Reason, Experience, And The Existence Of God

[LinuxGal]

 

 

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

 

 

If you think of how movement occurs on a pool table, your arm pushes a cue, the cue strikes a cue ball, the cue ball strikes other balls, the other balls strike the edge of the table, and so on.  At every step of the way, something physical pushes against something else that is physical, resulting in a change.  Even if a spirit of God or man truly existed (something which is inherently unverifiable), the only thing available to it are its own thoughts. There’s no coupling in either direction between a spirit and the world.

[Glenn101]

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.

 

 

Maybe it would be helpful if you were to report what Brother Peterson meant by "unmistakeable".

"Consider the case of Abraham, whose direct personal experience with God would, I suspect, have left him feeling no particular need to use speculative reasoning in an attempt to deduce from the phenomena of nature whether or not God exists:

Now, after the Lord had withdrawn from speaking to me, and withdrawn his face from me, I said in my heart: Thy servant has sought thee earnestly; now I have found thee."

 

We can add Joseph Smith's more recent experience to that as an example of unmistakable.

 

Therefore we must confine ourselves to discussions of revelations that are not as easily reasoned.

 

Of course, those not being Joseph Smith or Abraham have to seek revelations as to the reality of those experiences. For them, those experiences were unmistakable.

 

Glenn

[Ahab]

Receiving revelation from God is akin to anyone doing a SETI experiment receiving a radio signal as evidence which they believe confirms ETI. And the idea that a 3rd party could confirm a radio signal as an ETI encounter is akin to the idea that a 3rd party could receive the same revelation from God as somone else who has received the same one. Anything less is just hearsay.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Ahab

[The Nehor]

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

they aren't. We just do not have access to the data necessary to judge the conditions in which it occurs.

[mfbukowski]

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:

 

 

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?

I suggest a very useful discussion about these topics by William James, called "Varieties of Religious Experience".

I really don't want to get sucked into this thread, but I supposed ego will not let me skip it.

[mfbukowski]

I read Dr Peterson's article and agree with it.

When you understand the problems with purporting that we can find out something beyond what is contained in human experience, you will discover, I think that that James' view is irrefutable. It amounts to nearly a tautology.

All you can know is what humans can know.

How can you argue with that?

Edited November 23, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

If you think of how movement occurs on a pool table, your arm pushes a cue, the cue strikes a cue ball, the cue ball strikes other balls, the other balls strike the edge of the table, and so on.  At every step of the way, something physical pushes against something else that is physical, resulting in a change.  Even if a spirit of God or man truly existed (something which is inherently unverifiable), the only thing available to it are its own thoughts. There’s no coupling in either direction between a spirit and the world.

There are certainly plenty of people who believe in a completely mechanistic world and universe, and consider this true for organic and inorganic matter.  There is no place for any sort of spirit in such a closed construct.

 

Mormonism, on the other hand, assumes the existence of gross matter and refined matter (called  "spiritual").  In fact, Orson Pratt preached on the absurdities of immaterialism of any kind.  His universe (the Mormon universe) consists entirely of matter, except for something called "intelligence(s)," and we do not know what they might consist of, except that they are eternal.  If any of this seems odd, simply reflect upon the fact that nearly the entire universe consists of matter and energy which we cannot see or examine directly (dark energy and dark matter).

 

Verifying the foundations of Mormon theology is, of course, not an easy thing, and testimonies are not transferable.  However, Mormonism has the advantage of being in accord with natural, physical laws, and of having a God who is part of the natural world.  Mormonism rejects the supernatural and is in close agreement with the notions of humanism.

[mfbukowski]

The issue is not how reliable revelation is, the issue is what "knowledge" is.

Science creates stories about what is objectively observable, religion answers different questions about what is subjectively observable, like our feelings and purpose in life.

Statements about knowing something express a degree of subjective certainty about a belief, which may or may not be the case.

"My toe hurts" and "I like chocolate ice cream" are subjective statements which cannot be shown to be true or false through objective observations, yet one may know their truth or falsity subjectively with absolute certainty.

Likewise the truth of moral statements like "Murder and rape are wrong" cannot be verified objectively, only subjectively.

We only regard science as having certainty because we forget the thousands of years of mistaken theories and ridiculous allegedly "objective" observations that got us here. Monty Python has captured the comedy of these sciences for years.

Revelation tells us murder is wrong, but science once taught us that your character is determined by bumps on your head. And that was only a bit over a hundred years ago.

Which is more reliable from that standpoint?

[mfbukowski]

 

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

The presumption of this entire thread is that there is some realm that we can know about, outside of human experience, which we can access either by revelation OR by science, and then asks which of these two possibilities is most "reliable", without even defining what "reliable" means.

I don't fault Canard for asking the question, because most people think this way in our culture.

To me, this view is so..... wrong... That it's hard to know where to start.

[mfbukowski]

And we speak of truth without defining it. I submit that that is not a reasonable approach.

[strappinglad]

To paraphrase, " Not only is truth illusive in its definition , it is sufficiently illusive that it is doubtful that we can define it. "

Just for fun and contemplation, here is a link to quotes attributed to Arthur Eddington, the fellow to whom the similar quote to my paraphrased one is ,apparently falsely , assigned.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington

Edited November 24, 2014 by strappinglad

[mfbukowski]

For those who have seen this before, apologies

Rorty is an atheist who understands that religious truth claims can be just as justified as scientific ones. He is extremely influential in contemporary philosophy.

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

[LinuxGal]

There are certainly plenty of people who believe in a completely mechanistic world and universe, and consider this true for organic and inorganic matter.  There is no place for any sort of spirit in such a closed construct.

 

Mormonism, on the other hand, assumes the existence of gross matter and refined matter (called  "spiritual")... Mormonism has the advantage of being in accord with natural, physical laws, and of having a God who is part of the natural world.  Mormonism rejects the supernatural and is in close agreement with the notions of humanism.

 

Except that all we know about is what you call "gross matter" and no parameters for "refined" or "spiritual" matter or samples of the same are given for test.  This amounts to the same thing as supernaturalism, and it is not true that Mormonism is "in accord with natural, or physical laws".  

[strappinglad]

In the last 400 years, our ability to " see " more and more refined matter has increased. Even today I would venture to say that only a couple of percent of people have seen a bacterium. Only a tiny fraction of a percent have seen an atom. Yet most live their lives believing such 'refined' matter does exist. As has been noted, many scientists believe in unobserved, undetected dark matter and dark energy. Unseen yet implied by other observation. How spiritual of them.

Edited November 24, 2014 by strappinglad

[LinuxGal]

In the last 400 years, our ability to " see " more and more refined matter has increased. Even today I would venture to say that only a couple of percent of people have seen a bacterium. Only a tiny fraction of a percent have seen an atom. Yet most live their lives believing such 'refined' matter does exist. As has been noted, many scientists believe in unobserved, undetected dark matter and dark energy. Unseen yet implied by other observation. How spiritual of them.

 

Nothing spiritual at all, the velocity curves of the stars in galaxies require the presence of matter, yet this matter does not show up on infrared scans. So they're looking for stuff that has mass but does not interact with photons.   The best science is done when someone says, "That's funny..."

[strappinglad]

That's funny. Apparently there were a sizable number of stars hiding in plain sight. Sometimes we humans can't see for looking.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106143723.htm

[Tacenda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwkh_aliF3E&feature=youtu.be

 

Can She Really Know

 

Thought this was interesting...but I guess that's why the LDS go by the saying, "by their fruits you shall know them".  

[LinuxGal]

That's funny. Apparently there were a sizable number of stars hiding in plain sight. Sometimes we humans can't see for looking.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106143723.htm

 

WP sez:

 

" Several groups have searched for MACHOs by searching for the microlensing amplification of light. These groups have ruled out dark matter being explained by MACHOs with mass in the range 0.00000001 solar masses (0.3 lunar masses) to 100 solar  masses."

[Ahab]

All you can know is what humans can know.

How can you argue with that?

First of all, I can argue with any argument regardless of whether I agree or disagree with someone else's view on an issue.

Like how I can argue on what it means to be human, for example.

Not that I am arguing now. I'm just sayin.

[mfbukowski]

Nothing spiritual at all, the velocity curves of the stars in galaxies require the presence of matter, yet this matter does not show up on infrared scans. So they're looking for stuff that has mass but does not interact with photons.   The best science is done when someone says, "That's funny..."

Funny like the ubiquitous "placebo effect".

 

Your logic is exactly what is expected from scientists for "the unexplained".  

 

"If we can't explain it, we will label it something non-spiritual anyway lest anyone believe that the mind has power over matter"

 

You have your prejudices, we have ours.

Edited November 24, 2014 by mfbukowski

[LinuxGal]

Funny like the ubiquitous "placebo effect".

 

Your logic is exactly what is expected from scientists for "the unexplained".  

 

"If we can't explain it, we will label it something non-spiritual anyway lest anyone believe that the mind has power over matter"

 

You have your prejudices, we have ours.

 

You are offering the placebo effect as evidence of  mind over matter?   Well, no one disputes that a person's mind has an effect over the matter of that same person's body, we see this, for example, when a person's face turns red when they are embarrassed by something they said.  And a great orator can motivate a lot of bodies, we saw that in 1930s Germany.  But in every case there is a physical linkage, a set of nerves, the sound of a voice being perceived by people's ears.   We have never seen a mind have influence over matter when all physical links are removed.  In fact, the Amazing Randi has a fund that will pay out a million dollars if you can demonstrate this.   Until then, yes, we must label all phenomena non-spiritual.

[Ahab]

You are offering the placebo effect as evidence of mind over matter? Well, no one disputes that a person's mind has an effect over the matter of that same person's body, we see this, for example, when a person's face turns red when they are embarrassed by something they said. And a great orator can motivate a lot of bodies, we saw that in 1930s Germany. But in every case there is a physical linkage, a set of nerves, the sound of a voice being perceived by people's ears. We have never seen a mind have influence over matter when all physical links are removed. In fact, the Amazing Randi has a fund that will pay out a million dollars if you can demonstrate this. Until then, yes, we must label all phenomena non-spiritual.

A million dollars for what, exactly?

Yeah, right. Offer a prize as if someone could actually do something that is impossible. Our minds can NOT somehow be totally disconnected from anything physical.

[mfbukowski]

You are offering the placebo effect as evidence of  mind over matter?   Well, no one disputes that a person's mind has an effect over the matter of that same person's body, we see this, for example, when a person's face turns red when they are embarrassed by something they said.  And a great orator can motivate a lot of bodies, we saw that in 1930s Germany.  But in every case there is a physical linkage, a set of nerves, the sound of a voice being perceived by people's ears.   We have never seen a mind have influence over matter when all physical links are removed.  In fact, the Amazing Randi has a fund that will pay out a million dollars if you can demonstrate this.   Until then, yes, we must label all phenomena non-spiritual.

You honestly need to read some philosophy.   First I would suggest Hume on causality.  You really think that air transmission of voice vibrations are a "cause" for human motivation?   Good luck with that

 

Also you do not understand reductionism.

 

This would be a good start.

 

Easy version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

The real thing:

http://www.wnswz.strony.ug.edu.pl/nagel_bat.pdf

 

Just read page 437.

 

The bottom line is that there is no possible way subjective statements are logically equivalent to statements about matter.

 

"My toe hurts" cannot be made equivalent to statements of the form "Bukowski's brain shows activity in the pain center, at precise location xyz"

 

The phenomenological character of the former is totally left out of the latter.

 

Oh and besides that you are missing the CENTRAL point.  We believe that Spirit IS matter.

 

We also believe that in "EVERY CASE THERE IS A SPIRITUAL LINKAGE (= "PHYSICAL LINKAGE) into mental activity.

 

In case you didn't know, we are materialists- we just think that spiritual matter has not yet been discovered by science because they don't know how to look for it.

[pogi]

Cannard,

 

All revelation will be interpreted in the context of culture, bias, and personal experience.  As people live in accordance with what they are given, humbly and honestly, regardless of how it is interpreted, they will be given more - line upon line.  The fact that we may come to different conclusions is only evidence that we come from different backgrounds and experience.  Until all of the variables of eternal truth are revealed to us, our understanding will evolve.  As more is revealed, past revelations become more clear in the context of the whole. 

 

I have had revelations regarding eternal principles.  As I am given new light, my understanding of previous truths evolve in the context of new light.  Does this mean that those truths are unreliable because I interpret them differently over time?  No, it means that my understanding of them is limited. 

 

Here is what I know.  I am on the path that I am supposed to be on.  God is pleased with my direction.  People of other faiths have that same witness - I don't doubt their witness is from God.  I don't have to.  It works.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Here is what I know.  I am on the path that I am supposed to be on.  God is pleased with my direction.  People of other faiths have that same witness - I don't doubt their witness is from God.  I don't have to.  It works.

 

Amen!

 

When I was a fulltime missionary, my companion and I worked with a particular lapsed Catholic. She loved the Book of Mormon, and we of course encouraged her to talk to God about it and about what He would have her do. After several weeks, she told us that, in answer to her prayers, she had received clear direction to return to activity in the Catholic Church. We encouraged her to follow that impression. How could we do otherwise? A wise God knows how to guide His children step-by-step.

 

I also knew a recent convert during my mission who had made the transition from Judaism to 'Mormonism' by way of Evangelical Christianity. He said he never could have made the leap from Jew to Saint; instead, he needed intermediary steps. He loved the people and the experiences he had had along the way and was grateful that God had guided him thus.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan