Opinions of "Self-Identified" Latter- day Saints, Quantified

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

I would suggest the disconnect between what you are saying and what @Teancum is saying is what the evidence actually implies. For example, if somebody feels a certain type of pain and stiffness, then that could be evidence that the person has fibromyalgia. Likewise, if somebody feels a certain transcendent spiritual experience when they read the Book of Mormon, then that could be evidence that the Book of Mormon is conductive to having that type of spiritual experience. However, such feelings might not be evidence that a group of Christian Mayans from 2000 years ago wrote a book in Reformed Egyptian on metal and then took the manuscript to New York so that Joseph Smith could conveniently find it 1,400 years later.

 

Or, it might be evidence of just that.

But whether it is or it isn’t, it can be considered as evidence either way.   

Edited February 21, 2024 by bluebell

[Nofear]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well I think I understand what faith is but I am always willing to be enlightened

While there is correlation between belief and faith they are not the same thing. Interestingly the (KJV) Old Testament only uses faith twice (in the context of belief). Yet, faith is had. The word faith in the New Testament is pistis -- a word associated with integrity, loyalty, reliable, etc.

Two individuals can hold the same belief about a subject and yet have a different faith response.
Two individuals can have the same (spiritual or not) experience and yet have a different faith response.
I very likely have a much more educated belief in the Book of Mormon (content, history, etc.) than a new convert, and yet it is possible for the same individual to have more faith in the Book of Mormon than me.

Faith is not the same as belief but it is the internal and external response to belief. Words we often toss around are things like "faith is an action verb". Simplistic, but apt. I was a little confused when you associated one as being causative of the other. The two interplay with each other, yet neither are they the same. A faithful response to a correct belief increases the belief and a correct belief reinforces faith -- they reinforce each other. This is the primary thesis on Alma's discourse on faith in Alma 32 (that faith and belief support each other and ought grow together). On the other hand, lack of faith in a correct belief usually causes us to discard the belief (this is the pattern seen in the thread's linked surveys).

God is much more concerned about our faith in Christ than our beliefs. As Paul put it, "without faith it is impossible to please God". Correct faith changes our character, our beliefs, our nature. Faith is the instrument of consent which allows the Atonement to work on our souls. Faith in Christ is the scaffolding that surrounds the erection of our eternal mansion (the perfection of our character and nature). A scaffolding that is anything other than faith in Christ must necessarily fail and the mansion being built with that scaffolding along with it.

While God is more concerned with our faith in Christ than our beliefs, faith without supporting beliefs is likewise of no substance. We sometimes call it blind faith or zeal without knowledge. But God does not and never has left us blind if we have eyes to see and ears to hear. In this context of understanding, D&C 93:31 becomes quite clear:

"Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light."
"Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because [we receive evidence of Christ sufficient to hold belief in Him], and [we don't exercise faith in Him]."

 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

Which Ostler essay?  Is it the FAIR link you provided?

Yes.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not comparing them other than in the way that they can both be about something that the person feels or believes internally that cannot be proven externally and yet is still considered evidence.

For example, a witness in court can testify to something they alone heard that cannot be verified.  They can testify to something they felt that cannot be verified by anyone else.

Whether or not something is externally verifiable or can be experienced by someone else doesn't impact whether or not it can be considered as evidence.  That is the point I'm trying to make.

 

Thank you for clarifying.  My take is still that the comparison is a poor one. As noted a few times now, what Latter-day Saints call a testimony or personal revelation would never be allowed as valid evidence for anything in a court of law.  This is a major difference IMO.

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Or, it might be evidence of just that.

But whether it is or it isn’t, it can be considered as evidence either way.   

(It's hard to maintain my highbrow snarky persona when you are so freakin nice, but I'm going to try anyway.)

Yes, spiritual witnesses are "evidence" either way, and we get to choose for ourselves how that evidence will be interpreted. 

For example, some people think rainbows are evidence of how light is a wave, how the color of light indicates the frequency of the waves, and how raindrops are able to refract white light into its constituent components (I believe earlier in this thread @mfbukowski asked "what is red?". The scientific answer is that "red" is the color of light with a frequency of around 430 terahertz).

In contrast, other people think rainbows are evidence of God's promise that the next time He decides to destroy the whole earth, it won't be by a flood.

But regardless of how you interpret them, rainbows are evidence. Either way.

 

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Calm and I also discussed how medical evidence does not have to be provable and can exist only within the patient and doctors still consider it as evidence. 

And the "placebo effect" confirms for every drug tested that psychosomatic healing, or "faith healing is a "real" and widespread phenomenon.

And yet of course it can't be

We don't believe in such things.

It gets to be swept to the curb that way.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

For example, some people think rainbows are evidence of how light is a wave, how the color of light indicates the frequency of the waves, and how raindrops are able to refract white light into its constituent components (I believe earlier in this thread @mfbukowski asked "what is red?". The scientific answer is that "red" is the color of light with a frequency of around 430 terahertz).

Obvious category mistake. Science is designed to see things OBJECTIVELY while Qualia are subjective and how we REALLY see things.

So a new Maserati passes you on the freeway and you say to yourself, "Wow a new Maserati, the color of light with a frequency of around 430 terahertz! Cool!"

Please read up on the concept of "qualia"

I maintain that "feeling the spirit" is a quale like all others. It's built into us for a reason or evolved for a reason, or both.

Choose your favorite paradigm. Mixing not allowed.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

 Entry Navigation

•  
•  
•  
•  

 

Qualia

First published Wed Aug 20, 1997; substantive revision Thu Aug 12, 2021

Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem."

Edited February 21, 2024 by mfbukowski

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And the "placebo effect" confirms for every drug tested that psychosomatic healing, or "faith healing is a "real" and widespread phenomenon.

And yet of course it can't be

We don't believe in such things.

It gets to be swept to the curb that way.

You might be very interested in Carlos Eire's book They Flew: A History of the Impossible. An look at a) well-attested "impossible events" from the early modern era and b) how the definition of "impossible" is culturally contingent. I'm waiting for my interlibrary loan to get it to me, I have not looked forward to a book as much in a long time.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Thank you for clarifying.  My take is still that the comparison is a poor one. As noted a few times now, what Latter-day Saints call a testimony or personal revelation would never be allowed as valid evidence for anything in a court of law.  This is a major difference IMO.

I agree it definitely wouldn't.  Especially since the law specific prohibits those cases.

What is your take on the medical examples that were shared, and their acceptance as evidence? 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

(It's hard to maintain my highbrow snarky persona when you are so freakin nice, but I'm going to try anyway.)

Yes, spiritual witnesses are "evidence" either way, and we get to choose for ourselves how that evidence will be interpreted. 

For example, some people think rainbows are evidence of how light is a wave, how the color of light indicates the frequency of the waves, and how raindrops are able to refract white light into its constituent components (I believe earlier in this thread @mfbukowski asked "what is red?". The scientific answer is that "red" is the color of light with a frequency of around 430 terahertz).

In contrast, other people think rainbows are evidence of God's promise that the next time He decides to destroy the whole earth, it won't be by a flood.

But regardless of how you interpret them, rainbows are evidence. Either way.

 

And then there are those crazy people who think that rainbows are evidence of both.   

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The scientific answer is that "red" is the color of light with a frequency of around 430 terahertz

That may be a scientific description of red, but that is not my (or anyone else's I'm guessing) experience of red.

It's like the silly old question: if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Well, there most likely are vibrations in the air from the tree falling, but there is no one there to experience those vibrations as sound. So no, there is no sound, only vibrations. The scientific description of the world does not equal the experience of the world.

The earliest beats/hippies had great insight into this truth when the government gave them psychedelics and tried to study the effects scientifically. An increase or decrease in this or that brain chemical or brain activity is definitely not the experience of psychedelics. And then they found eastern religions that taught that there are different types of levels of consciousness, and the next thing you know we're all dancing at Grateful Dead shows.

"We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains." Li Po

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

And then there are those crazy people who think that rainbows are evidence of both.   

YES!

Give unto science the things that are science, and to God, the things that are God's. ☺️😉

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

That may be a scientific description of red, but that is not my (or anyone else's I'm guessing) experience of red.

It's like the silly old question: if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Well, there most likely are vibrations in the air from the tree falling, but there is no one there to experience those vibrations as sound. So no, there is no sound, only vibrations. The scientific description of the world does not equal the experience of the world.

The earliest beats/hippies had great insight into this truth when the government gave them psychedelics and tried to study the effects scientifically. An increase or decrease in this or that brain chemical or brain activity is definitely not the experience of psychedelics. And then they found eastern religions that taught that there are different types of levels of consciousness, and the next thing you know we're all dancing at Grateful Dead shows.

"We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains." Li Po

Omigosh.

100 upvotes for you!

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

What is your take on the medical examples that were shared, and their acceptance as evidence? 

I need to go back  and look at those.

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

And then there are those crazy people who think that rainbows are evidence of both.   

QFT 💕

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Obvious category mistake. Science is designed to see things OBJECTIVELY while Qualia are subjective and how we REALLY see things.

So a new Maserati passes you on the freeway and you say to yourself, "Wow a new Maserati, the color of light with a frequency of around 430 terahertz! Cool!"

Please read up on the concept of "qualia"

I maintain that "feeling the spirit" is a quale like all others. It's built into us for a reason or evolved for a reason, or both....

I'm not going to pretend to understand all of the subtleties and implications of exactly what you believe, but in general, there isn't a lot you say that I disagree with. Our biggest disagreement might be that as far as I can tell, you think Mormonism is about your qualia experiences as you experience your religion, and I think Mormonism is about some truth claims about the outside, real world.