Differentiating Between The Spirit And Our Own Thoughts

[mfbukowski]

I have been thinking a lot about this question lately and want to post this here.
 
First I want to preface it by saying that I am a TBM and know that I have received revelations from the Lord.  I am as certain that I have felt God's spirit as I am that I am writing this now.
 
But there still remains the VERBAL semantic problem of DESCRIBING that feeling for others.  It is impossible to describe.  Once you know it, you know it as surely as a particular sound or voice or color.  One cannot describe the color yellow to a blind person or the taste of French truffles to anyone who has not experienced it.  How do ants taste?  You can come up with some words comparing their taste to other similar tastes but that is the best you can do.  Once you have tasted them, you know.  I choose ants because everyone knows yellow but not many know the taste of ants or worms!
 
So now let me presume I am an atheist and speaking to atheists and I want to explain this
 
In order to explain anything, one needs to have a basis for comparison.  One has to be able to say that "worms are different from ants in that ants have legs, and worms do not, etc etc on down the line.
 
Suppose I said "The cat is on the pillow".  How would we check it?   We would go and look at the cat and SEE if she was on the pillow.  We have a common frame of reference for all to check for themselves.  You go and look at the pillow- cat or no cat?  It's easy!  (Incidentally notice I did not use the word "true" anywhere in those sentences because it is not necessary)
 
But suppose I told you that I had a new color I had invented which I call "sporg".  I had no samples of sporg available because I left my bucket of sporg paint at home.  It is described as "dark pink".  Now put those words together in your mind- and how precise is that?  It's kind of a dark pinky magenty purpley color.  It is "real" in that I can actually mix it up from other colors and have a sample of it, but it has no name that is descriptive or intelligible.  Presume the only language reference we can use is a natural language, not a mathematical analysis of how much "blue" vs "red" it has, because that is actually irrelevant to the problem.
 
It is about as precise as "burning in your bosom", not at all.  But suppose you are blind and don't know what pink is OR what "dark" is.  None of that helps at all. 
 
There is no common frame of reference and there are many shades of possible "dark pinks" so knowing which particular shade I am speaking of cannot be conveyed verbally.
 
So that is the situation we have here.  Notice in both cases we are referring to private experiences, like how I know I love my wife or whether or not my toe hurts.

 

No one can know whether or not I love my wife or my toe hurts "really" but me.  Same with the spirit.

 

So now let's put on our atheist hats and play atheist for a while.  Kind of like a Socratic dialogue.  I will put a dash in front of the parts spoken by an imaginary atheist

 

-You cannot prove God exists.  There is no evidence for God.  There is no spirit- it's chemicals in your brain.  You are idiots for even pretending you can know there is a GOD much less that he talks to you.  What's  the matter with you crazy people anyway? 

 

OK MR ATHEIST, are you moral? 

-Yes of course.  Our moral code is programmed into us by society.  If we violate it, we end up in the electric chair,  And of course I have a conscience- it is part of my deep programming also. What else is there?  Certainly no God- that is totally irrational.

 

What do you do with a serious moral problem, like whether or not it is right to eat chicken occasionally, or if it is wrong to get married to your girlfriend?

- Well I ponder my problem and decide if the moral code I am living is the best for society or not.  Is it right to save the whales? I would ponder that and see the decision felt.  I would imagine how I would feel and sleep on it, and decide if it felt right in my gut.  Of course I am a moral person and want to be a good member of society.

 

Interesting.  So you ponder deeply what you consider the best choice and kind of "consult" with your "best self", your imaginary perfectly moral person?  Is that kind of the process?

- Well that is kind of an interesting way to put it- I never quite thought of it that way but I guess I understand what you mean.

 

Well what if I told you that your "imaginary" best person was a "real" person, and we call that person "God"??  We think of him as the Ideal Human who was always perfect in every way, so what we need to do is imagine what the ideal person would do, and try with all our heart to find that Ideal Person within us and pretend to "discuss" your problem with your "Ideal Self" when looking for answers!   Of course your ideal self would want you to treat others well, to not hurt people, to be kind, and try to help unfortunate people and all that right?

-Well yes, I suppose so, but surely that is not what you call "God" is it??

 

Well let me ask you, how you could tell the difference between your "Ideal Self" and "God"? 

-God is REAL not just in my head, or at least that is what you silly people actually believe isn't it?

 

How can you tell the difference in these subjective experiences about if the "answer" you are getting from your Ideal Self is from outside or inside you?  Is it real that your toe hurts?

Suppose you have nerve pain that cannot be diagnosed but it is debilitating in your life?   Is it "real"?  How do you know you are in love?   Is that real?  How do you know if you should marry your girlfriend or not? is that "Real"?

-Well I suppose, but surely that is different...

 

Well I agree it IS different, but let's start with that presumption for a while.  Presume you cannot tell the difference between what we call "God" and what you feel inside as your "Ideal Self", and try that idea out for a while and see how that idea itself feels.  Let yourself go with that.  Presume there IS no difference between what is "in your head" and what is "outside" for PRIVATE SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENTS.  It is what it is.  Don't worry about it!   Follow the best gut feeling you can find in your own mind. 

 

Study it out and see how you feel and don't worry about the semantics of what to call it!!   It's only words- it's all just in your head anyway right?   We say that the kingdom of heaven is within you so what's the difference?

 

-Break- Atheist hat off--

 

Nitty Gritty:  Maybe this kind of discussion works, maybe not.  But the point is that as Mormons we have a powerful position in that our God is an exalted and glorified Human.  At the bottom of it all, he is infinitely above us in perfection but he is like us and we can become like Him.  He lives in a family and has children.  He knows how to teach us what is right for us.  He communicates with us.

 

The problem we have is semantics- nothing more!  What is "real" in these situations is "in your head" and can't be anywhere else!!   These are subjective decisions and feelings and there is NO OUTSIDE way to measure them no matter what people tell you.

 

Go with your gut and try a little Alma 32 and stop worrying about it.  Try out the presumption and see if it feels sweet.  In all cases, whatever feels sweet is what you need to go with because after all you have no way to judge anything else.

 

It's all just words, but what is inside you is what you need to develop.  No one can tell you different and be true to you but yourself.

 

God teaches each of us the path we need.  Follow your gut, define your own reality and stop worrying about it.

 

That's about all any of us can do anyway, and ultimately that is what the church wants you to do.   Prove every principle by your gut or "the spirit".   The difference is only words.

 

->  Resuming TBM vocabulary. 

 

That's about all I have to say on the subject.

[mfbukowski]

One more thing- I know that God is "outside me" but I can't tell you how I know.

 

I was just reading an account of that and someone described it as "the Other".   I know, it's all in my head

 

But of course so is everything else important in my life.   The boiling point of water or the world mean temperature is important too, but is not worth a hill of beans in figuring out what makes my life worthwhile.   Everything important in life is "just in your head" because it is only YOU that it is important to!

Edited August 10, 2015 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

The illusion that certainty is possible is part of your scientism.

 

I am not talking about Mathematical or Philosophical certainty (it is not useful), I am talking about reasonable certainty. It is a reasonable certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, but in philosophy I know that you can't be certain of anything. 

 

 

If you are demanding the first when only the second is available, you will never be satisfied.

 

I don't demand philosophical or scientific certainty. I am not demanding evidence that can be tested in a lab. I am simply expecting what I said in post 62. 

I simply don't want doubt.  

 

 

Go with your gut and try a little Alma 32 and stop worrying about it.  Try out the presumption and see if it feels sweet.  In all cases, whatever feels sweet is what you need to go with because after all you have no way to judge anything else.

 

and you have a testimony because Alma 32 works for you, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it. 

 

 

Some people really struggle to trust in the process and the nuances and want the fruit without the work and patience through the growing process. 

 

and how do you know Alma 32 works for anyone that tries it? I know it is a promise, but I cannot verify that. 

 

Are you sure that everyone that tried Alma 32 has a testimony?

 

 

This sense of certainty in our self can be seen in a clinical or allegedly "logical" fashion as wrong, but the latter position makes for an unproductive and less than meaningful life imo.  For example, I believe down to a cellular level (figuratively speaking of course) that my husband loves me and for evidence I can point to not only my own feelings, but his expressed behavior and what others see and feel about these (they see how he acts and tell me he loves me).  However, 'intellectually' I can imagine the possibility that he is a really devious and capable, but somewhat stupid 

 

There are endless possibilities, we should look for the most reasonable possibility we can find. 

 

Here is what I said in post 62, if you know another way please let me know

 

 

What I expect is a strong confirmation that is beyond emotion and normal feelings,I want to feel the power of God, perhaps like an energy inside me, or something that I can know with 100% certainty that it comes from God. I want to be sure that it is not simply confirmation bias, luck, or a pattern that doesn't exist.

. 

Edited August 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

Then you shouldn't be using 100% certainty as equivalent to reasonable certainty or most reasonable possibilty. They are not the same. The way you are using language seems to indicate you have some core fundamental assumptions that prevent you moving forward. Until you recognize what you are doing, contradicting your own self even by demanding on the one hand 100% certainty and on the other most reasonable possibilty, I don't see the conversation progressing.

Explain to me how, if all your experience and feelings come from processes in your body and mind, how you can tell the difference between an experience caused by God's influence and one caused by the same neurons being triggered by another cause.

You need to identify what you would accept as evidence and the level of that evidence 100% or most reasonable and if the latter, most reasonable based on what world view, before the discussion goes to how to find such evidence.

Edited August 10, 2015 by calmoriah

[CV75]

What I expect is a strong confirmation that is beyond emotion and normal feelings,I want to feel the power of God, perhaps like an energy inside me, or something that I can know with 100% certainty that it comes from God. I want to be sure that it is not simply confirmation bias, luck, or a pattern that doesn't exist.

One approach is to eradicate all emotion and normal feelings from your psyche so as to free up and apply whatever apathy and insensibility remains to answer your question. But you can't be that objective or "acted upon", and you'll never bring yourself to become that "objective." That is the power of God.

[mfbukowski]

I am not talking about Mathematical or Philosophical certainty (it is not useful), I am talking about reasonable certainty. It is a reasonable certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, but in philosophy I know that you can't be certain of anything.

I don't demand philosophical or scientific certainty. I am not demanding evidence that can be tested in a lab. I am simply expecting what I said in post 62.

I simply don't want doubt.

and you have a testimony because Alma 32 works for you, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it.

and how do you know Alma 32 works for anyone that tries it? I know it is a promise, but I cannot verify that.

Are you sure that everyone that tried Alma 32 has a testimony?

There are endless possibilities, we should look for the most reasonable possibility we can find.

Here is what I said in post 62, if you know another way please let me know

.

Uh huh. Give God your demands and I am sure he will ship them right out.

God is not amazon.

[mfbukowski]

The problem is that one of those endless possibilities is that you are wrong.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 don't see the conversation progressing.

 

I already clarified what I meant, I am not after philosophical certainty. 

 

I simply want to know the gospel is true, like I used to, without any reasonable doubt. 

 

 

You need to identify what you would accept as evidence 

 

I already did, I want to experience something powerful, like a religious energy or something that is beyond normal feelings. 

Perhaps the power of God inside me, or something that I cannot deny.  

 

 

 

, how you can tell the difference between an experience caused by God's influence and one caused by the same neurons being triggered by another cause.

 

1. Like I just described above. 

2. That we can verify that Alma 32 works for everyone that tries it, but how? 

3. Something else that cannot be confirmation bias 

Edited August 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Uh huh. Give God your demands and I am sure he will ship them right out.

God is not amazon.

 

Matthew 7.7?

 

Is it a sin to ask for knowledge? is it a sin to ask for the doubts to go away? 

 

Is it is a sin to be careful about the confirmation bias? 

Edited August 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

Matthew 7.7?

Is it a sin to ask for knowledge? is it a sin to ask for the doubts to go away?

Is it is a sin to be careful about the confirmation bias?

Nobody said it was a sin. Yes in fact confirmation bias is the problem. He gives you confirmations but you ignore them because you believe they are biased. There is no way around that. You ignore all the confirmations because you think they are biased. Just go with your basic experience. That is your answer. No fireworks. Just the sweetest assurance that it's true.

Worrying about confirmation bias is the opposite of faith. You are continually inserting your doubt into the clear answers he is already giving you.

Edited August 10, 2015 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Matthew 7.7?

 

Is it a sin to ask for knowledge? is it a sin to ask for the doubts to go away? 

 

Is it is a sin to be careful about the confirmation bias? 

 

SEE D&C9:6-8

6 Do not murmur, my son, for it is wisdom in me that I have dealt with you after this manner.

 7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

 

One time I was praying to God for answers, I was submitted to his will, I received an answer (I though I came from God), and followed that answer with all my heart, I even talked to my Bishop about the answer, so I did what I though God told me to do, but it didn't work or go well. 

Edited August 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Ahab]

I already clarified what I meant, I am not after philosophical certainty.

I simply want to know the gospel is true, like I used to, without any reasonable doubt.

Then you just need to identify the point between reasonable doubt and reasonable certainty where you would be reasonably certain that you know the gospel is true. And it will also help you to know what the gospel is in the first place.

I already did, I want to experience something powerful, like a religious energy or something that is beyond normal feelings.

Perhaps the power of God inside me, or something that I cannot deny.

Someone with a Skeptic mentality will always be able to deny any experience, so it as will help if you don't act like such a Skeptic.

To my understanding, ANY and EVERY good thing is something I attribute to God, so all I need to have to give me an experience of God or with God is ANY good thought or feeling. And it helps to know the difference between what is good and what is evil.

It's really not that hard to experience God. Just don't be such a Skeptic.

[thesometimesaint]

One time I was praying to God for answers, I was submitted to his will, I received an answer (I though I came from God), and followed that answer with all my heart, I even talked to my Bishop about the answer, so I did what I though God told me to do, but it didn't work or go well. 

 

Almost every adult member of the Church has had like experiences. Sometimes things happen that are beyond our control, and intentions. IE; The grapes aren't sour just because we can't reach them whenever we want them. Sometimes God is asking us to build a ladder.

[KevinG]

Doctrine and Covenants 93 is one of my favorite precisely because it does describe the relationship between God, Truth, Mankind and revelation.

 

In short we seek understanding from God, He answers line by line, precept by precept.  As long as we obey the revelation we have, we will get more until we receive a fullness.  This implies practice, obedience, failure and redemption, sacrifice, and a repeated cycle of getting to know God and the Truth.

 

 23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;

 

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

 

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

 

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

 

27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

 

28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

 

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

 

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

 

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

 

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

 

34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

 

35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

 

36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Almost every adult member of the Church has had like experiences. Sometimes things happen that are beyond our control, and intentions. IE; The grapes aren't sour just because we can't reach them whenever we want them. Sometimes God is asking us to build a ladder.

 

So I need to testify in sacrament meeting about my good  experiences (because of revelation) and forget about the bad experiences? 

 

I simply hope my doubts will someday go away, I hope they don't grow. 

 

So how can I know what revelations come from God and which ones don't? 

Edited August 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Ahab]

One time I was praying to God for answers, I was submitted to his will, I received an answer (I though I came from God), and followed that answer with all my heart, I even talked to my Bishop about the answer, so I did what I though God told me to do, but it didn't work or go well.

Part of the process in learning to experience God involves learning to tell the difference between what is from God and what isn't. Good things are from God and bad things are from Satan. Not that all good things are fun to experience, but if it is good you can be certain that it is of God. And you should also expect to learn what is not from God as you learn to distinguish what is from God and what is from Satan.

So in this case where you say things didn't turn out so well, would you now say that you do not think you got that answer from God? Are you certain enough of your experience to be able to make that distinction? Surely you know that Satan can chime in to share a thought with you if he wants to, either personally or through one of his messengers. So do you now know who gave you that message or do you still need to do some more experimenting? You should be able to get to the point where you know either way without the help of your bishop, unless maybe God has already told you that you can rely on whatever your bishop told you. I am sure that your bishop can at least give you some good ideas. But you need to learn for yourself what is from God and what isn't. What is good and what isn't. And you can do that with a reasonable sense of certainty, just as I can, and have.

[thesometimesaint]

So I need to testify in sacrament meeting about my good  experiences (because of revelation) and forget about the bad experiences? 

 

I simply hope my doubts will someday go away, I hope they don't grow. 

 

So how can I know what revelations come from God and which ones don't? 

 

I seldom testify in any Church meeting. But I don't prohibit others from doing it. I sometimes get a lot out of others experiences, sometime not.

 

There is nothing simple about it. We all see though that glass darkly. We need to just not let that stop us from doing what the Lord asks us.

[mfbukowski]

Matthew 7.7?

Is it a sin to ask for knowledge? is it a sin to ask for the doubts to go away?

Is it is a sin to be careful about the confirmation bias?

The whole notion about confirmation bias comes from a scientific truth standpoint. It is completely based in the correspondence theory of truth. You must abandon the idea that evidence for God can be found scientifically. That is exactly what is the problem here. Perhaps you don't see it that way but that is exactly the problem. You want objective evidence that God is giving you messages. That is not possible.

And for those who still do not understand the problems that arise for religious believers who accept the correspondence theory without question, this is a perfect example. Skeptic here is the perfect poster child for the correspondence theory and the problems it gives us. He is using the scientific method perfectly at applying it to God. It does not work. Matters of faith cannot be proved by correspondence.

[Ahab]

However flawed the correspondence "theory of truth" (oh the irony) may be, we can all benefit from the idea that God corresponds to all things good and the opposite of good corresponds to Satan.

So you go right ahead Mr. Skeptic in using what is regarded as the scientific method of discovery to discover what corresponds to God and what doesn't.

[TheSkepticChristian]

The whole notion about confirmation bias comes from a scientific truth standpoint. It is completely based in the correspondence theory of truth. You must abandon the idea that evidence for God can be found scientifically. That is exactly what is the problem here. Perhaps you don't see it that way but that is exactly the problem. You want objective evidence that God is giving you messages. That is not possible.

 

I hope you are not right, I am not after lab results or measurements.

I do think we need good reasons, wishful thinking is not a good reason. 

 

 

And for those who still do not understand the problems that arise for religious believers who accept the correspondence theory without question, this is a perfect example. Skeptic here is the perfect poster child for the correspondence theory and the problems it gives us. He is using the scientific method perfectly at applying it to God. It does not work. Matters of faith cannot be proved by correspondence.

 

 Here is what I said in post 83, and I don't see how that is scientific evidence. 

 

 

I want to experience something powerful, like a religious energy or something that is beyond normal feelings

Perhaps the power of God inside me, or something that I cannot deny. Something that takes away any reasonable doubt. 

 

 

Worrying about confirmation bias is the opposite of faith. You are continually inserting your doubt into the clear answers he is already giving you.

 

That is the problem, my answers are not clear. Perhaps your answers are, but not mine.  

I used to think they were clear, but not anymore. 

 

 This implies practice, obedience, failure and redemption, sacrifice, and a repeated cycle of getting to know God and the Truth.

 

That is how confirmation bias works, your brain only looks for the successful experiences. 

There experience millions of events in our lives, so with enough time, miracles are bound to happen. 

 

I am looking to feel something special, perhaps a energy love or something that convinces me that God loves me, and something that takes away any reasonable doubt. 

Edited August 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Ahab]

I am looking to feel something special, perhaps a energy love or something that convinces me that God loves me, and something that takes away any reasonable doubt.

It may seem self-serving, but if you can think of anything good to think about you can give credit to God for the good thought you got.

Anything and everything good has some kind of correspondence to God. It's practically the definition of God. And the opposite corresponds to Satan.

Go ahead and give it a try. Doesn't it make you feel good to think of God as your Father in heaven who loves you because he is good and you are one of his children? I know it makes me feel good to think that, and I know God approves of the idea.

[KevinG]

I hope you are not right, I am not after lab results or measurements.

I do think we need good reasons, wishful thinking is not a good reason. 

 

 

 

 Here is what I said in post 83, and I don't see how that is scientific evidence. 

 

 

 

 

That is the problem, my answers are not clear. Perhaps your answers are, but not mine.  

I used to think they were clear, but not anymore. 

 

 

That is how confirmation bias works, your brain only looks for the successful experiences. 

There experience millions of events in our lives, so with enough time, miracles are bound to happen. 

 

I am looking to feel something special, perhaps a energy love or something that convinces me that God loves me, and something that takes away any reasonable doubt. 

 

I've had plenty of experiences where I was prompted to do something I didn't previously desire or believe.  As a convert and a former skeptic the "confirmation bias" excuse can't explain miraculous occurrences away.  

 

The topic here is how do you know the difference between the Spirit and our own thoughts.  Not if revelation exists.  You are derailing.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I've had plenty of experiences where I was prompted to do something I didn't previously desire or believe.  As a convert and a former skeptic the "confirmation bias" excuse can't explain miraculous occurrences away.  

 

We should be worried about confirmation bias, patterns that don't exist, and chance.

For example, extraordinary miracles happen because

1.  God did it 

2.  We experience millions of events in our lives, so sometimes extraordinary miracles happen  

 

 

 As a convert and a former skeptic the "confirmation bias" excuse can't explain miraculous occurrences away.  

 

Me too, I received answers that I didn't desire, I followed them, but some didn't go well. 

 

 

he topic here is how do you know the difference between the Spirit and our own thoughts.  Not if revelation exists.  You are derailing.

 

It is the same topic, I am sincerely looking for answers, and I hope someone says something that can really help me. 

 

Question, So did you experience what I said in post 96?

 

 

I am looking to feel something special, perhaps a energy love or something that convinces me that God loves me, and something that takes away any reasonable doubt.

Edited August 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[KevinG]

I have had that experience of a power, love and witness beyond my ability to replicate it, or generate it.  But it is after the trial of our faith that we receive the witness, not simply as proof to be devoured.  It exists but I cannot give it to you nor can any man provide evidence beyond their own testimony.