Between Scholastics And Pragmatists: The Mddb Philosophy Debate

[TAO]

Tao and Mfbukowski, thanks for clarifying that Pragmatism makes no claim to objectivity. Being an ironist is a requirement to maintain consistency.

Now we seem to be at the heart of the matter. Can subjective experiences be evaluated objectively, whether through scientific or some other means? An ironist like Rorty would say no, correct?

Correct. But technichally science can't be evaluated objectively either, from a solipistic perspective.

Neither science nor comparing experiences will do. Science cannot measure thoughts or subjective experiences; it can only measure brain states. All we have to acquire knowledge of objective reality as individual consciousnesses is contingent, paradigmed, subjective experience. Not even a third party can determine which of two contradictory subjective experiences might better reflect reality since the third party evaluator only has his own subjective experience to go by, and that experience is just as paradigmed and contingent and disconnected from a wholly inaccessible objective reality.

That sounds about right on. In other words, everybody is biased. We simply have to do our best. =)

Appealing to tradition or scriptural authority is also useless as every human witness from the past (including prophets) lived only within their own inner, paradigmed, contingent worlds. All we have available to go by is our subjective experience, which if it works for us we assume validly reflects reality.

It's useless in trying to assert it on others. If you want to accept tradition or scriptural authority yourself, based on your personal experiences, that is fine, and it is your choice. You can use your personal experiences to justify those forms of information for you solely. But you can't say to someone who doesn't trust those traditions or scritural authority 'this is true because thus says so' because they don't believe in those things; they haven't had the experiences we have. Instead, we have to tell them 'go have these experienes, then you will understand why we trust such, and if you come up with a disagreement, you may formulate your life on that disagreement all the same, but not mine'.

All we can do is to compare our own subjective experience with the reported subjective experiences of others. If we encounter an experience that contradicts ours, we ground our rejection of the validity of that experience on our own subjective experience - the only possible ground available to us - and conclude the other person is deluded, lying, misinformed, etc., knowing full well that's just an assumption on our part, since we have no objective way to really be sure that we're right. Appealing to third, fourth, fifth, etc. parties is useless as no person's experience is objective. Each person is trapped within their brains, discrete consciousnesses peering out with no way to prove that anything except themselves (proven by the fact that they are experiencers) exists.

Exactly! So what do we do? We go by our best measures. We try to find out what the best path is from our perspective, in our own ways, using what we trust. That means sometimes making assumptions, but in the end, we are often happy we made them. It is worth making these practical assumptions, not only for our peace of mind, but also for our happiness and willingness to live. We will still try and be as unbiased as we can be, even though reaching that state is impossible. How do we do that? By hearing what we can, and considering it as prudent, though whether we accept it or not is our choice. What does that mean exactly? Well, you'll have to get the feel for it for your own self,Ii guess =).

Needless to say, this approach destroys the validity of comparing experiences to determine who really did/did not receive a spiritual witness about the BoM or whether God exists. All a person has is his own inner experience of "yes, I got a confirmation" and using that experience to objectively assess someone else's experience is ruled out. I'll have to keep all of this in mind the next time someone doubts my report of never, ever having experienced anything remotely spiritual in answer to fervent prayer. "You're experience differs from mine and never the twain shall meet."

Of course it does! You compared experiences based on your own experiences, for your own happiness. But you don't need to compare experiences; others experiences don't help you know much better than you already did. And yes, that is a good response, if you are happy with such a response. It is up to us when we are satisfied, and when we want to move around. We will be responsible for such (since I know you believe in a God), so try and make the choices that are right. Now what is right? Have your own voyage in discussion with God to determine who you should trust on that for yourself =). Do what is right, let the consequences follow, so to say. =D

I know you may not like this paradigm much... but, well, it is one that is nice in certain ways. It's up to you which parts you want to grab (you don't need to grab the entire thing, or any of it, really). So take what you want, what seems right, and leave the rest in the dust.

Best of WIshes,

-TAO

[Spammer]

I really appreciate my conversation with you and Mfbukowski. I have a much better grasp of Pragmatism and Rorty. It's a respectable view, especially since it lends itself to tolerance of different viewpoints. I think it can be taken too far, though, as it can be used to justify any view or behavior, so long as the view or behavior is deemed useful and conducive to happiness by its owner. I'm not sure a moral system different from "what tends to generate happiness for the greatest number" (see Sam Harris's book on morality) can survive in the face of clashing subjective utilities. In the end, I prefer the teleological view.

[TAO]

I really appreciate my conversation with you and Mfbukowski.

Yay! Gald you enjoyed it!

In the end, I prefer the teleological view.

Definately, your morality is your choice =).

[mfbukowski]

Tao and Mfbukowski, thanks for clarifying that Pragmatism makes no claim to objectivity. Being an ironist is a requirement to maintain consistency.

Now we seem to be at the heart of the matter. Can subjective experiences be evaluated objectively, whether through scientific or some other means? An ironist like Rorty would say no, correct? Neither science nor comparing experiences will do. Science cannot measure thoughts or subjective experiences; it can only measure brain states. All we have to acquire knowledge of objective reality as individual consciousnesses is contingent, paradigmed, subjective experience. Not even a third party can determine which of two contradictory subjective experiences might better reflect reality since the third party evaluator only has his own subjective experience to go by, and that experience is just as paradigmed and contingent and disconnected from a wholly inaccessible objective reality. Appealing to tradition or scriptural authority is also useless as every human witness from the past (including prophets) lived only within their own inner, paradigmed, contingent worlds. All we have available to go by is our subjective experience, which if it works for us we assume validly reflects reality. All we can do is to compare our own subjective experience with the reported subjective experiences of others. If we encounter an experience that contradicts ours, we ground our rejection of the validity of that experience on our own subjective experience - the only possible ground available to us - and conclude the other person is deluded, lying, misinformed, etc., knowing full well that's just an assumption on our part, since we have no objective way to really be sure that we're right. Appealing to third, fourth, fifth, etc. parties is useless as no person's experience is objective. Each person is trapped within their brains, discrete consciousnesses peering out with no way to prove that anything except themselves (proven by the fact that they are experiencers) exists.

Needless to say, this approach destroys the validity of comparing experiences to determine who really did/did not receive a spiritual witness about the BoM or whether God exists. All a person has is his own inner experience of "yes, I got a confirmation" and using that experience to objectively assess someone else's experience is ruled out. I'll have to keep all of this in mind the next time someone doubts my report of never, ever having experienced anything remotely spiritual in answer to fervent prayer. "You're experience differs from mine and never the twain shall meet."

I think maybe you are missing the point. Perhaps you missed the thrust of the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Nothing of objectivity is lost- what we all experience we all experience and is still as scientifically "real" as it ever was.

What we have added however raises subjective experience to the same level (at least for the individual) as that of science.

It seems that you want to still have somehow a realm of "teleology" beyond what can be experienced subjectively OR objectively. So it seems you are throwing out science and what you personally know to be true for a world that no one can see taste touch or feel in any way.

I don't think that is what you want to do.

[mfbukowski]

I'll have to keep all of this in mind the next time someone doubts my report of never, ever having experienced anything remotely spiritual in answer to fervent prayer. "You're experience differs from mine and never the twain shall meet."

What did you want? A photograph of God from a spaceship? See there is this thing called "faith"....

[volgadon]

What did you want? A photograph of God from a spaceship? See there is this thing called "faith"....

I met a few die-hard Communists who insisted that there is no God, as Gagarin didn't see him in space.

[Spammer]

I think maybe you are missing the point. Perhaps you missed the thrust of the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Nothing of objectivity is lost- what we all experience we all experience and is still as scientifically "real" as it ever was.

What we have added however raises subjective experience to the same level (at least for the individual) as that of science.

It seems that you want to still have somehow a realm of "teleology" beyond what can be experienced subjectively OR objectively. So it seems you are throwing out science and what you personally know to be true for a world that no one can see taste touch or feel in any way.

I don't think that is what you want to do.

No, not throw out science and what I personally know to be true. When you say "What we have added however raises subjective experience to the same level (at least for the individual) as that of science", I agree. What I personally know to be true is that when I reach out to use my toaster it's a toaster and I know what it's for. That's what my experience tells me. I also know that it's comprised of sub-atomic particles and can be understood many different ways based on science, the language we use, and our paradigms, but I don't directly experience those particles or other of the other different ways. I experience the toaster, so it's a toaster. Period. I don't care what else science may say about it. It's a toaster. In that respect, what my experience tells me is more important than what the abstractions of science tells me. I also know, based on science, that that turtle comprised of particles laying eggs is laying eggs comprised of particles for an evolutionary purpose - for reproduction and passing on genes. It doesn't matter that the axioms behind the science can't be evaluated objectively. It's my paradigm. Whether it intends to lay the eggs or not, the egg-laying is is an intrinsic part of what it is to be a female, egg-laying turtle - as defined by our understanding of natural selection. But note the teleological language being employed by me and everyone else who describes the egg-laying as egg-laying. I experience purpose, so I attribute purpose. Sure, I'm the one attributing the goal-oriented behavior to an evolved behavior. But so what? I'm the one that's conscious and possesses will and the language I use (and everyone else in my experience uses) is thoroughly teleological. I see purpose everwhere in nature, not in some mystical platonic third realm. There's no search for some 'teleological realm' out there. The egg-laying cannot be described without teleological language without being reduced to meaninglessness. If that language is paradigmed and congtingent, and exists only in my brain, again so what? That's the world I experience when I peer out from within my brain, since I accept the scientific paradigm and what my eyes reveal to my consciousness. I know the truth of the claim "the egg-laying is purposeful" subjectively, I just "see it", just as I "see" that 2+2=4, so I choose to believe in teleology.

P.S. I'm enjoying the conversation immensely. Thanks for that.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Spammer

[Spammer]

What did you want? A photograph of God from a spaceship? See there is this thing called "faith"....

No, but something recognizable from God as he flew by would have been nice, a bonk on the head or a feeling of peace utterly unique to that context. Something unique and only experienced at church, in the temple, or during prayer when I was praying as a Mormon. You know, the kinds of experiences church members report having had ALL OF THE TIME in their testimonies. And I had plenty of faith. I had faith pouring out my ears. Sure, I've felt nice feelings and had good thoughts in all of those LDS situations, but also in buddhist temples, on a mountain top, at Mass, etc. The EXACT same experiences are common across all of them. But I had nothing unique to mormonism, or that immediately followed fervent prayer while listening, that could have led me to honestly say "I'd like to bear my testimony, I know this church is true" instead of parroting it all my life, hoping for an answer to prayer. But that's my subjective experience, after all. Who can dispute it's validity? On what grounds? Surely not by comparing subjective experiences. All experiences are equally paradigmed and contingent and I know that if someone else's experience doesn't agree with my experience, I can disregard their testimony. Since all experience is subjective, two contradictory experiences are both equally "true". We can seek a common language such as science with which to evaluate the experiences, but that depends on both parties sharing that paradigm and agreeing to abide by its prescriptions. It comes down to an agreement to abide by a rule such that one or both amends their conclusions about their experience if it can be shown through the common language that the experience contradicts the assumptions implicit in the shared language. Testimony-bearing, by it's nature, assumes that grounding assessments of others' experiences in your own subjective experience is valid. It is not.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

I met a few die-hard Communists who insisted that there is no God, as Gagarin didn't see him in space.

Yes I am actually old enough to remember that statement when it was first made, by Khrushchev. Actually that is why I brought it up. I know it was made somewhat in jest, but it does reflect a prevalent attitude among those who believe that such a thing might in principle be true. In fact that very comment was to a degree the beginning of my philosophical understanding of the absurdity of the attitude even though I was just a kid when it was made. It was one of those off handed comments that kind of stick with you and you think about later- about who would make such a statement and what it implies about them personally.

Some sources have claimed that Gagarin commented during the flight, "I don't see any God up here." However, no such words appear in the verbatim record of his conversations with Earth-based stations during the spaceflight.^[17] In a 2006 interview, Gagarin's friend Colonel Valentin Petrov stated that the cosmonaut never said such words, and that the quote originated from Nikita Khrushchev's speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU about the state's anti-religion campaign, saying "Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see any god there."^[18] Petrov also said that Gagarin had been baptised into the Orthodox Church as a child, and a 2011 Foma magazine article quoted the rector of the Orthodox church in Star City saying, "Gagarin baptized his elder daughter Elena shortly before his space flight; and his family used to celebrate Christmas and Easter and keep icons in the house."^[19]

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

[mfbukowski]

Testimony-bearing, by it's nature, assumes that grounding assessments of others' experiences in your own subjective experience is valid. It is not.

No I disagree. I think when one is bearing one's testimony one is speaking from the heart and expressing one's own feelings, not berating those who see it differently.

If you see it that way, you may want to consider the possibility that you are projecting your own feelings onto others.

I also get the feeling that you expect me to react to this comment with some ultimate confession that I think that opposing testimonies are somehow in conflict with each other, making one more right than another, but I really don't think that.

I think that God guides and directs us according to our own needs. I don't know you from Adam but I might suspect that this question is something you need to work out for yourself in your own time and that is why you have not yet found the answer which you need to keep you on your journey. Of course I could be wrong.

But indeed I think God directs us to help us resolve our individual needs to find him. Indeed if becoming, say a Buddhist, brings one closer to God. When one is perhaps an atheist, I think one could get a "valid testimony" to become a Buddhist if it is a step in one's progression to Christ, while others might get a valid testimony to become Presbyterian if that is what they need.

In my view, if we are seeking we all get what we need eventually. I have no clue what your religious opinions actually are since I see that you are taking various positions to explore different ways of thinking about these issues, but I encourage you to continue. As long as you are sincere you will find where you need to be.

So far I have been a Catholic, a communistic atheist student radical, a Buddhist (of sorts) and a Mormon. I can trace the path of adding truth upon truth in each of those stages of my development, and there is a consistent line of growth there, looking back. I could have gotten stuck anywhere along the line and perhaps some think I am stuck as a Mormon. But every day my testimony gets stronger right where I am.

An no, I am not projecting that you should follow the same path I have followed or that you need to be a Mormon like me, so please don't think I am saying that. All I am saying is to keep on seeking, as I myself keep on seeking.

Who knows? Maybe we will end up on the same path together some time wherever that leads!?!?

[volgadon]

Yes I am actually old enough to remember that statement when it was first made, by Khrushchev. Actually that is why I brought it up. I know it was made somewhat in jest, but it does reflect a prevalent attitude among those who believe that such a thing might in principle be true. In fact that very comment was to a degree the beginning of my philosophical understanding of the absurdity of the attitude even though I was just a kid when it was made. It was one of those off handed comments that kind of stick with you and you think about later- about who would make such a statement and what it implies about them personally.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Yuri_Gagarin

I would always counter by asking them if Gagarin traveled across the entire expanse of space. No? Well there you go.

That quickly disarmed any such arguments

[mfbukowski]

No, not throw out science and what I personally know to be true. When you say "What we have added however raises subjective experience to the same level (at least for the individual) as that of science", I agree. What I personally know to be true is that when I reach out to use my toaster it's a toaster and I know what it's for. That's what my experience tells me. I also know that it's comprised of sub-atomic particles and can be understood many different ways based on science, the language we use, and our paradigms, but I don't directly experience those particles or other of the other different ways. I experience the toaster, so it's a toaster. Period. I don't care what else science may say about it. It's a toaster. In that respect, what my experience tells me is more important than what the abstractions of science tells me. I also know, based on science, that that turtle comprised of particles laying eggs is laying eggs comprised of particles for an evolutionary purpose - for reproduction and passing on genes. It doesn't matter that the axioms behind the science can't be evaluated objectively. It's my paradigm. Whether it intends to lay the eggs or not, the egg-laying is is an intrinsic part of what it is to be a female, egg-laying turtle - as defined by our understanding of natural selection. But note the teleological language being employed by me and everyone else who describes the egg-laying as egg-laying. I experience purpose, so I attribute purpose. Sure, I'm the one attributing the goal-oriented behavior to an evolved behavior. But so what? I'm the one that's conscious and possesses will and the language I use (and everyone else in my experience uses) is thoroughly teleological. I see purpose everwhere in nature, not in some mystical platonic third realm. There's no search for some 'teleological realm' out there. The egg-laying cannot be described without teleological language without being reduced to meaninglessness. If that language is paradigmed and congtingent, and exists only in my brain, again so what? That's the world I experience when I peer out from within my brain, since I accept the scientific paradigm and what my eyes reveal to my consciousness. I know the truth of the claim "the egg-laying is purposeful" subjectively, I just "see it", just as I "see" that 2+2=4, so I choose to believe in teleology.

P.S. I'm enjoying the conversation immensely. Thanks for that.

I missed this post somehow.

Welcome to being an ironist. As long as you consciously know your vocabulary is your vocabulary and nothing "more" then you will be one.

But is this a completely consistent view of the totality of human experience? I don't think so. I don't consider myself an ironist though I am close. I think that there's still a kind of "cogito" in there and that the reason that ironism is ironic is that there is a genuine conflict there.

As I have said before, I think that there is always an "I" who is the "owner" of the contingent vocabularies. There is one who puts this all together, there is a self which gets created by itself in putting order into the "matter unorganized".

We are all little godlets organizing our own little worlds from vocabularies unorganized, but we do not experience ourselves as contingent. At least I don't.

That is the problem with Rorty's ironism ultimately as far as I am concerned. It presumes a self who is doing all this organizing.

[Spammer]

No I disagree. I think when one is bearing one's testimony one is speaking from the heart and expressing one's own feelings, not berating those who see it differently.

If you see it that way, you may want to consider the possibility that you are projecting your own feelings onto others.

Maybe I don't mean the act of testimony per se, but rather the whole package - that act itself and the expectation and hope that it will have an effect on the listener. Too often, in my experience, when the desired effect is not observed, inferences about the listener's disposition and inner experience are often made, usually in the form of "the listener wasn't prepared/listening/faithful/sincere/ready, etc.". The assumption is that if a person is sincere and has faith, they'll have the same kind of experience as the testimony-bearer. A reported failure of experiencing the same experience is assumed to be evidence of insincerity, lack of faith, etc. Those inferences are wholly grounded on the testimony-bearer's subjective experience and are invalid.

I'll give you an example. On my mission, when I was a district-leader, we had an awesome investigator who really wanted to be baptized. He went through all of the discussions with us and the ward mission leader, read the entire Book of Mormon, and prayed about it many times. When we challenged him for baptism he resisted because he was praying and still had not received any recognizable answer from God. The zone leaders asked us to ask him if he would meet with all of us to discuss his concerns. He agreed and after the conversation, the sr. zone leader challenged the investigator to kneel and pray, asking for that witness. We all kneeled and the investigator poured out his heart to God. He ended the prayer, looked around the room, and then the str. zone leader, with tears in his eyes said "I know you feel the spirit, I feel it so strongly right now, it's so strong, testifying to you that the Book of Mormon is the word of God". That zone leader's a bishop in Vegas now, but that image of him with moist eyes, fervent and intent, left an indelible mark. I can see his face and the scene right now in my mind, 27 years later. I remember it so clearly since it was a watershed moment for me, the beginning of the end. The investigator listened to the zone leader and told us 'sorry, guys, i just don't feel anything at all. I've tried. I really have. I don't hear anything from God at all. I can't do this anymore." And that was that. We all left saddened and as my comp and I were cycling away I started crying. He thought it was because we lost a golden investigator. I was crying because during the prayer, I didn't feel anything either. Nothing. I was praying for myself and for the investigator the entire time. I had been conscientiously working as a missionary, praying regularly, asking that Moroni's Promise be fulfilled, to finally obtain the witness of the spirit, starting in seminary when I first read the Book of Mormon completely, and throughout my mission, but nothing ever came. The experience with the investigator was devastating. I kept that to myself until after my mission. I shared it with a few people (family and church leaders) and was told by all of them that perhaps the reason the investigator didn't get his witness was because I lacked faith. I eventually got so blindingly angry at these people and it got to the point that I literally could not hear the words 'revelation', 'spirit', 'testimony', or 'i know this church is true', without feeling acute anxiety and a pressing need to flee the church building. But what were those people basing their conclusion on? Just their own personal experiences. Once I stopped looking for an answer of my own, I could grant to them the legitimacy of their own experience. This came when I realized that I was making my own inferences, concluding that just because I had never experienced the spirit did not mean that they're spiritual feelings were delusional or self-manufactured. Who was I to be like them and discount what they said they experienced based on my own experience? What grounds did I have to conclude that they were fooling themselves and manufacturing their own subjective feelings? Personal experiences are not objectively true for anyone else. Once that happened, the anger gradually went away. I still get annoyed from time to time, but there are no more visceral emotional reactions to simply hearing certain words.

I also get the feeling that you expect me to react to this comment with some ultimate confession that I think that opposing testimonies are somehow in conflict with each other, making one more right than another, but I really don't think that.

No, not you. I'm only referring to folks who use their testimonies make the kind of inferences I mentioned.

I think that God guides and directs us according to our own needs. I don't know you from Adam but I might suspect that this question is something you need to work out for yourself in your own time and that is why you have not yet found the answer which you need to keep you on your journey. Of course I could be wrong.

But indeed I think God directs us to help us resolve our individual needs to find him. Indeed if becoming, say a Buddhist, brings one closer to God. When one is perhaps an atheist, I think one could get a "valid testimony" to become a Buddhist if it is a step in one's progression to Christ, while others might get a valid testimony to become Presbyterian if that is what they need.

In my view, if we are seeking we all get what we need eventually. I have no clue what your religious opinions actually are since I see that you are taking various positions to explore different ways of thinking about these issues, but I encourage you to continue. As long as you are sincere you will find where you need to be.

So far I have been a Catholic, a communistic atheist student radical, a Buddhist (of sorts) and a Mormon. I can trace the path of adding truth upon truth in each of those stages of my development, and there is a consistent line of growth there, looking back. I could have gotten stuck anywhere along the line and perhaps some think I am stuck as a Mormon. But every day my testimony gets stronger right where I am.

An no, I am not projecting that you should follow the same path I have followed or that you need to be a Mormon like me, so please don't think I am saying that. All I am saying is to keep on seeking, as I myself keep on seeking.

Who knows? Maybe we will end up on the same path together some time wherever that leads!?!?

Well said and, yes, who knows what will happen?. We're all on a journey. I've been a Mormon, atheist, buddhist, Catholic, and now I lean Eastern Orthodox. My beef is only with those who use their personal testimonies (which can only be grounded on their own subjective experiences) to evaluate the statements of those who say they did not receive the expected answer. It's not just Mormons, but since I was brought up in the church I've frequently encountered such inference-makers, including every bishop I've ever had, quite a few anonymous online posters, and all of my believing family members. A strong dose of Pragmatism would serve all them well. IMO.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Spammer

[Spammer]

I missed this post somehow.

Welcome to being an ironist. As long as you consciously know your vocabulary is your vocabulary and nothing "more" then you will be one.

But is this a completely consistent view of the totality of human experience? I don't think so. I don't consider myself an ironist though I am close. I think that there's still a kind of "cogito" in there and that the reason that ironism is ironic is that there is a genuine conflict there.

As I have said before, I think that there is always an "I" who is the "owner" of the contingent vocabularies. There is one who puts this all together, there is a self which gets created by itself in putting order into the "matter unorganized".

We are all little godlets organizing our own little worlds from vocabularies unorganized, but we do not experience ourselves as contingent. At least I don't.

That is the problem with Rorty's ironism ultimately as far as I am concerned. It presumes a self who is doing all this organizing.

I've never gone for arguments that I might not really exist or only live in a matrix. They're fun to contemplate, but in the end I'm a self and I know I'm here and am interacting with the world. That's something concrete for which I have evidence (the evidence is my experience of 'me'); anything else is speculative and cannot be proved. It sounds like we're pretty close, though I do wonder what use God is if he can't break through the contingencies and paradigms. I can't conceive a God that cannot. Thus, I'm still hoping for a direct, unmediated experience of the divine.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Spammer

[Tacenda]

Just like when we sing "I Know My Redeemer Lives". Some know the church is true. Can't wrong them for that. Then we wouldn't be able to say we know the Savior lives. And that is alot on faith too.

[TAO]

I've never gone for arguments that I might not really exist or only live in a matrix. They're fun to contemplate, but in the end I'm a self and I know I'm here and am interacting with the world. That's something concrete for which I have evidence (the evidence is my experience of 'me'); anything else is speculative and cannot be proved.

You can't use your senses to show evidence for your senses. That'd be circular. That's why choosing to believe in our own existance has to be practically assumed; it cannot really be proven.

It sounds like we're pretty close, though I do wonder what use God is if he can't break through the contingencies and paradigms. I can't conceive a God that cannot. Thus, I'm still hoping for a direct, unmediated experience of the divine.

Direct, and unmediated, sure. Uncontingent, and without paradigm? Not gonna happen. If we interpret reality at all, we live in a paradigm.

[Spammer]

You can't use your senses to show evidence for your senses. That'd be circular. That's why choosing to believe in our own existance has to be practically assumed; it cannot really be proven.

True, we can't step outside ourselves and observe the conscious entities that we each call 'me'. But I have direct experience of myself not based on any of the senses. I'm not an observer experiencing consciousness; I am consciousness, the observer that experiences.

Direct, and unmediated, sure. Uncontingent, and without paradigm? Not gonna happen. If we interpret reality at all, we live in a paradigm.

This presupposes axiomatically that paradigms can't be breached by an external agent (God). What if I choose a different set of presuppositions?

Edited November 7, 2012 by Spammer

[Ahab]

... I do wonder what use God is if he can't break through the contingencies and paradigms.

God can, in some sense, but the person who seeks to experience God must be open to having an experience with God while not rejecting the idea/feeling/testimony from God as something God is giving.

That experience you shared about that prayer you had with an investigator while someone said they experienced God is something you should consider some more. The person who prayed was saying he experienced God, and while it may... just may... have been wrong for him to say that the investigator felt God, based on the fact that he did, he still made the point that God was making his presence known to the one who was praying.

Do you think the fact that not everyone felt God... or said they didn't feel God.. negates the fact that the person praying in faiith felt God?

How do you account for the fact that one person said he felt God while another said he didn't. Was God there to be experienced, or wasn't he? Whose to say? Who would be right about that? How would you know? What if God was making his presence known to all but not all accepted what they felt as God's presence? What if some people had the wrong idea about how it feels to experience God? What if some people missed God even though he was right there with all of you?

Just because someone feels "nothing" doesn't mean some other people feel "nothing" too. It is possible for some people to experience some things that other people don't experience even when they're all in the same place, and even experiencing the same things. Some people saw Jesus when he was mortal, even while performing some miracles, and still didn't realize or recognize, or at least they said they didn't realize or recognize, that they were looking at God. Do you think that means he wasn't there? He actually was. Some people just didn't realize or recognize the fact that he was.

I can't conceive a God that cannot. Thus, I'm still hoping for a direct, unmediated experience of the divine.

How will you know when you've had it? How do you know you haven't already had it and just didn't see it for what it was?

[TAO]

True, we can't step outside ourselves and observe the conscious entities that we each call 'me'. But I have direct experience of myself not based on any of the senses. I'm not an observer experiencing consciousness; I am consciousness, the observer that experiences.

Naturally. That's one of the automatically proven things. "I think therefore I am."

This presupposes axiomatically that paradigms can't be breached by an external agent (God). What if I choose a different set of presuppositions?

Well that's up to you; just understand that by chooseing a different set of presuppositions (or choosing any presuppositions at all) you are creating a paradigm =p. So it's kind of inherently valid.

Edited November 7, 2012 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

My beef is only with those who use their personal testimonies (which can only be grounded on their own subjective experiences) to evaluate the statements of those who say they did not receive the expected answer. It's not just Mormons, but since I was brought up in the church I've frequently encountered such inference-makers, including every bishop I've ever had, quite a few anonymous online posters, and all of my believing family members. A strong dose of Pragmatism would serve all them well. IMO.

Hey man, we need a few more missionaries, that's all!

[mfbukowski]

I've never gone for arguments that I might not really exist or only live in a matrix. They're fun to contemplate, but in the end I'm a self and I know I'm here and am interacting with the world. That's something concrete for which I have evidence (the evidence is my experience of 'me'); anything else is speculative and cannot be proved. It sounds like we're pretty close, though I do wonder what use God is if he can't break through the contingencies and paradigms. I can't conceive a God that cannot. Thus, I'm still hoping for a direct, unmediated experience of the divine.

Very interesting.

Let me just throw something out there just for you- I wouldn't suggest this on a public forum or anything.

Could it be that your own experience of your self as "eternal" might be interpreted as a gift and message from God? How would one know the difference? If each of us is a spark of the divine could that spark of divinity within you be seen as God's presence itself?

Maybe it has been there all along and you have been looking outside yourself when the whole time He was in your heart. Maybe you are looking for some grandiose out of body experience when in fact you were ignoring an "in-body" experience?

Such an idea is not ruled out at all when one understands the truth of subjective experience.

[Spammer]

If each of us is a spark of the divine could that spark of divinity within you be seen as God's presence itself?

Could be. The (Eastern Christian) hesychast's goal is hypostatic union with that uncreated, divine spark, which exists within every person. God is everwhere and in all things, maintaining it in existence from moment to moment (if divine transcendence and immanence, and creatio ex nihilo, is your cup of tea). Success in this endeavor is termed illumination, theosis, divinization and is what makes someone a saint and theologian (a divinized, created nature that retains its individuality and distinctiveness through the union). A strain of gnosticism believes that God (consciousness) has dreamed everything into existence and each of us is a piece of that consciousness (God) lost in the dream. After death, we awake from the dream and realize we are God. And then there's the pantheism of Eastern thought. Important differences among all of these, but the presence of the divine spark within is common to them.

Maybe it has been there all along and you have been looking outside yourself when the whole time He was in your heart.

That's the claim of the eastern hesychasts. That's why I'm currently hanging out with the Orthodox. Have you read "The Way of a Pilgrim" and "The Pilgrim Continues His Way"? It's all about the Jesus Prayer and finding God through finding him where he is to be found - within the heart.

[Edited to correct glaring typos.]

Edited November 7, 2012 by Spammer

[Spammer]

How do you account for the fact that one person said he felt God while another said he didn't. Was God there to be experienced, or wasn't he? Whose to say? Who would be right about that? How would you know? What if God was making his presence known to all but not all accepted what they felt as God's presence? What if some people had the wrong idea about how it feels to experience God? What if some people missed God even though he was right there with all of you?

Just because someone feels "nothing" doesn't mean some other people feel "nothing" too.

Who knows? In my example, one person claimed to feel "something" and two others claimed to feel "nothing". Was God there to be experienced or not? Who knows. Does the fact that one person claimed to feel "something" provide evidence that God was there? Nope. It's just evidence that someone claimed to feel "something". It might be interpreted by the person who felt "something" that God was there, but that's not helpful to the people who really did feel nothing. I have no idea whether the investigator really felt "something" or "nothing". I'm not him. I simply do not know and cannot know. All I know is that I kept running out to check the mailbox and God's letter never came. Maybe he never sent it in the first place. Maybe he sent it and someone intercepted it or removed it from my mailbox. All I know is someone told me God sent a letter and I was looking for it. It never showed. The one who claimed to have felt "something" got his letter - or so he says. Doesn't help me much. My letter is missing.

[Ahab]

It's all about the Jesus Prayer and finding God through finding him where he is to be found - within the heart.

Within the heart? In what sense? In a certain sense I can see how he is or at least can be found within a person't heart, or even many person's heart, but let's be careful to realize he is an actual person, as we are actual persons, and in that sense it's a little bit weird to think he is in our heart, in his person. Notice I'm trying to avoid saying he is not in a person's heart, though. I try to be very careful about saying God is NOT... anything, because in a certain sense he is in everything and everyone, even if certain people don't think so.

... and here's another idea to help you find God in any one of his persons:

Any good idea you get and have is from God, so at any time if you don't think you are experiencing God that essentially means you're not getting any or having any good ideas.

[Spammer]

Within the heart? In what sense? In a certain sense I can see how he is or at least can be found within a person't heart, or even many person's heart, but let's be careful to realize he is an actual person, as we are actual persons, and in that sense it's a little bit weird to think he is in our heart, in his person.

It's only a little bit weird if God is material.