Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"

[clarkgoble]

On 4/15/2017 at 9:11 PM, mfbukowski said:

But if there are such things as pre-linguistic "raw feels"- qualia- as Rorty would call perhaps the experience of surprise- then Rorty is wrong. He feels that qualia or raw feels are still linguistically contingent.  His view is more complex than this simple explanation but he would deny that there is any experience which is fully independent of linguistic contingency.  So I have always felt that this ultimately leads to full determinism which I see as incompatible with Mormonism- so this part of Rorty's position I have always rejected.

To me the biggest problem isn't just this problem of the extra-linguistical. It would mean that babies and dogs for instance don't have experiences which just seems silly to assert. It's that surprise and convergence can't be explained in terms of language. Not just that reality acts on us in unexpected ways but that people working independently can come to the same conclusions. I think Rorty's position largely comes out of a political conception which is why I raised the issue of the hard sciences (rather than psychology, which he did engage). I think he's right that often there's an indetermination between accounts such as he raises in Philosophy and the Mirrors of Nature. I just think he draws out the wrong lessons from that and that a closer reading of Peirce would have avoided those problems.

Quote

I think this was a misunderstanding- I was assuming a atheist stance here, trying to see how you would address it- the question essentially being how we rationally justify visions. My point was that people adopt only reproducible knowledge as reliable.  I have of course personally no problem with "the spirit" confirming spiritual matters- or your defense of your knowing what others may not know.  

To me the only issue is the issue of whether evidence has to be public to count as evidence. Some do indeed make that claim but as I said I think it an indefensible claim. Usually when I get in discussions with people on that point they either want to discuss my experiences (which with rare exceptions I refuse to discuss) or raise the "mental illness" canard without being able to explain how one can tell if one is mentally ill. 

Quote

I should have more direct with my question- it was really, and I have asked it before- how Perice would justify reports of Joseph's vision as "reliable" or "true" Again- I am trying to see if Peirce's view helps justify a Mormon position and I am still not seeing the answer.  I don't see how he helps the Mormon cause

I thought I'd answered that. Peirce recognizes belief as non-volitional. All we can do is determine where we focus our inquiries. That which we can not doubt as a practical matter we are unable to treat as anything but true. So I'd say that we should carefully investigate our experiences, look for repetition, attempt to falsify them, come up with alternative explanations and attempt to verify those. Yet if, giving it an honest attempt, we believe, then that is knowledge. The discussion really at best switches to what counts as ethically demanded inquiry. But to me while there's a great deal of variation and variety in religious experience we can discern patterns, habits, consequences and most importantly answers to prayers. When we do if we can't doubt, we know.

Quote

I would point to Dewey's "On Certainty" where he essentially- as I recall and I am probaby oversimplfying here to a fault- says that "knowledge" is a synonym for "certainty" and has nothing to do with "external reality" but with our psychological internal state of being certain about something whether or not it is even "true".  So "I know the church is true" is perhaps synonymous with something like "I am certain that the teachings of the church have helped my life"

He gets that point mostly from Peirce although Peirce demands different degrees of belief. We don't need absolute certainty to know. Further the feeling of certainty isn't a good gauge of whether we know since we ought also focus on how much inquiry we've done. Put an other way there's lots of careless shallow thinkers who feel confident but who have done such poor inquiry that their word is not trustworthy.

My view in all this isn't that all members have done their ethical duty in terms of inquiry. I rather doubt most have. Just that the Peircean stance explains how even uneducated lay members can say they know and be justified. It also shows how intellectual members who do focus more on inquiry can say they know and be justified.

Quote

But God's not being a "public object" is precisely THE problem and what differentiates it from "any communication".  Of course as a Mormon- I feel I "know God's voice" but my question is a philosophical justification 

Not being public just means not everyone knows, not that any particular person can't know. But I don't think this is that unique since of course many (most?) objects on at least practical grounds aren't public.

Quote

Mine would rely on a postmodern approach and a deflationary position on truth.  I don't think anything else works philosophically and we need something that works imo.

I ultimately reject the full throated deflationary position, although deflation ultimately is inspired by Peirce. While Peirce's position isn't deflationary the way say Fine's espistemology is deflationary it's deflationary in that it ends up being what statements are asserted "in the long run." So a type of translation is really what the reduction amounts to.

Most postmodern takes end up going even further than deflationary approaches. Often (IMO) they end up verging on relativism or nihilism. Of course I'd say some figures like Derrida who are caught up in that are merely misread. (The interview at the end of Limited Inc. is very helpful there) I also think those who remain closer to Heidegger or phenomenology don't reject truth.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I must be missing something key here as I'm not following your question or argument. The issue for anyone claiming facts whether by spiritual methods, scientific methods, or other methods is whether what is represented by the facts are themselves real. i.e. not dependent for their being upon the person thinking about them

The reason most people think Mormon claims are false (and by extension methodology unreliable) is because they don't think the objects are real. i.e. Nephites, god, miracles, etc. This seems fairly straightforward. I think those skeptics wrong although I can completely understand why they are skeptical.

I think most philosophies can. Rationalism died in philosophy centuries ago. Most dominant philosophies have to engage empiricism in various ways (whether Hegel, Kant, the Empricists or especially the pragmatists). I take spiritual manifestations to be empirical. My experiences certainly are.

So I think you're setting a pretty low bar. 

So you tell athiests that spiritual experiences are empirical, and real, and they immediately see the logic of your position?

I must be the one who missed something if you have shown that and your posts here. I missed where Peirce talks about the reality of visions.

Edited April 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To me the biggest problem isn't just this problem of the extra-linguistical. It would mean that babies and dogs for instance don't have experiences which just seems silly to assert. It's that surprise and convergence can't be explained in terms of language. Not just that reality acts on us in unexpected ways but that people working independently can come to the same conclusions. I think Rorty's position largely comes out of a political conception which is why I raised the issue of the hard sciences (rather than psychology, which he did engage). I think he's right that often there's an indetermination between accounts such as he raises in Philosophy and the Mirrors of Nature. I just think he draws out the wrong lessons from that and that a closer reading of Peirce would have avoided those problems.

To me the only issue is the issue of whether evidence has to be public to count as evidence. Some do indeed make that claim but as I said I think it an indefensible claim. Usually when I get in discussions with people on that point they either want to discuss my experiences (which with rare exceptions I refuse to discuss) or raise the "mental illness" canard without being able to explain how one can tell if one is mentally ill. 

I thought I'd answered that. Peirce recognizes belief as non-volitional. All we can do is determine where we focus our inquiries. That which we can not doubt as a practical matter we are unable to treat as anything but true. So I'd say that we should carefully investigate our experiences, look for repetition, attempt to falsify them, come up with alternative explanations and attempt to verify those. Yet if, giving it an honest attempt, we believe, then that is knowledge. The discussion really at best switches to what counts as ethically demanded inquiry. But to me while there's a great deal of variation and variety in religious experience we can discern patterns, habits, consequences and most importantly answers to prayers. When we do if we can't doubt, we know.

He gets that point mostly from Peirce although Peirce demands different degrees of belief. We don't need absolute certainty to know. Further the feeling of certainty isn't a good gauge of whether we know since we ought also focus on how much inquiry we've done. Put an other way there's lots of careless shallow thinkers who feel confident but who have done such poor inquiry that their word is not trustworthy.

My view in all this isn't that all members have done their ethical duty in terms of inquiry. I rather doubt most have. Just that the Peircean stance explains how even uneducated lay members can say they know and be justified. It also shows how intellectual members who do focus more on inquiry can say they know and be justified.

Not being public just means not everyone knows, not that any particular person can't know. But I don't think this is that unique since of course many (most?) objects on at least practical grounds aren't public.

I ultimately reject the full throated deflationary position, although deflation ultimately is inspired by Peirce. While Peirce's position isn't deflationary the way say Fine's espistemology is deflationary it's deflationary in that it ends up being what statements are asserted "in the long run." So a type of translation is really what the reduction amounts to.

Most postmodern takes end up going even further than deflationary approaches. Often (IMO) they end up verging on relativism or nihilism. Of course I'd say some figures like Derrida who are caught up in that are merely misread. (The interview at the end of Limited Inc. is very helpful there) I also think those who remain closer to Heidegger or phenomenology don't reject truth.

Ah ok, this is a much better explanation for me and thanks, now I think I understand you better

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So you tell athiests that spiritual experiences are empirical, and real, and they immediately see the logic of your position?

I must be the one who missed something if you have shown that and your posts here. I missed where Peirce talks about the reality of visions.

I think they see the logic of the position even if they disagree that people actually have had those experiences. We have to make a distinction there. My experience with hundreds of discussions like that is that their main move is to appeal to mental illness of some sort without being able to actually explain that.

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think they see the logic of the position even if they disagree that people actually have had those experiences. We have to make a distinction there. My experience with hundreds of discussions like that is that their main move is to appeal to mental illness of some sort without being able to actually explain that.

I agree that we should simply testify of what we know to be true and that others can usually see the logic in that, but I disagree that those who don't accept your (or anyone else's) testimony are trying to appeal to mental illness, if that is what you meant. I think they simply do not want to rely on hearsay, which I think is good, and I don't think they should, which is why I advise that they seek out their own experiences of the good things I have experienced.

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I agree that we should simply testify of what we know to be true and that others can usually see the logic in that, but I disagree that those who don't accept your (or anyone else's) testimony are trying to appeal to mental illness, if that is what you meant. I think they simply do not want to rely on hearsay, which I think is good, and I don't think they should, which is why I advise that they seek out their own experiences of the good things I have experienced.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying when I explain the logic of private experience to ground belief the usual move is to point to variants of mental illness to explain away my beliefs. I'm saying that based upon them explicitly raising mental illness. You can see an example of this over at the Mormon Discussions forum from a month or two ago.

Not believing on hearsay is of course fine. And in practice I think most people just discount testimony because they don't believe it. Which is fine. I was more referring to discussions of whether I am justified in my beliefs.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying when I explain the logic of private experience to ground belief the usual move is to point to variants of mental illness to explain away my beliefs. I'm saying that based upon them explicitly raising mental illness. You can see an example of this over at the Mormon Discussions forum from a month or two ago.

Interesting. I can't recall any time anyone objected to my testimony because they thought I had or might have a mental illness, and I think I would recall if it was a pattern. Usually it's the "I don't believe you" or "that's  (what they think is) unbelievable" kind of stuff and I just chalk that up to them not wanting to rely on hearsay.

What thread are you talking about "over at the Mormon Discussions forum"? Are you talking about this forum or some other forum?

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Interesting. I can't recall any time anyone objected to my testimony because they thought I had or might have a mental illness, and I think I would recall if it was a pattern. Usually it's the "I don't believe you" or "that's  (what they think is) unbelievable" kind of stuff and I just chalk that up to them not wanting to rely on hearsay.

What thread are you talking about "over at the Mormon Discussions forum"? Are you talking about this forum or some other forum?

There were several threads. I don't remember the names - I don't really go there anymore.

I think with regards to regular people they'd just see it as people misinterpreting their experiences. However when faced with someone who is careful about how one does that and is familiar with epistemology they go the other route. As I said, the main thing is they just dismiss the experiences. That's just harder to do in some cases.

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think they see the logic of the position even if they disagree that people actually have had those experiences. We have to make a distinction there. My experience with hundreds of discussions like that is that their main move is to appeal to mental illness of some sort without being able to actually explain that.

I've been following your discussion and found it fascinating.  

How would you answer this.  What if these visions/dreams/experiences can be explained as a higher function of the brain that may appear to the individual as being influenced by some external force.  You mentioned earlier that what caused the vision is the key, but couldn't we instead assume that natural forces are causing these visions? 

How would we ever be able to rule out the possibility of a supernatural force, science can't keep up with every creative claim of some supernatural cause.  I think this is why we'll always have superstition because no matter the advances of science to explain the phenomena around us and happening inside our brain, there will still be explanations that aren't completely satisfactory.

I would prefer it if religion went another direction, and this is the direction that I could see working in a modern world.  It would be a religion that is all about the experiences that people have and how these experiences transform the person in their life and the benefits of that transformation.  Religion doesn't need to have a supernatural God pulling strings, giving visions, producing miracles, in order to believe that God loves and that God wants us to be transformed.  I think we have everything we need for those transformational events already available without an active intervention from a supernatural deity.  

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by hope_for_things

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

How would we ever be able to rule out the possibility of a supernatural force, science can't keep up with every creative claim of some supernatural cause.  I think this is why we'll always have superstition because no matter the advances of science to explain the phenomena around us and happening inside our brain, there will still be explanations that aren't completely satisfactory.

I think that's the general consensus of most evolutionary psychology approaches to religion. It's normal cognitive behavior incentivizing certain conclusions. Scott Atran's In Gods We Trust is arguably the best book in that genre. One example might be it's agency detection gone astray. From an evolutionary perspective false positives have little cost but a false negative can lead to your death if you miss identifying a predator. So there's an intrinsic bias towards false positive detection.

The problem is this breaks down if the people in question are aware of such things and attempting to discern if that's what's going on. Put an other way, this might explain certain classes of religious experience I don't think it can explain the types of narrow claims I'd be willing to defend.

Quote

It would be a religion that is all about the experiences that people have and how these experiences transform the person in their life and the benefits of that transformation.  Religion doesn't need to a supernatural God is pulling strings, giving visions, producing miracles, in order to believe that God loves and that God wants us to be transformed.

That is more or less William James approach such as in The Varieties of Religious Experience. I admit I have some problems with that in that I think it matters what the causes of experience are. Further if people take their experiences as models for others the causes matter a great deal. After all religion isn't merely transformative to the individual but often makes claims about costly or even dangerous behaviors.

 

 

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've been following your discussion and found it fascinating.  

How would you answer this.  What if these visions/dreams/experiences can be explained as a higher function of the brain that may appear to the individual as being influenced by some external force.  You mentioned earlier that what caused the vision is the key, but couldn't we instead assume that natural forces are causing these visions? 

How would we ever be able to rule out the possibility of a supernatural force, science can't keep up with every creative claim of some supernatural cause.  I think this is why we'll always have superstition because no matter the advances of science to explain the phenomena around us and happening inside our brain, there will still be explanations that aren't completely satisfactory.

I would prefer it if religion went another direction, and this is the direction that I could see working in a modern world.  It would be a religion that is all about the experiences that people have and how these experiences transform the person in their life and the benefits of that transformation.  Religion doesn't need to have a supernatural God pulling strings, giving visions, producing miracles, in order to believe that God loves and that God wants us to be transformed.  I think we have everything we need for those transformational events already available without an active intervention from a supernatural deity.  

There is no such thing as a supernatural deity.  How many more times do you need to hear that we are already the same kind of being our Father is?

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that's the general consensus of most evolutionary psychology approaches to religion. It's normal cognitive behavior incentivizing certain conclusions. Scott Atran's In Gods We Trust is arguably the best book in that genre. One example might be it's agency detection gone astray. From an evolutionary perspective false positives have little cost but a false negative can lead to your death if you miss identifying a predator. So there's an intrinsic bias towards false positive detection.

The problem is this breaks down if the people in question are aware of such things and attempting to discern if that's what's going on. Put an other way, this might explain certain classes of religious experience I don't think it can explain the types of narrow claims I'd be willing to defend.

Thanks for the book recommendation, I will put that on my wish list.  

Would you be willing to explain or give an example why this explanation wouldn't work for all religious experience claims, to help me understand why you see a problem for some more narrow claims? 

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That is more or less William James approach such as in The Varieties of Religious Experience. I admit I have some problems with that in that I think it matters what the causes of experience are. Further if people take their experiences as models for others the causes matter a great deal. After all religion isn't merely transformative to the individual but often makes claims about costly or even dangerous behaviors.

Precisely why I see danger in organized religion as these claims about behaviors often have very negative consequences for individuals and groups of people.  This is something I was trying to start earlier, a type of cost/benefit analysis of organized religion in general and Mormonism in specific.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There is no such thing as a supernatural deity.  How many more times do you need to hear that we are already the same kind of being our Father is?

Currently I lean towards this definition of God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

But, my paradigm has been changing a lot in the past few years.  Some days I'm more agnostic than others.  

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Currently I lean towards this definition of God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

But, my paradigm has been changing a lot in the past few years.  Some days I'm more agnostic than others.  

In my paradigm I think that equates to you, as the same kind of being our Father is, thinking that everything else, even a rock or the slime of a snake, has what you are and what our Father is within it.

I think that makes a pretty good case for the fact that some people are just wrong about what God really is.

 

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the book recommendation, I will put that on my wish list.  

Would you be willing to explain or give an example why this explanation wouldn't work for all religious experience claims, to help me understand why you see a problem for some more narrow claims? 

Precisely why I see danger in organized religion as these claims about behaviors often have very negative consequences for individuals and groups of people.  This is something I was trying to start earlier, a type of cost/benefit analysis of organized religion in general and Mormonism in specific.  

For an example if I receive a clear quasi-verbal warning not to go some place and then find out there really was danger there, it's hard to explain by these schemes. If this happens several times with similar qualities to the phenomena it's hard to see it as illegitimate.

Likewise I don't think Joseph's visits from Moroni could be explained by evolutionary psychology. Thus the tendency of critics to raise the mental illness model. After all if it isn't legitimate then the only real choices are some kind of delusion or fraud.

The example I frequently use is from my mission where an investigator would dream about what he'd read the following day in the Book of Mormon. Assuming he was honest in how he told us about it, that first off is a dream with information that he didn't possess that was verified during his reading. 

I think religion can be costly, which is why it's important to find out if it's true. I don't think Mormonism is that costly beyond the tithe and the opportunity cost of doing callings. The one exception at this point is the danger if you have a child who is homosexual. Right now I would fully concede there are difficult to quantify dangers to their mental health. I hope the brethren come up with some answers there - I think they actually are trying quite hard. But they're also working against culture with an intrinsic view of homosexuality that makes it very difficult for them.

This isn't to say they're wrong in the policies - short of a pretty significant revelation I don't think they have a lot of choice. It's just that I think we ought recognize the very real costs this can entail.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

In my paradigm I think that equates to you, as the same kind of being our Father is, thinking that everything else, even a rock or the slime of a snake, has what you are and what our Father is within it.

I think that makes a pretty good case for the fact that some people are just wrong about what God really is.

 

One of the problems I have with thinking of God as Father is it comes across to judgmental and patriarchal.  I liked this recent discussion of God as Abba, or papa, and not necessarily gendered either.  

http://www.mormonmatters.org/2017/03/09/372-jesus-abba-the-god-who-has-not-failed/

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

For an example if I receive a clear quasi-verbal warning not to go some place and then find out there really was danger there, it's hard to explain by these schemes. If this happens several times with similar qualities to the phenomena it's hard to see it as illegitimate.

There are many memory biases that could influence this.  But I won't rule out the possibility that a person having this warning is also tapping into some knowledge that he/she is consciously unaware or and can't explain.  There are more forces than just what our 5 senses can actively detect.  

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Likewise I don't think Joseph's visits from Moroni could be explained by evolutionary psychology. Thus the tendency of critics to raise the mental illness model. After all if it isn't legitimate then the only real choices are some kind of delusion or fraud.

Why can't the Moroni visits be explained this way?  Lets not assume the pejorative of mental illness or fraud.  Why not just mental processes at play?  Why not Joseph creating the plates through a materialization of the physical to match his vision? 

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think religion can be costly, which is why it's important to find out if it's true. I don't think Mormonism is that costly beyond the tithe and the opportunity cost of doing callings. The one exception at this point is the danger if you have a child who is homosexual. Right now I would fully concede there are difficult to quantify dangers to their mental health. I hope the brethren come up with some answers there - I think they actually are trying quite hard. But they're also working against culture with an intrinsic view of homosexuality that makes it very difficult for them.

Yes, thank you for the honesty about the costs, I give you kudos for that, as not everyone is willing to be that objective.   LGBT, women, other races and cultures, fear of the "world" (Uchtdoft address was a breath of fresh air), literalism & fundamentalism, not apologizing for past mistakes formally, lack of transparency, immature relationship development and human development, I could go on but these are just a few.

I could also make a nice positive list of benefits as well. This weighing of pros and cons is where I'm at with evaluating my relationship with the institution.  I can find positive reasons to stay engaged, but I wonder if I'm compromising principles by doing so and whether there is a net negative result to my association.  This is the primary reason I'm no longer contributing financially as I find that too problematic, but I'm still evaluating whether my involvement beyond the financial is the ethical choice.  Its a difficult proposition, and this is outside all the truth claims entirely.  

 

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

One of the problems I have with thinking of God as Father is it comes across to judgmental and patriarchal.  I liked this recent discussion of God as Abba, or papa, and not necessarily gendered either.  

http://www.mormonmatters.org/2017/03/09/372-jesus-abba-the-god-who-has-not-failed/

I think that problem is a problem that stems from those who think there is something wrong with our Father being judgmental or patriarchal. 

Our Dad loves us and it isn't his problem that we, or some of us, don't love him.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Ahab

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There are many memory biases that could influence this.  But I won't rule out the possibility that a person having this warning is also tapping into some knowledge that he/she is consciously unaware or and can't explain.  There are more forces than just what our 5 senses can actively detect.  

Well I'm again assuming people are portraying their experiences accurately. I think a constant problem is exaggeration or distortion by memory as the experience is further in the past. That's why I tend to look more askance at distant memories.

However for the phenomena of a verbal warning, I'm not sure how to explain that as a memory bias while thinking about it at the time. As a memory, I think you're completely right and it's not hard to have false memories. Especially if tired or stressed. We also know that memories are stored in a fragmentary way. Further when revived the memory is resaved somewhat over the original memory but in the newly constituted form. So memory is dangerous. That's why a testimony always has to be a live testimony. If you don't continue to have new spiritual experiences as you remember your old experiences they are transformed. Over time, especially if you have doubts, they can be significantly reconstituted and explained away. 

Quote

Why can't the Moroni visits be explained this way?  Lets not assume the pejorative of mental illness or fraud.  Why not just mental processes at play?  Why not Joseph creating the plates through a materialization of the physical to match his vision? 

I'm not aware of any normal cognitive process that would provide an auditory and visual manifestation that looks real. That's a hallucination if not real. Likewise Joseph creating the plates would be fraud if he knows he made them and tells people he didn't.
 

Quote

LGBT, women, other races and cultures, fear of the "world" (Uchtdoft address was a breath of fresh air), literalism & fundamentalism, not apologizing for past mistakes formally, lack of transparency, immature relationship development and human development, I could go on but these are just a few.

I'm not sure I'd see all those as equal costs or even agree with the characterization. But that's neither here nor there. Certainly if you are in a ward with racist or sexist elements that's a cost. But if you are in a ward with people you hate that's a cost too. I'm not sure those are universal enough to count. Likewise while some feminists might see the endowment or male priesthood offices as a cost, I don't think most Mormon women agree. So I have a harder time seeing those as costs. At best it's a small probability for a cost.  And as you note there are benefits as well.

Of course I think most members are members not because of benefits or costs but because they think it is true.

Edited April 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think most members are members not because of benefits or costs but because they think it is true.

Not only true but good, with that being the primary concern, I think, otherwise what would be the appeal of those benefits?

I notice often that we mention knowing what is "true" a lot more than we mention knowing what is good, and I often wonder why that is.

Evil is or at least can be true or real too so what we should want is truth that is good in some way, rather than just truth or what is true, in general.

[mfbukowski]

Since I am focused on the internal experience of God, I know that I experience Him as external to myself, but I of course cannot give evidence that He is not "actually" some type of Freudian Super-ego totally within me.

When I pray, am I talking to my own unconscious?

There is no basis for a way to know that, and that is why I find "evidence" as totally irrelevant for the existence of God. Perhaps in terms of evolutionary psychology we are all programmed by the universe randomly to believe in a god-force as a psychological need, perhaps as a societal need or part of an evolved morality that has evolved because peaceful tame societies have more time to nurture children, not lose population in useless wars etc. This kind of idea appears in "The God Gene"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene Living in a peaceful society clearly has survival value. 

This might bother some but not me.  I see this no differently than the concern about the age of the earth, evolution itself, or other alleged scientific challenges to religious perceptions.  Religion is about attitude and how we see our own meaning for our lives.  It is not about evidence or verification any more than your career plan does- in fact I see some strong parallels between planning one's life and faith and making internal decisions based on internal goals.

Both situations require one to "become" a person one is not now, in order to achieve some purpose or goal.  This plan then gives purpose to one's life

It is not based on evidence- I have no evidence that showed me what I wanted to do with my life.  My decisions were entirely based on proclivities, desires, what I thought was right and desires which had nothing to do with evidence.

Some say it is irrational to believe things without evidence- the fact is we NEVER have evidence for the most important decisions in our lives.  We follow our "gut".

Planning one's career can be seen as similar to planning for the celestial kingdom.  Suppose early in life, one wants to become a doctor. One exercises faith and takes courses which will set one on that path of becoming.  One lives prudently, perhaps saving money to achieve the goal.  One exercises discipline studying the subject material needed and grows in the areas necessary to become what one desires to be.

Mission or no mission?  School first or mission later?  Military or no military?  Marry before, during, or after college?   After post-doc or not at all?  Live together or marry- kids or no kids - how many kids, how close or far apart?

NONE of these require any scientific evidence that they are the "Truthful" decision which "corresponds to reality" because that "REALITY" is yet non-existent- it is being cobbled together day by day

Religion really is the same sort of thing.  What religion or culture should one choose?  Does one HAVE a choice?  Most of us just accept what our parents have taught us if we are atheists we just accept the atheist way without thinking about it.  If we choose a religion or do not choose a religion, or choose no religion, all these are choices based on internal drives and preferences we decide upon and they mold our lives.

What is everyone's goal?  To feel joy and fill the measure of their creation- leave a legacy to show they were here.

The decision to accept a God within us, a God without us OR even make the excuse to accept NO God because there is no "evidence" for God is STILL a decision based on our internal mental states.

The atheist who says "Rational thought must be based evidence- there is no evidence for God therefore God does not exist" is STILL making a statement on faith.  Why must rational thought be based on evidence?  Who says there is no evidence for God?  What kind of evidence are we talking about?  Can we NOT have evidence for things which do exist?  What about undiscovered species?  What evidence do we have for undiscovered species or anything undiscovered?  Do they now exist or do they blink into existence when they are discovered?

In light of that what is the meaning of "existence"?

So says the critic- "God is in your head- he is a product of psychological evolution"

Fine.  If "true" - and it is hard to define what "truth" even means in that context- does it change my life and my most important secret and public goals and plans?

Not one iota.  Like you Mr. Critic I am still evolving.  Leave me be. Perhaps some day we shall see who gets farther, perhaps not.  

But if not, I still will have lived to fill the measure of my creation and have joy therein.   You can't do much better than that.

[Tacenda]

changed mind

Edited April 18, 2017 by Tacenda

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The atheist who says "Rational thought must be based evidence- there is no evidence for God therefore God does not exist" is STILL making a statement on faith.  Why must rational thought be based on evidence?  Who says there is no evidence for God?  What kind of evidence are we talking about?  Can we NOT have evidence for things which do exist?  What about undiscovered species?  What evidence do we have for undiscovered species or anything undiscovered?  Do they now exist or do they blink into existence when they are discovered?

I think this is a problematic argument. One need only point out that beliefs based upon evidence are more likely to be confirmed over time.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think this is a problematic argument. One need only point out that beliefs based upon evidence are more likely to be confirmed over time.

"Only"?  I think that is problematic- and is a great example of what could be classified as confirmation bias- or not.

It's all semantics as usual. 

That is so general as to be practically meaningless when you include subjective evidence as "evidence" and includes confirmation bias as showing "truth over time".

Yes I suppose that after 40 years of marriage one could say that "over time" my "evidence" for marrying my wife or being LDS predicted a pleasant experience but that is not certainly the way most people would take it, if, 40 years ago, one said that he had "objective evidence" that this was the girl for him.

"Over time" one can prove both the heliocentric and geocentric views in one proposition if one is allowed to look back and define "evidence" the way one wants to.  "The distance between the horizon and the sun increases in the morning and decreases in the evening" is a true proposition which could be seen "over time" to confirm either, both, or both paradigms at the same.

And it still does not address the point I was making- that we make personal decisions and plans based on having no "objective evidence" all the time.  Whom to marry, when to marry, to do the mission first or graduate first, to not marry at all, which school to attend or what life plan is best, or why we should be moral are decisions not based on "objective evidence" unless one tweaks that definition into something entirely different than the usual understanding.

Making plans in our lives- and atheists DO make plans- is an exercise in faith no matter if they want to admit that or not.  It's semantics as usual.  One man's "plan" is another man's "faith".  Look at the "PLAN" of Salvation as a plan to get to the celestial kingdom or a plan to go to Harvard and become a nuclear physicist and you will see how similar the processes are.

I have no problem with that- in fact I do it myself all the time but I have no illusion that my tweaks "conform to evidence" in any way at all.  Truth is based on judgement calls within a community, and what is perfectly true for someone LDS, -like the statement "I know the church is true"- is nonsense for anyone not LDS.

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

...we make personal decisions and plans based on having no "objective evidence" all the time.  Whom to marry, when to marry, to do the mission first or graduate first, to not marry at all, which school to attend or what life plan is best, or why we should be moral are decisions not based on "objective evidence" unless one tweaks that definition into something entirely different than the usual understanding.

Perhaps your idea of the "usual understanding" is part of the problem, otherwise I do not know what you mean.

Objective evidence is evidence of an object.  Like objective evidence of whom to marry, for example, is the woman or any woman you might want to marry. Any action we take is objective evidence of what we could have done or wanted to do.

Seriously, bro, you don't seem to understand reality nearly as much as I once thought you did, and your statements and my understanding of what you mean when you say what you say is the objective evidence that informs my perceptions.