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

[brainburn]

Mfbukowki, at the very least you must accept that a correspondence theory of truth has pragmatic utility solely in the fact that it satisfies our desire to know what is beyond our experience.

[Akboy]

Mfbukowki, at the very least you must accept that a correspondence theory of truth has pragmatic utility solely in the fact that it satisfies our desire to know what is beyond our experience.

By 'correspondence theory of truth,' are you talking about God teaching people stuff they don't see, touch or feel for themselves? It sounds like he would disagree with that theory since those people didn't actually see, touch or feel those things. But if correspondence from God can't be relied on for truth, then we would have to throw out large chunks of the Bible since we can't see, touch or feel heaven, salvation, grace and many other topics in the New Testament.

 

Mfbukowski, do you believe the Bible at all? If so, how do you pick what to believe and what not to?

Edited April 21, 2014 by Akboy

[thesometimesaint]

We really need to define some terms, so I'll use dictionary.reference.com

 

Objective adjective

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

 

Subjective adjective

existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought

 

Are those the definitions you're using?

 

The events of 2000 years ago are not just 'existing in the mind,' so they are not subjective. Either Jesus was who He said He was, the Son of God, or the 4 Gospels are explained by one of the other theories like liar, legend or lunatic. If the Gospels are reliable eyewitness statements, then Jesus dying and rising again was an objective reality. What exists or doesn't exist in your mind has nothing to do with the objective reality of whatever happened 2000 years ago.

 

Yes, faith does exist in your mind. But, again, faith needs to be focused on objective reality for it to do any good. The Egyptian gods of death, the sun and weather only existed in the minds of the Egyptians, so their faith was pointless and powerless. If the events in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's visions weren't objective realities, then they only existed in Smith's mind and others who followed the faith, which would also be pointless and powerless.

 

 

I don't know where you're getting the part about climbing a mountain and seeing the entire globe. Other than that, yes, I believe the rest of those events literally happened as objectively real events. Also, 'turning off the sun' was poor wording on my part. Yes, I believe the plague of darkness in Exodus was an objectively real event.

 

Don't you believe those events actually happened in objective reality? What do you think the Bible is? Are the stories mainly figurative and metaphorical, or is it, for the most part, a historical document that describes real, objective events?

 

 

So what? What do the beliefs of a non-Christian have to do with any of this?

 

 

Of course, prayer and talking to God is a huge part of faith. I never suggested otherwise. The problem is Moroni 10 tells us to ask God a question while assuming we know the answer before we even ask the question. Does that work in any other type of prayer? I bet you pray about important decisions like choosing the leaders in your stakes and wards. If John Doe is being considered for some leadership position, do you assume the answer will be 'yes' before you pray about it? If you try to avoid assumption about something like that, shouldn't you also avoid assumptions in important questions like 'Are these words actually from God?'

 

Nope, not true at all. He was an atheist when he started investigating the gospels. In my church's Easter service, my pastor gave multiple separate examples of atheists who hated and mocked Christianity. They set out to prove Christians wrong and became Christians in the process. They absolutely did not assume the story in the Bible is true. I think this link talks about some of those former atheists: http://www.christianity.co.nz/res-3.htm

 

Or you could actually read Cold Case Christianity so you know what you're talking about. It's less than $10 on kindle or used paperback: http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates-ebook/dp/B00A71Y7I8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398036588&sr=1-1&keywords=cold+case+christianity

 

I'm reading The Continuous Atonement by Brad Wilcox, a very pro-LDS book: http://www.amazon.com/Continuous-Atonement-Brad-Wilcox-ebook/dp/B00309SD3E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398037380&sr=1-1&keywords=continuous+atonement

Are you willing to read something as well?

 

EVERYTHING we experience is a subjective experience. Even the facts we use are subject to interpretation. The thing about objective is that it is simply what is the agreed upon reality. IE: Prove to me that you're not a bunch of electronic blips on a computer screen that I interpret as being you.

 

The events of 2000 years ago are important only in respect that they mean something to the both of us. Take away the Christian bias and even if a person named Yeshua bar Yosef lived there is no way to prove the God he worshiped.

 

You are starting with the priori that Jesus was whom he claimed to be. To an outside observer the Bible is not a reliable source. Bring on the Cockatrice.

 

It is right in your Bible.

SEE Luke 4:5

 

Your Bible claims that the sun stopped moving in the sky. There are any number of ways for darkness to cover a small area. IE; After Mount St. Helen's erupted it was dark at noon.

 

Depends on which event you're talking about. Some things are obviously literal but mostly are figurative and allegorical. However their purpose is not to be solely literal, but to tell a morality story. If you mean How do I tell which is which? The only way I know is through a prayer to God, another subjective experience.

 

Yes I believe the Truth Claims of the Church, whether the Good Samaritan actually existed or not it is a morality tail of how we are to treat each other.

 

Because regardless of belief it is still just a belief. Does the existence of other religious texts provide a proof text of that religion? If they do how is that any different than Christian beliefs about the Bible?

 

God may know the answer, but we generally do not. It seems a little redundant to ask a question you already know the answer to.

 

We don't choose whom are leaders of our Wards and Stakes are.  We confirm that decision by agreeing the sustain(support) that person in their calling. 

 

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

 

There just as many examples of Christians becoming Atheists.

[mfbukowski]

EVERYTHING we experience is a subjective experience. Even the facts we use are subject to interpretation. The thing about objective is that it is simply what is the agreed upon reality. IE: Prove to me that you're not a bunch of electronic blips on a computer screen that I interpret as being you.

 

The events of 2000 years ago are important only in respect that they mean something to the both of us. Take away the Christian bias and even if a person named Yeshua bar Yosef lived there is no way to prove the God he worshiped.

 

You are starting with the priori that Jesus was whom he claimed to be. To an outside observer the Bible is not a reliable source. Bring on the Cockatrice.

 

It is right in your Bible.

SEE Luke 4:5

 

Your Bible claims that the sun stopped moving in the sky. There are any number of ways for darkness to cover a small area. IE; After Mount St. Helen's erupted it was dark at noon.

 

Depends on which event you're talking about. Some things are obviously literal but mostly are figurative and allegorical. However their purpose is not to be solely literal, but to tell a morality story. If you mean How do I tell which is which? The only way I know is through a prayer to God, another subjective experience.

 

Yes I believe the Truth Claims of the Church, whether the Good Samaritan actually existed or not it is a morality tail of how we are to treat each other.

 

Because regardless of belief it is still just a belief. Does the existence of other religious texts provide a proof text of that religion? If they do how is that any different than Christian beliefs about the Bible?

 

God may know the answer, but we generally do not. It seems a little redundant to ask a question you already know the answer to.

 

We don't choose whom are leaders of our Wards and Stakes are.  We confirm that decision by agreeing the sustain(support) that person in their calling. 

 

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

 

There just as many examples of Christians becoming Atheists.

Yup

 

More later.

[mfbukowski]

Everything is a model of reality which cannot be "proven" ultimately against a direct perception of reality because we cannot directly perceive reality.

 

What we call reality is really just a bubble created by human brains/spirits/language.  We can never get out of being human as long as we are human, and even God is human.

 

THAT IS WHY THIS IS CONSISTENT PERFECTLY WITH MORMONISM.  If God is human, human reality is God's reality.  Humanism becomes theology.

 

It's all taking our best shot at what's out there.  That's all there is.

 

I might be certain about my best shot being right, but it might not be the best shot after all, as confirmed later when the cliff I didn't see swallows my car up.  OOPS.

 

But we all need to have a best shot at what will happen and what won't.  No facts just interpretations.

 

Yes I believe and know the bible is true in that sense, same for the BOM.  Same for evolution and physics.  They are all our best shots at the subject under consideration.

 

There is no conflict because each is a separate language game.  Baseball is not physics, the Bible is not Impressionist Painting.

 

There is no way to get to "ultimate reality" on any of it.  No correspondence to anything.  It's just words all the way down.

 

There IS no other "reality".

 

If you think so, you don't understand this

Edited April 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And the bible is certainly not science.

 

And history?  That's just some folks making up stories about what might have happened.  Even if you were there you only know one side of the story.

[mfbukowski]

And as far as compatibility this is all straight Moroni 10:4-5 and Alma 32.

 

God can tell us all things, and we prove truth as being true because the truth is sweet to us.  It is satisfying.  It gives us peace. That is precisely how we know truth, not because a sentence "corresponds" to some inhuman reality we cannot know anything about.

[mfbukowski]

EVERYTHING we experience is a subjective experience. Even the facts we use are subject to interpretation. The thing about objective is that it is simply what is the agreed upon reality. IE: Prove to me that you're not a bunch of electronic blips on a computer screen that I interpret as being you.

 

The events of 2000 years ago are important only in respect that they mean something to the both of us. Take away the Christian bias and even if a person named Yeshua bar Yosef lived there is no way to prove the God he worshiped.

 

You are starting with the priori that Jesus was whom he claimed to be. To an outside observer the Bible is not a reliable source. Bring on the Cockatrice.

 

It is right in your Bible.

SEE Luke 4:5

 

Your Bible claims that the sun stopped moving in the sky. There are any number of ways for darkness to cover a small area. IE; After Mount St. Helen's erupted it was dark at noon.

 

Depends on which event you're talking about. Some things are obviously literal but mostly are figurative and allegorical. However their purpose is not to be solely literal, but to tell a morality story. If you mean How do I tell which is which? The only way I know is through a prayer to God, another subjective experience.

 

Yes I believe the Truth Claims of the Church, whether the Good Samaritan actually existed or not it is a morality tail of how we are to treat each other.

 

Because regardless of belief it is still just a belief. Does the existence of other religious texts provide a proof text of that religion? If they do how is that any different than Christian beliefs about the Bible?

 

God may know the answer, but we generally do not. It seems a little redundant to ask a question you already know the answer to.

 

We don't choose whom are leaders of our Wards and Stakes are.  We confirm that decision by agreeing the sustain(support) that person in their calling. 

 

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

 

There just as many examples of Christians becoming Atheists.

I am quoting this again.

 

This is the best post I remember reading from you.  I agree with all of it, and it is well put.

 

Thanks for the great post.  

[mfbukowski]

Mfbukowki, at the very least you must accept that a correspondence theory of truth has pragmatic utility solely in the fact that it satisfies our desire to know what is beyond our experience.

Nope.  It's foolishness to try to not be human.  That is what you are saying.  As long as we are human we will have human experiences.

[thesometimesaint]

I am quoting this again.

 

This is the best post I remember reading from you.  I agree with all of it, and it is well put.

 

Thanks for the great post.  

 

Thank you.

[brainburn]

Nope.  It's foolishness to try to not be human.  That is what you are saying.  As long as we are human we will have human experiences.

I'd just like acknowledge really quickly that I posted this statement you're making a response to kind of as an afterthought. It's just another angle I came up with I thought might get us somewhere. Just want to be clear and point out that for whatever reason, we're having a different discussion than where I left off in post #97: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63364-how-do-you-tell-the-difference-between-a-true-and-false-conversion/page-5#entry1209372146

 

But oh well. Let's investigate your response.

 

So, first of all I should have posted this:

 

Mfbukowki, at the very least you must accept that a supernatural correspondence theory of truth has pragmatic utility solely in the fact that it satisfies our desire to know what is beyond our experience. 

 

You gave a really interesting response... "it's foolishness to try to not be human."

 

Help me understand...

 

What are the "foolish" consequences of simply having confidence in a supernatural correspondence theory of truth for pragmatic reasons?

 

Does doing something that is trying to not be "human" mean that there is no pragmatic utility in that thing?

 

Also, do you make a distinction between being human and being a spirit? Are they the same thing in your philosophy? Because if they're not, then is trying to be a spirit instead of a human "foolishness"? What if our spirits could experience a supernatural confirmation of correspondence?

 

And the phrasing you used for that last statement is really curious... "As long as we are human we will have human experiences."

 

As long as WE ARE HUMAN, WE WILL HAVE human experiences.

 

Mfbukowski, pray tell... is this statement a pragmatic belief of yours or a statement of truth? Because the way you phrased it sounds exactly like a statement about an objective truth that we all experience and even will experience.

[brainburn]

By 'correspondence theory of truth,' are you talking about God teaching people stuff they don't see, touch or feel for themselves? It sounds like he would disagree with that theory since those people didn't actually see, touch or feel those things. But if correspondence from God can't be relied on for truth, then we would have to throw out large chunks of the Bible since we can't see, touch or feel heaven, salvation, grace and many other topics in the New Testament.

 

Mfbukowski, do you believe the Bible at all? If so, how do you pick what to believe and what not to?

Yeah that could very well be.

[mfbukowski]

I'd just like acknowledge really quickly that I posted this statement you're making a response to kind of as an afterthought. It's just another angle I came up with I thought might get us somewhere. Just want to be clear and point out that for whatever reason, we're having a different discussion than where I left off in post #97: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63364-how-do-you-tell-the-difference-between-a-true-and-false-conversion/page-5#entry1209372146

 

But oh well. Let's investigate your response.

 

So, first of all I should have posted this:

 

Mfbukowki, at the very least you must accept that a supernatural correspondence theory of truth has pragmatic utility solely in the fact that it satisfies our desire to know what is beyond our experience. 

 

You gave a really interesting response... "it's foolishness to try to not be human."

 

Help me understand...

 

What are the "foolish" consequences of simply having confidence in a supernatural correspondence theory of truth for pragmatic reasons?

 

Does doing something that is trying to not be "human" mean that there is no pragmatic utility in that thing?

 

Also, do you make a distinction between being human and being a spirit? Are they the same thing in your philosophy? Because if they're not, then is trying to be a spirit instead of a human "foolishness"? What if our spirits could experience a supernatural confirmation of correspondence?

 

And the phrasing you used for that last statement is really curious... "As long as we are human we will have human experiences."

 

As long as WE ARE HUMAN, WE WILL HAVE human experiences.

 

Mfbukowski, pray tell... is this statement a pragmatic belief of yours or a statement of truth? Because the way you phrased it sounds exactly like a statement about an objective truth that we all experience and even will experience.

Well as always we have gotten nowhere.

 

I haven't got a clue what you mean by a supernatural correspondence theory.  what corresponds to what?  You keep throwing around terms without defining them.  Everyone else around here seems to understand me just fine.

[brainburn]

Well as always we have gotten nowhere.

 

I haven't got a clue what you mean by a supernatural correspondence theory.  what corresponds to what?  You keep throwing around terms without defining them.  Everyone else around here seems to understand me just fine.

Say someone has an experience where the idea that Jesus rose from the dead however many years ago was supernaturally confirmed to correspond to that past reality. That's one example of a supernaturally facilitated correspondence theory of truth.

 

So, why can't someone have certainty in this experience simply for pragmatic reasons?

[mfbukowski]

Say someone has an experience where the idea that Jesus rose from the dead however many years ago was supernaturally confirmed to correspond to that past reality. That's one example of a supernaturally facilitated correspondence theory of truth.

 

So, why can't someone have certainty in this experience simply for pragmatic reasons?

What do you mean by "for pragmatic reasons"?

 

It seems you are not understanding that pragmatic reasons are the only reasons we have for believing anything.  I believe gravity works because things fall on my head.  I have the experience of things falling.

 

I believe God speaks to me because I have had the experience of him speaking to me- or at least information coming into my head from a benevolent being who loves me.

 

I believe Jesus of Nazareth died for my sins because it is the best model I can find to explain how God can forgive me for bad things I have done and which coheres with other statements I believe to be true, because they work in my life.

 

I can be certain of these things and when I am I say "I know this is true".  That is the meaning of the statement.  It means I know that my life is better for believing this.

 

Does the belief "correspond" to supernatural events?  No, it is my  belief about what actually happened.  It is a model of what actually happened I hold.  There is no one thing called a "belief" which magically "corresponds" to some movie which does not exist showing "what actually happened" supernaturally or otherwise, which compare to my belief and say "Yep- my belief corresponds to what actually happend all right- it is true!"

 

What "actually happened" in a sense doesn't even exist- all even the participants can know is their own perspectives on what they saw.  Pilate had one perspective- did that get recorded- and even if so, would it be "accurate"?  The centurion had his perspective- same thing there.  Each character- each witness- would have his own version of "what happened".  So we add them all up- is that "what actually happened"?  What if there were unknown things happening?  What if it was all a trick and Jesus was an actor who took a drug and pulled a David Copperfield or something??  We can never know for absolutely sure what "actually happened".

 

All we have is the bible to tell us- and who knows where that came from?  Now I am sure AK will say something- don't bother because I will not respond.

 

I believe/know that WHAT I BELIEVE "really happened" because that belief works for me in my life. I say that because I am certain that the belief that it "really happened"

 

If it never "actually happened" that is unknowable anyway, so really it doesn't matter.

 

Now you will go off on that.  But that is part and parcel of the whole ball of wax that all we have is human experience- the accumulated library of human experience - including my own subjective version of all that.

 

It's the old "brains in a vat" thing.  If we are all just brains in a vat with inputs by some sadistic alien, we will never know that and cannot know that- so it doesn't matter.  My life goes on as it is, as I see it going on.

 

Life is ambiguous and uncertain.  So what?  You have to live anyway.  You take your best shot and live with the consequences- that's all anyone can do.

[mfbukowski]

 

....then we would have to throw out large chunks of the Bible since we can't see, touch or feel heaven, salvation, grace and many other topics in the New Testament.

Have you ever heard of "faith"?

 

You know, like the "hope for things unseen"?

 

Your problem is that you don't know that accepting the rest of the bible is just as unsure as the spiritual topics.  You think it is scientific and historical.  It's not.  It is mostly legend.  But legends might have "really happened' we just can't and should not know that they did!

 

But that's fine because I know it's true because of what it does for me in my life.  God tells me I should believe it, and who am I to argue with God?

 

You really should try it.

[Calm]

 

Do you have any kids? How would you react if they told you they'll only follow the rules they like, and they'll only follow those rules based on their own interpretation of them?

Do you have kids? That is what it amounts to in reality. What a parent must do is create the proper reinforcement program to get the behaviour desired. Just laying down the law will do nothing unless there are consequences...and it is those consequences that will cause how the kids interpret the rule.

[brainburn]

What do you mean by "for pragmatic reasons"?

The same thing you mean when you explain why you believe what you believe. If we only believe things for pragmatic reasons, how could you possibly exclude a pragmatic acceptance of a correspondence theory?

It seems you are not understanding that pragmatic reasons are the only reasons we have for believing anything.

I understand that.... :/ you seem very set on misinterpreting everything I say as contradicting your philosophy. In how many ways do I need to explain that I agree with you about truth. Just stop expecting me to be wrong and judge me by what I explain I mean, not what you assume I mean.

For example, take this comment of yours:

I believe God speaks to me because I have had the experience of him speaking to me

And replace "speaks" with "confirms correspondence":

I believe God confirms correspondence for me because I have had the experience of him confirming it to me

Is this not possible? Is someone who's certain of this experience not "bettering their lives for believing this".

There is no one thing called a "belief" which magically "corresponds" to some movie which does not exist showing "what actually happened" supernaturally or otherwise, which compare to my belief and say "Yep- my belief corresponds to what actually happend all right- it is true!"

Why couldn't God facilitate this? What stops that from "working"?

Now you will go off on that.

No I won't. You really don't understand me.

Life is ambiguous and uncertain.

But nevertheless, an objective reality is still possibly "out there".

What we can say about our experience is that our subjective reality seems to exist within a greater objective reality. That's the way it seems. What you continually fail to understand is that I was never trying to prove that there is an objective reality. I'm only ever pointing out the possibility of an objective reality and the possibility a conceptual representations of that objective reality could be supernaturally confirmed as truly corresponding to an objective reality.

I hope you finally understand what I mean. At this point, it's about the simple possibility. That you don't understand this may be partially my fault or your fault... I don't really care. But you're misinterpreting me at every chance you get. Slow down and fundamentally change the what you think I'm trying to do and maybe we can understand each other.

Edited April 22, 2014 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

If you want your religion to be the correspondence theory, be my guest

 

If that works for you I don't care.  It is what everyone else believes anyway. 

 

But if you want that belief to make sense, you will have to refute that Rorty quote above

[mfbukowski]

If you really understood my point you would not ask that question.  Whatever floats your boat.  It is a self-contradictory position.

[Akboy]

EVERYTHING we experience is a subjective experience. Even the facts we use are subject to interpretation. The thing about objective is that it is simply what is the agreed upon reality. IE: Prove to me that you're not a bunch of electronic blips on a computer screen that I interpret as being you.

 

The events of 2000 years ago are important only in respect that they mean something to the both of us. Take away the Christian bias and even if a person named Yeshua bar Yosef lived there is no way to prove the God he worshiped.

 

You are starting with the priori that Jesus was whom he claimed to be. To an outside observer the Bible is not a reliable source. Bring on the Cockatrice.

Nope, the bold is not true at all. The book I've mentioned a few times, Cold Case Christianity, was written by a guy who was an atheist till he was 35. He started reading about Jesus because he was interested in hearing what Jesus taught. But as he read the gospels, his forensic statement analysis training kicked in and he found the writing sounded exactly like a reliable eyewitness statement. In my church's Easter service, my pastor spent a few minutes to mention multiple separate examples of atheists who hated and mocked Christianity. They set out to prove Christians wrong and became Christians in the process. They absolutely did not assume the story in the Bible is true. I think this link talks about some of those former atheists:

http://www.christianity.co.nz/res-3.htm

 

This discussion seems to have gotten off track a bit, so lets back up a bit to some points we agree on.

 

1. Spiritual experience is a very important part of this. I've never denied this. And I agree our faith itself is subjective.

 

2. It sounds like we agree, at least according to our faith, that Jesus' existence and status as the Son of God is an objective truth. In other words, we both have faith that Jesus' divinity is more than just a figment of our imagination, although I'm still not sure where mfbukowski stands on that issue.

 

But we disagree when it comes to how #1 interacts with #2. How do we translate a spiritual experience into a faith that someone outside of us and not dependent on us is objectively real? How do we have confidence that our spiritual experience is more than just a figment of our imagination? Do you see anything in the Bible that gives us direction on how to have confidence that our spiritual experience has some degree of accuracy?

 

The question of an accurate faith can't be dismissed lightly. You never really responded to my question about the spiritual experience of the Egyptians. They were sincere in their spiritual experience, but they were wrong. Christ also mentioned multiple examples of people who sincerely believed they were following Him, but they were also wrong. So what gives you confidence that your spiritual experience is any more right or accurate than the Egyptians of Christ's examples?

 

 

It is right in your Bible.

SEE Luke 4:5

I looked it up. The Greek word for 'world' in that verse is 'oikoumene,' which can mean 'the whole earth,' 'the Roman empire,' 'the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks' or a few others. So, yes, it's reasonable to believe that verse is a literal account of an objective event

 

We don't choose whom are leaders of our Wards and Stakes are.  We confirm that decision by agreeing the sustain(support) that person in their calling.

I'm not a Mormon, so I don't know the wording, but the question is the same. If someone is being considered for a leadership position like Bishop or Stake President, do you pray about it during the confirmation/decision/calling process? If so, do you assume that person will be sustained/supported/whatever before you start praying?

 

Or apply the same question to dating and marriage. Of course, you should ask God if he wants you with a certain guy/girl you like. But how well will that prayer work if you assume the answer will be 'yes' before you start praying? Would you encourage your children to trust a prayer like that when they're thinking about marriage?

 

And as far as compatibility this is all straight Moroni 10:4-5 and Alma 32.

 

God can tell us all things, and we prove truth as being true because the truth is sweet to us.  It is satisfying.  It gives us peace. That is precisely how we know truth, not because a sentence "corresponds" to some inhuman reality we cannot know anything about.

But do you agree with every LDS scripture? Are they all compatible with what you believe?

 

What about when atheists say their philosophy is sweet to them, is satisfying and gives them peace? Does that mean atheism is just true as Mormonism?

 

But that's fine because I know it's true because of what it does for me in my life.  God tells me I should believe it, and who am I to argue with God?

What exactly does it do for you in your life? How has God told you? You keep talking about how you learn truth from your experiences and you're experiences are the only source of truth you should use. But why? What experience did you have that showed you that truth? Why did you start believing your experiences should be used as your source of truth?

 

But legends might have "really happened' we just can't and should not know that they did!

Why? What harm would it do if we knew the "legends" in the Bible were literal, objective events in history? Why shouldn't we know that? Why can't God confirm that to us?

 

Why are you ruling out the possibility that God divinely inspired certain people to write about objective events and how He wants us to follow Him? Why can't that be God's way of communicating with us? Who are you to say God shouldn't, wouldn't or couldn't communicate in that way?

Edited April 22, 2014 by Akboy

[brainburn]

If you want your religion to be the correspondence theory, be my guest

If that works for you I don't care. It is what everyone else believes anyway.

But if you want that belief to make sense, you will have to refute that Rorty quote above

I wouldn't be refuting it in the scenario I'm suggesting. God would.

But hey! Fantastic! We're making progress!

So just to be absolutely clear, do you accept or reject that a supernaturally confirmed correspondence theory is possible? Plus exactly why do you accept to reject it? Quoting yourself if you've already explained would do fine if I'm bothering you too much. I'd just like your clear and direct answer.

Edited April 22, 2014 by brainburn

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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?

The short was to know is by the Sprit....as to night I went to a Church of Christ anti-Mormon suede show and it was be by the Spirit by which we know the lies.

[brainburn]

The short was to know is by the Sprit....as to night I went to a Church of Christ anti-Mormon suede show and it was be by the Spirit by which we know the lies.

Aren't you just falling into the pattern I defined?

[Akboy]

Aren't you just falling into the pattern I defined?

If you really don't trust the LDS model of gaining testimonies and knowing truth, why are you still a member of the church?