mfbukowski Posted November 8, 2011 Posted November 8, 2011 RobMy answers will require reference to philosophical systems which are opposed to yours- I am presuming you are familiar with those- I will reference the philosophers and schools they are based on instead of reciting 2000 years of philosophy. Your entire world view is based on a Neoplatonic understanding of epistemology and truth, a view to which I do not subscribe. I am not going to explain the 2000 years of philosophy because I presume as an alleged theologian you are familiar with it.Furthermore, I am quite busy today, so I will have to respond to your lengthy post a bit at a time, since I have many family responsibilities and church responsibilities in the next few days- my daughter is returning from her mission and there is a lot to do this week. I do suggest, however, that you accept your spiritual experience as a revelation from God because you believe it was a revelation from God.Yes, just as you accept you are sitting in front of a computer screen because you believe you are sitting in front of a computer screen. Honestly I see this as an equivalent assertion which makes as much sense as yours above.Our beliefs are based on our experiences and what we see as "reality"; there is no way we can get "beyond" our experiences to some reality independent of experience. You should be familiar with this world view- it is based on the Pragmatism of William James and John Dewey, the philosophy of language of Wittgenstein and even some Saussure, and Rorty. If you want a quick reference base, my position is close to what is known as "postmodernism", and is widely held by many in philosophy and literature and social sciences. Another quick reference would be "social constructivism" or more accurately for my position, "linguistic constructivism".I hope that will help us cut to the chase so that you can "peg" my position so that I do not have to cover 2000 years of philosophical developments to tell you "where I am coming from"There does seem to be circularity in your belief at this point. Granted, you might not be arguing for the truth of your personal revelation, but merely testifying to it. If so, perhaps the answer to my question is that you cannot give a non-circular argument for the truth of your testimony.As I said, I can. It is as real to me as boiling water reaching the temperature of 212 degrees. And millions of other church members "verify" the same experience.And I think we can get back into your buddy Craig at this point, and the ways his experiences are related to the Mormon one. Shall we talk about the "validity" of the altar call experience? How does an Evangelical know that he is saved except by Craig's examples?You wrote:I know what qualia are, but I'm not sure how this philosophical concept is relevant here. You claim to know several things to be true because you directly experienced them as true in the same way one directly experiences seeing something as red. The significance of qualia in philosophy of mind is that they are subjective experiences that are normal in human experience (everyone except the vision-impaired sees some things as red) but cannot be fully described or explained.The assertion that we cannot know if my revelation is true or false is precisely like asking if you see the same "red" that I do- in other words it is meaningless. We both experience the same "quale" of red, say, just as we both experience some ineffable knowledge that God is speaking to us.It is my understanding that Evangelicals believe that God "calls" people to the ministry- How can one know that? How can you know that you are "called" to your work by God when it is a subjective experience no one else can verify for you? That is precisely how this discussion of qualia relates to religion. We both agree to call a given quale "red" but we cannot verify each other's personal experience of God- in your case of knowing you are "saved" or "called to the ministry" or for me, that the Book of Mormon is "true".A mystic may have a spiritual experience that he testifies was of the metaphysical oneness of all things, the divinity of all existence, an experience of nonduality. He may say, and may sincerely feel, that his experience of oneness with the All was as direct, immediate, and indubitable as seeing a car as red, but this doesn't mean that monism is true and we are all metaphysically one. The fact is that whatever he experienced -- and I see no need to deny that he had an experience -- is something that heFirst, describing such spiritual experiences as qualia does not mean they are necessarily veridical.This of course depends on your entire epistemolgical system and what indeed DOES describe how we use the word "true", and on that, we differ, as I mentioned above. Indeed, in such cases I would argue that we may be confident that he learned that interpretation from those who guided him to have the experience in the first place.There is no such thing as an "uninterpreted" experience. Light waves enter your eyes, and are organized by your brain and even your language will determine what you "see". It is a scientific fact that Japanese people "see" pictures differently than English speakers, notice details differently, and understand them according to their (or our) pre-conceived world-views. It is a falacy that we can experience "things as they are"- we just can't.I have things to do now and will return to this post later- if you wish to discuss this post only, I will respond, but we might lose some details below I haven't gotten to.It's up to you.
mfbukowski Posted November 8, 2011 Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) This is a continuation of the reply to Rob in post 226After all, mysticism is not merely caught; it is also taught, even by those who say it cannot be taught but must be caught (as is common in Zen, which makes such self-stultifying statements even in the course of long books about Zen!). There is also the phenomenon of spiritual experiences matching prior expectations. If you stare at the flame of a candle long enough, meditating on the flame, telling yourself that nothing exists except the flame, seeking to know that you are the flame, you may very well end up having an ineffable experience of oneness with the flame!We are actually a little bit in agreement here, but I think your conclusions are wrong.I would say that you are so used to "telling yourself" that you are aware of things "as they are" that you have convinced yourself that those things really are as you see them. Yet quantum physics tells us that they are made of particles and waves of energy, and mostly space, which is really very different from the way we see them.We interpret those light waves and other sensory data and construct the world according to what we need. We see computer screens and cars and trees because that is what we bodily organisms NEED to see- what we have evolved to see- largely because such perceptions allow us to survive and reproduce, because that is God's plan for us.So to me, your view of reality is no less mystical than the mystic's. Yes it is objectively verifiable, but yet (using Kuhn's view of the philosophy of science) those explanations of what we all see change all the time according to which paradigm works best for us with predictive value on one hand and what "works" for us on the other.Beliefs are "justifiable" based on what works, because we cannot know what IS. All we can know is our experience of everything around us.Appeals to spiritual experiences as immediate and indubitable are, then, circular, even if the appeal is presented as something other than a rational argument. "Try it and you'll see" presupposes some reasoning even if what is proposed is a non-rational means of knowing. The presupposition of all such appeals is that certain categories of truth can be known only by perception and not by reason or examination of facts. But that claim is itself an argument; it is a piece of reasoning about the limits of reason and the possibilities of experience.Not sure what this even means in my context of seeing the world. I am not even remotely sure of what you mean by "rational" here. Perhaps you are talking about the distinction between the "subjective" and "objective" points of view- I am sure we will get there eventually, if we don't I will explain the difference anyway.I don't believe I have appealed to "Christian tradition" as a basis for my beliefs. Appealing to evidence in the Bible to corroborate or support one's belief in the Bible is not circular reasoning. It would only be circular reasoning if I said something like "We may use this bit of information in the Bible to prove that the Bible is true because we already know that the Bible is true." I don't do this. Also, I don't argue that if some things in the Bible are true then everything in the Bible is true. Such an argument would on its face be fallacious. What I do argue is this: once we recognize that a Creator God exists (which we can know apart from any faith in the Bible)I disagree. I believe in evolution.and are convinced that Jesus rose from the dead (which can be established as highly reasonable and the best explanation of the historical facts without presupposing the truth of everything in the Bible),Your circularity is showing. The historic facts are that Zoroaster also claimed to be a prophet, Buddha set forth his beliefs, Mohammad did as well, etc etc - there are probably hundreds of people alleging to be "prophets" who existed historically and for whom their followers have a "historical basis" for believing them. Yet you do not accept these as prophets. Why not?How about this guy?http://en.wikipedia....27u%27ll%C3%A1hHe lived recently, we have photos - we have followers- we have his words- far more perfectly than the legend of Jesus. Why, based on your historical evidence, don't you think he was in fact the second coming, another avatar, of Christ, as he has claimed?? Why not? BECAUSE YOU KNOW HE IS AN IMPOSTER BECAUSE YOU HAVE A TESTIMONY- A SPIRITUAL WITNESS THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST JUST AS I DO!...this fact of Jesus' resurrection leads to the conclusion that Jesus' view of Scripture (which can be determined by study of the Gospel documents as historical sources without presupposing their absolute truth) as the trustworthy word of God should be accepted as itself true. Determine what texts are properly regarded as Scripture, and we're done. Even this admittedly compressed and simplified summary should be sufficient to make it clear that I do not argue with vicious circularity for the truth of the Bible.This are stories which are totally unverifiable. I can show you many stories of alleged resurrection which followers believe are "historically true". Surely you don't want to base your belief on such ephemeral "evidence"- this is your life we are talking about- and possibly your eternity. Do you really want to waste that on some 2000 year old stories which are mostly legend??Yes, Jesus is the Christ- but you cannot know that based on historical evidence- much less the circular evidence of the Bible which testifies of itself.Supposedly, we agree that the revelations in the Bible are true. This ought to allow us to agree to see if the revelations in the LDS scriptures are also true by comparing them with the revelations in the Bible. To the extent that you feel you must hedge on the reliability of the Bible, such an approach will not work for us. But for those who agree that the Bible is true revelation from God, the criterion of coherence with that revelation is an obvious and rational criterion for assessing the truth claims of any purported additional revelations.I personally see no conflict whatsoever between the Book of Mormon and the Bible AS I INTERPRET BOTH. And we cannot see such things independent of interpretation- there is no way to establish an interpretation which is universally accepted. So ultimately it is your opinion vs ours- and that is not going to take us very far.Must stop here again for a while. Edited November 8, 2011 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted November 8, 2011 Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) This is yet another reply continuing post 226There are other approaches to assessing the truth claims of the LDS religion that are consistent with a biblical faith but do not necessarily presuppose the truth of the Bible. For example, one can examine the purported LDS revelations and assess them in terms of historical authenticity. I don't expect someone who is relying on a private spiritual experience of those revelations as from God to accept such approaches. However, they are relevant from my point of view--and from the point of view of anyone who has not had such a Mormon experience. The reality is that such reasoned approaches are also relevant to some people who have had spiritual experiences as Mormons, because in fact some such people abandon their belief in the LDS religion as a result of their exposure to information and reasoning that calls that belief into question. We will have different opinions as to why this happens, but it does. The fact that it does suggests once again that the meaning of the spiritual experiences is subject to interpretation.Religion cannot be objectively proven. If it could be, we would not be having this discussion. Everyone would know that there was no conflict between science and religion. There would be no arguments about creationism vs evolution, or intelligent design, or anything else. Everyone would have the same religion, because it would be clear that it was "true".Everyone knows that the meaning of spiritual experiences are subject to "interpretation". This is so obvious it doesn't need to be said. That has nothing to do with what you call "reason"- reason can be used to rationalize anything and it often is.Any experience which is a subjective experience is subject to interpretation. How do you know you love or don't love your wife? Can you be mistaken about that? Do you have any doubt that you have a choice to sit down and respond to this, or not to respond, or how to respond? This speaks to "free will" vs "determinism". Regardless of which view on that we hold, NO ONE believes that we cannot make choices.Choices are subjective just as interpretations are subjective. Deciding to go to the cleaners today or tomorrow is subjective. Values are subjective, what political party to join or not join is subjective, your interpretation of this sentence is subjective.Yes, there are objective facts that we all can verify, but none of these are religious in nature. We can all agree that if we put the thermometer in boiling water it will read 212 degrees- or 100 degrees dependent on the context of how we make up a number to define what "temperature" water "boils". We can use Kelvin, or Celsius or Fahrenheit - depending on what we need to measure. Is Pluto a planet or not? It depends on the context and definition of words.Words are all we have, and all words can express are metaphors. When you say the word "chair" a chair does not pop out of your mouth- words are not things, and are subject to interpretation. A folding chair? A stuffed chair? An Eames chair? A high-chair? The word can refer to none of these or any of these or all of these depending on the context.No amount of objective data can prove that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins, so that we can be saved and go to heaven.I wouldn't state my objection to your experience in quite that way. Your analogy, however, has a problem in my view. The science textbook statement about the boiling point of water can be verified objectively and the verification perceived by more than one person at a time. We can get a bunch of us in a room, put water to boil, and watch the thermometer. True, we each "experience" seeing the water evaporate once the thermometer reaches 212 degrees F., but this is a sharable experience because it involves a publicly observable phenomenon. That is clearly not the case with your private experience of a personal revelation from God. No power of suggestion is going to make the water evaporate when the thermometer is still at 80 degrees F. In no sense could one ever plausibly argue that the water only seemed to us to evaporate at 212 degrees F. because we were preconditioned to believe it would do so as a result of reading it in a textbook. The psychological and epistemological situation is entirely different when it comes to private, subjective, putatively spiritual experiences. In such cases it is entirely plausible to theorize that being taught that one will have such an experience if one seeks it may precipitate such an experience for those rightly predisposed. This would explain why some people report sincerely asking God to reveal to them that the Book of Mormon is true if indeed it is, reading the book in good faith, and not having such an experience--and even in some cases reporting spiritual experiences convincing them that the Book of Mormon is not true.Yes. So what? It is all subject to interpretation.Are you really alleging that you can scientifically prove the existence of God, and that Evangelicalism is scientifically "true"? It appears that this is an assumption of your position- that religious choice is NOT "subject to interprAre you saying that no one converts from being Evangelical to Mormonism? My daughter and my son both- as missionaries to the South have seen many many conversions in the "Bible belt", and has helped many former Evangelicals feel the Spirit as they never have before.That spiritual experiences are subject to interpretation is such a common place that it is not even worth discussing. We would not be having this talk if this were not a "given". So what's your point? Edited November 8, 2011 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 This ends my response to Rob's post 207 and the continuation of my post 226.I think I misquoted those numbers a time or two, so I hope this clarifies that.
mfbukowski Posted November 9, 2011 Posted November 9, 2011 Thus, I will talk about the general revelation of conscience grounded in our creation in the imago Dei that confirms and expands the general revelation mediated through the natural world, or the special revelation that consists of illumination, the internal work of the Holy Spirit by which he enables individuals to recognize or apprehend the truth revealed in Scripture and embodied in the person of Jesus Christ. In my view these modes of revelation are certainly personal (they aren't impersonal!), but they are not purely subjective, ineffable experiences.This is so nuanced as to be virtually meaningless. Admit it. Evangelicals get personal revelation just as we do- you just can't figure out why we disagree about what these revelations tell us.That's ok- we have it covered for you. You will understand it all once you get to the other side. I hope to see you there.God leads us in the way he can reach us best, and our journey continues past this life. Of course that is the Mormon way of seeing it, but it is also the only way to make sense of the notion that we are both right- for now.But I don't think you can possibly admit that. So you are stuck with what appears to be a conflict. But it isn't. 2
Rob Bowman Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,I'm not able to take the time to respond to your series of posts right now, but I will try to do so later.
mfbukowski Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,I'm not able to take the time to respond to your series of posts right now, but I will try to do so later.I think no response is possible. We are speaking past each other and always will. We live in two different universes.
Vance Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,I'm not able to take the time to respond to your series of posts right now, but I will try to do so later.Bump.
Vance Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I suspect Bowman really is very busy, laboring to produce his latest quibble.
Ares Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Please avoid personal remarks about other posters.
mfbukowski Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Please avoid personal remarks about other posters.Nemesis previously cited Bowman for repeatedly avoiding the issues; I think we were more pointing out that it appears he did it again here than making a personal remark.Sir. (Saluting!)
Ares Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 "...latest quibble..." was my target, not calling for a response. Carry on carrying on...
mfbukowski Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKg5ggoqJ0gI like that bass drum at the end the best. My kids laugh at me because every time they play that I say "Baa-roooom" at the end!
Rob Bowman Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,In one post you state: I think no response is possible. We are speaking past each other and always will. We live in two different universes. In another post you state: Nemesis previously cited Bowman for repeatedly avoiding the issues; I think we were more pointing out that it appears he did it again here than making a personal remark. First, the fact is that in the thread you are referencing, I did not repeatedly avoid the issues. When I politely asked what issues I had supposedly avoided, I received no response.Second, your two statements raise conflicting expectations. On the one hand, you announce that you think no response is possible. On the other hand, you claim that I am avoiding the issues by failing to respond. If no response is possible, I cannot be faulted for not giving a response!Third, I said I would try to respond when I could. That was just a few days ago--five, I believe. I meant what I said. My youngest child had back surgery two and a half weeks ago, and a week after she was back home it was time for me to get ready for a trip across the country. I have been putting in typically 15-hour days at a convention attending lectures and meeting with people from morning until late in the evening. That information only represents the tip of the iceberg. I have posted very little in the past two or three weeks and almost nothing in the past few days, and I simply have not had the time to construct responses to your lengthy series of posts. You and Vance did not know these things, but you did not need to know them. They were not your concern. There was no justification for accusing me of avoiding issues here; you simply assumed that if I didn't answer you quickly then I was avoiding issues. And you and Vance have both done this several times.Fourth, even when I do respond, you and Vance have accused me of not answering you, or of not answering you adequately, over and over and over. It doesn't matter what I say, the two of you refuse to accept my answers as even good-faith efforts to respond. I have complained more than once about this but it falls on deaf ears, apparently, because you continue to be allowed to do it again and again. Occasionally Vance is told to refrain from certain statements that are obvious infractions, such as happened here recently, but the two of you are allowed to continually accuse me of avoiding issues even when I have responded repeatedly within the same thread. Then, if I decide I have had enough and drop the matter, or for some reason don't reply within a few days (and sometimes even after just one or two days), one or both of you again accuses me of avoiding the issue. The forum has an "ignore" function, but apparently this option does not apply to me. I consider your constant accusation of not answering to be harassment, and I have reported it as such more than once, but I have never received a response to those reports, and the harassment continues. Those who run this forum are free to do so any way they choose, but if they have good reasons for their handling of this matter they have not seen fit to share those reasons with me. That also is their privilege, of course.However, I will not subject myself to you or Vance's harassment any longer. The two of you may actually succeed in getting what you clearly want, which is to get me driven from the forum altogether. I hope that is not the case, because there are LDS here whom I respect and with whom I would appreciate having continued dialogue, even if we strongly and even vehemently disagree. It would be too bad if the only non-LDS biblical scholar and theologian who is willing to engage the issues with the best and most knowledgeable LDS apologists online were to be forced to withdraw, or even expelled, from this forum. I hope it does not come to that, but it does seem to be coming. In any case, I will not allow you to continue bullying me. If that means I get kicked off the forum, that's what it means. I will be happy to hear from anyone interested in pursuing dialogue elsewhere, but I expect there will be few takers. We'll see what happens. But after this post, unless you apologize for the unwarranted attacks and unless you avoid any more such unpleasant comments about me, I will simply not respond to your posts, no matter how much I may want to do so.Now, although it is late and I am tired, in the next couple of posts I will offer some comments on your series of posts. I don't think any sensible forum members will imagine that if I were not to offer some response it would prove that I am unable to do so, but still, in the interests of going the extra mile and demonstrating my good faith once again, I will offer a response.
Rob Bowman Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) Mr. Bukowski,Your statements appear in the block quotations, with my comments following.Your entire world view is based on a Neoplatonic understanding of epistemology and truth, a view to which I do not subscribe.You made this assertion without providing any evidence to back it up. That means that all I need to do to answer this criticism adequately is simply to deny it. I deny it. I do not hold to a worldview that is in any way based on Neoplatonic understandings.I am not going to explain the 2000 years of philosophy because I presume as an alleged theologian you are familiar with it.There you go again. "An alleged theologian"? Bud, I am a theologian. I have written books in theology endorsed by some of the leading biblical scholars and theologians in the world (and not all evangelicals, either). I have a graduate degree in biblical studies and theology, completed doctoral studies in theology, have written peer-reviewed theological articles, and taught theological subjects on the graduate level. You make these little digs and get away with them, over and over and over again, and I'm calling you on it. If you do it again, and are allowed to do so, I will just have to ignore it.If you want a quick reference base, my position is close to what is known as "postmodernism", and is widely held by many in philosophy and literature and social sciences. Another quick reference would be "social constructivism" or more accurately for my position, "linguistic constructivism".One thing on which we can clearly agree is that we have very different philosophies. You stated (quoted above) that we live in different universes. That is essentially what your philosophical orientation dictates. The postmodern and constructivist approaches to knowledge deny the possibility of adjudicating between different worldviews. They deny an objective aspect to knowledge and so oppose any attempt to argue for one "metanarrative" as the truth. The fact that you do not see such philosophical relativism as fatal to the LDS Church's missionary truth claims is hard to fathom.It is my understanding that Evangelicals believe that God "calls" people to the ministry- How can one know that? How can you know that you are "called" to your work by God when it is a subjective experience no one else can verify for you?It is not a purely subjective experience. There is an objective and a subjective aspect to the call. The subjective desire to serve in a particular capacity or field of ministry must be confirmed in some objective way, typically by godly leaders endorsing the proposed direction of ministry, and/or by clear evidence of giftedness suitable for that work, encouragement from people helped by initial forays into that area of service, and so forth. In most ministries involving significant responsibility, there is a formal review process to establish accountability and integrity.We both agree to call a given quale "red" but we cannot verify each other's personal experience of God- in your case of knowing you are "saved" or "called to the ministry" or for me, that the Book of Mormon is "true".In my epistemology, there is an objective aspect to all of these kinds of knowing, and if that is defective it calls into question the subjective perspective of the putative knower. If I were to claim to be "saved" but denied that Jesus rose from the grave, we would have objective evidence that my subjective experience was misleading or deceiving. If I were to claim to be called to the ministry of pastoral leadership but was constantly abrasive, judgmental, and uncaring in my interactions with other people, my behavior would prove my claimed calling to be my own vain imagination. If I were to claim to have a spiritual experience validating The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ as an authentic ancient scripture, the demonstrable fact that it is an early 20th-century composition would prove my claimed spiritual experience to be deceiving. On the other hand, if I claim to find the Gospel of Luke spiritually compelling, while that experience does not prove it to be scripture or reliable, it dovetails or integrates perfectly with objective evidence of its antiquity, historical reliability, apostolic authority (as the writing of one of Paul's associates), and widespread acceptance in the early church as scripture.A mystic may have a spiritual experience that he testifies was of the metaphysical oneness of all things, the divinity of all existence, an experience of nonduality. He may say, and may sincerely feel, that his experience of oneness with the All was as direct, immediate, and indubitable as seeing a car as red, but this doesn't mean that monism is true and we are all metaphysically one. The fact is that whatever he experienced -- and I see no need to deny that he had an experience -- is something that heThat is where your statement ended. If you stick to your epistemological guns, you have no way of showing that the mystic's monistic interpretation of his experience is not true. All you can consistently say is that his interpretation would not be true within the worldview construct to which you adhere.There is no such thing as an "uninterpreted" experience.I agree. Happily, I have a worldview and epistemology in which that statement does not collapse into itself and result in abject skepticism. There are no uninterpreted experiences, but that doesn't make all interpretations equally valid or put them beyond the possibility of reasoned evaluation. The self-stultifying nature of your approach is nicely illustrated by your next comment:It is a scientific fact that Japanese people "see" pictures differently than English speakers, notice details differently, and understand them according to their (or our) pre-conceived world-views. It is a falacy that we can experience "things as they are"- we just can't.Here you say, in effect, this is the way things are, and the way things are proves that we cannot experience, see, or know things as they are. But if we cannot know things as they are, then we cannot know that this is the way things are.If it is possible to see that Japanese people see pictures differently, then it is possible to see what Japanese people see, in which case they do not always see things differently than we do -- once we are introduced to their perspective, we can see what they see, too. On the other hand, if it is not possible to see that Japanese people see pictures differently, then it is not possible to know that this is a scientific fact. Edited November 18, 2011 by Rob Bowman
Rob Bowman Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Mr. Bukowski,In the quotation that follows, the bold emphasis is mine:I would say that you are so used to "telling yourself" that you are aware of things "as they are" that you have convinced yourself that those things really are as you see them. Yet quantum physics tells us that they are made of particles and waves of energy, and mostly space, which is really very different from the way we see them.We interpret those light waves and other sensory data and construct the world according to what we need. We see computer screens and cars and trees because that is what we bodily organisms NEED to see- what we have evolved to see- largely because such perceptions allow us to survive and reproduce, because that is God's plan for us.So to me, your view of reality is no less mystical than the mystic's.The non sequitur of moving from the first two paragraphs to that conclusion is breathtaking. Eight times you refer to what "we" experience, what is true for "us," and then conclude that this shows that my view of reality is mystical!Your argument in these paragraphs is as full of holes as the largely empty spaces between microscopic particles in your example. We do not see computer screens and trees because we need to see them, but because they are there and we have the capacity to see them. They are just as real as the subatomic particles that we do not see. The moons orbiting Jupiter did not suddenly become more real when Galileo first saw them in his telescope. The human capacity to see something is not relevant to the reality of that something. The water from the Kellers' pump was real even though Helen Keller could neither see nor hear it but could only feel it. The water did not change in its ontological or metaphysical status when Helen understood W-A-T-E-R.To assert that the world is not as "we" think we know it but is actually particles and waves moving in largely empty space is once again to claim to know what you are in the very act of asserting you cannot know. If you are right about the physics of the material world, then you do know the way things actually are. If you do not know that this is the way things actually are, then you do not know that the way things appear to us is not after all the way things are. So once again you are sawing off the epistemological tree limb on which you are sitting.Beliefs are "justifiable" based on what works, because we cannot know what IS. All we can know is our experience of everything around us.Then you cannot know that the Book of Mormon IS the word of God. You can only know that the experience of living as if the Book of Mormon were the word of God seems to be working for you in your experience. This is why I say that your epistemology is fatal to Mormonism.Your circularity is showing. The historic facts are that Zoroaster also claimed to be a prophet, Buddha set forth his beliefs, Mohammad did as well, etc etc - there are probably hundreds of people alleging to be "prophets" who existed historically and for whom their followers have a "historical basis" for believing them. Yet you do not accept these as prophets. Why not?My argument is not "Jesus really existed, he claimed to be something, he managed to get some disciples to accept his claim, therefore it's all true." The mere historical existence of a religious figure is not sufficient to establish that he was what he claimed to be. I accept the historical existence of such persons as Gautama and Muhammad. I don't accept their religious teachings, because I have examined their claims and the claims of their followers, and the arguments (if any) their followers give for accepting those claims, and I have concluded that the claims do not withstand fair-minded scrutiny.The evidence that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the grave, however, I find compelling. I have found it compelling even during dark periods of my life when I had no earthly reason to continue in the faith and certainly no warm feelings on which to base such perseverance. It was the truth of Jesus' resurrection that kept me following him (albeit it very imperfectly) because I knew that I could not escape that truth and that ultimately it meant hope and eternal joy. The historical argument for Jesus is not a circular one. I have written extensively on this subject (in Faith Has Its Reasons and more popularly in 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists). The argument approaches the documentary evidence without presupposing their truth, weighs that evidence, finds that certain facts are too well established historically to deny (e.g., the death of Jesus on the cross, the empty tomb, the experiences of family members and friends of Jesus who reported seeing him risen from the dead, the conversion of Saul the persecutor to Paul the apostle), and reasons to the conclusion that the Resurrection best accounts for all this evidence.I pass over statements that merely extend your incredulity at the historical argument for the Resurrection.I personally see no conflict whatsoever between the Book of Mormon and the Bible AS I INTERPRET BOTH. And we cannot see such things independent of interpretation- there is no way to establish an interpretation which is universally accepted. So ultimately it is your opinion vs ours- and that is not going to take us very far.You don't mean to do so, but your statement that "ultimately it is your opinion vs ours" forgets that God really exists. Ultimately it is God's view, not your opinion or mine, that matters. Theologically, from my point of view if you will, the fact that we are creatures made in God's image intended to know and worship him in spirit and truth (John 4:20-24) means that we are not left with incommensurable interpretations of God and his world. Although we cannot escape interpretation -- a point I myself have forcefully made -- we can compare interpretations and pursue the truth about the realities we are interpreting differently. The fact is that people change their interpretations all the time. Every convert from one belief system to another is an example of such changes of interpretation. We cannot escape interpretation, but we can and often do escape the specific interpretations that we happen to hold at one time or another.Religion cannot be objectively proven. If it could be, we would not be having this discussion. Everyone would know that there was no conflict between science and religion. There would be no arguments about creationism vs evolution, or intelligent design, or anything else. Everyone would have the same religion, because it would be clear that it was "true".Objective proof may in fact be available and yet not everyone accept it. Objectivity and proof are not equivalent to absolute clarity in every person's mind. People choose to ignore, obfuscate, or deny what is right in front of their faces not because the truth is not objectively there or because it cannot be proven but because people are fallen, sinful, and often irrational creatures! As Spock would say, to expect irrational creatures to be rational would not be rational. Rare is the person who knows that something has been proven but admits choosing not to accept that conclusion for non-rational reasons. I have rarely seen it. I had a feminist student in a college philosophy class admit that the objective evidence showed that the unborn were human persons but that she was not willing to give up her pro-abortion stance because it was a weapon to empower women (she thought). Most people will not be so candid. They will bluster their way through, deny the cogency of the argument, change the subject -- anything but admit that the evidence is what it is. Am I immune? No. None of us is immune. We must be on our guard against self-serving reasoning. We must be willing to listen to those who disagree with us, just in case they might help us see something we have missed or even have so far refused to acknowledge. We must value truth above comfort, above our traditions, above our careers, above our pride. And we must accept the fact that truth is knowable, that we are accountable to God to know what he has given us to know, and be committed to pursuing that knowledge out of love for the God of truth. But whether we do these things or not, the truth is there. It is objectively there. Some of it can be proven rationally. Some of it cannot. What we need to know, there are good reasons to show that it is true, even if those reasons fall short of absolute proof. Whatever subjective spiritual experience we might have may be precious to us, but if it is true it will line up with objective, publicly accessible knowledge.Yes, there are objective facts that we all can verify, but none of these are religious in nature.This assertion that you make here is itself either an objective, verifiable fact, or it is religious in nature and so not verifiable. If your statement is an objective fact, then it ought to be possible to verify it. But if religious statements cannot be verified, there is no way for us to verify that all such statements are non-verifiable. If on the other hand your statement is religious in nature, then it is not objectively true that religious statements are non-verifiable. This would then simply be your subjective experience or opinion concerning religious statements. Mine may vary. I may find that some religious statements are verifiable, others are falsifiable, and others still are at present beyond my ability to verify or to falsify. That is in fact what I find.It is an objective and verifiable fact that water evaporates at 100 degrees Centigrade. You evidently think that the resurrection of Jesus is not in this category of fact. Are all historical statements non-objective and non-falsifiable? What about the statement that Jesus existed? What about the statement that Joseph Smith died in 1844? These are not religious statements; they are simply historical statements. So perhaps your circle of non-objective and non-verifiable facts will have to be expanded. If the criterion is that a particular statement is not clear to everyone, the shadow of skepticism begins to loom large indeed.Are you saying that no one converts from being Evangelical to Mormonism?No, I said no such thing. People convert from evangelical to Mormon and from Mormon to evangelical. The fact that they can do this proves that paradigms can be changed, that interpretations can be abandoned and replaced, and that worldviews and metanarratives are not fishbowls from which we cannot escape.That spiritual experiences are subject to interpretation is such a common place that it is not even worth discussing. We would not be having this talk if this were not a "given". So what's your point?The point is that your experience by itself is not proof, not even for you, apart from your interpretation of that experience. Therefore it is misleading, or at least incomplete, to say, "I know that the Book of Mormon is true because I had a particular experience." What you mean is "I had a particular experience that I interpret as confirmation that the Book of Mormon is true." The irony is that the epistemology you defend here does not allow you consistently to make such a statement. You cannot consistently and coherently assert, within the context of a postmodern, constructivist, pragmatic epistemology, that the Book of Mormon IS true but only that it works for you to live as if it were true.Admit it. Evangelicals get personal revelation just as we do- you just can't figure out why we disagree about what these revelations tell us.Sorry, I will not "admit it." I have an explanation for why we disagree. We disagree, in my view, because your personal revelations are false revelations, either self-deception (my preferred view) or demonic deception. As best I can tell, evangelicals don't generally get the sort of religious experiences that Mormons call personal revelation, but I use the qualification "as best I can tell" because most Mormons, for whatever reason, are in my experience tight-lipped about just what these experiences involve. Evangelicals often claim to have the sort of spiritual experience famously described by Wesley -- his heart strangely warmed as he heard the gospel preached -- but for Wesley this feeling was not an epistemological ground for believing specific truths but a psychological motivation to throw himself on the mercy of Almighty God.God leads us in the way he can reach us best, and our journey continues past this life. Of course that is the Mormon way of seeing it, but it is also the only way to make sense of the notion that we are both right- for now.But I don't think you can possibly admit that. So you are stuck with what appears to be a conflict. But it isn't. You're right when you say I cannot possibly admit that. I cannot possibly admit that we can both be right. I cannot think that you are right and that I am also right in thinking that you are wrong. I am incapable of thinking such an incoherent thought. I cannot think that I am right in believing that our relationship with God must be secured in this life and that you are right in believing that it may be secured in the next life.You may respond to any or all of these posts, as you please. However, unless you apologize and persuade me to believe that you will never again accuse me of ignoring or avoiding the issue and that you will treat me with courtesy and gentlemanly civility, I will not reply, even if you offer interesting responses that I would like to address. I am done with both you and Vance unless I see such apologies and demonstrations of genuine respect.
altersteve Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 I cannot think that I am right in believing that our relationship with God must be secured in this life and that you are right in believing that it may be secured in the next life.Why not? I'm capable of thinking both things.
zerinus Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 As best I can tell, evangelicals don't generally get the sort of religious experiences that Mormons call personal revelation, but I use the qualification "as best I can tell" because most Mormons, for whatever reason, are in my experience tight-lipped about just what these experiences involve.Mormons are not "tight-lipped" about those experiences; but spiritual experiences cannot be conveyed or articulated in natural terms or language, so that another person can know of have that experience. Paul says:1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but [through] the Spirit of God.12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.That spiritual communication can be so subtle that it usually requires some experience to be able to recognize it. For example, the Lord said to Peter: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). In other words, Peter did not know what the source of his testimony had been. He wasn't aware that he had received a personal revelation. It took Jesus to inform him that that had been the source of his knowledge. The two disciples of Christ on the way to Emmaus had a similar experience: "And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:32.) It is only after the event that they realized that they had received a spiritual message. We have a similar example in modern revelation. This is what the Lord told Oliver Cowdery when he first came to visit Joseph Smith:D&C 6:22 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.23 Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?24 And now, behold, you have received a witness; for if I have told you things which no man knoweth have you not received a witness?He had received a spiritual witness, manifestation, or confirmation from the Lord the source and nature of which he himself was not aware of--just as Peter and the two disciples on the way to Emmaus had done. With experience those subtle messages can become more recognizable, and a source of personal revelation, if one nurtures and develops it. John in his first epistle writes: "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. . . . But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" (1 John 2:20, 27). That "anointing" is the gift of the Holy Ghost, which communicates truth to the Saints of God; and it is an experience that cannot be described or replicated. Everyone must experience it for himself, or forever remain closed to it. It is like the difference between somebody who sees and somebody who doesn't. The sighted person can do all he can to communicate his experience to the blind man; but it will never be equal to the blind man seeing for himself. Knowledge received through the Holy Ghost is like that. But it is true nevertheless, as the Book of Mormon says: "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things" (Moroni 10:5). 1
Vance Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 You made this assertion without providing any evidence to back it up. That means that all I need to do to answer this criticism adequately is simply to deny it. I deny it.Could I use this in my sig line?
Rob Bowman Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Steve,I had written:"I cannot think that I am right in believing that our relationship with God must be secured in this life and that you are right in believing that it may be secured in the next life."You replied:Why not? I'm capable of thinking both things.Okay. But since on their face the two claims are contradictory, perhaps you could explain why you don't see them as such.
Rob Bowman Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 zerinus,Thanks for your comments. I don't see the texts you quoted, such as 1 Corinthians 2:11-15, indicating that a spiritual experience is ineffable. I'm also a bit confused about your argument. The usual LDS claim is that a Mormon knows that something is true because he had a spiritual experience that he knows to be a personal revelation from God that confirmed its truth to him. You seem to be suggesting that a person could have such a spiritual experience or revelation and not know it to be such. Your analogy of sightedness further confuses the matter, or so it seems to me. I certainly know when I have seen something that I saw it; yet you suggest that a person may know something by personal revelation and not know that it was by personal revelation that he knows it. Furthermore, I can describe sight to a blind person with no trouble. Sight is an experience of the mind mediated by the human eyes, which the blind person knows he has and also knows do not function. In sight, we experience a representation of physical things that allow us to know things about their shapes, structures, sizes, locations, and movements, all of which a blind person can comprehend because he can know about these things by touch. Sight also has an advantage over touch in that sight creates representations that differentiate objects of identical shape and size. The mode of this differentiation is in some ways indescribable to a blind person, but it is analogous to differences in odors, differences in cold and heat, and differences in roughness and smoothness, but is part of the representation mediated through the eyes. (Of course, I am here referring to colors and shades.)In addition to these observations, I would suggest that an experience of personal revelation would not be ineffable, assuming we are referring to a personal God revealing truth to a human person. There should be something analogous to person-to-person communication, or something analogous to what humans normally experience as "moments of insight," or perhaps both. Or the personal revelation might take the form of a "sign," something that occurs that the person interprets as confirmation of the truth he was seeking to know (e.g., a miracle that seems timed to provide such confirmation). I have heard and read vague descriptions from Mormons of personal revelation as a general phenomenon that seem to suggest any or all of these types of experiences might be involved. Yet it is difficult to get anyone to offer an explicit or specific description of their own personal experience. Your own post is an instance of this difficulty.Mormons are not "tight-lipped" about those experiences; but spiritual experiences cannot be conveyed or articulated in natural terms or language, so that another person can know of have that experience. Paul says:1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but [through] the Spirit of God.12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.That spiritual communication can be so subtle that it usually requires some experience to be able to recognize it. For example, the Lord said to Peter: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). In other words, Peter did not know what the source of his testimony had been. He wasn't aware that he had received a personal revelation. It took Jesus to inform him that that had been the source of his knowledge. The two disciples of Christ on the way to Emmaus had a similar experience: "And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:32.) It is only after the event that they realized that they had received a spiritual message. We have a similar example in modern revelation. This is what the Lord told Oliver Cowdery when he first came to visit Joseph Smith:D&C 6:22 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.23 Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?24 And now, behold, you have received a witness; for if I have told you things which no man knoweth have you not received a witness?He had received a spiritual witness, manifestation, or confirmation from the Lord the source and nature of which he himself was not aware of--just as Peter and the two disciples on the way to Emmaus had done. With experience those subtle messages can become more recognizable, and a source of personal revelation, if one nurtures and develops it. John in his first epistle writes: "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. . . . But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" (1 John 2:20, 27). That "anointing" is the gift of the Holy Ghost, which communicates truth to the Saints of God; and it is an experience that cannot be described or replicated. Everyone must experience it for himself, or forever remain closed to it. It is like the difference between somebody who sees and somebody who doesn't. The sighted person can do all he can to communicate his experience to the blind man; but it will never be equal to the blind man seeing for himself. Knowledge received through the Holy Ghost is like that. But it is true nevertheless, as the Book of Mormon says: "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things" (Moroni 10:5).
Recommended Posts