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

[BCSpace]

I think most of this is all necessarily complicated.  In the LDS context, it would be highly unlikely for someone who has a 'false conversion' to be living the gospel law; paying tithing, fulfilling callings, etc.

[thesometimesaint]

I think most of this is all necessarily complicated.  In the LDS context, it would be highly unlikely for someone who has a 'false conversion' to be living the gospel law; paying tithing, fulfilling callings, etc.

 

It's too much work for me, if I didn't believe it.

[Akboy]

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 ).

 

I never said anything like 'All LDS conversions are placebo effects.'

 

You never really answered the OP's question. Don't worry about other people's conversions, just think about yours. Did you pray and expect a positive response like Moroni 10 says? If so, how can you be sure the response you got was from the spirit and not generated by your expectation? If your brain is powerful enough to rewire itself to fight Parkinson's simply because you expect that reaction, then why couldn't it also generate something that seems like a spiritual response?

 

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.

Whales and donkeys aren't fundamental to any denomination's beliefs. As for Jesus dying, you should really read Cold Case Christianity. One of the things Wallace points out is the fact that the Gospels aren't written just as spiritual appeals. The authors don't rely on telling people to pray about what they're preaching. They talk about evidence, like 500+ people seeing Jesus after He came back.

 

I'm not saying science is superior to faith and I'm not saying something should be proven before people believe it. I'm just asking how you can tell the difference between an experience generated by the spirit and an experience generated by your expectation of a spiritual experience?

 

What exactly do you mean by "IF YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING, THAT BELIEF CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN"?  Do you believe Nephi, Lehi and other people mentioned in the BoM were actually real people who physically lived on the earth? Do you believe the events described in the BoM actually, literally happened? If so, then no, your belief did not make it happen. Either the BoM is an accurate description of real events or it's fiction. Millions of people believing they happened has no impact on whether or not thay actually happened. Since there's no historical data to back it up like there is for the events of the Gospels, then the only thing to support it is a prayer that's open to false positives.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Akboy

[thesometimesaint]

I never said anything like 'All LDS conversions are placebo effects.'

 

You never really answered the OP's question. Don't worry about other people's conversions, just think about yours. Did you pray and expect a positive response like Moroni 10 says? If so, how can you be sure the response you got was from the spirit and not generated by your expectation? If your brain is powerful enough to rewire itself to fight Parkinson's simply because you expect that reaction, then why couldn't it also generate something that seems like a spiritual response?

 

Whales and donkeys aren't fundamental to any denomination's beliefs. As for Jesus dying, you should really read Cold Case Christianity. One of the things Wallace points out is the fact that the Gospels aren't written just as spiritual appeals. The authors don't rely on telling people to pray about what they're preaching. They talk about evidence, like 500+ people seeing Jesus after He came back.

 

I'm not saying science is superior to faith and I'm not saying something should be proven before people believe it. I'm just asking how you can tell the difference between an experience generated by the spirit and an experience generated by your expectation of a spiritual experience?

 

What exactly do you mean by "IF YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING, THAT BELIEF CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN"?  Do you believe Nephi, Lehi and other people mentioned in the BoM were actually real people who physically lived on the earth? Do you believe the events described in the BoM actually, literally happened? If so, then no, your belief did not make it happen. Either the BoM is an accurate description of real events or it's fiction. Since there's no historical data to back it up like there is for the events of the Gospels, then the only thing to support it is a prayer that's open to false positives.

 

I didn't say you did. But the placebo effect works in both directions. Generally about 1/3 will get a positive response, about 1/3 will a negative or no response at all, and about 1/3 will be divided between those 2, and those are the group we're interested.

 

I spent my professional life working with people for whom their stated beliefs, were at variance with their actions.

 

I am a convert, and my girl friend at the time asked me to come with her to an LDS Institute class. It was OK but left me with more questions than answers. Mine wasn't a quickie, just a slow growth of conviction, and finally enough faith to get dunked. I'm still learning, testing, and becoming converted after 43 years as a member.

 

I have Parkinson's, believe me if it was just a matter my brain fighting it, I would not take the powerful drugs that I do.

 

The only way that I know of is to see what they do. If what they do is justifiable by them to their stated beliefs. No problem. When there is a difference. That's when I get paid.

 

That is an illogical position to hold. Christianity is a miracle based religion, and it presupposes a God. Foundational to Christianity is the testimony of the Apostles.

ALL of which were written down long after the events took place, and gone over innumerable times by fellow believers. There is not one original autograph in the Bible. More over NOT ONE of the synoptic Gospels agrees in specifics, with ANY of the others. I'm not here to diss the Bible, but am well aware of it history and its limitations.

 

All due respect to your detective, but 3rd, 4th, and 5th hand testimony from unknown sources really isn't much to build a case on.

 

Yes I really believe that Lehi and other people mentioned in the Book of Mormon were real live humans.

 

Yes I really do believe they did what is claimed they did.

 

There is plenty of evidence for the Book of Mormon being the history of a people that actually live 3-2 thousand years ago. Note that I didn't say proof.

 

SEE

 

Evidences for Book of Mormon

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

 

As well as Neil Maxwell Institute

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/echoes-and-evidences-of-the-book-of-mormon/

[mfbukowski]

I never said anything like 'All LDS conversions are placebo effects.'

 

You never really answered the OP's question. Don't worry about other people's conversions, just think about yours. Did you pray and expect a positive response like Moroni 10 says? If so, how can you be sure the response you got was from the spirit and not generated by your expectation? If your brain is powerful enough to rewire itself to fight Parkinson's simply because you expect that reaction, then why couldn't it also generate something that seems like a spiritual response?

 

Whales and donkeys aren't fundamental to any denomination's beliefs. As for Jesus dying, you should really read Cold Case Christianity. One of the things Wallace points out is the fact that the Gospels aren't written just as spiritual appeals. The authors don't rely on telling people to pray about what they're preaching. They talk about evidence, like 500+ people seeing Jesus after He came back.

 

I'm not saying science is superior to faith and I'm not saying something should be proven before people believe it. I'm just asking how you can tell the difference between an experience generated by the spirit and an experience generated by your expectation of a spiritual experience?

 

What exactly do you mean by "IF YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING, THAT BELIEF CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN"?  Do you believe Nephi, Lehi and other people mentioned in the BoM were actually real people who physically lived on the earth? Do you believe the events described in the BoM actually, literally happened? If so, then no, your belief did not make it happen. Either the BoM is an accurate description of real events or it's fiction. Millions of people believing they happened has no impact on whether or not thay actually happened. Since there's no historical data to back it up like there is for the events of the Gospels, then the only thing to support it is a prayer that's open to false positives.

You are not following the argument at all.

 

Your entire point about the placebo effect was to show that one's BELIEF can make things happen in one's mind and body- not that there is a difference between mind body and spirit- I am using those terms because you believe there is.

 

I am going to capitalize "belief" to emphasize every time I use it, so that perhaps that will communicate better.

 

And your belief is standing in the way of your understanding.

 

Yes I BELIEVE that the Book of Mormon peoples were "real people".

Yes, I BELIEVE that Jesus is the Son of God and that he came to earth and suffered and died for my sins and yours

 

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR EITHER OF THESE STATEMENTS, and to think so is highly naive at best.

 

Some silly detective cannot overcome two thousand years of legends, written down at best a half-century after the alleged "events" occurred, and passed on by scribes who had a vested interest in keeping the legends alive.  No legends, no lunch.

 

I can show you books with very persuasive arguments showing that Jesus did not even exist.  Everything he allegedly "did" was attributed to other god-figures long before he allegedly arrived on the scene.  Read about Mithras. Read about Zoroaster.  In fact much of Biblical doctrine is IDENTICAL  to Zoroastrian doctrine and the Zoroastrian is much older.

 

Yet, yes I BELIEVE.  That is called "faith".  You believe you are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and now you are trying to tell me it is not faith at all that saves you.

 

What kind of biblical doctrine is that??  We are saved by reason??  Since when??

 

As far as evidence for BOM peoples- you need to get caught up on the scholarship.  Ever heard of the Maya?  They were BOM peoples.  But the evidence is irrelevant anyway.

 

Your entire post about the placebo effect was about how BELIEF - called the "placebo effect"- has actual scientifically verifiable effects on mind and body.

 

All I am suggesting is go back and re-watch your silly video and substitute the word "faith" for every single time it uses the words "placebo effect".  Can you do that?

 

If that argument is not clear, I don't think I can make it any clearer

 

And to directly answer your question, NO I had no expectations whatsoever on what would happen when I asked God if the BOM was "true".

 

In fact I had only read Moroni 10:4-5 because someone had told me to.  I found it unbelievable that God could actually tell me if a book was true, and I asked in faith, and I got my answer.

 

I don't care what you want to call it, placebo effect is as good a name as any.  The semantics don't matter one iota.

 

Yes I prayed about the Book of Mormon and the "placebo effect" answered my prayers.  I worship the Placebo Effect.  The Placebo Effect is a major force in my life. 

 

We don't need that old fashioned "Jesus" stuff any more- we have the scientific "Placebo Effect" to replace "him".

 

We are saved by Faith in the Placebo Effect.  Praise to the Placebo Effect!!  All glory and honor to the Placebo Effect!

 

Get the message?  The difference is just semantic- nothing more nothing less.  I don't know how to make it clearer.

 

I wish you well on your Placebo Effect journey.

Edited April 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

One final way of saying the same thing:

 

Science calls "the placebo effect" what it cannot explain.  In effect the term means "unexplainable mental effects" caused by belief.

 

I call those "unexplained mental effects caused by belief"  "FAITH".

 

If "unexplained mental effects caused by belief" can heal you, I say that "faith healed you".  Same thing.

 

There.  I finally cut to the bottom line.

[ERayR]

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?

 

A true conversion is changing behavior from former patterns to new patterns which are in harmony with a new or changed paradigm..

[seed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Inductive_vs._deductive_reasoning

 

must use inductive for this problem,  see the link.

Edited April 16, 2014 by seed

[Akboy]

mfbukowski, what about the negative effects of a placebo? Why can a placebo trigger withdrawal symptoms, nausea, etc.? Where do those come from?

[Bikeemikey]

I think most of this is all necessarily complicated. In the LDS context, it would be highly unlikely for someone who has a 'false conversion' to be living the gospel law; paying tithing, fulfilling callings, etc.

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

Edited April 16, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

mfbukowski, what about the negative effects of a placebo? Why can a placebo trigger withdrawal symptoms, nausea, etc.? Where do those come from?

Dude... You have totally missed the points being made!

Negative and positive placebo effects are all from the same place... The belief of the individual.

[Akboy]

Dude... You have totally missed the points being made!

Negative and positive placebo effects are all from the same place... The belief of the individual.

Right, placebo effects are generated by the belief of the individual, not a real drug or a spirit from God. In the Parkinson's example, patients who took placebos had changes in their brain that were identical to the changes caused by the actual medication. Those changes happened because they expected them to happen, not because there was an external source of power or change.

 

So if someone follows the instructions in Moroni 10, prays the prayer and expects a response, their brain may generate a response because they expect one. If that happens, that placebo effect is from the individual, NOT from God.

 

Did you follow Moroni 10? If so, how can you be sure the response you got was from God and not generated by your expectation of a response?

[Bikeemikey]

Right, placebo effects are generated by the belief of the individual, not a real drug or a spirit from God. In the Parkinson's example, patients who took placebos had changes in their brain that were identical to the changes caused by the actual medication. Those changes happened because they expected them to happen, not because there was an external source of power or change.

So if someone follows the instructions in Moroni 10, prays the prayer and expects a response, their brain may generate a response because they expect one. If that happens, that placebo effect is from the individual, NOT from God.

Did you follow Moroni 10? If so, how can you be sure the response you got was from God and not generated by your expectation of a response?

Sure... So what?

Also, not everyone generates a placebo effect. If you are suggesting that the believing Mormon population is only made up by those individuals who have such a strong power of belief that they can make stuff real just by believing it then we are more a church of super x-men than deluded fools.

By definition a placebo effect is an effect caused beyond the scope of explainable data, attributing it to belief is just "an" answer.

All placebo effect maybe from god.

All religious experience may be a placebo effect! All answer to prayer could be, after all why pray if you don't think anything will happen.

Your point is not well made, and if it were well made it is still irrelevant to religious belief.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Akboy]

Sure... So what?

Also, not everyone generates a placebo effect. If you are suggesting that the believing Mormon population is only made up by those individuals who have such a strong power of belief that they can make stuff real just by believing it then we are more a church of super x-men than deluded fools.

By definition a placebo effect is an effect caused beyond the scope of explainable data, attributing it to belief is just "an" answer.

All placebo effect maybe from god.

All religious experience may be a placebo effect! All answer to prayer could be, after all why pray if you don't think anything will happen.

Your point is not well made, and if it were well made it is still irrelevant to religious belief.

Where are you getting your definition of "placebo effect"? Doctors don't know exactly how the brain creates the placebo effect, but they know it doesn't come from a real drug, so it must be generated by the individual, not the drug. In the same way, if someone has a religious placebo effect, it's generated by the individual, not by God.

 

No, the power of belief can not "make stuff real." A placebo can have powerful effects on you, but it will never have an impact on anything outside of your mind and body. If belief could make stuff real, then Santa Claus and Bigfoot would have been real for years by now.

 

God is a real being totally independent us. Our beliefs don't make Him any more real and he would still be real if no one believed in Him.

 

What about the negative effects of a placebo, like withdrawal symptoms or nausea. Are those from God?

 

If you're looking for a religious experience, why would you want a response generated by your mind?

 

I'm not saying every Mormon got responses generated by their mind (which is what a placebo is), but when the method of getting a testimony is so open to a placebo effect (which would be generated by the individual's mind, not God), how can you tell the difference between a placebo effect and an experience from God?

Edited April 17, 2014 by Akboy

[thesometimesaint]

Where are you getting your definition of "placebo effect"? Doctors don't know exactly how the brain creates the placebo effect, but they know it doesn't come from a real drug, so it must be generated by the individual, not the drug. In the same way, if someone has a religious placebo effect, it's generated by the individual, not by God.

 

No, the power of belief can not "make stuff real." A placebo can have powerful effects on you, but it will never have an impact on anything outside of your mind and body. If belief could make stuff real, then Santa Claus and Bigfoot would have been real for years by now.

 

God is a real being totally independent us. Our beliefs don't make Him any more real and he would still be real if no one believed in Him.

 

What about the negative effects of a placebo, like withdrawal symptoms or nausea. Are those from God?

 

If you're looking for a religious experience, why would you want a response generated by your mind?

 

I'm not saying every Mormon got responses generated by their mind (which is what a placebo is), but when the method of getting a testimony is so open to a placebo effect (which would be generated by the individual's mind, not God), how can you tell the difference between a placebo effect and an experience from God?

 

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

 

Ulcers, heart attacks, migraine headaches, are just of a few of the many psychosomatic real world impacts.

 

Reductionist and Non sequitur thinking. IE; If our Atheist friends are correct that it is just this life and then the Abyss. None of us will know any different any way.

 

No one knows, but it could be from God, God of a different religion, no God, an idiosyncratic response, or actual withdrawal symptoms. 

 

I wouldn't, but I do know of those that we're not looking for a religious experience but had one anyway. IE; It is often claimed by MD's in training that with their first dissection of the human body they develop a profound religious respect for the cadaver.

 

From birth to death everything we humans experience is experienced in our minds.

[Akboy]

From birth to death everything we humans experience is experienced in our minds.

Agreed, but there's a big difference between an experience generated by something other our mind (a drug, God, etc.) and an experience generated by our mind simply because we expect an experience. Since it's proven that our mind can generate powerful experiences and changes just because we expect them, then how can a test of truth be trusted when it tells the individual to expect a response?

 

Again, I'm not denying the existence of spiritual experiences. They are real as long as they have a spiritual source. If a "spiritual experience" is generated by my mind and my expectation, then it's not really a spiritual experience because I'm not a spirit, at least not one reliable enough to trust as a source of divine truth. The Bible never tells us to use prayer as a test of truth while expecting a positive response.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed, but there's a big difference between an experience generated by something other our mind (a drug, God, etc.) and an experience generated by our mind simply because we expect an experience. Since it's proven that our mind can generate powerful experiences and changes just because we expect them, then how can a test of truth be trusted when it tells the individual to expect a response?

 

Again, I'm not denying the existence of spiritual experiences. They are real as long as they have a spiritual source. If a "spiritual experience" is generated by my mind and my expectation, then it's not really a spiritual experience because I'm not a spirit, at least not one reliable enough to trust as a source of divine truth. The Bible never tells us to use prayer as a test of truth while expecting a positive response.

 

As far as our minds are concerned there is no difference. Every person alive see reality slightly differently. We simply assume that the further they are from our reality the more "unreal" they become. IE: All religions make claims about the natural world. The further those beliefs are from our religion the less real they become. I don't believe in the Gods of the ancient Greeks, for me they are unreal, but they were very much real for those ancient Greeks.

 

In LDS, and most Christian religions, that I know of, we are spirits/souls connected to a physical body. That when we die that spirit/soul goes to God, while our physical body stays behind awaiting Resurrection, the rejoining of our spirit/soul to our physical bodies. OTOH with some 40,000 different Christian religions in the US alone. I can't know very much about more than just a handful.

 

You'd better reread your Bible. That injunction is all over it.

[mfbukowski]

Sure... So what?

Also, not everyone generates a placebo effect. If you are suggesting that the believing Mormon population is only made up by those individuals who have such a strong power of belief that they can make stuff real just by believing it then we are more a church of super x-men than deluded fools.

By definition a placebo effect is an effect caused beyond the scope of explainable data, attributing it to belief is just "an" answer.

All placebo effect maybe from god.

All religious experience may be a placebo effect! All answer to prayer could be, after all why pray if you don't think anything will happen.

Your point is not well made, and if it were well made it is still irrelevant to religious belief.

Hallelujah!   Would not change one word!

 

Faith is about what is unseen and hoped for, not about what is scientifically "real".  It is an ATTITUDE which give our life purpose and meaning

[mfbukowski]

Right, placebo effects are generated by the belief of the individual, not a real drug or a spirit from God. In the Parkinson's example, patients who took placebos had changes in their brain that were identical to the changes caused by the actual medication. Those changes happened because they expected them to happen, not because there was an external source of power or change.

 

So if someone follows the instructions in Moroni 10, prays the prayer and expects a response, their brain may generate a response because they expect one. If that happens, that placebo effect is from the individual, NOT from God.

 

Did you follow Moroni 10? If so, how can you be sure the response you got was from God and not generated by your expectation of a response?

Not a real spirit from God???  What does that even mean?

 

The ATTIUDE is the real spirit from God. It's a real attitude

And yes drugs change your attitude.  So what?

 

In one case the drug changes your brain chemicals in the other one could say God does.  Sometimes our brain changes the chemicals.  Who cares?  Causes cannot be defined- read Hume for that one.

 

Spirit is matter but how that works exactly is yet undefined.  Probably some kind of field phenomenon.

Edited April 17, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Right, placebo effects are generated by the belief of the individual, not a real drug or a spirit from God. In the Parkinson's example, patients who took placebos had changes in their brain that were identical to the changes caused by the actual medication. Those changes happened because they expected them to happen, not because there was an external source of power or change.

 

So if someone follows the instructions in Moroni 10, prays the prayer and expects a response, their brain may generate a response because they expect one. If that happens, that placebo effect is from the individual, NOT from God.

 

Did you follow Moroni 10? If so, how can you be sure the response you got was from God and not generated by your expectation of a response?

Circular.

 

Expectation is a belief.  This says the attitude caused the attitude.  Duh.  Look up virtus dormitiva.

Edited April 17, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Jesus said the kingdom of God is within.

 

He wasn't kidding.

[Akboy]

As far as our minds are concerned there is no difference. Every person alive see reality slightly differently. We simply assume that the further they are from our reality the more "unreal" they become. IE: All religions make claims about the natural world. The further those beliefs are from our religion the less real they become. I don't believe in the Gods of the ancient Greeks, for me they are unreal, but they were very much real for those ancient Greeks.

 

In LDS, and most Christian religions, that I know of, we are spirits/souls connected to a physical body. That when we die that spirit/soul goes to God, while our physical body stays behind awaiting Resurrection, the rejoining of our spirit/soul to our physical bodies. OTOH with some 40,000 different Christian religions in the US alone. I can't know very much about more than just a handful.

 

You'd better reread your Bible. That injunction is all over it.

We might be using different definitions of "real" and "unreal." The physical world is real. Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were real historical figures. Jesus Christ was also a real historical figure. His death and resurrection literally, physically happened. Our belief in those events have nothing to do with whether or not they really happened.

 

No, the gods of greek mythology have never been real for anyone. People may have believed they were real, but they weren't. They were believing in fiction. Their belief didn't help them at all. Belief is pointless, sometimes even destructive and harmful, if it's focused on something that isn't literally real.

 

None of the Biblical authors say anything like 'Pray about what I've taught and you'll receive a witness of it's truth.'

 

Hallelujah!   Would not change one word!

 

Faith is about what is unseen and hoped for, not about what is scientifically "real".  It is an ATTITUDE which give our life purpose and meaning

Agreed, faith is about what is unseen and hoped for. But what good is faith if it's not focused on something that isn't real in any sense?

 

Many people had faith the world was flat. Many people had faith in what Jim Jones was talking about and ended up drinking his poison kool aid. Many people have killed themselves in suicide bombings because of their faith in Islam. Did those faiths help those people at all?

 

It's not enough to have faith. If your faith isn't focused on the only literally real God, what good is it?

 

Do not compare religious belief to criminal acts. It may result in you being removed from the thread.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm not saying every Mormon got responses generated by their mind (which is what a placebo is), but when the method of getting a testimony is so open to a placebo effect (which would be generated by the individual's mind, not God), how can you tell the difference between a placebo effect and an experience from God?

So some Mormons got answers from God. Some got answers from a placebo effect. Some got it from the light reflecting off their watch.

What does it matter?

[Akboy]

So some Mormons got answers from God. Some got answers from a placebo effect. Some got it from the light reflecting off their watch.

What does it matter?

How do you know the answer you got was from God and not a placebo effect generated by your mind?

[Fennec Fox]

 

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?

Thank you for posting the Rorty lecture. It is new to me.