches because evil telekinetic aliens caused it to ache.

2. My stomach aches because I ate something bad for lunch.

Not quite sure what you mean or how to answer that one! I would go by the most likely answer. I haven't had an alien encounter, nor do I think it is likely to ever happen. If I had just had an alien encounter an hour before my stomach hurt, maybe it would be most reasonable to go with 1.

The point though is which I would choose would depend on the context- the choice would be situational, if that helps any, depending on the context of what made sense at the time

Edited July 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

No, the fact that others say God has told them something that contradicts what God has told me doesn't cause me to question my own relationship with God. It causes me to question theirs, but not mine, because I know I am hearing from God.

If your point is to say that I should question my own relationship with God because other people say God has told them something which contradicts what God has told me, then I have already told you why that isn't a problem for me.

That is what I understand your point to be, and I have already shot it down enough to feel no need to do so again.

You still don't understand. Please, read very carefully. It seems that you're skimming over most of what I write.

Again, when I call attention to the individual experiences of others, I am not asking you to respond directly to their claim as you have continually misunderstood. By calling attention to their experiences, I am establishing that one can experience elements of a relationship with God which are not in fact from God. I'm raising a question about that category of experience.

In doing this, I am identifying the report of your experience as included in this questionable category.

That question being:

By what standard do you determine that the elements of a perceived relationship are of God?

In response to this objection, you simply refer to those elements in question, without explanation. You respond to the individual experiences, not my question about the category. It is clear that, given your premise that God does in fact speak to you, you are correct to reject the claims of others when they are proposed as negating your experience. What you fail to understand is that I am not proposing those claims as negating your experience, I am questioning the premise you assume in response to this proposal.

When I ask the question, "By what standard do you determine that the elements of a perceived relationship are of God?"

To respond, "because I know I am hearing from God," does not explain anything relevant to my question. You're "shooting down" a straw-man. Every standard you've offered presumes the elements of your relationship are of God and doesn't explain how you've determined this. Ahan, you are cleary reasoning in circles.

To other posters: Am I not explaining this well enough? Can anyone help me help Ahab out?

[wenglund]

Then the response isn't relevant to my argument, which concerns whether we can accurately determine the source of our experiences.

It was relevant to the specific question you asked me ("By what standard do we prefer one spiritual experience over a contradictory experience?"). Notice that your question is asking about preference, not accuracy. Note that it is also asking about the spiritual experiences, themselves, and not the source thereof. Please try to do a better job of accurately following the line of discussion.

Let me rephrase:

Before learning the secret, you are justified in making the determination that your experience originated in some source beyond your conscious will, and this is enough to reject the claims of your classmates.

The determination you are not justified in making at this time is what exactly that source is. This requires something additional. There's nothing about your experience, in and of itself, which establishes that some rare genetic trait is the source of your experience.

Perhaps.

However, your point is extraneous to what was going through my mind and likely the minds of my fellow students at the time. We weren't engaged in an esoteric philosophical debate regarding the "source" of subjective experiences. Rather, we were practically disputing whether I was faking or not.

So, if you wish to tangentially press your point regarding the 'source" of subjective experiences, you will need to use a different example since it doesn't very well fit mine. As it turns out, I went ahead and did this for you. See my Beethoven scenario above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

It appears the question is how do we "trust" our preferences.

For me, that really makes no sense whatsoever. You prefer what you prefer. It is an innate part of you.

Can one preference be more "accurate" than another? Only in the sense that you REALLY like chocolate cheesecake better than either chocolate or cheesecake separately.

But is chocolate more "true" than cheesecake?

The real problem here is: Is it a preference, or is it some "true" state of the world "out there"- the "source" of the preference.

Or maybe more psychological? How can we trust our preferences?

[Montgomery Price]

I'm not sure if I understand you, so correct me (as niceley as possible) if not.

The LDS church acts like a democracy (admittedly - somewhat rote - when everyone votes but they're not counted lol). Leaders pray for inspiration & apply it to their stewardship - consulting with each other. Mormonism teaches that individuals are entitled to personal revelation, UNIQUE to them & their circumstances.

Each person views truth uniquely. You know, the story about the blind villiagers being blocked in the road by something they weren't sure what it was. Each felt a part - one, the trunk, one felt the tusks, another felt the skin, one an ear & another the tail. Each believed it to be something unique - not until they compared experiences, did they realize it was an elephant.

Generally... truth is in perspective, the more perspectives, the more truthful.

What do you mean, "why you are sure that your sense of self-authentication is genuine while others are illusions?"

Have you been reading my other writings lol - I've written a lot about illusions - how everything is illusion - including me saying that everything is illusion!

Our perspective is limited, so we can't help but think illusionally - yet, there are more healthy & inspiring illusions than others... Still, all illusions need to be filtered through common sense.

Basically, what I was trying to explain before through my personal contradictory experience - is that I realized I was fooling myself! I was aware of my lack of awareness, lol. I realized I was interpreting the spiritual feeling to mean what I wanted it to mean. We don't always know what spiritual feelings mean - we do our best to guess & learn through trial & error. Progress is what's important - so one way or the other, we'll learn & hopefully enjoy... & that's important.

I'll run with the elephant analogy.

My objection is to point out that even though we may all be trying to find the same elephant or truth, we should be terribly confused by our experiences and the reports of others.

Even though everyone experiences a different part of the elephant, everyone claims that their experience is the more accurate representation of the elephant. Everyone else is experiencing the less complete picture, and I've found the key parts the elephant cares about the most (temple ordinances, BofM, priesthood, etc.).

Even though everyone experiences a different part of the elephant, many claim that their experience of this part (Jesus is the Savior) means that it is impossible for someone else to experience that part (Jesus is not the Savior) and anyone who reports this contrary experience is being deceived.

Because the individual experiences contradict, the category of experience is called into question.

That question being, "How do we determine that our experience is reliable and not an illusion?"

When asked how a believer has determined that their experience is reliable, they answer by saying, "the elephant told me how to determine this, and I trust him." The mistake is that this response clearly presumes the premise in question.

The response you've given to this objection is that your experience is somehow self-authenticating, and therefore not an illusion. My argument is that this is no better justification for your experience than for contrary experiences. Others believe their experiences which lead them to deny Christ are self-authenticating, as well.

So now the issue becomes, how do we determine which feelings of self-authentication are real and which are illusions. This is exactly what I meant when I asked, "why you are sure that your sense of self-authentication is genuine while others are illusions?"

[mfbukowski]

Thought I'd throw this into the stew, it's a good summary:

1) The contingency of language

Here, Rorty argues that all language is contingent. This is because only descriptions of the world can be true or false, and descriptions are made by humans who must make truth or falsity, as opposed to truth or falsity being determined by any innate property of the world being described. Green grass is not true or false, but "the grass is green" is. For example, I can say that 'the grass is green' and you could agree with that statement, but our use of the words to describe grass is independent of the grass itself. Without the human proposition, truth or falsity is simply irrelevant. Rorty consequently argues that all discussion of language in relation to reality should be abandoned, and that one should instead discuss vocabularies in relation to other vocabularies.

http://en.wikipedia...._and_Solidarity

In other words, no "sources".

This says it so much better than I have.

Edited July 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Even though everyone experiences a different part of the elephant, everyone claims that their experience is the more accurate representation of the elephant.

No

That's the entire point. The only one doing that here is YOU!

We are saying it is your preference to pick how you want to see the elephant, but you insist that there is something more "accurate".

No sources. No representations. Just experiences. Nothing to represent- just different ways of speaking about experience.

[Montgomery Price]

It appears the question is how do we "trust" our preferences.

For me, that really makes no sense whatsoever. You prefer what you prefer. It is an innate part of you.

Can one preference be more "accurate" than another? Only in the sense that you REALLY like chocolate cheesecake better than either chocolate or cheesecake separately.

But is chocolate more "true" than cheesecake?

You insist that our linguistic short-cuts presume epistemic impossibilities and we need to realize that we simply use them because they're functional. What you need to realize about my objection is that I'm not using this language to justify those epistemic possibilities. I agree with Rorty. I'm not posing these questions within the framework of some Truth with a capital "T".

My objection is that the standard you propose for determining our beliefs are functional doesn't work as well as you presume. The question of whether our model of reality can be objectively justified or is simply pragmatic is irrelevant. It's not the question I'm raising. My contention is already in presumes that "functional, not objectively justified" framework. It's still problematic.

So, keeping this in mind:

No, it is not whether the preference is accurate. Of course that doesn't make any sense. What I and others have said repeatedly, it's the source that is in question. When the subject of your preference is presumed to be (interpreted as being) external to your mind, whether this underlying assumption is accurate is often critical to achieve what you prefer.

[Ahab]

You still don't understand. Please, read very carefully. It seems that you're skimming over most of what I write.

Again, when I call attention to the individual experiences of others, I am not asking you to respond directly to their claim as you have continually misunderstood. By calling attention to their experiences, I am establishing that one can experience elements of a relationship with God which are not in fact from God. I'm raising a question about that category of experience.

That "category of experience" is actually 2 different categories, if I understand you correctly.

Speaking from my own personal perspective, there is the category of me having my own personal relationship with God where I know God is communicating with me, and then on the other hand there is the category of other people who SAY they have had the same type of experiences as I have... or perhaps some other type of experience(s) which they think constitute revelation from God... while what they say contradicts what God has told me.

Do you not see those as 2 different types of experiences, from my perspective???

I've been telling you that I my trust is based on God and what I know God has told me, based upon my own experiences and relationship with God, and that what other people say they experience as something from God which contradicts my own experiences has no meaning to me.

You are asking me for my own perspective here, aren't you? I'm not claiming to speak for other people, as if it's my job to sort out all of their problems or explain them to you.

I'm giving you my own perpsective here, and in my perspective, I see no reason to trust what anyone says when what they say contradicts what God has told me.

In doing this, I am identifying the report of your experience as included in this questionable category.

To you, all of us who claim to hear from God may be in the same category, but to me, I and those who agree with me are not in the same category as those who don't agree with us.

There are others beside myself who at least claim to have had the same types of experiences with God as I have, who agree with what God has told me... and on the other hand there are those who are saying things which are contradictory.

We're not all in the same category as evidenced by the fact that there is opposition on both sides.

That question being:

By what standard do you determine that the elements of a perceived relationship are of God?

The standard is the sum total of all that I have personally experienced with God while getting to know who God is.

And btw, it may interest you to know that at one time I didn't know who God was, and then later on my way to try to get to know God I was deceived by Satan who claims to be God. The key is being able to tell the difference between God, and Satan, and myself, and anyone else who says anything.

Try again to understand what I've been telling you all along here, because while you may think I don't understand you or that I'm not responding to the issue at hand, I actually do and I have repeatedly responded to your questions.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Ahab

[Montgomery Price]

It was relevant to the specific question you asked me ("By what standard do we prefer one spiritual experience over a contradictory experience?"). Notice that your question is asking about preference, not accuracy. Note that it is also asking about the spiritual experiences, themselves, and not the source thereof. Please try to do a better job of accurately following the line of discussion.

I've made it clear several times in this thread that the context under which this question should be considered is the accuracy of our determination of the source of our experience. I guess many of these posts weren't to you, so I understand the mistake... But it should be clear to you even in the posts directed at you what I meant by the question.

The question, ""By what standard do we prefer one spiritual experience over a contradictory experience?" is just where I chose to break out of the circle I claim believers keep falling in to.

I call for a standard to prefer one experience over another because this is the appeal made when I question the source of the experience. That is, when I ask how we've accurately determined the source of our experience, the answer given is to appeal to the experience somehow has providing a accurate method of determining the source. A method which therefore presumes the accurate determination of the source in question.

So, to include the context in the question:

By what standard do we prefer one spiritual experience over a contradictory experience as the more accurate determination of the source of our experiences?

When I say, "prefer", I mean "prefer concerning accuracy". When I question the spiritual experiences themselves, I only mean to do so because they are offered as response to questioning the source.

Perhaps.

However, your point is extraneous to what was going through my mind and likely the minds of my fellow students at the time. We weren't engaged in an esoteric philosophical debate regarding the "source" of subjective experiences. Rather, we were practically disputing whether I was faking or not.

So, if you wish to tangentially press your point regarding the 'source" of subjective experiences, you will need to use a different example since it doesn't very well fit mine. As it turns out, I went ahead and did this for you. See my Beethoven scenario above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why don't you just respond to what followed:

When I say you believed you were right for the wrong reasons, I didn't make it clear that I was extending the analogy to better suit religious experiences.

In the case of the chemical strips, there's nothing about your experience, in and of itself, which establishes that some rare genetic trait is the source of your experience. So to claim you are right about some rare genetic trait being the source of your experience at this time would be for the wrong reason.

In the case of religious experience, there's nothing about your experience, in and of itself, which establishes that God is the source of your experience. So to claim you are right about God being the source of your experience at this time would be for the wrong reasons.

The reason you wouldn't yet claim that the rare genetic trait is the source of your experience before the professor disclosed the secret is the same reason you shouldn't claim God is the source of your experience.

-------

So, yea. My discussion concerning the source of the experience doesn't follow exactly the situation in the classroom. Yes, the situation in your classroom regarded discussion concerning the content of experience. My argument is that, for the case of religious experience, we have the same situation, except when the discussion is shifted to the source of experience, believers assert that the situation is sufficient to answer such questions.

[mfbukowski]

When the subject of your preference is presumed to be (interpreted as being) external to your mind, whether this underlying assumption is accurate is often critical to achieve what you prefer.

I have no clue what this means.

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.

Edited July 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

I'd now like to throw another scriptural reference into the mix here, which may help to shed some more light on this issue.

When Jesus came here during his mortal ministry, while praying in the garden of Gethsemane, he said something like this:

And this is eternal life: to know thee (the person he was speaking to) and Jesus Christ (himself) whom thou (the person he was speaking to) hast sent.

One way to look at what he said is to see eternal life as consisting of knowing Jesus and the person he was speaking to,but another way to look at it is to think of getting to know Jesus and the person he was speaking to as what gives us or leads us into eternal life.

Both perspectives are accurate, but I think one is more relevant to the question raised in the OP.

Once we know both of them, as well as how to know both of them, then we're on our way to eternal life if we don't have it already.

And btw, Jesus also said there is only one way to know our Father (now that we're in this state), and he said that way was through him.

[HeatherAnn]

I'll run with the elephant analogy.

My objection is to point out that even though we may all be trying to find the same elephant or truth, we should be terribly confused by our experiences and the reports of others.

Even though everyone experiences a different part of the elephant, everyone claims that their experience is the more accurate representation of the elephant. Everyone else is experiencing the less complete picture, and I've found the key parts the elephant cares about the most (temple ordinances, BofM, priesthood, etc.).

Even though everyone experiences a different part of the elephant, many claim that their experience of this part (Jesus is the Savior) means that it is impossible for someone else to experience that part (Jesus is not the Savior) and anyone who reports this contrary experience is being deceived.

Because the individual experiences contradict, the category of experience is called into question.

That question being, "How do we determine that our experience is reliable and not an illusion?"

When asked how a believer has determined that their experience is reliable, they answer by saying, "the elephant told me how to determine this, and I trust him." The mistake is that this response clearly presumes the premise in question.

The response you've given to this objection is that your experience is somehow self-authenticating, and therefore not an illusion. My argument is that this is no better justification for your experience than for contrary experiences. Others believe their experiences which lead them to deny Christ are self-authenticating, as well.

So now the issue becomes, how do we determine which feelings of self-authentication are real and which are illusions. This is exactly what I meant when I asked, "why you are sure that your sense of self-authentication is genuine while others are illusions?"

Good question.

It's egotistical & self-centered to believe that MY way of experiencing spirituality is the only way. It's also lacking empathy & true love for others.

Yet, how can I really understand others without living what they've been through? I can try to compare it with similar things I've experienced, yet it will still be different.

Isn't it important to BOTH love others and to love ourselves? I believe, how we define & love God & ourselves is how we define & love others.

How to love... is most significant.... IMO, love is hoping & striving for what we think is best, through trial & error (active faith).

How do we determine which feelings are from our narcaccistic ego & which are from a higher self?

This is why I love Psychology ("the study of the soul") as much as spirituality.

Figuring out what is best in the big pictures takes intellect, intuition (spiritual guidance) & wisdom (combining experience & new info to practically apply).

I believe (& I think the root of "pure Mormonism" teaches) that God looks on the heart & what is most important is living up to what we believe is right, whatever that is... Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, etc.

Shakespeare summarized this...

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet."

Edited July 28, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[shalamabobbi]

The no girlfriend comment is a metaphor for no relationship with God. I would not think to question your jockularity. I'm investigating the utility of this mode of thinking.

I might look at MP's thought process with regard to poisoned food, or business ventures as an entrepreneur..

I don't think it useful in these areas either. You may starve as "not eating of any food" is the only reasonable course of action.

In imagining conflicts in religious experiences you have left out the existence of false sources that exist with motives to deceive. You left out motives of the individual for not believing. You left out proof that others claim the same kind of religious experience as the foundation to their faith. Hughes does not make this claim. Muslims do not pray to get an answer that their faith is true. They may accept it based upon some other standard. So you have not proved that the false and contradictory experiences are even real or valid. You simply accept the claims on their face as equivalent. Try using that approach in science. There are those who still claim Relativity is incorrect. There are flat-earthers too. I guess we should chuck the scientific method since there exist those who claim it isn't valid. And since even if you arrive at a utopia where all agree about everything, since there is no way to prove that my blue is your blue you are still unjustified in accepting that the source of agreement is correct.. so ultimately what you are requesting is without utility.. so useless..

Since scientism does not accept anything unprovable by the scientific method you have no basis upon which to seek redress against someone who murders your parents. They did nothing provably wrong by this philosophy indeed there is no way to prove that murder is wrong or indeed that wrong even exists.. so useless..

If you are not justified in behaving as if God exists neither are you justified in behaving as if He doesn't.. so useless

[shalamabobbi]

Ahab:

I've been telling you that I my trust is based on God and what I know God has told me, based upon my own experiences and relationship with God, and that what other people say they experience as something from God which contradicts my own experiences has no meaning to me.

You are asking me for my own perspective here, aren't you? I'm not claiming to speak for other people, as if it's my job to sort out all of their problems or explain them to you.

I'm giving you my own perpsective here, and in my perspective, I see no reason to trust what anyone says when what they say contradicts what God has told me.

MP:

Again, when I call attention to the individual experiences of others, I am not asking you to respond directly to their claim as you have continually misunderstood. By calling attention to their experiences, I am establishing that one can experience elements of a relationship with God which are not in fact from God. I'm raising a question about that category of experience.

In doing this, I am identifying the report of your experience as included in this questionable category.

That question being:

By what standard do you determine that the elements of a perceived relationship are of God?

In response to this objection, you simply refer to those elements in question, without explanation. You respond to the individual experiences, not my question about the category. It is clear that, given your premise that God does in fact speak to you, you are correct to reject the claims of others when they are proposed as negating your experience. What you fail to understand is that I am not proposing those claims as negating your experience, I am questioning the premise you assume in response to this proposal.

When I ask the question, "By what standard do you determine that the elements of a perceived relationship are of God?"

To respond, "because I know I am hearing from God," does not explain anything relevant to my question. You're "shooting down" a straw-man. Every standard you've offered presumes the elements of your relationship are of God and doesn't explain how you've determined this. Ahan, you are cleary reasoning in circles.

I've made it clear several times in this thread that the context under which this question should be considered is the accuracy of our determination of the source of our experience.

IMO you have conflated the results of science with the metaphysics behind the science. You have a metaphysical model of the world and the results of science in your mind validate that "source" model. But science does not concern itself with metaphysics and many are of the view that a discussion of metaphysics is pointless. And yet science carries on anyway.

The same can be said for religion. It is about areas of experience that have meaning for life but are outside the scope of the objective method. It deals in happiness. It deals with reaping what we sow or, rewards and punishments for varying kinds of behavior (both in this life and the next). As such the source, which LDS believe is hidden and incapable of objective proof in this life by design, is not important. We are here where each has an environment where they will demonstrate exactly who they are and what their character consists of. When we are judged and all our secret acts are revealed one to another we will likely sort ourselves out into the various mansions that exist.

In our premortal life it could be argued that since we saw God and experienced Him directly and His reality was objective that maybe our following Him was based upon that knowledge. Even so a third of us chose to rebel against the risk inherent in our mortal probation. They wanted a safe path. Now that we are here without any objective proof of God we will be who we truly are. We will be ourselves. All of us make mistakes and we do things that bring us regret or remorse. Some of us search for and find the solution to that condition. Others choose to rationalize away any need for change. Whether the source is real is not something objectively knowable in this life. But the results are real and that is the reality of religion.

When spirit speaks to spirit the experience is real to that individual. It is as real as reality gets. But it will never be objective. You have chosen to limit your reality to that which can be objectively shared. There is no "source" for that position either. There is no - one more rung up the ladder - higher vantage point by which to verify that that is the best way to approach all of life.

[Ahab]

IMO you have conflated the results of science with the metaphysics behind the science.

Science = a study of things that are, or were, or will be

Metaphysics = a study of things that are, or were, or will be.

Well, yeah, I suppose I can see how you could see it that way.

You have a metaphysical model of the world and the results of science in your mind validate that "source" model.

Yes, or as I would say, I have in my own life an experience which serves as an example of what there is of this world and in my mind the results of my study of things that are (or were or will be) validate the way that I see things are or were or will be.

But science does not concern itself with metaphysics and many are of the view that a discussion of metaphysics is pointless. And yet science carries on anyway.

Yes, and yet metaphysics carries on anyway, too.

The same can be said for religion. It is about areas of experience that have meaning for life but are outside the scope of the objective method.

Define what you mean by "the objective method".

To me, the objective consists of the objects which exist in reality and while everything would be the way they are whether or not some people ever notice everything that is most of us experience at least some of the objective by observing and studying it subjectively as subjects who are both part of and within the objective that is.

It deals in happiness.

It deals in sadness and complacency, too.

It deals with reaping what we sow or, rewards and punishments for varying kinds of behavior (both in this life and the next).

In short, religion deals with everything.

As such the source, which LDS believe is hidden and incapable of objective proof in this life by design, is not important.

I'm not on the bandwagon with those who think objective reality is hidden and incapable of objective proof either in this life or the next.

I do realize that not everybody experiences everything there is to be experienced in their experiences with reality, but there are some of us who do even though the unobservant may not realize that.

We are here where each has an environment where they will demonstrate exactly who they are and what their character consists of.

Yes, and some of us, like our Father, are more than some others of us can handle in any way other than to deny they really exist as they really are in some real place while having real experiences.

When we are judged and all our secret acts are revealed one to another we will likely sort ourselves out into the various mansions that exist.

Some of us won't be the ones who are doing the sorting, though, other than to show how we are to the ones who will sort us all out.

In our premortal life it could be argued that since we saw God and experienced Him directly and His reality was objective that maybe our following Him was based upon that knowledge. Even so a third of us chose to rebel against the risk inherent in our mortal probation. They wanted a safe path. Now that we are here without any objective proof of God (says you) we will be who we truly are. We will be ourselves. All of us make mistakes and we do things that bring us regret or remorse. Some of us search for and find the solution to that condition. Others choose to rationalize away any need for change. Whether the source is real is not something objectively knowable in this life. But the results are real and that is the reality of religion.

Just so you know, I forgive you for saying the reality of God can't be observed and experience in our own reality. I know it can be, and you apparenlty don't.

When spirit speaks to spirit the experience is real to that individual. It is as real as reality gets. But it will never be objective.

It already is objective by being as real as reality ever gets.

If you're talking about how some of us can't see God with our physical eyes, while some others of us can, I say that being able to see God with your eyes someday will not make God more real than he already is. You'll simply be experiencing another aspect of his reality that you're not experiencing right now, even though from your words I would say that you do seem to at least be experiencing the reality of God with your spirit.

You have chosen to limit your reality to that which can be objectively shared.

Can be? Yes, I suppose so, because all of reality CAN BE shared under the right set of circumstances.

I do realize that right now not everybody does or will ever experience everything there is to be experienced in reality, though.

There is no "source" for that position either. There is no - one more rung up the ladder - higher vantage point by which to verify that that is the best way to approach all of life.

Keep denying it and you may end up cutting yourself off from ever experiencing more than you are experiencing now.

[wenglund]

By what standard do we prefer one spiritual experience over a contradictory experience as the more accurate determination of the source of our experiences?

Are you supposing that accuracy is something that can be objectively measured when determining the source of religious experiences? If so, can you explain how that is plausible? If not, then what kind of accuracy do you have in mind? Subjective accuracy?

Are you supposing that our preferring a given spiritual experience somehow determines the source of that spiritual experience? If so, can you explain how, since I am not seeing it. If not, could you rephrase your question above?

I am just trying to make sense of your expanded question.

By the way, before you ask, I chose not to respond to your warping of my chemical strip example because it had nothing to do with what actually happened. It only confuses the issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[shalamabobbi]

general reply

Sorry for the confusion Ahab. I added your post as a point to which MP was responding in general terms. In short I added your post to clarify his post.

My response was to his response of your general argument.

[Ahab]

Sorry for the confusion Ahab. I added your post as a point to which MP was responding in general terms. In short I added your post to clarify his post.

My response was to his response of your general argument.

Oh. Okay! Yeah for you! I'm glad you know more than he does.

[subgenius]

You're still reasoning in a circle. Let me clean up what you wrote:

from what i have read, the futility of trying to revive moral relativism is the only 'circular' reasoning here.

Your answer to this objection has simply been to appeal circularly back to the personal experience in question as a response to the contrary reports of others. You're missing the point. I am not asking you to respond directly to the contrary reports of others... I'm asking you to respond to the question those contrary reports raise.

by your own reasoning, no question(s) can arise. Contradiction would rely on a given "objective truth", of which you seemingly deny is in existence.

By what standard do you determine that the elements of your relationship are of God?

In other words, I have determined that the elements of my relationship are of God.

why the "in other words"? my experience shows that people do this when they either do not understand the answer given them, or when they are trying to manipulate an answer to suit their own prejudices.

Nevertheless, "i have determined" is an incorrect assumption on your part. "I" is not what makes the determination.

Again, by what standard do you determine that the elements of your relationship are of God, which is not dependent on the experiences in question?

i suggest you read and contemplate 1 Cor 2:14.

I believe to have an intimate relationship with Person X.

I experience that Person X tells me A.

Someone who claims to also have an intimate relationship with Person X reports to me that the have experienced Person X telling him B.

Each of our experiences, A and B, are then called in to question.

called into question? why? by what standard do you determine that this scenario requires "question"?

If you propose that A and B were intended to be about a yet to be stated C, which is outside of those you mention above, then the existence of C must be the point of discussion.

In either case, you correctly note that Person X is consistent and present. A and/or B have not been proven to be a relevant to the existence of Person X, which seems to be a required given in your scenario.

Perhaps the "someone" was not intimately involved with Person X, but rather was involved with Person D who simply pretended to be Person X?

In order to resolve the contradiction between experiences, I require some method of evaluation which can determine which experiences can be relied upon and which cannot.

Possible methods of evaluation may appeal to something besides the experience in question, such as some objective test of A or B. If such tests are possible.

your inferences and method of reasoning is not compatible with spiritual objectivity.

If such tests or methods of evaluation are not possible, then the contradiction remains unresolved. To prefer my experience A over B and perform actions which depend upon A would be premature. At this stage, I prefer and depend on neither. As should be the case, I argue, with personal experiences of God.

you have not proven that a contradiction exists.

One distinct experience is A and the other is B. Your example does not have Person X telling the same person both A and B.

As for me, I see no reason to believe in God. There are many which claim I've experienced reasons or could experience reasons which are sufficient to justify belief in God, but I only find reason to disagree.

I can agree that you are unable to see a reason, just as the student does not yet see what he will learn. I would suggest you start with fundamentals, one can not see algebra without first learning to count.

Start with natural man and spiritual man, then work your way into what "Faith" means.

I fear that your logic and/or reasoning is a trap for reducing man to nothing more than a bag of chemicals, in which no freedom, original thought, or individuality may exist.