How Do You Tell The Difference Between A True And False Conversion?

[brainburn]

My intentions for this discussion are really casual but the topic is very deep and important. I'm not here to troll or waste anyone's time. I'm interested in growing as a person, challenging my own beliefs, and fine-tuning my debate skills. So, I thought it'd be fun and useful to have a focused discussion about a mysterious question that I often return to check up on and see if any progress can be made in solving it.
 
This (the title) is a serious question I've been thinking about for many years now... the thing is: I can't define any epistemically useful way to tell a true conversion experience from a false one, no matter how often or deeply I reconsider. The problem is that whenever I consider a new "answer", it may seem emotionally useful but never epistemically useful. The answer always seems to follow the same illogical pattern (explained below).

 

I think I've studied this pattern well enough to explain it here so that I may test my theory that this question can't be answered.
 
I believe I can demonstrate that the commonly accepted methods for identifying true and false conversions are circularly based on a conversion which was pre-identified as true. Every method I've encountered begs the question somehow and this is why I believe the answer is an unsolvable mystery. In my experience discussing this problem, everyone tends to get really confused so I'd like to move step by step and stay very focused. I'd be honored if anyone responds to what I explain directly.
 
Here's the pattern:
 
I ask, "how do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?" and the believer gives an answer that is always equivalent to "I refer to beliefs confirmed through my conversion experience." It may take some time to unravel, but after I point out that their method for telling the difference between true and false conversion circularly relies on itself to be true, the discussion is unfortunately "reset". We're back where we started and if they missed that we just went in a loop, they'll begin to explain, again, an answer that can only be considered useful if we beg the question we're looking to answer.
 
Question: How do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?
Answer: I refer to beliefs confirmed through my conversion experience.
Question (again): The epistemic utility of those beliefs depends on the original question: how do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?
Answer (again): I refer to beliefs confirmed in my true conversion experience.
 
....... and repeat.
 
Can anyone help me break this pattern?

[wenglund]

To me, the problem with your alleged pattern may be a consequence of a problem with your originating question--i.e. it may be poorly worded and/or is loaded with unwarranted presuppositions.

 

Might I suggest a different, and perhaps better question in terms of epistemic or pragmatic utility, to wit: How do you tell if the seed of faith that marks one's conversion (as per Moroni 10) will mature into edifying "knowledge" or not?

 

My answer would be Alma 32., particularly verse 17 and on.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 15, 2014 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Question: How do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?
Answer: I refer to beliefs confirmed through my conversion experience.
Question (again): The epistemic utility of those beliefs depends on the original question: how do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?
Answer (again): I refer to beliefs confirmed in my true conversion experience.

 

I can't for anyone else. I can only go by what they do.

 

Who am I too question their conversion experience?

 

I can't for anyone else. I can only go by what they do.

 

Who am I too question their conversion experience?

 

Repeat ad infinitum.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think all sincere conversions are true.

I think you mean to ask how do you know whether your sincere conversion was to the truth or not.

That opens up a whole different conversation.

[CV75]

Can anyone help me break this pattern?

Consider that "true" conversion is really evidenced by an ongoing increase in the alignment of thoughts, feelings and behavior with one's honestly confessed ideal.

[brainburn]

To me, the problem with your alleged pattern may be a consequence of a problem with your originating question--i.e. it may be poorly worded and/or is loaded with unwarranted presuppositions.

 

Might I suggest a different, and perhaps better question in terms of epistemic or pragmatic utility, to wit: How do you tell if the seed of faith that marks one's conversion (as per Moroni 10) will mature into edifying "knowledge" or not?

 

My answer would be Alma 32., particularly verse 17 and on.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Maybe if you explained what was poorly worded or presupposed in my original question I could figure out what you mean with your question? :] I'm sorry but it seems to me that asking how to tell if the seed of faith will grow into something "edifying" is a little vague? What do you mean by edify? Epistemically edifying? Emotionally edifying?

 

Question: How do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?

Answer: I refer to beliefs confirmed through my conversion experience.

Question (again): The epistemic utility of those beliefs depends on the original question: how do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?

Answer (again): I refer to beliefs confirmed in my true conversion experience.

 

I can't for anyone else. I can only go by what they do.

 

Who am I too question their conversion experience?

 

I can't for anyone else. I can only go by what they do.

 

Who am I too question their conversion experience?

 

Repeat ad infinitum.

 

It's a common response to explain that we aren't in a position to judge the conversion experiences of others because we haven't experienced them. To me, that only shows that my question remains unanswered.

 

I think all sincere conversions are true.

I think you mean to ask how do you know whether your sincere conversion was to the truth or not.

That opens up a whole different conversation.

Interesting... go on?

 

I don't think I questioned whether any conversion experience was sincere or not, so if you could help me understand... Are you suggesting sincerity as a pre-requisite for correctly identifying a true conversion?

 

How would you apply your thinking to the "sincere" reports of conversions to two opposing sects of Mormonism?

 

Consider that "true" conversion is really evidenced by an ongoing increase in the alignment of thoughts, feelings and behavior with one's honestly confessed ideal.

So, to be clear... your method is to experience an "ongoing increase in the alignment of thoughts, feelings and behavior with one's honestly confessed ideal."

 

Can you explain a little more by what you mean by "ideal"? Does it vary among different people, maybe?

Also, could you explain the degree to which an "increase" warrants "evidence"?

[thesometimesaint]

It's a common response to explain that we aren't in a position to judge the conversion experiences of others because we haven't experienced them. To me, that only shows that my question remains unanswered.

 

Until we develop the means to accurately read people's minds beyond what they do. It remains unanswerable.

[brainburn]

Until we develop the means to accurately read people's minds beyond what they do. It remains unanswerable.

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. You agree that my question is unanswerable... So, you accept that there is no way to tell whether ANY conversion experience is true or false?

[Kevin Christensen]

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. You agree that my question is unanswerable... So, you accept that there is no way to tell whether ANY conversion experience is true or false?

Much depends on whether you require an answer in terms of absolute and final "knowing" or in terms of "cause to believe." (See Alma 32:17-19).

Jesus talked about "by their fruits shall ye know them" and notes the obvious difference between grapes and thorns, figs and thistles. (Matt 7:16). A dried grape is still a grape. A worm-eaten or rotten fig, is still a fig. No matter how much sugar I put on a thorn, it won't ever be a grape. No one is likely to make living selling thistle newtons.

If I know what a valid spiritual experience is and also the kinds of behavior changes that tend to follow, I have a good foundation.

But I remember that Jesus also talks about how the same seed (word) can lead to vastly different yields depending on both the soil and the nurture. Someone may have a valid experience, and decide to reject it. Another may begin with something dubious, and build something valid subsequently.

The issue is not unanswerable. It's just a matter of recognizing the way out of self-referential arguments and settling for "cause to believe" based on broad contexts, pattern recognition, comparisons (which is best) and a range of critia that are not paradigm-dependent. Wade referred to Alma 32. I've often compared Alma 32 to Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

If you insist on absolute knowing, well, good luck with that in a post-Modern age. Although, rhetorically, a demand for absolute knowing provides a way to reach conclusions by means of any imperfection and uncertainty. Some love the rhetorical leverage that gives. I don't approve, since it directs focus away from information that is important in establishing cause to believe.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Ahab]

Your question has 2 parts.

1. How do "you" tell the difference...

2. the difference between a true and a false conversion.

First I would need to know what the conversion was supposed to convert me into, and then by knowing that I would look to see if I was converted into that.

For example, if a true conversion was supposed to convert me into a good person, or a person who did and does good things, then I would see if I could see the difference between the bad (or less good) person I was and the good person I should be converted into.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Ahab

[BookofMormonLuvr]

 

Interesting... go on?

 

I don't think I questioned whether any conversion experience was sincere or not, so if you could help me understand... Are you suggesting sincerity as a pre-requisite for correctly identifying a true conversion?

 

How would you apply your thinking to the "sincere" reports of conversions to two opposing sects of Mormonism?

 

Sincerity is, in fact, a pre-requisite for a true conversion experience... (Moroni 10:4-5)

Can one have a true conversion to a partial truth? 

Of course. God cannot lie when asked a sincere question by a sincere person.

Being a member of a minor sect of "Mormonism" but with some of my own ideas, I offer the following...

I believe most conversions to "Mormonism" (of any variety) are to receive a testimony of the Book of Mormon. Usually, the first "Mormon" to present the book "wins" the convert. If more people knew of the different sects of "Mormonism" before committing to one, I believe there would a wider dispersion of membership among them- instead of being so highly concentrated in one. But I trust JAH, and believe he has allowed that for a purpose, and one day we will be united again as a church and we will understand better our different purposes and how He used each church organization for His work during this Restoration "diaspora".

Edited April 15, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[wenglund]

 

Maybe if you explained what was poorly worded or presupposed in my original question I could figure out what you mean with your question?

 

It is unclear what you mean by a "true conversion" as opposed to a "false conversion," and it presupposes such a thing as a true and false conversion, which I am not sure exists--see below.

 

However, I am not sure how my explaining this will somehow enable you to figure out what I meant by my question, though I will attempt to do so below..

 

 

 

I'm sorry but it seems to me that asking how to tell if the seed of faith will grow into something "edifying" is a little vague? What do you mean by edify? Epistemically edifying? Emotionally edifying?

 

I thought my use of the word "edifying" as an adverb in relation to the noun "knowledge" would have made the answers to your questions self evident..

 

However, since it apparently wasn't in your case, let me clarify further. If it helps, replace the word "edifying" knowledge with the synonym "improving" knowledge. I am using the qualifier "edifying" or Improving" as a way of distinguishing this type of knowledge from useless or destructive knowledge. Thus, I am speaking about knowledge that improves our lives, as opposed to knowledge which does us no good or may be debilitating.

 

And, since I am talking about growth in knowledge, then I have in mind epistemic edification/improvement.

 

I thought this would have been self-evident as well given that I prefaced my question by suggesting that it had epistemic as well as pragmatic utility, but since it wasn't in your case, hopefully the clarification above will suffice.

 

If not, then it may help for you to also realize that "conversion" within the LDS faith is not a culminating state, but a gate unto the path of growth in faith, truth, and spiritual knowledge, or said another way, it is a seed of faith which, when planted and nurtured, will grow.to epistemic fruition.

 

So, your asking whether a gate or seed is "true" or "false," can be somewhat confusing in terms of epistemology.  It would be like asking, in a secular sense, whether starting or converting to kindergarten is true or false.

 

Whereas, the more meaningful and productive question to me is whether the path we are on will lead to a growth in and fullness of spiritual knowledge or not? Said another way, is it or is it not the "true" path that leads to Christ and our becoming like him?

 

As previously indicated, the way to answer that question is found in Alma 32, particularly verse 17 and on.

 

Does this help?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 15, 2014 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

You don't.

[CV75]

 So, to be clear... your method is to experience an "ongoing increase in the alignment of thoughts, feelings and behavior with one's honestly confessed ideal."

 

Can you explain a little more by what you mean by "ideal"? Does it vary among different people, maybe?

Also, could you explain the degree to which an "increase" warrants "evidence"?

It is only a method to break the pattern you presented. Once that pattern is broken, who knows what can be discovered?

 

The pattern you described is the epitome of objectivity, a virtual non-knowing created by the static condition of knowing only one thing conflated as two. For that cycle to be broken, some kind of subjectivity needs to be injected. I believe that is accomplished in the form of an ideal that is not fully known because it has not yet been fully realized, which means the application of faith to overcome a static knowledge.

 

A few people have mentioned Alma 32—the interplay between faith and knowledge, a subjective process.

 

Of course the “ideal” can vary between people, but by grace all may align with the highest ideal.

 

The degree to which progress towards the ideal justifies the evidence is directly proportional to the concurrent expansion of knowledge and faith, not one over the other.

[mfbukowski]

My intentions for this discussion are really casual but the topic is very deep and important. I'm not here to troll or waste anyone's time. I'm interested in growing as a person, challenging my own beliefs, and fine-tuning my debate skills. So, I thought it'd be fun and useful to have a focused discussion about a mysterious question that I often return to check up on and see if any progress can be made in solving it.

 

This (the title) is a serious question I've been thinking about for many years now... the thing is: I can't define any epistemically useful way to tell a true conversion experience from a false one, no matter how often or deeply I reconsider. The problem is that whenever I consider a new "answer", it may seem emotionally useful but never epistemically useful. The answer always seems to follow the same illogical pattern (explained below).

 

I think I've studied this pattern well enough to explain it here so that I may test my theory that this question can't be answered.

 

I believe I can demonstrate that the commonly accepted methods for identifying true and false conversions are circularly based on a conversion which was pre-identified as true. Every method I've encountered begs the question somehow and this is why I believe the answer is an unsolvable mystery. In my experience discussing this problem, everyone tends to get really confused so I'd like to move step by step and stay very focused. I'd be honored if anyone responds to what I explain directly.

 

Here's the pattern:

 

I ask, "how do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?" and the believer gives an answer that is always equivalent to "I refer to beliefs confirmed through my conversion experience." It may take some time to unravel, but after I point out that their method for telling the difference between true and false conversion circularly relies on itself to be true, the discussion is unfortunately "reset". We're back where we started and if they missed that we just went in a loop, they'll begin to explain, again, an answer that can only be considered useful if we beg the question we're looking to answer.

 

Question: How do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?

Answer: I refer to beliefs confirmed through my conversion experience.

Question (again): The epistemic utility of those beliefs depends on the original question: how do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?

Answer (again): I refer to beliefs confirmed in my true conversion experience.

 

....... and repeat.

 

Can anyone help me break this pattern?

We have been over this before so I am not sure how long I will last on this one, but basically you are starting out with a false dichotomy.

In religious matters, as with ethics, there is NO DISTINCTION between "epistemic" knowledge and "emotional" knowledge.

How do you feel about abortion?

How do you know it is right or wrong? It is based on your feelings.

There is no data that can prove it "right" or "wrong", to use your term, "epistemically"

So too with religion. If the spirit tells you it is right (ie: if your emotions tell you it is right) then it is.

Yes, some people will disagree.

Yes, Mormons believe that their church is the True Faith, and I do as well. But guess what? Some people actually disagree with that!!!!

I am fond of this video which could solve this for you if you actually listened to it and and thought about it carefully.

Religious statements are as "rational" as scientific statements, but in a different way. They are answering a different question than scientific questions. Religious questions answer the question "What is important in life", while science answers the question "How do things work".

Those are not remotely the same question. They are as far apart as macrame and the stock market.

Here is the video. I apologize to all who have seen this a hundred times from me, but brainburn has not.

Rorty is one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. Importantly, he considers himself an atheist, but understands perfectly the role of religion in our lives, as opposed to science.

So to answer your question directly, the difference between a true and false conversion is in the eye of the beholder.

If the conversion works in the person's life and gives him what he needs, it is "true"

Yes that means people will disagree about this. Is that really news?

Edited April 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Akboy]

I think a big part of the problem is the wording of Moroni 10.

 

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

 

It's basically saying if you do A, then B will happen. But the problem is that opens the person up to getting a reaction generated by a placebo effect. When we expect something to happen, our mind can make it happen. Google 'placebo effect' and you'll see how powerful it is.

 

http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/what-is-the-placebo-effect

Research on the placebo effect has focused on the relationship of mind and body. One of the most common theories is that the placebo effect is due to a person's expectations. If a person expects a pill to do something, then it's possible that the body's own chemistry can cause effects similar to what a medication might have caused.

 

For instance, in one study, people were given a placebo and told it was a stimulant. After taking the pill, their pulse rate sped up, their blood pressure increased, and their reaction speeds improved. When people were given the same pill and told it was to help them get to sleep, they experienced the opposite effects.

 

Experts also say that there is a relationship between how strongly a person expects to have results and whether or not results occur. The stronger the feeling, the more likely it is that a person will experience positive effects. There may be a profound effect due to the interaction between a patient and health care provider.

Notice the second bolded part and compare it with the 'sincere heart' phrase in the verse. So if an investigator prays and doesn't receive a witness the first time, they are encouraged to keep reading and try again with a sincere heart. But trying harder just makes a stronger placebo effect more likely.

 

(sorry for the mild coarse language)

In one study, a group of women took placebos for over 5 years. 40% suffered withdrawals after they stopped taking them.

That's incredible. They were probably just taking sugar pills, but they expected to feel results from taking them. Suffering from withdrawals means they were addicted to something. Plus, the length of the study shows us that placebo effects are not just short, isolated reactions. Our expectations can trigger placebo effects that last for years.

 

http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/what-is-the-placebo-effect

In a recent, well-publicized and fascinating study of Parkinson disease (PD), it was discovered that the patients who improved with placebo had changes in their brain that were identical to the changes caused by the actual medication (called levodopa).¹

The placebo effect can go far beyond emotional reactions. Their brains changed themselves simply because they expected it to happen.

 

That's just from the first page of google results. I'm sure I could find many more examples. The human mind has an incredibly powerful ability to create reactions, changes and/or events when we expect them to happen.

 

So when people read Moroni 10, pray the prayer and expect a result, of course they'll get a result. Why wouldn't they? As long as Moroni 10 is part of your test of truth, dealing with false positives will always be a problem. Of course this raises the question that if such a fundamental part of the foundation of your belief is so prone to false positives, then how can you trust any reaction you get from that method?

 

P.S. The Bible never asks us to pray about whether or not it's true. It never asks us to make such important decisions by praying about them and expecting a positive, spiritual response.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Akboy

[Bikeemikey]

There is no such thing as a false conversion or a true conversion...

Religion is not epistemology. Even if your epistemic proof shows what it shows, which I'm not really even worried about, it has no bearing on the relevance if ones conversion.

[mfbukowski]

I think a big part of the problem is the wording of Moroni 10.

 

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

 

It's basically saying if you do A, then B will happen. But the problem is that opens the person up to getting a reaction generated by a placebo effect. When we expect something to happen, our mind can make it happen. Google 'placebo effect' and you'll see how powerful it is.

 

http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/what-is-the-placebo-effect

Notice the second bolded part and compare it with the 'sincere heart' phrase in the verse. So if an investigator prays and doesn't receive a witness the first time, they are encouraged to keep reading and try again with a sincere heart. But trying harder just makes a stronger placebo effect more likely.

 

(sorry for the mild coarse language)

That's incredible. They were probably just taking sugar pills, but they expected to feel results from taking them. Suffering from withdrawals means they were addicted to something. Plus, the length of the study shows us that placebo effects are not just short, isolated reactions. Our expectations can trigger placebo effects that last for years.

 

http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/what-is-the-placebo-effect

The placebo effect can go far beyond emotional reactions. Their brains changed themselves simply because they expected it to happen.

 

That's just from the first page of google results. I'm sure I could find many more examples. The human mind has an incredibly powerful ability to create reactions, changes and/or events when we expect them to happen.

 

So when people read Moroni 10, pray the prayer and expect a result, of course they'll get a result. Why wouldn't they? As long as Moroni 10 is part of your test of truth, dealing with false positives will always be a problem. Of course this raises the question that if such a fundamental part of the foundation of your belief is so prone to false positives, then how can you trust any reaction you get from that method?

 

P.S. The Bible never asks us to pray about whether or not it's true. It never asks us to make such important decisions by praying about them and expecting a positive, spiritual response.

This is laughable.  Seriously.

 

It's not "the mind" doing it, it's the spirit.

 

All you have done is confirm that faith healing is real.  You can call it the "placebo effect" but that just proves it is a force you, or science, cannot account for. 

 

Do you know what a "virtus dormitiva" is in logic?   THAT is what the so called "placebo effect" is.

 

It is a term which defines nothing because what it defines is unknown, so a meaningless term is made up to account for it, but in fact it accounts for nothing.

 

Thanks for the confirmation of spiritual healing and other effects.  Great post.

 

Edit:  Cracks me up- at the very end, there are graphic quotes of supposed placebo users statements while taking placebos

 

One actually says "God, I hope this works".  !!!!

 

Healing by faith has scientific proof, as long as you call it "the placebo effect".  Ridiculous!

Edited April 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Buzzard]

I've always found enough trouble trying to make sure my own conversion stayed true to worry about other peoples conversions.

[mfbukowski]

P.S. The Bible never asks us to pray about whether or not it's true. It never asks us to make such important decisions by praying about them and expecting a positive, spiritual response.

And how do you know the Bible is true??

 

Why is it better than the Zoroastrian Avesta or the Hindu scriptures?

 

Why do you folks answer an altar call and know you're saved if it isn't a feeling in your heart?  How do you know God speaks to you?

 

What is the science behind speaking in tongues?  What does THAT feel like?  Are you being logical when you are speaking in tongues?

 

It all cuts both ways.

[Ahab]

Your question has 2 parts.

1. How do "you" tell the difference...

2. the difference between a true and a false conversion.

First I would need to know what the conversion was supposed to convert me into, and then by knowing that I would look to see if I was converted into that.

For example, if a true conversion was supposed to convert me into a good person, or a person who did and does good things, then I would see if I could see the difference between the bad (or less good) person I was and the good person I should be converted into.

After careful review of all the responses to the question in the OP I have determined that my response is the best one.

I am the winner!

Yea for me!

You other folks can keep trying though if you want to.

[Akboy]

This is laughable.  Seriously.

 

It's not "the mind" doing it, it's the spirit.

 

All you have done is confirm that faith healing is real.  You can call it the "placebo effect" but that just proves it is a force you, or science, cannot account for. 

 

Do you know what a "virtus dormitiva" is in logic?   THAT is what the so called "placebo effect" is.

 

It is a term which defines nothing because what it defines is unknown, so a meaningless term is made up to account for it, but in fact it accounts for nothing.

 

Thanks for the confirmation of spiritual healing and other effects.  Great post.

 

Edit:  Cracks me up- at the very end, there are graphic quotes of supposed placebo users statements while taking placebos

 

One actually says "God, I hope this works".  !!!!

 

Healing by faith has scientific proof, as long as you call it "the placebo effect".  Ridiculous!

I'm not ignoring the role of faith and prayer in many of the miraculous placebo stories, but they can't ALL be spiritual healings. One of the placebo stories I read said a guy was in a drug test because he had a condition. The "drug" he was taking helped him so much that he insisted on staying on the drug after it was over even though he was just taking a placebo. His faith was in the drug, not in God healing him.

 

What about the 5+ year placebo study? Were they praying for healing that whole time? 40% of them suffered withdrawal symptoms. Where did that come from if it was a spiritual healing?

 

Many of the links on the placebo effect also mentioned the nocebo effect, which is when people experience negative side effects of drugs when they're only taking a placebo. They think they're taking some powerful drug that will treat some condition, but might give them nausea. So where does the nausea come from for the people who only took sugar pills? Is that part of a spiritual healing?

 

You have a valid point that some of it may be healings, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the whole thing. So if the human mind is powerful enough to create placebo and nocebo effects just because we expect them to happen, how can you be so sure a witness from the spirit is real when you expected it to happen?

 

And how do you know the Bible is true??

 

Why is it better than the Zoroastrian Avesta or the Hindu scriptures?

 

Why do you folks answer an altar call and know you're saved if it isn't a feeling in your heart?  How do you know God speaks to you?

 

What is the science behind speaking in tongues?  What does THAT feel like?  Are you being logical when you are speaking in tongues?

 

It all cuts both ways.

There is substantial historical evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament. Check out Cold Case Christianity. The author was an atheist cold case homicide detective who decided to use his skills to investigate the eyewitness claims in the 4 gospels. He's now a Christian and an apologist teaching others to defend the claims of the Bible.

 

The Zoroastrian Avesta and the Hindu scriptures do not have supporting evidence. The author of the book also used the same eyewitness investigation method on the Book of Mormon and it didn't hold up. The only evidence it uses to support itself is praying about it while expecting a positive response. Again, the Bible never asks us to pray about whether or not it's true.

 

Speaking gibberish that no one in the room can understand isn't supported by the Bible, so I've never been in a church that has any practice like that. Churches that do practice it are in a small minority.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Akboy

[thesometimesaint]

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. You agree that my question is unanswerable... So, you accept that there is no way to tell whether ANY conversion experience is true or false?

 

The only way I know it can be done is by what they do. By their fruits ye shall know them, and all that.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not ignoring the role of faith and prayer in many of the miraculous placebo stories, but they can't ALL be spiritual healings. One of the placebo stories I read said a guy was in a drug test because he had a condition. The "drug" he was taking helped him so much that he insisted on staying on the drug after it was over even though he was just taking a placebo. His faith was in the drug, not in God healing him.

 

What about the 5+ year placebo study? Were they praying for healing that whole time? 40% of them suffered withdrawal symptoms. Where did that come from if it was a spiritual healing?

 

Many of the links on the placebo effect also mentioned the nocebo effect, which is when people experience negative side effects of drugs when they're only taking a placebo. They think they're taking some powerful drug that will treat some condition, but might give them nausea. So where does the nausea come from for the people who only took sugar pills? Is that part of a spiritual healing?

 

You have a valid point that some of it may be healings, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the whole thing. So if the human mind is powerful enough to create placebo and nocebo effects just because we expect them to happen, how can you be so sure a witness from the spirit is real when you expected it to happen?

 

There is substantial historical evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament. Check out Cold Case Christianity. The author was an atheist cold case homicide detective who decided to use his skills to investigate the eyewitness claims in the 4 gospels. He's now a Christian and an apologist teaching others to defend the claims of the Bible.

 

The Zoroastrian Avesta and the Hindu scriptures do not have supporting evidence. The author of the book also used the same eyewitness investigation method on the Book of Mormon and it didn't hold up. The only evidence it uses to support itself is praying about it while expecting a positive response. Again, the Bible never asks us to pray about whether or not it's true.

 

Speaking gibberish that no one in the room can understand isn't supported by the Bible, so I've never been in a church that has any practice like that. Churches that do practice it are in a small minority.

 

SEE

syl·lo·gism

ˈsiləˌjizəm/

noun

noun: syllogism; plural noun: syllogisms

1.

an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).

[mfbukowski]

I'm not ignoring the role of faith and prayer in many of the miraculous placebo stories, but they can't ALL be spiritual healings. One of the placebo stories I read said a guy was in a drug test because he had a condition. The "drug" he was taking helped him so much that he insisted on staying on the drug after it was over even though he was just taking a placebo. His faith was in the drug, not in God healing him.

 

What about the 5+ year placebo study? Were they praying for healing that whole time? 40% of them suffered withdrawal symptoms. Where did that come from if it was a spiritual healing?

 

Many of the links on the placebo effect also mentioned the nocebo effect, which is when people experience negative side effects of drugs when they're only taking a placebo. They think they're taking some powerful drug that will treat some condition, but might give them nausea. So where does the nausea come from for the people who only took sugar pills? Is that part of a spiritual healing?

 

You have a valid point that some of it may be healings, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the whole thing. So if the human mind is powerful enough to create placebo and nocebo effects just because we expect them to happen, how can you be so sure a witness from the spirit is real when you expected it to happen?

 

There is substantial historical evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament. Check out Cold Case Christianity. The author was an atheist cold case homicide detective who decided to use his skills to investigate the eyewitness claims in the 4 gospels. He's now a Christian and an apologist teaching others to defend the claims of the Bible.

 

The Zoroastrian Avesta and the Hindu scriptures do not have supporting evidence. The author of the book also used the same eyewitness investigation method on the Book of Mormon and it didn't hold up. The only evidence it uses to support itself is praying about it while expecting a positive response. Again, the Bible never asks us to pray about whether or not it's true.

 

Speaking gibberish that no one in the room can understand isn't supported by the Bible, so I've never been in a church that has any practice like that. Churches that do practice it are in a small minority.

Tell me about the evidence of people getting swallowed by whales and getting spit out three days later, or talking donkeys or people coming back to life after they have died.  Or maybe stopping the sun by holding up your arms?  Or how about the sea opening up and letting the good guys through and then closing on the bad guys?

 

Not too scientific, not too rational.

 

Evidence is irrelevant to religious belief.  All the evidence in the world cannot confirm that Jesus died for your sins and mine.  How could you possibly prove that??

 

That is a losing argument.  It just doesn't fly.  Evidence cannot prove that the 10 commandments are correct.  Science cannot prove morality. 

 

Oh and the placebo stuff- you are missing the point.  THE ENTIRE POINT IS THAT IF YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING, THAT BELIEF CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.  It doesn't have to be "spiritual" by whatever your personal definition is.

 

This is a non-productive discussion.   Someone else might have the time to carry it on.

Edited April 16, 2014 by mfbukowski