Reason, Experience, And The Existence Of God

[canard78]

Daniel Peterson has recently published a really well-written article on the Interpreter website.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/reason-experience-and-the-existence-of-god/

 

Some of the sources and juxtapositions of thought are very interesting. I particularly like the Blaise Pascal story and testimony:

 

The year of grace 1654

Monday, 23 November, feast of St. Clement …

From about half-past ten in the evening

Until about half-past midnight.

Fire.

The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.

Not of the philosophers and intellectuals.

Certitude, certitude, feeling, joy, peace.

 

 

While I appreciated the exploration of knowing and believing, it reminded me that religious experience really isn't a reliable source of knowledge. Despite Bro. Peterson's articulate exploration, neither logic nor intuition ultimately take us to a state of really "knowing" and instead guides us to state of "being."

 

Bro. Peterson talks of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Life (SETI) and the desire to receive radio signals from a third party source to prove, conclusively, that we are not alone in the universe. Receiving such a radio signal would prove the existence of extra-terrestrial life. "Just as," Peterson suggests, "an unmistakable revelation directly from God would render every debate about his existence moot."

 

I don't see this as a valid comparison. A radio signal could be examined and evaluated by multiple third parties under consistent conditions. Not so with "unmistakable revelation directly from God." There are 1000s of examples of people claiming this... and yet no-one has yet produced a revelation from God that is truly unmistakable. No-one has offered a revelation that can be evaluated and examined under consistent circumstances by a third party. Instead we are asked to replicate the experience under subjective, personal circumstances.

 

As an example, I've listen below seven spiritual "radio signals" - can you identify a difference between them? Do they give the individual "certitude, certitude, joy, peace." Are they all radio signals from God and, if so, how do you reconcile that? If so, how are you certain that your own "radio signals" are correctly interpreted and applied? Isn't it reasonable to conclude that spiritual experience can only be cited as a method for concluding that which is useful and not that which is absolutely true?

[canard78]

The seven examples. Can you guess which religion each one comes from:

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1) "I asked <DEITY NAME> for a sign to show that the <RELIGION NAME> has the whole truth...

One day, I was sitting under a tree, thinking deeply. I was trying to recall some <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE> verses on <DOCTRINE> and praying about a doubt that I had. Suddenly, a miracle happened to me. It was like a light that I could not exactly figure out. It shone on me and took away the doubt in my mind. It seemed that the darkness in my mind was lifted. The <DOCTRINE>, which I could not at first accept, suddenly became very clear me. I could then accept it with my mind and heart. Since that incident, each time I read the <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE>, that former opinion to oppose and the refusal to believe and accept were gone. Today I believe <DOCTRINE>.

...Now I know and am confident that this is the end of my search for the whole truth. I thank <DEITY NAME> for answering my prayer and giving me a sign. I have found the whole truth of my <RELIGIOUS OBJECTIVE>. Glory be given to <DEITY NAME>. <RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION>" 

 

2) "I had the feeling of waking up, as if all my previous life I had been asleep. The printed words on the page of the book seemed like the surface of a vast and fathomless ocean of truth and wisdom. Whatever it was, I knew that it was completely true and infallible. Therefore the author must also be true and infallible. The <DESCRIPTOR> book, which I still have, was <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE>." 

 

3) "In mid-August of 1969, I humbly knelt in the shadows behind my barracks and prayed. I told <DEITY NAME> that I had read the book that <RELIGION NAME> say is from Him. I admitted that there were some good things in it and that I wanted to know if it was true.

I closed my prayer in <DEITY NAME>. No sooner had I done so than I received the most powerful witness that I have ever experienced. It was not the answer I was seeking. But I had asked, and now I knew. <RELIGION NAME> was the only true church on the earth! I knew it; <RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION>."

 

4) "I will never forget <RELIGIOUS PRACTICE>. At 17 I read <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE>. But not only did I read it I thought about it's beautiful teachings of <DEITY NAME>. I then prayed sincerely to <DEITY NAME>. I asked him for that confirmation that <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE> was true. I will never forget the sweet, humbling answer that came. I knew <DEITY NAME> loved me and I knew that Yes <DOCTRINE>.  ...<DOCTRINE>. <DOCTRINE>, it's tangible. It's for everyone!  ...My testimony is real. It's mine, I have forged it out of the fire. It makes me really happy!!" 

 

5) "After months of study and research I could not deny the truth anymore. I had put it off too long, but was still living the life I had before, and knew that if I became a <RELIGION NAME> I had to give all that up. One day while reading <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE>, I began to cry and fell to my knees and thanked <DEITY NAME> for guiding me to the truth. I found out that there was a <RELIGIOUS BUILDING> by my house so I went one <RELIGIOUS DAY> to see how <RELIGION NAME> prayed and conducted their service... A man got up and began to <PRAY>. When I heard it my eyes filled up with tears because it sounded so beautiful. It was all so strange at first, but seemed so right at the same time. <RELIGION NAME> is not just a religion but a way of life." 

 

6) "As I was skeptical of anything other than the Bible, time passed before I actually began reading <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE>...  I began with <SECTION OF BOOK OF SCRIPTURE> and quickly read to where <DOCTRINE>. I was blown away. I had never heard of the things I was reading; I didn't even know that <DOCTRINE>. I already knew and loved <DESCRIPTION OF DEITY>, but through <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE> I began to fall in love with <DESCRIPTION OF DEITY>. Still, I was not convinced that <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE> was really true; I fought with my old mental tapes regarding the infallibility of the Bible - 'Thou shalt not add to...,' etc. My old beliefs were being challenged.

I put <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE> down for several months, and then a devastating thing happened. My father died in a truck/train accident on May 1, 1980. After the initial shock and grief, I was angry that <DEITY NAME> would take my father at this time of his life; he hadn't even been able to retire! Then I started reading <SECTION OF BOOK OF SCRIPTURE>. The peace I felt after reading them convinced me that the teachings in the book were genuine. They were too beautiful to be anything else.

Since then I have grown enough in understanding to realize that <DOCTRINE ABOUT DEITY NAME>. I know that my earthly father's soul <AFTERLIFE DOCTRINE>. I need not worry about his salvation. Most comforting of all, I believe that as soon as I get to <AFTERLIFE NAME> I shall see my father in person." 

 

7) "She told me she had come across a book that I might like, though she herself could not understand it.  [the friend tells of <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE>'s divine origin]  ...Something inside me knew that was true and I wrote down the name of the book... 

I found myself thinking about <DEITY NAME> and what little time I had given to learning about him. Suddenly, the room was filled with a warm and glowing light. I felt so strange, as if I had received the gift of faith right at that moment, as if I had been 'born again.'

...I came home and had such tremendous urges - to read <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE>, to join a church, to learn everything I could. I called different churches at random, went to the library, and got some books on <RELIGIOUS LEADER>, <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE>, world religions, <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE>, even <BOOK OF SCRIPTURE>.

That same day I called <RELIGIOUS CONTACT> and told him how I felt. He suggested I read <RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURE> but to start with <SECTION OF BOOK OF SCRIPTURE> this time. I read for about five hours without stopping and <RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE> I knew that every word I was reading was the truth. It was exciting to finally believe in something, to have faith in <DEITY NAME>!"

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I wonder how many people could read those and identify the religious scriptures and "radio signals" that delivered those experiences and certainties? Certain expressions, even after redacting, might sound familiar to a practiotioner of one religion or another. We naturally develop certain idioms that are recognisable. Outside of those, the overall conclusions and experiences, from multiple different religious practices, seem very consistent.

[bluebell]

Does it bother you when someone says they "know" something religious in nature?

[canard78]

Does it bother you when someone says they "know" something religious in nature?

 

No, because I simply, mentally, replace the word "know" in the sentence with one of these... "I assume that..., I am certain that..., I have no doubts that..."

 

At a recent sacrament meeting the mission president was speaking. He bore testimony of certain aspects of church that I don't have a testimony of. He said "I know..." to several of these things. He then concluded by saying to the congregation: "and I know that you all know these things too."

 

That was probably the best illustration of what the phrase "I know" often means. Given I (and possibly several others in the congregation) didn't "know" it was clear to me that he had assumed that we all knew it.

 

The seven examples above are people reaching conclusions of absolute certainty or "knowledge." I'll post the non-redacted versions shortly to illustrate the spiritual conclusions reached are entirely contradictory. As such the method that all seven used, prayer/spiritual intuition, is brought into question as a source of "knowledge."

[Silhouette]

Well, to me Number 6 sounds like an LDS speaker, but I have no clue if that is correct, and I have no idea about the other experiences. Other than 6, the others feel the same across the board, and could apply to pretty much any faith.

I get your point about revelation not being able to be confirmed by third parties, whereas the "radio noises" from space could be.

Stuff to think about....

[bluebell]

No, because I simply, mentally, replace the word "know" in the sentence with one of these... "I assume that..., I am certain that..., I have no doubts that..."

At a recent sacrament meeting the mission president was speaking. He bore testimony of certain aspects of church that I don't have a testimony of. He said "I know..." to several of these things. He then concluded by saying to the congregation: "and I know that you all know these things too."

That was probably the best illustration of what the phrase "I know" often means. Given I (and possibly several others in the congregation) didn't "know" it was clear to me that he had assumed that we all knew it.

The seven examples above are people reaching conclusions of absolute certainty or "knowledge." I'll post the non-redacted versions shortly to illustrate the spiritual conclusions reached are entirely contradictory. As such the method that all seven used, prayer/spiritual intuition, is brought into question as a source of "knowledge."

I just wondered. I couldn't figure out another reason you would want to try to convince people who claim to know spiritual things that they don't really know them.

[Mars]

What matters most is the willingness to listen.  It's the Parable of the Talents.  It's not which talents you get, it's what you do with the ones you get.  So I sincerely believe God can be behind someone's convictions to remain in a faith outside of the Gospel of Mormonism.

 

A good and honest heart will one day, this side of the veil or the other, fully embrace the Gospel.  So a Catholic, a Mormon, a Muslim, or any other faith-based set of beliefs are all on the same level when you judge the adherent by his or her own actions.  The actions become an outward indication of where the heart is.  I am not concerned that a Muslim finds joy and reward in his or her faith and doesn't feel any compulsion to investigate outside Islam.

 

On a related note, being blinded by the craftiness of men, as mentioned in Section 76, has more to do with "whom you listeth to obey" than it does being deceived by silver tongues into believing the Gospel is not what it claims to be.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Mars

[canard78]

I just wondered. I couldn't figure out another reason you would want to try to convince people who claim to know spiritual things that they don't really know them.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I want to discuss the conclusions in Dan's article and whether the intuition is a reliable source of certainty.

[Mystery Meat]

I think there is more than one reliable source of obtaining knowledge. Data, hard facts, tangible evidence are very valid ways, but have their limitations.

 

Spiritual experiences and witness of the Spirit is another. I don't claim to know anything. I have faith in a lot of things. Having said that I think it would be very presumptuous of me or anyone else to discount others' testimony of "I know" simply because my own testimony is in the I strongly believe camp. In fact, there are people I know who I believe know not only that there is a God, but that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that Jesus is the Christ, that Thomas S. Monson is the Lord's mouthpiece today, etc. They didn't gain this testimony from hard facts, scientific analysis, data, or any other evidence that can be measured.

 

We are supposed to have faith. But knowledge that relates to things beyond any "logical" measurement is also possible in my opinion. To discount it because we (general we) have not yet achieved it is arrogant. So if people claim to know and you dismiss it, that is pretty stupid and short-sided.

[MormonFreeThinker]

While I appreciated the exploration of knowing and believing, it reminded me that religious experience really isn't a reliable source of knowledge. 

 

How do you know? Have you had a real spiritual experience?

 

The seven examples. Can you guess which religion each one comes from:

 

That is a popular argument game found in MThink and the CES letter, I read it before. 

 

The problem with your game is that personal evidence is personal. You can only confirm your own experiences, not the experiences of others. 

How do you know that game has true sincere accounts? What if they are lying?  

 

I don't see this as a valid comparison. A radio signal could be examined and evaluated by multiple third parties under consistent conditions. Not so with "unmistakable revelation directly from God." 

 

I will only take one person to confirm an alien signal for himself. Spiritual experiences are personal evidence, if you can prove your personal evidence it will no longer be personal. 

 

If so, how are you certain that your own "radio signals" are correctly interpreted and applied? 

 

It's up to the person to decide, I cannot decide for them. It is not about absolute certainty, it is about faith. 

 

I don't have absolute certainty, but it seems that you are 100% certain the all spiritual experiences are unreliable. 

Edited November 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[canard78]

Well, to me Number 6 sounds like an LDS speaker, but I have no clue if that is correct, and I have no idea about the other experiences. Other than 6, the others feel the same across the board, and could apply to pretty much any faith.

I get your point about revelation not being able to be confirmed by third parties, whereas the "radio noises" from space could be.

Stuff to think about....

Hi Silhouette, two of the experiences describe a Mormon experience, but #6 isn't Mormon. #6 is about the Uranthia movement started in early 1920s.

The Uranthia Book has an unknown author but the group claim that the founding couple started visiting a friend's house whose husband would give verbal communications while sleeping or in a trance which they believed to be from spiritual beings. The book is claimed to be a transcription of these verbal messages. Somewhat ironically, William Sadler had been a debunker of paranormal claims before this started happening. He described it as:

A thorough study of this case has convinced me that it is not one of ordinary trance. ... This man is utterly unconscious, wholly oblivious to what takes place, and, unless told about it subsequently, never knows that he has been used as a sort of clearing house for the coming and going of alleged extra-planetary personalities. ... Psychoanalysis, hypnotism, intensive comparison, fail to show that the written or spoken messages of this individual have origin in his own mind. Much of the material secured through this subject is quite contrary to his habits of thought, to the way in which he has been taught, and to his entire philosophy. In fact, of much that we have secured, we have failed to find anything of its nature in existence.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book

The full version of quote 6 is:

6) "As I was skeptical of anything other than the Bible, time passed before I actually began reading The Urantia Book... I began with 'The Life and Teachings of Jesus,' and quickly read to where Jesus had reached the age of 23. I was blown away. I had never heard of the things I was reading; I didn't even know that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I already knew and loved the divine Jesus, the Son of God, but through The Urantia Book I began to fall in love with the human Jesus, the Son of Man. Still, I was not convinced that The Urantia Book was really true; I fought with my old mental tapes regarding the infallibility of the Bible - 'Thou shalt not add to...,' etc. My old beliefs were being challenged.

I put The Urantia Book down for several months, and then a devastating thing happened. My father died in a truck/train accident on May 1, 1980. After the initial shock and grief, I was angry that God would take my father at this time of his life; he hadn't even been able to retire! Then I started reading the mansion world papers. The peace I felt after reading them convinced me that the teachings in the book were genuine. They were too beautiful to be anything else.

Since then I have grown enough in understanding to realize that God does not take our loved ones, that the accidents of time just happen. I know that my earthly father's soul had plenty of 'mercy credits'. I need not worry about his salvation. Most comforting of all, I believe that as soon as I get to the mansion worlds I shall see my father in person."

http://www.squarecircles.com/UrantiaMovementHistory/hiftub/181luann.harney.htm

So, is the Book of Uranthia genuine, like this person concludes? Is it true scripture? Or did she misread the "radio signals?"

[canard78]

How do you know? Have you had a real spiritual experience?

 

Yes, I have. My point about them being unreliable is specifically about them as a source of knowledge. I consider them very reliable for personally deciding what is important. If they were reliable sources of knowledge there would be some consistency in the results.

 

The following article gives a definition of "reliable":

The key to performing a good experiment is to make sure that your results are as reliable as is possible; if anybody repeats the experiment, powerful statistical tests will be able to compare the results and the scientist can make a solid estimate of statistical reliability.

 

 

Another article states:

The idea behind reliability is that any significant results must be more than a one-off finding and be inherently repeatable.

 

Other researchers must be able to perform exactly the same experiment, under the same conditions and generate the same results. This will reinforce the findings and ensure that the wider scientific community will accept the hypothesis.

 

 

So given Bro. Peterson compares revelation to the scientific process of measuring radio signals and given the scriptures invite us to "experiment on the word" I'm pointing out that this method, personal revelation, doesn't render consistent results and therefore is not a reliable source of knowledge. The same "experiment on the word" can render vastly different results. Those personal results can remain "useful," which is how I see my spiritual experiences, but I don't believe they have brought me, nor anyone else, to a state of reliable knowledge of what is absolutely true. 

 

That is a popular argument game found in MThink and the CES letter, I read it before.

 

Is it? That's not where I got these examples. These are taken from personal blogs, religious websites. An individual has compiled them into a large, multi-denominational collection of testimonies.

 

The problem with your game is that personal evidence is personal. You can only confirm your own experiences, not the experiences of others. 

How do you know that game has true sincere accounts? What if they are lying?

 

What if who are lying? The creators of the game? Or the people bearing witness? Well I gathered and redacted that list of 7 testimonies. I'll post them in the next comment in a moment. You can go to the original source and have a look. Or do you mean that perhaps the people themselves are lying? That they are making up their spiritual experiences to trick people? Two of the statements are Mormon in origin... do you think they are lying too?

 

And I agree... personal experience is personal. It also renders inconsistent results.

 

I will only take one person to confirm an alien signal for himself. Spiritual experiences are personal evidence, if you can prove your personal evidence it will no longer be personal.

 

But a radio signal can be objectively evaluated by multiple different people and it can be processed with consistent, reliable results. Spiritual experiences can't.

 

It's up to the person to decide, I cannot decide for them. It is not about absolute certainty, it is about faith. 

 

I don't have absolute certainty, but it seems that you are 100% certain the all spiritual experiences are unreliable.

 

See comments at the start of this post.

[canard78]

Here are the quotes without redaction:
 
1) "I asked the Lord Jesus Christ for a sign to show that the True Jesus Church has the whole truth...
One day, I was sitting under a tree, thinking deeply. I was trying to recall some Bible verses on baptism and praying about a doubt that I had. Suddenly, a miracle happened to me. It was like a light that I could not exactly figure out. It shone on me and took away the doubt in my mind. It seemed that the darkness in my mind was lifted. The doctrine on infant baptism, which I could not at first accept, suddenly became very clear me. I could then accept it with my mind and heart. Since that incident, each time I read the Bible, that former opinion to oppose and the refusal to believe and accept were gone. Today I believe that infants must be baptized in order to be saved.
...Now I know and am confident that this is the end of my search for the whole truth. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for answering my prayer and giving me a sign. I have found the whole truth of my salvation. Glory be given to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!!"
Religion: True Jesus Church (Source) 

2)"I had the feeling of waking up, as if all my previous life I had been asleep. The printed words on the page of the book seemed like the surface of a vast and fathomless ocean of truth and wisdom. Whatever it was, I knew that it was completely true and infallible. Therefore the author must also be true and infallible. The small red book, which I still have, was The Hidden Words."
Religion: Baha'i (Source)

3) "In mid-August of 1969, I humbly knelt in the shadows behind my barracks and prayed. I told God that I had read the book that Latter-day Saints say is from Him. I admitted that there were some good things in it and that I wanted to know if it was true.
I closed my prayer in the Savior’s name. No sooner had I done so than I received the most powerful witness that I have ever experienced. It was not the answer I was seeking. But I had asked, and now I knew. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the only true church on the earth! I knew it; I dared not deny it."
Religion: LDS (Source) 

4) "I will never forget putting Moroni's challenge to the test. At 17 I read the Book of Mormon. But not only did I read it I thought about it's beautiful teachings of the Savior. I then prayed sincerely to my Heavenly Father. I asked him for that confirmation that the Book of Mormon was true. I will never forget the sweet, humbling answer that came. I knew my Heavenly Father loved me and I knew that Yes I can live with my family forever.  ...I have a Savior. Forgiveness is real, it's tangible. It' for everyone!  ...My testimony is real. It's mine, I have forged it out of the fire. It makes me really happy!!"
Religion: LDS (Source) 

5) "After months of study and research I could not deny the truth anymore. I had put it off too long, but was still living the life I had before, and knew that if I became a Muslim I had to give all that up. One day while reading the Qur'an, I began to cry and fell to my knees and thanked Allah for guiding me to the truth. I found out that there was a Mosque by my house so I went one Friday to see how Muslims prayed and conducted their service... A man got up and began to call the Adthan (call for prayer). When I heard it my eyes filled up with tears because it sounded so beautiful. It was all so strange at first, but seemed so right at the same time. Islam is not just a religion but a way of life."
Religion: Islam (Source)

6) "As I was skeptical of anything other than the Bible, time passed before I actually began reading The Urantia Book...  I began with 'The Life and Teachings of Jesus,' and quickly read to where Jesus had reached the age of 23. I was blown away. I had never heard of the things I was reading; I didn't even know that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I already knew and loved the divine Jesus, the Son of God, but through The Urantia Book I began to fall in love with the human Jesus, the Son of Man. Still, I was not convinced that The Urantia Book was really true; I fought with my old mental tapes regarding the infallibility of the Bible - 'Thou shalt not add to...,' etc. My old beliefs were being challenged.

I put The Urantia Book down for several months, and then a devastating thing happened. My father died in a truck/train accident on May 1, 1980. After the initial shock and grief, I was angry that God would take my father at this time of his life; he hadn't even been able to retire! Then I started reading the mansion world papers. The peace I felt after reading them convinced me that the teachings in the book were genuine. They were too beautiful to be anything else.
Since then I have grown enough in understanding to realize that God does not take our loved ones, that the accidents of time just happen. I know that my earthly father's soul had plenty of 'mercy credits'. I need not worry about his salvation. Most comforting of all, I believe that as soon as I get to the mansion worlds I shall see my father in person."
Religion: Uranthian (Source)  

7) "She told me she had come across a book that I might like, though she herself could not understand it.  [the friend tells of the Urantia Book's divine origin]  ...Something inside me knew that was true and I wrote down the name of the book...

I found myself thinking about God and what little time I had given to learning about him. Suddenly, the room was filled with a warm and glowing light. I felt so strange, as if I had received the gift of faith right at that moment, as if I had been 'born again.'...I came home and had such tremendous urges - to read The Bible, to join a church, to learn everything I could. I called different churches at random, went to the library, and got some books on Edgar Cayce, the Dead Sea Scrolls, world religions, The Koran, even The Talmud.
That same day I called Mr. Dychko and told him how I felt. He suggested I read The Urantia Book but to start with the Jesus section this time. I read for about five hours without stopping and my Thought Adjuster must have responded because I knew that every word I was reading was the truth. It was exciting to finally believe in something, to have faith in God!"
Religion: Uranthian (Source) 

All of the above are seven of several hundred personal testimonies from dozens of different faiths collected on Testimonies of Other Faiths. Every experience has a link to its original source.

[MormonFreeThinker]

"The key to performing a good experiment is to make sure that your results are as reliable as is possible; if anybody repeats the experiment, powerful statistical tests will be able to compare the results and the scientist can make a solid estimate of statistical reliability."

 

If I can verify the religious experience of others, it will no longer be personal.  

 

 

I don't believe they have brought me, nor anyone else, to a state of reliable knowledge of what is absolutely true. 

 

I am not talking about absolute knowledge, nobody here is claiming absolute knowledge.

Science is not about absolute certainty, nothing is about "what is absolutely true" 

 

How do you know you are not a brain in a vat? How do you know the universe is not a Matrix? You cannot apply your "absolute true" to anything. We all have a degree of faith or confidence. 

 

 

 

 An individual has compiled them into a large, multi-denominational collection of testimonies.

 

Well again, we cannot confirm them. How do we know they are not lying? Please answer my question. 

If they are sincere, we still cannot confirm their experience because it is not ours, it is personal. 

 

You cannot prove or disprove religious experiences just by reading them, just because they contradict each other doesn't prove that they are all false. 

If you see a tiger, you may be hallucinating, but we know that tigers are real. 

 

 But a radio signal can be objectively evaluated by multiple different people and it can be processed with consistent, reliable results. Spiritual experiences can't.

 

I know, but scientists don't care about what others say, they do their own research. A scientists confirms the evidence by looking at it himself, not by asking his peers. When Jerry R. Ehman discovered the WOW signal, he was alone. Dr. Ehman was impressed, that is why he wrote "wow" 

 

 
Yes, I have. My point about them being unreliable is specifically about them as a source of knowledge. I consider them very reliable for personally deciding what is important. If they were reliable sources of knowledge there would be some consistency in the results.

 

How do you know that real spiritual experiences are not consistent?  Just because spiritual experiences sound the same doesn't mean that they are all the same. 

 

 

 The same "experiment on the word" can render vastly different results. 

 

No, there are other factors that are not the same. 

Edited November 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[The Nehor]

While I appreciated the exploration of knowing and believing, it reminded me that religious experience really isn't a reliable source of knowledge. Despite Bro. Peterson's articulate exploration, neither logic nor intuition ultimately take us to a state of really "knowing" and instead guides us to state of "being."

I disagree. It can be quite reliable. It is just not transferable or verifiable without independent experience. I see this as a positive and not a negative.

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................................   

So, is the Book of Uranthia genuine, like this person concludes? Is it true scripture? Or did she misread the "radio signals?"

Was the Urantia Book authored by former Seventh Day Adventists William Sadler and Wilfred Kellogg (as suggested by Wikipedia)?  The Wikipedia article goes on to explore some of the contents of the book, which indicate that the science it employs dates to around the 1920s.  Thus, testimony about revelation and one's belief are not really available for verification, but the internal contents of a large book may well be.  That should be the true focus of solid epistemological reflection.

[canard78]

I disagree. It can be quite reliable. It is just not transferable or verifiable without independent experience. I see this as a positive and not a negative.

A recent conference talk by Elder Christofferson makes another comparison to scientific reality:

To those who believe anything or everything could be true, the declaration of objective, fixed, and universal truth feels like coercion—“I shouldn’t be forced to believe something is true that I don’t like.” But that does not change reality. Resenting the law of gravity won’t keep a person from falling if he steps off a cliff. The same is true for eternal law and justice. Freedom comes not from resisting it but from applying it. That is fundamental to God’s own power. If it were not for the reality of fixed and immutable truths, the gift of agency would be meaningless since we would never be able to foresee and intend the consequences of our actions.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/free-forever-to-act-for-themselves?lang=eng

If revelation is as reliable as gravity, why is it that the results are so inconsistent?

[canard78]

Was the Urantia Book authored by former Seventh Day Adventists William Sadler and Wilfred Kellogg (as suggested by Wikipedia)? The Wikipedia article goes on to explore some of the contents of the book, which indicate that the science it employs dates to around the 1920s. Thus, testimony about revelation and one's belief are not really available for verification, but the internal contents of a large book may well be. That should be the true focus of solid epistemological reflection.

Certainly Sadler is assumed by many to be the author, though none of the close followers, including five others who witnessed the trance-enabled communications.

So was it an elaborate fraud? It's easy to assume so from our perspective of relative distance and without any emotional involvement.

If examination of the book leads us to the conclusion that it is fraudulent, how do we reconcile quote 6 and 7 having spiritual witnesses of its veracity?

[bluebell]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I want to discuss the conclusions in Dan's article and whether the intuition is a reliable source of certainty.

Ok.

Are you saying that every time someone says they know a spiritual truth that they are basing that knowledge on intuition?

For example, I know that God exists and that He loves me and answers prayers, and I know this because of a very specific experience that I had that is not based on intuition.

If I testified of my knowledge in your hearing would you alter my words in your head as you said you did for the member you heard in your ward automatically or would you only do that if I explained why I knew and it was similar to your 7 examples?

I'm just trying to understand your exact argument in regards to the using of "I know" better.

Edited November 23, 2014 by bluebell

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................................  

 

I wonder how many people could read those and identify the religious scriptures and "radio signals" that delivered those experiences and certainties? Certain expressions, even after redacting, might sound familiar to a practiotioner of one religion or another. We naturally develop certain idioms that are recognisable. Outside of those, the overall conclusions and experiences, from multiple different religious practices, seem very consistent.

One can read about and generate endless lists of personal statements of belief, but to what purpose?  Shouldn't we rather deal with the reliability of various ways of knowing (epistemology)?  Comparatively speaking, and for a variety of different purposes, which ways of knowing serve us best?  In science, in religion, in personal relationships, etc.?  Is logic always best?  Or intuition?  Are there any absolute ways of knowing, or are we (as stated by David Hume) prisoners of our senses and unable to know anything for certain?  Should we despair of knowing the truth, and simply eat, drink, and be merry for the nonce?

 

Is Mark Bukowski correct to say that our sense of reality and truth is a social construct?  Nothing more?

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................................   

If revelation is as reliable as gravity, why is it that the results are so inconsistent?

You say it is inconsistent.  CFR

 

Meantime, please note, canard, that reality and truth may not be so narrowly determined as we sometimes assume:

 

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith (SLC: CJCLDS, 2013), 272, citing Conference Report, Oct 1919, pages 89-90,

 

I am in full accord with the idea that has been expressed that the Lord is using many agencies; his work is not confined to the Latter-day Saints, for he has called many to his service outside of the Church and has endowed them with power, has inspired them to do his work. … However, my brethren and sisters, do not let us lose sight of the fact that we are a power in the earth for good and for the spread of the truth and the establishment of peace among all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples.

 

I have noticed, for example, that few Mormons realize that they are merely one group of God's people.  There are others.  Plenty of others, each with a special set of tasks.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[canard78]

"The key to performing a good experiment is to make sure that your results are as reliable as is possible; if anybody repeats the experiment, powerful statistical tests will be able to compare the results and the scientist can make a solid estimate of statistical reliability."

If I can verify the religious experience of others, it will no longer be personal.

Why does religious experience or evidence have to be only personal to be valid?

I am not talking about absolute knowledge, nobody here is claiming absolute knowledge.

Science is not about absolute certainty, nothing is about "what is absolutely true"

Really? No-one? What do you think of the quote I shared with Nehor above? Elder Christofferson speaks of "fixed and immutable truths." Are they discernible by revelation? If so, why do the answers seem so unfixed and movable?

How do you know you are not a brain in a vat? How do you know the universe is not a Matrix? You cannot apply your "absolute true" to anything. We all have a degree of faith or confidence.

Nice... Of course we can. Does a stone fall to earth every time it is dropped? Does gravity ever fail?

As for the Matrix derail... Great film.

Well again, we cannot confirm them. How do we know they are not lying? Please answer my question.

If they are sincere, we still cannot confirm their experience because it is not ours, it is personal.

You cannot prove or disprove religious experiences just by reading them, just because they contradict each other doesn't prove that they are all false.

If you see a tiger, you may be hallucinating, but we know that tigers are real.

-snip-

How do you know that real spiritual experiences are not consistent? Just because spiritual experiences sound the same doesn't mean that they are all the same.

If you want to dismiss the contradictory spiritual experiences as lies, you're on thin ice. If I produce 1000 of them, rather than only 7, would you say they are all either lies or hallucinatory?

2 of the quotes are LDS, do you consider those to be lies? Given those spiritual experiences often lead to a lifetime of dedicated service to that particular religion, why would they have to lie about their motives for doing so?

Given you've said that some of the 7 experiences could be either lies or hallucination doesn't that help to prove the point? A sample of 7 people used personal revelation to discover truth and yet received contradictory answers. Whether those answers were hallucination or divine leads to the same conclusion... The method is not a reliable way of establishing "fixed and immutable truths."

Is baptism of infants a "fixed and immutable truth?" Or is it not? Is the infallibility of Baha'i book of scripture and its author a "fixed and immutable truth" or not? It can't be both.

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................................  

 

While I appreciated the exploration of knowing and believing, it reminded me that religious experience really isn't a reliable source of knowledge. Despite Bro. Peterson's articulate exploration, neither logic nor intuition ultimately take us to a state of really "knowing" and instead guides us to state of "being."

..................................................................................

The biggest problem, IMHO, canard, is that all of us in the West are saddled with the deep assumptions and concepts of normative Judeo-Christian tradition.  We are given no other choices than scientism on the one hand, and rank supernaturalism on the other.  No middle ground.  Either we accept the bifurcated nature of reality (nature vs supernature) or we are considered offbeat and out of touch with reality.  Literally.

 

Some of us think that there is only nature, no supernature, and that reality is one (monistic).

 

Some of us think that saying "tis so, tis not" over religious questions is just plain silly.  A testimony is ultimately personal.  The Holy Spirit (which goes where it listeth) may back us up when we bear testimony, or not, according to divine will and our receptiveness, but there is no scientific reliability or repeatedability there.

 

So some of us think that one may examine the products of religion (Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Urantia Book, etc.) and apply secular, logical, scientific standards thereto -- and let the forensic results fall where they may.  Does that make sense to you, canard?

Edited November 23, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[canard78]

Robert, quick note to say thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking comments. I'll get back to you properly later.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Why does religious experience or evidence have to be only personal to be valid?

 

Because we need to walk by faith too, it is part of a an eternal law (God did not create it) to become perfectly benevolent. 

 

 

 Elder Christofferson speaks of "fixed and immutable truths." Are they discernible by revelation? If so, why do the answers seem so unfixed and movable?

 

There are absolute truths, but we don't have absolute knowledge or absolute certainty, see the difference? It seems that you want absolute certainty 

 

 

Nice... Of course we can. Does a stone fall to earth every time it is dropped? Does gravity ever fail?

 

That does nothing to contradict the brain in a vat idea. Read an encyclopedia of philosophy. I cannot prove the world is real, we all have a degree of faith or confidence. 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/

 

See the video so you can understand my point. 

 

 

If you want to dismiss the contradictory spiritual experiences as lies, you're on thin ice. If I produce 1000 of them, rather than only 7, would you say they are all either lies or hallucinatory?

 

You are misrepresenting what I am saying. It is a possibility that they are just making it up, I cannot confirm the religious experiences of others.  How can I know that they are telling the truth? How can I know they are not hallucinating? Maybe there is a way to reconcile the experiences? Maybe they did have a real spiritual experience, but they are interpreting it differently. There are many possibilities. 

 

Let me tell you that most religious experience accounts I read do not contradict LDS doctrine, unless you cherry pick them from a blog. 

 

 

Given those spiritual experiences often lead to a lifetime of dedicated service to that particular religion, why would they have to lie about their motives for doing so?

 

You are begging the question, how do you know that? CFR. Some religious ministers want money

 

Did Jerry R. Ehman think he was hallucinating when he discovered the wow signal? He was alone when he discovered it, he wrote "wow" because  he was impressed. 

Edited November 23, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker