Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[shalamabobbi]

Why doesn't God just appear physically to everyone as he supposedly did to Joseph Smith? Why is it too much to ask or expect?

Are you serious? I think you could answer this question yourself if you tried.

I gave the reason in a previous post to MP, but again briefly, we came from that environment into this one. Now we are free to be ourselves without the constraint of knowing the reality of God and being influenced by that knowledge along a path we might not otherwise follow.

We are here to demonstrate our character and who exactly we truly are. Proof of God and all the reality attendant to that proposition would influence and hinder the accomplishment of that purpose.

But afterward you will have the realization of your desire to see God for yourself as will we all. That is not the issue really.

So again my query to you. Why do people believe and obey the commandments of God prior to having any significant spiritual experience(s)?

In other words the spiritual experience(s) are the result of something else, not the foundation of that something else..

[shalamabobbi]

Yes, we're all guilty of confirmation bias, but only some of us are guilty of neglecting its correction..

Ironically, I agree..

[Montgomery Price]

Ironically, I agree..

Are you going to respond to the rest of my post or are we done here?

[wenglund]

Objective accuracy is what I have in mind, and let's just say no, I don't think it can be measured in the case of religious experiences.

When it comes to the subjective, by definition it makes no sense to look for objective accuracy.

So, for what reason do we behave as if has been measured accurately?

For reasons of increased faith, based on subjective inductions.

If you wish to learn about what that subjective induction may entail, see my Beethoven analogy above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I gave the reason in a previous post to MP, but again briefly, we came from that environment into this one. Now we are free to be ourselves without the constraint of knowing the reality of God and being influenced by that knowledge along a path we might not otherwise follow.

We are here to demonstrate our character and who exactly we truly are. Proof of God and all the reality attendant to that proposition would influence and hinder the accomplishment of that purpose.

But afterward you will have the realization of your desire to see God for yourself as will we all. That is not the issue really.

I would submit that another reason we are meant to walk by faith rather than sight during mortality is because in some ways faith may be better than sight in enabling us to more fully comprehend God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[HeatherAnn]

No, the "perspective" which lead them to deny Christ will never be valid, according to Mormonism. In fact, it's a perspective produced by Satan.

Yet you find it comfortable to believe their "perspective" is as valid as any, for some reason I don't understand yet.

MontgomeryPrice,

It seems we keep talking past each other.

In the 11th article of faith, it reads, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, & allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."

So, according to Joseph Smith, Mormons respect other religious beliefs & practices.

I've come to view Jesus differently than I used to & how many do in Orthodox Christianity.

I explained my change of view to my Catholic sister, who packed her suitcases full of Catholic literature & flew up to see me.

She cried & feared for my eternal damnation, since I no longer see Jesus as the scapegoat & human sacrifice, he is portrayed to be.

I do value his teachings & consider myself Christian, yet I don't believe Christ is his last name, but what he became & what he encourages us to become, & I don't believe there is any religion after death.

In an LDS book about NearDeathExperiences, never was there an account of someone meeting Jesus. They met love & loving spirits, but never one claiming to be Jesus.

Yet, I respect that Jesus is a personification of spirituality... a way to resonate, since a person is easier to relate to than an "energy" or "higher power."

I believe that many Christian teachings (including some in Mormonism) have been twisted & misunderstood.

Denying Christ, is denying a word. Who or what is Christ? If a Muslim calls Christ, Allah, so be it. He's not denying Christ, he's just calling Christ Allah.

Who cares what religion one adheres to or doesnt... as long as it helps them come closer to what we call God (LOVE) & spiritual progress.

What matters most is how well we've learned to love ourselves & others (which is also loving God). This spirit we create in loving will continue... & that is most significant eternally.

"...that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world." - Alma 34:34

[HeatherAnn]

This is only tangential to your quote above, but I thought you would find this website interesting.

http://www.acampbell...ic/nagel-2.html

This of course has similarities to Teilhard de Chardin and A.N. Whitehead- I am fans of both.

This guy's (Campbell, not Nagel) understanding of humanism and its relation to Nagel is very interesting and parallels our earlier conversation about Mormonism and humanism, but I think he does not understand Platonism the way Nagel is seeing it.

Thanks, Mf. It is interesting.

It seems to argue against the case of atheism, in a way.

God is a process within us, so to deny God is to deny that internal process, that happens, whether aknowledged or not.

Humansims seems to be concerned with human matters...

Physiology explains spiritual experiences within the endocrine & nervous systems.

Psychology explains spiritual experiences by thoughts that preceed feelings & actions.

Spirituality explains spiritual experiences by "the kingdom of God within."

It's all within us!

As we discussed, definitions are EVERYTHING!

I was raised with a lot of shame... some from family dynamics & some from religious teachings.

So, when a Sacrament Meeting speaker started talking of "sin & repentance," my blood started boiling.

Then, I thought of how I redefined the words...

Sin: Incorrect thoughts which produce feelings & destructive actions (even dis-ease)

Repentance: Correcting thoughts, which correct feelings & actions

When I reminded myself of these definitions, this shameful talk turned into an inspiring one!

[Montgomery Price]

When it comes to the subjective, by definition it makes no sense to look for objective accuracy.

Yet, the objective source of our experience is of critical importance. It makes sense to be concerned for the objective accuracy of the source of our experiences.

For reasons of increased faith, based on subjective inductions.

If you wish to learn about what that subjective induction may entail, see my Beethoven analogy above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm still interested in your response to my extension of your analogy.

You wouldn't claim, before you were aware of any objective evaluation of possible sources, that your experience of the paper strip, in and of itself, establishes some rare genetic trait as the specific source. I argue that this is the same reason you wouldn't claim your spiritual experience, in and of itself, establishes some specific God as the source of your spiritual experience. There must be something additional, yet many don't believe this is possible. The experience is all we have, just like the experience of the paper strip is all you had before the "secret" was revealed. Yet we pretend we know the "secret".

So, I presume that something additional is a subjective induction? I'm very interested, do you believe induction qualifies as knowledge?

To vet the presumed methodologies, let's ask ourselves the question whether it is plausible to distinguish between what we may subjectively experience while dreaming about listening to the neighbor playing Beethoven's Ode to Joy, as compared with listening to the same alone while awake, though with our eyes closed?

Do you mean to say that it is plausible to distinguish between the source of each experience?

I could see how there may be little distinction between the content of each experience, but there seems to be no similar mystery concerning our interpretation of the source of each experience.

I'm sure you'll explain how this is relevant to the problem of discerning between the possible sources of our spiritual experiences.

[Montgomery Price]

MontgomeryPrice,

It seems we keep talking past each other.

In the 11th article of faith, it reads, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, & allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."

So, according to Joseph Smith, Mormons respect other religious beliefs & practices.

It does seem we're talking past each other. I'll try to respond a bit more directly to your thoughts. But please, there is a topic to this thread. I understand you believe we each have the privilege to worship and believe however we wish, but I wasn't implying the contrary by calling attention to doctrine which states others worship and believe deceptions produced by Satan. I was doing so to only question what we worship and believe. Whether we are tolerant of others is a question for another thread.

I believe that many Christian teachings (including some in Mormonism) have been twisted & misunderstood.

Denying Christ, is denying a word. Who or what is Christ? If a Muslim calls Christ, Allah, so be it. He's not denying Christ, he's just calling Christ Allah.

But the Muslim does not simply call Allah. He also explicitly denies Christ and therefore must be deceived by Satan. For this reason he doesn't interpret his worship the way you do. Regardless of whether you allow him to believe this, the reason he gives for doing so is, as far as we can discern, is no better than the reason you may give for believing he's just calling Christ Allah. Each relevant belief seems reduced to something which depends on personal experience, yet we have no method to tell which personal experiences are deceptions, except methods which are dependent on the experiences in question.

Who cares what religion one adheres to or doesnt... as long as it helps them come closer to what we call God (LOVE) & spiritual progress.

Denying Christ is not spiritual progress.

What matters most is how well we've learned to love ourselves & others (which is also loving God). This spirit we create in loving will continue... & that is most significant eternally.

"...that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world." - Alma 34:34

What matters most is the extent of your blessings gained by your actions. It is established by doctrine that actions such as denying Christ matter more than how well we've learned to love ourselves and others. The difference between the blessings a loving atheist and a loving Mormon will recieve is what I am trying to isolate with this point.

[wenglund]

Yet, the objective source of our experience is of critical importance. It makes sense to be concerned for the objective accuracy of the source of our experiences.

To speak of objective sources in regards to the purely subjective, makes as little sense as speaking to the squareness of circles.

I'm still interested in your response to my extension of your analogy.

You wouldn't claim, before you were aware of any objective evaluation of possible sources, that your experience of the paper strip, in and of itself, establishes some rare genetic trait as the specific source.

Just to clarify, first, there wasn't an objective evaluation of possible sources. The causal claim about the rare genetic trait was essentially based on the subjective statements of the people being studied. Those making the claim could not objectively determine if the subjects were actually experiencing the "bad" taste or not, or that the genetic trait was necessarily the "source" of the bad taste or not. There could be other factors that may have cause some of the subjects to experience a "bad" taste--like an aversion to the taste of the paper, itself, or having the genetic trait but failing to taste the "bad" because the taste bud may have been numbed or partially destroyed, etc.. Those making the claim could at best make a strong inductive case.

Second, again, I wouldn't make that claim beforehand because it wasn't at issue then. The question of "source" didn't cross our minds, and so there would have been no reason to make the claim.

Third, had it crossed my mind, I can assure you that I would have rationally considered my taste buds as the "source" of my experience, which may likely have led me to consider the genetics behind my taste buds.

I argue that this is the same reason you wouldn't claim your spiritual experience, in and of itself, establishes some specific God as the source of your spiritual experience. There must be something additional, yet many don't believe this is possible. The experience is all we have, just like the experience of the paper strip is all you had before the "secret" was revealed. Yet we pretend we know the "secret".

But, in terms of the paper strips, we didn't pretend to know the "secret." The issue of "source" or "secret" never came up to pretend about or otherwise. And, had it come up, at least some of us may have induced the so-called "secret," though not necessarily based on our own subjective experience alone--which is not what I am arguing or would argue. In some respect, the same goes for spiritual experiences.

See what I mean by your extension of my example proving problematic?

So, I presume that something additional is a subjective induction?

Among other things--depending upon what you consider as a part of the experience or in addition to the experiences.

I'm very interested, do you believe induction qualifies as knowledge?

Not in a precise philosophical sense of the word "knowledge", though I do in a practical, everyday use of the word.

Do you mean to say that it is plausible to distinguish between the source of each experience?

Yes. And evidently you do too (see below).

I could see how there may be little distinction between the content of each experience, but there seems to be no similar mystery concerning our interpretation of the source of each experience.

Whether there is no similar mystery or not, what subjective means, if any, does one use to distinguish between the different sources of the two experiences?

I'm sure you'll explain how this is relevant to the problem of discerning between the possible sources of our spiritual experiences.

I trust that it will become clear as we proceed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

All I have are the interchangeable reports of how "indescribable and personal my relationship with God is" and the radically opposed and non-interchangeable conclusions they were led to by their perceived relationship. Except I can't accept each has the value they claim, and I need some tool to discern between them.

What you need is YOUR OWN personal relationship with God until you know that the person YOU know as God truly is God, and you're not going to get that from me or anyone else other than God.

The best you'll ever get from others when you ask others for confirmation of THEIR OWN spiritual experiences is THEIR own explanation for what it is that makes THEM think THEIR experiences are from who THEY believe God to be.

And as you rightly pointed out, people are generally all over the place on that one, with no agreement among everybody on even the most basic questions concerning both who and what God is.

But there are many tools to choose from, and when I ask, "why should I accept this tool?" The answer is always another interchangeable report of "how indescribable and personal my relationship with God is" to throw into the pile.

Suppose you come to the point where you finally have your own personal experience with God so that you are absolutely convinced that the person you had that experience with is God.

Forget about figuring out what it would take for you to get to that point. I'm asking you to imagine a day when you would finally come to the point where you know you have had a personal experience with God.

Now suppose you try to tell everyone else about that experience while trying to give them insights about how they can know when or if they have ever had their own spiritual experiences with God.

Do you think everyone is going to agree on your method of figuring out both who and what God is? Do you think you're going to be adding anything new in the world to what people have already reported as having experienced for themselves?

Joseph Smith saw a lot of the confusion going on in the world over religion and he concluded that he needed more wisdom than he then had to be able to figure out which church to join, or which religion was true, because he could see that appealing to people in their already chosen religion would be pretty much pointless since people were all over the place on that issue. Do you know what he did? Have you ever heard that story as it is reported in our Church history?

That's what you need to do, yourself, now.

You need to come to the point where what you want is a direct and personal answer from God, trusting in God to give you HIS answer.

Until then, all of the different answers you get from different people which contradict each other are probably going to continue to seem as if they all are wrong, even though there are those who have been trying to tell you how they know who God is.

[mfbukowski]

Xander:

This has really become a rather silly conversation about what Nagel does or does not say, which is peripheral to the entire issue. You are wrong to say that I base my entire argument for Mormonism on Nagel- in fact, I used him only in this thread because I use his quote in my siggy and it is a readily available quote against physicalism.

The fact is Nagel admits in the second paragraph that there does

exist successful examples of reductionist analogies.

Oh, does it really say that? Not at all! Here is the actual second paragraph:

Every reductionist has his favorite analogy from modern science. It is most unlikely that any of these

unrelated examples of successful reduction will shed light on the relation of mind to brain. But

philosophers share the general human weakness for explanations of what is incomprehensible in terms

suited for what is familiar and well understood, though entirely different. This has led to the acceptance of

implausible accounts of the mental largely because they would permit familiar kinds of reduction. I shall

try to explain why the usual examples do not help us to understand the relation between mind and

body—why, indeed, we have at present no conception of what an explanation of the physical nature of a

mental phenomenon would be. Without consciousness the mind-body problem would be much less

interesting. With consciousness it seems hopeless. The most important and characteristic feature of

conscious mental phenomena is very poorly understood. Most reductionist theories do not even try to

explain it. And careful examination will show that no currently available concept of reduction is

applicable to it. Perhaps a new theoretical form can be devised for the purpose, but such a solution, if it

exists, lies in the distant intellectual future.

Notice that second to last sentence: "And careful examination will show that no currently available concept of reduction is

applicable to it"

In fact, it says the direct opposite of What you said it said: "The fact is Nagel admits in the second paragraph that there does

exist successful examples of reductionist analogies."

Nagel also says this:

I do not deny that conscious mental states and events cause behavior, nor that they may be given

functional characterizations. I deny only that this kind of thing exhausts their analysis. Any reductionist

program has to be based on an analysis of what is to be reduced. If the analysis leaves something out, the

problem will be falsely posed. It is useless to base the defense of materialism on any analysis of mental

phenomena that fails to deal explicitly with their subjective character. For there is no reason to suppose

that a reduction which seems plausible when no attempt is made to account for consciousness can be

extended to include consciousness. With out some idea, therefore, of what the subjective character of

experience is, we cannot know what is required of physicalist theory.

To be charitable, I will call this an example of poor reading comprehension.

If that was the only place you totally misrepresent Nagel, that would be one thing. But it is not.

You said:

What he argues in this article is that reductionism at present doesn't

successfully explain one specific subjective phenomenon: the human

experiences of consciousness. This is entirely true. But this in and of

itself doesn't disprove physicalism, and the careful reader would see that

Nagel admitted this when he said, "It would be a mistake to conclude that

physicalism must be false." You're hoping to disprove physicalism using

someone who doesn't agree. Bravo.

The context from which you ripped this quote says something quite different:

Nagel actually said:

What moral should be drawn from these reflections, and what should be done next? It would be a mistake

to conclude that physicalism must be false. Nothing is proved by the inadequacy of physicalist hypotheses

that assume a faulty objective analysis of mind. It would be truer to say that physicalism is a position we

cannot understand because we do not at present have any conception of how it might be true.

He said it is not technically "false" precisely because it is not understandable, and we cannot (now) conceive how it might be "true".

You said:

But I was careful to point to clear example where physicalism does in fact explain

subjective experiences. If Jimmy takes drugs, we know why he is

hallucinating. If Sarah is bleeding out, we know why she experiences the

feeling of coldness. I don't need to know what it feels like to hallucinate

or bleed to death in order for reductionism/physicalism to work as a valid

explanation for these experience. Nagel doesn't contradict this in any way,

and you haven't even begun to illustrate that he has

You are missing the entire point Nagel is making, and you yourself make with your use of Jackson's variation on the Mary's room argument, which incidentally I don't use on this forum because everyone here has heard variations of it ad nauseum. But since you brought it up, let's use Mary's room on this rather silly hallucination point you bring up. Now let us suppose that neruophysicist Mary has studied every possible thing there is to know about the neurophysiology of an LSD trip, but she has never done acid herself. Now suppose she decides to take LSD, and she actually experiences hallucinations for the first time in her life. Has her "knowledge" of hallucinations of increased now that she has actually experienced one? Of course it has. That is the Mary's room argument applied to your own example.

Of course there are refutations and counter refutations and this could drag on ad infinitum, but the serious point is that this is the second post on this article in which I have shown that you are in fact asserting what Nagel supposedly said, when in fact what he actually says is the direct opposite of what you assert.

And here's another thing- we are only talking about one article which is of little importance to my overall argument. My argument draws from William James, John Dewey, Strawson, Wittgenstein, Davidson, Rorty and many others. I do not rely on Nagel, as you assert, for my arguments in favor of Mormonism. That is simply not true. Period. All I have used Nagel for is ONE argument against physicalism- and as you point out, there are many.

You said:

Hopefully, this refutation will disabuse you of this silly notion that

Thomas Nagel the atheist was somehow unwittingly providing philosophical

ammunition for Mormon apologists.

I already admitted he was an atheist, a fact you probably didn't know - in fact he is really more of an agnostic who says he fears the idea that God might exist- but that is another matter. The reality is that I never relied on Nagel, as I have said, for anything but a quote in my signature about physicalism. I have never relied on him for anything else, and in fact, I quote many many philosophers in support of my various positions.

You have misrepresented Nagel and not responded to my refutations and quotes showing how you are wrong, and indeed persist in very nearly totally inverting what Nagel is saying. I have given you lengthy examples which you dismiss with a hand wave, but no hint of comprehension. I have given you numerous examples now of how what he says is often nearly the direct opposite of what he says, and you respond with quotes out of context, pretending somehow that I cannot look those up and call you on them.

On other threads, you have used the same tactics of not addressing the points I have made, without even an attempt to refute them.

This is a waste of time. I am done.

Edit: All Nagel references are here

Edited August 1, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Which is much less than what others mean when they say they "know" this or that is "True". They mean it with a capital "T" and you don't and this is what I mean by "less". Official doctrine, prophets, general authorities, and the majority of members clearly overstep the epistemic boundary you have so thoroughly explained cannot be crossed. You're unquestionably Mormon, mf. You're just quite the twisted one.

Oh, now you're a mind reader?

What others on this board have said would indicate you are wrong. I find myself in complete agreement here with Ahab (though he does use language differently than I would), Wade, Heather Ann, shalam. and many others.

Edited August 1, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Thanks, Mf. It is interesting.

It seems to argue against the case of atheism, in a way.

God is a process within us, so to deny God is to deny that internal process, that happens, whether aknowledged or not.

Humansims seems to be concerned with human matters...

Physiology explains spiritual experiences within the endocrine & nervous systems.

Psychology explains spiritual experiences by thoughts that preceed feelings & actions.

Spirituality explains spiritual experiences by "the kingdom of God within."

It's all within us!

As we discussed, definitions are EVERYTHING!

I was raised with a lot of shame... some from family dynamics & some from religious teachings.

So, when a Sacrament Meeting speaker started talking of "sin & repentance," my blood started boiling.

Then, I thought of how I redefined the words...

Sin: Incorrect thoughts which produce feelings & destructive actions (even dis-ease)

Repentance: Correcting thoughts, which correct feelings & actions

When I reminded myself of these definitions, this shameful talk turned into an inspiring one!

Yes, Rorty talks a lot about this notion of "redefining metaphors" which really means creating our own world-views- he uses the word "vocabularies" a lot and speaks of the "ironist" who is one who has understood that on one had that all is definitions but yet has a sense of creating one's own definitions- that is the "irony" part.

That whole notion that humans in some sense create our own worlds goes back at least as far as Kant and his "synthetic apriori" and through Hegel gets exploded everywhere in German philosophy- Niezsche, etc and then gets brought across to America in the Pragmatists and their successors including Rorty and partially Wittgenstein.

It is a major theme in humanism too- and oddly, in Mormonism, where we have a Human "creating" worlds by re-defining them and "calling" them into existence- "And they called the evening and the morning the 'first day'" or words to that effect- read Abraham 4 and see how many synonyms you find for "define" in there - it is by words that we create worlds!

But yes, after I had studied all these ideas about creating worlds through linguistic contexts- was when I found Mormonism and there was no question that the two just snapped together in one world view that put it all together for me. So to a large degree I already had those definitions you are mentioning in my head before I had to see their "translations" in Mormon jargon, as you did in that sacrament meeting. In a sense our journeys are parallel, but we are going in different directions! You are going from fundamentalism to linguistic contextualism and I am going somewhat in the other direction- though I don't think I am about to arrive at "fundamentalism"!

I see both languages as "translations" of each other- two different language games for expressing the same thing, and I shift between them about as easily as between English and some other language.

Maybe thats what confuses many here because sometimes I am speaking "Mormon" and sometimes I am speaking "philosophy"- I see no difference but sometimes I guess it confuses guys like maybe it has Montgomery. But what I see is that it is all just different metaphors.

Edited August 1, 2011 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

I would submit that another reason we are meant to walk by faith rather than sight during mortality is because in some ways faith may be better than sight in enabling us to more fully comprehend God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course..

What I was hoping was to lead the discussion, if only briefly, into the possible motivation(s) behind these positions.

[shalamabobbi]

Are you going to respond to the rest of my post or are we done here?

Wenglund is doing a better job of it so address his posts..

Keep trying to utilize the objective method against the subjective and wave your arms about yelling "See!."

Use this as the defense against having to address the deeper issues behind religion such as what constitutes acceptable personal behavior, etc.

And just as you reject religion based upon the presumed contradictions of spiritual experiences, I will stand your equal in rejecting your crippled application of the scientific method to religion because of the liberty it provides in redefining right and wrong to include whatever appeals to us individually and point to the conflicts/contradictions between the various positions arrived at..

[shalamabobbi]

The problem, however, is that we now know enough about the body chemistry to explain these feelings.

Well perhaps you would enlighten me since you apparently understand the mind.

How is it that we have free will? Since there is nothing more to mind than chemical reactions, everything is predetermined from previous states.

[subgenius]

Let's just ditch the "Person X" analogy. It wasn't directed to you. Here's the point I was making:

By calling attention to [individual] 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 question being:

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

The answers offered so far have been to simply beg the question by appealing to methods which depend on the elements in question. Hopefully, your answer isn't quite so "simple".

while i can appreciate certain aspects of your point, i am unclear as to why you consider a spiritual forum appropriate for the discussion of a philosophical issue? The subject-object problem is a delight to discuss, but only within the confines of rational arguments, and such confines are hardly the entire scope of religious discussions....correct?

Allow me to borrow a phrase from you....

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.

or in other words" I am establishing that [the subjective] is not always subjective"

Is the question as simple as "How do we determine, or by what standard, do we know what is objective"?

I believe Bertrand Russell clarified this issue with his notion of "Fact" vs. "Belief".

It is simply the removal of doubt.

Consider that whatever is attempting to 'know'(ie. your brain or soul) what is fact and what is belief is rather limited in that ability and therefore must engage in a sort of reality check. One must have an initial description of that which they intend to "check", which brings us to:

from here we can then proceed to discern that which is fact from that which is belief (in this context).

So, why is Moroni 7 so simple and effective and exempt from your assertion of being an "element in question"? because it is the same as someone saying "read". For it relies on the act of cognition* -Consciousness - which is the "standard" you seek.

*Cognition, in this context, would include the promptings of the Spirit - which becomes something i "know" because it has been found by the Consciousness to be a "true belief". See also the Cartesian Doubt.

[Ahab]

while i can appreciate certain aspects of your point, i am unclear as to why you consider a spiritual forum appropriate for the discussion of a philosophical issue? The subject-object problem is a delight to discuss, but only within the confines of rational arguments, and such confines are hardly the entire scope of religious discussions....correct?

Allow me to borrow a phrase from you....

or in other words" I am establishing that [the subjective] is not always subjective"

Is the question as simple as "How do we determine, or by what standard, do we know what is objective"?

I believe Bertrand Russell clarified this issue with his notion of "Fact" vs. "Belief".

It is simply the removal of doubt.

Consider that whatever is attempting to 'know'(ie. your brain or soul) what is fact and what is belief is rather limited in that ability and therefore must engage in a sort of reality check. One must have an initial description of that which they intend to "check", which brings us to:

from here we can then proceed to discern that which is fact from that which is belief (in this context).

So, why is Moroni 7 so simple and effective and exempt from your assertion of being an "element in question"? because it is the same as someone saying "read". For it relies on the act of cognition* -Consciousness - which is the "standard" you seek.

*Cognition, in this context, would include the promptings of the Spirit - which becomes something i "know" because it has been found by the Consciousness to be a "true belief". See also the Cartesian Doubt.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but someone is telling me that you're raising a pretty good point.

Would you care to expound a little more, in layman's terms?

What do you think Monty will get out of reading those books and asking God if "those things" are true... the things prophets of God have written about?

[HeatherAnn]

Yes, Rorty talks a lot about this notion of "redefining metaphors" which really means creating our own world-views- he uses the word "vocabularies" a lot and speaks of the "ironist" who is one who has understood that on one had that all is definitions but yet has a sense of creating one's own definitions- that is the "irony" part.

That whole notion that humans in some sense create our own worlds goes back at least as far as Kant and his "synthetic apriori" and through Hegel gets exploded everywhere in German philosophy- Niezsche, etc and then gets brought across to America in the Pragmatists and their successors including Rorty and partially Wittgenstein.

It is a major theme in humanism too- and oddly, in Mormonism, where we have a Human "creating" worlds by re-defining them and "calling" them into existence- "And they called the evening and the morning the 'first day'" or words to that effect- read Abraham 4 and see how many synonyms you find for "define" in there - it is by words that we create worlds!

But yes, after I had studied all these ideas about creating worlds through linguistic contexts- was when I found Mormonism and there was no question that the two just snapped together in one world view that put it all together for me. So to a large degree I already had those definitions you are mentioning in my head before I had to see their "translations" in Mormon jargon, as you did in that sacrament meeting. In a sense our journeys are parallel, but we are going in different directions! You are going from fundamentalism to linguistic contextualism and I am going somewhat in the other direction- though I don't think I am about to arrive at "fundamentalism"!

I see both languages as "translations" of each other- two different language games for expressing the same thing, and I shift between them about as easily as between English and some other language.

Maybe thats what confuses many here because sometimes I am speaking "Mormon" and sometimes I am speaking "philosophy"- I see no difference but sometimes I guess it confuses guys like maybe it has Montgomery. But what I see is that it is all just different metaphors.

It's so fascinating - & empowering to realize words do make up our worlds! - How we see our world!

Words help us communicate - but also cause miscommunications... & sometimes pain.

It breaks my heart when I hear about suicides (which kill more than war). Often it's because of how they define themselves, their lives etc.

Definitions are so important! How we define God & others tells more about us than anything!

Yet, no matter how much you try to tell somebody a new way of thinking, they won't get it until they're ready... like a stereogram that becomes 3-d, after you look at it just right.

As you mentioned, there's irony... like how we know we're aware of our lack of awareness lol... Also, holding one perspective, while considering more perspectives not only takes work, but also increases one's capacity for both pain & joy.

That's funny that you're going in the direction of fundamentalism... but don't think you'll arrive there. I hope not!

Don't you think the "middle road" is more balanced?

That's partly why I started posting on this forum - because I needed more balance...

I like that LDS beliefs are practical - yet I don't like when they are too practical or literally taken. Another balance.

Edited August 1, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[mfbukowski]

It's so fascinating - & empowering to realize words do make up our worlds! - How we see our world!

Words help us communicate - but also cause miscommunications... & sometimes pain.

It breaks my heart when I hear about suicides (which kill more than war). Often it's because of how they define themselves, their lives etc.

Definitions are so important! How we define God & others tells more about us than anything!

Yet, no matter how much you try to tell somebody a new way of thinking, they won't get it until they're ready... like a stereogram that becomes 3-d, after you look at it just right.

As you mentioned, there's irony... like how we know we're aware of our lack of awareness lol... Also, holding one perspective, while considering more perspectives not only takes work, but also increases one's capacity for both pain & joy.

That's funny that you're going in the direction of fundamentalism... but don't think you'll arrive there. I hope not!

Don't you think the "middle road" is more balanced?

That's partly why I started posting on this forum - because I needed more balance...

I like that LDS beliefs are practical - yet I don't like when they are too practical or literally taken. Another balance.

Well it's not that I am going more toward fundamentalism really, it's just that I am better at understanding how to "translate" between the Mormon vocabulary and the philosophical vocabulary all the time so I am now more comfortable with those who speak the fundamentalist vocabulary, much as your "translation" which happened in sacrament meeting for you.

Unfortunately, being that comfortable has its drawbacks- I switch back and forth in my posts between vocabularies so I am constantly bombarded with "But Mormons don't believe that"- when in fact it is just that most Mormons are not accustomed to looking at their beliefs that way, but the beliefs have not been altered- just the way of expressing them. God is still the creator, Christ is still the savior, our Father still has a body like ours, we are saved by his grace etc. Just as the ancient Greeks saw parallels between their gods and the forces of nature, I see the parallels between God and philosophical concepts about God. They are two sides of the same coin- simply different tools for expression for different purposes. I am trying to learn that translation process better so it communicates better to people who have no use for philosophy - I don't blame them because I also gave up philosophy for years myself when I needed to immerse myself in the Mormon vocabulary. It really is like learning another language- you start to forget how to say things in your native tongue and then you have to use both equally to remain fluent in both. That's where I kind of see myself now.

I think you nailed it when you spoke about the way Psychology sees things relative to the way Sociology might or philosophy might etc. I had some good conversations with John Williams over on the board which shall not be mentioned about that- semiotics parallels philosophy on these precise points about language creating reality and we were trying to communicate- he coming from semiotics and me from philosophy. That is also highly relevant to the notion of "postmodernism" which might interest you.

The important thing to realize is that we have to find truth where we find it- and incorporate it into our lives and not find any of this threatening. The model with the way we need to take people is the way God takes us and teaches us- he takes us how he finds us- ready for the temple or in the gutter, and he cleans us up and teaches us how to become like him. What language you speak- if it be a natural language or the kind of "languages" we are speaking now becomes irrelevant. The point is that we all need redemption from bad things we have done, we all need forgiveness and we all need love and understanding, regardless of how we understand that. We all need to try to become the best humans we can- if you understand that humanistically, or as "striving for the celestial kingdom" the result is nearly the same.

I happen to think one is actually better than the other, but that is where the idea of kingdoms of glory come it. Some of us will get better to being a perfect being than others- and some of us now are better than others. That is just blatantly true.

I love the stereogram analogy- I have often thought of that as well. Others look at the same thing and never "see" what is there because objectively it kind of is and kind of isn't. It's the way you see it. It's like explaining color to someone who has never seen it- you can't do it. Incidentally, that part about color is a very quick and dirty example of what I mentioned in another post above about the "Mary's Room" thought experiment- and also illustrates how commonly we use it around here.

Edited August 1, 2011 by mfbukowski

[subgenius]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but someone is telling me that you're raising a pretty good point.

Would you care to expound a little more, in layman's terms?

What do you think Monty will get out of reading those books and asking God if "those things" are true... the things prophets of God have written about?

This thread is crafty and is somewhat cliche' but mostly a sort of parlor trick, in my opinion.

The six part argument in the OP is truly the source of fallacy but the most important error is revealed in the following:

....... To reason that we can discern between spiritual experiences by using a standard which is justified by those same spiritual experiences in question is circular....

This act of "discernment" is not distinctly spiritual or physical in the context of this discussion. In other words, it is an act of consciousness which is always without doubt (one can not doubt consciousness, because the doubt itself is a conscious act). The "discernment" is not dictated by the text as the OP incorrectly claims.

The question seems to be for the actual existence of an objective truth (knowledge) for Good and Evil. Is Good/Evil something that is "without doubt" - see OP argument #3

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

"Genuine" is apparently the synonym of "objectively true" which is reasonable.

But the following strikes me as worth inspection:

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

above emphasis mine

This clearly states that the consciousness is the source of discernment, a source not beholden to the text.

So, now we can clearly see the fallacies of the OP argument as follows:

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

it is incorrect to propose "can carry" because the consciousness is independent of the experience and is what discerns the experience as true or false. This is followed by:

If we are to accept (1) as a valid premise.....

which we do not accept , because it is not a valid premise.

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

this statement is incorrect, because it states that "opinions are different" - in other words it is reasonable to assume that some reported stamps are not stamps at all, thus no validation is in conflict or contradiction.

Consider the first time you are asked a question. Your contemplate a correct answer. That answer is able to be "doubted" by you, because you do not have the "knowledge" of its correctness, but you believe it to be correct, you have a certain amount of faith in that answer, even if it is only a guess - BUT you do not have knowledge that the answer is correct. The consciousness demands your answer be tested in order to remove that doubt. The successful manner of testing is action. Upon confirmation of the answer you then have knowledge and when the question is asked again, your response is without doubt and comes from knowledge.

You can witness this concept if you help a child learn simple math. There is no subjectivity in 2+2=4, it can not be contradicted by differences in knowledge...only differences in opinion or belief. That is why verse 15 above is so critical to understand.

(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.

There has been a way provided - it has been "given to every man" - see also verse 15 above. Is this not true? Does not every man upon earth have this ability, regardless of geography, literacy, society, etc?

Point (4) is an incorrect statement of fact and is the crux of the entire argument, ergo fallacy

If you agree so far, then we can proceed to the real argument about "if" the description of an object is critical to the consciousness being able to "remove doubt" from it being a true object. Which i question to most atheists as follows:

If you are an atheist with an incorrect understanding of the true nature of God does that degrade the integrity of your atheism? If you are unaware of the true nature of God and you have only been exposed to invalid descriptions of God can you reasonably be expected to believe in Him?

[Ahab]

...

So, now we can clearly see the fallacies of the OP argument as follows:

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

it is incorrect to propose "can carry" because the consciousness is independent of the experience and is what discerns the experience as true or false.

In my perspective, as seen from what I have experienced in my own experiences with God, a religious experience can consist of God communicating something to my conscious to help me know whether or not something is true and good, so I don’t see any problem with Monty saying a religious experience “can carry” with it what he says it can.

Why don’t you agree that a religious experience in which God tells someone what is true and good is a religious experience which can carry with it a self-authenticating quality or “stamp” which validates certain religious truth claims and invalidates others (which are contradictory to those truth claims)?

This is followed by:

Quote: If we are to accept (1) as a valid premise.....

which we do not accept , because it is not a valid premise.

I'm pretty sure I do accept (1) as a valid premise, in certain circumstances.

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

this statement is incorrect, because it states that "opinions are different" - in other words it is reasonable to assume that some reported stamps are not stamps at all, thus no validation is in conflict or contradiction.

I think what Monty meant is that some people claim God has told them some things which contradict what other people say God has told them, and I can see that as being true and dependent upon who is involved in the so-called religious experiences.

I think I’ve already explained how receiving a revelation from God would carry with it a self-authenticating quality or stamp to the person receiving that type of experience, but suppose someone else receives a very similar type of experience from Satan, rather than God.

I think many problems in this world are the result of people getting revelations or insights from Satan while thinking they are hearing from God, sometimes because Satan claims to be God and sometimes because Satan appeals to evil desires in people which they consider to be good which in reality are evil.

To know the difference between good and evil a person needs to know the difference between Satan and God, because if they don’t they may think something is good when in reality it is evil. Thus, whether all people know it or not, we all choose between good and evil even if we don’t know how to correctly label our choices as either good or evil.

Consider the first time you are asked a question. You contemplate a correct answer. That answer is able to be "doubted" by you, because you do not have the "knowledge" of its correctness, but you believe it to be correct, you have a certain amount of faith in that answer, even if it is only a guess - BUT you do not have knowledge that the answer is correct.

Correct. At first I don’t know whether my own thoughts are good or evil, unless I have already learned the correct answer to that issue from God, so until God shares his thoughts with me to give me the correct answer while I know it is God, I will continue to be either unsure or open to error if I accept a wrong answer from someone while believing the wrong answer is right.

The consciousness demands your answer be tested in order to remove that doubt. The successful manner of testing is action. Upon confirmation of the answer you then have knowledge and when the question is asked again, your response is without doubt and comes from knowledge.

It all depends upon who the confirmation is coming from, though, doesn’t it.

If people get confirmation of their thoughts from Satan, who will assure them they are right when they are wrong, they’ll continue to be wrong and yet sure they are right based upon the confirmation they received from Satan. On the other hand, if people get confirmation of their thoughts from God, they’ll be on the opposite side of the spectrum.

You can witness this concept if you help a child learn simple math. There is no subjectivity in 2+2=4, it can not be contradicted by differences in knowledge...only differences in opinion or belief. That is why verse 15 above is so critical to understand.

There is subjectivity involved when a person comes to the knowledge that 2+2=4, though, and each person must arrive at that knowledge subjectively even if there might be some people trying to tell them that it really does not = 4.

(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.

There has been a way provided - it has been "given to every man" - see also verse 15 above. Is this not true? Does not every man upon earth have this ability, regardless of geography, literacy, society, etc?

Yes, there has been a way provided, but some people out there do not accept the fact that the way has been provided and some are even trying to reject what God has provided for them.

Point (4) is an incorrect statement of fact and is the crux of the entire argument, ergo fallacy

Right, but good luck trying to get Monty to admit the way has been provided while he denies that it has.

[Montgomery Price]

Wenglund is doing a better job of it so address his posts..

Keep trying to utilize the objective method against the subjective and wave your arms about yelling "See!."

Keep ignoring that this is a straw-man. Keep ignoring that my argument is not that we should use some objective method to solve the problem between discerning which elements of a relationship with God are actually of God, but that no method works at all. The only methods provided have begged the question.

Use this as the defense against having to address the deeper issues behind religion such as what constitutes acceptable personal behavior, etc.

What? Did you forget that threads have specific topics? Sorry, you don't get to misdirect my thread.

And just as you reject religion based upon the presumed contradictions of spiritual experiences, I will stand your equal in rejecting your crippled application of the scientific method to religion because of the liberty it provides in redefining right and wrong to include whatever appeals to us individually and point to the conflicts/contradictions between the various positions arrived at..

I reject the methods for accepting one self-serving set of spiritual experience as valid among the contradicting sets. The argument doesn't presume that any one set is invalid. The only premise is that they can't each be valid, and we have no method to distinguish between them. That is, no method which doesn't beg the question by presuming one self-serving set is valid to begin with.

You never addressed how my argument deals with the scientific method. Science does have methods which reliably discern between contradicting experimental results. And when it doesn't, science doesn't pretend otherwise. I corrected your misleading transformation with more precise language, and you've yet to explain why you dismiss it still.

Maybe you can try again:

(1) A scientific experiment can yield experimental results which support certain scientific hypotheses and lessens support of others.

(2) It is reported that many different experimental results have supported contradictory hypotheses.

(3) Therefore all relevant experimental results cannot be genuine.

(4) Because you've provided no way to determine whether the results of an experiment are genuine, we have no standard to determine that any hypothesis which purports to be supported by the relevant experimental result actually is.

(5) Relativity makes claims to be a theory verified by certain experimental results.

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Relativity, as verified by those experimental results in question, must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

And adding the more precise language to the original argument:

(1) A religious experience can carry with it a "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 you've provided no way to 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.

There are many differences you've neglected to address.

This argument is to establish that determining the sources of our religious experiences is, epistemically, an open question. But unlike the methods of science, religious methods have declared it doctrine that the method works; that, epistemically, it's a closed question. If you can't tell which elements of a relationship are of God, then you can't tell whether that element has somehow produced knowledge. If you can't tell whether an epistemic tool produces knowledge, then that tool has failed to fulfill its purpose. This is not what we should expect if Mormonism was correct in asserting its epistemic tools do fulfill their purpose.

[Montgomery Price]

What you need is YOUR OWN personal relationship with God until you know that the person YOU know as God truly is God, and you're not going to get that from me or anyone else other than God.

Sure. I could experience elements of a relationship with God, but this still doesn't tell me how to determine which elements of the relationship are actually of God and which may not. All I'll have is a questionable experience.

The best you'll ever get from others when you ask others for confirmation of THEIR OWN spiritual experiences is THEIR own explanation for what it is that makes THEM think THEIR experiences are from who THEY believe God to be.

And as you rightly pointed out, people are generally all over the place on that one, with no agreement among everybody on even the most basic questions concerning both who and what God is.

Yes, and the problem is that we can't distinguish between the methods which led them to those disagreements. Each method relies upon the perceived elements of a relationship with God. Everyone disagrees and when we ask each to justify their position, they all give the same answer. This is no solution.

Suppose you come to the point where you finally have your own personal experience with God so that you are absolutely convinced that the person you had that experience with is God.

Forget about figuring out what it would take for you to get to that point. I'm asking you to imagine a day when you would finally come to the point where you know you have had a personal experience with God.

Now suppose you try to tell everyone else about that experience while trying to give them insights about how they can know when or if they have ever had their own spiritual experiences with God.

Do you think everyone is going to agree on your method of figuring out both who and what God is? Do you think you're going to be adding anything new in the world to what people have already reported as having experienced for themselves?

Joseph Smith saw a lot of the confusion going on in the world over religion and he concluded that he needed more wisdom than he then had to be able to figure out which church to join, or which religion was true, because he could see that appealing to people in their already chosen religion would be pretty much pointless since people were all over the place on that issue. Do you know what he did? Have you ever heard that story as it is reported in our Church history?

That's what you need to do, yourself, now.

You need to come to the point where what you want is a direct and personal answer from God, trusting in God to give you HIS answer.

Until then, all of the different answers you get from different people which contradict each other are probably going to continue to seem as if they all are wrong, even though there are those who have been trying to tell you how they know who God is.

So, your response to my argument, again, is to simply beg the question and explain how the disagreements don't matter once we accept the premise in question. I didn't call attention to the disagreements to be considered given the premise in question. They constitute the evidence which questions the premise. You've failed to understand this again.