Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[HeatherAnn]

Montgomery,

I wonder... Are you frustrated that LDS leaders have argued with black or white thinking ("the church is either true or it isn't")...when nothing's ever black or white?

Are you saying that your experience is self-authenticating?

To me, & to each person, it is. God & spiritual experiences mean different things to different people, even within the LDS church.

I had a seemingly contradictory experience that taught me that spiritual feelings are just that... feelings, with no interpretation until we give them one.

Although I'm married, a part of me will always remember my ex-boyfriend - he's a part of my past & influenced my life. A couple of years ago, he found me on Facebook & we chatted. I felt the spirit, & interpreted it to mean I should be with him. But logic kicked in & I thought, "How could that be? I'm married with children!" I realized then, that when we feel the spirit, it's like something or someone is watering a seed within us. That seed of spirituality & love is already there - resonating with someone or something just stirred it. I also realized that resonating in itself is our experience of God & spirituality & we may not always be right in interpreting it into logical & practical meaning. We must use common sense along with spiritual feelings.

How we experience & define God & spiritual experiences is unique for each person.

[mfbukowski]

Even science is ultimately metaphor- a codification and interpretation of many experiences

Underlining added

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

The Copenhagen interpretation is an attempt to explain the results of the experiments and their mathematical formulations, in terms of quantum mechanics. It was devised by Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in the years 1924–27. They theorised a new world of energy quanta, entities which fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. They thereby stepped beyond the world of empirical experiments and pragmatic predictions of such phenomena as the frequencies of light emitted under various conditions. According to their interpretation, the act of measurement causes the calculated set of probabilities to "collapse" to the value defined by the measurement. This feature of the mathematics is known as wavefunction collapse.

The Copenhagen interpretation is, in form, a composite of those statements which can be legitimately made in natural language to complement the statements and predictions made in the language of instrument readings and mathematical operations. In substance, it attempts to answer the question, "What do these amazing experimental results really mean?" The concept that quantum mechanics does not yield an objective description of microscopic reality but deals only with probabilities, and that measurement plays an ineradicable role, is the most significant characteristic of the Copenhagen interpretation. One consequence of this, derived by Heisenberg, is that knowledge of the position of a particle limits how accurately its momentum can be known—and vice versa.

Reality is dependent on how you measure it- ie: how it is experienced. Even in science.

[Ahab]

One more for the road

Mormonism does not hold that heaven exists objectively because that would be saying that heaven could be proven scientifically.

It can be proven scientifically, though. All you have to do is go there and then you will see it, and walk around there, and live there, just like God or someone in another order of heaven does. Just because we haven't been there, or can't remmeber being there, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It does exist and the people who live there know that. It's not as if it's going to pop into existence from out of nowhere whenver we're ready for it. It's already there waiting for us.

Mormonism says that heaven "exists" as a BELIEF which is justified by subjective spiritual experience- it is accepted on FAITH, not science.

Science is all about what can be experienced with our 5 senses, and at some point those who go to heaven will be able to experience the reality of it. Those who are already there do.

You think the only way something can exist is "objectively" which is not true. Love, for example "exists" subjectively and so does freedom and courage etc.

Things that are real are things that are objective whether or not certain people experience those realities. It is true that reality must be experienced subjectively,but the reality of it is still there and that reality is an objective reality. .

"Reality" is not co-extensive with what can be objectively observed. God is real, heaven is real, but it is not objective.

He, it, and all of reality is objective, even though the objective must be experienced subjectively for that subject to know it exists.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Ahab

[wenglund]

You're welcome. Such satisfying progress we're making.

Wonderful.

It seems obvious for the same reason it fails to answer my objection. We often tend to prefer our own experiences over others for no reason other than our innate, irrational bias. We are biologically and culturally conditioned to trust our own experiences over others. It's far from given that we are justified in doing so in every circumstance. To simply acknowledge that we are wise to question our experiences where it is warranted defies your objection, and the case of religious experience warrants plenty of questions.

I agree that one may not be justified in doing so in every circumstance. That is why I was careful to couch the "doing" as a general rule with exceptions, rather than as an absolute.

And, I agree that it is wise to question our experiences, though not just for questioning sake or always or indiscriminately or in every case, but rather when practical and where it is effectual. If we can't at some point develop a workable level of confidence/trust in at least some or most of our experiences, then our own experiences become useless to us and we become non-functional--unnecessarily paralyzed by doubt and uncertainty and robbed of viability.

I mention this because I think the extent to which you have been questioning religious subjective experiences in particular, may venture into the realm of the dysfunctional. We'll see.

When we are evaluating religious experiences, we are looking to more accurately discern the source in question. To say, "My experience is more accurate because I experienced it" reveals your suggestion to be an absurd response to the question at hand. If we accept this standard, then we must accept that others may be justified in claiming their contradictory experiences to be more accurate than ours. In matters of accuracy, it's an inconsistent standard which defeats itself.

Perhaps. However, I wasn't talking about "accuracy" since that isn't definitively determinate in matters of faith. Rather, I was talking about confidence/trust.

Where we tend to prefer our own experiences over others for good reason is where we have some objective evaluation which supports one experience and not the other. Or as in your example, some objective evaluation which supports your subjective experience when it was questioned.

Right.

We also tend to do so where there may be too little or no way to evaluate objectively in support one way or another. The "good" reasons we tend to do so is because of practicality and trust. We don't have the time or full access to other people's subjective experiences needed to develop the level of trust we have amassed with our own subjective experiences.

You each trusted your own experience because that's how human beings are wired. We have an interest in protecting ourselves as most often correct, because we're uncomfortable with acknowledging that our intuitions are in actuality often misguided. This is well established by the study of cognitive dissonance and the long list of fallacious reasoning methods we utilize to resolve dissonance.

I can't speak for others, but I am not the least bit uncomfortable acknowledging my fallibility. So, the reason I view myself as most often correct, isn't to protect against the discomfort of fallibility, it is because of self-confidence/trust.

So in this case, you only happened to be right before the secret was revealed. Prior to this disclosure, you believed you were right for the wrong reasons, just as your classmates believed you were faking for the same bad reasons.

Wrong. Before learning the "secret," I was "right" for the "right" reason. I was "right" because I knew what I experienced. The other students were "right" about their own experiences, and "wrong" about mine. To suggest otherwise is to fall prey to fallacious thinking you mentioned above.

With insufficient evidence available, you may have felt that you were properly justified in claiming the source of your experience was not your attempt to deceive your classmates, but your experience itself is not sufficient to establish this.

I am sorry, but you aren't making sense here. First of all, what was at issue in the classroom wasn't the "source" of what was being experienced, but the respective experiences, themselves.

Second, since I am the only one who experienced what I experienced, I am the only one who can authoritatively determine whether there was deception on my part. And, I did have sufficient evidence, and I was the only one who did. Even the disclosure of the "secret" wouldn't suffice because I could still have been faking it. I know I didn't fake it because I know what I experienced.

It only seems so upon retrospect because a good reason, one that supersedes any subjective experience, was provided. That good reason was not that you, yourself had experienced the awful taste, but that the rare genetic trait was established as the source using objective methods of evaluation.

Wrong. (see above)

The state of evaluation of our religious experiences is more like the situation prior to the professor's disclosure of additional evidence.

Okay.

Of the possible sources of your experience, your classmates couldn't properly justify any answer.

Again, the disagreement wasn't regarding the "source" of the experience, but rather the diverse excperiences, themselves,

And, in terms of the experiences themselves, they could properly justify their answers. They reasonably extrapolated from their own experience to draw the conclusions they did about mine. They were justified in questioning me, even though I know they were wrong. However, once they gained more information, they then could reasonably change their mind about what I experienced. No one, however, changed their minds about their own subjective experience, and they were justified in so doing.

As with our religious experiences, the source is in question and there's been no method provided which can properly justify any answer.

Like MFB, I don't draw a hard distinction between the "source" and the "eperience." It is like separating the taste and visible color and shap and texture from the salt (the "source") itself.

As such, there isn't any method for coming to definitive answers to subjective religious questions, but it would be unreasonable to expect that there would. As explained, there are, however, methods to properly justify the divers answers.

But according to many members of this forum, the objective evaluation used to solve the dilemma in your college classroom will never be possible for our religious experiences. If this is so, we are still left with the open question. Yet we behave, for no good reason, as if the question is closed.

As explained, we do have good subjective reasons to behave as though the question is somewhat closed.

We have two questions:

The relevant question is not "Does the chemical on the strips taste bad or not?"

The question is "What causes the chemcial on the strip to taste bad or not?"

The answer to the latter question will answer the former. The reverse is not true.

Actually, in terms of whether something tastes bad or not, your second question presupposes the first. It also misses the point for which the first question was posed to begin with--not that it matters much to the current discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 27, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

For the sake of discussion, let's informally grant some level of distinction between "source" and "experience," and this with the purpose of philosophically exploring the question whether religious experiences, like other subjective experiences, are purely a product of self-generated stimuli or the product, in part, of external stimuli.

More to the point, are there methods for making such determinations? And, if so, do those methods include the ones identified in Moroni 10, Moroni 7, and/or Alma 32?

I believe there are inductive methods for making such determinations, though not necessarily the methods found in the scriptures mentioned above. Those scriptural methodologies have other epistemic functionality not so much related to answering the philosophical questions at hand.

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?

Thanks, -Wade Englnd-

Edited July 27, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

For the sake of discussion, let's informally grant some level of distinction between "source" and "experience," .....

Why would you think there was a "source" if no one could experience it?

You can only experience what is experienceable not the source for the experience.

Edited July 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

Why would you think there was a "source" if no one could experience it?

I don't know that I would.

You can only experience what is experienceable not the source for the experience.

I understand what you are saying. I guess what I am getting at isn't so much a formal source/experience distinction as it is an informal source/product distinction--like the difference between the sun as a source, and the light and warmth as the product of the sun. Each are experienced, as you say, and we know them only by way of experience, but the one is experienced as a source, and the other as a product. In short, I was informally using the word "experience" as synonymous with "product" because I think that is how MP may be using it. Does that make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I don't know that I would.

I understand what you are saying. I guess what I am getting at isn't so much a formal source/experience distinction as it is an informal source/product distinction--like the difference between the sun as a source, and the light and warmth as the product of the sun. Each are experienced, as you say, and we know them only by way of experience, but the one is experienced as a source, and the other as a product. In short, I was informally using the word "experience" as synonymous with "product" because I think that is how MP may be using it. Does that make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think the whole insight is that there is no such distinction that can be made. I think there is no reason to make the distinction, and what results from it is an artificial bifurcation of "reality" that has been with us since Plato and Aristotle.

The experience of "the sun" includes light and warmth and the burning globe in the sky- now if you are speaking of the star- "the sun" scientifically that is different, but to see one as the "source" and the other as the "product" to me, just brings back all of epistemology in one felled swoop.

How do you know that the "thing" the "Sun" is the "source" of light etc?

How do you know there is a "thing" out there that is red- a "thing" no one can or has ever experienced? It is postulating a whole metaphysics beyond experience of "things" we can know nothing about.

Why do that?

All we know is what our brains and senses sort out and "give" us as experiences of the world around us- nothing more! If we had different brains, and could see radio waves, our "reality" would be totally different, or as Nagel says in the article mentioned in my siggy- if we were bats and could "see" with our ears, our experiences and our worlds would be totally unlike anything we can conceive of now.

Think of dolphins! Social communicating intelligent animals who are so separated from us as to be true "aliens"

And what if we could experience the way God does? That is a different story far beyond this thread.

But our world is nothing more than the (limited) way we can experience things. And it ends there.

[mfbukowski]

Wade

That we get what we call "light" from the sun is an observation, and it makes sense to talk about the sun as the "source" of light- but that is not to say there is some underlying reality epistemically some "sun thing" that we cannot experience in any way which makes "light things (waves/particles)" which we only experience the effects of.

I would say that speaking of "causes" and "sources" makes perfect sense of course as long as we know that we are speaking in metaphors about ways we chop up experiences and their interpretations linguistically.

What I want to avoid in the way I think of things is an "underlying metaphysics"- but sometimes talking about it - getting the same language game going with others- is difficult because most others think there is some kind of "underlying reality" unless they are schooled in epistemology and where that distinction leads.

But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

As long as we all know the rules and are using the same rules, it doesn't matter! Maybe that is what you are doing- I just wasn't sure! And finally getting through to Montogomery I felt it was such a fragile understanding I was just worried about bringing back "sources" for experience so soon after we had made the distinction.

Edited July 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

I think the whole insight is that there is no such distinction that can be made. I think there is no reason to make the distinction, and what results from it is an artificial bifurcation of "reality" that has been with us since Plato and Aristotle.

Perhaps in a deep philosophical sense you are correct.

However, on a practical level, there is good reason to draw such categorizing distinctions. And, I see from your follow-up post that you understand this. I am, and will be speaking on that practical level because I see potential value in doings so with MP and others, though I will keep your valid concerns in mind.

For example, correct me if I am wrong, but when you say you talk to God, on a practical level I understand you mean that you believe you are communicating with someone or something other than yourself, as opposed to communicating with a part of yourself that you refer to as God. In other words, on a practical level, you believe the source of part of your conversation with God is external to your mind, and that your mind is not entirely the source?

I happen to view it that way, and I suspect that what MP and others are questioning is the basis for our believing as we do rather than concluding that our respective minds are entirely the source.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 27, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

For example, correct me if I am wrong, but when you say you talk to God, on a practical level I understand you mean that you believe you are communicating with someone or something other than yourself, as opposed to communicating with a part of yourself that you refer to as God. In other words, on a practical level, you believe the source of part of your conversation with God is external to your mind, and that your mind is not entirely the source?

I can't know that.

I BELIEVE that is so, and I also believe that belief is justified by the effects such a belief has in my life.

But to be 100% honest, it doesn't matter to me. I really am a pragmatist. If it could be shown that "God" is "only" the very very best being that I can conceive of trying to be like, I would still try my very best to be the best human I could possibly be.

That's what I believed as an atheist, and frankly the shift to seeing it the other way was not that hard. Which it i"s", is unknowable. Literally. That's why we call it "faith".

All I know is what is in my heart and how it feels to me.

Edited July 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

I BELIEVE that is so, and I also believe that belief is justified by the effects such a belief has in my life.

Same here. However, I think it may be justified in other ways as well, which I hope to explore with MP using my Beethoven example above. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I can't know that.

I BELIEVE that is so, and I also believe that belief is justified by the effects such a belief has in my life.

But to be 100% honest, it doesn't matter to me. I really am a pragmatist. If it could be shown that "God" is "only" the very very best being that I can conceive of trying to be like, I would still try my very best to be the best human I could possibly be.

That's what I believed as an atheist, and frankly the shift to seeing it the other way was not that hard. Which it i"s", is unknowable. Literally. That's why we call it "faith".

All I know is what is in my heart and how it feels to me.

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.

[mfbukowski]

Same here. However, I think it may be justified in other ways as well, which I hope to explore with MP using my Beethoven example above. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yep. I'm more than willing to get out of here for a while!

[Chris]

Disagree.

If that was true you could prove the existence of God through science. No one is claiming that.

Objective experiences (science) are justified by other objective experiences (many observations by many people)

Subjective experiences (loving your girlfriend, God speaking to you) can only be justified by other subjective experiences (loving your girlfriend makes you happy, your testimony of God gives your life joy and meaning)

That is what people seem to not understand. If God's existence cannot be proven scientifically, it is not an "objective truth". It is a misuse of those words to call it such.

Is direct observation of something science? Did Joseph Smith "perform" "science" when he allegedly saw Elohim and Jehovah? Why can't there be objective evidence for God?

Edited July 28, 2011 by Chris

[wenglund]

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.

This is, in part, where I was headed. It was nice of you to spoil the surprise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Montgomery Price]

Montgomery,

I wonder... Are you frustrated that LDS leaders have argued with black or white thinking ("the church is either true or it isn't")...when nothing's ever black or white?

Frustrated? No?

Does my tone make me seem frustrated?

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

To me, & to each person, it is. God & spiritual experiences mean different things to different people, even within the LDS church.

I had a seemingly contradictory experience that taught me that spiritual feelings are just that... feelings, with no interpretation until we give them one.

Although I'm married, a part of me will always remember my ex-boyfriend - he's a part of my past & influenced my life. A couple of years ago, he found me on Facebook & we chatted. I felt the spirit, & interpreted it to mean I should be with him. But logic kicked in & I thought, "How could that be? I'm married with children!" I realized then, that when we feel the spirit, it's like something or someone is watering a seed within us. That seed of spirituality & love is already there - resonating with someone or something just stirred it. I also realized that resonating in itself is our experience of God & spirituality & we may not always be right in interpreting it into logical & practical meaning. We must use common sense along with spiritual feelings.

How we experience & define God & spiritual experiences is unique for each person.

(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?

[mfbukowski]

Is direct observation of something science? Did Joseph Smith "perform" "science" when he allegedly saw Elohim and Jehovah? Why can't there be objective evidence for God?

If you are the only one that sees it, it is subjective. You can be right about it- it can be "real" etc, but no one but you can "verify" it. It's all about verification.

If many people see it, or can see it ("Yep- the waterfall is just around the bend in the trail, up that way") it is objective.

The Eiffel Tower and the boiling point of water are "objective" because everybody knows they are real, and can check it out for themselves.

But if you tell me you saw God, or love Susie, no one can verify that but you, even if it is true.

Objective statements are written in something other than the first person- "We saw it, he, she, it, or they saw it", etc.

If it is a first person experience report- starting with "I" you know it is subjective. So there is a logical error of changing the point of view in changing the person of a statement when the premises are in a different person, like first person to third person.

So someone observing chemical xyz while a patient reports some experience- is mixing a first person report with a third person report- the experience is not the chemical. Another point is : Which came first- the chemical or the experience? Did the chemical cause the experience or the experience cause the chemical, or were they both caused by something else?

The description of the chemical change will never exhaust the description of the experience- they are two different things. Again I encourage you to read that article referenced in my signature below- by Nagel

Hearing Beethoven's fifth is a subjective experience the patient had which was coorelated with the Doctor stimulating that part of his brain.

[mfbukowski]

This is, in part, where I was headed. It was nice of you to spoil the surprise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well at least we are on the same wavelength! That has to count for something!

[Chris]

If you are the only one that sees it, it is subjective. You can be right about it- it can be "real" etc, but no one but you can "verify" it. It's all about verification.

If many people see it, or can see it ("Yep- the waterfall is just around the bend in the trail, up that way") it is objective.

The Eiffel Tower and the boiling point of water are "objective" because everybody knows they are real, and can check it out for themselves.

But if you tell me you saw God, or love Susie, no one can verify that but you, even if it is true.

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.

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?

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.

[Montgomery Price]

One more time, with a different approach now, just because I'm curious to see if this approach will help you to understand me.

If I understand you correctly, you're wanting me to provide you with an explanation of how I know it is God who is speaking to me while telling me what he is telling me.

I've told you that I know it is God who is speaking to me because I have a personal relationship with God enough to know when it is God who is speaking to me.

Your response to my response is to tell me that other people say God has spoken to them and told them something that contradicts what I say God has told me.

My response to that response from you is to tell you I don't really care, because I'm staying grounded in what God has told me based upon my own personal experience with God rather than what they say God has told them, which is only hearsay to me.

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

Many people report deep and sophisticated relationships with God, certain elements of which can't be of God, according to Mormonism. For example, Muslims report experiencing the "Divine Oneness" of Allah, from which they reject the God-head and that Jesus is the Savior, for Allah is sufficient in everything, in and of Himself. Their relationship with Allah establishes the Koran as the perfect, inerrant dictation of God, which includes additional confirmation of this belief with verse such as:

Surah Isra 17:111:

"Say: "Praise be to Allah, who begets no son, and has no partner in (His) dominion: Nor (needs) any to protect Him from weakness: yea, magnify Him for His greatness and glory!"

Surah Yunus 10:68:

"They say: "Allah hath begotten a son!" - Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in the heavens and on earth! No warrant have ye for this! say ye about Allah what ye know not?"

You likely consider your relationship with God to be so intimate as to never be properly transferable to someone else, as do they. Those most intimate and critical qualities being entirely subjective and therefore unavailable for evaluation by others. So keeping in mind that each party claims the critical, authenticating qualities of their experiences can't properly be evaluated by others, by what standard do you determine that your relationship is more complete, as you accept Christ, and their relationship is less complete, as they deny Christ?

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.

Adding what you keep misunderstanding, here's the circle which continually confuses our conversation:

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. This establishes that one can experience elements of a relationship with God which are not in fact from God.

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

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

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

M: But this is to simply state the premise in question. You haven't explained anything.

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?

Now, while you'll probably think (again) that I'm not doing anything to try to convince you that I know it is God who is speaking to me, I'm going to ask you to imagine yourself in my situation with someone other than God who told you something.

What would your response be if someone you knew (and had known for a long time) told you something and then someone else came along and told you that same person told them something contradictory to what they had told you.

Would you say something like: Hmm, well, I thought (person X) told me [something in particular], but if you say (person X) told you something contradictory to that, then I really don't know what to think. Maybe [person X] didn't tell me what I thought he said, after all. Maybe my ears were playing tricks on me. Maybe I should go ask him again, to see if he'll still tell me the same thing. Maybe I'm going crazy, and instead of relying upon what I know [person X] told me I should just rely upon what other people tell me [person X] says. Or maybe I should just take the word of [person X] based upon what I know he told me and let other people sort out their own problems if they think [person X] said something contradictory to what he told me.

I'd really like to know how you would handle the same situation I find myself in, Monty.

Here's how I handle it:

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.

Here are the ways I would evaluate my experience:

"Maybe Person X didn't tell me what I thought he said, after all."

Maybe Person X didn't tell that other someone what he thought he said, after all.

Maybe Person X didn't tell either of us what we thought he said, after all.

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.

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.

Here are the ways I would not evaluate my experience:

"Maybe I should go ask him again, to see if he'll still tell me the same thing." -- To seek A again would not be useful, because A is question. If A is indeed the result of a deception, the repeat experience of A could be subject to that same deception. If I chose to seek A and again received the experience of A, I haven't learned anything new or useful to the evaluation of A. Something additional is needed.

"I should just rely upon what other people tell me Person X says." -- Because both A and B are in question, to rely on B at this point would be premature.

"Or maybe I should just take the word of Person X based upon what I know he told me" -- Until I can find someway to prefer A over B, by appealing to something besides A or B, then I have no basis for the statement. To say, "I know he told me" presumes that my experience is no longer in question.

What do you do when people tell you God has told them something which contradicts what you know God has told you? Or have you not heard from God enough to recognize anything he has told you.

See, I know you have heard from him, even though you may not realize it. Anytime you get a "good' thought it is coming to you from God, perhaps through intermediataries, but still from him... because all good thoughts are centered in God. You just need to recognize that and stick to what he tells you even if other people say God has told them something different than what he has told you, based upon your own personal experience with him.

Now I'm done with you, yet again. Please get on with having a good life.

And a Muslim would claim to know that Allah calls every person to the Mosque to pray. You may not realize it, but Allah has called you to bow in his chosen, holy place of worship and pray to him by his chosen, holy name in his chosen, holy language... You just need to recognize that and stick to what Allah tells you.

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.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[shalamabobbi]

Here's how I handle it:

I believe I have an intimate relationship with Debbie.

Debbie tells me that she loves me.

Someone who claims to also know Debbie tells me that she said she doesn't love me.

Whether Debbie loves me is called into question.

Here are the ways I would evaluate my experience:

"Maybe Debbie didn't tell me what I thought she said, after all."

Maybe Debbie didn't tell that other someone what he thought she said, after all.

Maybe Debbie didn't tell either of us what we thought she said, after all.

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

Possible methods of evaluation may appeal to something besides the statements in question, such as some objective test of either, if such tests are possible.

If such tests or methods of evaluation are not possible, then the contradiction remains unresolved. To prefer her statement to me over the other's claim and perform actions which depend upon her statement to me would be premature. At this stage, I prefer and depend on neither. As should be the case, I argue, with statements from Debbie.

Here are the ways I would not evaluate my experience:

"Maybe I should go ask her again, to see if she'll still tell me the same thing." - To seek a repetition would not be useful, because her original statement is in question. If her statement is indeed the result of a deception, a repetition of her statement could be subject to the same deception. If I chose to seek another repetition of her statement and get it, I haven't learned anything new or useful to the evaluation of the truthfulness of her original statement.

"I should just rely upon what other people tell me Debbie says." - Because both statements are in question, to rely on others at this point would be premature.

Wow, let me guess.. no girlfriend?

MP before the judgement bar:

"But You didn't provide me with a God thermometer.."

[shalamabobbi]

The only support you've given is to assert that your experience is somehow self-authenticating. In other words, simply having the experience means you can accurately determine the source.

What exactly about your personal experience leads you to believe this?

What about your personal experiences leads you to believe this?? How do you know the real world is really real? What do you suppose is different from you interacting with your neighbor on the one hand and Joseph and Oliver interacting with John the Baptist on the other?

Your approach is based upon an assumed philosophical approach as well..

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_scientism.html

Edited July 28, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Montgomery Price]

Perhaps. However, I wasn't talking about "accuracy" since that isn't definitively determinate in matters of faith. Rather, I was talking about confidence/trust.

We also tend to do so where there may be too little or no way to evaluate objectively in support one way or another. The "good" reasons we tend to do so is because of practicality and trust.

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

Wrong. Before learning the "secret," I was "right" for the "right" reason. I was "right" because I knew what I experienced. The other students were "right" about their own experiences, and "wrong" about mine. To suggest otherwise is to fall prey to fallacious thinking you mentioned above.

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.

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.

Even the disclosure of the "secret" wouldn't suffice because I could still have been faking it. I know I didn't fake it because I know what I experienced.

The disclosure that a rare genetic trait causes a certain reaction is sufficient, because all need be done is confirm you posses the trait. If it is evident that the relevant chemical and trait are present, they have no reason to believe you are faking even though their observation of your experience would be identical if you had been faking it. The difference is what they've objectively determined beside your experience.

Again, the disagreement wasn't regarding the "source" of the experience, but rather the diverse excperiences, themselves,

Your classmates disagreed with your determination that the source of your experience was beyond your conscious will. They believed the source was your will to deceive.

And, in terms of the experiences themselves, they could properly justify their answers. They reasonably extrapolated from their own experience to draw the conclusions they did about mine.

The extrapolation only seems reasonable because they presumed that the source of the experience only concerned the strip of paper, when in fact it also concerned the rare genetic trait. Although they could justify the content of their own experience, the assumption about the source of the experience was not justified.

They were justified in questioning me, even though I know they were wrong.

They are only justified in questioning you as an extension of questioning the source of each of your experiences. They should question you because they should question each of their experiences.

They were not justified in questioning you as an extension of their unjustified assumption that the source of experience only concerned the strip of paper.

However, once they gained more information, they then could reasonably change their mind about what I experienced. No one, however, changed their minds about their own subjective experience, and they were justified in so doing.

Once they gained more information, they realize that their assumption about the source was not justified. They should then realize that the only certain determination they could make before the professor disclosed the secret was of the content of their own experience.

Like MFB, I don't draw a hard distinction between the "source" and the "eperience." It is like separating the taste and visible color and shap and texture from the salt (the "source") itself.

As such, there isn't any method for coming to definitive answers to subjective religious questions, but it would be unreasonable to expect that there would. As explained, there are, however, methods to properly justify the divers answers.

You've only provided method to determine the content of religious experiences. You've provided no useful method to determine their source. You've simply suggested that it would be unreasonable to expect any useful method.

Actually, in terms of whether something tastes bad or not, your second question presupposes the first. It also misses the point for which the first question was posed to begin with--not that it matters much to the current discussion.

The second question only presupposes that there is content, not exactly what that content is. And I didn't pose the second question as relevant to why the first question was posed... So, yea. It doesn't matter.

[Montgomery Price]

Wow, let me guess.. no girlfriend?

MP before the judgement bar:

"But You didn't provide me with a God thermometer.."

My girlfriend's name is Heaven, ironically...

But I don't see anything wrong with your transformation. I forgot to mention, that I could also test whether that other someone is likely to have lied to me, and also test whether I am likely to deceive myself. There are many experiments of love which I could subject Debbie to, but to simply ask her to say "I love you" again is only convincing if she adds something to the original "I love you" which was questioned. If this sounds a bit harsh, and you believe Debbie should be rightly offended by my questioning her love... let's just say that I don't wish my partner to get too carried away with anything, including love and even if it benefits me.

What about your personal experiences leads you to believe this??

To believe what? That if you claim your experience is self-authenticating, an explanation is reasonable to request?

What?

How do you know the real world is really real? What do you suppose is different from you interacting with your neighbor on the one hand and Joseph and Oliver interacting with John the Baptist on the other?

One is an experience with someone who I can reasonably determine evidently exists, a determination I cannot make with the other. This is not to say that John the Baptist does not currently exist, but only that I have no way of knowing whether he does or does not. So, I choose to depend on neither assumption.

And how do I know that the real world is really real? Well... I don't know exactly what you mean. You'll have to use words a bit more specific and diverse.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Montgomery Price