Confirmation through the spirit or feelings?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Subjectivity to the observer is different than subjectivity to the receiver.

Not in my mind.

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

What Joseph experienced in the grove wasn't subjective to him.

Yes it was, and to whoever else experienced that with him. All anyone else has to go on is their word.

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

  But how I interpret what he said happened is subjective to me.  And I happen to believe him.

Me too.

[Kenngo1969]

17 hours ago, Mars said:

and i'm fine totally fine with that.

Is that like being, "Bond.  James Bond"?  

Sorry.  Couldn't resist!  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Erika Henderson said:

Thanks mfbukowski!  btw...my maiden name was Latschkowski!  maybe we are related? 

LOL- yeah there are only 39 million people in Poland so it is probably pretty likely! Seriously, I was over there 2 years ago- it is a beautiful beautiful place!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yes and there is nothing wrong with that.

Everything is subjective.  Even what someone thinks is objective.

Everything WE CAN KNOW is "in our heads" and therefore subjective to some degree.  Even the fact that you learned about Antarctica- an objective fact- in third grade in your school and I learned about it in fourth grade from Sister Mary Cletus and St Christoper school changes my understanding of Antartica from your understanding even though we both know about Antarctica "objectively".   Your understanding and mine are different.  I know things objectively you cannot know and vice versa, - no two people can have the same experience because we have two different perspectives, two different bodies, brains, eyes, ears, etc.   I know what you mean but if you tell people just "everything is subjective" they will bring up the brain in a vat thing and think you are contradicting yourself in thinking that even if you fall off a cliff, the cliff is subjective.  Cliffs are not subjective, which of course you know!

Gotta watch the semantics- it will confuse discussions every bloomin time!

Your personal EXPERIENCE of falling off the cliff is subjective but the cliff of course is not.  When we jump together, I will not see YOUR life flash through my mind, but both of our subjective experiences will stop at the same time.  and hopefully resume immediately from a different perspective, still subjective.

I still will not know what your spirit knows when we are both spirits, but it sure will be easier to communicate without words, or at least that is what I think!

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Everything WE CAN KNOW is "in our heads" and therefore subjective to some degree.  Even the fact that you learned about Antarctica- an objective fact- in third grade in your school and I learned about it in fourth grade from Sister Mary Cletus and St Christoper school changes my understanding of Antartica from your understanding even though we both know about Antarctica "objectively".   Your understanding and mine are different.  I know things objectively you cannot know and vice versa, - no two people can have the same experience because we have two different perspectives, two different bodies, brains, eyes, ears, etc.   I know what you mean but if you tell people just "everything is subjective" they will bring up the brain in a vat thing and think you are contradicting yourself in thinking that even if you fall off a cliff, the cliff is subjective.  Cliffs are not subjective, which of course you know!

Gotta watch the semantics- it will confuse discussions every bloomin time!

Your personal EXPERIENCE of falling off the cliff is subjective but the cliff of course is not.  When we jump together, I will not see YOUR life flash through my mind, but both of our subjective experiences will stop at the same time.  and hopefully resume immediately from a different perspective, still subjective.

I still will not know what your spirit knows when we are both spirits, but it sure will be easier to communicate without words, or at least that is what I think!

 

Point taken and given.

I meant something more like:

Everything is experienced subjectively, including what some people call objective reality.

I try to be precise but I appreciate brevity too.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Everything WE CAN KNOW is "in our heads" and therefore subjective.   I know what you mean but if you tell people just "everything is subjective" they will bring up the brain in a vat thing and think you are contradicting yourself in thinking that even if you fall off a cliff, the cliff is subjective.  Cliffs are not subjective, which of course you know!

Gotta watch the semantics- it will confuse discussions every bloomin time!

Your personal EXPERIENCE of falling off the cliff is subjective but the cliff of course is not.  When we jump together, I will not see YOUR life flash through my mind, but both of our subjective experiences will stop at the same time.  and hopefully resume immediately from a different perspective, still subjective.

I still will not know what your spirit knows when we are both spirits, but it sure will be easier to communicate without words, or at least that is what I think!

I sometimes think of this in terms of D&C 93:33-35. “…man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God…”

The element is the non-subjective component. As the “tabernacle” it is the object, or the thing “outside” of the spirit. When separated, man [the spirit] cannot receive a fullness of joy, joy being subjective experience. Element is only acted upon, and as an objective thing cannot have a subjective experience.

Relatively speaking, man [the spirit] is the tabernacle of God [Spirit of truth] because while His light is in and through all things (D&C 88:6), including the spirit of man, He also gave us our agency. His light enables Him to understand our subjective experience, but His gift of agency enables us to act outside Him if we so choose (but to the decree we do so, “whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple”).

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Physicality would be the most likely.  (D&C 129).

 

Philosophizing away reality is a fun exercise but serves little purpose.  If it is impossible to determine reality then our very existence could be the dream of some flying spaghetti monster in the Andromeda galaxy.  And that galaxy may only exist in a child's imagination on a plain of pure energy.

At some point, there is real and there is dream.  And of course perception matters, but I think it is a big stretch if you "stick your finger in the mirage" and discover it is real water to claim that the existence of that water remains subjective.

Oh gosh

Of little importance to you but our entire faith hangs on the "reality" of Joseph's vision and you think it is not important to be able to communicate that clearly to others?

The mere fact that this thread exists proves the confusion around this question.

I think you are wrong.

CLEARLY the water exists independent of human thought but YOUR perception of the water does not, and your saying something about the water being "real" or not is dependent on what is going in IN YOUR HEAD.

The decision to write your post was IN YOUR HEAD as were the words you chose to write.

Probably you have never heard this before even though every single post I make has something to do with this:

Quote

 

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

To say the the water is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say with common sense, that it is in space and time and is the effect of a cause which did not include human mental states.

To SAY anything about water or mirages and their "reality" is "subjective" is to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages and human languages are human creations.

Remember the tower of Babel story??  Language was confounded.

Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot.

Try to dispute this, please.

No one can.  

On this hangs the reality and importance of religion itself.  

All of religion (ours) hangs on NOT seeing "things as they are".  If you want to argue we DO see "things as they are" and that Joseph's vision was therefore an illusion, - because I also cannot see HIS vision,- you are denying the faith.

In a nice way of course.   (just making a point- I know you do not deny the faith but are a strong defender of it- I just want to challenge your understanding a bit!)

 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Physicality would be the most likely.  (D&C 129).

This precisely leaves out spirit visitations which are not "physical", without physical bodies.  Visitation or illusion or vision?  I cannot hallucinate a vision of a spirit "in glory?"

How am I supposed to know what that looks like?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I was just learning about some studies around people that believe in ghosts and the paranormal that I think is similar to what you're saying.  The people who believe in ghosts are more likely to experience phenomena that confirm that belief.  Confirmation bias is at work here.  Do I think their experiences are actually, "real" or not, I would say that they are real.  Because even though we can't measure the phenomena scientifically, we can measure the responses that the person is experiencing, and those responses (increased heart rate, perspiration, fainting, fear, etc) are real and measurable for those persons.  

I find this similar to the questions about God and religion.  I think what people experience is real to them and all of what they experience can be measured and has a real impact on the lives of people.  This doesn't however mean that we can objectively say that we know God exists or that religions have power and authority from any divine source.  I don't think there is any evidence to objectively make that kind of argument.  However, this doesn't mean that God isn't real, or that religion isn't real.  Its real for the people that believe it. 

Dunno if you will understand these words but physical descriptions of brainstates must always leave out the most important part- their phenomenology

Read this if you really care, though I am ;positive you have not read this before though I have given it to you

Watershed paper on the subject- quoted everywhere:  http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

 

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Point taken and given.

I meant something more like:

Everything is experienced subjectively, including what some people call objective reality.

I try to be precise but I appreciate brevity too.

There it is- you've got it.  That says it better than I did. 

For me what makes the subjective "objective" is two or more witnesses.  That is what that rule is for.  If I see a pink elephant, it could be a hallucination.  If we both see it, it is "objective" to some degree, but still in the category of Sasquatch or flying saucers.

If many many people see it and publish papers about it, we call that "science"- but it is still a bunch of personal experiences.   The more who experience what is described as the "same" experience, the more "objective" it becomes.

It is almost as if the majority rules on the issue of what is "objective"

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

...water exists independent of human thought but YOUR perception of the water does not, and your saying something about the water being "real" or not is dependent on what is going in IN YOUR HEAD.

The decision to write your post was IN YOUR HEAD as were the words you chose to write.

...human mental states.

...

Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there...

I just want to challenge your understanding a bit!)

For sake of clarity please refer to what is in our mind as what is in our spirit, rather than what is in our head.  Our brain is not what gives us our understanding, otherwise we would understand nothing when we are dead. So it is our own mind, which is our own spirit, that gives us our understanding. And it works best when our own spirit communes or communicates with the spirit of our Father or the Holy Ghost.

And please also realize that truth is out there because truth is not dependent on being formed into sentences. Truth is reality, or things as they are or were or will be.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I sometimes think of this in terms of D&C 93:33-35. “…man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God…”

 

The element is the non-subjective component. As the “tabernacle” it is the object, or the thing “outside” of the spirit. When separated, man [the spirit] cannot receive a fullness of joy, joy being subjective experience. Element is only acted upon, and as an objective thing cannot have a subjective experience.

 

Relatively speaking, man [the spirit] is the tabernacle of God [Spirit of truth] because while His light is in and through all things (D&C 88:6), including the spirit of man, He also gave us our agency. His light enables Him to understand our subjective experience, but His gift of agency enables us to act outside Him if we so choose (but to the decree we do so, “whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple”).

 

Love it- yes!

The glory of God is intelligence, namely light and truth- or direct experience of "things as they are"- NOT "things as spoken"

God's intelligence permeates space and organizes it into "objective"reality- common sense perception of tables and chairs - from matter unorganized.

Element and spirit matter are one and so the element obeys perfectly but does not act on its own- we have agency, and so like God we can act for ourselves and even disobey God.

God and we both can organize matter - we build houses, he builds universes.  The element "obeys" us as we use intelligence to make plans for the house, physically gather the materials, physically move them and put them together through our combination of physicality and spirit, as one "soul"- we ourselves are element and spirit agents who can act for ourselves.  So we physically move stuff around, but at least it is still there when we come back, so it sort of "obeys" us as well.   Houses only fly away into entropy in case of tornadoes, etc, but it is still a possibility! 

God can simply do it by his Word, but we do that also through our words.

Science can be seen as the organization of worlds (think of astronomy) through words.   We make many individual observations, publish papers (words) and organize the heavens, at least for our observational purposes, by naming nebulae, stars etc.- this by our intelligence reaching into space and organizing our mental observations.

I like astronomy as an example because NONE OF IT IS REAL.  

Astronomy is about observations of perceptions themselves- what we see is what happened in some cases millions of year ago, and none of it is "as it is" right now.  So it really makes it plain that science is about categorizing NOT things as they are, but things as we perceive them

Astronomy erases the appearance/reality distinction and we readily suspend that distinction with clear knowledge that what we call "reality" is not "reality" at all!!

It is like this for all sciences, but astronomy makes it totally clear that all we have are observations to work with- not necessarily reality.

God "called" the light and the dark a "day" - the "first day," "second day" and so forth and so defined simple light and dark into what we now see as a "calendar"

Note how in the temple, God "calls" objects into existence by defining them.  Note also there are specific terms for bringing plants and then animals and then humans into existence.

There are different terms used for each stage of creation- which I will not quote here.  But elements he always "calls" into existence by creating words for them.

And mankind requires a personal visitation emphasized by the fake question "Is man found on the earth?" - which of course He knew- just to draw attention to the fact that man required a special creation or allegorically, is a different kind of being than the elements, plants, or creatures.

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, Ahab said:

For sake of clarity please refer to what is in our mind as what is in our spirit, rather than what is in our head.  Our brain is not what gives us our understanding, otherwise we would understand nothing when we are dead. So it is our own mind, which is our own spirit, that gives us our understanding. And it works best when our own spirit communes or communicates with the spirit of our Father or the Holy Ghost.

And please also realize that truth is out there because truth is not dependent on being formed into sentences. Truth is reality, or things as they are or were or will be.

Nope

My job is to teach agnostics, not members.  Members should already understand the terminology.   If I speak that way, agnostics will run the other way.  These are two different languages.

I agree that scripturally truth is things as they are- or direct experience and non-linguistic.  But non-linguistic reality cannot be spoken of in language, by definition. We won't get far on that discussion I am afraid.  I know what you mean but it cannot be said so that anyone but you and me will understand what our language is.  They will think the words mean something other than what they mean to us.  This applies to all discourse among members.  We speak a special language.

That's both the good news and the bad news.  We understand each other, but no one else does.

Edited April 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope

My job is to teach agnostics, not members.  Members should already understand the terminology.   If I speak that way, agnostics will run the other way.  These are two different languages.

I agree that scripturally truth is things as they are- or direct experience and non-linguistic.  But non-linguistic reality cannot be spoken of in language, by definition. We won't get far on that discussion I am afraid.  I know what you mean but it cannot be said so that anyone but you and me will understand what our language is.  They will think the words mean something other than what they mean to us.  This applies to all discourse among members.  We speak a special language.

That's both the good news and the bad news.  We understand each other, but no one else does.

Short version now:

Please say "what is in your mind" instead of saying "what is in your head".

And please speak of truth as something that exists independent of sentences.

I seriously doubt that agnostics would have any problem with understanding those concepts. They are not that stupid. And the language would be more precise.

 

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Short version now:

Please say "what is in your mind" instead of saying "what is in your head".

And please speak of truth as something that exists independent of sentences.

I seriously doubt that agnostics would have any problem with understanding those concepts. They are not that stupid. And the language would be more precise.

 

Yes on one

No on two.  Truth does not exist exist at all independent of truth claims.  And in fact agnostics and atheists make the following points all the time.  Did you read the Rorty quote?

Virtually all contemporary Mormon philosophers subscribe to a philosophy called "phenomenology" which also requires the view that truth depends on interpretation of language.

There are no true chairs or tables or churches, there are only true or false beliefs.  Language cannot correspond to the world because it cannot be shown to correspond to it.  If truth exists independent of language it cannot be shown to be "true"- no definition of truth is possible.   I am not going to get into that with you but I will supply you with references if you like- here is one  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Hope you can follow this.  It debunks your common sense view.

Refute this, publish it, and get instant fame.

Quote

 

7.2 Objection #2: Correspondence

It is often said that what is most obvious about truth is that truth consists in correspondence to the facts — for example, that the truth of the proposition that the earth revolves around the sun consists in its correspondence to the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. The so-called correspondence theory of truth is built around this intuition, and tries to explain the notion of truth by appeal to the notions of correspondence and fact. Even if one does not build one's theory of truth around this intuition however, many philosophers regard it as a condition of adequacy on any theory of truth that the theory accommodates the correspondence intuition.

It is often objected to deflationism, however, that the doctrine has particular trouble meeting this adequacy condition. One way to bring out the problem here is by focusing on a particular articulation of the correspondence intuition, an articulation favoured by deflationists themselves (Horwich 1998b). According to this way of spelling it out, the intuition that a certain sentence or proposition ‘corresponds to the facts’ is the intuition that the sentence or proposition is true because of a certain way the world is; that is, the truth of the proposition is explained by some contingent fact which is usually external to the proposition itself. We might express this by saying that someone who endorses the correspondence intuition so understood would endorse:

(8) The proposition that snow is white is true because snow is white

Now, the problem with (8) is that, when we combine it with the deflationary theory-or at least with a necessary version of that theory-we can derive something that is plainly false. Someone who holds a necessary version of deflationism would clearly be committed to the necessary truth of:

(9) The proposition that snow is white is true iff snow is white.

And, since (9) is a necessary truth, it is very plausible to suppose that (8) and (9) together entail:

(10) Snow is white because snow is white.

Unfortunately, however, (10) is false. The reason is that the relation reported by ‘because’ in (8) and (10) is a causal or explanatory relation, and such relations must obtain between distinct relata. But the relata in (10) are (obviously) not distinct. Hence (10) is false. But this means that the conjunction of (8) and (9) must be false, and that deflationism is inconsistent with the correspondence intuition. To borrow a phrase of Mark Johnston's — who mounts a similar argument in a different context — we might put the point differently by saying that, if deflationism is true, then what seems to be a perfectly good explanation in (8) goes missing; if deflationism is true, after all, then (8) is equivalent to (10), and (10) is not an explanation of anything.

How might a deflationist respond to this objection? One response is to provide a different articulation of the correspondence intuition. For example, one might point out that the connection between the proposition that snow is white and snow's being white is not a contingent connection, and suggest that this rules out (8) as a successful articulation of the correspondence intuition. That intuition (one might continue) is more plausibly given voice by (8*):

(8*) ‘Snow is white’ is true because snow is white.

However, when (8*) is conjoined with (9), one cannot derive the problematic (10), and thus, one might think, the objection from correspondence might be avoided. Now certainly this is a possible suggestion; the problem with it, however, is that a deflationist who thinks that (8*) is true is most plausibly construed as holding a sententialist, rather than a propositionalist, version of deflationism. A sententialist version of deflationism, on the other hand, will in turn supply a version of (9), viz.:

(9*) ‘Snow is white’ is true iff snow is white

which, at least it is interpreted as a necessary truth, will conspire with (8*) to yield (10). And we are back where we started.

Another response would be to object that ‘because’ creates an opaque context — that is, the kind of context within which one cannot substitute co-referring expressions and preserve truth. If ‘because’ creates an opaque context, then it would be illegitimate to suppose that (8) and (9) entail (10). This too is a possibility; however, it is not clear that ‘because’ creates opaque context of the right kind. In general we can distinguish two kinds of opaque context: intensional contexts, which allow the substitution of necessarily co-referring expressions but not contingently co-referring expressions; and hyper-intensional contexts, which do not even allow the substitution of necessarily co-referring expressions. If the inference from (8) and (9) to (10) is to be successfully blocked, it is necessary that ‘because’ creates a hyper-intensional context. However, it is open to a friend of the correspondence objection to argue that, while ‘because’ creates an intensional context, it does not create a hyper-intensional context.

A final, and most radical, response would be to reject the correspondence intuition outright. This response is not in fact as drastic as it sounds. In particular, the deflationist does not have to say that someone who says ‘the proposition that snow is white corresponds to the facts’ is speaking falsely. Deflationists would do better to say that such a person is simply using a picturesque or ornate way of saying that the proposition is true, where truth is understood in accordance with the deflationary theory. Indeed, the deflationist can even agree that for certain rhetorical or conversational purposes, it might be more effective to use the ‘correspondence to the facts’ talk. Nevertheless, it is important to see that this response does involve a burden, since it involves rejecting a condition of adequacy that many regard as binding on a theory of truth

 

Saying essentially the same thing, 

Quote

 

Vagueness or circularity[edit]

Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or he or she does not.

If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It is difficult to see how a candidate truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.

On the other hand, as soon as the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, he or she is operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But the only way to support the truth of this theory of the world that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is circular.[7]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth#Objections

If truth is in the world "as it is" outside perceptions and language- how do we get "outside" perceptions and language to verify truth?

We do not see "things as they are" we see through a glass darkly and cannot get to things as they are to compare them to words- and words cannot correspond to things as they are.

Direct perception by the spirit of God- or for that matter the color "red" would be necessary to establish the truth of anything

Imagine an argument between two blind people about whether or not the car is red or green and you will see the argument instantly hopefully.  Neither can get outside their blindness to verify the "world as it is"- they would have to rely on the descriptions of others- language- and what they say to decide if the correct color was red or green.  For them the truth of the issue is found in sentences because they cannot get outside their lack of ability to perceive

Likewise, we cannot speak of things as they are- we can only speak in language, and language is not "things as they are"

"Truth" is a word which describes a sentence.  Words cannot correspond to things as they are.  In church I say "the church is true" all the time because we know that means essentially that "I have a testimony that the church teaches true principles".   We are speaking Mormonese and we know what that means

But it does not communicate to agnostics or atheists at all.

Sorry if that still does not communicate to you-  I will have nothing more I can say on this particular topic- I have exhausted my ways of saying it, with the articles, Rorty, and my own writing.

No on two.

Edited April 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's something INTERNAL that applies to everyone INTERNALLY

Everyone wants internal peace.   Religion is about internal peace- nothing more nothing less.

Beliefs are inside us- where else to beliefs exist?  

Internal peace is individual and subjective. That's the ideal outcome for a spiritual practice like prayer.

But that's a far cry from trying to use prayer to figure out what the one authorized church of God is. 

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

Internal peace is individual and subjective. That's the ideal outcome for a spiritual practice like prayer.

But that's a far cry from trying to use prayer to figure out what the one authorized church of God is. 

This is totally incomprehensible to me and I cannot believe you think this way.

Who else would you ask about God than God? How about some guy on the street or a guy who wrote a book?  Hey he should know!

Seriously - please answer.  Why do you believe what you believe?  Did it come out of a book?  Why believe the book?

I feel like I am speaking to an alien intelligence- this is such a different way of seeing the world I cannot comprehend it. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And so is everyone else's.

Sorry to put it this way but you are confusing ontology with epistemology.   The question of what God has done objectively is irrelevant to humanity if we cannot know what he has done.

It has no significance in our lives

It is like saying that if Sargon Xpater on the planet Org which is 1 million light years from earth, has commanded that all in the universe obey him or he will destroy the universe, we are up the creek anyway because his objectively real pronouncement will fall on deaf human ears.  He will pull the trigger or maybe already has and we will know in 1 million years.

God is irrelevant to humans if he cannot communicate with us.

And the only way God communicates is through revelation and what beliefs seem to be "right" to us.

That is called "subjective experience".   Yes it would be simpler if he just appeared to everyone and told us what he wants, but that would be what LDS call "Satan's plan".

"Do what I say or else!"

The very suggestion of that assumption - that we are here to walk by faith- indicates that direct objective communication is NOT in the picture except perhaps to a few messengers who we have to accept by faith.

Regardless of His objectivity the only way we can KNOW God is subjectively and that totally cancels out his objective existence.

Feelings.

That's all we got by the very presupposition in the paradigm that we "walk by faith".  Call it whatever you like - that is semantics.  The bottom line is that it must be subjective if it is rooted in faith.   The issue goes to the consistency of the paradigm

If we walk by faith, communication with God has to be subjective and therefore everything we know about God has to be confirmed by faith and is subjective

History is irrelevant, science is irrelevant in the very paradigm of walking by faith, itself.   It is built into the system.  How many more times do I have to say it??

But here's the problem - you don't get confirmation of "objective facts" through a subjective, internal-only experience. That's like flipping to the local radio stations to find out what's going on in another galaxy. The subjective, internal experience of revelation tells you only things you already know at some level. When people try to use revelation to tell them facts about the world outside of their own head, they get a million different conflicting answers. That tells us that the experience isn't anything like getting a broadcast message from God that provides us with additional pieces of data we didn't have access to before.  Revelation allows us to sort the data we already have into something that meaningful to us. We can come up with moral insights, or insights into the next step in our own path. Subjectivey stuff, not objectivey stuff. 

The idea that if we were sure God existed then we wouldn't have agency may have some merit, but it doesn't exactly fit with traditional LDS beliefs about the pre-existence, where agency existed despite the direct presence of God. Not that you have to take the preexistence stuff literally, of course. 

The modern notion of "walking by faith" isn't intrinsic to the spiritual path, either. It seems to be necessary for those spiritual paths that teach that there is an invisible God doing invisible deeds. How else could you cultivate belief in those things without making a virtue of blind or semi-blind trust in the foundational stories? I'm not saying that anyone gets by without faith - even scientists have faith. But not every spiritual path requires the kind of blind faith that most Christian sects seem to say is a virtue. 

IS blind faith a virtue? I don't know, maybe, in some contexts. But it's also a liability. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If that was what he meant I would agree, but I'm not so sure it is.  Of course "sure knowledge" revelations are still personal to those who receive them and not transferrable to others.  That's just common sense.

Agreed, it's not the case for most.
However, I completely disagree when you say "an experience that is outside of the mind, then nothing like that has ever been confirmed to occur".

When the angel presented the plates to the 3 witnesses they physically handled the plates, turned the leaves, etc.
When Jacob "wrestled" with the Lord it was real enough that he dislocated a joint.
When John the Baptist ordained Joseph and Oliver he placed his hands on their heads, just as we do when we ordain.
When the Brother of Jared picked up the stones the finger of the Lord touched they were either actually glowing or they weren't.
When Moses parted the Red Sea the ground was either dry or it wasn't.
When Mary was taken away in the spirit and came back pregnant there was nothing inside her mind about that pregnancy.

These physical manifestations of God's power and existence represent a sure knowledge of the existence of God.  We either believe the people that record these events or we don't.  But they were not inside the mind.  D&C 129 wouldn't be necessary if every revelation was internal.

Now, you can argue that these events were illusory, and they only perceived a physical presence in their minds, but I see no evidence of that in their accounts that would lead me to believe these things were all internal.  If you are going to argue that we cannot tell the difference between dream and reality that's an entirely different issue with its own set of problems.

None of these events can be confirmed to have actually happened. That's the issue, JLHPROF. All of them are of questionable historical provenance. 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/3/2017 at 0:53 PM, Gray said:

Illustrating the problem with this method. 

Not trusting one's own perceptions is unfathomable to me.  What would that be like?

Wondering if one was constantly hallucinating?  Wondering if reality was real?  Wondering about if you were in pain when you thought you were in pain?   Of if you were "really" angry or hurt or at peace or ready to attack someone?

Is that what you are saying?  I cannot even comprehend the idea that one would not believe something because it was "subjective" and take some else's word for it.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is totally incomprehensible to me and I cannot believe you think this way.

Who else would you ask about God than God? How about some guy on the street or a guy who wrote a book?  Hey he should know!

Seriously - please answer.  Why do you believe what you believe?  Did it come out of a book?  Why believe the book?

I feel like I am speaking to an alien intelligence- this is such a different way of seeing the world I cannot comprehend it. 

Here's what's going on when you pray - you're not sending out a broadcast signal to God and God is not sending a message back in return. Prayer is like meditation. You're gathering your thoughts, you might experience a sense of elevation and peace. You can perhaps come up with some good spiritual insights. But God is not literally broadcasting messages into your brain, unless God is intentionally trying to confuse us all with contradictory messages. 

What I believe about prayer is based on observation. God doesn't literally broadcast messages into our brains. If he did the collective results of revelation would show some convergence along a particular path, instead of diverging down a million different paths. 

Instead we get no convergence about objective things, like what is the one true church of God. We get some convergence about subjective things, like how to treat your neighbor (not total convergence, but some grouping). It seems to me that's the evolutionary purpose of spirituality - it leads us to be better versions of ourselves, but it can also be manipulated to divide us up into little tribes. 

What I believe about the nature of God is based on the first time I heard a Rabbi talk about God as existence itself. That hit me like a ton of bricks, and it's the only theology that makes sense to me personally. I don't confuse that with a discrete message from God telling me that God is existence. That's not what revelation is. Revelation is spiritual insight, and it's totally subjective/internal. 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not trusting one's own perceptions is unfathomable to me.  What would that be like?

Wondering if one was constantly hallucinating?  Wondering if reality was real?  Wondering about if you were in pain when you thought you were in pain?   Of if you were "really" angry or hurt or at peace or ready to attack someone?

Is that what you are saying?  I cannot even comprehend the idea that one would not believe something because it was "subjective" and take some else's word for it.

There's a difference between perception of the outside world - what we can hear, taste, smell, see, touch - and own internal dialog that is constantly running. It would be foolish to assume every thought that runs through our heads is the infallible truth. That would be a kind of narcissism. 

When Ahab tells me he has gotten a revelation that the LDS Church is the one true church, I can certainly take his word for it that that was his internal experience. But that doesn't tell me anything about whether or not the LDS Church is the one true church.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

None of these events can be confirmed to have actually happened. That's the issue, JLHPROF. All of them are of questionable historical provenance.

So is the actual physical resurrection of Christ's body.

If we doubt that event why even bother with anything...

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

But here's the problem - you don't get confirmation of "objective facts" through a subjective, internal-only experience. That's like flipping to the local radio stations to find out what's going on in another galaxy. The subjective, internal experience of revelation tells you only things you already know at some level. When people try to use revelation to tell them facts about the world outside of their own head, they get a million different conflicting answers. That tells us that the experience isn't anything like getting a broadcast message from God that provides us with additional pieces of data we didn't have access to before.  Revelation allows us to sort the data we already have into something that meaningful to us. We can come up with moral insights, or insights into the next step in our own path. Subjectivey stuff, not objectivey stuff. 

The idea that if we were sure God existed then we wouldn't have agency may have some merit, but it doesn't exactly fit with traditional LDS beliefs about the pre-existence, where agency existed despite the direct presence of God. Not that you have to take the preexistence stuff literally, of course. 

The modern notion of "walking by faith" isn't intrinsic to the spiritual path, either. It seems to be necessary for those spiritual paths that teach that there is an invisible God doing invisible deeds. How else could you cultivate belief in those things without making a virtue of blind or semi-blind trust in the foundational stories? I'm not saying that anyone gets by without faith - even scientists have faith. But not every spiritual path requires the kind of blind faith that most Christian sects seem to say is a virtue. 

IS blind faith a virtue? I don't know, maybe, in some contexts. But it's also a liability. 

I have no trust in "foundational stories" whatsoever- I do not comprehend what that would be like.

Of course you get a million conflicting stories- that is called "education".  You go out of your way to FIND those stories so you can find what YOU BELIEVE YOURSELF.

I slogged through years of philosophical training looking for what seemed right to me, and I came up with my philosophical views because my own mind confirmed to me that those views were right

But it wasn't enough

In my heart I knew there was more out there, so I kept looking for a theology that fit with my beliefs.   I was still subjectively dissatisfied with the fullness of my beliefs- they were incomplete.

I found a theology which promotes the good of humanity and sees Man as the creator of the universe as we know it

It says we have always existed as individuals- a feeling I have had all my life.

It says that humans should be the best possible humans they can be and we must serve each other.   It says that God continues to teach us all every day of our lives and the only way we can know this is by continuing the search through our own study and experience- exactly what I had been doing for 30 years of my life before I found the theology

It is a materialist philosophy which does not confuse matter with spirit and vice-versa.   It is not dualistic

It affirms the reality of religious experience- many of which I have had in my life.  It affirms that if a belief "bears fruit" in your life- it can be justified as "true".

It is constructivist- that we as humans and God as a Human- organize reality from matter unorganized as we see it.  We create reality by knowing it.  We essentially create our own worlds as God has done.  We are born to be like him and it is our nature to be like Him and bloom like a silk worm into a butterfly.

Gold plates?  Sure why not?  Could God do that if he wanted to?  Why not?  It is not important to the philosophy of theistic humanism and materialism which promotes the idea that beliefs are true if they work in your life.  How that philosophy came about is irrelevant- it is the philosophy that matters.   I never worried about what discipline Kant did to come up with his philosophy or what it took to get him to sit at a table for hours and face the blank page and come up with something profound.

Seer stones?   I did some of my best thinking staring at waves on the ocean- if you want to contemplate the patterns on a rock or on papyri why not?

For me God is the Ideal Me- the ideal human, the best I can imagine.  I look into myself and see what I could do to become better and THAT ideal self is the being I communicate with.   Is it my unconscious?  No- it feels like it is outside me because it speaks things I do not know

I learn things as one does in meditation, by turning inward and listen to that person I hear who tells me all I need to know

As always, my way is my own, patched together from all those conflicting thoughts which make you so uncomfortable apparently and is purely subjective and my own world created from matter unorganized

Is it "subjective"?  I would hope so!  How else could I know it was true for me?

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

Here's what's going on when you pray - you're not sending out a broadcast signal to God and God is not sending a message back in return. Prayer is like meditation. You're gathering your thoughts, you might experience a sense of elevation and peace. You can perhaps come up with some good spiritual insights. But God is not literally broadcasting messages into your brain, unless God is intentionally trying to confuse us all with contradictory messages. 

What I believe about prayer is based on observation. God doesn't literally broadcast messages into our brains. If he did the collective results of revelation would show some convergence along a particular path, instead of diverging down a million different paths. 

Instead we get no convergence about objective things, like what is the one true church of God. We get some convergence about subjective things, like how to treat your neighbor (not total convergence, but some grouping). It seems to me that's the evolutionary purpose of spirituality - it leads us to be better versions of ourselves, but it can also be manipulated to divide us up into little tribes. 

What I believe about the nature of God is based on the first time I heard a Rabbi talk about God as existence itself. That hit me like a ton of bricks, and it's the only theology that makes sense to me personally. I don't confuse that with a discrete message from God telling me that God is existence. That's not what revelation is. Revelation is spiritual insight, and it's totally subjective/internal. 

God is inside me not outside me.  The kingdom of heaven is within

Meditation tells you nothing about science, I cannot comprehend how you think it should.

Why should you listen to some rabbi who knows no more than you do?

Quote

Here's what's going on when you pray - you're not sending out a broadcast signal to God and God is not sending a message back in return. Prayer is like meditation. You're gathering your thoughts, you might experience a sense of elevation and peace. You can perhaps come up with some good spiritual insights. But God is not literally broadcasting messages into your brain, unless God is intentionally trying to confuse us all with contradictory messages.

God does not send conflicting messages- the world does.  Conflicting messages are the matter unorganized we must organize into a world like unto the other worlds people have created for themselves as gods in embryo.

Some might seem God as their own unconscious but I see Him as an Other who teaches me, as you admit, "some good spiritual insights"

Why you would trust the philosophies of men above God within- your Best Self is incomprehensible to me, but thanks for the insight into another consciousness.

It is a rare opportunity to step into another's consciousness- thanks.   Your consciousness is about as far from mine as can be comprehended - yours is totally external.  You even see your consciousness projected onto external reality so that God is existence itself- the external it self

For you to learn about externals is to learn about God.

For me God is learning about myself.

Very interesting and thank you for the discussion.  I think it is clear we will never understand each other fully in this area.