Christopher Hitchens Caught Affirming Spiritual Experience as Valid

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

That’s too bad. Amidst all my struggles with much of the LDS dogma, the principle of the atonement is one that is central to me. It works and I know it from personal experience.

I was kidding you about the misplaced modifier. It was a joke.

[Storm Rider]

19 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Buddy - I honestly just want you to find peace.

You’re right, I don’t understand your situation other then telling me you get angry often.  I’ve never seen anger as a productive emotion - no matter the circumstance. Jesus has helped me immensely overcome much of my anger and negative emotion.  I’m a lot happier.

You might need to not read so literally. Also, ... ah, forget it. We are done. 

[member10_1]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think that's his point and likely the kind of point Hitchens was after (although I didn't click on your link at the start).  Everyone has these little experiences.  It doesn't equate to the little inner experience we have is a valid spiritual experience, nor does it equate to God being behind it.  That's the direction of my own response too, so...there ya go.  

What does ”valid spiritual experience” even mean? Haha...how can an experience be invalid? 

[SouthernMo]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I was kidding you about the misplaced modifier. It was a joke.

Sorry.  I'm a little slow!

[SouthernMo]

28 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You might need to not read so literally. Also, ... ah, forget it. We are done. 

I'm really sorry if I've offended you. No offense was intended.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You bring up a good point.  I wrote hastily when I said Nephi had “no idea” why he was writing. I was thinking about 1 Nephi 9:5

5 Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not.

There was clearly some element of faith and the unknown in his record keeping, but you’re right. There are other scriptures that indicate he wasn’t completely blind to it.

Appreciate your clarification of the truth!

No worries!

Not to beat a dead horse, but Nephi wasn’t even partially blind. He had pefect clarity of the vision and purpose of his writing and expressed them many time

Quote

1Nephi 6

1 And now I, Nephi, do not give the genealogy of my fathers in this part of my record; neither at any time shall I give it after upon these plates which I am writing; for it is given in the record which has been kept by my father; wherefore, I do not write it in this work.
2 For it sufficeth me to say that we are descendants of Joseph.
3 And it mattereth not to me that I am particular to give a full account of all the things of my father, for they cannot be written upon these plates, for I desire the room that I may write of the things of God.
4 For the fulness of mine intent is that I may persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and be saved.
5 Wherefore, the things which are pleasing unto the world I do not write, but the things which are pleasing unto God and unto those who are not of the world.
6 Wherefore, I shall give commandment unto my seed, that they shall not occupy these plates with things which are not of worth unto the children of men.

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No worries?

Not to beat a dead horse, but Nephi wasn’t eve partially blind. He had pefect clarity of the vision and purpose of his writing and expressed them many time

 

So how do you interpret 1 Nephi 9:5?

[USU78]

23 minutes ago, TheRedHen said:

Athiesits - at least the ones I've run into - are more devout in their beliefs than most Christians I know.

They also tend to be quite Evangelical.

[Wade Englund]

On 4/23/2019 at 10:03 PM, USU78 said:

They also tend to be quite Evangelical.

And, Hitchens' brand of atheism leans towards jihad.

Thanks -Wade Englund-

Edited April 25, 2019 by Wade Englund

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, member10_1 said:

What does ”valid spiritual experience” even mean? Haha...how can an experience be invalid? 

That indeed is the point.  Every perception we have is an "experience", the question becomes is it useful for a purpose or not.

Experiences in science lead to other replicable experiences of a similar nature which allow us to do practical things. 

Religious experiences give meaning to our lives

Both give us essential knowledge in what it is to be human. 

And Hutchins knows that listening to that voice within us which tells us what is right and wrong is valuable and valid.  We have empirical agreement from virtually every human who ever lived that murder is wrong.

People find the very sight of a slaughtered human disgusting. Soldiers become mentally ill from  too much of it.

THAT is empirical evidence for morality and for the "still small voice".

Did it evolve?  Is it God given?  Is it both?   

The most important point is that yes, it exists and it is true it exists and is therefore as valid as science.

In fact if we had no morality, we would have no science.   We would be warring murdering primates living as animals and civilization would be impossible. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

7 hours ago, USU78 said:

They also tend to be quite Evangelical.

A lot of atheists come from fundamentalist backgrounds, so the same approach they took to religion is applied their atheism.

[MustardSeed]

I tend to think that not all of my spiritual experiences are made equal.  That said, I don’t know much. 

I think some of my intuitions and drives are purely my own psychological and historical impulses. 

I think some are social spiritual connections that we humans have not qualified. 

And, I think a sacred few are God sourced. 

But what do I know? Nothing, really. I’m just doing my best. Most of my intention is to not do harm to myself or others because I have compassion for myself and others. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We have empirical agreement from virtually every human who ever lived that murder is wrong.

People find the very sight of a slaughtered human disgusting. Soldiers become mentally ill from  too much of it.

These claims are completely culturally determined.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

A lot of atheists come from fundamentalist backgrounds, so the same approach they took to religion is applied their atheism.

If that take comforts you, then by all means embrace it. My experience is that it's quite the rare atheist bird that isn't evangelistic. So, there's that.

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, member10_1 said:

What does ”valid spiritual experience” even mean? Haha...how can an experience be invalid? 

I was going with the term used earlier by Analytics in this thread.  

Quote

Spiritual events happening ≠ spiritual experiences are “valid” ≠ "God" exists

I suppose we can take that to mean any person's claimed spiritual experience could be none other than internal mechanisms within the person and is not in any way an experience happening outside the person.  

That's along the intent I had when I used valid.  

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If that take comforts you, then by all means embrace it. My experience is that it's quite the rare atheist bird that isn't evangelistic. So, there's that.

Why would that comfort me? I have no skin in the game. Just an observation based on hearing atheist stories about how they grew up homes where they were taught young earth creationism and the like.

 

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

So how do you interpret 1 Nephi 9:5?

I acknowledged that in my first response......”Uncertainty and doubt are not words usually associated with Nephi. Granted, he once wrote that he was unsure why he was being commanded to keep a certain record, but he trusted that God had good reasons for doing it.“

You probably already know this, but he had been keeping a detailed record of his people (along with his father’s record), so he was puzzled when the Lord commanded him to keep yet another one. The former was to be a secular history and the latter he was told should a religious history. He states that the Lord had a purpose for this of which he was unsure, but which  was revealed centuries later when Joseph Smith was translating them.

Grant Hardy makes this observation:

Quote

Eventually, the small plates of Nephi (1 Nephi-Omni) were used as a replacement for the 116 pages lost by Martin Harris in 1828. This is at least one purpose that was unknown to Nephi; there may be others. For instance, Jarom 1.2 describes the small plates as being written for “the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites.” The Book of Mormon Maxwell Institute Study Edition, p.19.

In 1 Nephi 19, he shed further light on this:

Quote

3 And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi, received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more plain and precious parts of them, should be written upon these plates; and that the things which were written should be kept for the instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord.
4 Wherefore, I, Nephi, did make a record upon the other plates, which gives an account, or which gives a greater account of the wars and contentions and destructions of my people. And this have I done, and commanded my people what they should do after I was gone; and that these plates should be handed down from one generation to another, or from one prophet to another, until further commandments of the Lord.
5 And an account of my making these plates shall be given hereafter; and then, behold, I proceed according to that which I have spoken; and this I do that the more sacred things may be kept for the knowledge of my people.
6 Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.
7 For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words—they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels.

He further clarifies in 2 Nephi 5:

Quote

29 And I, Nephi, had kept the records upon my plates, which I had made, of my people thus far.
30 And it came to pass that the Lord God said unto me: Make other plates; and thou shalt engraven many things upon them which are good in my sight, for the profit of thy people.
31 Wherefore, I, Nephi, to be obedient to the commandments of the Lord, went and made these plates upon which I have engraven these things.
32 And I engraved that which is pleasing unto God. And if my people are pleased with the things of God they will be pleased with mine engravings which are upon these plates.
33 And if my people desire to know the more particular part of the history of my people they must search mine other plates.

As I said, you probably know all this. I just want to get the story together in one place. He knew some of the reasons the Lord commanded him to do this, but not all. 

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

A lot of atheists come from fundamentalist backgrounds, so the same approach they took to religion is applied their atheism.

You know, dang it, this is a VERY good point.

I would never suspect something like this to come from you... 

Do I know you well enough to speak to you that way? 

Seriously a very good point mi amigo! 

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, TheRedHen said:

Athiesits - at least the ones I've run into - are more devout in their beliefs than most Christians I know.  It's odd to me that believing in nothing can be so motivating to them.

See above.

The paradox is that they are not willing to question their own assumptions while accusing believers of the same thing.

I have been blessed by an amazingly skeptical nature that has led me to question EVERYTHING to the point that I have to have direct evidence thoroughly questioned to accept ANYTHING with certainty

With Christopher Hitchens I have concluded that this "Daemon" is real- how? by my own experience with it (Him)

I know there is a personal God who looks out for me and helps me- and that is based on William James and his "Radical Empiricism"

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

Quote

 

Radical empiricism is a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.^[1]

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

These claims are completely culturally determined.

And so not the Light of Christ?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I suppose we can take that to mean any person's claimed spiritual experience could be none other than internal mechanisms within the person and is not in any way an experience happening outside the person.  

Is the experience of looking at a screen and reading this happening inside you or outside you?

"Where" is the experience?  Is it YOUR brain making the experience or is it outside you?

That is the whole crux of the discussion.

Nothing YOU experience happens outside you- it is all your brain's interpretation of what is "outside you"- but it is happening "inside you".

And so religious experiences are just as much inside you as any other, or your perception of some act as good or bad.

Where is the idea that murder is wrong?  Inside you or outside?

[member10_1]

13 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I was going with the term used earlier by Analytics in this thread.  

I suppose we can take that to mean any person's claimed spiritual experience could be none other than internal mechanisms within the person and is not in any way an experience happening outside the person.  

That's along the intent I had when I used valid.  

Any belief about forces, entities, states of things, etc. exogenous to the mind is impossible to validate. Limiting one’s interpretations by the boundaries of naturalism is just as speculative a position as a religious one.

Regarding the usefulness of an interpretation, many find that naturalistic explanations inadequately describe certain experiences. Reducing a spiritual experience to biological processes is like describing the experience of going on a road trip with your friends in terms of brain chemistry and the mechanics of an internal combustion engine. Would you invite friends on a road trip by telling them about oxytocin and fuel injection? No, because if that’s how you talked you would have no friends to invite in the first place. Also, you’d find it a poor way to communicate the experience. Likewise, people use the word and concept of “God” to describe certain experiences because any other explanation would, in their assessment, fall short.

Edited April 25, 2019 by member10_1

[Gray]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You know, dang it, this is a VERY good point.

I would never suspect something like this to come from you... 

Do I know you well enough to speak to you that way? 

Seriously a very good point mi amigo! 

I'll take it as a compliment!

 

[Wade Englund]

Another way in which science seems to be turning against materialism and atheism, or at least given them pause,  is:

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Is the experience of looking at a screen and reading this happening inside you or outside you?

"Where" is the experience?  Is it YOUR brain making the experience or is it outside you?

That is the whole crux of the discussion.

Nothing YOU experience happens outside you- it is all your brain's interpretation of what is "outside you"- but it is happening "inside you".

And so religious experiences are just as much inside you as any other, or your perception of some act as good or bad.

Where is the idea that murder is wrong?  Inside you or outside?

That's precisely it, we don't know.  That's why I thought Analytics demonstration was so apropos.  A claimed spiritual experience doesn't mean it really is an outside spirit working on your spirit, it also does not mean God is behind it, necessarily.   I think the question is if God is behind it, then why such contradictions in the messaging?  I suppose it's no big deal if the spirit inside tells one person to go left and another to go right.  But I wonder what it means when one is told to blow up himself and others, while another contradicts that.  Perhaps another in Nephi's shoes would have realized another way to get the plates from Laban, or better yet would have realized the plates were not a necessity at all.