Is Feeling The Spirit Really Just Confirmation Bias?

[sunstoned]

In my experience, if you ask a Christian why they believe in God, Jesus, or the Bible, it almost always comes down to a spiritual confirmation they had. I don't know who you've talked to, but I know Catholics, Evangelicals, JWs, and Muslims who have shared stories of spiritual confirmation that sound pretty much the same as an LDS testimony, though perhaps not with the same language.

This has been my observation as well.  I might add that in my research I have interviewed several FLDS who have as fervent testimony as any LDS I have heard of the correctness of their path and of the divinity of their prophet.

[snowflake]

This has been my observation as well.  I might add that in my research I have interviewed several FLDS who have as fervent testimony as any LDS I have heard of the correctness of their path and of the divinity of their prophet.

FLDS and people who follow Christopher Namelka (not sure what they are called) will give testimony identical to LDS believers.  I'm just not convinced that personal revelation should be considered a valid test for truth.  Both groups can't make this claim and be correct, one has to be incorrect (or both incorrect).  Even the prophet Joseph stated

 

“Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil.” An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, p. 30-31

[BlueDreams]

Confirmation Bias

 

"Why do members of other religions receive spiritual confirmations that their church is the true church?

 

Is it because that church already matches what they believe about what the true church should be?

 

I'm actually curious if all people are looking for "the true church" per se. For example when I was teaching a Hindi guy on my mission, he was reading the Book of Mormon and knew that it was true.....and didn't feel the need to explore our church because he incorporated our book into his polytheistic beliefs. I met another ex-amish man who also knew the book was true and most of the tenets we taught him....but wouldn't join because he didn't want to leave even further his amish roots. I can think of another woman who was protestant, liked studying the BoM with us, but was extremely hesitant to join the fold as well, because it wasn't her religious structure that she'd known. So I don't know if everybody is looking for the true church but rather true things....in which case I think they're likely to receive answers from God confirming what they sought as true. Most religions teach at least a few true things. I think some belief structures teach certain facets even better than traditional LDS....so if it's pertinent enough to the believer that may be enough or our church may be viewed as "lacking."  

 

 

Are LDS immune from confirmation bias?

 

 

No, of course not. You can see that a lot with political beliefs, where people begin to believe a certain party is more correct/in line with the gospel. In truth almost all parties have points in them that line up with a gospel practice/belief. (in which someone will inevitably say, but this organization has MORE points)

 

Some youth experiences could also be like that. HIghly emotional and often a big love-fest and good feels sort of thing. These feel-goods can then be interpreted as a form of confirmation of the truth. 

 

Are critics guilty of confirmation bias?

 

 

Yep. For example on my mission I found it ironic that there were quite a few people who insisted they were bible-only believer....and yet would have several books open from scholars, pastors, etc used to help interpret said bible and give info for them on our wrongness. I just found the blind spot amusing. No one, IMO is 100% immune. Of course I think I'm pretty good at it, but that's probably my own bias showing .

 

That stated, when the spirit has had very strong answers they often ring truth in a way that supersedes my own reservations, thoughts, beliefs, etc. At times I've had answers that have challenged where I was currently leaning towards doing and being....some have gone against the grain of common wisdom. So to the big overarching question, no, I would say most of the time feeling the spirit is not confirmation bias....where confirmation bias may play the biggest role at times is interpreting what it means. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 21, 2015 by BlueDreams

[SmileyMcGee]

For myself, I can tell the difference when the Holy Spirit has operated in my life and confirmation bias.  I cannot, however, do that for someone else.  And I don't believe God gives me fruit, bread, and fish when I ask for them while giving others thorns, thistles, stones, and serpents when they ask for fruit, bread, and fish.

I know this has been addressed in other threads, but I am genuinely interested in hearing how you can justify stating that you can tell the difference between the Spirit and confirmation bias (or any other bias). I agree that there are feeling that we have that are unlike other feelings and can be very powerful, but claiming to be able to distinguish between Spirit and bias implies that you know when the HG is speaking to you. I'm not sure that is possible. I think you honestly think you can make the distinction but it seems beyond human ability to know who or what is causing a specific thought or feeling. How do you know it is the HG, as defined by LDS theology, and not some other god, spirit, demon, hormone, psychological phenomenon, etc. Do you not see the huge assumption you are making?

[KevinG]

In a single instance of prompting I could not reasonably eliminate confirmation bias from the realm of possibilities.  

 

However over a lifetime of impressions, revelations, healings, blessings, quickening of the mind, strengthening of the body, comforting of the soul, answers to prayers, answers to prayers contrary to my desires and expectations, confirmations among multiple witnesses, etc.  I have had more than enough experiences to justify my belief in a greater power outside of my own consciousness.  

 

Your mileage may vary.  But as for me I believe in God the Father and in His Son, and my Savior, Jesus Christ.  I have no other reasonable explanation.

[oremites]

Even the prophet Joseph stated "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil.” An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, p. 30-31

 

Actually, David Whitmer claimed that Joseph Smith said this.  This was written 57 years after the time it supposedly happened.  We don't have anyone else relating this or any other records confirming he said that.

 

So did the Prophet Joseph really state that?  Maybe or maybe not, but I get tired of people quoting that as if it were an undisputed fact.

[snowflake]

Actually, David Whitmer claimed that Joseph Smith said this.  This was written 57 years after the time it supposedly happened.  We don't have anyone else relating this or any other records confirming he said that.

 

So did the Prophet Joseph really state that?  Maybe or maybe not, but I get tired of people quoting that as if it were an undisputed fact.

Agreed,  I've always thought of David Whitmer as a credible witness, no?

[The Nehor]

and I am trying to know the difference too, but it is hard for me.

 

So how do you know the difference? Is it a different feeling? When you follow your spiritual answers, do they always work as you expect? If not, do you look for positives for following the answer?

The only way I know of is experience.

I have some impressions that are definitely revelation and they have never been wrong. I try to always act on these.

I have some that I suspect are revelation but am not positive. I think sometimes I get this when I am partially right. Usually act on these.

Then I have my own ideas and who knows how accurate those are? Act on these depending on how risky they are.

[oremites]

Agreed,  I've always thought of David Whitmer as a credible witness, no?

 

Consider two situations:

 

1.  Multiple witnesses describe an event and record it at the time it happened.  These witnesses continue to make statements concerning this event over the years, so we have many references.

 

2. An 82-year-old man recalls a statement made to him 57 years previously.  No one else ever recorded that statement.  The statement was never referred to by this man in all those 57 years until that time.  There is no known journal, letter or recording that this man consulted to help him remember the wording of that statement.

 

Just because you consider someone a credible witness doesn't mean you're required to uncritically believe every word they ever utter.

[CV75]

Confirmation Bias

 

A form of the following question has been raised many times on this board.

 

"Why do members of other religions receive spiritual confirmations that their church is the true church?

 

Is it because that church already matches what they believe about what the true church should be?

 

Are LDS immune from confirmation bias?

 

Are critics guilty of confirmation bias?

You are using Wikipedia as your reference. In its "One True Church" article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_true_church, no mention is made of spiritual confirmation, and in the link you provided there is no mention of "one true church" (or any church or religion).

 

I don't think anyone is immune from confirmation bias, but I don't think all conclusions that one's church is true is a result of it. There are many other psychological and spiritual dynamics at work (independently and in interface with each other) than this one concept.

 

I suppose an LDS person might believe that everyone is born with and within the reach of the Light of Christ and so might construe an appeal to the Light of Christ as an example of spiritual confirmation bias. So inasmuch as an individual is doing the best he can with the light he's got, he is in the one true church (1 Nephi 14:10).

[williamsmith]

Confirmation Bias

 

A form of the following question has been raised many times on this board.

 

"Why do members of other religions receive spiritual confirmations that their church is the true church?

 

Is it because that church already matches what they believe about what the true church should be?

 

Are LDS immune from confirmation bias?

 

Are critics guilty of confirmation bias?

 

Because everyone bases judgments on things according to what they know and the evidences related to it.

To everything there is a degree of truth and facts, and various degrees of problems, issues, or falsehood.

There are also various degrees of accuracy in things.  For example, Grace saves, that is true, but is it the whole and best truth, no.

 

Confirmation bias really only exists with certain peoples, groups, etc. generally within whatever group.

It is not the great mystery that answers it all.

I have found, that the more "closed" people are to other things and ideas, how they are judgmental of them before they really even know them, but may also only know them from a particular perspective, are people that have a strong confirmation bias.

Anti-mormons are especially strong in confirmation bias because they already know the church is false, and they engage in efforts or otherwise trying to further show how that is, so they only see whatever is seemingly negative or thing they can misrepresent that supports that bias.

 

While a Mormon "could" engage in confirmation bias, and I'm sure some exist, the Mormon is generally more concerned with absolute truth and right, not on confirming the church true, contrary to anti-mormon beliefs in this.  Mormons are generally mormon because they are highly open to ideas and seeking and knowing what's actually true, not what people say is true.

While many mormons might believe strongly or know the church is true, they love the truth and learning, having no hate for things outside of them (save bad things), nor are they afraid of accepting and understanding those things.  The Glory of God is Intelligence, or in other words Light and Truth.  Seek truth out of the best books.  Seek and know truth from whereever it comes.  These are ideas of a people that simply do not and cannot engage in confirmation bias, but a people who are open to truth period, not settling on one way in looking at things, but finding the only true and ultimate way at looking at things.  Those who have hate toward a subject, such as anti-mormons have a very strong capability of confirmation bias, because their cup is already full.  The mormon accepts truth from where-ever it comes.

Edited August 22, 2015 by williamsmith

[Bernard Gui]

Confirmation bias happens all the time with the climate change crowd. (Just Kidding!!!)

 

Heavenly Father loves all his children and speaks to them according to their own language and understanding.

 

But many do not know that there is another Spirit—“the light of Christ” (D&C 88:7)—another source of inspiration, which each of us possesses in common with all other members of the human family. If we know about the Light of Christ, we will understand that there is something inside all of us, and we can appeal to that in our desire to share truth.

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/04/the-light-of-christ?lang=eng

45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

 46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/01/guidance-of-the-holy-spirit?lang=eng

 

 2 Nephi 31: 3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

 

Edited August 23, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[TheSkepticChristian]

The mormon accepts truth from where-ever it comes.

 

I am a Mormon, I really accept truth from where-ever it comes, but most of my fellow LDS don't accept certain scientific truths.

Many of my fellow LDS don't believe in certain historical facts (or at least well documented) about the 19th century church leaders.

 

 

Agreed,  I've always thought of David Whitmer as a credible witness, no?

 

So you are saying that his account about the seer stone and hat is not credible? 

 

 

So inasmuch as an individual is doing the best he can with the light he's got, he is in the one true church (1 Nephi 14:10).

 

I like that, it solves many problems. Good thought. If there is a God that loves us, he is going not going to send his children to Hell for following their conscience.

 

 

Just because you consider someone a credible witness doesn't mean you're required to uncritically believe every word they ever utter.

 

Nice responce

 

 

answers to prayers contrary to my desires and expectations

 

Some revelations may come from God, but please remember the human brain sometimes finds patterns that are not real. 

It is called Apophenia, Patternicity, and Randomania,  not confirmation bias. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

 

So what is your responce? How do you know your brain did not find patterns that are not real? 

 

Are you looking for a face? or did your brain atomatically find it?

 

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

"I am a Mormon, I really accept truth from where-ever it comes, but most of my fellow LDS don't accept certain scientific truths."

So all those LDS who work through science fields are just too much dumber than you are and won't accept facts.

What year in school are you and what scientific traning are you getting again?

[Calm]

Sites you should spend time on rather than here.

http://www.famousmormons.net/sci.html

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

Edited August 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[TheSkepticChristian]

"I am a Mormon, I really accept truth from where-ever it comes, but most of my fellow LDS don't accept certain scientific truths."

So all those LDS who work through science fields are just too much dumber than you are and won't accept facts.

What year in school are you and what scientific traning are you getting again?

Please dont misrepresent what i said, of course LDS scientists accept the facts of their fields. However, most LDS are not research scientists, especially not in a field of natural science.

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[CV75]

I like that, it solves many problems. Good thought. If there is a God that loves us, he is going not going to send his children to Hell for following their conscience.

If you acknowledge that you have a conscience, then you have found the first intimation of that which is your God.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Sites you should spend time on rather than here.

http://www.famousmormons.net/sci.html

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

 

and why is mormon scholars testify necessary? what is the point? Scholars are people, scholars are not special. 

Why not have Mormon farmers testify? or Mormon McDonalds employees testify? or Mormon workers testify?

 

bytheway, there is a bigger list of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 conspiracies. 

http://www.ae911truth.org/about.html

There is a bigger list of scientists that believe the world is 6,000 years old

http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

and there are some scientists that believe in Bigfoot

 

So what is the point of Mormon scholars testify? I would be more impressed of a LDS Convert scholars testify.

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

Please dont misrepresent what i said, of course LDS scientists accept the facts of their fields. However, most LDS are not research scientists, especially not in a field of natural science.

A lot of LDS are scientists and teach their children the principles of science, especially where I hang out...me, my husband, our bishop, several other members of our ward. Geologists, psychologists, chemists, physicists, biologists, tons in the medical research field, engineers who do research, historians who have their own research standards for testing credibilty....

But LDS who do not engage in science are pretty much all ignorant compared to you in your opinion? What is so unique about you that you have learned to face facts while the majority of LDS stumble around in blindness?

You have not indicated what level of school you are in or completed or what form of scientific training you have. Have you taken a class in logic? Or is it just a natural gift?

Have some scientific training myself, I do not see much training or education in logic demonstrated in your posts besides a dependence on videos which anyone with an access to the Internet can achieve. Self education is a wonderful thing but it is harder to get feedback when one isn't applying consistent methods of critical analysis to one's own opinions and conclusions and this also leads to an unfounded confidence in one's own abilities and ideas. You keep claiming openmindedness and being willing to accept reality, but my experience and my educational training ad research into behaviour indicates that a need to constantly declare one possesses certain qualities just may be because of personal doubt that is the reality.

So before anyone actually finds your claims credible, you need to demonstrate why we should consider your comments, your collections of videos either relevant or authoritative in some fashion. Simple declaration does not meet even the most basic level of skepticism. If you have substantial training, I will be more likely to assume gaps on knowledge in your comments are a result of skipping rather than lack of understanding. Not all scientists are good at communicating their knowledge or understanding. Some of my most brilliant professors were rotten teachers and others not particularly heavy into research were able to excite their students enough about the subject to drive them into it, something that always amused me. Nicest was a profesor who not only enjoyed the research, but was good at teaching students what it all meant.

And if you won't post your creditentials, all we will have to judge is your own comments and from what I've observed they are lacking in solid foundation. Posting vidoes from informed individuals does not demonstrate you understand and can decently evaluate what is being discussed.

Edited August 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[TheSkepticChristian]

A lot of LDS are scientists and teach their children the principles of science, especially where I hang out...me, my husband, our bishop, several other members of our ward. Geologists, psychologists, chemists, physicists, biologists, tons in the medical research field, engineers who do research, historians who have their own research standards for testing credibilty.

 

I agree, there are a lot of LDS scientists,  a lot is not most, but that is okay. 

However, do you think most LDS believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? What about the other scientific theory (it is political according to the mods)?

 

 

But LDS who do not engage in science are pretty much all ignorant compared to you in your opinion? What is so unique about you that you have learned to face facts while the majority of LDS stumble around in blindness?

 

I am not a biologist, I simply try to be objective, and I do some research. 

I am not special, I simply said that most fellow LDS do not accept some scientific truths. 

 

 

And if you won't post your creditentials, all we will have to judge is your own comments and from what I've observed they are lacking in solid foundation. Posting vidoes from informed individuals does not demonstrate you understand and can decently evaluate what is being discussed.

 

I am not a specialist, but I am humble enough to listen to the specialists. 

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

and why is mormon scholars testify necessary? what is the point?

A lot of critics argue that only someone uneducated or even stupid would believe in the core teachings of the LDS faith. These kinds of sites along with studies that demonstrate the importance of education in our faith, including the fact that unlike almost all other faiths (possibly even all) among LDS the higher the education level the more committed someone is to their belief.

There ate many other sites including "I am a Mormon" that post believers' testimonies. Feel free to go and peruse them so you can be impressed.

[Calm]

"I am not a biologist, I simply try to be objective, and I do some research."

Which research could be you watch videos on the internet.

You still have not given any training or education after several requests. Or how you are able to identify what is neccesary to approach objectivity (something never actually achieved btw). You appear to be avoiding answering that question and again requiring us to depend on your own declarations that you are able to comprehend what you her from the specialists.

Not really seeing anything here that demonstrates any significant capabilty of being able to even attempt objective analysis and understanding of your fellow believers' wide range of beliefs.

Would you accept someone else on these grounds if they were attempting to teach you something beyond your current level of knowledge? Why would you trust them they were presenting and evaluating the data correctly?

Edited August 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[TheSkepticChristian]

Which research could be you watch videos on the internet.

 

LOL I read the scientific literature and National Geographic, but I admit I am not a research scientist. I also admit that I don't completely  watch most of the videos I share. 

Please do not ignore my question

 

Do you think most LDS believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? 

 

 

You still have not given any training or education after several requests. 

 

Why do you want to know for? Computer Science is not relevant to what I am saying, but Biologists do agree that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. 

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[CV75]

I am not special, I simply said that most fellow LDS do not accept some scientific truths.

I think it is more accurate to observe that most fellow LDS do not accept scientific truths as spiritual truths for the purpose of religious observance. For example, I would rather approach my relationship with God as an offspring of Adam (whether literal or figurative, it has the same effect) than as a Homo sapiens sapiens offspring of Homo sapiens idaltu (or whatever last-discovered scientific truths state came before that) because I consciously relate to others as an integrated being, not on a genetic level alone. It only makes sense that the integrated being discovers and processes truth of all kind more efficiently and effectively than any of its constituent components can.

 

Do you think most LDS believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? 

I do not, for the purpose of religious observance, and spiritual life based on spiritual truth is the priority for the religious.

Edited August 23, 2015 by CV75

[TheSkepticChristian]

I think it is more accurate to observe that most fellow LDS do not accept scientific truths as spiritual truths for the purpose of religious observance.

 

Is that why many fellow LDS say that Darwinian Evolution has not been proven, and that it is only a theory of men? To many fellow LDS it is apostasy to say that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.  

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian