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

[brainburn]

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

You're mistaken. Why would you say I am?

[mfbukowski]

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.

I have no understanding of what you are saying and have said that multiple times

[Akboy]

You're mistaken. Why would you say I am?

So do you believe the LDS model is a reliable method of gaining an accurate view of objective truth? I explained my problem with the LDS model in my first post in the thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63364-how-do-you-tell-the-difference-between-a-true-and-false-conversion/?p=1209370412

 

There's many more examples of powerful experiences that are generated by our mind, not some other objective reality like God. Some of those effects may be from God, but it doesn't make sense that they all would be. Like the second example shows, our mind can generate also generate bad experiences based on our expectations. So how can you be sure your experience is from God and not from your mind?

[brainburn]

I have no understanding of what you are saying and have said that multiple times

It helps to explain what exactly you don't understand.......

It'd go a long way to show you're actually trying to understand me.

Edited April 22, 2014 by brainburn

[brainburn]

So do you believe the LDS model is a reliable method of gaining an accurate view of objective truth? I explained my problem with the LDS model in my first post in the thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63364-how-do-you-tell-the-difference-between-a-true-and-false-conversion/?p=1209370412

There's many more examples of powerful experiences that are generated by our mind, not some other objective reality like God. Some of those effects may be from God, but it doesn't make sense that they all would be. Like the second example shows, our mind can generate also generate bad experiences based on our expectations. So how can you be sure your experience is from God and not from your mind?

Right. How can you know if it's from God or a demigod or a demon or a matrix program or an alien or a past life or an alternate universe?

Each possibility can only be confirmed or denied by referring circularly to beliefs which are in question.

If you only believe that spiritual experience X, Y, and Z are "true" because you consider a prior spiritual experience of yours to be "true", the logic clearly gets you nowhere epistemically, no matter how far it takes you pragmatically or emotionally.

(Mfbukowski, if it tempts you... please resist the urge to drop our discussion where I left it and respond to this post instead. This is between me and this guy, please :] )

Edited April 22, 2014 by brainburn

[brainburn]

So do you believe the LDS model is a reliable method of gaining an accurate view of objective truth? I explained my problem with the LDS model in my first post in the thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63364-how-do-you-tell-the-difference-between-a-true-and-false-conversion/?p=1209370412

There's many more examples of powerful experiences that are generated by our mind, not some other objective reality like God. Some of those effects may be from God, but it doesn't make sense that they all would be. Like the second example shows, our mind can generate also generate bad experiences based on our expectations. So how can you be sure your experience is from God and not from your mind?

I just read your post you linked. It is true that the placebo effect is one possible explanation for spiritual experience, but the fact that we're considering forces that are quite possibly supernatural shakes up the probabilities.

That is to say, yeah it could be placebo. But because we can't know what that probability is relative to all the other possible supernatural explanations, the question is a complete mystery.

[brainburn]

Mfbukowski, I did explain what I meant by a supernaturally confirmed correspondence theory:

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.

Do you accept this as possible or reject it as possible and exactly what about my explanation helps you form this answer?

[mfbukowski]

Mfbukowski, I did explain what I meant by a supernaturally confirmed correspondence theory:

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.

Do you accept this as possible or reject it as possible and exactly what about my explanation helps you form this answer?

I already answered that in post 119.

[brainburn]

I already answered that in post 119.

You're not reading very carefully :/

In post 119 you responded to the question: "So, why can't someone have certainty in this experience simply for pragmatic reasons?"

The new question is different. It's about whether you accept or reject the possibility and exactly why? Showing your work would massively help us understand each other, too.

[mfbukowski]

Mfbukowski, I did explain what I meant by a supernaturally confirmed correspondence theory:

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.

Do you accept this as possible or reject it as possible and exactly what about my explanation helps you form this answer?

 

You're not reading very carefully :/

In post 119 you responded to the question: "So, why can't someone have certainty in this experience simply for pragmatic reasons?"

The new question is different. It's about whether you accept or reject the possibility and exactly why? Showing your work would massively help us understand each other, too.

At this point I don't care.

 

Don't tell me what I was responding to- write your own response since you are a mind reader. POST 119.

 

You are just not getting this

If correspondence is your religion, go for it.  Experience is reality- if you want so hard to pretend otherwise I couldn't care less.  

 

When you see God you will still be having an experience.

 

This always happens with you and I fall for it every time.

[Akboy]

You are just not getting this

If correspondence is your religion, go for it.  Experience is reality- if you want so hard to pretend otherwise I couldn't care less. 

How do you know that? What experience have you had that proves experience is reality?

[brainburn]

At this point I don't care.

Don't tell me what I was responding to- write your own response since you are a mind reader. POST 119.

You are just not getting this

If correspondence is your religion, go for it. Experience is reality- if you want so hard to pretend otherwise I couldn't care less.

When you see God you will still be having an experience.

This always happens with you and I fall for it every time.

Wait... Do you mean to say that you already tell me whether you accept or reject the possibility? I'll need your help finding it if it's in post 119...

If I misunderstood what you were responding to I truly am embarrassed. It just seems that you haven't given me a clear answer yet. If you think I mistakenly misinterpret what you mean, then I'm here to listen and be set straight. Honestly, I don't mean to offend you. I could be accusing you of thinking you can read my mind, but I'm not going to bother you with that... I've been clearly asking you what you think as often as I can. Accusing me of thinking I can read your mind is kind of harsh, don't you think? It's all in the game, I guess...

But seriously, it's trivially easy to satisfy my question.

Accept or reject and explain is all I ask.

It's a really simple request :/ and still, you misunderstand that this request is about what I personally believe. At this point, I'm only asking you whether you accept or reject the bare possibility of a supernatural correspondence theory just like the example I gave.

As close as I can gather, you think it's self-contradictory. But then you said that it could be my religion, which makes me wary of concluding that you actually reject it. Is it self contradictory even if it was supernaturally facilitated? Exactly what contradicts what?

Edited April 22, 2014 by brainburn

[Akboy]

I just read your post you linked. It is true that the placebo effect is one possible explanation for spiritual experience, but the fact that we're considering forces that are quite possibly supernatural shakes up the probabilities.

That is to say, yeah it could be placebo. But because we can't know what that probability is relative to all the other possible supernatural explanations, the question is a complete mystery.

Occam's Razor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

 

It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

The simplest answer is usually the right one. The simplest answer for the Gospels is that Christ is who He said He was. The simplest answer is the disciples were just witnesses to what they saw and heard, not that they started some elaborate conspiracy.

 

Yes, it's possible that it's all from aliens, demons, The Matrix or whatever else you can think of, but so what? Stop focusing on what's possible and think about what's probable. Pretend you're on a jury in a trial. Your job is to examine the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion about what the truth is. Stop running off on rabbit trails that have no evidence to support them.

 

And, no, Mormonism is not the simplest answer either. You have to make way too many assumptions about the apostasy, Joseph Smith, the translation of the BoM, the history the BoM claims to talk about, etc.

[brainburn]

Occam's Razor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

The simplest answer is usually the right one. The simplest answer for the Gospels is that Christ is who He said He was. The simplest answer is the disciples were just witnesses to what they saw and heard, not that they started some elaborate conspiracy.

Yes, it's possible that it's all from aliens, demons, The Matrix or whatever else you can think of, but so what? Stop focusing on what's possible and think about what's probable. Pretend you're on a jury in a trial. Your job is to examine the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion about what the truth is. Stop running off on rabbit trails that have no evidence to support them.

And, no, Mormonism is not the simplest answer either. You have to make way too many assumptions about the apostasy, Joseph Smith, the translation of the BoM, the history the BoM claims to talk about, etc.

I think you underestimate how much introducing the possibility of supernatural explanations shakes up the probabilities. What makes you say that Occam's razor applies to supernatural explanations?

[Akboy]

I think you underestimate how much introducing the possibility of supernatural explanations shakes up the probabilities. What makes you say that Occam's razor applies to supernatural explanations?

Why wouldn't occam's razor apply?

 

Why do you insist on introducing a possible explanation, like demons, when there's absolutely no evidence to support the explanation? Like occam's razor mentions, just saying 'it was demons' forces you to make way too many assumptions. If you pointed out another possibility, that would be one thing. But just suggesting demons is you inventing an explanation, which has nothing to do with an honest search for truth.

[brainburn]

Why wouldn't occam's razor apply?

Why do you insist on introducing a possible explanation, like demons, when there's absolutely no evidence to support the explanation? Like occam's razor mentions, just saying 'it was demons' forces you to make way too many assumptions. If you pointed out another possibility, that would be one thing. But just suggesting demons is you inventing an explanation, which has nothing to do with an honest search for truth.

An honest search for truth considers all possibilities.

Occam's razor only makes sense when we understand the probabilities and possibilities involved. Supernatural explanations have pretty mysterious probabilities and there are an incomprehensible amount of possibilities.

[Akboy]

An honest search for truth considers all possibilities.

Occam's razor only makes sense when we understand the probabilities and possibilities involved. Supernatural explanations have pretty mysterious probabilities and there are an incomprehensible amount of possibilities.

Wouldn't an honest search for truth also try to avoid distractions that have no evidence or logic to support them? Suggesting aliens and The Matrix makes it sound like you care more about endless debate and speculation than seriously looking for something to believe in.

 

No, occam's razor doesn't mention probabilities. It just asks you to figure out which possibility forces you to make the least assumptions.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Akboy

[brainburn]

Mfbukoski, I totally think you're a good person :] I don't consider our discussion all for naught. I don't express enough how much I already agree with your philosophy... I just don't want to distract from the growth we could both experience by investigating where our philosophies might be incomplete.

[brainburn]

Wouldn't an honest search for truth also try to avoid distractions that have no evidence or logic to support them? Suggesting aliens and The Matrix makes it sound like you care more about endless debate and speculation than seriously looking for something to believe in.

No, occam's razor doesn't mention probabilities. It just asks you to figure out which possibility forces you to make the least assumptions.

It may sound that way but they are nevertheless possible.

If you accept that Occam's razor is about finding the possibility that makes the least unnecessary assumptions, by what process do you figure how many assumptions a supernatural explanation needs?

It's my contention that we can't understand how many assumptions a supernatural explanation needs? You can always ask "why that assumption?" and you need another supernatural assumption to explain the prior.

[Akboy]

It may sound that way but they are nevertheless possible.

That still doesn't explain why you introduce theories than have no support. There's been many books written on the historical and logical evidence for the traditional interpretation of the Gospels. What's the point in inventing theories that don't make any sense?

 

Romans 1:19-20

 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

 

God has revealed Himself in nature so all men are without excuse. You have that and the whole Bible as special revelation to show you a lot more about God, yet you're still hiding behind stupid theories about aliens. What if the rapture happens tomorrow and you still don't believed because you're too busy thinking about how you might be in The Matrix? What would you say to God? Do you think He would be amused by you listing all the other things He could have been?

Edited April 22, 2014 by Akboy

[rodheadlee]

Matthew 7:

7 ¶ ^aAsk, and it shall be ^bgiven you; ^cseek, and ye shall find; ^dknock, and it shall be opened unto you:

  8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that ^aseeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

  9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask ^abread, will he give him a stone?

  10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

  11 If ye then, ^abeing evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

 

All things being simple if I ask Heavenly Father what His will is for me and the LDS missionaries show up at the door I have to assume the gift is true. Why would He hand me a stone? or a serpent?

[Tacenda]

Matthew 7:

7 ¶ ^aAsk, and it shall be ^bgiven you; ^cseek, and ye shall find; ^dknock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that ^aseeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask ^abread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, ^abeing evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

All things being simple if I ask Heavenly Father what His will is for me and the LDS missionaries show up at the door I have to assume the gift is true. Why would He hand me a stone? or a serpent?

I love reading posts like these, being a member all my life, I'd hear missionary stories, but hardly ever from the convert themselves. Edited April 22, 2014 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

So do you believe the LDS model is a reliable method of gaining an accurate view of objective truth? I explained my problem with the LDS model in my first post in the thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63364-how-do-you-tell-the-difference-between-a-true-and-false-conversion/?p=1209370412

 

There's many more examples of powerful experiences that are generated by our mind, not some other objective reality like God. Some of those effects may be from God, but it doesn't make sense that they all would be. Like the second example shows, our mind can generate also generate bad experiences based on our expectations. So how can you be sure your experience is from God and not from your mind?

 

I'm LDS and no our faith isn't a reliable method for gaining an accurate view of objective facts. By the same token it isn't a unreliable one either. If you read the Evolution and Bricks thread you quickly see that it is perfectly reasonable to have opposing views on basic science, and still be faithful LDS.

 

In this life we'll never know. So until I go to my God, or my God comes to me, it is a matter of faith, and not objective reality.

[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.

Do you accept this as possible or reject it as possible and exactly what about my explanation helps you form this answer?

Statements never "correspond" to "reality" beyond what is in the statement if they are supernatural or not.  I have no clue what such would constitute such "correspondence"

 

Language is not experience, it symbolizes experience.  There is no supernatural language- it is all natural.  There is no supernatural period- to God it is all natural.  God speaks (when he communicates with people) in human language.  Spirit to spirit communication is direct "telepathy"- my thoughts are God's thoughts- and is not linguistic.

 

If you are saying that we can have a revealed testimony that the resurrection "really happened" then yes of course that can be revealed to us.

 

If as I said in post 119 you mean that God can reveal that human words "correspond" to some divine reality- ie: that divine experience can be put into human words and therefore correspond to the divine experience, no that is not possible.  It is no more possible than God making a boulder so big he cannot lift it- etc- that is a contradiction.

 

If you are asking "Is it ok to believe that God believes in correspondence"? then that is a religious position.    If you want to believe that there is "correspondence" in heaven, I dont know what that means but, like the flying spaghetti monster if you want to believe that it is your privilege

 

I think it is rude to make me go through all the possibilities of what might be going through your head when you cannot even elucidate what you mean.  I am not a mind reader either.  But for some stupid naive reason I really think you are interested in this and not yanking my chain so I persist. 

[mfbukowski]

For the record, I have a testimony that Jesus "really" arose from the dead, that that was an event in history which actually occurred. I know beyond doubt that this is true.

 

What are the above statements?  Does it "correspond" to some event in history?  No- it is a statement about what I believe.  This is an English sentence expressing some feelings about experiences I have had, and describing a mental state of mfbukowski.

 

My belief or knowledge about what happened in history has nothing to do with what "actually happened". 

 

Event E happens.  Later I say "I believe that event E happened".  It is true that I believe event E happened, or that I know that event E happened even if there was no event E.

 

What counts in my life and makes a difference is the belief, not the event.

 

I was talking to a Catholic the other day about his experience of the Eucharist, and he told me about his experience, that Jesus was "really there".

 

I could have used those exact words to describe my experience of the sacrament.  The importance was the belief we both shared.

 

But was Jesus "really" in either place?  Does Jesus even "really" exist?  That is unknowable and therefore irrelevant.  The importance in my life is that I believe- know - that Christ lives and is a force for good in my life.

 

I am not tied down to having to believe in the historicity of some legends or some gold plates. 

 

The history is irrelevant to me- it does not constrain my belief one iota.  I know that Jesus lives, I know that Joseph was a prophet and that the church is true.

 

That statement has nothing to do with history- it has to do with me.

 

It is a statement about what is happening in my mind/heart/soul, and how I am a better human because of what is happening inside me.

Edited April 22, 2014 by mfbukowski