What do we really know about God the Father?

[DemonsAway]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While Mormons definitely emphasize knowledge, I think we're very much a minority in Christianity on that point. Most more traditional Christians I speak with see it as a matter of faith. That is they'd not say they have evidence for knowing God exists.

Exactly, and that was the argument I was expecting to be brought up. It's what people are taught and it's what the holy books say and while I understand that, I've still never found it to be a good argument. And there will be plenty of people who disagree with that.

I think the spiritual experience is the best example. If someone says, “I had this spiritual experience and I feel like it strengthened my belief because of (this rationale)”, I think a person comes off better that way. It sounds more sane, honest and rational as opposed to saying, “I had this spiritual experience therefore I know it's true”. When I hear that it says to me, that person is done thinking.

Taking it back to the OP, what do we know about God? The only honest answer is nothing. To ask the question as though anyone knows these answers is misleading. I do think the more people of all religions move to honesty, not just about their doctrine or history, but how they speak is better in the long run. I think it builds respect and bridges between different faiths and non-believers alike.

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, DemonsAway said:

I think the spiritual experience is the best example. If someone says, “I had this spiritual experience and I feel like it strengthened my belief because of (this rationale)”, I think a person comes off better that way. It sounds more sane, honest and rational as opposed to saying, “I had this spiritual experience therefore I know it's true”. When I hear that it says to me, that person is done thinking.

But no one says, "I had this scientific experience and I feel like it strengthened my belief in gravity." Rather we talk about knowing things and make arguments for why we know. Now I can completely understand someone saying knowledge of spiritual things is impossible because the relevant spiritual experiences don't happen. However I don't quite understand the view that a person isn't thinking if they claim knowledge on the basis of spiritual experience. 

Ignoring the claims within the Mormon tradition for the moment let me give a relatively uncontroversial example. I have a spiritual experience where I think I feel the love of God and feel like I love God. It seems fine to say on the basis of that experience, "I know I love God because of this spiritual experience." Even if I am an atheist, it seems like we might agree with that statement even if I think there is no God that I love. (I'd say this means my concept of God or the fictional character of God or so forth)

Quote

Taking it back to the OP, what do we know about God? The only honest answer is nothing.

But that's pretty contestable it seems to me. I think most of the believers here would disagree with that and are being honest even if you think them wrong.

While Mormons are relatively uncommon in mostly being evidentialists to religious knowledge, it seems to me that were we to change how we speak for most of us we'd be significantly distorting what we actually believe. That is to do what you suggest would to be to misrepresent the content of our beliefs. Now again, you might think we're completely wrong in those beliefs. You might dismiss our arguments. But it seems to me we'd be lying if we didn't speak the way I suggest.

Edited May 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[DemonsAway]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

But no one says, "I had this scientific experience and I feel like it strengthened my belief in gravity." Rather we talk about knowing things and make arguments for why we know. Now I can completely understand someone saying knowledge of spiritual things is impossible because the relevant spiritual experiences don't happen. However I don't quite understand the view that a person isn't thinking if they claim knowledge on the basis of spiritual experience. 

 What I meant by that is when a religious person has a spiritual experience they immediately attribute it to God. Like, there, I had my confirmation. Instead of thinking well Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Atheists all claim spiritual experiences as well, what does that say about spiritual experiences? Does religion have nothing to do with it? Am I misunderstanding what I'm experiencing? It's like settling for God being the answer and I realize some might claim their experience was more revealing than others.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Ignoring the claims within the Mormon tradition for the moment let me give a relatively uncontroversial example. I have a spiritual experience where I think I feel the love of God and feel like I love God. It seems fine to say on the basis of that experience, "I know I love God because of this spiritual experience." Even if I am an atheist, it seems like we might agree with that statement even if I think there is no God that I love. (I'd say this means my concept of God or the fictional character of God or so forth)

Let me put it to you this way and why I think attributing experiences to a deity is a problem for non-believers. It's fine in the sense you describe here, it's when people think God is telling them what to do and how they use it to justify terrible actions, discrimination, laws and so on. While maybe Mormonism isn't so much of a worry, it's not a violent religion. But belief without rational reasoning is why any non-believer is worried at all what any religion does.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

But that's pretty contestable it seems to me. I think most of the believers here would disagree with that and are being honest even if you think them wrong.

While Mormons are relatively uncommon in mostly being evidentialists to religious knowledge, it seems to me that were we to change how we speak for most of us we'd be significantly distorting what we actually believe. That is to do what you suggest would to be to misrepresent the content of our beliefs. Now again, you might think we're completely wrong in those beliefs. You might dismiss our arguments. But it seems to me we'd be lying if we didn't speak the way I suggest.

I don't mean to suggest that people are deliberately lying. I do think people believe what they think. There's not much more I can add. I understand that this is going to be the view of most people here and yes, I see that it would start getting into the area of having to change LDS beliefs in certain areas, so I'll leave it at that.  

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As an aside, I think those parts of the Didiche are more about the practical problems of baptism in a desert where travel is difficult. They're more akin to why sometimes the sacrament was administered with potatoes in WWII. My guess is that the Catholic tradition of sprinkling arose because sprinkling had been allowed in some circumstances when water was rare and precious. People then wanted to keep doing it even when rivers or wells were available. I tend to think the Didiche is more reflecting that practical limit.

If I am reading you right, I think we probably should distinguish between social norms and actual rules with punishments. It's a pretty strong social norm in the US that adultery or polygamy is wrong. Yet clearly people do it. My personal feeling is that these sorts of social norms are much more important than the actual explicit rules of a government. It's why I think Bush's attempts at government in Afghanistan and Iraq went so horribly astray.

Yup. Which is also why I make a big difference between polygamy in the next life versus here. As I've often said here I think once you allow for relationships after death, the spectre of polygamy quickly arises. I suspect polyandry does as well even though that never happened in the church in a straightforward way. (Joseph's polyandry is complex for a variety of reasons) It just seems wrong to say a widower who remarries has to pick just one spouse if they loved both people equally.

Yeah, I agree completely. Polygamy led to lots of problems and there are very good reasons why many, especially feminists, attack the practice.

Dang we are agreed on all points I think though I could probably dream up some reason to argue.

Clearly we need to allow what we find to be "immoral" or one takes away the choice to be "moral" and we enter into what we call "Satan's plan", and besides that if you have raised teenagers you know that if you forbid something absolutely it just makes it more attractive.

Regarding polyandry - who knows?  I think our understanding of these matters "as they are" or will be is so vague as to be virtually unknowable.  We just have to trust that they will be far better than "the eye has seen or the ear heard"

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

 What I meant by that is when a religious person has a spiritual experience they immediately attribute it to God. Like, there, I had my confirmation.

Well if you mean "spiritual experience" is a pretty broad category and includes a lot of ambiguous experiences then I'd fully agree. If you are saying that all are like that I'd disagree.

Quote

Instead of thinking well Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Atheists all claim spiritual experiences as well, what does that say about spiritual experiences?

That's an argument I hear a lot but it doesn't really work. It's like saying "people claim knowledge on the basis of experience but often claim contradictory things therefore experience can't justify knowledge." The problem is that just because we can't say knowledge can be grounded on the basis of any experience it doesn't follow logically that there aren't some subset of experiences that can ground knowledge.

Quote

Let me put it to you this way and why I think attributing experiences to a deity is a problem for non-believers. It's fine in the sense you describe here, it's when people think God is telling them what to do and how they use it to justify terrible actions, discrimination, laws and so on. While maybe Mormonism isn't so much of a worry, it's not a violent religion. But belief without rational reasoning is why any non-believer is worried at all what any religion does.

Well Mormonism has been violent at times - occasionally such as with the Mountain Meadows Massacre in unjustified ways. I'd say that many of those actions were wrong but that's really a different discussion.

But I understand why non-believers have trouble with religion. I'd disagree because lots of things are used to justify terrible actions, laws, and discrimination. It's not like religion is the only justification. More or less people who want to do bad things figure out ways to justify it.

Quote

I don't mean to suggest that people are deliberately lying. I do think people believe what they think.

But of course that goes both ways. Many religious people view secularism as a danger for pretty similar reasons to why you view religion as a danger.

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

Exactly, and that was the argument I was expecting to be brought up. It's what people are taught and it's what the holy books say and while I understand that, I've still never found it to be a good argument. And there will be plenty of people who disagree with that.

Faith is not an argument. God doesn't expect one to have faith based on nothing. There are several people who wrote the NT relating their experiences. While somewhat fantastic, they were certainly motivated by something. It's either all a fraud or it's true. Jesus didn't expect just blind faith either. He allows us to exercise just a small seed of faith to see if it grows. In other words we can expect results if we simply have just a desire to know. 

Quote

I think the spiritual experience is the best example. If someone says, “I had this spiritual experience and I feel like it strengthened my belief because of (this rationale)”, I think a person comes off better that way. It sounds more sane, honest and rational as opposed to saying, “I had this spiritual experience therefore I know it's true”. When I hear that it says to me, that person is done thinking.

Then how can one "know" anything according to you? Everything we "know" is based on our experience. We "know" 2+2=4 because we experienced a teacher teaching us that in a class. Yet, if that teacher were to teach us their personal religious experience, you are telling us we wouldn't "know" it. Even if it is our own religious experience, you say we wouldn't know it. If the Lord came and supped with me, and every part of my body felt electrified, and I physically felt like an 18 year old man, you would say I didn't "know" it. I knew it all right - I could experience the changes. They were quite real to me. If I had a vision like Joseph Smith, and the Lord appeared to me, I wouldn't say I "think" this happened. That would seem unfaithful to the Lord. I would say I "know" He lives, which I do anyway. You are too worried in what others think, and have no faith.

Quote

Taking it back to the OP, what do we know about God? The only honest answer is nothing. To ask the question as though anyone knows these answers is misleading. I do think the more people of all religions move to honesty, not just about their doctrine or history, but how they speak is better in the long run. I think it builds respect and bridges between different faiths and non-believers alike.

In other words we should all just meet and yak and feel good about finding common ground, and not believe the essence of what Christianity teaches: That He lives! This comment is grounded in lack of faith and belief, which is the opposite of what Christianity teaches.

As to your assertion that we cannot know anything about God, I respond that Yeshua showed us the way to the holiest of all. If you read about Him, you are reading about what the Father is like. Although Yeshua says no man knows the Father, He also says except that the Son reveals Him. This tells me the man-made constructs like the Doctrine of the Trinity are based on man's assumptions rather than Yeshua's revelations about the Father, and to have doubts about them. But I don't doubt my personal experiences. I have followed them, and continued to receive more light. That is how one can come to "know" God - not through rational pursuits. I wish you well.

Edited May 11, 2017 by RevTestament

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

As to your assertion that we cannot know anything about God, I respond that Yeshua showed us the way to the holiest of all. If you read about Him, you are reading about what the Father is like.

I think that's right. What little we know of the Father is through the example of the son. But what we know beyond that is pretty hard to say much about.

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that's right. What little we know of the Father is through the example of the son. But what we know beyond that is pretty hard to say much about.

I believe the scriptures reveal more about the Father than is generally realized. But how He operates - I believe man does not have the least inkling of. We barely perceive His ways through our Savior much less His hows.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/9/2017 at 2:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

Sorry, what is or isn't knowable despite quotations?

Can you please dispense with the "no objectivity" contention? The absence of complete objectivity is a given. There is however, a hiararchy of more objective and less objective.

Define exactly how that works and how we know what is more or less objective.

Who's philosophy do you follow on this, or what is your own?

I am surprised you want to tackle this thorny epistemological problem

[Bernard Gui]

52 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe the scriptures reveal more about the Father than is generally realized. But how He operates - I believe man does not have the least inkling of. We barely perceive His ways through our Savior much less His hows.

 Would you please list some of the things we know? That's what I am interested in learning. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Define exactly how that works and how we know what is more or less objective.

Who's philosophy do you follow on this, or what is your own?

I am surprised you want to tackle this thorny epistemological problem

The philosophy of Gui....

objectivity means to agree with that which the people I like think.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Define exactly how that works and how we know what is more or less objective.

Who's philosophy do you follow on this, or what is your own?

I am surprised you want to tackle this thorny epistemological problem

I went into in detail in your Justifying Hallucinations thread...unless I'm mistaken you didn't respond. 

And, this is my own philosophy, Guvnah

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 Would you please list some of the things we know? That's what I am interested in learning. 

I for one like the exercise of provisionally accepting a premise of knowledge sometimes, and then working it to its product. So, perhaps a useful separation would be

1. What is knowledge.

and/or

2. How to treat, consider, or experiment on potential knowledge.

Both questions,  when actively worked upon, can work in concert.

[DemonsAway]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well if you mean "spiritual experience" is a pretty broad category and includes a lot of ambiguous experiences then I'd fully agree. If you are saying that all are like that I'd disagree.That's an argument I hear a lot but it doesn't really work. It's like saying "people claim knowledge on the basis of experience but often claim contradictory things therefore experience can't justify knowledge." The problem is that just because we can't say knowledge can be grounded on the basis of any experience it doesn't follow logically that there aren't some subset of experiences that can ground knowledge.

I agree to a large extent and it's fine when talking in terms of a closeness with God or the universe. But truth claims are different, Mormons believe they are the true church and other religions will make similar claims. So if a Mormon is saying the truth of the church was revealed to them and other religions are saying the truth of their church was revealed to them. That's where I think you would have to take other spiritual experiences into account. Only one can be “the True Church” and I would argue the more likely and logical answer, that everyone is wrong. Maybe also, that there is a connection with spiritual experiences and being in relaxed, deep or concentrated thought.

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But I understand why non-believers have trouble with religion. I'd disagree because lots of things are used to justify terrible actions, laws, and discrimination. It's not like religion is the only justification. More or less people who want to do bad things figure out ways to justify it.

To paraphrase an argument by Sam Harris: Look at the people who committed the atrocities of 9/11. They weren't cowards and you could possibly argue that they weren't bad people, they were people of faith, pure faith. So we must finally admit, that is a terrible thing to be.

He goes on to make more points, but basically he's saying that someone could be a normal rational person in every other respect of their lives but when faith is involved, all reason can be suspended or thrown out the window completely. But it's not just extreme-Islam or Jihadism, you see it in Christianity in the US all the time. People protesting a gay soldier's funeral and things like that. You don't see these types of things without faith being involved, or at the very least, not in the same magnitude. But if you're saying since there's other reasons people do bad things it equates to faith as no worse than any of the other reasons, I do not agree. Mainly because the types of things that faith incites puts it at the top of the list.

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But of course that goes both ways. Many religious people view secularism as a danger for pretty similar reasons to why you view religion as a danger.

I don't understand the argument against secularism. Maybe you'd have to expand on that but I think it's clearly the best approach, IMO.

[DemonsAway]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Faith is not an argument. God doesn't expect one to have faith based on nothing. There are several people who wrote the NT relating their experiences. While somewhat fantastic, they were certainly motivated by something. It's either all a fraud or it's true. Jesus didn't expect just blind faith either. He allows us to exercise just a small seed of faith to see if it grows. In other words we can expect results if we simply have just a desire to know. 

Then how can one "know" anything according to you? Everything we "know" is based on our experience. We "know" 2+2=4 because we experienced a teacher teaching us that in a class. Yet, if that teacher were to teach us their personal religious experience, you are telling us we wouldn't "know" it. Even if it is our own religious experience, you say we wouldn't know it. If the Lord came and supped with me, and every part of my body felt electrified, and I physically felt like an 18 year old man, you would say I didn't "know" it. I knew it all right - I could experience the changes. They were quite real to me. If I had a vision like Joseph Smith, and the Lord appeared to me, I wouldn't say I "think" this happened. That would seem unfaithful to the Lord. I would say I "know" He lives, which I do anyway. You are too worried in what others think, and have no faith.

In other words we should all just meet and yak and feel good about finding common ground, and not believe the essence of what Christianity teaches: That He lives! This comment is grounded in lack of faith and belief, which is the opposite of what Christianity teaches.

As to your assertion that we cannot know anything about God, I respond that Yeshua showed us the way to the holiest of all. If you read about Him, you are reading about what the Father is like. Although Yeshua says no man knows the Father, He also says except that the Son reveals Him. This tells me the man-made constructs like the Doctrine of the Trinity are based on man's assumptions rather than Yeshua's revelations about the Father, and to have doubts about them. But I don't doubt my personal experiences. I have followed them, and continued to receive more light. That is how one can come to "know" God - not through rational pursuits. I wish you well.

I'm sure many, if not most non-believers who come through this site were members or believers at one point. I'm no different, I was a member for a good portion of my life. I had experiences as a believer that I could only call spiritual. Would I say I can attribute those experiences to God? If I was honest, no I can't. Can I say I gained knowledge? Maybe in the sense of what the experience felt like, but divine knowledge, I think it would be dishonest of me to make any claim like that. I still know many people in the church, some of my closest friends are still members and it's not like I've never asked about their experiences. I will take anyone at their word that they've had an experience, but the more fantastic the story the more skeptical I will be, as I think anyone should be. I've heard enough accounts from people I trust and I would say by and large they sounded quite similar to my own. Is it possible that someone could gain divine knowledge even though I haven't? I can't rule that possibility out 100 percent, but I can say I think it's unlikely based on what I know and have experienced.

Years after I left religion behind I was introduced to meditation and have had spiritual experiences that are deeper than any I felt with religion. Can I attribute these to God? No, but I would say as someone who has had spiritual experiences in and out of religion that there are similarities in my experiences. Like I said in my response to clarkgoble, maybe there is a possible connection with spiritual experiences and being in relaxed, deep or concentrated thought.

Yes, you are right, my view, at least at this point in time is someone without faith. But it's not as though I'm ignorant to it or never had it. And yes, I can concede that it's central to Christian belief. But it's because of my own spiritual experiences that I kind of push for more honesty. The experiences I had, or what you might say I didn't have, wasn't because of a lack of faith. I don't worry what people think, I worry what people are capable of doing with faith. That's not to say I think religion doesn't have it good things about it or that religious people are bad.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, DemonsAway said:

I'm sure many, if not most non-believers who come through this site were members or believers at one point. I'm no different, I was a member for a good portion of my life. I had experiences as a believer that I could only call spiritual. Would I say I can attribute those experiences to God? If I was honest, no I can't. Can I say I gained knowledge? Maybe in the sense of what the experience felt like, but divine knowledge, I think it would be dishonest of me to make any claim like that. I still know many people in the church, some of my closest friends are still members and it's not like I've never asked about their experiences. I will take anyone at their word that they've had an experience, but the more fantastic the story the more skeptical I will be, as I think anyone should be. I've heard enough accounts from people I trust and I would say by and large they sounded quite similar to my own. Is it possible that someone could gain divine knowledge even though I haven't? I can't rule that possibility out 100 percent, but I can say I think it's unlikely based on what I know and have experienced.

Years after I left religion behind I was introduced to meditation and have had spiritual experiences that are deeper than any I felt with religion. Can I attribute these to God? No, but I would say as someone who has had spiritual experiences in and out of religion that there are similarities in my experiences. Like I said in my response to clarkgoble, maybe there is a possible connection with spiritual experiences and being in relaxed, deep or concentrated thought.

Yes, you are right, my view, at least at this point in time is someone without faith. But it's not as though I'm ignorant to it or never had it. And yes, I can concede that it's central to Christian belief. But it's because of my own spiritual experiences that I kind of push for more honesty. The experiences I had, or what you might say I didn't have, wasn't because of a lack of faith. I don't worry what people think, I worry what people are capable of doing with faith. That's not to say I think religion doesn't have it good things about it or that religious people are bad.

Right as my faith transition was in flux, my husband's too, a close friend of ours told me he saw God years before,  and described his experience. I think he saw our struggle and wanted to help shore up our faith.

I don't disbelieve he had an experience that was, for him, as he described it. But I realised that it was his experience, not mine. He had it and he's responsible for how he applies it to his life.

I've had experiences as well, but they're mine, not someone else's. Whatever reason we each have such experiences belongs to the individual. Be it biological or divine, the person was disposed in some way to the experience, one could say they were prepared for it. So they have the tools to interpret it for themselves and make of it what they will.

I would say that if I didn't have the same experience as them, I am either not prepared for it or don't need it or both. Either way, it's not mine.

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, DemonsAway said:

That's where I think you would have to take other spiritual experiences into account. Only one can be “the True Church” and I would argue the more likely and logical answer, that everyone is wrong. Maybe also, that there is a connection with spiritual experiences and being in relaxed, deep or concentrated thought.

But don't the inferences we draw from experiences depend upon the nature of the experience itself? It seems to me you're trying to draw to broadly without even considering the claims. Further it seems to me that we have to distinguish between having the experience and only have the claim of an experience. Those aren't the same and each leads to different inferences. If I meet an angel and am able to confirm it's an angel it seems the implications of that are very different than if I meet someone claiming to have met an able but are unable to demonstrate to me that they really did. (I've never met an angel by the way -- just trying to use an extreme example to highlight the issues)

Quote

To paraphrase an argument by Sam Harris: Look at the people who committed the atrocities of 9/11. They weren't cowards and you could possibly argue that they weren't bad people, they were people of faith, pure faith. So we must finally admit, that is a terrible thing to be.

But isn't the problem with Sam Harris' argument precisely that he avoids asking why they did what they did and upon what grounds they are justified or not? That is he's just looking at the actions and the claims they are religious. That leaves a mightily large black box whose contents seem to matter a great deal.

Quote

...basically he's saying that someone could be a normal rational person in every other respect of their lives but when faith is involved, all reason can be suspended or thrown out the window completely.

And this is also deeply problematic. I think most people doing evolutionary psychology of religion argue quite strongly that the same cognitive behaviors are at work in religion as are at work in most other aspects of people's behavior. That is to draw a distinction between religious behavior and non-religious behavior is in many ways illegitimate in terms of the cognitive structures that lead to behaviors. The problem with many New Atheists like Harris is that they want to blame theology and can only do so by avoiding the talk of basic human psychology.

Quote

But if you're saying since there's other reasons people do bad things it equates to faith as no worse than any of the other reasons, I do not agree. Mainly because the types of things that faith incites puts it at the top of the list.

I'm saying people do things for many reasons and merely putting up the label "faith" and doing no further analysis is a cop out and highly distortive of what's actually going on. That's true whether one is a religious believer or an atheist.

Quote

I don't understand the argument against secularism. Maybe you'd have to expand on that but I think it's clearly the best approach, IMO.

It's basically the Burkean argument that many social structures have evolved for good reasons and if you don't know what those reasons are you shouldn't simply get rid of them. If you do (as many secularists are want to do) you are very apt to cause many unintended consequences. And for every religious war in the 20th century we can easily point to secularists like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot or Atatürk.

Edited May 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I went into in detail in your Justifying Hallucinations thread...unless I'm mistaken you didn't respond. 

And, this is my own philosophy, Guvnah

I didn't respond because I felt you were mistaken.

And it would take a discussion longer than I was ready to take on.  So ok we can drop that.  It's a complicated area.

To me, making up your own philosophy is fine of course but there is 2000 years of others discussing the same issues and if you are not aware of what has already been established and all the arguments for and against etc, then one either takes up the discussion at least as a hobby and learns about what has been said or one keeps it as their own views, disregarding the history of the arguments.

It's kind of like having your own physics.  If you want to believe the moon is made of green cheese, it hurts no one.

But if you discuss it with someone educated in physics it is not likely he will agree with you.  I suppose that sounds like a cop-out or condescending.

Sorry.  I should not have brought it up I guess.

Edited May 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I didn't respond because I felt you were mistaken.

And it would take a discussion longer than I was ready to take on.  So ok we can drop that.  It's a complicated area.

To me, making up your own philosophy is fine of course but there is 2000 years of others discussing the same issues and if you are not aware of what has already been established and all the arguments for and against etc, then one either takes up the discussion at least as a hobby and learns about what has been said or one keeps it as their own views, disregarding the history of the arguments.

It's kind of like having your own physics.  If you want to believe the moon is made of green cheese, it hurts no one.

But if you discuss it with someone educated in physics it is not likely he will agree with you.  I suppose that sounds like a cop-out or condescending.

Sorry.  I should not have brought it up I guess.

I didn't say that I don't inform myself about Philosophy.  I said that what I said was mine. A person can be an expert on physics and still develop a physics paper with their own ideas.

I have had a very rich philosophical experience, since my childhood and continuing on, imo. I'm too cerebral for most peoples' tastes, which is why I like internet boards where talking about stuff is the point.

On another thread I said, in part, "Do you want to do good more than you want to think you do good? Yes? Then know thyself."

There is a risk to genuine inspection, isn't there?  It comes with the price of exposing ourselves, too, but the potential of actually doing good is more important than finding ways to believe we are.

So in the quest for God, going outside ourselves, inspecting ourselves and the world, and using objectivity despite our own inevitible subjective natures, helps us see Him.

 

[RevTestament]

17 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

I'm sure many, if not most non-believers who come through this site were members or believers at one point. I'm no different, I was a member for a good portion of my life. I had experiences as a believer that I could only call spiritual. Would I say I can attribute those experiences to God? If I was honest, no I can't. Can I say I gained knowledge? Maybe in the sense of what the experience felt like, but divine knowledge, I think it would be dishonest of me to make any claim like that. I still know many people in the church, some of my closest friends are still members and it's not like I've never asked about their experiences. I will take anyone at their word that they've had an experience, but the more fantastic the story the more skeptical I will be, as I think anyone should be. I've heard enough accounts from people I trust and I would say by and large they sounded quite similar to my own. Is it possible that someone could gain divine knowledge even though I haven't? I can't rule that possibility out 100 percent, but I can say I think it's unlikely based on what I know and have experienced.

Years after I left religion behind I was introduced to meditation and have had spiritual experiences that are deeper than any I felt with religion. Can I attribute these to God? No, but I would say as someone who has had spiritual experiences in and out of religion that there are similarities in my experiences. Like I said in my response to clarkgoble, maybe there is a possible connection with spiritual experiences and being in relaxed, deep or concentrated thought.

Yes, you are right, my view, at least at this point in time is someone without faith. But it's not as though I'm ignorant to it or never had it. And yes, I can concede that it's central to Christian belief. But it's because of my own spiritual experiences that I kind of push for more honesty. The experiences I had, or what you might say I didn't have, wasn't because of a lack of faith. I don't worry what people think, I worry what people are capable of doing with faith. That's not to say I think religion doesn't have it good things about it or that religious people are bad.

People can do bad stuff without any faith in God. There are plenty of examples of that in our society. Most serial killers are faithless, non-Christians. The biggest mass-murderers in history were unbelievers - Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc - most of whom can be described as atheists. Faith is not something bad. I worry about blind-faith, but many atheists consider LDS to have blind-faith when that is hardly the case. As I have said elsewhere there are mountains of evidence for Christianity - both written and archaeological. Although I became inactive in the Church for awhile, I always believed in Christ, and prayed even during my inactivity. I remember being asked if I believe in Christ, and I answered "sure I do. Even historians mention Him." I believe most of the foundation for our society come from principles given us by Christ, which is one reason it has prospered so well. I don't believe the world has ever found a better societal system than capitalism combined with Christianity. I am seeing Europe start to decline, and the US is not far behind, and I don't believe it is too coincidental that secularism has basically taken over in Europe, and is on the rise in the US. Trying to blame bad stuff on faith because of the misled crusaders for instance is essentially a red herring. Secularists have faith in science, but let's see how long their societies can hold together before condemning their heritage of Christian faith.

P.S. In my other post I said "That is how one can come to "know" God - not through rational pursuits." i should clarify not through rational scientific type pursuits. I have found the secrets of God are in the scriptures. They are quite "rational" and one must study the scriptures and understand them rationally to put the pieces of the puzzle together. So in that sense rationality is needed to understand God.

[Guest]

On April 23, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting and a tad heated discussion in our HP group today. The topic was God the Father and the instructor started writing things on the board such as body, mercy, love, omni-----.  I said we don't really know very much about him. I pointed out that while those words are descriptive based on our familiar language, we don't know what they mean, most just come from assumptions we make, and we can know nothing about God unless it is revealed to us. I got some strong pushback.

What do we really know about God the Father?

 

Other than ideas, sermons and cryptic passages in scripture, all that we know of him is everything we know of Jesus Christ. Which is a lot, as Christ himself put it..."all that I do I have seen the Father do", and that "if ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father". So all in all, we know a lot. Jesus Christ is the common thread that runs through every talk, every lesson, every prayer, every "Spiritual" experience and every inspiration that draws us unto Christ, his teaching, his Charity, his devotion and his love, would be the same if being taught of the Father. 

[DemonsAway]

On 5/11/2017 at 3:49 PM, Meadowchik said:

Right as my faith transition was in flux, my husband's too, a close friend of ours told me he saw God years before,  and described his experience. I think he saw our struggle and wanted to help shore up our faith.

I don't disbelieve he had an experience that was, for him, as he described it. But I realised that it was his experience, not mine. He had it and he's responsible for how he applies it to his life.

I've had experiences as well, but they're mine, not someone else's. Whatever reason we each have such experiences belongs to the individual. Be it biological or divine, the person was disposed in some way to the experience, one could say they were prepared for it. So they have the tools to interpret it for themselves and make of it what they will.

I would say that if I didn't have the same experience as them, I am either not prepared for it or don't need it or both. Either way, it's not mine.

I can relate to this to some extent. I can think of one person I know who is one of the most devout people I have ever met. He told me he has never felt anything he would call a spiritual experience. Maybe he has since he told me this, which was about a year ago and he's still a believer despite no experience. But it could fit with what you say, maybe he doesn't need it or he's not prepared for it, but it turns into a lot of what-if's.

A problem I have with spiritual experiences is that an omniscient deity should know what each person needs to feel or experience to have some kind of confirmation. Especially someone who is honestly pursuing the truth through ways described in scripture, at least if we're talking Christian belief. The inconsistencies that arise I find very problematic to truthfulness. It's nice that some people feel they get this. But I think it's quite possible that there are other explanations.

I agree that you only know your own experiences. But when we have a large group of people who are sharing similar experiences or no experience at all, and then we have this smaller percentage sharing more fantastic experiences, those people stick out like a sore thumb. A member can say that doesn't mean anything, but it does, it's a compilation of data and it is evidence.

I've only had a few posts with you, but you do seem to have a way of relating to the non-believer. That's an asset and a good thing in my opinion.

[DemonsAway]

On 5/11/2017 at 3:56 PM, clarkgoble said:

But don't the inferences we draw from experiences depend upon the nature of the experience itself? It seems to me you're trying to draw to broadly without even considering the claims. Further it seems to me that we have to distinguish between having the experience and only have the claim of an experience. Those aren't the same and each leads to different inferences. If I meet an angel and am able to confirm it's an angel it seems the implications of that are very different than if I meet someone claiming to have met an able but are unable to demonstrate to me that they really did. (I've never met an angel by the way -- just trying to use an extreme example to highlight the issues)

Yes, you only know your own experiences and you can't have any way of confirming someone else's, I agree there. Before anyone jumps on this, I understand that Mormons feel they only need to worry about their own experiences. It doesn't mean that others claims don't mean anything. I think if we're being honest and we care about truthfulness, another religion making the same claims does mean something and it does tell us something. Especially when it's involving multiply religions making the same claim.

On 5/11/2017 at 3:56 PM, clarkgoble said:

But isn't the problem with Sam Harris' argument precisely that he avoids asking why they did what they did and upon what grounds they are justified or not? That is he's just looking at the actions and the claims they are religious. That leaves a mightily large black box whose contents seem to matter a great deal.

First I don't want to misrepresent Sam Harris or speak for him. I've seen quite a bit of his stuff and I know he doesn't care to be called an atheist and is an advocate for rational spirituality. But he's one of the more intelligent non-believers I've come across.

I just paraphrased his argument and he does go into more detail, but I don't think we need that detail to make the case here. I think he's hitting the nail on the head for why they did it and why they felt justified in doing it. We're talking about a faith that encourages killing infidels and that they'll get 72 virgins when they die. They wouldn't be crashing a plane into a building and throwing their lives away unless they thought they were going to be rewarded for it in the next life. You take the faith element out of it, that day would not have happened. And let me be clear, I'm not equating Islamic faith to LDS faith, or even Evangelical or Protestant faith to LDS faith. They all have their differences and different things they incite.

On 5/11/2017 at 3:56 PM, clarkgoble said:

And this is also deeply problematic. I think most people doing evolutionary psychology of religion argue quite strongly that the same cognitive behaviors are at work in religion as are at work in most other aspects of people's behavior. That is to draw a distinction between religious behavior and non-religious behavior is in many ways illegitimate in terms of the cognitive structures that lead to behaviors. The problem with many New Atheists like Harris is that they want to blame theology and can only do so by avoiding the talk of basic human psychology.

Well a lot of his expertise is in neuroscience, specifically many forms of psychology, so he's in a lot better position than most to make arguments. There might be commonalities between why people do bad things, but the types of things that are faith driven you don't see commonly, if much at all with a non-believer. We're not too worried that an atheist is going to crash a plane into a building, or cut off a believers head for merely being a believer, or killing a cartoonist that makes fun of atheism and I could go on and on with examples. To say it's something just of basic human psychology, IMO, is minimizing what the real problem is. If an atheist kills someone it's for a different reason. Yes it needs to be addressed but atheist killings happen few and far between anything faith driven. That is why faith needs to be at the forefront of the discussion.

On 5/11/2017 at 3:56 PM, clarkgoble said:

It's basically the Burkean argument that many social structures have evolved for good reasons and if you don't know what those reasons are you shouldn't simply get rid of them. If you do (as many secularists are want to do) you are very apt to cause many unintended consequences. And for every religious war in the 20th century we can easily point to secularists like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot or Atatürk.

I think we can agree in principle on a lot here. I know there are plenty who would like to remove religion entirely from politics, but in reality that's just not possible. As long as there is religion there is going to be religious politicians. Of course religion is going to play a part in their decisions, and I think I can agree there's probably something to keeping aspects of what works in place. But I do think the more ways we can keep the two separate, the better.

[DemonsAway]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

People can do bad stuff without any faith in God. There are plenty of examples of that in our society. Most serial killers are faithless, non-Christians. The biggest mass-murderers in history were unbelievers - Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc - most of whom can be described as atheists. Faith is not something bad. I worry about blind-faith, but many atheists consider LDS to have blind-faith when that is hardly the case. As I have said elsewhere there are mountains of evidence for Christianity - both written and archaeological. Although I became inactive in the Church for awhile, I always believed in Christ, and prayed even during my inactivity. I remember being asked if I believe in Christ, and I answered "sure I do. Even historians mention Him." I believe most of the foundation for our society come from principles given us by Christ, which is one reason it has prospered so well. I don't believe the world has ever found a better societal system than capitalism combined with Christianity. I am seeing Europe start to decline, and the US is not far behind, and I don't believe it is too coincidental that secularism has basically taken over in Europe, and is on the rise in the US. Trying to blame bad stuff on faith because of the misled crusaders for instance is essentially a red herring. Secularists have faith in science, but let's see how long their societies can hold together before condemning their heritage of Christian faith.

P.S. In my other post I said "That is how one can come to "know" God - not through rational pursuits." i should clarify not through rational scientific type pursuits. I have found the secrets of God are in the scriptures. They are quite "rational" and one must study the scriptures and understand them rationally to put the pieces of the puzzle together. So in that sense rationality is needed to understand God.

Yes people can do bad things without faith, but it doesn't mean that faith is just as bad as anything else. It's clearly on a higher level. Hitler has been debunked as an atheist, not that it matters, because everything about Hitler was faith driven. It's the principles of faith on why people went along with the white supremacy. Even if we accepted Hitler as an atheist, his ideas were based on faith. The followers who carried out his orders we people of faith. But their religious faith didn't stop them carrying out these acts, their faith in Hitler and white supremacy is what they followed in the end. I find when you research these dictators that people bring up, that faith is the driving force behind the bad stuff that happens.

As far as serial killers, I'm no expert on serial killers, so I can't offer much of an opinion other than, you would have to ask what the reason was they did what they. Being a non-believer doesn't mean that faith isn't involved, and I think you might be surprised on their faith if we looked into it. Non-Faith related killings still need to be addressed, but serial killing happens far less often than faith related killings. To repeat myself from the other post again, I'm not equating faith from say Islamic faith to LDS faith. There are clearly differences and different things about them and what they might incite.

I understand where you're coming from as far as your faith and religious pursuits. I'm not going to debate whether I think you're right or wrong in getting truth from say, the Bible. I'll probably just end up offending you or someone else. I will agree that there is plenty of evidence to suggest Jesus as a real person. It is also possible that he was just a man, an insightful man, but a man nonetheless. It's also quite possible that his followers wrote of him as divine, even if he wasn't, for a number of various possible reasons.

[Guest]

On May 11, 2017 at 0:13 PM, RevTestament said:

I believe the scriptures reveal more about the Father than is generally realized. But how He operates - I believe man does not have the least inkling of. We barely perceive His ways through our Savior much less His hows.

Good words, but I am giving a rep point because your points were "666". Now you can preced.