A Talking Point For Atheists

[Freedom]

I have been trying to come up with a reasonable analogy to compare the whisperings of the sprit to something that an atheist can relate to. For example, I have tried the following

1) We cannot prove personal preference, yet to each individual it is very real. I cannot prove that I like bananas, for example. Science can monitor my body’s reaction to eating the banana, but this is not proof that I prefer, say, bananas to oranges. Both fruit could produce the same result.

2) I love my wife, but I cannot prove to anybody that I love her. Another person may meet her and not understand why I would love her; this is because their personal preferences are different (and obviously deficient) to mine.

They counter this to say that I can actually produce my wife, or a banana, but I cannot produce God. While this is true, I am not trying to compare the object of my adoration, but the feeling itself; a feeling that is very real but improvable. They also say they can monitor my physiological reaction, but of course, I suspect that the same can be done when having a spiritual experience – although I don’t see the spirit attending under such conditions.

An argument they also levy is that revelation is not falsifiable and cannot be duplicated. I suggest that it can. I have attended many a council and all in the group received the same clear answer of what to do so yes, many people can experience the same witness. My argument is that, like experiencing mountain climbing, there are some preparatory actions that must be taken in order to receive revelation so no, it cannot simply be duplicated in a laboratory.

Any suggestions on how to better explain this in order to find a common ground?

[Brian 2.0]

I think most atheists would not discount the realness of your feeling, but rather the meaning of your feeling. Does that feeling equal a confirmation of truth? Is a feeling reliable evidence for belief in certain truth claims?

Even for believers, it is very difficult to distinguish between what is revelation and what is emotion or some other physiological response.

Such difficulty can bring into question the reliability of the evidence of said feeling.

Is feeling good inside after praying about if the BOM is true reliable evidence that Nephi existed?

The atheist would most assuredly say no.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

While personal preference is unprovable, personal preference does not have much to do with realities beyond your own personal preference.

Your feeling for bananas doesn't mean bananas are a delicious fruit and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[cinepro]

An argument they also levy is that revelation is not falsifiable and cannot be duplicated. I suggest that it can. I have attended many a council and all in the group received the same clear answer of what to do so yes, many people can experience the same witness. My argument is that, like experiencing mountain climbing, there are some preparatory actions that must be taken in order to receive revelation so no, it cannot simply be duplicated in a laboratory.

Your example may suggest "duplication", but you're way off the mark for "falsification". I suspect atheists might also be wary of "confirmation bias". Also "anecdotal evidence".

Honestly, I wouldn't try to put "the whisperings of the spirit" into terms an atheist can relate to. At best, I doubt you'll do much, and at worst... (see the first review).

Edited March 15, 2013 by cinepro

[Brian 2.0]

At best, I doubt you'll do much, and at worst... (see the first review).

Haha. Old Kerry vs. New Kerry is fascinating to me. Has he documented the change somewhere?

And Kerry, if you are reading this, I'm 99.9% sure I met you while on my mission in Idaho Falls. And I kept a full daily journal so I should be able to find the entry or entries. Sadly it's not digitized so I have to look through stacks of journals. If I find it I'll private message you on it. I most want to see it to laugh at myself and what I must have said (I was a different kids back then for sure).

[Damien the Leper]

Is Kerry an atheist?

[Brian 2.0]

Is Kerry an atheist?

I'm not sure what his beliefs are. Below is where I'm getting my info regarding old vs. new Kerry Shirts.

[pmccombs1]

I have been trying to come up with a reasonable analogy to compare the whisperings of the sprit to something that an atheist can relate to. For example, I have tried the following

1) We cannot prove personal preference, yet to each individual it is very real. I cannot prove that I like bananas, for example. Science can monitor my body’s reaction to eating the banana, but this is not proof that I prefer, say, bananas to oranges. Both fruit could produce the same result.

2) I love my wife, but I cannot prove to anybody that I love her. Another person may meet her and not understand why I would love her; this is because their personal preferences are different (and obviously deficient) to mine.

They counter this to say that I can actually produce my wife, or a banana, but I cannot produce God. While this is true, I am not trying to compare the object of my adoration, but the feeling itself; a feeling that is very real but improvable. They also say they can monitor my physiological reaction, but of course, I suspect that the same can be done when having a spiritual experience – although I don’t see the spirit attending under such conditions.

An argument they also levy is that revelation is not falsifiable and cannot be duplicated. I suggest that it can. I have attended many a council and all in the group received the same clear answer of what to do so yes, many people can experience the same witness. My argument is that, like experiencing mountain climbing, there are some preparatory actions that must be taken in order to receive revelation so no, it cannot simply be duplicated in a laboratory.

Any suggestions on how to better explain this in order to find a common ground?

There is an important aspect of the atheist position that you have to understand (and which atheists have to understand too--there are many who do not!)

One common atheistic epistemology is known as "reliabilism." This way of knowing things is different from a common theistic epistemology that might be thought of as "evidentialism." An evidentialist will accept evidence as a basis for knowledge. For example, if one has a religious experience, those feelings are evidence of the truth which is known through the experience. Or if one has a vision, or even a group experience of the kind you describe, that is all evidence and it supports and justifies the claim to knowledge.

What you have to understand is that, for the reliabilist, that isn't good enough. People who are color blind might all say the same wrong thing about red and green lights. Feelings can be reproduced chemically and in other ways besides, and they are beginning to be understood in terms of neural states; even the religious experience can be tinkered with in the laboratory. People under hypnosis (a thing that requires "preparatory action") may experience striking and varied phenomena as a group. In any case, there is no shortage of contradictory religious experience in the world, including visions and shared impressions. So there are various problems with the evidences that are presented by the evidentialists, because these can't be shown to have originated with God. The evidence is real, yes; but the correlation or causation is missing and there is no way to prove it.

The question for the atheist is, how can this evidence be reliably correlated with its source? Well, this experience has to be subject to measurement and quantification as well as reproducibility. The millions of colorblind people in the world share a certain very real experience with the colors red and green and can all reproduce the experience similarly, but the impartial spectrometer tells us that their experience isn't accurate. Here is a class of people with direct evidence, yet it clearly can't support their claim when brought under the impartial scrutiny of measuring machines that also can sense and experience this thing! The machine is making an external, objective measurement of the phenomenon. What the colorblind calls "gray" we find is actually "red," because the wavelength has been measured and found to exist in a particular category.

Might religious experience be misinterpreted also? How do we know a certain very unmistakable feeling actually originates with God? People argue about these things. Whose vision is real? Whose miracle? Whose impression? Whose feeling? How can that be correlated? The subjects are all certain that theirs is definitely from God, yet it is possible to demonstrate that these feelings can be elicited in other ways as well. How does one know that one's sense, or experience, is reliable? We don't have an impartial way to discover that as we do with other senses.

So the reliabilist does not accept that the evidentialist's knowledge is justifiable. I don't know that you will find much common ground without understanding these differences in epistemology.

[Cobalt-70]

1) We cannot prove personal preference, yet to each individual it is very real. I cannot prove that I like bananas, for example. Science can monitor my body’s reaction to eating the banana, but this is not proof that I prefer, say, bananas to oranges. Both fruit could produce the same result.

2) I love my wife, but I cannot prove to anybody that I love her. Another person may meet her and not understand why I would love her; this is because their personal preferences are different (and obviously deficient) to mine.

They counter this to say that I can actually produce my wife, or a banana, but I cannot produce God. While this is true, I am not trying to compare the object of my adoration, but the feeling itself; a feeling that is very real but improvable. They also say they can monitor my physiological reaction, but of course, I suspect that the same can be done when having a spiritual experience – although I don’t see the spirit attending under such conditions.

I'm not so sure that the above is necessarily true, or true for all time. It may very well be that in a few years, someone will be able to decipher your brain scan and distinguish between your emotions to prove what you like or love, and what you dislike or hate. I also wouldn't be surprised if the same brain scans could detect whether or not you are feeling the Spirit at any particular moment.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say that atheists don't understand the "whisperings of the spirit." Many of them have even felt these "whisperings" many times, including the "burning in the bosom," etc. It's just that whereas a Mormon might interpret such "whisperings" as emails from God, an atheist might interpret the "whisperings" as psychological effects. Both atheists and Mormons make up stories to explain these "whisperings": the difference is that atheists make up their stories using the language of science, whereas Mormons make up their stories using the language of Mormon mythology, scripture, and faith. On an abstract level, neither language is necessarily better than the other, because language is just arbitrary symbols. But some languages are more suitable than others in a given context. The problem is when you try to explain science using the language of Mormon mythology, or vice versa--which is like trying to use a screwdriver when the job calls for a hammer.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[Freedom]

Thanks for these comments. Concerning "Deconstructing of Mormonism", it is very convincing from an analytic point of view but much of the deconstruction that has impressed angry-man Shirts so much is not deconstruction at all, it is simply refusing to consider the possibility of the divine. In the coming years, it will become clear that all the anti-mormon material from Christians was chaff in the wind. Because relying on the spirit is so subtle and holy dependent upon worthiness, the advent of atheism will be the true battle of the church. People are not leaving the church, and never have left the church, to become some other variety of Christianity They are leaving the church to leave religion. They are turning their backs on the light of Christ.

[CASteinman]

Is Kerry an atheist?

I imagine he would say not, but only because he is rather deist or agnostic or perhaps his god is a a good reflection (as in light reflecting) while he reads a book.

He has been pretty strong in declaring that God does not do much in the world. Sort of a "God is dead" approach to things.

[TAO]

I have been trying to come up with a reasonable analogy to compare the whisperings of the sprit to something that an atheist can relate to. For example, I have tried the following

1) We cannot prove personal preference, yet to each individual it is very real. I cannot prove that I like bananas, for example. Science can monitor my body’s reaction to eating the banana, but this is not proof that I prefer, say, bananas to oranges. Both fruit could produce the same result.

2) I love my wife, but I cannot prove to anybody that I love her. Another person may meet her and not understand why I would love her; this is because their personal preferences are different (and obviously deficient) to mine.

They counter this to say that I can actually produce my wife, or a banana, but I cannot produce God. While this is true, I am not trying to compare the object of my adoration, but the feeling itself; a feeling that is very real but improvable. They also say they can monitor my physiological reaction, but of course, I suspect that the same can be done when having a spiritual experience – although I don’t see the spirit attending under such conditions.

An argument they also levy is that revelation is not falsifiable and cannot be duplicated. I suggest that it can. I have attended many a council and all in the group received the same clear answer of what to do so yes, many people can experience the same witness. My argument is that, like experiencing mountain climbing, there are some preparatory actions that must be taken in order to receive revelation so no, it cannot simply be duplicated in a laboratory.

Any suggestions on how to better explain this in order to find a common ground?

Just a note before you start reading. This is gonna be largely opinionary. But hopefully it's still useful =D.

Anyways, I think I can give you a defense you can use against this, but this won't usually change their minds (as it involves a philosophy that isn't well respected).

Generally,the defense that I use against their arguments is to bring up the issue of solipism and how it hurts the idea of reality. Solipism is just the realization that you cannot provide any proof or evidence that your senses interpret reality accurately. This creates problems, because most atheists who use the sort of arguments you were citing rely on their senses heavily (for example, the brain scan issue). From there, you agree with them that senses need to be assumed (that's an ethical statement you both agree on), but you disagree with them on the number of senses to be improved, and interpret the Spirit to be one of your senses (discrepancies can be explained through the analogies of optical illusions). Because none of the senses are the same, it's a good analogy (and different people assume different numbers of senses, for example blind people assume four), and so they'll have some difficulty countering it usually. The thing is, though this becomes an adequate defense against those who say using the Spirit is ridiculous (there is no falsifiablity or reliability from a solipistic starting point of assumption), it isn't enough to convince them to use the Spirit themselves (in other words, it's a defense that relies on logic, not practicality, and they have no reason to trust the Spirit). Convincing them is a lot harder.

I have found that debate is not the best way to convince people of the goodness of religion. There are strong arguments out there you can use, but they rarely convince anybody; that's the nature of online debate. Most of the strong arguments for religion will be done by advocating the physical and philosophical advantages of religion which their position isn't able to take advantage of. A physical example might be the peace you feel from attending church. A philosophical example would be the divine law of morality, where wrongs are righted. However, again, these aren't likely to convince people who don't want to listen anyways. So it's not exactly the best method.

And the people who want to listen, well, I would guess they are usually best taught by letting them experience the spirit though Moroni's Promise, taking them to church, letting the missionaries teach them, etc. That isn't to say the other method cannot work, I just never have seen it happen. You might ask mfbukowski though, as from what I understand, the philosophical benefits of the church's point of view were part of the reason he joined. I guess I also appreciated the philosophical reasons to some degree when I started becoming active, though probably not as much as mfb did, I'd guess. I really like the idea of a divine law of justice, and of a purpose behind difficulties, and of a God who loves and talks to his children every day. This church emphasizes a lot of things that most other churches do not. That's part of the reason why it's the place for me. It emphasizes the right things.

Just some thoughts, and by no means binding. Opinions, more or less.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

Edited March 16, 2013 by TAO

[Questing Beast]

...

Any suggestions on how to better explain this in order to find a common ground?

Pointing to the feelings is not productive, because as already noted, feelings are subjective and always will be. Spok and his people are spot-on with getting to truth/facts devoid of emotion. Emotion is for fun and games and feeling "high", it has nothing to contribute to learning truth/facts. That is why "pray about it" in order to get a "burning conviction" is so circular: anyone can get an emotional rush and believe it was God telling them the truth. Thousands of contemporary Muslim fundamentalists go to their own deaths feeling certain that God is pleased with their martyrdom for the true faith, and taking out unbelievers at the same time makes it all more justified and meaningful to them....

[TAO]

Pointing to the feelings is not productive, because as already noted, feelings are subjective and always will be. Spok and his people are spot-on with getting to truth/facts devoid of emotion. Emotion is for fun and games and feeling "high", it has nothing to contribute to learning truth/facts. That is why "pray about it" in order to get a "burning conviction" is so circular: anyone can get an emotional rush and believe it was God telling them the truth. Thousands of contemporary Muslim fundamentalists go to their own deaths feeling certain that God is pleased with their martyrdom for the true faith, and taking out unbelievers at the same time makes it all more justified and meaningful to them....

No, I wouldn't say it's circular, rather, it could be argued to be non-consistent.

On the other hand, what IS circular is trusting your senses.

Edited March 16, 2013 by TAO

[Freedom]

Generally,the defense that I use against their arguments is to bring up the issue of solipism and how it hurts the idea of reality. Solipism is just the realization that you cannot provide any proof or evidence that your senses interpret reality accurately. This creates problems, because most atheists who use the sort of arguments you were citing rely on their senses heavily (for example, the brain scan issue). From there, you agree with them that senses need to be assumed (that's an ethical statement you both agree on), but you disagree with them on the number of senses to be improved, and interpret the Spirit to be one of your senses (discrepancies can be explained through the analogies of optical illusions). Because none of the senses are the same, it's a good analogy (and different people assume different numbers of senses, for example blind people assume four), and so they'll have some difficulty countering it usually.

Thanks. No amount of evidence can be guaranteed convince anyone. If this were the case, there would only be one religion. Each person had a different of what constitutes evidence.

[Freedom]

Pointing to the feelings is not productive,

Then what would you point to?

[cdowis]

Pointing to the feelings is not productive, because as already noted, feelings are subjective and always will be. Spok and his people are spot-on with getting to truth/facts devoid of emotion. Emotion is for fun and games and feeling "high", it has nothing to contribute to learning truth/facts. That is why "pray about it" in order to get a "burning conviction" is so circular: anyone can get an emotional rush and believe it was God telling them the truth. Thousands of contemporary Muslim fundamentalists go to their own deaths feeling certain that God is pleased with their martyrdom for the true faith, and taking out unbelievers at the same time makes it all more justified and meaningful to them....

1. You go into a dark room and stumble about. You turn on a light and see everything in the room. Are you "feeling" something when the light goes on and you are able to find your way? Or is that merely something subjective.

2. The history of science is full of mistakes, wrong paths and even falsehoods and deception. Science is subject to the human element, scientists are human beings.

Does that make science subjective?

A testimony, a witness from the Holy Spirit, is not just a "feeling".

[Freedom]

Dallin J Oaks made these comments about revelation, found in the March 1997 Ensign:

What does a “burning in the bosom” mean? Does it need to be a feeling of caloric heat, like the burning produced by combustion? If that is the meaning, I have never had a burning in the bosom. Surely, the word “burning” in this scripture signifies a feeling of comfort and serenity. That is the witness many receive. That is the way revelation works.

Truly, the still, small voice is just that, “still” and “small.”

“The language of peace, as spoken by the Lord, embraces a sense of quiet confidence, comfort, and warmth. It is gentle and calm, amiable and sweet; it is temperate and kind; it is orderly and identified by happiness, joy, and feelings of love” (Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet,The Holy Ghost [1989], 14).

A personal experience illustrates how the Spirit teaches us through our feelings, even those persons who may not be familiar with the process of revelation.

About nine years ago three elected deputies of the Supreme Soviet visited Salt Lake City. I helped host them on Temple Square. I took them into the North Visitors’ Center to see the paintings and the Christusstatue. Then I took them into the Tabernacle, where they heard the Sunday morning Tabernacle Choir broadcast.

Afterward a few of us met with them in a conference room on Temple Square. We told them a little bit about the Church. Then Konstantin Lubenchenko, the senior in the delegation, spoke to us. I made notes of his remarks as they were relayed through an interpreter:

“Before I came here I thought the Mormon Church was a very conservative organization of fanatics. But after seeing the beautiful pictures and statue in your visitors’ center and the beautiful setting where the choir sang and hearing the choir and organ, I have a new understanding of your church.”

What interested me most was his account of what he felt:

“Since I have come to the United States, people have asked me what is my strongest impression in the United States. I can tell you now. It is the singing of your choir. I love organ music and choirs and have gone to hear them many times in my country. As the choir sang, I had a very strong feeling. Although I do not speak English, I felt with my heart that they were sincerely expressing my feelings. My relation with God was expressed in earthly feelings through their singing.”

This Soviet lawmaker had a feeling and could describe it well enough for me to realize that he had received a witness from the Spirit.

[TAO]

A testimony, a witness from the Holy Spirit, is not just a "feeling".

Actually, if you don't mind cdowis, I'm gonna disagree here. It is just a "feeling"... but so is EVERYTHING ELSE we experience. And it's our job to decide which feelings are signficant to us, sorta =p.

Not a popular opinion, but mine I guess XD.

[CV75]

I have been trying to come up with a reasonable analogy to compare the whisperings of the sprit to something that an atheist can relate to.

I’m not sure why the requirement to pass a test or to be observed is being given such high priority, since so many things that the atheist accepts as real also existed long before he or anyone else ever observed them or tested them. For example, the emergence of the Rock of Gibraltar.

So I suppose a secular correlation to the “whisperings of the spirit” might be the moment the atheist realized he was once a zygote and yet cannot remember when he was one, or any of the other stages of his early development, including the moment he became self-aware.

[Freedom]

I’m not sure why the requirement to pass a test or to be observed is being given such high priority, since so many things that the atheist accepts as real also existed long before he or anyone else ever observed them or tested them. For example, the emergence of the Rock of Gibraltar.

So I suppose a secular correlation to the “whisperings of the spirit” might be the moment the atheist realized he was once a zygote and yet cannot remember when he was one, or any of the other stages of his early development, including the moment he became self-aware.

Yes, that is a very valid point. But of course, accepting the appearance of the Rock of Gibraltar and having faith that a giant rock will emerge out of Lake Ontario without any empirical date to back it are quite different.

[Questing Beast]

1. You go into a dark room and stumble about. You turn on a light and see everything in the room. Are you "feeling" something when the light goes on and you are able to find your way? Or is that merely something subjective.

2. The history of science is full of mistakes, wrong paths and even falsehoods and deception. Science is subject to the human element, scientists are human beings.

Does that make science subjective?

A testimony, a witness from the Holy Spirit, is not just a "feeling".

Turning on the light brings relief, a feeling, but turning on the light was a physical act devoid of any required emotion. Seeing the objects in the no longer dark room is unemotional in itself, "Seeing" requires no emotion, it is a physical act. But what we see will produce emotion, depending on what it is we see.

A testimony is a composite of information and the emotional connections to that information. The emotional should not be considered as validating the context of facts and evidence. That is why looking back on what we felt when we "got our testimony" will change when the evidence changes. If evidence does not support a previous conclusion we based on feelings, then the feelings become invalidated to some degree. The facts/evidence require a reexamination of our feelings, to see if an emotional high we took to be a "witness" was not in fact a chemical rush based on a preexisting desire, or similar expectation....

[CV75]

Yes, that is a very valid point. But of course, accepting the appearance of the Rock of Gibraltar and having faith that a giant rock will emerge out of Lake Ontario without any empirical date to back it are quite different.

I think that is how the atheist distracts himself from the question. The atheist has to answer for himself what it was he accepted the moment he became self-aware, or recall the moment he accepted that he was self-aware. There was no empirical aspect to it; it occurred before he possessed such skills. That would be a secular approach to what the “whisperings of the Spirit” are like. The difference is, instead of experiencing one's "real self", one experiences God.

I have found that they are actually one and the same experience, and they continue throughout one’s life. The more integrated we are, the more we associate an awareness of self with an awareness of God. But that gets into the meaning and the acceptance of this experience. Both faith and denial are powerful motivators.

[thatjimguy]

Is feeling good inside after praying about if the BOM is true reliable evidence that Nephi existed?

The atheist would most assuredly say no.

The funny thing is though, we would always say yes. But then later, when people pray for blessings asking God true in heart just the same and feel just as good , they can be told that they may have misrepresented the Holy Spirit when those blessings don't come forth.

[pmccombs1]

...the advent of atheism will be the true battle of the church. People are not leaving the church, and never have left the church, to become some other variety of Christianity They are leaving the church to leave religion. They are turning their backs on the light of Christ.

I was struck by one of the sentences in yesterday's Priesthood lesson, from Chapter 5 of the Lorenzo Snow book. President Snow asked this: "What can we wish for more than is comprehended in our religion?"

I think the judgment of the faithful Saints is colored by exactly that sentiment, and we can't see clearly because of it. So, for instance, when the sacrament meeting speaker mentioned a brother whose family stopped attending church, it was declared that now this family must struggle on in sadness and longing. When one leaves the Church, there is nothing that can replace it, you see. You must leave religion altogether, for all other churches are second-bests. No other thing in or out of this world can be imagined that is greater than the Gospel, as it is understood by believing Saints.

I used to think that way until I realized how religious experiences are pretty much similar everywhere you go, and the devoted believers of every creed share similar sentiments regarding their own gospel. How surprised was I to find at least a dozen ex-Mormon Catholics on the CAF board! Oh, I guess some of them are disaffected Mormons who went Catholic because, you know, anything but Mormonism. But others seemed to be genuinely converted. One woman confided to me that she had thought she knew the Spirit when she was LDS, but upon learning the Catholic faith she received an hundred fold. It was like night and day for her; her cup had been filled to overflowing. Others wondered how they could have ever desired the lesser gospel of the Mormon church. Some indeed left the Mormon faith for atheism at first, then found the Catholic church. These ex-Mormons who had found another faith were also asking, "What can we wish for more than is comprehended in our religion?"

Atheism is a challenge to be sure, but I have sensed a current in Mormonism that is not drawing people away from the light of the Church, but towards other lights that seem to them brighter. It's not in human nature to turn away from light, at least not for long.

Edited March 18, 2013 by pmccombs1