Is Feeling The Spirit Really Just Confirmation Bias?

[TheSkepticChristian]

Since you are a positiviist meaning that you believe nothing without evidence, I was going to give you a CFR on that one, to prove that "the universe doesn't care about our decisions"

 

The laws of nature and the universe don't care about our views, just like gravity doesn't care if someone decides to jump out of a building.

 

What I mean is that our views (whether they are right or wrong), simply won't change the truth.

 

Your video asserts that we should affirm life while we are here. There is no evidence for that either.

 

It is simply a scary possibility that life ends in the grave. Our worldviews and interpretations won't change the truth, and I don't know what the truth is.

I simply hope the truth is that Jesus resurrected, I still have that hope.

Edited August 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

I simply hope the truth is that Jesus resurrected, I still have that hope.

 

How do you reconcile that with your assertion that we must prove everything with peer reviewed research?

[mfbukowski]

Do I sense some autobiography in our "theoretical nihilist" who has an experience beyond himself?  

 

I like all this.  Correct me if I'm wrong when trying to rephrase, but are you saying that in a way our rational nihilist and the enlightened Mormon that is working to create Zion almost see the world the same and are trying to achieve much the same goals towards become like our "Ideal Man"?  The Mormon just believes that someone has gone down this path before and achieved the goal of being an Ideal Man (God) and that person is communicating to us who are further back in the path while the rational nihilist believes that either no one has proceeded further down this path yet, or if someone has we don't know about them and how it all worked out in the end and they don't seem to be communicating back to us.

Indeed it can be seen that way.

 

That is kind of a "foundationalist" way of seeing it, but perfectly valid.  What I mean by that is that you are creating a description of it as if it were, or could have been a historical event- a kind of story the way the bible is a story about "what really happened".

 

But yes I think the perfectly rational nihilist- as represented perhaps by the video- and we are very very close but it just requires a paradigm shift to make the change from one to another, and yes, it is autobiographical.

 

I do not see it necessarily as historical but it certainly can be taken that way.  I see it as a theory of human progress and a description of the human situation more than a historical story of something that "really happened" or might have.  It is a description of the human condition using the tools we have- language- in an attempt to unify many different ways of seeing the world, including evolution, psychology, pragmatic philosophy and theism. I think I have good evidence for all its parts, the evolution of morality linked to Christian values etc. (The Didache- the Way of Life and the Way of Death for example seen as scripture links the survival of society linked to living the commandments AND is a first century text. One can see that as the evolution of morals right there- good action leads to life, bad action leads to death-  Reading it with my interpretation, it's all there) I have told all the parts of it before, but I don't think I have ever put it all in one brief statement before that way.

 

As a social constructivist it seems to all fit together that way in my mind.  We create culture and culture creates us, based on the Image of the Ideal Man.  That part could be totally secular- the idea that that Ideal Human is in fact an embodied God who is our Father is where the theology comes in.  I had the secular part finished in college, and believed that God was a human invention- a projection of our organizing talents onto the heavens.   Man was god- we essentially were worshiping ourselves, or our projection of ourselves out into the universe.

 

Then I learned more about Mormonism including Moroni 10:4 and got clobbered.  But everyone then thinks you have to get clobbered.  You don't.  You just need a quiet assurance that there is more than nihilism.

 

The insight is that nihilism is itself a faith position which cannot be proven.  To me that video makes that perfectly clear.  He begs the question from the beginning- it is totally a circular argument if you listen carefully and diagram it out.

 

Yet he comes to the same conclusion- that we should create our own reality "and have joy therein".

 

Yet if you are a nihilist- why "should" you have joy at all?  Why should we have morals at all?  Care about other people?

 

If life is meaningless, we should just use others for our own pleasure.  Why affirm life at all??   Power and wealth should be all that matter and there is no reason for ethics except as a panacea to the weak.  There are plenty of examples like that in the 20th century

 

The very fact of affirming morality affirms that some actions are "better" than others.  Why are they better?  Because they lead to human progress.  Why should we care about human progress?  Because we have this "gut" feeling that we should !!!  Everyone has it- atheists and religious people alike- except those who drive it out of their hearts.

 

Mormons call that a conscience or the "light of Christ".  Fine.  That's one term.  So maybe we are "just evolved" into believing that because civilization requires it.  But even that belief points us to "Ideal Human Behavior"

 

I think this idea of an Ideal Human is inescapable once you agree that some actions are "better" than others.   And if you don't believe that- you will either end up as a dictator or in prison- clearly not part of the majority of humanity.  In other words, it is only a tiny minority of humanity who do not believe you should be kind to others, not that that is important.

 

Once you have the ideal of Ideal Human Action - we tend to call that "Humanism".  Fine.  Works for me.  We are the most humanistic church on the planet because we make God to be a human.   Humanism becomes theology.

 

So even the nihilist who acts morally has this idea!  It is just a small step to discovering that there is MORE- much more to spirituality than just humanism, but it is a start.

 

Now listen to these quotes from Dawkins

 

• It would be deeply depressing if the only way children could get moral values was from religion. Either from scripture, and God knows we don't want them to get it from scripture, I mean, just look at scripture. Or, from being afraid of God, being intimidated by God. Anybody who is good for only those two reasons is not really being good at all. Why not teach children things like the Golden Rule, do as you would be done by, how would you like it if other children did that to you, so why do you do it to them... I think it's depressing that anybody should suggest that you actually need God in order to be moral. I would hope that our morals come from a better source than that, and therefore they are genuinely moral rather than based on outmoded scripture, or based on fear.
  • , (2008-01-29)

Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, or in evolution?

Richard Dawkins: Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

 

Can you see what I am saying?   This guy is just a hair-breadth away from at least sympathetic to the Mormon Paradigm!   We essentially believe both of those ideas.

 

Richard Dawkins, militant atheist, is a hair/breadth from Mormonism.  Again he is seeing it as a literalist- he has to make everything a story because he is a foundationalist.  He has to speak about it as if it "really happened" and tells the story of an alien presence, and misses the philosophical importance of it all- the same mistake I think Skeptical Christian is making here.   He wants a made up story about "what really happened"- as all scientists do, not understanding that their stories are made up, but are about "reality".  Dawkins acceptable story is about aliens.  Fine.  Whatever floats your boat.

 

The point is that the story serves the same function as I see it without a story- I see all this as made up and created over generations of cultural observations which literally create "reality" as inculturated humans see it.  We can only see reality as humans see reality through the lens of our culture.

 

Richard Rorty, atheist, said he could believe in a god who was man's "friend".   Look up the world "friend" in D&C and see how many times Christ says he is a "friend" to mankind.

One handy Rorty quote that backs up my position:

 

So pragmatists see the Platonic tradition as having outlived its usefulness. This does not mean that they have a new, non-Platonic set of answers to Platonic questions to offer, but rather that they do not think we should ask those questions any more. When they suggest that we not ask questions about the nature of Truth and Goodness, they do not invoke a theory about the nature of reality or knowledge or man which says that “there is no such thing” as Truth or Goodness. Nor do they have a “relativistic” or “subjectivist” theory of Truth or Goodness. They would simply like to change the subject. They are in a position analogous to that of secularists who urge that research concerning the Nature, or the Will, of God does not get us anywhere

 

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/rorty.htm

So I see this attempt to describe God in secularist terms - using a vocabulary they will understand- as a potential way to reach those that are so close to us but do not see it.

 

I think it is necessary for an educated Mormon to be able to be fluent in both languages- one for church, for those who think the traditional way, and "secularist" for those who think in the way of the world.  But honestly I see no more difference in "what is said" - the content of the sentences- than I do in saying it in Spanish or English.

 

The differences are strictly linguistic and the same "truths" (to say it in TBM are expressed both ways.  Two different paradigms in different language games expressing virtually the same content functionally.  One sees a tool as a "manmade device" and the other sees the hammer as "godgiven" but when God is Man there is no "real" difference.

 

That's my story and I have been thinking it for 40 plus years and it is not likely to change. 

[mfbukowski]

That Rorty quote again from above:

 

So pragmatists see the Platonic tradition as having outlived its usefulness. This does not mean that they have a new, non-Platonic set of answers to Platonic questions to offer, but rather that they do not think we should ask those questions any more. When they suggest that we not ask questions about the nature of Truth and Goodness, they do not invoke a theory about the nature of reality or knowledge or man which says that “there is no such thing” as Truth or Goodness. Nor do they have a “relativistic” or “subjectivist” theory of Truth or Goodness. They would simply like to change the subject. They are in a position analogous to that of secularists who urge that research concerning the Nature, or the Will, of God does not get us anywhere

 

Nihilists like the one in the video are in the affirmative position that God is a "delusion" and that is what I - and atheist Rorty- would reject.

 

And also I hate it when someone says my arguments are "subjectivist" or "relativistic".  You notice I am not talking much lately about that.

 

That's why.   I just don't even like to talk about it because those categories really don't apply but no one here seems to understand that.  But that's ok.

 

I have to use those terms to be understood, but that is not the way I really think about it.  Those are just linguistic descriptions that don't quite get it right

 

Making up stories about God just cannot possibly really get us anywhere.  He is not an "alien" nor are we going one day to be "machines" as some transhumanists may believe.   Those are stories.  God can only be known through direct experience, not words.  The kingdom of heaven is within you - it is not in machines or on planets elsewhere.

 

But if that gets you where you need to go, use it.

Edited August 27, 2015 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

Nihilists like the one in the video are in the affirmative position that God is a "delusion" and that is what I - and atheist Rorty- would rejec

 

I disagree with that, God is not a delusion. However, like I said, it is a scary possibility that life ends at the grave. It is a scary possibility I hope is not true. 

 

However, our hopes won't change the truth, I don't know what the truth is, and I hope the truth is that there is a God that loves us. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Brian 2.0]

But yes I think the perfectly rational nihilist- as represented perhaps by the video- and we are very very close but it just requires a paradigm shift to make the change from one to another, and yes, it is autobiographical.

 

I think this also gives insight to why a number of LDS that leave for historical/doctrinal reasons end up being athetist/agnostic and not some other religion.  And now I'm being autobiographical.  

Edited August 27, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

Making up stories about God just cannot possibly really get us anywhere.  He is not an "alien" nor are we going one day to be "machines" as some transhumanists may believe.   Those are stories.  God can only be known through direct experience, not words.  The kingdom of heaven is within you - it is not in machines or on planets elsewhere.

 

But if that gets you where you need to go, use it.

 

I've re-read your last two posts a few times (great by the way).  I guess it comes down to the part in bold above.  That direct experience is what it is... it's "real"... but then assigning the source or the why becomes the question and where it gets messy.  Is it the synapses in my brain firing in accordance to a set of expectations I've given it?  It is an external force/power/being communicating to me?  Is it the Taco Bell I ate last night?  

 

And the answers to those questions, while in the end maybe impossible to determine with 100% certainty, are important because a lot of life decisions or choices can hinge upon that "direct experience."  

[mfbukowski]

I've re-read your last two posts a few times (great by the way).  I guess it comes down to the part in bold above.  That direct experience is what it is... it's "real"... but then assigning the source or the why becomes the question and where it gets messy.  Is it the synapses in my brain firing in accordance to a set of expectations I've given it?  It is an external force/power/being communicating to me?  Is it the Taco Bell I ate last night?  

 

And the answers to those questions, while in the end maybe impossible to determine with 100% certainty, are important because a lot of life decisions or choices can hinge upon that "direct experience."  

On its way later.  Great question- it's the whole ball of wax.  No time now or maybe even today.  Business stuff.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Then I learned more about Mormonism including Moroni 10:4 and got clobbered.  But everyone then thinks you have to get clobbered.  You don't.  You just need a quiet assurance that there is more than nihilism.

 

I have two questions 

 

Why is my Mormonism better than Agnosticism? it is still a question I am struggling to answer. 

 

Why is my Mormonism better than the Cryonics religion? another question I am also struggling to answer. 

 

I hope I find answers soon. 

Edited August 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

I have two questions 

 

Why is my Mormonism better than Agnosticism? it is still a question I am struggling to answer. 

 

Why is my Mormonism better than the Cryonics religion? another question I am also struggling to answer. 

 

I hope I find answers soon. 

Just Jesus Christ, that's about all.

 

Forgiveness of sin, the Celestial Kingdom- you know, that stuff.  I find that rather significant. 

 

If you want to freeze yourself, freeze yourself.  I could be wrong but to my knowledge that is no worse for an LDS than sticking in a grave and waiting for the resurrection.  On the other hand, if you have brain damage and that is your "resurrection" instead of the real thing, that might be disappointing.

 

It's weird to me to have more faith in some scientist than God, but just know that you are still in a faith based position.  No more certainty there than anywhere else.

 

Agnosticism to me is just a cop-out, wishy-washy weak position.  Yeah so you are uncertain.  Your official position is uncertainty?  Most people are uncertain but they don't need to join a club to proclaim their uncertainty as if it was an actual position.

 

I can see it now- Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Tea Party and Social Democrats and then we have the Uncertain Party.  Not intentionally Independent, just Uncertain.   Not too impressive.

[Calm]

If there can be a Know Nothing Party, surely there can be an Uncertain Party.

Edited August 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[TheSkepticChristian]

I can see it now- Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Tea Party and Social Democrats and then we have the Uncertain Party.  Not intentionally Independent, just Uncertain.   Not too impressive.

 

Uncertainty is a good thing, the problem in Washington is that politicians are too certain about their views.

However, there is no need for an uncertain party if evidence (or good reasons) is available.

 

PS I am still living my life as a Mormon, I am still following the commandments.

Edited August 30, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

Uncertainty is a good thing, the problem in Washington is that politicians are too certain about their views.

However, there is no need for an uncertain party if evidence (or good reasons) is available.

 

PS I am still living my life as a Mormon, I am still following the commandments.

That is circular. What counts as good evidence for anything and why? What are good reasons and why?

Why accept others ideas of what constitutes "evidence" for anything? It seems you haven't even considered that.

Science completely avoids vast areas of human experience- like what makes good things good, good reasons good, bad things bad, and anything important in life.

It does not analyze importance at all because importance cannot be defined scientifically. Why bother being a Mormon if there is no scientific evidence showing you that you should be, if you believe that nothing is "true" without scientific evidence?

What is your "good reason" for acting as a Mormon?

My point is not that you should stop being a Mormon, but to point out that you already, deep inside you, know the church is "true" in some sense.

So what is your "good reason" for being Mormon?

[TheSkepticChristian]

That is circular. What counts as good evidence for anything and why? What are good reasons and why?

 

Why is your philosophical thought experiment useful?

 

Scientists landed on the moon because they had good evidence and good reasons. 

 

 

Science completely avoids vast areas of human experience

 

so why is Theism better than agnosticism?

[mfbukowski]

Why is your philosophical thought experiment useful?

Scientists landed on the moon because they had good evidence and good reasons.

so why is Theism better than agnosticism?

Because it answers your question that science does not, about what a good reason is Edited August 31, 2015 by mfbukowski

[longview]

Uncertainty is a good thing, the problem in Washington is that politicians are too certain about their views.

However, there is no need for an uncertain party if evidence (or good reasons) is available.

 

PS I am still living my life as a Mormon, I am still following the commandments.

• 1 Kings 18:21

  21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Because it answers your question that science does not, about what a good reason is

 

You have clear answers, good for you, I don't.

 

If we LDS are right, the worst that can happen is the Telestial Kingdom.

If Theism is wrong, there are no answers and no afterlife.

[KevinG]

Skeptic,

 

When I told my father I was converting to the LDS Church has asked me a thought provoking question.  "Do you believe that this somehow make you better than your brother?"  It was not a snotty question, it was genuine and intended to make me think about my reasons.

 

I answered honestly after a moment of thought.  "No.  If anything having additional information, an answer from God, it makes me more accountable for what I now know."

 

My father accepted my choice with his full blessing.

 

I have tried to live according to that answer.  Having more information, additional light and knowledge, does not make me superior to my fellow man.  It is a great blessing and one I am accountable for living up to.

[Tacenda]

http://exmormonfiles.tv/episodes/ep_160.htm

 

I'm listening to this fellow.  He mentions some scriptures in the bible that give me pause.  I try to stay in the church, but when I listen to people like this it stalls me from going totally forward.  I know this statement will be ridiculed, but really am struggling to know if the church is true.  And another question.  What if I pray to know if another church is true, and actually feel it is and get the burning feeling?  I haven't tried this experiment, but know of someone who has prayed as if they are that religion to know if it is true, and get that feeling each time, that it is.  Does this happen?  Is it a mind thing? 

 

I'll happily stay in this church but there is something that keeps gnawing at me about the scriptures he mentions about 25 minutes or so in.  One he mentions is Rev. 21:14.  About the 12 apostles.  And something about temples.  During the video he states we don't know the real Jesus.  I worry, because even in the NT year, it seems the Primary lessons keep reverting over to BoM stories.  Or it's the co-teacher or lesson, not sure which.  And we don't really know much of Jesus in our classroom.  My husband gave an awesome lesson about Jesus last week, about His crucifixion on the cross.  I'm not sure the class understood much about it.  Or they were bored or had things on their minds.  But I understand they are the 11/12 year old class.  It just seems like we get more excited about the Striping Warriors or Nephi etc.  I wonder if it's not cool to be Jesus lovers, or appear like some of these Evangelists out there. 

 

Sorry if I've derailed your OP, Thinking.           

[KevinG]

Tacenda,

 

Seek guidance from the Holy Spirit, but don't assume it is merely a feeling.  Many experience the influence of the Spirit differently, some a burning in the bosom, others a quickening of the mind, still others visions or voices.  Discernment, widsom, intelligence, peace...  all of these and more are gifts of the spirit.

 

Don't believe everything that men (women) tell you.  That is not where salvation lies.

[mfbukowski]

WARNING! HUGE POST! IF YOU WANT TO CUT TO THE CHASE READ THE CONCLUSION AT THE END!
 

I've re-read your last two posts a few times (great by the way). I guess it comes down to the part in bold above. That direct experience is what it is... it's "real"... but then assigning the source or the why becomes the question and where it gets messy. Is it the synapses in my brain firing in accordance to a set of expectations I've given it? It is an external force/power/being communicating to me? Is it the Taco Bell I ate last night?

And the answers to those questions, while in the end maybe impossible to determine with 100% certainty, are important because a lot of life decisions or choices can hinge upon that "direct experience."

Well I finally got some time clear to answer this- it was a crazy week and weekend and couple of days.

This goes to the center of the issue, but honestly I don't think the answer is that complicated. I will give the long answer because I may use this somewhere else someday, so if you want to cut to the chase, just go to the end and find the "Conclusion" section.

We are talking about how one can know the "source" of what is arguably an emotional response, and whether or not that emotional feeling is based on "outside" stimuli or "internal" stimuli. I don't see many other possibilities here - either it is from outside us, and attributed to "the spirit"- but what we name that doesn't much matter, or it is something "in our heads". One of the problems is assuming that it HAS a "source" at all- and that gets us into causation and won't get us anywhere. I mean if one is a refugee who just lost their home and family, and one is emotionally devastated, is that due to an "outside" source directly or is it "internal"? Clearly most would say that such experiences, or being in a war, are not interally caused, and certainly they are not. But our ATTITUDE in those situations can always be adjusted to compensate for the uncontrolled reality. That goes back to the Stoic philosophers and remains an essential part of spiritual life, as far as I am concerned. Some prisoners in concentration camps came through the experience actually enriched for it- read Viktor Frankl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man's_Search_for_MeaningPRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WILLED TO MAKE THE EXPERIENCE MEANINGFUL. Indeed I see this as "organizing meaning from matter unorganized" which is for me, a relgious function, in fact, for me it is a godly function. It is similiar to seeing the fall of man as a "good thing" which gives the potential for human growth instead of seeing it as a disaster which condemned mankind to a depraved nature, as sectarian Christians see it. It is a choice of attitude, not a passive "source"- it is the will to act instead of being acted upon. It is the creation of your own universe from moment to moment as you will it to be.

Seeing the world as a place in which we are subject to forces beyond our control- our "brain chemistry", to me, is in the category of the "way of death" as the Didache might have called it if it was written today. Hume showed that the search for "causes" itself is a dead end, but that is far far beyond this discussion.

In other words, the search for the "source" is highly complex, and includes one's will to create meaning out of experience, and I don't know how to include that factor in this kind of discussion. I am trying to explain this on this thread with Skeptic who is obsessed with scientisim and he isn't getting it.

To repeat, you said

And the answers to those questions, while in the end maybe impossible to determine with 100% certainty, are important because a lot of life decisions or choices can hinge upon that "direct experience."

And the quick reply to this statement might well have been "No, a lot of life decisions or choices can hang upon YOUR INTERPRETATION of that "direct experience" as we see in the case of Frankl. See your experience as expansive, and it will be. See your experience as the result of brain chemicals, and it will be. You are right either way, because there is no standard for measurement beyond your attitude and your will for how to decide to interpret the experience. The bottom line is you really do create your way of seeing the world, unless you don't want to see it that way, and give up your will to things beyond your control. Either way, you will be right. You have the choice to act, or be acted upon. If you have ever been caught in a riptide you know what I mean. Death lies in being acted upon, life lies in acting in these situations, and the turn of the reality of it is in your mind. In the case of a riptide that is a physical reality, in the rest of life it is a spiritual reality.

But let's take the analysis farther, and push it to the wall.

Let's take each position here and analyze it.

Here are essentially the two positions we will analyze: God is an illusion created by men, the opiate of the masses, a view I personally learned from Angela Davis, a wonderful person and an atheist Communist who was convinced that unfortunately political power grows out the barrel of a gun and if necessary, that tool may be used as needed in the struggle for the liberation of mankind from the opression of capitalism and its religion. False "Morality" is concocted by the ruling class to opress the proletariat and CORRECT morality frees the masses to create their own destiny.

Let's assume that is correct, as in fact I personally did for a few years of my young life.

Now let's look at your question from that perspective, on how an atheist might make an important life changing decision, considering the "source" as perhaps an atheist might make the decision.

I have some acquaintance historically with an actual decision probably being made by an actual young professor, because I was the roomate of a philosophy student, as I was as well, of course, who was on the "Philosophy Action Committee" at UCLA which the philosophy faculty agreed to allow to give "input" on new hires for the department. We were aware of a student of Herbert Marcuse- who was the mini-god of radicalism, who taught at UC San Diego, who was 1- totally brilliant and articulate 2- Black, 3- Radical, 4- a woman and 5-(But don't tell anybody)also happened to be very attractive. It is my understanding from my friend that she was the choice of the PAC, and got hired by UCLA. No causation between the recommendation and her hiring are implied. I have no clue.

But this is an important decision now she was facing and let's speculate on the issues and how she might have made the decision. On the negative side, she would be branching out on her own and leaving behind one of the most famous Marxist theorists in the world to "start her own shop". On the positive side, that might have been seen as a good thing to do- that indeed she was ready to move on after learning all she could from Marcuse. She may have had collegues, romantic interests and who knows what to leave and move 150 miles up the freeway from UCSD to UCLA.

But was this the right career move not only for herself, but for the Movement in which she was involved for social change? I insert this factor as a substitute for religion because indeed both radical Marxism and religion share the belief that one life is not as important as the Movement, and that the belief in the Movement should guide decisions because one participates in a Cause of world importance- AND both of these are the "salvation of mankind"- one from economic opression and the other from the results of sin. Perhaps the motivating cause could be the cure for cancer, or leaving a financial legacy for one's great grandchildren or even as perhaps in the case of the Kardashians, "getting your own Show!"- Fame, fortune and all that comes with it.

Everyone wants to be "successful" by whatever measure they choose, if it is "being saved" or helping the "revolution" or "converting souls to Christ" or "saving the whales" or "getting married", or "having a happy life", "saving up for a new car" or "getting to the Celestial Kingdom". Humans must have goals- things to work toward, have faith in their attainability in order to create meaning in their lives.

So how does an atheist make huge life decisions? Deep pondering of the ramifications of the decision. Deep thought about the career change. One crawls into one's self and considers all the possibilities and where they might lead.

Does one worry about if one's feelings are relvant to the decision? No, they are the basis for many of the considerations. "I might be farther away from....", "I am afraid that if I do that.... might happen". "Am I sure I am including the right things to worry about, or SHOULD (value judgement) I just be logical about this?"
"Well, logically, I should probably......, but on the other hand, my mother is getting old and...., after all she has been so good to me....."

After all the analysis there still is a decision to be made. How does one do that? One deeply probes one's mind and makes a "gut" decision. She might even have a "verbal" discussion with herself since putting all these options into language helps one see things more clearly sometimes. She goes, I would argue, into her deepest place, the source of who she is, her ideal self, if you will, and asks herself what is right, after all the factors have been weighed.

Essentially, one makes a "gut" decision and decides whether or not one should "go with your gut" or some other factor. Yet the decision comes out of one's deepest self. Is that "source" just the chemicals in one's brain? Presumably yes, for the atheist that is the case. Is that relevant to anything? No. Why not? Everyone has a brain and everyone makes choices that way. Everyone has brain chemicals- so what? Even for the atheist the "source" for a "gut response" is irrelevant to reaching the goal. Yes, she concludes, she really should care for her mother. Yes, she really also must worry about her career, and perhaps most importantly, her place in the Movement.

Now let's look at how a Mormon makes a deep life-changing decision.

First, we are admonished to "study it out in our minds". She weighs the pros and cons. What will this do for my career? What are her goals? The highest goal is keeping close to Christ and emulating Him, and then returning to our Father in heaven. Will this decision lead her to Christ or away from Christ? What about caring for her mother? (same situation with the atheist, let's assume)

She goes to her Father in prayer seeking the Holy Ghost. In doing so she goes to the deepest part of her consciousness and exposes her soul to her Lord in conversation with Him. She receives a revelation deep in her heart of what the right course is.

As far as a functional, pragmatic, description is possible, I would say there is no difference definable between what the atheist does and what the Mormon does in making the decision. Both consult their "best selves" and "deepest consciousness" in making such a decision. In both cases, "the source" of such decisions is indefinable.

Weighing their internal states, their interpretations of what are "facts" and what are "emotions" as they personally describe them, both being led by their deepest motivations and desires, they make a decision.

The atheist might describe the decision as being a "gut decision"- "I had to go with my gut and do such and such". Perhaps it would be described as "intuition", or "it just seems best if I do it this way", or "it was the best choice".

The Mormon would describe it as a revelation from the Spirit.

But suppose the Mormon was confronted by an investigator with the old "How come I prayed about it and got a different answer?"

The Mormon could well respond "God leads us to him in different ways, according to our needs. The right path for you may not be the right path for me, after all there is truth in all religions".

The atheist would see the Mormon as inventing fables, while at the same time ignoring the fact that she essentially tacitly acknowledged that the explanation was "chemicals in her brain", a physicalist explanation which has no more basis than the Mormon citing the Spirit.

Philosophers have repeatedly shown that consciousness cannot be explained by chemical reactions any more than Beethoven's Fifth can be explained in terms of vibrations of air molecules caused by violin strings.

Would either be right or wrong? I see it as two different paradigms- two different realities, two different descriptions seeming to clash because the explanations clash. There is no good way to choose one above the other.

But as a Mormon myself, my paradigm includes the view that indeed THIS view, as the writer of these statements- my view which I interpret also as "Mormon" includes the idea that I have personally experienced an Intelligence beyond my own which has given my things beyond my ability to know. I ascribe that to the "Spirit" as would any other Mormon, but I am under no illusions that my experience should convince anyone else that my paradigm is "real", whatever that means. In other words, in the final analysis I proudly state that I have a testimony of the church and that in fact, this view I am stating is entirely compatible with classical Mormonism as taught by the church. My central paradigm is perhaps slightly different than the average Mormon but well within the boundaries of "doctrine" insofar as that exists.

CONCLUSION

So here was the original question

I've re-read your last two posts a few times (great by the way). I guess it comes down to the part in bold above. That direct experience is what it is... it's "real"... but then assigning the source or the why becomes the question and where it gets messy. Is it the synapses in my brain firing in accordance to a set of expectations I've given it? It is an external force/power/being communicating to me? Is it the Taco Bell I ate last night?

And the answers to those questions, while in the end maybe impossible to determine with 100% certainty, are important because a lot of life decisions or choices can hinge upon that "direct experience."

Both Mormons and atheists come to their own conclusions about the "source" of emotions as they subjectively are experienced and objectively attempt explanations for their personal experience.

Neither can distinguish "synapses in the brain firing" from "reality" when facing a complex decision. The explanation that it was "Taco Bell" that made me decide to marry Susie is inadequate as well as the explanation that it was an "external power or force" making the decision for me.

Both the atheist and the Mormon think these things through as rationally as they can, and then consult their deepest desires and their Ideal Selves in making such decisions, the Mormon calling their Ideal Selves "the Spirit" because indeed they have experienced that deepest self AS "the Spirit", as an entity outside of themselves. That assertion is non-falsifiable, and is similar to an atheist blaming their decisions on their "gut".

These are both verbal descriptions and vocabulary distinctions chosen to describe similar experiences by different people using the faulty device of language to communicate. Of course it happens to be the only such device we have, despite its inadequacy.

But in both cases, neither explanation is really an "explanation". Expectaions are part of life for the Mormon and the atheist, and basing decisions on expectations is what we do as humans.

Worrying about the "reality" of what is behind these decisions is irrelevant. And 100% "certainty" in such decisions is irrelevant anyway since life goals themselves are moving targets. This year I want to go to grad school, next year I get a lucrative job offer. Which is objectively "right" and how can I be "certain" about the outcome?

Impossible.

So ultimately as I see it, did God make us in His image, or did we make God in ours?

The answer is ultimately unknowable in this life so take your pick, but choose after pondering and consulting your deepest self including both reason and emotion because the two cannot be separated anyway.

 

Ultimately I choose the Mormon explanation based on my personal experiences.

Edited September 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

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?

 

I have had a number of direct revelatory experiences, and there was no confirmation bias or anything else about them that could invalidate them.  Except for one, I will not detail them to you, because I find myself constrained against it.  These were their general characteristics:

 

1. They were short and succinct

2, They were usually verbal, but not auditory, although a couple were neither

3. They were mostly unexpected, but a couple of times came in answer to prayer, and in those instances were not what I expected

4. In the two instances where they dealt with what was future, they were accurate

 

I will tell you about one of them.  I was serving as the ward clerk and that morning I had accidently overslept and was late to our early Sunday morning bishopric meeting.  I walked into the bishop's office and apologized for my absence, but the bishop said, "That OK, Mike, we're being released today anyway, so all we've been doing is reminiscing."  I said "Well, then, I'll just wander up to the chapel and get my things organized."  As I walked out of the clerk's office, I noticed a classroom ahead had its door open and the light on.  At that moment I "heard" the words "The new bishop is in that room."  I came up to the room and poked my head in to see who it was.  He was just packing some papers into his briefcase because this room had been used this morning by the ward mission for their morning meeting, and this man was one of our local ward missionaries.  We exchanged greetings, and then I went up to the chapel.  A little later in Sacrament meeting this man was sustained as the new ward Bishop. 

 

Now I ask you, was the spirit telling me this, or was it my psychic powers?  Or my superior powers of observation and Sherlock-Holmes-like ability to pull facts out of thin air?

 

I am familiar with the gainsayers who will come out with really lame excuses for why it wasn't the Spirit.  But I know differently.

 

There is a huge difference between this kind of experience and the natural emotional reactions to such things as the birth of children, the lifting of one's spirits through beautiful music and art.  Heck, I once attended a RCC high mass that was a very pleasant spiritual experience.  I can imagine even a confirmed atheist having feelings of grandeur in some of those kinds of experiences.  But I have become pretty experienced in telling the difference between the operation of the Spirit of the Lord and emotional good feelings.  And like I say, there is a huge difference.  Or at least there is a difference in my experience of them.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Stargazer

[TheSkepticChristian]

Now I ask you, was the spirit telling me this, or was it my psychic powers?  Or my superior powers of observation and Sherlock-Holmes-like ability to pull facts out of thin air?

 

Memory 

Memory is not always reliable. Detectives know that. Why do you think multiple accounts about the same event contradict each other?

I am not saying that it was not the spirit, I hope it was, all I am saying is that memory is not always reliable. 

 

Sharing experiences . 

I know a lot of LDS that feel something is going to happen, but it doesn't happen. For example, someone felt that he was going to become a zone leader (he told me at that time), but he never was called as a zone leader. 

 

When the revelation is accurate, they share it. 

When it is not accurate, they forget about it. 

 

Miracles 

 

I think everybody agrees that miracles (rare event) happen.

In sports, miracles happen too during a game. Remember the patriots vs sea hawks game? or USA vs Portugal in the world cup? We experience a lot events in our lives, some of them are going to look special.

 

President Boyd K. Packer said, “I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently"

 

I am familiar with the gainsayers who will come out with really lame excuses for why it wasn't the Spirit.  But I know differently.

I am not saying that, but I don't know that. I am glad you know, good for you. As for me, I hope the Holy Ghost is real, but I don't have a clear testimony yet. I trained my brain against patternicity. 

 

PS I said memory is not always 100% accurate. 

Edited September 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

so no response? It will be nice

Edited September 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stargazer]

Memory 

Memory is not always reliable. Detectives know that. Why do you think multiple accounts about the same event contradict each other?

I am not saying that it was not the spirit, I hope it was, all I am saying is that memory is not always reliable. 

 

 

<snip />

 

 

President Boyd K. Packer said, “I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently"

 

I am not saying that, but I don't know that. I am glad you know, good for you. As for me, I hope the Holy Ghost is real, but I don't have a clear testimony yet. I trained my brain against patternicity. 

 

PS I said memory is not always 100% accurate. 

 

You're making emphasis about memory, and I don't understand it.  My memory of these very distinctive events is extremely vivid, primarily because of their simplicity. And trust me, my memory of them is 100% accurate.  The thing about this is that the Spirit seems to make it memorable.  Or so my experience leads me to conclude.